Is a manipulate action baked into firing a bow?


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 477 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

If I am grabbed by an opponent, do I need to manipulate my arrow into the bow in order to fire it?

Basically, does being grabbed potentially influence firing a bow via an implicit act of manipulation?


18 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Yes.

Reloading a weapon requires an Interact action, which has the Manipulate trait. A weapon with a reload value of 0 still requires the Interact action but it is rolled into the single action spent on the Strike.

Sczarni

^ Concur


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hold the opposing opinion. The Reload weapon statistic counts the number of Interact actions needed to reload a ranged weapon:

PF2 Core Rulebook, Equipment chapter, Weapon Statistics, page 279 wrote:

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 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. 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.

An item with an entry of “—” must be drawn to be thrown, which usually takes an Interact action just like drawing any other weapon. Reloading a ranged weapon and drawing a thrown weapon both require a free hand. Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon.

A weapon with Reload 0 takes 0 Interact actions to load. Therefore, it takes no Interact actions and does not gain the manipulate trait from an Interact action. Drawing an arrow and shooting it from a bow are part of the same action and that action is a Strike that does not contain an Interact action and does not have the manipulate trait.

This interpretation defies how bows are actually used. Being grappled ought to interfere with using a bow. But that is not how the rules are written. As a houserule, the GM could declare that drawing an arrow gives the Strike action the manipulate trait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
A weapon with Reload 0 takes 0 Interact actions to load.

Not true. A weapon with Reload 0 reloads in the same action than your attack, so you still have the Interact action baked in.

And as you need to draw your ammunition, you necessarily make a Manipulate action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
A weapon with Reload 0 takes 0 Interact actions to load.

Not true. A weapon with Reload 0 reloads in the same action than your attack, so you still have the Interact action baked in.

And as you need to draw your weapon, you necessarily make an Interact action.

A fused Interact-Strike action is hard to swallow. When the developers want to combine actions, they typically put the two actions as subordinate actions into a newly named action, such as with Quick Draw:

Core Rulebook, Classes chapter, both Ranger and Rogue class, pages 172 and 184 wrote:

Quick Draw [One-Action] Feat 2

Gunslinger, Ranger, Rogue
Archetypes Butterfly Blade, Vigilante
You draw your weapon and attack with the same motion. You Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon.

That unfortunately prevents Quick Draw from being used where only Strikes are called for, such as in a ranger's Hunted Shot. A ranger has to have the bow in hand before using Hunted Shot, they cannot combine it with Quick Draw.

A fused Interact-Strike action would also prevent a bow from being used with Hunted Shot, despite being written for bows. Because "same action" is not a Strike action if it is also a non-subordinate Interact action.

For a proper Interact to draw ammunition, Paizo should have written the rule in different words, such as, "With Reload 0 the ammunition is drawn as a subordinate Interact action as part of the action to shoot the weapon."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
For a proper Interact to draw ammunition, Paizo should have written the rule in different words, such as, "With Reload 0 the ammunition is drawn as a subordinate Interact action as part of the action to shoot the weapon."

That isn't important. You can't reload a bow without drawing an arrow, and drawing is a manipulate action.

There are 3 reasons to consider that it generates a flat check: the Interact from Reload, the Manipulate from draw and logic. I think it's enough to make the flat check.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
A weapon with Reload 0 takes 0 Interact actions to load.

Not true. A weapon with Reload 0 reloads in the same action than your attack, so you still have the Interact action baked in.

And as you need to draw your weapon, you necessarily make an Interact action.

A fused Interact-Strike action is hard to swallow. When the developers want to combine actions, they typically put the two actions as subordinate actions into a newly named action, such as with Quick Draw:

Core Rulebook, Classes chapter, both Ranger and Rogue class, pages 172 and 184 wrote:

Quick Draw [One-Action] Feat 2

Gunslinger, Ranger, Rogue
Archetypes Butterfly Blade, Vigilante
You draw your weapon and attack with the same motion. You Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon.

That unfortunately prevents Quick Draw from being used where only Strikes are called for, such as in a ranger's Hunted Shot. A ranger has to have the bow in hand before using Hunted Shot, they cannot combine it with Quick Draw.

A fused Interact-Strike action would also prevent a bow from being used with Hunted Shot, despite being written for bows. Because "same action" is not a Strike action if it is also a non-subordinate Interact action.

For a proper Interact to draw ammunition, Paizo should have written the rule in different words, such as, "With Reload 0 the ammunition is drawn as a subordinate Interact action as part of the action to shoot the weapon."

Normally, that's a fair claim, but it simply doesn't add up (pun intended) when you use the same basic Strike action with a sword as you would with a projectile weapon. That's why they have express language in the Hands section of the rulebook that says you need the hand free to retrieve and nock the arrow to your bow when you strike with it. This fully states that yes, you're using a hand to manipulate a projectile to function with your weapon, not unlike the Interact activity, even if it's reduced to 0 actions.

And really: The arrow does not just come out of your quiver and go into your bow with no activity on your part. That's too good to be true. It's really only so bows and other projectile/reload weapons don't completely get ruined by the 3 action system. Don't get me wrong, that would make for a really useful (and powerful) magic item for an archer, but suggesting that you don't need to draw an arrow and nock it into your bow, or that doing so isn't impactful defeats the purpose of it being affected by things that affect Manipulate activities, like Interact.

If you want to get technical, you couldn't Quick Draw a bow since you can't proceed to Strike with the bow without drawing out Ammunition. While it doesn't take actions, it's still a separate activity, which can't be done with the Quick Draw activity, as activities don't let you do more or less than what it says; that includes "non-actions" like drawing ammunition for a bow. Though, you are more than welcome to disagree with that interpretation, simply because doing so means that the Reload 0 rules actually mean that the Strike also includes the Interact activity (at 0 actions), which provokes reactions.

Consequently, it could result in a "double trigger," where you are triggering two Attacks of Opportunity from the same creature for striking with a bow (one for drawing ammunition, one for striking with a ranged weapon), but since both are baked into the same activity, it only triggers once; even if we argue that it triggers twice, that falls under the too bad to be true clause.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Drawing things does not necessarily require an Interact action though it almost always adds a manipulate trait. A spell cast with a material component drawn from a spell component pouch gains the manipulate trait but does not involve an Interact action. Treat Wounds draws things from healer's tools such as bandages, but does not list an Interact action. Even the fast version Battle Medicine has the manipulate trait but does not mention Interact. The Steal action under Thievery takes an object out of someone's storage and has manipulate trait but not Interact. Repair has the exploration and manipulate traits, yet when shortened to one action with legendary Quick Repair it does not again any Interact actions.

Thus, I think that drawing an object is a manipulation that gives the manipulate trait but it does not require an actual Interact action, not even as a subordinate action. Drawing an object can be a manipulation during another type of action. I reject the claim that drawing an object, such as an arrow, is always an Interact action. I could accept reasoning that drawing an object from a sheathe or quiver is always manipulation.

The exceptions to manipulation when using or grabbing an object are when the object is in front of the character in plain sight. Climbing a ladder requires grabbing the rungs of the ladder, but it has only a move trait (and makes most climbers flat-footed). Activating a wand via Cast a Spell lacks manipulate when the spell has only a verbal component. Swinging a sword interacts with the sword in the English meaning of "interact" but it is not an Interact action and lacks the manipulate trait. Perhaps the developers decided that shooting an arrow from a bow was more like swinging a sword than drawing a sword.

In PF1 grappled condition prevented the use of two-handed weapons and ranged weapons, such as bows, so this question did not come up in that version of Pathfinder.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The question here is: Is Reload 0 still a Reload Action? (regardless of if it requires a separate Action)

I insist that it IS still a Reload. The "free action" you get from it STILL has the associated Traits appropriate to the Action you're taking, which is both the Reload and Strike for the same "cost" against your "Action bank" for the turn.

It also has a whole special entry describing how Reload 0 works differently from other Reload Actions/Costs. If the intent of Reload 0 Weapons is to indicate that there is no Reload happening at all, they simply would have never created Reload 0 in the first place, and instead of leaving that field blank like any other non-Reloading Weapon in the system. There is no need to clarify that a Bow has Reload 0 if you aren't supposed to reference and use the rules specifically made for both the general Reload, and the special Reload 0 specific rules.

That's my take on it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
Drawing things does not necessarily require an Interact action though it almost always adds a manipulate trait. . . Drawing an object can be a manipulation during another type of action. I reject the claim that drawing an object, such as an arrow, is always an Interact action.

The rules appear to disagree.

Carrying and Using Items, CRB p. 271 wrote:
Drawing a worn item or changing how you're carrying an item usually requires you to use an Interact action (though to drop an item, you use the Release action instead).

And, in case anyone needs a reminder, gear only exists in three states on a character:

Carrying and Using Items, CRB p. 271 wrote:
A character carries items in three ways: held, worn, and stowed. Held items are in your hands; a character typically has two hands, allowing them to hold an item in each hand or a single two-handed item using both hands. Worn items are tucked into pockets, belt pouches, bandoliers, weapon sheaths, and so forth, and they can be retrieved and returned relatively quickly. Stowed items are in a backpack or a similar container, and they are more difficult to access.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
A fused Interact-Strike action is hard to swallow.

I mean, it's right here:

Quote:
This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

The question here is: Is Reload 0 still a Reload Action? (regardless of if it requires a separate Action)

I insist that it IS still a Reload. The "free action" you get from it STILL has the associated Traits appropriate to the Action you're taking, which is both the Reload and Strike for the same "cost" against your "Action bank" for the turn.

It also has a whole special entry describing how Reload 0 works differently from other Reload Actions/Costs. If the intent of Reload 0 Weapons is to indicate that there is no Reload happening at all, they simply would have never created Reload 0 in the first place, and instead of leaving that field blank like any other non-Reloading Weapon in the system. There is no need to clarify that a Bow has Reload 0 if you aren't supposed to reference and use the rules specifically made for both the general Reload, and the special Reload 0 specific rules.

That's my take on it.

I estimate a 80% chance that Themetricsystem's description is what the developers intended for Reload 0. But they did not write it that way.

Due to that 20% doubt, I asked three of my players for their views about markrivett's original question about Striking with a bow while grabbed. Explaining the fringe situation took a whiel, but then one asked, "Would you require the DC 5 flat check if the grabbed character shot a loaded crossbow?" The answer is no. She responded, "Then you shouldn't need the same check for shooting a bow." The others agreed. Thus, my players prefer Reload 0 to not have a manipulate check. One player familiar with medieval weapons suggested that the archer could be holding a bow with a notched arrow. Holding a bow with the string drawn is too much of a strain, but holding an arrow in notched position on straight string was done.

Answers in this thread that favor the manipulate trait have slghtly different mechanisms.

Blake's Tiger argued that an Interact action to draw the arrow is "rolled into" the Strike action. Superbidi said "baked in," which sounds similar.

Darksol the Painbringer said, "not unlike the Interact activity," and argued it is enough like a Interact action that an action to draw an arrow would have to be used between the Interact to draw a bow and the Strike with the bow during Quick Draw, preventing using a bow with Quick Draw. Darksol's draw-arrow action sounds like a non-triggered free action as described on page 461 of the Core Rulebook, "A free action with no trigger follows the same rules as a single action (except the action cost)." Themetricsystem said "free action" outright, though he put quotation marks around it.

Later, Blake's Tiger quoted rules from page 273 of the Core Rulebook, "To draw, stow, or pick up an item requires 1 or 2 hands and takes an Interact action." That means a one-action Interact, not a free action, so I don't know how that is rolled into the Strike action.

Rolling one action into another action is not allowed in Pathfinder 2nd Edition design. The developers spelled it out with the Simultaneous Actions rule:

Core Rulebook, Playing the Game chapter, In-Depth Action Rules sidebar, page 462 wrote:

Simultaneous Actions

You can use only one single action, activity, or free action that doesn’t have a trigger at a time. You must complete one before beginning another. For example, the Sudden Charge activity states you must Stride twice and then Strike, so you couldn’t use an Interact action to open a door in the middle of the movement, nor could you perform part of the move, make your attack, and then finish the move.

Free actions with triggers and reactions work differently. You can use these whenever the trigger occurs, even if the trigger occurs in the middle of another action.

Baking in an action into another action, like chocolate chips baked into a cookie, would be a subordinate action.

Core Rulebook, Playing the Game chapter, In-Depth Action Rules sidebar, page 462 wrote:

Subordinate Actions

An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.

Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn’t use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.

That is legal, but the designers don't like fitting a full subordinate action into a existing basic action such as Strike. That would alter Strike too much.

My biggest argument against an Interact free action is that the Reload description says nothing about creating a new free action. That is something that would have to be explicitly pointed out. My other argument is that it would introduce the technicalities of free actions into shooting with a bow. An Interact free action for Reload 0 could come in two possible flavors, triggered and non-triggered, "Free actions don’t cost you any of your actions per turn, nor do they cost your reaction. A free action with no trigger follows the same rules as a single action (except the action cost), and a free action with a trigger follows the same rules as a reaction (except the reaction cost)."

We could have an Interact free action to draw ammunition triggered by a Strike with a Reload 0 weapon. Triggered actions also have the limitation that "You can use only one action in response to a given trigger." Thus, the archer could not use any other free actions triggered at the beginning of a Strike.

Or we could have a non-triggered Interact free action. Since it is non-triggered, it would really apply to ammuntion rather than a bow: a character can draw ammunition as a free action regardless of whether they intend to Strike with a bow or not. Non-triggered actions have the problem that Darksol the Painbringer pointed out.

The argument that drawing any object, including ammunition, requires a one-action Interact action clearly violates the intent of Reload 0.

Though the Paizo designers would hate fitting a subordinate action into a Strike action, they do fit additional effects into a Strike action. For example, the critical weapon specialization for bow weapons says, "If the target of the critical hit is adjacent to a surface, it gets stuck to that surface by the missile. The target is immobilized and must spend an Interact action to attempt a DC 10 Athletics check to pull the missile free; it can't move from its space until it succeeds. The creature doesn't become stuck if it is incorporeal, is liquid (like a water elemental or some oozes), or could otherwise escape without effort." That is not a subordinate action nor a free action. The extra effect is part of the Strike action--and it adds no additional traits, such as manipulate, though ordinarily pinning an object to a surface would be an Interact action.

My players and I have chosen that for our table that Reload 0 means that the Strike action gains a reloading of the weapon with ammunition openly carried by the character (in an implied quiver, since PF2 dropped sheaths and quivers as explicit items) as an additional effect that occurs before the attack roll. Though drawing an object ordinarily requires an Interact action, it does not in this case. It does not add a manipulate trait to the Strike.

And for a short rant, I think the sentence, "This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action," is badly written. First, the "if" is misplaced. That placement literally says that if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action, then the weapon has Reload 0. It does not define what Reload 0 does. The wording should have started with, "If the weapon has Reload 0, then ...." Second, "part of the same action" does really sound like rolling two actions together into one action that is both an Interact action and a Strike action, but the rigorous design of Pathfinder 2nd Edition does not allow such a fusion. That sentence is unchanged from page 178 of the original Pathfinder 2nd Edition Playtest document, so it was written before the designers were well-practiced in writing PF2 rules.


Mathmuse wrote:

I hold the opposing opinion. The Reload weapon statistic counts the number of Interact actions needed to reload a ranged weapon:

PF2 Core Rulebook, Equipment chapter, Weapon Statistics, page 279 wrote:

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 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. 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.

An item with an entry of “—” must be drawn to be thrown, which usually takes an Interact action just like drawing any other weapon. Reloading a ranged weapon and drawing a thrown weapon both require a free hand. Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon.

A weapon with Reload 0 takes 0 Interact actions to load. Therefore, it takes no Interact actions and does not gain the manipulate trait from an Interact action. Drawing an arrow and shooting it from a bow are part of the same action and that action is a Strike that does not contain an Interact action and does not have the manipulate trait.

This interpretation defies how bows are actually used. Being grappled ought to interfere with using a bow. But that is not how the rules are written. As a houserule, the GM could declare that drawing an arrow gives the Strike action the manipulate trait.

Clearly reloading a bow is a zero action cost interact.

If you are arguing that no interact has happened then you are going to get no agreement.

If you are arguing that the reload interact is so fast that no full interact action has happened, so effectively no interact has happened so an attack of opportunity does not occur - then maybe that is reasonable.

I'm going to choose to side with the majority view here. It feels less tortured and more realistic. But mostly because an action has occured even if it was a free action or a reaction, and did not take a whole action. At this point hopefully everyone can see that we are using the word "action" for two different things in English and this game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
If you are arguing that no interact has happened then you are going to get no agreement.

That is my argument. Reload does not equal Interact. The Interact action is one method of reloading but not the only method. For Reload 0 weapons, Strike is another method of reloading before the attack roll.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gortle wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:

I hold the opposing opinion. The Reload weapon statistic counts the number of Interact actions needed to reload a ranged weapon:

PF2 Core Rulebook, Equipment chapter, Weapon Statistics, page 279 wrote:

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 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. 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.

An item with an entry of “—” must be drawn to be thrown, which usually takes an Interact action just like drawing any other weapon. Reloading a ranged weapon and drawing a thrown weapon both require a free hand. Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon.

A weapon with Reload 0 takes 0 Interact actions to load. Therefore, it takes no Interact actions and does not gain the manipulate trait from an Interact action. Drawing an arrow and shooting it from a bow are part of the same action and that action is a Strike that does not contain an Interact action and does not have the manipulate trait.

This interpretation defies how bows are actually used. Being grappled ought to interfere with using a bow. But that is not how the rules are written. As a houserule, the GM could declare that drawing an arrow gives the Strike action the manipulate trait.

Clearly reloading a bow is a zero action cost interact.

If you are arguing that no interact has happened then you are going to get no agreement.

If you are arguing that the reload...

How is it 'clear' when you are literally responding to someone who legitimately has an opposing interpretation? So, for the record, in terms of pure RAW I agree with Mathmuse. I don't see where you get the 'zero action cost interact' in that rules text. What is that even supposed to mean? There are no 'not-an-actions' in PF2. So you must be talking about a free action, but that's a huge leap because the text just says that you need 0 interact actions. That's not the same as an interact as a free action.

In any case, the rules say that drawing and loading are baked into the Strike in this case, so the free action interact is out the window anyway, and the text doesn't say anything about this adding traits or a subordinate interact to the strike, so it doesn't.

And just to reiterate, this is my take on RAW. Whether you think it's logical or realistic is irrelevant for my and Mathmuse's arguments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
painted_green wrote:
Gortle wrote:


Clearly reloading a bow is a zero action cost interact.

Let me try again. Everyone agrees that the archer is grabbing an arrow and putting it into his bow. Some form of touching the arrow with the hand is happening. Everyone agrees that this occurs.

That "whatever" costs zero actions by the rules.

That "whatever" is an interaction and a manipulation.

What we disagree on is if "whatever" is an action. Or because it is done for zero cost as part of the strike action, if it counts as not having occured for rules purposes.

Action is used in two slightly different meanings in the rules. Welcome to English. It can mean the one discrete action of which we get 3 in a turn, but it also is the category of things that include all action types, including free actions, reactions, single actions and activities.

What you can't say is that an action that cost zero actions is not an action. Free actions and reactions cost zero actions and they still count as actions. A free action move is still a move action. Example the free action step from Liberating Step. That step action cost zero actions but it still occured. It still counts as move action.

I'd argue that the Other Actions rules section include zero cost action actions. In fact its pretty clear that this is exactly our scenario.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Mathmuse

I think the issue is in your name. You treat a number exactly what it is - zero means zero.

Take a step back and look at it from a developer/writer point of view - not a Maths point of view.

In Maths we are well aware of integer and decimal numbers. For rules simplicity you would avoid decimals as the plague.

Now we have the situation where an interact (drawing an arrow) is so small that it doesn't warrant to add a full action to it. Guess what a Mathematician would do if he wants to avoid decimals? He rounds to the closest integer.

To me This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. sounds pretty much that the developer rounded the total effort of interact actions to zero.

I'm with you that true zero interact means no manipulate. But 0.1 (I made that up) rounded to zero and we might have a different story.

Just my small contribution


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I appreciate the discussion on this subject and thank everyone for their perspective. I respect both interpretations of the rules.

I suspect that, until a Paizo employee replies to this thread we will not arrive at a definitive answer.

To add context, one of my players (a ranger) was firing her bow at a Big Bad while the Big Bad’s minions grabbed that ranger. That player did make their DC5 flat check, but we then took a moment to sidebar whether that flat check was even necessary. For expediency I ruled that it was not because rules clearly state that a character can attack while grabbed.

However, philosophically I am opposed to the “rock’em-sock’em robots” concept of RPG combat. I see combat as dynamic, violent (duh), and messy affairs, not figures standing in 5-foot squares taking turns smacking each other.

When I envision a “grab” I am imagining life and death wrestling matches where one character is using their strength, weight, and every limb at their disposal (elbows, knees, teeth, head) to enforce their will (trying to pin their opponent to apply the “restrained” condition). I think even holding a bow in that situation is going to be difficult, let alone drawing an arrow, nocking it, and firing it accurately.

Going forward at my table I am going to rule that being “grabbed” does require a DC5 flat check to fire an arrow from a bow. The exception being that if the archer was already ready to fire with an arrow nocked and drawn. Logic being that they can still let fly as they are being tackled.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
painted_green wrote:
In any case, the rules say that drawing and loading are baked into the Strike in this case, so the free action interact is out the window anyway, and the text doesn't say anything about this adding traits or a subordinate interact to the strike, so it doesn't.

"Subordinate Actions Core Rulebook pg. 461

An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action."

The Subordinate Action retains all it's traits, so it's moot if the greater action has them as the Subordinate Action triggers them and in this case, the Subordinate Action happens before the strike which would trigger anything that triggers off Interaction.

"Hands
Source Core Rulebook pg. 279 2.0
Some weapons require one hand to wield, and others require two. A few items, such as a longbow, list 1+ for its Hands entry. You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow."

"Wielding Items
Source Core Rulebook pg. 272
Retrieve an item from a backpack , sack, or similar container, action Interact."

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
markrivett wrote:
I suspect that, until a Paizo employee replies to this thread we will not arrive at a definitive answer.

It's Paizo's policy that an individual designer (or design manager, or lead designer, or even director of game design) doesn't give rulings

There may be an FAQ someday. Or Errata. Until then, I'd suggest just making a ruling for your group and remaining consistent with it (for PCs and for enemies).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
markrivett wrote:
When I envision a “grab” I am imagining life and death wrestling matches where one character is using their strength, weight, and every limb at their disposal (elbows, knees, teeth, head) to enforce their will (trying to pin their opponent to apply the “restrained” condition). I think even holding a bow in that situation is going to be difficult, let alone drawing an arrow, nocking it, and firing it accurately.

That intense wrestling is closer to the PF2 Restrained condition than the Grabbed condition. Restrained prevents any attacks besides Escape the restraint or Force Open the restraining ropes. Thought the description of Restrained talks about being tied up, a critical success on a Grapple can result in the target being restrained. So arms wrapped tightly around a creature makes the creature restrained.

In Roman times, robbers would so often grab their victim by their cape or cloak that the word "escape" comes from that situation. Escape was Latin ex + cappa, meaning "out of cloak." The victim could escape the grabbing of their cloak by slipping out of the cloak. Thus, envision Grabbed condition in PF2 as the clothing of the character being grabbed.

Thematically, I would consider a DC 5 flat check appropriate for drawing an arrow while grabbed, because the character could be grabbed by the quiver holding the arrows or grabbed by a cloak but the cloak is in the way of reaching the quiver. Technically, my players would be disappointed when their characters cannot use their favorite weapons, so I am arguing that the PF2 developers deliberately left manipulate trait off of Reload 0 because zero Interact actions means zero manipulate trait. (Thod is right about my mathematical obsession with numbers. I have also explained to students why 0^0 is 1,) Sometimes fun and convenience override realistic simulation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:


In Roman times, robbers would so often grab their victim by their cape or cloak that the word "escape" comes from that situation. Escape was Latin ex + cappa, meaning "out of cloak." The victim could escape the grabbing of their cloak by slipping out of the cloak. Thus, envision Grabbed condition in PF2 as the clothing of the character being grabbed.

Very interesting!

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I'm with Mathmuse on this. If you have zero apples you have no apples. If you need zero Interact actions you don't need Interact actions.

Everything else is "clearly" filling in the blanks with what you think should be there, what you find plausible and such, but it's clearly not actually on the page.

I think this is something that is kind of stuck in the cracks as game design is concerned. On the one hand, it'd be weird if crossbows (which definitely Interact to reload) are more problematic while grappled than a regular bows. On the other hand, if loading a normal bow still had some kind of spooky zero-action Interact, a feat like mobile shot stance doesn't work at all for bows, because it doesn't protect you from AoOs triggered by Interacting. Which would be a bit too surprising to really be true.

Also, making all bow Strikes contain some subordinate action would cause weird interactions with abilities that tell you to make a normal Strike.

I think the cleanest fix is to give bow strikes a Manipulate trait. That puts them back on equal footing with crossbows, but still lets feats like Mobile Shot Stance work as you would expect on a plain reading.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Also, making all bow Strikes contain some subordinate action would cause weird interactions with abilities that tell you to make a normal Strike.

How is it weirder than Bullet Dancer Reload? One action to "Strike with a simple firearm, and then Interact to reload that same firearm"? It's officially spelled out as 0 separate actions to reload... Or Running Reload, where you "Stride, Step, or Sneak, then Interact to reload" in one action. Or Final Shot where you Interact to reload then Strike in one activity? Dance of Thunder and getting to Step, Strike Interact to reload multiple times as an activity?

How about Reloading Trick where "You Interact to reload your hand crossbow and Strike with it"... It sure SOUNDS the same as what you do with a bow. If having a reload as subordinate action in a bow Strike if problematic, then there are plenty of other abilities that follow that pattern and would already be as much, or more, of a problem. Plenty of actions/activities allow for 0 action reloads already.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
markrivett wrote:
When I envision a “grab” I am imagining life and death wrestling matches where one character is using their strength, weight, and every limb at their disposal (elbows, knees, teeth, head) to enforce their will (trying to pin their opponent to apply the “restrained” condition). I think even holding a bow in that situation is going to be difficult, let alone drawing an arrow, nocking it, and firing it accurately.

That intense wrestling is closer to the PF2 Restrained condition than the Grabbed condition. Restrained prevents any attacks besides Escape the restraint or Force Open the restraining ropes. Thought the description of Restrained talks about being tied up, a critical success on a Grapple can result in the target being restrained. So arms wrapped tightly around a creature makes the creature restrained.

In Roman times, robbers would so often grab their victim by their cape or cloak that the word "escape" comes from that situation. Escape was Latin ex + cappa, meaning "out of cloak." The victim could escape the grabbing of their cloak by slipping out of the cloak. Thus, envision Grabbed condition in PF2 as the clothing of the character being grabbed.

Thematically, I would consider a DC 5 flat check appropriate for drawing an arrow while grabbed, because the character could be grabbed by the quiver holding the arrows or grabbed by a cloak but the cloak is in the way of reaching the quiver. Technically, my players would be disappointed when their characters cannot use their favorite weapons, so I am arguing that the PF2 developers deliberately left manipulate trait off of Reload 0 because zero Interact actions means zero manipulate trait. (Thod is right about my mathematical obsession with numbers. I have also explained to students why 0^0 is 1,) Sometimes fun and convenience override...

Your players being disappointed that they can't use their weapons while being grabbed is not a sufficient justification here.

If a player is grabbed, it makes sense to not be able to use their bow, just like when my fighter gets swallowed whole, I would LOVE to be able to use my greatsword to rupture out! But I can't, so I get creative and use my backup dagger.

Same thing, if your player is disappointed they can't shoot someone in the face while being grabbed in melee, well they have the option of trying to get away and shooting, they're already in a bad position!

Pf2e is very consistent with tactical play and inferring that the devs left the manipulate off of **specifically** reload 0 weapon is a stretch, and that's being generous. Reload 0 weapons are ALREADY much better than reload 1 weapons, to the point where the gunslinger, IMO, is massively underperforming vs a dude with a bow.

Your understanding just widens the gap.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

A PC should probably pull out a dagger in those scenarios... But they are gonna have a bad time with a runeless weapon. That's part of why I like the automatic bonus progression.

Sovereign Court

AlastarOG wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
...

Your players being disappointed that they can't use their weapons while being grabbed is not a sufficient justification here.

If a player is grabbed, it makes sense to not be able to use their bow, just like when my fighter gets swallowed whole, I would LOVE to be able to use my greatsword to rupture out! But I can't, so I get creative and use my backup dagger.

The grabbed condition what it says, not more. It's not PF1 grappled. You can still use a two-handed sword while grabbed, too. Or a (loaded) crossbow or gun. It also only takes one hand to grab someone. It's more like grabbing someone's sleeve to unbalance them / prevent them from walking away, than a full on bear hug.

AlastarOG wrote:

Pf2e is very consistent with tactical play and inferring that the devs left the manipulate off of **specifically** reload 0 weapon is a stretch, and that's being generous. Reload 0 weapons are ALREADY much better than reload 1 weapons, to the point where the gunslinger, IMO, is massively underperforming vs a dude with a bow.

Your understanding just widens the gap.

Zero interact actions means no actions that have a manipulate trait. You're inferring more than is actually there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
...

Your players being disappointed that they can't use their weapons while being grabbed is not a sufficient justification here.

If a player is grabbed, it makes sense to not be able to use their bow, just like when my fighter gets swallowed whole, I would LOVE to be able to use my greatsword to rupture out! But I can't, so I get creative and use my backup dagger.

The grabbed condition what it says, not more. It's not PF1 grappled. You can still use a two-handed sword while grabbed, too. Or a (loaded) crossbow or gun. It also only takes one hand to grab someone. It's more like grabbing someone's sleeve to unbalance them / prevent them from walking away, than a full on bear hug.

AlastarOG wrote:

Pf2e is very consistent with tactical play and inferring that the devs left the manipulate off of **specifically** reload 0 weapon is a stretch, and that's being generous. Reload 0 weapons are ALREADY much better than reload 1 weapons, to the point where the gunslinger, IMO, is massively underperforming vs a dude with a bow.

Your understanding just widens the gap.

Zero interact actions means no actions that have a manipulate trait. You're inferring more than is actually there.

Here I was specifically refering to being swallowed whole which quotes:

A swallowed creature can attack the monster that has swallowed it, but only with unarmed attacks or with weapons of light Bulk or less.

Meaning a greatsword is disallowed.

You CAN attack a creature with a greatsword while grabbed. You CAN attack a creature with a longbow while grabbed, but you will need to succeed at a DC 5 check to successfully use the free action interact, otherwise it fails.

Just like you would if you used a reload action with a crossbow.

Understanding these two as vastly different because of action cost is silly and widens the gap that already exists between bows/other weapons, because bows (specifically composite bows) are already the best ranged weapon in the game.

To answer to your assumption, I am inferring nothing at all, mathmuse was the one inferring that:

''Technically, my players would be disappointed when their characters cannot use their favorite weapons, so I am arguing that the PF2 developers deliberately left manipulate trait off of Reload 0 because zero Interact actions means zero manipulate trait.''

And I am calling BS on that because : ''My players wouldn't like it so the devs must have meant it way x'' is a flawed argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
A PC should probably pull out a dagger in those scenarios... But they are gonna have a bad time with a runeless weapon. That's part of why I like the automatic bonus progression.

You have economic advantage to keeping lower runed weapons than your max. They are a common drop and not selling them means you haven't paid for them and are only costing your party half of their value by keeping it.


graystone wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Also, making all bow Strikes contain some subordinate action would cause weird interactions with abilities that tell you to make a normal Strike.

How is it weirder than Bullet Dancer Reload? One action to "Strike with a simple firearm, and then Interact to reload that same firearm"? It's officially spelled out as 0 separate actions to reload... Or Running Reload, where you "Stride, Step, or Sneak, then Interact to reload" in one action. Or Final Shot where you Interact to reload then Strike in one activity? Dance of Thunder and getting to Step, Strike Interact to reload multiple times as an activity?

How about Reloading Trick where "You Interact to reload your hand crossbow and Strike with it"... It sure SOUNDS the same as what you do with a bow. If having a reload as subordinate action in a bow Strike if problematic, then there are plenty of other abilities that follow that pattern and would already be as much, or more, of a problem. Plenty of actions/activities allow for 0 action reloads already.

The difference is that what you're referencing are activities that are very much not the standard strike action. You can not, for example, use Quick Draw and in replace of the strike action it mentions instead do a Bullet Dancer Reload to draw the weapon, fire it, and then reload. An activity with a strike subordinate action and another subordinate action is not the same as a strike, so saying that striking with a bow with reload 0 is actually a 1 action activity that includes both the interact action and the strike action as subordinate actions makes it impossible to use as a subordinate action in other abilities that call for a strike.

Btw, I'm aware that this is not an argument for or against shooting a bow having the manipulate trait, though, I have my opinions about that as well. The point is simply that there is a big difference between saying that striking with a bow contains subordinate actions and pointing out that some activities that take one action to perform contain multiple subordinate actions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

In the absence of a bow in one hand, what action is required to move an Arrow from Worn to Held?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aw3som3-117 wrote:
The difference is that what you're referencing are activities that are very much not the standard strike action.

But some of them ARE doing that. That's literally what Reloading Trick does: "You Interact to reload your hand crossbow and Strike with it". Is anyone arguing that a strike with a bow doesn't involve reloading the bow and striking with it?

Aw3som3-117 wrote:
You can not, for example, use Quick Draw and in replace of the strike action it mentions instead do a Bullet Dancer Reload to draw the weapon, fire it, and then reload. An activity with a strike subordinate action and another subordinate action is not the same as a strike, so saying that striking with a bow with reload 0 is actually a 1 action activity that includes both the interact action and the strike action as subordinate actions makes it impossible to use as a subordinate action in other abilities that call for a strike.

I see no substantial difference between a bow Strike and Reloading Trick: the only difference is presentation and them hand-holding and spelling out the individual subordinate actions. Now there a difference between them in when/where you can use them but the mechanics in how they work don't differ, just what they interact with.

Aw3som3-117 wrote:
Btw, I'm aware that this is not an argument for or against shooting a bow having the manipulate trait, though, I have my opinions about that as well. The point is simply that there is a big difference between saying that striking with a bow contains subordinate actions and pointing out that some activities that take one action to perform contain multiple subordinate actions.

You'll note that I was specifically replying to it "would cause weird interactions with abilities that tell you to make a normal Strike": I'm just pointing out that the interactions already happen. I don't see how it's substantially different when it's it's an ability that asks for a strike vs just using an ability that uses the same mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
In the absence of a bow in one hand, what action is required to move an Arrow from Worn to Held?

I pointed it out above: "Wielding Items

Source Core Rulebook pg. 272
Retrieve an item from a backpack , sack, or similar container, action Interact."

"Hands
Source Core Rulebook pg. 279 2.0
Some weapons require one hand to wield, and others require two. A few items, such as a longbow, list 1+ for its Hands entry. You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow."

So bow or sans bow, it's an Interact.


graystone wrote:
Aw3som3-117 wrote:
Btw, I'm aware that this is not an argument for or against shooting a bow having the manipulate trait, though, I have my opinions about that as well. The point is simply that there is a big difference between saying that striking with a bow contains subordinate actions and pointing out that some activities that take one action to perform contain multiple subordinate actions.
You'll note that I was specifically replying to it "would cause weird interactions with abilities that tell you to make a normal Strike": I'm just pointing out that the interactions already happen. I don't see how it's substantially different when it's it's an ability that asks for a strike vs just using an ability that uses the same mechanics.

Yep, I was just making my intensions clear

As for the rest of your response, I think the distinction is pretty clear in that one is fundamentally changing the way in which a basic action works and therefore makes it non-functional as a subordinate action itself whereas the other is a completely separate action that cannot be used as a subordinate action in the first place and therefore does not break by becoming something more than just a strike. If that is not a substantial difference in your eyes, then nothing I say is going to change that. I explained my view, and you explained yours. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Blake's Tiger wrote:
In the absence of a bow in one hand, what action is required to move an Arrow from Worn to Held?

I pointed it out above: "Wielding Items

Source Core Rulebook pg. 272
Retrieve an item from a backpack , sack, or similar container, action Interact."

"Hands
Source Core Rulebook pg. 279 2.0
Some weapons require one hand to wield, and others require two. A few items, such as a longbow, list 1+ for its Hands entry. You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow."

So bow or sans bow, it's an Interact.

Yes, I know.

The question was to those who have concluded that if you have a bow in your other hand and Strike with it, the Interact action to move an item from Worn to Held disappears (rather than being subsumed into the same effort that it takes to Strike represented by 1 Action). However, for that to be logically consistent, it must have the same Traits as the action in absence of a bow or making a Strike.

I'd have a hard time explaining to Player 1 why their character needs to make a Flat check to draw their 6 inch dagger but Player 2's character can keep attacking with their bow by drawing 18+ inch arrows without the same Flat check.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
painted_green wrote:
In any case, the rules say that drawing and loading are baked into the Strike in this case, so the free action interact is out the window anyway, and the text doesn't say anything about this adding traits or a subordinate interact to the strike, so it doesn't.

"Subordinate Actions Core Rulebook pg. 461

An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action."

The Subordinate Action retains all it's traits, so it's moot if the greater action has them as the Subordinate Action triggers them and in this case, the Subordinate Action happens before the strike which would trigger anything that triggers off Interaction.

"Hands
Source Core Rulebook pg. 279 2.0
Some weapons require one hand to wield, and others require two. A few items, such as a longbow, list 1+ for its Hands entry. You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow."

"Wielding Items
Source Core Rulebook pg. 272
Retrieve an item from a backpack , sack, or similar container, action Interact."

Yes, activities inherit traits from subordinate actions, but there is no subordinate action here. The fact that the CRB uses the same non-rule term in two places doesn't mean anything. Yes, retrieving an item from a backpack, as a standalone activity, requires an interact action, but this doesn't automatically apply to any and all courses of action that involve some kind of retrieval. Otherwise, by your logic, Dual-Handed Assault would provoke an attack of opportunity, using the same table that you cite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

Yeah I'm with Mathmuse on this. If you have zero apples you have no apples. If you need zero Interact actions you don't need Interact actions.

Everything else is "clearly" filling in the blanks with what you think should be there, what you find plausible and such, but it's clearly not actually on the page.

No I don't think that is a fair characterisation.

It is just that zero actions is not the same as no actions. It does not mean it didn't happen. Its just done for free in terms of number of actions as part of the strike. I know that this statement makes no sense in maths but it does in English.

Free actions, and Reactions both have zero action cost. But both can be reacted to. Both actually occur.

You can ready a trigger to act on a free action. You can react to a free action.


painted_green wrote:
graystone wrote:
painted_green wrote:
In any case, the rules say that drawing and loading are baked into the Strike in this case, so the free action interact is out the window anyway, and the text doesn't say anything about this adding traits or a subordinate interact to the strike, so it doesn't.

"Subordinate Actions Core Rulebook pg. 461

An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action."

The Subordinate Action retains all it's traits, so it's moot if the greater action has them as the Subordinate Action triggers them and in this case, the Subordinate Action happens before the strike which would trigger anything that triggers off Interaction.

"Hands
Source Core Rulebook pg. 279 2.0
Some weapons require one hand to wield, and others require two. A few items, such as a longbow, list 1+ for its Hands entry. You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow."

"Wielding Items
Source Core Rulebook pg. 272
Retrieve an item from a backpack , sack, or similar container, action Interact."

Yes, activities inherit traits from subordinate actions, but there is no subordinate action here. The fact that the CRB uses the same non-rule term in two places doesn't mean anything. Yes, retrieving an item from a backpack, as a standalone activity, requires an interact action, but this doesn't automatically apply to any and all courses of action that involve some kind of retrieval. Otherwise, by your logic, Dual-Handed Assault would provoke an attack of opportunity, using the same table that you cite.

It technically does provoke, just like a Quickened Casting spell would still provoke when you remove an action from it.

That being said, there is language that can support arguing against it within the feat by saying it's quick enough that it doesn't end stances or deny abilities that require free hands to utilize, whereas using a Bow to Strike with would more likely end such stances; point in Dual-Handed Assault's favor, really. Ironically, such language isn't present in Quickened Casting, so a 1-Action Spell would still provoke, since it doesn't remove Somatic components from the spell, it just subsumes the number of actions required.

Sounds like there are numerous other rules elements that would promote the very idea we are already proposing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
In the absence of a bow in one hand, what action is required to move an Arrow from Worn to Held?

The default action for that would be the Interact action. Certain general-purpose basic actions such as Interact, Seek, Stride, and Strike are often used as defaults. Interact is the default for manipulating an object such as opening a door, and Seek is often the default for Perception checks such as checking for traps or scanning the horizon.

But in some specific cases, another action would be used instead of the default. For example, suppose Han Solo wants to draw his blaster weapon covertly while in a hostile conversation with Greedo. Transferring the blaster from Worn in his holster to Held in his hand would be a Palm an Object action, not an Interact action, because of the Thievery check to avoid Greedo noticing.

Likewise, the Reload 0 property on a bow allows drawing an arrow, notching the arrow, pulling back the bowstring, and loosing the arrow all as part of a Strike action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AlastarOG wrote:
Pf2e is very consistent with tactical play and inferring that the devs left the manipulate off of **specifically** reload 0 weapon is a stretch, and that's being generous. Reload 0 weapons are ALREADY much better than reload 1 weapons, to the point where the gunslinger, IMO, is massively underperforming vs a dude with a bow.

Why is it a stretch? Pathfinder 1st Edition did not have manipulate trait on drawing a weapon. Drawing did not provoke attacks of opportunity and nor did being Grappled impose a check for drawing a weapon. The designers were inventing new rules for PF2, but PF1 was their familiar model and they would compare their decisions to it. They might have decided that adding manipulate to Reload 0 ranged weapons that already provoked attacks of opportunity would be overkill. Smooth combat rules call for minimal non-tactical complications.

And the alternative to the designers deliberately leaving manipulate off the reload of Reload 0 weapons is that they mistakenly left it off. Forgetting to add a line that said reloading always has the manipulate trait could be an honest mistake. However, inventing an Interact free action for Reload 0 without using the phrase "free action" nor defining whether it is a triggered versus non-triggered free action would be incompetent. The Paizo designers are better than that.

AlastarOG wrote:

To answer to your assumption, I am inferring nothing at all, mathmuse was the one inferring that:

''Technically, my players would be disappointed when their characters cannot use their favorite weapons, so I am arguing that the PF2 developers deliberately left manipulate trait off of Reload 0 because zero Interact actions means zero manipulate trait.''

And I am calling BS on that because : ''My players wouldn't like it so the devs must have meant it way x'' is a flawed argument.

Actually, my argument is that zero Interact actions means zero manipulate trait. I said it in the part AlastarOG quoted.

However, I feel that reloading ought to have the manipulate trait. The resulting DC 5 flat check would more realistically represent the Grabbed condition. I considered adding that to my houserules: "A reload during a Strike adds the manipulate trait to the Strike." I asked my players first. They did not want that houserule, so I am not implementing that houserule. If I were certain that leaving the manipulate off was a mistake, I would overrule my players' wishes and tell my players that we have been playing archery wrong.

I am certain that Reload 0 had no Interact actions to draw ammunition. The drawing is part of the Strike.

Gortle wrote:
It is just that zero actions is not the same as no actions.

That is not how mathematics works. "Zero" as an adjective has the same meaning, though with more numerical emphasis, as "no" as an adjective.

It would be possible to create a zero-cost Interact action, but in that case, zero would be an adjective to "cost" rather than to "Interact action." That would be one action that does not count against the three actions per turn. And such an invention should be spelled out clearly.

Ascalaphus wrote:
Also, making all bow Strikes contain some subordinate action would cause weird interactions with abilities that tell you to make a normal Strike.

I realized one weird interaction that would totally mess up a PC's combat style. The gnome rogue Binny in my campaign is a snipper. She Hides behind cover, Strikes with her bow while hidden to catch an enemy flat-footed, and then Hides again. But Hide says, "You cease being hidden if you do anything except Hide, Sneak, or Step. If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains flat-footed against that attack, and you then become observed. If you do anything else, you become observed just before you act unless the GM determines otherwise. The GM might allow you to perform a particularly unobtrusive action without being noticed, possibly requiring another Stealth check."

I have ruled that Recall Knowledge is a particularly unobtrusive action, because my PCs often scout out enemies and make Recall Knowledge rolls to understand what they see. But an Interact action is not unobtrusive. It is complicated, distracting physical activity. Interact to Reload would make Binny observed immediately and her target would no longer be flat-footed to her Strike.

On the other hand, because the reloading is part of the Strike rather than a separate action, the special delayed-observation for Strike applies and her target is caught flat-footed.

I am not going to invalidate the tactic one player has used for 13 levels just to fit in an Interact action that I am sure is not in the rules. Manipulate would be fine, Interact is not.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

Yeah I'm with Mathmuse on this. If you have zero apples you have no apples. If you need zero Interact actions you don't need Interact actions.

Everything else is "clearly" filling in the blanks with what you think should be there, what you find plausible and such, but it's clearly not actually on the page.

No I don't think that is a fair characterisation.

It is just that zero actions is not the same as no actions. It does not mean it didn't happen. Its just done for free in terms of number of actions as part of the strike. I know that this statement makes no sense in maths but it does in English.

Free actions, and Reactions both have zero action cost. But both can be reacted to. Both actually occur.

You can ready a trigger to act on a free action. You can react to a free action.

It's not about zero action cost, it's about there being zero of that action, which is the same as none of that action. Zero apples is the same as no apples. If you go to the supermarket and buy 0 apples, they don't print any apples on your receipt. That's the plain English understanding of zero of a thing being none of a thing.

If there was a free action, it would say something like "if a weapon has reload 0, the Interact to reload is a free action". Or it would have the actual layout for a custom free action. But that isn't there in the book.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
painted_green wrote:
graystone wrote:
painted_green wrote:
In any case, the rules say that drawing and loading are baked into the Strike in this case, so the free action interact is out the window anyway, and the text doesn't say anything about this adding traits or a subordinate interact to the strike, so it doesn't.

"Subordinate Actions Core Rulebook pg. 461

An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action."

The Subordinate Action retains all it's traits, so it's moot if the greater action has them as the Subordinate Action triggers them and in this case, the Subordinate Action happens before the strike which would trigger anything that triggers off Interaction.

"Hands
Source Core Rulebook pg. 279 2.0
Some weapons require one hand to wield, and others require two. A few items, such as a longbow, list 1+ for its Hands entry. You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow."

"Wielding Items
Source Core Rulebook pg. 272
Retrieve an item from a backpack , sack, or similar container, action Interact."

Yes, activities inherit traits from subordinate actions, but there is no subordinate action here. The fact that the CRB uses the same non-rule term in two places doesn't mean anything. Yes, retrieving an item from a backpack, as a standalone activity, requires an interact action, but this doesn't automatically apply to any and all courses of action that involve some kind of retrieval. Otherwise, by your logic, Dual-Handed Assault would provoke an attack of opportunity, using the same table that you cite.
It technically does provoke, just like a Quickened Casting spell would still provoke when you remove an action from it....

I agree that having DHA provoke would at least be consistent, though I do not think that the rules support this, since the table in question is only talking about standalone activites. I also do not think it's fair to have DHA provoke, but that's another matter.

(As an aside, the case of Quicken Spell isn't really comparable because casting a spell with somatic components already has the manipulate trait. Of course quickening it does not remove that, and the only reason anyone would think that it should is experience with PF1, which really isn't a valid argument.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Zero is not the same as Null in this case. We know what weapons with null reload look like, they don't have the Reload trait at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

It's not about zero action cost, it's about there being zero of that action, which is the same as none of that action. Zero apples is the same as no apples. If you go to the supermarket and buy 0 apples, they don't print any apples on your receipt. That's the plain English understanding of zero of a thing being none of a thing.

If there was a free action, it would say something like "if a weapon has reload 0, the Interact to reload is a free action". Or it would have the actual layout for a custom free action. But that isn't there in the book.

It doesn't need to be there. It is abundantly clear that the arrow is not being teleported from the quiver into the bow. A reload is happening, even if it takes zero actions. That reload is an event that is happening. That event can be reacted to.

Zero action cost is not the same as it not happening. There are plently of things which cost zero actions that happen in the game. In fact 2 of the 4 types of actions in the game have zero action cost.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Zero is not the same as Null in this case. We know what weapons with null reload look like, they don't have the Reload trait at all.

There's no such thing. All ranged weapons have a reload entry, which is either a number or '-', but the latter is reserved for thrown weapons only.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gortle wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

It's not about zero action cost, it's about there being zero of that action, which is the same as none of that action. Zero apples is the same as no apples. If you go to the supermarket and buy 0 apples, they don't print any apples on your receipt. That's the plain English understanding of zero of a thing being none of a thing.

If there was a free action, it would say something like "if a weapon has reload 0, the Interact to reload is a free action". Or it would have the actual layout for a custom free action. But that isn't there in the book.

It doesn't need to be there. It is abundantly clear that the arrow is not being teleported from the quiver into the bow. A reload is happening, even if it takes zero actions. That reload is an event that is happening. That event can be reacted to.

Zero action cost is not the same as it not happening. There are plently of things which cost zero actions that happen in the game. In fact 2 of the 4 types of actions in the game have zero action cost.

Your first paragraph is irrelevant. That's just your intuition and not something that's included in the rules. I'm also obviously not saying that the arrow teleports into your hand, but this isn't the question. Noone doubts that you 'manipulate' your weapon to attack someone, but that doesn't give a strike the manipulate trait in rules terms.

And again, all that the rules are saying is that reloading a reload 0 weapon does not take an interact action. I would argue that a 'free interact action' is still an interact action (with 'zero action cost', if you want). In any case, going from 'no action' to 'free action with the manipulate trait' is a huge leap that is not justified by anything in the rules and would break many other interactions, as pointed out by Mathmuse.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is like someone asking me to prove that 1 is 1, it's mind boggling to me that you could argue that all draw actions take interact and thus manipulate EXCEPT in the case of bows, because they're special little things that need to be coddled.

At the point Mathmuse ascaphalus and painted green I'm going to have to assume that you're arguing in bad faith and in going to drop this subject because nothing can change you from thick locked in view you've taken, but this kind of bad faith arguing is just disappointing.

I'm 100% that you could ask any developper about this and they'd say that obviously it has the manipulate trait because a reload does occur.

We're never even gonna have an errata on this because the answer is so obvious!

You're free to houserule this in your games of courses but it's a dumb interpretation based on programming language intepretation bug that shouldn't take place in TOTM style TTRPG.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Gonna chime in to agree that, yes, a reload action occurs and therefore an interact->manipulate occurs.

The zero is definitely there to tell you how many actions of your turn it takes up, not to take a scalpel to the rest of the rules.

I'm actually somewhat baffled that people are arguing the opposite, but I'm not surprised. People have come to weirder conclusions.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The reload entry tells us how many actions we have to spend to reload our weapons. That's like the price at the grocery store to buy an apple. Even if that price is $0, you still took an apple, which has the manipulate trait.

1 to 50 of 477 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Is a manipulate action baked into firing a bow? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.