Spring-loaded wrist sheaths and table variation

[Nefreet]

For ease of reference, wrist sheath (aka WS) vs. spring-loaded wrist sheath (aka SLWS).

I've been thinking quite a bit about spring-loaded wrist sheaths lately. At 5gp a pop they've become quite a staple piece of adventuring gear. Although I often try to diversify the equipment that I pick out for my PCs, it's tough not to throw a SLWS on all of my casters. I think my only caster that doesn't have one is my Warpriest, but only because his swift actions are usually reserved for other uses.

During my tenure as a PFS GM I've been comfortable restricting the SLWS to storing only the items listed under the standard wrist sheath's description (a dagger, dart, or wand, or up to five arrows or crossbow bolts). Limiting the list to those items (and not, say, scrolls or potion vials) helps limit the amount of table variation players may encounter as they move from GM to GM.

I've also been comfortable telling players that using one will provoke an attack of opportunity, since the standard WS provokes, and the only thing that descriptively changes between them is the action economy.

But, my stance has been evolving, and it's due to the (off the record) opinions of two of Paizo's developers.

James Jacobs states that using a SLWS shouldn't provoke, as it "doesn't require you to turn your attention away from defending yourself". Mark Seifter, in his home games, rules the same. Now, admittedly, both of these opinions are personal and not spoken as any official response. But, I value the opinions of these two individuals, and since we lack any official ruling on how this item actually works, I've started allowing the use of a SLWS without provoking.

And then, recently, I found out they have the same stance about storing scrolls in their sheaths.

That blew me away.

At least with the action economy, there were arguments on both sides as to how they functioned, so it legitimately could have been ruled either way. I felt comfortable with them provoking at one time, and now I feel comfortable not letting them provoke.

But even pondering the possibility of a scroll in a SLWS seemed... wrong to me. And yet here they were, the same two developers that I value the opinions of, questioning why scrolls in sheaths was so taboo.

These experiences led me to creating this thread.

What I'd appreciate is a dialog that can hopefully get all of us players and GMs on board with how this fickle, inexpensive, and popular item functions. I know many prominent 5-star GMs that adhere strictly to how this item is written, and nothing more. But I know many players that are unhappy with that stance ("arrows are longer than your forearm", for example, or "I just want a scroll of Breath of Life so I can save someone else"). It seems all too often that these arguments pop up on the boards, and even in threads where the OP was completely unrelated.

Perhaps, we can come to a consensus here?

If John Compton, Mark Moreland, or Michael Brock have anything to say, I'd love your input, too. I hesitate to ask for an FAQ about this, although if you search through the forums you'll certainly find that it is indeed a "frequently asked question". I just think we need to pin down exactly what this item does, how it works, and hammer out its details once and for all.

Any thoughts?

[Pirate Rob]

I feel like you've got 2 separate threads going on here.

Part 1 (Most of the Thread): This item is somewhat unclear and here's my PFS experience.

Part 2 (Final Paragraph): seems to be more suited for rules discussion than PFS discussion.

I bet if we could manage a civil discourse in the rules forum Rogue Eidolon could be bribed to help encourage an FAQ along.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

I permit scrolls and potions on the theory that they are both smaller than items specifically listed as permissible.

A rolled up scroll (with a rod in it for support if you like) is an 8" long tube of negligible diameter. A potion is specified as only one ounce of liquid (potion art notwithstanding, the listed size is more like a stick of chap stick).

Ultimately "what would really fit" isn't the right question, it's not a real thing, there isn't a real "right" answer. The best answer is whatever is best for the game. In practice allowing them makes scrolls and potions more useful, which is fine by me. Consumables are good fun.

[BigNorseWolf]

If you're going to let a 3 foot arrow go on your forarm i'm inclined to be generous.

[nosig]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

If you're going to let a 3 foot arrow go on your forarm i'm inclined to be generous.

an arrow is as long as your arm. Your forarm is (for most races in the game) less than the length of your arm.

I have always been puzzled by the stance that you can put 5 arrows in one, but not a scroll (which is piece of paper wrapped around two rods that are shorter than the arrows, but no thicker.).

[Avatar-1]

Swift (or immediate) actions usually don't provoke unless it's specifically written. I haven't been able to find a hard rule where that's said, though the Types of Actions table shows no swift (or immediate) actions that provoke.

It's not really game-breaking to store a single potion or scroll in each sheathe, and they need a full round to reload. Breath of Life scrolls are commonly used, and those things save lives, which players usually breath a sigh of relief over - that's good gaming.

When in doubt, err on the side of the players - even in PFS.

[rknop]

I've stored Touch of the Sea potions in spring-loaded wrist sheaths, and have been happy to have them. (It was a PFS GM (via an NPC) that suggested this to my PFS character in the first place.) I guess that by the strict reading of the rules, that's not legal too.

(In fact, some GMs won't let you drink potions underwater, given the existence of the Potion Sponge in the ARG. Other than the implication of the potion sponge, there's been no official ruling on that, so it falls under table variation.)

[BigNorseWolf]

rknop wrote:

I've stored Touch of the Sea potions in spring-loaded wrist sheaths, and have been happy to have them. (It was a PFS GM (via an NPC) that suggested this to my PFS character in the first place.) I guess that by the strict reading of the rules, that's not legal too.

(In fact, some GMs won't let you drink potions underwater, given the existence of the Potion Sponge in the ARG. Other than the implication of the potion sponge, there's been no official ruling on that, so it falls under table variation.)

Usually a threat to take a bottle of beer and use the tub is enough to make the dm acquiesce that one :)

[nosig]

i've actually had a judge rule that you had to have a (personal) copy of the Adventurer's Armory with you in order to use the Spring Wrist Sheath...

He stated it was his way of limiting their use - don't have your copy with you? Can't use it.

[Silbeg]

nosig wrote:

i've actually had a judge rule that you had to have a (personal) copy of the Adventurer's Armory with you in order to use the Spring Wrist Sheath...

He stated it was his way of limiting their use - don't have your copy with you? Can't use it.

Which is completely fair, right? At least given the rules on additional materials. However, the question then arises, if I have my cope of AA, and I have two extra SLWS with my character, can I lend them to you (since they are mine, wouldn't my AA be needed?)

[Jiggy]

For the broader PFS question of whether to allow only what is listed or to allow other things:

In my mind, Pathfinder's many open-ended lists can be divided into two main types:

1) You can have X, Y or Z. Additional options may be available at the GM's discretion.

2) You can have any [category], such as X, Y or Z.

In Type 1 lists, the list is exhaustive unless and until the GM adds to it. In PFS, only the listed options are available.

In Type 2 lists, the list is not the rule; the category is the rule, and the list is a clarification of the types of things the rule is talking about. In PFS, it is my opinion that GMs should NOT limit options to the examples in Type 2 lists. This is partly because in some sense you're actually violating the written rule if you don't include at least one unlisted thing (or so the Grammar Nazi tells me). But perhaps more importantly, well, try searching the CRB for "such as", and I think you'll soon discover that treating that type of list as exhaustive is a terrible, terrible idea. A 20th level fighter could only select longsword, greataxe or longbow for his capstone; Disable Device becomes the only skill that can't be aided; a very rough wall and a ship's rigging are the only DC 10 Climb surfaces in existence; goblins and the tarrasque are the only creatures whose Knowledge DC is not 10+CR; and so forth.

So I think it is absolutely appropriate (and in fact vital, at least for GMs who want any kind of consistency in their own practices) to allow more than the explicitly listed items to work in the sheath.

As for WHAT additional items... Well, that's another story. :)

[Chris Mortika]

nosig, I've never GMed for you, but that's my policy as well.

(With Silbeg's caveat: if a family or a regular set of friends sits at a table, they only need one copy.)

I'm also surprised by the number of players who use, but don't carry documentation for, infernal healing.

[Hima Flametinker III]

SLWS's with Breath of Life Scrolls to save the day.

[David Bowles]

Hima Flametinker III wrote:

SLWS's with Breath of Life Scrolls to save the day.

Most GMs in my area have banned this, so we just DPR harder to reduce enemy actions taken. I don't like the ruling against BoL in SLWS, because it takes away defensive options that bolster less optimized parties.

[Avatar-1]

Jiggy wrote:

In my mind, Pathfinder's many open-ended lists can be divided into two main types:

...
In Type 1 lists, the list is exhaustive unless and until the GM adds to it. In PFS, only the listed options are available.

In Type 2 lists, the list is not the rule; the category is the rule, and the list is a clarification of the types of things the rule is talking about.

It would be fantastic if it could be clearly ruled that this is the PFS intention for items like this (the languages ring is another one, officially ruled as a type 1 item). Would solve a lot of confusion on a lot of items, and would set a precedent on future items.

[Undone]

David Bowles wrote:

Hima Flametinker III wrote:

SLWS's with Breath of Life Scrolls to save the day.

Most GMs in my area have banned this, so we just DPR harder to reduce enemy actions taken. I don't like the ruling against BoL in SLWS, because it takes away defensive options that bolster less optimized parties.

So the GM's who hate optimization are enforcing it as the only option to not die, at least in difficult situations.

[nosig]

Chris Mortika wrote:

nosig, I've never GMed for you, but that's my policy as well.

(With Silbeg's caveat: if a family or a regular set of friends sits at a table, they only need one copy.)

I'm also surprised by the number of players who use, but don't carry documentation for, infernal healing.

actually Chris, my surprise was not that he required the player to have the resource - but that this was the only thing he required a resource for, the only item the rule was enforced for. And the enforcement was clearly just to limit the use of the Sheaths. The guy I saw him disallow it for OWNED the AA, and he had had it there the week before, it's just that he didn't have it with him that week. (I guess he was reducing what was in his back-pack and left it at home). The judge knew he owned it, he'd showed it before. He just didn't have it with him that week.

[The Fox]

nosig wrote:

The judge knew he owned it, he'd showed it before. He just didn't have it with him that week.

That is the kind of behavior that drives players away from PFS. Sad.

[Hrothskar]

Yes, but if I as a GM have a question about wording, or want you to read how it works if you don't have it, then you are harming the tables enjoyment as a whole. Bring the resource for items you have is a core tennant of PFS.

[The Fox]

Hrothskar wrote:

Yes, but if I as a GM have a question about wording, or want you to read how it works if you don't have it, then you are harming the tables enjoyment as a whole. Bring the resource for items you have is a core tennant of PFS.

Andrew, I seriously don't think you would ask for a resource just to grief a player over an item that you don't like. Am I right?

[Raymond Lambert]

I went through the expense of buying many of my PFS material twice. Once in dead tree format ling ago and a second time in PDF more recently. I don't like it but the rules are the rules. Hopefully I don't forget at home the 2 light 32 page books I refused to buy a second time but if I do I have to accept being told no.

How.are GMs to know.you still own the material? I have Bern tempted to sell my hardbacks now that I have the PDF and several portable PDF readers.

This is especially true for shirts, for all I know.the same.person could be passing the same shirt over and over to a different person each week.

I still feel a player at a convention should be.able to throw his.faction shirt over his shoulder so he.does not have to wash it every night, or place it on the table folded. I bought the reroll character portfolio just to avoid the GMs who insist you have to.be wearing it on your chest, and thoughout the game, at least till you cash the reroll in. I still disagree with those judges and thier insistance. I just don't want to waste the tables time trying to point out the $80 cost of buying 4 of them(especially since some of the designs weught like ate lo.g gone with no chance of new "prints") useing them 4 days at a con under thier way.

[Raymond Lambert]

Swift action spells do not provoke, I think it is reasonable to extend other swift actions to not provoke.

Last I heard, the PFS official ruling from Mike was only the list of examples.

Pointing out the length of arrows, and the thickness of 5 of them gets me wondering about why not scrolls or the chap stick sized potion. I _formally_ thought unraveling a rolled up scroll was beyond the swift action intended speed. Weighing one end of the scroll heavier than the other and wrapping it so that side unfolds via the gravity of the heavier end seems like something a smart/wise person would have.set up. I would.likely tell the.zpC I was.ok but warn them to expect table variation elsewhere.

Just for laughs
One of my old Living Grayhawk PCs would almost always walk around with a scroll in hand. Players began thinking I had a curse requiring such. I would write a grocery list on Ty he back of each scroll so if any one.asked what it was, I hoped the Judge would give me a.bonus on a bluff check to just say it was a grocery list. I could.even it as such.

[Codanous]

For what it counts, regarding the SLWS, how I've gone with it is because it is a swift, like casting a spell, it doesn't provoke and that scrolls and potions are fine.

No reason a potion can't be sealed in a long fat test tube. Doesn't have to be the traditional fantasy potion bottle. Same with scrolls, if people say its because the scroll paper is too thin or weak, even in the descriptions of scrolls it talks about it being heavy vellum, reinforced with leather, which seems pretty sturdy to me. Not like carving your scrolls on a rock tablet sturdy, but sturdy enough.

But with anything, if a GM said to me "Nah, you can't have a scroll/potion in your SLWS," I'd call it good and re-evaluate my strategy for that game, but that's isn't going to stop me from continuing to try to use them in other games with different gms.

[Nefreet]

Robert Hetherington wrote:

I feel like you've got 2 separate threads going on here.

Part 1 (Most of the Thread): This item is somewhat unclear and here's my PFS experience.

Part 2 (Final Paragraph): seems to be more suited for rules discussion than PFS discussion.

I bet if we could manage a civil discourse in the rules forum Rogue Eidolon could be bribed to help encourage an FAQ along.

Mark Seifter (Rogue Eidolon) actually told me, twice I believe, that a rules FAQ on this item would never happen.

If it's going to get FAQ'd, it has to be a PFS FAQ.

[Mark Seifter]

In an attempt to dispel confusion, there's a hard and fast rule to figure out if I can help get something FAQed: if it is not in a book in the Pathfinder RPG line of books (the hardcover rules books, like Occult Adventures, basically all the hardcovers except the occasional hardcover books in the Campaign Setting line like Inner Sea World Guide and Inner Sea Gods), I have no sway to organize a FAQ cabal and there is nothing I can do.

Armed with this simple handy rule of thumb, all future potential FAQ-lovers can tell in advance whether I can help you get something FAQed. :)

For the record, I don't think my houserule on spring-loaded wrist sheathes not provoking is RAW up to snuff for PFS, but I think scrolls are a fair grey area, for reasons similar to the ones in Jiggy's post about two types of lists.

[Hima Flametinker III]

Raymond Lambert wrote:

I went through the expense of buying many of my PFS material twice. Once in dead tree format ling ago and a second time in PDF more recently. I don't like it but the rules are the rules. Hopefully I don't forget at home the 2 light 32 page books I refused to buy a second time but if I do I have to accept being told no.

How.are GMs to know.you still own the material? I have Bern tempted to sell my hardbacks now that I have the PDF and several portable PDF readers.

This is especially true for shirts, for all I know.the same.person could be passing the same shirt over and over to a different person each week.

I still feel a player at a convention should be.able to throw his.faction shirt over his shoulder so he.does not have to wash it every night, or place it on the table folded. I bought the reroll character portfolio just to avoid the GMs who insist you have to.be wearing it on your chest, and thoughout the game, at least till you cash the reroll in. I still disagree with those judges and thier insistance. I just don't want to waste the tables time trying to point out the $80 cost of buying 4 of them(especially since some of the designs weught like ate lo.g gone with no chance of new "prints") useing them 4 days at a con under thier way.

I made it a personal rule if your shirt doesn't fit you anymore. It can be on the side. Otherwise you have to wear it to get a reroll from me. Same goes for Folios. I only ask that I see it if I don't know them well enough.

[The Fox]

I am also of the belief that the SLWS does not provoke, and that is the ruling I go with when I am GMing. It would be weird if drawing a dagger from your boot as a move action did not provoke, but drawing a dagger from a SLWS as a swift action did provoke.

I used to be on the fence about whether one can put a scroll into a SLWS. This thread has firmly convinced me to allow it.

[The Fox]

Raymond Lambert wrote:

I went through the expense of buying many of my PFS material twice. Once in dead tree format ling ago and a second time in PDF more recently. I don't like it but the rules are the rules. Hopefully I don't forget at home the 2 light 32 page books I refused to buy a second time but if I do I have to accept being told no.

How.are GMs to know.you still own the material? I have Bern tempted to sell my hardbacks now that I have the PDF and several portable PDF readers.

I agree. I own pretty much everything Paizo puts out. If I forget a book at home and a GM who doesn't know me asks to see the resource, then that is on me. The situation nosig brought up is completely different.

[blackbloodtroll]

I keep a flash drive of all my watermarked PDFs on me.

I have not been seen a single PFS judge without a laptop, or tablet.

I own a hardcopy of almost every Pathfinder Book, but I am not bringing a library with me to every PFS game.

[David Bowles]

Undone wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

Hima Flametinker III wrote:

SLWS's with Breath of Life Scrolls to save the day.

Most GMs in my area have banned this, so we just DPR harder to reduce enemy actions taken. I don't like the ruling against BoL in SLWS, because it takes away defensive options that bolster less optimized parties.

So the GM's who hate optimization are enforcing it as the only option to not die, at least in difficult situations.

I didn't say it was a good idea.

[rknop]

I have violated the rules, in that I've shown up to PFS games without printouts or hardcopies of some of the books that my character is based on. However, I've always had the watermarked PDFs in my tablet. For my own reference, that's good enough. I know that if a GM called me on it, I could be SOL by the PFS RAW, but I figured it was worth the risk.

(Also, I've played more games online than in person, and there it's really hard to hand a GM a hardcopy....)

[Sniggevert]

rknop wrote:

I have violated the rules, in that I've shown up to PFS games without printouts or hardcopies of some of the books that my character is based on. However, I've always had the watermarked PDFs in my tablet. For my own reference, that's good enough. I know that if a GM called me on it, I could be SOL by the PFS RAW, but I figured it was worth the risk.

(Also, I've played more games online than in person, and there it's really hard to hand a GM a hardcopy....)

Having the PDF's on a readable tablet/phone is PFS legal by RAW...

[Pink Dragon]

rknop wrote:

I have violated the rules, in that I've shown up to PFS games without printouts or hardcopies of some of the books that my character is based on. However, I've always had the watermarked PDFs in my tablet. For my own reference, that's good enough. I know that if a GM called me on it, I could be SOL by the PFS RAW, but I figured it was worth the risk.

PFS Guide v. 6, page 5:

"In order to utilize content from an Additional Resource, a player must have a physical copy of the Additional Resource in question, a name-watermarked Paizo PDF of it, or a printout of the relevant pages from it, as well as a copy of the current version of the Additional Resources list. You must inform the Game Master that you plan to use Additional Resource material before play begins, so he has a chance to familiarize himself with the new material."

Per PFS RAW, a named-watermarked Paizo PDF of the relevant pages is sufficient. You don't need hard copy at all.

Ninja'd!

However, do most players bring " a copy of the current version of the Additional Resources list" to the table?

[Ferious Thune]

rknop wrote:

I have violated the rules, in that I've shown up to PFS games without printouts or hardcopies of some of the books that my character is based on. However, I've always had the watermarked PDFs in my tablet. For my own reference, that's good enough. I know that if a GM called me on it, I could be SOL by the PFS RAW, but I figured it was worth the risk.

(Also, I've played more games online than in person, and there it's really hard to hand a GM a hardcopy....)

If you have the watermarked PDF on a tablet, and you can show it to the GM on the tablet, that is legal. I don't have the reference on hand, but as long as you can produce the resource in a form that the text can be read, and you can prove ownership, that should be sufficient. Having the resources on a flash drive that can't be viewed doesn't count. Although, if I'm familiar with the rule, I'm likely to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they say they say they own the resource, or especially if they can show me it on their downloads page. The only time I might reject something is if there's no way to produce the rule at all or the player clearly doesn't own the resource.

[Dragnmoon]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I keep a flash drive of all my watermarked PDFs on me.

I have not been seen a single PFS judge without a laptop, or tablet.

I own a hardcopy of almost every Pathfinder Book, but I am not bringing a library with me to every PFS game.

Luckily you are not in our area, Everyone who owns a Tablet owns an iPad (no USB) and it is rare we see laptops because they discouraged mostly at the tables.

Once in awhile you may see a laptop that someone brought but they are kept put away and only brought out when needed, but that is rare.

I would not recommend that method at a convention.

[David Bowles]

Just load them on the tablet itself on an SD card.

[Dragnmoon]

David Bowles wrote:

Just load them on the tablet itself on an SD card.

I am assuming that since he is bringing them on a flash drive that he does not own a Tablet.

[trollbill]

Raymond Lambert wrote:

Swift action spells do not provoke, I think it is reasonable to extend other swift actions to not provoke.

I would find it a lot more reasonable if there was at least one other specifically called out example of a swift action that doesn't provoke to support the precedent. Considering the number of swift actions out there, stating a single example means that all Swift actions don't provoke is a very weak argument.

[rknop]

Pink Dragon wrote:

Per PFS RAW, a named-watermarked Paizo PDF of the relevant pages is sufficient. You don't need hard copy at all.

Ninja'd!

However, do most players bring " a copy of the current version of the Additional Resources list" to the table?

W00t! Good to know. I must be remembering from a couple of editions back of the Guide to OP. I feel so holy now.

And, I probably outta download and save a copy of Additional Resources on my tablet to be safe.

[Undone]

trollbill wrote:

Raymond Lambert wrote:

Swift action spells do not provoke, I think it is reasonable to extend other swift actions to not provoke.

I would find it a lot more reasonable if there was at least one other specifically called out example of a swift action that doesn't provoke to support the precedent. Considering the number of swift actions out there, stating a single example means that all Swift actions don't provoke is a very weak argument.

The problem is people just assume it will not provoke. Magus arcane pool for example

[Silbeg]

David Bowles wrote:

Just load them on the tablet itself on an SD card.

Which, for an iPad, still doesn't work.

[Pink Dragon]

Back to the original post:

Page 105 of the Core Rule Book under the Sleight of Hand skill states that drawing a hidden weapon is a standard action and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.

Table 8-2 on page 183 of the Core Rule Book states that drawing a hidden weapon is a standard action that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.

Table 8-2 on page 183 of the Core Rule Book states that drawing a weapon is a move action that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.

Table 8-2 on page 183 of the Core Rule Book states that retrieving a stored item is a move action that provokes an attack of opportunity.

Page 186 of the Core Rule Book under "Draw or Sheathe Weapon" applies the action of drawing of a weapon to "weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands". The same passage indicates that weapons or weapon-like objects that are not within easy reach are stored items.

Page 187 of the Core Rule book states under "Manipulate and Item" that moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action that provokes an attack of opportunity.

The description of "Wrist Sheath" in the Adventurers Armory uses the phrase "provoking attacks of opportunity as normal". The normal rule is that drawing a weapon or weapon-like object that is within easy reach does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Making the reasonable assumption that items in a wrist sheath are being carried within easy reach, the use of a wrist sheath therefore does not provoke an attack of opportunity because drawing a weapon or weapon-like object does not "normally" provoke an attack of opportunity.

A wrist sheath does not change the drawing weapon mechanic but merely permits hiding a weapon or weapon-like object with a +2 bonus on the sleight of hand check. Thus, drawing a weapon or weapon-like object from a wrist sheath falls under the rubric of drawing a hidden weapon, which does not provoke an attack of opportunity under the rules as noted above.

As written in the Adventurer's Armory, the spring-loaded wrist sheath works like a standard wrist sheath except that the action is a swift action and not a move action. All of the same analysis above that applies to the wrist sheath also applies to the spring-loaded wrist sheath. Therefore, drawing a weapon or weapon-like object from a spring-loaded wrist sheath does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

Now, for items not classified as weapons or weapon-like objects, moving or manipulating the item provokes an attack of opportunity (see page 187 CRB as noted above). If drawing an item such as a potion or scroll is normally considered moving or manipulating an item, then using a wrist sheath does not change that and drawing the potion or scroll from a wrist sheath or spring-loaded wrist sheath provokes an attack of opportunity, "as normal". If a potion or scroll is considered a weapon-like object, then drawing them from a wrist sheath or spring-loaded wrist sheath does not provokes an attack of opportunity, "as normal".

The rules seem clear to me on the use of wrist sheaths and spring-loaded wrist sheaths. Drawing weapons and weapon-like objects from any type of wrist sheath does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

What is muddled is not the mechanic of a wrist sheath (spring-loaded or not). What is muddled is defining which items get to enjoy the moniker "weapon-like object".

[Game Master]

Silbeg wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

Just load them on the tablet itself on an SD card.

Which, for an iPad, still doesn't work.

Try the GoodReader app for iPhone/iPad. It can download PDFs directly from Paizo, unzip them, and read them on the spot. Extremely awesome app.

[David Bowles]

Sorry that the iPad can't store simple pdfs, then. What good are they then?

[Gwen Smith]

My introduction to spring-loaded wrist sheaths was by a GM who had no trouble letting you put a scroll in regular wrist sheath, but balked at putting them in spring loaded ones. His reasoning was that the action of the spring would more likely damage the scroll than push it out, and since scrolls aren't stiff by nature, it would also be likely to get stuck up your sleeve.

Then there's the issue of unrolling the scroll to read it, so a lot of GMs would say you still have to take a move action to unroll it. I think the assumption is that unrolling it is a free action as part of the move action to get it out, but if you don't take a move action to retrieve it, you can't have the free action to unroll it. (Like drawing a weapon as a free action while moving--it's a move action otherwise.)

When we get out BoL scrolls for someone else to cast, we make a point of saying that we unroll them and hold them up for the caster, just to avoid this problem. (That's probably being too literal, but I get paranoid with BoL.)

It would be nice to see this clarified: I'd love to be able to do it, but I know a lot of GMs won't allow it, so I usually warn players away from it.

[trollbill]

Undone wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Raymond Lambert wrote:

Swift action spells do not provoke, I think it is reasonable to extend other swift actions to not provoke.

I would find it a lot more reasonable if there was at least one other specifically called out example of a swift action that doesn't provoke to support the precedent. Considering the number of swift actions out there, stating a single example means that all Swift actions don't provoke is a very weak argument.

The problem is people just assume it will not provoke. Magus arcane pool for example

Arcane Pool is a Supernatural Ability and Using a Supernatural Ability is specifically called out in the rules as not provoking. So the Swift Action nature of Arcane Pool is irrelevant to whether or not it provokes.

Swift Actions that are not specifically sited in the rules as not provoking and who normally would provoke include:

Making a swift ranged attack, such as casting Quickened Scorching Ray (the casting of the spell is specifically called out as not provoking, but the ranged attacked you then have to make is not).

Retrieving an item as a swift action, such as with a Prehensile Tail or Spring Loaded wrist sheath.

Escaping from a net as a swift/immediate action, such as with Liberating Command.

[BretI]

David Bowles wrote:

Sorry that the iPad can't store simple pdfs, then. What good are they then?

About as good as any electronic device where the person using it isn't familiar with it.

You can:
* Get the camera kit in order to read SD cards from an iPad
* Get the USB cable for your iPad
* Load PDFs into iBooks library and sync them with the iPad to read them
* Directly save PDFs from a web page into iBooks
* Get the Kindle reader, e-mail PDFs to your Kindle account and read them after syncing

I'm sure there are other solutions. I'm keeping mine in iBooks since that is what has worked best for me so far.

Last time I checked the Kindle conversion of PDFs was somewhat lacking. Since they have started storing them as native document types, it may be time to re-evaluate that. I haven't had the motivation to try again.

[Dragnmoon]

Pink Dragon wrote:

The rules seem clear to me on the use of wrist sheaths and spring-loaded wrist sheaths. Drawing weapons and weapon-like objects from any type of wrist sheath does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

What is muddled is not the mechanic of a wrist sheath (spring-loaded or not). What is muddled is defining which items get to enjoy the moniker "weapon-like object".

Sadly you are incorrect here, The item itself says it provokes when used.

PRD Wrist Sheath wrote:

As a move action, you can bend your wrist to cause some or all of these items to drop into your hand (provoking attacks of opportunity as normal).

So the question still stands does using a Spring-loaded Wrist Sheath Provoke.

This is my Answer...

[Undone]

trollbill wrote:

Undone wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Raymond Lambert wrote:

Swift action spells do not provoke, I think it is reasonable to extend other swift actions to not provoke.

I would find it a lot more reasonable if there was at least one other specifically called out example of a swift action that doesn't provoke to support the precedent. Considering the number of swift actions out there, stating a single example means that all Swift actions don't provoke is a very weak argument.

The problem is people just assume it will not provoke. Magus arcane pool for example

Arcane Pool is a Supernatural Ability and Using a Supernatural Ability is specifically called out in the rules as not provoking. So the Swift Action nature of Arcane Pool is irrelevant to whether or not it provokes.

Swift Actions that are not specifically sited in the rules as not provoking and who normally would provoke include:

Making a swift ranged attack, such as casting Quickened Scorching Ray (the casting of the spell is specifically called out as not provoking, but the ranged attacked you then have to make is not).

Retrieving an item as a swift action, such as with a Prehensile Tail or Spring Loaded wrist sheath.

Escaping from a net as a swift/immediate action, such as with Liberating Command.

Ok well I can say this. Pummeling bully without the appropriate feat (Gotten via MoMS) will still provoke despite being a free action. Type of action doesn't seem to effect if it provokes or not although in any game I ran I'd probably let it not provoke or if it does the monster always declines the AOO.

[Pink Dragon]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Sadly you are incorrect here, The item itself says it provokes when used.

PRD Wrist Sheath wrote:

As a move action, you can bend your wrist to cause some or all of these items to drop into your hand (provoking attacks of opportunity as normal).

Your quote of the Wrist Sheath description proves my point. The wrist sheath specifically says "provoking attacks of opportunity as normal". "As normal" is the key.

It is not normal to provoke attacks of opportunity when drawing a weapon or weapon-like object, therefore drawing a weapon or weapon-like object from a wrist sheath does not provoke.

It is normal to provoke attacks of opportunity when retrieving other items, therefore retrieving other items (e.g. potions and scrolls) from a wrist sheath does provoke.