AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

I understand that the note on an item "OOC may only be used by ___" means that a character with scads of UMD who does not meet the specified requirement may still not use the item. Does it, however, mean that a character cannot ICly use or at least equip it?

The specific example I have in mind concerns the ring of Hanali Celanil, which is OOCly restricted to elves. Xavi (a half-elf) has, in addition to her dedication to Sharess, long been a follower of Hanali (as well as Lliira and, to a lesser extent, Sune). As well, "Lady Goldheart is also widely revered by half-elves born of joyous unions, in honor of the love that brought their parents together." So I see no problem with RPing that Xavi wears Hanali's ring, just so long as I dont actually equip it (and thereby gain a benefit that is OOCly excluded).

I can think of other items, however, where an OOC restriction might also be an IC restriction - for example, a Paladin wearing a Palemaster item (or vice versa). I guess the question of whether it's ICly usable would be a judgement call on the part of the player, again so long as the OOC restriction was respected.

Am I understanding this correctly?

I am pretty sure with being half-elf you are considered to be able to wear any item for Human only or Elven only due to both are in your blood. Of course that is just my view. *waits for dm*

Finally a use for half-elf? Purdy please allow it, DMs, says I.

Not quite sure what you meant there, Ruce. Been drinking again? :wink:

The ring itself is OOCly usable only by elves. So, as Xavi is a half-elf, I will not be equipping it on her as that would violate the OOC restriction. But can she ICly wear it? ie. can I emote *Xavi wears a ring of Hanali Celanil on her right hand*. In other words, does an OOC restriction translate to an IC restriction - is it physically impossible IC for Xavi to don a ring of Hanali Celanil?

How does that OOC restriction translate IC? I expect that it will vary on a case by case basis. A paladin may be unable to equip that PM item because it burns his skin, makes him vomit, or whatever. In some cases, though, there may be no IC restriction in spite of there being an OOC one. See what I mean?

Obviously, in the particular case of the ring of Hanali, the OOC restriction could be changed to include half-elves (and I'm not asking for that), but my question is a more general one about exactly what OOC restrictions mean from the POV of the IC character.

I would say you can use it xavi ICly. I am rather leery on allowing things that shouldn't use the OOC restrictsion to use them,but in your case you could use it, I bet you could have a request to use it OOCly as well and it would be accepted. just my thoughts on it.

The UMD level requirement can't be adjusted manually, so the OOC restriction is sort of a high UMD requirement.

Hanali should have half-elves allowed, though.

I was always under the impression that OOC restrictions -doesn't- translate ICly. It's there because if it wasn't, there would be insanely powerful combinations being used left and right.

Also, yes. Pretty much all the elven rings would likely allow half-elves. They should be set to...

Elves
Half-elves
Non-evil

I am pretty sure the OOC restrictions are indeed a stronger IC restriction. Meaning that regardless of UMD or whatever method of "fooling" the item, a character that does not meet the requirement can not use the item. It is not just about them not getting the benefits IC but useing it period. However, in Xavi's case, being half-elf she has elven blood and should be able to use "elf only" items. I can not speak with authority on the Amia rules regarding this but by D&D rules that should be allowed.
"Elven Blood:For all special abilities and effects a half-elf is considered an elf. Half-elves, for example, can use elven weapons and magic items with racially specfic elven powers as if they were elves." -- Players Handbook 3rd ed.
So Xavi should be golden with her elfie ring.

Nekhy wrote:

The UMD level requirement can't be adjusted manually, so the OOC restriction is sort of a high UMD requirement.

Carter wrote:

I was always under the impression that OOC restrictions -doesn't- translate ICly. It's there because if it wasn't, there would be insanely powerful combinations being used left and right.

Yes, I understand this reasoning.

But there must be some reason that people dont equip those items IC. If it's an uber-UMD thing, then the logic would be that the enchantments on the item prohibit it from being equipped by those who dont meet the conditions, or that you can equip it but you're of the wrong mind-set to actually understand how to use it. Or you dont know the elvish command word, or you didnt know that you had to put three drops of your blood on it during the dark of the moon to activate it, or whatever. Am I trying to make IC sense out of something OOC?

EDIT: I think the above is pretty much what garzgoyle was saying.

Reduced to its essentials, though, my question is, Can an item with an OOC restriction be equipped (ICly, not OOCly) and worn, though not used? To take an extreme example, could a paladin don a necromancer's cloak and Xavier's bone shield and try waltzing into Tarkuul? (That also touches on questions of disguise, paladin codes and alignment gates, but with DM oversight....).

And again, on a personal level, I'm not petitioning to have the ring of Hanali changed. I'm just asking if Xavi can emote that she wears it.

Xaviera wrote:

But there must be some reason that people dont equip those items IC. If it's an uber-UMD thing, then the logic would be that the enchantments on the item prohibit it from being equipped by those who dont meet the conditions, or that you can equip it but you're of the wrong mind-set to actually understand how to use it. Or you dont know the elvish commad word, or you didnt know that you had to put three drops of your blood on it during the dark of the moon to activate it, or whatever. Am I trying to make IC sense out of something OOC?

Any or all of the above.

Quote:

Reduced to its essentials, though, my question is, Can an item with an OOC restriction be equipped (ICly, not OOCly) and worn, though not used? To take an extreme example, could a paladin don a necromancer's cloak and Xavier's bone shield and try waltzing into Tarkuul? (That also touches on questions of disguise, paladin codes and alignment gates, but with DM oversight....).

No. If you have an item with an OOC restriction on it equipped, you are using it, and you will have your face chewed off.

On a personal note, though, I do not like OOC restrictions on any item save the WM weapons. Never have.

Last edited by corypx on Mon, Mar 30 2009, 18:35 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Yossarin wrote:

Xaviera wrote:

But there must be some reason that people dont equip those items IC. If it's an uber-UMD thing, then the logic would be that the enchantments on the item prohibit it from being equipped by those who dont meet the conditions, or that you can equip it but you're of the wrong mind-set to actually understand how to use it. Or you dont know the elvish commad word, or you didnt know that you had to put three drops of your blood on it during the dark of the moon to activate it, or whatever. Am I trying to make IC sense out of something OOC?

Any or all of the above.

Quote:

Reduced to its essentials, though, my question is, Can an item with an OOC restriction be equipped (ICly, not OOCly) and worn, though not used? To take an extreme example, could a paladin don a necromancer's cloak and Xavier's bone shield and try waltzing into Tarkuul? (That also touches on questions of disguise, paladin codes and alignment gates, but with DM oversight....).

No. If you have an item with an OOC restriction on it equipped, you are using it, and you will have your face chewed off.

On a personal note, though, I do not like OOC restrictions on any item save the WM weapons. Never have.

I think she is asking if she can say she has it on but not put it on, but wants to know if the OOC restriction on some items is a balance restriction and nothing to do with RP and how it effects it, like you put the ring on but the god does not grant you thier power.

He's asking if he can rp using it, not put it on and use it. Just if Xaviera could rp wearing the ring.

Yossarin wrote:

Quote:

Reduced to its essentials, though, my question is, Can an item with an OOC restriction be equipped (ICly, not OOCly) and worn, though not used? To take an extreme example, could a paladin don a necromancer's cloak and Xavier's bone shield and try waltzing into Tarkuul? (That also touches on questions of disguise, paladin codes and alignment gates, but with DM oversight....).

No. If you have an item with an OOC restriction on it equipped, you are using it, and you will have your face chewed off.

No, no, no, no. I'm not asking about using it OOCly, or gaining benefits from it by illegaly donning an OOCly-restricted item. I'm not asking about equipping it, in the OOC sense of putting that item into one of your equipment slots.

I'm asking, at the most general level, can a character *emote* that they are wearing/carrying an OOC-verboten item without OOCly putting it into an active slot (maybe even leaving that slot empty so as not to get the benefit of something else at the same time). If it is a case of, say, not knowing the command word to activate the powers, then they should be able to, right? Because then it will just be a normal unpowered item to them.

Of course, if someone is going to try this to sneak in some place, they should have DM oversight.

EDIT: That's correct, Cory & Zante.

Just RP a mundane ring of Hanali without an actual item in your whole inventory?

Considering how Hanali views half-elves, they should definitely be allowed to use it.

However, to answer your question, I would think it would be a no. If an item is only meant for a class or race and is OOC restricted, I would think you would -not- see other people being able to use them.

Xaviera wrote:

I'm asking, at the most general level, can a character *emote* that they are wearing/carrying an OOC-verboten item without OOCly putting it into an active slot (maybe even leaving that slot empty so as not to get the benefit of something else at the same time). If it is a case of, say, not knowing the command word to activate the powers, then they should be able to, right? Because then it will just be a normal unpowered item to them.

Player: "Can I pretend to wear this Ring of Regen + 5, only it doesn't work because I don't have the command word?"

DM: "Sure, why not?"

Player: "Yay!"

*Player gets narced on by another player during a PvP incident, where the player claims to have DM-approved Regen +5 and miraculously got right back up after a RP'd beatdown*

DM: "What the hell is this about me approving Regen +5?"

Player: "You said I could emote wearing the ring, but the powers wouldn't work unless I knew the command word. Well, I talked to Methusaleh Darkstaff, and he rolled Lore + 60 and he told me what the command word was!"

DM: "How the fuck did he know what it was?"

Player: "Because he has the lore skill! And you told me I could use it if I knew the command word!"

DM: "No, technically, I told you couldn't use it because you didn't know the password, but still..."

Player: "UNFAIR! DMs never let players do anything!"

Etc.

Well, most anyone with enough UMD should be able to use most anything.

As long as the (IMO, unfortunate) OOC restrictions remain, though, there's no rationalizing around them. I'm sure there's no fundamental objection to making elven deity rings available to half-elves, or anyone really, but it's more a matter of dev priorities. It's a lot of work to find all those items and change them, or so I've come to understand.

Hendrack's solution is the most obvious one, to me. Xaviera can certainly wear a ring of Hanali, just not the one in your inventory with an OOC restriction. You can freely role-play possessing items you don't actually have in your inventory, within reason. (You obviously can't have the Artblade of Cormanthor in your possession, but a cleric is free to role-play carrying around a holy symbol, etc.) Unless there's a pressing reason your character must wear the ring with the powers, specifically, it doesn't seem like a problem to me.

thats a magic ring thats only is for power, this is a question about a deity ring, like the god might get pissed if you put it on and smite you, powers on the ring or not because its thier symbol.

So if the question she asked was something like

"will Hanali smite me for puting on a ring with her symbol because the OOC rules on the other ring says I cant"

No god will smite any mortal for wearing any item. Some unique artefacts possibly excluded. None such will end up in the hands of Amian PCs, though, so that's irrelevant. If they even notice you wearing their symbol (which is highly unlikely, as they don't necessarily have means of tracking such items and even the vision of greater deities is limited to a certain, not-that-huge number of places at any given time), they're probably just happy that they're visible among mortals. I reckon gods get worship points for even as little things as someone wearing their symbol or thinking about them.

IC, the so-called deity rings are simply magic items crafted in honour to the deity in question, probably by their respective clergies. After creation, priestly magic items aren't fundamentally different from arcane magic items, though. They're of little more interest to the deities than a Wand of Fireball with Deneir's bearded face painted on it.

IronAngel wrote:

IC, the so-called deity rings are simply magic items crafted in honour to the deity in question, probably by their respective clergies. After creation, priestly magic items aren't fundamentally different from arcane magic items, though. They're of little more interest to the deities than a Wand of Fireball with Deneir's bearded face painted on it.

see I was not sure if they were just a magical ring and had a symbol of a god or if the god was the one granting its power(its how I assumed the OOC rules on rings came into play)

Charles1810 wrote:

I am pretty sure with being half-elf you are considered to be able to wear any item for Human only or Elven only due to both are in your blood. Of course that is just my view. *waits for dm*

While off the general topic of OOC restrictions, I really think that half-elves should be able to use elf-only items.

corypx wrote:

thats a magic ring thats only is for power, this is a question about a deity ring, like the god might get pissed if you put it on and smite you, powers on the ring or not because its thier symbol.

No, this is a question about the general nature of OOC restrictions on items. The fact that a deity ring was at the center was either coincidental, or merely relevant because it was the catalyst for Xaviera's broader question.

StandingBehindYou wrote:

Charles1810 wrote:

I am pretty sure with being half-elf you are considered to be able to wear any item for Human only or Elven only due to both are in your blood. Of course that is just my view. *waits for dm*

While off the general topic of OOC restrictions, I really think that half-elves should be able to use elf-only items.

Yes, I reckon there are many items whose restrictions (mechanical or OOC) ought to be revised and tweaked. It's just wishful thinking, though, because that's a lot of items Disco would have to go through one by one.

Corpyx, I think that's the line of thinking that originally got the OOC restrictions on the items. So you're not far off. It's just not how divine items work in the game; they're magic items like any other, just created by a priest. The cleric's patron grants him the spell he casts on the item during crafting, but after that, it's just "magic". There's no distinction made between a +1 Longsword crafted by a cleric and one crafted by a wizard. The gods themselves don't really concern themselves with such trivial things, I wager.

So my personal understanding here is that my 35 UMD, on ray means he cannot use OOC restricted items? Yet in PnP UMD allows you to bypass magical restrictions. The highest restriction being allignments. Of course such restrictions do have a price in PnP. How about implementing one for amia?

You can't manually adjust the UMD requirements though, hence the need for OOC restrictions. In PnP your DM can say "Nope, not enough UMD", but here there aren't enoug DMs to follow everyone around all the time.

As for Xavi's idea, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Yurell wrote:

You can't manually adjust the UMD requirements though, hence the need for OOC restrictions. In PnP your DM can say "Nope, not enough UMD", but here there aren't enoug DMs to follow everyone around all the time.

As for Xavi's idea, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

and they could not add a extra line of text that says
"you need a UMD of 30+ to use this item" why?

Yurell wrote:

You can't manually adjust the UMD requirements though, hence the need for OOC restrictions. In PnP your DM can say "Nope, not enough UMD", but here there aren't enoug DMs to follow everyone around all the time.

As for Xavi's idea, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Granted you cannot adjust the umd requirements but the umd system on amia is broken to the extent few people actually go above 10. I believe those that invest should be allowed to have there rewards.

Quote:

umd system on amia is broken to the extent few people actually go above 10.

1: *NWN

2: No, most people go at least 20-25.

I have a suggestion.

Remove the OOC restrictions. :shock:

I have a suggestions.

Remove the OOC restrictions. :shock:

can you actually use certain items on amia with umd or are they all restricted ooc? cause id really strugle to figure that, plus in powerbuild thread sum1 said 30 umd so can use anything, that is pure rulebreak no?

eyes people, op doesnt want to equip mechanicaly just rp wise, why wouldnt a half elf be able to use elven gear anyways?? ive yet to find a decent usable helm myself.

Xaviera wrote:

Not quite sure what you meant there, Ruce. Been drinking again? :wink:

.

Of course I had, but by the time of that post, I would only have had a few dainty ladylike sips of my first Pimm's of the evening.

What I mean is being a half-elf sucks mechanically, and when you're RPing I can't imagine it's an endlessly refreshing novelty to have everyone assume you're human because NWN models are limited.

Thus I think it'd be nice of the DMs to cut a little slack and say half-elf is half full, for the purposes of the elven diety rings. Which is as Carter pointed out, best handled by editing the bios on them, but until that time, cut slack.

I dunno if there are any rings that are human only, but if so, they'd get half-elf added to their OOC permissions too.

tao_myst wrote:

can you actually use certain items on amia with umd or are they all restricted ooc?

In my totally imperfect memory, it seems to me like I encounter far more items with non-OOC restrictions than with OOC ones.

(So that would be a "yes," there are items with restrictions that can be bypassed with UMD.)

so...you can use spellcaster equipment even if it says only useble by etc aslong as it doesn't say ooc only useble by _ ?
--
example wand of doom, or something.

only useable by wizard/sorcerer
only useable by human

but not ex...
--
wand of infinate doom

ooc only useble by wizard level 20+ and elves, on pain of death
lv 20
only useable by elf
only useble by wizard
--

or am I way off?

Uberuce wrote:

Xaviera wrote:

Not quite sure what you meant there, Ruce. Been drinking again? :wink: .

Of course I had, but by the time of that post, I would only have had a few dainty ladylike sips of my first Pimm's of the evening.

What I mean is being a half-elf sucks mechanically, and when you're RPing I can't imagine it's an endlessly refreshing novelty to have everyone assume you're human because NWN models are limited.

Thus I think it'd be nice of the DMs to cut a little slack and say half-elf is half full, for the purposes of the elven diety rings. Which is as Carter pointed out, best handled by editing the bios on them, but until that time, cut slack.

I dunno if there are any rings that are human only, but if so, they'd get half-elf added to their OOC permissions too.

That would be really good (and fair) IMO.

Yossarin wrote:

On a personal note, though, I do not like OOC restrictions on any item save the WM weapons. Never have.

A +2 Bastard Sword that requires level 15, casts Acid Splash OnHit for 1d4 damage, breaking Expertise every time you hit something, with a 1/day Acid Flask and 1/day Poison. You can mythal better than that, and yet that's the only WM Bastard Sword in the module. That's crapetty crap crap and I hope it was removed long ago.

I don't really have a problem with the idea of OOC restricted items. It's the utter junk, and the stuff that makes no sense (OOC Restricted boots with +5 AC when anyone can wear +5 Sun Souls?), that I have problems with.

This issue of OOC Restrictions being ridiculous has been brought up before and, as I recall, so was the objection that there's too many items in-game for a quick-fix to be made. Since that time how many new OOC Restricted items in the form of deity rings been added?

I think the deity rings are a nice thing to have OOCly restricted purely on the ground that it's a perk of being an aligned follower or in that alignment branch.

Plus it makes the non UMDers feel better about themselves, of which there are admittedly few and I shamelessly admit I am one of.

So, you can actually IC wear a ring with the wrong alignment without actually wearing it and just saying the ring doesnt grant any off its power. Or what actually happens if a character tries to wear a OOC restricted item? Their limbs and finger blow off? <_<

TormakSaber wrote:

I think the deity rings are a nice thing to have OOCly restricted purely on the ground that it's a perk of being an aligned follower or in that alignment branch.

Plus it makes the non UMDers feel better about themselves, of which there are admittedly few and I shamelessly admit I am one of.

I think that's good, but most items IMO that have it besides these do not need it. They just need an OOC warning of a certain raised UMD skill.

Yurell wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

I think the deity rings are a nice thing to have OOCly restricted purely on the ground that it's a perk of being an aligned follower or in that alignment branch.

Plus it makes the non UMDers feel better about themselves, of which there are admittedly few and I shamelessly admit I am one of.

I think that's good, but most items IMO that have it besides these do not need it. They just need an OOC warning of a certain raised UMD skill.

Nah, because that OOC warning will be exactly the skill level needed to wear the item in the first place, and the engine handles that for us.

TormakSaber wrote:

I think the deity rings are a nice thing to have OOCly restricted purely on the ground that it's a perk of being an aligned follower or in that alignment branch.

Plus it makes the non UMDers feel better about themselves, of which there are admittedly few and I shamelessly admit I am one of.

If it weren't for the fact that the goody-goody rings are awesomeness while the evil-evil rings are complete shit.

Mr Mago wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

I think the deity rings are a nice thing to have OOCly restricted purely on the ground that it's a perk of being an aligned follower or in that alignment branch.

Plus it makes the non UMDers feel better about themselves, of which there are admittedly few and I shamelessly admit I am one of.

If it weren't for the fact that the goody-goody rings are awesomeness while the evil-evil rings are complete (censored).

Payback for evil getting the best gear in shops! :twisted:

Gravemaskin wrote:

Mr Mago wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

I think the deity rings are a nice thing to have OOCly restricted purely on the ground that it's a perk of being an aligned follower or in that alignment branch.

Plus it makes the non UMDers feel better about themselves, of which there are admittedly few and I shamelessly admit I am one of.

If it weren't for the fact that the goody-goody rings are awesomeness while the evil-evil rings are complete (censored).

Payback for evil getting the best gear in shops! :twisted:

I've noticed this recently. I usually play Evil-types so never noticed until I made an LG Sorc that there doesn't seem to be too many items available in the shops. I can equip an Evil Wizard with end-game gear in Tarkuul, but, aside from an Amulet, my Sorc couldn't even get gear in the Gauntlet or Abyss that was better than what some random critter dropped at level 10.

what can i say? evil knows how to stock the shelves.

Last edited by Xaviera on Tue, Mar 31 2009, 11:18 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Terra_777 wrote:

So, you can actually IC wear a ring with the wrong alignment without actually wearing it and just saying the ring doesnt grant any off its power. Or what actually happens if a character tries to wear a OOC restricted item? Their limbs and finger blow off? <_<

That was the general question that I posed based on my specific question about the elf-only ring, ie. can you put it on at all (ICly/RPly but not OOCly) and use it as part of a disguise ("Oh, he's wearing a ring of Velsharoon, he must be one of us").

Based on Yoss's post a ways back, one option (if only to save the DM's sanity) would be to assume that one flat-out cant even ICly equip OOC-excluded items (they slip off, wont go on, burn painfully, make you sick, whatever). But then does it become a metagaming issue when an OOC restriction is used ICly? ("Here, hold down this nasty looking person and see if we can jam this ring of Velsharoon on his finger. Hah! It fits! He must be evil! Kill the *%$^%@#!") This becomes 'Detect Evil' (or Detect Necromancer, or whatever) by another route.

So the simplest thing would be to say, yes you can wear/equip OOCly-restricted items ICly but you just cant equip them OOCly. That is, you cant actually use them to get the in-game benefits - putting an OOCly-restricted item in one of your equipment slots is still A Bad Thing (tm). And, if you are gong to claim ICly to be wearing an OOC-restricted item, you should not have anything in that slot ICly (or at least nothing that gives you any in-game powers). Now, whether a Paladin can equip a ring of Velsharoon to sneak into their hideout would be one of those 'are you playing your class/alignment properly' questions for DMs to rule on when considering alignment shifts. Seem reasonable?

Barely relevent aside: I had to laugh my socks off when I was looking for Frank's PvP gearset and saw the Warrior Preist's Garb, an ancient item that's been around as long as I can remember but never paid attention to, and is +2DEX, +2WIS, +3 Discipline, +2 Uni saves, +3 Concentration. No armour AC, so you need to supply that yourself, and between that and the name, we conclude: Someone thought Cleric/Monks needed help.

Ah, the old days. All you needed to do to get uber gear is check out what the designers played and copy them.

Xaviera wrote:

Terra_777 wrote:

So, you can actually IC wear a ring with the wrong alignment without actually wearing it and just saying the ring doesnt grant any off its power. Or what actually happens if a character tries to wear a OOC restricted item? Their limbs and finger blow off? <_<

That was the general question that I posed based on my specific question about the elf-only ring, ie. can you put it on at all (ICly/RPly but not OOCly) and use it as part of a disguise ("Oh, he's wearing a ring of Velsharoon, he must be one of us").

Based on Yoss's post a ways back, I think that (if only to save the DM's sanity) one would have to assume that one flat-out cant even ICly equip OOC-excluded items (they slip off, wont go on, burn painfully, make you sick, whatever). But then does it become a metagaming issue when an OOC restriction is used ICly? ("Here, hold down this nasty looking person and see if we can jam this ring of Velsharoon on his finger. Hah! It fits! He must be evil! Kill the *%$^%@#!")

Well, if it does slip off burn painfully etc, I would assume it stops being metagaming and becomes a legitimate test. Personally, I prefer the idea that it goes on and does nothing.

Last edited by jameslocke on Tue, Mar 31 2009, 11:22 AM, edited 1 time in total.

I don't know how the rest of the DM team feels, but I imagine anyone could wear those rings; they just wouldnt get the associated blessings from the deity. We represent that by the OOC restrictions on the item. If a LG cleric asked me to strip all the properties off a ring of Bane, I'd do it to allow him to wear the ring without getting the benefits.

(edited my post after Ruce & Yurell posted. I'm bad)

It would be like trying to use your looted Goa'uld stuff without having any naquadah in your blood. It'd be inert jewellery.

IC "use" of OOCly restricted items?

Who is online