| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I wanted to get clarification on how some of the weapon accessories in the Armory work.
1. Light and Heavy Bipod, Does it take a full round of two move actions to extend it and stabilize your gun before you get the bonus to the full attack in your second round? p. 58-59
2. Sight, what does "The reduction in penalties due to aiming with a sight applies only to the next attack roll you make with the weapon before the end of your next turn." p. 61 mean.
1: It's 2 move actions. Forst to drop the bipod, second to stabilize.
2: Much like using a sniper weapon's extended range, it takes a move action to aim with the sight. So the bonus is only to the next attack you make on your turn. You can't aim then full attack following turn.
Isaac Zephyr is right, though in practice, it only takes one move action since there's never any reason not to already have the bipod extended.
Well, no reason except for all those times that you would not have a weapon already drawn when combat starts. It's like how there's no reason not to have your environmental protections on all the time, except that it would be really bizarre to have your environmental protection on all the time when you aren't in a hostile environment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in my first turn I can say that my bipod/foregrip was extended before combat began and I can make a standard attack after stabilizing with my move action. In the second round I can full attack and get the bonus from the bipod.
This means I can also aim through my sight and stabilize with my bipod/fore grip in my first turn and get both bonuses in my next turn if I full attack.
Another option would be to move up to a more advantageous position, go prone, and aim through my sight or stabilize with the bipod in my first turn and full attack in my second turn and get the bonuses.
I just want to get an idea what I can do in the action economy. The new accessories really open up some options for all us gun guys.
It would only apply on your first attack of the full attack in round 2.
Interesting, I didn't catch that nuance in the wording. So it would only give you a bonus on the first attack of your full attack.
How about for the bipod, it says for the light bipod subtract one from your total attack penalty when full attacking. I'm guessing that means you can take one off of the attack penalty for one attack in a full attack, but not the other? Also, for the heavy bipod you can take two off the total penalty so either one off each attack in a full attack or 2 off of one and none off the other?
Also, for the bipod once you stabilize the weapon do you have to stabilize it again after firing if you don't move to get the bonus? For example the previous turn you stabilized your weapon and didn't attack so this turn you full attack. Then, on your third turn, you full attack again. Do you continue to benefit from the bipod stabilization bonus?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bipod penalty reduction appears to apply to all the attacks in a full attack.
I read it as once you stabilize it, you don't have to do so again until the situation changes (that is you change your handedness, move it off the crate, lose and regain consciousness, etc.)
The part where it gets weird is that the bipod entry says that you can stabilize, to the same lrvel, by using the bipod as a forward grip. I've seen this read as "spend a move action to grab the bipod, then run around with a permanent bonus," which is terrible. I've also seen it read as "grab your bipod as a move action, and be stabilized until you walk somewhere," which helps keep the balance, but is also terrible because, well, bipod don't work that way, and I have no idea what possessed someone to write the item so that you didn't have to brace on an object to gain s bonus.
The part where it gets weird is that the bipod entry says that you can stabilize, to the same lrvel, by using the bipod as a forward grip. I've seen this read as "spend a move action to grab the bipod, then run around with a permanent bonus," which is terrible. I've also seen it read as "grab your bipod as a move action, and be stabilized until you walk somewhere," which helps keep the balance, but is also terrible because, well, bipod don't work that way, and I have no idea what possessed someone to write the item so that you didn't have to brace on an object to gain s bonus.
Personally I interpret this as its meant to represent both a bipod and a forward grip. Both exist and the function would be similar. In my game I allow the players a choice of either. Steadying the weapon is the move action regardless of which form you chose to use it.
I also understood it as a combination forward grip and a bipod. If you do a google image search and put in the keywords assault rifle foregrip bipod it will show you what it looks like. It allows you to have the functionality of a foregrip and also the use of a bipod.
With the combo grip/bipod you can stabilize while standing, prone, or by resting the bipod on an object or the gound. The only thing I think that needs clarification is if you reposition yourself do you need to stabilize again. For example, your gun was stabilized the previous round and you full attack while standing in the open. Next round you move to a position with cover. Do you need to stabilize again as your second move action in that round so you can full attack the round after that with the bonus or since you stabilized once already you don't need to again. This would allow you to make standard attack in the round you moved to cover and a full attack with bonuses in the round after that one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify, I'm not objecting to a combination forward grip and bipod, that would be silly.
What irritates me is the idea that a forward grip provides the same kind of stability as a bipod.
They do not. At all.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The only thing I think that needs clarification is if you reposition yourself do you need to stabilize again. For example, your gun was stabilized the previous round and you full attack while standing in the open. Next round you move to a position with cover. Do you need to stabilize again as your second move action in that round so you can full attack the round after that with the bonus or since you stabilized once already you don't need to again. This would allow you to make standard attack in the round you moved to cover and a full attack with bonuses in the round after that one.
I would love to see a FAQ on this, because regardless of what makes logical sense, I'm struggling to find RAW interpretations that would require you to spend a move action to grip the bipod as your "forward grip" when you have not stopped gripping it yet.
Text in question from http://aonsrd.com/WeaponAccessories.aspx?ItemName=Light&Family=Bipod
... Also as a move action, you can stabilize your weapon by resting an extended bipod on a solid surface or using the bipod as a forward grip. When you fire the stabilized weapon, reduce the total penalty you take for making a full attack and due to range according to the bipod’s type...
You all forget the concept of using at a forward grip. I can move and stabilize a weapon with a forward grip. I mean that is just real life. I had a proposed change to the item or make them to items:
Mount: Move action - You mount the weapon on a rock, wall or similar surface, You reduce penalties for range increments and full attack by 2. Leaving your square, taking cover, any other action that would make sense (causing you to move the weapon from the spot) and you lose this bonus.
Forward Grip: Move action - You use the bipod as a forward grip allowing for movement but a lesser bonus. You can move at half your speed and keeping the weapon stabilized granting a +1 bonus to full attacks.
You habe 2 different options to utilize the item with no real difference between them, when they are clearly 2 different concepts.
In starfinder taking cover isn't an action.
Continuing from Problems with Sniper Rifles so as not to derail that thread further.
I'm not sure it is so disproportionate.I am.
Plus hit is the hardest thing there is to come by in this system. You can't get magic weapons, you can't get masterwork weapon. Taking points off of a full attack is a level 7ish ability.
Getting something twice as good for couch cushion money at no action economy cost is bonkers.
One of your four weapon rails is less cost than the couch cushion money.
It is not the same thing as plus hit at all. It is a reduction in a penalty in a specific circumstance. The bipod makes you no better at making single attacks, trick attacks, etc. It occupies a different design space.
For one, I can't find any of the "two feats" you're referring to. The closest thing I can find is the multi-weapon fighting feat, which allows someone wielding multiple small arms to reduce their multi-attack penalty by 1.Weapon focus is a feat, grants a plus one to attack. Multi weapon fighting is a feat, adds plus one to full attacks.. sometimes.
It is not "twice as good" as weapon focus. See above.
To me, this is an indication that it behaves as I described, because there is no equivalent feat for Longarms.This absolutely doesn't follow. At all.
Multiweapon fighting exists because
1) You can fight with two small arms. Two long arms, not so much
2) Small arms and operative weapons are terrible in this system, the feat exists to give an underpowered form of combat a boost or niche
3) keeping up with two different smallarms is not the same as keeping up with one longarm.
Longarms have advantages over small arms. Among other things if you have longarm proficiency (which costs a feat for something like half or more of the classes in the game) you can spend one of your longarm attachment slots to get a reduction in your multi-attack penalty. If you don't want to pay the longarm proficiency tax you can take multi-weapon fighting instead and get a similar benefit.So because longarms have advantages over smallarms we need to give the longarms the one advantage we gave to small arms....
Wow. No. That does not follow.
I'm not going to debate on the intentions of the designers here--that's a bottomless rabbit-hole and I shouldn't have started down it. My point was that longarms have advantages and tradeoffs compared to small arms, and this seems like one of them. There is no feat for the Longarms to get what the small arms have, and there is no item for the small arms to get what the longarms have; a tradeoff.
There are none that I could find on aonsrd.com. It is not an item or an action in the game; just a phraseSo your argument is that it can work like an item who's workings we don't know....?
That doesn't make an argument.
Now you're not even reading what I'm saying. A "forward grip" *is not an item at all*.
The words "forward grip" in that sentence are not referring to an item; they are a phrase to describe something, like how the bipod is described as a pair of "sturdy legs" that are "extended" and "collapsed" and rest on a "solid surface." The rulebook doesn't list a "solid surface" as an item, nor does it list "sturdy legs" yet we understand what it is talking about.
You can either "stabilize your weapon by resting an extended bipod on a solid surface" or you can "stabilize your weapon by using the bipod as a forward grip."
There are advantages to both:
* If the weapon is on a solid surface, you can change your grip (i.e. release one hand) as only a swift action. The weapon remains stabilized by the bipod on a solid surface, so when you spend a second swift action to shift your grip again (to hold it with two hands) it is still stabilized.
* If you are gripping the bipod to stabilize it, after you spend a swift action to shift your grip you'll have to spend a swift action to shift your grip back to two hands, then a move action to stabilize again.
There are lots of reasons you might shift your grip out of combat, and there are even reasons to shift your grip *in* combat (throwing a grenade, taking a serum, flipping a switch on some equipment, using a spell gem or spell ampoule, etc.)
With that said, if you allow players to walk around with their guns out I don't see a reason they can't walk around gripping their bipod.
Can you explain to me what "as a move action, you can stabilize your weapon by ... using the bipod as a forward grip" means? It says nothing about adopting a stance. Why is that sentence there, in your opinion?In case you're in outer space or somewhere you really don't have somewhere to rest a bipod on.
This doesn't make sense to me in terms of physics, but you have given me an answer at least.
There is no point at all of mentioning an action you take in combat (the move action) if you can take it out of combat and then never have to take it in combat, or if you have to track every time your character unwedgies their space suit. <---- this really needs addressing.
If you don't need to use a move action the only time you track move actions... then why would it say it takes a move action, at all?
Now I think we must be crossing in to territory of the how the rules were written to be played vs. how people play it in practice. Until we were discussing this I did not realize it was a swift action to change your grip from 1 hand to 2 and again to change it back. The more I learn the more I see there are *so many things* that interfere with being able to take full-round actions in this game (because unlike in PF1, you can't take a Swift and a Full-Round Action in the same turn).
In so far as I expect to see table variation on this being on all the time i would expect it to be somewhere between no and oh hell no.
Here you are very wrong. The only argument against what I'm saying is an RAI argument and there are multiple people (see Hammerjack above, for instance) who argue this is the correct RAW interpretation, for better or worse.
It is not the same thing as plus hit at all. It is a reduction in a penalty in a specific circumstance.
This is not splitting hairs its inducing nuclear fission.
The circumstance where the plus hit/ reduction in penalty is granted (mathematically, they're the same thing) is that someone with a ranged weapon is full attacking. Unlike with a melee weapon where you frequently have to use a move action to well.. do the thing you do so frequently they named the action after it, a ranged character has far less need to move: especially with a longarm.
My point was that longarms have advantages and tradeoffs compared to small arms, and this seems like one of them. There is no feat for the Longarms to get what the small arms have, and there is no item for the small arms to get what the longarms have; a tradeoff.
Because somehow smallarms, an item to woefully underpowered that the number one most given peice of advice for every character from a spoony envoy to a healing mystic is "get longarm proficiency", are too good compared to longarms so longarms must be granted a cheap item to be a free feet....
No. Just no. Smallarms don't have advantages in game. They have worse range, worse damage dice, and only do half specialization. The only advantage to them is they work with trick attack and this isn't an item for anyone using trick attack.
So the idea that the poor longarms needed a +2 to hit for a few credits to keep up with the smallarms getting a +1 for a feat... no. That really, really, doesn't fly.
Now you're not even reading what I'm saying
Not cool.
The words "forward grip" in that sentence are not referring to an item; they are a phrase to describe something, like how the bipod is described as a pair of "sturdy legs" that are "extended" and "collapsed" and rest on a "solid surface." The rulebook doesn't list a "solid surface" as an item, nor does it list "sturdy legs" yet we understand what it is talking about.
You can use it as a forward grip does tell you what you can physically do with it.
What is less clear is if just grabbing the thing differently is supposed to have the same exact effects as bracing it on the ground.
* If the weapon is on a solid surface, you can change your grip (i.e. release one hand) as only a swift action. The weapon remains stabilized by the bipod on a solid surface, so when you spend a second swift action to shift your grip again (to hold it with two hands) it is still stabilized.
* If you are gripping the bipod to stabilize it, after you spend a swift action to shift your grip you'll have to spend a swift action to shift your grip back to two hands, then a move action to stabilize again.
This is less than persuasive on a few accounts.
For starters I don't believe the point of the item was to send the reader down the rabbit hole of unmentioned swift actions.
While the bipod holding still if you let get go makes sense, the item doesn't call itself out as doing so. You're relying very heavily on a sola raw interpretation, but you can't get to this difference by raw.
Most importantly needing to shift grips for a ranged character already holding a gun is pretty much a non consideration as frequently as it comes up.
With that said, if you allow players to walk around with their guns out I don't see a reason they can't walk around gripping their bipod.
Again, the argument is that this is true. This being true amounts to a near constant +2 bonus to hit under that rules interpretation, which means that said interpretation is problematic.
Now I think we must be crossing in to territory of the how the rules were written to be played vs. how people play it in practice.
The RAW isn't the entirety of the rules. Sola RAW has a terrible track record of actually being right way to read the rules in the long run. How people interpret the rules is an important part in figuring out what the rule IS.
Until we were discussing this I did not realize it was a swift action to change your grip from 1 hand to 2 and again to change it back. The more I learn the more I see there are *so many things* that interfere with being able to take full-round actions in this game (because unlike in PF1, you can't take a Swift and a Full-Round Action in the same turn).
and how finicky/useless/niche that makes a lot of swift actions. And also how operatives can't ambush people effectively. It also makes hover drones kinda.. not work at all if you look at the rules too closely.
I think you all are over complicating this. Nothing states that you have to continue to take a move action to stabilize the weapon, even if you move. Nothing states you can't always have the bipod extended. At the same time it is a vague rule but I think we are trying to dig at something not really there.
In reality this item should have been 2 different items. A bipod and a fore grip. Mechanically they would do the same thing. One would give more bonus than the other. I mean thing of just using the concepts in real life.
@caps: Reread the sentence in question regarding the forward grip:
Also as a move action, you can stabilize your weapon by resting an extended bipod on a solid surface or using the bipod as a forward grip.
It clearly states that the bipod being used as a forward grip is an item. It also states and references a solid surface as an object. A wall that is 3 feet high could be a solid surface, a desk, etc. That action alone states I can mount it to a surface or I can use it as a grip. I don't understand how any of that is unclear.
Based on the description then it would be 2 awkward to have extended all the time. But then I think of trying to use 2 legs as a forward grip is absurd. Again this item should be 2 separate items. I would like to see this FAQ or even redesigned.
I think you all are over complicating this. Nothing states that you have to continue to take a move action to stabilize the weapon, even if you move.
A bipod is a set of sturdy legs attached to a railed weapon’s bottom rail. You can extend or collapse a bipod as a move action. Also as a move action, you can stabilize your weapon by resting an extended bipod on a solid surface or using the bipod as a forward grip. When you fire the stabilized weapon, reduce the total penalty you take for making a full attack and due to range according to the bipod’s type. You can’t benefit from a bipod if your weapon is mounted to a gunner harness (see page 60) or powered armor.
If it was "fire and forget" for gripping so to speak, they would've had that as drawing it or wrote it like they would Stances.
Common Sense says you have to spend the move action to stabilize if you move, cause it's not stable any more.
I think we are reaching the point where the only productive thing left to do is hit the FAQ button on my post here. Paizo did not word this clearly enough; any number of things they could have done to make it black-and-white they did not do.
It is not the same thing as plus hit at all. It is a reduction in a penalty in a specific circumstance.This is not splitting hairs its inducing nuclear fission.
The circumstance where the plus hit/ reduction in penalty is granted (mathematically, they're the same thing) is that someone with a ranged weapon is full attacking. Unlike with a melee weapon where you frequently have to use a move action to well.. do the thing you do so frequently they named the action after it, a ranged character has far less need to move: especially with a longarm.
*sigh*
Maybe you are experiencing different combat encounters than I am. There are a lot of times that ranged attackers cannot full-attack in my experience.
The words "forward grip" in that sentence are not referring to an item; they are a phrase to describe something, like how the bipod is described as a pair of "sturdy legs" that are "extended" and "collapsed" and rest on a "solid surface." The rulebook doesn't list a "solid surface" as an item, nor does it list "sturdy legs" yet we understand what it is talking about.You can use it as a forward grip does tell you what you can physically do with it.
What is less clear is if just grabbing the thing differently is supposed to have the same exact effects as bracing it on the ground.
Huh? It literally says it has the same effect. "Do x or y to get z effect" means that if you do x or you do y then you get z effect.
* If the weapon is on a solid surface, you can change your grip (i.e. release one hand) as only a swift action. The weapon remains stabilized by the bipod on a solid surface, so when you spend a second swift action to shift your grip again (to hold it with two hands) it is still stabilized.
* If you are gripping the bipod to stabilize it, after you spend a swift action to shift your grip you'll have to spend a swift action to shift your grip back to two hands, then a move action to stabilize again.This is less than persuasive on a few accounts.
For starters I don't believe the point of the item was to send the reader down the rabbit hole of unmentioned swift actions.
This is silly. They don't need to mention every possible relevant interaction with the longarm in the text. That doesn't make them any less relevant.
While the bipod holding still if you let get go makes sense, the item doesn't call itself out as doing so. You're relying very heavily on a sola raw interpretation, but you can't get to this difference by raw.
I didn't say "let go" I said "shift grip to one hand." It is a bipod, not a tripod, so I have no expectation from the text or from logic that it will remain standing if it is abandoned.
Most importantly needing to shift grips for a ranged character already holding a gun is pretty much a non consideration as frequently as it comes up.
I think people probably get away with a lot they're not supposed to.
With that said, if you allow players to walk around with their guns out I don't see a reason they can't walk around gripping their bipod.Again, the argument is that this is true. This being true amounts to a near constant +2 bonus to hit under that rules interpretation, which means that said interpretation is problematic.
Now we're just repeating ourselves. It is not a +2 bonus. It doesn't help me hit the big-bad-high-ac mook with my single attack.
Now I think we must be crossing in to territory of the how the rules were written to be played vs. how people play it in practice.The RAW isn't the entirety of the rules. Sola RAW has a terrible track record of actually being right way to read the rules in the long run. How people interpret the rules is an important part in figuring out what the rule IS.
I'm not really arguing for Sola RAW here in general, but in this case rulings alternative to Sola RAW are too much like house rules
"you have to spend a move action at the beginning of combat, but then you can move"or
"you have to spend a move action every time you change position"
or even the more dramatic
"it is a separate item altogether"
are all (reasonable, I'll admit) house rules that are not stated in the text.
Until we were discussing this I did not realize it was a swift action to change your grip from 1 hand to 2 and again to change it back. The more I learn the more I see there are *so many things* that interfere with being able to take full-round actions in this game (because unlike in PF1, you can't take a Swift and a Full-Round Action in the same turn).and how finicky/useless/niche that makes a lot of swift actions. And also how operatives can't ambush people effectively. It also makes hover drones kinda.. not work at all if you look at the rules too closely.
So I read the drone abilities, the fly speed rules, and the acrobatics rules and I see what you're referring to there. I disagree that it makes hover drones "not work at all." The RAW (and I suspect the RAI) is that a hover drone has to stay on the ground unless its controller spends an additional action while controlling it to make it fly. It works fine, and is still plenty useful, just not necessarily how you might imagine at first glance.
I don't understand why you say that RAW would indicate Operatives can't ambush people though? It seems to me they can succeed on a Stealth Check to hide, then make a Trick Attack using Stealth (or whatever) and make the target flat-footed (mechanically the same thing as an ambush) to attack the target. What am I missing?
But the gist of what you're saying here seems to be arguing that we should *ignore* RAW around swift actions if it feels too finicky/useless/niche? Am I understanding you right?
By the way, the swift actions I was referring to are in the weapons page here:
Melee weapons are categorized by how many hands are required to properly wield them. For ranged weapons, all small arms require one hand, longarms and heavy weapons require two hands, and special weapons are categorized by the number of hands required to wield them.
You can attack with a weapon (or threaten an area with it, for all melee weapons except unarmed strikes) only if you are wielding it with the correct number of hands. When the rules refer to wielding a weapon, it means you are holding a weapon with the correct number of hands and can thus make attacks with it. For example, if you are holding a small arm in your hand, you are considered to be wielding the weapon. If you are carrying a longarm in one hand or wearing a holstered weapon, you are not wielding it. You can carry a two-handed weapon in one hand, but you can’t make an attack with it while doing so.
Changing how you hold a weapon is a swift action. You are only considered to have as many hands as your race has actual functional hands or similar appendages (two for most races, but four in the case of kasathas and some other characters). Even if you could hold two weapons in the same hand, you can’t use the hand to wield both weapons. For example, a human with a power battleglove on one hand can still make ranged attacks with a longarm, but he can’t make melee attacks (and thus does not threaten any spaces) while doing so. As a swift action, the human can switch to hold his longarm with only one hand, allowing him to make attacks with the battleglove, but while doing so he can’t make longarm attacks.
I think you all are over complicating this. Nothing states that you have to continue to take a move action to stabilize the weapon, even if you move.
Nothing states that the move action to stabilize the weapon lasts indefinitely either. So this objection is meaningless. You have to conclude how long it's supposed to ask by reading the text and no particular conclusion is raw.
Nothing states you can't always have the bipod extended.
Nothing states that you CAN either. "It doesn't say I can't therefore I can" is bad logic and worse interpretation.
I'm not really arguing for Sola RAW here in general, but in this case rulings alternative to Sola RAW are too much like house rules
"you have to spend a move action at the beginning of combat, but then you can move"
or
"you have to spend a move action every time you change position"
or even the more dramatic
"it is a separate item altogether"
are all (reasonable, I'll admit) house rules that are not stated in the text.
But being able to spend a move action after you eat your wheaties and have the bipod last all day isn't a house rule because....?
The item does NOT spell out how it works or what circumstances require you to spend the move action. To figure out how the item works like a forward grip you had to go through the common sense of -well we know what a bipod is...-
How the item works is a conclusion,not a house rule. The item is too vague on what it does to insult other peoples positions like that. Good conclusions are based on the words that are there, but they're also based on common sense, intent, and balance. A constant +2 to hit for a few credits is vastly out of line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate the mildly heated debate here, but I believe the takeaway here is the FAQ button needs more love...
This is a fairly too common occurrence in general.
Yeah, I'm looking at you gunner harnesses and you too level 4 witchwarper archetype trade off...
No further debate is going to be able to figure out the intent though sadly as there's no way to definitively get there given the (occasionally lack of) text provided.
So let's get that FAQ warmed up please.
I think you all are over complicating this. Nothing states that you have to continue to take a move action to stabilize the weapon, even if you move.Nothing states that the move action to stabilize the weapon lasts indefinitely either. So this objection is meaningless. You have to conclude how long it's supposed to ask by reading the text and no particular conclusion is raw.
Nothing states you can't always have the bipod extended.Nothing states that you CAN either. "It doesn't say I can't therefore I can" is bad logic and worse interpretation.
I mean I am not trying to argue either way really here. Just making that point. It doesn't say either way. I am remaining neutral on that point.
Huh? It literally says it has the same effect. "Do x or y to get z effect" means that if you do x or you do y then you get z effect.
That is a problem with the item. When you look at the 2 different descriptions, mount an a fore grip, they are mechanically different when applied to real life and should be represented as such in game.
But they are described as 2 different things you can do. Mount it to a solid surface or use it a fore grip.
I think you all are over complicating this. Nothing states that you have to continue to take a move action to stabilize the weapon, even if you move.A bipod is a set of sturdy legs attached to a railed weapon’s bottom rail. You can extend or collapse a bipod as a move action. Also as a move action, you can stabilize your weapon by resting an extended bipod on a solid surface or using the bipod as a forward grip. When you fire the stabilized weapon, reduce the total penalty you take for making a full attack and due to range according to the bipod’s type. You can’t benefit from a bipod if your weapon is mounted to a gunner harness (see page 60) or powered armor.If it was "fire and forget" for gripping so to speak, they would've had that as drawing it or wrote it like they would Stances.
Common Sense says you have to spend the move action to stabilize if you move, cause it's not stable any more.
Common sense does not dictate this. Especially if you have a understanding go how the item(s) are supposed to work. I can have a fore grip and still walk with it and keep the weapon stabilized. That is why I suggested using that way you move at full speed. Now holding a fore grip and full sprinting won't do anything for stabilizing the weapon. But if you move in a slower more tactful way you can move an stabilize the weapon (the whole point of a fore grip).
As a whole Starfinder should of had a lot fo 2E mechanics. The 3 action system or similar, and knowing that this kind of thing would arise should have had a way to deal with it. Again it is an easy fix. I do believe my idea is in the right direction. I am not familiar with the math or balancing but feel that with some tweaks my idea can work and not be too much.
But being able to spend a move action after you eat your wheaties and have the bipod last all day isn't a house rule because....?I'm not really arguing for Sola RAW here in general, but in this case rulings alternative to Sola RAW are too much like house rules
"you have to spend a move action at the beginning of combat, but then you can move"
or
"you have to spend a move action every time you change position"
or even the more dramatic
"it is a separate item altogether"
are all (reasonable, I'll admit) house rules that are not stated in the text.
We're not going to persuade each other but you keep putting words in my mouth and I don't appreciate it, so I'm going to clarify myself here.
There are a lot of circumstances where Starfinders won't even *have their weapons out* like when they're ambushed while at a gala or walking down the street on Absalom Station or any number of other places.
Most Starfinders that have a bit of experience are probably going to pull their weapons out at an archaelogical site. Maybe not the first time, but once they start to realize "every time I go on one of these missions something attacks me" they're going to draw their weapons. With that said, if they're occupied clearing rubble or setting up equipment or whatever then they're probably going to have to spend actions drawing and readying weapons if a fight breaks out.
There's a gray area where one could argue "you won't be holding the forward grip every second of your exploration" just as you could argue that a melee character in PF2 won't be holding their weapon with two hands for a similar duration. But the rules don't say anything about either situation, so if a player insists that their character would do so as a Society GM I don't really have anything to stop them with.
As a player, outside of the situation I'm about to describe in the next paragraph, I would probably not assume I'm using my "forward grip" when a fight breaks out in a place I don't already know there are foes (like the archaelogical kind of sites I described above). It's tough though; I've never used one, so maybe they are just as comfortable as keeping a second hand on the stock.
The most logical time this "always holding my forward grip" is going to come into play is when infiltrating a hostile base (or defending one) and there are still plenty of times that they won't even be able to full attack to benefit from it. Most boss-fights I have seen tend to have some interesting room layouts or terrain that tend to require people to move around to get line of sight. Standing in one place and full-attacking round after round requires all your enemies to be visible, which usually indicates a wide open plain, or a large room with no obstacles, and those are both few and far between.
We're not going to persuade each other but you keep putting words in my mouth and I don't appreciate it, so I'm going to clarify myself here.
Am I wrong in saying thats what your interpretation would amount to? No. You don't like the phrasing. Too bad. Its not a substantive deviation from your argument.
As to how often it's a plus two to hit, neither weapon focus nor multi weapon fighting give you plus one to attack all the time either. Multiweapon fighting requires a full attack. Weapon focus requires you to be using the right catagory (and sometimes you need to knife something you'd rather be shooting). Rating the ability as you're reading it as two feats worth of benefit is substantially accurate. You can try to argue how far off it is, but you are again going for the mathematicians answer of -its not two feats- rather than -is that too close to two feats to be that good?-
The most logical time this "always holding my forward grip" is going to come into play is when infiltrating a hostile base (or defending one) and there are still plenty of times that they won't even be able to full attack to benefit from it. Most boss-fights I have seen tend to have some interesting room layouts or terrain that tend to require people to move around to get line of sight. Standing in one place and full-attacking round after round requires all your enemies to be visible, which usually indicates a wide open plain, or a large room with no obstacles, and those are both few and far between.
The most logical times to holding a forward grip is when the weapon is I drawn and in your hands. That’s the purpose. What matters then is are you stabilizing the weapon? You can still move and stabilize the weapon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me the 'forward grip' mechanic just seems like someone at Paizo deciding nobody would use bipods if you had to find raised surfaces or go prone in order to make them work, so they added a clause that let you use the bipod in the same way regardless of terrain.
The fact that longarms require two hands anyways and this requires a move action indicates that there's something more to the grip than simply grabbing the front of your weapon.
So I think it's reasonable for a GM to rule that the type of movement that'd remove the bonus from planting your bipod against a surface also breaks the way you're required to brace yourself when you're gripping your weapon with the bipod.
I mean, ultimately if you want to run Bipods as a free -2 all the time or a half priced light gunner's harness at your own tables, that's up to you and your GM (or just you if you are the GM).
But it seems internally consistent to run it the way BNW suggests running it.
To me the 'forward grip' mechanic just seems like someone at Paizo deciding nobody would use bipods if you had to find raised surfaces or go prone in order to make them work, so they added a clause that let you use the bipod in the same way regardless of terrain.
The fact that longarms require two hands anyways and this requires a move action indicates that there's something more to the grip than simply grabbing the front of your weapon.
So I think it's reasonable for a GM to rule that the type of movement that'd remove the bonus from planting your bipod against a surface also breaks the way you're required to brace yourself when you're gripping your weapon with the bipod.
I mean, ultimately if you want to run Bipods as a free -2 all the time or a half priced light gunner's harness at your own tables, that's up to you and your GM (or just you if you are the GM).
But it seems internally consistent to run it the way BNW suggests running it.
So then give them and incentive to. This could be an opportunity to make snipers a great weapon and improve them. You could make it so if you have a sniper mounted then it removes unwieldy gives bonus to range increments. Could even have it play on the full auto mechanic. The fore grip would always be less of a bonus than the bipod but allow more mobility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Based on the description then it would be 2 awkward to have extended all the time. But then I think of trying to use 2 legs as a forward grip is absurd.
Think again.
Based on the description then it would be 2 awkward to have extended all the time. But then I think of trying to use 2 legs as a forward grip is absurd.
You think again. Those legs aren’t sturdy for something more powerful than that. Also doesn’t really Fit the description. The fore grip for that is always deployed. The heavy bipod would need to be extended in order to be used as a forward grip. With what you showed I only need to extend that for the legs to mount.
Ok, you don't know anything about guns. That's fine.
Ok, you don't know anything about guns. That's fine.
I don't know as much as I would like to. But I have friends who do know this. Navy Seals, Special Forces, kind of helps when you were in and made friends and trained with them.
Again I don't think you read what I was going on about. THAT ISN'T WHAT IS DESCRIBED. I can't make you see or understand that. If order to use a heavy bipod as a fore grip it "HAS TO BE EXTENDED" what you showed, the fore grip is already able to use. What you showed only the bipod needs to be.
Also with a sturdy set of legs it would be awkward to carry on your back. Most people I have talked to about this item imagines what I showed later in this post.
My initial argument stands this needs to be 2 separate items.
You can honestly say you would take that little guy and put it on a Barrett 821A? I think not. If that is what they were basing it off, speculation, then they got it all wrong because that you don't need to extend anything to use it as a fore grip. It is a set of legs that is attached to a rail of a gun. Nothing more.
This is more reasonable: Here
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind the argument that those should be 2 different items, but I don't get why bipods that are able to be used as foregrips, designed by civilizations with crazy sf spacetech and magic would be too flimsy to do what they were conceived to do.
The Pact Worlds have access to tech a tad better than our own, both in materials and weaponry. Who's to say their heavy guns pack more recoil than a bb gun ? It's enough of an issue that I'd expect compensating to be a decent priority in gun design. Not that a laser has much recoil to begin with.
Let's not use our 21st century's gun knowhow to balance a science fantasy space-op game, yes ?
To the original bracing question : if I was a gambling man, I'd be willing to bet bracing on a surface or with a forward grip is supposed to work the exact same way.
And we don't really know the duration of either, which is absolutely an issue, but I'd expect "until you move from that square, change your handedness or somehow use your grabby appendages for something else" to be the answer, as Ravingdork speculated earlier (... almost 2 years ago).