My GM and I have different interpretations for the usage of the Bloodstained Gloves. They can be found in the Advanced Class Guide. For reference here is the description:
The original color of these supple, calfskin gloves is obfuscated by layers of brown bloodstains that persist through any amount of cleaning. If the gloves are soaked in the blood of a recently killed creature, the wearer gains a +1 insight bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls against creatures of the same type (or subtype for humanoids or outsiders, per the ranger’s favored enemy class feature) for 1 hour. If the gloves are worn by a slayer, the bonus on damage rolls is equal the slayer’s studied target bonus. Creatures that lack blood, such as skeletons, golems, or clockwork creatures, cannot activate the gloves’ ability.
My interpretation of this item is that, if you kill an enemy within 5ft the gloves will activate without further action. This would also mean you couldn't choose not to activate them. Also the wearer could spend a move action to touch the corpse of a recently killed creature that provokes attacks of opportunity.
My justification for the first is that you're going to get your target's blood on you if you are killing them with a weapon in close range. Also, I believe if the description doesn't specify an action then it probably doesn't require one.
For the second case, it takes a Move Action that provokes AoO to pick items off the ground, a Move Action should also be the same action to pick up blood off a target.
The only way to activate the gloves is a full round action that provokes attacks of opportunity. The justification being, it is like rubbing your hands together as if you were washing them with blood.
The only other relevant information that I found was the spell that is used to craft the gloves Instant Enemy. It says the original casting time of the spell is a swift action.
This is important because it will determine if I purchase this item or not. The tactical advantage I see with my interpretation is that if you're fighting a lot of the same type of enemy you get a bonus without having to spend actions to study each target. If I have to spend precious actions in combat to activate this bonus, I'm not going to use it. Especially if it costs a full round action.
- 1. Ideally if someone could provide a RAW to how "soaking gloves in the blood" is accomplished that would be perfect.
- 3. If there isn't RAW available, give your best shot as RAI. Don't forget to justify your answer.
- 3. How close do you think you have to be to activate the Bloodstained Gloves? 5ft? Does having a reach weapon change that? Does having a larger reach change that (i.e. from Enlarge Person)?
- 4. If an ally kills the target while you're standing next to it, does the blood splash on your gloves?
- 5. Lastly, with your RAI are the Bloodstained Gloves a worthwhile item?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An item with no listed activation time defaults to a standard action, not a full-round action, not a move action. No action required might apply in some cases - I can imagine that if you were the one to kill the target certain killing moves would soak you/your gloves in blood - but not in all. I can't see a reach weapon being terribly helpful with using them.
I think RAW would be a standard action. If you were adjacent or holding the killing weapon that should be sufficient. If you performed a coup de grace, or killed the enemy with a crit from a non-reach slashing or piercing weapon I'd allow it for free personally, but I couldn't insist that your GM should do the same.
As to whether it's worth it? A one hour duration buff which gives a slayer 10 a +3 attack & damage boost is worth 8K gp if you ever get breaks between related fights. If you only get one fight a day then no it's not worth it, or if your GM likes searching the bestiaries and making sure you never fight the same creature twice in a day.
If you were adjacent or holding the killing weapon that should be sufficient.
Adjacent or within natural reach including enlarge person, missed that before.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting your glove soaked in blood is very far from getting some blood on you from an enemy wound (there are exceptions).
RAW, if the cost of activating an item isn't listed, it is a standard action, and I would require you to spend that standard action within your natural reach of the slain enemy body.
It would require some exposed blood too. Any killing weapon, natural weapon, or IUS attack should cause exposed blood, but attacks like Disintegrate, Horrid wilting, etc. wouldn't leave exposed blood if they are what kills the enemy.
Essentially it is something you use between battles, if you think you will meet other enemies of the same type.
Note that it requires the blood of a recently killed creature, so the blood from wounds inflicted while you fight do nothing. Even with the more lenient interpretation, you need the blood from the killing hit (and the hit should have brought the creature to dead, not unconscious and dying).
If you want a RAW answer the GM is right (see rule 0). That is about the only RAW answer you are going to get because there are no game rules for soaking an item, or a hundred other common activities.
That being said the Item in question calls out for it to be soaked in blood. A few common definition of soaked is “To make thoroughly wet or saturated”, “To be immersed in liquid” and “To seep into or permeate something”. All those entail a lot more than simply getting a drop of blood on the gloves. Being soaked blood is not going to be something that automatically happens when anything is killed within 5 feet.
You have also been watching too many cheap slasher movies if you think that blood sprays our and covers you when you kill something. A lot of the things you kill are wearing armor. Armor does not actually prevent you from getting hit. What it does is to absorb the blow and spread out the damage over a greater area so it does not impact you as much. All armor has a layer of padding under it that will not only absorb the force of the blow, but will also tend to absorb any blood from the wound. Occasionally you will get a lucky strike in that may bypass a lot of this, but chances are those are going to be a critical hit. Even when the target is not wearing armor they often have heavy clothing or thick hide. Pathfinder abstracts all this but that is the reality of combat.
Diego Rossi is correct this is something done between battles.
Insight Bonuses to combat are pretty rare so these seem to be fairly decent for only 8,000 gold. The fact that this will affect any attack roll you make is especially nice. For a slayer these are even more valuable. RAW a slayer using these could get twice his studied target bonus to damage. The gloves give an Insight bonus and studied target is an untyped bonus so they should stack. The gloves do not say you get your studied bonus to damage, they say the bonus to damage is equal to your studied bonus. Your GM may disagree with that as is his right under rule 0.
I'm pretty sure the item isn't supposed to be activated in combat at all. In order to activate, the gloves need to be soaked on blood. Not stained, not splattered on, soaked.
RAW at least the action cost is clear: "Activating a magic item is a standard action unless the item description indicates otherwise." CRB pg. 458 Since no mechanic of automatic activation is stated, this default must be used.
There isn't much explicit written hard rules, because the game is mostly written under the presumption that people use common sense. Doing that the range should be pretty clear: In order to be soaked, the gloves need to be in contact with the blood, which means you need to have the corpse in touch range (i.e. the reach you have with unarmed strikes made with your fists).
For the record, the crafting components are irrelevant.
Lastly, with your RAI are the Bloodstained Gloves a worthwhile item?
Depends on the campaign, but probably not. The bonus stacks with almost anything (including Studied Target), but it requires having multiple fights against the same type of enemies within one hour. If your campaign includes stuff like storming a castle or clearing a cave of bandits, it can be pretty good for a Slayer. In a traditional dungeon crawl of unsorted enemies, or a wilderness exploration game where fights are spread out, it's probably bad.
Which, quite frankly, is as it should be - numeric bonuses that everyone wants are the most boring type of magic items in the game, and Paizo has shown their dislike of them (especially when they nerfed Bracers of Falcon's Aim).
Tbh, I'd say let the PC decide whether they activate (or not) after killing a target, and then there's no future arguing.
My answers below are not RAW, and just my opinion.
1. Ideally if someone could provide a RAW to how "soaking gloves in the blood" is accomplished that would be perfect.
I don't think there's a RAW answer available.
3. If there isn't RAW available, give your best shot as RAI. Don't forget to justify your answer.
If you hack/stab someone to death with a slashing/piercing weapon, such as a sword, knife, rapier, or an axe, then yes, you will have blood all over you (including your gloves) whether you like it or not, and this would cost you no actions whatsoever. An argument could be made that the gloves would not be soaked if you are using a bludgeoning weapon.
If your gloves are currently not soaked, but you would like them to be, I'd probably consider that to be a Standard Action. And that's a Standard Action once you have at least one hand free; so if you need to drop a weapon, smear your glove in blood and smear blood on the other glove, then pick up the weapon afterwards, that will still cost the appropriate actions to do so, which I think should be a Move Action, a Standard Action, and one Free Action.
3. How close do you think you have to be to activate the Bloodstained Gloves? 5ft? Does having a reach weapon change that? Does having a larger reach change that (i.e. from Enlarge Person)?
Melee Range, 5ft. If you're using a Reach Weapon, then you're out of range for blood spillage/splatter. If you're using Enlarge Person with a non-reach weapon, then you're within range.
4. If an ally kills the target while you're standing next to it, does the blood splash on your gloves?
If you're in Melee Range, 5ft, then yes. Same answer as above --^. I would say that at least one of your occupied squares (in case you're enlarged) must be adjacent to the enemy that is being stabbed/slashed.
5. Lastly, with your RAI are the Bloodstained Gloves a worthwhile item?
Yes they are worth it, having a Studied Target x2 is nothing to sneeze at, but as a Slayer, personally I'd probably use Gloves of Storing. Not only can I steal or palm things via Sleight of Hand, but in dungeon crawls I can keep a concealed backup weapon that I can retrieve for a free action in case I'm disarmed or roll a 1 and pitch my weapon. And, if you have to go through the front gate at the corrupt Governor's Mansion and get frisked for weapons, you can sneak in a weapon via the gloves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No action listed = default standard action... that's why it's the default.
I don't care if you kill someone with a razor blade or a chainsaw... your gloves would not be SOAKED unless you did so on purpose. No amount of random splatter is going to soak your leather gloves. I have field dressed a deer in under two minutes without soaking my gloves in blood. Lol.
Stop being silly, take the standard action to activate the gloves. They are still powerful enough to be useful even taking a standard action.
You get a bonus to damage equal to your Studied Target bonus... and if you use Ballroom Brawler/Martial Flexibility to grab Seething Hatred "that guy"... it doubles your Studied Target bonus to damage...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No action listed = default standard action... that's why it's the default.
I don't care if you kill someone with a razor blade or a chainsaw... your gloves would not be SOAKED unless you did so on purpose. No amount of random splatter is going to soak your leather gloves. I have field dressed a deer in under two minutes without soaking my gloves in blood. Lol.
Stop being silly, take the standard action to activate the gloves. They are still powerful enough to be useful even taking a standard action.
You get a bonus to damage equal to your Studied Target bonus... and if you use Ballroom Brawler/Martial Flexibility to grab Seething Hatred "that guy"... it doubles your Studied Target bonus to damage...
I'm with VM on this one, if you're going to use these gloves, you should take a dip in Brawler for MF and you can have Seething Hatred vs. <insert target> 4x per day. Once you're lvl 5, your ST bonus is +2, and you would have a +2 to hit and a +6 to damage.
I still like Gloves of Storing for a Slayer though. Being able to palm <20lbs Weapons, items, and McGuffins is more utility than x2 ST dmg.
Eldritch Scrapper Sorcerer is my preferred Martial Flex dip... the help to the Will saves is generally worth the hit to BAB...
For my game it turned out that I had to give the GP I needed to purchase the gloves to another party member so the exact function of the gloves is not timely pressing. And I do submit to the GMs ruling. I started this thread because neither of us had a strong reason how the gloves should work one way or the other.
I've really liked this thread and there have been a lot of great points mentioned. I liked it when Diego Rossi said:
Note that it requires the blood of a recently killed creature, so the blood from wounds inflicted while you fight do nothing. Even with the more lenient interpretation, you need the blood from the killing hit (and the hit should have brought the creature to dead, not unconscious and dying).
I had forgotten that Pathfinder GMs (myself included) often skips the "dying" step for NPCs to save time. Unless the enemy has a magical healer it's usually not a relevant step.
avr mentioned item activation rules. I had forgotten those so I went an re-read them. I see where people are saying the default activation. I was considering it a use-activated item but I am coming around to the default category like many other people here.
It seems that the most liberal interpretation for activating the gloves without an additional action would require the user to get the target down to negative Constitution HP, and probably be using a Piercing or Slashing weapon.
In that same scenario with a strict interpretation, if you require a standard action to soak or activate the gloves, you would need to use a standard action to soak the gloves after the target has gotten to negative constitution damage.
I think between those two options it's up to GM interpretation. If I had to guess, I imagine he would rule for the stricter interpretation but that's still a lot better than what he initially suggested requiring a full found action that provokes AoO. I think not only downing an enemy, but killing them, and then requiring a standard action to soak is cool and balanced. It gives a certain level of intentionality in using them.
|
|
Pizza Lord argument about soaking is valid, but it is too much RL to work well in Pathfinder rules. Using a standard action that doesn't provoke is a good middle way default to simulate that as it is the normal default for activating magic items.
On a peripheral note: most wounds don't bleed externally so fast. There are exceptions, like instant decapitation and some arterial wound, but wounds generally don't gush out blood in fountains, so getting soaked by someone's blood doesn't happen so easily and so rapidly. You are splatted by it, not soaked. Generally, you get soaked in the blood from your own wounds, head wounds are particularly nasty in that, but that will (hopefully) not activate the gloves, as you aren't a recently killed creature.
Would these gloves work if they were soaked in the blood of a living creature that then died shortly thereafter (presumably while the blood is still wet)? At the point of the creatures death the gloves would be soaked but now with the required blood of a recently killed creature only activating at the moment of death. Would this fulfill the activation requirements?
Would these gloves work if they were soaked in the blood of a living creature that then died shortly thereafter (presumably while the blood is still wet)? At the point of the creatures death the gloves would be soaked but now with the required blood of a recently killed creature only activating at the moment of death. Would this fulfill the activation requirements?
As a GM I would require the blood be blood from after death.
This is a really powerful item for slayers even if they need to spend a standard action after killing a creature.
It's worth the standard action if you are a Slayer, and you probably aren't using them if you're not a Slayer...
Can we please just throw the cheese away? Just stop trying to cheat this because of Paizo's notoriously bad wording.
Everyone knows, deep down, KNOWS it is meant to be a standard action... they just don't WANT it to be. I am SO VERY thankful the players at my table are awesome, and don't try get away with stupid $#!+ like this...
Same as above. At the time of soaking them is when I would check whether the creature who provided the blood met the requirements of "recently killed".
... but wounds generally don't gush out blood in fountains, so getting soaked by someone's blood doesn't happen so easily and so rapidly. ...
You mean anime has lied to me?
Standard action is the action I would require. Also, since it lasts so long and can be used over and over, I think it would be worth it. Often times "dungeons" have a "theme" race (some tribes lair etc...). So after the first group is killed, soak the gloves.
Would these gloves work if they were soaked in the blood of a living creature that then died shortly thereafter (presumably while the blood is still wet)?
First, that's blood of a living creature that was subsequently killed, and second, unless you're fighting a Blood Goem or Bloody Bone, you'd need a torture chamber to archieve that, anyway.
Seriously, flavorful text is not an invitation for loophole abuse. What the effect boils down to is this: "As a standard action that doesn't provoke an AoO, you can touch the corpse of a recently killed creature containing blood. For 1 hour, <bla>".
You mean Quentin Tarantino has lied to me?
Fixed that for you.
Here's another question, if the blood is washed off before the end of the 1 hour duration does the effect end immediately as they no longer meet the activation requirements? The gloves require that they "are soaked" ( present tense) not "have been soaked" (past tense).
Here's another question, if the blood is washed off before the end of the 1 hour duration does the effect end immediately as they no longer meet the activation requirements? The gloves require that they "are soaked" ( present tense) not "have been soaked" (past tense).
Sure, if someone can get the gloves off you and wash them then maybe they can end the effect prematurely.
Course, if they can get the gloves off you (and have time to wash them) you're probably not going to be able to continue fighting, so I can't imagine it mattering.
|
|
The original color of these supple, calfskin gloves is obfuscated by layers of brown bloodstains that persist through any amount of cleaning.
I don't think that the blood can be cleared away, even with magical means.
And:
If the gloves are soaked in the blood of a recently killed creature, the wearer gains a +1 insight bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls against creatures of the same type (or subtype for humanoids or outsiders, per the ranger’s favored enemy class feature) for 1 hour.
I read that as "if you do the required action you get the benefit for an hour." It doesn't say "while the gloves are soaked", so it is an activation action, not a constant requirement. Once done it lasts for an hour. You can activate them again to remove the old effect and get a new one if you want to change targets before the hour ends, but cleaning or trying to clean them doesn't stop the effect.
Here's another question, if the blood is washed off before the end of the 1 hour duration does the effect end immediately as they no longer meet the activation requirements?
Ok, I have to ask here: Do you know what the word "soaked" means? Seriously, this isn't a stain, the blood is not on the gloves, it's inside the fabric. That's not something you can "wash off".
Apart from that: "If the gloves are soaked". Not "while". The combination of "if" and a duration means it's a triggered event, and the conditions are only checked at the time of triggering. They aren't constantly checked. It's present tense because they must be soaked at the time of triggering. The item doesn't care about what happens to the blood once the soaking process is completed. It says "for 1 hour", not "for 1 hour or until the blood dries, is dry-cleaned away, or the magic glove cleaning fairy comes, whatever happens first".
This honestly this thread, where people adamantly refused to accept that "as a hex" means " as a hex" and not "as a major hex". This is similar - "for 1 hour" means "for 1 hour"! The item description even calls it an activation, not a maintainance.
I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but you seem to treat the game as if it was a legal document where every single phrase has to withstand intense scrutiny. It's not! Worse yet, the item is from a book that was so atrociously written and edited that it required errata as big as the CRB, despite having less than half the pages.
I said it in my last post, but apparently you either didn't read, it: What the effect boils down to is this: "As a standard action that doesn't provoke an AoO, you can touch the corpse of a recently killed creature containing blood. For 1 hour, <bla>".
Seriously, what do you think? Do you think that an item with blood stains that can't be cleaned off by any means loses it's powers when it's submerge it in water or whatever, despite making absolutely no mention of anything like that? Do you actually think that is what the author most likely intent the item to work like?
Because that's how the rules are written, with the assumption that people ask themself "what is the most likely intend", and go from there. If the rules use non-game terms, you're expected to interpret them as you interpret ordinary text.