| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An interesting discussion to be had, for sure. What makes the most sense for me and my tables is that the Interact action for Reload 0 weapons is subordinated to the Strike action.
Trying to define that too closely might lead to some runaway recursion, so it's best left to the interpreter to determine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except it does. Drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. It makes zero sense that you can draw ammunition without manipulating it.It doesn't say that there's an Interact in the Strike.
Except it doesn't.
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. This can be 0..." (emphasis mine)
Reload 0 = 0 Interact actions. Zero is none.
It doesn't matter how many actions it takes to perform the activity. The point is that the activity is being done, which is what causes the trait to apply. You could have Reload -1, which gives you an action, and it'd still provoke, because you're still performing an activity with the Manipulate trait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter how many actions it takes to perform the activity. The point is that the activity is being done, which is what causes the trait to apply. You could have Reload -1, which gives you an action, and it'd still provoke, because you're still performing an activity with the Manipulate trait.Except it does. Drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. It makes zero sense that you can draw ammunition without manipulating it.It doesn't say that there's an Interact in the Strike.
Except it doesn't.
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. This can be 0..." (emphasis mine)
Reload 0 = 0 Interact actions. Zero is none.
Yep "This can be 0" is similar to how number of spell components do not have to match the number of actions the spell takes: for instance a 1 action spell, say Warped Terrain , still keeps both components and both trigger reactions [concentrate/manipulate]. Not needing an independent action only impacts actions used.
While I'm firmly in the "Ammo doesn't magically appear, thus you need to manipulate it" camp, the way the Reload entry is written sounds like it argues against this fact.
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. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action.
Both sides are using the same statement to argue their point, but we're splitting a very fine hair is each side is nominating the word This to apply to different things.
The entry describes a quantity of Interact actions ("This entry indicates how many..."). The next sentence then mentions another quantity ("This can be 0..."). It's natural to assume, at face value, this would reference the previous thing being quantified: Interact Actions; a specific type of action, not a general "action."
If you remove the word Interact from the description, would it still read the same way?
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 actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action.
Also to reply to the question above about me mentioning AoO triggering twice on Reload 0: I didn't mean to argue for it; I was trying to say that if the designers had the forethought to do it, one argument against Reload 0 having an Interact action could be drawn from the fact that the designers wouldn't write something to trigger twice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm firmly in the "Ammo doesn't magically appear, thus you need to manipulate it" camp, the way the Reload entry is written sounds like it argues against this fact.
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. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action.Both sides are using the same statement to argue their point, but we're splitting a very fine hair is each side is nominating the word This to apply to different things.
The entry describes a quantity of Interact actions ("This entry indicates how many..."). The next sentence then mentions another quantity ("This can be 0..."). It's natural to assume, at face value, this would reference the previous thing being quantified: Interact Actions; a specific type of action, not a general "action."
If you remove the word Interact from the description, would it still read the same way?
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 actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action.Also to reply to the question above about me mentioning AoO triggering twice on Reload 0: I didn't mean to argue for it; I was trying to say that if the designers had the forethought to do it, one argument against Reload 0 having an Interact action could be drawn from the fact that the designers wouldn't write something to trigger twice.
Removing Interact from the sentence really only serves to permit the "manipulate but not really" argument being proposed, which you just admitted yourself, is absolutely BS. We're back to Armless Battle Medicine arguments all over again, and I absolutely hated that it was both possible by RAW and also demanded to work that way. It's far more absurd than possibly losing bow attacks from provocation.
As it stands, you can't use multiple reactions/free actions twice on the same activity, and since the rules already compile it all into one activity, even if it triggers on multiple levels (ranged attack + manipulate), it won't work because it's the same trigger on the same activity.
IMO, the game works just fine if bow attacks can be disrupted because it gives better balance counterplay to Bows V.S. Crossbows that is both very subtle and very style defining as a result. Crossbows can trigger and lose actions to load, but cannot lose strikes, and get less attacks per round as a result. Bows don't spend actions to load, and thus can get more attacks in a round, but can lose strikes to compensate for the fact that loading and striking is the same action, and attacking with an enemy with AoO is dangerous regardless.
It gives more value to feats like Mobile Shot Stance and other abilities which remove reload/ranged attack provocations, especially if Reload 0 is on the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Removing Interact from the sentence really only serves to permit the "manipulate but not really" argument being proposed, which you just admitted yourself, ...
Just to be clear, I'm against interpreting/reading the rules in such a way that it breaks "realistic" immersion (as realistic as a fantasy setting can be).
For example, if a spell removed your legs for some duration - but the spell description didn't explicitly state that you were immobilized or otherwise Move 0 - I would not then allow a player to move their full distance just because the spell didn't impose a limit; immobilization is concomitant with your legs being magically removed.I'm just arguing the Devil's Advocate position because that's my manager style. :-D
At my company, we propose a plan of action and the rest of my team tries to poke holes in it to make sure the plan holds water. I specifically tell my team to be No-Men so we know we're making the right decisions.
Now back to the argument...
If removing the word Interact from the entry makes it MORE likely that you could argue that an archer could load and fire their bow while pinned, then wouldn't that indicate that "This can be 0" then points to the word Interact?
Otherwise, if "This can be 0" pointed to the Action, then it should have read the same way with or without the word Interact.
If you remove the word Interact from the description, would it still read the same way?
I would and in fact did as it would still state "if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action." This means that even if there is no reload action, drawing exists and drawing is a manipulation action that we know is subsumed into the ranged Strike. In essence, it's a moot point what you call the Interact action in the Strike for everything I can think of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, if a spell removed your legs for some duration - but the spell description didn't explicitly state that you were immobilized or otherwise Move 0 - I would not then allow a player to move their full distance just because the spell didn't impose a limit; immobilization is concomitant with your legs being magically removed.
Just wanted to say that 5sp wheelchairs are a thing now in Grand Bazaar and Guns & Gears, and that they grant full and total mobility, even to legless characters.
My character carries around such a device on the off chance such a spell takes her legs away.
If removing the word Interact from the entry makes it MORE likely that you could argue that an archer could load and fire their bow while pinned, then wouldn't that indicate that "This can be 0" then points to the word Interact?
Otherwise, if "This can be 0" pointed to the Action, then it should have read the same way with or without the word Interact.
Not necessarily, since "this" refers to the conjoined term, Interact Action. Removing the word Interact from the sentence still means that 0 actions are being taken to reload. All that removing Interact does is remove the potential baggage that comes with Manipulate, which doesn't seem to be intended based on the game going out of its way to describe how a wielder interacts with their ammunition in other sections of the book, and it being synonymous with the wording of Interact.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so two threads to follow here.
If you remove the word Interact from the description, would it still read the same way?I would and in fact did as it would still state "if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action." This means that even if there is no reload action, drawing exists and drawing is a manipulation action that we know is subsumed into the ranged Strike. In essence, it's a moot point what you call the Interact action in the Strike for everything I can think of.
So I know drawing and nocking exists, and you know drawing and nocking exists, ... but the people reading the Reload section as RAW don't see it that way. Since "This can be 0" seemingly refers to the number of Interact actions (none, by strict interpretation of the rules), then the argument is either so automatic that it can't be hindered, or we should look the other way when it happens and just focus on the attack roll.
Now reading the section on Actions (pg 461), Activities seems to match the description of what we're doing (drawing, nocking, and firing) and the sidebar Subordinate Actions (pg 462) further elaborates this. Other people have pointed this out, so I'm not going to repeat it here, but this is a "trail of breadcrumbs" way of explaining something when the Reload section should have been more explicit.
Not necessarily, since "this" refers to the conjoined term, Interact Action. Removing the word Interact from the sentence still means that 0 actions are being taken to reload. All that removing Interact does is remove the potential baggage that comes with Manipulate, which doesn't seem to be intended based on the game going out of its way to describe how a wielder interacts with their ammunition in other sections of the book, and it being synonymous with the wording of Interact.If removing the word Interact from the entry makes it MORE likely that you could argue that an archer could load and fire their bow while pinned, then wouldn't that indicate that "This can be 0" then points to the word Interact?
Otherwise, if "This can be 0" pointed to the Action, then it should have read the same way with or without the word Interact.
I would argue that calling Interact Action a conjoined term is a trap; "Interact" is qualifying "Action." There are many listed actions and Interact is a specific one. This would be like arguing that you can't separate Pinto and Bean. Obviously there are other beans out there; Pinto just happens to be one.
Since there aren't other types of Interact-things (Interact Stance, Interact Finger Wiggle, etc.), Action in this case is superfluous. At least in the context of people trying to argue Action as it's general term. As keywords, Interact and Interact Action are synonymous, Action and Interact Action are not.
The people arguing a strict interpretation of Reload say that Reload 0 = Interact 0, so there is no Manipulate (as a keyword) present. I agree it's silly, but I find it hard to argue against. You can lead them to the logical conclusion as stated above (Activities and Subordinate Actions), but that's seems odd when a reasonable person should just be able to look up Reload and get their answer.
Now reading the section on Actions (pg 461), Activities seems to match the description of what we're doing (drawing, nocking, and firing) and the sidebar Subordinate Actions (pg 462) further elaborates this. Other people have pointed this out, so I'm not going to repeat it here, but this is a "trail of breadcrumbs" way of explaining something when the Reload section should have been more explicit.
I don't think it was because they most likely thought that it was clear enough that people would figure that a reload still happened [or what was the point of making it a reload weapon if it doesn't follow the rules for that]. IMO, it's pretty darn clear that it's a reload hat follows the normal rules that happens with the strike: I see nothing that indicates an attack "so automatic that it can't be hindered". It's the reason it's a 1+ hand weapon and not a 1 hand one: you have to Interact with your ammo.
Since there aren't other types of Interact-things (Interact Stance, Interact Finger Wiggle, etc.), Action in this case is superfluous. At least in the context of people trying to argue Action as it's general term. As keywords, Interact and Interact Action are synonymous, Action and Interact Action are not.
Not so: interact can be a component [like spell components]. For instance, Activate an Item has the "Interact (manipulate)" component. This means it's an Interact that's an activity. It like the activity for Quickdraw: does anyone argue that the Interact to draw the weapon doesn't provoke because it's not it's own action but a subordinate action of a 1 action activity?
I don't think it was because they most likely thought that it was clear enough that people would figure that a reload still happened [or what was the point of making it a reload weapon if it doesn't follow the rules for that]. IMO, it's pretty darn clear that it's a reload hat follows the normal rules that happens with the strike: I see nothing that indicates an attack "so automatic that it can't be hindered". It's the reason it's a 1+ hand weapon and not a 1 hand one: you have to Interact with your ammo.
For clarity, I believe the argument is Reload 0 weapons are so effortless that the reload isn't hindered, not the attack.
Not so: interact can be a component [like spell components]. For instance, Activate an Item has the "Interact (manipulate)" component. This means it's an Interact that's an activity. It like the activity for Quickdraw: does anyone argue that the Interact to draw the weapon doesn't provoke because it's not it's own action but a subordinate action of a 1 action activity?
You are correct; I thought the Interact components were also just the Interact Action, but the book makes a distinction that they are like the Interact action.
Quick Draw is problematic as an example because it clearly states that the Interact and Strike actions happen one after the other. If the Reload section had this kind of specificity, then this entire thread could have ben avoided.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it was because they most likely thought that it was clear enough that people would figure that a reload still happened [or what was the point of making it a reload weapon if it doesn't follow the rules for that]. IMO, it's pretty darn clear that it's a reload hat follows the normal rules that happens with the strike: I see nothing that indicates an attack "so automatic that it can't be hindered". It's the reason it's a 1+ hand weapon and not a 1 hand one: you have to Interact with your ammo.For clarity, I believe the argument is Reload 0 weapons are so effortless that the reload isn't hindered, not the attack.
That can be an argument all it wants, but there are two things that disqualify that to happen, and we can use Quick Draw as a comparison, since they are, in essence, the same activity.
1. Traits are involved. The number of actions to reload do not matter unless they are expressed as separate activities (which they are not in this case) and even then, you need abilities that let you either remove the trait or circumvent the restrictions put in place by those traits. No such wording is present, and plenty of wording that says otherwise exists in the book, which brings us back to default rules, which state that all manipulate activities provoke reactions.
2. Combined activities that are disrupted on one level are disrupted entirely. If a Quick Draw provokes and is critically hit, the entire action, including the follow-up attack, is disrupted. Given that this is also an activity that subsumes an interact as well as a strike into the same action, just like a Reload 0 strike, and is a 2nd level class feat, the idea that a non-feat option is somehow superior to a feat option both has no rules support for it, and also falls under the To Good to Be True fallacy.
Just as well, the rules already state that a reload weapon must be loaded prior to firing, not unlike the Quick Draw example where they must load and then shoot. The specificity is already there. It's just being ignored because of claims of badwrongfun, like always.
As it stands, you can't use multiple reactions/free actions twice on the same activity, and since the rules already compile it all into one activity, even if it triggers on multiple levels (ranged attack + manipulate), it won't work because it's the same trigger on the same activity.
To be clear, I've seen a few people bandying about the idea that you can AOO twice if you have two reactions etc, and Darksol is on the money here. On pg. 462 of the CRB there is a limitation on triggers. It reads
You can use only one action in response to a given trigger. For example, if you had a reaction and a free action that both
had a trigger of “your turn begins,” you could use either of them at the start of your turn—but not both. If two triggers are similar, but not identical, the GM determines whether you can use one action in response to each or whether they’re effectively the same thing. Usually, this decision will be based on what’s happening in the narrative.
So you know, firing your bow with reload 0, would run into this limitation. It's also why you can't use combat reflexes and a reach weapon to smack a guy twice for running away, or whack him and chase him if you had those two reactions available.
An errata giving reload 0 "you can reload as a free action" may help.
It would definitely make things more clear and well defined. I wouldn't have thought we would need any such errata, but this clearly is not the case.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So do those who think that Striking with a Bow is an activity that includes a Strike and a Reload not allow the Monastic Archer Monk to Flurry of Blows with it? Do you disallow a Hasted Archer from Striking with their bow? Both of these cases require an unmodified basic Strike rather than an Activity that includes a Strike.
I think it is pretty obvious that Paizo does not intend for a Strike with a reload 0 weapon to be simply an activity that includes a reload, it is a separate case with different rules.
Darksol I don't think you're using the Too Good To Be True guideline correctly. It is referring to too good in a holistic sense, not one facet of one rule being less affected by a niche case than a feat that does superficially similar things. If you're trying to argue that Reload 0 weapons should be held to the same standard as Quick Draw then why not make them require a feat? Or make it a defined activity that cannot be used with things like Flurry of Blows or Haste? Quick Draw and Reload 0 are entirely different things and they don't need to be, and shouldn't be, balanced by comparing each facet of them against each other any more than other aspects of the rules should be. It's absurd.
A reading of the rules is Too Good To Be True when it is actually unbalanced, not when it is simply inconsistent. The worst you could say about reload 0 weapons dodging an AoO disruption is that it is inconsistent in a simulationist sense. Dodging such a niche penalty (that is likely not even intended given it would invalidate Mobile Shot Stance) is a far cry from too good to be true.
Also, could you please stop strawmanning everyone who disagrees with you as people that are just calling your playstyle badwrongfun? Play how you want, most people here who disagree with you are arguing against your interpretation of the rules, not how you run them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
then why not make them require a feat? Or make it a defined activity that cannot be used with things like Flurry of Blows or Haste?
Why would they? This whole train of thought is a complete non sequitur.
then why not make them require a feat? Or make it a defined activity that cannot be used with things like Flurry of Blows or Haste?Why would they? This whole train of thought is a complete non sequitur.
Because measuring what is "Too Good To Be True" by whether or not two completely different parts of the rules are treated inconsistently is not a good way to balance the game. Point being that a feat like quick draw being disrupted due to being an activity with subordinate actions and therefore the manipulate trait is not a good argument for reload 0 weapons being overpowered or too good if it were ruled that they were not disrupted. They're two entirely different things, one is a feat that lets you draw a weapon and attack and one is a part of the core rules of some weapons basic Strikes. Comparing them beat for beat is not very useful.
This was in response to Darksol's argument that the interpretation of the rules that did not disrupt bow strikes/reloads on AoO was too good to be true because Quick Draw exists and is a feat that is 1 action, involves drawing an item, and is interrupted on crit.
Inconsistent narratively? Yes, plenty of things are. Too good to be true? No, this will not make Archers too strong or invalidate Quick Draw in any way. It seems very minor from a balance perspective given how niche this situation is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The comparison to quick draw seemed more like an example to show similar mechanics, not meant to be a 1:1 comparison. I think you're fixating too much on the specific example.
As for "too good to be true", you're right it's not a very big deal in the long term. At the same time, can we honestly say that Bows need or deserve the unique benefit of not provoking when you reload them? Would they be hurting compared to other ranged weapons if they functioned the same and did provoke? I think it's hard to look at that comparison and honestly come away saying "Yes, I need to give Bows this extra benefit" which makes this whole insistence that they should feel odd even if it ultimately is minor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So do those who think that Striking with a Bow is an activity that includes a Strike and a Reload not allow the Monastic Archer Monk to Flurry of Blows with it? Do you disallow a Hasted Archer from Striking with their bow? Both of these cases require an unmodified basic Strike rather than an Activity that includes a Strike.
I think it is pretty obvious that Paizo does not intend for a Strike with a reload 0 weapon to be simply an activity that includes a reload, it is a separate case with different rules.
Darksol I don't think you're using the Too Good To Be True guideline correctly. It is referring to too good in a holistic sense, not one facet of one rule being less affected by a niche case than a feat that does superficially similar things. If you're trying to argue that Reload 0 weapons should be held to the same standard as Quick Draw then why not make them require a feat? Or make it a defined activity that cannot be used with things like Flurry of Blows or Haste? Quick Draw and Reload 0 are entirely different things and they don't need to be, and shouldn't be, balanced by comparing each facet of them against each other any more than other aspects of the rules should be. It's absurd.
A reading of the rules is Too Good To Be True when it is actually unbalanced, not when it is simply inconsistent. The worst you could say about reload 0 weapons dodging an AoO disruption is that it is inconsistent in a simulationist sense. Dodging such a niche penalty (that is likely not even intended given it would invalidate Mobile Shot Stance) is a far cry from too good to be true.
Also, could you please stop strawmanning everyone who disagrees with you as people that are just calling your playstyle badwrongfun? Play how you want, most people here who disagree with you are arguing against your interpretation of the rules, not how you run them.
The comparison being made is that both Striking with a Reload 0 weapon and Quick Draw are mechanically identical enough (manipulate and strike within the same action) for an AoO to be able to disrupt the entire action in both cases, even though they have fundamental differences, most notably being that one is a unique activity granted from a feat and the other is a spelled out permission of a basic activity. That is the only comparison being made. I am not saying that you can't FOB with a bow because of Reload 0 (though you couldn't with Reload 1 by RAW), nor does it have any bearing on the discussion if you can FOB with a Reload 0 weapon. If you want to talk strawmanning, Pot meet Kettle.
It isn't, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't apply traits in situations that make sense, especially when the rules go out of their way to both give that reasoning and enforce it with existing mechanics. One interpretation uses mechanics to the intended detriment of the user. The other makes no sense and breaks the game. Guess which interpretation is which.
If a feat activity can be interrupted, and it stands to reason that there is no fundamental difference between that and a base mechanic, granting special exception to the non-feat base mechanic with no basis behind it is the more absurd interpretation. That is why it is To Good To Be True. It's also the reason why Kip Up specifically has to state it doesn't trigger reactions, otherwise we'll have players assume that because I don't spend actions on it that it doesn't trigger reactions. The actions or lack thereof do not trigger, the traits do.
My interpretation of rules is, in fact, how I run said rules. Thus, they disagree with how I run rules by proxy. Which is fine. But the only basis behind it is personal reasons, which isn't really a valid argument, nor is it one I could objectively use to sway my interpretation.
Except for Mobile Shot Stance, I think all the evidence points toward reloading, even "0", triggering Reactions. For that feat to function one only recognize where the CRB reads that a feat should function. So that feat would be the exception.
--
Separately, it does seem an issue when sub-actions are chained within an action and disrupted. In some case, like w/ Quick Draw, of course you can't finish the action because the un-drawn weapon isn't available. But with others, like Sudden Charge, wouldn't the Reaction only disrupt the sub-action?
For example, if a Barbarian is next to a Monk w/ Stand Still and wants to do a Sudden Charge to get to a Wizard in the back. If the Monk disrupts the first Stride, it seems not only could the Barbarian attack the Monk (since one doesn't choose the target until making the Strike), but it also seems they could use their second Stride beforehand (perhaps reaching the Wizard anyway).
In a similar vein, if a creature had an ability that triggered when trying to Strike w/ a bow (or beginning to), would an AoO that disrupted their Strike have an effect on that kind of trigger? With the Reload as part of the Strike action, it seems concurrent so that yes, the Strike had begun/been tried because the Reload doesn't even occur until the Strike happens.*
*Which BTW, I find odd that there's no reason to walk around with an arrow nocked, an iconic image of archer IMO. Or maybe now there is a reason if say running into a creature w/ a Reaction to Interactions, yet not ranged attacks (if there is such a beast).
Except for Mobile Shot Stance, I think all the evidence points toward reloading, even "0", triggering Reactions. For that feat to function one only recognize where the CRB reads that a feat should function. So that feat would be the exception.
--
Separately, it does seem an issue when sub-actions are chained within an action and disrupted. In some case, like w/ Quick Draw, of course you can't finish the action because the un-drawn weapon isn't available. But with others, like Sudden Charge, wouldn't the Reaction only disrupt the sub-action?For example, if a Barbarian is next to a Monk w/ Stand Still and wants to do a Sudden Charge to get to a Wizard in the back. If the Monk disrupts the first Stride, it seems not only could the Barbarian attack the Monk (since one doesn't choose the target until making the Strike), but it also seems they could use their second Stride beforehand (perhaps reaching the Wizard anyway).
In a similar vein, if a creature had an ability that triggered when trying to Strike w/ a bow (or beginning to), would an AoO that disrupted their Strike have an effect on that kind of trigger? With the Reload as part of the Strike action, it seems concurrent so that yes, the Strike had begun/been tried because the Reload doesn't even occur until the Strike happens.*
*Which BTW, I find odd that there's no reason to walk around with an arrow nocked, an iconic image of archer IMO. Or maybe now there is a reason if say running into a creature w/ a Reaction to Interactions, yet not ranged attacks (if there is such a beast).
That depends. With Quick Draw, logic takes precedence. With spellcasting, failure to provide components wastes the actions and spell to no effect. The others could be extrapolated to those results or similar, or a GM could rule, as you say, only the sub-action is disrupted, and the rest can be done normally, if possible. A GM ruling either way is fine and doesn't go against RAW.
As for having an arrow nocked, you technically couldn't by RAW, but as GM, I'd treat it as either a Ready: Strike activity, or make it impossible for maintaining equipment functionality. A bow can't hold that string indefinitely, even if mechanically it does, but that falls under TGTBT clause.
|
By nocked they just mean the arrow is ready to be pulled back to be fired.
With modern bows, arrows can essentially attach to the string, and we have metal clips on the string to help position it so it's always straight. Combined properly, an arrow can stick to the string and sit in the arrow rest with no additional input from the user, and always be ready to fir. (I can show you this when I get home if you're curious what it looks like.)
These weren't really around back in the time period Pathfinder is emulating. To move around with an arrow nocked means you would be occupying both hands, with one hand holding the arrow with the bow, and the other holding it against the string. This is the main drawback to holding an arrow nocked, and most players trying this would probably not even think about it. As soon as they try something with their free hand like they're used to doing, they would drop their prepared arrow.
By nocked they just mean the arrow is ready to be pulled back to be fired.
With modern bows, arrows can essentially attach to the string, and we have metal clips on the string to help position it so it's always straight. Combined properly, an arrow can stick to the string and sit in the arrow rest with no additional input from the user, and always be ready to fir. (I can show you this when I get home if you're curious what it looks like.)
These weren't really around back in the time period Pathfinder is emulating. To move around with an arrow nocked means you would be occupying both hands, with one hand holding the arrow with the bow, and the other holding it against the string. This is the main drawback to holding an arrow nocked, and most players trying this would probably not even think about it. As soon as they try something with their free hand like they're used to doing, they would drop their prepared arrow.
I can move around with an arrow nocked to my bow, and it isn't of a modern style. You can use a finger from the hand holding the bow to hold the arrow in place while putting slight pressure on the nock, it's quite easy.