A 5gp dagger should come with something extra since it is 3gp overpriced!
One question I haven't seen come up much yet is how many wands you can hold in one hand. For a PC who just wants to be able to switch between different wands quickly maybe walking around clutching a bundle of wands in one hand and switching them from hand to hand as a free action could be a solution.
The player with too many wands should probably get an efficient quiver to store them in.
|
All of those examples have written-in caveats:
- ranged attacks provoke (this is separate to the casting provocation, which no longer provokes thanks to Quickened)
- Surprising Charge is an immediate action, not a swift action
- the Stand Up rogue talent specifically states that it provokes, and specific overrides general.
and most importantly:
- drawing from the wrist sheathe is a move action, which provokes because it is slower than a spring-loaded wrist sheathe (a swift action), which makes sense.
|
When players buy weapons, do DMs make them buy and note belt sheaths/scabbards?
Why not just assume every 750gp wand comes with a 1sp value belt sheath, just like that 5gp dagger?
I always found it weird that they mention weapons getting a free sheath, while wands get nothing. Especially considering they don't exactly fit a standard pouch and you wouldn't want a wood wand in your pack in case some of the other contents fell on it and snapped it. There's not specific sheath you can buy to hold it in either, aside from the wrist sheathes. In my games I'm happy to allow a PC to just have a sheath come with the wand. Keeps them from buying daggers to get the sheath and then throw away the daggers.
Also, I have to say I'm surprised how many people think the rules favor the idea that you can draw while moving. That's how I thought the rule worked before I started playing PFS, and nobody in my area rules that you can draw while moving. That's also why every single caster has a spring loaded wrist sheath, sometimes two.
|
does retrieving a Wand from a spring Loaded wrist sheath ProvokeRetrieving an item should only provoke an attack of opportunity when it means your'e taking your eyes off the fight to dig through a bag or whatever to do so. A spring-loaded wrist sheath type thing is a swift action and doesn't require you to turn your attention away from defending yourself (it's not a move action) and as such should not provoke an attack of opportunity.
I know JJ's not a "rules guy", but ever since I read this I stopped making AoOs against PCs with SLWSs.
Get that gnome tinkerer to craft a hand-held gattling wand canon. Just rotate the selector drum and fire.
Seriously, there should be no reason you can't stow a wand in a pocket, bandolier, belt pouch-slash-holster or wrist sheath and bring it to hand while moving (assuming the BAB+1 restriction), since only a very narrow reading of the rules disallows it.
How many wands can you hold? One in each hand. How many can you stow in any given location? It probably depends on how inventive your tailor is, but at least a couple.
Why get your knickers in a twist over the slightest little detail in the RULES, when common sense can cover it?
|
I know JJ's not a "rules guy", but ever since I read this I stopped making AoOs against PCs with SLWSs.does retrieving a Wand from a spring Loaded wrist sheath ProvokeRetrieving an item should only provoke an attack of opportunity when it means your'e taking your eyes off the fight to dig through a bag or whatever to do so. A spring-loaded wrist sheath type thing is a swift action and doesn't require you to turn your attention away from defending yourself (it's not a move action) and as such should not provoke an attack of opportunity.
I always think of the SLWS as a low-tech version of the holster from Harry Harrison's Deathworld trilogy.
If "every caster" has spring loaded wrist sheathes I think that contributes to a certain aura of goofiness. It does make me think of building an NPC named Magus Bickle though.
@Chris Mortika - I'd kind of forgotten about Weaponwand. It is a nice spell in games where it is available.
@Wheldrake - The physical description of wands in the rules says, "A wand is 6 to 12 inches long, 1/4 inch thick, and weighs no more than 1 ounce." A typical human could easily hold several objects like that in one hand based on "common sense". I could accept a DM not allowing that in a game though, and I'd certainly expect that you need to be holding just one wand in a particular hand to use the wand.
|
|
I understand this will never be resolved outside an FAQ, but I'd like to throw some gasoline on this fire and see where it goes.
Scenario: Melee type caster with CLW wand needs to leave melee to heal/stabalize a fallen comrade. His opponent has combat reflexes.
1) WAND TREATED AS WEAPON-LIKE OBJECT. He drops melee weapon (free action), moves 20' + draw wand (free action when combined), poke the comrade with glowing stick (standard).
1a) He provokes an AOO by leaving melee. Does he also provoke by drawing a wand? It's two different provoking actions. Normally drawing a wand provokes but I see hair splitting on "when" he drew the wand. The player simply says, I drew it outside the threatened square so no secondary AOO. (or "it's a free action, therefore doesn't provoke"), but its combined with a move action that does provoke...
1b) What if the character rushes through other threatened squares by other opponents, incurring multiple AOO's to save his comrade? (1 AOO each or 2?).
Now, same situation but using a SL Wrist Sheath.
2) He drops the melee weapon (Free action), moves 20' (move action), activate wrist sheath (swift action), poke comrade (standard).
2a) This cleans up things substantially as we have clear indication when everything happens, but it costs an additional swift action to retrieve the item making it WORSE than pulling it out of a belt holster. Worst investment ever?
It is this reason I've been table ruling wands aren't weapons able to retrieve for free w/ +1 BAB w/ movement as that table ruling interpretation provokes more table ruling interpretations. After reading the forum here, I see both sides but until I wrap my head around the above, or receive an FAQ i'm in the non-weapon camp.
I understand this will never be resolved outside an FAQ, but I'd like to throw some gasoline on this fire and see where it goes.
Scenario: Melee type caster with CLW wand needs to leave melee to heal/stabalize a fallen comrade. His opponent has combat reflexes.
1) WAND TREATED AS WEAPON-LIKE OBJECT. He drops melee weapon (free action), moves 20' + draw wand (free action when combined), poke the comrade with glowing stick (standard).
1a) He provokes an AOO by leaving melee. Does he also provoke by drawing a wand? It's two different provoking actions. Normally drawing a wand provokes but I see hair splitting on "when" he drew the wand. The player simply says, I drew it outside the threatened square so no secondary AOO. (or "it's a free action, therefore doesn't provoke"), but its combined with a move action that does provoke...
If you let the character draw the wand a free action while moving, you're using the action "draw a weapon", which never provokes.
You would never try to take a second AoO on a character who is drawing a dagger while moving. The wand would be no different.
1b) What if the character rushes through other threatened squares by other opponents, incurring multiple AOO's to save his comrade? (1 AOO each or 2?).
One AoO each.
Note: If you did not let the character draw the wand while moving, then you are probably forcing him to use the action "retrieve a stored item", which is a move action that does provoke (barring a handy haversack or similar item/ability). In that case, he would take 2 AoOs: one from moving, and one from drawing the wand. He would only take the second AoO from enemies that were adjacent to him when he stopped moving to draw the wand. (And he couldn't heal his buddy on the same round anyway).
Now, same situation but using a SL Wrist Sheath.
2) He drops the melee weapon (Free action), moves 20' (move action), activate wrist sheath (swift action), poke comrade (standard).2a) This cleans up things substantially as we have clear indication when everything happens, but it costs an additional swift action to retrieve the item making it WORSE than pulling it out of a belt holster. Worst investment ever?
It's only 5 gp. You can hide the wand, it doesn't take up space on your weapon belt, and you never have to worry about GMs ruling against you.
And it's cool to say "snikt!" right before you heal your buddy.
It is this reason I've been table ruling wands aren't weapons able to retrieve for free w/ +1 BAB w/ movement as that table ruling interpretation provokes more table ruling interpretations. After reading the forum here, I see both sides but until I wrap my head around the above, or receive an FAQ i'm in the non-weapon camp.
I didn't follow this paragraph.
Ruling that wands can be drawn with the action "draw a weapon" doesn't provoke any more table rulings than drawing a weapon with the action "draw a weapon." It's exactly the same as drawing a sword or a dagger. What additional interpretations are you seeing?
|
|
Gwen, I agree with your analysis and yes I'm using the retrieve an item rather than a weapon. A wand isn't a weapon. The argument is that its shaped enough like a weapon that it should be similarly retrieved.
1) Would you allow a LVL 1 Wizard (0 BAB) to draw a wand from a belt in melee while being threatened without provoking an AOO?
2) Would you allow a LVL 2 Wizard (1 BAB) to draw a wand from a belt in melee while being threatened without provoking an AOO?
Now same questions, but factor in movement.
Since my answer to 1 & 2 are both NO, therefore my answer to 3 and 4 must also be no. Movement adds nothing to the occasion except for the exception made for weapons, which by the way wouldn't provoke in questions 1 and 2 either under RAW.
I understand the mechanical argument people make saying "I can draw a dagger for free, but not a wand?" (see below for my RAI)
I believe they should publish rules for a few "readied slots" with belt slots/bandoleer that allow reduced retrieval time, but they did (they are called SLWS). This brings up the whole, "give an inch, they take a mile" argument, because interpreting wands as "weapon-like" objects makes SLWS obsolete (aside from the cool sound effects).
|
|
Welcome to my mind (you have been warned):
This is all hyperbole and interpretations.
I've visualized the difference with BAB and no BAB weapon retrieval the same way we've seen played out in countless movies.
An untrained person draws a gun, and the person on the receiving end says "you forgot to remove the safety" as he proceeds to disarm and pistol whip the would-be-gunner.
Combat is relegated to relative actions over 6 second increments with multiple openings and opposing skill level to capitalize on these openings (iterative attacks).
I feel there is a real difference between drawing a hand-axe or a twig as I try to pummel you. The latter would provoke an attack as an opening, the former wouldn't. Axes scare me, splinters don't. Whether the hit happens or not, I'm still going to see that as an opening in your defense that I try to capitalize on.
Finally, I know the dagger scabbard is a work-around solution for wand storage but it's a shoddy one. Most sticks wouldn't fit in a scabbard, nor many straight manufactured type rods either. Any wand holster would need to split the difference between easy access on drawing (try pulling a stick out of a cloth strip, it "sticks") and being so loose its going to fall out doing the things adventurers like to do (swimming, climbing walls, falling off walls...). The real answer would be a leather bandoleer/satchel with a tie-down flap that can be open when expecting trouble or tied down when playing spelunker. They would need to be custom made, or the wand manufacturer can use a standardized template that the local leather shops quickly learn to cater to. I would home-rule this in long before I allow wand drawing on the run for free.
In summary, the argument is being made that the economy of action of drawing a wand vs. a weapon should be the same, not that the wand is a weapon in and of itself. Drawing a non-weapon under threat should still provoke.
The sad truth is if not allowed, expect players to sovereign glue a razor blade on a wand and claim it's a tiny great axe and should be allowed to be drawn freely on the move...
In my groups wands will be handled like wepaons as long as they are on your beltor some special wand-holder (like dagger sheaths).
If they are in your backpack it's normal item.
So as long as it's on you belt/sheath and you have BAB +1 or higher you can draw them on the run (and even can use quick draw for it).
Do you want to see this in action? Harry Potter :D
|
|
In my groups wands will be handled like wepaons as long as they are on your beltor some special wand-holder (like dagger sheaths).
If they are in your backpack it's normal item.So as long as it's on you belt/sheath and you have BAB +1 or higher you can draw them on the run (and even can use quick draw for it).
Do you want to see this in action? Harry Potter :D
Harry Potter never had to worry about drawing a wand while being threatened by my barbarian. If so, Hogwart's would have a class on the values of wrist sheaths and haversacks.
Seriously, mechanically a belt should be equivalent if not worse than a wrist sheath (non-spring loaded variety). Move action / provokes as normal.
I do hate the spring-loaded variety is almost required to make wands useful. I dislike technology creep and they don't fit the theme for a lot of my characters.
How many wands do you allow in belt slots? I have characters with 6... but I'm fine with published methods of accessing them.
Try to drawing a sword if someone threaten you with a weapon, it's also a bad idea (believe me I'm doing medival combat).^^
How many do we allow? We never had any discussion about it as no player "overdoes" it. It's like "how many throwing knifes do you allow?"
At the moment we use the pricing and slots for the 3.5. Forgotten realms potion belts (I think it was 6 normal and 12 masterwork), but our caster don't really use many wands.
Most have 1-3 Wands and use them most time out of combat for healing or buffing. :)
|
|
Scenario:
Player: For my move action, my barbarian moves next to the halfling caster-looking guy. I hold my ax over my head (prepared action) and as a free action, I tell the halfling if he takes any offensive action, he will become a "half-halfling".
GM: The halfling drops his dagger, and starts to run away. Do you take an AOO?
Player: No, another foe flees before me. May he live long enough to sire other cowards that that fearfully whisper my name in hushed tones around a raging fire.
GM: After leaving your threatened square he draws a wand as a free action with his move, for his standard he flourishes his wands and disappears / shoots a pea sized ball of flame at you, ect ...
Player: Do I get to take my prepared?
GM: No, he didn't do anything offensive while threatened by you and you chose not to attack as he moved.
Player: But if the wand is a weapon, I should have seen him going for it while he started moving...
My contention is combining the action with the move, it's happening when the move is happening, not a free action you can use at any point in time during the movement. If it provokes, it provokes along the entire line. (but that's why the rule was made to limit it to weapons only, to prevent these scenarios). If allowed for wands, why not potions?
Ironically, under RAW, he could draw a staff for free, but not a wand. A staff threatens, a wand doesn't. So, if you allow characters this economy of action with wands it should come with consequence or be disallowed altogether.
Additionally, the publishing of multiple items/feats to reduce time needed to retrieve items indicates (to me) these should be invested in rather than liberally interpreting RAW. In PFS, RAW > RAI, but I understand some GMs may want to home rule this. I would humbly submit the caveat that if players are allowed such shenanigans, NPC's should be doing the same and loaded with wands for one-off's rather than potions.
Or, making "Draw on the run" a feat rather than a combat maneuver "so simple a level 2 Wizard can do it", or an obscure rule that only applies to level 1 characters without a BAB.
In this szenario I would tell the player:
"The halfling drops his weapon and starts running, his hand slides toward a small staff attached to his belt.
Do you want to do something?"
If the PC already encountered Wands (or have know arcana/spellcraft ranks) I would add "it looks like a wand or small rod"
Problem solved :D
In my round we have some issues with action economy so I try to explain what happens instead of going action by action.
Combat is fluent and this "action A then B then C. Next one!" really breaks the flow (and the atmosphere) for me.
|
|
In this szenario I would tell the player:
"The halfling drops his weapon and starts running, his hand slides toward a small staff attached to his belt.
Do you want to do something?"
If the PC already encountered Wands (or have know arcana/spellcraft ranks) I would add "it looks like a wand or small rod"Problem solved :D
In my round we have some issues with action economy so I try to explain what happens instead of going action by action.
Combat is fluent and this "action A then B then C. Next one!" really breaks the flow (and the atmosphere) for me.
I agree, until the situation is reversed. A player would use my posted halfling's tactic in a second and claim it's perfectly allowed. See above posters saying the free draw action happens whenever desired during the movement.
It's just another example of shenanigans that occur when you start home ruling these things.
1) Would you allow a LVL 1 Wizard (0 BAB) to draw a wand from a belt in melee while being threatened without provoking an AOO?
2) Would you allow a LVL 2 Wizard (1 BAB) to draw a wand from a belt in melee while being threatened without provoking an AOO?
Now same questions, but factor in movement.
1) Yes, with a move action.
2) Yes, again, with a move action.3) Yes, with an additional move action spent on top of the one to move.
4) Yes, but now it can be combined with the original move action.
The wizard can claim the wand is an improvised light one handed piercing weapon if that makes you more comfortable treating them as a weapon. You can feel free to determine the damage. I'd probably go with something like arrows used in melee but also nonlethal.
Gwen, I agree with your analysis and yes I'm using the retrieve an item rather than a weapon. A wand isn't a weapon. The argument is that its shaped enough like a weapon that it should be similarly retrieved.
1) Would you allow a LVL 1 Wizard (0 BAB) to draw a wand from a belt in melee while being threatened without provoking an AOO?
2) Would you allow a LVL 2 Wizard (1 BAB) to draw a wand from a belt in melee while being threatened without provoking an AOO?
Yes. The rules explicitly allow this. BAB has no bearing on whether an action provokes an AoO.
Now same questions, but factor in movement.
Since my answer to 1 & 2 are both NO, therefore my answer to 3 and 4 must also be no. Movement adds nothing to the occasion except for the exception made for weapons, which by the way wouldn't provoke in questions 1 and 2 either under RAW.
Provoking AoOs is completely irrelevant. The only question is whether the wizard must spend a move action to draw the wand.
Here are my choices:
A) I can spend a move action to draw a weapon (that is readily available). This action never provokes.
B) I can spend a move action to draw a wand (that is readily available). This action never provokes.
C) With BAB 1, I can use a free action to draw a weapon (that is readily available) while I am moving. Drawing the weapon never provokes, but my movement might.
D (in question) With BAB 1, I can use a free action to draw a weapon (that is readily available) while I am moving. Drawing the weapon never provokes, but my movement might.
The question is "is D possible at all?", not "does D provoke?"
If D is possible at all, it does not provoke.
If D is not possible, then it clearly does not provoke.
I believe they should publish rules for a few "readied slots" with belt slots/bandoleer that allow reduced retrieval time, but they did (they are called SLWS). This brings up the whole, "give an inch, they take a mile" argument, because interpreting wands as "weapon-like" objects makes SLWS obsolete (aside from the cool sound effects).
Normal wrist sheaths let you conceal a weapon or other similarly-shaped item, and then retrieve that item as a move action*. ("Drawing a hidden weapon" is a completely different action than "drawing a weapon that is readily available".) The spring loaded wrist sheath works the same way, but it reduces the amount of time required from a move action to a swift action. Using spring-loaded wrist sheaths to carry wands evolved as a work-around to the "some GMs won't let me draw wands on the run" issue. It's not the intended use, but it's provided a way to draw, move, and use a wand that is not subject to table variation.
*Oddly, drawing a hidden weapon normally does not provoke. But the wrist sheath has a note that drawing a weapon from it provokes "provoking attacks of opportunity as normal". It sounds like they used the "retrieve a stored item" action as the basis for this item rather than "draw a hidden weapon".
I believe they should publish rules for a few "readied slots" with belt slots/bandoleer that allow reduced retrieval time, but they did (they are called SLWS). This brings up the whole, "give an inch, they take a mile" argument, because interpreting wands as "weapon-like" objects makes SLWS obsolete (aside from the cool sound effects).
This would not be the first time a rules FAQ made an item useless or obsolete (search for "Halfing sling staff" for the most obvious example).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My contention is combining the action with the move, it's happening when the move is happening, not a free action you can use at any point in time during the movement. If it provokes, it provokes along the entire line. (but that's why the rule was made to limit it to weapons only, to prevent these scenarios). If allowed for wands, why not potions?
Because there is no rule that allows a character to draw a potion without provoking.
Because there is no way to draw a potion unless you use theThe "draw a weapon action" says on the table that is does not provoke. The description says "This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands."
That's RAW. It's the rule. It always has been the rule. There's no question that drawing a wand in combat does not provoke. Feel free to argue that it should not be the rule, but that's a completely different topic, so you should probably start a new thread.
Ironically, under RAW, he could draw a staff for free, but not a wand. A staff threatens, a wand doesn't. So, if you allow characters this economy of action with wands it should come with consequence or be disallowed altogether.
Threatening is irrelevant. I can draw a ranged weapon on the run, but I don't threaten with it. It's the type of action that counts, regardless of what you're drawing.
Additionally, the publishing of multiple items/feats to reduce time needed to retrieve items indicates (to me) these should be invested in rather than liberally interpreting RAW. In PFS, RAW > RAI, but I understand some GMs may want to home rule this. I would humbly submit the caveat that if players are allowed such shenanigans, NPC's should be doing the same and loaded with wands for one-off's rather than potions.
Of course NPCs play b the same rules as the players. No one is even suggesting that they don't.
And no one is trying to "liberally interpret RAW" in any or "pull shenanigans" or override RAW with RAI or whatever else.
The only thing under question is this:
In the action description for "Draw or sheathe a weapon", the second paragraph contains the line "you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move". In this line, does the phrase "draw a weapon" refer to the "draw or sheathe a weapon" action defined in the first paragraph, or does it literally mean drawing only a weapon?
The text is grammatically vague. As a former English 101 professor and a current technical editor, I read it as referring to the "draw or sheathe a weapon" action, because that is the context set by the heading.
Other people read the text differently. Hence the FAQ request.
The text is grammatically vague. As a former English 101 professor and a current technical editor, I read it as referring to the "draw or sheathe a weapon" action, because that is the context set by the heading.
Other people read the text differently. Hence the FAQ request.
Or, as I said, the wand can be declared to be a improvised weapon, and suddenly and magically it doesn't matter, because it is also a weapon!
How many swings do you give the cockroach before its "not a weapon"? Cause, a potion bottle might take three or five...
|
How many swings do you give the cockroach before its "not a weapon"? Cause, a potion bottle might take three or five...
I can kill a roach with a Mio bottle, and that's gotta be a bit smaller than a potion bottle in fantasy RPG settings. Doesn't matter if it'll shatter on first swing, if you can draw a spiked chain or a warhammer as part of a move, there's no reason in my sad little mind why you can't draw a scroll or a potion as part of a move as long as it's not stowed in a backpack or bag.
When I was GMing I house-ruled that you could specify 7 readied items stored in your belt or similar readily accessible location. These could be potions, wands, scrolls, alchemical weapons, regular weapons, or similar. All these items would use the weapon draw rules instead of the retrieve stowed item action in combat - so you could draw them fast with Quickdraw, etc. It's nice for a cleric to be able to pull out a scroll of Breath of Life while moving, and it encourages people to use unusual items in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many swings do you give the cockroach before its "not a weapon"? Cause, a potion bottle might take three or five...I can kill a roach with a Mio bottle, and that's gotta be a bit smaller than a potion bottle in fantasy RPG settings. Doesn't matter if it'll shatter on first swing, if you can draw a spiked chain or a warhammer as part of a move, there's no reason in my sad little mind why you can't draw a scroll or a potion as part of a move as long as it's not stowed in a backpack or bag.
I just want to be clear, I am in full agreement with you.
Not just for killing a cockroach, but really, if anything could potentially be used as a weapon, and reasonably stored in a way that is readily accessible.
Really, I say write down where things are stored on your character sheet. If you have a large amount of things, let your GM know. If you're on such completely different pages from your GM as to what is "reasonable" then once it comes up, have a chat, and go over what you have readily accessible. Problem solved.
|
|
Thank you for the lengthy replies. My contention was wands being declared a weapon only to qualify for the exception for drawing on the move. My argument was it's not a weapon, but I understand you all are not declaring it a weapon-like object for drawing, you are declaring it a weapon outright along with anything else.
This is a slippery slope I'm not entirely comfortable with, but not sure why. Maybe it's all the Haversacks I bought that are unneeded under that interpretation. Perhaps it's because it benefits PC's more than NPC's who are more likely to use potions rather than wands, but there are posters here saying they are a weapon to. I think they would have to be to maintain the proper balance as NPC's favor potions over wands in virtually every encounter.
In retrospect, the Haversack still requires a move action, but doesn't provoke (I'm presuming its the magical effect of always easily finding your stuff, rather than just "magic". This would imply any item easily located wouldn't provoke.
Since my ruling are more PFS-centric, I now consider the waters sufficiently muddied.
|
|
*Oddly, drawing a hidden weapon normally does not provoke. But the wrist sheath has a note that drawing a weapon from it provokes "provoking attacks of opportunity as normal". It sounds like they used the "retrieve a stored item" action as the basis for this item rather than "draw a hidden weapon".
I have always interpreted that as depending what is contained within.
A blade would not provoke.
A wand would.
But that leads to a circular conversation... =)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for the lengthy replies. My contention was wands being declared a weapon only to qualify for the exception for drawing on the move. My argument was it's not a weapon, but I understand you all are not declaring it a weapon-like object for drawing, you are declaring it a weapon outright along with anything else.
This is a slippery slope I'm not entirely comfortable with, but not sure why. Maybe it's all the Haversacks I bought that are unneeded under that interpretation. Perhaps it's because it benefits PC's more than NPC's who are more likely to use potions rather than wands, but there are posters here saying they are a weapon to. I think they would have to be to maintain the proper balance. If not my NPC's will favor wands for the same reason and my PC's will be burdened with lots of wands with only a few charges each, overwhelming any "readied slots" but that will cheapen them.
Haversacks let you 1) have a stored item retrieved with a move action (even in a really full backpack)
2) not provoke for drawing whatever it is you are pulling out3) Reduce carried weight because it is all extradimensional
Versus weapons and weapon-like draw as move which
1) are only a move action to draw
2) don't provoke because they are weapon like
3) MUST be within "easy reach". A condition determined by agreement with the player/GM with reasonable limits on it
Haversack basically makes anything you put in it "easy reach" but you can't combine drawing from the haversack with a move action. While "easy reach" is determined by the player and GM as to what they like in their game.
I don't see overlap between the two.
Thank you for the lengthy replies. My contention was wands being declared a weapon only to qualify for the exception for drawing on the move. My argument was it's not a weapon, but I understand you all are not declaring it a weapon-like object for drawing, you are declaring it a weapon outright along with anything else.
The question has never been "are wands weapons?"
The question is (and has always been) this:
If I have a BAB of 1, can I draw a weapon-like object as a free action while moving?
Provoking is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Whether wands are weapons is completely irrelevant. Ruling that wands are weapons still doesn't answer the question: it just side-steps it completely.
Since my ruling are more PFS-centric, I now consider the waters sufficiently muddied.
In PFS, drawing a wand from a readily-available location (tucked into the belt, in a bandolier, in a sheath built for a dan bong, held in my teeth, whatever) is a move action that doesn't provoke. The rules say that, explicitly, and wand is used as an example of a weapon-like object.
If a PFS GM rules otherwise, I will absolutely call them on it. The only thing the GM needs to interpret is whether the wand's location is reasonably considered "readily available."
There's no mud here.
*Oddly, drawing a hidden weapon normally does not provoke. But the wrist sheath has a note that drawing a weapon from it provokes "provoking attacks of opportunity as normal". It sounds like they used the "retrieve a stored item" action as the basis for this item rather than "draw a hidden weapon".
I have always interpreted that as depending what is contained within.
A blade would not provoke.
A wand would.But that leads to a circular conversation... =)
I have always interpreted that to mean that the "drawing a hidden weapon" action always provokes*. It's never come up before now, so I never had reason to re-read the sleight of hand rules and notice the discrepancy.
If it's based on what you draw, that brings up all sorts of issues.
For example, a dan bong is an exotic weapon that's pretty much the exact same size and shape as a wand. According to this rule, it would not provoke. Why? Because it's somehow a different kind of short stick?
And then there's the issue that the item is hidden up my sleeve. How would the enemy know what drawing until I get it out? And once I have it out, the action is already completed. It seems wrong to say, "Ah, now that I see you're holding a wand, I can take an AoO."
And then how does the enemy know it's a wand and not a dan bong? Did he cast Detect Magic? (Which he can't do, because it's not his turn.) What if it's a magic dan bong?
What if I'm drawing a wand of cure light wounds to attack an undead creature? Does it provoke now?
If you define it based on the type of action you're taking, you can just ignore all these question. Are you pulling something that's kind of shaped like a weapon from a place that easily available? Then it's all the same action, "drawing a weapon-like object", and it doesn't provoke.
*There's also the problem that the overall definition for wrist sheath is really confusing. For example, arrows are not the size of your forearm. They're closer to three times the length of your forearm (give or take 3-4 inches depending on your form). Obviously, you can't conceal something that's longer than your entire arm in the space of just your forearm, but RAW says you can so...
Given that kind of logical error, I try not to read too much into the implications of the parenthetical "provoking as normal" comment.
As a fun house rule I think that if you have an ability which allows you to use improvised weapons without penalty you should be able to draw just about any item as a weapon (including wands, rods, waffle irons, etc)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spring-loaded wrist sheathes don't provoke since they are swift actions, and swift actions never provoke.Please cite your source that swift actions never provoke.
I provided two examples of Swift Actions that do: the movement provided by a Quick Runner's Shirt and a Ranged Attack from a Quickened spell.
This answer is late, but from those 2 examples (the second one mentioned earlier):
- The Quick Runner's Shirt doesn't say it does provoke, though the movement would still provoke as normal. the swift action to activate it wouldn't.
- ranged attacks provoke (this is separate to the casting provocation, which no longer provokes thanks to Quickened). ordinarily, this one provokes twice - once for the casting AoO and again for the ranged attack AoO; now it only provokes once for the ranged attack.
The closest citation I can find is the Actions in Combat table - free actions, swift actions, immediate actions don't provoke unless specified (like how the Stand Up rogue talent specifies).
People have cited the Quick Draw feat wording as their argument against allowing wands to be counted as a weapon for drawing as a move action if you have a +1 BAB, which makes me wonder: "Why did Paizo writers decide to exclude wands from the Quick Draw feat? What possible logic was there behind that decision?" Does it somehow make more sense that you can draw a greatsword or Orcish double-headed axe faster than you can draw a wand from your belt?
Drawing a wand "that is easily accessible" as you would a dagger just makes sense without needing to go into all this rules-lawyering. It's logical, let alone realistic and believable.
It's the exclusion of wands from the Quick Draw feat that doesn't make sense.
"But what about my Spring-loaded sheathes? You've just made those worthless!" Maybe those need to be reworked, not negating something that makes sense and is logical just to make your sheathes worthwhile.
Given that spring loaded sheathes are 5 gold, I don't have too much sympathy if a feat makes them worthless.