Interpreting Paizo's 3.5 Statblocks


3.5/d20/OGL


Hi,

I'm currently running Age of Worms, and I've got a question for those more familiar with using the stat block format that Paizo used in Dungeon back then.

There is a "Combat Gear" section aside from the regular equipment section. Is the implication supposed to be that the "Combat Gear" is more readily accessible than the other equipment? Normally, retrieving an item from a stored location is a move equivalent action that incurs an attack of opportunity. Is the implication supposed to be that the Combat Gear is not "stowed" but rather ready for battle and doesn't incur an attack of opportunity (or use a move action) to retrieve? Or is it still considered stored away?

Thanks,
Greg


I think it just means "equipment which might be useful in combat". There's not really anything special about how it's stored, although I'd presume that a "combat gear" potion wouldn't be hidden in a locked box in the bottom of a backpack, for instance.


hogarth wrote:
I think it just means "equipment which might be useful in combat". There's not really anything special about how it's stored, although I'd presume that a "combat gear" potion wouldn't be hidden in a locked box in the bottom of a backpack, for instance.

Agreed.


pres man wrote:
hogarth wrote:
I think it just means "equipment which might be useful in combat". There's not really anything special about how it's stored, although I'd presume that a "combat gear" potion wouldn't be hidden in a locked box in the bottom of a backpack, for instance.
Agreed.

Ok, but does that mean you would rule that it does not incur an attack of opportunity and require a move action to ready?

Just as a flavour thing (and since I seem to be lacking in imagination today) how would you describe these items if they were to be found on a dead body? Since some of these stat blocks have sometimes upwards of 6-8 items in the "combat gear" section, how does an NPC keep these items "ready" without having his hands full?

Not trying to nitpick, I just want to be consistent in how I rule the NPCs and the PCs when they ready items.

Greg


I usually just assume that the default place for a potion (wand, miscellaneous magic item, etc.) is in a pocket or a belt (instead of stored in a backpack somewhere, say) and that retrieving it is a move action that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity (similar to drawing a weapon). YMMV, of course.


Usually combat gear is one time only use (like potions or scrolls), that might play a factor in the tactics block as well. I do not think they are readied any better than normal equipment for the purposes of attacks of opportunity and such.


The "combat gear" section has nothing to do with in game verisimilitude. The "combat gear" section was invented purely because too many DMs ran published adventures, using stat blocks they did not write and were therefore less familiar with, and forgot that, say, a certain cleric in a certain three-faced temple had a certain potion of protection from arrows, which would have made him a really scary boss instead of arrow bait (true story from my time running AoW). It is purely for the convenience of the DM, and doesn't reflect any alteration or special arrangement of the game world's reality.


Saern wrote:
The "combat gear" section has nothing to do with in game verisimilitude. The "combat gear" section was invented purely because too many DMs ran published adventures, using stat blocks they did not write and were therefore less familiar with, and forgot that, say, a certain cleric in a certain three-faced temple had a certain potion of protection from arrows, which would have made him a really scary boss instead of arrow bait (true story from my time running AoW). It is purely for the convenience of the DM, and doesn't reflect any alteration or special arrangement of the game world's reality.

Fair enough. So, what you're saying is "decide for yourself if it's stowed or not".

Thanks,
Greg

Dark Archive

GregH wrote:
Saern wrote:
The "combat gear" section has nothing to do with in game verisimilitude. The "combat gear" section was invented purely because too many DMs ran published adventures, using stat blocks they did not write and were therefore less familiar with, and forgot that, say, a certain cleric in a certain three-faced temple had a certain potion of protection from arrows, which would have made him a really scary boss instead of arrow bait (true story from my time running AoW). It is purely for the convenience of the DM, and doesn't reflect any alteration or special arrangement of the game world's reality.

Fair enough. So, what you're saying is "decide for yourself if it's stowed or not".

Thanks,
Greg

Depending on the situation, the NPC could have readied the items for quick use (eg. alerted or already engaged in combat), or he may need to fumble a bit retrieving them (stealthy approach, ambush along the road).

It's really a thing of DM judgement on a case-by-case basis.


golem101 wrote:

Depending on the situation, the NPC could have readied the items for quick use (eg. alerted or already engaged in combat), or he may need to fumble a bit retrieving them (stealthy approach, ambush along the road).

It's really a thing of DM judgement on a case-by-case basis.

Sure, I get that. It was just a matter of wondering if there was a "game" purpose for that section.

To be honest, when I see an NPC with 4 or 5 potion vials on them, but the only means of carrying items is a "leather pouch with 20gp", I have to sort of sit back and think, "how the hell is he carrying 5 fragile vials of a valuable liquid without a pouch or special belt or what-have you?". So I thought, maybe the "Combat Gear" was meant to imply some special "at-hand" mechanism.

But it seems the consensus is that it's for DM convenience.

Thanks.
Greg


GregH wrote:
To be honest, when I see an NPC with 4 or 5 potion vials on them, but the only means of carrying items is a "leather pouch with 20gp", I have to sort of sit back and think, "how the hell is he carrying 5 fragile vials of a valuable liquid without a pouch or special belt or what-have you?".

To me that's a separate issue: "Why are there no rules for collateral damage and accidentally breaking equipment?"

(It's unrealistic, I agree, but it's not something I really worry about.)


hogarth wrote:
GregH wrote:
To be honest, when I see an NPC with 4 or 5 potion vials on them, but the only means of carrying items is a "leather pouch with 20gp", I have to sort of sit back and think, "how the hell is he carrying 5 fragile vials of a valuable liquid without a pouch or special belt or what-have you?".
To me that's a separate issue: "Why are there no rules for collateral damage and accidentally breaking equipment?"

Well, before even that, it's "how the heck does he manage all this stuff in the first place?"

hogarth wrote:
(It's unrealistic, I agree, but it's not something I really worry about.)

I agree, but I am a little sticky with my PCs when they go rummaging for items while they are being threatened. I just want to make sure I hold the NCPs to the same standard, but at the same time give them a fighting chance to use those items.

For instance, if you are cornered and you're down to your last 5 hp, whether you incur an attack of opportunity or not while going for that potion of cure serious wounds will make or break it.

Greg


I tried implementing bandoleers and such to keep track more closely of the items the party had at the ready. They rebelled and said "We're all allowed one free set of clothes at the beginning of the game. We're adventurers. Isn't it possible to assume the clothes we have include something like pockets or a belt with pouches?" It became more of a struggle than it was worth with them to argue for keeping track of that kind of thing. If it was an obviously combat item, such as a potion or scroll or wand, it was assumed to be somewhere readily accessible because the adventurer would have made certain of that before leaving town. I can see other groups paying more attention to where object X is located, but my players broke me of the habit so early, it rarely even enters my consciousness anymore. I know it's not the most "realistic" system in many interpretations, but theirs regarding the frequency of appropriate pouches and storage space made sense enough and didn't hurt our games.

Regarding the afore-posited scenario of going for a potion when low on HP and needing to know the outcome of an AoO to see if the character lives or dies: This was different for us because we were so used to thinking of drinking a potion as a move action from 3.0 that we didn't notice the change to a standard in 3.5, and when we did, decided to keep the old version as a house rule. Yes, it technically allowed a character to get two spell effects active in a single round, but it was more dangerous in combat.

So, the players argued, if we were going to run things that way, then going for the potion would provoke AoO, and so would drinking it. It might be worth the risk if there is only one provoked AoO, but with two, the action economy didn't favor even attempting the potion, meaning it was effectively useless to them and they might as well just attack or try withdrawing to an ally (which was not always a good option). So being less picky about where the potion was stored and how long it took to retrieve and whether that provoked AoO favored them because it reduced the AoO under our system to one. In fact, reflecting on that decision, I think the potion action economy is what drove their logic more than anything else. I have no problem with changing a rule like that based on game balance issues rather than "realism," since the game already does that very thing in so many places.

Spoiler:
Though in hindsight, I suppose unless the enemy or enemies had Combat Reflexes, it would be extremely unlikely they would actually get two AoO against the potion-drinking PC. In which case, a lot of their logic just went out the window. Hunh.

Liberty's Edge

GregH wrote:

Hi,

I'm currently running Age of Worms, and I've got a question for those more familiar with using the stat block format that Paizo used in Dungeon back then.

There is a "Combat Gear" section aside from the regular equipment section. Is the implication supposed to be that the "Combat Gear" is more readily accessible than the other equipment? Normally, retrieving an item from a stored location is a move equivalent action that incurs an attack of opportunity. Is the implication supposed to be that the Combat Gear is not "stowed" but rather ready for battle and doesn't incur an attack of opportunity (or use a move action) to retrieve? Or is it still considered stored away?

Thanks,
Greg

The statblock format that you're talking about was introduced in Monster Manual IV, if I remember correctly. The standard in this format is that Combat Gear is the list of items that might be usable in combat, and the Possessions line is other stuff is of value and/or plot interest. In general, neither line includes mundane stuff such as storage equipment. The possessions line can include backpacks, pouches, bandoliers, etc., if the author chose to include them. The statblock standard does not address storage or accessibility.

I think it is reasonable to assume that the combat gear items are stored in the same basic assessable way that a PC stores such gear. If you give PCs limits, then give the NPC limits. It should only come up if your limits are such that NPCs regularly have more Combat Gear resources than your limits permit. If you are setting those limits lower, and it is important to you, then you might occasionally have to decide in advance which are stored in a way that easy access isn't sufficient.


Saern wrote:
I tried implementing bandoleers and such to keep track more closely of the items the party had at the ready. They rebelled and said "We're all allowed one free set of clothes at the beginning of the game. We're adventurers. Isn't it possible to assume the clothes we have include something like pockets or a belt with pouches?" It became more of a struggle than it was worth with them to argue for keeping track of that kind of thing. If it was an obviously combat item, such as a potion or scroll or wand, it was assumed to be somewhere readily accessible because the adventurer would have made certain of that before leaving town.

There's also the fact that drawing a weapon is a move action (or a free action when combined with a move if your BAB is +1 or more). My players felt it odd that the fighter's sword should be readily available but not the wizard's wand (and, even more oddly, that the wizard's dagger should be more available than her wand). The house rule we adopted in the end was for each PC to have four "quick-draw slots" for items they wanted to be able to grab in a hurry while in combat.


Callum wrote:
There's also the fact that drawing a weapon is a move action (or a free action when combined with a move if your BAB is +1 or more). My players felt it odd that the fighter's sword should be readily available but not the wizard's wand (and, even more oddly, that the wizard's dagger should be more available than her wand).

A fair point. I'm pretty sure none of my PC have a "scabbard" in their inventory. In fact, a few of them have long spears which we have been hand waving the quick draw over.

The more I think about it, the more inconsistent I seem to have been.

Callum wrote:
The house rule we adopted in the end was for each PC to have four "quick-draw slots" for items they wanted to be able to grab in a hurry while in combat.

Interesting idea.

Greg


Saern wrote:
So, the players argued, if we were going to run things that way, then going for the potion would provoke AoO, and so would drinking it. It might be worth the risk if there is only one provoked AoO, but with two, the action economy didn't favor even attempting the potion, meaning it was effectively useless to them and they might as well just attack or try withdrawing to an ally (which was not always a good option). So being less picky about where the potion was stored and how long it took to retrieve and whether that provoked AoO under our system to one.

But, according to 3.5 SRD ("Use-Activated Items"), drinking a potion does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If the potion is "at hand" then it can be retrieved and drunk without incurring an AoO.

Or am I mis-reading you? (You want drinking it to be an AoO?)

Greg


hogarth wrote:
I usually just assume that the default place for a potion (wand, miscellaneous magic item, etc.) is in a pocket or a belt

I always keep the most important ones in my mouth, in edible potion shells. One crunch and I'm juiced up!

To see me with gerbil cheeks is to see me on the warpath!


GregH wrote:
Saern wrote:
So, the players argued, if we were going to run things that way, then going for the potion would provoke AoO, and so would drinking it. It might be worth the risk if there is only one provoked AoO, but with two, the action economy didn't favor even attempting the potion, meaning it was effectively useless to them and they might as well just attack or try withdrawing to an ally (which was not always a good option). So being less picky about where the potion was stored and how long it took to retrieve and whether that provoked AoO under our system to one.

But, according to 3.5 SRD ("Use-Activated Items"), drinking a potion does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If the potion is "at hand" then it can be retrieved and drunk without incurring an AoO.

Or am I mis-reading you? (You want drinking it to be an AoO?)

Greg

Under "Potions" in the magic item section of the SRD:

SRD wrote:

Activation

Drinking a potion or applying an oil requires no special skill. The user merely removes the stopper and swallows the potion or smears on the oil. The following rules govern potion and oil use.

Drinking a potion or using an oil on an item of gear is a standard action. The potion or oil takes effect immediately. Using a potion or oil provokes attacks of opportunity.


hogarth wrote:


Under "Potions" in the magic item section of the SRD:

SRD wrote:

Activation

Drinking a potion or applying an oil requires no special skill. The user merely removes the stopper and swallows the potion or smears on the oil. The following rules govern potion and oil use.

Drinking a potion or using an oil on an item of gear is a standard action. The potion or oil takes effect immediately. Using a potion or oil provokes attacks of opportunity.

And yet, under "Using Items - Use-Activated" it says:

"This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory."

(Emphasis mine) - and then the link I gave above under "Actions - Use Activated".

"Spell Trigger, Command Word, or Use-Activated Items

Activating any of these kinds of items does not require concentration and does not provoke attacks of opportunity."

Not consistent at all. Harumph. Your link trumps, I suspect.

Greg

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / Interpreting Paizo's 3.5 Statblocks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 3.5/d20/OGL