| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 am not arguing from bad faith, but I am arguing mostly about a side point.
For markrivett's original question, "Basically, does being grabbed potentially influence firing a bow via an implicit act of manipulation?" I have a mixed answer. The rules as written for Reload 0 do not impose the manipulate trait on firing a bow, but I think that reloading ought to have the manipulate trait, so ordinarily I would add it as a houserule.
The side point is about the concept of "an implicit act of manipulation." Pathfinder 2nd Edition has rigorous rules. A trait can explicitly add details to an action, such as provoking attacks of opportunity, but nothing happens implicitly. Yet some people kicked implicit up to 11 by saying that drawing an object always implicitly adds an Interact action.
Even on the side point we have some ambiguity, because Reload 1 and Reload 2 do explicitly add Interact actions for the reload. Let me quote the Reload rules:
Reload
Source Core Rulebook pg. 279 (entry updated with errata released on 11/9/2020)
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.
The sentence, "This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons," means that Reload 0 takes zero Interact actions.
The following sentence, "This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action," is supposed to clarify the oddity of reloading with no Interact actions, but it is badly written so it fails at adding clarity. I interpret it to mean that drawing the ammunition and loading the ammunition are added to the Strike action for firing the weapon.
The meaning that best fits the sentence is that an Interact action and a Strike action are merged into one action that is both Interact and Strike, but that greatly violates how Paizo handles actions, so I reject that interpretation. What would fit the action rules would be an Interact action as a subordinate action inside a Strike action, a Strike action as a subordinate action inside an Interact action, or an Interact and Strike as subordinate actions inside a nameless action. Most of the subordinate-action cases would break some features of the game, such as a ranger's Hunted Shot, but the Interact action subordinate inside a Strike breaks the fewest. Yet I have never seem the Paizo developers put a subordinate action into an action without giving that containing action its own individual name.
Other people interpret the first sentence, "This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons," as meaning that reloading always takes an Interact activity and the number on the Reload statistic tells how many actions the Interact activity consumes. A heavy crossbow with Reload 2 takes a two-action Interact, a crossbow with Reload 1 takes a one-action Interact, and a shortbow with Reload 0 takes a zero-action Interact. Since the sentence says, "how many," rather than "cost," I do not believe this is a correct interpretation. Zero-action-cost actions do exist: they are called free actions and come in triggered and untriggered types. Since the Reload rules to not explicitly mention a trigger, let me assume that the zero-action Interact to reload is an untriggered free action. With an Interact free action to reload, a ranger using a bow via Hunted Shot could reload the bow before starting Hunted Shot, shoot an arrow with the first Strike and then have to give up the second Strike because the ranger would not be able to reload the bow in the middle of Hunted Shot. This is evidence that the free-action interpretation is incorrect.
Some people argue that drawing an object requires an Interact action, that an object cannot be drawn without an Interact action. No such rule exists, though in 99% of the cases where an object is Held in hand it was drawn or picked up with an Interact action. The exceptions are Palming an Object and Pickpocket which are essentially an Interact action with its own name and a Thievery check, an object magically appearing in the hand via a spell or magic item activation, though looking up Gloves of Storing I see that its Activate action has an Interact component (not the same as an Interact action), catching a moving object with a reaction (the monk's Return Fire feat lets them shoot a caught arrow in the same reaction), and temporarily drawing an undefined part of Healer's Tools or Thieves' Tools for Battle Medicine or Pick a Lock.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The meaning that best fits the sentence is that an Interact action and a Strike action are merged into one action that is both Interact and Strike, but that greatly violates how Paizo handles actions, so I reject that interpretation. What would fit the action rules would be an Interact action as a subordinate action inside a Strike action, a Strike action as a subordinate action inside an Interact action, or an Interact and Strike as subordinate actions inside a nameless action. Most of the subordinate-action cases would break some features of the game, such as a ranger's Hunted Shot, but the Interact action subordinate inside a Strike breaks the fewest. Yet I have never seem the Paizo developers put a subordinate action into an action without giving that containing action its own individual name.
I fully concur that the designers probably wanted to do this RAI, without actually doing it RAW.
Strike (Reload 0) ♦
You reload your weapon and attack with the same motion. You Interact to reload a weapon, then Strike with that weapon.
Some people argue that drawing an object requires an Interact action, that an object cannot be drawn without an Interact action. No such rule exists
Table 6-2: Changing Equipment gives the default assumption of the system, listing what is required to "Draw or put away a worn item, or pick up an item", "Pass an item to or take an item from a willing creature" and "Retrieve an item from a backpack 3, sack, or similar container". This means that if something does one of these things and doesn't follow that chart it would be an exception and would require it to explain how it differs from that. Nothing in Reload explains any difference except the action cost required to do it. When it says "This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action", IMO it seems pretty clear that the Interact Action becomes "part of the same action" as that is the only listed change from that default assumption of the Changing Equipment chart.
The exceptions are Palming an Object and Pickpocket which are essentially an Interact action with its own name and a Thievery check
Not an exception: Interact says "You can grab an unattended or stored object" and steal/pickpocket affecting attended objects. Palming is it's own action that has Manipulation: it's like it's the tag for actions that do the same things as Interact or looking at it the other way, Interact is the generic Manipulate actions and there are then more specific actions that are similar.
temporarily drawing an undefined part of Healer's Tools or Thieves' Tools for Battle Medicine or Pick a Lock
Tools and such have listed hands required and "You're wielding an item any time you're holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively." this means that even if it doesn't cost an separate action, Table 6-2: Changing Equipment says that it's still an Interact action to do so. Even if it wasn't, those actions have the Manipulation trait so for everything I can think of so it's moot if it's an Interact Action as the base ability triggers things.
Most of the subordinate-action cases would break some features of the game, such as a ranger's Hunted Shot, but the Interact action subordinate inside a Strike breaks the fewest. Yet I have never seem the Paizo developers put a subordinate action into an action without giving that containing action its own individual name.
Well it seems clear to me that it's not renamed for the reasons you give for it to fits the best: it breaks the least amount of things and giving it it's own name has no real upside but would come with a large headache to write exceptions into the new action and/or every ability that references Strike. So leaving it as Strike was really the only option IMO. Now that's not to say they couldn't have gone the extra step of explaining that Reload 0 acts as a subordinate action in a bow strike but IMO they really didn't need to as it's really the only option that makes sense.
Not to mention that from a game balance perspective, giving bows, the most common martial ranged weapon, a specific immunity to the grabbed condition, the only condition that is specifically more penalizing vs ranged combatants than with melee combatants, breaks the mechanics of melee vs ranged balanced that are in baked to the whole system.
Yes AoO specifically lists ranged attack but that's to cover other scenarios, and not everyone has AoO.
This is very much a case of overthinking on the 3 dissent's part. It's reload 0, its a reload, that costs 0, but its still a reload. That's it!
| 5 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.
What the actual hell. This is incredibly disrespectful. Just because you don't like our position you accuse us of arguing in bad faith? And you don't even try to engage our arguments about RAW because you keep appealing to RAI (nevermind the fact that even if you want bow reloads to still have the manipulate traits, there are at least two different ways of doing it and it is not at all clear which would be intended; Mathmuse already pointed this out). But there's literally no point in arguing with you if you just resort to ad hominem, and the fact that people are favoriting your post is disgusting. I am out.
Not to mention that from a game balance perspective, giving bows, the most common martial ranged weapon, a specific immunity to the grabbed condition, the only condition that is specifically more penalizing vs ranged combatants than with melee combatants, breaks the mechanics of melee vs ranged balanced that are in baked to the whole system.
Yes AoO specifically lists ranged attack but that's to cover other scenarios, and not everyone has AoO.
Hm, removing "makes a ranged attack" from what provokes an Attack of Opportunity but giving attacks with bows the manipulate trait would better balance ranged weapons and make provoking more intuitive. It would be fun for a character with a crossbow to say to an enemy fighter adjacent to him, "My crossbow is already loaded," and shoot without provoking.
I just noticed that manipulate on bows will have another effect. Attack of Opportunity says, "If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action." If the Reload 0 is an untriggered Interact free action, then the archer can simply take the action again to finish reloading. But if the Reload 0 was a Interact free action triggered by the Strike or a subordinate Interact in the Strike, the archer cannot try the reload again and can't complete the Strike with an unloaded bow. If the manipulate was on the Strike itself, then the Strike itself is disrupted.
Not to mention that from a game balance perspective, giving bows, the most common martial ranged weapon, a specific immunity to the grabbed condition, the only condition that is specifically more penalizing vs ranged combatants than with melee combatants, breaks the mechanics of melee vs ranged balanced that are in baked to the whole system.
Yes AoO specifically lists ranged attack but that's to cover other scenarios, and not everyone has AoO.
Hm, removing "makes a ranged attack" from what provokes an Attack of Opportunity but giving attacks with bows the manipulate trait would better balance ranged weapons and make provoking more intuitive. It would be fun for a character with a crossbow to say to an enemy fighter adjacent to him, "My crossbow is already loaded," and shoot without provoking.
I just noticed that manipulate on bows will have another effect. Attack of Opportunity says, "If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action." If the Reload 0 is an untriggered Interact free action, then the archer can simply take the action again to finish reloading. But if the Reload 0 was a Interact free action triggered by the Strike or a subordinate Interact in the Strike, the archer cannot try the reload again and can't complete the Strike with an unloaded bow. If the manipulate was on the Strike itself, then the Strike itself is disrupted.
A character with a crossbow can't do that, but they can shoot a creature in the face while being grappled without a flat check if their crossbow is already loaded.
The reload being an interact free action as most people seem to think would mean the archer can just retry again, just as a crossbow person would. This is actually another point in the argument against subordinate because the language of AoO goes out of its way to not include strikes in the things that it disrupts.
This would make a verbal only ranged attack spell (if such a thing existed) undisruptable as well, unless the fighter using the AoO can disrupt concentrate trait attacks, since ranged attacks aren't interuptable.
Not to mention that from a game balance perspective, giving bows, the most common martial ranged weapon, a specific immunity to the grabbed condition, the only condition that is specifically more penalizing vs ranged combatants than with melee combatants, breaks the mechanics of melee vs ranged balanced that are in baked to the whole system.
Yes AoO specifically lists ranged attack but that's to cover other scenarios, and not everyone has AoO.
Hm, removing "makes a ranged attack" from what provokes an Attack of Opportunity but giving attacks with bows the manipulate trait would better balance ranged weapons and make provoking more intuitive. It would be fun for a character with a crossbow to say to an enemy fighter adjacent to him, "My crossbow is already loaded," and shoot without provoking.
I just noticed that manipulate on bows will have another effect. Attack of Opportunity says, "If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action." If the Reload 0 is an untriggered Interact free action, then the archer can simply take the action again to finish reloading. But if the Reload 0 was a Interact free action triggered by the Strike or a subordinate Interact in the Strike, the archer cannot try the reload again and can't complete the Strike with an unloaded bow. If the manipulate was on the Strike itself, then the Strike itself is disrupted.
To be fair, that's effectively how I already rule it, since there should be trade-offs and variations between playstyles. That being said, the only caveat is that since the manipulate and Strike are coupled into the same activity, it only triggers one reaction, as a creature with multiple reactions couldn't trigger multiple times on the same trigger (which is the entire activity).
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.)
The only reason the rules would support it is because of the stance clause in the feat description, because it implies that the regrip is fluid enough to not be disruptive to any stances requiring free hands, whereas if I went into such a stance, and simply did a Quick Draw to my Two-handed Bastard Sword, and then removed a hand from it as a free action, I would have ended my stance the instant I chose to Quick Draw (which, by the way, would obviously provoke). A GM can certainly rule otherwise, but the fact that there is rules precedent means there is cause for doubt.
The rules may very much disagree with you in regards to Quickened Casting, and it certainly gave me pause:
A spell description lists the components required to Cast the Spell. For most spells, the number of components is equal to the number of actions you must spend to Cast the Spell. Each component adds certain traits to the Cast a Spell activity, and some components have special requirements.
I use the word "may" because each spell does not define what components are for how many actions, or you have spells which add only one or two components for 3 actions, meaning removing an action may not technically remove a component. As such, it effectively falls into GM FIAT territory.
There's also the neat interaction with the Somatic trait:
A somatic component is a specific hand movement or gesture that generates a magical nexus. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to make gestures. You can use this component while holding something in your hand, but not if you are restrained or otherwise unable to gesture freely.
Spells that require you to touch the target require a somatic component. You can do so while holding something as long as part of your hand is able to touch the target (even if it’s through a glove or gauntlet).
So if I were to, say, Quickened Casting a Vampiric Touch spell, I could not choose to remove the Somatic component from the spell, even if the Somatic component is tied to a single action.
|
RAW it takes zero Reload action to reload a bow. Because "This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action."
The problem lies in what that "same action" is. Is it just a Strike action (no Manipulate trait per se) ? Or is it a Strike action with the Manipulate trait due to the "drawing ammunition" part ?
RAW says nothing about it.
Note that it has to be a Strike, lest we lose the Magus archers.
So, GM decides.
I would rule it has the Manipulate trait because of the trait's description and because it is still reloading the weapon, even if it is not a Reload (1 action) per se.
BTW, Mathmuse, your players are wrong : the arrow is not resting on the string since it is drawn as part of the Strike action.
Edit : just read the Repeating trait. It feels like Reload 0 does not always imply Manipulate. But it is all so flimsy that I stand by my "GM decides" position.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that the repeating trait could have been clearer, but it's existence implies that they could potentially not have the manipulate trait, but that would mean standard non repeating reload zero weapons would have the manipulate trait.
This is based on logic and inferall though not RAW.
What bothers me most is the mobile shot stance.
Assuming that the strike won't trigger aoe, what about the draw/interact?
The answer is EXACTLY the same with a bow as it is with a crossbow... So if reloads trigger for crossbows, which can use the stance, then it stands to reason the bow would. And if it's not an issue that crossbow reloads trigger, then it too shouldn't be an issue that bows do.
I see no substantial difference between a bow Strike and Reloading Trick...
Really?
One is a Basic Action and the other is an Activity.
A Strike with a Reload 0 weapon is a Basic Action, regardless of any description about retrieving and loading ammunition, not an Activity.
Any and all Strikes with a Bow is automatically an Activity because it has a Reload baked into it though...
Where in any of the Actions rules does it imply that a Basic Action can also be an Activity?
If Strike with a Bow is an Activity that includes the Subordinate Actions of Reload then Strike then it is no longer the Basic Action "Strike" and, thus, does not work with Haste.
. . . 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. . .
I disbelieve, that RAI or RAW, a Bow Strike is an Activity instead of a Basic Action.
This isn't geometry where a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle may not be a square.
|
|
The answer is EXACTLY the same with a bow as it is with a crossbow... So if reloads trigger for crossbows, which can use the stance, then it stands to reason the bow would. And if it's not an issue that crossbow reloads trigger, then it too shouldn't be an issue that bows do.What bothers me most is the mobile shot stance.
Assuming that the strike won't trigger aoe, what about the draw/interact?
I thought that too at first. But then I realized that, by RAW, you cannot use a 1-action Reload with a bow. So a crossbow-user could Reload, Step and Strike without risking an AoO, while an Archer could not.
Even though RL archers can actually reload their bow and wait for the proper moment to draw and strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any and all Strikes with a Bow is automatically an Activity because it has a Reload baked into it though...Where in any of the Actions rules does it imply that a Basic Action can also be an Activity?
Activities
Source Core Rulebook pg. 461 2.0An activity typically involves using multiple actions to create an effect greater than you can produce with a single action, or combining multiple single actions to produce an effect that’s different from merely the sum of those actions. In some cases, usually when spellcasting, an activity can consist of only 1 action, 1 reaction, or even 1 free action.
Cast a Spell is a basic action that, as shown above, is an activity. Activate an Item [Cast a spell] is a basic action that requires you to "use the Cast a Spell activity. In fact, it says "The Activate an Item activity" in it's text so I guess ALL activations are activities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought that too at first. But then I realized that, by RAW, you cannot use a 1-action Reload with a bow. So a crossbow-user could Reload, Step and Strike without risking an AoO, while an Archer could not.
Even though RL archers can actually reload their bow and wait for the proper moment to draw and strike.
Nothing that I know of prevents you from taking longer than normal to do something: IE nothing prevents a 1 action reload with a bow just as you could take 2 actions to reload a hand crossbow. There just isn't any reason to do so most times. If someone wants rules for it, you can just default to the Changing Equipment Interact action for drawing an item [arrow].
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a big component of the confusion here is the mixed usage of the word "Action"
Since Action is both the term for the "resource" which you get three of per turn but it also describes a number of various "single Action" (as in the resource cost) THINGS that you can do such as Strike which, in some cases such as this, are actually Activities because they involve doing/resolving the effects/rules of various different "Actions" (as in a THING to you do).
This is part of why I wish that the whole system and all rules would have been more strictly defined and to eliminate any and all instances where a single word such as Action, Strike, Move, Interact, Check, Roll, etc have more than one potential meaning. I'm sure it's partially just a "me" thing in that I don't feel that "natural language" is appropriate for use with game design or mechanics but I really do feel like the whole edition could have been VASTLY improved if they hired a senior code/script/computer dev and designer to input all of the rules into some software so as to sniff out all of these weird identical name issues and interpretive conundrums.
They could have even kept 100% of the flavor text intact if they did this, all they would have had to do is follow the corrective guidance provided by the strict scripting tests to define the rules and ensure the flavor was appropriately differentiated such as with itallics wherever they appear to indicate what is a rule and what is a narrative/flavor description.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's just a matter of counting.
If you're going to reload a heavy crossbow that takes 2 Interact actions. If you're grabbed that means that you need 2 flat checks for trying an action with the manipulate trait.
If it's only a light crossbow then it's only 1 Interact action that triggers 1 flat check.
And with a bow it's 0 Interact actions, so 0 flat checks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And with a bow it's 0 Interact actions, so 0 flat checks.
I think it's more a matter of logic and balance: You just have to ask yourself this:
Say someone wants an arrow to use with their Telekinetic Projectile so they want to pull it out and drop it. Would drawing it without the bow in play trigger a check? If so [I sure think it does], why would holding a bow in your other hand negate that? And if you do rule like that, would that person drawing an arrow for their spell then ignore the flat check if they too held a bow in hand but never intended to fire it? Heck, they could even draw it faster and just drop the arrow after it's loaded.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's just a matter of counting.
If you're going to reload a heavy crossbow that takes 2 Interact actions. If you're grabbed that means that you need 2 flat checks for trying an action with the manipulate trait.
If it's only a light crossbow then it's only 1 Interact action that triggers 1 flat check.
And with a bow it's 0 Interact actions, so 0 flat checks.
Flat checks go with the Manipulate trait. Interact actions have it, but they are not the only ones.
If the action you use to Strike with a Reload 0 weapon has the Manipulate trait, flat check it is.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's just a matter of counting.
If you're going to reload a heavy crossbow that takes 2 Interact actions. If you're grabbed that means that you need 2 flat checks for trying an action with the manipulate trait.
If it's only a light crossbow then it's only 1 Interact action that triggers 1 flat check.
And with a bow it's 0 Interact actions, so 0 flat checks.
What is the difference here to spell casting?
There are 1 action, 2 action and 3 action spells.
If I cast Magic Missile - do I have to do
1 flat check for the single action
2 flat checks for the double action
3 flat checks for the triple action
To me it was the same - loading a Heavy Crossbow is one 'action' with a cost of 2 'actions'
Is there wording in the spellcasting that make it clear it is different to something like reload? Because by that logic - reload heavy crossvow = 2 flat checks I think most spells need 2 flat checks as well.
To me it was the same - loading a Heavy Crossbow is one 'action' with a cost of 2 'actions'
This isn't completely true.
"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." So a DM can have it be a single activity or could allow it to be 2 separate actions. For instance, that heavy crossbow could only trigger once [a single activity] or twice [2 actions on maybe 2 different turns].
I think it's just a matter of counting.
If you're going to reload a heavy crossbow that takes 2 Interact actions. If you're grabbed that means that you need 2 flat checks for trying an action with the manipulate trait.
If it's only a light crossbow then it's only 1 Interact action that triggers 1 flat check.
And with a bow it's 0 Interact actions, so 0 flat checks.
What is the difference here to spell casting?
There are 1 action, 2 action and 3 action spells.
If I cast Magic Missile - do I have to do
1 flat check for the single action
2 flat checks for the double action
3 flat checks for the triple actionTo me it was the same - loading a Heavy Crossbow is one 'action' with a cost of 2 'actions'
Is there wording in the spellcasting that make it clear it is different to something like reload? Because by that logic - reload heavy crossvow = 2 flat checks I think most spells need 2 flat checks as well.
Not necessarily, but it can certainly be ruled that way for most every purpose:
A spell description lists the components required to Cast the Spell. For most spells, the number of components is equal to the number of actions you must spend to Cast the Spell. Each component adds certain traits to the Cast a Spell activity, and some components have special requirements.
So a general rule of thumb would be that if a spell has Somatic and Verbal components, and 2 actions, one of those actions must be used to perform Somatic components, which is what triggers the flat check.
Magic Missiles is a strange case, however, since, while it can have as little as 1 action, and up to 3 actions, it still has to have 2 spell components to cast. (It used to have the Material/Focus component in the playtest, but got removed for balancing purposes, if memory serves.) So, if we have the 3 Action version, if we cast it, does it have 2 Somatic or 2 Verbal components? Does the spellcaster get to choose which of the multiple components it has? Conversely, if we cast the 1 Action version, do I only have to supply either the Verbal or Somatic components? The rules are silent on this, so it falls to the GM, though if Magic Missiles was a spell with a range of Touch, you would be forced to supply the Somatic over the Verbal based on this entry:
A somatic component is a specific hand movement or gesture that generates a magical nexus. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to make gestures. You can use this component while holding something in your hand, but not if you are restrained or otherwise unable to gesture freely.
Spells that require you to touch the target require a somatic component. You can do so while holding something as long as part of your hand is able to touch the target (even if it’s through a glove or gauntlet).
Otherwise, that's the only form of guidance we have in regards to spell components interacting with action economy.
As for loading Heavy Crossbows being a singular "action," the rules go out of their way to spell this out as an activity that may be split up if the GM permits it (and most do). To suggest it's only a singular action is patently false.
|
|
First
Thanks for all the replies. First of all - I'm NOT saying that a multi-action spell should mean multiple flat checks. I just try to understand the logic of some posters here and it got me thinking - do I count correctly.
Activity was the word I was missing - I agree that if you split an activity over two rounds then you do a flat check in both rounds
BUT
Spells: A somatic component is a specific hand movement or gesture that generates a magical nexus. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to make gestures.
CRB says: Casting a spell is a special activity that takes a variable number of actions depending on the the spell as listed in each spell's stat block.
compare this to
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 a weapon.
To be clear - as GM I ask for a single flat check for the reload activity (unless split across rounds) or the spell casting activity.
Should I do 2 flat checks for Silence - 2 action spell with (Material, Somatic), as well as 2 flat checks on (most?) 3-actions spells?
This assumes I count actions (and discard all verbal actions in my count). Yes - both material and somatic add the manipulate trait.
If I count actions, then this seems the only sensible way.
For reactions, it's only one trigger, because it's in relation to a singular activity; if the activity possesses the trait that the reaction triggers on, then it triggers when the creature is performing the activity. Even if a given activity has multiple triggers (such as each action of said activity providing a trigger), that's still multiple reactions to the same trigger, which is the activity, not the action; if that makes sense. As most activities are combined actions that must all be done in order to achieve the desired effect, it stands to reason that one disrupted action towards the activity ruins the entire activity. This is obviously true for spells, but I would say mostly true for activities like 2 action Reloads, or even Picking Locks, Disabling Devices, etc. since it makes no sense for a disrupted action to still count towards completing the activity.
For flat checks, RAW says per action, based on the Grabbed condition's wording:
If you attempt a manipulate action while grabbed, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or it is lost; roll the check after spending the action, but before any effects are applied.
So, if I am Grabbed, attempting to cast a 2 or 3 action spell with Material and Somatic components, that requires 2 separate flat checks, one for each component; failing either one means the spell is wasted, since you must fulfill all components of the spell to do so.
The big problem, RAW, is determining which actions are or aren't a Manipulate, since you have spells like Magic Missile, which can have as little as 0 (for the 1 action casting) or as many as 2 (for the 3 action casting), depending on interpretation or GM FIAT. The rules give a good assumption (which is 1 action per component), but it's not entirely enforced throughout the spell action economy.
Any and all Strikes with a Bow is automatically an Activity because it has a Reload baked into it though...Where in any of the Actions rules does it imply that a Basic Action can also be an Activity?Activities
Source Core Rulebook pg. 461 2.0
An activity typically involves using multiple actions to create an effect greater than you can produce with a single action, or combining multiple single actions to produce an effect that’s different from merely the sum of those actions. In some cases, usually when spellcasting, an activity can consist of only 1 action, 1 reaction, or even 1 free action.Cast a Spell is a basic action that, as shown above, is an activity. Activate an Item [Cast a spell] is a basic action that requires you to "use the Cast a Spell activity. In fact, it says "The Activate an Item activity" in it's text so I guess ALL activations are activities.
Well sh!t. That's rather explicit =)
Excuse me. I have to go eat crow now...
Omg. No. This is one of the cases when 'action' means 'activity'. Besides you don't spend actions one by one when casting, even for variable action cost spells. Casting a spell is one whole activity. So of course it's only one flat check per spell.
For flat checks, RAW says per action, based on the Grabbed condition's wording:If you attempt a manipulate action while grabbed, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or it is lost; roll the check after spending the action, but before any effects are applied.So, if I am Grabbed, attempting to cast a 2 or 3 action spell with Material and Somatic components, that requires 2 separate flat checks, one for each component; failing either one means the spell is wasted, since you must fulfill all components of the spell to do so.
Action and Activity are specific game terms. I trust that if Paizo meant Activity, they would have stated Activity. However, they didn't, they stated Action in the RAW. And we have rules giving us a standard Action identity to spells, which is 1 action per component on average, so people can reasonably come to the conclusion that it's multiple flat checks per Action that comes with the Manipulate trait, and that failing any of them results in a wasted spell. For most 2 action spells, that's one flat check anyway. The only big difference between an action and an activity is in regards to reactions, which is that only one reaction can trigger per activity (per round, anyway), even if it creates multiple triggers.
The triggers listed in the stat blocks of reactions and some free actions limit when you can use those actions. 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.
This limitation of one action per trigger is per creature; more than one creature can use a reaction or free action in response to a given trigger.
Odds are, a GM won't let an activity trigger a reaction twice when it's already being triggered by the same activity, similar to the rules with movement:
Some reactions and free actions are triggered by a creature using an action with the move trait. The most notable example is Attack of Opportunity. Actions with the move trait can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled. Each time you exit a square (or move 5 feet if not using a grid) within a creature’s reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature). If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability.
But really, this is only a potential issue for spells with both Somatic and Material/Focus components, since those are two separate components that both must be fulfilled to complete the activity (read: two separate actions), so it's borderline corner case anyway.
|
|
Action and Activity are specific game terms. I trust that if Paizo meant Activity, they would have stated Activity. However, they didn't, they stated Action in the RAW.
This bit got me looking at the CRB a little bit closer
And according to the CRB an activity is one kind of action
Actions
You affect the world around you primarily by using actions, which produce effects. Actions are most closely measured and restricted during the encounter mode of play, but even when it isn’t important for you to keep strict track of actions, they remain the way in which you interact with the game world. There are four types of actions: single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions....
Activities usually take longer and require using multiple actions, which must be spent in succession. Stride is a single action, but Sudden Charge is an activity in which you use both the Stride and Strike actions to generate its effect.
So to reiterate - an activity is an action that normally requires using multiple actions
Now I'm looking at casting Silence (as it is 2 actions, has material and somatic components - so no discussion to remove verbal)
So in Math talk (for MathMuse)
1 A (=spell casting activity) = 1 A (=action) = 2 A (Single Actions)
Yes 1 action = 1 action= 2 actions
Mathematically nothing wrong with it.
The question is - do we count/check for A, A or A when we ask for a flat check?
Why does it matter:
Loading a bow is 1 A, 1 A or 0 A
Loading a light crossbow is 1 A, 1 A or 1 A
Loading a heavy crossbow is 1 A, 1 A or 2 A
To me it seems the majority actually count A or A if we apply flat checks. That is in line with a single check for a free action, reaction, spell-casting action, multi-action action.
RAW only says action. And the term actually seems more ambiguous as I thought.
Even the icon key refers to this:
ACTION ICON KEY
These icons appear in stat blocks as shorthand for each type of action.
[one-action] Single Action
[two-actions] Two-Action Activity
[three-actions] Three-Action Activity
[reaction] Reaction
[free-action] Free Action
A three-action-Activity still is just an action aka 1 A but 3 A
For a long time I thought that an activity was just a group of 2 or more actions, whereas an action was, well, just a single action. Not too long ago, I found out that even a single action could be considered an activity.
If there is no difference between them, what then is the point of having two terms?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is some confusion between Actions (the encompassing term) and single actions.
While we should not treat the rules like computer code, they do use plenty of programming principles in their execution. Activities inherit from the building block single actions they contain. Some terms are overloaded with different meanings in different contexts. In the case of bows, the Strike single action is overloaded with a Strike activity that inherits the manipulate trait from its reload component.
Mainly because this would mean that shooting a bow would count as provoking twice for attack of opportunity (one for the ranged attack the other for drawing the arrow) which I don't think is intentional
Combat Reflexes is so rare as to be a negligible consideration in this case.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with that is that "Reload" isn't an action, it is a weapon statistic, and nor does it have the "Manipulate" trait. So you would need to argue that an Interact action is added (as a free action perhaps?) for the "Manipulate" trait to carry over.
#1 Well it IS a weapon trait, Reload, so it IS a weapon stat.
#2 while reload isn't an action it represents one that DOES have manipulate; rules that interact with it say "Interact to reload" making reload synonymous with Interact.#3 There is NO need to argue for a free action as the rules for something happening as "part of the same action"[as reload 0 is described]; 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." So lets fill in the blanks once.
An action [Strike] might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions [Interact to Reload]—in a different circumstance or with different effects.
Subordinate actions also solves triggers: "This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action." It also accounts for the 0 action cost for reload 0: "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."
While we should not treat the rules like computer code, they do use plenty of programming principles in their execution. Activities inherit from the building block single actions they contain. Some terms are overloaded with different meanings in different contexts. In the case of bows, the Strike single action is overloaded with a Strike activity that inherits the manipulate trait from its reload component.My problem with that is that "Reload" isn't an action, it is a weapon statistic, and nor does it have the "Manipulate" trait. So you would need to argue that an Interact action is added (as a free action perhaps?) for the "Manipulate" trait to carry over.
Strike as an activity includes both Reload and Strike the single action.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is some confusion between Actions (the encompassing term) and single actions.
While we should not treat the rules like computer code, they do use plenty of programming principles in their execution. Activities inherit from the building block single actions they contain. Some terms are overloaded with different meanings in different contexts. In the case of bows, the Strike single action is overloaded with a Strike activity that inherits the manipulate trait from its reload component.
There's definitely some programming like thinking involved in the rules. But I think you have your inheritance wrong.
An activity does NOT inherit the traits of the subordinate actions. Rather, while you're executing all those subordinate actions, they still have their traits and themselves trigger effects.
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.
So to use the programming analogy: an activity is a function, and the subordinate actions are other functions called from your main function. The subordinate actions have whatever side effects (traits) they may have. Your main function's code doesn't change based on how your subordinate functions are implemented. The names of the basic actions referred to are basically interfaces.
You can see this in action in for example the Twin Takedown feat. The feat doesn't have the Attack trait, but its subordinate actions do. It says to calculate MAP "normally".
If you did Twin Takedown at the start of your turn, how much MAP would you have after the first and second attack? If activities absorbed all the traits of their subordinate activities, you'd end up with only 1x MAP (for the activity) or 3x (for the activity, and for the subordinate actions). That's both clearly wrong.
So the CRB section about subordinate actions is a bit misleading, because it only explicitly draws attention to the fact that parent activity traits aren't moved to the subordinate actions. But it never ever says the opposite either: traits from the subordinate actions don't go to the parent either. All the traits stay exactly where they started, which works perfectly, because you're also doing all of the subordinate actions. So all the traits get executed the precise number of times they should be. Twin Takedown has two subordinate attack actions and increases MAP exactly twice.
---
Bringing this back to archery: reloading a bow takes 0 Interact actions. This means processing 0 subordinate actions with the Manipulate trait.
|
|
If you did Twin Takedown at the start of your turn, how much MAP would you have after the first and second attack? If activities absorbed all the traits of their subordinate activities, you'd end up with only 1x MAP (for the activity) or 3x (for the activity, and for the subordinate actions). That's both clearly wrong.
Just to throw out a curveball here
Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty ...
Bad example as we have
activities (which we learned are also actions)
actions with the attack trait
checks with the attack trait
So even if it is just one activity - you have 2 checks and that is what it asks you to count.
Also a lot of Fighter traits make counting difficult. In (most of ) these cases it writes explicitly how often to apply MAP as actions/activities/checks etc. are all over the place.
Examples:
Power Attack: 1 melee strike with added damage - apply 2 MAP
Swipe: 1 melee strike (against 2 foes) - apply 2 MAP
Quick Reversal: 2 melee strikes (against 2 foes) - apply 1 MAP
Knockdown: Strike and athletics check - apply 2 MAP - but only afterwards
Double Shot: 2 strikes at -2, apply 2 MAP afterwards
So we have 1 strike action - 1 MAP
1 strike action - 2 MAP
2 strike actions - 1 MAP
2 strike actions - 2 MAP
Adding check into the mix makes it even more complex - therefore it is explicitly mentioned.
The one (I found) that seems not to spell it out explicitly: Combat Grab.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dr Thod: the ones you mention that say it specifically, all of them do it differently than normal.
Power Attack: adds more MAP than normal for a single strike.
Swipe: You're attacking two people but only increase MAP afterwards.
Quick Reversal: applying less MAP than normal
Knockdown: Apply MAP later
Double Shot: Apply MAP later
Combat Grab: you're gaining the grabbed condition without actually doing a grab (therefore no extra MAP; nor does anything that give you a bonus to grabbing help to do it)
Twin Takedown on the other hand says that you apply MAP "normally", which is why it's interesting for this example. Normally means that the attack trait on the first strike is processed before you do the second strike.
If activities inherited the traits of their subordinate actions, then Twin Takedown would end up with three attack traits (since the rules for subordinate actions explicitly state that the subordinate actions keep their traits and those subordinate actions trigger those traits).
Because the subordinate actions keep all their traits and effects, it is not necessary and would even be wrong for the activity to inherit them.
If you did Twin Takedown at the start of your turn, how much MAP would you have after the first and second attack? If activities absorbed all the traits of their subordinate activities, you'd end up with only 1x MAP (for the activity) or 3x (for the activity, and for the subordinate actions). That's both clearly wrong.
Just to throw out a curveball here
Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty ...Bad example as we have
activities (which we learned are also actions)
actions with the attack trait
checks with the attack traitSo even if it is just one activity - you have 2 checks and that is what it asks you to count.
Also a lot of Fighter traits make counting difficult. In (most of ) these cases it writes explicitly how often to apply MAP as actions/activities/checks etc. are all over the place.
Examples:
Power Attack: 1 melee strike with added damage - apply 2 MAP
Swipe: 1 melee strike (against 2 foes) - apply 2 MAP
Quick Reversal: 2 melee strikes (against 2 foes) - apply 1 MAP
Knockdown: Strike and athletics check - apply 2 MAP - but only afterwards
Double Shot: 2 strikes at -2, apply 2 MAP afterwardsSo we have 1 strike action - 1 MAP
1 strike action - 2 MAP
2 strike actions - 1 MAP
2 strike actions - 2 MAPAdding check into the mix makes it even more complex - therefore it is explicitly mentioned.
The one (I found) that seems not to spell it out explicitly: Combat Grab.
Very few of these actvities actually have the attack trait and traits don't bubble up to activities. So it is not a problem at all its easy to work out.
Many also specify.For Combat Grab there is only one action that causes or uses MAP - the Strike. The Grab mentioned is a condition, not Grapple the skill check with the attack trait. As long as you notice that, it is simple to resolve.