This seems very strong. As my players said why would you not take direct control. He shoots and then shoots with the drone getting two shots off with out the -4/-4. This just doesn't seem correct what am I missing here?
|
It's balanced by two factors:
A) You're giving up your Move action, and Mechanics have a lot of Mechanic Tricks, Feats, and other things that compete for that. Or...sometimes you need to actually Move, so you can't do it.
B) The Mechanic is a 3/4 BAB progression, and the Drone is going to be even farther behind that (since the drone Str/Dex will not go up nearly as fast as a PC's will with the Stat Upgrade items.) If you compare a similarly-optimized Soldier, the Mechanic and Drone are going to be about -4 To Hit bonus lower than them, which is pretty much equivalent to the Soldier using Full Attack.
Just like most pet classes in Pathfinder, the Mechanic is going to start strong with the extra attack, but quickly fall in line with the other classes by level 3 or so.
I am still confused on how the swift action comes into play. It reads that the mechanic can give up up his swift action to allow the drone to attack twice. So..he mechanic uses a move action to master control his drone, he then shoots..leaving his drone with one action. He then gives up his swift action thus allowing the drone to attack twice. Now am I understanding that correctly..its very confusing..
So based on on the wording you don’t give up you swift action. It doesn’t state you can give the swift action away.
It clearly states:
“If you also take a swift action, your drone can take a swift action as well, or it can combine its actions into a full action.”
So this does not work the same way giving you move action to control the drone. The way it reads the drone can only use a swift action if you use a swift action. Did I miss anything?
|
Put more simply:
together, a mechanic and it's drone have
2 standard actions
1 move action
1 swift action
The move and the swift actions by default belong to the mechanic. Using Master Control, the mechanic has the option to pass his move action to the drone OR the mechanic can pass both his move action and his swift action to the drone.
Though related, separately:
In order to full attack (attack twice at a -4 on each), one must combine a standard, move, and swift actions.
To the OP, yes you are correct, a mechanic and drone can both attack once in a turn without a -4 (as they both have standard actions). OR one could attack once without the -4 (standard action) and the other could attack twice with the -4 on their 2 attacks (full-attack; standard + move + swift).
But you clearly missed what was stated. Nothing states you can pass the swift action to the drone. If so please show me where it states you can GIVE YOUR SWIFT action to the drone. Again it clearly states:
"If you also take a swift action, your drone can take a swift action as well, or it can combine its actions into a full action."
So this says that your drone only gets a swift action if you take a swift action. Please explain how this statement allows the mechanic to pass his swift action to his drone?
I had to repeatedly read the rules section on this after this discussion. In controlling your drone, you have two options -- limited AI or Master Control.
In Limited AI:
Mechanic = Move AND Std action (allowing a full action)
Drone = Move OR Std action
Master Control:
Mechanic = Std Action
Drone = Move AND Std Action (allowing a full action)
In either case, the mechanic/droid combo essentially gets an action and a half. One of the two gets a full action, while the other gets half an action (only Move or Std).
I had to repeatedly read the rules section on this after this discussion. In controlling your drone, you have two options -- limited AI or Master Control.
In Limited AI:
Mechanic = Move AND Std action (allowing a full action)
Drone = Move OR Std actionMaster Control:
Mechanic = Std Action
Drone = Move AND Std Action (allowing a full action)In either case, the mechanic/droid combo essentially gets an action and a half. One of the two gets a full action, while the other gets half an action (only Move or Std).
Based on the way i read what you put the drone breaks the Full Action roll. A Full action REQUIRES Standard, Move AND SWIFT.
I was just arguing on the wording of the ability. It is POORLY written. Alot of people read it for what it says. Your drone only get s a swift action if you take a swift action. The way it reads as written, If the mechanic TAKES a swift action the drone CAN TAKE ONE AS WELL
It it is intended for you to control your drone as a swift action then is should read:
If you also take a swift action to control your drone then your drone can take a swift action as well, or it can combine its actions into a full action.
The current statement and this statement ARE IN FACT 2 completely different statements. RAW vs RAI. In this case I treat it as RAW. Because that is what it states.
|
I was just arguing on the wording of the ability. It is POORLY written. Alot of people read it for what it says. Your drone only get s a swift action if you take a swift action. The way it reads as written, If the mechanic TAKES a swift action the drone CAN TAKE ONE AS WELL
I'm really confused what you're arguing here. Your drone can take a standard action regardless of whether you directly control it, it can take a move action if you use your move action to directly control it and if you use your swift action it can take a swift action. If you both take a swift action and use your move action to directly control it it can take a full action.
So, RAW, if I spend my swift action to QuickDraw a weapon, my drone also gets his own swift action? Sweet!
Has anyone co side red the notion that, that might actually have been intended?
That is why I am questioning this. I got to play for the first time the other night in a month. And the GM questioned the Mechanic. I went to reread it an noticed that it states you have to use your swift action in order for the drone to get its swift action. The way it is worded is very specific.
If that is the case then. I got my bone claw I can activate and deactivate each round as a swift.
The wording really seams odd. Because it states you get a swift and your drone gets a swift.
@whew - again RAW vs RAI. No one ever said they had to be doing the SAME swift action.
@Andy Brown It most certainly states that. page 75 of the CRB clearly states "If you also take a swift action, your drone can take a swift action as well, or it can combine its actions into a full action."
I can take ANY swift action and the drone can take a swift action.
So mechanic takes a standard action to shoot the baddie. I take a swift action to activate my bone claw (RAW state if i take a swift my drone gets a swift.) Then I take a move to control the drone. The drone gets a standard action from limited AI. A move action from master control and a swift action because I took a swift action. So it can combine those in to a full action.
Now was this the intention? Probably not. But the way it is worded YES.
The full text:
My personal reading is that you use up your swift action to give the drone the swift action. At my table, for example, you would not be able to quick draw a weapon and grant your drone a swift action.
@Andy Brown It most certainly states that. page 75 of the CRB clearly states "If you also take a swift action, your drone can take a swift action as well, or it can combine its actions into a full action."You just quoted it: "a swift action", not "any swift action".
You're reading that sentence in isolation rather than as part of the whole ability.
Obviously I'm not going to convince you I'm right, and you're not going to convince me you're right, so we're just going round in circles at this point.
Yes. It means ANY swift action. It isn't tied to any 1 swift action. Meaning ANY swift action i can perform. If it isn't ANY swift action, then which swift action is it? Which swift action must be used in order for this ability to trigger? It doesn't state it a specific swift action.
So therefore if I used my swift action to change grip on my small arm then my drone gets a swift action. Or i can use it to activate my bone claw or deactivate me bone claw. I have just used ANY swift action and my drone still gets a swift action.
I am not reading it in isolation. I am reading what it simply states. Again it is very CLEAR it what it states and means. If they wanted it to do what we think they intended it to do then they needed to reword it. Which just proves my point from other posts, that the book was NOT ready to be released.
The full text:
My personal reading is that you use up your swift action to give the drone the swift action. At my table, for example, you would not be able to quick draw a weapon and grant your drone a swift action.
No i get what you are saying. But it is worded in a way that can be interpreted many ways. If you read the words for what they are stating then I am correct. Again I gave the simple solution for this. I read things the way they are printed.
You can't always play by RAW only. That leads to CHAOS!
I remember when some paladins were immune to lava from level 1 because the had fire resistance 1 from their favored class. Turns out that was wrong (even though RAW said otherwise).
So many things break down if you adhere to RAW only.
You can't always play by RAW only. That leads to CHAOS!
I remember when some paladins were immune to lava from level 1 because the had fire resistance 1 from their favored class. Turns out that was wrong (even though RAW said otherwise).
So many things break down if you adhere to RAW only.
Well I am by the book. If it is written that is how I play. If it leads to chaos that isn't my fault. It is the developers for poor writing. I have seen this all across the rules. More often then not they make it very vague. Then they just ignore it and never fix it. ESPECIALLY IF IT IS in a player campaign.
I don't understand how you would be immune to lava because you have fire resistance 1. Now if lava only does 1 lava damage then you aren't immune. There is a difference. I would like to see the way that is worded.
Now what I find to be chaotic is when people use RAI vs RAW because RAW is chaotic. Unless you know 100% what is RAI it is all speculation. There is a reason rules are written. That is the way they are INTENDED TO PLAY.
The Master AI can be worded in a way to clarify the intent. As of now that is how I will rule it because that is how it is stated.
If it isn't ANY swift action, then which swift action is it?"As a move action" "If you also take a swift action"
Same thing.
Those are not the same thing. You picked the statements apart to say they are the same thing. Read the FULL statement.
As a move action, you can directly control your drone.
If you also take a swift action, your drone can take a swift action as well, or it can combine its actions into a full action.
Those statements do not state the same thing.
Original
As a move action, you can directly control your drone. This allows the drone to take both a move action and any standard action this turn (one from your control, and one from its limited AI). If you also take a swift action, your drone can take a swift action as well, or it can combine its actions into a full action. Your drone must be able to see or hear you, or be within range of your custom rig, for you to directly control your drone.
New
As a move action, you can directly control your drone. his allows the drone to take both a move action and any standard action this turn (one from your control, and one from its limited AI). You can also use your swift action to control the drone. By doing this drone can combine its actions into a full action. Your drone must be able to see or hear you, or be within range of your custom rig, for you to directly control your drone.
These both say completely different things. But they take up the same space. You don't what was actually intended for the drone. The New rewording takes up just slightly more space. Which there is plenty of space for this new wording to be used.
Most of the time people who try to use the RAI try to make it in their image.
You're welcome to run your games however you want, of course That freedom is one of the great things about tabletop roleplaying.
The lava issue was an editing mistake in both v3.5 and Pathfinder that incorrectly stated that immunity or resistance to for made you immune to the fire damage from lava. Here is an old discussion thread (One of many on the topic) in which the Paizo staff set things right. LINK
This issue arose during Society Play. Which last time I checked, I could be wrong, you use RAW for Society unless there is an Official Change.
I'm with Ravingdork, it is an extension of the ability to control your drone directly. Even if it could be worded more clearly the stronger inference leads to the using your swift to grant the drone a swift. It takes a much more tenuous reading to infer that you taking an unassociated swift action somehow gives your drone a swift action.
Those are not the same thing. You picked the statements apart to say they are the same thing. Read the FULL statement.I have been reading the whole thing. And by reading the paragraph as a whole, it is obvious to me that the swift action in questions is a swift action to control the drone. You are choosing to interpret it as any swift action.
We are both interpreting the rule, we just disagree on which interpretation is correct.
I am reading what is written. Not interpreting to what I want to see. But what is written. Nothing more.
I'm with Ravingdork, it is an extension of the ability to control your drone directly. Even if it could be worded more clearly the stronger inference leads to the using your swift to grant the drone a swift. It takes a much more tenuous reading to infer that you taking an unassociated swift action somehow gives your drone a swift action.
So its more teens reading to read what is actually written then, trying to interpret something that may have been meant? I don't know where you learn to read or anything. But I read it for what it states. Reading and trying to make it sound like it was intended it by far more tenuous.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please do not respond to Michael Smith. He has stated that he understands that the rules as intended is that both don't get a swift. He desires to troll the creators of the game with RAW arguments stating, "because it's vague I can do this...". The best tactic here, because you don't have to play with him, is to just smile and nod.
Yes Michael you are right it is vague. You and your group can play how you want, which is one of the main ideas behind tabletops to begin with. Enjoy the game.
Nope Michael Smith, your reading still requires interpretation and inference to get to your conclusions - I'll be honest I've read that several times and never would have come to the conclusion you have, like ever. even now I have to squint a little to see it.
Please do not respond to Michael Smith. He has stated that he understands that the rules as intended is that both don't get a swift. He desires to troll the creators of the game with RAW arguments stating, "because it's vague I can do this...". The best tactic here, because you don't have to play with him, is to just smile and nod.
Yes Michael you are right it is vague. You and your group can play how you want, which is one of the main ideas behind tabletops to begin with. Enjoy the game.
You couldn't be more wrong. Also you misspelled my name good job. I never agreed to such statement. I agreed that it is a possible outcome. I don't believe that is what the developers wanted. Because if it was then they would have put that.
I do not desire to troll the developers. I desire to get the developers to chime in. I never truly take in what players have to say as true. Because it is just their opinion unless something is BLACK AND WHITE. When I research things, I always skip over player comments and look only for the developers.
I have not done because it vague I can do this or that. No where did I ever state that. I simply put what is stated. If you all wish to play RAI vs RAW good for you. If you wish to modify the rules because it suits you all the power to you. But please do not come here accuse me of something I didn't do or say because I am asking about a RAW. I don't care for RAI, never have never will because it is all speculation.
Nope Michael Smith, your reading still requires interpretation and inference to get to your conclusions - I'll be honest I've read that several times and never would have come to the conclusion you have, like ever. even now I have to squint a little to see it.
No interpretation is required to read what is stated. I then question your ability to read the written text. I have asked people who have played and never touched a RPG in their life. Every single one of them read what was written. Not what was POSSIBLY INTENDED.
|
|
You are right Micheal my bad, let me rephrase..
Please do not respond to Micheal Smith. The best tactic here, because you don't have to play with him, is to just smile and nod.
Yes Michael you are right it is vague. You and your group can play how you want, which is one of the main ideas behind tabletops to begin with. Enjoy the game.
So its more teens reading to read what is actually written then, trying to interpret something that may have been meant? I don't know where you learn to read or anything. But I read it for what it states. Reading and trying to make it sound like it was intended it by far more tenuous.This is difficult to understand, would you care to try again? As written it comes across as borderline offensive (and borderline incoherent)
I will give you that. Sorry trying to do several other things. Got caught up and didn't reread.
So its more tenuous (autocorrect) misspelled it and didn't realize, to read what actually is written then, trying to interpret something that the developers meant for the ability to be intended?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No i get what you are saying. But it is worded in a way that can be interpreted many ways. If you read the words for what they are stating then I am correct. Again I gave the simple solution for this. I read things the way they are printed.The full text:
My personal reading is that you use up your swift action to give the drone the swift action. At my table, for example, you would not be able to quick draw a weapon and grant your drone a swift action.
It's worded clearly. By any measure of practical English usage, it's worded clearly enough to get RAI across.
If somebody wants to RAW lawyer it, yes, there's leeway. This is a game, not a legal text, and even with laws there's a matter of reasonableness. For any sense of either verisimilitude or game balance there is certainly only one interpretation:-The Mechanic is using a swift to grant a swift to the drone.
-That swift action is the granting.
Have fun parsing rules, but recognize how ridiculous it is to say that switching grips on your weapon allows your drone another action it wouldn't have had if you'd just held your weapon the same. And also note most people dislike playing with RAW lawyers.
Cheers, and here's hoping you're just trying to clean up the language of the rule rather than actually misinterpret it.
ETA: Holy moley, just read what you wrote while I was typing this. Here's hoping you can take a step back and see how your words sound to everybody who plays this game for fun.
You are right Micheal my bad, let me rephrase..
Please do not respond to Micheal Smith. The best tactic here, because you don't have to play with him, is to just smile and nod.
Yes Michael you are right it is vague. You and your group can play how you want, which is one of the main ideas behind tabletops to begin with. Enjoy the game.
Again man inconsistent with my name. Man attention to detail. I don't care to play how we want. I care to play by the rules as they are published. That was the intent of the game. To play by the rules. That is the whole point of rules. TO FOLLOW THEM AS WRITTEN. Also take your own advice. :)
Again man inconsistent with my name. Man attention to detail. I don't care to play how we want. I care to play by the rules as they are published. That was the intent of the game. To play by the rules. That is the whole point of rules. TO FOLLOW THEM AS WRITTEN. Also take your own advice. :)You are right Micheal my bad, let me rephrase..
Please do not respond to Micheal Smith. The best tactic here, because you don't have to play with him, is to just smile and nod.
Yes Michael you are right it is vague. You and your group can play how you want, which is one of the main ideas behind tabletops to begin with. Enjoy the game.
Citation needed.
Seriously, where does it say or which developer said that the point of the rules is to strictly follow the rules?
No i get what you are saying. But it is worded in a way that can be interpreted many ways. If you read the words for what they are stating then I am correct. Again I gave the simple solution for this. I read things the way they are printed.The full text:
My personal reading is that you use up your swift action to give the drone the swift action. At my table, for example, you would not be able to quick draw a weapon and grant your drone a swift action.
It's worded clearly. By any measure of practical English usage, it's worded clearly enough to get RAI across.
If somebody wants to RAW lawyer it, yes, there's leeway. This is a game, not a legal text, and even with laws there's a matter of reasonableness. For any sense of either verisimilitude or game balance there is certainly only one interpretation:
-The Mechanic is using a swift to...
Where I play we play RAW. Also I never said it wasn't ridiculous that I can take a swift action to change grip and the drone gets a swift action. Most people I game with could careless about these forms and play as written. Because thats what they have with them is the RULEBOOK. Again further proof the developers weren't ready to release the book. The RAI are not as clear as you make it. All I see Paizo doing is releasing content, nit making sure it is complete. When I first started playing 3 years ago to now I have noticed the content is lacking in quality and consistency. It seems they care nothing about quality and only care for money. The player companions and the society scenarios are evident of this.
Again man inconsistent with my name. Man attention to detail. I don't care to play how we want. I care to play by the rules as they are published. That was the intent of the game. To play by the rules. That is the whole point of rules. TO FOLLOW THEM AS WRITTEN. Also take your own advice. :)You are right Micheal my bad, let me rephrase..
Please do not respond to Micheal Smith. The best tactic here, because you don't have to play with him, is to just smile and nod.
Yes Michael you are right it is vague. You and your group can play how you want, which is one of the main ideas behind tabletops to begin with. Enjoy the game.
Citation needed.
Seriously, where does it say or which developer said that the point of the rules is to strictly follow the rules?
The Core Rulebook is my citation. If they didn't want you to use those rules they could have said here do this and this. The whole purpose of a Rulebook is to follow it as written.