Thezzaruz's page

I don't get where this insistence that durations always have to end at the start of a turn comes from. I mean the rules entry for durations specifies three different points in time where a duration can end (start of turn, end of turn, after a set condition) and also notes that spells can have their own rules for durations.
Seems to me that anyone insisting that it has to end/tick down at the start of the turn is willfully misinterpreting the rules.

Duration

Source Player Core pg. 426 2.0
Most effects are discrete, creating an instantaneous effect when you let the GM know what actions you are going to use. Firing a bow, moving to a new space, or taking something out of your pack all resolve instantly. Other effects instead last for a certain duration. Once the duration has elapsed, the effect ends. The rules generally use the following conventions for durations, though spells have some special durations.

For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each turn of the creature that created the effect. Detrimental effects often last “until the end of the target's next turn” or “through” a number of their turns (such as “through the target's next 3 turns”), which means that the effect's duration decreases at the end of the creature's turn, rather than the start.

Instead of lasting a fixed number of rounds, a duration might end only when certain conditions are met (or cease to be true). If so, the effects last until those conditions are met.

Some effects can be ended early with the Dismiss action. An effect with the sustained duration lasts until the end of your next turn, but it can be extended as described in the Sustain action.

this is probably best handled with the gm of the game, but for me, anything that changes your square without being a teleport effect is a move, as well as everything with the move trait itself.

Well that's a quite clearly defined line at least, not a bad choice.

Check Reposition's degrees of success. It's there.

Yes, Reposition very clearly says how far you can move the opponent if you succeed on that action. But that wasn't the question (I might have been unclear with my question though).

The claim was that the "you move" requirement for ending a Grapple was different (less stringent?) than "you make a move action". So my question then is, if you have another creature Grappled, just how much do you have to move to count as having fulfilled the "you move" requirement that would end the Grapple?

"you move" is different than "you make a move action".

If that's true (which I probably could accept) then what is the definition of "you move"? Do you need to change square? Or is moving within your square enough?

Also I realized that Reposition doesn't mention anything about range or reach (like Strike does), that seems like quite a big miss tbh. I mean logically you need to be in physical contact with someone to move them but that isn't actually specified.

I think the designers tend to know about things like this and build with it in mind myself. I can't be absolutely sure minus their input, but it feels that way.

Normally that might be true but the rules for Stunned have been a mess since PF2 first came out.

And there is still language in the rules that shows that they just don't understand how Stunned actually works, just look at the Gaining and Losing Actions (page 442) section.

Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain subset of actions, typically reactions. Other conditions simply say you can't act. When you can't act, you're unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed or stunned, these don't change the number of actions you regain; they just prevent you from using them. That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately

I mean honestly, how do you write such a sentence. Stunned isn't unlike a condition that says you can't act, it is specifically a condition that does say you can't act.

This uses the Activate (Command) action mentioned in the wayfinder's entry for casting Light.

Basically, what the feat does is giving you more cantrips, in addition to Light, that you can cast by Activating the wayfinder.

It would seem that that is the intention even though that part of the feat is poorly written.

Can't say that I like it though. Allowing someone to pick any cantrip and have it be cast as a single action (instead of how many it would normally have) seems quite broken. 3 Electric Arc's per turn anyone?

Just quickly pulling together stuff already posted in the thread. The quote from breithauptclan sets the requirement you missed.

Quote:

Cast a Spell

If an item lists “Cast a Spell” after “Activate,” the activation requires you to use the Cast a Spell activity to Activate the Item. This happens when the item replicates a spell. You must have a spellcasting class feature to Activate an Item with this activation component.

Lucerious wrote:

But we do agree that if a player takes the Basic Red Mantis Magic feat the character is now able to use wands and staves, yes? If so, then it seems rather pedantic on if the archetype as a whole is considered a spell casting archetype. Or is there also an argument against that as well?

Nope, that feat does not qualify as a "spellcasting class feature" and the dedication isn't a "spellcasting archetype". And thus it doesn't qualify (just as Gisher show in greater detail above).

Hmm. So CRB pg592 says

“You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level.”

And CRB pg597 says
“To cast a spell from a wand, it must be on your spell list. Because you’re the one casting the spell, use your spell attack roll and spell DC. The spell is of your tradition.”

It seems to me that the Basic Red Mantis Magic feat covers both of these requirements.

Yes it does but you are just reading part of a rule and ignoring the full context. This is the designers not wanting to re-state rules when they add new layers to it, it can be annoying at times but it is understandable seeing as the book is long enough as it is.

The rules for activating an item is placed early in chapter 11 because it covers all kinds of items that needs to be activated (some that cast spells and some that does not).
The rules you quoted is from later on in chapter 11 in the details of those specific kinds of items. And thus they only add the additional requirements/rules that exists for those items, they don't re-state the general rules because you are expected to already know those and know that they also apply.

.

Hopefully the Remaster will clean up the rules language regarding this.

Seems to me that the rules about this is fairly clear as is. The one part that I agree needs to be stated more clearly is if the dedication feat is enough for archetypes or if the "you must have a spellcasting class feature" is true.

But we do agree that if a player takes the Basic Red Mantis Magic feat the character is now able to use wands and staves, yes? If so, then it seems rather pedantic on if the archetype as a whole is considered a spell casting archetype. Or is there also an argument against that as well?

Nope, that feat does not qualify as a "spellcasting class feature" and the dedication isn't a "spellcasting archetype". And thus it doesn't qualify (just as Gisher show in greater detail above).

But all in all, I think there is a little extra value in having things neatly divided, and nothing lost in making the change.

What is "lost" is that you'd be forcing everyone else to start tracking rations as a 1/day commodity instead of a 1/week commodity as it currently is. It would make it more granular to keep track of and kind of become a problem for the bulk system. And all for no reason.

What Cordell Kintner says is also true: you can consider the pack of rations a single object, instead of a collection of 7 one-day rations.

Well the game considers it to be a single object so if anyone wants to make it more finicky than that then by all means do so, just please don't force the rest of us to also do that.

Can you use maneuvering spell with spellstrike ? I know there are some weird rules about subordinate actions or something.

I'd have to say yes. Maneuvering Spell is a free action with a trigger and that cuts through the issues with subordinate actions.

As per the rules for actions.

Reactions have triggers, which must be met for you to use the reaction. You can use a reaction anytime its trigger is met, whether it’s your turn or not. ...

Free actions don’t cost you any of your actions per turn, nor do they cost your reaction. ... and a free action with a trigger follows the same rules as a reaction (except the reaction cost).

Mellack wrote:

Really? How else do you describe the text "When you adjust the cloak’s clasp (an Interact action), the cloak transforms to match the environment around you and muffles your sounds, granting you a +1 item bonus to Stealth checks." if not as an activation?

I would characterize that text as bad writing on the author's part as it does not conform to the Rules and standards of either constant item abilities or activated item abilities to whit...

I would agree that it is bad writing. Unfortunately it is something that exists on more items so it would seem that the writers like to write it that way.

When you pull up the hood of this nondescript gray cloak (an Interact action), you become drab and uninteresting, gaining a +1 item bonus to Stealth checks and to Deception checks to Impersonate a forgettable background character, such as a servant, but also taking a –1 item penalty to Diplomacy and Intimidation checks.

Basically, for a given creature or effect to count as having killed something, does it need to be an immediate kill, or does it just need to be the case that the target would have survived if not for the creature or effect in question?

Well that depends on the rules for each individual effect/spell/game feature in question I'd say. For Death Knell it is quite clearly spelled out in its text.

"You snuff the life out of a creature on the brink of death. The target must attempt a Will save. If this kills it, you gain 10 temporary HP and a +1 status bonus to attack and damage rolls for 10 minutes."

As I read that then the death must be a direct effect of the Will save to count, not some other later effect that gets an easier job because the target got weakened by the Will save.

So you think that being dropped to 0 hp while an action is being taken doesn't impact the ability to finish the action. That's an interesting take. For simple strides or strikes that's certainly true. If you break an action into it's subordinate parts for your idea (so Sudden Charge you could provoke for moving, and when you provoke for movement it's from leaving the square, so they would could have 0 hp and be unconscious in the square they were moving into, and you obviously wouldn't finish your movement or be able to make the attack) then it does work and removes the question of when actions resolve from mattering.

Perhaps this is the best path forward.

That's pretty much my take on it too, and I'm not sure why it would be done any different. I mean Sudden Charge doesn't provoke AoO's, it is the subordinate Stride actions that does

The question that was asked here is, prior to the staff clarification, what was the rationale one would use to deny staff spells to a magus?

If the rationale is the same, and the rules clarification was a clarification and not a change, then it would equally apply those all cases of the rationale equally.

The problem with that clarification is, 1) that it specifically talks about staffs and 2) that it offers no rationale or explanation as to why they can use staffs, it simply states that they can. And thus it is difficult to apply the clarification to anything else.

I would agree that RAI they should be able to use the ring too but I can't see any RAW argument for them to be able to.

I think that before this clarification, unofficial dev advice was that fatal and deadly didn't work on crit immune because that would not be doing only normal damage. So that seems like a bit of a course change.

Yea it does feel a bit counterintuitive that "immunity to critical hits" actually means "almost everything that normally happens on a crit still happens".

It's really not complicated. We even have confirmation from the design team that this is the correct interpretation. I'm really unclear why you hate this rule so much that you refuse to accept that.

I'd say that if that is the official interpretation of these rules then they really should commit to it and errata the rules to say that. Because I would never have come to that conclusion from just reading the rules as they stand now.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care which way this shakes out. I'm just in the discussion to get clarity (for me and others) and to learn.

Quote:

A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can,

So taking the Dedication lets you use scrolls, staves, and wands despite not having a spell casting class feature.

And here is my problem. The text in the rule says that the "archetype allows you to use..." while you says that the "Dedication lets you use..." and I don't see how that's the same thing. An archetype is not just its Dedication feat. The rules quite clearly explains that an archetype is the whole thing, the expanded character concept and all the possible feats from it, not just the Dedication feat.

So how do you (we) get from "archetype allows" to "Dedication lets"? It seems like a logical leap without any justification. I have to agree with @breithauptclan, it seems much more intuitive to read the text as simply re-stating the normal rules instead of it creating an exception. And to me that is just reinforced by the added text in the 2nd printing that clarifies how you get a "spellcasting class feature", something that is a term the rules use in lots of places.

But as I said above, if that's the interpretation the designers want then that's fine. I just wish that they had actually written that clearly.

If this rule text from the APG is all that we are following, why would taking the Basic Spellcasting feat allow you to use the other Cast a Spell Activation items - there is still nothing that is giving you a Spellcasting Class Feature. If you go back to the Spellcasting Archetype rules from the CRB to get that ability, that opens a whole can-o-worms about why you weren't following those rules in the first place.

Not that I'm convinced that Cordell is correct but I'm not sure I see the problem you allude to. Yes the CRB says a bit more than the APG but they don't contradict each other.

Is anyone else desperately hoping that this is one of the things covered in the first scheduled errata in the spring? Or is it just me?

It does seem like a bit of clarification would be a good idea.

well, if that is the case it makes it a lot easier to critically fail than critically succeed, as the range to make a critical success is 9 from success and critical failure from failure is 8. It makes more mathematical sense to have it be a failure of 10 or more. Plus, a rule repeated twice in the main rules seems to have more validity than one crammed into the back in an index where they need to save space.

It's a known issue and opinions vary if the rules text is good/bad, confusing/clear, fair/unfair and so on. There is a big old thread about it and many pages later we're still nowhere near a consensus but the rules text stays the same. Make of that what you will.

I'd bet that stunned is meant to apply to both. You lose the actions only on the following turn when you pay it off, and therefore lose the condition, but you also can't act at all until you do so. This like Paralyze if for some reason they ever add a way for you to remove someone else's Stunned condition as a Reaction you could remove it if they got it on their turn and they could continue as if nothing happened. Or if you went right after them you could remove it and they'd at least be able to use reactions and free actions again.

As it ended up probably, but not as it started out. If you look at the "gaining and losing actions" sidebar it says;

Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain subset of actions, typically reactions. Other conditions simply say you can’t act. When you can’t act, you’re unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed or stunned, these don’t change the number of actions you regain; they just prevent you from using them. That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately.

There is just no way that you write that sentence if you intend to have Stunned be one of the conditions that says "you can't act", it wouldn't make any sense.

And that I think is its problem, the mechanics is written envisioning the condition working one way but then when they changed their mind about it and added the "you can't act" but didn't alter anything in the mechanics of the condition that meant it just lost all logic and stopped being internally consistent.

The vast majority of times you get stunned will not be on your own turn. Ignoring the "you can't act" just makes it a s#$#ty slow that's harder to apply. That makes zero sense. Like it overrides slowed. Clearly it's meant to be more crippling not less.

Especially since it has a Power Word. Why have a Power Word Stun if it's not going to kick you in the teeth?

Oh I'm not saying that Stunned shouldn't be a kick in the teeth, I'm just saying that the mechanics of "you can't act" are very different from the mechanics of "lose some actions when you start the turn" and since it is only the latter part that is actually spelled out in the rule it becomes not just a kick in the teeth of the character but of the player too when they do get stunned and end up losing a lot more than the rule says they should lose.

Yeah, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how anyone could think that the Slowed condition is supposed to be more severe than Stunned.

In every context I've seen over my lifetime the term Stunned has almost universally meant that your Character gets bonked in some manner and has to just stand there looking stupid for a while, often with little floating rubber duckies and/or stars around their head. Slowed, however, just makes you move less fast or take more energy to do something.

I don't think I've ever encountered a single scenario in tabletop or video games where you get slapped with a Stun and you get to finish whatever you were doing when that happened... if anyone can give me an example of this other than situations where a Character has some kind of like... buff to negate or lessen the stun I'd be happy to hear them out but...

Yeah, I don't understand the concept that people seem to have that its "unfair" like... yeah, it's a STUN, that's the point, it's akin to temporary paralysis not "it's a bit harder to do things."

I think that the main part of the disconnect is that if you read the rules for Stunned (and Slowed and Quickened and gaining/losing actions) then it all flows simply, it clearly tells you when you lose/gain actions, it tells you how many you lose/gain and all such. It never clearly tells you that you can lose more at, or for, a different time because that's all hidden behind the "you can't act" sentence. And that means it all becomes a gotcha moment and that's a crappy way of writing rules.

I'm willing to bet that the people that wrote/designed the mechanics for Stunned/Slowed/Quickened never intended for it to have the "you can't act" part (I mean the "Gaining and Losing Actions" sidebar pretty much spells it out even). But rather that it was added in at some later point when someone decided that being stunned should be more debilitating than being Slowed (because as you say, it almost always is wherever you encounter it). And I don't really mind it being debilitating, I do however think that the rules should have been re-worked so that it was clear that it is.

IMO Stunned shouldn't key of actions, it should key of time instead. So that you are stunned until the start/end of your next turn or for X rounds or for X minutes. Let Slowed/Quickened adjust your actions while Stunned stops you completely.

I go ahead and disagree and throw out an example of you somehow get the slowed 1 condition between the end of your first turn and start of your second. You no longer have 3 actions to give. What happens?

At the worst case, abandoning the spell for no effect should always be an option. However, with 3 actions already spent giving no effect feels to bad to be true.

I think the balanced option is spending 1 more action to get the 3 action effect.

What happens? The player is SooL, that's what happens.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it would be completely bonkers to allow the player to do a 3+1 to get some effect of his spell. I'm just saying that that isn't an option that the spell (or rules) gives as written. DM's can add it if they want to.

My initial ruling would be to allow my druid to fire the 3-action version as his first action in round 2 (spending 4 total actions on it) and do something else with his other two actions. Is this reasonable? Too generous? Too punishing?

I'd say that it is generous (but possibly not too generous) because I see nothing in the spell descriptions that would allow for it.

And I don't see why people think it isn't covered in the rules. The rules say you need to finish an action/activity on the turn you start it, so you need specific text to get around that (like for the Ready action). These spells gives the specific option of getting around it by doing 3+3 actions, not 3+1 or 3+2 and thus you can't. It might be boring and/or restrictive but it's clearly covered by the rules.

But gaining a circumstance bonus to AC from the parry trait doesn't require using an Interact action.

So which is the actual important part and which is the reminder text? Using the Interact action? Or using the Parry trait of the Clan Dagger?

I'd say that the RAW is fairly simple. You could use the dagger to gain the Parry bonus for yourself alright but the Clan Protector feat becomes useless as you'll never actually use an Interact action to do it.

But I agree with Cordell that that is stupid and would allow the feat to be used with the action that gives the Parry bonus to AC.

2/ What is the land speed and fly speed ? 45 feet (with a 25 feet base) for land speed ? 45 feet also for the fly speed ?

It seems to be a poorly written feat. By RAW a creature under the effect of the feat would have a 45 feet land Speed (if a 25 feet base) and a fly Speed of 0 feet.

.

Movement Types

Creatures in Pathfinder soar through the clouds, scale sheer cliffs, and tunnel underfoot. Most creatures have a Speed, which is how fast they can move across the ground. Some abilities give you different ways to move, such as through the air or underground.

Each of these special movement types has its own Speed value. Many creatures have these Speeds naturally. The various types of movement are listed below. Since the Stride action can be used only with your normal Speed, moving using one of these movement types requires using a special action, and you can’t Step while using one of these movement types. Since Speed by itself refers to your land Speed, rules text concerning these special movement types specifies the movement types to which it applies. Even though Speeds aren’t checks, they can have item, circumstance, and status bonuses and penalties. These can’t reduce your Speeds below 5 feet unless stated otherwise

.

For reference, see how it is written for a (normally) flying creature like an Eagle.
Speed 10 feet, fly 60 feet
Melee beak +6 [+1/-4] (finesse), Damage 1d6 piercing
Melee talon +6 [+2/-2] (agile, finesse), Damage 1d4 slashing
Eagle Dive The eagle Flies up to double its fly Speed in a straight line, descending at least 10 feet, and then makes a talon Strike.

.

For further reference the Fly spell might be a good place to look at how it should be worded.

The target can soar through the air, gaining a fly Speed equal to its Speed or 20 feet, whichever is greater.

3/Can a ghoul drag an opponent in a tunnel and leaving no tunnel to bury the opponent for a suffocation effect ?

Firstly, effects that allows you to drag/pull someone along with you are rare and only moves someone a short distance. A normal Grapple specifically says it ends if you move. So you'd need your DM to create a new feat (or something) for you to be able to do it.

Secondly, if you where to be able to pull the opponent with you I'd say that you would need to use the " leave tunnels behind you that are large enough to allow creatures of your size or smaller to move through" option as otherwise there is no space for the opponent to fit in your tunnel.

Yeah a plain text reading of "the new target" is that it's not the same as the previous target.

So after hitting A, you can't hit A again. But you could hit A, then B, then A again.

I would go with that interpretation too. If you want to attack A again then you'd need to throw a second weapon.

I'm fairly confident now that Paizo would've explicitly stated that the second target must be different from the previous target to make the second attack if they wanted it to function that way.

Considering they call one the "previous" and one the "next" I'm fairly confident that the writers think they have stated it.

But it is a fairly poorly written feature overall. Just look at the "At the end of your turn, the thrown weapon flies directly back to you in a straight line." line. Other returning features specify where the weapon end up while this one doesn't. So does it return to your hand? To your space? And if you haven't got a hand free then what?

I would argue that the spell shouldn't use a spell attack, but then it wouldn't add your mental score either.

But since you are making a spell attack, it's really only narratively that your weapon is used. Mechanically, you might as well be making a spell attack that happens to deal the same damage as your weapon.

Anyways, I agree with the conclusion that it wont work because it's magical spell damage.

I would disagree with that though. It says "you deal the weapon's damage as if you had hit with a melee Strike" so unless you use a weapon that explicitly says it deals spell damage then it won't do spell damage when hurled by HotA.

Don't get me wrong though, I agree that the Will-o-Wisp is still immune as they are immune to spells in general, not just to spell damage.

In a thread Is a manipulate action baked into firing a bow? I learned that diffeent players have different ideas about how subordinate actions work. Thus, I started this thread here to discuss subordinate actions in general, hoping to clear up misconceptions. Perhaps I myself have misconceptions.

I have had similar thoughts/questions in that thread. I clearly failed to explain them well last time it was discussed and so far haven had time to get into it again so I thank you for separating this out as I see this as a general discussion that needs to have a clear(ish) answer before that thread can be concluded.

So to try to keep this as a general and separate discussion I'll pose some questions to the hivemind to try to clear up how actions/subordinate actions work.

1) As I understand it Actions are Actions and Activities are Activities and while Actions make up the parts of Activities then Activities still cannot be inserted into other Activities (or into other Actions)?

2) I can have an Activity such as "Quick Draw [Interact+Strike]" or "Sudden Charge [Stride+Stride+Strike]" but I cannot substitute in a "Quick Draw" into the "Sudden Charge" because even if the "Quick Draw" includes a "Strike" it isn't a "Strike"?

3) The above would hold true even if the Activity I try to substitute in is a"Power Attack [Strike]". Even if the only subordinate action is a "Strike" that still doesn't mean that the Activity is/becomes the equivalent of a "Strike"?

4) "Strike" is a basic action right? There is no "Strike [?+?] Activity that contains a "Strike" and something more?

5) If there was such a "Strike" Activity would that be able to be used in all the places where a "Strike" Action normally goes?

Can't see how this is even a question tbh, the spell very clearly lays out how to get rid of its effects.

The effects of this curse can be removed only through remove curse or another effect that targets curses.

And any leeway one might think exists was sorted by the errata as Captain Morgan quoted.

That would possibly depend on what you as the DM allow to be a clue because Red Herring is tied to the Pursue a Lead action. So if you allow the Investigator to use "Pursue a Lead" on a statement instead of on the person making the statement then it might be possible.

But in general I don't think that a statement being misleading is the same as it being inconsequential so it probably shouldn't work.

Only because Quick Mount doesn't have the "if you are mounted" exception in its own text. That may be an oversight, which is why I called it a soft no instead of a hard no and would probably allow it myself

Why would it have such an exception? The "Quick Mount" activity doesn't let you mount or dismount, the "Mount" action does. The rules are fairly clear on this, as long as the larger action (i.e Quick Mount) doesn't impose any extra restrictions then the subordinate action works just as it would do as a standalone action.

1. (Nitpick) Being a professional means you have to be paid for it, and it has to be a sustainable source of income. Participating in the Olympics doesn't mean you get paid, meaning you aren't technically a professional athlete, compared to an athlete in a sport like Football or Soccer. Even if they earn money from winning medals, it has to be done as an occupation to be considered professional, by definition. Odds are, you can't realistically sustain your own living expenses solely by participating in the Olympics, meaning they aren't professional. Skilled, sure. But not professional.

Have to say I really don't get what you are trying to prove with this point. Firstly, most everyone competing competing in the Olympics ARE professional athletes both by their own standards and by anyone's standards. Secondly, he didn't say Olympic athletes, he said professional athletes. And the best in the world at the javelin throw certainly are professional athletes. And lastly, those that are the best in the world at it definitely do a run-up when throwing their javelin. If you are going to (intentionally) nitpick then you really shouldn't be so completely wrong about it.

I mean, how else can you reconcile the way the rules define actions and activities with how Reload is worded? I will admit, this is a first for me. I've never had someone read reload and wonder what happens to that interact action. It just really doesn't matter except in the most corner dwelling of cases.

It might be simplistic of me but when the designers make a rule that says "This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes" and then set that number to "0" I have no problem accepting that no action takes place. Especially when they clarify it with a sentence that doesn't mention an Interact action taking place.

I'm sorry the rules don't hold your hand for you. It's really more work than the words are worth to explain it in detail in the book. The Strike activity can be used in all the same places that the Strike action can.

What Strike activity??? No such thing in my book.

And I guess this is where we differ, I just don't see the rules allowing for such an activity to be created. Making an activity that includes a "Strike" is of course OK, many such exists. But making an activity that IS a "Strike" no, that would open up waay to much shenanigans.

Reload tells you that if a weapon has a reload of "0", this means that loading/reloading the weapon and making an attack with it are made as a part of the same action. You don't have to spend additional interact actions to reload the weapon, but what is not being said is that the weapon no longer requires reloading. You still shoot an arrow, so you still have to knock that arrow. This is essentially turning a "Strike" into an activity, you are getting the effects of 2 different actions rolled into one "Action". So it is not unreasonable to use the rules for activities, the only other thing in the rules that are spelled out as being multiple actions happening at the same time or near enough that the distinction does not matter, to adjudicate what happens in corner cases.

But there is no "essentially". Either you do turn it into an activity, but then it no longer is the Strike action or you don't turn it into an activity but then you don't get to add actions or traits.

I agree with everything you posted up until the part I quoted here. I also think that the rules are clear on the difference between actions and activities. What I just don't understand is why that difference is then ignored when it comes to Reload 0 weapons.

I think that the Quick Draw feat is very interesting to look at here. It has a 1 action cost and it does pretty much the same as what you (and others) wants the Reload 0 weapon do (albeit in the opposite order) in that it allows you to "Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon".

The narrative description of what you are doing is "You draw your weapon and attack with the same motion" which is almost exactly the same as the "drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action" of a Reload 0 weapon.

The difference is that you could never argue that Quick Draw is the same as the basic Strike action that you and most everyone else argue that Reload 0 weapons still use. And I just cannot understand how how they can be treated so differently.

.

And to note, this does also leave some neat development space for effects that alter a weapons reload stat. Think a Curse that increases the Reload of a weapon by 1, or a Rune that reduces the reload once a day for a duration or something.

If you were to for some reason increase a Bow's reload by 1, what would that look like if you assume that the bow just Doesn't require any sort of interaction to reload as a baseline?

I don't see how that would be in any way problematic with the current rules. 0+1 = 1 and thus a Reload 0 weapon would become a Reload 1 weapon.

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).

If we use your argument, then what happens to, say, Sudden Charge? You pay 2 actions to do3 things: Stride, Stride, Strike. But by our argumentation, since we only pay the cost for 2 actions, one of these things doesn't actually happen.

So... which of these things then gets omitted? Do we not get to move twice or do we not get to Strike at the end of the Strides?

Obviously, the whole point of the feat is to allow us to do 3 things for the price of 2 actions. But all these things happen, and all of them can draw attacks of opportunity, and thus can 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.

Oh come on now, that is patently absurd. You are denying that the bow weapon gets loaded with an arrow, which is what the interact action represents. Just because that interact action does not cost an additional action on top of the action you spend to Strike, does not mean it does not happen.

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).

A Strike action does not have an subordinate Interact action so if you want the reloading to be an Interact action then you need to have the attack be an Activity with the Strike+Interact subordinate actions. Problem is that this isn't the Strike action and thus it isn't usable in places where a Strike action normally is used and that would be very problematic for anyone using a bow.

The argument that most (but possibly not you) seem to make is that the Interact action never takes place but that the Strike action somehow yet inherits the Manipulate trait and that to me is nonsensical. Activities doesn't inherit traits from subordinate actions and certainly not from actions that are non-existent.

So my issue has never been one about action cost but one about what actions that actually takes place. And that if there is an Interact action added to the process then that creates big problems while if there isn't one added then I can't see any way for the Manipulate trait to be relevant.

I would completely agree with this, except the next sentence further articulates what Reload 0 means.

"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.".

Yea they used "drawing" instead of "Interact". Could be that they just messed up and put the wrong word, could be that they intended us to have to go back to the "Table 6-2" or it could be that they actually meant it to mean "needs no Interact action". I expect it to be the latter as otherwise that "0" means nothing and also a whole host of other rules break down.

I feel like a lot of people are getting tripped up on this unrelated side-topic about subordinate actions and missing the full rules here.

It isn't unrelated though, it's the whole ball game. If "Reload 0" means "Strike and Interact" then archery simply doesn't work anymore.

Honestly, Bows shouldn't even have reload rules if they aren't meant to suffer any of the negative constraints and connotations that come with them, as you're implying. There's legitimately no reason why we couldn't adjust the Reload value to be unlisted, and redefine "Reload -" to mean you don't need any action or activity on your behalf to utilize the projectile weapon. This is ultimately just a "Do you have ammunition? You can use a Bow." statement. There's no reason for Paizo not to have gone with that approach if Bows weren't meant to suffer from reload rules.

I agree, they really shouldn't and neither should thrown weapons have Reload "-" (you aren't reloading, you are equipping a whole new weapon).

And I also think that they left it as it is because it works just fine for almost all situations, it is just in the specific situation of being Grabbed that the rule breaks down.

"An activity might cause you to use specific actions within it. You don’t have to spend additional actions to perform them—they’re already factored into the activity’s required actions. (See Subordinate Actions on page 462.)" Not having to "spend additional actions" on an activity on no way means you don't process the subordinate action.

But there are no subordinate actions to process, you aren't even arguing for one to be added to the process.

The reload section is specifically about how many interact actions you have to spend to reload and this quote specifically tells us that subordinate actions spend [cost] 0, which matches with a reload 0.

But the Reload rule doesn't talk about action cost, it specifies how many interact actions you need to do. For a Reload 2 weapon that means you need to take two interact actions (possibly as an activity). For a Reload 0 weapon that means you need to do zero interact actions and that literally means you aren't doing anything, not that you are doing something without a cost.

And I get that this trips people up because, as The Raven Black said above, it really seems like firing a bow should have the manipulate trait. But it doesn't.

While we should not treat the rules like computer code, they do use plenty of programming principles in their execution. Activities inherit from the building block single actions they contain. Some terms are overloaded with different meanings in different contexts. In the case of bows, the Strike single action is overloaded with a Strike activity that inherits the manipulate trait from its reload component.

My problem with that is that "Reload" isn't an action, it is a weapon statistic, and nor does it have the "Manipulate" trait. So you would need to argue that an Interact action is added (as a free action perhaps?) for the "Manipulate" trait to carry over.

Is there wording in the spellcasting that make it clear it is different to something like reload? Because by that logic - reload heavy crossvow = 2 flat checks I think most spells need 2 flat checks as well.

Cast a Spell is only one action or activity. And the "Manipulate" trait doesn't even come from the Cast a Spell action/activity, it comes from (some of) the components. So one spell would only be one flat check.

Loading a Reload 2 weapon should only require one flat check if you do it in one turn as an activity, if you spread it out as two actions over different turns (if your DM allows for that) then you probably would end up having to do two flat checks.

Any and all Strikes with a Bow is automatically an Activity because it has a Reload baked into it though...

Why? Reload isn't an action, it's a trait (or weapon statistic even). It's the same sort of thing as "Hands" or "Range", are you going to require any weapons with those statistic to also automatically be an activity?

I have to agree with what seems to be the minority, Reload 0 means 0 Interact actions and thus no Manipulate trait, AoO's are still triggered by being a ranged attack though.

I'd say yes because of logics.

And also if you look at the description of the regular Air Repeter it says; "The air repeater and its longer-ranged, two-handed variant are still..." which would indicate that the "Hands: 1" of the Long Air Repeater is an error. But some errata wouldn't go amiss.

Which is hilarious, because real bucklers would've been held only, while real shields usually had an arm strap (due to size) as well as a place to hold it with your hand. Normal shields are to big to control without having two points of control. Bucklers get away with due to their small size, which led to you having to (more) actively punch and deflect incoming attacks to block them.

Yea it has always struck me as quite ridiculous that the one sort of shield that would definitely occupy your hand IRL is the one that doesn't in-game. Guess it's someones idea of good balancing.

Basically stunned for a duration, is played differently to stunned for X actions. The rules are inconsistent until you realise this.

The rules whould have been a lot better is they had created different names or just been more explicit about it.

The rules are inconsistent and crap after too.

But yea, it needs to be two separate conditions (or completely re-thinked).

The previous discussion involved a Monk's Flurry & Stunning Fist if you want to search for it.

As for whether stunning on a Reaction leads to the enemy losing the rest of their turn because the stun clock doesn't tick down until the beginning of their next turn, that falls in the "too good to be true" category. That's like making a Stun 1 condition the equivalent of Stun 4! Hopefully you can see how that shouldn't happen. If I recall (it's been a long time since that thread!) some were saying they wouldn't apply the Stun condition until the beginning of the creature's next turn while others were saying they'd just subtract the lost action immediately. Though the latter could lead to stacking issues if the target's also Slowed, it's the direction I'd lean in interpreting this.
I don't recall anybody interpreting it like you seem to want them to, though it wouldn't surprise me. It would disappoint me though.

More people that you'd think does from what I remember from earlier threads.

The problem is that Stunned with a time limit and Stunned with an action value counts down in different ways and they have failed to account for that which means that the whole rule for Stunned needs a re-write (and a split and a re-think IMO). The "you can't act" part is too wide reaching for Stunned(action value) and it messes everything up. It messes with peoples expectations and it messes with interactions with other rules.

Stunned(action value) relies on paying actions to reduce the condition.

Each time you regain actions (such as at the start of your turn), reduce the number you regain by your stunned value, then reduce your stunned value by the number of actions you lost.

However the "you can't act" part stops you from regaining any actions.

If a condition prevents you from being able to act, you don't regain any actions or your reaction.

When you can't act, you don't regain your actions and reaction on your turn.

.

Anyone that argues that the "you can't act" part is important enough to break the rules and turn Stunned(1) into Stunned(a lot more) should really also argue that it is important enough to break the rules completely and turn it into Stunned(forever).

Obviously I wouldn't play it like that but then again I wouldn't allow Stunned(1) to prevent more than 1 action in any situation so...

It does say "You evoke a jumble of rocks in the area." so if you have a bunch of rocks floating around i the air...
But on principle I'd say no because it references "in the area" in all parts and the last part adds to that with "The ground in the area". To me that seems to require that the area has to include some ground.

If you are stunned X at the start of your turn, you lose X actions (max equal to the number of actions you normally have), and then reduce X by the number of actions you lost. If X is now 0, you are no longer stunned. If X is still a positive value, you remain stunned (though I can't think of anything that gives you Stunned 4+, it's definitely within the rules). Otherwise, you go about your turn as normal.

Have they errata:ed Stunned to actually work that way yet? (doesn't seem so from AoN) Because last I looked having the Stunned condition with a value actually broke the game.

Stunded says "Each time you regain actions (such as at the start of your turn), reduce the number you regain by your stunned value, then reduce your stunned value by the number of actions you lost."

But the rule for regaining actions says "If a condition prevents you from being able to act, you don't regain any actions or your reaction."

I can't see any way that you'd be allowed to get out of the Stunned condition when it comes with a value (the times ones work fine). Of course any mildly sane DM would fix that quickly but it still seems like they screwed up badly when writing that rule.

No general guidelines, considerations like what Captain Morgan or andreww seems good though.

There are various monsters and traps which have reactions that occur before initiative is rolled. So those are explicit. I don't think players have any such abilities.

There are a few feats that allow for a free action with the trigger "You're about to roll initiative". A quick search turned up these, might be more.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1531

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1521

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1497