Cloak of the Walking Wounded
- Thread starter Istar
- Start date
Actually you would have done more, but Wik thwarted you. Blame him.
Yeah I did actually, I was up at the time too and so I got quite a surprise when my chair was jerking around. Thankfully my friends and family in Christchurch got through okay.
Amazing all that devastation and no deaths, lucky for everyone.
We were out and about in Auckland all day and never heard anything, couldnt believe it when we switched on the news.
We have a factory in Christchurch so hopefully they are all right, but looking at that rail track might be a while before they can start sending containers up to Auckland.
JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
CHEESE = trying to circumvent the implied intent of the rules (in this case the rules imply you can only use one neck slot item) while actually but still staying within the bounds of the rules when doing so. Also see RULES LAWYERING.
Classic Example: In the game Car Wars there is an item called an Armored Beer Refrigerator. It has a massive amount of "hit points" and weighed next-to-nothing and took up no space in a vehicle. You could successfully create a vehicle that had no actual armor plating (as intended by the rules) and instead just purchase a bunch of ABRs that you set up throughout the vehicle. While being legal, and while being "creative", its also CHEESE and unfun* for your fellow players.
DS
*If everyone in your group enjoys stretching the boundaries of the rules and has a good time doing it, then its probably not unfun to you, however if some people are doing things like this and others aren't the unbalance it causes is what makes it unfun.
Thats a very poor argument.
On this basis you are CHEEESSY when you swap from one weapon to another.
The rule specifically means only one magic item in that slot will function.
ie. You cant hold 2 weapons in the one hand.
ie. You cant wear an amulet and a cloak and get the magic benefit of both.
There are no rules that say you cant swap magic items in the encounter.
The intent is clearly that only one item will function no matter how many you equip, and by saying that the first one operates, implies you can equip more than one.
I would be interested in your rebut, buy so far is a big fat "FAIL" !!
dvvega
Explorer
@Admin - Thanks to the keeping a rein on the thread.
[MENTION=80713]Istar[/MENTION] - if you had cared to actually read what I said, everything that wasn't RAW was prefaced by "in my opinion".
That was intentional because it is what I thought and how I might rule if it were my game. But if you want a 100% RAW answer, then you cannot have one.
Why? Because the action required for the removal of items is not explicitly listed anywhere in the PHB. The PHB lists the most common actions to be taken in combat which do not include removing magic items that you are benefitting from. Obviously they did not take into account someone trying to gain mechanical bonuses from two separate items.
It has already been stated that the first item in a slot operates while the others "wait" for removal of the first item.
So my opinion is based on gut feeling as to the RAW and what it was intended for. In addition any DM will think on what you are trying to do and rule based on that. It is very clear to me (<--- to me) that you are trying to bend the rules in a way that will not necessarily break the game, but it will twist the rules in a way that would not be in the spirit of the game.
Thus I would most likely be harsher in judging the action types required. Nowhere did I state that I would not allow what you were talking about, I stated my opinion on the action types and why it wouldn't work as easily.
What I have an issue with is that you are equating the equipping of a magic item the same as drinking a potion, or drawing a weapon. The reason that drawing a weapon is a special case is because sheathes are designed to allow easy access to the weapon.
The more I read this thread, the more I come to the conclusion that a standard action for putting on a magic item is well within the boundaries set by the RAW. Removal of items is arguable but I think a Move action is pretty average.
Anyway as everyone has pretty much stated - it is up to your DM.
D
[MENTION=80713]Istar[/MENTION] - if you had cared to actually read what I said, everything that wasn't RAW was prefaced by "in my opinion".
That was intentional because it is what I thought and how I might rule if it were my game. But if you want a 100% RAW answer, then you cannot have one.
Why? Because the action required for the removal of items is not explicitly listed anywhere in the PHB. The PHB lists the most common actions to be taken in combat which do not include removing magic items that you are benefitting from. Obviously they did not take into account someone trying to gain mechanical bonuses from two separate items.
It has already been stated that the first item in a slot operates while the others "wait" for removal of the first item.
So my opinion is based on gut feeling as to the RAW and what it was intended for. In addition any DM will think on what you are trying to do and rule based on that. It is very clear to me (<--- to me) that you are trying to bend the rules in a way that will not necessarily break the game, but it will twist the rules in a way that would not be in the spirit of the game.
Thus I would most likely be harsher in judging the action types required. Nowhere did I state that I would not allow what you were talking about, I stated my opinion on the action types and why it wouldn't work as easily.
What I have an issue with is that you are equating the equipping of a magic item the same as drinking a potion, or drawing a weapon. The reason that drawing a weapon is a special case is because sheathes are designed to allow easy access to the weapon.
The more I read this thread, the more I come to the conclusion that a standard action for putting on a magic item is well within the boundaries set by the RAW. Removal of items is arguable but I think a Move action is pretty average.
Anyway as everyone has pretty much stated - it is up to your DM.
D
JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
Thats a very poor argument.
On this basis you are CHEEESSY when you swap from one weapon to another.
The rule specifically means only one magic item in that slot will function.
ie. You cant hold 2 weapons in the one hand.
ie. You cant wear an amulet and a cloak and get the magic benefit of both.
There are no rules that say you cant swap magic items in the encounter.
The intent is clearly that only one item will function no matter how many you equip, and by saying that the first one operates, implies you can equip more than one.
I would be interested in your rebut, buy so far is a big fat "FAIL" !!
Not much of a rebuttal needed since I wasn't arguing anything, just defining the word CHEESE and also providing an example.
That being said, I will once again reiterate that just because the rules allow a tactic (in any game, not just D&D) doesn't mean that the tactic isn't cheesy.
DS
Jack99
Adventurer
Thanks for posting this. I couldn't figure out why only 1 (Wik's) post showed up on page 3, so for a while, I thought it stopped loading or there was some sort of bug.
Ditto!
