Our GM is instituting a new homebrew rule he read about and liked (because he's a masochist of a GM and doesn't like anyone to enjoy themselves; that's at least half true) in which before you can retrieve a stored item from a container, such as a backpack, you must first retrieve the container itself. Items stored in easily accessible locations, such as bandoliers, do not receive this penalty.
My question is, does this seem like an unnecessary action tax? Are the actions of the game already designed and balanced such that "retrieving" the backpack is already taken into consideration? Are there any downsides to hanging every item you own off of a hook, strap, belt, bandolier, belt pouch, or other non-backpack location? Does this seem like it's unfairly biased towards characters who have the strength to wear everything on their person, as opposed to characters who would rely on something like a handy haversack? Any other thoughts or insights on how this will affect our game?
absolutely unneeded action tax.
the point of the move action to get a stored item includes to action to retrieve the container, hence the difference between stored and non-stored items. Looks like the GM is just trying to make the experience more difficult.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
In my experience, the things you need when you have to react to contact are placed where they can be immediately drawn and used - not stored in a pack which you can't reasonably get into quickly. Try putting even 35lb in a back-pack (and that is a very light backpack) - which often have both a hip-hugger strap and a chest strap to help distribute the load. You can't just drop it and you can -barely- even touch the sides of it, let alone retrieve an item in a 3 second move action.
Weapons; ammo; utility tools; light sources; first-aid kit; water; zip-ties/handcuffs; back-up weapon;. When you need it, its right there accessible on belt/bodyarmor/webbing. However, the down side is, you still need a dose of reality on what is "must have", due to both weight and maneuverability. Too much stuff hanging off you and you're going to hurt yourself.
Also, "When" you have to react to contact you dump your heavy back-pack because its loaded down, and you can't fight with that on. So its even more important that your essentials for combat are on your body-armor/webgear/modular system. Sometimes you might just be moving with an assault pack, of essentials in which case you'd keep it on because its lighter and contains extra ammo for the machine guns and mortar rounds, that you'll want to pass off to those special weapon teams.
In game world you can add some wands; some potions; MWK Manacles and everything from real-world combat necessity, but every piece of utility gear for adventuring just isn't reasonable to store on your belt, bandoleer, or belt pouch. I allow each player 2 x 8 item bandoleers for potions/wands/daggers; and a max of 2 1handed/light weapons on their belt; and up to another 4-6 daggers depending how they strap sheaths (this is typically just a rogue thing anyway).
One of the reasons I only loosely follow encumbrance is that once combat ensues, IMO everyone would be operating at full movement because they're dumping their MWK Backpack (unless they have so much armor/weapons that it makes them above light encumbrance). So I'd rather have the character sheet reflect their "combat movement speed" which is normally going to be w/o their backpack weight.
On the other hand, if you need rope, grapple-hook, extra torches, spare rations, crow-bar, small-hammer/pitons, and any other adventure gear "immediately", then you should have to use an action to remove your backpack, and another to retrieve an item IMO. But as you point out, it would be a house-rule. To be honest...in practice if you're storing items where they are tactically useful and using some realistic carrying rules for how many weapons/wands/etc you can keep hand, this rule would very rarely come up.
Well first off, you don't need to worry about combat vs non-combat load if you have a handy haversack; except for when this rule is applied, because now you don't want to keep combat stuff in a backpack. Also, if retrieving a stored item provokes EXCEPT when retrieving it from a handy haversack (per the benefits of a handy haversack), then now you provoke when retrieving your handy haversack...
Secondly, I've never been a fan of "drop it and pick it up later" tactics; not when it comes to weapons or backpacks. Because whoever is using that strategy is going to be pretty upset when the DM decides to do something like a trap door that sends you elsewhere, or some other constraint in which you don't have time to retrieve your dropped items, or can't for whatever reason.
Another thing I'd be worried about with keeping a bunch of important stuff on external storage, is area attacks. I looked up the rules for this when the new rule was brought up, and, to my surprise, items aren't affected by AoE unless the AoE specifically says so. However, they can be affected if you nat 1 your saving throw. This is different from what I remember about the rules for items being affected by AoEs, but maybe we haven't had to use those rules since 3.5 and they've changed or something.
Anyway, the other worry would be if they fall off if you take a surprise tumble, get snagged on trees/bushes during a woodland chase, or get snatched by someone, since it's out there for the taking.
Lastly, it's kind of a one-sided disadvantage, assuming you aren't always fighting other "civilized" races. How often do ogres, trolls, gelatinous cubes, beholders, etc., need to reach into their backpack to retrieve something? This means it's a tax on only the players, and not the enemies they typically face.
GM 1990 I couldn't tell if you were advocating the additional move tax or not...? Give me TLDR version.
To the OP, it's a game, and the devs have decided that the move action to retrieve a stored item covers the whole action no matter what fluff description that takes in the game, one move action is perfectly fair. Adding an additional move is sadistic. In situations like that I like to remind the GM that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. This means NPCs that need to retrieve something from a backpack mid-battle might be taking two AoOs from my Swashbuckler with combat reflexes. :)
Edit:Ninja'd a bit by the OP. Monster races definitely aren't really prone to retrieving items, and if it's a campaign that spends the bulk of combat against monster races then it's a REALLY unnecessary disadvantage to PCs.
Hah - I guess I was exploring both sides of the fence a little trying to see what came up. :-)
I agree with the OP, it is one-sided for most games. However, since you can keep weapons, potions, wands on your belt/bandoleers, I don't think it would actually affect the PCs. Maybe a couple times in the whole campaign during the heat of battle would something inside your backpack be "just the right thing at this moment." Probably not worth his GM's time or the space on the houserules document.
That being said, current action economy is to easy IMO, I hike a lot, and been doing Soldier training for over 20years. Drop back-pack, open flap, reach inside, set-down item so you have 1 hand free to close flap, pull backpack back on both shoulders, pick up item. We're also ignoring if you're holding a weapon in one (or 2 hands), or have a shield strapped to an arm. I know its a game, and plenty of rules don't follow real-world, but just looking at maybe what the GM is going over in his mind on this one, which the book says takes:
3 seconds?
Try it even with a kids book-bag with 1 item in it (to simulate HandyH). Maybe possible in 3 seconds with both hands free, but that would be moving very fast, and fluid. 3 seconds is only a long time if your parachute is malfunctioning.
For adventurers we're looking at something more on-par with professional outfitters if its a MWK or HandyH, with up to 120lb in/strapped to it. 3 seconds is just very generous IMO, but it only matters if you're in combat, and I don't see it coming up so again, not worth the effort of a house rule.
RaizielDragon wrote:
Anyway, the other worry would be if they fall off if you take a surprise tumble, get snagged on trees/bushes during a woodland chase, or get snatched by someone, since it's out there for the taking.
This is why everything essential gets tied down with para-cord weapon-cords.
I've been turtled upside-down stuck in a mountain-laurel bush along the Appalachian Trail in northern Georgia unable to free-myself because my backpack was hanging over the other side of the branches.
Running through the woods and tumbling is dangerous in game or out of it. :-)
Dude, I totally get it. Trust me I do. Like you say, though, there are A LOT of mechanics in game that don't, in any way, mimic real life. I mean, I probably can't get a book out of my backpack while holding onto my greatsword with one hand in three seconds, sure; I also can't summon a wall of fire to cut off my enemies' escape route and so I can listen to the lovely sound of their burning flesh.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I always ruled that if you have something attached to your body, like on a bandolier or belt pouch, you can retrieve it using a move action, but if it is stored on your backpack, it's a full round action (or two move actions).
I don't see it being much different from what he "house ruled".
I could be wrong, but otherwise, what is the point of belts and bandoliers if you can retrieve anything using a move action?
Quote:
Bandolier
Price 5 sp; Weight —
This leather belt is worn over one shoulder and runs diagonally across the chest and back. It has small loops or pouches for holding eight objects the size of a flask or small dagger. You can use the "retrieve a stored item" action to take an item from a bandolier. You can wear up to two bandoliers at the same time (any more than this and they get in each other's way and restrict your movement).
I also noticed that it causes an attack of opportunity, something i hardly enforce and often forgot.
shadowkras wrote: ...otherwise, what is the point of belts and bandoliers if you can retrieve anything using a move action?
...
I also noticed that it causes an attack of opportunity, something i hardly enforce and often forgot.
I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a second: This first part was the crux of the argument; our GM is a big fan of "realism" so far as one can find realism in a fantasy setting. Sure, we can't relate casting a magical wall of fire to real life experience, but as has been shown, we CAN relate to how difficult it should be to retrieve something from a backpack. And I agree, it's a bit more difficult than grabbing something off a loop of a bandolier (I assume here; I've never used a bandolier). I feel like this should apply to anything inside any container though, so this would apply to satchels, belt pouches, or any other "container". Bandoliers have the item exposed and ready to grab, as do sheaths, so they are the exception to the rule in that you don't have to ready the container for retrieval.
That being said, as has also been pointed out, some backpacks are more difficult to remove than others; hiking backpacks, military backpacks, and other "masterwork" packs, often have built-in frames, a chest strap, and a waist strap that, when used together, are what make carrying things easier. To me, this would require even MORE action to remove; we aren't talking about tossing your highschool backpack, with a few books in it, down off your shoulder when you walk in the front door. We're talking about having to use at least one hand to undo at least two buckles, and then slip both straps off your arms, over whatever you are holding, open whatever portion the item is in, dig around for it, and then reverse the whole process while now holding the item you just retrieved (unless you want to use a move action to pick it up off the ground after you're done with all of this).
Non-backpack containers, such as belt pouches or satchels, that are more at hand, wouldn't be quite as bad; usually involving just spreading open a drawstring and grabbing the item inside, which could be done one-handed.
I think what all this boils down to is, instead of the "retrieve an item" action being a set action type, each container should probably have had it's own action identified. Or maybe there should have been some kind of "condition" that a stored item is in, ranging from "very easily accessible", like something on a bandolier, to "not accessible at all" like something at the bottom of a masterwork backpack. Or maybe an "accessibility score" of 1 to 5, with 1 being least accessible and 5 being most. I don't know...
::steps down off devil's advocate soap box::
But there is no such thing as accessibility in Pathfinder. The game is pre-defined in such a way as to be balanced, as far as the developers are concerned. Obviously, there are houserules, and the GM can make alterations as they see fit, and as players we can either accept that or find another GM. I mainly just wanted to get other people's views on it; and I agree with the idea that most items that are combat-needed can be kept at hand in sheaths/bandoliers/etc., with little risk.
Sure if your backpack is inside another backpack or inside a waterproof bag.....
The language for the bandolier really gave me pause, because I had never read that before and I always treated grabbing something from a bandolier as a swift action. I mean, it's in a belt that is specifically designed to make it easy to grab. I believe the reason it gave me pause is this: Draw or Sheathe specifically states that if your weapon is "in a pack" or "out of easy reach," treat this as a retrieve a stored item action. The words "in a pack" and "out of easy reach," at least in game terms, are utterly ambiguous. Does that mean on one of those handy hooks on the side of a masterwork backpack? What if it's a dagger and it's literally in an inner compartment of your backpack? That's still a weapon, and it's still "in a pack?" Having read that rule multiple times, I always assumed a bandolier put things "in easy reach," and never even read the specific description of a bandolier. I have to say, I'm going to just make that another houserule and continue making retrieving something from a bandolier a swift action.
Having said that, I do think that the language of the Draw or Sheathe rule is so ambiguous that a player could easily interpret that to mean they can draw a weapon from the inner part of a backpack "as part of a move action" if they have a +1 BAB. Read that rule thoroughly, and you'll see that it is about as clear as mud, in game terms. Does that mean the devs were specifically trying to rule in a players favor devoid of realism? I know there are other places in the rules that do this, perhaps this is one. As it is, I'm going to continue to rule sans realism, and say regardless of where "in a pack" something is, in game terms it's a move action to retrieve it, and that action provokes an AoO because of how unwieldy an action that probably is.
KenderKin wrote: Sure if your backpack is inside another backpack or inside a waterproof bag..... They're looking at possibly using a house rule for more realism on this particular thing (like some games use encumbrance, some don't some use theatre of mind, some live by the grid, some track ammo/food, others don't; etc)
Try it yourself.
I'll call this the Handy Haversack test:
Task: Remove 1 item from your pack and redon pack
Conditions: book-bag sized or workout pack, no chest or hip straps, flap opened (not zipped, not drawstringed, but covering the top of the opening). Shoe setting on top. To allow for hitting your stop watch, you are allowed to drop the item once removed rather than holding it while you put both arms back through straps.
Standards: Complete the task in 3 seconds (a PF move action). Flap on pack must be flipped closed before putting pack back on (not required to zip or draw-string)
I just tried it, no fumbling, it was a good attempt.
6.19 seconds
Like a lot of things which are direct from the real world, the Devs couldn't hope to make a rule fully compliant with physics and the game engine w/o probably adding another 1000 pages to the CRB. its up to house ruling if tables want to tweak things for their game on stuff like this, even if it'll rarely come u
That being said - try the test above, and consider that in game (or real world) your pack is going to at least be drawstring/zipped shut, which you'll have to negotiate to open...and then would re-seal before tossing on your back.
...we're talking -at least- a full round action, but really more like a 1 round action to retrieve something even from a Handy Haversack.
I'm not advocating (nor do I think the OP was) that it needs to be house ruled, or that everything in game that does have an IRL equal should match in game mechanics. But it is an interesting experiment.
If you're in any way concerned with realism in your games, you're absolutely, 100% playing not only the wrong game, but the wrong genre. Applying hyper-realism to D&D/PF is badwrongfun.
Gulthor wrote: If you're in any way concerned with realism in your games, you're absolutely, 100% playing not only the wrong game, but the wrong genre. Applying hyper-realism to D&D/PF is badwrongfun. Hopefully this was meant tongue in cheek, but hard to tell - even a little ;-) would help immensely.
Since there is a lot of realism baked into and assumed by the rules themselves. Why have a price for waterskin or weights or tables for how encumbrance affects move speeds if the Devs (and some game groups) didn't want some realism in those systems.
Its more a matter of how much is enough for you and your group, I've gone from not tracking encumbrance to strictly enforcing water, food, and every spell component, and now back to a relatively easier going style on daily consumables and ammo. Those were all in D&D and PF, and it all depended on my groups and what we wanted for that particular campaign.
I'm sure no-one can give an agreeable definition of realism vs hyper-realism, so it'll be individual group that ultimately figures out if the rules provide enough realism for any campaign.
|
