Lycar's page

How can something be fantastic if it is commonplace and easy to accomplish to the point it's probably as commonly taught a maneuver in every fighting school as holding a sword and parrying?

Bit late to the party, but I hope you do realise that wrestling is a legitimate martial art that was taught in medieval fighting schools? And that throws and grappling moves totally are part of fighting, even if both combatants have weapons?

See https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Fechtbuch_(Talhoffer)/Kapitel_8

and https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Fechtbuch_(Talhoffer)/Kapitel_3

It would be more fantastic if people would not be using grabs and trips when fighting. If anything, NPCs enemies are not using them enough usually.

Sure, pulling these moves off against mythical creatures many times your size and weight is the fantastical part, but if our heroes can not defeat these critters, how is not every fight against those ends in a TPK? You don't have a problem with the party defeating that six-limbed, fire-breathing lizard, but you balk at them using all the tricks they learned, including unbalancing (don't need to flip the thing on its back to represent a 'trip'!) and hindering it?

Sooo... all this back-and-forth and the conclusion is, Battle forms (who are mainly a caster thing) don't allow casters to make martials obsolete again. And even for martials, who get access somehow, they are at best a sidegrade.

In other words, they are exactly where they need to be.

If your players have trouble with teamplay, may I point you to this guy?

He has a lot of videos with combat examples like this one. It shows off a lot of stuff PCs can do themseleves, and how they can use their abilities to support their fellow party members.

If anyone is interested, the 'alchemical cartridges' that made PF1 Gunslingers possible have their real-life equivalent in the "Dreyse needle gun". The "first breech-loading rifle to use a bolt action to open and close the chamber".

Not only did it allow a soldier to reload much faster, it also allowed him to do that while lying down, whereas a musket needed to be reloaded with 'gravity assist', meaning you had to at least be kneeling to pour your gunpowder down the muzzle to reload. Not a problem behind fortifications, big problem when out in the open.

So PF2 muskets having a reload of 1 (representing about 2 real world seconds) is a bit silly. They should have gone with 'alchemical cartridges' again IMO, especially seeing that firearm ammunition is already described as "typically a prepackaged paper cartridge, including wadding, bullet, and black powder,..."

But hey, whatever.

David knott 242 wrote:

Isn't Qadira the western tip rather than the eastern tip of the Empire of Kelesh?

May the flames of the Dawnflower burn out your error-illuminating eyes!

Heh, still says "Qadira represents just the eastern tip of the continent-spanning Padishah Empire of Kelesh" to this very day. *Casts Resist Energy (Fire) from scroll*

Lycar, my dude, if you are going to make no effort to understand the actual things people are saying, could you at least not be so antagonistic while doing so?

You will forgive me for getting angry at having the same, old tired arguments rolled out again and again for 'casters deserving Master weapon proficiency', without any willingness to concede some spellcasting power in return.

The fantasy of the glass cannon blaster caster can only exist with the martials being mere meat-shields, protecting the caster while they do 'all the real work'. This also implies that said meat-shields are capable of tanking without any caster support, as supporting the meat shields is not blasting foes. This is not this game.

Instead, the martials are very competent at dealing damage, but can not in return withstand the counter attacks of most monsters without some sort of support, simply because monsters have bigger numbers. The casters are the ones enabling the martials to succeed, but not by trivialising encounters, but by 'levelling the playing field', so to speak.

PF2 is designed so that martial and caster classes need to support each other to succeed, because of the lessons learned from D&D 3.x /PF1.

Casters do emphatically not need better spell to-hits or more damage. They do plenty of damage. But what they do need is maybe about a 2 point or so increase in spell DCs. Because what really makes a caster feel powerful is seeing the Crit Fail effects of their spells more often.

And I'm not talking about double damage from blasting spells, I'm talking about debilitating debuffs actually debilitating on-level foes on more often then 5% of the time. Bosses are still protected by the Incapacitation trait (which serves just as much to protect PCs from lower-level monsters with debilitating abilities for that matter), but on-level and lesser foes should be taken out by de-buff spells more often.

Yes, this still doesn't do anything for the blaster archetype, but it would go a long way for caster players to actually feel like a true master of the arcane (or primal, or divine, or occult) arts, bringing their foes low before them. All that whining about not being good enough at weapon strikes or not doing enough single-target damage is just distracting from that issue, and it is not doing casters any favours.

Arachnofiend wrote:

Master in spellcasting is equivalent to Expert in martial attacks. Note that all of the real casters are Legendary, only the pseudo-martials like the Summoner and Magus are Master.

I mean, I "get it", but its really not.

Because it does nothing to address to the problem on a functional level. No matter how to slice it, a martial who takes a casting archetype will be more accurate/successful at casting by 20 than a caster who takes a martial archetype will be at swinging a sword.

That +2 matters, and its a design asymmetry which is a mistake in my option.

Wrong.

Martials get Mastery at weapons. They top out at +36 to hit, Apex Item and everything. Someone who starts with a 16 stat, gets no Apex Item and only Expert gets to +32.

Casters get Legendary at spells. They top out at +35 spell attack and DC, Apex Item included. There are no bonus items for spell attacks. Someone who starts with a 16 stat, gets no Apex Item and only Master gets to... +31.

You were saying? That's right, martials are just as bad at casting as casters are at swinging weapons. Fancy that. And if anything, a Fighter's spell to-hit being a full 6 points behind their weapon to-hit makes it even less desirable to dabble in spells.

But yeah, sure, keep saying that casters are worse off with weapons then martials are at casting spells...

You mean the same fighter who can get 8th level spells and 3 each of up to 6th level? The same fighter that single handedly warps the the entire game around himself because "they are only allowed to be the best"?

Yeah ignore all the AoE abilities that Fighter can do at will. Ignore all the AoE abilities that martials can do at will, once every 4 turn, or once every hour. Ah but a caster doing single target damage 4 times a day is too much!

You mean the 8th level spells that everybody can get? Those 8th level spells? That are, by the way, always behind in DC and spell to-hit, to the tune of -4 at lv. 20. Seeing how much gnashing of teeth and grousing there is from actual casters because they can't hit Jack or 'always have their spells resisted'...

No, caster dedications are not stealing the real casters' thunder. Dedications aim at getting some utility spells and self buffs. So the real casters don't have to sacrifice their own slots for that. You are welcome.

But yes, sure, compare the damage a Fighter can do with Impossible Volley at 18th level. Composite Longbow 4d8+3(2) Str. +3d6 runes +6(8) Greater Wpn. Sepc. for 37 (38) av. damage in a 10' burst (16 squares). At a -2 to to-hit no less.

9th level Fireball? 18d6, avg. 63 in a 20' burst. 44 squares. Not. Even. Close.

And the fact that the Fighter can do it without expanding spell slots matters only if the adventuring day isn't over after the casters are out of top-level slots anyway.

So yeah, the martials are not going to eat the caster's AoE sandwich any time soon. Nor should they.

Yes, one martial class has to be the 'best' martial class. That burden falls upon the shoulders of the Fighter. So the poor sucker gets all the hate, all the legendary envy. It's lonely on the top. Just ask Pun Pun...

breithauptclan wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

There are tons of reactions that would be pointless if they happened after the trigger (Shield Block).

Shield Block specifically says that it happens after the attack. Before the character doing the blocking takes damage, but the attack has to happen, be successful, and deal damage first.

The attack has to happen, be successful and not deal damage otherwise Shield Block is pointless.

And what about Nimble Dodge?

Your ruling breaks the game.

What about Nimble Dodge? Just read the trigger in the feat description:

"Trigger: A creature targets you with an attack and you can see the attacker."

The poor , maligned Rogue must declare the use of his reaction even before the to-hit roll happens. If that misses, or the -2 adjustment fails to change the result, the Rogue's reaction is still used up.

From my understand, the reason in PF1E and 5E that casters are so OP is not because of their damage, it's because their save or suck spells reshape reality so hard it trivializes encounters by simply...wishing they did not exist at all, or something to that effect.

Nobody is asking for OP damage. At most we are asking to be allowed to be good single target blasters...and that's IT. I'm not taking Haste to cast on the Fighter at level 3, I'm not taking Air Walk or Fly, or Wall spells. I'm taking Lightning Bolt, Cone of Cold, Fireball and that's it all day every day and I'm chucking them at the boss. Maybe that is selfish, but why isn't the Fighter who doesn't even have skills selfish because all he does is swing a sword?

Don't you still get it? That is the one thing that martials are allowed to be good at. The. One. Thing! To be allowed to be good single target damage dealers.

Fighters are good at that. And guess what? They pay a price for it. The price is: Not being able to cast spells. So the Fighter is selfish because he has the audacity to be the gold standard for martials? Just because he isn't good at anything else? Really?

So you don't care about Haste and Fly and all that? You just want to mix it up with damage spells? Well... Try a Magus then. They do get pretty good single target damage, and they use damage spells to get it. Of course they do not get many spell slots. They mostly use their cantrips actually. Oh and they are classified as martials, but eh. You said you don't care about that, so, congratulations I guess, got your wish.

Lycar wrote:

But for some people, it is never enough, is it? Some people just can't stand other people getting nice things, unless they can have them too, no matter how many nice things they already have, can they? PF2 is designed to tell them 'No!', and that is what makes it different to 3.x and PF1. If you want OP casters, these are the games for you. PF2 is not.

...but TTRPGs aren't the only things playing with those tropes. You get them a lot in videogames, too... and in a lot of those videogames, the mage is the classic glass cannon. They're fragile. Against tougher foes, they need a fighter to hide behind and a healer to keep that fighter alive. They have a limited tank - they cast and cast and then they run out and then they're kind of useless until they can find a way to recharge... and they get the payment back from those things in AWESOME ARCANE POWER (ie, damage). They get lots and lots of damage as long as the mana lasts. Those classes, in the games they're coming from? They're generally pretty balanced. They're no more or less likely to be OP than any of the other classes.

That's the thing though: The fantasy of the glass cannon blaster caster is only viable in MMORPGS because they are balanced by the tank. The damage sponge, the aggro attractor. The brick(wall) that stands between the monsters and the blasters.

This is most emphatically not the fantasy martial players want in a TTRPG. They want something like Conan. Maybe Merlin. Hercules possibly. Or even Archilles. Someone who is awesome in their own right, heroes to whom snivelling, cowardly wizards are but sidekicks, who occasionally help out with a magic trick, but otherwise better hide behind the broad shoulders of the Alpha Male Hero.

See the problem? These can't coexist in the same game. People who come to a TTRPG with a MMPRPG mindset must be disappointed, because their role can not exist in a game that caters to the martial hero.

At the same time, however, the martial heroes can not be allowed to be so powerful that they can overcome all challenges on their own, without help from anyone else. That too will disappoint many people who harbour power fantasies of self-sufficience.

No, PF2 is a cooperative game, where a whole is more then the sum of its parts, a puzzle game if you will, where players combine the abilities of their PCs to overcome the challenges put in front of them.

And while you can use an 'american screwdriver' to hammer in a screw in a pinch, however messily, hammering in a nail with a screwdriver is a lot less effective.

But you can balance this by making screwdrivers free and hammers limited. You want to save your hammer for when you need it. Don't waste it on screws if you have unlimited screwdriver.

This is literally the meme of you had us in the first half.

Starting on point two your whole thing is literal nonsense. Just because someone wants to play a damage caster does not mean that they are selfish. Just like someone wanting to play a utility character doesn't mean they don't want to be the main character.

This doesn't even have to do with superhero but straight up just how the stories of great wizards are. No one everyone wants to play the guy who is just following around big guy to make sure he gets where he needs to be. Some people want to play the person who uses a rocket launcher and flamethrower to solve problems (blaster casters).

Finally, damage has always been measured in total party effort. The idea that it wasn't is insane. What PF2 did was make it so the numbers range with a +/-2 instead of +/-10 making things a lot less swingy. The reason why casters aren't allowed to deal damage has nothing to do with "hogging combat monster", its entirely because people like you incorrectly assume that a caster dealing good damage 3-5 times a day somehow is "being a damage hog". All while ignoring that people in other editions complain about support casters invalidating combat, not damage casters.

People who want to play damage casters must make up their mind:

A) Be a Martial in all but name and do martial damage in a blasty way... But give up on being a caster and getting to bend reality. A Magus goes a lot that way.

B) Accept that they do not get to upstage martials at their own, damn, thing, so do not get to eclipse martial single target damage.

Unfortunately, the number of people who are so entitled that they demand to get their damage cake and eat it too is too. Damn. High. These people absolutely are being selfish! They want to be the Angle Summoner with everybody else being BMX Bandits. Well, PF2 is not the game for them, and they do not get to demand it being changed to bow to their whims.

The insult to the injury is that casters actually are potentially very good at inflicting damage, just by virtue of having AoE spells alone. If the GM never throws hordes at them to incinerate with Fireball, that is a GM problem, not a PF2 problem.

But for some people, it is never enough, is it? Some people just can't stand other people getting nice things, unless they can have them too, no matter how many nice things they already have, can they? PF2 is designed to tell them 'No!', and that is what makes it different to 3.x and PF1. If you want OP casters, these are the games for you. PF2 is not.

And no, it is simply not true that massive damage casters were not a problem in PF1, just look up builds like 'Cindy' or 'The Mailman'. It was just that compared to the ludicrous number of ways casters had to break the game otherwise, over-damage casters paled as a problem in comparison. Just because people didn't complain about them as loudly doesn't mean they don't exist. So your claim is somewhat disengenious.

So... Sifting through the detritus trying to find something useful in this conversation, I am seeing:

Spellcasters are more complex than many martial classes, but are not more powerful - and may be worse at the dealing damage part of the game unless a particular set of circumstances all arise.

So, for those who feel that way, what do you propose to do to remedy that?

Nothing. I'd just play PF 1 / D&D 3.x, because that's what these games are: More complex classes reward system mastery with more power. It is basically impossible to break the game with a martial class, it takes only a modicum of effort with a caster. CoDzilla anyone? Also, PunPun says 'Hi'.

The whole point of PF2 is that all classes are supposed to work at roughly the same power level. The classes that have fiddly mechanics, the 'puzzle classes', they are there for people who like puzzles.

Think of it as a difficulty setting in a video game:

Easy is for the people who just wanna play through the story. Fighter/Barbarian, go wreck faces, wham, bam, thank you mam.

Hard is for the people who want to beat a game. The kind of people who think Dark Souls is too easy on default difficulty. These people crave that sort of challenge, and Wizards and Alchemists exist.

But at the end of the day, your reward will have been having played through the game, no more, no less.

But when someone is telling me that charging a spellcaster the equivalent of an entire consumable so that they can have the opportunity to learn a new spell - even though the rules say that nowhere ... and then tells me that my reading is not RAW ... sarcasm is my natural response.

Ah, but the rules also do not say that you don't pay extra for access to the spell formula, so checkmate. /s

But yeah, it is called 'Scribe a Spell' and not 'Get a Spell' for a reason. The 2 spells casters get on level-up are free, everything else will have to be acquired somehow. And the closest equivalent we have is acquiring a construction formula to learn to craft a thing:

"You can buy common formulas at the Price listed on Table 6–13, or you can hire an NPC to let you copy their formula for the same Price. A purchased formula is typically a schematic on rolled-up parchment of light Bulk. You can copy a formula into your formula book in 1 hour, either from a schematic or directly from someone else’s formula book. If you have a formula, you can Craft a copy of it using the Crafting skill. Formulas for uncommon items and rare items are usually significantly more valuable—if you can find them at all!"

'Buying a formula' is akin to buying a scroll, and 'hire an NPC to let you copy their formula for the same price' is probably what Ravingdork's GM did. The only difference is that sribing spells into spell books costs extra. Oh and it can fail because nat.1s happen.

Lycar wrote:

Fighters are, of course, well equipped to trip with the Knockdown and Improved Knockdown feats. While the latter is a lv. 10 feat, the Trip is automatic on a melee hit.

Knockdown itself offers a MAP-free trip attempt after an initial melee hit. Since Fighters gravitate towards having a good Athletics score, this is worth a consideration.

Knockdown is pretty good at low level. I made a goblin fighter with knockdown and improved knockdown. Very good strategy with a fighter. Fighter and barbarian are the two classes I've seen take the best advantage of tripping or knocking down because it is so easy to build as part of your attack sequence where you get to use your highest attack hit with all your bonuses while tripping as part of the same action. That is a very useful feat combination.

If you're a fighter, barbarian, or monk, I would definitely looking into building a trip specialist as it is an optimal build for those classes.

There is also the fact that, say, a ranged Rogue doesn't need to spend any actions making his target flat-footed when his Fighter buddy does it for him. And the damage from a Rogue's sneak attack makes up for the attack you sacrifice. Never mind the other party members also having an easier time hitting.

Combat Grab also flat-foots the enemy, and if you combine a Trip with a Combat Grab, you can really mess up an enemy's turn, or have another chance to flat-foot the enemy if the trip fails.

Basically, Fighters can chose between attacking AC or Saves to Trip/Grapple, which can make all the difference.

Fighters are, of course, well equipped to trip with the Knockdown and Improved Knockdown feats. While the latter is a lv. 10 feat, the Trip is automatic on a melee hit.

Knockdown itself offers a MAP-free trip attempt after an initial melee hit. Since Fighters gravitate towards having a good Athletics score, this is worth a consideration.

Lycar wrote:

Mathmuse wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

Disrupting Actions, CR 462 wrote:

Disrupting Actions

Various abilities and conditions, such as an Attack of Opportunity, can disrupt an action. When an action is disrupted, you still use the actions or reactions you committed and you still expend any costs, but the action’s effects don’t occur. In the case of an activity, you usually lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of that turn. For instance, if you began a Cast a Spell activity requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity.
...

Is this relevant?

In my example of the second Stride subordinate action of a Sudden Charge activity being disrupted, the Stride was disrupted but the Sudden Charge was not disrupted.

It is very relevant, seeing that your example directly violates the quoted rule: Lose 1 action, lose the whole activity.

So the monk disrupts the whole Sudden Charge, stopping the Barbarian dead in their tracks and wasting all 2 actions spent. Because it is the Sudden Charge that gets disrupted, not a Stride action that happens to be part of it.

The line in the Disrupting Actions dies not say, "Lose 1 action, lose the whole activity." It says lose the activity, do not get a refund on the costs. An activity spends a number of actions from the three-actions-per-turn budget, and those are lost

Yeah I could have worded that better but please re-read what Baarogue said: "In my example of the second Stride subordinate action of a Sudden Charge activity being disrupted, the Stride was disrupted but the Sudden Charge was not disrupted."

So I pointed out that, even if it is one of the Strides pulling the AoO, it is still the whole Sudden Charge that gets cancelled.

But that is not really my point. My point is: even when I hit with three crits (I don't roll that good usually) and all my other attacks, the night hag wasn't going down. My problem isn't that I feel bad because my character went down (that happened often enough before), my problem is my damage output feels pitiful (especially compared to the hag).

SuperBidi already mentioned it, but you have to keep in mind that the martial classes are very closely balanced for damage output in PF2. Since the Flurry Ranger can do a lot of attacks, every individual attack is correspondingly weaker. A critical hit with a d6 Agile weapon is about as good as a regular hit with a d12 weapon outside of static bonuses. On the other hand, you have more opportunities to make the static damage count, so there is that.

It is generally not possible to one-shot enemies outside the lowest of levels. In return, most enemies will likewise not be able to drop a PC in just one round of attacks.

However, as far as tactics are concerned:
SOLDIER-1st already hinted at it, but if your enemies' actions are worth more then your own individually, it becomes more important to deny the opponent their actions, rather then bringing your own attacks home.

Think of it as trading a pawn for a rook in chess: If you can inflict 20 damage with a hit, and the enemy 30, if you forgo an attack to deny the enemy theirs, you are basically preventing 10 damage to the party. Tripping, grappling and even shoving enemies can force them to either suck up penalties or spend actions countering them.

Sure, if that only costs them their 3rd action, it will not make their first two attacks a round any less deadly, but many monsters have special abilities that require 2 or 3 actions to perform. And if that 3-action attack can, say, inflict 60 damage to the whole party, then your sacrifice of 20 damage just means the party is 40 damage ahead.

Do you have any martial controllers in the party? Can the Monk do trips, grabs and shoves to force enemies to waste actions? Slow spells? Heck even things like Demoralise and Intimidating Strike at least lessen then chances for enemies to hit and crit. How is your party set up for that sort of thing?

Baarogue wrote:

Disrupting Actions, CR 462 wrote:

Disrupting Actions

Various abilities and conditions, such as an Attack of Opportunity, can disrupt an action. When an action is disrupted, you still use the actions or reactions you committed and you still expend any costs, but the action’s effects don’t occur. In the case of an activity, you usually lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of that turn. For instance, if you began a Cast a Spell activity requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity.
...

Is this relevant?

In my example of the second Stride subordinate action of a Sudden Charge activity being disrupted, the Stride was disrupted but the Sudden Charge was not disrupted.

It is very relevant, seeing that your example directly violates the quoted rule: Lose 1 action, lose the whole activity.

So the monk disrupts the whole Sudden Charge, stopping the Barbarian dead in their tracks and wasting all 2 actions spent. Because it is the Sudden Charge that gets disrupted, not a Stride action that happens to be part of it.

Nope, I am not contradicting myself nor contradicting the rules right there. I should clarify what "inherit" means in this context. Inherit means that it copies the traits from another action.

...
Imagine a barbarian using Sudden Charge to charge at an enemy wizard. But on his second Stride, he passes an enemy monk minion who uses Stand Still reaction against the barbarian, triggered by that Stride. The monk gets a critical hit, which disrupts the Stride. The barbarian stops short, out of reach of the wizard.
But only the second Stride is disrupted, not the melee Strike that follows it. And Sudden Charge calls out that the Strike does not have to be against a target named at the beginning. Thus, the barbarian Strikes the monk minion instead.
If Sudden Charge did inherit the move action from its subordinate Strides, then the monk would have been able to disrupt the entire Sudden Charge because it would be a move, "Trigger A creature within your reach uses a move action or leaves a square during a move action it’s using." This would cancel the rest of the Sudden Charge, including the Strike.

Tautology much? 'I say that subordinate actions being disrupted does not disrupt the whole action/activity, therefore disrupting a subordinate action does not disrupt the whole action/activity'.

The whole point of subordinate actions is that they combine multiple actions for a reduced overall action cost. They become, in fact, their own actions/activities. Therefore it does not follow that an ability that expressively disrupts an action/activity should not be cancelling the activity in its entirety.

If we accept that Strike + Reload for a bow become their own 1 action activity, and that disrupting any one of the subordinate actions cancels the whole strike, then the same goes for Sudden Charge.

Furthermore, your own example contradicts your #5 on the list again. Sudden Charge happens to include 2 Stride actions. If your argument was valid, then Sudden Charge would not provoke an AoO since non-ranged strikes don't, and the Strides, as subordinate actions, do not trigger, since: "The containing action does not inherit the traits of the subordinate action.", in this case, being Move actions.

So, if you argue that Suden Charge still triggers AoO for containing a Stride action, then you must concede that a ranged Strike with a Reload-0 weapon also triggers AoOs by virtue of containing a Reload action.

If, however, the bow-shot is supposed to have lost the Manipulate/Interact trait upon being bundled with the Strike action, thus no longer provoking outside of being a ranged attack, then not only does MSS negate all reactions towards the Strike, it would also mean that Sudden Charge is no longer eligible to be disrupted for using a Move action (still ought to trigger for leaving a threatened square though).

See the problem there?

Core Rulebook pg. 461 wrote:

Subordinate Actions

An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.

Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn’t use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.

Subordinate actions break the costing rule of three actions per turn.

Let me convert that into a list:

(5) The containing action does not inherit the traits of the subordinate action. For example, Twin Feint is not an attack; rather, it contains two attacks. Likewise, the subordinate action does not inherit the traits of the containing action.

Yeah, contradicting yourself right there.

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

Reload is always an Interact action:

Reload
Source Core Rulebook pg. 279 3.0
While all weapons need some amount of time to get into position, many ranged weapons also need to be loaded and reloaded . This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity, or you can spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn..

No it’s not. It says right there in the text you quoted that Reload 0 has no interact actions.

Haven't we been over this? No interaction happening would mean no reload happening would mean no ranged Strike happening. Reload 0 means that the reload interaction costs 0 additional actions on top of the 1 action for the Strike itself. No more, no less.

I think you are thinking about this backwards. MSS doesn't stop Ranged Strikes from provoking entirely, it only stops them from provoking by virtue of them being ranged strikes. It doesn't stop any other trigger as far as I can tell.

The feat states that "...your ranged Strikes don't trigger Attacks of Opportunity, or other reactions that are triggered by a ranged attack.".

I would like to hear your reasoning for why this feat supposedly does not do what it says it does.

The game has the granularity for an action to include 2 subordinate actions. It does this frequently, it just needs to state that is what is happening. In the case of reload, we specifically get language that counters this idea by telling us a weapon with 0 reload requires 0 interact actions.

See, this right there is where your hang-up is: Zero does not mean 'nothing'. Zero is a number. The fact that a weapon has a reload entry to begin with informs us of the fact that, yes, that weapon needs to be reloaded. And thus an Interact action does indeed happen.

The numerical value in the entry informs us about how many of our usually 3 actions per turn we need to spend to perform that reload interaction.

In the case of bows, that number happens to be zero. So we have to spend zero of our 3 actions-per-turn on reloading a bow, and 1 action to actually shoot it. Effectively, it is 2-for-1 deal: Do 2 things (reload and shoot) and pay 1 action. So we pay the price of zero actions to perform the reload, but we do indeed perform the reload, because zero is still a price to pay and not 'nothing'.

It is not exactly intuitive, but that is why the invention of the number zero is an important milestone in mathematics.

Remember my earlier example about not having a shield bonus when not wielding a shield? Distinctively different from having a shield bonus with a numerical value of zero. The bow is the other way around: It does have a reload number, it just happens to be zero. But that still means it does have to reload, and thus an interaction happens.

The whole 'Medicine can heal entire parties between fights' thing is just a result of 'Martials's daily limit are their HP pool' simply not being true once wands of CLW become affordable in previous editions.

Even outside of wand spam, sucking up the Cleric's spell slots for healing, still basically meant 'we are at full health until we run out of Cleric spell slots'. Now there is a skill for that, and Clerics are no longer just ambulatory first aid kits, a.k.a. healbots.

As far as the length of the adventuring day being limited by spell slots, well, Cantrips being decent now means that technically, casters too can be casters all day long. Just not with particularly impressive spells.

So wait... this ability more or less tells us that the FULL statblock and all related modifiers from opponents should always be just... openly available... or at the very least, it would be for PCs with this (and similar) ability. That kinda (not even kinda, more like completely) blows even the BEST CASE SCENARIO of literally ANY FORM of a Recall Knowledge Check out of the water since for this to work the player would always HAVE to know the AC, Skill DCs, Save DC, Perception DCs and therefore know the exact bonuses they have to all such Skills, Saves, and Perception.

That is unless this info is only EVER supposed to be exposed when these kinds of abilities are ABLE to be used ... but still, that means that the amount of info dump that is available at all times when just such a PC exists is, and let me be clear about this, MASSIVELY and profoundly game-changing...

It's called player / character knowledge segregation. Just because you may be able to sing the Monster Manual backwards doesn't mean your toon does. Basically, the Knowlege/Lore check tells you what your character knows, and is supposed to inform your roleplaying.

It's the same thing with knowing the damage roll before you decide to use a shield block. It's supposed to not make shield blocking a 'Gotcha!' moment, but it can create some weirdness.

Oh and things like Reactive Shield are in the same boat really. Technically, your character also doesn't know by how much a monster beat your AC with its attack roll, but since these abilities are specifically being called out for triggering when they would actually make a difference...

Honestly, it is right there:

"When you Treat a Disease or a Poison, or someone else uses one of these actions on you,..."

The first half ought to be clear enough: Whenever your toon uses the Treat Disease/Poison action, the benefits of the feat apply, period.

In addition, the feat is so awesome that it even helps the character themselves, when they happen to be the patient rather then the doctor.

As for the first sentence, flavour text or not, implying anything, the same reading applies:

"You learned folk medicine to help recover from diseases and poison,"

You are the doctor helping your patients get well. That is the core use of the Medicine skill, period.

"and using it diligently has made you especially resilient. "

In addition, the feat is so awesome that it even allows the practitioner themselves to benefit from it.

And honestly, the name of the feat implies no such thing as only being relevant to the PC possessing it. The feat makes a recovery robust. Which recovery? Why, the recovery the use of the Medicine skill affords the creature it is being performed upon. Which is usually a person different from the one performing the skill.

It is hard to give any advice about how you should approach your GM about this, but it seems like your GM is balking at a non-magical feat being "too good". Perhaps they are used to editions where anything fancy is purely the purview of magic, and mundane skill use is simply, well, mundane.

If that is the case, maybe it helps pointing out that PF 2 tries hard to not make magic and casters overshadow non-casters, and that is why skill feats (which are available to everyone) are meant to actually be good. Just point at the Legendary uses of some skills and ask if these are okay to take and watch their reaction reading up on them.

Edit: Maybe it helps pointing out that they are hurting the party by not allowing the feat to apply to the party?

Just as an aside, StD may be a 15th level skill feat, but most people only get skill feats at even levels, so effectively lv. 16 for non-Rogues/investigators.

Personally, the idea of being a true Lycanthrope in that world. Because of the Curse, no matter what else you do, you will go insane and try to kill and eat people (at least those who don't share the curse).

So you either try to fight the curse, but you will never be able to get rid of it as long as you live, no matter what you do, and if you screw up locking yourself up on the nights of a full moon, people will die. If you are lucky, a slayer gets to you first.

Then again, hey, wolves gonna hunt, no matter what. Could as well make the most of it. After all, when you can do something (violently permanent) about that corrupt guard/sheriff/judge/whatever and you don't, well that would make you the a#!#@+%@.

Why, you'd basically be doing people a favour! Get your kill, society gets rid of an a+@*&#&&, it's win-win! Just don't look too hard at what these people were actually doing, wouldn't want to muddy the waters with them having reasons and whatnot...

In other words, how easy and seductive it would be to lean into the curse and willingly become a total monster. At least even murder-hobo PCs usally have the good graces not to pretend to be particularly good guys.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

My dice have been with me for 20 plus years. They worship me and roll the way I tell them.

Oh yeah, mine too. Except, they give me the rolls I Need, not the rolls I Want.

Apparently, I need to roll just 2 shy of the target number fairly frequently. It must teach humility or something.

In PF2, if those 2 points would have been covered by the target being flat-footed or otherwise de-buffed, they may be trying to teach teamwork.

As for dice, the d20 I have must pull double-duty both for D&D style games where higher is better, and another system where you try to roll at or below the target number to succeed. So far they have been rolling pretty balanced, so I can't complain.

But yes, sometimes just throwing a handful of dice at the enemy is soo satisfactory.

But this is clearly different - Wish allows you to create an effect that has a "power level in line with an arcane spell of 9th level or lower". The question here is "does Meteor Swarm, but dealing cold not fire damage, have a power level in line with 9th level arcane spells" - if you answer yes, you have to be saying that the cold damage is the source of the increase in power level; the flexibility is being paid for by the 10th level spell slot.

You are forgetting that the flexibility already lies in being able to cast any arcane spell other then another 10th level spell, and on top of that any spell up to 7th level of spell lists you don't even have access to otherwise.

Now bending and twisting those spells on top of getting access to them in the first place may be more flexibility then the 10th level slot pays for.

The original question is: 'If in all the spells accessible by Wish, a player does find many that are a solution for the problem at hand, but not the ideal/optimal solution, is allowing the player to further bend and twist a spell to 'optimise' it covered by the Wish spell's power or not.'

Ultimately, every GM has to answer that for themselves, but I will say again, if only casters get to play that game, you are back at creating a caster/martial imbalance that PF2 tries so hard to avoid.

Since the thread is off the rails anyway at the moment...

This is touching on the old Quadratic Wizards/Linear Fighters thing though. Casters are already changing reality in a way non-casters simply can't. In this case, a player is trying to change reality even more then the rules strictly allow for.*

Can you come up with a similar example of how a Rogue or Barbarian would want to expand the use of one of their class features, and what you would consider to be reasonable in this regard?

*Personally I would say that applying a metamagic effect to the casting would be reasonable for a Wish spell, so if a spell doesn't have enough Area of Effect, allowing it to be cast as a Widened spell would be ok IMHO.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Honestly, short of spells like Teleport or Maze, a lot of the things Wizards can do, Martials can already do but better at the appropriate levels. Deal damage? Martials outpace them in spades. Debuff enemies? Trip, Intimidate, etc. are more reliable than spells are, and are far more likely to succeed. Plus, spells can't provide Flanking or Flat-footed as reliably, either, whereas martials can do this with relative ease in most combats. Out of Combat benefits? Again, short of spells like Teleport or Maze, a Martial can have the same amount of Out of Combat utilities as Wizards, if not more if they are Rogues or Investigators.

As for how Rogues or Barbarians do this, it's largely in the way of feats and other mundane combinations. For example, a Rogue can take feats like Dread Striker or Gang Up to expand the amount of available targets they can utilize Sneak Attack on beyond their norm. Bonus points for feats like Opportune Backstab to get a reaction that works when an ally attacks with you while benefitting from the previously mentioned feats. As for Barbarians, a Barbarian that is Giant Instinct, for example, can take a reach weapon (or utilize the Giant's Lunge feat for D12 weapon damage dice) and the Giant's/Titan's Stature feats, combined with Whirlwind Attack, to affect all enemies within 30 feet with a very powerful attack. And those are just a couple examples for each class being able to use their primary class features beyond their usual means.

That's not what I mean. If a character can take a feat to do a thing, then that is by definition within their 'usual means'. The question was about the Wish spell, and how much leeway a caster has/should have at trying to bend the rules there.

So what would be an example of a non-caster trying to get past their 'usual means' in a matter mirroring the caster wanting to change damage type on a spell (outside of his means) instead of just casting a spell with the right damage type (inside of his means)?

Good GM: OK, sounds reasonable. Do it!

Bad GM: No! I won't allow you to change a spell on the fly! Just chose one already existent spell and use it or give up the idea of use wish.

Obs.: I'm using Good and Bad GM as a fun way to show the possibilities. Please try to understand this as a fun joke to separate the both option. You aren't a bad GM just to not allow something that you don't want to happen in the game or that you are afraid that can be too problematic.

Since the thread is off the rails anyway at the moment...

This is touching on the old Quadratic Wizards/Linear Fighters thing though. Casters are already changing reality in a way non-casters simply can't. In this case, a player is trying to change reality even more then the rules strictly allow for.*

Can you come up with a similar example of how a Rogue or Barbarian would want to expand the use of one of their class features, and what you would consider to be reasonable in this regard?

*Personally I would say that applying a metamagic effect to the casting would be reasonable for a Wish spell, so if a spell doesn't have enough Area of Effect, allowing it to be cast as a Widened spell would be ok IMHO.

So it seems that the most sane interpretation is that Beastkin, Kitsune, Anandi etc. have a default/birth form, another form (usually human) they can assume via Change Shape, but once they have assumed any one form, they stay in it indefinitely, until they actively Change Shape back again.

So no form is an active Polymorph effect, other Polymorph effects do not need to counteract anything, benign or otherwise, but the Change Shape ability can be used to try and counteract an ongoing Polymorph effect, as long as the shapeshifter in question can perform the necessary Concentrate action.

Does that sound about right?

So if I understand the arguments so far correctly, while a Bestkin changing between human(oid) and hybrid forms is an active Polymorph effect, actually maintaining either form is not.

So it does not matter what form they are in, Polymorph effects affect them normally.

They just have an innate ability to 'shake off' a detrimental Polymorph effect, thanks to their innate Change Shape ability. At least if said Polymorph effect still allows them the mental wherewithal to actually use their ability.

I suppose that is the interpretation that both makes most sense and is the easiest to actually play with. It also means, a Beastkin in human(oid) form does not trigger Detect Magic.

Thank you all for your input.

Why would I ever help the fighter? Their +2 has them covered. I'd sooner help myself

If it's just about hitting, then yes.

When it comes to 'who has the right elemental rune on their beatstick to deal with resistance/vulnerability', it might turn out that a hit/crit from the Fighter is worth more then a hit from you. A lot more in corner cases.

Also, this cuts both ways: If you are a ranged Rogue... would you rather roll for Stealth every round, or would it be helpful if the Fighter sacrificed one of his own actions to trip or grab a foe, enabling your ranged Sneak Attack? Or, if your Rogue has the right feat(s), just keeping the enemy frightened?

Because a Sneak Attack from a Rogue can easily be worth more then a Fighter's 2nd strike, and it will be worth more then their 3rd.

So yeah, you will help the party if your action is worth less then whatever the one you are enabling is doing with theirs.

Incidentally, that is also why buff spells are worth so much more on the martials now. No more CoD-Zilla. No more divine metamagic and Nightsticks.

Then there is the fact that 80% of people straigth up ignore actual use case when talking about casters and jump straight to white room where the caster somehow has everything perfect, and even then they tend to fall behind to classes just doing 2 strikes.

Then there is the fact that 80 % of people straight up ignore actual use cases when talking about martials and jump straight to the white room where the martial somehow has everything perfect, and even then they tend to fall behind to classes just getting 10th level spell slots, 3 or 4 slot per spell level in all but 10th level instead of 2 up to 6th, and legendary casting instead of master.

... Sounds stupid when you put it like that, doesn't it?

Yeah, the classes who get master or legendary weapon proficiencies, get to max out their attack stat, class features that boost weapon damage and class feats that make them better at hitting things with other things are better at hitting things with other things then the caster classes.

And what do the casters get instead? Just the measly ability to rewrite reality. What a rip-off... /s

Yes, a 'simple' caster class that just works out of the box like a Fighter would be nice. But how, pray tell, do you figure you can handle such a complex theme as magic? How much would you (have to) dumb it down to make the class 'simple'?

What would 'opt-in complexity' even look like for a caster? Spell access? Sorcerors are simple then. They get their spells locked in, and then you just fire off your slots.

A Warlock-equivalent maybe, one that gets a 'blasting spell' roughly on par with a ranged martial and is supposed to be the 'blaster caster'? Wouldn't get any other spells though. But hey, as long as you get to blast at-will/all day long, that may be just enough?

Or how much reality-altering power would the casters need to pay in exchange for trying to compete with the martials? All of it? Because otherwise, they would still obsolete martials? Some? But then they must still be inferior to martials at martial things.

I just don't see a non-complex caster class, not in this edition or any other. Magic is complex, and if you try to make it simple, you will just end up making it mundane.

But yes, it means the caster classes are the least rookie-friendly ones.

Funny how I didn't mention any of those terms, nor said they were good. So, no idea why you are responding to me about those. Also, funny how you try to spin my post to "all those team games are built to work against each other" when that part of my post was in reference to PvP games where it doesn't matter how you get to the end "winning" is "winning" doesn't matter how you got there. Its why my example was Chess (one of the oldest games in the world).

*Shrug* You are the one who dragged PvP games into this. If you don't know why you did that, *I* certainly can't help you with that. My point was that roleplaying games are supposed to be cooperative, and that things that foster adversarial competitions are bad for that.

Also, for RPGs the idea is usually 'the way is the goal', so it absolutely does matter how you get to the end.

And that is why there needs to be classes of different complexity. Players wanting complex classes are catered to, but at the same time, those not wanting complexity are not left behind either.

That does require both classes to still perform roughly the same though. That's all there is to it.

People wanting easy mode and people wanting challenge could always coexist, the issue was not that they couldn't coexist. The issue has always been mismatched expectations as to what type of character is appropriate, which has nothing to do with "easy vs complex" or "low power vs high power" but bad communication and people not compromising.

... You do realise though, that 'people no compromising' was

a) a problem almost solely because of the mismatched power levels of classes in previous editions and

b) that an experienced player can 'tone it down', but an inexperienced one can not 'tone it up', or at least not without losing control of their own character.

Which is exactly why, no, they really could not coexist at the same table.

Enabling both simple and complex classes to give the exact result just makes the people playing the complex classes feel bad. Telling players "Oh, you don't play those unless you want to play a hard class" is textbook ivory tower design. The very same thing you decried at the start of your post.

That's the problem of the players expecting more power. PF2 just isn't the right game for them I'm afraid.

And yes, if the game doesn't come clean about the fact that the classes are supposed to perform roughly the same, that is not ideal. Still, PF2 is better about it then previous iterations. For example, most classes are perfectly functional just with their base features, and class feats are basically side-grades and extra options. Therefore, there are not so much 'trap' options, but rather feat combinations that work better then others. And that's why the retraining rules explicitly allow retraining them, if a player find he made ill-informed choices in the past.

Finally, the whole "experienced and inexperienced players can play together at the same table is a great achievement", is literally ignoring all other games. You are literally congratulating PF2 for doing the bare minimum of any TRPG, that's not a great an achievement it's the base standard.

I still feel like congratulating PF2 for doing it after D&D 3.x failed so spectacularly, and even PF1 could not fix what WotC had broken.

Are you really going to argue that a game being complicated for the sake of being complicated is good and anyone that opposes it is a power gamer?

You are literally responding to a person saying, "the base difficulty should be based around a slightly below average player" due to most people not wanting to think too hard for a game. So you respond, "the system doesn't reward mastery despite being incredibly fiddly to play more than half the classes". Congrats you are arguing that half or more of the classes are just hamster wheels and players should just like it.

Do you know the only time that games increase the difficulty while keeping the same result? Single player games that are giving the player a challenge, or multiplayer games that pit you agains each other. Very few of those games start you off at above average difficulty and those that do are built to reward system mastery (ex: chess).

'Ivory Tower' game design, trap options, gating... all toxic things for a game that is supposed to be played together instead of against one another, things that the PF2 devs tried to get rid of.

Some people like to play in 'easy' mode, some people prefer 'hard' mode. But in other editions, these people could not peacefully coexist at the same table.

Edit: Also what Mathmuse said about classes based on story archetypes. That.
In PF2, they can, with caveats. But the price is that, yes, if you want to 'challenge yourself', you do it by playing something with more complicated mechanics, and no, you don't get to lord it over the 'filthy casuals'.

Because at the end of the day, for all its mechanical glory and combat focus, Pathfinder is still very much a role-playing game. And if anything, enabling both the simple and complex classes to contribute roughly equally (martials still don't get to rewrite reality like casters, but whatever) to both the co-operative storytelling and tactical combat parts of the game, and thus both experienced and inexperienced players to play together at the same table, is an amazing achievement.

Tldr - I feel the game should be easier with the option to ramp up difficulty instead of the other way around. The players who don't want complexity should be catered to before the ones who do - the people who want challenge can make it for themselves easier than newbs who might get turned off if they have to do a bunch of research to tweak the game and such

There is something to this that I can only offer personal/anecdotal experience on, for what it's worth.

Former iterations of the game created an expectation that 'system mastery' will allow you to outperform other players. In PF2, this is not really possible. Just want to hit things with other things? Take a Fighter, get +2 to to-hit, how easy is that!

Barbarians are just slightly more complicated, Rage away and go to town. Rogues' sneak attacks need to be set up, but with some experience, it is fairly easy to do regularly. Still screwed by immunity to precision damage though.

Are a Barbarian or a Rogue a better fighter then the Fighter? Hardly, but they are not supposed to be.

And on the other end, we have fiddly classes like the Magus or Swashbuckler. You need to learn how they work. And what is your reward? Do you get to out-fight the Fighter? Still no. You get to play a fiddly class. That is your reward. No more, no less.

In other words, the game design does no longer reward system mastery with (much) more power. For some people, that is the turn-off.

So, what's stopping folks from house ruling the changes themselves?

*Ding ding ding* And we have a winner!

The Devs try hard to keep the game balanced, because once the Power Creep Genie is out of its bottle, it won't get back inside ever.

Fighters set the Gold Standard for, you guessed it, fighting, and no class that gets to do anything in addition to fighting gets to get to fight as well as that guy. Get over it.

But if there are things that make things 'unfun' for you, the first thing you need to ask yourself is: 'Which niche is this rule protecting?'

If you have that figured out, the next question is: 'Is this particular niche represented at our table?'

If, for example, you have a Fighter and Magus in the same party, do not let the Magus Spellstrike without provoking. If, on the other hand, the Magus is the chief martial in the party, no toes are being stepped on when you handwave AoOs for Spellstriking away.

So instead of complaining about a class having certain limitations, ask yourself what these limitations are meant to protect. If the thing supposed to be protected is absent from your table, houserule away.

Of course, 'feeling powerful' is a rather subjective term. You gotta remember one thing: Your party may have struggled with your victories, but you were victorious, on the flip side, everything that ever challenged you suffered a TPK.

This reminds me a bit about D&D 3.X/PF 1 supposedly being balanced around a 15 point buy, everybody playing with 20 or even 25 point buy and then complaining that the encounters are not challenging. Like, well duh, you did this to yourself!

Remember: If the fight is 'fair', it is also fair for your enemy. You do not really want 'fair' fights, even if you're not the Rogue. But it is like with band-aids:

'There are only two kinds of band-aids: One doesn't stick, the other doesn't come off.'

With combat balance, it is similar: Either you get to feel 'powerful' because you can roflstomp every encounter, but that gets boring fast, or you really have to work for every victory, and people dropping happens regularly.* That may not be as 'powerful', but it is a lot more heroic then vanquishing foes whose demise was all but a foregone conclusion.

But seriously, what the others said: If your attack bonus is +11, I am assuming you are playing at 4th level. The average/moderate AC for monsters is about 20, so you should be hitting with a 9+, or about 60%. Get a flank going and that goes up to 70%. If your Monk does not score these success rates, the opponents are over-levelled. And that is something to talk to your GM about.

*Or, you know, some encounters are harder then others, depending on lots of variables. Hyperbole and all that. But the principle stands.

As I see it, since the spell in question is a curse, and a curse is, by definition, meant to inflict misery and suffering, trying to use that spell to speed-grow a living being should end in misery and suffering.

All GM fiat of course, but trying to 'game' a spell like that ought to get the 'Evil Genie granting a Wish' treatment.

Maybe that is because 3.x and, frankly, PF 1 kinda actively discouraged the use of maneuvers. 1 feat to just not eat an AoO, potentially ruining even a good roll and 2 feats just to maybe do a maneuver instead of damage... not cool.

But that is just the thing: Combat Grab is a Strike and a potential grab. That is great!

On the other hand, Knockdown is... not so great. If your Strike doesn't hit, you don't get your Trip attempt. Sure, you get to make your Trip without MAP if your Strike hits. But... if you Trip first you still get to make a Strike, even if at a penalty. So, yeah...

So while PF2 does allow Fighters to be 'martial debuffers', people who were soured at combat maneuvers by 3.x and PF1 will not look kindly at those feats. Personally I think Knockdown is suboptimal and it *only* is worth taking for Improved Knockdown. But hey, once you get there? Guaranteed Trip + damage for 2 actions? Sign me up!

Also see the "Is a manipulate action baked into firing a bow?" thread.

Shooting a crossbow is an activity composed of 2 distinct actions: Loading the crossbow and shooting it. I costs a total of 2 or 3 actions, depending on the reload statistic of the crossbow in question.

Shooting a bow on the other hand is still 2 distinct actions, loading and shooting, but it happens to cost only 1 action, the Interaction to load being a free action basically.

So shooting a bow would be a 1-action activity for example.

AlastarOG wrote:

I think you've hit deadon why I dislike the monk, since I'm very much more of a team focused guy. I'll always wait till last second to lockin a concept to see what meshes best with team.

Monk... just doesn't give me a lot of options for that.

Maneuver-based monk has quite a lot of party-friendly options, and some nice feats to back them up.

Certainly, but if they are behind enemy lines performing interdiction strikes on the other side's glass cannons, they are not helping their own front-liners.

Not that monks have to be played that way, but they are the class best suited for that sort of thing because of their high mobility. So the assumption is, people are drawn to monks to enable that play style.

Why people like Monks so much? Hmm...

Fighters have things like Snagging Strike, Assisting Shot, Combat Grab, Intimidating Strike, (Improved) Knockdown and even things like Revealing Stab and Shatter Defences, all things that can aid the other party members in landing their own attacks, spell or otherwise.

So Fighters excel at being at the front line, keeping the enemy engaged in melee and off the other party members (yeah yeah, I know, no such thing as a 'draw aggro' ability, but still). But they absolutely must coordinate both the feats they take and the actions they use in combat with the rest of the party for best effect. They are co-dependent on the fighting styles of their fellow party members.

Monks on the other hand, are more self-centred and self-reliant. They lack class feats that outright help other party members (although Stunning Fist helps everybody). They seem to do best 'doing their own thing' behind the enemy front line, messing up the other side's squishies.

Some people just like that play style better then having to coordinate with the rest of the party.

Lycar wrote:

Shooting a reload 0 weapon is the same deal: We get to do 2 things for the price of 1 action: Reload and Shoot. And both things happen, both things can draw attacks of opportunity and both things can be interrupted.

While I agree that we certainly are reloading our bow the thing to remember is that Reload is not an action, it is a weapon statistic. Reload does not have an action cost nor does it have any traits. What it does do is tell us how many Interact actions reloading our weapon takes (and that it can be a Interact activity if the DM so chooses).

Ah, I see that is where you are tripping up: The reloading is always just 1 (one) Interaction, same as moving up to your speed is only 1 Stride and casting a spell with 2 or 3 components is still only 1 Cast-a-Spell activity, albeit at a cost of 2 (or 3) 'actions'.

It is just that that 1 action/activity/thing has a different price in 'actions', as in how many of your usually 3 'actions' per turn it costs to do that thing. For crossbows that can be 2 actions, but it is still only 1 reload, and thus draws attacks of opportunities only once. Like a single Stride leaving multiple threatened squares also only draws AoOs once.

But even if the action cost of the reload is 0, that does not mean that no interaction happens. Else, the bow would not get loaded, could not be shot, and that is patently absurd.

Think of it as a 'buy one, get on free' deal. You only pay an action cost for the Strike, the reload is 'free'. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, doesn't mean it doesn't provoke, doesn't mean it can't be interrupted.

Sudden Charge of course works just as it says, it is an activity that costs 2 actions and includes 3 subordinate actions (if we end up within reach for an attack).

This is a function of the basic principles of the Action rules and I don't claim anything differently, the problem is that your argument (well most everyone elses at least) does not follow those same principles when handling the attack from a Reload 0 weapon.

Shooting a bow of course works just as it says, it is an activity that costs 1 action and includes 2 subordinate actions (Interaction to load, Strike to attack).

That is a function of the basic principles of the Action rules and applies to both 'Sudden Charge' and 'Strike with a bow (or any ranged weapon with a numerical Reload statistic for that matter)'.

I'm not denying anything, I'm simply saying that to attack with a Reload 0 weapon you take the Strike action (cost of 1 action) and when doing that it is narratively described as "drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action". There is however no additional action taking place (as there are for a Reload 1 or 2 weapon).

But that's the point: The only way for there to be 'no additional action' is for the thing not actually happening, yet you yourself describe shooting a bow as "drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action". You are contradicting yourself here.

Again: Just because the action cost of performing a Strike with a Reload 0 weapon is a total of 1 does not mean that only 1 action happens. Same as Sudden Charge only costing 2 actions does not mean that only 2 things happen.

Reload 0 tells us that the cost of performing an Interact activity to load the bow for striking is 0 additional actions on top of the 1 action we pay for the Strike. But the reload does still happen obviously.

Bringing this back to archery: reloading a bow takes 0 Interact actions. This means processing 0 subordinate actions with the Manipulate trait.

Wrong.

Reloading a bow takes an Interact action.

Performing that Interact action has a cost of 0 of your usual complement of 3 actions per turn, if performed as part of a Strike action with that bow.

The point is that 0 is a number.

Reloading the bow does not have no cost. It does have an action cost, this cost just happens to be 0, coming part and parcel with the Strike action, with cost 1 of your usually 3 actions in and of itself.

This is what 'Reload: 0' means instead of 'Reload: -', or omitting the entry entirely. The action does get performed, with all the potential reactions and interruptions it may trigger.