|
Wrist sheaths say that they're meant to work with items the length of forearm, but then specifically list "up to five arrows" as something they can hold.
Rods are described as "2 feet to 3 feet long", which, looking at the arrows in the corner of my room, as arrow length.
So, metamagic rod in a wrist sheath: ok, no, or expect table variation?
|
|
Wrist sheaths say that they're meant to work with items the length of forearm, but then specifically list "up to five arrows" as something they can hold.
Rods are described as "2 feet to 3 feet long", which, looking at the arrows in the corner of my room, as arrow length.
So, metamagic rod in a wrist sheath: ok, no, or expect table variation?
ETV, if it's not one of the specifically listed items in the description.
I would guess that most GM's would allow it, but yes it is subject to table variation. I would not build my character around relying on that.
|
|
Um, no they're not; "Physical Description: Rods weigh approximately 5 pounds. They range from 2 feet to 3 feet long and are usually made of iron or some other metal." PRD
The actual quote about what the sheaths can hold is, "The sheath can hold one forearm-length item, such as a dagger, dart, or wand, or up to five arrows or crossbow bolts."
|
Um, no they're not; "Physical Description: Rods weigh approximately 5 pounds. They range from 2 feet to 3 feet long and are usually made of iron or some other metal." PRD
The actual quote about what the sheaths can hold is, "The sheath can hold one forearm-length item, such as a dagger, dart, or wand, or up to five arrows or crossbow bolts."
Well then the prd is incomplete...
Rods are scepter-like devices that have unique magical powers and do not usually have charges. Anyone can use a rod.
Physical Description: Rods weigh approximately 5 pounds. They range from 2 feet to 3 feet long and are usually made of iron or some other metal. (Many, as noted in their descriptions, can function as light maces or clubs due to their hardy construction.) These sturdy items have AC 9, 10 hit points, hardness 10, and a break DC of 27.
Draw your own conclusions and expect table variation
|
|
I'd say no, mostly for the weight and diameter issue.
Physical Description: Rods weigh approximately 5 pounds. They range from 2 feet to 3 feet long and are usually made of iron or some other metal. (Many, as noted in their descriptions, can function as light maces or clubs because of their hardy construction.) These sturdy items have AC 9, 10 hit points, hardness 10, and a break DC of 27.
Thats waaaay more than 5 arrows. Even with the arrows you're walking through the dungeon looking like this guy with a 3 foot arrow on a foot and a half of wrist.
|
|
The length on an arrow is (most generally) a function of the arm length of the archer rather than the bow being used.Not really.
A longbow fires a longer arrow than a shortbow. That is the nature of how they work. And of course a footbow fires an even longer arrow still. What matters is the length of the pull of the bow which if the bow is of the same type will depend on the arm length of the shooter but can vary wildly across styles of bows.
The way I was taught to pick arrows was to place the nock against your breastbone and hold your arms straight with your palms together and place the tip of the arrow between your fingers. The arrowhead should be at least an inch past your fingertips for modern recurve bows and 3-4 inches past your fingertips for traditional longbows.
I can't come up with a way to make that fit in something as long as my forearm.
|
To be honest, I just get the feeling that whoever wrote this item had no concept of the actual size if an arrow.
Or what form of action economy would actually require an arrow in a wrist-sheath to begin with. I can't think of many reasons outside of needing to hide your weapon on your person, why you might need or want 1 arrow, let alone 5, hidden up your sleeve.
And so now you have 5 hidden arrows. What are you going to do with them? It isn't like you can hide your bow up your sleeve too... Use them in melee? I suppose its an option. There are rules for that. But they are worse than daggers for that purpose.
|
It's RAW that the wrist sheath can store arrows.
It's not RAW to add appropriately sized to the rule to describe the "arrows". RAW IS LAW is a b!%@%; doesn't have to always go the player's way. If the arrows only fit within the length of one's forearm, it's perfectly plausible to say they have to be at least one size category smaller than normal for the shooter.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's RAW that the wrist sheath can store arrows.
It's not RAW to add appropriately sized to the rule to describe the "arrows". RAW IS LAW is a b~@+!; doesn't have to always go the player's way. If the arrows only fit within the length of one's forearm, it's perfectly plausible to say they have to be at least one size category smaller than normal for the shooter.
^ Example of terrible GMing.
|
|
^ Example of terrible GMing.It's RAW that the wrist sheath can store arrows.
It's not RAW to add appropriately sized to the rule to describe the "arrows". RAW IS LAW is a b~@+!; doesn't have to always go the player's way. If the arrows only fit within the length of one's forearm, it's perfectly plausible to say they have to be at least one size category smaller than normal for the shooter.
Well Jiggy, you're begging for an argument, so state your case.
Unless of course you're just slinging insults, which I honestly don't suspect was your point.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
^ Example of terrible GMing.It's RAW that the wrist sheath can store arrows.
It's not RAW to add appropriately sized to the rule to describe the "arrows". RAW IS LAW is a b~@+!; doesn't have to always go the player's way. If the arrows only fit within the length of one's forearm, it's perfectly plausible to say they have to be at least one size category smaller than normal for the shooter.
Well Jiggy, you're begging for an argument, so state your case.
Unless of course you're just slinging insults, which I honestly don't suspect was your point.
I actually very much agree with Jiggy.
When the player reads this item, and it says that it can hold 5 arrows, it is not the GMs place to add a restriction like the one mentioned above, just to make things more plausible. Especially since this pretty much ruins the item for its intended use, as written.
How often do your really want to spend a move action or one of your precious swift actions to something, you could usually access as free actions.
To give a similar example:
Say a player with a Swashbuckler wants to use opportune parry and riposte (never mind that Dodging Panache might be a better and reliable option) to parry the attack from an incorporeal enemy.
GM says no for some reason, maybe he things that it is unrealistic, or the player does not have a magic weapon, or that parrying attacks with your paws it to epic.
NO, at this point the GM is allowing personal bias to affect the game. If an ability as written allow the halfling swashbuckler to parry the attack from a gargantuan giant zombie with a a dagger, realism really does not enter into the discussion. Especially since the arcane casters are currently shooting fire out of a select number of orifices.
|
|
Deus:
The dm should not be a rules lawyer where he is also a rules judge. The bit with the arrow is some country fried southern rules lawyering.
I have no argument with that, but I'd add that no one should be a rules lawyer, not even players. Not even in PFS.
But we all know there are players that are rules lawyers, and in the event that there ARE rules lawyers at your table, the GM has no option but to become one as well to "protect the game".
All that being said, I'd have a hard time coming up with a for-example where I'd find myself standing behind the arrow ruling, but it served two purposes as an example:
1: In the context of the OP, it demonstrates that yes one should expect table variation on rods, since technically not even arrows are sacrosanct and they're explicitly called out.
2: Totally a tangent, but I was advocating that RAI does indeed have a very important role in PFS, even when it differs from RAW. You might say it's "Bad GMing" to go RAW on the arrows, I'd say it's an example of what happens when you pretend RAI doesn't apply to PFS.
|
|
RAW is the basis for the game, but we have GMs for a reason. I don't think I personally would restrict arrows from a wrist sheath, even though it is ridiculous, because it it written as allowed. Alas, there is sometimes a feeling (among players and GMs alike) that RAW is both crystal clear and all-encompassing. It is neither. If the GM and players are adversaries, the game fails despite RAW. If the GM and players trust each other and follow RAW while compromising on the grey areas, the game will succeed.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I don't know anyone locally who allows a rod to be stored in a spring-loaded sheathe, so I don't think there's much table variation around here. :)
Also note that a rod isn't a weapon, so that also prevents drawing it while moving like you would draw a weapon had you possessed a +1 BAB or greater.
To badly paraphrase Terry Pratchett "Everything is a weapon if you think of it a such", that case references worker's tools and similar objects like a toolbox. Fortunately in Pathfinder we have this:
Draw or Sheathe a Weapon
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.
If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.
Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.
If a wand is spelled out as a weapon like object, chances are to most rods and staffs should work just as well.
However the question regarding the wrist sheats is pretty clear cut, the list does not mention them, so no GM has to allow it.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Deus:
The dm should not be a rules lawyer where he is also a rules judge. The bit with the arrow is some country fried southern rules lawyering.
I have no argument with that, but I'd add that no one should be a rules lawyer, not even players. Not even in PFS.
But we all know there are players that are rules lawyers, and in the event that there ARE rules lawyers at your table, the GM has no option but to become one as well to "protect the game".
All that being said, I'd have a hard time coming up with a for-example where I'd find myself standing behind the arrow ruling, but it served two purposes as an example:
1: In the context of the OP, it demonstrates that yes one should expect table variation on rods, since technically not even arrows are sacrosanct and they're explicitly called out.
2: Totally a tangent, but I was advocating that RAI does indeed have a very important role in PFS, even when it differs from RAW. You might say it's "Bad GMing" to go RAW on the arrows, I'd say it's an example of what happens when you pretend RAI doesn't apply to PFS.
GMs in PFS are empowered to make a ruling in cases, where the rules are unclear or not existant. If a player uses rules lawyering to a degree, that is damaging to the game, a GM has the right do an audit.
If the problematic rule in question can be interpreted in a variety of ways/includes an obvious mistake, the GM is not forced to just accept it. Recent examples included the Hunter animal companion thing in APG, or an older printing of a German CRB were one of the weapons was doing something like 20d6.However, if the rules are clear, and the player just found a very good combination, that is not something the GM should really try to fight.
|
I've always read that text that weapon-like objects can be drawn with a move action, and if they're in a pack, it's retrieving a stored item.
While the early sentences onerously include the phrase "or weapon-like object", the section that describes the free-action-with-a-move omits that part, thus meaning weapon-like objects aren't the same as weapons for that specific sentence.
(This is presumably a "good-thing" otherwise we'd have a cornucopia of table discussions about why a potion of healing is a weapon-like object since it's not that unlike an alchemist bomb or a club or a scroll is a weapon-like object since it's like a blowgun.)
It's also worth noting that most casters I've seen keep their rods in haversacks (presumably to avoid encumberance issues), which would require a move action separate from moving to retrieve.
|
|
I have no argument with that, but I'd add that no one should be a rules lawyer, not even players. Not even in PFS.
*shrug* Its a blurry line between rules lawyering and rules understanding. I've been accused of rules lawyering for saying combat reflexes lets me attack with my polearm at the charging thing while flat footed.
But we all know there are players that are rules lawyers, and in the event that there ARE rules lawyers at your table, the GM has no option but to become one as well to "protect the game".
We should not engage in it to that extent for the exact same reason we shouldn't be changing the rules: because when you hit that level of willfull misinterpretation you are changing the rules.
1: In the context of the OP, it demonstrates that yes one should expect table variation on rods, since technically not even arrows are sacrosanct and they're explicitly called out.
That level of paranoia and antagonism turns people off from the game
2: Totally a tangent, but I was advocating that RAI does indeed have a very important role in PFS, even when it differs from RAW. You might say it's "Bad GMing" to go RAW on the arrows, I'd say it's an example of what happens when you pretend RAI doesn't apply to PFS.
While I'm very fond of RAI your line of reasoning with the arrow is a better argument against letting DMs use it than for.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well Jiggy, you're begging for an argument, so state your case.^ Example of terrible GMing.It's RAW that the wrist sheath can store arrows.
It's not RAW to add appropriately sized to the rule to describe the "arrows". RAW IS LAW is a b~@+!; doesn't have to always go the player's way. If the arrows only fit within the length of one's forearm, it's perfectly plausible to say they have to be at least one size category smaller than normal for the shooter.
The reason it's an example of terrible GMing is not so much because of the conclusion you reached, but how and why you got there.
If a GM is unfamiliar with a wrist sheath, and I show him the text, and the GM—remembering his primary goal is to provide a fair and fun experience—tries to wrap his head around the idea of forearm-length arrows and comes to the above conclusion, that's one thing. I might just accept it and move on, I might present a counterargument once and then drop it, but in either case it wouldn't ultimately be a huge deal.
But that's not what's going on.
You're not making an honest, good-faith effort to understand what the rules really mean and apply them in a fun and fair way. Instead, you're motivated entirely by petty revenge, a desire to get back at a group of people you have a beef with.
You're weaponizing a game.
You're taking satisfaction in hurting people.
You even admit this in a later post, stating that you're completely aware that what you're doing is bad, but that you think a GM "has no option" but to play the toddler's got-you-back game.
And that is terrible GMing.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I've always read that text that weapon-like objects can be drawn with a move action, and if they're in a pack, it's retrieving a stored item.
While the early sentences onerously include the phrase "or weapon-like object", the section that describes the free-action-with-a-move omits that part, thus meaning weapon-like objects aren't the same as weapons for that specific sentence.
(This is presumably a "good-thing" otherwise we'd have a cornucopia of table discussions about why a potion of healing is a weapon-like object since it's not that unlike an alchemist bomb or a club or a scroll is a weapon-like object since it's like a blowgun.)
It's also worth noting that most casters I've seen keep their rods in haversacks (presumably to avoid encumberance issues), which would require a move action separate from moving to retrieve.
If I let the fighter retrieve their large sized bastard sword form the sheath on his back while his is charging into combat, I see really not reason not the let the same fighter take a wand/wand/potion/scroll out of his bandoleer. Not from his scroll case though since that is a container.
Allowing characters to have a reasonable number of wands and similar items on their person seems only fair, and let's not forget that those are subject to sundering, dirty tricks and other dangers.
That way a character can actually drop their weapons and shields, run to a fallen character (while drawing their breath of life scroll) and avoid a death.
|
|
Well Jiggy, you're begging for an argument, so state your case.^ Example of terrible GMing.It's RAW that the wrist sheath can store arrows.
It's not RAW to add appropriately sized to the rule to describe the "arrows". RAW IS LAW is a b~@+!; doesn't have to always go the player's way. If the arrows only fit within the length of one's forearm, it's perfectly plausible to say they have to be at least one size category smaller than normal for the shooter.
The reason it's an example of terrible GMing is not so much because of the conclusion you reached, but how and why you got there.
If a GM is unfamiliar with a wrist sheath, and I show him the text, and the GM—remembering his primary goal is to provide a fair and fun experience—tries to wrap his head around the idea of forearm-length arrows and comes to the above conclusion, that's one thing. I might just accept it and move on, I might present a counterargument once and then drop it, but in either case it wouldn't ultimately be a huge deal.
But that's not what's going on.
You're not making an honest, good-faith effort to understand what the rules really mean and apply them in a fun and fair way. Instead, you're motivated entirely by petty revenge, a desire to get back at a group of people you have a beef with.
You're weaponizing a game.
You're taking satisfaction in hurting people.
You even admit this in a later post, stating that you're completely aware that what you're doing is bad, but that you think a GM "has no option" but to play the toddler's got-you-back game.
And that is terrible GMing.
Of course I'd agree that "weaponizing the game" and "taking satisfaction in hurting players" is bad GMing. I'm rebutting because that's a pretty dramatically wrong way to read what I said. What's ironic is I DO agree with your end point, we just take completely different ways of getting there and THAT'S what I hoped to discuss when I invited you to explain yourself.
To restate my post in a Hall-ian way: I may not do this personally (I called it merely "plausible"), but I'd defend a GM's right to do this.
I'd even agree that such a move would be more likely than not to be "Bad GMing", but not at all for the same reasons you imagine. I'd say so because such a move would have to do more good than harm, which I'd think is unlikely to be the case.
But, potentially in such a scenario (which I don't presume to imagine), yes it's perfectly fine. And has nothing to do with playing "gotcha" with perceived rules lawyers.
As for my later post, that too appears to require an explanation as the intent was so dramatically misunderstood. Rules lawyering, like pornography, is something best described as "you know it when you see it." Reasonable people in good faith can disagree, as in BNW's example. And that was my point. Players WILL rules lawyer. They literally can't help it. It's not because they're childish or trying to cheat. (although some are, but I'm making a point of illustrating that some instances of rules lawyering is NOT that "wrongbad" kind)
When a GM is doing his job, he is paradoxically encouraging rules lawyering. So, it's inevitable. Allow me to explain why this is so.
The GM is doing a good job when the players have slipped past that threshhold of suspension of disbelief. When something bad is happening to the character, it's not happening to an abstract construct.. it's happening to the player's persona. It's actually happening to the player. So, when the halfling swashbuckler parries the blow from the gargantuan critter, "of course" the rules state it's possible because they don't qualify otherwise! Reverse that situation, the player is playing the big character and a pixie or kobold parries his blow. Now, while being (maybe even only arguably) legal, the rules are clearly "wonky and out of step with reality". The player is perhaps being hypocritical, but it's a perfectly understandable case of hypocrisy. Seriously, I'm not mocking it. The player has skin in the fight, and it is natural to fight to win. That extends to rules arguments. Only the rare player can step back from rules discussions to perceive a bigger picture beyond how it immediately applies to him in the here and now. Naturally, every player claims to be able to do this, but few in practice actually can. A wise GM recognizes this and always remembers this in rules "discussions" at the table. That's the context in which I said "the GM has to defend the game from rules lawyers".
|
|
If I let the fighter retrieve their large sized bastard sword form the sheath on his back while his is charging into combat, I see really not reason not the let the same fighter take a wand/wand/potion/scroll out of his bandoleer.
You can certainly run tables where you allow the PCs to do this... I wouldn't argue with you if you did (excepting potentially the case if a BBEG killed a PC by moving up to them while drawing a Rod of Persistent Spell or similar and then hitting them with a touch attack save-or-die).
In the rules though, the bandolier has pretty clear text:
You can use the "retrieve a stored item" action to take an item from a bandolier.
Essentially, by the rules, if an item is in a bandolier, it takes the specific "retrieve a stored item" action, which isn't one that is given extra capabilities to be combined with another move action and would possibly provoke an AoO.
In general, I believe the majority of at least our local GMs allow the intended use of the item will dictate how the action is determined. If you are drawing the potion, scroll, rod, etc to use as a weapon and make an attack roll with it at an enemy, then you could consider it weapon-like and draw it on the move. If you're retrieving it for another purpose, then it's retrieving a stored item.