I was shocked by this.
Warforged can make any equipment they buy into components without additional cost and therefore makes them look cool and smart. What's wrong with the fleshy players having access to ingenius ways to use their equipment? D&D not a historical game, it's fantasy based. If I had been the DM, I would have said good job for coming up with a way to have a light souce and be able to use your heavy shield. If I were going to be stuffy about the rules, I would at the very least had made her PC pay an additional cost to have the heavy shield upgraded to carry a sunrod.
I think reasonable ideas should be encouraged, not discouraged.
Heck, I let a paladin in my campaign attach her holy symbol to to her sheild. Game balance issues so far = 0.
Although were I the DM I might be tempted to roll every time the fighter gets missed in melee or uses a shield based power to see if the sunrod gets smashed or knocked loose . . .
It was a mistake to see it as an exception though; as others have noted, sunrods don't require you to carry them in any particular fashion in order to work, so if someone wants to slot one on their shield, it doesn't create an issues as far as wielding/hands-free stipulations go.
No I don't see it as a crappy, rigid Dm
Heck, I let a paladin in my campaign attach her holy symbol to to her sheild. Game balance issues so far = 0.
Holy Symbols don't have to be anywhere specific on a body, and don't take up any hand space...
In 2e we use to take a scroll case, line it with a thin layer of gold or silver on the inside, then put a focusing gem in the top...cast light inside it...poof flashlight.
W also use to ball up wax, cast light on it and throw it at the wall across from the door as soon as we opened the door...splat light source...
Now adays I have to argue 'of cource I can 5 non magic rings...the limti is magic ones' (Not a joke a problme at a LFR game)
Holy Symbols are an Implement, thus take up a hand slot normally.
No they don't. A Holy Symbol can be worn around the neck as a necklace, held in your hand, strap to your shield, etc. Heck you could say its on your hat or its your belt buckle or even attached to your boots!
Holy Symbol don't occupy any slot and if you read the book it says plainly you don't need to hold them.
No they don't. A Holy Symbol can be worn around the neck as a necklace, held in your hand, strap to your shield, etc. Heck you could say its on your hat or its your belt buckle or even attached to your boots!
Holy Symbol don't occupy any slot and if you read the book it says plainly you don't need to hold them.
Yep, it is pretty clearly written:
Unlike other implements, you need only to wear a holy symbol for its property or power to function.
In regards to the OP, someone needs to sit this DM down and explain that the DM is not a dictator but instead that they are a narrator of sorts. If he/she does something like that again just hit them on the nose with a rolled up magazine and firmly say, "No!"
Holy Symbols are an Implement, thus take up a hand slot normally.
The description of Holy Symbols in the Cleric and Paladin class sections specify that they may be used if they are worn or held.
It would be incredibly inconvenient for anyone who uses implement and weapon powers if this weren't the case.
I laughed, and allowed it. Not needing to hold the rod isn't really a huge deal, plus banning something like that would make my players mad.
The DM isn't always right, but what the DM says goes. If he says enough stupis s***, his players go too.
AS for the modified shield, I might ask for a little explanation, as to how you set it up, but if it made sense, I'd allow it...
And what about using the sunrod on a string around your neck? That would work...
Tell the DM you're going to hold the sun rod in your teeth, all pirate style. See if he shoots that down too. Granted it'd pry be hard to see with all that light in your face.... but you see my point.
The rules are mostly there to keep combat from getting out of hand and having the common bad RP stuff that come up with no rules like "yeah but you can't do that I use magic to block," or whatever other crap. They aren't rigid rules you have to follow to the letter, hell if you don't like a rule throw it out. Unless you're playing in LFR or something it's your game, play it how you want.
I just sat through a game the other day and saw something I thought was rather disturbing. A player at our table was running a human fighter who uses sword & board style and was entering into a dark cavern with no illumination. The DM asked each player what they were going to use to see. Well our player tells the DM her fighter lights up a sunrod and attaches it to her fighter's heavy shield via a little slot built into it since using a heavy shield prevents her fighter from holding anything in her shield hand. The DM flat out told her she couldn't have it/use it and it circumvented the rules for light shields and allowed players to cheat the rules for heavy shields and etc, etc. He then berated the player for trying to be slick in getting around the rules in a high and mighty DM tone.
I was shocked by this.
So you were shocked that a player was blatently trying to game the system?
Seriously, the DM was totally justified in saying what they did. The PC was trying to game the system, and the DM was fine in applying a smackdown. This is the downside of carrying a heavy shield. Ca, c'est la vie. Its the DMs prerogative.
Coming to the boards in order to try and garner sympathy is pretty silly in this instance, I think. If you were complaining about something more reasonable, maybe, but "Oh no, I can't cheat the system" is not really reasonable. If you wear a heavy shield, that's the penalty for wearing it. Get something else which glows, or simply have other PCs have sufficient illumination for you. There's nothing wrong with allowing it, but there's nothing wrong with not doing so, either, and saying the DM is being unfair here is silly.
People who are complimenting the player on their supposed ingenuity are being silly. Because, you know, he's the first person in the history of mankind to attach a light to something.
Seriously, there was nothing ingenious or creative about this.
Personally, I think its a lot more exciting if the players have to worry a bit about this sort of thing; if you drop your illumination sources, then someone might kick it and you might have to have a wild fight in shadowy illumination. Its fine to do otherwise, but in this case, the DM was entirely justified in saying what he said.
I'm starting to think we're reading two different rules. PH p. 214 (under Heavy Shield) reads: "When you use a heavy shield [...] you can't use your shield hand for any other task."
Not "When you use a heavy shield you can't benefit from any items that people usually hold in their hands." Not "A heavy shield ceases to work when anything over 1 pound is stuck to it." Just a very simple statement about your shield hand. It prevents things like drinking potions with your shield hand. I'm not at all convinced that the developers intended the rule to prevent use of any item whatever if both your hands were full, and I'm absolutely certain that that's not what the rule says.
I really can't conceive of this as an attempt to game the system or cheat. I'm reminded of first-person shooter video games in which you come up on a waist-high wall that you can't get past because there is no "climb" button. Complex combat mechanics not working exactly as common sense would dictate is all well and good, but refusing something as simple and obviously possible as this? I don't find that reasonable.
Seriously, there was nothing ingenious or creative about this.
And that makes the DM's ruling even more ridiculous. It's not like the player wanted to do something completely outlandish or gamebreaking. It's not like the idea is so complex that it has a high chance of failure like the concoction is unstable and could explode at any moment. :P
All the player wants to do is tie a light to a his shield. You might as well suggest that a miner is asking too much to want a light attached to his helmet.
EDIT: I just want to add that there's a big difference between "cheating the system" and asking to do something that the system doesn't cover to begin with. Just because the system doesn't cover it doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to do it. The system does not and will never be able to cover everything the PCs think of doing. That doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't let them do those things.
Usually you and I are on the same page, T_D, so I really am surprised at your position here...
I think he was employing sarcasm.
Then he's not very good at it... Though knowing T_D, that might just be the case after all. :P
I think he was employing sarcasm.
Actually i think he might be serious.
So I'd say that whenever he blocks an attack on the shield, the sunrod breaks. I'd probably also impose some penalties on the PC and his party's vision as well because the sunrod on the front of the shield effectively blocks half its light radius. I'd probably let the PC choose between having the sunrods normal radius at dim illumination, or choosing a direction for the light and just illuminating that side of him.
It isn't unreasonable not to allow this. I'm sorry, but it just isn't. The DM was well within his rights to say no. The player IS trying to game the system. You cannot carry an item within your hand when you're using the shield, and the entire point is that having a heavy shield is trading off extra defense for the inability to use that hand for anything but the shield without dropping it. The player is trying to game the system so he doesn't have to spend a minor action to draw his weapon at the beginning of combat after he drops his sunrod as a free action. He's trying to gain an advantage that he's not supposed to have, however minor, and the DM is well within his rights to shoot it down.
Its perfectly legitimate to allow it. But its perfectly legitimate not to as well.
The DM shouldn't have said the PC couldn't have it. He should just have attached complications. Ok. So you've attached your fragile light source to your shield, an object designed to take hits. Sounds like a good plan. You're also blocking the sunrod from illuminating behind you.
Well, my precise thought was "Well, you get missed by 2, you blocked with your shield, the sunrod is dislodged and goes flying 1d6 squares in a random direction". But I'm not trying to establish a ruling here.
The DM is well within his rights here to say no, and the player has to accept that. Yes, he's also well within his rights to allow it, but honestly, the DM is not a bad person either way and he is not a bad DM either way.
I'm not saying what I would do. I'm saying what is reasonable. Either is perfectly reasonable. Its also not unreasonable to say that you could do this, but the sunrod is like a flare in that it is very hot, and so your shield will start burning your arm if you do it. Or to have it fly out or break whenever your shield is hit. Or whatever.
I've played D&D since 1980. I have had players ask for some silly things and the "Magic Missle" machine gun always comes to mind when I think of those days. The best one was using Shocking Grasp as a difibulator to revive a dead PC. But if it was just an ingenius way of using a mundane item, I never had a problem with allowing it. Before sunrods, fighters attached their torches to their shields in my games in 1st & 2nd Edition. There's even historical references to shields having torches attached to them to help the weilder see.
It's nice to see I'm not the only liberal DM still playing.
Like someone said earlier, "Heaven forbid the fighter has a brain."
:PI was employing some amount of sarcasm, however, I was serious about my point.
It isn't unreasonable not to allow this. I'm sorry, but it just isn't. The DM was well within his rights to say no. The player IS trying to game the system. You cannot carry an item within your hand when you're using the shield, and the entire point is that having a heavy shield is trading off extra defense for the inability to use that hand for anything but the shield without dropping it. The player is trying to game the system so he doesn't have to spend a minor action to draw his weapon at the beginning of combat after he drops his sunrod as a free action. He's trying to gain an advantage that he's not supposed to have, however minor, and the DM is well within his rights to shoot it down.
Its perfectly legitimate to allow it. But its perfectly legitimate not to as well.
Well, my precise thought was "Well, you get missed by 2, you blocked with your shield, the sunrod is dislodged and goes flying 1d6 squares in a random direction". But I'm not trying to establish a ruling here.
The DM is well within his rights here to say no, and the player has to accept that. Yes, he's also well within his rights to allow it, but honestly, the DM is not a bad person either way and he is not a bad DM either way.
I'm not saying what I would do. I'm saying what is reasonable. Either is perfectly reasonable. Its also not unreasonable to say that you could do this, but the sunrod is like a flare in that it is very hot, and so your shield will start burning your arm if you do it. Or to have it fly out or break whenever your shield is hit. Or whatever.
Players like to have some freedom when it comes to their PCs. Some people will try to "game the system" as you say and a DM always has to be on guard for players who attempt this. But flat out saying no and then berating the player kills the fun. I was upset for her. D&D isn't a boring game where you're stuck with a vanilla character that never changes or grows. If D&D were such a game I would have stopped playing it years ago. It's a game where players are free to exercise their imaginations and explore creative ways to solve problems and overcome obstacles set before them in the context of the story. The wizard who only wears red and buys only things that are red. The cleric who refuses to use harsh language and attends to the wounds on an evil NPC because he believes in mercy to all. The Thief who will only steal from evil NPCs or to complete a mission for a good cause. And yes, even a PC who finds a creative way to attach a light to her shield so as not to be left fighting blind in the dark just adds to the flavor of the game. I'm not saying a DM has to allow everything just to keep his players happy, but be a little more stingy with the word "no." And not be such a jerk when using the word "no."
I went to a local gaming store for a Friday night session. Well as the noob I just kind of laid and back and waited for the DM to work me into the session. They party was in town gambling. I was watching the other players and trying to get a feel for how they interacted with each other and basically just trying to get to know 7 other strangers.
One of the players jumped my ass for watching him gamble, I thought h was IC so I role played a little with him. He got mad. I guess he was OOC when he got onto me. For the rest of the night the DM ignored me and then told me he did so because of my attitude. in ever went back. In fact I didn't play D&D for ten years until I ran into one of my old military buddies who happend to be living in the same town.
I believe you can release your grip on the shield (while it stays strapped on the arm) and help pull on a rope (of course you can't parry then) for example. Fixing a torch to a shield would be OK too, but it can have disadvantages...if you have ever been with people in a cave and have used real torches you will know what I mean
I was employing some amount of sarcasm, however, I was serious about my point.
It isn't unreasonable not to allow this. I'm sorry, but it just isn't. The DM was well within his rights to say no. The player IS trying to game the system. You cannot carry an item within your hand when you're using the shield, and the entire point is that having a heavy shield is trading off extra defense for the inability to use that hand for anything but the shield without dropping it. The player is trying to game the system so he doesn't have to spend a minor action to draw his weapon at the beginning of combat after he drops his sunrod as a free action. He's trying to gain an advantage that he's not supposed to have, however minor, and the DM is well within his rights to shoot it down.
Its perfectly legitimate to allow it. But its perfectly legitimate not to as well.
Well, my precise thought was "Well, you get missed by 2, you blocked with your shield, the sunrod is dislodged and goes flying 1d6 squares in a random direction". But I'm not trying to establish a ruling here.
The DM is well within his rights here to say no, and the player has to accept that. Yes, he's also well within his rights to allow it, but honestly, the DM is not a bad person either way and he is not a bad DM either way.
I'm not saying what I would do. I'm saying what is reasonable. Either is perfectly reasonable. Its also not unreasonable to say that you could do this, but the sunrod is like a flare in that it is very hot, and so your shield will start burning your arm if you do it. Or to have it fly out or break whenever your shield is hit. Or whatever.
I agree that it's okay for the DM do not allow it, but it's not okay for the DM to "berate the player" for trying to cheat.
> your hand when you're using the shield,
Except that a sunrod does not require that you carry it in your hand. You can glue it to your shield, strap it to the top of your helm like a miner's lamp, stow it down your boot with the top peeking out, hang it from your belt, tie it to your thigh, or even attach it to the haft of your weapon. You will need your hands free to activate it, but after that, you can carry it however you want.
HOW he says it makes a huge difference though. There's a vast difference between "you're trying to bend to rules and screw me over, shut up and play" and "I'm not going to allow it for the following reasons:..."
The DM part of me thinks that this is indeed gaming the system. There really is no point to using a light shield. "I customize my shield so the top interior of it can hold 10 vials, for potions & elixirs. I use this by removing the stopper with my teeth and suck the potion up!"
The player part of me thinks this is fantastic. From here on out, every D&D character I play (and play with) will carry a bunch of sunrods, and will stick an activated one in their belts as standard issue. Never have to worry about darkness ever again, just throw money at it. Light spell? Scintillating Robe? Completely unnecessary.
I think reasonable ideas should be encouraged, not discouraged.
Agreed.
If a rogue wants to pay some extra cash to have a lockpick inserted into the lining of her summonable armor, more power to the player. Pay your 100 gp for the alteration and enjoy!
If someone wants to poke a small hole in their shield and put a sun rod in it, so be it (though if it's a wooden shield I'd make it start on fire).
No, I agree, Kimby. In this circumstance and in most circumstances of this nature I agree with your stance. It can be taken over the line (as all things can) of course, but then should be dealt with differently, but I find this to be reasonable.
There's no reason to deny players this kind of action. Encouraging it makes them feel that their character is unique, truly theirs and creates a feeling of intimacy between them and that which they have created.
I used to be a stickler for stuff (not this kind of stuff, but some stuff). I've realized over time however that that's not really fun for anyone. In all cases where a player asks, "Can I.." the answer should be yes unless there's a really good reason to say no.
Placement of a sun rod as opposed to one of the magic items available at 3rd level that cast continual light and hover near a player is not really a huge balance issue. It's not like these are the magic items legends are made of. They're common, inexpensive, and openly available to be made or bought. So why not let the warrior poke a hole in his shield? There's no good reason to say no here.
It really is satisfying stabbing a zombie in the head with a sunrod and having your lightsource shamble around the battlefield. Now with the level 6 ritual undead servitor this becomes even easier.
By the way Ket, I noticed your sig that you wanted a pony, well, I'll tell you how to get one. You go to the top of the page click on where it says 'My Account' and find where the avatars are. There are My Little Pony avatars. :P
It's an elephant. I named him Pony.
And to respond to TD's oold point before about potions, i'd allow that. But i'd rule that the structural changes in making the shield capable of carrying potions like that weakened it sufficiently that it now has the stats of a light shield, and that it requires a minor action to both uncork (draw) the potion and a second minor to drink it, due to the awkwardness of attempting to drink from an item that is primarily designed for defence.
Well, if this DM didn't like my shield suggestion.. then he DEFINATELY would not like the next place I tell him I stick my Sunrod.
You win the thread.
As for the OP. If the character actually went and paid a craftsman prior to the adventure to build the holder on the shield then nice thinking. If they didn't tell the DM about the holder until inside the dungeon then no i wouldn't allow it since said holder does not exist.
I just sat through a game the other day and saw something I thought was rather disturbing. A player at our table was running a human fighter who uses sword & board style and was entering into a dark cavern with no illumination. The DM asked each player what they were going to use to see. Well our player tells the DM her fighter lights up a sunrod and attaches it to her fighter's heavy shield via a little slot built into it since using a heavy shield prevents her fighter from holding anything in her shield hand. The DM flat out told her she couldn't have it/use it and it circumvented the rules for light shields and allowed players to cheat the rules for heavy shields and etc, etc. He then berated the player for trying to be slick in getting around the rules in a high and mighty DM tone.
I was shocked by this.
Warforged can make any equipment they buy into components without additional cost and therefore makes them look cool and smart. What's wrong with the fleshy players having access to ingenius ways to use their equipment? D&D not a historical game, it's fantasy based. If I had been the DM, I would have said good job for coming up with a way to have a light souce and be able to use your heavy shield. If I were going to be stuffy about the rules, I would at the very least had made her PC pay an additional cost to have the heavy shield upgraded to carry a sunrod.
I think reasonable ideas should be encouraged, not discouraged.
It's not the DMs objecdtion I found annoying, but HOW the DM objected that I found annoying.
Smart players are worth their weight in gold, and uptight DMs have almost no worth at all. I think one or two more replies like that from the DM would have had me telling the DM they sucked and no rule book in the world can make a lousy DM a good one. I would have basically got up and left.
Sometimes you need to smack a jerk right over the head verbally to get them to understand the meaning of 'guidelines'.
The rule books are not RULE books, as the game is a fantasy, and reality and fantasy mix like oil and water normally.
And being an old school wargamer, I can SHOW a stuffy DM what an actual RULEbook looks like.
Lets use some common sense here. A shield is 99% of the time either wood or metal. If you strap fire to the other side it, it is either going to a) burn if its wood b) burn the person holding it if it is metal.
I dunno. That'd have to be some pretty thin metal with one Hell of a heat source (and a sun rod is a light source, not a heat source). Try it. Hold a candle up against a metal trash can lid. See if it actually heats the thing up.
If it does, let it cool down. Then place the trash can on its side and stick the candle to it.
I bet you can check the opposing side of that lid all week long and never come close to burning yourself.
That's really neither here nor there though. Does it really alter the entire game's balance or ruin a game to let someone - one character - the only character in the group that can't see do this? There are magic items that cost 1k that provide light.
This is not a big deal. If the dude wants to make his shield into a light source, all he's doing is being creative, developing his character, and replacing "magic lantern" with a sun rod...
This is really worth the frustration experienced on both ends?
Pffft. Let the dude have a sun-rod shield. That's ridiculous.
The DM is well within his rights here to say no, and the player has to accept that. Yes, he's also well within his rights to allow it, but honestly, the DM is not a bad person either way and he is not a bad DM either way.
Well, generally I don't think it's good DMing practice to just say "no" to something that's feasable. Tying a rope around your sunrod and putting it on your shield is something that you could do in the gameworld, and you should be able to do it in D&D. This isn't after all a computer game where because tying a rope around your shield with a sunrod hasn't been coded that it just doesn't work.
However, I think the best DMing method is to attach drawbacks to it.
It's generally not good DMing practice to say no to physical actions which are entirely possible.
We are, after all, playing the game where people get pissy if you say there should be a Samurai class, right? Why have a class when Fighter will do?
Why make a katana better than a bastard sword automatically?
Yadda yadda
So then why does where he sticks his sun rod become a problem?
His heavy shield could bind around his arm, or it could have a handle that he holds. What does the shield look like in design?
All of these things we don't know, because there are no definitive answers. There don't need to be, regardless of the realistic or historical assumptions.
This is a game, let the game go on.
A wizard can cast Light anywhere. Tying a sunrod on a held or worn item isn't the least gamebreaking.
Doesn't this diminish the usefulness of Light then?
The Player is trying to game the rules, yes (I also fully agree on this point). However, the player is trying to the tell the DM what items he has access to. Allowing that, from my experience, has always been a big can of worms the DM will struggle to deal with in the future once he allows it. I have known many players that would try to tell the DM that they have this or that (generally caltrops, smoke grenades, etc) when there were no rules for them yet. A fellow player attempted to do this in 4th Edition, and the DM was new and had no idea of the ramifications of allowing players to have caltrops. Needless to say, he dissallowed them shortly after reazling they would make minions absolutely useless every single fight.
Coming to the table and then telling me after the game has started, "Oh, my shield has a slotted area for sunrods." would never fly with me. It would be like me showing up to a game and saying, "Oh, well I happen to have this Sword of Dragon Slaying." Any non generic items always need to be run by the DM before they are taken. Its one thing if there are rules for buying/creating a mundane shield with a slot for a sunrod, its another to try and just TELL your DM that you have said item.
I personally would have told said player, in front of the group, that I would not allow it because such modifications to equipment are something that needs to be talked about between the DM and player beforehand. Just because one DM will allow it, doesn't mean all DMs will. Secondly, I would have also pointed out that I was not allowing it because it is obviously sidestepping the written rules on Large Shields and the effect it would have on combat gameplay.
If the players want to do something creative, I definately encourage it. However, they need to explain to me what they are trying to do, and how they are going to do it. If it is reasonable, then I'll run with it. However, if they can't tell me anything more than "I put the rod on my helmet.", then no, I wouldn't. If they are truly being creative, then they can give me some insight into how they see it working, and we can come to a reasonable conclusion on what would be needed to make said action/item/etc happen.
Doesn't this diminish the usefulness of Light then?
Light - At-will cantrip. Lasts 5 minutes, sheds light of 4 squares. Free cast (though only one active at a time)
Sunrod - Item. Lasts 4 hours, sheds light of 4 squares. Costs 4 gp.
If you already have a wizard (or a level 6 Cleric with Holy Lantern), there's little reason to waste sunrods instead of the free stuff (unless you would for whatever reason need the extra light).
Sunrod - Item. Lasts 4 hours, sheds light of 4 squares. Costs 4 gp.
Sunrod - Item. Lasts 4 hours, sheds light of 20 squares costs 2gp (4gp for 2)
If you already have a wizard (or a level 6 Cleric with Holy Lantern), there's little reason to waste sunrods instead of the free stuff (unless you would for whatever reason need the extra light).
Holy Lantern only provides illumination over 5 squares but does provide some added benefits. From a pure light source stand point sunrods win hands down.
So I ask again: Doesn't this diminish the usefulness of Light on top of the already mentioned reason to take a light shield over a heavy shield?
Doesn't this diminish the usefulness of Light then?
Does the fact that a wizard can do melee damage diminish the value of a sword? Does a magic robe diminish the value of a shield?
No, this is a team sport. Anything that benefits the player is a benefit to the player. Period. It doesn't matter how they get to that benefit. They are better than they were before.
This is true of the party too.
No, using a sun rod this way does not diminish the value of Light spells. The spell still does what it is intended to do - let the wizard see when he wants to without carrying extra crap. The presence of a sun rod doesn't mean he can no longer enjoy that luxury.
I'd be curious to know what your stance is on the spells that open locks is considering the argument you just made, Nova.
Does the fact that a wizard can do melee damage diminish the value of a sword?
A sword does superior damage to your fist. Generally people pick the sword over the fist.
Does a magic robe diminish the value of a shield?
Armors have a tendency to stack, light sources tend to just override each other.
No, this is a team sport. Anything that benefits the player is a benefit to the player. Period. It doesn't matter how they get to that benefit. They are better than they were before.
This is true of the party too.
Every party member desires to feel they are bringing something useful to the table and the closer to contributing equally the better they all feel. So my question is what use is the Light power to a party if you can simply spend 2 gold to get a far superior version available to everyone?
No, using a sun rod this way does not diminish the value of Light spells. The spell still does what it is intended to do - let the wizard see when he wants to without carrying extra crap. The presence of a sun rod doesn't mean he can no longer enjoy that luxury.
The basic premise of the question is this: If the sunrod does not occupy a hand then what benefit does the light spell have over it? On top of that I'll add the question: Are those benefits enough to warrant the inclusion of the power or would that space have been better spent on something else?
I'd be curious to know what your stance is on the spells that open locks is considering the argument you just made, Nova.
I don't like seeing clearly superior options available to people. If there is virtually no point in taking B over A then why bother with the space or resources for B? The argument I was responding to was that the wizard can do it so why not let everyone else? This seems really unfair to the wizard player in this situation.
I'm playing a drow swordmage (darkvision, yay) who wears sunglasses (sundark goggles from Races of the Dragon). And the only probem I've had with sun rods was the range. He is a stealthy ninja traveling with light-blasted fools. You can't imagine how annoying it is to skirt the edges of the damned (group) radius to remain in darkness.
I don't like seeing clearly superior options available to people. If there is virtually no point in taking B over A then why bother with the space or resources for B? The argument I was responding to was that the wizard can do it so why not let everyone else? This seems really unfair to the wizard player in this situation.
Wizards do it for free and it is given automatically. It also isn't a limited resource and cannot be taken away. The sunrod must both be bought and runs out.
Light cantrip, you could put it on the shield. That would work just fine by the rules. The area covered in the occupied square and all with 5.
Sunrod. 20 square for 4 hours. 4 gold pieces.
I think the sunrod wins out, but the argument here fails because the light cantrip takes no resources away for being able to use it.
I dunno. That'd have to be some pretty thin metal with one Hell of a heat source (and a sun rod is a light source, not a heat source). Try it. Hold a candle up against a metal trash can lid. See if it actually heats the thing up.
If it does, let it cool down. Then place the trash can on its side and stick the candle to it.
I bet you can check the opposing side of that lid all week long and never come close to burning yourself.
That's really neither here nor there though. Does it really alter the entire game's balance or ruin a game to let someone - one character - the only character in the group that can't see do this? There are magic items that cost 1k that provide light.
This is not a big deal. If the dude wants to make his shield into a light source, all he's doing is being creative, developing his character, and replacing "magic lantern" with a sun rod...
This is really worth the frustration experienced on both ends?
Pffft. Let the dude have a sun-rod shield. That's ridiculous.
I dont think candles are ever going to be your main light source. More like a torch which would indeed heat up a metal shield.
And like I said, I don't have an issue with a sunrod holder if the player thinks of it in town and has a craftsman do the work. Just deciding there is a holder on the shied once they are in the dungeon no that isn't acceptable. It is no different than a player forgetting to buy arrows and wanting them to magically appear.
The one thing I would mention other than breakage of sunrod though is that as I understand it you can't dispel it. The most dangerous encounter I ever played through was mid level characters encountering tactically minded drow. Sure, light cantrips were available and as cheap as chips (we had a sorceror on hand) but the drow, aware of their massive advantage in darkness, had prepared nothing but dispels and light spells to counterspell with that day. Combined with spell-like abilities (Darkness spell effect) and drow poison the party was captured and/or rendered helpless within about five rounds. If the drow hadn't wanted to find out what exactly had been going on the surface (a big magical catastrophe had just happened, with big repercussions for surfacers but pretty much everyone with arcane arts had noticed it happen) it would have been a complete TPK.
But to reward initiative I'd certainly allow the sunrod idea. Just make sure that there's a percentage breakage chance (to allow the light to be negated as light spells can be negated) and allow ranged attacks from a much longer distance (light spells too) - darkvision has a sharp limit, but if you have light on your person then once they have line-of-sight the enemy can shoot/blast you, probably while you still can't see them...
It's one of the reasons most fantasy dungeons have some sort of light source (the old glowing fungus etc etc). Darkness can render a party pretty much helpless if played right.
So I ask again: Doesn't this diminish the usefulness of Light on top of the already mentioned reason to take a light shield over a heavy shield?
If you're willing to pay the dough for all thse sunrods, by all means :D
However.. be sure that when you go to the store. To harrass your DM with inane questions like.. "Do these lanterns have blue tinted glass? I don't want them to be so illuminating." or "Do the lanterns come in stainless steel? I'll be using them A LOT.. and I don't want to have to repair them." No? "Oh, well.. can I get these lanterns enchanted to resist corrosion?"
Add about a hundred more questions.. and the DM might let you just use the stupid Sunrod.
Really people, does what kind of "storytelling" goes on out there?
Doesn't this diminish the usefulness of Light then?
So? AFAIK, there's no limit on how many items can be Lighted while you can only use as many sunrods as you brought with you. Also, in the levels where this debate is relevant, the monetary expenditure for sunrods is at least somewhat meaningful.
Lets use some common sense here. A shield is 99% of the time either wood or metal. If you strap fire to the other side it, it is either going to a) burn if its wood b) burn the person holding it if it is metal.
You don't strap fire to the other side - you strap a sunrod to it, which has remarkable similarities to modern-day glowsticks quite probably including the absence of heat.
My problem is with the warforged... Who can make sunrods or torches into components, and have a feat that provides a bonus for every item they have slotted. It doesn't even require a magic item. They can slot their sunrod, their backpack, their shield, their armor, belt of pouches... And each provides a bonus. That player I let him know it wouldn't work.
I think the sunrod wins out, but the argument here fails because the light cantrip takes no resources away for being able to use it.
If you think the argument fails because of this reason then you've missed the point. I was asking about whether permitting a sunrod to be attached to an item instead of requiring the resource of a hand holding it (or the time to drop it/pick it up) diminishes the usefulness of the light spell.
Yes, of course, he gets some kind of "minor advantage" by not having to drop it and draw his weapon, but that is the entire point of coming up with clever solutions to problems.
The GM was just mad because now, using their brains, the players aren't stuck in a dark, dark cave full of monsters, and the monsters won't get a surprise round most likely.
If you think the argument fails because of this reason then you've missed the point. I was asking about whether permitting a sunrod to be attached to an item instead of requiring the resource of a hand holding it (or the time to drop it/pick it up) diminishes the usefulness of the light spell.
For some reason, I don't think anyone here is going to catch on...
He could just as easily drop the sunrod on the floor where it would continue to work and grab out an item in the same amount of time that he can now.
So no, it doesn't have any impact on "time" in a combat round. Dropping things is a free action.
If he has quick draw or a weapon/sheath that includes the equivalent then it's zero impact, as opposed to "so little impact no one gives a crap."
The solution, if this were presented to me as a DM: "Why, yes, you can have a specially-made heavy shield that has a holster for a sunrod. However, in order to hold the sunrod in such a way that it provides full illumination (not being blocked by the shield) and isn't in danger of getting destroyed the first time the shield is used to block something, the AC bonus is reduced by 1 point. BTW, kids, attaching something as unwieldy as a sunrod to your body will impose a -1 penalty to your Dex modifier, just so you know in advance."
A sunrod weighs 2 pounds and is a minor magic item.
The answer to idiocy is not idiocy of equal but opposing force; were we to actually deem this use of a sunrod to be idiocy.
As a player I'd have a hay-day with a DM that tried this on me, and we'd immediately get into rules lawyering until I got bored and politely pointed out he was a moron, and stopped being interested in the game.
As a player I'd have a hay-day with a DM that tried this on me, and we'd immediately get into rules lawyering until I got bored and politely pointed out he was a moron, and stopped being interested in the game.
Eh, the rule put up above are fairly simple, to the point, and make about as much sense as diagonal movement being equal to horizontal/vertical movement and Small creatures taking up a whole 5-foot square in combat. Next thing you know, players will be asking for things as crazy as weapons and mounts sized for prominent smaller races.
The key to this, as I see it, is saying "Yes, but~" and moving on.(Plus, this solution keeps me from drawing up insidious plans for a shield with an orb, rod or wand slot...)
(Plus, this solution keeps me from drawing up insidious plans for a shield with an orb, rod or wand slot...)
I guess that's the difference here. I'd embrace the player's idea and take it as a clever and reasonable move that even if it wasn't, doesn't really change anything in the game. You would perceive it as something to be thwarted or to "put an end to."
I know which group I'd rather be a part of and I know which group of players I would rather play with. That's a matter of personal choice though I suppose.
Each to their own.
THEN, I would buy metal sphere cages. (Specifically for the animal variety) or just glass spheres (for fungus). I would travel the world for the next fifteen gaming sessions gathering various self-luminating creatures in these spheres. ((If I have to fight other sphere handlers.. and we have some sort of competition where we have to "Catch them all." So be it.. more XP for me.))
Of course, due to my research.. I am well versed in their food, hygene, cardiovascular systems.. what have you. So as to keep them in tip top shape for their slavery so I can have a light source when I dungeon delve.
Then, whenever I was going on a quest.. I would go to the cages in my guild hall, stuff some fey folk, bugs, whatever into their little light cages... err.. lanters.. and drag them on a chain behind me as I quest for glory and riches.
Or...
If I'm feeling particularly philanthropic, I'll breed the little blighters.. and introduce them to their new caves as I clear out the nonesense the DM set against me. This way.. I can retain that all important alignment of Good.
IN FACT... I'll hire a hundred of them as henchmen.. have them all swarm the caverns.. and light the way.
God, the light spell turns out to be particularly un-inventive all on its own.
You cant hold anything else in your hand when using a heavy shield yet you are rewording it so that in essence you are using a heavy shield and something else in your hand. Where did this sunrod shaped slot come from? Was it prepared ahead of time? If it was prepared ahead of time then I would have less of a problem. But if it seems to be more of a case of...
GM: Its dark
Player: I use a sunrod
GM: But you have a sword and shield you don't have any free hands
Player: oh um. my shield has a little slot in it to specifically hold sunrods in place yet at the same time leave no opening for attack through any vulnerable holes in the shield. I just forgot to tell you.
GM: ...
The players might as well say "I tuck it into my belt" Heck that way they dont even have to use their hands at all.
The players might as well say "I tuck it into my belt" Heck that way they dont even have to use their hands at all.
And that's the crux of the issue. Players have been tucking them in their belts (or tying them to shields, or hanging them around their necks, etc) since 3.0. Since the flavor etc on sunrods hasn't changed one bit, there's no reason to think that it's unreasonable for them to continue to do so. Especially when there's an inherent balance to using sunrods anyway (they're a finite resource that costs money that could be spent on other items.)
Oh, and as to the people saying "they're like fire" or "they're burning hot flares," where does it say this exactly? Everybody I know seems to think they're more like modern glowrod which put out little to no heat, given the description.
Its such a minor issue I dont make much of an issue with it. I guess my comment was more directed at people trying to work around a rule system where one isnt really needed when there are other easier alternatives.
I too thought they were just glowrods and didnt give off any heat. Unless I missed something i havent read anywhere anything saying they give off heat. Nor do they need oxygen without flame. For that matter PCs can just activate it and stuff it in a bag when they want to be sneaky and then pull it out when they need light.
My question is if they are burning hot so you clearly cant use them on sheilds that will A) ignite or B) heat the metal... how are you supposed to carry the freaking things!?
That really pretty much sums it up. They obviously either have a handle or aren't hot. I say they're not hot (because it doesn't say one can start fires with it). But in either case, that to me, seems to answer the question of whether or not it would burn a shield.
To me it's no different than "I tie my stuffed dragon to the front of my shield to scare off enemies!"
I've had a retarded dwarf in one of my parties actually do this. The DM didn't penalize his AC, and if he had tried we'd have all looked at him like he was stupid; because he would have been.
BTW, kids, attaching something as unwieldy as a sunrod to your body will impose a -1 penalty to your Dex modifier, just so you know in advance."
What about something as unwieldy as a backpack, then?
PH p. 214: "When you use a heavy shield [...] you can't use your shield hand for any other task." That's the rule. That's it. I don't understand how everyone decided the designers intention with that rule was "you can't ever benefit from any item at all besides your heavy shield and your weapon," and I certainly don't understand how everyone decided it would hurt game balance to allow this.
PH p. 214: "When you use a heavy shield [...] you can't use your shield hand for any other task." That's the rule. That's it. I don't understand how everyone decided the designers intention with that rule was "you can't ever benefit from any item at all besides your heavy shield and your weapon,"...
Let's try another quote, directly before the description of heavy shields:
PH p.214: "You need to use your shield hand to wield a light shield properly. You can still use that hand to hold another item, to climb, or the like."
BTW, the balancing shtick behind the Swordmage's +2 shield bonus to AC? You've got to have one empty hand.
The way the game is written, it seems pretty explicit that you can benefit from a +1 shield bonus to AC and Reflex while holding an item in your shield hand, or a +2 shield bonus by not using that hand for anything. Allowing one thing to be attached to a heavy shield (bypassing the whole reason for light shields to exist) also creates a slippery slope, as you will almost certainly have to make a case as to why it's acceptable to put one thing on the shield and not another of equal or lesser weight.
The hastily drawn up patch I wrote earlier in the topic is a rather sledgehammer-style way to make sunrods not such a must-have item. At a measly 2 gp and 1 Ib., there's absolutely no reason not to load up on these slotless items and forever benefit from a 20-square-radius bright light. If encumbrance becomes an issue, give it to the dwarf. Everburning torches are slightly better because they only give off one-quarter the light.
Perhaps a better ruling would be that the amount of light the sunrod emanates is reduced if not held in a prominent position at head-level (rather than on one side of a slab of metal or danging with your scabbard by your legs). Putting it on your shield will probably cause it to get destroyed with the first blocked hit, at any rate.
Let's try another quote, directly before the description of heavy shields:
PH p.214: "You need to use your shield hand to wield a light shield properly. You can still use that hand to hold another item, to climb, or the like."
BTW, the balancing shtick behind the Swordmage's +2 shield bonus to AC? You've got to have one empty hand.
The way the game is written, it seems pretty explicit that you can benefit from a +1 shield bonus to AC and Reflex while holding an item in your shield hand, or a +2 shield bonus by not using that hand for anything. Allowing one thing to be attached to a heavy shield (bypassing the whole reason for light shields to exist) also creates a slippery slope, as you will almost certainly have to make a case as to why it's acceptable to put one thing on the shield and not another of equal or lesser weight.
The hastily drawn up patch I wrote earlier in the topic is a rather sledgehammer-style way to make sunrods not such a must-have item. At a measly 2 gp and 1 Ib., there's absolutely no reason not to load up on these slotless items and forever benefit from a 20-square-radius bright light. If encumbrance becomes an issue, give it to the dwarf. Everburning torches are slightly better because they only give off one-quarter the light.
Perhaps a better ruling would be that the amount of light the sunrod emanates is reduced if not held in a prominent position at head-level (rather than on one side of a slab of metal or danging with your scabbard by your legs). Putting it on your shield will probably cause it to get destroyed with the first blocked hit, at any rate.
It's not a slippery slope, it's light. that's all.
Player says: I want to socket a light source into my sheild
DM says: Cool, way to be creative
Player says: I want to attach torches to my sheild and gain a damage bonus from the fire
DM says: Funny you should mention that, your character's on fire and dies, no save, nope, your fire resistance 40 doesn't factor in... what have we learned today class? (character death should not actually be used but you get what I'm saying, the DM can put a stop to the slippery slope)
and so long as we're quoting
PHB page 221: Sunrod:This minor magic item sheds bright light to a radius of 20 squares for 4 hours before burning out.
where does it say it requires a hand? this point has been made already, but I feel it need reiteration.
"But Keiichi" you say "it's implied, or logical that you would need to hold the item to gain it's bonus" Nope, not even slightly once it's in use it can be loaded into a crossbow for all I care; now a list of other items you don't need your sheild hand for: Holy Symbol (can be worn around the neck),
Rope once something is tied up and thus the rope is in use you don't have to keep holding it,
a backpack,
a candle torch or lantern: hang them on the wall and see how they still work.
your pants, it doesn't say you don't need your sheild hand, so maybe you do right? wearing a large sheild, no pants for you!
see lots of items that don't require a hand for use.
"But Keiichi" you say again "A backpack is clearly worn on the back with the straps, and a holy symbol is clearly worn on a necklace, pants have belts and candles have holders, they all have something to keep them in place"
Exactly, why can't you attach something to a sunrod to keep it in place? why could a character not have a metal cap fassioned for his sun rod that clips onto one end of the cylindrical rod, and this little cap has a metal tab sticking out with a hole (think about the dice tubes with the red stopper) and tie a string through it that he could then tie to his belt. Characters are people too, if I can think of this stuff, why not they? hell, for kicks, people were complaining that this makes light useless, so we'll assume theres a wizard in the party, well lets just toss in a different cantrip shall we? Mage hand: there you have a sheild, it's being held, it's not at risk and it's perfectly allowable by the rules. So long as that's allowable and reasonable lets think about other ways that we could hold a sunrod without a hand... maybe in a sheild. If it doesn't hurt anything, why worrying about it?
hell, for kicks, people were complaining that this makes light useless, so we'll assume theres a wizard in the party, well lets just toss in a different cantrip shall we? Mage hand: there you have a sheild, it's being held, it's not at risk and it's perfectly allowable by the rules. So long as that's allowable and reasonable lets think about other ways that we could hold a sunrod without a hand... maybe in a sheild. If it doesn't hurt anything, why worrying about it?
Does this sound like a good argument: The wizard can do something only available to him so why not let everyone else? Even though I'm fairly certain mage hand isn't capable of holding a shield for the shield bonus let's pose some similar statements: Clerics and wizards both get Ritual casting for free but everyone likes rituals so lets give it to everyone. Or how about Fighter's Weapon talent? It adds +1 to hit with your choice of 1h or 2h weapons but everyone likes to hit so lets give that feature to everyone.
Since nobody seems to understand the point I originally started it's not what is being done but the argument that was being used to support it's inclusion. Titanium Dragon already confirmed what most of us new, the player was gaming the system and I was curious as to where you (not you directly but anyone who wished to answer) would draw the line as a player.
The only reason to use a light shield over a heavy shield is the ability to hold something in your hand? What about the two-point armor check penalty? And, is "something" suddenly always (or mostly) supposed to be interpreted as "a sunrod"? (If so, why doesn't the rules text say you have to hold a sunrod to keep it glowing?)
Sure, a specially made slot appearing on a shield without paying a craftsman money for it may lead to Bad Things, but at most the DM could've said "you can't do it quite like that, get more creative". Strapping a sunrod to, say, your head is completely within the rules of the game, and is analogous to Real Life things like mining helmets. All you need is rope, which is on the item list in the PHB. (Maybe some folded cloth, if you want it to be comfortable...)
Seems to me the point here isn't about whether the sunrod thing should technically be allowed. It's about the DM being a self-important jerkass.
Does this sound like a good argument: The wizard can do something only available to him so why not let everyone else? Even though I'm fairly certain mage hand isn't capable of holding a shield for the shield bonus let's pose some similar statements: Clerics and wizards both get Ritual casting for free but everyone likes rituals so lets give it to everyone. Or how about Fighter's Weapon talent? It adds +1 to hit with your choice of 1h or 2h weapons but everyone likes to hit so lets give that feature to everyone.
My apologies on the first part, I wrote that poorly, the mage hand is holding the light, not the shield. as for your other statements, the comparison is a little off, compairing a cantrip to a major bonus or a feat is a little skewed, none the less though, those are all things that can be worked for to obtain, want ritual casting? take the feat, want that plus 1? raise your attack stat, use a blade weapon with a higher prof bonus, take the wand, or a dagger as a rogue, want a little bit of light, make a specially crafted item. I was simply showing that there are other (and actually several) ways to do the same thing, so why is the one that doesn't have rules written for it expressly so bad? do we need the rules to hold our hands and tell us the only way to have fun?
I note though that you only mentioned my poorly worded statement. What about my other points, do you agree with them at least?
Also I disagree that he was gaming the system, because A) does that mean that any thinking outside the rules or inginuity on the players part is gaming the system? and B) we are again all assuming that the sunrod needs to be held, which it does not.
as for your other statements, the comparison is a little off, compairing a cantrip to a major bonus or a feat is a little skewed
The principal going into the argument is the same even if the end result is far greater.
none the less though, those are all things that can be worked for to obtain, want ritual casting? take the feat
That feat is a cost for gaining a feature similar to what the wizard had. The wizard also gains a feat to use elsewhere.
want that plus 1? raise your attack stat, use a blade weapon with a higher prof bonus, take the wand, or a dagger as a rogue, want a little bit of light, make a specially crafted item. I was simply showing that there are other (and actually several) ways to do the same thing, so why is the one that doesn't have rules written for it expressly so bad? do we need the rules to hold our hands and tell us the only way to have fun?
It's an issue of game balance at this point. Is the wizard balanced with everyone else if you permit this type of behavior? Or does he end up getting the short end of the stick?
Also I disagree that he was gaming the system, because A) does that mean that any thinking outside the rules or inginuity on the players part is gaming the system?
Everything needs DM approval before it is permitted
we are again all assuming that the sunrod needs to be held, which it does not.
The sunrod does not need to be held to emit light. Once ignited it will emit light for 4 hours. The question is what does it need to qualify as an attended item, particularly to properly illuminate a room. In the end it's up to the DM as to what qualifies but here's a simple experiment: light up a lantern or something similar in a dark room or if capable in the outdoors. Leave it one spot and wander around it for a bit then try hanging in various places on your person and repeat with another person looking around too (but they don't get a light source).
The only reason to use a light shield over a heavy shield is the ability to hold something in your hand? What about the two-point armor check penalty?
In a game where level-appropriate skill DCs are now very, very low, and skill training grants a very decent bonus...yeah, ACP is kinda pointless now. Wearing a light shield lets you carry a potion, elixir, revenant ankh, lantern, etc., or lets you perform any activity requiring two hands. A heavy shield grants an extra +1 to AC and Reflex explicitly by disallowing the use of the shield hand for anything. I get the feeling this rule got ignored alot in the previous edition of the game, as well.
Strapping a sunrod to, say, your head is completely within the rules of the game, and is analogous to Real Life things like mining helmets.
Well, other than looking like a DB, that would work. You'd have to tie that sucker in an amazing fashion to keep it from moving around or falling off with the sudden movements of combat, but that's besides the point. At least we're getting to an idea that has the sunrod placed where it's light can actually spread (and not be partially blocked by a shield or a body).
When playing as a human fighter entering into an unlit dungeon. I start by lighting a sunrod (making whatever hands necessary available) and then tossing said sunrod down the hall (within 30ft if possible). Then re-equip and move forward. Wash Rinse Repeat as necessary.
Logic behind this is for several reasons.
1. I need to see
2. Carrying light limits options
3. Carrying light often makes you the target
4. Light may alert enemies, but more importantly it may even let you know that there are some there (or possibly magical effects such as darkness).
He's been known to pop a sunrod and tie it to an arrow, then shoot said arrow down the hallway. A couple seconds later, we now have 20 squares of light down at the other end of the hall.
That's innovative and all, but not sure how a 1 lb iron rod affects flight capability, much less trajectory and so forth. Plus, you're illuminating the origin of missle (and shooter and nearby party) fire pre-flight. It's quite possible you could get it down "there" and whatever it strikes would ignite the alchemical light therein w/out exposing your position as the origin of the light in question.
Oh, and sunrods shed 30ft, not 20 for what it's worth. Hope your DM wasn't screwing you guys on the 10 ft gap. 30 ft...sneak attack, move action, etc. A whole lot of tacitcal leeway from just 10 more feet.
Other light sources or strategies vs. darkness:
-Darkvision on the rogue. Vital. Sneaking rogue w/ a light source is not very discrete (often). The enemy will know soon enough he's there. See Spotting Distant Light (Underdark). Plus, they know you need light to see, so you just gave them a big leg up.
Furthermore, if said rogue engages light-sighted enemy, sundering or extinguishing of enemy light sources = blind enemy = flat-footed enemy = :D Give them nothing, take from them everything and all that jazz.
-Weapon Augment Crystals (MagItmCmpdm): least = candle light, lesser = 20ft, greater =30ft IIRC. So, it's MW weapon, +1, then +3. Put it on your main melee, go to town. Interchangeable is nice too.
-Light Shield, though nice for utility aspects such as open door, item retrieval, or in this case, holding torch/sunrod, will cost a pt of AC, or 1 integer if you prefer...and I've seen entire encounters change from a Bless (+1).
-Porter: a hireling, squire, whatever. Your glorified torchbearer.
-Ebon Eyes (Spell Cmpndm), awesome, very versatile spell. Recommended, especially vs. magical Darkness or in conjoined attack w/ it.
-Light rock/dagger/tiny object: very simple, no wind veer, etc. Close your fist on it, stealth mode, open, plenty of light. Practical, cheap cantrip, and can be used ranged easy enough.
Continual Flame rocks/objects also fit the bill too, just moreso.
-The "head slot" shtick: seems a little hammy to me IMO, but it's not my game, so, to each their own. Otherwise, exploitation of the head slot in terms of WBL and tactical feasibility.
It revealed a group of Kobolds in the darkness and I went beserk with my sword.
If the DM doesn't let you wear sunrodes, just try the spell "Light" or just throw your sunrode out. It works for my 4e group.Oh, and sunrods shed 30ft, not 20 for what it's worth.
In 4e they illuminate 20 -squares-. As in, 200 ft. radius, or twice as much light as a campfire.
The more I think about it, I think my problem with this whole situation is less about gaming the system and more about how unmatched the rods are compared to other light sources.Since nobody seems to understand the point I originally started it's not what is being done but the argument that was being used to support it's inclusion. Titanium Dragon already confirmed what most of us new, the player was gaming the system and I was curious as to where you (not you directly but anyone who wished to answer) would draw the line as a player.
Sounds a little contradictory, doesn't it?
Also, how does a comment from TD "confirm" anything?
The sunrod does not need to be held to emit light. Once ignited it will emit light for 4 hours. The question is what does it need to qualify as an attended item, particularly to properly illuminate a room. In the end it's up to the DM as to what qualifies but here's a simple experiment: light up a lantern or something similar in a dark room or if capable in the outdoors. Leave it one spot and wander around it for a bit then try hanging in various places on your person and repeat with another person looking around too (but they don't get a light source).
That's a funny one - how is the sunrod lying on the floor (which is generally its position with the good old drop&draw routine) better than it being mounted on your shield for lighting purposes? Are you going to calculate how the huge dragon's shadow obfuscates creatures lurking behind it next?
In a game where level-appropriate skill DCs are now very, very low, and skill training grants a very decent bonus...yeah, ACP is kinda pointless now. Wearing a light shield lets you carry a potion, elixir, revenant ankh, lantern, etc., or lets you perform any activity requiring two hands. A heavy shield grants an extra +1 to AC and Reflex explicitly by disallowing the use of the shield hand for anything. I get the feeling this rule got ignored alot in the previous edition of the game, as well.
So the main point is that the light shield allows you to use items that require manipulation to work.
In 4e they illuminate 20 -squares-. As in, 200 ft. radius, or twice as much light as a campfire. The more I think about it, I think my problem with this whole situation is less about gaming the system and more about how unmatched the rods are compared to other light sources.
Yeah, pretty much. At least on medium heroic levels, I don't really see any advantage in lowlight vision anymore as long as you don't have an entire party with it.
BTW, 20 squares would make the things have a radius of 100 feet, not 200.
BTW, 20 squares would make the things have a radius of 100 feet, not 200.
Er, meant to say diameter. :embarrass
The way you deal with it is either get used to the fact that you won't be gaining any advantage over the stock rules (no matter how slight), or you can take the petty approach and every time you're at a smith, pay them some nominal fee to attach straps, slots, hooks, couches, stirrup loops or whatever else to every slot in your equipment. Then abuse the "intended" rules ad nauseam. The DM will hate you for it, but if he took a more relaxed interpretation of the rules, you wouldn't be looking for that solution.
I had a DM once who insisted that archers could fight with their bows in melee (without penalty of any sort). This basically circumvented the rules for ranged characters, since the disadvantage of using ranged weapons was that it provoked AoOs; a major factor in deciding which kind of weapon you'll select proficiency. This is the sort of DM that didn't encourage realism nor ingenuity but rather had sheer blindness for the design intent of the game and the actual contest between a forged melee weapon and an unwieldy, knotted bow of wood.
Sometimes, believe me, it's for the best when a DM sticks to the rules. In your specific case OP, I would have to say I'd personally slide for your character. I might even stipulate that if he blocks a blow it might dislodge the sunrod. DM style goes both ways; inside the rules it tends to be consistent and outside the rules can head to ridiculous situations that don't favor you at all.
For some reason, I don't think anyone here is going to catch on...
The solution, if this were presented to me as a DM: "Why, yes, you can have a specially-made heavy shield that has a holster for a sunrod. However, in order to hold the sunrod in such a way that it provides full illumination (not being blocked by the shield) and isn't in danger of getting destroyed the first time the shield is used to block something, the AC bonus is reduced by 1 point.
Now it's the same AC as a light shield, (light shield: +1 shield bonus, large shield: +2 shield bonus)which you could use while holding the stick in your offhand anyhow.
BTW, kids, attaching something as unwieldy as a sunrod to your body will impose a -1 penalty to your Dex modifier, just so you know in advance."
Crap, now it's worse than a light shield. (+2 becomes +1 and we lose a point of dex) This seems like a poor decision.
Type 1: "It's not in the rules? You're trying to gain an advantage over me! Never! You should be penalized for even suggesting it! These fights between you and me have to be fair! What do you mean, it's not you four against me? Of course it's you four against me!"
Type 2: "Hmm, does this significantly affect the balance of power? Yes? Sorry, can't let that fly. It doesn't? Sure, I'll allow it."
I have laughed right in the faces of DMs who seem to feel that it's their job to "foil" the players. Luckily, you can learn a lot from them. Unluckily, they seem to be waaaaay too common.
Now it's the same AC as a light shield, (light shield: +1 shield bonus, large shield: +2 shield bonus)which you could use while holding the stick in your offhand anyhow.
That was the idea. An on-the-spot knee-jerk ruling, you could say, and not one I'm going to use. (I'll probably just ban sunrods entirely so torches and lanterns actually get some use).
Crap, now it's worse than a light shield. (+2 becomes +1 and we lose a point of dex) This seems like a poor decision.
Er...no, this was a badly written idea trying to keep players from attaching the stick to their bodies and not their shield (and not at all cumulative).
Think I'll just delete that original post since even I don't think it's a good ruling anymore.
Are you going to calculate how the huge dragon's shadow obfuscates creatures lurking behind it next?
As it's not outside the possibility of a rogue in the party to try to hide in said shadow I figure I'm going to have to in order to reward player ingenuity.
As it's not outside the possibility of a rogue in the party to try to hide in said shadow I figure I'm going to have to in order to reward player ingenuity.
Rogues can't stealth in a dragon's shadow since it wouldn't give total concealment. :P