Familiars and Crossbows?


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Evening, folks, quick question.
You have a familiar, and a crossbow.
Can a familiar with Manual Dexterity, sitting on a character's shoulders, spend two Interact actions to reload a heavy crossbow wielded by the character?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If it's strong enough to manage the crank/draw/whatever, then I dont see why not.

Not much of an action advantage though as you'd have to spend an action commanding the familiar and another to pass the crossbow. The familiar would then need to spend it's actions recieving it, cranking it, and passing it back. That would take at least two rounds.


Ravingdork wrote:

If it's strong enough to manage the crank/draw/whatever, then I dont see why not.

Not much of an action advantage though as you'd have to spend an action commanding the familiar and another to pass the crossbow. The familiar would then need to spend it's actions recieving it, cranking it, and passing it back. That would take at least two rounds.

I feel like this conversation has been had before, but I don't think anything about reloading says that the interact actions have to be made by the wielder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spermy The Cat wrote:

Evening, folks, quick question.

You have a familiar, and a crossbow.
Can a familiar with Manual Dexterity, sitting on a character's shoulders, spend two Interact actions to reload a heavy crossbow wielded by the character?

Assuming it could, you gain NOTHING for doing so: In fact you waste actions doing so.

First action: Command minnion
Second action: Interact [hand crossbow to familiar]
Third action: Interact [retrieve loaded crossbow]

For the reason the familiar can't reload when in your hand:
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.

"This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons." You need a skill like thievery to manipulate attended items of other creatures. A monsters can't come up to you and unload your crossbow after all or remove your backpack.


Ravingdork wrote:

If it's strong enough to manage the crank/draw/whatever, then I dont see why not.

Not much of an action advantage though as you'd have to spend an action commanding the familiar and another to pass the crossbow. The familiar would then need to spend it's actions recieving it, cranking it, and passing it back. That would take at least two rounds.

Well, there is no mechanism to determine whether or not a familiar is "strong enough."

And what is to say that the familiar needs to have the crossbow in their own hands to reload it?


Spermy The Cat wrote:
Well, there is no mechanism to determine whether or not a familiar is "strong enough."

A familiar has no stats but a crossbow has no str requirement so it'd be total DM fiat.

Spermy The Cat wrote:
And what is to say that the familiar needs to have the crossbow in their own hands to reload it?

Reload " indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload". Interact requires an "unattended" object. If not, monsters could just walk up and take a bolt out of your crossbow you've reloaded... Do you want them readying an action [or a plain old normal action if pre-loaded] to snatch the bolts before you can attack? Not needing it to be in hand to reload works both ways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Generally speaking, you can only reload a weapon that you are wielding. Simply put, we don't have a direct rule saying yes or no to reloading someone else's crossbow without them handing it over.

This is pretty firmly in GM hands whether they want to allow it or not or how it would mechanically work. I would caution any prospective GM from allowing a "1 action reload" on a Heavy Crossbow though. I don't know if it would be "broken" strictly speaking, but it is definitely not an intended rate of fire for the weapon.


beowulf99 wrote:
I don't know if it would be "broken" strictly speaking, but it is definitely not an intended rate of fire for the weapon.

I don't think the damage/ROF would be any issue at all. A longbow [1d8, + 1/2 str, 0 reload, volley, deadly 1d10, 100'] vs crossbow [1d10, 1 reload, 120'] is still in favor of the the longbow [or even shortbow]: having an extra action to do with what you want is huge.

I think the "broken" aspect would be the precedent that others can manipulate your equipment you wear and wield without any effort: they can just spend an action and walk off your your stuff.


graystone wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
I don't know if it would be "broken" strictly speaking, but it is definitely not an intended rate of fire for the weapon.

I don't think the damage/ROF would be any issue at all. A longbow [1d8, + 1/2 str, 0 reload, volley, deadly 1d10, 100'] vs crossbow [1d10, 1 reload, 120'] is still in favor of the the longbow [or even shortbow]: having an extra action to do with what you want is huge.

I think the "broken" aspect would be the precedent that others can manipulate your equipment you wear and wield without any effort: they can just spend an action and walk off your your stuff.

That is fair, but I will say there has always been a difference between a friend reaching in your bag and an enemy doing so. That is getting into thievery territory. You aren't going to actively try to stop the familiar in this instance from touching the crossbow for example. The question really is, should making the crossbow accessible to the familiar cost an action? I would generally say no, you aren't likely to move it far enough to be too much different than just aiming it.

Largely, I may allow this sort of thing to happen for a rule of cool moment, but maybe wouldn't allow it as a standard practice. I could see an alchemical familiar for example assisting with an Alchemical Crossbow and putting bombs in the "bracket".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

This question derives from the vague nature of the manipulate action's description.

However, any reasonable interpretation of the reload action requires the one doing the reloading to be wielding and carrying the crossbow. That's 1 or 2 bulk - a fairly hefty object. So if we consult the familiar's STR score... no, wait. They have no defined STR score. And hence no defined carrying capacity.

Look at it another way. How are crossbows reloaded IRL? Light-draw crossbows can be reloaded either by hand, or using a goat's-foot lever.

As the draw increases, further means are required. Many crossbows have a foot stirrup on the front end, so you can brace it down with your foot, then draw back the string, either by hand or using a metal claw attached to a belt. This gives you greater leverage.

The heaviest crossbows are reloaded either with a windlass and pulleys contraption, or a "cranquin", a sort of force-multiplying gearbox.

Now tell me, which of these methods do you envision a familiar (that probably has the functional equivalent of a -5 STR and a tiny stature) using?

In other words, any attempt to have a familiar "manipulate" anything heavier than light bulk, like a potion, is "cheesing" the system, interpreting the rules in an abusively excessive way that doesn't correspond to our shared fantasy world.

But hey, if that's the way you roll, go for it. Gremlin familiars?


beowulf99 wrote:
That is fair, but I will say there has always been a difference between a friend reaching in your bag and an enemy doing so.

Even if you allowed that bag grab, it's so much more than that: it'd be like your friend climbed down your back, pulling something out of your pocket, crawling back up, then down your arm [you're wielding in your hands after all], climbed on your crossbow, somehow pulled back the string and only then put the bolt in and crawl back up your chest...

How many actions was that again? After all that, if you're still allowing that with an interact action then a foe snatching a bolt out of your crossbow with the same action sounds a lot more reasonable.


Fair dues. Like I said, perhaps in a rule of cool moment. Perhaps your character has been knocked down, his crossbow loaded. The bad guy is standing overhead. You know you don't have time (actions) to reload, so you put your bolt into him. Blast! You missed! but what is that? Your faithful monkey familiar with a bolt in hand.

That sort of thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:

Fair dues. Like I said, perhaps in a rule of cool moment. Perhaps your character has been knocked down, his crossbow loaded. The bad guy is standing overhead. You know you don't have time (actions) to reload, so you put your bolt into him. Blast! You missed! but what is that? Your faithful monkey familiar with a bolt in hand.

That sort of thing.

My main issue with that is, IMO, most of the effort is going to be in cocking the crossbow: pulling out an arrow costs no actions so i can't imagine it takes much longer for a bolt. So if your quiver gets knocked off your back and your familiar brings you a bolt? Great! He leaps on your crossbow and in a flurry of fur reloads it all by himself? That's pushing cool quite far for me..


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There’s is actually nothing that states you have to be wielding a weapon to reload it and interact includes the blanket “or some similar action” in the action itself, which means that it doesn’t always have to fall into the “unattended” classifier.

I actually personally would rule against but I argued this with someone else before and it’s not that clear cut. Wield isn’t even defined as separate from holding and because interact includes that blanket text, it comes down to the GM at the very least as far as I can tell.

Action economy wise, it allows you to ignore AoO, and if the familiar can use both interaction actions to reload and reload again (holding the bolts on standby), to me thats kinda becoming problem.

I think there’s a rule of cool piece here somewhere but I could see it becoming quickly an issue. a gnome familiar is a pretty cheap way to get half off on familiar reloads, and whose to say your familiar only reloads for yourself?

It’s got problems, but the RAW doesn’t seem to put enough in place to state explicitly no, and in some ways, helping someone reload is thematic so someone arguing for it is not going to see it that way unless there’s strict “no”, which I can’t seem to find.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd let them reload hand crossbows, slings, and blowguns. Essentially this gives them a floating familiar action on a familiar they're trying to use to reload... what exactly is it going to do with that?

Heavier crossbows just take too much strength to reload, and require moving the crossbow around (like putting your foot in the stirrup). I just don't see it working with a lil fella on your shoulder.


WatersLethe wrote:
I'd let them reload hand crossbows, slings, and blowguns. Essentially this gives them a floating familiar action on a familiar they're trying to use to reload... what exactly is it going to do with that?

Is there something that explicitly says the Familiar has to use both actions at once?

I assumed that it worked like mounts, where they can take their two actions at any point during your turn.

So if that's the case, it'd grant 2 reloads a turn.

I'm more concerned with the greater ramifications of allowing other people to take interact actions that directly affect the person on their behalf. This interaction requires a Class Feat just so familiars have the hands to even do it, and in that case, it's still limited to casters with the familiar feat.

It's one of those things where I'd personally just like Familiars to get it as a power ("Martial Helper") or something that takes both actions and is explicitly allowed than scratch my head and decide where to draw the line.


Honestly, I'd allow the familiar to reload for you.

What I wouldn't allow is the familiar riding on your shoulder for free. If you want to be mobile, it's not going to work out in your favor.


Garretmander wrote:

Honestly, I'd allow the familiar to reload for you.

What I wouldn't allow is the familiar riding on your shoulder for free. If you want to be mobile, it's not going to work out in your favor.

Can the familiar reload someone else's crossbow? That's I think where it gets weird.

Because technically if you don't have to be wielding/holding the weapon to interact for a reload (which by RAW does not say so), then theoretically you can do this for anyone's crossbow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

Can the familiar reload someone else's crossbow? That's I think where it gets weird.

Because technically if you don't have to be wielding/holding the weapon to interact for a reload (which by RAW does not say so), then theoretically you can do this for anyone's crossbow.

Two people working together to reload and shoot a crossbow as if it was some sort of siege weapons seems reasonable to me. Especially if they're the crank/footpedal style of crossbow.


Garretmander wrote:

Honestly, I'd allow the familiar to reload for you.

What I wouldn't allow is the familiar riding on your shoulder for free. If you want to be mobile, it's not going to work out in your favor.

I think having a familiar ride on your shoulder is perfectly reasonable, and a major part of the familiar fantasy.

The fact that most AoEs will kill your familiar very quickly is a big enough balancing factor for this, as even many martial monsters have access to them.


Garretmander wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

Can the familiar reload someone else's crossbow? That's I think where it gets weird.

Because technically if you don't have to be wielding/holding the weapon to interact for a reload (which by RAW does not say so), then theoretically you can do this for anyone's crossbow.

Two people working together to reload and shoot a crossbow as if it was some sort of siege weapons seems reasonable to me. Especially if they're the crank/footpedal style of crossbow.

As I said above, if we're working on what isn't said then an enemy can come up and uncrank your crossbow and take your bolts as you've ruled others can interact with your wielded crossbow [and other equipment]: as to "Two people working together", that's not happening here as that'd require action from BOTH but it's not. It's one saying 'hey reload my crossbow' and ALL the mechanical/physical reloading taken by the familiar.

Add to that, as familiars had 0 reach, they must take actions to move [on your shoulders or otherwise] as their actions only extend to what they can physically touch. So for a reload it requires 4 actions: move to crossbow, 2 to reload, one to get back on the shoulder. Unless of course you tie your familiar to your crossbow, but that has other logistical issues...


I think I agree with what you're saying about the actions required being not allowed RAW. I'd probably still allow it, but I do get the argument against.

graystone wrote:
As I said above, if we're working on what isn't said then an enemy can come up and uncrank your crossbow and take your bolts as you've ruled others can interact with your wielded crossbow [and other equipment]:

But this sounds like a disarm action and not an interact action.


Garretmander wrote:

I think I agree with what you're saying about the actions required being not allowed RAW. I'd probably still allow it, but I do get the argument against.

graystone wrote:
As I said above, if we're working on what isn't said then an enemy can come up and uncrank your crossbow and take your bolts as you've ruled others can interact with your wielded crossbow [and other equipment]:
But this sounds like a disarm action and not an interact action.

How so? You are STILL wielding your weapon: for instance you can meet the requirements of a ranged stance with an unloaded weapon. If you ignore the need for an unattended item with Interact then it become free game to everyone.

PS: someone mentioned thievery: Those are attempts to do so "unnoticed" and "you automatically fail if the creature who has the object is in combat or on guard". The above houserules throw both these out, allowing interaction with in use and in combat items. For instance, if a familiar can Interact to get your ammo in combat, someone else could since it was rules others in combat can do that [you don't care if it's unnoticed so it's not Steal].


graystone wrote:
Garretmander wrote:

I think I agree with what you're saying about the actions required being not allowed RAW. I'd probably still allow it, but I do get the argument against.

graystone wrote:
As I said above, if we're working on what isn't said then an enemy can come up and uncrank your crossbow and take your bolts as you've ruled others can interact with your wielded crossbow [and other equipment]:
But this sounds like a disarm action and not an interact action.

How so? You are STILL wielding your weapon: for instance you can meet the requirements of a ranged stance with an unloaded weapon. If you ignore the need for an unattended item with Interact then it become free game to everyone.

PS: someone mentioned thievery: Those are attempts to do so "unnoticed" and "you automatically fail if the creature who has the object is in combat or on guard". The above houserules throw both these out, allowing interaction with in use and in combat items. For instance, if a familiar can Interact to get your ammo in combat, someone else could since it was rules others in combat can do that [you don't care if it's unnoticed so it's not Steal].

I mean if you don't see a difference between letting a friendly manipulate your weapon and allowing an enemy to manipulate your weapon, then that is your call.

I will point you to the "Changing Equipment" section on page 273. On the table you find there is the following, "Pass an item to or take an item from a willing creature." This indicates that you can in fact manipulate a friendly characters equipment, with their permission.

And at the bottom of that table it indicates that getting an item out of a friendly characters backpack is actually easier than retrieving one in your own. "Retrieving an item stowed in your own backpack requires first taking off the backpack with a separate Interact action." This tells me that you can manipulate another persons equipment without taking it off of them. You wouldn't have to remove a backpack or belt pouch to remove a potion from it, would you?

This tells me that the game really has nothing against you allowing a character to manipulate your equipment, potentially including wielded weapons. You would be a willing creature after all. If that is the case, then what I see nothing wrong with allowing another creature to reload a weapon you are wielding. The way actions are resolved prevents this from happening more than once a round anyway. The very "worst" abuse I could see happening is what I like to call the "crossbow circle jerk".

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!

Sarcasm aside, I don't see too much wrong with a familiar assisting in great moments of need with reloading a crossbow. With a heavy crossbow, I would typically limit it's ability to 1 of the 2 actions required to "reload" the crossbow, meaning you get no mechanical benefit. That would basically be them placing the bolt in the crossbow while you crank it.


beowulf99 wrote:
I think I agree with I mean if you don't see a difference between letting a friendly manipulate your weapon and allowing an enemy to manipulate your weapon, then that is your call.

The GAME doesn't differentiate for those actions: it's attended or unattended in the rules: attended by a friendly isn't a thing. You're moving around and DOING things in combat: it's not like you're just standing there with your pocket held open so someone can come over and get things from you: you're dodging blows, moving to new locations, aiming your crossbow. Unintentional movement is as bad as you intentionally moving away from a bad guy. Now if you spent an action to coordinate with an ally, I can see it but you're talking about 0% coordination.

beowulf99 wrote:
I will point you to the "Changing Equipment" section on page 273. On the table you find there is the following, "Pass an item to or take an item from a willing creature." This indicates that you can in fact manipulate a friendly characters equipment, with their permission.

NO it doesn't: pass isn't the same. It's handing the item off, like from their hand to yours: you needed to take an action to get the item in hand and they had to take an action to take it from your hand. NOWHERE is it infered that you can freely manipulate items from an ally. Look at the note:

"2 A creature must have a hand free for someone to pass an item to them, and they might then need to change their grip if they receive an item requiring two hands to wield or use." Notice that it's someone passing an item to someone else, not someone taking all the actions by themselves. It's one action from the passer and one for the taker.

beowulf99 wrote:
And at the bottom of that table it indicates that getting an item out of a friendly characters backpack is actually easier than retrieving one in your own. "Retrieving an item stowed in your own backpack requires first taking off the backpack with a separate Interact action." This tells me that you can manipulate another persons equipment without taking it off of them. You wouldn't have to remove a backpack or belt pouch to remove a potion from it, would you?

That's not what it indicates: it's looking through a backpack on the ground vs one on your back: no where does in indicate anything about one worn on another creature. So as the rules stand, yes you must remove a backpack to get a potion. We're talking items stowed in a backpack safely, not one in an easy to get to pocket or pouch.

beowulf99 wrote:
This tells me that the game really has nothing against you allowing a character to manipulate your equipment, potentially including wielded weapons. You would be a willing creature after all. If that is the case, then what I see nothing wrong with allowing another creature to reload a weapon you are wielding. The way actions are resolved prevents this from happening more than once a round anyway. The very "worst" abuse I could see happening is what I like to call the "crossbow circle jerk".

I don't agree with your conclusion. Willing doesn't change attended: you aren't a static target but a creature in combat moving around and doing things. As such, willing or unwilling is a meaningless designation in this situation.

beowulf99 wrote:
Sarcasm aside, I don't see too much wrong with a familiar assisting in great moments of need with reloading a crossbow. With a heavy crossbow, I would typically limit it's ability to 1 of the 2 actions required to "reload" the crossbow, meaning you get no mechanical benefit. That would basically be them placing the bolt in the crossbow while you crank it.

As I counted it before, it's at least 2 actions JUST for movement as tiny creatures have 0 reach so it has to get to your quiver and then get to your weapon and get back to where it sits: that's not even talking about the action to place the bolt. It's just not feasible.

Liberty's Edge

I'd just like to note here that the average draw weight of a hand crossbow (Called a pistol crossbow) is typically in the range of 50-100 lbs. That is WAY to heavy for ANY familiar to muster not to mention the fact that they cannot wield weapons at all, plus the weapon would be at least 2 size categories too large for them.

This isn't in any way reasonable or feasible even if you have you familiar clutching onto the forearm you're using to fire the weapon at all times and strapped with their own quiver of bolts.


Themetricsystem wrote:

I'd just like to note here that the average draw weight of a hand crossbow (Called a pistol crossbow) is typically in the range of 50-80 lbs. That is WAY to heavy for ANY familiar to muster not to mention the fact that they cannot wield weapons at all, plus the weapon would be at least 2 size categories too large for them.

This isn't in any way reasonable or feasible even if you have you familiar clutching onto the forearm you're using to fire the weapon at all times and strapped with their own quiver of bolts.

The game allows for rolling stats: this means you can roll a character with a 1 str [3 on 4d6 -2 for ancestry] that has no issue reloading a heavy crossbow. As such, it's not a stretch to say a familiar could reload. Real life and pathfinder parted ways a LONG time ago. *Looks at Gargantuan insects and dragons ignoring square cube law*

If this was a debate on the ability of a familiar to reload a weapon sitting on the ground Id say it's no problem for them as the game has no prerequisites other than "You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object", and familiars can do that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

I'd just like to note here that the average draw weight of a hand crossbow (Called a pistol crossbow) is typically in the range of 50-100 lbs. That is WAY to heavy for ANY familiar to muster not to mention the fact that they cannot wield weapons at all, plus the weapon would be at least 2 size categories too large for them.

This isn't in any way reasonable or feasible even if you have you familiar clutching onto the forearm you're using to fire the weapon at all times and strapped with their own quiver of bolts.

Yeah, I'd say a familiar wouldn't be strong enough.

You could always hire a stooge NPC to follow you around with a spare crossbow. As GM I'd allow exchanging an empty crossbow for a full one with one interact action. If you're willing to pay for the hireling and willing to get a new one when he's killed, that is.


graystone wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
I will point you to the "Changing Equipment" section on page 273. On the table you find there is the following, "Pass an item to or take an item from a willing creature." This indicates that you can in fact manipulate a friendly characters equipment, with their permission.

NO it doesn't: pass isn't the same. It's handing the item off, like from their hand to yours: you needed to take an action to get the item in hand and they had to take an action to take it from your hand. NOWHERE is it infered that you can freely manipulate items from an ally. Look at the note:

"2 A creature must have a hand free for someone to pass an item to them, and they might then need to change their grip if they receive an item requiring two hands to wield or use." Notice that it's someone passing an item to someone else, not someone taking all the actions by themselves. It's one action from the passer and one for the taker.

That's funny, because that doesn't work. Your turn is your turn. Your allies turn is your allies turn. Unless you are spending 2 actions to ready an action to hand off an item, you could never pass an item between characters with your interpretation. Beyond that, that is exactly not what the footnote says. The footnote indicates that a creature must have a hand free for someone to put something into it. Full stop. Let's move on.

graystone wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Stuff about backpacks and things
That's not what it indicates: it's looking through a backpack on the ground vs one on your back: no where does in indicate anything about one worn on another creature. So as the rules stand, yes you must remove a backpack to get a potion. We're talking items stowed in a backpack safely, not one in an easy to get to pocket or pouch.

So what you are saying is, "Your own" backpack doesn't obviously infer that you can get into another characters backpack without putting it on the floor so long as they are willing? So a character couldn't for instance ask their friend to get into their backpack and pull out a sweetroll, to save them an action? Because that is exactly what that means. And it does indicate that you can in fact manipulate an ally or "willing creature's" equipment.

To the rest, that was mostly a joke, but one that definitely follows a strict reading of the rules. Would I be okay with my group doing so? Yeah. I would. Because 1. It would be hilarious, and 2. It's not exactly a peasant rail gun is it?

The "combat is an extrapolation" argument goes both ways. Sure, you are dodging around and always in motion and all that. But nothing, and I mean nothing, in the rules or common sense indicates that this magically seals your belt pouch from your buddy when they want/need a potion. If your character needs to get into an allies backpack to pull out the magguffin to put in the convenient slot, then you can do so, and you do not need to put that backpack on the ground first.

This being the case, I don't see "buddy reloading" a heavy crossbow as such an odd thing. Nothing in reload indicates that you must be wielding a weapon to reload it. It actually doesn't even indicate that you must be carrying or even "having" the item to be reloaded. Nothing in carrying or using items states that you can't manipulate an allies equipment. Ipso facto, you can reload your buddies crossbow. And if a character can do so, a familiar probably can to. While they don't have their own ability scores or bonuses, they essentially are as strong as you (the gm) allow them to be at the time. Hence why I am fine with a rule of cool moment reload from a manual dex monkey. Standard practice? Nah, no chance.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:
Nothing in reload indicates that you must be wielding a weapon to reload it. It actually doesn't even indicate that you must be carrying or even "having" the item to be reloaded. Nothing in carrying or using items states that you can't manipulate an allies equipment.

Patently untrue.

CRB Page 279 wrote:

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.

An item with an entry of “—” must be drawn to be thrown, which usually takes an Interact action just like drawing any other weapon. Reloading a ranged weapon and drawing a thrown weapon both require a free hand. Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon.

Reload directly notes that you must be wielding the item to reload it in the very last sentence of the rules for it. If you cannot Wield a weapon, you cannot reload it.


Themetricsystem wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Nothing in reload indicates that you must be wielding a weapon to reload it. It actually doesn't even indicate that you must be carrying or even "having" the item to be reloaded. Nothing in carrying or using items states that you can't manipulate an allies equipment.

Patently untrue.

CRB Page 279 wrote:

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.

An item with an entry of “—” must be drawn to be thrown, which usually takes an Interact action just like drawing any other weapon. Reloading a ranged weapon and drawing a thrown weapon both require a free hand. Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon.

Reload directly notes that you must be wielding the item to reload it in the very last sentence of the rules for it. If you cannot Wield a weapon, you cannot reload it.

That isn't what that actually says. It is stating that you don't have to spend an action to switch your hands on the weapon in order to reload it. Since a standard or heavy crossbow is a 2 handed weapon, that just means you don't have to drop a hand off of the weapon to draw a bolt.

Nothing about that stops another creature from reloading the weapon. You would just be considered "wielding" the weapon the whole time, rather than swapping your hands around.

Edit: Let me put it this way; let's say you had a one handed character. Would you say that it is fair that that character could "load" a crossbow with enough effort? They may not be able to properly "wield" it, but should they be allowed to draw the string and load a bolt in it? Even if that were to take extra actions as they have to improvise a way of holding the crossbow such that they can use their one hand to do so.

Liberty's Edge

I disagree. No creature can use Interact Actions on Objects Attended by other creatures which a held (Let alone wielded) Crossbow certainly qualifies as.

Everything in every rule written in the book from Interact to Manipulate to Wield to Reload ALL suggests you have to be personally holding or otherwise wielding an item to Reload it. You're choosing to deliberately ignore the rules that state you have to have the item in your hands or otherwise be wielding it to reload. I even bolded the section with the wording in question.

No, a one-handed Character could never functionally load a Crossbow, at least not without some other specific ability that grants them additional "free hands." It may not seem "fair" but by any measure, you need multiple hands to reload no matter what, that's just how it works.


beowulf99 wrote:
That's funny, because that doesn't work. Your turn is your turn. Your allies turn is your allies turn. Unless you are spending 2 actions to ready an action to hand off an item, you could never pass an item between characters with your interpretation. Beyond that, that is exactly not what the footnote says. The footnote indicates that a creature must have a hand free for someone to put something into it. Full stop. Let's move on.

It works fine: your ally delays to your turn. "You can return to the initiative order as a free action triggered by the end of any other creature’s turn." So the last action you use it to hand off the item and the first they do it take the item... No issues. As to the note, it telling the taker they need a free hand so you can't try to pass items to people's pockets or such [which by the way makes argument you can TAKE an item the same way less likely]. I really can't see any way to look at this that giving someone something doesn't require the taker to do absolutely nothing to gain the item. You have to spend an action to take something out of your own pocket but in combat you don't have to to take something from someone else's hand?

beowulf99 wrote:
So what you are saying is, "Your own" backpack doesn't obviously infer that you can get into another characters backpack without putting it on the floor so long as they are willing? So a character couldn't for instance ask their friend to get into their backpack and pull out a sweetroll, to save them an action? Because that is exactly what that means. And it does indicate that you can in fact manipulate an ally or "willing creature's" equipment.

I'm 100% saying you can't just access someone else's worn backpack in combat. 0% inference in the rules. Out of combat, you aren't using actions the same so it's really not an issue but in combat? no way. Willing and standing 100% still are different things and that's the point. A backpack on the ground isn't moving around and subject to random movement from combat.

As to the rest: total disagreement. I can't see anything from common sense or the rules that let friends grab stored items from you without them actively passing you the item. Most items aren't out in the open where they can be damaged: if they are SO easy to grab the a friend can just come by and snatch one off with no problem while you're fighting a monster, then it's common sense to me that foes would find it just as easy: it's just hanging out there for anyone to grab or it wouldn't be that easy to get. unless you're taking actions to remain totally still [or you're knocked out], it's a no go as far as I can see.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Can the familiar reload someone else's crossbow? That's I think where it gets weird.

Can two blindfolded people beat Mike Tyson's Punch-Out using the same controller without taking a single point of damage?

:P

(Sorry, I couldn't help it, I'll...see myself out)


Themetricsystem wrote:

I disagree. No creature can use Interact Actions on Objects Attended by other creatures which a held (Let alone wielded) Crossbow certainly qualifies as.

Everything in every rule written in the book from Interact to Manipulate to Wield to Reload ALL suggests you have to be personally holding or otherwise wielding an item to Reload it. You're choosing to deliberately ignore the rules that state you have to have the item in your hands or otherwise be wielding it to reload. I even bolded the section with the wording in question.

No, a 1 handed Character could never functionally use a Crossbow, at least now without some other specific ability that grants them additional "free hands."

I would like you to quote that rule please. I have never read a blanket "you can't manipulate an attended object" rule. I know that you cannot directly attack an attended object, is that the rule you are referring to?

themetricsystem wrote:
Everything in every rule written in the book from Interact to Manipulate to Wield to Reload ALL suggests you have to be personally holding or otherwise wielding an item to Reload it. You're choosing to deliberately ignore the rules that state you have to have the item in your hands or otherwise be wielding it to reload. I even bolded the section with the wording in question.

Sure. Until you look at passing or taking an item, and it states that you can interact with a willing creatures items to take them.

"Pass an item to or take an item from a willing creature."

This is pretty clear. Why doesn't that come into play? If you can take a potion from a belt pouch or backpack, why not manipulate an item that is even easier to get to? Remember, everything is an extrapolation. Who's to say that the wielding creature isn't doing something to assist in that action, a movement that isn't big enough to require an action. There are millions of those after all. Like aiming. It is not unreasonable that you could "crew serve" a crossbow. It may stretch your belief a bit, but even a strict reading of the rules doesn't disallow this sort of interaction.

You could point to the wording of interact. Sure. And I will point you to Interact.

CRB PG. 470 "Interact" wrote:
You can grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or produce some similar effect

Similar effect very much would include an object attended by a willing ally.

I've already pointed out how Reload doesn't specifically call out a requirement of wielding the object. That would be silly. Why couldn't you reload a crossbow sitting on the ground? It includes an exception that allows you to shift the item for when you are wielding it, but does nothing to state that this is the only time you could reload that weapon. That is your interpretation.

To the one handed character point, then it is good that largely you can't make such a character. But I would definitely allow this in a campaign. It would be one of that characters only ranged options after all. And they would be paying a premium for that crossbow shot, but desperate times and all that. Even a hand crossbow would be difficult for such a character to wield, but not impossible.


Draco18s wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Can the familiar reload someone else's crossbow? That's I think where it gets weird.

Can two blindfolded people beat Mike Tyson's Punch-Out using the same controller without taking a single point of damage?

:P

(Sorry, I couldn't help it, I'll...see myself out)

Speed runners are hilarious.

If the familiar and master have the type of relationship these two have, I'd have to allow it.


graystone wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
That's funny, because that doesn't work. Your turn is your turn. Your allies turn is your allies turn. Unless you are spending 2 actions to ready an action to hand off an item, you could never pass an item between characters with your interpretation. Beyond that, that is exactly not what the footnote says. The footnote indicates that a creature must have a hand free for someone to put something into it. Full stop. Let's move on.
It works fine: your ally delays to your turn. "You can return to the initiative order as a free action triggered by the end of any other creature’s turn." So the last action you use it to hand off the item and the first they do it take the item... No issues. As to the note, it telling the taker they need a free hand so you can't try to pass items to people's pockets or such [which by the way makes argument you can TAKE an item the same way less likely]. I really can't see any way to look at this that giving someone something doesn't require the taker to do absolutely nothing to gain the item. You have to spend an action to take something out of your own pocket but in combat you don't have to to take something from someone else's hand?

That doesn't fix the issue at all. If you are delaying, you aren't preparing to hand or take that item. We resolve actions on a turn for turn basis. This would require somehow "preparing" to hand off the item. That isn't free in any way.

There is 1 interact action required for this sort of "maneuver", both of which are included in the table. You can either take an item, or you can be given an item. This goes back to the old argument about whether you could "feed" a dying character a potion. Does the dying character need an action to "accept" the potion? What if they are awake? Are you going to require an action to open their mouth? If not then why require an action to "accept" an item?

The intention is obviously 1 action for 1 transaction. Reading it any other way is... well odd.

graystone wrote:

I'm 100% saying you can't just access someone else's worn backpack in combat. 0% inference in the rules. Out of combat, you aren't using actions the same so it's really not an issue but in combat? no way. Willing and standing 100% still are different things and that's the point. A backpack on the ground isn't moving around and subject to random movement from combat.

As to the rest: total disagreement. I can't see anything from common sense or the rules that let friends grab stored items from you without them actively passing you the item. Most items aren't out in the open where they can be damaged: if they are SO easy to grab the a friend can just come by and snatch one off with no problem while you're fighting a monster, then it's common sense to me that foes would find it just as easy: it's just hanging out there for anyone to grab or it wouldn't be that easy to get.

You obviously have a very different definition of the word Willing than I do.

graystone wrote:
unless you're taking actions to remain totally still [or you're knocked out], it's a no go as far as I can see.

Remaining still isn't an action that I am aware of. There is no restriction given in the book for this. That is all you. If you don't consider your ally a willing creature, possible if they tell you not to take their stuff, then I don't know what to tell you. Get better friends?

I once was the only responding security officer with a pair of handcuffs at an incident. My hands were tied up trying to hold down a subject I was detaining. Another officer had to reach over to my belt and, gasp, take my handcuffs from my belt to apply them to the detainee. I can say that it didn't take what I consider an "action" on my part to make that transaction happen. I was very much busy at the time.

Why couldn't this similar scenario occur in game? Why shouldn't it? The rules do not, despite what you keep claiming, directly say that you can't take an object from an ally with a single action. They don't say that you have to spend an action to accept an item that is already being given. You are setting those restrictions. And that is your right I suppose. I simply disagree.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Disallow"

The rules aren't written in a prohibitive way, if it doesn't list a way to do something it can't be done, otherwise, the book would have to be 10,000 pages long. It's a permissive system, it says you can do X and therefore you can do X. The argument that because it doesn't specify - you CAN'T do something = you CAN do it- holds no water.

I'm also not sure how you think that ANYONE could load and draw a crossbow if they're not actually holding it, so the whole load it on the ground thing leaves me baffled. I get this is a game and it doesn't apply real world physics or considerations but this is honestly beyond the pale. Beyond that, this isn't the question OP asked, they wanted to know if a crossbow they're actively wielding can be loaded by someone else, the answer here is an authoritative "No."

The OP also wasn't asking about passing items between characters or allowing someone to take something from someone else so those discussions have no bearing on the conversation.

Also, please, pretty please NEVER try this at home. Drawing a crossbow by yourself is something people should be trained to do. Having someone else try to "assist" the person holding by drawing the string back and placing a bolt is only going to end up either damaging the crossbow, injuring one or both parties or both.

Lastly, the rules DO state, very clearly I might add, that it DOES take at least 1 action to take an item from someone else, it's in the first line of Table 6-2 see "Draw, stow, or pick up an item." If an item is being passed from one Character to another it is always going to take at least 1 action from the giver and 1 action from the character taking the item.


beowulf99 wrote:
You can grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or produce some similar effect

I think you're reading WAY to much to read "similar" to mean 'grab an attended' which is an antonym [attended vs unattended] not similar. If you ignore attended, you open everything up to manipulation from every creature, allies or not as 'friendly' or 'ally' doesn't come up in equipment or interaction as far as i know. "Willing" ONLY comes up when two creatures ACTIVELY pass in item, requiring both parties to spend actions.

beowulf99 wrote:
That doesn't fix the issue at all. If you are delaying, you aren't preparing to hand or take that item. We resolve actions on a turn for turn basis. This would require somehow "preparing" to hand off the item. That isn't free in any way.

It works FINE, as there doesn't need to be "preparation": One person hands out the item as you delay and once their turn ends, it's still presented to you. Then your turn start, you spend an action to reach out and take it... Simple, easy and not hard to figure out.

beowulf99 wrote:
There is 1 interact action required for this sort of "maneuver", both of which are included in the table.

It's 2 related actions: "pass an item" and "take an item" much like Interact "grab an unattended or stored object" or "open a door" or "reload". It's not listing them as a single action as you CAN'T control another's action with your own: your action can't force another to grab an item you present and that isn't an action to grab an item not presented to you. It's 2 halves of a whole. You just can't individually spend an action involving 2 people doing a joint action.

beowulf99 wrote:
You obviously have a very different definition of the word Willing than I do.

First willing isn't even a factor as it's not in any of the rules we're talking about... But even if it was, willing isn't immobile and acting like an unattended object. Willing isn't actively helping: it's not handing you the item but trying to dig through a moving backpack in combat. This isn't hiking outside for fun and you stand still for someone to pull something out of your pack.

beowulf99 wrote:
Remaining still isn't an action that I am aware of.

It's quite simply not taking an action when you can. I'm taking it as something similar to the pass action by actively helping someone get an item. It's more of a extrapolation but it's as close as I can see the rules allowing what you're trying to do.


Themetricsystem wrote:

"Disallow"

The rules aren't written in a prohibitive way, if it doesn't list a way to do something it can't be done, otherwise, the book would have to be 10,000 pages long. It's a permissive system, it says you can do X and therefore you can do X. The argument that because it doesn't specify - you CAN'T do something = you CAN do it- holds no water.

I'm also not sure how you think that ANYONE could load and draw a crossbow if they're not actually holding it, so the whole load it on the ground thing leaves me baffled. I get this is a game and it doesn't apply real world physics or considerations but this is honestly beyond the pale. Beyond that, this isn't the question OP asked, they wanted to know if a crossbow they're actively wielding can be loaded by someone else, the answer here is an authoritative "No."

The OP also wasn't asking about passing items between characters or allowing someone to take something from someone else so those discussions have no bearing on the conversation.

Also, please, pretty please NEVER try this at home. Drawing a crossbow by yourself is something people should be trained to do. Having someone else try to "assist" the person holding by drawing the string back and placing a bolt is only going to end up either damaging the crossbow, injuring one or both parties or both.

And this is where it is clear that we are just not going to see eye to eye on this subject. The passing and taking items bit was simply to prove that, within the rules, you absolutely can manipulate an object being held, wielded or even just had by a willing ally.

The answer is most definitely not an "authoritative 'No'". There is no reason in rules nor in common sense that you cannot crew serve a crossbow. Would it be awkward? Yeah. But lots of things you can do are awkward. Doesn't mean they aren't possible.

At the end of the day, the real question I think the OP was asking is, should this be allowed and is it an abuse of the rules? I personally don't believe it is, and would absolutely allow it. You gain almost nothing from doing so after all. You are tying up the actions of another creature, in this case a familiar, to gain very little benefit.

There are no restrictions or any compelling arguments made thus far that disabuse me of that opinion. If a player at my table were to try it, I would likely play ball. It is possible, though unlikely, that there is some facet of this that would potentially be unbalancing. I don't see it now, but if it did become an issue I'd handle it like any other GM.

The biggest problem I have is the tone taken in the responses I have gotten. The rules are written in no certain terms. They are purposefully vague and allow wiggle room. To say that there is in any way an "authoritative answer," is to forget that. It is the "permissive" nature of the system that guarantees that any discussion like this will largely be decided from behind the keyboards of anyone reading the thread. I believe that I have done my best to show that, yeah, you could completely perform the actions asked about in this thread within the bounds of the rules. And they are largely reasonable in a world where magic is a thing and even non-magical people can perform feats that defy logic and reason. Cloud Jump springs to mind.

In other words; if disallowing something of this nature harms the fun of the game, then what is the point of the game? The rules are not clear in disallowing this sort of shenaniganery, and as I've said before, I would likely allow it from a rule of cool stand point.


graystone wrote:
Stuff

Nope. You cannot "hand an object" to a creature without that action being resolved on the turn you are performing it. Otherwise you really are "preparing" an action to hand it off.

Your assertion is that it takes an action from Both parties to complete the transaction. This doesn't work in the system during encounter mode at all. There is only 1 way to perform an action during another persons turn: As a reaction. There is 1 way to ready that action as a reaction: Ready Action. Even in your "delay" example, you would still be making an action during the receiving players turn. This is not a mechanic.

You are essentially allowing a character to perform a "free" readied action, and readied action has an action cost.

To the Manipulate thing, no, that is not what I am saying at all. There is no prohibition against manipulating an attended object. There is even a specific action called out in Handling items that breaks that false assumption without being called out as being an exception. It is simply something that you can do.

graystone wrote:
It's 2 related actions: "pass an item" and "take an item" much like Interact "grab an unattended or stored object" or "open a door" or "reload". It's not listing them as a single action as you CAN'T control another's action with your own: your action can't force another to grab an item you present and that isn't an action to grab an item not presented to you. It's 2 halves of a whole. You just can't individually spend an action involving 2 people doing a joint action.

Except that isn't what it says at all is it? It states the following: "Pass an item to or take an item from a willing creature."

The inclusion of the word OR definitely points to using one or the other action, not the two in tandem.

To the rest, we can agree to disagree. Saying that a creature being willing doesn't open up options that are not otherwise an option makes any ability for us to see eye to eye on this subject difficult to say the least. I simply don't read the rules the same way you do.

Liberty's Edge

It's it clear that we won't see eye to eye but I want to be crystal clear.

Two people trying to "Crew serve" a 1 or 2 handed single person crossbow is not possible without risking serious deadly harm to both individuals. It' not that it's awkward it is flat out dangerous for ADULT HUMANS let alone animals who lack the strength to escape a wet-paper sack. The rules do not support the ability to "use" or interact with a weapon that you're not holding or wielding.

This is the Rules subsection, the OP asked a Rules question and your position came in arguing essentially "what harm does it do, why not" when that's not the point of this discussion forum. They wanted to know if the rules permit this, and lacking any rules support to indicate that any creature other than the one holding a weapon which requires a Reload it cannot be done.

That said, I think there is a valuable discussion to be had here since there are opposing viewpoints, specifically Action requirements to pass/take an item from another creature and it probably deserves its own thread because it does relate to the original question posed here. Everything I'm reading indicates that each participant needs to spend an action as indicated by the Interact Action which is used to perform it.


Themetricsystem wrote:


This is the Rules subsection, the OP asked a Rules question and your position came in arguing essentially "what harm does it do, why not" when that's not the point of this discussion forum. They wanted to know if the rules permit this, and lacking any rules support to indicate that any creature other than the one holding a weapon which requires a Reload it cannot be done.

My point, such as it is, is that the rules do not give us specific guidance on this subject. There is no differentiation or restriction made for reloading another creatures weapon.

So a GM has to step in and fill in the gap which is very much appropriate for the "Rules Discussion" forum. Your assertion that crew serving a 1 or 2 handed crossbow is dangerous holds just as much water as my argument that it could be done. Even if you happened to own and regularly operate such a crossbow, it is anecdotal evidence at best.

No matter how you rule on this subject, it will be a house rule. There is no specific entry given, and the rules involved in the decision are not clearly for or against.

I point back to the Interact issue. I see manipulating an object held by a willing ally as equivalent to manipulating an object on the ground. My reasoning? There is no resistance to you doing so. What is your reasoning, beyond, "I don't think it works that way,"?

As to handing off an item, it simply cannot work the way that graystone implies. Actions are resolved as you make them. Again, does a character who is being fed a potion of healing have to make an action to accept it? The same logic applies to handing an item. This is why it stipulates that the receiving character must have an open hand. If they did not have such a hand, you would simply drop the item at their feet.

Edit: For the sake of clarity, I am not arguing that you are wrong. I am arguing that I am not incorrect. Either interpretation can be valid depending on the GM and how permissive they are. As I stated earlier, I would allow this to happen in a rule of cool moment, not as a standard operating procedure. Being open to cool things happening is half the fun of playing a TTRPG after all.


beowulf99 wrote:
Nope. You cannot "hand an object" to a creature without that action being resolved on the turn you are performing it.

That just isn't true. The first person spends an action to pass the item: full stop, they are done. It's presented and ready to be grabbed. The next person then does their action, take the item. One holds out the item and the other takes it [and Release is a free action]. If you disagree then how can another person act during your turn without any action/reaction involved? Are you saying that you forcefully put the item in their hand then close there hand for them to it'a ready to use?

The thing you ignore that is that the chart lists BOTH action, Pass an item to and take an item from a willing creature cost an action: if it was like you say then pass an item would be an action and take an item would be listed as free [or the other way around]. It isn't though but instead lists both as an action. I'd think it'd list an action for the other party if it works as you say as you need a reaction/free action to act out of turn and you need a listed trigger too.

beowulf99 wrote:
Except that isn't what it says at all is it? It states the following: "Pass an item to or take an item from a willing creature."

They use the same "or" in Interact grab an object and open a door aren't a combo action either...

PS: I think I'm done here. I think you're reading way too much into thing and I don't see how we'll have a meeting of the minds so I think it's just be a waste of time and effort at this point.


graystone wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Nope. You cannot "hand an object" to a creature without that action being resolved on the turn you are performing it.

That just isn't true. The first person spends an action to pass the item: full stop, they are done. It's presented and ready to be grabbed. The next person then does their action, take the item. One holds out the item and the other takes it. If you disagree then how can another person act during your turn without any action/reaction involved? Are you saying that you forcefully put the item in their hand then close there hand for them to it'a ready to use?

The thing you ignore that is that the chart lists BOTH action, Pass an item to and take an item from a willing creature cost an action: if it was like you say then pass an item would be an action and take an item would be listed as free [or the other way around]. It isn't though but instead lists both as an action. I'd think it'd list an action for the other party if it works as you say as you need a reaction/free action to act out of turn and you need a listed trigger too.

beowulf99 wrote:
Except that isn't what it says at all is it? It states the following: "Pass an item to or take an item from a willing creature."

They use the same "or" in Interact grab an object and open a door aren't a combo action either...

PS: I think I'm done here. I think you're reading way too much into thing and I don't see how we'll have a meeting of the minds so I think it's just be a waste of time and effort at this point.

What I have been trying to say, is that the act of "accepting" an item is not "taking an item", and is more likely to be a free action than it's own interact action. You are overly taxing players if you are requiring them to pay 2 actions to move an item from one players hand to another, especially when compared to retrieving an item from a players backpack, which is a single interact action.

Edit: I would even agree with you, if the term "Give" was replaced with "Present" or some such. But the action very clearly says that you give that item to the person. In what world does that not indicate that the item is now already in that persons inventory?


beowulf99 wrote:
What I have been trying to say, is that the act of "accepting" an item is not "taking an item"

I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with that as it tells you "take an item" is an action. I see nothing that says the entire transfer of the items is covered by a single creatures action even when both clearly must manipulate the item with actions. Does the person that gets the items trigger an AoO? you're saying they haven't spend an action even though pulling a dagger out of their belt would have.

So I totally understand what your trying to say: it's just doesn't match what I'm reading the rules are.

EDIT give vs present: [thee is no meaningful difference between give and present]
Present synonyms
hand over
give
give out
dispense
hand out
confer
bestow
award
grant
donate
gift
accord
extend
entrust
furnish

PS: Darn you, I meant to stop debating... :P


The root question is, does holding out your hand cost an action?

I say it doesnt. If for instance a character had a bundle of paper in their hand, and they wanted each person in their party to take one, would you say he would have to spend an action for each person to take one of those papers? Or would he simply hold up his hand with the papers, then each other person would spend an action to take a paper for themselves?

The inverse is does it take an action to close your hand on an object that is placed into your hand. I say no.

The book calls out that your ally needs an open hand. Why would it do so if they were going to be making an action to grab the object anyway. They could just change their hand position before doing so.

Edit: I have that effect on people. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:

The root question is, does holding out your hand cost an action?

I say it doesnt. If for instance a character had a bundle of paper in their hand, and they wanted each person in their party to take one, would you say he would have to spend an action for each person to take one of those papers? Or would he simply hold up his hand with the papers, then each other person would spend an action to take a paper for themselves?

The inverse is does it take an action to close your hand on an object that is placed into your hand. I say no.

The book calls out that your ally needs an open hand. Why would it do so if they were going to be making an action to grab the object anyway. They could just change their hand position before doing so.

Edit: I have that effect on people. :)

I'm not actually taking sides in this debate, but I do believe this latest offering is shaky since gripping a weapon explicitly takes an action (i.e., switching from a one-handed to a two-handed grip)


mrspaghetti wrote:
I'm not actually taking sides in this debate, but I do believe this latest offering is shaky since gripping a weapon explicitly takes an action (i.e., switching from a one-handed to a two-handed grip)

While true, I think this is more of a "game design limitation because mechanics" than "actually takes 2 seconds."

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.


Draco18s wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:
I'm not actually taking sides in this debate, but I do believe this latest offering is shaky since gripping a weapon explicitly takes an action (i.e., switching from a one-handed to a two-handed grip)

While true, I think this is more of a "game design limitation because mechanics" than "actually takes 2 seconds."

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.

Agreed. I guess I was trying to say that the handcuff example was more convincing IMO.

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Familiars and Crossbows? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.