Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Howie23 03-26-08, 05:00 PM	Replies aren't permitted by non-circles in the big thread, but some thoughts ('cause I'm bored and replies there have slowed quite a bit) in a separate thread: a) If I have an ioun stone that gives me +1 caster level, and a strand of prayer beads that give me +4 caster level for 10min, do they stack? Would a 15th lvl cleric be casting his morning hourly buffs at 20th level with these? They both appear to be unnamed bonuses. This is a core rules issue, which Circle has excused themselves from ruling on. My understanding is that unnamed bonuses from different sources stack. b) Lets say my cleric reaches 15th level, takes the feat - forge ring, crafts a couple rings, then dies in battle and gets raised, reaches 15th lvl again and takes a different feat - does he have to pay back the gold he saved through crafting? Yes, or sell them (which effectively means a cash even transaction). This has been ruled on previously. Of greyer color is what happens when he is of 14th level, has the benefit of the crafted rings, but doesn't have the feat. Another related ruling is that a character who takes a crafting feat, later gains level in class that provides that same crafting feat as a bonus and subsequently retrains the initial crafting feat, does not have to pay for items crafted prior to gaining the bonus feat. Examples would be a cleric/wizard who takes Scribe Scroll as a sole-classed cleric prior to gaining wizard levels or a character who takes Battlesmith levels after already having Craft Arms and Armor. c) can I use my move action for a swift action? For example, in a round could I cast a spell (standard action), cast a quickened spell (swift action), and use my helm of glorious recovery (swift action - but giving up my move action)? This is a core rules issue, which Circle has excused themselves from ruling on. It has been discussed frequently and you will see variance. I think most are comfortable substituting a swift action for a standard action, where substituting a swift action for a move action seems abusive to others. Your example is a prime example of why it seems abusive to me. D)if I wear two belts of battle can I use it (swift action) all 3 charges (for an extra standard and extra move action) at the beginning of the round to cast a spell (standard action), remove it (move action - allowing me to use the second belt the following round), do a 5ft step, and a full attack action all in the first round? This is a core rules issue, which Circle has excused themselves from ruling on. I'm not familiar with the item (althrough it seems relatively common). If it grants the actions you state, and if removing it is indeed a move action and you have the free hand, it seems to work as you suggest. AoO might be another matter. E)A GM of ours says that if an enemy pops out in a surprise round, and we are able to act in that surprise round (because of a high spot check, feign surprise card, etc) and we roll a higher initiative than the bad guys, that we are not allowed to act because the action doesn't begin until after their initiative. To which I replied, well can't I ready a standard action or delay my initiative til we see the bad guys? - to which he replied - no. Is he right? This is a core rules issue, which Circle has excused themselves from ruling on. This should be a non-issue regarding normal senses (Spot/Listen), since by definition making that Spot check means that you have seen him. No surprise due to Feign Surprise is another matter. Personally, I basically modify a Feign Surprise to a successful Spot check when possible. Feign Surprise vs. a creature that is physically not present (ethereal, say) can happen and requires a reasonable (read that as, "within the spirit of the card") response by the DM. Many treat it as a sixth sense, "spidey sense," or similar. "You know something is about to happen, but you have nothing to respond to..." Ready or delay is the typical response, sometimes buffing or preparing equipment. David
copperwyrmling 03-27-08, 01:54 AM	Yes, or sell them (which effectively means a cash even transaction). This has been ruled on previously. I thought this was just with retraining, not with dying and then choosing to take a different feat next time you level. Can you point me to the ruling?
_metz_ 03-27-08, 07:26 AM	I thought this was just with retraining, not with dying and then choosing to take a different feat next time you level. Can you point me to the ruling? Exactly, I have not seen this ruling. I can see potential fudging, but I have not seen a ruling before.
Timlagor 03-27-08, 04:35 PM	Think I sent a PM but just in case: a) Yes they stack b) covered above c) IMO taking off an item does not activate any other item. you must actively put on a worn item to activate it. Also When you use all three charges of a Belt of Battle to get a "full round action" that is a full-round-action and not "a move action and a standard action": you get one indivisible action d) Core rules are clear on this You can perform ONE SWIFT OR IMMEDIATE ACTION PER ROUND. There is no rule that grants any extra. A houserule that allowed a swift action to be performed as a standard action would be reasonable. One that allowed a move action to do it would be very bad indeed. Swift actinos are far more valuable than move actions to a lot of characters (the exception being people who want a full attack)
Howie23 03-27-08, 05:05 PM	I thought this was just with retraining, not with dying and then choosing to take a different feat next time you level. Can you point me to the ruling? No, I can't. I've looked for it through 20 pages of the big LGCS thread, and searched under Scribe Scroll, where there was discussion on the general idea. I wore out the search engine. ;) So, I will apologetically retract calling it a ruling, will describe it as discussed in concept (the concept of whether you still have the feat, rather than death specifically), and hold to the rest of what I described. The idea behind paying for the difference if you retrain a feat is that you are perpetually gaining the benefit of the feat, without having it. Dying and not taking the feat again is functionally the same thing. I think the spirit is abundantly clear. Is anyone proposing that this should be allowed or is this merely asking for the prior references that I alluded to (and now cannot produce?) David
chesspiece 03-27-08, 05:46 PM	B) Prior to retraining, there was no such "pay the difference" rule in LG. Since the rule is specific to retraining, the Core Rules apply. AFAIK, you don't need to pay the refund. The other points seem to be well answered already. But there are some special cases that (IMHO) are worth mentioning. A) There was a Circle ruling that non-continuous level boost effects (i.e. karma bead) don’t apply when crafting magic items. Of course, this is less relevant since CL is no longer a prerequisite for all items. C) I think that you can do that in 4e - which may be what made you ask. If this were allowed in 3.x, it would be a (broken) workaround to the “max of 1 quickened spell per round” rule. So no. D) The only Player I’ve encountered with Belt of Battle access said the AR had modified it to require 24-hours of attuning. As DM, I would never allow wearing multiple belts to circumvent the attuning period.
Timlagor 03-27-08, 06:01 PM	I've seen the Belt at least a couple of times without that modification (but you're entirely right that it would have to be active to get attuned and only one item can be active in any slot).
Howie23 03-27-08, 06:32 PM	B) Prior to retraining, there was no such "pay the difference" rule in LG. Since the rule is specific to retraining, the Core Rules apply. AFAIK, you don't need to pay the refund. Prior to retraining, there were two campaign specific rulesets for rebuilding; they were called conversions. The 595 conversion specifically called out that replacing crafting feats was not allowed; a special exemption was made for Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat. This is not an issue solely about retraining, regardless of whether there is a specific rule associated with retraining. The rule about retraining came up during the LGCS 597 discussions as a result of folks having identified it as a hole. It was responded to directly due to the need to avoid a loophole around the wealth by level guidelines. This is the same issue. David
rockondon 03-28-08, 06:17 PM	wow, my silly questions actually warranted a thread? Cool. I can really see people abusing the craft - die - take another feat - idea. I'd love to take forge ring, craft rings of protection +5 and freedom of movement, die in combat, take craft arms and armor, craft stuff, die, then hit the new level again and take the feat I always wanted. I won't though. *puts on innocent face* Anyways, if you have a belt of battle on, then put on a second one, the second one ceases to function. I was under the assumption that you can use up the first one, then remove it, you are left with just the second belt which would now function. I was also thinkin of putting on an anklet of translocation over top my boots of speed, so that if I needed to tele 10ft I could slip off a boot so the anklet would start functioning. Does that not work?
bitznarf 03-28-08, 06:27 PM	Anyways, if you have a belt of battle on, then put on a second one, the second one ceases to function. I was under the assumption that you can use up the first one, then remove it, you are left with just the second belt which would now function. I was also thinkin of putting on an anklet of translocation over top my boots of speed, so that if I needed to tele 10ft I could slip off a boot so the anklet would start functioning. Does that not work? I've not seen any solid rules evidence one way or the other - I've only heard opinions on how it should work. My best suggestion is 'ask your DM'.
Timlagor 03-30-08, 12:55 PM	It doesn't work when I'm GMing. I don't think it should work anywhere but may work with some GMs. When you put on a second magic item, it doesn't "cease to function"; it never starts to function. I see no particular reason why removing an item should change this and also view it as against the spirit of the rules to allow people to swap magic items that fast in combat. It is very easy and straightforward to rule that it is the act of putting an itme on that activates it: that is both entirely in accordance with the RAW and also prevents any potential abuse. [and if you're trying this with something as overpowered as Belts of Battle you really deserve no empathy ;)]
rockondon 03-30-08, 03:03 PM	[and if you're trying this with something as overpowered as Belts of Battle you really deserve no empathy] *hangs head in shame*
JamesMaissen 03-31-08, 11:47 AM	It doesn't work when I'm GMing. I don't think it should work anywhere but may work with some GMs. When you put on a second magic item, it doesn't "cease to function"; it never starts to function. I see no particular reason why removing an item should change this and also view it as against the spirit of the rules to allow people to swap magic items that fast in combat. This just doesn't sit well with me. So let's say I am wearing two magical rings. I put on a 3rd. We all agree that it is not active. Now I remove the 1st ring. 1. Where does it say that one must put on a ring to activate it rather than simply wearing it? 2. If I put the 1st ring back on at this point, is it active? Or am I wearing 3 magic rings and only 1 is active? The ruling you are trying to make is a house rule. It is reactionary in that it is trying to disallow a course of action, and is in general a bad idea. -James PS: That said, there are a good number of items where simply trying to wear more than one of them is not feasible. But for items where this is not a problem, then I don't see a reason not to allow it. The real problem is with either the item itself existing, or one's view of limited shot items.
Timlagor 03-31-08, 12:40 PM	Yes putting a new ring on while only one is active will have the new ring active. It would be just as much a houserule to make the second ring become active simply because you took the previous one off.
Redfist 03-31-08, 01:17 PM	I find the houserule of "taking off an active ring activates a non-active ring" to be problematic. If you are wearing 5 rings, which of the 3 extra becomes active? Third put on? Player choice? If it's the third put on, what facilitates that actually happening? etc. I think it's most straightforward to rule that a ring activates when it is put on if there are less than 2 active rings. Otherwise, it didn't activate (it's not in a pending-activation state). Period. ymmv
JamesMaissen 04-01-08, 11:52 PM	Yes putting a new ring on while only one is active will have the new ring active. It would be just as much a houserule to make the second ring become active simply because you took the previous one off. Umm.. but the character is *wearing* 2 magic rings before donning the third. It clearly should NOT become active. As to making the second ring become active.. it's not a house rule. The thing that is causing it to be inactive is no longer in effect. If you leave an antimagic shell do you need to rewear all your magical gear to cause it to become active again? No? When a ray of enfeeblement wears off, does the strength score return? Yes?... -James
JohnduBois 04-04-08, 08:37 AM	Due to the use of a campaign card in (e), it ceases to be a Core rules issue and becomes a campaign rules issue. I've seen Feign Surprise ruled both ways. I tend to go with "you know something's going to happen, but you don't know what" if you beat the baddy in initiative, similar to spider-sense.
rockondon 04-09-08, 01:06 AM	so, following a similar question raised earlier, here is something I'm planning on in the future and I want to know if its allowed. I have 3 rings. I put on the first two, a ring of anticipation (it lets me roll twice for initiative rolls and take the better roll) and a ring of protection. I then don a third ring (of freedom of movement) which does nothing due to both ring slots being used. In combat I roll twice for initiative - on my turn I remove the ring of anticipation as a move action which activates the ring of freedom of movement and still allows me to maintain my initiative roll. Does that work?
chesspiece 04-09-08, 07:45 AM	I'd expect minor table variation on that one. If I were your DM, I'd allow it. However, I'd rule that you've removed the ring as a move action and it is in your hand. If you want to use a weapon or cast spells with that hand, you'd need to drop (free action) or safely stow (another move action) the ring of anticipation. This is supported by shield rules - one move action to unready, a second to stow (or drop it for free - and risk theft / area damage). If you reference the shield rules, I suspect that most DMs would agree.
Timlagor 04-09-08, 08:15 AM	I agree that it takes a move action to stow it. However I would not have the FoM Ring activate automatically. I suggest you canvas likely GMs before making the investment (though you can probably lend it to someone else at the table) ..I'm definitely not the only one who wouldn't allow it and it's likely that most GMs in your area will rule the same way (as each other).
TetsujinOni 04-09-08, 11:22 AM	I agree that it takes a move action to stow it. However I would not have the FoM Ring activate automatically. I suggest you canvas likely GMs before making the investment (though you can probably lend it to someone else at the table) ..I'm definitely not the only one who wouldn't allow it and it's likely that most GMs in your area will rule the same way (as each other). Or skip the table variation problem and ditch the Ring of Protection.
Surgebuster 04-09-08, 08:50 PM	I agree that it takes a move action to stow it. However I would not have the FoM Ring activate automatically. I suggest you canvas likely GMs before making the investment (though you can probably lend it to someone else at the table) ..I'm definitely not the only one who wouldn't allow it and it's likely that most GMs in your area will rule the same way (as each other). At my tables, the ring of FoM would not automatically activate as it the act of donning a ring which determines whether it is active or not. Since the ring was deemed inactive when donned, I can't see that taking off another ring would change its status. Quickly slipping it off a finger and putting it on again, on the other hand... :) Joe
Timlagor 04-09-08, 10:15 PM	Quickly slipping it off a finger and putting it on again, on the other hand... ..takes 2 more move actions :P
JamesMaissen 04-10-08, 02:24 AM	At my tables, the ring of FoM would not automatically activate as it the act of donning a ring which determines whether it is active or not. Since the ring was deemed inactive when donned, I can't see that taking off another ring would change its status. Quickly slipping it off a finger and putting it on again, on the other hand... :) Joe It is NOT the act of donning the ring, but simply wearing it. That you already have 2 rings on when the ring is put on means that the ring is currently inactive.. when that condition is removed the ring is then, perforce, active. -James
Redfist 04-10-08, 02:34 PM	It is NOT the act of donning the ring, but simply wearing it. That you already have 2 rings on when the ring is put on means that the ring is currently inactive.. when that condition is removed the ring is then, perforce, active. -James If you were wearing 5 rings (2 active, 3 non-active) and remove 1 active ring, which of the 3 non-active rings becomes active? Please quote a rules source. This is the dilemma that leads me to a more simple interpretation of ring activation. Rings become active when put on if you are wearing less than 2 active rings. They aren't put into a "pending activation" state if wearing 2 active rings already. IMHO.
MwaO 04-10-08, 09:50 PM	If you were wearing 5 rings (2 active, 3 non-active) and remove 1 active ring, which of the 3 non-active rings becomes active? Please quote a rules source. The 1st non-active ring you put on? The DMG only says "can only benefit from two rings at a time."(page 214) Not that magical rings you're wearing won't activate if you're only benefiting from one ring and you happened to have it on your hand in advance. Something has to activate, that seems a logical adjucation. Yes, there are obvious Belt of Battle issues.
chesspiece 04-11-08, 07:55 AM	I agree with the MwaO. If a Player is obsessive enough to wear 5 rings and selected which 2 are active, then he / she will have no problem tracking the order they were donned - that's the point, after all. If they do it at my table, I'll tell them to write it down as a list. And that certainly matches the letter of the rules. Of course, after a point, they're probably better off just wearing 1-2 rings and swapping in the desired one.
Timlagor 04-11-08, 07:59 PM	"To use a magic item, it must be activated, although sometimes activation simply means putting a ring on your finger. " I'm not climaing that it's completely unreasonable to have things activate when youtake others off but at best it's a reasonable ruling .and a generous one. There's no way you can argue this with a GM who doesn't agree.
Timlagor 04-11-08, 08:00 PM	It is NOT the act of donning the ring, but simply wearing it. That you already have 2 rings on when the ring is put on means that the ring is currently inactive.. when that condition is removed the ring is then, perforce, active. -James There is nothing in the rules to support this PoV. You can rule that way but you can't demand that others agree.
katrick 04-13-08, 10:12 AM	Generally (since Mini's Handbook it has been assumed you must wear it for 24hrs to be active. As tim points out this isn't specified and therefore doesn't work, though it does satisfy most). But at my tables, if you can keep an anklet on whilst you remove both boots in less than six seconds, then you can do it, and sure a **** it provokes, same for the belt, which one holds up your pants, spell component pouches,etc. There are plenty of people running around with two of, which they change after they use up there charges, in between encounters. Why would you waste a belt of battle's three charges to put on another belt of battle.(which you can't use in the same round) Now casting Girallons blessing(standard), using a belt of Battle(swift), then using your standard to again cast Girallons blessing, then using your six arms to change your belt, draw your weapon, stow your other belt and move, is possible, providing you don't cop the three Aoo's There is a billion or more reasonable reasons that any Dm can find as to why not, find me a why?(in ink, outside of game time) katrick
Timlagor 04-14-08, 10:24 AM	Extra arms don't give extra actions (but would let you hold more stuff you took off without having to drop or stow it). I'm far from convinced that G's Blessing can be used for more than one pair of extra limbs.
katrick 04-14-08, 12:08 PM	I was calling the actions as part of a move, so like drawing two weapons during a move etc.. With Girallons it reads "you give the subject an additional pair of arms" i took this to mean it could stack. I cast this on my Druids Companion the other day, it was an extremely funny adventure. katrick
Timlagor 04-14-08, 02:56 PM	Only drawing weapons (or weapon-like objects) is cited as allowed as a free action combined with a regular move and even then you need TWF to draw 2.
rockondon 04-14-08, 07:23 PM	I have a couple more stupid questions. May as well ask them here. First, what is a reserve feat? I see that mentioned in just about every thread. Second, if you got a favor on a mod that granted you a permanent bonus such as +1 natural armor or +1 deflection or +1 insight bonus to AC, Would that stack with an amulet of natural armor or cloak of thorns, ring of protection, or a dusty rose ioun stone, respectively?
rpgdcj 04-14-08, 10:59 PM	I have a couple more stupid questions. May as well ask them here. First, what is a reserve feat? I see that mentioned in just about every thread. Second, if you got a favor on a mod that granted you a permanent bonus such as +1 natural armor or +1 deflection or +1 insight bonus to AC, Would that stack with an amulet of natural armor or cloak of thorns, ring of protection, or a dusty rose ioun stone, respectively? Reserve Feats are listed in Complete Mage. Basically, you reserve a particular type of spell or spell slot (i.e. don't cast it), and as long as that's held in reserve, you get a supernatural ability that can be used at will. The one that's mentioned a lot is Fiery Burst, which allows you to make a 5' burst of fire with a 30' range as long as you have a fire spell of 2nd level or higher in reserve. Bonuses with the same type do not stack, except for dodge and circumstance bonuses. So, your examples would not stack. The higher bonus would take precedence; the lower one could become available if the reason for the higher bonus is removed (such as by dispel magic).
bitznarf 04-15-08, 10:51 AM	Second, if you got a favor on a mod that granted you a permanent bonus such as +1 natural armor or +1 deflection or +1 insight bonus to AC, Would that stack with an amulet of natural armor or cloak of thorns, ring of protection, or a dusty rose ioun stone, respectively? If this is the bonus I am thinking of (you are from Zeif right?) then the answer is 'some' (if I remember the AR correctly). If the AR says you get a +1 natural armor bonus, it stacks with an amulet of natural armor (or barkskin) as the amulet gives an enhancement bonus to your natural armor, the same way a +2 shield has a +2 enhancement bonus to shield AC. Deflection and insight bonuses that go straight to AC however do not stack with others of the same type.