Gloves of Arrow Snaring, as written, do (almost) nothing

Gloves of Arrow Snaring: Twice per day, the wearer can act as if he had the Snatch Arrows feat.

Snatch Arrows feat: When using the Deflect Arrows feat you may choose to catch the weapon instead of just deflecting it. Thrown weapons can immediately be thrown back as an attack against the original attacker (even though it isn't your turn) or kept for later use.

Problem: As written, the gloves allow a wearer who already has the deflect arrows feat to catch instead of deflecting, twice per day.

Question: Is this intentional, or are the gloves meant to allow an unskilled wearer to catch arrows 2/day?

You're reading waaaay too much into it.

2/day you act as if you have Snatch Arrows. Period.

That means you can snatch arrows.

When using the deflect arrows feat.

When using the deflect arrows feat.

Because normally the Feat has a prerequisite of Deflect Arrows.

In this case it does not.

This is the exact sort of silly question the devs have said they get annoyed at when it shows up in a FAQ queue.

The intent is clear. I can't even see a way that it's not, no matter what the RAW might imply.

As far as RAW is concerned, you would need the Deflect Arrows Feat. That's most likely not the design intent of course.

Probably the reason why 3.5 had a better FAQ and errata system is that there can be massive gray areas with stuff like this, and so the 3.5 team worked to make things clear even if people were 95% sure of what something meant.

Rynjin, I'd only say that the most probable intent is not always the actual intent. Heck, given how some things get "answered" it could be that the entire magical item would change. Or maybe it was just intended for people with the Deflect Arrows Feat (there are magical items even more useless/limited).

If you needed the prerequisite it would say, I'm with Rynjin on this.

As written I think it is just a dumb item and you do need the deflect arrows feat to get any use out of it. It's a suboptimal item period, only reason people have to disagree is because it a crap item as written so it 'CAN NOT' be intended like that.

I like the item, for monks, so I might use it (by mixing and matching properties) as a GM but in a 'magicshop' campaign I'd probably never ever buy it as a player.

Yeah, I'm probably overreacting from reading the f#%*ing stupid Arrow deflection shield and finding bad writing in these gloves too.

If you needed the prerequisite it would say, I'm with Rynjin on this.

Except that's the OPPOSITE to the way the rules work. If something lets you ignore prerequisites, then it has to say.

I'm not against anybody ruling otherwise if they don't need to follow RAW, but the RAW is clear.
Other magic items like Mighty Cleaving Weapons require Feats to use, so that is not out of bounds.
This doesn't need to say you need the Feat, because the Feat is says you can use ITSELF says you need the other Feat.
(which is distinct from Feat 'pre-requisites')

I don't understand why people attack the legitimacy of this when it's brought up.
Don't think the RAW corresponds to intent? Great, hit FAQ, that's what Errata's for after all.

I don't understand why people attack the legitimacy of this when it's brought up.

Don't think the RAW corresponds to intent? Great, hit FAQ, that's what Errata's for after all.

++

Here's my chain of thought...

The gloves of arrow snaring allow you (twice per day) to act as though you had Snatch Arrows, legitimately.

Snatch Arrows requires you to have Deflect Arrows (it's a prerequisite for the feat).

Therefore, If I have snatch arrows (granted 2/day via the gloves of arrow snaring) I must, since it's a prerequisite, also be considered to have deflect arrows.

As was pointed out above, some other magical items which grant feats specify that you need the prerequisite feats to use the item.

QED, if an item requires you to have the prerequisite feats for use, it says so. If an item grants use of a feat with prerequisites without first requiring those prerequisites, it grants the prerequisite feats within the context of the functions of the magic item.

QED, if an item requires you to have the prerequisite feats for use, it says so. If an item grants use of a feat with prerequisites without first requiring those prerequisites, it grants the prerequisite feats within the context of the functions of the magic item.

Not true. Often items will note if a pre-requisite is needed, but they do not have to say it. Again, what is required is a statement saying when prerequisites can be ignored. It does not work the other way around. For instance, items that give bonuses on checks you don't have (like Wild Empathy) don't need to say that you need that ability to use them. Nor would you be considered trained in a skill even if a magic item gives you a +5 bonus in it.

This is rules-lawyering to the extreme. It's ridiculous, and doesn't require taking the devs time to classify the obvious. The intent is clear.

It is a magic item that allows you to catch arrows, twice per day. No need for pre-reqs, much like you don't need craft magical weapons to use a magic sword.

:D

This is rules-lawyering to the extreme. It's ridiculous, and doesn't require taking the devs time to classify the obvious. The intent is clear.

When you don't clear up the intent on the little things, that just makes all the other less clear rules even harder to figure out. Everyone starts deciding that something is "obviously that" or "obviously this" and what the text says doesn't really matter.

It's better to know what the text says and know when you are house-ruling in a change that makes more sense and is better. Far superior to acting like the text says something that it blatantly does not say.

I prefer to not burn out the devs with questions they don't need to waste time on. I like pathfinder and the work Paizo does, and would prefer they continue.

BillyGoat wrote:

QED, if an item requires you to have the prerequisite feats for use, it says so. If an item grants use of a feat with prerequisites without first requiring those prerequisites, it grants the prerequisite feats within the context of the functions of the magic item.

Not true. Often items will note if a pre-requisite is needed, but they do not have to say it. Again, what is required is a statement saying when prerequisites can be ignored. It does not work the other way around. For instance, items that give bonuses on checks you don't have (like Wild Empathy) don't need to say that you need that ability to use them. Nor would you be considered trained in a skill even if a magic item gives you a +5 bonus in it.

I can appreciate that there is an expectation of needing an ability to use a bonus to that ability.

However, we're talking feats, not numerical bonuses to abilities some people do and some people do not have.

Here, the intent is perfectly clear, and is written in a manner which is logically consistent with other feat granting magical items. Provide me the example of a magical item which grants a feat with prerequisites that doesn't say that you need the prerequisite feat to use the item, but does say the item doesn't work without the prerequisite feat being possessed.

Therefore, when they have established the normal format for feat-granting items as stipulating they only work when you have the prerequisite feats, deviation tells you the intent. In this case, they took the normal format for feat-granting items (stipulation of need to possess prerequisites) and omitted the normal requirement for possession of prerequisite feats.

It could be written more cleanly, but a reasonable, rationale person can recognize the deviation from standards and establish the logical conclusion.

Or, we could demand that the publisher waste more time, ink, and paper stipulating all possible conditions for all possible items. I prefer they spend their time where a rationale person can't immediately figure out what the intent is.

Point me to an example of a magical item that grants a feat without prerequisites that doesn't say so.

This is an unusually badly worded item.

Billygoat put it better than I have. If the item was intended to only help characters with the feat already, they'd say so.

I think we need to worry far less about mechanics feats or the like. It is an old x2 per day item.

This is rules-lawyering to the extreme. It's ridiculous, and doesn't require taking the devs time to classify the obvious. The intent is clear.

Actually I think it is a great catch for them to be able to errata such things.

They took a lot of OGL 3.5 material as written, and it is inevitable that some of it will need to be written better.

Having better written rules is a wonderful plus. In this case, it should be simple errata and be fixed for the next printing... right?

-James

Yep, sharp, clear with a focus on brevity is a very good idea.

3.5 is very clunky in many parts. I once re-wrote the special attacks section for a player, and broke it down into very simple formula for his maths obsessed mind.

Really, I find 3.5 so much more clear and specific than Pathfinder. Pathfinder streamlined some thing and changed them. Some improvements other not, but I find that Pathfinder tends to leave a lot of gaps and vagueness.

I think because the items says "as if" and doesn't actually give the feat and therefore doesn't need the requirements.

it's not about 'requirements', it's about the FUNCTION of the feat.
the FUNCTION is that it modifies what happens when you use another feat.
just like gaining some sorceror ability that modifies fire spells thru eldritch heritage doesn't mean your fighter can now cast fire spells.
some things just don't work, even though there isn't any formal pre-req preventing you from selecting that option in the first place.

There is no feats and pre-reqs, the gloves catch the arrows for you.

There is no feats and pre-reqs, the gloves catch the arrows for you.

Funny for an ability where there are no feats and just function, that they define the function by a feat.

Really, I find 3.5 so much more clear and specific than Pathfinder. Pathfinder streamlined some thing and changed them. Some improvements other not, but I find that Pathfinder tends to leave a lot of gaps and vagueness.

Yeah, there is also the issue of once you get your head around the basic mechanics and how it plays, 3.5 has a lot less crunch at its core (I am meaning the base books here, players, dms not this and that splat book) than PF. Which took 3.5, changed some things, added plenty of crunch especially to the classes, experimented with some new mechanics, tried out a few new ways of doing things, and then changed how many of the feats functioned.

3.5 core is a system and evolution of 3.0, but PF is 3.5 + selective splat + rule changes. Still not sold on it.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

There is no feats and pre-reqs, the gloves catch the arrows for you.

Funny for an ability where there are no feats and just function, that they define the function by a feat.

It doesn't matter, it is a magical ability like a feat but neither the player or the magic gloves has the feat by default (lol). That feat can be useful to clarify what can be caught and what can't, so for instance, you can catch a throwing axe, but not a 500lb boulder, lol.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

There is no feats and pre-reqs, the gloves catch the arrows for you.

Funny for an ability where there are no feats and just function, that they define the function by a feat.

Yar, pretty funny and completely inexplicable as to why they would just say "It mimics the function of Snatch Arrows" instead of copy-pasting the entire text of Snatch Arrows (minus one line, possibly).

S'not like they have word count restrictions or anything, amirite?

And lo, in the event of something being throwing that is not too large, the wearer of the gloves, which must be worn on the hands, and not on the feet, may snatch the thrown object from the air, and...

Word count: Twice per day, the wearer can act as if he had the Snatch Arrows AND Deflect Arrows Feats.

pretty short and simple to achieve that effect if it was desired...

Wording is fairly redundant since the Feats are simply superior and inferior forms of each other.