|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a 4th argument:
We need the SLWS in order to make a scroll of breath of life useful. Without it, that scroll is useless and we need that scroll in order to have fun with Pathfinder.
That argument could be taken care of if we could get metamagic'd scrolls allowed. (Reach + BoL) Personal opinion is that we should allow any +1 metamagic feat to be applied to consumable purchases. In this case the scroll would cost 525 gp more each in order to cast it from 45 feet away.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a 4th argument:
We need the SLWS in order to make a scroll of breath of life useful. Without it, that scroll is useless and we need that scroll in order to have fun with Pathfinder.
That argument could be taken care of if we could get metamagic'd scrolls allowed. (Reach + BoL) Personal opinion is that we should allow any +1 metamagic feat to be applied to consumable purchases. In this case the scroll would cost 525 gp more each in order to cast it from 45 feet away.
A reach scroll of BoL seems like something that would be a great item on a chronicle.
|
There is a 4th argument:
We need the SLWS in order to make a scroll of breath of life useful. Without it, that scroll is useless and we need that scroll in order to have fun with Pathfinder.
That argument could be taken care of if we could get metamagic'd scrolls allowed. (Reach + BoL) Personal opinion is that we should allow any +1 metamagic feat to be applied to consumable purchases. In this case the scroll would cost 525 gp more each in order to cast it from 45 feet away.
Kyle,
that about sums it up for me!!!Perhaps this will be the impetus for getting MMJ to open up those feats for scrolls. I know that there are several scrolls that would be very useful with Reach (BoL, or even CLW!), Extend (Mage Armor anyone), etc.
I personally don't think that this would be at all unbalancing... in fact, it would do something all good GMs like to do... separate the characters from their ill-gotten moneys! Much better for them to be spending their cash on one-shot expendables than buying things that are persistent (like magic weapons, armor, rings, etc)!
Seriously, having this available would be a great boon to players.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I like Spring Loaded Wrist Sheaths, because I think that it's a bit silly that you can draw "weapons" during a move action, but not "scrolls", even if that scroll is offensive. To a wizard, a scroll of Fireball is just as much a weapon as a dagger is to a rogue. It seems like a pointless distinction. SLWS sort of help with that, letting people choose 2 items that are important to their build and have them ready at all times - to me, that merely widens player options, it's hardly cheesy.
I can see how somebody may feel that a potion couldn't fit in one. I'd probably allow it, but I could see it.
I can't see how a scroll wouldn't fit. It is a tubular item roughly the same size as a wand. What's the problem? To me, this is the closest thing you can imagine to a wand, which is specifically allowed.
I probably wouldn't allow rods. They are a bit long for the wrist sheath.
If it's a game at my local store and it's rather important, I'll ask a player which GM allowed it previously, and we can chat. If another GM feels that it's allowed, I'm open to hearing why they feel that way, and will likely be persuaded if a decent argument is put forth.
I guess that what I'm really getting at is that most of the time, your normal defensive items, like scrolls of BOL, Wands of CLW, etc, should be allowed. We should reward players for thinking ahead and taking the time to sit down and figure out how they would use these items. To me, this is far better than somebody getting flustered over whether they have enough actions to use something they bought just for this situation.
|
|
It's an interesting observation that most of the people arguing for widening what can be put in a wrist sheath have comparatively fewer GM stars. Perhaps this is related.
Mark that it's most and and not all. I have been one of the bigger pushers for scrolls in wrist sheaths, and I don't feel like I'm low on the GM star scale.
However, the item as a whole is probably not a good thing for organized play. If there is this much table variation on something, we need either clear rulings or for it to be removed.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Mergy: All of my characters use spring-loaded wrist sheaths, many with scrolls. I have never until today heard anybody raise any issue with that, and frankly, am a little surprised. Admittedly, I've only been at this campaign for 10 months, but I have been to conventions and multi-region game days.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As my previous posts have stated, the Spring-loaded wrist sheath fails on both counts:
From a simulationist point of view: actual, real-world spring-loaded wrist sheaths pretty much need to be designed for the item they're going to hold, are complex and bloody dangerous.
From a gamist point of view: spring-loaded wrist sheaths break action economy, and are massively undercosted for what they provide.
The only argument that stands is the third argument - the powergamer's argument (spring-loaded wrist sheaths make my character more powerful! Please don't restrict or ban them).
It's an interesting observation that most of the people arguing for widening what can be put in a wrist sheath have comparatively fewer GM stars. Perhaps this is related.
GM stars mean nothing relative to opinions. A 4-star GM could be someone who GM'd PFS 5 months straight. A person with no stars could be someone who has experience GMing for the past 35 years. If saying stars are everything, then it equates to a type of elitism that is set in a person's mind.
To respond to the simulationist point of view, PFS is high fantasy scenario. How does a ninja that makes mirror images of themself, a druid that shapeshifts into an octopus, and a devil-born knight of the god of beer and booze simulation of something? You are trying to place real-life into something that is supposed to invigorate someone's creative mind of diving into hidden dungeons to find magical treasure, fighting off hordes of goblins attacking a stable, and saving the kingdom to become a hero.
To respond to the gamist point of view, spring-loaded wrist sheaths do not break action economy. They expand the action economy that every person has already availible to them. Does this mean a Tiefling with a tail is breaking action economy? A monk with Ki points is breaking action economy? An inquisitor using Judgement breaking action economy? A spellcaster with Feather Fall? Should they be banned because they break "action economy"?
If you then say that, then people with Immediate Actions should be banned as well. People with Combat Refexes, people with Duelists, etc. Then you would say that Free Actions are really broken, since you can use these all the time. Talking to coodinate with allies, dropping a weapon that does not provoke Attack of Opportunites, dropping Prone to avoid the blanket of arrows that are aimed against the party. All those should be banned then, since you can use them all the time. Moreover, cost ratio to giving the already available action economy means nothing. At most, you can activate two different swift actions, to then you have to reload. As I had said before, what happens if EVERYONE has only the option of Standard, Move, or Full Round only? No swift, no immediate, no free. How would that effect their characters, how would that effect my characters, how would that effect your characters?
Your third argument, stating that the "powergamer's argument" is that the SLWS make character more powerful, and they don't restrict or ban them, would you then say a Wand of Cure Light Wounds is a powerful item in combat, as it helps save lives? Rope a powerful item because it can make a creature helpless in combat? Arrows a powerful item because you can target creatures beyond their melee range? How about a wayfinder? It gives Light at will for only 250g. Pretty much negates the use of torches. Should Weapon Cords be banned because it helps vs disarm? Should a spiked gauntlet be banned because spellcasters are "supposed" to be helpless against melee attacks? A scimitar because it has a large critical range?
Everything is on the eyes of the beholder. You can say what you will about the SLWS, but it does not make the game broken. It helps players, both old and new, to know what available resources that they have.
And if you are asking if I have the SLWS on each of my characters, no I do not. Some do not need the resources needed. Some benefit the availibility of the Swift Action.
Reading this thread has raised a few questions/considerations for me:
Some of have said that it is a must have item - yet several of us haven't seen them used in local PFS games or Cons (including GenCon for myself).
It would appear that a lot of what I am reading from those opposed to the item are working from a game theory point of vue - there have been very few in game examples of how the SLWS is unbalancing.
A lot of the talk has been about using the SLWS for BoL scrolls - to be used to help other PCs, not the PC with the SLWS and BoL scroll. Don't we want to encourage this type of behavior?
I haven't noticed anyone talking about what the PC does with the item once it is in hand (besides scrolls). That is, once the SLWS has dropped a wand into the PC's hand, PC uses wand (shield, mage armor, etc), moves next to the target to be able to do a full round attack - but what about that wand in hand - don't they have to do something with it? An archer can't fire a bow with a wand in one hand. A two-weapon/two-handed weapon/shield and board/etc.. fighter can't attack with a wand in hand. I can't see anyone dropping a wand to the ground (as an evil GM I would be tempted to have an NPC pick it up and use charges).
The SLWS can only be used once per fight - once it is used it takes a full round to crank it and then a move action to store the item into the SLWS. I can't see anyone doing that.
The alternate ways suggested for getting to use BoL on a downed PC have been less than helpful in my opinion: Make your build into one of two Oracle variants, spend a feat to be able to do so at a distance, spend a lot of gold to get an item (either glove of storing or rod of reach) and to have the divine caster PC memorize BoL. They all seem to be someone else telling another PC how to play their character.
So I have a question to those that want to ban the SLWS and/or not allow scrolls to be used in it. Could you give me some in game examples* of where the SLWS was used in a way that you felt was broken or over-powered? Or where allowing a scroll to be loaded into it would be broken or over-powered?
*preferably examples from what you have seen/done in game as opposed to theory crafting
Carlos's wand-wielder magus. /end thread
For those of us who have no idea what you are talking about, could you explain exactly what the above is, and how that build using a SLWS is broken or over-powered?
All she has in there is wand of true strike. And the swift to pull it out does compete with my other magus abilities. ;-)Carlos's wand-wielder magus. /end threadIf that's the bastard sword wielding pirate chick, then yeah -- she's pretty solid ;)
Does she use a shield? If so, does she sheath her sword, SLWS the wand, cast. Then next round put the wand somewhere, draw the sword as part of her move action and attack?
Tis my question from above - what do you do with the wand once you have used it?
|
|
I've lately interpreted this
Draw or Sheathe a Weapon
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.
To allow for the same drawing of a weapon-like object as part of a move. Would you say that's incorrect?
|
|
I've lately interpreted this
To allow for the same drawing of a weapon-like object as part of a move. Would you say that's incorrect?Draw or Sheathe a Weapon
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.
It says weapon not weapon like object in the second part. Quickdraw seems to indicate that they're not the same thing.
I wouldn't argue with a DM's call either way, but with the springers there's no argument.
Wands are explicitly allowed as per RAW. What is an example of a game-breaking scroll being used?
I know that the wands are allowed. But there are some that are saying that using a SLWS is over-powered and/or broken and that it should be banned. So I was looking for examples of when they had seen that, or if it was only theory crating on their part.
|
|
Carlos's wand-wielder magus. /end threadFor those of us who have no idea what you are talking about, could you explain exactly what the above is, and how that build using a SLWS is broken or over-powered?
To fair, my magus is not broken due to her SLWSs. But they are convenient.
Since spell combat is a full-round action, SLWSs allow her to swap out wands every round (starts with 1 wand, second round swap in wand from SLWS 1, round 3 swap for wand from SLWS 2). Without SLWS, you can only use a single wand with spell combat unless you stop taking actions and draw wands. Although, she has Quick Draw as well, so if you go by the correct interpretation that wands are weapon-like, I could draw them as free actions anyway...
You have a wand in one hand and a weapon in the other.
You use the wand to cast a spell as part of your magus arcana.
What do you do with the 1st wand when you use a SLWS to drop a new one into the hand that was/is holding the first wand?
|
|
There are other issues in turn when placing this as a simulation. Do you check if someone has the arm capacity to carry a portable ram, as well as a saw and 10' pole? Do you check if a person with 20 chakrams have space on their belt to carry all of it. Is there enough space for someone to carry a 5 sets of 50' silk rope in a single backpack? Is there enough space in a quiver for someone to carry 500 arrows? All of these are mudane items as well. Would you say "Nope, simulation-wise, you can not carry 5 sets of rope", even though they do have the carrying capacity to do so? Or how about wearing a cold-weather outfit on top of your circlets, hats, gloves, chest piece, body suit...in full-plate carrying a Tower Shield that has a shield sconce with a torch in it, as well as a lance, carrying all of your goods on your back with a backpack, on a horse? Is it now required to have a packmule carry around all of our items, due to it being that in combat, a backpack will flail around, hindering movement and the ability to strike enemies?
What I am trying to say is that this is not supposed to be a simulation game, it is supposed to be a roleplaying game.
Going into the "Metagaming, purchacing stuff" road is a different topic.
|
I mentioned this earlier, but in a different conversation where the words "such as..." came up, Mike Brock decided to stick with the examples given. I believe the SLWS is no different. It has nothing to do with "balance", or something being "over-powered". It's simply the only reading that can be consistently applied from table to table.
Here are the relevent comments:
Not an official response, but in PFS when using spells that have that wording "such as..." you will encounter table variation for anything except the provided list.
As Carlos mentioned above, we are going to stick with the animals listed in the description of the spell.
|
What I tell new players is that if something says, "X, Y, Z and 'possibly other things or open to GM interpretation'" expect that in PFS only X, Y and Z will apply. Feel free to ask GM's about the extra stuff, but don't ever count on it.
So what if they struck the part that says "such as a dagger, dart, or wand, or up to five arrows or crossbow bolts." and just left "The sheath can hold one forearm-length item." What would you allow in the sheath?
I don't see it as a case of X, Y, Z, and possibly other things, I see it as "One forearm-length item. For example: X, Y, or Z."
|
|
What I tell new players is that if something says, "X, Y, Z and 'possibly other things or open to GM interpretation'" expect that in PFS only X, Y and Z will apply. Feel free to ask GM's about the extra stuff, but don't ever count on it.So what if they struck the part that says "such as a dagger, dart, or wand, or up to five arrows or crossbow bolts." and just left "The sheath can hold one forearm-length item." What would you allow in the sheath?
Right, but that is not what it says. I don't think this particular hypothetical advances the discussion any. Especially because the length of a forearm will change based on each character.
|
|
Right, but that is not what it says. I don't think this particular hypothetical advances the discussion any. Especially because the length of a forearm will change based on each character.
I just don't see how an item can be restricted in usefulness because the author/developer decided to use examples. There is a clear difference in my mind between "A dagger/wand is an example of a forearm length item that can be used in a wrist sheath." and "X, Y, and Z, but possibly more at GM discretion."
One is meant to be a limit, the other is not.
[EDIT]And for the linked example, I see that as making a blanket ruling just to address a single issue. If he had simply said "Because of the potential for abuse, this spell is limited to X, Y, and Z." we might not even be having this discussion.[/EDIT]
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I tell new players is that if something says, "X, Y, Z and 'possibly other things or open to GM interpretation'" expect that in PFS only X, Y and Z will apply. Feel free to ask GM's about the extra stuff, but don't ever count on it.So what if they struck the part that says "such as a dagger, dart, or wand, or up to five arrows or crossbow bolts." and just left "The sheath can hold one forearm-length item." What would you allow in the sheath?
I don't see it as a case of X, Y, Z, and possibly other things, I see it as "One forearm-length item. For example: X, Y, or Z."
I'll bite. If it only said that, it wouldn't be allowed in PFS. And FWIW that's a fact, not an opinion.
Even the one dimension doesn't work with the examples provided in the item description.
An arrow, especially one for a longbow is a fair bit longer than a forearm.
Though I must say that I like the idea of 50 coins. Imagine the distraction/impediment that a PC could cause by having it rain 50 gp in a crowded market - it would slow down the guards chasing the PCs.
Should I be reading anything into the fact that no one from the ban (or it's broken/over-powered) crowd have come up with an example of when it was used in such a way in a game? That it appears to be only theory crafting at this point?
So far we have had two examples that are based on actual game play:
1) Used to have a scroll of Breath of Life handy to be able to stop the death of another PC.
2) Used to have a wand drop in hand.
For the wand example, CRebledo stated that it was used for their magus, combined with a class ability and an arcana choice. Crebledo also stated that when they switched wands, they dropped the first one in hand.
Again, please provide in game examples of where a SLWS use was broken or over-powered.
|
|
I can't recall the exact name of the logical fallacy you're using, but you're very liberal in its application.
Crowd #1: "We have this argument!"
Crowd #2: "We believe in this!"
Crowd #3: "The evidence points to this!"
Crowd #4: "Oh, just ban it so we don't have to argue about it anymore."
You: "Can you point to a single reason why we should ban it, Crowd #4? If not, I win, and we go with my interpretation."
Crowds 1-3: "Whu...?"
Straw man?
|
|
The bolded text indicates that drawing weapon-like objects, such as wands, use the action as drawing a weapon. The second paragraph indicates that with a BAB of +1 or higher, you can perform this action as part of another move action.
Or shows that drawing on the move is a separate action, not related to the first.
Only the strictest, most anal-retentive reading possible
Which you'll never see in PFS right?
As much as I'm familiar with a rolled up newspaper of doom , i can't see a scroll as being weaponlike.
|
|
Well there is that Wizard archetype that uses scrolls as weapons. It's not that strong compared to a standard wizard IMO, but there you have it.
"Physical Description: A scroll is a heavy sheet of fine vellum or high-quality paper. An area about 8-1/2 inches wide and 11 inches long is sufficient to hold one spell. The sheet is reinforced at the top and bottom with strips of leather slightly longer than the sheet is wide. A scroll holding more than one spell has the same width (about 8-1/2 inches) but is an extra foot or so long for each additional spell. Scrolls that hold three or more spells are usually fitted with reinforcing rods at each end rather than simple strips of leather. A scroll has AC 9, 1 hit point, hardness 0, and a break DC of 8.
To protect it from wrinkling or tearing, a scroll is rolled up from both ends to form a double cylinder. (This also helps the user unroll the scroll quickly.) The scroll is placed in a tube of ivory, jade, leather, metal, or wood. Most scroll cases are inscribed with magic symbols which often identify the owner or the spells stored on the scrolls inside. The symbols sometimes hide magic traps."
So really it's the scroll CASE that is fit into the wrist sheath, not the scroll itself.
|
|
Forearmed length you say? So, the following by proposed RAW would all be fine:
• Chakram (more than 1?).
• Sickle.
• Teapot (Harsk is going to love this).
• 50 Coins (make it rain!)
• Manacles.
• 50' of silk rope.
• Grappling hook.
• A bucket.Clearly only one dimension isn't sufficient to regulate it.
Clearly. And it's not "proposed RAW". It's the RAW without the listed examples. I understand why they had to put examples, and it seems you do too. I just don't understand why listing examples has to limit the item to those examples. If a rule/item can't be used as written, then it shouldn't be used until it can be rewritten.
I can't recall the exact name of the logical fallacy you're using, but you're very liberal in its application.
Crowd #1: "We have this argument!"
Crowd #2: "We believe in this!"
Crowd #3: "The evidence points to this!"
Crowd #4: "Oh, just ban it so we don't have to argue about it anymore."You: "Can you point to a single reason why we should ban it, Crowd #4? If not, I win, and we go with my interpretation."
Crowds 1-3: "Whu...?"
Straw man?
Was this directed at me?
If so, please do not put words into my mouth or attribute what appear to be wild claims about my intentions.
Some have claimed that the item is broken or overpowered or a must have item or that it should be banned.
I haven't even seen anyone use one (with the exception of one of my characters in a home game who uses it for smoke pellets). I am having trouble seeing how it could be abused.
I have asked those that are saying that it has been abused to bring forward in game experiences where it was abused in some way. I am interested in whether there is actual abuse happening, how often or is it only theory crafting on the part of those who are concerned about it.
What I am seeking is also the same kind of information that Mike would need to be able to make an informed decision on whether the item should be banned or not. Or if there should be a PFS FAQ entry for the SLWS clearly indicating what can be placed into one.
|
|
It's in the same section a paragraph below, when they have just finished saying that a weapon-like object can be drawn like a weapon. But okay, a GM could read it like that if they wanted to.
Rods say that you can use them as a light mace or club - yet as many GMs won't let them be drawn on the move either - unless you use them as a weapon in my experience.
If I was going to use a wand as an improvised weapon - by some of the same logic I could draw a wand on the move, but not if I was going to use it for any other purpose.
Which seems odd to me.
Rods are 2 to 3 feet long metal objects - wands are a wood baton (nowhere have I seen a description of a baton in the core books - but tend to be 1.5 to 2 feet long wood objects. If you could put a wand in a SLWS how about a 2 foot long rod?
|
|
Rods say that you can use them as a light mace or club - yet as many GMs won't let them be drawn on the move either - unless you use them as a weapon in my experience.
The wording here is a little confusing
Physical Description: Rods weigh approximately 5 pounds. They range from 2 feet to 3 feet long and are usually made of iron or some other metal. (Many, as noted in their descriptions, can function as light maces or clubs due to their hardy construction.) These sturdy items have AC 9, 10 hit points, hardness 10, and a break DC of 27.
.. but then no description notes such a thing.