I think that the authors sometimes use the phrase "on command" in different ways. Sometimes it refers to a command word activated item, and other times to a use activated item.
In this case, the item only makes sense as use activated. I would read it as if it said, "Three times per day when taking a 5-foot step, the wearer may instead move up to 15' without provoking attacks of opportunity."
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
1) a 5' step is a no action, not a swift action.
2) moving 15' without provoking will allow you to leave the threatened area of most enemies, so you would be capable to do action that normally provoke. It can be a good option to leave a zone threatened by multiple opponents with reach.
3) the main limitation is that you can't make a normal move in the same round in which you have made a 5' step, so you can't use them to leave the threatened area and then move further away.
As the item cost only 7.200 gp I have some doubt if they should grant 15' of movement as a free action.
I, as a GM, probably would make that a move action. Essentially the equivalent of successfully using acrobatics though threatened squares.
It says "on command."
Is that command word a free action? Because just above the quoted text it says, "Activating a magic item is a standard action unless the item description indicates otherwise."
Can all command-word activated items be activated with a free action?
|
|
Is that command word a free action? Because just above the quoted text it says, "Activating a magic item is a standard action unless the item description indicates otherwise."
Can all command-word activated items be activated with a free action?
No.
Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
As it is a command to activate the boot they use a standard action. that make them way less useful as you are left with a move action and a swift action after using them. They can be still useful as a escape system in some situation but that make them a weak item.
It says "on command."
Well if that was the way it was intended to work, then it's not a terribly useful item.
Why not save my money and simply withdraw, tumble, defensively cast teleport, or take any number of alternative "get out of Dodge" actions?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With all due respect to SKR, I can't imagine that the intent is to use a standard action to move 15 feet. It seems clear that the intent is to substitute 15 feet of movement instead of a 5 foot step up to 3 times per day, otherwise it's a completely useless item.
Well, I didn't write or develop it, but if it says "on command," to me that means "uses a command word." Otherwise it should say "at will." If you include a game term in the description, don't use that game term to mean something else.
Withraw? It's a FRA, which prevents you from doing anything else (like reloading, or opening a door). And it only makes the first square safe, which isn't so useful if you're surrounded or have other enemies.
Tumble? Maybe these are for a heavily armored fighter, or a clumsy wizard.
Defensively cast teleport? That's a luxury you don't have if you don't have access to 5th-level spells.
|
With all due respect to SKR, I can't imagine that the intent is to use a standard action to move 15 feet. It seems clear that the intent is to substitute 15 feet of movement instead of a 5 foot step up to 3 times per day, otherwise it's a completely useless item.
It's even worse!
You 'use a standard action to move 15-feet', and then all you're left with is a move action that you cannot use to move, in a situation where you obviously are desperate to move!
Well, I didn't write or develop it, but if it says "on command," to me that means "uses a command word." Otherwise it should say "at will." If you include a game term in the description, don't use that game term to mean something else.
Withraw? It's a FRA, which prevents you from doing anything else (like reloading, or opening a door). And it only makes the first square safe, which isn't so useful if you're surrounded or have other enemies.
Tumble? Maybe these are for a heavily armored fighter, or a clumsy wizard.
Defensively cast teleport? That's a luxury you don't have if you don't have access to 5th-level spells.
Could also be used to move INTO range of an enemy with reach without making a tumble check, or used to enter into a flank on an adjacent enemy without provoking.
I think the answer is:
The boots suck, and apparently that's ok.
It looks strange to see people talk about SKR while you're here, Sean. Mr. Reynolds. Whomever. Thanks for participating.
**** Thread topic houseruled.****
Personally, I would have thought the boots a little overpowered had it been doing what people assumed they did at the price they are. People complain about power creep, but when faced with obvious power creep they want it. *Rolls eyes*
It is easier to believe power creep than that someone would knowingly make a nigh useless item. And I kind of don't think the boots are overpowered the way people thought they worked--it might let you get a full attack three times per day if you can get one from moving 10-15'. That doesn't strike me as amazing.
|
Well it's a good thing that in most games you don't get to cherry pick your items and aren't always in a metropolis to buy them either.
Situationally useful is the classification I'd give them. 15' of no attack of opportunity movement has it's place in the useful tactics territory. Especially if your fighting larger creatures with reach where your usual 5' step does nothing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well it's a good thing that in most games you don't get to cherry pick your items and aren't always in a metropolis to buy them either.
Situationally useful is the classification I'd give them. 15' of no attack of opportunity movement has it's place in the useful tactics territory. Especially if your fighting larger creatures with reach where your usual 5' step does nothing.
Agreed.
As I did say, in my games I would change them so that they require a movement action to activate. Not too powerful, not extremely situational. But an houserule.
But as Sean said the RAW of the text is clear.
These boots are way too good at 7,200 cost giving 3x 5 foot steps a day turned into 15 foot steps. However, with requiring a standard action to activate they are pretty much worthless.
To work as a free action the cost needs to be bumped up to 20k or more, IMO. Increasing the distance of your 5 foot step is a hugely powerful effect and shouldn't be given away cheap unless you just don't want attacks of opportunity to exist in your game anymore.
I'm not sure what you're going for, Solusek. You think they're useless as written, but you also think that if they work like most folks want them to, they're way too powerful? Do you feel that there should be a middle ground, or do you just want them to work on the free action but be more expensive?
Personally, I agree with you that upping the distance on a five foot step can be very powerful, especially for spellcasters, but I think the three times a day limit makes the price about right for the free action thing. Maybe just slightly under cost, but not enough for me to feel like messing with it.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hmm it says Answered in FAQ but i cant find it...
These boots are way too good at 7,200 cost giving 3x 5 foot steps a day turned into 15 foot steps. However, with requiring a standard action to activate they are pretty much worthless.
No offense to Paizo, but that usually is the goal with new stuff.
I think with this you pretty much get a free in or out of reach of something very big or a cluster of enemies with out provoking.
If something is that big, yeah this could come in handy.
The last post was in August - granted it takes a little while at times but three months seems a bit on the long side. Maybe this FAQ request slipped through a crack somewhere?
Guys, "Answered in FAQ" doesn't always mean they actually released a FAQ on it.
It also means they're not GOING to make a FAQ on it. SKR most likely slapped that tag on there immediately after his first post in this thread. No point in following it in the hopes of a FAQ, or FAQing it more times. This thread is no longer in the queue. If you think it needs a FAQ or Errata, you'll need to make a new thread.
This thread was made before the "No Answer Required" tag was a thing, they used to use "Answered in the FAQ" for that purpose as well.