Deeper Darkness and Glove of Storing

[Taren Seeker]

Nah, I've just been in more than one heated arguement about it. WAY more than 1.

You're right though, it has been a bad morning. Headache.

Need more coffee.

 

[Taren Seeker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Deeper Darkness and Glove of Storing

I don't see how either of those are abusive at all. In the case of the warning weapon, you spent 8,000gp for a weapon that gives you Uncanny Dodge, but you can't use the weapon unless it's already out of the glove during your turn, which means that you don't threaten an area, which means a spellcaster could launch a lightning bolt while standing right in your face.

Well, one of Uncanny Dodge's best uses is that you don't get caught flatfooted. If you have to walk around with the weapon in hand for it to work, that's a built in limitation that affects the cost of the enchantment. Think about that sneak attack from the assassins in the shadows (or invis for that matter) while you're walking down the street in town. Normally in a town you can't walk around with a blade in hand. In this case, you're invulnerable to sneak attacks unless they manage to flank you.

Aside from a weapon you would use, you could also just throw it on a +1 dagger and you get a free class ability for 8k. Considering how powerful an ability Uncanny Dodge is that's a deal and a half. Look at the Ring of Evasion for the cost of a strong class ability. UD is not as good as evasion for most characters, but it's close.

How about another example...Spellblade.

 

[Caliban]

I would just rule that "stored in the glove" is not the same as "in the hand".

To me, "in hand" in this context means "wielding the weapon", not "stored in a glove of storing that I happen to be wearing on my hand". If you are not actually gripping the hilt with your fingers, it's not "in hand".

Use activeated items actually have to be used/worn to activate them.

 

[kreynolds]

Here's the main problem with your argument Taren (one I didn't notice before, which also makes what I stated previously a moot point), in regards to Warning weapons. The description of warning states "the wielder". When you wield a weapon, not only is it "in hand", but you threaten an area. If it's not in hand, you don't threaten an area. If the weapon is stored in the glove, it's not in hand, thus you are not wielding it.

See where I'm going with this?

I've also seen the argument that the weapon doesn't actually need to be in hand (which I don't agree with), but if that argument is used, then whether or not it's in the glove is a moot point as well, because ultimately, the weapon is still in your possession.

What do you think?

 

[kreynolds]

Whoa...that was creepy.

 

[Caliban]

 

[Taren Seeker]

Yup, my bad...I didn't read Warning again before suggesting it. I absolutely agree that "wielding" means actually having the weapon readied. In fact, I extend it further to must be using as in you're in melee (or in the case of a missile weapon, engaging in ranged combat).

However, there are items that stipulate "in hand", like the Rod of Cats or Pearl of the Sirene. If you allow magic items to remain active while in the glove those would still work. It's a pretty far stretch to say that the item isn't in your hand when it's shrunk down and placed in the palm of your glove. Again, I refer you to my burning torch example. If it was intended for it to still radiate (or be active) why wouldn't it mention it in the example?

Wow, I can't help but feel that in some small way I've managed to bring you two closer together. You can tell your grandkids about me someday.

 

[kreynolds]

...



...

...

 

[Caliban]

However, there are items that stipulate "in hand", like the Rod of Cats or Pearl of the Sirene. If you allow magic items to remain active while in the glove those would still work. It's a pretty far stretch to say that the item isn't in your hand when it's shrunk down and placed in the palm of your glove. Again, I refer you to my burning torch example. If it was intended for it to still radiate (or be active) why wouldn't it mention it in the example?

If I was running the game, I would still rule that "stored in the glove" is not "held in your hand". Maybe that's just me though. *shrug*

 

[kreynolds]

However, there are items that stipulate "in hand", like the Rod of Cats or Pearl of the Sirene. If you allow magic items to remain active while in the glove those would still work. It's a pretty far stretch to say that the item isn't in your hand when it's shrunk down and placed in the palm of your glove.

Like Caliban, I would also rule that the item is "in the glove", not "in the hand". That's the ruleslawyer part of me comin' out.

Again, I refer you to my burning torch example. If it was intended for it to still radiate (or be active) why wouldn't it mention it in the example?

Perhaps because the intent is to have the torch stay lit but in stasis? Thus it's usefulness? I'm honestly not 100% sure.

Does a burning torch stop giving off light when it is in stasis? If it does, and we already know the torch doesn't get covered, then the flame has to have gone out. Now, you have a snuffed out torch in your palm. When you take it "out" of the glove, you have to light it again.

That's the wierd part about these gloves. Items are not stored "in" the glove, they are shrunken down into your palm, but they aren't "inside" of it. They aren't transfered to a non-dimensional or extra-dimensional pocket. They stay in the palm of your hand, uncovered, in stasis.

Personally, I would almost rule that the torch continues to give off light, but it no longer "burns", meaning it doesn't cause any damage. After all, it's frozen in time, but it still isn't "inside" the glove. Now, a ruling like this might be able to be abused, but I can't think of a way right this second.

What do you think?