The Conceal an Object use of the Stealth skill (Player Core 244) says:
Hidden Pocket Outfit (Rival Academies 56) says:
Bulk Conversions for Different Sizes (Player Core 270) says:
Does this mean that a large PC, such as a minotaur, could conceal items that are 1 Bulk, and would auto-succeed the Stealth checks to do so whilst wearing a Hidden Pocket Outfit?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best argument I can come up with for not allowing it is regarding the 'inherent' stats of an item vs the 'as being used' stats of an item.
A dagger can be 'used as' a two hand weapon by wielding it in two hands and that qualifies you to use abilities like Slam Down. But that doesn't mean that it qualifies inherently as a two hand weapon for things like a Shifting Rune (see official clarifications for rules citation).
So, similarly, an object that is inherently 1 bulk can be 'used as' an item of light bulk by a size Large creature. But I could certainly see a GM ruling that Conceal an Object is going to use the item's inherent bulk and not its 'used as' bulk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also don't forget that it is rules-normal to give items more restrictions than just bulk.
Ysoki Cheek Pouches has "[no] dimension longer than 1 foot" on top of it's bulk limits.
IMO, it's totally fair game for a GM to "yes, but" and add some reasonable limits to prevent a trident and the like from being pocketed like that.
Honestly, the way I read it, yes? And it's neat? But, I could see a GM using Finoan's argument as well, and I think it could be valid.
Absolutely. I would probably allow it more often than not.
Sure, I have no problem with a large size PC being allowed to smuggle a short sword in by strapping the sheath to their thigh, just like a small size PC can do with their dagger. And a Hidden Pocket Outfit that is specifically made for size large creatures probably does deserve an increase in the bulk limit of item that it can conceal.
But I can also understand a GM who wants to not allow that. Or not allow it for other scenarios that don't have as much narrative context behind it.
For example, I would find it harder to justify a large creature using Concealing Lederdemain on a 1 bulk item.
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
Honestly, the way I read it, yes? And it's neat? But, I could see a GM using Finoan's argument as well, and I think it could be valid.Absolutely. I would probably allow it more often than not.
Sure, I have no problem with a large size PC being allowed to smuggle a short sword in by strapping the sheath to their thigh, just like a small size PC can do with their dagger. And a Hidden Pocket Outfit that is specifically made for size large creatures probably does deserve an increase in the bulk limit of item that it can conceal.
But I can also understand a GM who wants to not allow that. Or not allow it for other scenarios that don't have as much narrative context behind it.
For example, I would find it harder to justify a large creature using Concealing Lederdemain on a 1 bulk item.
Agree. That feels a bit more like doubling down on a loophole.
Is this how you hide the other two Kobolds?
Is this how you hide the other two Kobolds?
Three kobolds in a Large hidden pocket trenchcoat? XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I was the GM, I would say "generally no, but ask me about specific situations if you're really interested and I will think about it".
More broadly, I want the right to say no to any specific instance so don't assume it's always going to work. But I don't like saying that to players because they often hear that as a soft "yes" and expect it to work the majority of the time.
|
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
If I was the GM, I would say "generally no, but ask me about specific situations if you're really interested and I will think about it".
More broadly, I want the right to say no to any specific instance so don't assume it's always going to work. But I don't like saying that to players because they often hear that as a soft "yes" and expect it to work the majority of the time.
Oh gosh. I bet this so easily tips into "Give them an inch, and they take a mile," and I'm so sorry for that. But, you're right! I think "Generally no, but we'll talk if it's neat and you have a good argument," is a good way to go.
Oh gosh. I bet this so easily tips into "Give them an inch, and they take a mile," and I'm so sorry for that. But, you're right! I think "Generally no, but we'll talk if it's neat and you have a good argument," is a good way to go.If I was the GM, I would say "generally no, but ask me about specific situations if you're really interested and I will think about it".
More broadly, I want the right to say no to any specific instance so don't assume it's always going to work. But I don't like saying that to players because they often hear that as a soft "yes" and expect it to work the majority of the time.
It's definitely a tricky thing to manage as a GM. Being permissive is nice, up until the point where it really starts to unbalance the game. And it can be really hard to draw a line.
And bulk is an simplification of a difficult concept that encapsulates not just weight, but also "size".
And when there's that much gray in a topic before a GM even gets involved in making any kind of ruling, giving a little can become easily turn into players assuming too much. And not out of malice, but just out of "well if a large size dagger is reasonable, then should a medium size messer be too".