Practical management of the Necklace of Fireballs

[Jiggy]

Necklace of Fireballs

So, suppose I have such a necklace sitting safely in my Handy Haversack. I use a move action to retrieve it. Can I now, with the necklace in my hand, pluck-n-chuck a bead? Or do I need to put the necklace on first and then start chucking beads once it's around my neck?

Note that it doesn't occupy a magic item slot, so the first person to point out that you only get the benefits of a magic item while it's in the appropriate slot is causing kittens to drown and dolphins to get run over by jetskis. Kidding. But seriously, don't answer questions for which you haven't read even the most obviously-relevant and conveniently-linked text.

Thoughts?

[Tiny Coffee Golem]

Two words:

Monkey Familiar

[David Thomassen]

"...sometimes with the ends tied together to form a necklace. ...If a character holds it, however, all can see the strand as it really is—a golden chain from which hang a number of golden spheres. The spheres are detachable by the wearer (and only by the wearer)..."

I would say that you do not have to wear it to detach the spheres, given the 'sometimes' in the first line. It will take 2 hands to remove a sphere when not worn, so no heavy shield or weapon in the other hand.
The next question is what type of action is to pluck the sphere and throw it - Standard (as per normal magic item activation) or an attack action (Fireballs flying left right and centre). I would say Standard, but would love it if it was just an attack action (Unless I was on the recieving end)

[Khuldar]

David Thomassen wrote:

The next question is what type of action is to pluck the sphere and throw it - Standard (as per normal magic item activation) or an attack action (Fireballs flying left right and centre). I would say Standard, but would love it if it was just an attack action (Unless I was on the recieving end)

While not fireballs, you might want to look at Javelin's of Lightning for your AOE spell as an attack action goodness...

[Cheapy]

Hmm, beguiling gift, that, dimension door, and fireball.

[Larry Lichman]

David Thomassen wrote:

"...sometimes with the ends tied together to form a necklace. ...If a character holds it, however, all can see the strand as it really is—a golden chain from which hang a number of golden spheres. The spheres are detachable by the wearer (and only by the wearer)..."

I would say that you do not have to wear it to detach the spheres, given the 'sometimes' in the first line. It will take 2 hands to remove a sphere when not worn, so no heavy shield or weapon in the other hand.
The next question is what type of action is to pluck the sphere and throw it - Standard (as per normal magic item activation) or an attack action (Fireballs flying left right and centre). I would say Standard, but would love it if it was just an attack action (Unless I was on the recieving end)

I disagree. Based on the bolded text above, it seems that you must be wearing the necklace to remove the beads. Holding it only allows you to see its true appearance.

I see this as a safety feature. This way, you can carry it around in your backpack/saddlebag/pouch/pocket without them exploding due to incidental impact with other items when they are rattling around when you are moving/fighting, or any other accidental means because they can't be removed unless you are actually wearing the item as a necklace. EDIT: Man, what a horrible run-on sentence...

[Jiggy]

Larry Lichman wrote:

Holding it only allows you to see its true appearance.

I see this as a safety feature. This way, you can carry it around in your backpack/saddlebag/pouch/pocket without them exploding due to incidental impact with other items when they are rattling around when you are moving/fighting, or any other accidental means because they can't be removed unless you are actually wearing the item as a necklace.

Then why is it that they can still be accidentally detonated while merely being carried?

Necklace of Fireballs wrote:

If the necklace is being worn or carried by a character who fails her saving throw against a magical fire attack, the item must make a saving throw as well (with a save bonus of +7). If the necklace fails to save, all its remaining spheres detonate simultaneously, often with regrettable consequences for the wearer.

Doesn't it seem weird that if I pull it from my pack but don't put it on, then I can't remove/throw a bead but can still have them blow up in my face? Can that really be the intent?

[Larry Lichman]

Jiggy wrote:

Larry Lichman wrote:

Holding it only allows you to see its true appearance.

I see this as a safety feature. This way, you can carry it around in your backpack/saddlebag/pouch/pocket without them exploding due to incidental impact with other items when they are rattling around when you are moving/fighting, or any other accidental means because they can't be removed unless you are actually wearing the item as a necklace.

Then why is it that they can still be accidentally detonated while merely being carried?

Necklace of Fireballs wrote:

If the necklace is being worn or carried by a character who fails her saving throw against a magical fire attack, the item must make a saving throw as well (with a save bonus of +7). If the necklace fails to save, all its remaining spheres detonate simultaneously, often with regrettable consequences for the wearer.

Doesn't it seem weird that if I pull it from my pack but don't put it on, then I can't remove/throw a bead but can still have them blow up in my face? Can that really be the intent?

I'll admit the wording is wonky, and my logic may be off as to intent, but I still stand by my interpretation. I would think "owner" or "wielder" would be a better way of saying just holding the item allows you to remove the beads. But since "wearer" is the term used, I believe it indicates that you must be wearing the necklace to remove the beads.

YMMV

[Jiggy]

Larry Lichman wrote:

I'll admit the wording is wonky, and my logic may be off as to intent, but I still stand by my interpretation. I would think "owner" or "wielder" would be a better way of saying just holding the item allows you to remove the beads. But since "wearer" is the term used, I believe it indicates that you must be wearing the necklace to remove the beads.

YMMV

True, true... On the other hand, if it said "owner" you'd get a bunch of "No sale receipt? No fireballs!" and if it said "wielder" you'd get into "you have to throw a bead to wield it, but you have to wield it to throw a bead, therefore the universe implodes". Perhaps "wearer" was just the simplest word choice (much like how it refers to "her" in the description but is probably not limited to female users).

I guess I see this as having the potential to be a situation similar to the handedness of shields - only recently did the FAQ point out that shield bashes don't have to be off-hand attacks, yet the line calling them out as such was in the CRB for years despite being merely a casual statement of "assumption" rather than a rules requirement.

I guess I just wonder if "wearer" is supposed to be shorthand for "the person with the necklace" (which would seem to mesh well with in-hand detonation and being an unslotted item, but is less literally accurate) or if it really does literally mean you have to wear it to remove a bead (which seems to clash with in-hand detonation and being an unslotted item, but is more literally accurate).

So I suppose that means this whole thread is an exercise in guessing designer intent.

[Larry Lichman]

True. I did flag your original post for an FAQ. Maybe we can get an official answer.

In any case, I doubt there's much of a downside to whichever interpretation you choose to go with. I don't see it as a gamebreaker to allow someone to hold the necklace and remove beads as opposed to making them put it on before removing beads...