| 36 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The wording used in psychic anthology is: "a single bearer must hold all the panoply's associated implements to gain the panoply's resonant power".
It then goes on to list the panoplies, one of which being "crystal ball, robe, wand", so it seems that "hold" doesnt mean "have in your hands" unless they expect the character to have three hands.
So what constitutes "holding" something?
Does the item need to merely be in your possession?
or
Does the item need to be in one of your equipment slots?
---
Example: Would a shield (abjuration implement) strapped to a character's back count toward the panoply? What about a buckler strapped to someone's wrist while they make two-handed attacks?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
marked for FAQ
I get the feeling "hold" in this case it going to mean "wield" or "use in an appropriate manner". For the given example panoply, it would be wielding the crystal ball and staff and wearing the robe (and no other magic robes over it).
I get the feeling "hold" in this case it going to mean "wield" or "use in an appropriate manner". For the given example panoply, it would be wielding the crystal ball and staff and wearing the robe (and no other magic robes over it).
Yeah, that's the latter, more restrictive reading, so if it weren't to be clarified its probably the one i'd go for, but it doesnt really match the definitions of "hold" compared to the former, at least according to dictionary definitions*:
---
Most common definition of hold: (Wouldnt work regarding the robe panoply)
1) grasp, carry, or support with one's arms or hands.
"she was holding a brown leather suitcase"
Definitions that support the former:
1) keep possession of (something), typically in the face of a challenge or attack.
"the rebels held the town for many weeks"
2) have in one's possession.
"the managing director still holds fifty shares in the company"
Definitions that support the latter:
(None specifically relating to being worn or used in any particular manner, at least none that jump out compared to the other definitions.)
For now, I'm assuming that given how good getting full BAB is, you need to actually hold both items by the normal definition, thus restricting you from stronger two-handed builds and providing more weaknesses.
Robe is the only item that's an exception, and I find it a little telling that the only exception is on the one panoply where you have more items than arms.
Incidentally, Tiefling is unusually good with panoplies. Get prehensile tail, and you have a spare spot to hold things in.
For now, I'm assuming that given how good getting full BAB is, you need to actually hold both items by the normal definition, thus restricting you from stronger two-handed builds and providing more weaknesses.
Robe is the only item that's an exception, and I find it a little telling that the only exception is on the one panoply where you have more items than arms.
I'm pretty sure the intent for the mask in the Performer's Accoutrements is that you wear it, not hold. Especially since the other item is a musical instrument, which will generally require two hands to actually play. Wear mask, hold (and if you want play) instrument, cast magic, profit.
For now, I'm assuming that given how good getting full BAB is, you need to actually hold both items by the normal definition, thus restricting you from stronger two-handed builds and providing more weaknesses.
This is probably the most restrictive ruling we can make for the time being, so for players interested in making use of the panoply options prior to the issue being clarified its the one I'd be tempted to recommend, but given how few panoplies are listed (and the fact the robe panoply and the mask panoply are among them) it does lend a lingering element of doubt when combined with their choice of words and the way you'd expect the items to be conventionally used.
I'm pretty sure the intent for the mask in the Performer's Accoutrements is that you wear it, not hold. Especially since the other item is a musical instrument, which will generally require two hands to actually play. Wear mask, hold (and if you want play) instrument, cast magic, profit.
That's actually a really good point that goes against the idea that you must have it in your hands, and instead supports either of the alternate interpretations. Which goes back to the question of what definition of "hold" they're using for the "a single bearer must hold all the panoply's associated implements to gain the panoply's resonant power" sentence, as there arent any clear definitions of hold that refer to wearing or having an item equipped in any specific manner.
These factors do seem to point toward the least restrictive ruling being the case, but I'm sure we're all cautious to accept that without confirmation, so the more people we have hitting that FAQ button the better.
I'm pretty sure the intent for the mask in the Performer's Accoutrements is that you wear it, not hold. Especially since the other item is a musical instrument, which will generally require two hands to actually play. Wear mask, hold (and if you want play) instrument, cast magic, profit.For now, I'm assuming that given how good getting full BAB is, you need to actually hold both items by the normal definition, thus restricting you from stronger two-handed builds and providing more weaknesses.
Robe is the only item that's an exception, and I find it a little telling that the only exception is on the one panoply where you have more items than arms.
Well, scrap that argument, then.
Actually, the musical instrument in hand really hurts the basic disguise utility of that panoply. Hmm. I may end up houseruling unequal treatment or something.
Well, scrap that argument, then.
Actually, the musical instrument in hand really hurts the basic disguise utility of that panoply. Hmm. I may end up houseruling unequal treatment or something.
(Well, lets avoid getting into house rulings.)
But as you say, to rule it restrictively does seem to hamper the way the implements are intended to function, and given the only definition of hold that works is the one implying you dont even need to have the implements in a slot , i'd say the implications are that you merely need to have the items in your possession to gain the benefit of the panoply.But, once again, I think we should all be cautious of the least restrictive readings until they are confirmed, hence the desire to see this FAQ'd or acknowledged in some way.
Has the FAQ already answered this?
If not:
*raise thread*
Please FAQ :)
Unless the PFS guys decide it's a problem it probably won't ever get a FAQ because it's in a Player Companion. In any case it would need a lot more clicks to get to the top of the list.
|
Hmm... Well, it would come up below level 12, so let's hope for pfs problems, then :)
Wielding a bow and buckler is nice for the warrior's, but I could easily envision said buckler embedded in the breast plate of an armor. Holding it in possession, displaying it, and still being able to wield a two handed sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I plan to run panoplies with "hold" interpreted as "in position to make use of" so the shield and weapon for the Trappings of the Warrior must each be in position to make an attack or used defensively; for the Mage's Paraphernalia the crystal ball and the wand must be in your hands because that's how you use those, and the robe must be worn on your body.
I'm a little nervous about the "in your possession" interpretation, because "archer occultists with shields strapped to their back" would be better combat-focused occultists than everything else by a wide margin. "You have to be using a shield (and not a bow or a 2h weapon without shield brace) to get the full-BAB patch" seems like a deliberate cost.
Heh, I thought this thread had already died...
"You have to be using a shield (and not a bow or a 2h weapon without shield brace) to get the full-BAB patch" seems like a deliberate cost.
Are you quoting anything by using these quotation marks?
If not, and there's still been nothing official regarding it, then it's still very much up in the air.
Simply put, by RAW there are two possible readings based on the wording used:
A) You must be holding the items in your hands (which makes panoplies like the mage's unusable without having three hands, or possibly juggling)
B) You must be holding the items (holding definition of simply having them in your possession)
That being said, there are two possible RAI readings:
A) "in position to make use of" (as you put it) which doesnt fit the definitions of the word "hold" used. (And even a shield ready to be drawn would technically be "in position to make use of")
B) You must be holding the items (holding definition of simply having them in your possession)
PossibleCabbage's "in position to make use of" reading (or similar wording that actually restricts the ability) is likely the one that should have been written into the ability if they wanted it to be more restrictive, but the latter reading works for all panoplies and is supported by the wording used in the RAW.
Even if it is the less restrictive latter reading, by the rules of implements you would still need to stop dual-wielding/2h wielding and draw the shield implement to "present it" (because it didnt occupy an equipment slot) and make proper use of it (Unless it was a buckler, which should work regardless), but you would gain the benefit of the resonant at all times; provided it was in your possession.
Good to see the question getting a bump anyway, hit FAQ and we may get something more than the RAW to work with :)
|
|
Well, a buckler is a shield that works fine with bows and crossbows. It even works with 2h weapons or 2wf, although you get a -1 to hit, which might still be worth it for the occultist...
So, while I don't think your interpretation is that bad, your main reason for it doesn't really hold ;)
(this was at possible cabbage. Apparently I was slow in the posting :D )
Well, a buckler is a shield that works fine with bows and crossbows. It even works with 2h weapons or 2wf, although you get a -1 to hit, which might still be worth it for the occultist...
So, while I don't think your interpretation is that bad, your main reason for it doesn't really hold ;)
It's my understanding that if you use a 2H weapon (including a bow) while wearing a buckler, you will lose your AC bonus without an ability that specifically says you are not. You *could* argue that this might turn off the panoply resonant power, but I'd be interested to hear what was intended by whoever it was who wrote the Occultist section of Psychic Anthology. I'm mostly nervous because I played an archer occultist before panoplies, and that thing wrecked shop with 3/4 BAB.
I think we can all agree that you "hold" a robe with your shoulders though.
Well, a buckler is a shield that works fine with bows and crossbows. It even works with 2h weapons or 2wf, although you get a -1 to hit, which might still be worth it for the occultist...
So, while I don't think your interpretation is that bad, your main reason for it doesn't really hold ;)
(this was at possible cabbage. Apparently I was slow in the posting :D )
Agreed, a buckler strapped to your arm should work for both interpretations of RAI, given that it's in its proper place already, even when wielding other things. (Unless this later specifically gets errata'd or removed as a possibility by something)
I think we can all agree that you "hold" a robe with your shoulders though.
Again, possibly what they intended with the ability, but not by any definition of "hold" beyond "have in your possession" that really fits. (Or rather, that I could find by dictionary definitions that fit)
Your ruling is perfectly acceptable if you're concerned about occultists being too powerful, but it might mean making the decision as a GM to disregard the "hold" wording used in the ability. (At least until we get some more information on the subject.)
** spoiler omitted **
"To use a panoply’s resonant power or any of its focus powers, the occultist must select and invest mental focus into the associated implements that day. A single bearer must hold all the panoply’s associated implements to gain the panoply’s resonant power"
As far as I can see in the text, the panoplies have pretty much the same rules as normal implements. You invest mental focus and get the resonant power.
It seems to me that the "A single bearer must hold all the panoply’s associated implements to gain the panoply’s resonant power" sentence is there to say that if you lend one of the associated implements to another party member, you will loose the resonant power for the panoply.
I'll admit I might have overlooked the original implements for context on what is meant by "holding" the implements, which means unless there's any other information stating you must have the implements in your hands it means receiving the resonant powers happens regardless of wielding the items. Meaning when dual-wielding weapons, using a 2h weapon or a bow, you would still gain the benefits of the resonant power, provided you were carrying the implements around with you in a bag. Doing so is not without its repercussions, however, as in order to use the implements properly you'd still need to fish them out and "present them", which leads to some awkward juggling, so I don't think it will always be the best option compared to wielding the implements in combat.
I'm always hesitant to accept the more permissive interpretations, but given the lack of "holding" issues brought up previously for occultists, it seems with the new warrior panoply you're free to attain full-BAB with whatever weapons you wish, provided you keep a shield implement in reserve.
(Edited to clarify)
Hmm, do you need to present the implements for anything other than casting spells associated with the specific implement?
I could not find anything that indicated that. The presenting an implement for casting spells is also just a part of casting the spell?
I believe its just the spells and possibly some of the focus powers (its been a couple of months since I made this thread and looked at the occultist stuff, thanks for linking the relevant stuff properly, until you posted that I (and I assume everyone else) was still pretty confused about it).
If anyone has anything from the rules which contradicts gaining the resonant power from un-equipped implements (panoply or otherwise) then I'll reconsider, but as far as I can at this point, by RAW an occultist can gain the benefits from implements (+panoplies) in their possession even if they do not occupy an equipment slot or their hands.
|
|
I agree with your reasoning. To summarise:
An implement works when you have it on your person.
A panoply works when you have all implements in the panoply on your person.
To cast spells, the implement must be presented, which is part of the action of casting a spell, so your implements should be readily accessible (so, not in your backpack or sheathed).
So, you don't necessarily need to "hold" all parts of the panoply in your hands, you need to "hold" all parts of the panoply on your person, preferably readily accessible.
Like that?
I agree with your reasoning. To summarise:
An implement works when you have it on your person.
A panoply works when you have all implements in the panoply on your person.
To cast spells, the implement must be presented, which is part of the action of casting a spell, so your implements should be readily accessible (so, not in your backpack or sheathed).
So, you don't necessarily need to "hold" all parts of the panoply in your hands, you need to "hold" all parts of the panoply on your person, preferably readily accessible.
Like that?
Yep, seems a lot of us were making it out to be more complicated than it was, and/or missing the context. Now it's been compared to normal implements it suddenly makes sense and makes me feel silly for asking if there was a RAW vs RAI issue with the wording.
Seems that the panoply really is as good as it sounds, giving full BAB access to any weapons provided that the shield implement is kept in a bag or otherwise on the occultist's person. Really opens up some options for martial occultists.
Life is good ;)
By the way...
The spring blade is a great choice for a weapon implement! Being a 1 lb weapon that you kan hang on your belt with no trouble at all!
Or... Make it an urumi and wear it as a belt :)
But to answer your questions:
1) It's treated as x points higher, up to a maximum total BAB equal to the occultist's level; give it to a fighter and their BAB would increase up to no more than the occultist's level. So (provided enough mental focus) a level 18 occultist giving the implements to a level 16 fighter would increase his BAB to 18, whereas a level 20 occultist giving the implements to a level 20 fighter would increase his BAB to 20, because that is the occultist's level... so effectively no difference.
2) Without looking into it specifically, I'd say that's a relatively safe bet seeing as they seem to function as an implement. (unless theres something in the section that specifically contradicts that.)
To avoid confusion, I would HIGHLY recommend asking any new questions in a separate thread, lest people start opening this thread assuming the initial question has not been answered, start arguing in circles with everyone having to repeat their posts and ultimately "derail" the thread away from any questions that you want answered :)