Can a loaded crossbow be carried hung over a shoulder (not in hand) without becoming unloaded?
No offence ment but oh, come on... please make use of common sense.
Do you always need rules to clarify if something is possible or not? Do you really need official rules for every possibility within a game?
Common sense is not the problem. Please read my previous post.
Some players just need things cut out in cardboard or they will try to make it a loop hole. Since issues can arise in organized play and when playing with new people it would be a good idea to have an official statement on this to avoid pointless discussions.
Fake Healer, If you read my post that you quoted, I said "I have a hard time not putting real world knowledge into game". I didnt say I did limit things like that. I know its a game, and in a game, reality only plays a small part. I do not nor will not hinder a player with a greatsword against and NPC with a dagger, that would be stupid on my part and take away from the game.
I too have a martial arts background and was trained in hand to hand combat in the US Army as well. I once shown some one how to effectively fight with a sledge hammer by keeping it as a close quarter weapon, so yes I agree with you that amazing things can be done with real weapon in real life.
But what I referred to was the "hacking rule" of the greatsword being a weapon that needs space.
Well before I became a DM and was only a player, I would always get into arguments with my DM over what I could do with a weapon, hence the showing that a sledge hammer can be used as a close melee weapon.
My character and the rest of the party had been captured and was placed in a mine. the only "add hock" weapons were picks and sledges, i grabbed a sledge. He complained about me using the sledge in a space just big enough for me to fit into. his argument was a hammer could not be used unless swung, i proved him wrong....:)
Now as a DM, I understand his side of the argument.
I once shown some one how to effectively fight with a sledge hammer by keeping it as a close quarter weapon, so yes I agree with you that amazing things can be done with real weapon in real life.
Nah I prefer the Entrenching Tool as a close in weapon :P
|
Can a loaded crossbow be carried hung over a shoulder (not in hand) without becoming unloaded?
No offence ment but oh, come on... please make use of common sense.
Do you always need rules to clarify if something is possible or not? Do you really need official rules for every possibility within a game?Common sense is not the problem. Please read my previous post.
Some players just need things cut out in cardboard or they will try to make it a loop hole. Since issues can arise in organized play and when playing with new people it would be a good idea to have an official statement on this to avoid pointless discussions.
Well since I'm that particular player, I thought I would just hand in my two cents. My argument is simply that i states in the description of the net (I didn't really care about the crossbow) that:
"A net must be folded to be thrown effectively. The first time you throw your net, you make a normal touch attack roll. After the net is unfolded, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls with it. It takes 2 rounds for a proficient user to fold a net and twice as long for a none proficient one to do so." (p. 148)
in my opinion that means that if I buy a net and put it in my backpack, then once I have taken it out of my backpack it is ready for normal use (until thrown). In regard to where and how many nets I can have 'at the ready' at any given time is up for discussion as it is not clarified in the rules.
Further more I firmly believe that someone who spends a feat to throw a net without penalty, should be allowed to do so without spending two rounds of folding (at least the first time around and even three times, if that's the amount of nets he carries), it's not that overpowered.
RAW clearly states that the first time you throw your net in a fight it is normal, after it has been thrown, it must be refolded. If it hasn't been thrown (in your backpack) it is not unfolded and can be thrown normally.
Whether or not it is realistic is not a discussion I will enter in regards to Pathfinder, it's far more interesting whether it is balanced
|
Fake Healer, If you read my post that you quoted, I said "I have a hard time not putting real world knowledge into game". I didnt say I did limit things like that. I know its a game, and in a game, reality only plays a small part. I do not nor will not hinder a player with a greatsword against and NPC with a dagger, that would be stupid on my part and take away from the game.
I too have a martial arts background and was trained in hand to hand combat in the US Army as well. I once shown some one how to effectively fight with a sledge hammer by keeping it as a close quarter weapon, so yes I agree with you that amazing things can be done with real weapon in real life.
But what I referred to was the "hacking rule" of the greatsword being a weapon that needs space.
Well before I became a DM and was only a player, I would always get into arguments with my DM over what I could do with a weapon, hence the showing that a sledge hammer can be used as a close melee weapon.
My character and the rest of the party had been captured and was placed in a mine. the only "add hock" weapons were picks and sledges, i grabbed a sledge. He complained about me using the sledge in a space just big enough for me to fit into. his argument was a hammer could not be used unless swung, i proved him wrong....:)
Now as a DM, I understand his side of the argument.
I have a tenancy to use my knowledge of real world weapon fighting styles along with my real world knowledge of weapons combat dictate my DM and player styles.
example; dagger vs shortsword, both close range thrust/slashing weapons. equal fighting style.but a dagger vs greatsword, my money is on the dagger if the fighter using it knows what he is doing. the greatsword need room to be effective (range/space) it needs to be swung to do its job. the guy with the dagger just needs to stay within a half arms reach to win the fight as the dagger needs less reach. by doing so the fighter with the greatsword is at a disadvantage as it is not a slashing weapon, it is a hacking weapon like an axe. these are things I know to be true to life, and I sometimes have a hard time not implementing them in game. I have issues with the RAW thing at times....lol
as for readied weapons, if my players do not specify they are reading their weapons before entering the possible encounter location, then they do not have it readied, simple and the monster/NPC gets that extra round or 2 to really screw with them or cast defensive spells....:)
That's the post. I understand what you mean now but the gist of it seems to run tangent to the bolded portion. Anyway I never actually accused you of doing so. I merely used your post as an example of rules that I have seen implemented by DMs with way too little knowledge about weapons that they claim are to adjust weapons to their thought process.
Also I disagree with the greatsword v. dagger being an advantage to the dagger, even in closer quarters. A person using one in tight quarters could grip it one hand on the hilt and the other on the ricasso (which is the unsharpened foot or so of the blade past the guard) and use it in a manner more like a polearm to thrust and parry. This practice is sometimes referred to as "half-swording". A lot of ricassos were wrapped in leather to help facilitate this usage.
Two people of equal training in each weapon having a fight to me is not even a close match. Advantage lies in the favor of the greatsword/claymore/Zweihander.
Well since I'm that particular player, I thought I would just hand in my two cents. My argument is simply that i states in the description of the net (I didn't really care about the crossbow) that:
"A net must be folded to be thrown effectively. The first time you throw your net, you make a normal touch attack roll. After the net is unfolded, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls with it. It takes 2 rounds for a proficient user to fold a net and twice as long for a none proficient one to do so." (p. 148)
in my opinion that means that if I buy a net and put it in my backpack, then once I have taken it out of my backpack it is ready for normal use (until thrown). In regard to where and how many nets I can have 'at the ready' at any given time is up for discussion as it is not clarified in the rules.
Further more I firmly believe that someone who spends a feat to throw a net without penalty, should be allowed to do so without spending two rounds of folding (at least the first time around and even three times, if that's the amount of nets he carries), it's not that overpowered.
RAW clearly states that the first time you throw your net in a fight it is normal, after it has been thrown, it must be refolded. If it hasn't been thrown (in your backpack) it is not unfolded and can...
If the net is folded in your backpack it will be a Move action that provokes an attack of opportunity to get it out.
On your turn, for example, you could take a 5 foot step, draw out your folded net, and then throw it. All on your initiative round 1.
You could repeat this each turn as desired, provided you had folded nets ready for throwing in your pack.
|
|
If the net is folded in your backpack it will be a Move action that provokes an attack of opportunity to get it out.On your turn, for example, you could take a 5 foot step, draw out your folded net, and then throw it. All on your initiative round 1.
You could repeat this each turn as desired, provided you had folded nets ready for throwing in your pack.
I completely agree in your post. Do you think one would be able to carry a folded net in a belt pouch or something similar that would allow you to quick-draw it without provoking? In relation to the rules not the real world please.
Do you think one would be able to carry a folded net in a belt pouch or something similar that would allow you to quick-draw it without provoking? In relation to the rules not the real world please.
That point is probably the one most easily settled.
Such pouches would only be available in home games. For PFS games you can only have raw equipment and that does not exist in RAW yet.
Even in a home game it has to be considered that a net weighs 6 pounds. There are som weights along the edges to give it stability and make it more easy to unfold in a throw. But still most of the net is just that - net. The sheer bulk of say 5 pounds of net is considerable and a storage container for it would be far larger than a pouch.
I completely agree in your post. Do you think one would be able to carry a folded net in a belt pouch or something similar that would allow you to quick-draw it without provoking? In relation to the rules not the real world please.
My quick answer is no, I don't think you would be able to keep a folded net in a belt pouch and have quick draw work.
When you have an item in a belt pouch or backpack the action typically required to get it out is "retrieve stored item", which is a move action that provokes an attack of opportunity. "Retrieve stored item" is not the same as "drawing a weapon". Quick draw wouldn't apply.
I'm also not sure a folded net would fit in a belt pouch. So that might be more of a problem than quick draw.
In my home campaign I allowed a bard to have a "quick-draw holster" for her whistle/flute style instrument, and allowed the quick draw feat to apply in this situation. This was a house rule, and not RAW however. A house rule of some kind would probably be required to get what you want.
|
|
Do you think one would be able to carry a folded net in a belt pouch or something similar that would allow you to quick-draw it without provoking? In relation to the rules not the real world please.That point is probably the one most easily settled.
Sush pouches would only be available in home games. For PFS games you can only have raw equipment and that does not exist in RAW yet.
Even in a home game it has to be considered that a net weighs 6 pounds. There are som weights along the edges to give it stability and make it more easy to unfold in a throw. But still most of the net is just that - net. The sheer bulk of say 5 pounds of net is considerable and a storage container for it would be far larger than a pouch.
Well you can still quick draw your 12 lbs. ranceur or 8 lbs. Greatsword (from a none existing scabbard). You can actually quickdraw every weapon (except for the net?), no matter the bulk or the weight or extra equipment (if you have the appropriate feat).
By RAW you can draw your weapon(s) as a move action, a part of a move action or as a free action (depending on feats and BAB). I do not believe that the net would (or should) be the only exception from that rule, without it being noted somewhere.
Do you think one would be able to carry a folded net in a belt pouch or something similar that would allow you to quick-draw it without provoking? In relation to the rules not the real world please.That point is probably the one most easily settled.
Sush pouches would only be available in home games. For PFS games you can only have raw equipment and that does not exist in RAW yet.
Even in a home game it has to be considered that a net weighs 6 pounds. There are som weights along the edges to give it stability and make it more easy to unfold in a throw. But still most of the net is just that - net. The sheer bulk of say 5 pounds of net is considerable and a storage container for it would be far larger than a pouch.
The listed weight of a net is 6 pounds, and according to the list of commonly accepted (but not RAW) container volumes a belt pouch can hold 10 pounds, but only has space for 1/5 cubic foot.
I concur with your statement that a net would probably be too bulky to fit in a belt pouch.
For a home game, this is where I'd let some type of custom net pouch be designed.
Well you can still quick draw your 12 lbs. ranceur...<snip>
This is where the conversation turns silly. And perhaps in this I reveal a contradiction in my own personal policies.
Of course you can't quick draw a ranseur. Because there's no place and nowhere to "holster" it. It will not stick to your back if you just place it there. You'll have to carry it at all times, unless you can store it on a wagon or something.
I'm willing to make concessions and bend "realism" for the crossbow user though. The one who always wants to walk around with their crossbow loaded? I'm fine with that. Oh no, but I penalize the poor ranseur wielder. Tough, deal.
ps. This is a mostly sarcastic derail, my humblest of apologies.
I had a longer and more elaborate answer written but the web troll ate it. This is the short version:
"A net must be folded to be thrown effectively. The first time you throw your net, you make a normal touch attack roll. After the net is unfolded, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls with it. It takes 2 rounds for a proficient user to fold a net and twice as long for a none proficient one to do so." (p. 148)
As I read this it means you can throw a net without penalty the first time in a combat provided you have already folded and readied the net.
Further more I firmly believe that someone who spends a feat to throw a net without penalty, should be allowed to do so without spending two rounds of folding (at least the first time around and even three times, if that's the amount of nets he carries), it's not that overpowered.
...
Whether or not it is realistic is not a discussion I will enter in regards to Pathfinder, it's far more interesting whether it is balanced
The matter of balance depends upon your comaprisen. Against a web spell a net might seem weak, but compared to a tanglefoot bag (TBF) it is a clear winner.
1. COST: TBF is 50 gp and single use. Net is 20 gp and can be reused indefinitely. This also means nets are faster and easier to craft than TBFs.
2. ESCAPE: Escaping a TBF is a DC 17 Strength check or 15 hp slashing damage (no hardness). Alternately the effect wears off in 2-8 rounds (avg. 5 rounds).
Escaping a net is much harder. It requires a DC 25 Strength check or a DC 20 Escape Artist check. It only has 5 hp but that would be its only weakness.
3. ROF: TBFs can be thrown at the rate of 1/round.
An experienced warrior could with the quickdraw feat throw multiple nets in a single round. Even more so with rapid shot and TWF feats (up to 9 in a round if he was a net-maniac).
All in all I think your interpretation of the net rules open up a nasty can of loop holes.
Well you can still quick draw your 12 lbs. ranceur or 8 lbs. Greatsword (from a none existing scabbard). You can actually quickdraw every weapon (except for the net?), no matter the bulk or the weight or extra equipment (if you have the appropriate feat).
By RAW you can draw your weapon(s) as a move action, a part of a move action or as a free action (depending on feats and BAB). I do not believe that the net would (or should) be the only exception from that rule, without it being noted somewhere.
I never stated anything about Quick Draw and nets at this point. I am only talking about the storage of nets.
|
|
Well you can still quick draw your 12 lbs. ranceur...<snip>This is where the conversation turns silly. And perhaps in this I reveal a contradiction in my own personal policies.
Of course you can't quick draw a ranseur. Because there's no place and nowhere to "holster" it. It will not stick to your back if you just place it there. You'll have to carry it at all times, unless you can store it on a wagon or something.
I'm willing to make concessions and bend "realism" for the crossbow user though. The one who always wants to walk around with their crossbow loaded? I'm fine with that. Oh no, but I penalize the poor ranseur wielder. Tough, deal.
ps. This is a mostly sarcastic derail, my humblest of apologies.
Mwahahahaha I personally love your post. And just for good measures I'm fine with carrying my (folded) nets in my backpack, whether or bot it is the correct interpretations of RAW is what I want to discuss. I thought that the common idea in PF was that exceptions from the main rules would be noted. If the quickdraw feat can't be used on all weapons, I would like a clarification on those before selecting my feats.
|
|
We are posting at the same time Grandfather, which is a bit confusing. I agree that the net-monster you refer to may be a loophole or at least very bad and should not be allowed. As for your comparison with the tanglefoot, you shouldn't forget the feat cost of the net being exotic and all (although one is probably better than the other).
I would like other peoples opinion on the net-description that we disagree on.
I thought that the common idea in PF was that exceptions from the main rules would be noted.
And that is true.
As alredy stated, I have no beef with the Quick Draw feat.
As much as PF and D&D are games of exceptions, as you just commented, it is also a game of common sense.
Net every aspect of the game can be explained in detail. However we are expected to apply commen sense and use actual real world experience in the interpretation of the rules.
One example are the rules for drowning on p. 445 of the PRPG.
The rule is listed under the Water Dangers section - does that mean a character can only drown in water?
Also the drowning rules if read separately from the Water Dangers section imply that a character failing to hold his breath drowns and falls unconscious with 0 hp. What if my character is sitting in a tavern and having a breath holding contest. Does that mean my character immediately passes out and starts drowning when I cannot hold my breath?
These are examples that in spite of being a game of exceptions we have to use common sense and read rules in context at all times... otherwise strange things happen.
:D
We are posting at the same time Grandfather, which is a bit confusing. I agree that the net-monster you refer to may be a loophole or at least very bad and should not be allowed. As for your comparison with the tanglefoot, you shouldn't forget the feat cost of the net being exotic and all (although one is probably better than the other).
I would like other peoples opinion on the net-description that we disagree on.
As far as I am concerned we both have good arguments for interpreting the rules in each our way.
That is why a think it was important to bring it op in this forum so that we might get closer to an official explanation.
How would that feat be usable on a net if you can only carry it in your hand or your backpack?
No clue!
But then again the same goes for lances and long spears.Or maybe even spiked gauntlets or a klar.
Physics is a house rule. Crossbows stay loaded until they are unloaded as an action or fired, because the rules don't tell you that the bolt falls out and physics is a house rule. Nets stay folded until they are unfolded as an action or thrown, because the rules don't tell you that storing a net fouls it and physics is a house rule.
If the rules don't tell you to do it, don't do it. It makes life much, much easier when you don't start inventing new rules out of thin air that may be more "realistic" but only serve to make niche weapons even more worthless. Crossbows and nets already suck. Why the hell would anyone want to make them suck even more?
Fake Healer,
No problem, sorry for the misunderstanding as well. As i posted somewhere eles, I some times suffer from diarrhea of the brain and what I mean isnt what comes across....lol
Now as for knife vs great sword, even using the greatsword as a pole arm, space is still required in order to be used as a thrusting weapon. As long as the knife fighter stays in close swinging for hack is out, space for thrust is also out. The knife is (as stated in the rules)a stabbing/thrusting weapon as well as a slashing weapon. even though the slashing damage is minimal but its damage non the less. and in real life combat, even a well place slash can spell victory.
I win....:P
but in game we deal with hp and in real life, well we all actually suffer from low Con scores....lol
LOL
You cant tell Im trained in knife fighting can you....:)
ok back on topic.
nets are something I have little knowledge of in game. no one in my group has ever used one or even thought about it that i know of, so sorry i cant help on that one.
I will agree however that stored in a belt pouch should be out of the question unless its a special made one. quick draw counts for all weapons, sorry guys a net is listed as a weapon, it counts.
Physics is a house rule. Crossbows stay loaded until they are unloaded as an action or fired, because the rules don't tell you that the bolt falls out and physics is a house rule. Nets stay folded until they are unfolded as an action or thrown, because the rules don't tell you that storing a net fouls it and physics is a house rule.
If the rules don't tell you to do it, don't do it. It makes life much, much easier when you don't start inventing new rules out of thin air that may be more "realistic" but only serve to make niche weapons even more worthless. Crossbows and nets already suck. Why the hell would anyone want to make them suck even more?
I see you are of the school of players who believe a character cannot drown in milk and that holding your breath without being anywhere near a fluid body is potentially lethal.
I will agree however that stored in a belt pouch should be out of the question unless its a special made one. quick draw counts for all weapons, sorry guys a net is listed as a weapon, it counts.
I agree on that too. But like a polearm can be dificult to carry around on your body in the first place, so I see it for the net. And even if it is not described in the feat accessibility is an issue for Quick Draw too.
A cloth sack is a standard piece of equipment. Would a folded net in a cloth sack stay neatly folded?
If I had a player wanting to carry multiple nets I'd more than likely rule that they would need to keep each in a separate cloth sack. Because of the weights and the nature of ropes ... putting two nets in the same container would quickly end up with tangled nets.
It'd kinda be like packing parachutes. :)
|
|
I see you are of the school of players who believe a character cannot drown in milk and that holding your breath without being anywhere near a fluid body is potentially lethal.
What you are say is that anything not mentioned in the rules, should be exceptions from the rule. Such as when the only fluid body mentioned is water, then it doesn't count with other fluid substances. Our argument is that since it is not mentioned that a net is an exception from the common rule, then it falls under the common rules for weapons mentioned on the core weaponlist.
If we start introducing real world physics to the discussion of the rules, we would have a completely different system. When introducing things not mentioned in the rules such as milk-oceans, you will have to see whether something in the rules is close to that and go that way. When discussing something actually in the rules, saying that physics don't act according to the rules, and therefore exceptions must be made, is a slippery slope indeed.
What you are say is that anything not mentioned in the rules, should be exceptions from the rule. Such as when the only fluid body mentioned is water, then it doesn't count with other fluid substances.
No. What I am saying is that a multitude of situations and elements are not described in the rules, either by base rule or exception, but cannot be shoehorned into them either.
And that these situations require the careful application of common sense. This is where real world physics, realism and verisimilitude play in.Our argument is that since it is not mentioned that a net is an exception from the common rule, then it falls under the common rules for weapons mentioned on the core weaponlist.
To me it is dangerous to generalize rules like that.
A bow for instance is a weapon. A stringent interpretation of the rules on improvised weapons would mean that even if used in melee a bow is still a weapon and therefore not an improvised weapon. If you let that one slip your archer will be able to smack people around with his bow for 1d8/x3 damage. This is where we have to take a step back from the rules and interpret them by the RAI. I.e. what does "usefullness" on p. 140 actually mean.The same exercise is valid in the case of the net description.
If we start introducing real world physics to the discussion of the rules, we would have a completely different system. When introducing things not mentioned in the rules such as milk-oceans, you will have to see whether something in the rules is close to that and go that way. When discussing something actually in the rules, saying that physics don't act according to the rules, and therefore exceptions must be made, is a slippery slope indeed.
That is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make in my answer to Zurai.
I think we acually agree more than this discussion lets on. But this specific technicality requires the voice of authority to be be settled.
A cloth sack is a standard piece of equipment. Would a folded net in a cloth sack stay neatly folded?
If I had a player wanting to carry multiple nets I'd more than likely rule that they would need to keep each in a separate cloth sack. Because of the weights and the nature of ropes ... putting two nets in the same container would quickly end up with tangled nets.
It'd kinda be like packing parachutes. :)
I think you are on to something.
You can certainly hang a net from your belt, but in that case it would not be folded.
Sacks would be good for storing nets, but they would make for relatively poor accessibility.
A cloth sack is a standard piece of equipment. Would a folded net in a cloth sack stay neatly folded?
If I had a player wanting to carry multiple nets I'd more than likely rule that they would need to keep each in a separate cloth sack. Because of the weights and the nature of ropes ... putting two nets in the same container would quickly end up with tangled nets.
It'd kinda be like packing parachutes. :)
I think you are on to something.
You can certainly hang a net from your belt, but in that case it would not be folded.
Sacks would be good for storing nets, but they would make for relatively poor accessibility.
A cloth sack is relatively simple. Add a strap and it becomes a open top satchel. (Think of those book bags they sell at book stores)
Depending on how you rule it... this could make carrying your folded nets fairly easy and accessible. You would not want to tumble around much though if you left them all open. Simply tie a bit of string around the top of the sack and its sealed.
You could require they "ready" the sacks for combat. Any readied sacks would have a chance of dumping its contents in the event of a tumble.
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.
First off I'm arguing from an organized play standpoint, so RAW is paramount.
Common sense as Grandfather says should play a role. And I agree. You can drown in milk and so on. You apply modifications to the rules if something seems massively screwed up, but this is not the case here.
It is possible to pack a net in Real life in such away that it is easily accessible, and so there is no massive screwup to find here. You can easily immagine this.
I don' see the problem carrying multiple nets, and readying them according to the existing rules for readying weapons.
When things go out of hand - ie carrying a hundred nets - then you get to apply common sense and apply this instead of the rules, but there seems to be no ground for it at this point.
In short:
-If things go out of hand and there is an obvious common sense problem, then you modify the rules.
-In the case of nets theres no such discrepancy, If theres a common sense problem it's not obvious.
-So theres no reason to make a rules modification regarding the use of nets, and nets should therefore follow the same rules as any other readying of a weapon.
A net big enough to cover and ensnare a person is going to be the size of a large quilt. Carrying more than two nets is about where things get silly just because of the bulky nature of nets. Were I to consider how this might work in real life... to carry two large readied nets you'd end up wearing one over a shoulder and the other in your hands.
The sack idea is the only way I can think of carrying more than one folded net and still have it be relatively easy to access. Your character would look fairly interesting with straps criss-crossing your chest and bulky sacks situated at your sides and back.
Something people may not be considering ... is that each net also has 10 feet of thumb-thick rope trailing from it on top of all the hemp twine or whatever the nets are made of. I'm assuming the net in question is much as a net for fishing as what a gladiator would have used.
For example - CLICK HERE
|
|
A net big enough to cover and ensnare a person is going to be the size of a large quilt. Carrying more than two nets is about where things get silly just because of the bulky nature of nets. Were I to consider how this might work in real life... to carry two large readied nets you'd end up wearing one over a shoulder and the other in your hands.The sack idea is the only way I can think of carrying more than one folded net and still have it be relatively easy to access. Your character would look fairly interesting with straps criss-crossing your chest and bulky sacks situated at your sides and back.
Something people may not be considering ... is that each net also has 10 feet of thumb-thick rope trailing from it on top of all the hemp twine or whatever the nets are made of. I'm assuming the net in question is much as a net for fishing as what a...
Actually I envisioned it quite a lot smaller and not at all for fishing, much more like a gladiators net, that doesn't necessarily cover the whole person, but more or less 'entangles' him, making it more difficult to continue fighting.
something like this:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~vikink/assets/photos/gladiator_net_triden t.jpg
(sorry no net skills for easy clicking)
Still what is really interesting in my opinion is the interpretation of the rules in the net-section and whether or not you can carry a folded net somewhere other than your hand.
There is no questioning that the net of a retarius gladiator, which is the one we are discussing is far smaller than a fisherman's net, but it is a lot thicker and sturdier.
In depictions (like Astyanax vs. Kalendio) it is able to cover a standing man. Assuming the men depicted are smallish that is a 5' radius net (10' diameter).
|
|
A net big enough to cover and ensnare a person is going to be the size of a large quilt. Carrying more than two nets is about where things get silly just because of the bulky nature of nets. Were I to consider how this might work in real life... to carry two large readied nets you'd end up wearing one over a shoulder and the other in your hands.The sack idea is the only way I can think of carrying more than one folded net and still have it be relatively easy to access. Your character would look fairly interesting with straps criss-crossing your chest and bulky sacks situated at your sides and back.
Something people may not be considering ... is that each net also has 10 feet of thumb-thick rope trailing from it on top of all the hemp twine or whatever the nets are made of. I'm assuming the net in question is much as a net for fishing as what a...
Actually I envisioned it quite a lot smaller and not at all for fishing, much more like a gladiators net, that doesn't necessarily cover the whole person, but more or less 'entangles' him, making it more difficult to continue fighting.
something like this:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~vikink/assets/photos/gladiator_net_triden t.jpg
(sorry no net skills for easy clicking)
Still what is really interesting in my opinion is the interpretation of the rules in the net-section and whether or not you can carry a folded net somewhere other than your hand.
Linkificated. You can find out how to linkify stuff by looking at the BBCodetags under the body of your message.
|
|
I want to be fully honest here and mention that to a lot of people, the notion of introducing real-world physics (whether it's minute details about treasure weight, volume, carrying, conduction in water, wind speed, loaded crossbows or folded nets) is a perfectly valid thing to do in a home game - it is not valid to do in Pathfinder Society.
For all we know crossbows have different technology in Golarion that allows them to be cocked and ready for 24 hours. Or maybe the character has 150 new strings that she could use on a daily basis. It really doesn't matter how it's justified, in the context of Pathfinder Society a character should be allowed to walk around with loaded crossbows and folded nets. The rules don't go into that much detail about the harm of keeping a crossbow loaded or a net in your bag.
As for your arguments about milk-oceans? Actually that is in the rules. Go look up the water rules for drowning. Many situations are actually covered, in some form or another, in the Core Rulebook, however many are not also. For simplicity's sake, many times a DM should just be willing to just gloss over that fact and move on. Examples: dulled blades from attacks (DM rules that attacking with a 1 against a character with full plate dulls his blade), running out of spell components in a spell pouch, critting someone and "cutting their hand off", etc. While these are all real life possibilities, the rules simply don't cover them and per PFS rulings you should just leave it all alone.
In a home game I would wholeheartedly say it's your game, you're the DM, come up with a decision (just try to let people know beforehand). The key for PFS is to bring more people into the game and to let people have fun. As has been shown there are quite a few people that would be quite annoyed at your ruling if they were in your PFS game. If I was playing? It actually probably would annoy me (I personally don't go to that minute detail in my games), but I'd be ok with it at least temporarily. However if it did become a problem (someone died because the net wasn't allowed to get off, etc.) I'd also probably go out of my way to not be at a table with a DM like that.
TLDR Version: Home game is fine. PFS it's a house rule as the rules don't cover it.
P.S. the fighter who specializes in TWF/Rapid Shot of nets would be terrible. Nets are a non-stacking -2 to attack -4 to dex item. You can net someone 10 times and they still only have -2 to attack and -4 to dex. While it is a very nice debuff, that's all it is. And essentially most characters spend an entire round to get that off, and an enemy can simply make a strength check/do damage to get rid of it.
P.S. the fighter who specializes in TWF/Rapid Shot of nets would be terrible. Nets are a non-stacking -2 to attack -4 to dex item. You can net someone 10 times and they still only have -2 to attack and -4 to dex. While it is a very nice debuff, that's all it is. And essentially most characters spend an entire round to get that off, and an enemy can simply make a strength check/do damage to get rid of it.
Maybe you are right. I never thought that one through.
But getting rid of 10 nets can be very time consuming. Also many characters would instantly become encumbered if they had 60 lbs. worth of net thrown on them.For a TWF specialist throwing a stack of nets in round one would be pretty easy even without exotic weapon proficiency
|
|
P.S. the fighter who specializes in TWF/Rapid Shot of nets would be terrible. Nets are a non-stacking -2 to attack -4 to dex item. You can net someone 10 times and they still only have -2 to attack and -4 to dex. While it is a very nice debuff, that's all it is. And essentially most characters spend an entire round to get that off, and an enemy can simply make a strength check/do damage to get rid of it.Maybe you are right. I never thought that one through.
But getting rid of 10 nets can be very time consuming. Also many characters would instantly become encumbered if they had 60 lbs. worth of net thrown on them.
For a TWF specialist throwing a stack of nets in round one would be pretty easy even without exotic weapon proficiency
Actually, you aren't carrying the nets... this is extrapolating that you're carrying the nets, which you aren't. They're connected to you giving you the entangled condition, which already accounts for its weight. Adding 10 nets to someone would still just give them the entangled condition - again in a home game you could house rule that it encumbers, but these physics rules work both ways, which evens out in the end.
Furthermore, those 10 nets had to be held by the thrower in the first place... who probably started out as quite encumbered to hold his 10 nets (remember, he's a dex based character too for throwing, so it's even worse on him).
Actually, you aren't carrying the nets...
You lost me there... :o
The net entangles you... you don't carry it. I doesn't count towards the defender's (person thrown at) weight.Actually, you aren't carrying the nets...You lost me there... :o
I know what you wrote. We are just at a very fundamental disagreement on that, which makes further discussion a mute point.
I want to be fully honest here and mention that to a lot of people, the notion of introducing real-world physics (whether it's minute details about treasure weight, volume, carrying, conduction in water, wind speed, loaded crossbows or folded nets) is a perfectly valid thing to do in a home game - it is not valid to do in Pathfinder Society.
Except that there are encumbrance rules, and sizes and capacities of containers for the carriage of equipment are detailed. Therefore, treasure weight and volume IS valid to do in PFS games yeah?
Ditto with wind speed, as they factor that into penalties for ranged weapons.
Those aren't 'minute', those are game altering.
I see you are of the school of players who believe a character cannot drown in milk and that holding your breath without being anywhere near a fluid body is potentially lethal.Physics is a house rule. Crossbows stay loaded until they are unloaded as an action or fired, because the rules don't tell you that the bolt falls out and physics is a house rule. Nets stay folded until they are unfolded as an action or thrown, because the rules don't tell you that storing a net fouls it and physics is a house rule.
If the rules don't tell you to do it, don't do it. It makes life much, much easier when you don't start inventing new rules out of thin air that may be more "realistic" but only serve to make niche weapons even more worthless. Crossbows and nets already suck. Why the hell would anyone want to make them suck even more?
Very, very poor straw men. The rules very specifically state the following:
It is possible to drown in substances other than water, such as sand, quicksand, fine dust, and silos full of grain.
So, "cannot drown in milk" is obviously covered by the rules.
and
Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds equal to twice her Constitution score. If a character takes a standard or full-round action, the remaining duration that the character can hold her breath is reduced by 1 round. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check every round in order to continue holding her breath. Each round, the DC increases by 1.
When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns.
Nowhere in those rules is fluid even mentioned, and the real-life definition of drowning does not require liquid to be present. So, "the penalty for not being able to breathe" is obviously covered by the rules, even when not in a fluid body.
Now, do you care to make an actual argument instead of resorting to misrepresenting my position and making up situations that you imply aren't covered by the rules when, actually, they are covered by the rules?
I *think* the assertion was that contra to the rules, it is not actually physically possible to hold your breath until you die. You actually have to drown or suffocate.
I *think* the assertion was that contra to the rules, it is not actually physically possible to hold your breath until you die. You actually have to drown or suffocate.
That's an even stupider assertion. At least drowning in milk could conceivably come up in a game. Auto-suffocation by holding one's breath is totally outside what the rules are designed to deal with. OF COURSE they don't deal with it! That's a straw man from the Oort Cloud, it's so far out in left field. If a character wants to suicide, they can coup de grace themselves and intentionally fail the Fortitude save. No need to delve into the suffocation/drowning rules.
That's an even stupider assertion.
Hey I'm just reading between the lines at what is being suggested, I don't take ownership of the IP or any conflicts contained therein :p
I see you are of the school of players who believe a character cannot drown in milk and that holding your breath without being anywhere near a fluid body is potentially lethal.Physics is a house rule. Crossbows stay loaded until they are unloaded as an action or fired, because the rules don't tell you that the bolt falls out and physics is a house rule. Nets stay folded until they are unfolded as an action or thrown, because the rules don't tell you that storing a net fouls it and physics is a house rule.
If the rules don't tell you to do it, don't do it. It makes life much, much easier when you don't start inventing new rules out of thin air that may be more "realistic" but only serve to make niche weapons even more worthless. Crossbows and nets already suck. Why the hell would anyone want to make them suck even more?
Very, very poor straw men. The rules very specifically state the following:
It is possible to drown in substances other than water, such as sand, quicksand, fine dust, and silos full of grain.So, "cannot drown in milk" is obviously covered by the rules.
True bad call on my part.
Now, do you care to make an actual argument instead of resorting to misrepresenting my position and making up situations that you imply aren't covered by the rules when, actually, they are covered by the rules?
Also the drowning rules if read separately from the Water Dangers section imply that a character failing to hold his breath drowns and falls unconscious with 0 hp. What if my character is sitting in a tavern and having a breath holding contest. Does that mean my character immediately passes out and starts drowning when I cannot hold my breath?
RAW is never an excuse to disregard fundamental physics or common sense.
I *think* the assertion was that contra to the rules, it is not actually physically possible to hold your breath until you die. You actually have to drown or suffocate.That's an even stupider assertion. At least drowning in milk could conceivably come up in a game. Auto-suffocation by holding one's breath is totally outside what the rules are designed to deal with. OF COURSE they don't deal with it! That's a straw man from the Oort Cloud, it's so far out in left field. If a character wants to suicide, they can coup de grace themselves and intentionally fail the Fortitude save. No need to delve into the suffocation/drowning rules.
Drowning
Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds
equal to twice her Constitution score. If a character takes
a standard or full-round action, the remaining duration
that the character can hold her breath is reduced by 1
round. After this period of time, the character must
make a DC 10 Constitution check every round in order
to continue holding her breath. Each round, the DC
increases by 1.
When the character finally fails her Constitution
check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls
unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops
to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she
drowns.
By RAW if you hold your breath long enough you die. Nothing is mentioned about having to be submerged.
As Shifty said, contra to the rules, it is not actually physically possible to hold your breath until you die. At least not in the real world. And I expect that anyone would be able to let common sense and medical science overrule a rule taken out of context.
EDIT:
Another example of RAW misinterpretation would be consenting the party cleric to use create water spells to drown enemies in combat.
To most this would seem a moronic attempt at twisting the RAW but to others (actual experience) it is a legitimate use of RAW.
And to get back on topic:
Some things are specifically explained in the RAW while others are taken for granted do not need explaining.
This is where crossbows and nets land in a grey zone where players can have perfectly good arguments either way and official rulings are necesary for cases of non-home games.
Another example of RAW misinterpretation would be consenting the party cleric to use create water spells to drown enemies in combat.
This is specifically forbidden by the rules:
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.
Once more, please stop with the straw men. Especially the straw men that are already covered by the rules and thus fail even as straw men.
|
|
By RAW if you hold your breath long enough you die. Nothing is mentioned about having to be submerged.
As Shifty said, contra to the rules, it is not actually physically possible to hold your breath until you die. At least not in the real world. And I expect that anyone would be able to let common sense and medical science overrule a rule taken out of context.
RAW you go unconscious when you fail your save. Once unconscious you are no longer holding your breath as it requires conscious action. It is impossible to hold your breath to die, RAW, just as in real life.