Using the Steal combat maneuver to remove your own equipped gear?

[Nardoz Zardoz]

Can I steal my own gear?

You may be asking "Why would you want to?" and the answer is to save actions.

Quick Steal lets you grab loosely worn gear, like a necklace or coin purse, as an attack action during a full attack.

I was looking at ways of negating my own Stench ability and came across the Stench Spray amulet (Monster Codex), which while worn suppresses your Stench ability. If I wore the amulet, I could use my first attack in combat to Quick Steal my own amulet, making my Stench ability come into effect.

Similarly, you could sunder your amulet (they are pretty cheap at 1600 gp), it'd require less feats.

Any thoughts on this?

[DM_Blake]

The simple RAW answer is no:

SRD, Combat, Steal wrote:

You can attempt to take an item from a foe as a standard action.

"from a foe"

Quick Steal modifies the standard action to just an attack, but it doesn't modify the target; you can still only quick steal from a foe.

However...

That answer doesn't make much sense. That means that it's actually easier to steal your enemy's necklace than, say, your fighter friend's necklace (seems they should be equally difficult) or than your own necklace (seems yours should be easier to get than an enemy's).

I think, as a GM, I'd probably ignore the word "foe". After all, you did invest two feats to do this. But that's not RAW.

Sunder has the same wording, so the same answers apply.

[ElterAgo]

Agreed. Not RAW, but I would certainly allow it.

[Nardoz Zardoz]

DM_Blake wrote:

The simple RAW answer is no:

SRD, Combat, Steal wrote:

You can attempt to take an item from a foe as a standard action.

"from a foe"

Quick Steal modifies the standard action to just an attack, but it doesn't modify the target; you can still only quick steal from a foe.

However...

That answer doesn't make much sense. That means that it's actually easier to steal your enemy's necklace than, say, your fighter friend's necklace (seems they should be equally difficult) or than your own necklace (seems yours should be easier to get than an enemy's).

I think, as a GM, I'd probably ignore the word "foe". After all, you did invest two feats to do this. But that's not RAW.

Sunder has the same wording, so the same answers apply.

I dont see why you can't decide to be your own foe/enemy.

There is already the "Do you count as your own ally?" FAQ response
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9nda

Maybe now we need a "Can you count as your own enemy?" FAQ.

I suggest you can't both count as your own ally and enemy simultaneously. So while you're stealing that item off your person, you can't also be gaining a benefit from the bardic performance your maintaining.

Another question: Would I need to beat my own CMD to steal my own gear? I've had similar questions in the past, "Can I Coup de Grace myself?", "Can I consider myself Helpless against my own attacks?"

Periodically I find reasons why I want to injur my own character, like the Blood Rage spell, which boosts your str based on how much damage you've taken. (My favorite idea there is to have a Contingent Vampiric Touch set to activate on yourself when you cast Blood Rage).

[Diego Rossi]

You can't do it by RAW and you give the reason why I wouldn't allow it as an houserule:

Nardoz Zardoz wrote:

the answer is to save actions.

Deactivating a magic item has an action cost and quick steal isn't meant to be a way to bypass that cost.

[wraithstrike]

The rules are made with certain intentions, and you are supposed to play with those intentions.

Another things is that the game is balances around you allocating resources, and actions are a resource.

Basically if the wording allows something because it does not cover every corner case most GM's are going to say no because they will go by the intent.

The reason you count as your own ally is so you can benefit from abilities that are designed to specifically not help the enemy, but help the party.

[KarlBob]

I suppose you could house-rule a Quick Doff feat, specifically to allow you to yank the amulet off faster you could without the feat. It seems like a blend of Quick Steal and Quick Draw.

As for whether a feat should allow you to do something that the rules don't normally allow, that's one of the main proposes of feats. You get to do this one thing faster/stronger/better than the rules normally allow, but you're paying for it by investing one or more of a very limited resource.

Trying to apply the same feat to multiple separate actions is different. To me, Quick Steal and Quick Doff would always be two separate feats.

[DM_Blake]

Diego Rossi wrote:

You can't do it by RAW and you give the reason why I wouldn't allow it as an houserule:

Nardoz Zardoz wrote:

the answer is to save actions.

Deactivating a magic item has an action cost and quick steal isn't meant to be a way to bypass that cost.

Does that mean you won't allow Quick Steal because it saves actions?

[Saldiven]

DM_Blake wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

You can't do it by RAW and you give the reason why I wouldn't allow it as an houserule:

Nardoz Zardoz wrote:

the answer is to save actions.

Deactivating a magic item has an action cost and quick steal isn't meant to be a way to bypass that cost.

Does that mean you won't allow Quick Steal because it saves actions?

Totally unrelated issue.

Quick Steal has a specific, in-game rule that modifies the existing in-game rules for Steal.

Steal is foe only. If you want a feat that allows you to equip/unequip items more quickly than normally allowed for by the rules, you need something like Quickdraw.

[Nardoz Zardoz]

I think the term "foe" is fairly subjective anyway.

If I attempt to use Steal on an "ally" presumably the ally immediately become a "foe" (assuming the ally doesnt want me stealing his amulet).

But if the ally actually wants me to have his amulet, can I not steal it because he doesn't become a "foe"?

[DM_Blake]

Saldiven wrote:

DM_Blake wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

You can't do it by RAW and you give the reason why I wouldn't allow it as an houserule:

Nardoz Zardoz wrote:

the answer is to save actions.

Deactivating a magic item has an action cost and quick steal isn't meant to be a way to bypass that cost.

Does that mean you won't allow Quick Steal because it saves actions?

Totally unrelated issue.

Quick Steal has a specific, in-game rule that modifies the existing in-game rules for Steal.

Steal is foe only. If you want a feat that allows you to equip/unequip items more quickly than normally allowed for by the rules, you need something like Quickdraw.

Not really unrelated at all.

Nardoz said he would be unwilling to houserule this because removing an amulet (normally a move action "Manipulate an Item) should not be an attack action because it "saves actions".

I asked him he would ban the Quick Steal feat because removing a foe's amulet (normally a standard action "Steal") should not be an attack action because it "saves actions".

Exactly the same issue, except for the question of who is wearing the amulet (which neither he nor I disputed; we were discussing a house rule in the first place because of the "foe" thing).

My point being, if he's OK with allowing a character to take a feat to "save actions" against a foe, why is he not OK with that character taking a feat to "save actions" against himself? Or, maybe he is not OK with either feat that "saves actions".