Cloak of the Walking Wounded

[Istar]

Yeah, try doing that in my game. You'd be slapped with the "block o' cheese" so fast your head would spin.

Why, whats the problem, please explain why you dont like this simple interpretation of the rules ?

 

[Istar]

Ongoing damage (no save) from strangulation would probably happen in my game.

Give us some reasons ?

 

[Istar]

Is it safe to assume this is another of many house rules in your game.

[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

That said, you can certainly change up the order of your actions...

If I saw this at my table I'd probably inform you that you all of a sudden have another free night each week. YMMV and apparently does.

Do you let your players think for themselves at all in your game, or do you just ponder thru each encounter as you would expect it to go, then move on to the next pre planned effort.

 

[Wik]

Why, whats the problem, please explain why you dont like this simple interpretation of the rules ?

1. It's been shown in thread that your "simple interpretation of the rules" is just that: an interpretation,
2. I've mentioned, in this thread, why I dislike that sort of play.
3. I'll say it again: it's convoluted and reeks of rules manipulation. Doing it is the sort of thing that takes everyone out of the moment and makes the game very much a board game or war game. That may be fine for you, but it's not the sort of game I like.

 

[Istar]

I'll try that again...

Quoted from the Player's Handbook, Page 224.

You benefit from the item you put on first; any other item you put in the same item slot doesn’t function for you until you take off the first item.[/quote]

If I disliked player creativity, I'd be playing an MMO. Bending the letter of the rules to how you want to use it is what leads to things like Pun-Pun.

Edit: Alright, that's not the only thing that led to Pun-Pun... but it didn't hurt.

There is no bending of the rules here.
Where does it say you cant take one item off in an encounter and put another on.
You change weapons all the time.
How many actions is to change from 2 swords to bow and arrow like a Ranger can do.

So looking at the rule above.
You put on an amulet which is operating, you put on a cloak that doesnt.
This rule obviously stops 2 items working at the same time in the one slot.

You then take off the Amulet, and the Cloak then becomes the first item you equip in that slot.
You think it doesnt and you have to have it ready to equip instead, would that work in your group.

 

[Istar]

The rules do not specify what kind of action it is to remove a worn item, such as an amulet, and they do not specify what kind of action it is to put that item back on. It would be a houserule to allow these things to be done as a minor action.

Look at all the things that a minor action can be.
Unclipping an Amulet is hardly more effort than farting, do you need a houerule to fart ?

 

[Istar]

Wow, some strong reactions today.

Anyway, per the rules you could put the amulet on, then the cloak, then take the necklace off to do that, if the DM allowed it.

I would allow it in my game (if I had one, currently playing in two right now) for a few reasons:

Must have a hand free.

Minor action to remove the amulet.

Standard action to second wind.

Now at this point, you are stuck with the bonus from the cloak, even if you spend the minor action to put the amulet back on, because then the amulet becomes the second item that you put on. To gain benefit from the amulet again, you need to spend another action minor action (with one hand free) to take the cloak off and then a minor action to put it back on.

So right now, in order to have the property of the amulet, get the property of the cloak, and then get the property of the amulet again, you have spent 3 minor actions. The second wind would be a standard action.

First of all, there are better items for you than a cloak of the walking wounded. You are probably wearing one of those better items as an amulet (amulet of the talon?). Spending healing surges without bonuses is a really suboptimal choice. There are times when second winding makes sense for almost every class (more often as a dwarf), but spending an additional surge with no benefit is definitely not as efficient as getting a bonus during each surge (whether it is bonus healing from your leader or the defense bonus itself). Also, you are not Con based as a rogue, so each surge needs to count.

Secondly, if you are going with two neck items, you are wasting treasure you should be using for other items that improve your role (striker).

Now I find myself curious as to why you feel like you need to have such a high second wind. Ideally, you shouldn't be taking as much punishment. Who is your defender? Are you playing your rogue the right way? Being sneaky, taking on lone targets, avoiding situations where you are getting clobbered? I'd be more interested to hear more about your party dynamic and how often you are being damaged games to give better advice.

Yes I think you are right, it is a high cost to pull this off.
Basically stuck in one spot for 2 rounds, not ideal for a rogue.

The reason is that I am a boutique build that is Con based and also as Cunning Sneak, I doesnt have a second stat.
With Epic Trick at level 26 I would have about 26 surges per day.

 

[Istar]

In my campaign you'd be burning a Standard each, to remove and replace the amulet, while provoking an OA and effectively unarmed.

A standard action to remove an amulet, and drinking a potion is still a minor, any OA's for that ?

 

[Istar]

My personal opinion is that putting on/removing an item is a standard action since equipping/stowing a shield is a standard action.

Why do I think this? Because shields are a slot item as well (Arms in this case). So it would make sense that other slot items are the same - and this action is the closest to equipping magic items. In addition, the only "magic items" that seem to be a minor action to equip are weapons (which are sheathed, not clasped around your neck).

Dropping/Picking Up/Retrieving an item is a minor action.

With the "first item put on" rule from PHB that makes your little sequence not very practical anymore.

I would read that the way the rules seem to be written is to force you to remove slot items in the order they were put on - last to first. This would obviously make it impractical to do these kinds of "creative" things.

And if your DM wants to be a right pain he can rule that if you remove the amulet, the cloak does not work any because it was not the "first" item put onto that slot. And then if you put the amulet back on it will work again.

So yes I think that I would rule that you must remove the cloak then remove the amulet then put the cloak on - like a stack of boxes.

Even if you want to argue equipping the items is a minor action, you still need to remove them in order IMHO.

D

Thats absolute rubbish, what backwater is Blacktown.
I have just addressed your 2 issues in previous posts.
Does the same thing apply to rings, is taking a ring off a standard action ?
The rule is simply to stop more than one item operating at the same time in a slot.
ie. Cloak - Badge - Amulte, or Coif - Eye Patch - Helm.

 

[Istar]

I would allow it using something like this. Free hand, minor to remove, standard to second wind provoking attacks of opportunity.

Obviously the actions required would change depending on the items being swapped. It takes longer to switch arm or waist slot items then most neck slot items, etc.

I am not talking arm / waiste / or Armour.
I am thinking neck slot and rings.