|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: Interact says that the item you interact with needs to be either stored or unattended.
if the crossbow is in your hands, it's neither, regardless where the monkey is perched.
With GM discretion, this might work, but RAW doesn't support that.
CRB pg. 470 — "You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You can grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or produce some similar effect. You might have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful."
The "stored or unattended" clause seems targeted at grabbing new objects—I assume to distinguish Interact from Steal. There are no restrictions on the "manipulate on object" clause specifically, so I see no reason that a creature can't Interact with an object that another (willing) creature is holding. As far as my monkey familiar is concerned, reloading the heavy crossbow while I'm holding it is no different than my character reloading ballistae—I don't need to be actually "holding" the huge siege engine to Interact with it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Reload itself doesn't specify in hand. Interact does mention unattended or stored objects. But it isn't limited to that only, its also general manipulate objects. Otherwise you couldn't use interact on switches--which wouldn't be an object techincally.
I feel like the reloading counts under similar effects, as its not alimited "only this" list its an explicit example list. Additionally the line about possible skill checks open up a lot as well. If you read it as a limited list "these only" then it causes issues with other situations. Such as you couldn't untie a rope that someone was touching as they techicnally would no longer be unattended. (But this is a very specific and rahter pendantic comment I realize).
TLDR: I don't see the interact definition as a limiting list, but as an example list. Which interacting with another's object would fall under. If it couldn't do that, then it feels like a lot of other situations wouldn't work quite properly I feel like.
Interact Single Action
Manipulate
Source Core Rulebook pg. 470
You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You can grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or produce some similar effect. You might have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful.
Reload
Source Core Rulebook pg. 279
While all weapons need some amount of time to get into position, many ranged weapons also need to be loaded and reloaded. This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity, or you can spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn.
AgentBlack wrote: shroudb wrote: Interact says that the item you interact with needs to be either stored or unattended.
if the crossbow is in your hands, it's neither, regardless where the monkey is perched.
With GM discretion, this might work, but RAW doesn't support that.
CRB pg. 470 — "You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You can grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or produce some similar effect. You might have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful."
The "stored or unattended" clause seems targeted at grabbing new objects—I assume to distinguish Interact from Steal. There are no restrictions on the "manipulate on object" clause specifically, so I see no reason that a creature can't Interact with an object that another (willing) creature is holding. As far as my monkey familiar is concerned, reloading the heavy crossbow while I'm holding it is no different than my character reloading ballistae—I don't need to be actually "holding" the huge siege engine to Interact with it.
if you're going to rule it this way, then why do you insert the word "willing" in it?
what's stopping you from interacting to remove the armor of an oponent, to tie up his spell component pouch so that he can't open it, to close and secure his quiver, and etc.
As i said, it's a reasonable thing to ask of your GM, but it's not supported by RAW anywhere in the book.
RAW the weapon needs to be in one's possession to reload it.
Zwordsman wrote: Reload itself doesn't specify in hand. Interact does mention unattended or stored objects. But it isn't limited to that only, its also general manipulate objects. Otherwise you couldn't use interact on switches--which wouldn't be an object techincally.
I feel like the reloading counts under similar effects, as its not alimited "only this" list its an explicit example list. Additionally the line about possible skill checks open up a lot as well. If you read it as a limited list "these only" then it causes issues with other situations. Such as you couldn't untie a rope that someone was touching as they techicnally would no longer be unattended. (But this is a very specific and rahter pendantic comment I realize).
TLDR: I don't see the interact definition as a limiting list, but as an example list. Which interacting with another's object would fall under. If it couldn't do that, then it feels like a lot of other situations wouldn't work quite properly I feel like.
Interact Single Action
Manipulate
Source Core Rulebook pg. 470
You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You can grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or produce some similar effect. You might have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful.
Reload
Source Core Rulebook pg. 279
While all weapons need some amount of time to get into position, many ranged weapons also need to be loaded and reloaded. This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity, or you can spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn.
so we're back in the gm discretion territory, since you need to do a thing specifically not mentioned in the CRB at all.
Imo, again, it is somewhat, but not completely reasonable.
my main contention is that this implies that you are holding a heavy crossbow, with both your hands, above your head, to allow the familiar to reload it, and this somehow doesn't obstruct you, which is kinda ehhhhh.
but on the other hand, it's not TOO gamebreaking to allow either, so I'm like ehhhhhh again ^^
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Wouldn't that mean that you couldn't take an object from the hand of a willing creature, though?
shroudb wrote:
if you're going to rule it this way, then why do you insert the word "willing" in it?
what's stopping you from interacting to remove the armor of an oponent, to tie up his spell component pouch so that he can't open it, to close and secure his quiver, and etc.
As i said, it's a reasonable thing to ask of your GM, but it's not supported by RAW anywhere in the book.
RAW the weapon needs to be in one's possession to reload it.
I think most of these situations are a manipulate trait action but not neccecarily an interact action. The interact action itself specifies possible skill checks, which would loop over to skill use I guess.
Off hand because the removing of an armour takes several mins doesn't it? I suppose if they were asleep in their armour you could attempt various skill roles to get away with it. Not sure which. I'd assume theivery t hough.
You can by the rules steal component pouches already, so I don't see why you coudln't roll a skill to tie it closed either. Maybe theivery again?
(do quivers actually exist currently?). I think You could also steal a quiver.
So you can more or less do several of these things in otherways. Albiet thats not really this discussion I guess.
---
but as an side example..
So if an ally asked you to take off their belt or quiver for them (say they have broken arms) they couldn't strictly by rules?
(I'm not trying to be pedantic here. I lack the book so there might be rules I haven't found on nethys-which isn't exactly the cleanest navigation for 2E)
Thanks for the replies!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guys, do you know what's involved in reloading a crossbow? You're not doing this with something in another person's hands while he's dodging around doing other combat actions.
Keep in mind that if you planned to use hide or sneaking a lot on top of the idea of having a familiar load your heavy crossbow... It needs to use both it's actions to load your crossbow, which means it can't take a hide action of any kind. Even if it sits on your shoulder so that it moves with you, if you hide it is not hidden.
So it might be doable based on your DM, but there is this downside to consider.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Xenocrat wrote: Guys, do you know what's involved in reloading a crossbow? You're not doing this with something in another person's hands while he's dodging around doing other combat actions. I mean, if its a familiar riding on you, that isn't very unlikely. More so as you're expected to have been practiced in skills (hence profiency with things). Whose to say the lil rat can't be reloading on my (big) crossbow while I craddle it and move around?
Additionally.. kind of a game where they regularly do things that people in the real world absolutely couldn't. So that kind of limitation rarely works for me as an individual.
Valestrix wrote: Keep in mind that if you planned to use hide or sneaking a lot on top of the idea of having a familiar load your heavy crossbow... It needs to use both it's actions to load your crossbow, which means it can't take a hide action of any kind. Even if it sits on your shoulder so that it moves with you, if you hide it is not hidden.
So it might be doable based on your DM, but there is this downside to consider.
I kind of adore this idea. I'm all hiding and then "squek squeeeekk" as it shuffles around haha.
or its in your shirt and you hide and it just makes purring noises.
Captain Morgan wrote: Wouldn't that mean that you couldn't take an object from the hand of a willing creature, though? you are correct that there actually doesn't exist a direct action to give/take an item apart from the the Interact action that states that it's this type of action to fiddle with items.
Ofc, the reasonable thing is to assume that it's a 1 action Interact to get something offered to you, barring special circumstances.
But this doesn't changes the fact that it's still in the GM discretion to call out that this particular Interact action is/isn't working as you think it is.
Imo interact is left in such a grey area exactly because you can interact with items/enviroment in a million different ways.
Too many to count or put in a book.
So, they are mostly left to GM.
Yeah thats quite true.
I wonder how it'll work out in Society play? Since they're suppose to generalize a rule set no?
Though honestly that is just about the only way I can think of using a Heavy Xbow. I tend to wonder if it was created only to be a NPC weapon?
Wonder if they'll make adv weapon repeating xbow again or not.
Vlorax wrote: [
Carry two crossbows!
1st turn - fire, drop, 1 action =>command familair to give you the new one and then pick up the other one, fire again.
2nd turn - fire, drop, command (reload, hand you the crossbow), fire again.
would this actually work?
Huh. thats a fairly amusing visual. I dunno.. I guess it would off hand? I can't expressly see a reason not to. Though if its just a normal Xbow (not a heavy xbow) at that point you might as well just use a normal interact to reload and not take the familiar feat no?
Also.. if I was fighting someone doing that, I would so try to throw an attack when they were unattended and break em.
Vlorax wrote:
Carry two crossbows!
1st turn - fire, drop, 1 action =>command familair to give you the new one and then pick up the other one, fire again.
2nd turn - fire, drop, command (reload, hand you the crossbow), fire again.
would this actually work?
Well it would probably take an interact action on your part to grab the crossbow from your familiar when it hands it to you. So probably not overly well.
That does remind me that I was thinking before on how it would be funny to load up a character with a bunch of hand crossbows and have them just drop them after each use. Hand Crossbows are all light, but it would be expensive to buy a bunch. Still, load up on them and use quick draw and free action release to just fire as many hand crossbow shots as you want, lol.
Are there any rules allowing a familiar to ride on its master?
Xenocrat wrote: Are there any rules allowing a familiar to ride on its master? Well, it'd just be mounting you. So mount rules.
Valestrix wrote: Xenocrat wrote: Are there any rules allowing a familiar to ride on its master? Well, it'd just be mounting you. So mount rules. It would seem inconvenient to use an action to give your familiar actions so that it can use those actions to make you move.
Also a pity about that -2 to reflex saves, expect to lose them to AOE crits pretty often, I guess.
Also inconvenient for delivering touch spells since it would have to burn an action to dismount you before it could approach a target.
Xenocrat wrote: Valestrix wrote: Xenocrat wrote: Are there any rules allowing a familiar to ride on its master? Well, it'd just be mounting you. So mount rules. It would seem inconvenient to use an action to give your familiar actions so that it can use those actions to make you move.
Also a pity about that -2 to reflex saves, expect to lose them to AOE crits pretty often, I guess.
Also inconvenient for delivering touch spells since it would have to burn an action to dismount you before it could approach a target. The whole needing to spend actions to command a mount to move only specifically applies to animals, of which a PC is a humanoid. Though I think it's being a bit pedantic with the rules anyway to go this far into denying a familiar simply sitting on someones shoulder. :P
If they were focusing on a crossbow, I doubt they are using touch spells anyway.
I think the thing about animal companions and familiars needing actions to command is primarily for combat, if the animal would do something completely obvious in the given context (like follow you) it shouldn't need to be commanded to do it.
Valestrix wrote:
The whole needing to spend actions to command a mount to move only specifically applies to animals, of which a PC is a humanoid. Though I think it's being a bit pedantic with the rules anyway to go this far into denying a familiar simply sitting on someones shoulder. :P
Either the mount rules apply, and they can sit on your shoulder in combat and follow all the usual restrictions, or they don't apply, and they can't.
It's not pedantic to note that a cat or hawk can't realistically cling to you and do anything while you're engaged in combat. I'll let you wrap it up in a backpack and let it ride out the fight, for more you need some rules support. Otherwise it's an independent creature. Spend actions to move it around when you move, or have it sit on the sidelines.
I don't agree with you, because those rules are obviously meant to apply to NPC animals, not players.
Keep in mind that your logic also applies in situations such as a druid turning into animal forms and allowing an ally to ride them into battle.
Are you sure you want to stick with this, considering your interpretation takes away from possible team builds as such?
I would imagine most DM's would be okay with this sort of thing. What about you?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Valestrix wrote: I don't agree with you, because those rules are obviously meant to apply to NPC animals, not players.
Right, there are no rules allowing anything to mount another thing except for a PC on an animal. We do actually agree.
Valestrix wrote: Keep in mind that your logic also applies in situations such as a druid turning into animal forms and allowing an ally to ride them into battle.
Right, they can't do that under the rules, so anything allowing it would be a houserule. And silly.
Valestrix wrote: Are you sure you want to stick with this, considering your interpretation takes away from possible team builds as such?
Yes, I want to follow the rules as well as preventing my PCs from looking like fools while pursuing suboptimal strategies.
Valestrix wrote: I would imagine most DM's would be okay with this sort of thing. What about you? I can't speak to the general intelligence level and willingness to houserule absurdities among the overall GM population.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Xenocrat wrote: Valestrix wrote: Keep in mind that your logic also applies in situations such as a druid turning into animal forms and allowing an ally to ride them into battle.
Right, they can't do that under the rules, so anything allowing it would be a houserule. And silly.
This is one thing I will disagree with. I don't think there is anything silly about a druid turning into a horse and functioning as a mount. That is a thing that horses are kind of for, and there isn't much other reason a druid would turn into a horse.
I also think you are being stricter in your interpretation of the rules than the rules intend. This is not the "strictly permissive" rules of 1e; GM fiat is literally written into the rules. RAI seems to be king in 2e.
Besides, this is the advice forum, not the rules forum. :P
https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=96
This says creature, it does not say animal. This means as long as the size is correct, you can mount something.
and this: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=463
Well as I mentioned before, it specifically says animal in terms of wasting actions. Granted I could see arguing that a wild shaped druid counts as this as they do gain the animal trait, however a regular PC doesn't have it.
But whatever, I am not going to keep arguing with you beyond this, interpret it however you want. I think it's pretty stupid to rule that a PC suddenly loses all control of their actions if they become something's mount.
MaxAstro wrote: Xenocrat wrote: Valestrix wrote: Keep in mind that your logic also applies in situations such as a druid turning into animal forms and allowing an ally to ride them into battle.
Right, they can't do that under the rules, so anything allowing it would be a houserule. And silly.
This is one thing I will disagree with. I don't think there is anything silly about a druid turning into a horse and functioning as a mount. That is a thing that horses are kind of for, and there isn't much other reason a druid would turn into a horse.
Yes, to provide transportation in exploration mode.
In encounter mode, we expect the mount to be trained to obey and actually obey the rider so that they can coordinate their actions and the rider isn't just holding on for dear life as the horse dashes around.
If your druid is willing to completely follow orders and act as a mount under the mount rules I'd certainly allow it, but no independent action unless the rider wants to be severely penalized.
Valestrix wrote: I think it's pretty stupid to rule that a PC suddenly loses all control of their actions if they become something's mount. If they want to be a mount and let their rider do anything that's necessary. Otherwise their "rider" is just a helpless passenger holding onto a mustang for dear life. I am ok with a familiar helplessly clinging to his master and unable to take any actions while doing so (and costing an action to dismount and take further actions), I just question why you'd do that instead of put him in your backpack for additional safety.
Could a very large person put a halfing or goblin in a back and have it not count as a mount, but still move them around?
That sounds hilarious. Lil goblin with an alchemical xbow.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
AgentBlack wrote: As far as my monkey familiar is concerned, reloading the heavy crossbow while I'm holding it is no different than my character reloading ballistae—I don't need to be actually "holding" the huge siege engine to Interact with it. This seems like exactly the kind of shenanigans the "Ambiguous Rules" bit on page 444 is meant to handle:
"Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed."
Having your familiar reloading your crossbow while you're shooting things with it seems patently ridiculous.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote: Guys, do you know what's involved in reloading a crossbow? You're not doing this with something in another person's hands while he's dodging around doing other combat actions. I find this much more compelling than arguing it isn't allowed by the rules, given how open ended the interact action is. ”The rules don't explain picking your nose so you can't" doesn't sit right, but we can at least talk about how plausible someone else loading your crossbow is in comparison to it only taking 1 action to load and cock a crossbow or feed a potion to someone else.
Captain Morgan wrote: I find this much more compelling than arguing it isn't allowed by the rules, given how open ended the interact action is. I honestly don't see it as very compelling at all. An alchemist familiar can use Lab Assistant to use the Quick Alchemy action. An action that requires using a 2 bulk tool kit to create an alchemy item all while the alchemist is "dodging around doing other combat actions" and might need to be pulling items out of a pack, pouch, bandoleer, ect...
IMO reloading a crossbow seems easy after looking at what Quick Alchemy requires.
|
