I am pulling this out of the Battle Medicine thread because it seems like a separate issue that will impact many other actions and future actions and one that probably needs clarification sooner than later. Personally, I think the rules, as written, are clear about how they currently work, but a lot of folks seem to feel like that clarity is lacking so it would be nice to see this addressed eventually in an official capacity.
The manipulate trait honestly seems to be confusing to people. Is the purpose of the trait to define:
A. that this action provoke reactions.
B. that this action requires the character have appendages and have those appendages not be restrained?
C. does the trait also specify that the action requires that at-least one of those appendages be opne (or a free hand) (unless specified otherwise in the action itself)?
Right now, My interpretation is that the manipulate trait is clearly accomplishing A and B, and not C, but there seems some disagreement about if C is intended.
If you read through actions with the manipulate trait in the book, most of the actions that do not require a free hand will explicitly tell you so, but not all of them, and most importantly to me, it feels like there is a much clearer way to write the manipulate trait to state, "An action with the manipulate trait requires an open appendage unless specified otherwise in the action," than the trait currently does.
MY table ruling is that only A and B apply by default, but this does seem like a situation open to table variation.
The full trait wording from the core rulebook:
manipulate (trait) You must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait. Creatures without a suitable appendage can’t perform actions with this trait. Manipulate actions often trigger reactions.
It should be noted that part of the issue here is whether or not it is reasonable to assume that a hand could be made free enough to complete the action as a part of the action itself, but that is seen as problematic for folks asking why it takes a full action to regrip a two-handed weapon.
Clearly part of the issue is the intersection of plausibility and gameplay/balance, but those often feel more like symptomatic arguments rationalizing one interpretation or another, rather than how the trait itself is supposed to work.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unicore - thanks for starting an own thread on this.
I think the main issue about C is that manipulate tries to avoid double dipping. 'Free' is misleading as it is like Schroedingers Cat. You need a free hand - so you can put something into it - but that means it no longer is free.
Or if you drop something it is the other way round.
What I think I learned by looking at all 124 references to the word manipulate is that what Paizo tried to follow the following rules:
Manipulate means something is physically there. Manipulate and air don't work in a vacuum. Manipulate and fire don't work if there is no fire. Manipulate and plants don't work without plant growths.
So for manipulate (in most circumstances) you start with 2 hands. These two hands are 'available' of they are free. If you carry a torch in one hand to give light and a dagger in another to defend yourself then you can't use thieves tools to pick a lock - as both hands are used.
So manipulate forces you to make decisions what your hands are used for.
So do you lose truly an action if you regrip a two handed weapon? You can draw weapons one handed or two-handed. As long as you draw two-handed you never lose an action. You only lose an action if you decide after drawing to use a hand for something else.
For game balance gestures are allowed while the hands are both occupied. Otherwise spell-casting would grind to a halt and a paladin just wouldn't be able to do Lay-on-hands.
For other situations it can be simple, painful or close to impossible. I'm not convinced that quick-repair is ment to be done while you activly fight - but rather if your comrades give you a breather in a fight and allow you to patch up a shield or something else.
Counting hands might seem simple - but can be difficult. Just look at shooting a bow. A bow is 2 hands - but actually one hand holds the bow - one holds the arrow. The moment you let lose - is it still 2 hands? Off course you need these 2 hands if you want to shoot again.
But this makes it difficult to describe. Free hand? No free hand?
From a gameplay/balance point of view I see in all of PFS2 the attempt to avoid double dipping. You have 2 hands. Each hand can be used once only / for one purpose only.
So similar to action economy you need hand economy. Drawing a bastard sword - always 2 handed. It is free to change from 2 to 1 hand - not the other way round.
The buckler is inferior to the shield - unless you want to use that hand for something else. The buckler is strapped to the forearm and you still keep your hand free to use for something else.
I stop rambling here. Maybe more tomorrow.
Counting hands might seem simple - but can be difficult. Just look at shooting a bow. A bow is 2 hands - but actually one hand holds the bow - one holds the arrow. The moment you let lose - is it still 2 hands? Off course you need these 2 hands if you want to shoot again.
But this makes it difficult to describe. Free hand? No free hand?
Surprised you apparently spent so much time investigating these rules but missed this.
Bows are listed in the book as requiring 1+ hands and the second on handedness describes this as not requiring you to regrip the bow if you hold it with one hand, but you need a free hand to make attacks with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t think the phrase “free hand” is all that misleading as long as there is consistency in usage, as far as when the hand must be free. The problem is it’s connection to the manipulate trait and what even the manipulate trait means. The decision to include the trait on the release action further complicates the purpose of the tag, because it does not provoke reactions. Luckily, the action itself species this, so it doesn’t really cast doubt upon the fact that the manipulate trait is the default tag of defining whether an action provokes or not, but it does show that the trait has a more nebulous purpose than just defining what provokes and what doesn’t. Like, can I not drop my sword while being grappled? The release action having the manipulate trait would seem to indicate that I cannot.
I think over all, the manipulate trait is not well conceived or useful in its current form because it doesn’t ever have a clear purpose or meaning. “This action uses your hands or arms in some fashion that must be defined on an individual basis in each case, as far as how much it uses those hands and arms, and what happens as a result” doesn’t really feel like something that needs specific explanation and would probably need to be applied to the vast majority of physical attack actions as well.
I think that the purpose of this trait has lost its value in the transition from the playtest to the final PF2 ruleset and that it essentially is not saying anything concrete at this point. I thing number of free hands required to perform a specific feat driven action needs to be explicitly laid out, Especially if the time is going to be spent addressing the precise hand usage of more nebulous actions like interact and release ( both defined as one or two hands in the book).
By RAW, you could never hold anything in your mouth, nor ever let it go if you did, at least not without using at least one hand to do so. All of this is to say that the usage of hands in PF2 is probably over-legislated and needlessly complicated by the decision to have so much power balance based on the number of hands an action requires. However, it seems like the system is far too far down that rabbit hole to back up now, but the manipulate trait is in an extremely awkward position of feeling very significant without having a clear cut definition of what it means outside of being explained specifically by every action that uses it.
The manipulate trait has another purpose in the grabbed and restrained conditions. While grabbed, you have to succeed on a DC 5 flat check in order to complete a manipulate action. While restrained, you are unable to make any actions with the attack or manipulate traits except for escape and force open.
I am perfectly ok with the reality that the rules are not going to be perfect and require some adjustments. All of us are human. I also hope that some of the delay in developer response to defining the manipulate trait is that they are taking there time to consider what to do with it moving forward.
Right now it has a nebulous meaning, but it is still somewhat useful in establishing what generally provokes reactions, and what cannot be done while grabbed, and restrained, even if it is not consistent in those purposes and it feels like a more specific trait/symbol would have been clearer and more effective at establishing which actions do and do not do these two things.
But having the trait essentially mean "uses appendages in some fashion" is really confusing and feels like it applies to a lot more than got the manipulate tag.
Why can't I point out with my Leg?
Do I really need to make a flat check to drop a sword that is in my hand? But not attack with it?
Clearly, some of the complexity of this trait is that it, by itself means very little, but is supposed to be present to define how the action with this trait interacts with other conditions and actions.
However, the fact that it is not consistent in that, and requires stipulations for many actions, makes me question if it is effective to have it be one trait and not 2 or 3 separate things that need less/no exceptions.
Is a trait useful if it has to be constantly redefined in the action that uses it?
The manipulate trait has another purpose in the grabbed and restrained conditions. While grabbed, you have to succeed on a DC 5 flat check in order to complete a manipulate action. While restrained, you are unable to make any actions with the attack or manipulate traits except for escape and force open.
Wait so I have a 25% chance when grabbed (or with manacles on) to be unable to drop something lol
The manipulate trait has another purpose in the grabbed and restrained conditions. While grabbed, you have to succeed on a DC 5 flat check in order to complete a manipulate action. While restrained, you are unable to make any actions with the attack or manipulate traits except for escape and force open.Wait so I have a 25% chance when grabbed (or with manacles on) to be unable to drop something lol
Seems that way. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's cool, though, because as a free action, you can just try again until you succeed.
Unless the one grabbing you has unlimited AoO, then they just go to town on you while you fumble your weapon around.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The manipulate trait honestly seems to be confusing to people. Is the purpose of the trait to define:
A. that this action provoke reactions.
B. that this action requires the character have appendages and have those appendages not be restrained?
C. does the trait also specify that the action requires that at-least one of those appendages be opne (or a free hand) (unless specified otherwise in the action itself)?
`A`: not precisely. There are some reactions (like the most well known of all, Attack of Opportunity) that react to it. But other reactions (like Stand Still) don't.
`B`: sort of (see below)`C`: no (see below)
I think the main idea of the Manipulate trait is that it's sort of a hook to hand other rules on. Just like the Move trait itself doesn't actually do a whole lot. It's on almost every action that involves movement, but it doesn't directly do a whole lot.
But both of those traits serve as recognition points for other abilities, such as "if someone uses a move action in your threatened area" or "if someone uses a manipulate action in your threatened area".
And that makes your A/B/C easier to understand.
`A`: The manipulate trait allows the AoO ability to recognize which actions should qualify.
`B`: The manipulate trait allows you to see which actions become harder when you're Grappled/Restrained.
`C`: Actions with the manipulate trait require "hands" by definition, but whether they're free is not certain; there are so many variants that do specifically require free hands and others that specifically (spellcasting) or logically (dropping something) don't, that we really can't draw a default conclusion either way.