What is the accepted RAW process for passing an item from one willing target to another?
What about taking an item from a willing target?
Is it a simple Interact/Manipulate action? Or is it more complex then that, such as having one need to prepare an action to receive, then the other spend an action to pass, thereby triggering the preparer's reaction to receive?
I am not sure there is a RAW for this and would play by ear.
I would personally do 1 action to throw and a reaction to catch.
If the two people are adjacent and unthreatened and the reciver has a free hand I may not require an action similar to how a willing creature can be fed a potion with no actions.
Ymmv
I don't see how this would be different from retrieving a worn item from your own person. So I'd say the receiver takes and Interact action and that's it.
Alternatively I might allow the giver to hand it over with an Interact action, but that would probably cost the receiver their Reaction.
If it is a one off pass the maguffin encounter you could run it as a chase or victory point encounter where each persons actions add or remove points.
If it is a one off pass the maguffin encounter you could run it as a chase or victory point encounter where each persons actions add or remove points.
It's not. I'd like to know how it's generally done.
Thread title was solely to sound more fun than "How do you pass things in Pathfinder?"
I gave the AoN a good once over to try and find anything close and it just seems this is a case of 2E's give the power to the GM and there are a number of ways you can do it.
1.(as above) 1 action throw, 1 reaction catch
2.hand-off(as above) 1 action to give, no action to receive with a free hand (triggers reaction)
3.ranged attack ranged attack vs ac 5(with higher dc with more distance or weight of object) penalties for cover apply. Either reaction or no action for receiver maybe use 4 degrees of sucess. Crit: perfect aimed throw receiver doesn't need to use action. Success: reciver must use reaction if they don't the object hits them and lands in their square(further consequences for this based on item?), Failure:lands in an adjacent space determined by d8, Crit fail: lands 10ft away from target in a direct determined by d8.
4. Action by thrower, relfex or acrobatics check by catcher.
All these seem fair and too the point.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No.
Passing/Taking an item is firmly entrenched in the rules and provided for as an example, each of these things take one normal Action to accomplish taken sometime during their turn.
I'd be fine with letting someone move away with a second or third Action after passing it but the "receiver" is also going to have to spend an Action at the beginning of their turn to take the item, otherwise, it falls on the ground.
We've had this conversation before RD, why are you trying to fish for a different answer?
Source on this. It's not even a little bit ambiguous.
Seems I've got the memory of a goldfish these days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darn... I read the as 'Pass the McMuffin" at first glance and now I'm hungry. ;)
No.
Passing/Taking an item is firmly entrenched in the rules and provided for as an example, each of these things take one normal Action to accomplish taken sometime during their turn.
I'd be fine with letting someone move away with a second or third Action after passing it but the "receiver" is also going to have to spend an Action at the beginning of their turn to take the item, otherwise, it falls on the ground.
We've had this conversation before RD, why are you trying to fish for a different answer?
Source on this. It's not even a little bit ambiguous.
One thing I do find ambiguous: are you sure it takes an action on the receiver's end, too? "Take an item from a willing creature" doesn't strike me as the same thing as "take an item being given to you". In the footnote, it just says that passing an item to someone requires they have a hand free — I don't see that implying they also have to use an action to grab what they've been given (though the same footnote says they might need to take an action to properly grip it).
Like, it makes sense to me that you have to head over and use an Interact action to give someone a thing, or grab a thing off their belt or from their hands. It doesn't really make sense that they need to spend an action too — that's way too action-draining for a task so rote that it might as well be the opposite of Release (a free action).
This page also doesn't explicitly address tossing things to allies, but I could see that being left to GM purview. A reaction to catch it makes sense to me, at any rate.
|
No.
Passing/Taking an item is firmly entrenched in the rules and provided for as an example, each of these things take one normal Action to accomplish taken sometime during their turn.
I'd be fine with letting someone move away with a second or third Action after passing it but the "receiver" is also going to have to spend an Action at the beginning of their turn to take the item, otherwise, it falls on the ground.
We've had this conversation before RD, why are you trying to fish for a different answer?
Source on this. It's not even a little bit ambiguous.One thing I do find ambiguous: are you sure it takes an action on the receiver's end, too? "Take an item from a willing creature" doesn't strike me as the same thing as "take an item being given to you". In the footnote, it just says that passing an item to someone requires they have a hand free — I don't see that implying they also have to use an action to grab what they've been given (though the same footnote says they might need to take an action to properly grip it).
Like, it makes sense to me that you have to head over and use an Interact action to give someone a thing, or grab a thing off their belt or from their hands. It doesn't really make sense that they need to spend an action too — that's way too action-draining for a task so rote that it might as well be the opposite of Release (a free action).
This page also doesn't explicitly address tossing things to allies, but I could see that being left to GM purview. A reaction to catch it makes sense to me, at any rate.
I agree. Reading the table, I interpret it as either the person passing the item spends an action or a person taking an item spends an action, NOT both. Basically, the system just requires someone to expend an action to pass an item.
If it were both, it wouldn't say "take an item from a willing creature", but would instead say "take an item being passed to you".
This also makes more sense in terms of playability because the artificiality of the action system has never been good at simulating real-life same-time interactions, like moving together as a group. Or put another way, how do three people chained together at the wrists move?
If it were both, it wouldn't say "take an item from a willing creature", but would instead say "take an item being passed to you".
The reason it's listed as "take an item from a willing creature" is because 'take an item from an unwilling creature' is an action other than an Interact: Steal.
|
|
If it were both, it wouldn't say "take an item from a willing creature", but would instead say "take an item being passed to you".The reason it's listed as "take an item from a willing creature" is because 'take an item from an unwilling creature' is an action other than an Interact: Steal.
The reason it's worded that way is to make clear that it doesn't take an action to "receive" the item if one creature gives the item to another creature. Either one creature hands the item to another creature (1 action) OR one creature takes an item from another willing creature (1 action).
IMO, it's one action to either give the item to someone else or for you to take the item from someone else.
The "willing creature" language is likely, as you say, to differentiate from Steal (except that Steal is NOT the action you think it is).
Not to derail, but I've been trying to figure out if there is a defined action equivalent to the 1E Pathfinder "Steal" combat maneuver: "You can attempt to take an item from a foe as a standard action. This maneuver can be used in melee to take any item that is neither held nor hidden in a bag or pack. You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to attempt this maneuver."
Despite the name being the same, the "Steal" action under Thievery is NOT the "Steal" combat maneuver from 1E.
2E Steal is basically pickpocketing someone (aka 1E Sleight of Hand skill), you steal something from another creature without their knowledge: "You try to take a small object from another creature without being noticed."
I haven't been able to find the equivalent to the 1E Steal in 2E (though I suspect it exists). I could see a GM allowing a thief to use Thievery to pickpocket someone in combat, but it's not the same as openly snatching an object from someone. Disarm is close, but not quite it....