What Constitutes Wielding, Wearing, and Using (aka. Equipped vs. Having On)


Rules Questions


7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ.

In numerous instances throughout the Core Rule book and subsequent books, references to wielding, wearing, and using are prevalent.

In a recent topic, it has been suggested that jamming a metal helm on a Druid, or suiting him up in metal armor while he's helpless, can strip him/her of Spellcasting for 24 hours, as per this line in the PRD ...

"Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor. A druid may also wear wooden armor that has been altered by the ironwood spell so that it functions as though it were steel. Druids are proficient with shields (except tower shields) but must use only those crafted from wood.

A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter."

My opinion is, going by RAW and using the RAW terms 'wielding' a weapon, 'wearing' armor, and 'using' a shield are descriptors for equipping these types of equipment to benefit from its functionality. I'm having a difficult time accepting just having it on, in the case of the Druid, is a violation of their prohibition, especially in the case of the helmet or unconscious suiting up.

I'd really like to see some official clarification on this to reduce the amount of 'cheese' by considering this action/result is playing by RAW.

What are your thoughts?


Noah Fentz wrote:
What are your thoughts?

Holding a shield =/= using/donning a shield.

Holding armor =/= wearing/donning armor
Holding a weapon =/= wielding a weapon

Yes, a druid can hold armor...

RAW if you did suit someone up in armor they'd be taking advantage of the armor and fit the descriptors of the Druid passage you cited. Because they have equipped (albeit forcefully) armor.

However, this is why there is a GM to adjudicate games. In my opinion there would be no negative effects until the Druid regained consciousness. If the druid did not immediately try to remove the prohibited items or if the druid attempted to utilize their defensive benefits they would then be subject to the penalty of losing their class abilites. Basically, if they are an unwilling participant then no penalties.

However, if a druid that was somehow compelled... well I guess that's a different thread :)

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

To me the concept of knocking out a druid and strapping him into metal armor to neutralize his powers is a cool story element. I don't think strapping a shield to his arm is enough but I'll let the rules lawyers argue that point.

I don't see it as being different from separating a wizard from his material components or spellbook.

Liberty's Edge

I don't know why it would happen[/sarcasm off] but I predict that the sales of complicated headwear that require more than 1 round to remove will become the rage between druids.

And the use of small wooden shields, as switching shields will allow them to delay donning the metal one. (as strange at it can seem, if you would be using less actions if you had a large shield as you are forced to free your other hand off turn to accept the gift, while if you have a small shield you can accept the gift with the shield hand)

Stynkk wrote:


However, this is why there is a GM to adjudicate games.

The problem is Society play. In hour house games we can rule as we wish.


That's it! My armorer will go into the business of manacled headgear. I will make a killing in the anti-treehugger movement.

All joking aside. If a druid was helpless and they put a set of armor on him...yes he looses his powers. If he is just carrying the armor to sell it later....nope still a mean old hippy spellcaster.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dennis Baker wrote:

To me the concept of knocking out a druid and strapping him into metal armor to neutralize his powers is a cool story element. I don't think strapping a shield to his arm is enough but I'll let the rules lawyers argue that point.

I don't see it as being different from separating a wizard from his material components or spellbook.

It's a considerable difference for the following reasons.

1. The Wizard loses any negatives the moment he gets his articles back.

2. Loss of a spellbook has no immediate impact until the wizard is looking to recharge. He still has the memorised spells in his head ready to fire.

3. Not all wizard spells require a material component. Those that are M free can still be cast quite freely.

Conversely a Druid who violates his oaths, loses his powers with no appeal for 24 hours. Which can mean the loss of two days worth of spells among other things. So sneaking up behind a druid and popping an iron helm on his head isn't going to pass by me as an instant win maneuver as long as the Druid dedicates his next available action to removing it.


I wouldn't penalize a druid for anything less than willfully using/wearing metal armor, metal shields, or the wrong weapons. Trying to jam a metal helmet on a druid during a grapple, putting metal armor on a helpless druid - none of that should count. The druid has to intentionally use the items to violate his requirements.

That said, I would count a dominated or otherwise enchanted will as willfully using said contraband objects.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:

I wouldn't penalize a druid for anything less than willfully using/wearing metal armor, metal shields, or the wrong weapons. Trying to jam a metal helmet on a druid during a grapple, putting metal armor on a helpless druid - none of that should count. The druid has to intentionally use the items to violate his requirements.

That said, I would count a dominated or otherwise enchanted will as willfully using said contraband objects.

True but if I was going to the trouble of dominating a druid, the last thing I'd want to do is to make my new tool useless.

The Exchange

Noah Fentz wrote:

I'd really like to see some official clarification on this to reduce the amount of 'cheese' by considering this action/result is playing by RAW.

What are your thoughts?

While there is some excellent reasoning above (especially since much of it is reasonable in that a druid must willfully use the items as opposed to having a helmet jammed on their head and being sol), your question reminded me a lot of the defending weapon clarification in the core FAQ that might also aid you:

Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no effect.

SKR

I would focus on the "have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed" as the closest I think you'll find for some official clarification regarding wielding/using vs. simply holding.


LazarX wrote:
So sneaking up behind a druid and popping an iron helm on his head isn't going to pass by me as an instant win maneuver as long as the Druid dedicates his next available action to removing it.

If a rogue can manage to be stealthy enough to sneak up behind both the druid AND it's pet, and manages to properly affix the helm to the Druid's head (assuming he's not wearing a wooden/leather helm to begin with), then he deserves to get away with something awesome, and deal with the consequences of a pissed off 3/4BAB character with a pet.


"Wearing" and "using" are more or less straightforward to me. "Wielding" is the tricky one, especially when it comes to things like armor spikes, boot blades, spiked gauntlets, spiked shields, etc.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Useful definitions:

When you have your sword hanging from your belt you are wearing it. You are also bearing it. You are also bearing the sword if it's stuck in a backpack or a handy haversack that you are wearing.

When you have your sword in hand either looking for, or expecting a fight, in other words ready to swing, you are wielding it.

When you are hacking people with your sword you are using it. It's also considered wielding it as well.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

For what it's worth I don't worry a whole lot about the consequences of things that would never happen in my game. Jamming a helmet onto a druid's head to short out his power is not something I would ever do, and not something I would allow my players to do.

Dressing an unconscious/ helpless druid in armor IS something that might happen conceivably which is the reason I mentioned that being possible. Granted, it's is hugely unlikely, but it's possible. I would consider that under the same circumstances I might consider separating a cleric from her holy symbol or a wizard from his arcane bond and spellbook. Which is to say... when I think it would make for a cool story.

If my players wanted to suppress the powers of a druid and came up with this I would similarly let it fly.


I would let it go if the player devised a good plan to get the druid to wear a steel shield or helmet.

And that plan won't be an auto success. Let say a rogue want to sneak behind the druid and put the helmet on him. He first will have to beat both the druid and his animal companion perception, then success a touch attack (with a penalty to his roll as he target a specific body part). Doing so might also provide an attack of opportunity. If he manage to pull the trick, then the druid will loose his power.

The same goes if a caster try to dominate/charm the druid to use a steel shield. On top of the saving throw allow by the spell I would allow a last will check on the first round of the charm or domination to see if the druid regain enough sense to not use the metallic object.


Noah Fentz wrote:

In a recent topic, it has been suggested that jamming a metal helm on a Druid, or suiting him up in metal armor while he's helpless, can strip him/her of Spellcasting for 24 hours, as per this line in the PRD ...

...

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that, whether intentional, accidental, or forced, if a Druid wears metal armor, they become tainted, the same way a Rabbi would be tainted if they were forcefed or tricked into eating a pork chop.

The taint is what must be cleansed through natural consequence (24 hours in the case of the druid) or via Atonement.

As for what constitutes metal armor, I say anything that provides any mechanical protective advantage, and is made of metal. Thus, a helm alone (which has no listed protective game mechanics) does not qualify.

To use hindsight to backpedal and invent a reason "why" a helm doesn't work, I claim that the metal must be substantial enough (which is why they can use some metal weapons) to warrant certain nature-destroying manufacturing or processing methods. A helm, or a scimitar, are small enough to not require such methods, but a chain shirt or small steel shield is (in the Druid-populated fantasy worlds).


Thanks for the replies. Hopefully, we can get the official word on this.

A few things I'd like to reply to ...

...

  • The wearing of vs. 'having on' in my mind is a matter of intent, so I suppose it's a matter of willful or not, ultimately.

  • Who said anything about sneaking up? A few PC's surrounding the Druid, and it wouldn't be a stretch to jam on a helmet in a grapple situation.

  • Many suits of armor come with a helm as part of their protection. Whether or not it has a protective value in game terms, it's still armor, I feel.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Noah Fentz wrote:

Thanks for the replies. Hopefully, we can get the official word on this.

A few things I'd like to reply to ...

...

  • The wearing of vs. 'having on' in my mind is a matter of intent, so I suppose it's a matter of willful or not, ultimately.
  • Redefining common terms because you don't like something is just silly.

    If you have pants on you are wearing them. It doesn't matter if you "intended" to put them on or not. Similarly, if you have armor on you are wearing it. If you don't like it just house rule it and get over it.


    Noah Fentz wrote:


    The wearing of vs. 'having on' in my mind is a matter of intent, so I suppose it's a matter of willful or not, ultimately.

    This is the one aspect I don't think there's any room for debate on, I believe the rules on this one are crystal clear. I believe that using a verbage that doesn't exist in the rules to try to differentiate between "willful" and "unwilling" weakens your position regarding other aspects.

    Noah Fentz wrote:


  • Who said anything about sneaking up? A few PC's surrounding the Druid, and it wouldn't be a stretch to jam on a helmet in a grapple situation.

  • Many suits of armor come with a helm as part of their protection. Whether or not it has a protective value in game terms, it's still armor, I feel.[/list]
  • This is one thing in that I would disagree with you, but to support your position regarding druid oaths. Helmets of any specific kind don't exist on any armor table (to the best of my knowledge) and don't exist in the magic armor section. Helmets do not even exist as their own entity as an option in the optional piecemeal armor rules. You cannot buy just a mundane helmet. They are, in the English language, "armor", but they don't exist as an entity inside of the rules (non-magical versions, that is)

    Thus, to me, a helmet in and of itself does not constitute "armor" in the sense of breaking a druid's oath, willing or unwillingly worn. Magical helmets seem to be universally classified as Wondrous Items, barring any oddities or outlying items.


    I think people also forget. Being knocked out or helpless is not actually 100% the case. A person who is knocked out and laying on the ground does not change the ac of the person other than dex and the negatives etc for being prone. A person trying to stike or attack that person will have to hit an ac that calculates the armor being worn. So as soon as it is Donned and in the case of a shield, held, it adds ac. period and therefore is being used. Now the shield laying on the ground in a persons hand is not being used since a shield has to be held and manipulated to get ac. That is why you cant just strap a shield to your back and get its effect. The only execeptions would be Place a hand on a Tower shields straps so as to holding it while at the same time positioning shield to have cover. Again these are the only really passive use of a shield. Which that in itself can be interesting if a GM really wanted to dick a player druid, penalize him for ducking behind a tower shield since it could be inertpreted as using it,(to get cover) regardless of the person actually holding it.

    (if that works.. why go through trouble of knocking guy out and then giving him items, could theoretically just run up to him turn shield on everyone else and have team member fire an attack which would be affected by the shields cover.) The problem with rules is they are never 100% clear because you can never anticipate what the players may do.


    By the rules, he should lose his powers.

    But I'm picturing the druid spontaneously growing some antlers as the Power granting the druid her powers chooses to defend the druid's oath. I'm just saying the GM has options, including the ability to have the Power forgive a transgression. Maybe she'll have to pay back the favour in some way... story opportunity!


    Now here is where I love my wife. Her opinion on this is simple, in the case of the druid being knocked out or helpless when you "Don" the items. or being cohersed into using it, (charm person etc.). The Nature spirit would most likely see the actions and no harm would befall the Druid so long as they removed those items on their action (once they get one). Same goes for Paldins that are forced to break their codes because of spells that are mentally affecting them that is why there is the whole Willingly clause for them. I think its something that has always been Ommitted from the Druid. I mean really its hard to get a person to do something they wouldnt normally do.. most mind control spells actually say that if doing something that they would not normally do (like wear metal) they get another save etc.. That is why most people on this subject are discussing helpless foes. A GM is the final say so. If they rule the Nature spirit saw through the ruse and does not penalize that is their choice. if they rule it stops druid.. then it stops. I would use the rule that it will not work..except for the 1 bard spell that is broken.


    William Brewer wrote:
    Now here is where I love my wife. Her opinion on this is simple,(...) Same goes for Paldins that are forced to break their codes because of spells that are mentally affecting them that is why there is the whole Willingly clause for them.

    No offense is intended, but your wife's opinion on the subject is not really relevant without RAW evidence to support it, especially when she starts talking about how a cosmological entity would choose to view things. What is relevant is the information that is actually printed in the book from a RAW standpoint. To sum up why this is the case, your wife is incorrect from a RAW standpoint on numerous things in this paragraph, but she is using her GM perogative to hand-waive numerous things that are commonly hand-waived. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is NOT RAW. A paladin who breaks their Paladin code while charmed loses all paladin abilities, period. The difference is the Atonement spell that is required does not require the expensive material components. The only protection against being unwilling is for "committing evil acts."

    There has already been a minimum of 5 pages about willing versus unwilling in the "Hand a druid a steel shield" thread. Let's try to keep this one on the subject of RAW instead of "here's how I think it should work."

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Noah Fentz wrote:


  • Who said anything about sneaking up? A few PC's surrounding the Druid, and it wouldn't be a stretch to jam on a helmet in a grapple situation.

  • In that situation why complicate things? You're describing a typical setup where a bunch of PC's beat down on a lone caster. Just by standard tactics the caster is either dead or unconcious depending on what the party is going to do.


    Robb Smith wrote:
    William Brewer wrote:
    Now here is where I love my wife. Her opinion on this is simple,(...) Same goes for Paldins that are forced to break their codes because of spells that are mentally affecting them that is why there is the whole Willingly clause for them.

    No offense is intended, but your wife's opinion on the subject is not really relevant without RAW evidence to support it, especially when she starts talking about how a cosmological entity would choose to view things. What is relevant is the information that is actually printed in the book from a RAW standpoint. To sum up why this is the case, your wife is incorrect from a RAW standpoint on numerous things in this paragraph, but she is using her GM perogative to hand-waive numerous things that are commonly hand-waived. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is NOT RAW. A paladin who breaks their Paladin code while charmed loses all paladin abilities, period. The difference is the Atonement spell that is required does not require the expensive material components. The only protection against being unwilling is for "committing evil acts."

    There has already been a minimum of 5 pages about willing versus unwilling in the "Hand a druid a steel shield" thread. Let's try to keep this one on the subject of RAW instead of "here's how I think it should work."

    Any GM who uses RAW only as there rules is going to find themselves in trouble. Again I have said it before, the books cannot come up with every scenario that can occur in a game, and this is what a Good GM has to consider. IF you want a great example, grab the core book and find rules on missing with splash weapons, it somehow was left out, so you have to grab a 3.5 book to get the little chart showing how to calculate misses. And this is just 1 of many errors or missing info that should be there.

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    William Brewer wrote:
    IF you want a great example, grab the core book and find rules on missing with splash weapons, it somehow was left out, so you have to grab a 3.5 book to get the little chart showing how to calculate misses. And this is just 1 of many errors or missing info that should be there.
    Pathfinder Rules wrote:
    If you miss the target (whether aiming at a creature or a grid intersection), roll 1d8. This determines the misdirection of the throw, with 1 falling short (off-target in a straight line toward the thrower), and 2 through 8 rotating around the target creature or grid intersection in a clockwise direction. Then, count a number of squares in the indicated direction equal to the range increment of the throw. After you determine where the weapon landed, it deals splash damage to all creatures in that square and in all adjacent squares.

    So yeah, if you fail to read the RAW and then try to rely on whatever RAW you happened to encounter by accident, you'll run into trouble as you say. Or, you could RTFM and not have nearly as many gaps to fill in as you seem to think. ;)

    EDIT: That came across with a higher snark quotient than I intended. Sorry. You only deserved a little bit of snark. :)


    Dennis Baker wrote:
    Noah Fentz wrote:

    Thanks for the replies. Hopefully, we can get the official word on this.

    A few things I'd like to reply to ...

    ...

  • The wearing of vs. 'having on' in my mind is a matter of intent, so I suppose it's a matter of willful or not, ultimately.
  • Redefining common terms because you don't like something is just silly.

    If you have pants on you are wearing them. It doesn't matter if you "intended" to put them on or not. Similarly, if you have armor on you are wearing it. If you don't like it just house rule it and get over it.

    Not trying to redefine at all, trying to clarify. We play 'by the book' as much as possible, and this could apply to many other things in game as new supplements and rules come out. May as well clarify it now.

    I strongly believe the intent of the 'Druidic Oath' being broken is by the willful use, so is wearing in the traditional sense, i.e. having on, using?

    ---------------

    If we're going to play the definition game ...

    Use, verb: Take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result; employ.

    When one is unconscious, it's IMPOSSIBLE to use anything, so I don't buy the whole 'it's on, so it's being used arguments, either.'


    Noah Fentz wrote:

    If we're going to play the definition game ...

    Ok, for the record, you went there first.

    Webster's 1913 Dictionary of the English Language wrote:

    Synonym \Syn"o*nym\ (s[i^]n"[-o]*n[i^]m), n.; pl. Synonyms

    (s[i^]n"[-o]*n[i^]mz). [F. synonyme, L. synonyma, pl. of
    synonymum, Gr. synw`nymon. See Synonymous.]
    1. One of two or more words (commonly words of the same
    language) which are equivalents of each other; one of two
    or more words which have very nearly the same
    signification, and therefore may often be used
    interchangeably.
    See under Synonymous. [Written also
    synonyme.]
    [1913 Webster]
    Roget's Thesaurus wrote:

    Main Entry: wear

    Part of Speech: verb
    Definition: be clothed in
    Synonyms: array, attire, be dressed in, bear, carry, clothe oneself, cover, display, don, draw on, dress in, effect, exhibit, fit out, get into, get on, harness, have on, put on, show, slip on, sport, suit up, turn out, wrap
    Antonyms: disrobe, take off


    Robb Smith wrote:
    Noah Fentz wrote:

    If we're going to play the definition game ...

    Ok, for the record, you went there first.

    Webster's 1913 Dictionary of the English Language wrote:

    Synonym \Syn"o*nym\ (s[i^]n"[-o]*n[i^]m), n.; pl. Synonyms

    (s[i^]n"[-o]*n[i^]mz). [F. synonyme, L. synonyma, pl. of
    synonymum, Gr. synw`nymon. See Synonymous.]
    1. One of two or more words (commonly words of the same
    language) which are equivalents of each other; one of two
    or more words which have very nearly the same
    signification, and therefore may often be used
    interchangeably.
    See under Synonymous. [Written also
    synonyme.]
    [1913 Webster]
    Roget's Thesaurus wrote:

    Main Entry: wear

    Part of Speech: verb
    Definition: be clothed in
    Synonyms: array, attire, be dressed in, bear, carry, clothe oneself, cover, display, don, draw on, dress in, effect, exhibit, fit out, get into, get on, harness, have on, put on, show, slip on, sport, suit up, turn out, wrap
    Antonyms: disrobe, take off

    You're opening a whole new can of worms if all synonyms now count in interpreting rules.

    Not a good idea.


    Noah Fentz wrote:

    You're opening a whole new can of worms if all synonyms now count in interpreting rules.

    Not a good idea.

    My point is that you continue to attempt to use new verbage to describe actions that doesn't exist inside the ruleset. You're pulling synonyms like "having on" to describe the act of wearing armor to differentiate willingness, when at no point do the rules describe any sort of difference between "having on" armor and "wearing" armor.

    You're trying to argue the definition of the word "use" does not actively include a specific word, because it utilizes has more commonly used synonyms then "equip", "don", or "wield". You can't say the definition of "use" is "to use something", because you can't use a word to define itself in a dictionary. It's like the famous (oft misinterpreted) quote from President Clinton "that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. What he meant by that is "what synonym are you thinking of to describe the verb "to be".


    Robb Smith wrote:
    Noah Fentz wrote:

    You're opening a whole new can of worms if all synonyms now count in interpreting rules.

    Not a good idea.

    My point is that you continue to attempt to use new verbage to describe actions that doesn't exist inside the ruleset. You're pulling synonyms like "having on" to describe the act of wearing armor to differentiate willingness, when at no point do the rules describe any sort of difference between "having on" armor and "wearing" armor.

    You're trying to argue the definition of the word "use" does not actively include a specific word, because it utilizes has more commonly used synonyms then "equip", "don", or "wield". You can't say the definition of "use" is "to use something", because you can't use a word to define itself in a dictionary. It's like the famous (oft misinterpreted) quote from President Clinton "that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. What he meant by that is "what synonym are you thinking of to describe the verb "to be".

    Again arguments sake, uncoincess and helpless creatures and people lieing prone still have to add ac from armor. regardless of intent to have it on, it is there and counts toward ac, unless they have an armor bonus from another source that is overriding the ac. At that point it can get grey. I mean really, I do not want to ask a fighter every time I attack "Are you currently using your armor or is it just being held by your body?". I mean really how much rules lawyer'ing do we need to create for a Fantasy Game? I mean this is crap that ties up games for hours while the Raw player acts like the lawyer because he read the book and therefore "knows" the intent, while the players who are trying to have fun have to sit back and watch the Gm who is the only judge/jury/lawyer/etc tries to get the guy to shut up and understand they are playing a game, and its not real life.


    Okay, sure, then let's not change the verbiage, but instead ponder the possibility that the willingness criteria was unwittingly omitted.

    The main reason I feel strongly about it is how absolutely cheesy I feel it would be to have it any other way.

    ;)


    Noah Fentz wrote:

    Okay, sure, then let's not change the verbiage, but instead ponder the possibility that the willingness criteria was unwittingly omitted.

    The main reason I feel strongly about it is how absolutely cheesy I feel it would be to have it any other way.

    ;)

    That is why I think a good GM should explain that the helpless and unwilling creature is not subject to the penalty because like a God for clerics and paladins, the Spirit of Nature, etc, see the act as being forced upon and therfore as long as they take their action to remvoe the items they would not be subject. Yes it is not RAW... but RAW is BS when you consider that not every single action can be thought of and put into a book. I am confident that the writers of the books never took into consideration a person putting armor onto a knocked out druid.

    As for the bard spell. This spell unfortunatly will bypass this and only this spell. because you have "Entice" the person and they use it knowingly, its only after they use it do they realize the mistake and penalty. If a GM really wanted to be nice they could allow a Int/Wis check to allow the Druid a final chance to become aware that they are about to break their edict. But again this is 1 spell and I dont know many bards or witches.

    The Exchange

    wait - I know I shouldn't step in here but...
    "That is why I think a good GM should explain that the helpless and unwilling creature is not subject to the penalty because like a God for clerics and paladins, the Spirit of Nature, etc, see the act as being forced upon and therfore as long as they take their action to remvoe the items they would not be subject. "

    huh?

    Samson got his hair cut... but it wasn't his fault. so... no that's not right. AH! Samson must have been WILLING to get his hair cut. right.

    the helpless and unwilling creature is STILL subject to the penalty, that is what Atonement is for.

    The Exchange

    that's the part about being Lawful. You lose it.
    Forgiveness means you get it back. You lost it (fell from grace) and now you get it back (atoned).


    nosig wrote:


    Samson got his hair cut... but it wasn't his fault. so... no that's not right. AH! Samson must have been WILLING to get his hair cut. right.

    the helpless and unwilling creature is STILL subject to the penalty, that is what Atonement is for.

    Yeah, well I'm the DM, not Yahweh. He can run his own game if he wants to be a jerk about it.

    Seriously, Yahweh is a jerk more than once in the Old Testament. It's wonder he had anybody playing in campaign at all. Must have been the only DM in town or something...

    The Exchange

    yeah, I know what ya mean Bill. I just need to know who it works in the campaign my character is in, and right now I'm getting very different opinions. (and I beleave they are just opinions) Like the guy who's wife say no good god would do that... when my wife is the one who mentioned Samson to me. Kind of like saying no good god would let my character die, just cause she fell out a window. Wait! that's not the LG god! that's the DM/Judge! he's the one taking the Druids powers away for the day! (or not in some cases) ;)


    On a related note, you know, something actually about active and passive wearing:

    My character has three magic rings. Two of them are situational (feather fall and swimming) and I expect to know which situation I'm in. I'd like to be able to store all of them on my fingers for convenience and activate them as needed (maybe by taking them off and putting the one I want active back first) Is this reasonable or do I need to keep the inactive ring in my pocket where it is decisively not worn?


    nosig wrote:
    yeah, I know what ya mean Bill. I just need to know who it works in the campaign my character is in, and right now I'm getting very different opinions. (and I beleave they are just opinions) Like the guy who's wife say no good god would do that... when my wife is the one who mentioned Samson to me. Kind of like saying no good god would let my character die, just cause she fell out a window. Wait! that's not the LG god! that's the DM/Judge! he's the one taking the Druids powers away for the day! (or not in some cases) ;)

    You offer an object to an adjacent creature, and entice it into using or consuming the proffered item. If the target fails its Will save, it immediately takes the offered object, dropping an already held object if necessary. On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question. For example, an apple would be eaten, a potion consumed, a ring put on a finger, and a sword wielded in a free hand. If the target is physically unable to accept the object, the spell fails. The subject is under no obligation to continue consuming or using the item once the spell's duration has expired, although it may find a cursed item difficult to be rid of.

    I think its cut or dry. the spell lasts untill the end of the targets turn, so for 1 full turn they have the item and use it as they see fit, and a metal shield is no differnet than a wood shield, the druid knows what a shield is they just cant use metal ones so they are not going to act like they dont know what it is. They use it. Plain and simple. Now wether or not the bard looses the ability is up to GM, but since this is such a unique spell it would and should cause the penalties.

    as for samson, he lost his strength when his hair is cut, (he broke the rule and told them his weakness - ) but he later recieved it back once he asked god for help the power came from god and by asking he (atoned) His hair was a condition of the power from god, it in itself was just hair. so in a way same as helpess druid being put in armor, waking up.. lost powers and taking off armor and waiting 24 hours untill body and mind are atoned for the sin against edict.

    The Exchange

    I agree with Tharg - but I'm not the DM or Judge.

    Atarlost, in 3.5 you could wear two magic items in the same slot BUT only one "worked". In fact it was the first one you put on. The reason it's the first and not the second for example, is so you can't put a new ring on to de-activate the older cursed ring and then be able to remove the curse. So... IMHO, you can store the other ring on your hand, (put the FF ring on first, store the swim on a different finger of the same hand, then if you need the swim, PULL THE FIRST RING OFF (the FF ring). now you are only wearing one ring on that hand (swimming) and it works.

    I kind of picture it like this.
    Tharg falls from the yard arm of his ship and gently floats to the waves 30' below. as he comes to rest in the water, he kicks himself to the surface and slips his left hand to his mouth. Using his teeth, he removes the silver band on his index finger and suddenly can swim easily. Smiling, he strokes his mustash into place (holding his mouth shut to not loose the valued ring there), he starts his swim back to the ship.

    great picture!

    Liberty's Edge

    nosig wrote:

    wait - I know I shouldn't step in here but...

    "That is why I think a good GM should explain that the helpless and unwilling creature is not subject to the penalty because like a God for clerics and paladins, the Spirit of Nature, etc, see the act as being forced upon and therfore as long as they take their action to remvoe the items they would not be subject. "

    huh?

    Samson got his hair cut... but it wasn't his fault. so... no that's not right. AH! Samson must have been WILLING to get his hair cut. right.

    the helpless and unwilling creature is STILL subject to the penalty, that is what Atonement is for.

    Using the example of Samson is a bit of a case of apples and oranges. Samson's hair was the source of his power, so when he lost his hair he lost the source of his power. Also, it was entirely Samson's fault he lost his hair. He let himself be seduced by Delilah. It's not like Delilah knocked him out cold and cut his hair off. She just batted her eyelashes and cooed at him, then asked him if she could cut it off. And he was clearly too busy thinking about touching her boobies to think that one all the way through.

    Also, some of us think that the Old Testament God wasn't a particularly fair or reasonable guy, so aren't convinced by arguments that show God being unfair and unreasonable.

    I mean, if I put Old Testament Jehovah in a campaign, he'd totally be Lawful Evil. He's pro-slavery, pro-killing sexual minorities, oppresses women, and routinely calls on his followers to commit genocide. This is not a Lawful Good god in D&D terms.

    The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    William Brewer wrote:
    Any GM who uses RAW only as there rules is going to find themselves in trouble.

    Oh absolutely.

    On the other hand, it's a good idea to know when you are going off on your own and when it's actually part of the rules. In addition, in the interest of common understanding it's important to differentiate the two.

    The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    Noah Fentz wrote:
    Not trying to redefine at all, trying to clarify. We play 'by the book' as much as possible, and this could apply to many other things in game as new supplements and rules come out. May as well clarify it now.

    Ultimately the best way to run the game is however it's the most fun for your group and the situation you are in. I just hate when people say they are playing 'by the book' and it requires twisting common words.

    .

    When people play semantics games with the rules the game gods kill a kitten.

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Gailbraithe wrote:
    I mean, if I put Old Testament Jehovah in a campaign, he'd totally be Lawful Evil. He's pro-slavery, pro-killing sexual minorities, oppresses women, and routinely calls on his followers to commit genocide. This is not a Lawful Good god in D&D terms.

    Given that (statistically speaking) it's likely that there are at least a few IRL worshippers of said deity on these boards, and given that the above quotation is only tangentially relevant to the thread, perhaps it would be respectful to refrain from pointing at the central figure of an entire real-world belief system (a few, actually) and announcing all the reasons you think it's evil. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if the central figure (or concept, as applicable) of your belief system came up in a thread and someone took the opportunity to list the reasons why they thought it was evil. Play nice, share the world, etc etc etc. :)

    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What Constitutes Wielding, Wearing, and Using (aka. Equipped vs. Having On) All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.