data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9d200/9d2003dcf79c0a3c015eace2606a991211025607" alt=""
Myste |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f9832/f9832ae55eff979b5e0a167ea708bc6ba30057ae" alt="Figurine"
Hey James,
I've had a heated debate regarding the
I believe that whoever holds/wears/wields this item can change its form back and forth with the command word. As per standard rules for using an item.
The counter argument was, due to the wording "she can also revert it back...", that only the person that turned the BB from a belt into a weapon can revert it.
I believe that this paragraph was a single statement split in 2 sentences, mainly due to the word "also", and the intend was that whoever holds this item can manipulate it with the command word.
ie: Character A can turn the belt into a weapon, die, and centuries later their weapon is found by B. Through some magic the command word is identified and B can revert it back into belt (even though they didnt originally convert it).
The counter argument held the believe that the item 'knows' or 'remembers' who originally converted it and wouldn't revert back, as per their interpretation of the wording, which to me would be something only an intelligent item could do ('remembering/knowing' and denying things).
To me, that sentence merely clarifies that being disarmed or dropping the item doesn't immediately turn it back into a belt, but that it consciously needs to be commanded (and thus held) for it to revert back into a belt.
What are your thoughts on how this works? Is either or both of us misunderstanding the rules?
Lastly, on a related topic, this item occupies a belt slot (due to it being a belt), but does converting it into a weapon change its slot into mainhand (or offhand) instead?