Taking items for a willing target does not need the target to do anything. You can slip bags of their shoulders, you can take items off a stack in their hands, you can get items out of a backpack and so on.
In combat? Do you have a quote for this? I'm just seeing the Changing Equipment chart and that's not how it reads to me. Is there anything that says an ally has free rein over your equipment? [is your underwear safe?]
Taking items for a willing target does not need the target to do anything. You can slip bags of their shoulders, you can take items off a stack in their hands, you can get items out of a backpack and so on.In combat? Do you have a quote for this? I'm just seeing the Changing Equipment chart and that's not how it reads to me. Is there anything that says an ally has free rein over your equipment? [is your underwear safe?]
Well, nobodies underwear is safe if you are a willing participant. But consent matters. So yes, they are safe as long as you are no longer willing.
Well, nobodies underwear is safe if you are a willing participant. But consent matters. So yes, they are safe as long as you are no longer willing.
But here's the thing: if you're willing to have someone rummage around in your backpack and pockets, do you have a say on what they pull out of them? When can you stop consent?
I'm still of the opinion that exchanging items in combat between creatures is more complicated that just picking up an unattended item off a table.
I think you enjoy being difficult Graystone, but we still love you.
I enjoy being right: if I think I'm correct, I don't back down. Now I do enjoy a debate, but I'm not going to be in one if I don't agree with one of the sides so I'm not difficult to be difficult. ;)
Wouldn't letting go or releasing an object be a free action with the trigger of an ally grabbing the object?
How would that work on an item that only allows a single hand? For instance, if it's a dagger does the ally grab the blade? This is especially true is said weapon was used it stab someone doing that turn: with no actions on the givers part, the item generally is moving around just from being held/wielding. For myself, the givers action is to hand it to you safely in the middle of combat, like keeping it still and handle out so they can use their action to just make a simple action to grab it instead of some kind of check or something.
Not using that free action means the other would need to disarm?
You can drop in your space and someone can pick it up off the ground.
Either way the one taking the object uses and action with one (disarm) possibly not working.
The rules clearly list "hand an object" as a possible action.
Wouldn't letting go or releasing an object be a free action with the trigger of an ally grabbing the object?How would that work on an item that only allows a single hand? For instance, if it's a dagger does the ally grab the blade? This is especially true is said weapon was used it stab someone doing that turn: with no actions on the givers part, the item generally is moving around just from being held/wielding. For myself, the givers action is to hand it to you safely in the middle of combat, like keeping it still and handle out so they can use their action to just make a simple action to grab it instead of some kind of check or something.
How do you hand a knife or dagger or any other object to someone in real life? Also: Does it matter in a world where virtually everyone is always wearing gloves or some other form of hand wrap?
Not using that free action means the other would need to disarm?You can drop in your space and someone can pick it up off the ground.
Either way the one taking the object uses and action with one (disarm) possibly not working.The rules clearly list "hand an object" as a possible action.
Where is "hand an object" listed? I see Pass an Object. Like a baton. But handing, now that is a veeeery different scenario. :)
I still disagree with charging characters a total of 2 actions to pass an object between them. A, as I stated before it's a pain to deal with for various reasons. Having to hold your turn, possibly to your future detriment should never be required for something as basic as handing someone an item.
B, I see no evidence that this is the case as worded. There are precisely 0 actions that I can find that require any kind of cooperative action spending that don't state that you ready an action to do so.
Aid for instance:
You try to help your ally with a task. To use this reaction, you
must first prepare to help, usually by using an action during
your turn. You must explain to the GM exactly how you’re trying
to help, and they determine whether you can Aid your ally.
When you use your Aid reaction, attempt a skill check or
attack roll of a type decided by the GM. The typical DC is 20, but
the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks.
The GM can add any relevant traits to your preparatory action
or to your Aid reaction depending on the situation, or even allow
you to Aid checks other than skill checks and attack rolls.
Aid specifically walks you through the process of preparing to aid your ally so that you can use your reaction to help them. If "handing an object" to an ally was as complicated as you are indicating, why wouldn't it have it's own neat set of rules around it, rather than being a non-specific use of the Interact action?
As a rule, anything that is listed as an action is a single action. They have a category for things that typically take multiple actions: activities. Anything that is an exception to this is usually spelled out. For example, in the handling equipment table it calls out that you have to spend an additional action to remove your backpack to retrieve an item from it. It also calls out that a character you pass a two handed item to may have to spend an action to regrip the weapon to wield it properly.
Why over tax your players with actions for something as simple as handing out pamphlets?
Just as a clarification I would not allow a familiar to reload a heavy crossbow unless the pc made strives in game to make that something that could happen.
Many players would argue that giving their familiar hands is doing exactly that.
Just as a clarification I would not allow a familiar to reload a heavy crossbow unless the pc made strives in game to make that something that could happen.Many players would argue that giving their familiar hands is doing exactly that.
This would require 6 additional people. Whether that happens to be other PC's, who apparently have nothing better to be doing, or hirelings/followers of some description is unimportant. This would require a Hyper permissive GM as followers do not work like they did in PF1. You usually can't bring them into combat after all.
Basically one guy stands in the "center" of his 6 friends who all prepare an action to interact to reload his Heavy Crossbow when he expends a bolt. He would fire, 2 would trigger their reactions to reload that crossbow, then fire again, repeat. This would allow you to get 3 attacks with a heavy crossbow in a single turn. And all it cost you was 18 additional actions!
If we consider that reloading a heavy crossbow takes 4 seconds and firing it 2 seconds, your crossbow is basically being manipulated 18 seconds during 6 seconds.
So, you need a "Speed of Light" Crossbow. Also, it has the additional benefit of summoning Einstein :D
I haven't parsed enough of the arguments presented to really pass judgement on the rules.
I just wanted to say the concept is REALLY cool.
Imagine a monkey sitting on your forearm or maybe a special pouch/carrier on your chest, named Bo Bo, he wears a hat and a vest.
"CRANK BO BO, CRANK!" The sweaty Alchemist commanded as the raging Troll began to charge.
And there's little Bo Bo, cranking away on his master's crossbow.
I haven't parsed enough of the arguments presented to really pass judgement on the rules.
I just wanted to say the concept is REALLY cool.
Imagine a monkey sitting on your forearm or maybe a special pouch/carrier on your chest, named Bo Bo, he wears a hat and a vest.
"CRANK BO BO, CRANK!" The sweaty Alchemist commanded as the raging Troll began to charge.
And there's little Bo Bo, cranking away on his master's crossbow.
I may have found my Extinction Curse ringmaster style character. Bo Bo included.
I am intrested in the discussion cause in our game the alchemist is constantly handing out items, not just using them on other characters. I have just had it set that they must have the item held out, then when the other character uses and action to grab it, the alchemist uses a reaction to give.
This could be way wrong but has not been an issue at the table. They always consider and talk through on if they should hand it over or some other actions.
If it hasn't been an issue at your table, then keep on keepin on. I will say that as far as I know, a reaction wouldn't be necessary. So long as the item on your alchemist is available, and he is willing, they should be able to grab it from him with a single action, no participation from the alchemist.
Don't forget, if they have to get into a backpack to get that item from him, that requires 2 hands. So no holding a weapon and rummaging through the alchemists backpack. If it is in an accessible place, like a bandoleer or belt pouch, then you can do so with one hand.
One other thing I have discovered about picking up/passing objects to people because of this discussion: You have the option to pick up a two handed item with two hands, bypassing the need to spend an action to regrip it. The same applies to items that you pass between characters. So long as the character that ends up with the item uses two hands to take it, they are now gripping the item in both hands. I believe this applies both to being given the item or them taking the item.
For some reason I had been assuming that you pick up an item with only 1 hand, then needed to spend an action to regrip it to wield it properly. This appears to not be the case.
It's a bag of holding type I that the alchemist uses.
If that is the case, as long as an ally can get to the bag of holding, they can use their own interact action to put an item in it or get an item out of it as far as I can tell. There is no requirement that you have to be the one holding the bag to interact with it after all.
I'd even allow you to place the bag on the ground and interact with it. While it's usage states that it is held in two hands, that really isn't practical. How would you place an item in the bag if you always had 2 hands on it?