Tamper Question

[Bardarok]

Rules Text: "You tamper with a foe’s weapon or armor. Choose either a weapon held by an enemy in your reach or a suit of armor worn by an enemy in your reach. Attempt a Crafting check against the enemy’s Reflex DC.

Critical Success Your tampering is incredibly effective. If you tampered with a weapon, the enemy takes a –2 circumstance penalty to attack rolls and damage rolls with that weapon. If you tampered with armor, the armor hampers the enemy’s movement, causing them to be flatfooted and take a –10-foot penalty to their Speeds. Either effect lasts until the enemy interacts to remove the effect.

Success Your tampering is temporarily effective. As critical success, but the effect ends after 1 round even if the enemy hasn’t Interacted to end it.

Critical Failure Your tampering backfires dramatically, causing a small explosion from your own tools or gear. You take fire damage equal to your level."

Is this a sunder type thing where you hit the weak point of the item with the weapon or are you reaching out with your hand to do this?

Does it require a free hand? If not does it use your weapons reach?

[Keraki]

I would say yes, just because logically (which I know RAW sometimes forget) you need tools to do something. Like how they errata'd healers tools are necessary battle medicine. Grab your tools and tinker, so most likely repair tools.

[Bardarok]

Yeah requiring tools would make the most sense. Whatever it is though the devs should make it more clear in the final version. I like the ability I just don't think it's clear.

[shroudb]

It doesn't require Tools, so it doesn't require free hand.

Furthermore, it's "on a target within your Reach" not "adjacent" so if you have a Reach weapon you can do it from afar.

I think it's mostly like "hitting" a thing in the specific part to dislodge it/hamper it.

That is because the enemy also only needs 1 action to bring it back to full capabilities without any check, so that implies that any sort of "damage" you did on it is simply on the level of dislodging something rather than permanent harm to it.

[Keraki]

The reason I say tools is the line
"Critical Failure Your tampering backfires dramatically, causing a small explosion from your own tools or gear. You take fire damage equal to your level."
Otherwise what cause the explosion?
Of course the target has to be in reach. If I am Large or Huge I can use tools or battle medicine to someone in my reach, which does not have to be adjacent.

[shroudb]

it doesn't limit the reach only to that given by size.

if you have a halberd, you can tamper from 10ft away.

the whole Inventor class uses "tools and gear" for the majority of his feats and abilities, like "throwing gadets to overdrive allies" and etc, the cost in actions and hands to do so is calculated in the Action itself.

without explicit mention of needing specifically "crafter's tools/kit" it doesn't, we can safely assume that this gear that the feat is referring to is the same gear that Inventor uses for all of his weird abilities that's referenced everywhere in the class description.

[Keraki]

Sorry can't agree. Not using a halberd to make a crafting check. Also we can't safely assume. We assumed with Battle medicine and we were wrong so it got errata'd. That's the point of the forum and playtest, to find the missing nuances.

[graystone]

Bardarok wrote:

Does it require a free hand?

No.

Bardarok wrote:

If not does it use your weapons reach?

Yes.

Keraki wrote:

Not using a halberd to make a crafting check.

Why not? Isn't reach determined by what's in your hand? As to what you need to make a craft check, what tools do you need to make a crafting check for Recall Knowledge? You ONLY need a specific item and/or hands IF the ability says so.

Keraki wrote:

Also we can't safely assume.

I agree so we have to follow the normal rules for reach.

Keraki wrote:

We assumed with Battle medicine and we were wrong so it got errata'd.

Just because something changes in the errata doesn't mean that what was done before that was wrong, just what it is now. I don't recall the errata calling out any prior interpretation as incorrect, just what is the right way going forward.