RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly you are incorrect here, The item itself says it provokes when used.
As a move action, you can bend your wrist to cause some or all of these items to drop into your hand (provoking attacks of opportunity as normal).
The problem here is it doesn't say what you think it says. It doesn't just straight-up say retrieving the item provokes, it says the retrieval provokes "as normal". That means that the wrist sheath is not changing the rules of provocation: if retrieving that item would normally provoke, it still does; if retrieving that item would normally not provoke, it still doesn't.
That's what "does X as normal" means. This isn't even the only place in the rules that talks about provoking "as normal". When you look at other examples, it'll become clear that "provokes as normal" does NOT mean "always provokes". It means "this item/spell/ability/etc has no influence on whether the granted action provokes or not".
I see no reason that the SLWS would be any different than other such abilities.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but if I as a GM have a question about wording, or want you to read how it works if you don't have it, then you are harming the tables enjoyment as a whole. Bring the resource for items you have is a core tennant of PFS.Andrew, I seriously don't think you would ask for a resource just to grief a player over an item that you don't like. Am I right?
As always, the intent of both the player and GM, and the circumstances should inform every decision. There is no hard and fast rule when it comes to fair and common sense. I try to follow both.
|
Sorry that the iPad can't store simple pdfs, then. What good are they then?
completely not that. You cannot tranfer to them using an SD card without an additional device. Simple as that.
All of my PDFs are loaded onto my Mac. I read them typically in iBooks, but have Acrobat Reader loaded as well (and there are others).
@Game Master, I'll have to look into GoodReader.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My introduction to spring-loaded wrist sheaths was by a GM who had no trouble letting you put a scroll in regular wrist sheath, but balked at putting them in spring loaded ones. His reasoning was that the action of the spring would more likely damage the scroll than push it out, and since scrolls aren't stiff by nature, it would also be likely to get stuck up your sleeve.
Then there's the issue of unrolling the scroll to read it, so a lot of GMs would say you still have to take a move action to unroll it. I think the assumption is that unrolling it is a free action as part of the move action to get it out, but if you don't take a move action to retrieve it, you can't have the free action to unroll it. (Like drawing a weapon as a free action while moving--it's a move action otherwise.)
When we get out BoL scrolls for someone else to cast, we make a point of saying that we unroll them and hold them up for the caster, just to avoid this problem. (That's probably being too literal, but I get paranoid with BoL.)
It would be nice to see this clarified: I'd love to be able to do it, but I know a lot of GMs won't allow it, so I usually warn players away from it.
Sounds like that GM doesn't understand scrolls very well.
A scroll is a heavy sheet of fine vellum or high-quality paper. ... The sheet is reinforced at the top and bottom with strips of leather slightly longer than the sheet is wide.
To protect it from wrinkling or tearing, a scroll is rolled up from both ends to form a double cylinder. (This also helps the user unroll the scroll quickly.)
It's not a piece of parchment or even ordinary paper; it's "heavy", and it's either vellum or "high-quality paper". In either case, it's also got built-in reinforcements. Suggesting that this is more likely to be damaged (or at least, sufficiently damaged to impede use) than a wand (which is, according to the CRB, literally just a stick) is kind of absurd. And on top of the material used, scrolls are rolled up, which makes them far sturdier—the rules even call this out as something that helps protect them from damage. And you don't have to be a physics major to realize that pushing on the end of a cylinder (as opposed to a flat sheet) will not easily damage it.
The rules also say that it can be "unrolled quickly". Nowhere is an action cost listed, not even in the Combat chapter's "Actions in Combat" table. The emulation of the "draw a weapon on the move" mechanic is purely made-up, and far outside the purview of a PFS GM. Can I also load my light crossbow as part of my move action to retrieve it? Why not? If loading and unrolling are both going to be move actions on their own, but you're going to allow one as a freebie while drawing, why not the other?
No, the means of getting a scroll into your hand has nothing to do with how long it takes to unroll it; saying otherwise is a houserule, most likely created retroactively in order to get a desired gameplay result. Either it's always an action to unroll the scroll, or it never is.
|
|
I am also of the belief that the SLWS does not provoke, and that is the ruling I go with when I am GMing. It would be weird if drawing a dagger from your boot as a move action did not provoke, but drawing a dagger from a SLWS as a swift action did provoke.
I used to be on the fence about whether one can put a scroll into a SLWS. This thread has firmly convinced me to allow it.
Let's put this in perspective though.
Drawing from your boot or belt does not provoke because you sent doing anything to distract yourself. Often we see in movies, TV and other fiction that the act of drawing is indeed part of combat. I believe the only reason the wrist sheath provokes, is the intent of the item is that it hides the sheathed item under your clothing. So you literally have to reach up your sleeve to get the item out. If that isn't how you are wearing it, then don't buy one, and just define your items as creatively sheathed on your body. You wouldn't get the benefits of the wrist sheath though.
The spring loaded version changes the action economy. It might make sense that this would not provoke. Until you think about a spring driven, sharp object being thrust into your hand. I don't know about you, but that might distract me a bit so I make sure I don't stab myself.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spring loaded version changes the action economy. It might make sense that this would not provoke. Until you think about a spring driven, sharp object being thrust into your hand. I don't know about you, but that might distract me a bit so I make sure I don't stab myself.
I've played too much Assassin's Creed to accept that argument. :)
|
|
The spring loaded version changes the action economy. It might make sense that this would not provoke. Until you think about a spring driven, sharp object being thrust into your hand. I don't know about you, but that might distract me a bit so I make sure I don't stab myself.I've played too much Assassin's Creed to accept that argument. :)
You mean that game where you can make a 60-foot backflip into a small pile of hay and walk away unscathed? :-)
|
|
I allow scrolls (if wild west card cheaters could use a spring loaded wrist sheath on a playing card, then a scroll with hardened leather or rods shouldnt be an issue.)
I do not allow potions. The sprind driven force not breaking the glass vial strains my credulity just a bit.
What if they put it in a metal vial?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I allow scrolls (if wild west card cheaters could use a spring loaded wrist sheath on a playing card, then a scroll with hardened leather or rods shouldnt be an issue.)
Yay, someone who gets it! :D
I think too many people picture ancient, flaking-apart parchment like you'd see in a movie where Indiana Jones discovers an X,000-year-old scroll in a dusty old library, instead of the fresh, high-quality, deliberately-reinforced, made-for-adventuring scrolls described in the rules.I do not allow potions. The sprind driven force not breaking the glass vial strains my credulity just a bit.
What if I declare that all my potions and oils are in steel vials instead of glass ones?
Vial: A vial is made out of glass or steel and holds 1 ounce of liquid.
;)
|
Actually, the item says all you have to do is bend your wrist and the contents fall into your waiting hand.
Eh. I could see you needing to shake the thing out a bit, also, since the device is gravity-powered, I could see someone arguing that trying to tip the sheathe enough for the item to come out, but not enough to drop it, would be a legitimate concern.
However, the same argument could be made for an SLWS. Which leads me to believe SLWS don't provoke for the sake of consistency. Since, in general, Swift actions don't provoke (even swift/immediate spells.)
|
|
I allow scrolls (if wild west card cheaters could use a spring loaded wrist sheath on a playing card, then a scroll with hardened leather or rods shouldnt be an issue.)Yay, someone who gets it! :D
I think too many people picture ancient, flaking-apart parchment like you'd see in a movie where Indiana Jones discovers an X,000-year-old scroll in a dusty old library, instead of the fresh, high-quality, deliberately-reinforced, made-for-adventuring scrolls described in the rules.I do not allow potions. The sprind driven force not breaking the glass vial strains my credulity just a bit.What if I declare that all my potions and oils are in steel vials instead of glass ones?
Vial: A vial is made out of glass or steel and holds 1 ounce of liquid.;)
Well there ya go. I suppose steel would not break.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well there ya go. I suppose steel would not break.I allow scrolls (if wild west card cheaters could use a spring loaded wrist sheath on a playing card, then a scroll with hardened leather or rods shouldnt be an issue.)Yay, someone who gets it! :D
I think too many people picture ancient, flaking-apart parchment like you'd see in a movie where Indiana Jones discovers an X,000-year-old scroll in a dusty old library, instead of the fresh, high-quality, deliberately-reinforced, made-for-adventuring scrolls described in the rules.I do not allow potions. The sprind driven force not breaking the glass vial strains my credulity just a bit.What if I declare that all my potions and oils are in steel vials instead of glass ones?
Vial: A vial is made out of glass or steel and holds 1 ounce of liquid.;)
On the other hand, the Magic Items chapter says the default containers for potions are glass or ceramic, and gives the hardness and HP for them based on that. So maybe you should only allow them in the SLWS if the PC paid their 1gp per vial separately to get their 10-hardness potions! ;D
|
|
Table 8-2 on page 183 of the Core Rule Book states that drawing a hidden weapon is a standard action that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. The wrist sheath speeds that up to a move action. The spring-loaded wrist sheath speeds that up to a swift action. But the "normal" rule is that drawing a hidden weapon does not provoke.
Let's put this in perspective though.Drawing from your boot or belt does not provoke because you sent doing anything to distract yourself. Often we see in movies, TV and other fiction that the act of drawing is indeed part of combat. I believe the only reason the wrist sheath provokes, is the intent of the item is that it hides the sheathed item under your clothing. So you literally have to reach up your sleeve to get the item out. If that isn't how you are wearing it, then don't buy one, and just define your items as creatively sheathed on your body. You wouldn't get the benefits of the wrist sheath though.
The spring loaded version changes the action economy. It might make sense that this would not provoke. Until you think about a spring driven, sharp object being thrust into your hand. I don't know about you, but that might distract me a bit so I make sure I don't stab myself.
I really appreciate you doing all that research. Definitely good info to know.
However I have issue with applying it strictly to this argument.
There would be no reason to redundantly mention provoking or not, if it indeed worked as "normal." I can see reaffirming that it did not provoke by saying so explicitly.
So, either the author did not know the rules well enough to understand his needless redundancy, and the developer did not catch it, or the wording is simply imprecise.
I choose to believe its imprecise wording. The fact the wording is there at all should be evident that the intention was using a wrist sheath provokes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, the Magic Items chapter says the default containers for potions are glass or ceramic, and gives the hardness and HP for them based on that. So maybe you should only allow them in the SLWS if the PC paid their 1gp per vial separately to get their 10-hardness potions! ;DWell there ya go. I suppose steel would not break.I allow scrolls (if wild west card cheaters could use a spring loaded wrist sheath on a playing card, then a scroll with hardened leather or rods shouldnt be an issue.)Yay, someone who gets it! :D
I think too many people picture ancient, flaking-apart parchment like you'd see in a movie where Indiana Jones discovers an X,000-year-old scroll in a dusty old library, instead of the fresh, high-quality, deliberately-reinforced, made-for-adventuring scrolls described in the rules.I do not allow potions. The sprind driven force not breaking the glass vial strains my credulity just a bit.What if I declare that all my potions and oils are in steel vials instead of glass ones?
Vial: A vial is made out of glass or steel and holds 1 ounce of liquid.;)
Blarg! Stop arguing with yourself! You just changed my mind twice in as many minutes!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding whether the wrist sheath provokes:
I think some people still think that "provokes as normal" means "always provokes" rather than "does not change anything about provocation".
Well, let's look at other rules with the same "provokes as normal" language:
Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.
Does that mean casting spells with negligible components now always provokes, even when quickened or when cast defensively? Or does it mean that Eschew Materials simply doesn't change the equation?
Here's a weapon special property called "repositioning":
If the wielder confirms a critical hit with the weapon, he can attempt to reposition his opponent as a free action. These reposition attempts still provoke attacks of opportunity as normal.
Is this overriding the normal reposition rules, saying that these repositions always provoke even when you have Improved Reposition and even from enemies other than the target? Or is it simply stating that this item doesn't change anything?
There are also too many instances to list where something gives you movement and says that it provokes "as normal". Are these preventing any benefit of tumbling or of the grace spell? Or are they just affirming that they're not changing anything?
Remember, folks, you only get to say that a rule means X if you're willing to say that the same rule means X every time it appears. If you're not willing to say that examples like the above always provoke even if it normally wouldn't, then you can't say it about the wrist sheath either.
|
|
I'm not saying certain language always means X. I'm reading each instance in context with itself. Each of the instances you state, the language used makes sense as a clarification.
The use if "as normal" does nothing to further clarify the use of the wrist sheath. If you aren't changing something about the action being used, then no clarification is necessary.
In your examples, the actions are changed significantly enough that clarification is necessary.
For the wrist sheath, saying nothing about provocation would have been more appropriate than saying "as normal" if no provocation was the intent. As is, saying the word provooke, assuming the intent was no provocation "as normal", has caused mass wrong interpretation.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the wrist sheath, saying nothing about provocation would have been more appropriate than saying "as normal" if no provocation was the intent.
Wait... you think I'm saying the intent was no provocation? That's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying that "provokes as normal" means "provokes in the same circumstances in which it would normally provoke".
So popping a scroll or potion would provoke, but not a wand or dagger. Just like normal.
Because the provocation is "as normal".
Just like how casting an unmodified spell provokes but casting a quickened or defensive spell doesn't, and Eschew Materials doesn't change that distinction: because the provocation is "as normal".
Just like how performing a reposition provokes from the target of the maneuver but not from other enemies and not at all if you have the feat, and the Repositioning weapon ability doesn't change that distinction: because the provocation is "as normal".
Normally, drawing a potion or scroll provokes while drawing a dagger or wand does not. The sheath leaves this alone.
It's not that the sheath doesn't provoke, it's that it sometimes provokes, depending on whether retrieving the contents would normally provoke or not.
So I am definitely NOT saying that "provokes as normal" somehow means "doesn't provoke". I'm saying that "provokes as normal" means "doesn't change the determination of whether retrieving a given item provokes".
Does that make more sense?
|
|
I would say that the one thing missing from the description of the Wrist Sheath (and SLWS) is the type of action that is used.
If it is "Retrieve an Item" - then it provokes. Just like if you had a mace sitting in your backpack, and had to get it out. This is not drawing a weapon, it is retrieving an item (right?).
If it is "draw weapon", then it would not provoke (but you could only put in there things that are "weapon-like".
If it said:
If the item stored in the wrist sheath is a weapon, or weapon-like, you can use "draw a weapon", otherwise use "Retrieve an item".
This would mean that a dagger wouldn't provoke, and a scroll would.
Unfortunately, the wording missed that, going for color other than rules language. Really, this is the biggest beef I have with a lot of the "problems" that Pathfinder has... if they had just used their rules-based language on how to use it, then there wouldn't be an issue. However, they like to be cute, and describe how it would be used.
EDIT: I think I just got Ninja'd by Jiggy.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the wrist sheath, saying nothing about provocation would have been more appropriate than saying "as normal" if no provocation was the intent.Wait... you think I'm saying the intent was no provocation? That's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying that "provokes as normal" means "provokes in the same circumstances in which it would normally provoke".
So popping a scroll or potion would provoke, but not a wand or dagger. Just like normal.
Because the provocation is "as normal".
Just like how casting an unmodified spell provokes but casting a quickened or defensive spell doesn't, and Eschew Materials doesn't change that distinction: because the provocation is "as normal".
Just like how performing a reposition provokes from the target of the maneuver but not from other enemies and not at all if you have the feat, and the Repositioning weapon ability doesn't change that distinction: because the provocation is "as normal".
Normally, drawing a potion or scroll provokes while drawing a dagger or wand does not. The sheath leaves this alone.
It's not that the sheath doesn't provoke, it's that it sometimes provokes, depending on whether retrieving the contents would normally provoke or not.
So I am definitely NOT saying that "provokes as normal" somehow means "doesn't provoke". I'm saying that "provokes as normal" means "doesn't change the determination of whether retrieving a given item provokes".
Does that make more sense?
Yes! And I am now inclined to agree with you.
I have never had a Judge go through every resource I had on hand, before allowing me to play.
I also keep a micro SD, which, is viewable with almost all phones.
Incuding my own old phone.
If I show up, and nobody has a Laptop, Tablet, or phone, then, well, that's just weird.
Won't work on any Apple product. And those are pretty darn popular.
Bring that old phone, if nothing else. Relying on uncertain resources brought by other people is just asking for trouble.
-j
|
|
I have never looked to make sure they had all the books, but I have had to ask someone for a refrence and they did not have the book with them. At that point if they can't show me the reference for clarification I have told them they can't use what ever it is during that session and to please bring it next time.
Blackbloodtroll you would hate it here, if you have the PDFs but not a device to show them you would be shit out of luck here. I for one would not allow an unknown flash media to be connected to one of my devices and would recommend the same to all of the other players.
|
|
Yay! It's this time of year again!
People bringing up how a fringe item that has a massive effect on action economy doesn't have even more of its effect.
Please refer to the previous thread
To Brock and Compton: Please ban this considerably contentious and broken item.
Side question:
Can anyone point me to the origin of the term/concept "action economy" in Pathfinder? I understand what it means, but I have no idea where it came from. I see it used as a justification for rulings often, so I wanted to know where it gets introduced in the ruleset.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
*polishes up his new 5th star*
I think that there are two real questions at play involving SLWS and scrolls/potions:
1) By RAW, does an SLWS allow for a scroll?
2) Should it allow for a scroll? Does it feel right to be able to draw a scroll as a swift action? Is a SLWS' existence a positive contribution to PFS?
I will address the first question first and swiftly: the item itself is unclear and is obviously designed to allow for GMs to decide what should and should not fit in one. With an item like this, you are certain to have table variation.
Is this a bad thing? I think not. Listing out the exact uses of, say, prestidigitation would be extremely difficult and limiting. Some GMs may differ on whether or not a particular minor effect is too large to be covered by prestidigitation. Yet, we don't see anguish over its use. SLWS, however, does cause anguish because some individuals feel that it is in poor flavor, overpowered or cheesy.
This brings us to the question of whether or not allowing SLWSes to hold scrolls is a good thing. This is also a two part question, the first being an engineering question and the second a rules question.
In regards to the engineering involved in withdrawing a scroll from a SLWS, I see little reason why it could not work. A scroll is described as being an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper with leather strips on each end, presumably to allow for fast rolling and unrolling. Luckily, this size means that the SLWS is supremely easy to test in real life, no rulebook required (unless you wish to get rid of one of the pointless ads in the back of your book). Take a standard sheet of paper and roll it using the short side. Roll it as tightly as you can, as if your life depended on it because, for our characters, it could. I just conducted this experiment and found that the paper fit comfortably on my forearm with plenty of room to spare on either side. I also discovered that the scroll would likely be somewhat flat, which is what the leather straps likely promote. This creates a low-profile object which would actually fit in an SLWS more easily than a wand, which I imagine would be slightly thicker. In regards to the question of damage from drawing the scroll from the wrist sheath, I would remind posters that scrolls have a point of HP, and that as a magical object, they are somewhat more sturdy than nonmagical objects. As such, I think that a scroll easily passes the mechanical test. Potions are said to come in bottles that "vary widely in appearance", and it is hardly out of the ordinary to assume that potion vials can be made expressly for the purpose of SLWSes.
However, I don't believe that it is really the engineering that gets to people - it is the feeling that a SLWS allows someone to break the action economy. I am fairly new to RPGs, having only played my first Pathfinder game in 2012. However, from my tables, I feel that many players get frustrated at the action economy when it comes to handling objects. The game does not distinguish between items carried in a backpack and items carried in a pocket. In real life, you put objects you would need quick access to in convenient locations. In the game, you cannot do this. I can't tell you the number of players that I've frustrated by telling them that they need a full move action to pull a smokestick out of their pocket. Thus, the SLWS creates a mechanical way to do something that we each do in our daily lives.
Additionally, the SLWS allows for few overpowered abilities. The best scroll to put in a SLWS is by far breath of life. Personally, I would like to encourage my players to use breath of life on each other. It is a spell that cannot be used selfishly. By its very nature, breath of life requires coordination and teamwork, both of which we wish to foster. While a melee type would theoretically like to put a potion in there to buff himself, melee buffing potions are very limited. You cannot have a potion of a "personal" spell, which eliminates a lot of the prime options. Furthermore, these melee types are expending an entire standard action to drink that potion - a sacrifice that few melee characters desire to make.
Finally, I would also remind GMs that PCs can only wear 2 SLWSes, Alchemists aside. This means that a player must put thought and care into which two items can be accessed easily. In my experience, SLWSes are generally used for a Wand of Cure Light Wounds and a Scroll of Breath of Life. Occasionally, you will see an Oil of Daylight or a Scroll of Fly. None of these things are problem items.
In conclusion, because a scroll in a SLWS would clearly work from an engineering perspective, because it makes thematic sense and because it does not create overpowered options, I would argue that the SLWS is one of the most positive contributions in the entirety of the Additional Resources page. It encourages people to think strategically about what items they will have and its very existence reminds people of the action economy limitations involved in taking out other items. Therefore, why be curmudgeonly about its use? I say, embrace it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, though, I'm with Jiggy on this one. What he says makes complete sense to me from both a RAW and RAI standpoint. As a further argument in favor of the intent of weapons in a wrist sheath not provoking when they are drawn, does it really make sense that a device designed to hide a weapon and quickly retrieve it would give more warning to the enemy and more opportunity to stop the attack than if someone takes a Greatsword off their back right in front of the enemy?
As for the action to unroll a scroll, I think it's at least a fair interpretation that it is part of the standard action of reading the scroll, in much the same way that retrieving components is part of the standard action of casting a spell. The only thing I see in the scroll section of the CRB is that the double cylinder "also helps the user unroll the scroll quickly." Netopolis, I think you make some good points as well, and I hope this thread leads to a few more GMs being open to the idea of scrolls and possibly potions in a SLWS as I don't think either are game breaking.
|
|
You mean that game where you can make a 60-foot backflip into a small pile of hay and walk away unscathed? :-)Funny you should mention that. I've had characters in PFS fall 60 feet onto bare stone then stand up and keep fighting.
Heh. It is now possible in PFS, or Pathfinder in general, for a character to fall almost any distance, only take 20 points of damage, maximum, and remain standing if that is not enough damage to bring him below 0.
BOOTS OF THE CAT
Price 1,000 gp; Aura faint transmutation; CL 1st; Weight 1 lb.
These high-soled blue boots provide a great deal of comfort and arch support while also making the wearer appear a little bit taller than normal. The boot's wearer always takes the minimum possible damage from falls (as if the GM had rolled a 1 on each die of damage incurred by the fall) and at the end of a fall always lands on his feet.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Cost 500 gp
Craft Wondrous Item, feather fall
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way i see it, it's a lot of nit picking.
As a player, my pcs only put wands and daggers in them.
As a GM, I allow the dagger, wand, dart, 5 arrows or bolts and scrolls.
Swift action that does not provoke. Still a standard to unroll and use scroll.
I let players know that its table variation on the scrolls.
|
|
You mean that game where you can make a 60-foot backflip into a small pile of hay and walk away unscathed? :-)Funny you should mention that. I've had characters in PFS fall 60 feet onto bare stone then stand up and keep fighting.Heh. It is now possible in PFS, or Pathfinder in general, for a character to fall almost any distance, only take 20 points of damage, maximum, and remain standing if that is not enough damage to bring him below 0.
** spoiler omitted **
I don't recall any of the incarnations of Desmond Miles having magic boots or even taking a single point of damage from a straw bed high jump.
|
Yay! It's this time of year again!
People bringing up how a fringe item that has a massive effect on action economy doesn't have even more of its effect.
Please refer to the previous thread
To Brock and Compton: Please ban this considerably contentious and broken item.
Actually, I think this thread has made real progress.
And, since that last thread, a new Developer has chimed in. So, a new discussion was deserved.
I like where this dialog has taken us. I *really* liked Jiggy's and Andrew's back-and-forth. That by itself solidified how this item functions in my mind.
(If you've skipped most of the thread to get to this point, I'd say go back and read their comments, at the very least)
|
|
The problem here is it doesn't say what you think it says. It doesn't just straight-up say retrieving the item provokes, it says the retrieval provokes "as normal".
Why mention the provoking then? You don't mention that something will do something as normal if it doesn't do something.
That means that the wrist sheath is not changing the rules of provocation: if retrieving that item would normally provoke, it still does; if retrieving that item would normally not provoke, it still doesn't.
And retrieving DOES provoke. And as mentioned, it provokes whether you have to reach into your backpack, hip scabbard, hip sheath, pocket.. taking out an item provokes.
I see no reason that the SLWS would be any different than other such abilities.
Well, WHICH abilities? If it works like a retrieval ability it provokes. If it works like other swift actions it doesn't.
I don't have a spring loaded wrist sheath provoke, but thats more of a sense driven thing for me than a rules one.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The problem here is it doesn't say what you think it says. It doesn't just straight-up say retrieving the item provokes, it says the retrieval provokes "as normal".Why mention the provoking then? You don't mention that something will do something as normal if it doesn't do something.
That means that the wrist sheath is not changing the rules of provocation: if retrieving that item would normally provoke, it still does; if retrieving that item would normally not provoke, it still doesn't.And retrieving DOES provoke. And as mentioned, it provokes whether you have to reach into your backpack, hip scabbard, hip sheath, pocket.. taking out an item provokes.
But pulling a wand or dagger does NOT provoke. Pulling a scroll or potion DOES. That's the distinction.
I see no reason that the SLWS would be any different than other such abilities.Well, WHICH abilities? If it works like a retrieval ability it provokes. If it works like other swift actions it doesn't.
It works like the retrieval of the item you're retrieving. Drawing a weapon or weapon-like object in easy reach does not provoke. Retrieving other objects does provoke. The distinction between provoking or not is based on what type of item you're retrieving, not whether it's in a pocket, sheath, bandolier, or SLWS.
Follow me this time?
|
|
I don't recall any of the incarnations of Desmond Miles having magic boots or even taking a single point of damage from a straw bed high jump.Which is okay, because actual Pathfinder characters have face planted on stone from similar heights and survived.
I think you're missing the original point of the snark. Which was, admittedly, just a snark, so not worth belaboring.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for this informative thread Nefreet. It has solidified my mind on the whole issue.
Until campaign management says otherwise this is how I'll rule and encourage the rulings in our area.
Weapons, ammo, wands do not provoke in SLWS or regular wrist sheaths.
Scrolls, potions, and anything else do provoke from sheaths.
|
|
So a new corner case comes to mind, mostly because of some of our players that build interesting builds.
Are improvised weapons considered weapon-like object for provoking or not?
I believe I saw someone using soup spoons or ladles as weapons. I had a player use an attic whisperer's teddy bear as his improvised weapon. Another guy uses a length of rope.
|
|
The distinction between provoking or not is based on what type of item you're retrieving, not whether it's in a pocket, sheath, bandolier, or SLWS.Is it? That's not a written rule either. Its also not true. Taking a sword out of your backpack provokes.
Taking a sword out of a backpack provokes, because a sword in a backpack is a stored item. Nothing in the description of the wrist sheath says that it is a stored item.
Drawing a weapon from a sheath does not provoke. Something in the name of a wrist sheath says that it is a sheath.
Drawing a hidden weapon as a standard action does not provoke. A wrist sheath is used to help make a weapon hidden.
Taking a potion off of your belt provokes, because a potion is not a weapon. So the type of item does matter, thanks to the rules on drawing a weapon.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The distinction between provoking or not is based on what type of item you're retrieving, not whether it's in a pocket, sheath, bandolier, or SLWS.Is it? That's not a written rule either. Its also not true. Taking a sword out of your backpack provokes.
Okay, let me be more precise:
As long as we're in the context of easy-to-reach items, the type of item is what makes the difference between provoking or not. As long as it's within easy reach, pulling out a dagger or wand will not provoke but pulling out a potion or scroll will provoke.Just like every other time "provokes as normal" appears in the rules (which is a LOT), this item is just telling us that it doesn't change those parameters. You determine provocation "as normal": in the same way you would if the SLWS was not involved.
Follow me this time?There's no need for that.
No need for what?