|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Zapp wrote: Notice the difference? Other people have already explained how the word "activity" is defined in the game. Please review those posts.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
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."
Zapp wrote: NOW do you get it? What I've gotten is you completely have missed the point. It doesn't matter, IN THE LEAST why it suggests you treat it as an activity. Once you do, it falls under the rules for activities. The rules for activities are the same in turn and across turns: they MUST be linked together without any other actions in-between.
Zapp wrote: Please stop referring to the rules for activities as if you haven't read or understood my posts. No... No matter how you parce the reload rules, the word activity STILL has the same meaning. Just because you want to ignore it doesn't mean it isn't there. You are making a distinction without a difference. As such, I'd ask YOU to stop harping on the part about turns as it's meaningless when it starts with treating it s an activity: if the reason you can't use it cross-turn is that you're treating it as an activity, why do you think you can just ignore the rest of what treating it that way entails?
Zapp wrote: *I am not contesting your definition of activities* If so, then I don't see why you're posting... It's the crux of the whole argument. You're making a distinction that isn't there. If you agree you're treating it as an activity, why aren't you treating it as an activity in your arguments?
PS: even if you wish to find a way to read it so that you don't treat it as an activity even though you treat it as one, will others reading that section read it the same way? Clearly from this thread, other than you it seems that the consensus is the when they say activity, that means you actually treat it as an activity with all that comes with not some conditional, 'only or these purposes' , reason.
Jared Walter 356 wrote: 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." Yes.
I understand you're quoting this because you think it says "If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity."
But it doesn't.
ONLY in the context of spending some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn does the rule you quoted apply.
graystone wrote: What I've gotten is you completely have missed the point. It doesn't matter, IN THE LEAST why it suggests you treat it as an activity. Once you do, it falls under the rules for activities. The rules for activities are the same in turn and across turns: they MUST be linked together without any other actions in-between. Sure. But page doesn't say the GM determines whether reloading is an activity.
It only says this in the context of reloading "over" turn ends.
Quote: No... No matter how you parce the reload rules, the word activity STILL has the same meaning. Sure.
Quote: Just because you want to ignore it doesn't mean it isn't there. I contest none of the rules for activities.
I am merely pointing out that YOU are assuming the rule says the GM determines if reloading is an activity.
It doesn't.
Quote: You are making a distinction without a difference. As such, I'd ask YOU to stop harping on the part about turns as it's meaningless when it starts with treating it s an activity: if the reason you can't use it cross-turn is that you're treating it as an activity, why do you think you can just ignore the rest of what treating it that way entails? I am not ignoring any aspect of activities. I am claiming the rules doesn't tell the GM to determine whether reloading is an activity unless we're discussing across-turns reloading.
Quote: If so, then I don't see why you're posting... It's the crux of the whole argument. Can I submit another possibility?
That you still don't understand my argument.
Thank you.
Quote: Clearly from this thread What this thread tells me is the opposite. There seems to be nothing "clear" about this.
So far ZERO persons have even engaged me on the argument I'm making (as opposed to arguments I'm not making), so...
---
To recapitulate:
An argument was made you can't do two Rapid Reloads back to back without your GM's approval, or at least, more of an approval than when you do two regular Reloads back to back.
The reason for this unintuitive and absurdly legalistic claim is solely the rule on page 172.
But it doesn't say what you think it says.
Sure, the GM can rule you can't move 25+25 feet and then arrive with your heavy crossbow reloaded and ready to use.
In the same way she can rule you can and cannot do anything.
That has nothing to do with page 172. That page only talks about giving the GM the power to stop across-turn reloads (whether you use regular Reload actions or Rapid Reloads).
Now if you'll excuse me.
Have to say that I think that Zapp has a point. Requiring reloads to either be done as an activity or spread over several turns seems strange to me. To me the default would be to needing to use 2 (separate) interact actions.
Thezzaruz wrote: Have to say that I think that Zapp has a point. Requiring reloads to either be done as an activity or spread over several turns seems strange to me. To me the default would be to needing to use 2 (separate) interact actions. It can seem strange but the DM has the option to do it. There IS no default.
Zapp wrote: So far ZERO persons have even engaged me on the argument I'm making Yea, because your argument is to try to sidestep the straight forward wording "the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity". The rest is a distraction no matter how many times you try to lead the debate elsewhere.
Zapp wrote: Sure. But page doesn't say the GM determines whether reloading is an activity. That's exactly what it does say though. I don't understand what else "performed together as an activity" means if it doesn't mean you treat it as an activity.
Zapp wrote: I am not ignoring any aspect of activities. I am claiming the rules doesn't tell the GM to determine whether reloading is an activity unless we're discussing across-turns reloading. This makes no sense: "You have to spend all the actions of an activity at once to gain its effects. In an encounter, this means you must complete it during your turn." The reason it can't be done over multiple turns is BECAUSE "You have to spend all the actions of an activity at once" so if you don't follow the reason it can't be done over multiple turns that it's meaningless. It's not "unintuitive and absurdly legalistic claim" but reading "the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity" to actually mean what it says under "Activities". IMO, it seems "unintuitive and absurdly legalistic" to say when they mean "Activities" to mean anything other that what it describes under "Activities".
So, yeah... I still don't get your argument.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
What the rule says is that the GM can pick between [Together as an Activity] or [Some actions on one turn and the rest on the next turn].
If we really want to lean on absurdist strict RAW, those are the only options presented for ruling on how 2+ action reloads work. As a result, the thing Zapp wants to do isn't possible at all, because two independent actions on the same turn is neither an activity nor splitting it up over multiple turns. The option to split it up on the same turn isn't even mentioned.
But it seems silly to argue that when we're already in the realm of GM fiat to begin with.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Zapp wrote: Jared Walter 356 wrote: 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." Yes.
I understand you're quoting this because you think it says "If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity."
But it doesn't.
ONLY in the context of spending some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn does the rule you quoted apply. Basically, your argument is the text doesn't say what it says. It somehow magically morphs to say
".. The GM decides if these actions must take place on the same turn, or can be spent across two consecutive turns."
removing all references to activities because it also contains reminder text about activities not being usable across turns.
Second: The text is on pg 279 not 172.
Third: the feat on 172 is called "running reload" not "rapid reload"
I find it hard to take your argument seriously if you can't even be bothered to look at the rules or correct the references when others quote them.
So yes I understand your argument, but it is very weak and requires a mutilation of the text, so I reject it as an argument not based in RAW or RAI and instead your personal preference or wishes.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Thezzaruz wrote: Have to say that I think that Zapp has a point. Requiring reloads to either be done as an activity or spread over several turns seems strange to me. To me the default would be to needing to use 2 (separate) interact actions. I will point out here that the word "can" is permissive and not regulatory. If the GM chooses the second option, the player can choose to spend those actions across turns, not that they must
With the second option is doesn't say you must spend them across two turns only that you can. Making this dichotomy even more clear that it is a GM choice between a 2-action activity, and 2 actions.
This even further weakens the argument that the GM can't be treat this as an activity.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
If there were a default, it would be the more restrictive option- treat reloading as a two-action activity. In which case, running reload would not apply. The rules give the GM the option to allow reloading as two separate actions, however. GMs that allow reloading as separate actions would certainly count running reload for those actions.
Thezzaruz wrote: Have to say that I think that Zapp has a point. Thank you.
Squiggit wrote: What the rule says is that the GM can pick between [Together as an Activity] or [Some actions on one turn and the rest on the next turn].
If we really want to lean on absurdist strict RAW, those are the only options presented for ruling on how 2+ action reloads work. As a result, the thing Zapp wants to do isn't possible at all, because two independent actions on the same turn is neither an activity nor splitting it up over multiple turns. The option to split it up on the same turn isn't even mentioned.
But it seems silly to argue that when we're already in the realm of GM fiat to begin with.
I agree that would be an absurd ruling indeed, so I hope we can agree it is neither RAW nor RAI (nor RAF).
But - and now I'm addressing everyone - it gives us a hint:
Since the writer clearly is having across-turns reloading front and center in his (or her) mind, we should dismiss that absurd reading and instead conclude he or she is trying to say, and I'm using casual language here: "whether you can reload across turns is up to the GM. In this case the GM can either 1) [allow it] or 2) [deny it by saying you need to perform the two-plus actions together as an activity]"
The RAI of the sentence is clearly to say nothing about the general case.
And btw, there IS a default rule.
Quote: Reload: 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.
If you aren't attempting to reload across turns, use this.
The sentence "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."
ONLY makes sense if we're talking about a player asking if they can reload across turns.
Why? Because otherwise you're forced into the absurd conclusion Squiggit presented above!
tl;dr: the argument "Paizo clearly intended to disallow Rapid Reload + Rapid Reload in the same round unless the GM opens the door completely to unregulated reloading, including across-turn reloading" is absurd and there simply is no legal standing for it.
Thank you.
graystone wrote: Thezzaruz wrote: Have to say that I think that Zapp has a point. Requiring reloads to either be done as an activity or spread over several turns seems strange to me. To me the default would be to needing to use 2 (separate) interact actions. It can seem strange but the DM has the option to do it. There IS no default. Yea sorry, I was a bit unclear.
Of course the DM CAN choose, that is clear from both the specific rule on p. 279 and the general rules on DM powers. What I find strange is that notion that those would be the two only options.
Reload is specified as being done with an interact action and if you need to do two reloads then you'd need to do two interact actions. That those would automatically become an activity if done during the same turn feels like a leap IMO.
Jared Walter 356 wrote: I will point out here that the word "can" is permissive and not regulatory. If the GM chooses the second option, the player can choose to spend those actions across turns, not that they must
With the second option is doesn't say you must spend them across two turns only that you can. Making this dichotomy even more clear that it is a GM choice between a 2-action activity, and 2 actions.
That's a good point, very helpful.
Thezzaruz wrote: What I find strange is that notion that those would be the two only options. How many other options do you want officially presented? What would they be? IMO, they are taken together or they aren't pretty much cover your options.
Thezzaruz wrote: That those would automatically become an activity if done during the same turn feels like a leap IMO. When did ANYONE say that it automatically becomes an activity? It just says it's an option like allowing 2 individual actions is an option. If you're saying you're surprised they give a binary pick, then I'm not surprised there either. Yu either don't think you can break it up into 2 individual action [it's an activity] or you don't [it's 2 actions]. I'm not sure what else there is or what the point would be in trying to make more.
Thezzaruz wrote: ONLY makes sense if we're talking about a player asking if they can reload across turns. Again, meaningless: the reason given for it not allowing it to work across turns is because you treat it as an activity. In never says 'only for turns' as they didn't need to say that is that's the only thing: why go into activities is it's ONLY about multi-turn reloads?
The second reason it meaningless is because I think the vast majority are going to read activity and then actually treat it like is says and follow the activity rules. So it wouldn't matter if you where right, it's a good plan to prepare foe DM to rule that way and that was the point all along as the OP wanted to know how it'd be ruled. Can you say a random DM, say from PFS, is going to be impressed with your argument when you sit at his table?
graystone wrote: Thezzaruz wrote: What I find strange is that notion that those would be the two only options. How many other options do you want officially presented? What would they be? IMO, they are taken together or they aren't pretty much cover your options. The problem is that the part that mentions separate actions also mentions separate turns and that might create issues as there really is three possible options.
So the question becomes if you can do it as separate actions during ONE turn?
I assumed you could as the reload is an interact action and thus to me the default would be to just make two of those on the same turn and @Jared Walter argued above that the "CAN" doesn't require for the actions to be during two turns. Different reasoning but the same end result.
Do you agree with either (or both)?
.
graystone wrote: Thezzaruz wrote: ONLY makes sense if we're talking about a player asking if they can reload across turns. <snip>
I know that the forum software isn't the best but please don't attribute quotes I didn't make to me.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Zapp wrote:
I agree that would be an absurd ruling indeed, so I hope we can agree it is neither RAW nor RAI (nor RAF).
I would agree that conclusion would indeed be absurd. Fortunately that isn't actually what the text says.
The text says: "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."
Parsing it out for clarity:
1) If the item requires 2 or more actions to reload -- The rest of the section applies only and to all reload 2 or greater weapons. This is the intended scope of the sentence.
2) the GM determines whether - This is mandatory decision left to the GM
3) they must be performed together as an activity. - Call this option A
4) OR
5) you can -- player has an option
6) spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during the next turn.
Point 1) If the weapon has a reload <2 this whole section doesn't apply and it uses a single action. (ie light crossbow is always eligible for running reload)
Point 2) This RAW is always a GM determination. (ie there is not a written default.)
Point 4) Option A or Option B - ie binary choice.
Point 5) Option B provides the player the option to reload across turns but doesn't make it mandatory.
Point 6) If option B these are reload actions and not activities. As such they can be spend across multiple turns as normal for actions.
Option A specifically calls it out as an activity.
A) they must be performed together AS AN ACTIVITY
Option B consistently refers to these as actions.
B) or you can spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn.
If option A) All rules for activities apply including the reminder text they they must be performed together.
if Option B) All Rules for actions apply AND the crossbow can be loaded across multiple turns.
Note option B doesn't mandate reloading across turns, it only makes it allowable. In all other aspects, the normal rules for actions apply including being able to complete multiple actions of the same type (except flourish) in the same turn.
Both have heavy reminder text about how actions and activities work.
The topic of the sentence isn't across multiple turns, the topic is reload >1.
The claim that this text only applies to across turn decision is completely ridiculous. They could have much more easily said that by saying "if the weapon reload is >1 the GM determines if this can be done across multiple turns". But they didn't. They specifically called it an activity.
Removing the reminder text leave us with "If a weapon has a reload of 2 or more, the GM determines if this is an activity or an action", which leaves the sentence meaning completely intact.
Actions can always be performed one at a time, even across turns. So the option to use multiple actions (not as an activity) in the same turn doesn't have to be mentioned. The rules always this for all actions not part of an activity.
The only place the rule specifically disallow is the claim that you can use it as actions, but must complete it in the same turn. This interpretation is the only one that evokes rule 0.
To reiterate the scope of this sentence isn't reloading across turns, the scope is weapons of reload >2. The sentence makes perfect sense. The Question being answered is "How to I handle 2 or more action reloads" not "how do I handle reloads across turns" Once you remove the reminder text the answer is really simple "The GM chooses whether it is an activity or multiple actions"
While Zapp may have "across turn reloads" on his mind when it reads it there is not any reason to assume that it intended to be the scope of the sentence rather than the scope stated at the beginning of the sentence. This is classic confirmation bias.
Assuming the GM opens the doors to across turn reloads if he doesn't rule it an activity is not absurd. If the GM were not allowed to rule this as an activity, this would be the default state of the GM. Some GMs may not like the extra bookkeeping and rule 0 it away, but that is the only case given were rule 0 need apply.
All other applications of this rule cleanly fit the definitions of actions and activities unless you change the scope from 2+ reload weapons to weapons across turns. If that were the case they would be no 2+ reload special rules at all.
Thezzaruz wrote: I know that the forum software isn't the best but please don't attribute quotes I didn't make to me. My bad. Not sure how that happened. I'd change it but I'm outside the hour you can do that.
Thezzaruz wrote: The problem is that the part that mentions separate actions also mentions separate turns and that might create issues as there really is three possible options. What's the 3rd? You can do it as individual actions and that means they can be taken over different turn and/or same round.
Thezzaruz wrote: So the question becomes if you can do it as separate actions during ONE turn? Why wouldn't you? You only have a limit when it's an activity. If it's not one you can take the interaction whenever you want be it the same round or next week. The key is the activity, which limits when you can do it's actions [one after the other and in the same round]. The only reason the question of not being able to was Zapp trying to parse it so that the sentence ONLY applies to actions across turns which mean it creates crazy outcomes if you do that so we can safely ignore the whole thing and read it in a straightforward way with words meaning what they are meant to.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Thezzaruz wrote:
I assumed you could as the reload is an interact action and thus to me the default would be to just make two of those on the same turn and @Jared Walter argued above that the "CAN" doesn't require for the actions to be during two turns. Different reasoning but the same end result.
Do you agree with either (or both)?
Not 100% sure I understand your question, but I'll try to answer it.
If the GM rules it an activity, the activity rules apply and it must be done as a single activity. ie, same during, back to back, and not part of another activity. In this case the "must be done together" is reminder text.
If the GM goes with the 2-actions, they can be done in any order on your turn, or even across turns. That they can be done across turns is really reminder text, and serves mostly to highlight some of the differences the GM call would make.
As written there isn't a default for reload 2 weapons. They always take 2 actions yes, but it is specifically spelled out as a GM call whether to make them an activity or not.
In either case, you would be able to load in the same turn, the only real difference would be how it interacts with other activities such as running reload.
Again that sentence has more reminder text in it than new rules.
The reason I emphasized the "can" in previous posts was because I was seeing the misinterpretation that if it wasn't an activity it had to be done across multiple turns.
Now if you are asking for my personal GM ruling: As I have stated before, but may be surprising: I actually favor the ruling of it being two individual actions rather than a 2-action activity. Heavy crossbows are already pretty lousy weapons, and I don't feel they need any further punishment. I would have a different opinion on weapons I don't feel have reasonable stopping points, or I couldn't envision doing on the move. At the moment none in the base book fit this category for me, but I could imagine a musket or cannon, or ballista having a different ruling for me.
Let me know if I missed your question.
Jared Walter 356 wrote: I actually favor the ruling of it being two individual actions rather than a 2-action activity. I think most of us here agree with you. The heavy crossbow is bad enough without making reloading as an activity. My point has always been that is you're making a character and you don't know the DM, like in PFS, you'd better be prepared to have it ruled as a reload activity. That and the DM that makes it an activity isn't automatically a dick: some like to be as 'real' as possible and stopping a windlass or cranequin part way just wasn't something you can do.
Taken all together, it make heavy crossbows even less exciting. Myself, it'd have to be a very specific build with a DM I knew already to pick up the heavy crossbow. Grabbing it for a random DM is just acting for a bad time IMO.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
graystone wrote: Jared Walter 356 wrote: I actually favor the ruling of it being two individual actions rather than a 2-action activity. I think most of us here agree with you. The heavy crossbow is bad enough without making reloading as an activity. My point has always been that is you're making a character and you don't know the DM, like in PFS, you'd better be prepared to have it ruled as a reload activity. That and the DM that makes it an activity isn't automatically a dick: some like to be as 'real' as possible and stopping a windlass or cranequin part way just wasn't something you can do.
Taken all together, it make heavy crossbows even less exciting. Myself, it'd have to be a very specific build with a DM I knew already to pick up the heavy crossbow. Grabbing it for a random DM is just acting for a bad time IMO. Agreed on all counts. I hate seeing people come to a conclusion that RAW something MUST be done a specific way when RAW clearly spells it out as an option or GM call and then complaining that they don't get their way. Unfounded expectation are a surefire path to heartache.
graystone wrote: What's the 3rd? You can do it as individual actions and that means they can be taken over different turn and/or same round. Jared Walter 356 wrote: If the GM goes with the 2-actions, they can be done in any order on your turn, or even across turns. That they can be done across turns is really reminder text, and serves mostly to highlight some of the differences the GM call would make.
As written there isn't a default for reload 2 weapons. They always take 2 actions yes, but it is specifically spelled out as a GM call whether to make them an activity or not.
Might be superfluous at this point seeing as we don't disagree on the issue but...
IMHO a casual reading of p.279 leaves you with 2 options for reloading, as an activity or as separate actions across turns. To deconstruct the language to the degree that Jared has done seems to me like it goes way past what is meant to be needed for PF2.
Of course I didn't see this as a problem before I ventured into this thread as I just assumed that of course you could default to doing 2 separate actions to cover the 2 reloads needed and that the text on p.279 was just added options for DMs if they felt they wanted it done in some stricter/looser way.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Sometimes I think it would be easier to give heavy crossbows, which are the only weapons with reload speed 2 ( even guns simply require 1 action to reload ), reload 1 and a volley.
Jared Walter 356 wrote:
Now if you are asking for my personal GM ruling: As I have stated before, but may be surprising: I actually favor the ruling of it being two individual actions rather than a 2-action activity. Heavy crossbows are already pretty lousy weapons, and I don't feel they need any further punishment. I would have a different opinion on weapons I don't feel have reasonable stopping points, or I couldn't envision doing on the move. At the moment none in the base book fit this category for me, but I could imagine a musket or cannon, or ballista having a different...
I'd probably advice against that tbh. That's a level of realism that makes the whole concept of reloads quite a bit wonky IMO when you compare it to the requirements of other 2H weapons or material components or tools or other things that use your hands.
I mean to reload a crossbow you would need to:
-re-grip the crossbow to 1 hand (or a foot/leg lean)
-take out/pick up the crank
-attach the crank
-use the crank
-detach the crank
-put away/drop the crank
-re-grip the crossbow to 2 hands
I could well see the attach/detach being part of the reload or the draw/stow actions but even so that's 5 actions that are abstracted together into the 1 (or 2) actions reloading requires. Making additional requirements for specific reloaded weapons because of realism is a bit over the top IMO when reloading is so far from being realistic anyway.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
So this debate has run its course as far as I am concerned.
It will be a GM call on how they will allow it to be run.
But I think the debate has been good and will lead to a clarification or Errata on how this is intended to work.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Thezzaruz wrote:
I'd probably advice against that tbh. That's a level of realism that makes the whole concept of reloads quite a bit wonky IMO when you compare it to the requirements of other 2H weapons or material components or tools or other things that use your hands.
You're probably right. I think mostly of stationary weapons (think catapult) and envision a guy running between two catapults reloading them with RR and I think shenanigans. I expect if I made this ruling it would be in response to something a power gamer tried that was completely nonsensical.
As far the the casual ready, to me casually it always read "if reload >=2 check with the GM to see if this is an activity or action."
Sigh. It is with a heavy heart I again return to this thread.
One argument put forth by Jared Walter 356 is entirely spurious: he's arguing if the rules meant what I'm claiming they mean, they would have been written another way.
But that game can be played two ways.
If Paizo intended for the following, why didn't they write it that way...?
Quote: Unlike 99.9% of the other rules, there is no default way to handle item that takes 2 or more actions to reload. The rules mandate each GM must determine whether all Reload actions must be performed together as an activity (preventing you from taking multiple Rapid Reload actions for instance) or if you can take individual Reload actions until the item is reloaded.
Furthermore, if the GM chooses the latter, he or she can still determine you cannot space out Reload actions across turns, spending some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn.
But of course, my argument isn't really "since they didn't write it that way, that's not what they mean". That would only lower me to 356's level.
Instead, I'm pointing out that the above is exactly what 356 argues the rules are saying. (And I would assume 356 agrees - I'm not trying to bad-faith his interpretation here; the above is actually what I honestly believe he's selling)
But it remains an absolutely absurd take! Pathfinder 2 is a game with thousands of little rules, often extremely specific and niche.
Why would Paizo suddenly say "there's no default rule for Heavy Crossbows; it is always up to each GM" for this specific rule?!? In literally thousands of other cases, they chose to provide a rule rather than to leave it up to the GM.
356's take would mean that PFS players would not be able to rely on Rapid Reload, since they can't know what each GM rules beforehand.
No, a much simpler and more direct interpretation is that the writer had across-turns reloading in mind, and just accidentally happened to write a rule that is uncharacteristically difficult to parse. So instead of parsing that rule like a mindless rules lawyer I'm offering a much more sensible solution.
This will have to be my last post on the subject. I really have exhausted every venue to persuade you the literal reading(s) makes no sense, and there's no point in repeating myself. Just read all my posts in this thread, and hopefully you will see the light that a few posters seem unable to.
Cheers
So is this a discussion on the Gunslinger Feat Running Reload or something called Rapid Reload that I can't find anywhere in the Gunslinger Playtest or on Archives of Nethys?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Yes, talking about Running Reload (the 2e feat) not Rapid Reload (the 1e feat).
Error on the posters part but valid to make sure we are talking about the same feat.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Zapp wrote: No, a much simpler and more direct interpretation is that the writer had across-turns reloading in mind, and just accidentally happened to write a rule that is uncharacteristically difficult to parse. So instead of parsing that rule like a mindless rules lawyer I'm offering a much more sensible solution.
This will have to be my last post on the subject. I really have exhausted every venue to persuade you the literal reading(s) makes no sense, and there's no point in repeating myself. Just read all my posts in this thread, and hopefully you will see the light that a few posters seem unable to.
Sorry, but words have meaning, especially in a game with key words, traits and such: It's not a crazy idea to actually look up the words in the rules and follow the rule definitions associated with them. What I find nonsensical is to do otherwise. You say it's hard to parse but most of the people here have been able to figure out what an activity is and what the rules are for them [and that there is no 1 answer]. That and it's abundantly clear that how 2 action reloads work is 100% up to the DM to figure out: I'm not sure WHY you act as if that is such a crazy thing as the game is chock full of 'ask your DM' rules holes.
As to other people reading this, I HOPE their takeaway is that it's a DM call to rule it either as an activity or 2 separate actions and to prepare accordingly if they are making a character for an unknown DM. No matter how sure Zapp is of himself, he has no influence over those DM's and how they read the rules so as you can see from the thread, you'll get DM's that make it an activity: it's a fact so don't be surprised to see that ruling.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Zapp wrote:
If Paizo intended for the following, why didn't they write it that way...?
Quote: Unlike 99.9% of the other rules, there is no default way to handle item that takes 2 or more actions to reload. The rules mandate each GM must determine whether all Reload actions must be performed together as an activity (preventing you from taking multiple Rapid Reload actions for instance) or if you can take individual Reload actions until the item is reloaded.
Furthermore, if the GM chooses the latter, he or she can still determine you cannot space out Reload actions across turns, spending some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn.
To be clear that second part is 100% your interpretation and not mine.
I have always maintained that if they are actions they can be spaced across multiple turns as normal for actions. You're the only one claiming it is somehow different than regular actions.
To be more clear my reading would be:
"Like many other aspects of PF2, the GM determines whether a 2-action reload is treated as a single activity or 2 separate actions. If this is an activity it must be done on the same turn as normal for activities. If this is 2 separate actions they may be spread across other turns as normal for actions."
Jared Walter 356 wrote:
To be more clear my reading would be:
"Like many other aspects of PF2, the GM determines whether a 2-action reload is treated as a single activity or 2 separate actions. If this is an activity it must be done on the same turn as normal for activities. If this is 2 separate actions they may be spread across other turns as normal for actions."
"Like many other aspects of PF2"? What other aspects?
I understand now that you clearly think it is reasonable and appropriate for a feat (Running Reload) to be entirely up to the whims of a GM whether it's any good (with a Reload 2+ weapon).
Talk about making Heavy Crossbows even worse than people already judge them.
To everyone:
The rule is wonkily written no matter how we turn, so we must make a choice how to interpret it.
One choice is to think the writer were only thinking about the case that's explicitly named (across-turn reloading). Then Running Reload does not become a special case and all is well.
Another choice is apparently to think the writer intentionally mixed together two separate rulings into a single sentence, even though this means the GM is asked to determine if Running Reload even works!
Personally I consider the view that it could well be that Running Reload doesn't do what it says for Heavy Crossbows entirely unreasonable.
A much more straightforward interpretation is that the writer weren't intending at all to specifically ask GMs to shut down back to back reload actions through the feat.
And instead choose that the writer meant what he wrote, which is that when faced with a player asking if they can start reloading on turn one, and finish reloading only on turn two, the GM can determine that you need to reload as an activity, meaning "no, you can't reload across turns."
Cheers
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Zapp wrote:
"Like many other aspects of PF2"? What other aspects?
<snip>
Off the top of my head: hostile actions, entering initiation, regaining panache, when you gain a hero point, etc.
Look through you own posts, you routinely complain about things being GM fiat. This really is the edition of GM empowerment, even not invoking rule 0.
The GM is asked to make a single decision for all 2 or more action reloads. A) do they need to be performed together as an activity or B) can they be performed across multiple turns as actions.
Even if you and I are convinced they should be actions, the rules explicitly spell this out as a GM call. So what am I saying is players creating characters should be aware that this is a GM call, so they don't have this argument or problem after they begin play.
I think it far more likely that they meant it as a GM call, then they somehow created a new type of action that must be used on the same turn but are not activities. There is no precedent for this interpretation.
Your assumption that it is supposed to be relevant only to across turn reloading, simply has no support in the written text. Even if this were a mistake, RAW is clear. RAI is always more vague, but given the GM fiat precedent in PF2, I really think RAI is GM determination as well.
It's clear that you completely disagree with this which is fine. Run it in your own games as a individual actions like I do, or invoke rule 0 and say these are actions, but for bookkeeping you need to finish them on your turn. When you go to new GMs and want to use a heavy crossbow, you better check with them, or be prepared for heartache.
I've heard your argument even through the personal attacks, and I still find it unconvincing. As such, I am done engaging you on this topic.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Jared Walter 356 wrote:
I've heard your argument even through the personal attacks, and I still find it unconvincing. As such, I am done engaging you on this topic.
Agreed, it is what it is. Way too much energy has been spent arguing this topic when the final answer is the GM will decide. People are already in their spots and if the point-counterpoint discussion has not changed their minds, it never will.
Even if an official clarificaiton is made, one side will still argue that it is wrong and their reading is the correct one.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
