| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is significantly more than you will receive than by building a character who uses sunder to gain extra rounds of rage. (hint: not all foes use weapons to begin with).Can't you just take "Extra Rage?"That only gives you six extra rounds of rage.
[obtuse]And on those foes, you sunder their pants. Or shirt.[/obtuse]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you sunder a spell component pouch. You now have infinite spell components on the ground. And a holy symbol. Ok, I hold the two halves of my broken holy symbol together and use my Divine Focus pre-req abilities.Really? That's the tack you want to take in this? That you can just hold two halves of a broken item back together and it still works?
Please point me to any reference where it says your mundane divine focus must not have the broken or destroyed condition to act as a divine focus.
Even in your out-of-left-field interpretation of sunder (nowhere does it say a sundered item is in only two pieces),
Nowhere does it say it is anything but broken or destroyed.
Really, I expected better. My mistake.
I expected non-stupid arguments. Holy symbols aren't magical. Spell component pouches are pouches. You sunder my backpack, oh no, everything in it magically disappears! No.
Carty, I'd be more concerned with how you're doing somatic components with your hands tied up holding your symbol together.
Still Spell?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hint: Many do, though. In fact, many have minions who do as well.Which is significantly more than you will receive than by building a character who uses sunder to gain extra rounds of rage. (hint: not all foes use weapons to begin with).Can't you just take "Extra Rage?"That only gives you six extra rounds of rage.
Okay, now you've just crossed the line into self-parody.
So, just so we're clear on what exactly you're saying, sunder isn't a terrible character option because (a) you can gain marginal benefits from using it (provided you dump even more feats into the build), (b) you can rely on other characters to fix the mess you make with spells (assuming they're high enough level), (c) most campaigns have loads of weapon using opponents, and (d) it's a better strategy to target the minion weapons to obtain extra rage/minor bennies than to just put those resources into a direct form of attack against relevant opponents.
I stand corrected. Sunder is totally b&%+@in', and probably so good as to be broken.
You can use Sleight of Hand on a light weapon. A spellbook isn't bigger than that.Since when does Sleight of hand allows to reach inside of a backpack without anyone knowing? Not only would you have to reach inside the backpack you would have to fidget around and pick the spellbook out.
A spellbook weighs three pounds and is only 100 pages thick, maybe with a leather cover. The thing is by no means "small."
Your characters never get above sixth level?So it's comparatively useless for doing anything but restoring loot to sell, and maybe not even then. Next question.If your caster level is twice that of the item. So to Make Whole a +1 Longsword, you need to be 6th level. Great.So..?
At which point they can STILL never restore objects worth using?
Liliththrall, what ability gives bonus rage rounds for sundering things?
Carty, I'd be more concerned with how you're doing somatic components with your hands tied up holding your symbol together.
Still Spell?
It was an example. Hold it together with one hand, I doubt these are huge. Just spend your traveling time carving wooden holy symbols to screw with DMs who think getting rid of your divine focus is somehow a good plan of attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was an example. Hold it together with one hand, I doubt these are huge. Just spend your traveling time carving wooden holy symbols to screw with DMs who think getting rid of your divine focus is somehow a good plan of attack.Carty, I'd be more concerned with how you're doing somatic components with your hands tied up holding your symbol together.
Still Spell?
My clerics just take birthmark.
Liliththrall, what ability gives bonus rage rounds for sundering things?Destroyers Blessing from Orcs of Golorian
Oh, that's why AM didn't use it. Not an orc. Thanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Liliththrall, what ability gives bonus rage rounds for sundering things?Destroyers Blessing from Orcs of Golorian
So assuming you are Evil and the enemy has weapons, you can gain infinite rage by not attacking the enemy!
It's the ultimate dick move NPC, an evil Half-Orc Barbarian Breaker one that sunders all your stuff until you've killed him.
Liliththrall, what ability gives bonus rage rounds for sundering things?Destroyers Blessing from Orcs of GolorianSo assuming you are Evil and the enemy has weapons, you can gain infinite rage by not attacking the enemy!
It's the ultimate dick move NPC, an evil Half-Orc Barbarian Breaker one that sunders all your stuff until you've killed him.
You're not thinking like a barbarian. What you do is charge, pounce, use strength surge on your last attack action to sunder. Cycle and do it again next round.
You can break faces and items, all for a net cost of free. And spells, with spell sunder.
The biggest jerk npc, for sure.
Unless the Wizard really did take Wis as a dump stat, he's gonna know that he should make a back up spellbook before he loses his primary spellbook. He makes it before the adventure starts.That excludes most adventure paths, so no destroying spellbooks outside home games.
And we are assuming of course that your home game has regular and extended periods of "in town" downtime between adventures.
The cost of a backup spell book (assuming average wisdom - that the backup is made before the primary is lost) is actually pretty dirt cheap.No, it's not. And that's not taking into account spells NOT learned from leveling up.
At 5th level:
Let's save five 0 level spells (more likely 10) - 25gp
Eight 1st level spells (3+Int of 17+2 at level 2) - 40gp
Four 2nd level - 160gp
Two 3rd level - 180gpTotal: 420gp, 217 if he is duplicating it directly.
Sure, if you have one backup, that's a pittance, but how many do you need to be safe from jerkass DMs who are constantly trying to destroy it? Three? Five?
Let's say, most prudently, two main spellbooks and 2 traveling spellbooks (you are eventually going to need more because spells start spilling over with just normal spells learned, the example above is 27 pages by itself. Increase duplicates by 2 at every spill over)The cost of that is (with pre-duplication) - 858gp.
Never mind any spells learned from scrolls or other spellbooks, that's just from leveling up. And underlearning 0th level.If you IN FACT decide all 0th level spells are in your book, that's another 45 gold per book, so 180 gp for a new total of 1038. ~10% of character wealth at 5th level.
Let's just play a Sorcerer.
At 5th level, one backup is probably sufficient as the NPCs have the same kind of resources you do. They have to find that spellbook. Fifth level characters don't have a lot of resources to do that.
Like you admitted, 217gp isn't a lot.
But, like I said, if the player is a...
It all depends, if the book is being destroyed or stolen is important to a specific goal of a bbeg or important to the plot usually meaning that there is a story driven way to bring it back then it is not a dick move by the GM. If the GM is destroying or stealing a Wizard's spell book just to destroy or steal it is a dick move by a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It all depends, if the book is being destroyed or stolen is important to a specific goal of a bbeg or important to the plot usually meaning that there is a story driven way to bring it back then it is not a dick move by the GM. If the GM is destroying or stealing a Wizard's spell book just to destroy or steal it is a dick move by a GM.
Getting it back with a "story driven method" means diddly. A lost spellbook is a lost spellbook. You won't be able to prepare spells unless you have a backup. You know what I'm not doing without a backup spellbook? Going on a quest to retrieve a lost spellbook from some dangerous enemy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay guys, I think I just broke sunder. Sebastian, your statement made in jest might be true. Hear me out.
-You get back 1 round of rage each time you successfully perform a sunder combat manuver. It doesn't say you have to break anything, nor that you even need to deal damage, only that the manuver must succeed.
-Breaking the item is bad.
-Items are immune to nonlethal damage.
Pounce + Destroyers Blessing + Strength Surge + A merciful weapon + fatigue immunity = unlimited rage.
Simply sunder/surge with your lowest bab attack with merciful on. It will likely hit. Then you deal no damage due to merciful. But the manuver was a success, so you get a rage round back. You then cycle and have surge back, having literally lost nothing but your worst iterative attack..
You also get the round back any time you spell sunder as it is a sunder combat manuver.
Please point me to any reference where it says your mundane divine focus must not have the broken or destroyed condition to act as a divine focus.
Self evident. If a piece of equipment is required to do something, it is obvious that you cannot use a destroyed piece of equipment to do that something. Magical or mundane, you can't forge a sword with destroyed tools.
Perhaps you can show me a referrence where it says you can craft an item with destroyed tools, or pick a lock with destroyed thieves' tools, hmm?
I expected non-stupid arguments. Holy symbols aren't magical. Spell component pouches are pouches. You sunder my backpack, oh no, everything in it magically disappears! No.
If you expected "non-stupid arguements", I have to wonder how badly you feel you let yourself down. Spell component pouches are not backpacks. No skill or class abilities require backpacks in order to function, nor is there a feat that allows you to do away with the backpack prerequisite of a class ability.
Spell component pouches are required to cas spells with a material component. Not having one means not being able to cast these spells, barring the Eschew Materials feat. A destroyed item by definition no longer functions. Ergo, you cannot cast spells that require material components with a destroyed spell component pouch.
(and you STILL ignore the fact that picking up a spell component from the ground would provoke an AoO, proving that sunder would STILL be an effective anti-caster tactic in your bizzaro-world scenario)
Spell component pouches are not backpacks. No skill or class abilities require backpacks in order to function, nor is there a feat that allows you to do away with the backpack prerequisite of a class ability.
Spell component pouches are required to cas spells with a material component.
No, they aren't. Please identify one spell that has component or focus "Spell Component pouch." Let's just skip to the "You can't." No spell requires a spell component pouch. Some require spell components (notice the lack of a "pouch") which are then contained in spell component pouches for ease of use and bookkeeping. I haven't seen anything anywhere saying destroying some mundane container destroys everything inside it.
You know what isn't in spell component pouches? Costly material components. Apparently I need a spell component pouch to cast spells using components that don't come with a spell component pouch. Sunder - best thing ever. It's like cutting off a caster's hands.
Ergo, you cannot cast spells that require material components with a destroyed spell component pouch.
I destroy your backpack. Everything in it is destroyed. Oh man, I know the best way to kill people now! I sunder their armor, they are destroyed! Automatic death!
(and you STILL ignore the fact that picking up a spell component from the ground would provoke an AoO, proving that sunder would STILL be an effective anti-caster tactic in your bizzaro-world scenario)
I don't have to address that because it is both unimportant and irrelevant what happens after a spell component pouch is destroyed.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Okay guys, I think I just broke sunder. Sebastian, your statement made in jest might be true. Hear me out.
-You get back 1 round of rage each time you successfully perform a sunder combat manuver. It doesn't say you have to break anything, nor that you even need to deal damage, only that the manuver must succeed.
-Breaking the item is bad.
-Items are immune to nonlethal damage.
Pounce + Destroyers Blessing + Strength Surge + A merciful weapon + fatigue immunity = unlimited rage.
Simply sunder/surge with your lowest bab attack with merciful on. It will likely hit. Then you deal no damage due to merciful. But the manuver was a success, so you get a rage round back. You then cycle and have surge back, having literally lost nothing but your worst iterative attack..
You also get the round back any time you spell sunder as it is a sunder combat manuver.
That is hilarious and awesome. I particularly like the non-lethal sundering. How do you describe that?
DM: "You swing at your foe, but he dodges neatly out of the way. On your follow-up attack you...uh...hit his sword gently, thereby fueling your destructive rage!"
That is hilarious and awesome. I particularly like the non-lethal sundering. How do you describe that?
DM: "You swing at your foe, but he dodges neatly out of the way. On your follow-up attack you...uh...hit his sword gently, thereby fueling your destructive rage!"
Merciful weapons are dealing the same damage. I'd describe it as a magical force somehow converting raw power into the equivalent of a sap.
Another plus, if your enemy is somehow using a person as a shield, you can now sunder the shield and knock out the person instead of killing them.
...Not sure when that would come up, but it's nice to have the option!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is hilarious and awesome. I particularly like the non-lethal sundering. How do you describe that?
DM: "You swing at your foe, but he dodges neatly out of the way. On your follow-up attack you...uh...hit his sword gently, thereby fueling your destructive rage!"
Merciful weapons are dealing the same damage. I'd describe it as a magical force somehow converting raw power into the equivalent of a sap.
Another plus, if your enemy is somehow using a person as a shield, you can now sunder the shield and knock out the person instead of killing them.
...Not sure when that would come up, but it's nice to have the option!
DM: "Your foe grabs yon peasant and uses him as a human shield!"
Player: "I sunder the peasant."DM: "What."
You can use Sleight of Hand on a light weapon. A spellbook isn't bigger than that.Since when does Sleight of hand allows to reach inside of a backpack without anyone knowing? Not only would you have to reach inside the backpack you would have to fidget around and pick the spellbook out.
My issue is reaching inside the backpack and automatically grabbing the right book. I have trouble getting the right book out of my backpack, and I know where everything is. Some random person is not going to know which book is the right one, and he may have to may multiple attempts to get the right book. More than likely he will get noticed, and combat will ensue. I dont see this as efficient.
|
That is hilarious and awesome. I particularly like the non-lethal sundering. How do you describe that?
DM: "You swing at your foe, but he dodges neatly out of the way. On your follow-up attack you...uh...hit his sword gently, thereby fueling your destructive rage!"
Merciful weapons are dealing the same damage. I'd describe it as a magical force somehow converting raw power into the equivalent of a sap.
Another plus, if your enemy is somehow using a person as a shield, you can now sunder the shield and knock out the person instead of killing them.
...Not sure when that would come up, but it's nice to have the option!
DM: "Your foe grabs yon peasant and uses him as a human shield!"
Player: "I sunder the peasant."
DM: "What."
This is one of the funniest posts ever.
I haven't seen anything anywhere saying destroying some mundane container destroys everything inside it.
Excpet maybe a potion flask, but hey, being wrong is natural for some people.
I destroy your backpack. Everything in it is destroyed.
No, not everything in it is destroyed. But bending over to pick up anything now on the ground draws an AoO, now DOESN'T IT? And if you move away from that spot, you are equally screwed.
(and you STILL ignore the fact that picking up a spell component from the ground would provoke an AoO, proving that sunder would STILL be an effective anti-caster tactic in your bizzaro-world scenario)I don't have to address that because it is both unimportant and irrelevant what happens after a spell component pouch is destroyed.
Obviously, it is not, as I have illustrated several times. So, you concede you are wrong about the sundered holy symbol, right? Right?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Spellbooks? Pfah. My 2nd-level witch is looking at his dead familiar and rolls his eyes at you wizards whining about back-up spellbooks.
... disarm still achieves substantially the same effect [as sunder], is quicker (one successful disarm roll v. multiple successful sunder rolls until item hp depleted), and doesn't require a 2nd level spell to be cast.
Hey there, Sebastian.
I've spent a little bit of time noodling about the disarm maneuver. If a character has Improved Disarm (+2, doesn't provoke AoO) but doesn't have Greater Disarm (the object skitters away), then I'm growing in my opinion that the maneuver isn't much good.
PC's turn: PC attempts to disarm NPC. NPC drops weapon.
NPC's turn: NPC picks up old weapon (PC gets AoO) and attacks.
So, in that best case, the PC lost a chance to damage the NPC, in exchange for an attack of opportunity against the NPC. Also, each side only made a single attack. So, it's only a gain if the disarm is almost a sure bet, and either
- (a) the PC doesn't think he's going to need to use that AoO for anybody else,
- (b) the NPC has a much nastier full-attack than the PC does,
- (c) an ally wants to do something to the NPC and will act before the NPC can retrieve his weapon, or
- (d) the weapon naturally falls outside the NPC's reach (perhaps they're both flying).
The situation is worse in case the NPC has a second weapon he can quick draw, or a friend who can hand him a weapon. Even if he has to unsheathe a back-up weapon without Quick Draw, he's still better off, since he gets a chance to damage the PC this round, but the PC doesn't get a chance to damage him.
The sunder maneuver has the same result as Greater Disarm: the weapon is not available for the NPC to pick up. It also has a psychological effect. Seeing the hill giant mauler try to destroy your weapon is a lot scarier than seeing the weaselly little rapier fop try to tickle you into dropping it.
And then there's the harsh reality: the disarm chain of feats requires Combat Expertise, which requires an Intelligence of 13. A lot of powerhouse foes are more likely to go with the Power Attack chain of maneuvers.
Lilith is claiming that spellbook protections have to come out of WBL as an explicit balance to wizards being wizards. Rough on maguses, who aren't wizards and have other things they need to spend money on. Also rough on multiclasses, who also have other needs, but nobody cares about multiclasses anymore.
And I am saying that I disagree with that mentality. You primary equipment counts against your wealth by level. Backup equipment should not.
If the DM is giving you 120% or normal wealth by level, and you use it all on you main gear/spellbook without making backups, then you are getting a power advantage that comes with a risk of being vulnerable to equipment destruction. A good DM will sometimes take advantage of the risks that players choose to take to make things more interesting.
If the DM is giving you 75% of normal wealth by level, and you are just barely scraping together enough to pay for essentials, then the DM going after your gear is being a dick.
Whether or not stealing/destroying gear is a dick move depends on how you count wealth by level, and how the players are doing on wealth by level.
I haven't seen anything anywhere saying destroying some mundane container destroys everything inside it.Excpet maybe a potion flask, but hey, being wrong is natural for some people.
Being unusable and being destroyed aren't the same.
I destroy your backpack. Everything in it is destroyed.No, not everything in it is destroyed.
Why not? You destroyed the backpack. Contents are destroyed. Just like a component pouch.
But bending over to pick up anything now on the ground draws an AoO, now DOESN'T IT? And if you move away from that spot, you are equally screwed.
That's irrelevant to whether or not sundering a container destroys everything in the container.
Obviously, it is not, as I have illustrated several times. So, you concede you are wrong about the sundered holy symbol, right? Right?
A destroyed holy symbol maybe. Where does it say the holy symbol must be in perfecting order to be used? Can't use a broken holy symbol? You can use a broken sword.
A spellbook weighs three pounds and is only 100 pages thick, maybe with a leather cover. The thing is by no means "small."You can use Sleight of Hand on a light weapon. A spellbook isn't bigger than that.Since when does Sleight of hand allows to reach inside of a backpack without anyone knowing? Not only would you have to reach inside the backpack you would have to fidget around and pick the spellbook out.
You just described a book half the size of your standard hardback novel. I could hide that in my shirt.
You just described a book half the size of your standard hardback novel. I could hide that in my shirt.
Wet T shirt contest?
Its likely to be as thick as your standard hardback novel, due to the high quality parchment (leather) pages.
Sundering isn't a dick move. It's fair game, including targeting spellbooks. That's why wizards shouldn't have them easily accessible. Reparing items is pretty easy anyway - mending for the mundane, make whole for the magical. And magical items are harder to destroy in PF than in 3.5.
I don't use alignment, but if you're going to use it, you'd better use it. There's no point in using the system if everyone acts contrary to the other's perception of alignment anyway.
I always use independent cohorts/followers/animal companions and the like. Mostly I let another player control the animal companion (so if Fred is playing a druid, Lisa gets to control the cat in combat) unless the player actually gives certain orders. Out of combat it's a mix between the DM and the player describing actions of the NPC.
Attacking in the night and such is fair game, if not overdone. Needless to say, people DO take endurance in my games.
But yeah, punishing players is always bad.
One RAW rule that IS dick to enforce though, is distance penalties to perception. But I've ranted enough about that I think.
You just described a book half the size of your standard hardback novel. I could hide that in my shirt.A spellbook weighs three pounds and is only 100 pages thick, maybe with a leather cover. The thing is by no means "small."You can use Sleight of Hand on a light weapon. A spellbook isn't bigger than that.Since when does Sleight of hand allows to reach inside of a backpack without anyone knowing? Not only would you have to reach inside the backpack you would have to fidget around and pick the spellbook out.
Please point me to a hardback novel weighing 3 pounds and 100 pages. The leatherbound, hardback Barnes & Noble edition Complete Works of Lewis Carol is over a thousand pages, 9.4"x6.5"x2.4", and weighs 3.7 lbs. I own this. It is not small. If you tried to hied it under your shirt, everyone would see it.
A spellbook is more like an old school book written on vellum or sheepskin. Those are more like over a foot long and a little less than a foot wide. Your local monastery or old library may have some, whether or not they display them to the public is another matter.
A 10th level Barbarian can lift several tons of weight. A high level Ranger can hide in shadows from you while you're face to face with him. A Rogue above 6th level shouldn't be bound to our world's limitations.Since when does Sleight of hand allows to reach inside of a backpack without anyone knowing? Not only would you have to reach inside the backpack you would have to fidget around and pick the spellbook out.You can use Sleight of Hand on a light weapon. A spellbook isn't bigger than that.But how do the thief even know that your spellbook is in your backpack? I'm trying to imagine the situation if the thief is a PC:
PC: I steal his spellbook. I roll a 30, roll for Perception.
DM: Huh, you don't see any spellbook.
PC: He wears robes and a pouch, he has a spellbook. I rolled a 30.
DM: Maybe he has one, but you don't see any.
PC: I don't have to see it, I just steal it. I rolled a 30, roll for perception already.
DM: But how do you do that?
PC: Well, I suppose I open his backpack, search for the spellbook, then I open his pouch and look if there's a spellbook, and then I search in his underpants...
DM: Wait. What?
PC: Nothing in the skill states I have to see his spellbook to roll for sleight of hand. I don't know how my character does, but obviously, he knows how to steal a spellbook, that's what ranks in sleight of hand are for. And I rolled a 30.
DM: OK, you find a book...
PC: I didn't intend to steal "a book", but "his spellbook". Obviously, ranks in sleight of hand allow me to differentiate "a book" from "his spellbook". I rolled a 30, did I steal his spellbook?It doesn't make any sense. The spellbook isn't a weakness, it has never been and it will never be, since it's easier to kill the character than to steal a spellbook.
How is he sleight of handing a huge ass book he can't see out of a bag while simultaneously disarming any traps on it?
...How is he sleight of handing a huge ass book he can't see out of a bag while simultaneously disarming any trapsA 10th level Barbarian can lift several tons of weight. A high level Ranger can hide in shadows from you while you're face to face with him. A Rogue above 6th level shouldn't be bound to our world's limitations.Since when does Sleight of hand allows to reach inside of a backpack without anyone knowing? Not only would you have to reach inside the backpack you would have to fidget around and pick the spellbook out.You can use Sleight of Hand on a light weapon. A spellbook isn't bigger than that.But how do the thief even know that your spellbook is in your backpack? I'm trying to imagine the situation if the thief is a PC:
PC: I steal his spellbook. I roll a 30, roll for Perception.
DM: Huh, you don't see any spellbook.
PC: He wears robes and a pouch, he has a spellbook. I rolled a 30.
DM: Maybe he has one, but you don't see any.
PC: I don't have to see it, I just steal it. I rolled a 30, roll for perception already.
DM: But how do you do that?
PC: Well, I suppose I open his backpack, search for the spellbook, then I open his pouch and look if there's a spellbook, and then I search in his underpants...
DM: Wait. What?
PC: Nothing in the skill states I have to see his spellbook to roll for sleight of hand. I don't know how my character does, but obviously, he knows how to steal a spellbook, that's what ranks in sleight of hand are for. And I rolled a 30.
DM: OK, you find a book...
PC: I didn't intend to steal "a book", but "his spellbook". Obviously, ranks in sleight of hand allow me to differentiate "a book" from "his spellbook". I rolled a 30, did I steal his spellbook?It doesn't make any sense. The spellbook isn't a weakness, it has never been and it will never be, since it's easier to kill the character than to steal a spellbook.
Slight of handing a book the size of a light crossbow out of a secured bag? How? Is he taking the entire bag?
It's not like the book is slung at anyone's side or on their back. It would be in a pack, that is secured against things falling out. And with a bunch of other crap. If I can't retrieve something I am looking for out of a bag without at least a move action (because of the time it takes to rummage in the bag), how is someone using Sleight of Hand to do it?
Being unusable and being destroyed aren't the same.
Neither is being "broken" (a defined game term: a condition) and "destroyed".
I destroy your backpack. Everything in it is destroyed.No, not everything in it is destroyed.Why not? You destroyed the backpack. Contents are destroyed. Just like a component pouch.
I never argued that everything in a container that is destroyed is also destroyed. Those are your words and your strawman, not mine.
But bending over to pick up anything now on the ground draws an AoO, now DOESN'T IT? And if you move away from that spot, you are equally screwed.That's irrelevant to whether or not sundering a container destroys everything in the container.
Read this again, carefully: I never claimed destroying a container automatically destroys the contents. It makes sense that an incinerated scroll tube would also destroy the scrolls therein, or a shattered potion bottle would effectively ruin any potions or oils inside, but that is not the point of sundering a spell component pouch.
Obviously, it is not, as I have illustrated several times. So, you concede you are wrong about the sundered holy symbol, right? Right?A destroyed holy symbol maybe. Where does it say the holy symbol must be in perfecting order to be used? Can't use a broken holy symbol? You can use a broken sword.
Again, "Broken"=/"Destroyed". Broken is just "below 1/2 hit points" and thus gaining the "broken" condition. Destroyed is "zero HP or less". You can't fight with a destroyed sword nor pick a lock with destroyed thieves's tools. You shouldn't be able to cast spells or channel energy with a destroyed divine focus either.
I never argued that everything in a container that is destroyed is also destroyed. Those are your words and your strawman, not mine.
No, it is reductio ad absurdum. Which in this case is not a logical fallacy. You made the statement that a caster cannot cast if the spell component pouch in sundered. The only way that could be true is if the contents of the pouch were also destroyed, as no spell I know of needs a "spell component pouch," which therefore makes your argument destroying the container destroys the contents (reductio ad absurdum).
Read this again, carefully: I never claimed destroying a container automatically destroys the contents.
Yes, you did. I just spelled it out for you.
It makes sense that an incinerated scroll tube would also destroy the scrolls therein, or a shattered potion bottle would effectively ruin any potions or oils inside, but that is not the point of sundering a spell component pouch.
Then what, exactly, is?
Again, "Broken"=/"Destroyed". Broken is just "below 1/2 hit points" and thus gaining the "broken" condition. Destroyed is "zero HP or less". You can't fight with a destroyed sword nor pick a lock with destroyed thieves's tools. You shouldn't be able to cast spells or channel energy with a destroyed divine focus either.
Good thing I was referring specifically and explicitly to a broken holy symbol then, huh? For example of a strawman, see your argument about destroyed items in reply to my statement which began with accepting the argument about destroyed items.
I've seen David Copperfield sleight of hand a Boeing 747 on stage.
In fact you have not because making a 747 disappear in a stage show is not sleight of hand. It's smoke, mirrors, misdirection, and a lot of mechanical thingamajigs. Making 10 juggling balls disappear while naked is sleight of hand (no, not that way).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think he's arguing that destroying a spell component pouch means the contents are _destroyed_. They would however, if we apply common sense, drop to the ground. Some of them, like for the bell for the Alarm spell, could be picked up and used as normal from the ground (move action that provokes). Some of them, like the colored sand of color spray, might spill to the ground and become essentially unusable (though I'd argue those components are probably kept in a container in the pouch, thereby not being destroyed).
Likewise, destroying a backpack doesn't destroy the spellbook within, it makes it fall to the ground. Destroying a waterskin doesn't destroy the water, but it makes it practically unusable when splashing over the dungeon floor.
That's my take on the argument, and I find it quite logical.
A 10th level Barbarian can lift several tons of weight. A high level Ranger can hide in shadows from you while you're face to face with him. A Rogue above 6th level shouldn't be bound to our world's limitations.Since when does Sleight of hand allows to reach inside of a backpack without anyone knowing? Not only would you have to reach inside the backpack you would have to fidget around and pick the spellbook out.You can use Sleight of Hand on a light weapon. A spellbook isn't bigger than that.But how do the thief even know that your spellbook is in your backpack? I'm trying to imagine the situation if the thief is a PC:
PC: I steal his spellbook. I roll a 30, roll for Perception.
DM: Huh, you don't see any spellbook.
PC: He wears robes and a pouch, he has a spellbook. I rolled a 30.
DM: Maybe he has one, but you don't see any.
PC: I don't have to see it, I just steal it. I rolled a 30, roll for perception already.
DM: But how do you do that?
PC: Well, I suppose I open his backpack, search for the spellbook, then I open his pouch and look if there's a spellbook, and then I search in his underpants...
DM: Wait. What?
PC: Nothing in the skill states I have to see his spellbook to roll for sleight of hand. I don't know how my character does, but obviously, he knows how to steal a spellbook, that's what ranks in sleight of hand are for. And I rolled a 30.
DM: OK, you find a book...
PC: I didn't intend to steal "a book", but "his spellbook". Obviously, ranks in sleight of hand allow me to differentiate "a book" from "his spellbook". I rolled a 30, did I steal his spellbook?It doesn't make any sense. The spellbook isn't a weakness, it has never been and it will never be, since it's easier to kill the character than to steal a spellbook.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. As an example nobody in the gameworld can sheathe a weapon as a free action. I would think that is a lot easier than gaining "detect specific item", especially if the ability does not even exist in the game.
GâtFromKI's situation is what I was thinking of when I brought up the word "fidget" earlier.