Deliquescent gloves + ranged


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Hey there.

Quick question. I'm playing in a society session where my GM and another says the gloves don't work with ranged. It shows up on Hero Lab (although I know it's always not reliable) but I read it that it would work. Trying to get confirmation.

Thanks !


It work, note the text below

Quote:


The wearer’s melee touch attacks with that hand deal 1d6 points of acid damage. If the wearer uses that hand to wield a weapon or make an attack with an unarmed strike or natural weapon, that attack gains the corrosive weapon special ability

Note it says weild a weapon, so any weapon will work. It doesnt specify that it only works with melee weapons or that ranged weapons are excluded.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It's as the Corrosive weapon property. It's not limited to just melee.


That's what I thought too but two GMs just shot it down including the local VL. =/

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

What are their reasons?


The group I'm playing in says it doesn't make sense on range weapons and that it only works for melee weapons. Like they think that from the way it reads in UE is that it only works that way. I really don't get why they don't get it, but they're preventing me from bringing it up further in the session. -_- I feel cheated.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Corrosive is no different than Flaming, Frost, or Shocking. The weapon ability is bestowed upon any ammunition. This is a basic principle of magic weapons.

Ask them to read this thread real quick. That should fix the issue.


I offered my GM to read it. He doesn't want to deal with it. Not much I can do except wish that magically I could've redone that last fight.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Bring it up to him after the game, then. Open up Ultimate Equipment. Corrosive clearly has a subscript "3" behind it:

Ultimate Equipment wrote:
3 Projectile weapons with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition.

Refusing to accept this is willful ignorance. If your VL continues, bring it up to your VC.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Page 139.


Er... Sorry. I typed VL. He is the VC, he is the boss for the local society. He was one of the MANY who said I was wrong. There is no one higher to bring it too unless Mike magically showed up.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Then discuss it with him after the session. Tell him you've found an answer you can cite. Be civil, and if he's a VC he should be able to take the time to listen to you. You shouldn't *need* to bother Mike with a rules confusion.


I know. Just kinda feh. I'll let them know after the session. Just for that one scenario it would have been a lot quicker. Just a bit difficult to discuss when people just want to get the scenario done.
And thanks for the help. It's really appreciated. If I end up in another ranged combat, I may bring it up sooner.


So, I just got shot down and told to quit arguing with the GMs even though I was being polite about it and told them about this thread. =/ they say it doesn't work cuz you're not wielding the arrow, which makes no sense cuz then shocking longbows wouldn't work or anything similar. *sigh*

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Feel free to PM me with the VC's name, and I can send him a PM.


1 - Before anything else let me say that from what you have said so far I side with you, so take that into consideration before reading 2!

2 - Were you arguing with the GM? At the table like? Or did you make an argument for your case and then bring it up again only after the game was over? If the former then maybe the VC was just a bit tired and didnt feel like any more arguing, and you could bring it up civily again in future. If the latter then maybe your VC just had a bad day, it happens to the best of us.

3 - Try and in as non-confrontational way as possible bring this up to your VC again (after a few days have passed), either in person or via email. Explain your case, and that you understand that it needed to be adjudicated at the time, but that if he would kindly review the matter that you think he will find that it is viable etc etc etc.

4 - If none of the above work, then all you can really do is either accept it, try and get it added to the FAQ or (NUCLEAR OPTION) bring it up to Mike.

Of course in my timezone its pretty damn late, so take everything I have just said as the ramblings of a man about to fall asleep at the keyboard ;)

Hope it works out for you.


He just came up to me and told me that if I could get word from a paizo staff to respond then he would take a look at it and change his decision. =/


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SpiritWolfFenris wrote:
He just came up to me and told me that if I could get word from a paizo staff to respond then he would take a look at it and change his decision. =/

That makes no sense. Paizo staff does not answer every post especially simple rules questions. In the time he spent talking to you he could have checked the book by now.

Tell him to check this post, and also go to Mike. I don't know what it takes to be a VC, but he should not be one if he cant be bothered to open a book.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

SpiritWolfFenris wrote:
So, I just got shot down and told to quit arguing with the GMs

You need to quit arguing with the GM ;-)

This game is complicated and is written in easy to read English, which happens to sometimes have parsing issues.

Quote:
f the wearer uses that hand to wield a weapon or make an attack with an unarmed strike or natural weapon, that attack gains the corrosive weapon special ability.

You and Nefreet read that to mean you can hold a longbow and it gets corrosive weapon special ability.

My initial read when I bought the gloves and the whole time I've owned them, I parsed the same way I think you GM is parsing. The think helps melee attacks only due to allowing melee touch attacks, working on held weapon, unarmed, and natural weapons. It never occurred to me it might work on ranged until this thread.


I really do not get your GM's logic.

Are you wielding a weapon?
Yes, a bow is wielded.
Thus, corrosive is applied to a bow.

Does the weapon property (Corrosive) apply to ranged weapons or, for projectile weapons, bestow the power to the weapon's ammunition?
Yes, Corrosive on a projectile weapon bestows the power to the ammunition.
Thus, the arrow fired from a corrosive bow has the corrosive property.


They're reading the book. They're just having issues with the "when you wield a weapon" partly because they think I need to be stabbing with the arrow...


So they begin with the assumption that it must be a melee attack?

Ask them this, does a thrown dagger benefit from the Corrosive property granted by the gloves?

If it does, then remind them that a bow bestows Corrosive upon it's ammunition and thus you do not need to wield that ammunition.


I'm not purposely arguing just to argue, but when it can make a difference in winning or dying based on the amount of damage added, it becomes something that needs to be figured out. And I think James is right and that's where the confusion for them gets added. I just dunno what else to do.


I tried that with the ranged weapons that have buffs, like I've played a character with a shocking longbow. How would the electricity get counted if the arrows were regular when they left? But still no go.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

SpiritWolfFenris wrote:
I just dunno what else to do.

My advice: shrug it off, as you are going to see a lot more table variance where two different GM's interpret a rule differently. You can't fix them all and get them to conform. At least not generally without a FAQ or Errata change making it clear.

I've stopped playing whole characters (I'm looking at you Fester my 1st PFS character who was a 10th level Overrun master and no two GM's ruled the 6 Overrun related feats he had the same way.)


Quote:
Longbow: At almost 5 feet in height, a longbow is made up of one solid piece of carefully curved wood. You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is too unwieldy to use while you are mounted. If you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when you use a longbow. If you have a Strength bonus, you can apply it to damage rolls when you use a composite longbow (see below), but not when you use a regular longbow.

That shows that bows can be wielded, just not when mounted.

dictionary wrote:


wield verb \ˈwēld\
: to hold (something, such as a tool or weapon) in your hands so that you are ready to use it


Enhancements applies to a bow are transferred to the arrow.

2(subscript) Bows, crossbows, and slings crafted with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition.<--from the rule book.

Corrosive has a subscript of 2.

That is all I have. Hopefully it works.


@james; I guess that's all I can do unless somehow a staff shows up (doubt it). I just didn't think this would come out to be so complicated, figured it was simple.

@wraith; I fully understand. It's just; I dunno lol


@wraith: they get the abilities on bows being transferred to arrows but they don't get the gloves being transferred into bows. That's where the line is being lost.


It's pretty straight forward to me.

1: Deliquescent gloves allow you to wield a weapon and that attack gains the corrosive weapon special ability.
2: There is no limit places on the kind of weapon so a bow is an option.
3: When a bow has the corrosive weapon special ability, it bestows that power upon their ammunition.

Nothing states the weapon has to stay in your hand so I don't see the confusion. All that's required is that you make an attack with a weapon wielded by the hand you have the glove on. Nothing more, nothing less.*

Of course unarmed strikes and natural weapons count as 'a weapon wielded by the hand'.


SpiritWolfFenris wrote:
@wraith: they get the abilities on bows being transferred to arrows but they don't get the gloves being transferred into bows. That's where the line is being lost.
Quote:

Snap Shot (Combat)

With a ranged weapon, you can take advantage of any opening in your opponent's defenses.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: While wielding a ranged weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5 feet of you. You can make attacks of opportunity with that ranged weapon. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when making a ranged attack as an attack of opportunity.
Normal: While wielding a ranged weapon, you threaten no squares and can make no attacks of opportunity with that weapon.

The feat does not grant the ability to wield a ranged weapon, only the ability to take an AoO.


Right. That's exactly how I interpreted it too when I bought them and it showed up that way on HL. but they're still not buying it without a staff confirmation =/


SpiritWolfFenris wrote:
Right. That's exactly how I interpreted it too when I bought them and it showed up that way on HL. but they're still not buying it without a staff confirmation =/

Would they also say that Snap Shot does not work since bows cant be wielded?


Not entirely sure where you're getting at with Snap shot as I'm not using it and didn't mention it. Sorry, slightly confused.


I honestly have no idea. @.@ don't want to mention another topic that makes things more icky.


Snapshot shows that bows can be wielded. If a bow can not be wielded than snapshot does not work. That is why I brought it up.

And snapshot does not have any language allowing you to wield a bow if you could not do so before, so they can't argue that the feat grants you the ability to wield a bow.

Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

They know a "staff confirmation" won't happen. They're stringing you along if that's their answer.


Ah okay. I understand now and see what you're getting at. Looks like it's just at a permanent standstill until further notice or I talk to people who understand it locally that's been around long enough.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
They know a "staff confirmation" won't happen. They're stringing you along if that's their answer.

Pretty much. PFS is filled with a bunch of homebrew that is supposedly the RAW, even though this is but one of many rulings PFS makes that contradicts the intent and RAW of the rules entirely. It's also the sole reason why Crane Style feat chain became absolutely garbage, so you can imagine not many people respect PFS gameplay on the boards, myself included.

If the GMs want to sit here and houserule the Gloves to not affect the bow, then fine, that's their prerogative, and there's nothing you can do besides leave the table and join another who runs the game more towards your liking.

Them claiming it's RAW and RAI, when almost everyone on the boards here says otherwise, just tells you the GMs are bunch of goobers who want to nerf you and your decisions you've made to your character with no foundation other than "We want staff confirmation for your claim to be right."

As an aside, I believe this is a direct example as to how their argument falls apart.


That actually explains the situation very well. Thank you. Thankfully I'll be moving in a couple months, but just kinda kills some enjoyment. It's not the main focus of the this character, just sad I can't use the full potential of them.


This is more of a "we don't like it" ruling.


I think it's just horribly misunderstood and although I'm fairly certain if I shared the VCs name that even with everyone saying so, it would end up being more headache than it's worth on everyone's part.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If the GMs want to sit here and houserule the Gloves to not affect the bow

Look at it this way, they could feel they are forced into this.

PFS requires running RAW. They are either:

  • Being a jerk and finding a way to assert they are following RAW to ultimately screw you.
  • Feel like they are forced to do this because they legitimately read the rules this way and you are trying to get them to break the rules.

If you don't look at it from their perspective, it is easy to label them as a bad GM.

I had the same view about this item, and every game I played I didn't apply the damage to my bow attacks. No one stopped me to tell me I was doing it wrong. I now agree it should apply.


SpiritWolfFenris wrote:
I think it's just horribly misunderstood and although I'm fairly certain if I shared the VCs name that even with everyone saying so, it would end up being more headache than it's worth on everyone's part.

I don't think the board members need to know his name. I just suggested going to Mike for the sake of proof. I dont even think Mike needs to know his name.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you for everyone's assistance. I really did appreciate it. I ended up sending Mike a PM, kept everything anonymous. Hopefully I hear back and can let you guys know what happened (unless he posts here before me). I just feel the situation is so big locally that it'll make people who are ranged attackers with them to feel denied an 8,000 GP item. @.@


SpiritWolfFenris wrote:
Right. That's exactly how I interpreted it too when I bought them and it showed up that way on HL. but they're still not buying it without a staff confirmation =/

I hate to break this to you, but your group seems to be full of numbskulls who can't read and comprehend simple rules. You're not going to get staff confirmation for this because, in the immortal words of SKR, "You're not stupid. So don't read the rules as if you were stupid." They spend their time reviewing actual inconsistencies and unclear rules and have no time to spare for frivolous stuff that anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out for themselves or, at least, with some minor help from the community. If they're really that thick, you're probably better off ditching them and finding a competent group. Because if they flub up something as simple as this, they will make more mistakes in the future (and they seem to be stubborn about being wrong, to boot). Drop those filthy casuals like a bad habit.

Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

14 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes the gloves allow a ranged weapon to add the corrosive property.

Grand Lodge Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Pretty much. PFS is filled with a bunch of homebrew that is supposedly the RAW, even though this is but one of many rulings PFS makes that contradicts the intent and RAW of the rules entirely. It's also the sole reason why Crane Style feat chain became absolutely garbage, so you can imagine not many people respect PFS gameplay on the boards, myself included.

Actually you are way off base. But, I'm not going to argue with someone who doesn't have one session of PFS on his play history as a GM or a player. Also, PFS is not the sole reason Crane Style feat was changed. There were numerous reasons, but again, I'm not going to argue publicly with you about it since it is apparent you have already made your mind up that it was.

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Ok let us clear a few things up...

There was no VC involved, we don't have a VC, by VC he means me since I organize the game.

I was not in the room during the game in question but based on this thread, since it was posted during the game in question and the fact the GM and the player came to me to ask my opinion on the rule over almost 1 hour time frame the "argument" lasted way to long.

Just like like a VC or VL I can't "Overrule" a GM I can only give my opinion and put on the spot I decided to agree with the GM, but Even if I did not I would not "Overrule" the GM since I can't do that. It is up to a GM to make a call and if he sticks to it after a quick explanation from the player the player as advised in this thread should let it go until after the game.

I did not Ask the OP to get a Paizo Staffs opinion I told him to see if there was already a post already out there about it from a Pazio staff since I seemed to remember SKR commenting on this item before. Though I can understand the subtle difference and his confusion on that statement.

My Personal philosophy on rules questions in the forums I will let random posters opinions on a subject sway me if they make sense but I can't force that on a GM unless it is an official Post/FAQ. The OP above told me that everyone on the forums agreed with him but really that means absolutely squat in the middle of a game unless he could have quickly point to a official post/FAQ which he did not have ready at the time. I assumed at the time he meant that he looked it up prior to the game, I had no clue he was posting on the forums in the middle of the game.

So Basically I told him to stop bringing up the argument during the game and to worry about it after the game and bring up his case. Since I was not in the game in question I have no clue if the argument continued but assumed it did not.

On the subject in hand, Even without Mike's Statement I would have stated that it would work on Ranged weapons after having time after the game to look at it.

Though it does bring up the question what about thrown weapons? The Magic item seems to only work on weapons Wielded and with Ranged weapons Like a Bow the Special ability transfer to the ammo and the bow is still wielded, but with thrown weapons once you throw it there is no longer a weapon being wielded.

Everything worked out fine in the end, the game went on and I will talk to the GM about the item so we can talk about it.


Michael Brock wrote:
Yes the gloves allow a ranged weapon to add the corrosive property.

Hi 5's Mike Brock.

Now Mr.Fenris get back to us with an update or at least PM me.

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Deliquescent gloves + ranged All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.