A player came to me with an interesting question. He asked me if he puts a Returning rune in a thrown weapon if he can use feats that requires Reload 0 for this weapon like Hunted Shot.
Initially I refused the idea because Reload 1 and Draw and Thrown appear to work as distinct things. So weapons with - are not reloadable but weapons that require different and independent actions one to Draw and another to Thrown while Reload 1 requires other 2 actions one to prepare a weapon with ammo and other to shot.
Everything right until I see that in the end of ranged weapons table we have Shurikens, a throwable weapon with Reload 0...
So I'm confused, the Returning weapons that don't need a draw action can be classified as Reload 0 for feats and abilities requirements?
Shuriken are exceptions, and would qualify.
Mechanically, as you've noted, Returning works similar to Reload:0, but it's not that so no Hunted Shot.
That said, why not allow it anyway?
The maximum deviance from the power curve re: ranged damage would be hard to break (and would require lots of investment not going elsewhere) and the PC's already one step behind to begin with by not carrying a damage rune instead.
One could compare it to a Dual-Weapon Warrior who would need two feats (one being a valuable Dedication) to do something similar, yet they're also able to do it in melee and don't need to Hunt Prey.
So getting access via one feat seems balanced, though maybe reconfigure a variant so it's only with thrown weapons.
That said, why not allow it anyway?
Because he want's to do this while wearing a shield. If was just a lance alone (the weapon he wants to thrown) in fact I don't see a problem to do once there's little diference from do same thing from a bow. But he want's to do this while using a shield to keep his AC and Shield Block while do multiple attacks with his 1d8 Thrown weapon.
So I'm afraid of begining allow a to much exploited ability.
A lance?!
Big no.
For one, it's not a thrown weapon. Done.
For two, if made into a thrown weapon, it's still two-handed unless mounted, with the obvious context being the mount's supporting the lance's usage in melee, not for throwing. And there's no wording addressing throwing because by default throwing's not an option to address.
For three, icky. Yep, he's trying for an exploit.
And not a very good one either since lances drop to d6 when used one-handed anyway, so he may as well use a javelin or spear and not have to worry about lance & mount shenanigans. I'd go with light hammer myself.
Of course, he's wanting Reach & Thrown together, and that's a no go IMO even before trying to cheese the shield on top.
I wouldn't make any concessions here.
That said, why not allow it anyway?Because he want's to do this while wearing a shield. If was just a lance alone (the weapon he wants to thrown) in fact I don't see a problem to do once there's little diference from do same thing from a bow. But he want's to do this while using a shield to keep his AC and Shield Block while do multiple attacks with his 1d8 Thrown weapon.
So I'm afraid of begining allow a to much exploited ability.
Returning Rune only works on Throwing weapons. A Lance does not possess the Thrown trait, and as such doesn't qualify for the rune.
Also, reloading requires ammunition for it to both function and make sense. Thrown weapons are not ammunition for another weapon, so it just doesn't fit.
Plenty of RAW reasons to disallow it, and seems to be RAI as well, since the game's math wants to reward taking risks being in an enemy's face compared to attacking at the safety of range. You probably won't break the game if you permit it to work, since Thrown weapons have the added cost of taking longer to come online and consuming a weapon rune slot in the process, meaning less potential damage compared to other ranged attacks, such as even a dedicated bow user.
A lance?!
Big no.For one, it's not a thrown weapon. Done.
For two, if made into a thrown weapon, it's still two-handed unless mounted, with the obvious context being the mount's supporting the lance's usage in melee, not for throwing. And there's no wording addressing throwing because by default throwing's not an option to address.
For three, icky. Yep, he's trying for an exploit.
And not a very good one either since lances drop to d6 when used one-handed anyway, so he may as well use a javelin or spear and not have to worry about lance & mount shenanigans. I'd go with light hammer myself.Of course, he's wanting Reach & Thrown together, and that's a no go IMO even before trying to cheese the shield on top.
I wouldn't make any concessions here.
Sorry was a mistake in my translation, is a Spear. Not a full big lance. But still not a javelin.
This spear uses a d8 because is a Deific Weapon.
Then back to my original answer then.
It's not legal, but also not overpowered. It will be a solid thrower, yet throwing's more versatile than it is powerful.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW: No, as the others have said.
RAI: Also no.
Would I allow it? Also no. Using hunted shot with a weapon that applies the full strength damage to the damage and does so at decent range while also allowing you to get full use out of your shield is too much.
Look at it this way: He can already attack at 40 ft range without penalty thanks to Hunt Prey. If he adds the Far Shot feat, his attack range without penalty would increase to 80 ft, which is more than enough for 98% of all fights. All this with more damage than a composite longbow and without the volley trait to rein him in. Adding Hunted Shot's action economy advantage to that is too much. By A LOT. And that's even still ignoring the fact that he can use a shield alongside this very powerful ranged attack.
Further consideration: If you allow it for Hunted Shot, you'd also have to allow it for other reload 0 feats like the fighter's Double and Tripple Shot. I wouldn't want that in my game, either.
So yeah, there's a good reason this doesn't work by RAW.
Thanks Blave, you show me all the good points I need to deny it.
Further consideration: If you allow it for Hunted Shot, you'd also have to allow it for other reload 0 feats like the fighter's Double and Tripple Shot. I wouldn't want that in my game, either.
Agree I'm afraid too that allow it to be considered a Reload 0 weapon could open even more exploits.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you make a thrown Strike with this weapon, it flies back to your hand after the Strike is complete.
I am unsure how one reads that and says there’s an action requirement in there (other than the “make a thrown Strike” one).
Or that teleporting is involved (“it flies back to your hand”).A turn of Strike, Strike, Strike seems completely allowed (and not unreasonable) with a thrown weapon that has a Returning rune.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No action requirement, but the "flies back to your hand after the Strike is complete" implies some period of time. How long is unstated in the rules.
However *making* the strike takes 2 sec (1 action), and the thrown weapon has to make a return trip to the hand before it can be thrown again. Practically speaking strike/strike/strike seems hard to credit vs strike/do_something_else)/strike
RAW would allow either, which is why we had the discussion initially.
lots of presuming facts not in evidence
where does the CRB say a Strike takes 2 seconds?it doesn’t; Strike takes one action
Returning says, “When you make a thrown Strike with this weapon, it flies back to your hand after the Strike is complete.”
so the sequence, as stated, is:
FIRST ACTION: thrown Strike with the weapon that has the Returning rune
- before I can do my next action, this action must complete; aka “after the Strike is complete”, “it [the weapon with the Returning rune] flies back to your hand”
SECOND ACTION: do whatevs I wants, including throwing the weapon that is in my hand
THIRD ACTION: ditto bot
as always, you’re free to make anything up and play at your table with whatever you have made up
but yeah, requiring an action to grab that Returning Weapon falls into that
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... implies some period of time. How long is unstated in the rules.
this is a misuse of the word implies
what you mean to say is you are inferring something is being impliedas the observer, you infer; only the speaker (or writer) can confirm if an implication was intended
the concern here is that this really hasn’t been how Paizo has authored their material, implying stuff (we are trying to imply some time is required for this but leave that aspect and it’s details to be inferred) vs explicitly stating what happens (“after the Strike is complete, it flies back to your hand”)
so no, nothing is being implied, it is being explicitly stated (“flies back to your hand”)
there is no need to infer anything (in part because nothing is being implied, in part because what happens is explicitly stated)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the amount of time it took to have the weapon return to one's hand was meant to be relevant, then it would be listed. As it stands, no duration is listed. Therefore it is equally as valid to say the returning weapon takes one action worth of time to come back to you as it is to say it takes 1 round, 1 minute, 1 day, or even 200 years for that matter. Flavor-wise it doesn't really say what happens, so I think teleporting or flying back are both valid, but for the latter it really shouldn't take a duration. Flavor is one thing. Nerfing a playstyle because of that flavor is another.
I very much disagree that the rules aren't clear, because the only way of interpreting the rules to include a duration is to arbitrarily put one in that just kinda feels right to you, which sounds like a bad precedent to set for a fundamental attack option in the game. I'm all for DM interpretation, and even homebrew items and whatnot, but I'd rather not pick up an ability, rune, etc., and then find out later that the GM decided it works differently than what's written arbitrarily.
Of course, if it works for your game, then I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it. Go for it! I'm just saying that if that's not a clear rule, then I don't really know what is a clear rule.
However the velocities involved with that returning javelin means it is definitely magic and not following the rules of physics.
or perhaps it is following Golarion physics, which is similar yet not perfectly synonymous with real world physics
for example, the sound barrier could be an order of magnitude different
for example, the magical rune on a magical weapon could have near instant acceleration and near instant deceleration
so it might, maybe, be something sort of kinda like this
- the character throws the magical weapon which has a returning rune etched on it
- the weapon (after arriving at & hitting or arriving near yet missing the target) then
— near instant accelerates to dx below [Golarion] mach
— flies at that speed to dx before the characters hand
— near instant decelerates to zero speed then
- the character has their weapon back in their hand
Alternative story:
They die because they had to spend twice as much as should be necessary for a build that only requires one weapon to get two of them all decked out in runes and didn't have enough left over for potions and other gear, be it permanent or consumable.
There's nothing wrong with the flavor of throwing stuff out and it looping back in some fashion, but that's really not an argument to make the returning rune have a defined duration in which the player can't use it again. So far the only argument that I've heard so far is that it feels like it should take about an action worth of time to come back. That reason may be perfectly acceptable for the purposes of homebrew, but I really don't see any backing for that interpretation in the rules themselves.
Oh, and btw, this shouldn't really be relevant, but I'd like to point something out in the flavor as well: 2 seconds is a long time in combat. Yeah, it might sound weird when the weapon's thrown a long distance for it to race back really quickly, but at that point there becomes issues of how long the attack takes to get there as well. If you don't have reach the returning rune could be useful at a range of 10ft. Throwing a weapon 10ft and having it return shouldn't take more than 2 seconds (which is what would be necessary to keep the next action from being another strike with it). And then we get into the question of how long it should be. Perhaps it should be based on the distance you threw it. Like it can travel X distance per second or something. Oh, but what about things that increase throw distance? Surely those make you throw faster as well, otherwise you wouldn't be able to hit dodging enemies. Hmm... so those feats should probably affect the distance traveled per second. And once we get to that I think it's become pretty clear we left the existing rules behind a while ago and are well into homebrew territory. Cool homebrew? Perhaps. That's up to the individual to decide.
true story from me childhood:
- team snowballs fights
my group was coordinated (yeah, my fault for that)
and, collectively, we would each lob a snowball, like really high, arching toss at the other peeps
then when they were looking up we’d fastball a batch right at them
yes, the fastballs thrown second arrived first
As a side note, if your player is ok to drop the shield, he can go with 2 thrown weapons and use Twin Takedown instead, which works for both melee and ranged attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a side note, if your player is ok to drop the shield, he can go with 2 thrown weapons and use Twin Takedown instead, which works for both melee and ranged attacks.
I would strongly recommend consulting your GM before trying this. Twin Takedown specifically requires two melee weapons and the Thrown trait turns a weapon into a ranged weapon when used. I personally wouldn't allow it.
|
As a side note, if your player is ok to drop the shield, he can go with 2 thrown weapons and use Twin Takedown instead, which works for both melee and ranged attacks.I would strongly recommend consulting your GM before trying this. Twin Takedown specifically requires two melee weapons and the Thrown trait turns a weapon into a ranged weapon when used. I personally wouldn't allow it.
Dual Thrower helps with this
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1951
Edit: Nm, doesn't help with Twin Takedown specifically, bummer
As a side note, if your player is ok to drop the shield, he can go with 2 thrown weapons and use Twin Takedown instead, which works for both melee and ranged attacks.I would strongly recommend consulting your GM before trying this. Twin Takedown specifically requires two melee weapons and the Thrown trait turns a weapon into a ranged weapon when used. I personally wouldn't allow it.
True, I forgot they changed that in the errata.
Whenever a GM tries to change game rules based on some arbitrary notion of realism, they're setting themselves up for failure.Interesting blanket statement, I guess?
I wouldn't call that a blanket statement. They specifically mentioned making a change based on "some arbitrary notion of realism." Whether you agree with that interpretation of the change you're suggesting or not the statement still holds: changing the game for an arbitrary notion of... well, anything for that matter, is a recipe for disaster in the long run.
Not relevant though since we are not discussing a rule change, just trying to find plausible interpretations where there is not a rule.
I mean, technically if you want to get into semantics then yes, it's not about changing a rule but rather inventing a rule. The underlying point remains the same, though, and you even seem to admit the obvious fact that there is no such rule in this very reply. Making up a rule because there's something you'd like to explore further is pretty much the definition of 1 type of homebrew (the other being cutting or changing rules that don't work for your table).
If this "plausible interpretation" you speak of is simply the flavor of whether it works like a boomerang or if it teleports, then I would agree with you, but throwing mechanics on that interpretation is homebrew.
The Rune says the weapon flies back "after the strike" but does not say "immediately" or "reappears instantly in the thrower's hand" or other language that indicates instantaneity. Neither does it say anything like "takes a round to return" or "takes an action to fly back" either.
You're technically not wrong if we look only at the words on the Rune with 0 context about this being a game with a rules system, but that doesn't really matter. The point remains that this is a fundamental part of how the rune works. So, we essentially have 2 options:
1. Assume Paizo's incompetent and didn't realize someone might want to know or at least have guidance on roughly how long it takes for the weapon to return.2. Assume that no guidance on a specific duration was given because they thought it was clear how long it should take.
And for #2 the only reasonable amount of time is one that's irrelevant in terms of the action economy. It could be instantaneous or quick but still takes time, but either way the second that it starts affecting action economy it's no longer clear how long it should take and we're back in #1 territory.
|
|
To me, this is a very simple evaluation. Hunted Shot has a requirement of "you are wielding a ranged weapon with reload 0." A spear does not have 'reload 0.' Ranged projectile weapons are reloaded, ranged thrown weapons are drawn. Therefore, it does not qualify. Nothing in the returning rune description does it say it grants the weapon a reload rating. At best you could argue that a thrown weapon has a reload '—' rating, which is quite different than reload 0, again does not qualify for Hunted Shot.
As far as the analysis of time within a round, I think this is a futile exercise. Nothing in the ruleset breaks actions/activities down to a period of time other than the abstract unit of 'action.' To make the assumption that since a round is theoretically six seconds* and you get three actions, therefore an action is two seconds is a level of mathhammer that fails under scrutiny. Remember, there is a limit to how strongly you can apply real-world math/physics to the fantasy world. Aside from the obvious, well "magic" argument, most of our activities are narrative simulations representing real-world analogies, not exacting duplications. If you try too hard to apply these real-world fundamentals to the fantasy world, you will end up driving yourself crazy as there are countless examples of things working a certain way for reasons from simplicity to 'because I said so.'