|
| 26 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does the spell storing magical armour property actually work? It's listed on page 122 of Ultimate Equipment and states "anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armour can cast the spell on that creature as a swift action if the wearer desires". However, usually it isn't your turn when you're getting hit, which would make spending a swift action impossible.
Please flag for the FAQ!
RAW its only for AoOs against you on your turn :p
However the intent is clear here: When you are struck you get to discharge the stored spell.
It should be an immediate action to make it useful, as it is Avianfoo is correct about how it functions.
Since there can only be one spell stored at a time, and the spell is expended when used, rather than having the armor use any type of action, I'd just remove the action-type requirement entirely.
If an action type is needed for some reason (are there other armor special abilities that expend the armor's actions as opposed to the wearer's actions?), then immediate would appear to be the intent.
If an action type is needed for some reason (are there other armor special abilities that expend the armor's actions as opposed to the wearer's actions?), then immediate would appear to be the intent.
I don't understand your question about armor actions. The immediate action called for would be the PC, not the armor's. Unless it is an intelligent armor it wouldn't have any actions on its own. Of course, if you made an intelligent armor then it could make use of the ability by readying an action for whenever it (or the wearer) is struck in combat to release its stored spell. Assuming its not an intelligent item, I think the action cost is needed to keep action economy balanced.
How would you feel if you were a fighter who went to attack a wizard (wearing haramaki) with the enchant who then was able to hit you with some touch spell on your turn (for no action) and then was able to hit you with a quickened spell and regular spell on their turn. They would be effectively casting 3 spells on you in single turn. I'm no master of spells, but I'm sure there is a combination that would be deadly if used in this manner.
I don't understand your question about armor actions. The immediate action called for would be the PC, not the armor's.If an action type is needed for some reason (are there other armor special abilities that expend the armor's actions as opposed to the wearer's actions?), then immediate would appear to be the intent.
The text for the ability says "Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as a swift action if the wearer desires".
I will admit the rather high likelihood of the intent being for the wearer's action to be used, but the text seems to go out of its way to specify that the armor is doing the casting rather than the wearer.
An action type is obviously needed if the wearer's action is used (which is likely the intent), and that action type should be "immediate". The wording should also be cleared up to reflect that it's the wearer's action.
For instance: "Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the wearer may cast the stored spell on that creature as an immediate action."
In my case, it's primarily because if it only worked against AoOs (and readied actions), the text could have simply said so :)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
In my case, it's primarily because if it only worked against AoOs (and readied actions), the text could have simply said so :)
So from:
Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as a swift action if the wearer desires
To:
Anytime you are the target of an Attack of Opportunity or a Readied Action, the armor can cast the spell on that attacker as a swift action if the wearer desires
Looks like the same space, so your way wouldn't save words and would limit it to the cases listed.
|
|
I (apparently for one) am not assuming they accidentally said swift instead of immediate.
Why does it need to be a mistake instead of simply being something you use on someone who takes an Attack of Opportunity on you?
I'm not assuming anything either. That's why I came here to ask for clarification.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it really should be an immediate action. It is on our list of things to fix.
[Edit: The original version of this post has been removed since James Risner altered his quotes between me starting and finishing it :)]
[Edit2: James, my suggested fix was listed earlier. I wouldn't use what you describe as "my way", since it would be too limiting.]
Yeah, it really should be an immediate action. It is on our list of things to fix.
As others have said, thank you for your contribution on the boards Stephen.
The text for the ability says "Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as a swift action if the wearer desires".I will admit the rather high likelihood of the intent being for the wearer's action to be used, but the text seems to go out of its way to specify that the armor is doing the casting rather than the wearer.
An action type is obviously needed if the wearer's action is used (which is likely the intent), and that action type should be "immediate". The wording should also be cleared up to reflect that it's the wearer's action.
For instance: "Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the wearer may cast the stored spell on that creature as an immediate action."
I will go ahead and admit that in the multiple times I've read that ability I've always read is as the user used an swift action (still a bad ability) rather than the armor using it as a swift action (which it still wouldn't get). Which I think it's fair to say that this is a RAW versus RAI, but the point is moot-ish now that Stephen has chimed in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you guys are not told often enough, we really do appreciate your participation on the forums.
Hey, what can I say? We love what we do. Thanks, though. It is nice to hear it once every so often. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you guys are not told often enough, we really do appreciate your participation on the forums.Hey, what can I say? We love what we do. Thanks, though. It is nice to hear it once every so often. :)
Despite the sometimes vocal minority who passive agrresively attack you and the Paizo Development Team just please remember there are those of us who always appreciate the time and effort you all put in to clarify the rules despite whether we like the ruling. Some people definitely cross the line into being disrespectful to the Paizo staff and I hope thats not what sticks with you at the end of the day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Despite the sometimes vocal minority who passive agrresively attack you and the Paizo Development Team just please remember there are those of us who always appreciate the time and effort you all put in to clarify the rules despite whether we like the ruling. Some people definitely cross the line into being disrespectful to the Paizo staff and I hope thats not what sticks with you at the end of the day.
Oh, we know. One we all have pretty thick skins. Two, we all love what we do and want to make the most enjoyable game we can. Three, we have the best fans and players in the world. That goes for the grumpy ones too. ;)
Hooray for grumpy players!
...Wait, that was the takeaway here, right? ; D
"The armor casts" is probably meant to imply that your own spellcasting abilities don't matter - and you don't need to provide somatic, verbal or material components.
I went and looked up the weapon ability "spell storing", since the two abilities really should work in the same way. That ability is done as a "free action", and I don't see any real reason to limit the armor ability beyond that.
Incidentally, I've never noticed that the weapon ability also says "the weapon casts" :)
Pupsocket is probably right about the reason for writing it that way. The problem only comes into play when an action other than "free action" is used, as I don't think the armor ability is clear in that the wearer's action is being used to do so (if that is the intention).
I went and looked up the weapon ability "spell storing", since the two abilities really should work in the same way. That ability is done as a "free action", and I don't see any real reason to limit the armor ability beyond that.
Actually, since, with few exceptions, free actions can only be taken during your turn, an immediate action is the only real choice for the armour.
Unlike Spellstoring Armour, Spellstoring Weapons can only be activated on your turn, so no spells on AoOs.
Based on the description I believe the spell would have the statictics as appropriate for the person who actually cast the spell into the armor at the time of the casting.