|
| 12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing with creating a Tiefling Magus, and was wondering if I took the prehensile tail alternate racial trait if it could be used to activate a metamagic rod? If not, what about if I took the additional "Grasping Tail" feat? I guess I don't fully understand how a metamagic rod gets "used" when casting the spell. Does it just need to be held, or waved around in a particular way, in which case the tail isn't up to the task? Perhaps my search-fu is weak, but I could only find discussion of Tiefling tails and not being able to use them to wield weapons.
Activation: Details relating to rod use vary from item to item. Unless noted otherwise, you must be holding a rod to use its abilities. See the individual descriptions for specifics.
So, you need to hold it to use it. Since you cannot use items with your tail (it only states that you can retrieve things out of storage) then you will need to get the item out, hand it to a hand (which can use it) and then cast the spell.
Note: There is another question on whether or not 5lbs is light enough for your tail. There is no RAW for this but usually 'small light objects' means about 1lb or less. The Metamagic Rods are 5lbs. Check with your GM to find out what his weight limit is for your tail.
- Gauss
|
|
Thanks Gauss. The text of the trait reads, "Many tieflings have tails, but some have long, flexible tails that can be used to carry items. While they cannot wield weapons with their tails, they can use them to retrieve small, stowed objects carried on their persons as a swift action." So I was concentrating on the bolded aspect, hoping carry = hold, as Gauss bolded. It makes sense that 5 lb. is beyond "small." I was thinking of this for a PFS character, so sadly, no wiggle room from the GM.
Use of a metamagic rod is usually in hand. A GM might rule that since your tail cannot actually use the rod (can only carry it) that it doesn't qualify. Still, it is moot since the weight is probably over the definition of 'small light object'.
Happy to help.
One solution (late in life) would be a Glove of Storing (10,000gp). Free action to put the rod in your hand (and put away again).
- Gauss
Carry and hold are the same thing. Sounds fine to me, OP.
Glove of storing wouldn't work, the rod has to be in hand when casting, but magus's abilities require an empty hand when casting. It's also horribly over priced.
5 lbs is, coincidentally, the weight limit for the mage hand cantrip. I think that's a good guideline to use.
Carrying is not necessarily the same as holding. "Carrying" could mean that it is in your backpack for example. You are carrying it, but you are certainly not holding it. "Holding" is more akin to "grasping."
In any case, holding an item in your tail is still considered holding it, therefore it works.
|
Carrying is not necessarily the same as holding. "Carrying" could mean that it is in your backpack for example. You are carrying it, but you are certainly not holding it. "Holding" is more akin to "grasping."
In any case, holding an item in your tail is still considered holding it, therefore it works.
Thank you for the reply.
The objection I see is that all metamagic rods say "The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that..."So the issue I see is whether wielding is the same as holding. Note that the Grasping Tail feat specifically states that you cannot wield weapons with the tail.
Good thing it isn't a weapon. Those are specifically defined in the Equipment chapter of the Core Rulebook.
|
|
Once again thank you for your reply.
I would be overjoyed if that is the way it works. I am just trying to argue the other side of this argument.
I just wish to see a consensus on how it works. Locally this is not allowed because "wield" is not the same as "hold". The idea being that in order to "wield" something it has to be in your hands, not a tail.
Edit for additional information.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n316?Wield#17
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n316?Wield#23
I see that this could be argued from both sides, so it seems to be up to each individual GM.
My own opinion is that Metamagic Rods are considerably powerful and would be even more powerful, perhaps overpowered, if they were slotless (such adding the ability to a ring or a cloak, or worse, just needing to carry them in your backpack to use them without having to hold them at all). Being able to retrieve them from your pack as a swift action and use them by simply holding them in your tail comes awfully close to this level of overpowered, so I would tend to side on the cautious side (casters are already uber enough) and disallow this use of a tail. But that's just me.
|
Since the Grasping Tail feat specifically says you cannot manipulate objects other than putting them in your hand I am leaning towards no. Actually using a metamagic rod would count as manipulation in my opinion. By the extension just having the prehensile tail without the feat would not be possible either.
Edit: On the other hand, that manipulation clause is in the unattended object part of the description. However, it doesn't make sense to have differential ability to manipulate objects depending on whether it was unattended or stowed. Once your tail is holding it what difference would it make?
The magus can always wield the rod as a mace, letting it serve as both spell booster and weapon.
The only real limitation for the magus is spell combat with his normal weapon and a metamagic rod. Only casting a spell? No problem. Want to keep the rod in hand and just do normal iteratives? No problem. The fact that the magus has this limitation to spell combat isn't a reason to open this option up to all casters (or even just the magus specifically). It's simply a limitation the magus has to work with.
Wielding and holding are not the same thing, though in the case of one handed items that's a pretty thin distinction.
All the rods described here are use-activated...
Now whether the simple act of casting the spell is the 'use' of the rod, or if the rod requires some sort of manipulation in addition to casting the spell is certainly debatable. But use suggests more of an action than simply holding it, in my mind at least.
Glove of Storing is still a perfectly fine solution.
Free action: shift an item (weapon) from one hand to another, or in this case a tail.
Free action: retrieve rod from glove
[...]
Free action: put rod away
Free action: shift weapon from tail to hand.
|
|
Glove of Storing is still a perfectly fine solution.
Free action: shift an item (weapon) from one hand to another, or in this case a tail.
Free action: retrieve rod from glove
[...]
Free action: put rod away
Free action: shift weapon from tail to hand.
The bolded sections would be debatable since there isn't a clear definition on what action it takes to put a weapon from a hand into the tail and vice versa.
I would personally agree that it is a free action but I have run into situations where the GM ruled that it used up a swift to put anything in the tail.
Glove of Storing is still a perfectly fine solution.
Free action: shift an item (weapon) from one hand to another, or in this case a tail.
Free action: retrieve rod from glove
[...]
Free action: put rod away
Free action: shift weapon from tail to hand.The bolded sections would be debatable since there isn't a clear definition on what action it takes to put a weapon from a hand into the tail and vice versa.
I would personally agree that it is a free action but I have run into situations where the GM ruled that it used up a swift to put anything in the tail.
Picking up an item off the ground or on your person (generally stashed in a little waist bag or something) with a Tail is a Swift Action as described by the Tiefling trait/feat.
Since most tail additions say it can function as a hand for manipulation purposes (but not for fine manipulation that requires multiple fingers), it's safe to rule that tossing it to an open hand is a Free Action, and Vice-Versa, since the FAQ regarding that and two-handed weapons says so regarding hands (which the ability treats the tail as if it were a hand).
As far as the trait being really powerful in this case, it's not too overpowered. At best, it holds a rod for use, at worst, it's a trait/feat not worth taking. Let the Magus eat his cheese on this, since it's not like he's having it later.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd allow it, with the caveat to the players that non-tail-having NPCs can wield metamagic rods clenched between their butt cheeks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the Grasping Tail feat specifically says you cannot manipulate objects other than putting them in your hand I am leaning towards no. Actually using a metamagic rod would count as manipulation in my opinion. By the extension just having the prehensile tail without the feat would not be possible either.
Edit: On the other hand, that manipulation clause is in the unattended object part of the description. However, it doesn't make sense to have differential ability to manipulate objects depending on whether it was unattended or stowed. Once your tail is holding it what difference would it make?
Metamagic rods only require you to be able to hold them, that's well within what the basic tail allows. It doesn't require you to point the rod at the target, or wave it around, or anything. Just hold it.
In any case, this is ONLY an issue for the Magus, so while I agree primary casters are quite powerful and don't mind harsh rules readings to nerf them... Wizards don't care about this tail nonsense anyway. Their hands are totally free between the mithral buckler strapped to their arm and the complete lack of need for a weapon. Trying to come down against using the tail for rods doesn't actually hurt the powerful casters. It would just hurt the Magus, which is a perfectly middle tier, reasonably balanced fighter/mage hybrid class.
|
|
Metamagic rods only require you to be able to hold them, that's well within what the basic tail allows. It doesn't require you to point the rod at the target, or wave it around, or anything. Just hold it.
Can you point me to that rule? All I'm seeing is that metamagic rods are use-activated which is pretty vague. Some use-activated items you need to actively manipulate (sword, potion) while others you don't (wearing an item).
|
|
Metamagic rods only require you to be able to hold them, that's well within what the basic tail allows. It doesn't require you to point the rod at the target, or wave it around, or anything. Just hold it.
Can you point me to that rule? All I'm seeing is that metamagic rods are use-activated which is pretty vague. Some use-activated items you need to actively manipulate (sword, potion) while others you don't (wearing an item).
As Gauss already pointed out, to use the rod, you need to wield it, not simply to hold it.
A caster may only use one metamagic rod on any given spell, but it is permissible to combine a rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rod's wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast.
wielding has been defined by SKR as "Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on."
Complete citation:
Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.
Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.
And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.
And if you're not wielding, holding/carrying/bearing, or wearing the item, it's probably unattended.
If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.
If you're holding or carrying a sword, you just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it.
You probably can't wear a sword.
If you're not wielding the sword, holding/carrying/bearing the sword, or wearing the sword, it's on the ground.
As you say a metamagic rod is a Use Activated item:
Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.
Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items are practically always items that one wears. A few must simply be in the character's possession (meaning on his person). However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case.
It isn't one of the use activated items that you simply wear (there is no body slot in which you wear it), so it has to held and used in some (undefined) way, probably waving it around.
As the tail can't use items I would say that it can't use the rod.
I'd allow it, with the caveat to the players that non-tail-having NPCs can wield metamagic rods clenched between their butt cheeks.
Sarcasm noted. But this does raise an interesting question.
How many GMs would allow this? Or more realistic approaches, like holding the metamagic rod between their knees, or under their arm pit, or in their teeth (if the spell has no verbal component), or under their chin, or by bending their neck to hold the rod between their ear and shoulder like people sometimes do with telephones?
All of these ideas could "hold" the rod without "wielding" it. Would any GM allow this kind of thing?
My suggestion would be: if you would allow those ideas to work, then the prehensile tail should work too, but if you wouldn't, then you should probably disallow the tail.
|
|
It isn't one of the use activated items that you simply wear (there is no body slot in which you wear it), so it has to held and used in some (undefined) way, probably waving it around.As the tail can't use items I would say that it can't use the rod.
I'm not trying to troll but if a tail can pick an item off the ground or take a specific item out of a pack filled with numerous other things as a swift action, I don't see why it wouldn't be able to wave a rod around.
Is there a clear definition somewhere that states what it takes to wield a rod. I know there's the wield definition but what exactly does wield mean in the context of a rod.
|
|
I'd allow it, with the caveat to the players that non-tail-having NPCs can wield metamagic rods clenched between their butt cheeks.Sarcasm noted. But this does raise an interesting question.
How many GMs would allow this? Or more realistic approaches, like holding the metamagic rod between their knees, or under their arm pit, or in their teeth (if the spell has no verbal component), or under their chin, or by bending their neck to hold the rod between their ear and shoulder like people sometimes do with telephones?
All of these ideas could "hold" the rod without "wielding" it. Would any GM allow this kind of thing?
My suggestion would be: if you would allow those ideas to work, then the prehensile tail should work too, but if you wouldn't, then you should probably disallow the tail.
Except all the options you listed would leave a person engaged in combat at a disadvantageous position to defend themselves or attack. Whereas a tail would not hinder movement or vision as would happen with trying to hold a rod anywhere else.
Metamagic rods only require you to be able to hold them, that's well within what the basic tail allows. It doesn't require you to point the rod at the target, or wave it around, or anything. Just hold it.
Can you point me to that rule? All I'm seeing is that metamagic rods are use-activated which is pretty vague. Some use-activated items you need to actively manipulate (sword, potion) while others you don't (wearing an item).
I am referring to the rules for rods.
Activation: Details relating to rod use vary from item to item. Unless noted otherwise, you must be holding a rod to use its abilities. See the individual descriptions for specifics.
It just says you need to be holding it. For metamagic rods...
Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat, allowing the user to apply metamagic effects to spells (but not spell-like abilities) as they are cast. This does not change the spell slot of the altered spell. All the rods described here are use-activated (but casting spells in a threatened area still draws an attack of opportunity). A caster may only use one metamagic rod on any given spell, but it is permissible to combine a rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rod's wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast.
Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day. A sorcerer still must take a full-round action when using a metamagic rod, just as if using a metamagic feat he possesses (except for quicken metamagic rods, which can be used as a swift action).
It does say use-activated and "wielder," but that blatantly conflicts with the rules for rod activation and the sentence bolded, which implies you only need to possess the rod to use it.
And from the quote of use-activated, it in no way implies you're flailing it around or anything. It even outright says most use-activated items are things you just wear.
Except all the options you listed would leave a person engaged in combat at a disadvantageous position to defend themselves or attack. Whereas a tail would not hinder movement or vision as would happen with trying to hold a rod anywhere else.
Perhaps. But not all spellcasting is done in the midst of combat. Someone might just use a metamagic rod for pre-combat buffing or for healing or for just general daily spellcasting. Even in combat, sometimes the spellcasters are safely behind their tough meat shields and can safely just stand still and cast spells - no movement to hinder or vision to limit.
In the heat of wild combat with spellcasters having to run around and position themselves tactically for survival and/or to gain proper line of effect to their targets, sure, a prehensile tail would be better than most of the options I listed, but otherwise mechanically they're much the same.
|
|
It isn't one of the use activated items that you simply wear (there is no body slot in which you wear it), so it has to held and used in some (undefined) way, probably waving it around.As the tail can't use items I would say that it can't use the rod.
I'm not trying to troll but if a tail can pick an item off the ground or take a specific item out of a pack filled with numerous other things as a swift action, I don't see why it wouldn't be able to wave a rod around.
Is there a clear definition somewhere that states what it takes to wield a rod. I know there's the wield definition but what exactly does wield mean in the context of a rod.
Your tail has a very limited range of allowed actions:
Prehensile Tail: Many tieflings have tails, but some have long, flexible tails that can be used to carry items. While they cannot wield weapons with their tails, they can use them to retrieve small, stowed objects carried on their persons as a swift action. This racial trait replaces fiendish sorcery.
"they can use them to retrieve small, stowed objects carried on their persons as a swift action" it all the actions they are allowed to do with their tail.
RAW they can't even hold a item in the tail after retrieving it.For sure they can't use a item with the tail, and wielding a non wearable use activated item require using it.
About wielding I gave you a very detailed definition of what wielding mean by one of the Developers. If that is not sufficient, I don't know what you want.
RAW they can't even hold a item in the tail after retrieving it.
It is posts like this that make Devs like SKR get on and rant at people about using common sense.
|
|
It is posts like this that make Devs like SKR get on and rant at people about using common sense.
RAW they can't even hold a item in the tail after retrieving it.
MDT, while I would allow people to keep an item in the prehensile tail, when they try to transform it in a third hand that whose only limit is to not be able to attack, pointing out how restricted is the range of allowed actions is the only way to go.
Your tail has a very limited range of allowed actions:
Prehensile Tail: Many tieflings have tails, but some have long, flexible tails that can be used to carry items. While they cannot wield weapons with their tails, they can use them to retrieve small, stowed objects carried on their persons as a swift action. This racial trait replaces fiendish sorcery.RAW they can't even hold a item in the tail after retrieving it.
for sure they can't use a item with the tail, and wielding a non wearable use activated item require using it.
They can hold (carry) items in their tail (see the bolded part above).
The text doesn't actually say anything about a limit to the size of an object that can be carried, only to what can be retrieved from stowage. Per an exact reading, the tail can be used to carry a Great Sword. It definitely can't wield it or draw it from a stowed condition.
Right, they can hold a item in it.
They still can't wield or use a item with it.|
|
I want to remind everyone that this discussion is regarding a Tiefling with both the racial trait Prehensile tail and the Grasping Tail feat. Which reads as follows:
Grasping Tail:
Benefit: You can use your tail to grab stowed items. While you cannot wield weapons with your tail, you can use it to retrieve small, stowed objects carried on your person as a swift action.Special: If you have the prehensile tail racial trait, you can use your tail to grab unattended items within 5 feet as a swift action as well as to grab stowed objects carried on your person; you can hold such objects with your tail, though you cannot manipulate them with your tail (other than to put them in your hand).
|
|
I want to remind everyone that this discussion is regarding a Tiefling with both the racial trait Prehensile tail and the Grasping Tail feat. Which reads as follows:Grasping Tail:
Benefit: You can use your tail to grab stowed items. While you cannot wield weapons with your tail, you can use it to retrieve small, stowed objects carried on your person as a swift action.Special: If you have the prehensile tail racial trait, you can use your tail to grab unattended items within 5 feet as a swift action as well as to grab stowed objects carried on your person; you can hold such objects with your tail, though you cannot manipulate them with your tail (other than to put them in your hand).
Still in the same boat. You can retrieve objects, you can hold them, you can grab unattended objects.
You can't wield them.Grasping Tail is even more specific: you can hold such objects with your tail, though you cannot manipulate them with your tail (other than to put them in your hand).
Good thing the feats says you can't wield WEAPONS. It is not a sword, axe, or other weapon from the weapons tables. Ergo, IT WORKS! :P
|
|
Good thing the feats says you can't wield WEAPONS. It is not a sword, axe, or other weapon from the weapons tables. Ergo, IT WORKS! :P
Only if you willingly forget that Grasping Tail say:
you cannot manipulate them with your tailand Prehensile tail limit your actions to:
they can use them to retrieve small, stowed objects carried on their persons as a swift action.
and
long, flexible tails that can be used to carry items.
Limits: carrying and retrieving, nothing that allow wielding anything.
You don't need to "wield" a metamagic rod, though. Just hold it. You don't need to wield one any more than someone with a hat of disguise (to use an example of a use-activated item) needs to "wield" that.
And the tail is far more limited than just "no using weapons." You could not hold anything other than light objects with it. You cannot wear a shield on it. You cannot point a wand at the target or wave it around with it. You cannot unfurl a scroll with it.
Holding light objects is what it can do, though.
|
|
It does say use-activated and "wielder," but that blatantly conflicts with the rules for rod activation and the sentence bolded, which implies you only need to possess the rod to use it.
Thanks for that. I'm probably over thinking this, but I wonder if holding the rod is a necessary but insufficient condition, and if some sort of manipulation is still necessary.
If it was necessary, they would have said so. Like, "you must wield the rod to use it" or "By waving this rod around, your spell gains the benefit of..." Instead, I think they were just using wielder as a generic meaning for someone who's holding the item. And again, being use-activated doesn't imply any action or lack thereof required, plenty of use-activated items just are worn on your body.
|
|
You don't need to "wield" a metamagic rod, though. Just hold it. You don't need to wield one any more than someone with a hat of disguise (to use an example of a use-activated item) needs to "wield" that.
And the tail is far more limited than just "no using weapons." You could not hold anything other than light objects with it. You cannot wear a shield on it. You cannot point a wand at the target or wave it around with it. You cannot unfurl a scroll with it.
Holding light objects is what it can do, though.
It is a use a activated item.
You use a hat wearing it.You use a rod wielding it.
If it was necessary, they would have said so. Like, "you must wield the rod to use it" or "By waving this rod around, your spell gains the benefit of..." Instead, I think they were just using wielder as a generic meaning for someone who's holding the item. And again, being use-activated doesn't imply any action or lack thereof required, plenty of use-activated items just are worn on your body.
Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.
Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items are practically always items that one wears. A few must simply be in the character's possession (meaning on his person). However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case.
Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself. If the use of the item takes time before a magical effect occurs, then use activation is a standard action. If the item's activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use, activation is not an action at all.
Use activation doesn't mean that if you use an item, you automatically know what it can do. You must know (or at least guess) what the item can do and then use the item in order to activate it, unless the benefit of the item comes automatically, such as from drinking a potion or swinging a sword.
Using =/= holding.
Using a piece of garment is wearing it, using a rod isn't holding it in a random appendage. Using it assume some kind of manipulation.
Use the rod as the handle for your chosen weapon.
Problem solved.
I agree that simply holding it suffices.
It is posts like this that make Devs like SKR get on and rant at people about using common sense.
RAW they can't even hold a item in the tail after retrieving it.
MDT, while I would allow people to keep an item in the prehensile tail, when they try to transform it in a third hand that whose only limit is to not be able to attack, pointing out how restricted is the range of allowed actions is the only way to go.
Then say that. Don't quote RAW saying they can't hold an item in the tail, as that's utterly bogus and a really dumb argument. If you can't hold the item, how are you retrieving it? With the power of your fairy dust and good wishes? Either the tail can hold something, or it can't. The real question, is merely holding it with the tail sufficient to use the rod, and it can be argued either way.
Your above statement is just rather childish, and it really muddies the waters, rather than tries to clarify anything.
Right, they can hold a item in it.
They still can't wield or use a item with it.
This is a better argument, but the fact you argue it in the same breath you argue that RAW they can't hold an item should, I hope, reach out from the page like a slap and indicate to you that you have, in one post, argued that they cannot hold anything by RAW and then admitted they can hold it by RAW? Yes?
As I said, the second half, arguing that need to be able to wield it, not just carry it, is a different argument, and has some merit to it. However, arguing that they can't hold anything by RAW, just retrieve and move things falls as flat as saying someone can talk, they just aren't allowed to use their mouth to do it.
Personally, based on the wording of Rods, I'd say it depends on the activation method.
If the rod's activation method is 'Must be pointed at the target of the spell like a wand' then no, the tail is not sufficient. If the activation is 'must be held and the words 'reducto absurdium' said aloud', then yeah, I think the prehensile tail is sufficient.
As to the argument earlier about allowing it to be held under an arm, that's not really holding it, that's just having it on your person. To hold something, you must have some minimal control over it in an appendage. And for the further argument 'bu bu bu humans do not get that ability!'. Yeah, they also don't get darkvision, or spell like abilities, or the ability to run at max movement regadless of armor or weight carried, or have poison blood, or any of a thousand other racial traits that other races have. That doesn't mean that none of the other races can't have those abilities because everyone doesn't. The prehensile tail cost Race Building Points (see the ARP), so it grants a tangible bonus (in this case, the ability to retrieve small objects as a swift action, and to hold small objects, of which a rod may be one). Honestly the argument about 'bu bu bu humans can not do that' is one of the sillier arguments I've ever heard. If you want to use that as an argument, then only allow humans in your setting.
I agree that simply holding it suffices.
I agree. And - the tail holds things...by RAW.
The intent is clearly to keep players from treating the tail as offering an extra attack. It doesn't.|
|
It is posts like this that make Devs like SKR get on and rant at people about using common sense.
RAW they can't even hold a item in the tail after retrieving it.
MDT, while I would allow people to keep an item in the prehensile tail, when they try to transform it in a third hand that whose only limit is to not be able to attack, pointing out how restricted is the range of allowed actions is the only way to go.
Then say that. Don't quote RAW saying they can't hold an item in the tail, as that's utterly bogus and a really dumb argument. If you can't hold the item, how are you retrieving it? With the power of your fairy dust and good wishes? Either the tail can hold something, or it can't. The real question, is merely holding it with the tail sufficient to use the rod, and it can be argued either way.
Your above statement is just rather childish, and it really muddies the waters, rather than tries to clarify anything.
Right, they can hold a item in it.
They still can't wield or use a item with it.
This is a better argument, but the fact you argue it in the same breath you argue that RAW they can't hold an item should, I hope, reach out from the page like a slap and indicate to you that you have, in one post, argued that they cannot hold anything by RAW and then admitted they can hold it by RAW? Yes?
As I said, the second half, arguing that need to be able to wield it, not just carry it, is a different argument, and has some merit to it. However, arguing that they can't hold anything by RAW, just retrieve and move things falls as flat as saying someone can talk, they just aren't allowed to use their mouth to do it.
I added the second statement as it was show to me that the rules allow holding.
The first statement was based on what the animal with a prehensile tail do in real life and the line "they can use them to retrieve small, stowed objects carried on their persons as a swift action. ", I hadn't noticed the piece about "long, flexible tails that can be used to carry items.".AFAIK, in our world animals with a prehensile tail use it to retrieve items but (with the exception of some possum carrying their puppies with it) they don't use it to hold items, they immediately transfer the item to the mouth or a paw. Probably it has to do with using the tail to keep balance.
|
|
Personally, based on the wording of Rods, I'd say it depends on the activation method.
If the rod's activation method is 'Must be pointed at the target of the spell like a wand' then no, the tail is not sufficient. If the activation is 'must be held and the words 'reducto absurdium' said aloud', then yeah, I think the prehensile tail is sufficient.
As to the argument earlier about allowing it to be held under an arm, that's not really holding it, that's just having it on your person. To hold something, you must have some minimal control over it in an appendage. And for the further argument 'bu bu bu humans do not get that ability!'. Yeah, they also don't get darkvision, or spell like abilities, or the ability to run at max movement regadless of armor or weight carried, or have poison blood, or any of a thousand other racial traits that other races have. That doesn't mean that none of the other races can't have those abilities because everyone doesn't. The prehensile tail cost Race Building Points (see the ARP), so it grants a tangible bonus (in this case, the ability to retrieve small objects as a swift action, and to hold small objects, of which a rod may be one). Honestly the argument about 'bu bu bu humans can not do that' is one of the sillier arguments I've ever heard. If you want to use that as an argument, then only allow humans in your setting.
We have a dev statement that say that wielding is different from holding.
A use activate item can be wielded, worn, or be something that is on your person.A metamagic rod work when it is simply on your person - no, the rules use several times the world "wielder"
A metamagic rod work when worn - no, it is not a itme that can be worn
Third option, you have to wield it.
[quote)Sean K Reynolds]
Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.
Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.
So, you either have decided to substitute wielder with holder in this phrase or the tail can't use the rod "A caster may only use one metamagic rod on any given spell, but it is permissible to combine a rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rod's wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the ]b]wielder[/b] adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast."
And Grasping tail is meant to be a feat that allow you to use your prehensile in new ways without adding limitations to it, how do you explain this phrase in the feat?
you can hold such objects with your tail, though you cannot manipulate them with your tail (other than to put them in your hand).
- * -
About the wand example, curiously there is a way better argument in favor of allowing the tail to use a wand, as the requirement it to hold the item.
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 action, however, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.
The holding requirement is covered for sure by the tail, as it was show to me several times, the question is if the tail can point it in the "general direction of the target or area".
For the OP, the tail seem way better suited for a magus with the Wand Wielder arcana than for the use of metamagic rods.
The rules say "Rods weigh approximately 5 pounds" while wands "weighs no more than 1 ounce".
1 ounce seem more on line with "small ... objects".
Honestly it can be nice colloquially to use that kind of text, but an added lien "weighting no more than XX" would have been very useful.
In the game a "small object" can mean a lot of things:
- tiny objects like potions and wands;
- any small weapon and item of roughly the same shape and weight;
- a small item, i.e. something that an human can manipulate with one hand;
- a small creature.
So it can be from a few ounces to a few pounds, or from a small backpack full of stuff to a dead halfling in full gear.
Awfully imprecise and subject to table variations.
Ha.
It is always fun to watch people argue about a topic like this. Wield, hold, carry, etc... these are not exactly defined game terms like people seem to want them to be, they are simply common language usage, and should be read as such.
•Prehensile Tail Many tieflings have tails, but some have long, flexible tails that can be used to carry items. While they cannot wield weapons with their tails, they can use them to retrieve small, stowed objects carried on their persons as a swift action. This racial trait replaces fiendish sorcery.
The bolded part is all you need to read to know that they can hold a rod with the tail. Holding a rod is the requirement to activate and use it... so, clearly they can do so.
As far as the Grasping tail feat...
If you have the prehensile tail racial trait, you can use your tail to grab unattended items within 5 feet as a swift action as well as to grab stowed objects carried on your person; you can hold such objects with your tail, though you cannot manipulate them with your tail (other than to put them in your hand).
That bolded bit just means you cannot manipulate objects... like, you cannot use the tail to flip light switches, pull levers, reload a crossbow, etc. You can only pick stuff up, and hold them, and put them in your hand.
If you are holding a rod, you can use it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. It's hardly broken allowing them to use objects in their tail.
By RAW, it's actually more restricting to take the Grasping Tail feat, versus the racial trait.
Here's what "Manipulate an Item" in the Combat section says:
Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.
This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Examples of this kind of action, along with whether they incur an attack of opportunity, are given in Table: Actions in Combat.
For all you goobers saying you can't manipulate a Rod with your tail, you better be enforcing the factor that for casters to use a Rod, it requires a Move Action to Manipulate (and therefore activate its effects). Chances are, you aren't, in which case your argument holds no water when you don't enforce your own rules (that you decided to make up in attempts to nerf those who have a tail).