Cloak of the Walking Wounded
- Thread starter Istar
- Start date
First off, it doesn't matter what anyone here thinks, ask your DM what type of action it takes to put on or remove a neck slot item, and you'll have your answer. However, this may vary from DM to DM, so be sure to clarify with a new DM before combat begins.
Were I your DM, I would rule as follows:
1) To remove an amulet is a standard action. Why? I've helped my wife put on and take off necklaces many times, and fiddling with those small claps can be tricky, especially in heat of combat
2) If you want to simply grab at the amulet and yank it off, this would be a minor action. However, you run the risk of breaking the chain or the clasp on the amulet. If you break it, you'd either need to use something like the Make Whole Ritual once combat has ended, or take it to a competent jeweler to get it repaired.
That's my $0.02 (US). I accept cash or money order.
Were I your DM, I would rule as follows:
1) To remove an amulet is a standard action. Why? I've helped my wife put on and take off necklaces many times, and fiddling with those small claps can be tricky, especially in heat of combat
2) If you want to simply grab at the amulet and yank it off, this would be a minor action. However, you run the risk of breaking the chain or the clasp on the amulet. If you break it, you'd either need to use something like the Make Whole Ritual once combat has ended, or take it to a competent jeweler to get it repaired.
That's my $0.02 (US). I accept cash or money order.
Artoomis
First Post
Perhaps the amulet chain is long enough so one simply pulls it up over one's head? Easy as pie. Only necklaces that are fairly short need a clasp at all. The "typical" fantasy amulet one sees in movies (etc.) is of the type with a long chain, with perhaps no clasp at all. I think of these as being fairly heavy-duty items, not a dainty decorative ladies necklace.
Further, there is no real reason to make it a standard action, from a game balance perspective.
Still, it's not very practical anyway, as i (and others) previously noted.
Ryujin
Legend
Things that loose tend to fall off fairly easily and wouldn't be wisely worn in combat. When I picture an amulet, in D&D, I think of something on a fairly short chain or that is also pinned to a doublet/cloak.
Artoomis
First Post
Whatever - each person has his/her own mental model, I suppose. I tend to think of a fairly heavy thing with a big chain that is worn tucked into ones short/doublet, or whatever to keep it is place.
I don't think D&D has on official position on this
Wik
First Post
Istar, I love how your first post is a question, and then you get upset when there are people who disagree with you. Like I've said before, I don't like that style of play; fair enough. I don't have to, and you don't have to like mine. Since the mods have already commented on your tone, I'll leave it at that and answer your question and keep it to the point.
When you mentioned that string of actions, you were mentioning a sequence of mechanical events. Which bores me. You got it a little bit better in one of your last posts, where you described your character fumbling with the clasp and whatnot. I can sort of get behind that.
What it comes down to is a difference in desired play styles. I imagine (I have no proof of this, so don't take it as slander because it is not) that your style of play tends to have stories that go like this: "We attacked the goblins, who were lower than our level, but they outnumbered us and the XP budget was high. I used Come and Get it to Bring them in, and then used a minor to activate my dwarven second wind. Our Controller focused on using area attacks to hit them, and luckily missed me because he rolled a natural 1."
Which is fine and dandy. But I prefer my game stories to come out as:
"We were outnumbered by these scrawny guys - I think they were goblins. We knew were were hooped, so I shrugged my shoulders and rushed in. I got the goblins to swarm me, which set things up for our wizard to knock them out with a fireball or something - I ducked, staying low to the ground, and the flames went right over my head. Turned the goblins to toast, though."
The idea of using crazy combos of minor actions and whatnot to bypass rules, in my mind, tends to encourage the former style of play. Personal experience has shown this to be true, at least at my table. This goes all the way back to 2nd edition, and it's always bugged me. So when I see this behaviour crop up, I do my best to nip it in the bud, because it doesn't take long for it to spread among the table.
As an example, I recently had a player that would use his paladin powers, and he wouldn't even name the power he was using. Just "It's a blast 3, and, um, yeah, everyone takes 13 radiant damage." That was it. it bugged the HELL out of me, and it took some work to get him to change how he played. He's better at it now, but still slips from time to time.
So, yeah, that's why I made my original comment. Sorry if you took it as rude, but there it is - I really would disallow it at my table, simply because of the peripheral problems it creates and the fact that, at least in our point of view, it's cheesy.
You can disagree if you like, and that's fine. But you're not going to change my mind on this.
When you mentioned that string of actions, you were mentioning a sequence of mechanical events. Which bores me. You got it a little bit better in one of your last posts, where you described your character fumbling with the clasp and whatnot. I can sort of get behind that.
What it comes down to is a difference in desired play styles. I imagine (I have no proof of this, so don't take it as slander because it is not) that your style of play tends to have stories that go like this: "We attacked the goblins, who were lower than our level, but they outnumbered us and the XP budget was high. I used Come and Get it to Bring them in, and then used a minor to activate my dwarven second wind. Our Controller focused on using area attacks to hit them, and luckily missed me because he rolled a natural 1."
Which is fine and dandy. But I prefer my game stories to come out as:
"We were outnumbered by these scrawny guys - I think they were goblins. We knew were were hooped, so I shrugged my shoulders and rushed in. I got the goblins to swarm me, which set things up for our wizard to knock them out with a fireball or something - I ducked, staying low to the ground, and the flames went right over my head. Turned the goblins to toast, though."
The idea of using crazy combos of minor actions and whatnot to bypass rules, in my mind, tends to encourage the former style of play. Personal experience has shown this to be true, at least at my table. This goes all the way back to 2nd edition, and it's always bugged me. So when I see this behaviour crop up, I do my best to nip it in the bud, because it doesn't take long for it to spread among the table.
As an example, I recently had a player that would use his paladin powers, and he wouldn't even name the power he was using. Just "It's a blast 3, and, um, yeah, everyone takes 13 radiant damage." That was it. it bugged the HELL out of me, and it took some work to get him to change how he played. He's better at it now, but still slips from time to time.
So, yeah, that's why I made my original comment. Sorry if you took it as rude, but there it is - I really would disallow it at my table, simply because of the peripheral problems it creates and the fact that, at least in our point of view, it's cheesy.
You can disagree if you like, and that's fine. But you're not going to change my mind on this.
Fair enough, and I am open to fair play, I just want meaningful reasoning to back up the POV's so I can take back both to our group.
Changing to from one magic item to another in an encounter doesnt seem so terrible, I just find it hard to see why that would upset people so much.
You change magic weapons in a fight, thats not meta gaming also ?
Dont know multiquote and easy to answer in bites while looking after 2 and 4 year old
Cheers, thats helpful.
But your summary doesnt match your conclusion on round 1.
Because he gets in his CA attack with low slash doesnt he so I dont understand why you would say that.
Round 2 you have wrong, but not your fault as I didnt explain this is a Dagger Rogue.
Removing Cloak and letting it drop to the ground, is one Minor Action only as I am sure you can do that with an Amulet in one hand and a Dagger in the other.
Even being 2 minor's is no biggie.
You have your standard action attack.
So no, Striker get 2 full rounds of attacks.
But thanks for the constructive reasoning, very helpful.
Yeah thats what I thought, an Amulet is more of a chunky Conan style adornment thats hangs medaltion that hangs off a hairy chest Del Boy style, I mean we are talking rough fighters here not dainty lass's.
Regardless of pracitcality I am just trying to find out in terms of 4e game mechanics what is possible, not what peoples opinions of my tactics are, I have well advanced tactics specific to this character.
And having an 840 Gold back up plan sitting on your back for when the Healer is struggling to keep the tanks alive let alone you, is very handy.
Thanks Art
I find it funny, that you obviously didnt read it properly, my questions asked about what people thought of specific game mechanics which I provided, I didnt ask for 3 or 4 posts on the ethics of that move or that state of the spinning cheese block market.
I didnt like the tone of the first 3 or 4 posts, I found them quite rude and yes by the time I got down to blackwater yes I over steped the mark, actually didnt realise that was a real town name.
No our game style is not the stat quoting stuff you mention, I talked in terms of specific actions in game mechanics as I was trying to get to grips with how the concept taking off an amulet and putting a cloak on part way through a battle would work.
Maybe I could have added a little bit of fluff and made it more of a story of desperation for you, with the party on its last legs, the Cleric struggling to keep the tanks alive, the poor rogue on his last legs, with lots of stamina (surges) left in him but suffering from severe wounds (less than 5 HP)....
But the homestays had somehow knackered the computer and I had 2 screaming kids trying to get my attention, so I am sorry I didnt make it entertaining enough for you
But yes I know what you mean, and we are not the best at "role" playing, as each player over the last 25 years seems to have the same traits in his characters
But I try and use attacking phrases to differentiate the power I am using.
"Kord smites you" - Dazing Strike.
"By Kords Dagger" - Piercing Strike.
"Kord be with us" - Blinding Barrage.
The trick to make it entertaining and fun, but also quick as 4e is a slow fight.
