Can I use the Running Reload feat to reload a heavy crossbow as a single action?
Could you use Running Reload followed by another Running Reload or Reload action to load the heavy crossbow?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could you use Running Reload followed by another Running Reload or Reload action to load the heavy crossbow?
Being able to break up Reloads into individual actions is explicitly GM fiat.
If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity, or you can spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn
So maybe.
Could you use Running Reload followed by another Running Reload or Reload action to load the heavy crossbow?To qualify Squiggit's response:
If you spend both Interact-to-Reload actions on the same turn, a clear yes. (Whether you reload "normally" or use special actions such as Rapid Reload should not matter)
If you want to spread the two over multiple turns, a clear maybe meaning "if the GM agrees" (precisely because of what Squiggit quoted).
It's not a clear yes at all, just look at the quote Squiggit posted: the Dm may want reloads back to back and running reload does NOT allow that. Running Reload is specifically move THEN reload so 2 Running Reloads means move, reload, move, reload and that is clearly NOT "performed together as an activity": Making it an activity has more impact than using it in the same round. "You have to spend all the actions of an activity at once to gain its effects" [Core Rulebook pg. 461], something you are unable to do as you must take a move action between them with 2 running reloads.
So it's a solid MAYBE no matter how you look at it.
Mechanically, I understand the move reload move reload nature of it, but conceptually, the character is just moving and reloading. Seamless.
I'm hoping most GMs will be okay with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'd be ok with a Running Reload, followed by a regular Reload, but not a pair of Running Reloads.
I think I'd be ok with a Running Reload, followed by a regular Reload, but not a pair of Running Reloads.
Why not?
If you allow Running Reload AT ALL, the only thing that's different about doing it twice is that you're moving farther.
If I had a crossbow, I'd film myself loading the crossbow while moving 25 feet, then I'd film myself reloading it while moving 50 feet. The whole thing would be seamless. I would not be move, place bolt, stop, move, draw back.
Mechanically, I understand the move reload move reload nature of it, but conceptually, the character is just moving and reloading. Seamless.
I'm hoping most GMs will be okay with that.
If I was you, I'd be prepared to have it NOT work to be on the safe side as it's 100% pure Dm fiat: it's throwing darts at a board and hoping it land on 'you can do it'.
PS: also conceptually, I have to disagree with seamless: If it was seamless, you would be interacting while moving which means you'd provoke things like AoO even while taking a Step as you'd be doing both actions at the same time. This means it's important that it's a move THEN the reload as distinct subordinate actions. It's why Running Reload doesn't have the manipulate trait.
I think I'd be ok with a Running Reload, followed by a regular Reload, but not a pair of Running Reloads.
This has been my experience too: most seem fine with running reload and then a normal reload but not so much with taking actions between reloads.
This has been my experience too: most seem fine with running reload and then a normal reload but not so much with taking actions between reloads.
It's not BETWEEN reloads! That's my whole point! It's ONE SINGLE reload! It just takes longer to do.
The fact that it takes two actions does not make it two reloads. It seems split up because of the abstract nature of turn-based combat, but I'm 100% confident it's meant to represent one continuous activity (reloading the crossbow) being done simultaneously with another continuous activity (moving).
I think I'd be ok with a Running Reload, followed by a regular Reload, but not a pair of Running Reloads.Why not?
Basically greystone's post further up, with the wording of running reload being [move] then interact. So move interact move interact doesn't work, and its not "seamless" as written. But [move] interact interact is fine.
This has been my experience too: most seem fine with running reload and then a normal reload but not so much with taking actions between reloads.It's not BETWEEN reloads! That's my whole point! It's ONE SINGLE reload! It just takes longer to do.
The fact that it takes two actions does not make it two reloads. It seems split up because of the abstract nature of turn-based combat, but I'm 100% confident it's meant to represent one continuous activity (reloading the crossbow) being done simultaneously with another continuous activity (moving).
It LITERALLY can't be "ONE SINGLE reload" or your Step would provoke and the ENTIRE action would have the manipulate trait. "I'm 100% confident it's meant to represent" TWO distinct actions or it WOULD have the manipulate trait and there would be NO reason to give the option for a Step as I can't think of a reaction that doesn't trigger on both movement and manipulation.
You can take the fluff as a seamless action and you can describe it in roleplay as such but the nuts and bolts of the mechanics 100% makes it clear it's 2 distinct subordinate actions of move THEN reload.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
FWIW, while it's entirely GM discretion, it's worth pointing out that heavy crossbows are a terrible weapon and forcing the character to treat it as a two-action activity discretely is pretty punishing.
"I'm 100% confident it's meant to represent" TWO distinct actions...
I suspect we're misunderstanding each other somewhat.
I know they are two actions. I've never argued otherwise. I'm saying that the act of reloading is a single process (which, yes, is composed of multiple actions and subordinate actions).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
which, yes, is composed of multiple actions and subordinate actions
Well, that's effectively the part that's up to GM discretion.
The rule talks about resolving it as a single activity or breaking it up.
Essentially the book says it's up to the GM to parse Reload 2 as a two action activity that reloads the weapon or two distinct interact actions to reload.
Under the former interpretation, a heavy crossbow user couldn't use running reload at all.
The "Running reload once and then do a regular interact the second time" thing proposed in this thread doesn't line up with either interpretation, but since it's explicitly GM fiat anyways that's probably not really important.
"I'm 100% confident it's meant to represent" TWO distinct actions...I suspect we're misunderstanding each other somewhat.
I know they are two actions. I've never argued otherwise. I'm saying that the act of reloading is a single process (which, yes, is composed of multiple actions and subordinate actions).
That makes no sense. It's an activity with a specific order of subordinate actions: Move action THEN reload action. It can therefor NEVER be an activity that requires the 2 specific subordinate actions [reload + reload].
" GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity". Do you think a subordinate action can be shared with 2 activities? Because I see no indication that this is possible.
Running Reload activity [Move + heavy crossbow reload {Reload] + Reload} IMO doesn't work though a DM might allow it.
Running Reload activity [Move + heavy crossbow reload {Reload}] + Running Reload activity [Move + heavy crossbow reload {Reload}] is easy to see that there is NO connecting link between reloads that are meant to be an activity.
|
Ok, let's look at the two rules involved here.
You can reload your weapon on the move. You Stride, Step, or Sneak, then Interact to reload
...This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons.
The question is if a weapon takes 2 or more Interact actions to reload, do those Interact actions have to happen back-to-back and do they have happen in the same turn.
I don't see anything that says the Interact actions to reload has to be back to back but I am limited in my ability to research because I am working off my phone.
Running Reload (RR for short) , as a single action that does not have the Flourish trait it can be used multiple times in the turn. If the Interact to reload has to be back-to-back than a second RR would not work because the feat says you have to do something first before you can reload. (As an aside, if the character can't take the three actions listed, they can't use RR.)
If the Interact actions don't have to be back-to-back than a second RR is legal.
By RAW, I think a second RR in the round could be used to reload a weapon in the same turn that requires two Interacts to reload.
As to reloading a weapon across turns, I think you can do that as well. So a character can RR at end of the turn, then RR again at the beginning of their next turn to reload a weapon that takes two Interact actions to reload.
I agree with pretty much everything Gary Bush said, and is how I'd likely run it in my games.
That makes no sense. It's an activity with a specific order of subordinate actions: Move action THEN reload action. It can therefor NEVER be an activity that requires the 2 specific subordinate actions [reload + reload].
I didn't say activity. I said process. I specifically avoided saying action or activity to avoid confusion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That makes no sense. It's an activity with a specific order of subordinate actions: Move action THEN reload action. It can therefor NEVER be an activity that requires the 2 specific subordinate actions [reload + reload].I didn't say activity. I said process. I specifically avoided saying action or activity to avoid confusion.
Sure, but the GAME used activity so it really doesn't matter what terminology you used. The game SPECIFICALLY says the DM can call for an activity for reloading a heavy crossbow and that entails [reload + reload] back to back: full stop. I don't see how you framing it differently changes the actual wording.
Gary Bush: The game says in [Core Rulebook pg. 279] under reload "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."
The game says in [Core Rulebook pg. 279] under reload "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."
And I'm arguing that in the case of Running Reload + Running Reload, GMs should probably allow it to avoid losing verisimilitude.
Stringing moving and reloading together is no more "out of left field" than stringing two move actions together and treating it as continuous movement (which is explicitly how the game operates). It's the same logic.
So if there's clear precedent in the RAW, why should a GM say no to this combination?
I feel like this is going to depend on a table's shared interpretation of "what these weapons are like."
Like is a heavy crossbow the kind where you use a windlass to generate considerable mechanical advantage to overcome the really high draw weight or is that a different kind of crossbow? I'm not sure those should even be compatible with running reload to begin with.
The "can break a reload over two rounds" seems pretty obvious when you're talking about like cannons and the like, where the process is "add powder, then the wad, then the shot" If the round ends after you've added the wad and there's some perceived discontinuity between rounds, then you can just drop the shot in there later- it will be fine.
I imagine the two reload actions for a heavy crossbow being 1. use a winch to draw back the string; and 2. fit the bolt and ready to fire. Easily done over two turns.
There is no real reason to require a crossbow be reloaded in two consecutive actions.
And I'm arguing that in the case of Running Reload + Running Reload, GMs should probably allow it to avoid losing verisimilitude.
And I'm arguing that a Dm has NO obligation to do so so you shouldn't bet on it: it's total Dm fiat. There is NO should involved. You think they should but a Dm may not: they may think you have to stand in place to winch it up with a foot stirrup as a 2 action activity and that makes more logical sense that doing that while running and somehow not provoking reactions... :P
Stringing moving and reloading together is no more "out of left field" than stringing two move actions together and treating it as continuous movement (which is explicitly how the game operates). It's the same logic.
Actions presented have no obligation to make logical sense to you or anyone else: I find it silly that I can carry a few halflings under my arms and not be hampered in any way but those are the rules.
So if there's clear precedent in the RAW, why should a GM say no to this combination?
Where is this RAW? I haven't seen any except against it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if there's clear precedent in the RAW, why should a GM say no to this combination?
I don't think it's really a matter of should. It's just that the book explicitly gives this decision entirely over to the GM.
In my games, I'd allow you to split them up as much as you want as long as you spend two actions to reload before you shoot again. Double running reload. Reload > do something else > Reload. Whatever.
But I know some GMs who'd want you to do it as a single two action activity, which means no running reload at all. Nothing except sitting there reloading.
Both are consistent with the RAW, because the RAW is that the GM gets to decide how to interpret the Reload feature. I just would never use a heavy crossbow in the latter game (or to be honest, probably not in the first game either if I was playing, weapon sucks).
I feel like this is going to depend on a table's shared interpretation of "what these weapons are like."
Like is a heavy crossbow the kind where you use a windlass to generate considerable mechanical advantage to overcome the really high draw weight or is that a different kind of crossbow? I'm not sure those should even be compatible with running reload to begin with.
Totally fair!
The "can break a reload over two rounds" seems pretty obvious when you're talking about like cannons and the like, where the process is "add powder, then the wad, then the shot" If the round ends after you've added the wad and there's some perceived discontinuity between rounds, then you can just drop the shot in there later- it will be fine.
Doesn't sound any different from placing the bolt, then manipulating some sort of crank or lever system.
Where is this RAW? I haven't seen any except against it.
I was referring to the move + move.
In my games, I'd allow you to split them up as much as you want as long as you spend two actions to reload before you shoot again. Double running reload. Reload > do something else > Reload. Whatever.
But I know some GMs who'd want you to do it as a single two action activity, which means no running reload at all. Nothing except sitting there reloading.
And they'd be well within their rights, but I'd have to ask them: "Why?" This isn't a computer game. It's a roleplaying game. If the game allows you to rule on something, and it's clear that it would be more fun for your players to rule a certain way, and you want to rule the other way, I think most players would at least expect to hear the reasoning behind their ruling.
Both are consistent with the RAW, because the RAW is that the GM gets to decide how to interpret the Reload feature. I just would never use a heavy crossbow in the latter game (or to be honest, probably not in the first game either if I was playing, weapon sucks).
I don't believe I ever said otherwise. :)
I was referring to the move + move.
I don't get the connection. One is a combination of actions into an activity. The other is a combining 2 activities which are already a combination of actions that have an enforced order of action. These 2 things do not seem even remotely close: To quote Sesame Street "one of these things are not like the other".
And they'd be well within their rights, but I'd have to ask them: "Why?" This isn't a computer game. It's a roleplaying game. If the game allows you to rule on something, and it's clear that it would be more fun for your players to rule a certain way, and you want to rule the other way, I think most players would at least expect to hear the reasoning behind their ruling.
It you're uncomfortable with DM fiat, this is the wrong system for you. Nothing about ruling it a combined action in ANY way suggests a computer game and reload isn't meant as a "fun" option but a negative feature: I'd be worried if it was ever thought of as fun... Why it works that way can be as simple as 'well that's how you reload a heavy crossbow... you can't use the stirrup and run at the same time.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't sound any different from placing the bolt, then manipulating some sort of crank or lever system.
You've got that backwards. For like a really heavy crossbow you draw back the string first, then place the bolt. Because if something goes wrong then you're not accidentally launching anything sharp in whatever direction the thing happens to be facing.
Remember many historical windlass style heavy crossbows had a stirrup so you could brace with your foot while you worked the crank.
Doesn't sound any different from placing the bolt, then manipulating some sort of crank or lever system.You've got that backwards. For like a really heavy crossbow you draw back the string first, then place the bolt. Because if something goes wrong then you're not accidentally launching anything sharp in whatever direction the thing happens to be facing.
Remember many historical windlass style heavy crossbows had a stirrup so you could brace with your foot while you worked the crank.
Forgive me. It's been a while since I've been to the museum to look at the ancient weapons. Lockdowns and all, you know. :P
Anyways, my point was that loading a crossbow is a multistep process, much like loading a cannon is. You can stop half way through, then pick it up later. Unless its been so long that all tension on the wire has gone out from stretching, I can't think of any practical reason why it couldn't be partially completed then delayed for a bit before finishing the last steps.
Especially if there is a windup winch or something. From what I understand those have notches/locking mechanisms and so tend not release prior to the trigger being pulled.
Especially if there is a windup winch or something. From what I understand those have notches/locking mechanisms and so tend not release prior to the trigger being pulled.
Generally a cranequin or windlass didn't have any locking system: it's just the crossbow itself that locks. One could be made I guess but it would make it harder to use as it would have to be unlocked to remove the cranequin or windlass before firing and slow the process down. The only point that there is a "multistep process" is really placing the bolt and that's not really an action itself: it's the same action a bow user or a normal crossbow user uses DURING the reload action not as a separate action. Even if you tried to divide the actions into attaching/detaching the cranequin or windlass and the actual draw of the crossbow it doesn't work as you attach at the start and detach at the end THEN you load the bolt. It's not a 'I just stop in the middle' kind of activity' if you're looking at it with a realistic point of view.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Forgive me. It's been a while since I've been to the museum to look at the ancient weapons. Lockdowns and all, you know. :P
I am literally certified in firearm safety- it says so on my driver's license! So I feel pressured to live up to certain standards here ;p
Zapp... Please look at the rules and the come back and debate. That and PLEASE condense your posts. multiple back to back posts to the same person is annoying.
I imagine the two reload actions for a heavy crossbow being 1. use a winch to draw back the string; and 2. fit the bolt and ready to fire. Easily done over two turns.
There is no real reason to require a crossbow be reloaded in two consecutive actions.
No "real" reason no, but then again reality is a poor fit for D&D-like games.
The *real* reason is because it simplifies the game. Allowing characters and monsters to start a two or three action stunt on turn one, and only finishing it off on turn two does make the game more complex, and likely without any real benefit.
For one thing it nerfs Slow. If you are Slowed 2 you're supposed to only have one action available each turn basically preventing spellcasting. If you can start the spell on round one, and finish it on round two, you can still cast spells even with Slowed 2.
For some GMs that's okay. But I believe Paizo did the right thing when they called out this case as something GMs need to actively opt into.
Generally, you have to finish an activity on your turn. Reloading provides a possible exception via GM fiat. I don't think this needs slow any as nothing has really changed. The vast majority of activities still cannot be broken up over multiple turns even if the HM rules in your favor in regards to reloading.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, let's look at the two rules involved here.
You can reload your weapon on the move. You Stride, Step, or Sneak, then Interact to reload...This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons.The question is if a weapon takes 2 or more Interact actions to reload, do those Interact actions have to happen back-to-back and do they have happen in the same turn.
I don't see anything that says the Interact actions to reload has to be back to back but I am limited in my ability to research because I am working off my phone.
The only intention of the rules is to empower GMs to not allow players to start a job on one turn, and finish it only on the next one. This means you don't have to remember how many actions out of a two-action or three- action stunt you have already performed.
But it's absurd to argue it means you can't even do two Rapid Reloads within the SAME turn, and there is zero rules support (either RAW or RAI) for it.
Calm down Zap. Please take care using words like "absurd" because those type of words can be taken as a personal attack and then things start going down hill; posts get flagged, posts get deleted, and we get a "talking" to about being nice.
I suggest, if you want to use the word "absurd" (so similar attacking type word), you add "In my view, this is absurd.."
Now to my response. If we don't read the words as they are written and give them meaning in the order that they are written, then why were they written in the order that they are written? I am a literal reader of the rules and believe how they are written, the order for example, is intentional and important.
So no, it is not absurd to read that if the feat says "Move then reload" that is how the feat should be used.
So to me, it is perfectly logical that to use rapid reload you have to STRIDE first then RELOAD. The reload does not happen during the STRIDE. If someone has the an action left, they can take another RELOAD action to finish the reloading process.
And I am softening on the reload across turns. Not fully on board with that yet but seeing the merits of it from the arguments... err I mean discussions about it.
Notice the difference?
It's a difference without a distinction: activity STILL has the same definition. "You have to spend all the actions of an activity at once to gain its effects." This is literally an impossibility when you are forced to move THEN reload with running reload. And running reload has to work as a move then reload as to avoid reactions by using a Step then Reload: if it was a simultaneous move and reload, the whole thing would have the manipulation trait and trigger AoO and other reactions.
So... I don't see this post as moving the bar in your direction even a little: you in no way proved an activity can be broken up and both writings allow the DM to make a reload of 2 an activity...
No, you still aren't seeing the distinction.
Because there IS no distinction...
First, let's agree the only rule some of you point to in order to claim the rules force (without GM approval) you to clump all your reload actions together (as an activity) is the one on page 172. Right?
Nothing forces a DM to make it an activity but that is one option the rules say they can take.
It's only in the context of spending some reload actions on one turn, and the rest during your next turn, that the rule tells you to ask the GM!
The definition and mechanics of an activity stay the same no matter the context, hence the context is meaningless. If you rule it's an activity, it then follows the rules for an activity... Seems as straight forward as you can get.
a) Can I spend some reload actions on one turn, and the rest on my next turn?
b) Or do I need to consider the reloading as an activity that must be performed together?
And b) is "as an activity" so when you look at the rules for activities, you can see that they MUST be taken together, which is impossible with running reload...
That is what I am pointing out. You can't replace the "or" with a period. It's not two independent sentences.
What you are pointing out is a meaningless distraction that in no way impacts the rules about activities. The part that tells you that it doesn't work is 100% the same in both ways you wrote it: the or or period DID NOT alter the fact that the DM can make it an activity.
SO unless you can overcome the FACT that a DM can by the rules rule that a reload 2 can be treated as an activity, the rest of your argument doesn't matter in the least. It's just pointless noise since the rules are quite clear on how activities work.