You don't necessarily have to remove a pack to retrieve something on top of the pile.And it just happens that whatever item you happen to want at the time is always the one that's at the top of the pile?
The point is moot in any event, as it is still a move action. The only penalty for pulling a weapon out of a backpack is that it is treated as drawing out an item, which means it is STILL a move action, but a move action that provokes (as it is a bit more distracting).
It also isn't relevant here as the item WAS on the top of everything else. It was the most recent treasure that I picked up.
I don't assume everything is "on top," but I DO assume that everything I want to be easily accessible IS easily accessible.
Tell me, are you in the habit of tucking your cell phone in your sock underneath your foot inside your shoe? Of course not! You put it in a place where you can get at it quickly when it rings.
I expect adventurers (and indeed all sensible people) to do the same things with their belongings. They put them in logical places. If it needs to be stored, but there isn't likely to be any need to get it quickly, then it gets put at the bottom of the pack. But if lives might be dependent on how fast it can be drawn, you can bet your butt that any and every smart/sane/sensible person will place the item in a sheathe, the top of the pack, on one's belt, or similar easily accessible location.
The rules simplify this notion into "drawing an item is a move action." And thank goodness for that! No one wants to deal with a game system that says, you must spend an action to kneel down, another action to reach for your ankle holster, yet and other action to unbuckle the holster's flap, still another action to draw the pistol, and...well, you see where I'm going.
In a game, realism is all well and good, until it gets in the way of the fun.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I always thought that retrieving stored, rather than sheathed, bandoliered, or pouched items, was at least a standard action. Now that this topic has come up it is now MY house rule.
Just make sure you tell your players about it in advance so it isn't a surprise in the middle of combat.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The point is moot in any event, as it is usually a move action. The only penalty for pulling a weapon out of a backpack is that it is treated as drawing out an item, which means it is STILL a move action, but a move action that provokes (as it is a bit more distracting).You don't necessarily have to remove a pack to retrieve something on top of the pile.And it just happens that whatever item you happen to want at the time is always the one that's at the top of the pile?
You get confused with your absolutes.
Tell me, are you in the habit of tucking your cell phone in your sock underneath your foot inside your shoe? Of course not! You put it in a place where you can get at it quickly when it rings.
This is why I suggested a simple list of ten or so items that are easily accessible.
Normal days:
Cycling Days:
Personally I always thought that retrieving stored, rather than sheathed, bandoliered, or pouched items, was at least a standard action. Now that this topic has come up it is now MY house rule.Just make sure you tell your players about it in advance so it isn't a surprise in the middle of combat.
Yup, that's why it's nice that this topic came up, someone else has to deal with the pain, not my players.
Some rules are just stupid and the DM needs to fix them. If I had a player trying to get something out of a backpack while creatures were trying to kill him. I would make it a full round action just to remove the backpack that draws an AAO and if he was hit the action would fail and we would have to try agian. Once he removed the backpack I would require another full round action (at least) to locate the item and the action that draws an aao, if he was hit then he would either have to try again or possibly drop the item and cause it to break.
I would do this because it is stupid to try and get an item out of a backpack while something is trying to kill you. Just my humble opinion.
|
This has nothing to do with the actual arguement occuring here, but as a GM I would have just stated that its a CURSED ITEM, of course it wont willingly come out of the backpack as a move action.;)
on the other hand it is RAW in Pathfinder with the acknowledgement of the word "usually" in the retreive stored item line. shrug.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
In a game, realism is all well and good, until it gets in the way of the fun.
To be honest, I agree with you. I am not overly in love with realism. But I also happen to think when there is a simple solution that works within the rules to make something silly more reasonable it's not getting in the way of anything.
We've seen before what adding the laws of physics into a game can do. Best to have a balance between realism and game-ism.
And the DM set the scales. You don't like where he put them.
It is my right to describe my character as I see fit.
Your backpack is not your character. This is manufactured outrage over something completely different.
I never said that he was "trying to hose me" only that, that was the end result. Though the intent may vary, the end result is the same.
But your reaction should be different. If i bump into someone on the street and knock them on their rear end thats far different than delibrately pushing someone.
Are you in the habit of not listening to your players when you GM?
No, I'm not in the habbit of arguing pointlessly in circles. Did the DM say anything different thatn anything anyone has said here? Has the roughly 15 minutes worth of verbal discussion here changed your mind one iota? Would that amount of time at the table have changed anything?
Put the magic axe in a sheath next time.
In a game, realism is all well and good, until it gets in the way of the fun.To be honest, I agree with you. I am not overly in love with realism. But I also happen to think when there is a simple solution that works within the rules to make something silly more reasonable it's not getting in the way of anything.
Lack of realism is a given in a swords and sorcery setting. However if items spring to hand without magic i.e. it takes the same amount of time to get a block and tackle, hand axe, cuddley toy (or even that piece of wolfsbane that you know you put in there last year) out of the pack as it does to draw a sheathed dagger. hmmmm. It stretches my suspension of disbelief, and that tends to make storytelling games less fun. (IMHO)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As stated, it's "usually" a move action. I interpret "usually" as "all unexceptional circumstances".
An example of an exception directly stated by the rules (which is rare) would be to retrieve a stored dagger from a spring-loaded wrist sheath. The item is considered stored (or at least I consider it that way), but the governing property of the spring-loaded sheath makes it a swift action to retrieve.
I have no rules example of an item that would take longer as an exception, but here are some possible examples that would warrant taking longer: specifically uncoiled rope (though I have no idea why one would do this), a complete, assembled skeleton (adventurers do weird things sometimes), and, let's say, the evil artifact key to the campaign that must be handled from a specific spot in order not to become cursed. Pretty contrived examples, but I think that's the point: "usually", unless there's some bizarre situation where the move action abstraction falls apart.
And we are reminded that many things in the game are abstractions. It takes a PC 3 seconds to get item X. How is that possible? Well, it turns out the PC had the foresight to put that item somewhere readily accessible, even if the owning player (EDIT: corrected "character" to "owning player") didn't.
If you ask this question, you also have to ask: how can a spellcaster listen to half of a spell being cast, and then start casting his or her own spell in order to counter the first, keeping in mind there's no way to finish before the other caster finishes? And let's not get started on how the turn-based combat is actually representative of a real-time progression of events... somehow...
Now, if the axe in the OP was cursed to make it powerful, but hard to retrieve, then that's another story. I'm assuming that's not the case, as it wasn't mentioned; just covering my bases here.
|
|
This has nothing to do with the actual arguement occuring here, but as a GM I would have just stated that its a CURSED ITEM, of course it wont willingly come out of the backpack as a move action.;)
on the other hand it is RAW in Pathfinder with the acknowledgement of the word "usually" in the retreive stored item line. shrug.
See, I view it the other way, since it is a cursed weapon, he is likely to grab it when ever he reached into the backpack for a weapon, but then again, I do not view something like the book -2 cursed sword as something that can bypass DR/magic...
Some rules are just stupid and the DM needs to fix them. If I had a player trying to get something out of a backpack while creatures were trying to kill him. I would make it a full round action just to remove the backpack that draws an AAO and if he was hit the action would fail and we would have to try agian. Once he removed the backpack I would require another full round action (at least) to locate the item and the action that draws an aao, if he was hit then he would either have to try again or possibly drop the item and cause it to break.
I would do this because it is stupid to try and get an item out of a backpack while something is trying to kill you. Just my humble opinion.
The problem with that is what is and is not "stupid" is highly subjective. When the GM starts dictating everything without at least considering his players' input, the game has gone from a cooperative effort to a dictatorship.
This has nothing to do with the actual arguement occuring here, but as a GM I would have just stated that its a CURSED ITEM, of course it wont willingly come out of the backpack as a move action.;)
on the other hand it is RAW in Pathfinder with the acknowledgement of the word "usually" in the retreive stored item line. shrug.
The nature of the curse had been identified (save vs. Con damage each morning). Since I was already cursed by merely having carried it, I wasn't afraid to use it as the magical weapon it also happened to be.
When we identified all the properties of the item (including the curse) there was nothing mentioned about it taking longer to pull out.
And the DM set the scales. You don't like where he put them.
Though true, the GM has to start somewhere. That "somewhere" is in the rule books. Adjusting "the scale" is fine, provided everyone agrees and is informed ahead of time (so they are afforded the opportunity to choose not to play, or at least avoid detrimental ambushes like the one ascribed to me). To do otherwise will inevitably create upheaval of some kind. Why not just avoid it entirely with a bit of tact so that everyone can enjoy the game as it was meant to be enjoyed?
I will never understand why GMs insist on spontaneous house rules. It's one thing to say "you're screwed because I don't like the rules," and quite another to say "I don't think I like that rule and may change it in future games."
But your reaction should be different. If i bump into someone on the street and knock them on their rear end thats far different than delibrately pushing someone.
And what reaction is that? I was certainly firm in my stance, but in no way antagonistic or disruptive.
|
|
Some rules are just stupid and the DM needs to fix them. If I had a player trying to get something out of a backpack while creatures were trying to kill him. I would make it a full round action just to remove the backpack that draws an AAO and if he was hit the action would fail and we would have to try agian. Once he removed the backpack I would require another full round action (at least) to locate the item and the action that draws an aao, if he was hit then he would either have to try again or possibly drop the item and cause it to break.
I would do this because it is stupid to try and get an item out of a backpack while something is trying to kill you. Just my humble opinion.
Do you also make the wizards maintain their spell component pouch? How much does it contain? How hard is it to get the items out in the exact needed amounts in the 6 seconds that they have to cast most spells?
While I agree that there are some times where that "usually" comes into play, it is unfair to the player to not let them know that this is one of those times ahead of time. I would have at least used up the move action to let them reach over and see if it is on top. If I had already decided that it was not going to be that easy to get, they would have then had the option to turn it into a full round action to finish, or spend their standard action on something else.
It is the GM's call to make. Not RAW.
The GM made a reasonable ruling, which I think may actually have made the climactic battle *more* stressful and intense (oddly this constitutes fun in roleplaying) - if it hadn't been for the rules dispute that followed.
I don't see a problem with his ruling, and I'm pretty sure most GMs have made similar rulings on the fly (usually when a situation presents itself that isn't fully covered in RAW, like somebody unknowingly charging through a square with an invisible occupant).
The bottom-line is that the GM isn't subject to the RAW. The GM is the LAW.
What action was it to unsheathe the axe once you pulled it from your backpack?
In Ravingdork threads, this is fighting talk. Hope you got your war face ready, bro.
Nah, RD is very reasonable in most regards - other than he doesn't like people messing with his expectations.
James Jacobs once mentioned in response to a post explaining a set of complex mechanics interactions that allowed a character to deal damage along the 20d8 + 40d6 + bla + infinity: I'd just rule it as 20d6 and move on; it's faster to resolve (and I think the subtext read "and it makes more sense that way too")
besides what I said before, I am of the opinion you should have described exactly, even with a diagram, a drawing, of a clear nested bullet list with descriptive text, how the items in your equipment are stored. If you don0t do it, then it's the DM's ground to figure out for you.
Your DM spends whole evenings preparing play, the least a good player could do is add some details to the character's sheet every week, equipment and encumbrance included. I might be a bit harsh on this, but it seems obvious to me that sometimes players are too light on description and just pick up items during play the way it looks more useful to them. You don't write it on your list - you don0t have it. You don't write down where it is or how it is stored, DM decides. As simple as that.
And if that's n the bottom of the backpack... well, I second what said before, it will take 3 or 4 full rounds minimum to pick it out.
|
Honestly? I'm with the GM on this one.
One move to get the pack off and another to extricate the item from it. Two moves or a std, either way. You are left with a swift; do with it what you can.
If you want easier access, get a haversack, bandolier or belt pouches for some important gear.
I don't see the only benefit to pouches and the Adventurer's Sash as being a retrieval which does not provoke. If this was PFS, I might apply the RAW without any quibbling - but in a home game? I'm totally with the GM on this one.
Just wanted to point something out from the Bag of Holding
If a bag of holding is overloaded, or if sharp objects pierce it (from inside or outside), the bag immediately ruptures and is ruined, and all contents are lost forever. If a bag of holding is turned inside out, all of its contents spill out, unharmed, but the bag must be put right before it can be used again. If living creatures are placed within the bag, they can survive for up to 10 minutes, after which time they suffocate. Retrieving a specific item from a bag of holding is a move action, unless the bag contains more than an ordinary backpack would hold, in which case retrieving a specific item is a full-round action. Magic items placed inside the bag do not offer any benefit to the character carrying the bag.
So if the Bag of Holding requires you to spend a full round action if its even holding one more pound than a standard backpack its not all that unreasonable to assume an overstuffed backpack, even masterwork backpack would require you to spend a standard to retrieve an item.
|
|
Just wanted to point something out from the Bag of Holding
If a bag of holding is overloaded, or if sharp objects pierce it (from inside or outside), the bag immediately ruptures and is ruined, and all contents are lost forever. If a bag of holding is turned inside out, all of its contents spill out, unharmed, but the bag must be put right before it can be used again. If living creatures are placed within the bag, they can survive for up to 10 minutes, after which time they suffocate. Retrieving a specific item from a bag of holding is a move action, unless the bag contains more than an ordinary backpack would hold, in which case retrieving a specific item is a full-round action. Magic items placed inside the bag do not offer any benefit to the character carrying the bag.
So if the Bag of Holding requires you to spend a full round action if its even holding one more pound than a standard backpack its not all that unreasonable to assume an overstuffed backpack, even masterwork backpack would require you to spend a standard to retrieve an item.
but can a backpack contain more than an ordinary backpack would hold?
sorry, could not resist.
Retrieving a specific item from a bag of holding is a move action, unless the bag contains more than an ordinary backpack would hold, in which case retrieving a specific item is a full-round action.
So if the Bag of Holding requires you to spend a full round action if its even holding one more pound than a standard backpack its not all that unreasonable to assume an overstuffed backpack, even masterwork backpack would require you to spend a standard to retrieve an item.
but can a backpack contain more than an ordinary backpack would hold?
sorry, could not resist.
haha I was thinking it as i typed it, but I felt I had to point out how a magic bag worked when overstuffed.
What surprises me is that some people have an issue with someone digging an axe from a bag in 3 seconds but i doubt they as a DM would rule that i can't.
A. Shoot 7 arrows in 6 seconds.
B. Reload a crossbow requiring a wench and fire it 6 times in 6 secs.
C. Hit something 9 times with two swords in that time.
Edit: All numbers assume speed weapons subtract one for no magic 2 from the dual weilding.
In a game Saturday night, I lost a very important combat round because I had to stop and pull a weapon out of my backpack.
The GM spontaneously ruled that it was a standard action for me to do so since, according to him, I had an overstuffed backpack (I carry 245 lbs., much of which is armor).
I disagreed vehemently, citing that drawing a weapon was a move action (the weapon is not "hidden," merely stowed away) and that my backpack was only overstuffed if I described it as such. After all, it was a masterwork backpack and came with hooks and harnesses and a myriad of other little things to make carrying lots of gear easier.
Eventually he won out, I accepted his ruling under protest and the game moved on.
What I want to know is this: Is there a rule ANYWHERE that says pulling out ANYTHING from ANY container is a standard action?
My GM cited the bag of holding and handy haversack as examples of it taking longer to pull items out, though I don't think those are valid since for them to be "overstuffed" they have to hold more objects than a mundane backpack (even a masterwork one) could possibly hold (in other words, it takes longer due to their magical nature, not due to a general rule of some kind).
What do you think? Was the GM in the wrong for suddenly implementing a random and needless house rule out of nowhere? Or am I just not accepting of a GM's realistic rulings?
In the rules it says that drawing a hidden weapon is a standard action. As you axe was in your bag and less available then most weapons it seems fair to me. In this instance it even uses the word weapon instead of item. I think that this could have gone either way but wouldn't think to harshly of your DM because of it.
but can a backpack contain more than an ordinary backpack would hold?Apparently RD's can.
heh
It is the GM's call to make. Not RAW.
...
The bottom-line is that the GM isn't subject to the RAW. The GM is the LAW.
With respect, I disagree.
From the GameMastery Guide, page 76:-
"All players like to know that there are universal rules to level the playing field, but the rules lawyer takes it a step farther. He knows every obscure rule, and insists that each one work exactly as written—especially if it's in his favor.
While of course the rules should work the same for villains as they do the heroes, the GM's challenge is ensuring that the game runs smoothly and everyone has fun. Sometimes it's acceptable for the letter of the law to fade a bit, especially if such sacrifices keep an adventure moving smoothly or to make the game more enjoyable.
...
As in the case of the continuity expert, let the rules lawyer know when and how it's appropriate to cite the rules. Openly contradicting is counterproductive unless it's a matter of life and death for a character, in which case you should spend a moment to quickly verify key points, but that's it. After the game or between sessions, you can discuss the rules in depth.
...
Even if you follow these rules, you may still have trouble with rules lawyers. Not everyone views rules the same way. The important thing is to stand behind your rulings, and when certain things break the rules—for good reason—don't feel like you have to reveal world secrets just because the rules lawyer demands answers."
Thank you for posting that. I think it is something that everyone should be remind of from time to time, myself notwithstanding. That being said, I don't think I'm a "bad" rules lawyer, though I do make mistakes from time to time like any normal person.
If anybody else is ever in this situation, here's my advice: Drop your backpack (a free action.) Sunder your backpack (a standard action.) Pick up the thing you wanted (a move action.) Sure, you've wasted your entire round and damaged your backpack... but you've saved a real-life hour of arguing back and forth over the definition of "usually"
I can just imagine the GM's reaction...
GM: Why on earth did you just do that!?
Me: Because now that everything is on the ground out in the open I can now pick things up as needed with a move action instead of having to deal with your house rule. Sure it costs me in action economy now, but in later rounds in this fight it could easily prove be to my benefit.
GM: Won't that provoke each time though?
Me: Sure it will, but pulling things out of my backpack would anyways.
GM: What if the enemy moves away from you?
Me: Where to? We are in a small room, fighting a ghost whom is tied to said room.
GM: But...
Will: Can we get back to the game already?
Me: Starting to wish you had ruled differently yet?
but can a backpack contain more than an ordinary backpack would hold?Apparently RD's can.
I'm not sure of your meaning, Kthulhu. You COULD reasonably fit all the things I described as being in my backpack in a backpack. I'm thinking of military sized adventuring grade backpacks whereas you and others must be thinking of school book bags or something.
In the rules it says that drawing a hidden weapon is a standard action. As you axe was in your bag and less available then most weapons it seems fair to me. In this instance it even uses the word weapon instead of item. I think that this could have gone either way but wouldn't think to harshly of your DM because of it.
I can see the logic of that argument, but it wasn't an argument that my Gm had made, so isn't terribly relevant here. Also, I don't think harshly of my GM for this. I just worry it will lead to worse rulings in the future.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you think? Was the GM in the wrong for suddenly implementing a random and needless house rule out of nowhere? Or am I just not accepting of a GM's realistic rulings?
First question, though phrased in a blatently partisan way: No. Even the folks who have said they would play the RAW have not agreed that the house rule was random or needless, especially when you take a look at your equipment list. You talk of a strong soldier being able to carry the pack, sure, but to fight in it and drag out items quickly...not usual.
Second question: You are not only not accepting his decision, you are continuing to actively challenge the GM's decision making and game playing. IN A PUBLIC FORUM. You continue to disagree with anything that does not dismiss the GM's decision. You won't change. Are you actually going to play with this GM again? Are they really going to let you? (or do they not read this forum?)
P.S. If the GM does read this give us a wave.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What surprises me is that some people have an issue with someone digging an axe from a bag in 3 seconds but i doubt they as a DM would rule that i can't.
A. Shoot 7 arrows in 6 seconds.
B. Reload a crossbow requiring a wench and fire it 6 times in 6 secs.
C. Hit something 9 times with two swords in that time.Edit: All numbers assume speed weapons subtract one for no magic 2 from the dual weilding.
Thing is, those things require class abilities and/or feats, and represent your character's superheroic expertise in those areas.
As soon as you take Expert Backpack Digging as a feat, I will agree with you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not trying to anger anyone here but i have two things to add:
1: Rule 0.
2: I was in the Army. A military style large pack capable of carrying what you have listed is not a standard ruck sack. You are looking more at the larger backpack (not necessarily the old green duffel bags). they typically are not what i would think a backpack is. Regardless, even with the quick release straps that hold the top of a ruck down unless you have shoulders and elbows that can move into any direction ( ie. you have no ligaments or cartilage) you cannot get them open while on your back.
In my games I interpret the word "usually" to imply at the DM's Discretion. not every single situation can be thought of and discussed. Situations are going to come up that the DM cannot plan for. That's the fun of players. My DM's have done this to me. Its a situational ruling.
Get on with the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, the fulcrum to this whole thing to me seems to be the word 'usually'. This gives the DM leeway to change the action as necessary within the rules. It is not a houserule, it is within the rules. It is simply up to the DM to dictate when 'usually' applies.
In this case it didnt. Tough cookies, kiddo.
edit: Adding to that, you dont leave an unsheathed blade in your backpack to cut through all your happy breakable objects. At my table, if you were really being a dick about it, its a move to retrieve, and a move to unsheath it. enjoy.
I'm beginning to think people are looking at my list and assuming it is ALL in the backpack. Allow me to point out, again, what specifically resides there:
+1 handaxe
block and tackle (2)
flint and steel
mask
oil flasks (5)
stone of alarm
tent
torches (8)
trail rations (8)
whetstone
55 lbs. total
My high school backpack weighed just as much when carrying all of my books.
Much of it is heavy, but not very bulky. Block and tackle, for example, can be quite small when made of metal or similar strong materials.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm beginning to think people are looking at my list and assuming it is ALL in the backpack. Allow me to point out, again, what specifically resides there:
+1 handaxe
block and tackle (2)
flint and steel
mask
oil flasks (5)
stone of alarm
tent
torches (8)
trail rations (8)
whetstone55 lbs. total
My high school backpack weighed just as much when carrying all of my books.
Much of it is heavy, but not very bulky. Block and tackle, for example, can be quite small when made of metal or similar strong materials.
So you're suggesting a tent (not a modern one, one that was pretty much all canvass and poles), 8 days worth of food (you do realize how much you eat) 8 torches (which are basically clubs, in terms of size) and 2 block and tackle sets.....
you're suggesting all that is not bulky or burdensome?
I give up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. I looked SPECIFICALLY what was in the backpack. one block and tackle takes up about the same dimensions as a shoe box. (i have owned these in real life, we used them on the farm when i was growing up). I would allow for smaller ones in my game IF you spent the money to have a masterwork one made. But then again, that is my game. Also, a new tent that is made of light weight rip stop material that will sleep two is still a sizable object. one modern MRE (enough calories to sustain a human for 24 hours) is roughly 4inches by 6inches by 12inches. Now torches....
do you understand where a DM could be coming from?
So you're suggesting a tent (not a modern one, one that was pretty much all canvass and poles), 8 days worth of food (you do realize how much you eat) 8 torches (which are basically clubs, in terms of size) and 2 block and tackle sets.....you're suggesting all that is not bulky or burdensome?
I give up.
That everything is bulky is merely an assumption on your part. A slender torch is still a torch, the block and tackle can be quite small when made of sturdy materials, trail rations can be quite compact depending on what food it is, etc.
The only thing any of us really have to go off of in the RAW are the weight values of said items. Even that in itself often has little bearing on an item's dimensions, however.
What's more, the dimensions of the backpack space are not stated in the rules, only that it weighs 2 lbs. A 2 lb. backpack made of light sturdy material can hold quite a lot of volume.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i can grant you that some of the equipment can be made smaller for of other materials... are you paying for that luxury or just assuming you can have it because the rules don't say you cannot?
If my players want something that would be considered nonstandard, there is a price for premium equipment. (made of different materials, ect.)
i can grant you that some of the equipment can be made smaller for of other materials... are you paying for that luxury or just assuming you can have it because the rules don't say you cannot?
If my players want something that would be considered nonstandard, there is a price for premium equipment. (made of different materials, ect.)
What luxury? A tent is a tent is a tent. It doesn't matter if it is burlap or polka-dot cotton. If I'm not getting any mechanical benefit and it isn't laced out of rubies, why should I have to pay more?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What luxury? A tent is a tent is a tent. It doesn't matter if it is burlap or polka-dot cotton. If I'm not getting any mechanical benefit and it isn't laced out of rubies, why should I have to pay more?i can grant you that some of the equipment can be made smaller for of other materials... are you paying for that luxury or just assuming you can have it because the rules don't say you cannot?
If my players want something that would be considered nonstandard, there is a price for premium equipment. (made of different materials, ect.)
because fine light weight material (oil treated silk to stick with period) is much more expensive than standard burlap or canvas. Metal pully system is going to take more time to manufacture than a simple wooden block and tackle. ect, ect, ect.
Not everything has to only be about a mechanical bonus just because it has an added cost. Think about the types of people your PC is going to be dealing with. Think about their mentality. (Profit vs. time to make, ect.)
If this doesn't make it easy enough to understand my point then i must not be getting my point across clear enough.
The point is moot in any event, as it is still a move action. The only penalty for pulling a weapon out of a backpack is that it is treated as drawing out an item, which means it is STILL a move action, but a move action that provokes (as it is a bit more distracting).The penalty is whatever the the GM agrees, it was his call and entirely reasonable. You should have sent him an email about it to him afterwards nothing was going to be gained vehemently doing anything.
Go an spend the money on; an Adventurers Sash, a Versatile Vest or a Handy Haversack. Problem solved and your character looks a little more fashionable (no-one looks good in a bulging back pack, it's so first level).
Except the party and myself had everything to gain. Up until I got the axe out and started using it we were quickly heading towards TPK territory. If you recall, we were a 2nd-level party facing a ghost-thing. Many 2nd-level parties don't have any ability to combat incorporeal foes AT ALL. We were just lucky. We also aren't even close to being able to afford the things you describe.
Losing that action and allowing the incorporeal entity to drain more life from us cost us quite dearly. If anything, the GM wasted more time with his ruling than I did with my protest since it prolonged the fight much more than it needed to be.
Though I agree that I maybe should have saved it till later, E-mail in particular faces all the same problems this forum faces.
When faced with this particular situation what you should have done was execute a brilliant military strategy:
Strategic Advance to the Rear. In other words, run away. Gear up better then come back and try again. Or try to figure out what the ghost wanted and get rid of it that way. Not every encounter has to be a fight. Ask any of my players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RD, you were completely right.
It's almost self-flaggelation, though, to come to this messageboard and ask if you were right or if you just weren't accepting enough of the GM's realistic ruling. Folks around here, by and large, are going to focus on the GM's right to rule 0 whatever he wants, and you're going to get discussion around that, and get piled on and beat up over it and so on and so forth. Sometimes I wonder if you like that type of thing because let's face it, it's a common theme for you.
But yeah, you're right. Move action.
Running is fine, bummer on no cleric in the party either.
If in doubt, run.
We did have a cleric. He was taken down in round one by another ghost thing. Running would have required leaving him and others to die.
If it matters, the rest of the party consist of an inquisitor, oracle (me), and a paladin. The paladin benefited from a magic weapon spell on his polearm from the cleric before he went down (thank God for that!), I had a cursed magical handaxe, and the inquisitor had disrupt undead--all of which only dealt half damage against a creature whose bleed/life gain ability was nearly outpacing us. If we didn't have all three forms of attack and weren't so adept at stopping bleed damage, it would have been a completely hopeless encounter.
It's our first themed party ever. :D