|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have rules for grappling spellcasters, shooting in to a melee, jumping from a chandelier into a grapple, being immersed in lava, but nothing for passing an object from one character to another.
I’d recommend adding this to the list of actions possible as a move action, and the ‘receiver’ need do nothing but be willing to accept the object, have a hand free.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
After reading this, it's shocking to me that this never got added to the rules. It happens frequently in my games (especially with healing potions.)
Another action that would be good to explicitly state would be administering a potion to an unconscious character. Is this the same standard action as drinking it yourself, or should it take a full round action?
This seems equivalent to drawing an Item from your own person,
except that both Giver and Receiver are using that Action to do this.
I agree this Action should be in the rules explictly, especially as it's so common.
|
|
Another action that would be good to explicitly state would be administering a potion to an unconscious character. Is this the same standard action as drinking it yourself, or should it take a full round action?
Page 351 of the Beta Campaign rules states "A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the liquid down the creature’s throat. Likewise, it takes a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature."
Director of Brand Strategy
|
After reading this, it's shocking to me that this never got added to the rules. It happens frequently in my games (especially with healing potions.)
Another action that would be good to explicitly state would be administering a potion to an unconscious character. Is this the same standard action as drinking it yourself, or should it take a full round action?
I believe it is already a full-round action. As to the question at hand, we've always considered it a move action on the part of the giver and a free action from the taker.
The one thing I think would need to be clarified though, is if you can still take your standard action. Can you hold out a potion for your comrade and attack the gnoll slaver coming at you with a flail? That doesn't seem very reaistic, unless you ready the attack action for once the ally takes the potion from you.
Is it wrapped into the move action of drawing it from your pouch? In this case, drawing an alchemist's fire and handing it to a partner becomes a full round action.
Also, "pass object" makes me think of what the vet says when your dog eats something it's not supposed to.
|
Another action that would be good to explicitly state would be administering a potion to an unconscious character. Is this the same standard action as drinking it yourself, or should it take a full round action?Page 351 of the Beta Campaign rules states "A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the liquid down the creature’s throat. Likewise, it takes a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature."
The only thing that I find disturbing is that they have encountered this enough that they felt the need to apply rules to administering oils to unconscious creatures. [musical lilt]Disturbing![/musical lilt]
|
Director of Game Design
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There should indeed be an action to pass an object to another character. I think it should be a move action on the part of the character giving the item, so long as the character receiving the item is conscious and aware of the other characters intent.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
That sounds good to me.
I guess the person accepting it needing a free hand makes sense, but could add an awkward initiative element.
Also, taking an item from a willing character on your own turn could be the same basic action...
I would also say that it could be done without an AoO.
I think it should be ruled just as drawing a weapon is; it takes a move action on the part of the receiver or can be done as part of a move action. It shouldn't be any easier to take a weapon from someone's hand and make sure you don't hit them with it than it is to draw it yourself.
As for the giver, it should be a move action, but they should forgo all attacks of opportunity while holding the item (they have to hold it still enough for someone to take).
A touch attack at DC 5 to grab the item might be in order as well in some circumstances (riding a horse, violent motion, etc.).
|
|
There should indeed be an action to pass an object to another character. I think it should be a move action on the part of the character giving the item, so long as the character receiving the item is conscious and aware of the other characters intent.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I think a move action on either party's part would work, as long as the receiver has a free hand. So, for example, Player A moves across the battlefield and (move action) hands Player B a potion. As long as Player B has a free hand, he doesn't need to take an action to grab the potion. Or, Player B, being beat to hell, walks up behind Player A (who is frantically fighting off an orc) and pulls a potion from Player A's belt (move action). This costs Player A nothin, because Player B (the receiver) pays the action cost.
Then Player B runs across the battlefield again, and pours the potion down unconscious Player C's throat (move action, "paid for" by Player B).If both characters have to spend a move action, you get into weirdness, because Player C, being unconscious, doesn't have any actions, but I think we all probably agree that she should be able to receive a potion.
|
Houserule: Use a 'move action' to pass an object, but it can be either the giver or reciever who expends the move action, while the other person uses up a free, swift or immediate for the round. It does provoke an AoO to pass an object like this.
Houserule: Anyone can use an 'Immediate or 'Swift' action in addition to thier allowed 'Free' actions to do the equivalent of a 'Free' once per round.
Houserule: Number of free actions allowed is DEX modifier capped by WIS modifier, with a minimum of 1. Your twitchiness controlled by your spatial awareness
(Ex. DEX 18(+4), WIS 14(+2) is 2 free actions per round.)
"Its not what you are doing, its how you look doing it!"
The Unknown Bard
Note: "pours the potion down unconscious Player C's throat "
Somewhere it says you can do this carefully as a full round action.
We've long treated this as a pair of move actions. A move for the person with the item to proffer it to the recipient, and a move for the recipient to "draw" it from the holder.
Note: we also allow drawing directly from an adjacent ally's external inventory as a move action. So if you want to grab your buddy's backup dagger, or pull a potion from his bandoleer, it's just like grabbing it off yourself.
Since we're on the general topic, we need a SWAP PLACES action/mechanic. RAW there's no good way to do it. I'd suggest it should cost a move action from the person lower in initiative and only whatever movement/5-foot-step the second person needs. So, Caster and Healer want to swap places. Caster comes up first in initiative and since speaking is free, they agree to swap spaces. Caster lobs a spell as a standard, then starts the swap as his move action, ending his turn. When Healer's turn comes around, Healer 5-foot-steps into Caster's square and Caster's mini 5-foots into Healer's vacated square. Healer can now take a move and standard action. Finally, I'd apply normal movement rules: one 5-foot-step per round, so if Caster for any reason took a 5-foot-step before setting up the swap, he's got to do a 5-foot-MOVE to complete it, potentially provoking.
|
|
Since we're on the general topic, we need a SWAP PLACES action/mechanic. RAW there's no good way to do it. I'd suggest it should cost a move action from the person lower in initiative and only whatever movement/5-foot-step the second person needs. So, Caster and Healer want to swap places. Caster comes up first in initiative and since speaking is free, they agree to swap spaces. Caster lobs a spell as a standard, then starts the swap as his move action, ending his turn. When Healer's turn comes around, Healer 5-foot-steps into Caster's square and Caster's mini 5-foots into Healer's vacated square. Healer can now take a move and standard action. Finally, I'd apply normal movement rules: one 5-foot-step per round, so if Caster for any reason took a 5-foot-step before setting up the swap, he's got to do a 5-foot-MOVE to complete it, potentially provoking.
Again this can be handed by a ready action to "move". He going first states "readying an action to take a 5'step up, as soon as he moves out of the way."
They both go 'at same time' for all intents and purposes, and then the one "readying" will go right before the other on subsequent rounds.
Robert
Whatever is decided, we should make sure there are also rules that cover not just a hand to hand pass but also a ranged pass as well.
There have been times in games past, where my players needed to play "keep away" from the villains with the object in question.
There should indeed be an action to pass an object to another character. I think it should be a move action on the part of the character giving the item, so long as the character receiving the item is conscious and aware of the other characters intent.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'd like to suggest that receiving an item in this manner counts as a swift action.
|
|
I'd like to suggest that receiving an item in this manner counts as a swift action.I think that should be an Immediate action, since it happens outside of your turn.
Actually, since an immediate action prohibits a swift action on your next turn, let's call it a free action, as long as the recipient is aware, willing, and has a hand free.
|
|
I prefer that it be an immediate action to receive. It should consume an action.
Still disturbed about the dwarf rubbing an oil on me while I'm unconscious.
I agree with Xuttah, and LKL. An immediate action makes absolute sense - and since the Immediate action removes one's swift action next round - it still burns an action of some point - but not a whole move action as 3.5 expects it to.
Furthermore - there's a discussion on a thread about opening and door and moving through it - I think these two can be related.
Consider my proposal for things like "picking something up off the ground while moving to it" and "opening a door while moving."
As it stands, moving to the object/door and then retriving/opening are each burning a MOVE action. It really is silly to move 15' of your allowed 30' up to a door, and then stop, then use your second MOVE action in that round to retreive/open; then your turn is over. So essentially it took you a move and a half action to pick up the item/open the door.
My suggestion was that you should get to finish any unused movement used in your first MOVE action that you needed to use to get to the object/door. So in my example after moving to the door, you can finish your first move and move 15' down the hallway beyond the door, or beyond the point your retreived the object.
Applying that to this scenario; you MOVE to your ally - 20ft, hand off the wand of curing (MOVE action) - ally spends an IMMEDIATE action to receive it - then you can finish your first move and go 10' more - instead of having to stop adjacent to the ally.
Robert
Oh and I also agree with LKL that the dwarf rubbing oil on while you're sleeping is disturbing. :-)
I'd like to suggest that receiving an item in this manner counts as a swift action.
I think that should be an Immediate action, since it happens outside of your turn.
I think it should be a Move Action to give and an Immediate Swift Action to receive. Since the accepting character gets a benefit, I don't have a problem with them giving up a Swift Action in the next turn.
Shameless plug for my other thread on Actions in Combat.
The way I'd do it is:
Passing an object is a move action that doesn't provoke an AoO, or a swift action that does provoke an AoO, your choice.
Receiving an object is an immediate action that does not provoke an AoO.
I want a design mechanic for how we handle Immediate, Swift and Move Action. For example:
1- Swift Actions do not cause AoO.(Just my opinion but if it takes and 'instant' how do you get an AoO?)2- Move Actions may cause an AoO depending on the Action
3- Swift Actions can be used in the middle of a Move Action if you have BAB +1 (or something, it may be defined by Action).
3- Certain Actions (such as Pass an Object) can cause an Immediate Action (Move or Swift) that takes away the recipients action in their next turn if they choose to accept it.
Then we debate the action classification:
Move Action - Pass or Throw Object
Immediate Move Action - Receive Thrown Object (Others..?)
Swift Action - Quickened Spell, Draw Weapon (Pick Up Object or Open Door?)
Immediate Swift Action- Feather Fall, Receive Passed Object
I find the current mechanics too restictive. Too many instances of something taking a Move Action simply because we do not anything below Move and it ain't Free. Swift Actions were introduced to handle the 'minor' things that don't take an Move or Standard Action. There are actions (such as drawing a Weapon or drawing ammunition) that have always been handed different with a special rule. Now there are several threads on things like Opening Doors, Passing Objects, etc. Let's just define the mechanic and THEN classify the action types.
This would also allow easy house ruling. If a DM really passionately believes that Open Door should be a Swift Action, not a Move Action, then he only changes the action classification. The game mechanic still applies. This is what you get for letting an engineer into a role-playing discussion.
EDIT: The more I think of it, the more I like the idea of choosing between Pass Object as a Move Action w/o AoO or as a Swift Action with AoO. But than I want a mechanic for WHICH Move Actions can become Swift Actions with an AoO. Why is Pass Object special? Can I Ready a Shield as a Swift Action with an AoO?
|
|
This would also allow easy house ruling. If a DM really passionately believes that Open Door should be a Swift Action, not a Move Action, then he only changes the action classification. The game mechanic still applies. This is what you get for letting an engineer into a role-playing discussion.
EDIT: The more I think of it, the more I like the idea of choosing between Pass Object as a Move...
You know - this is very interesting; consider me intrigued. Sounds complicated to stratify them all initially - but once done, I think it would actually prove to be quite simple to adjudicate.
Robert
This would also allow easy house ruling. If a DM really passionately believes that Open Door should be a Swift Action, not a Move Action, then he only changes the action classification. The game mechanic still applies. This is what you get for letting an engineer into a role-playing discussion.
You know - this is very interesting; consider me intrigued. Sounds complicated to stratify them all initially - but once done, I think it would actually prove to be quite simple to adjudicate.
Robert
Robert, presuming you are still interested, this is my first cut at redefining Actions in Combat. Stratification was pretty easy, I just used AoO as the defining characteristic.
[Actions in Combat] Re-defined Using AoO as the Qualifier