Players shouldn't be expected to go through the mental gymnastics as reading 0 as different from none.
That reminds me of an argument that happened a few years ago about an obscure feat or ability, which would, in essence, increases your shield bonus by +1.
The way it was worded prompted a joker to argue that this would give him a +1 Shield bonus to AC, even without actually wielding a shield.
Counter argument: "Without a shield, you do not have a Shield bonus of +0, you don't have a Shield bonus, period." And a bonus you don't have to begin with can't be improved by a feat. So yeah.
As for balance, bows are already so far ahead of crossbows, now making it impossible to interrupt an archer with an AoO on top of everything else just makes melee guys sad. Why do you hate melee guys so much... :p
PS: Also someone used a 5th level ritual on the thread. But hey, valid target, not older then 1 year.
Players shouldn't be expected to go through the mental gymnastics as reading 0 as different from none.
Just the ones about reloading not actually taking any action at all to do.
Honestly, I lean more towards 'Reload 0 means it still requires an Interact activity of 0 actions'. This also works with the Reload 0 repeating crossbows because those don't work like an automatic pistol, from what I read. You are still working mechanisms, even if the mechanisms greatly speed up your reload. And easier to believe than the 'I can draw an arrow to shoot without manipulating but I can't draw an arrow to point' anomaly.
If nothing else, saying that you can reload a bow while someone's grappling you sounds Too Good To Be True ... and there's a rule covering that too. (Not that DC 5 is that bad, you're looking at an eighty percent success rate not counting any wandering modifiers ... )
Players shouldn't be expected to go through the mental gymnastics as reading 0 as different from none.Just the ones about reloading not actually taking any action at all to do.
Honestly, I lean more towards 'Reload 0 means it still requires an Interact activity of 0 actions'. This also works with the Reload 0 repeating crossbows because those don't work like an automatic pistol, from what I read. You are still working mechanisms, even if the mechanisms greatly speed up your reload. And easier to believe than the 'I can draw an arrow to shoot without manipulating but I can't draw an arrow to point' anomaly.
If nothing else, saying that you can reload a bow while someone's grappling you sounds Too Good To Be True ... and there's a rule covering that too. (Not that DC 5 is that bad, you're looking at an eighty percent success rate not counting any wandering modifiers ... )
The problem is, those same people are arguing you don't suffer a DC 5 flat check for the activity, or that even if you do, you don't lose anything because the activity takes no actions (and you can just do it again). And even better, they argue that because no action cost is present, no reactions take place either, even though abilities like Quicken Spell prove otherwise.
This whole "Jedi Defense" shenanigans is getting old, though. The idea that creatures don't need hands or capacity to manipulate things with their limbs for basic things to work is beyond absurd that people's interpretation don't realize they are proposing this as being possible when it actually isn't by the rules (barring special abilities of course).
It was tedious enough back in the old Battle Medicine debate, where people said you didn't need anything besides the feat to use it (thank goodness for errata making it clear, even if some concessions were made for balance purposes). It's even sillier here because the rules outright state you must load your projectile weapon before you fire it, and has given an actual example of what that would work with the very weapon they argue shouldn't provoke to begin with, and explains in glaring detail how that is (which is one hand holding the actual weapon, the other grabbing a projectile from a quiver or similar storage container, and nocking the projectile onto the weapon).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Were reload 0 to be Errata’d to include a subordinate interact action, I would be happy with that decision. It honestly makes more logical sense for it to. But I think the absurdity of retrieving an arrow from a quiver into your hand taking an action, but drawing it to fire from a bow not, to be enough of a clear sign that the game design around this does not care enough about logic for me to think 0 interact actions means anything other than no interact actions.
I think the game is cleaner if subordinate actions are specified within the action that grants them, and if that is the intention, it is not that complicated of a fix compared to other outstanding issues in the game (like how acid splash works).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I think it much harder to argue that an arrow isn't being manipulated than it is to say it is.Players shouldn't be expected to go through the mental gymnastics as reading 0 as different from none.As opposed to the mental gymnastics of reloading that's not actually reloading?
I also find it hard to argue that attacking with a sword doesn't involve manipulating the sword. However, it would be absurd to say that it has the manipulate trait because we aren't given any indication that it does.
I understand the argument that striking with a reload 0 weapon has the manipulate trait even if I personally disagree with it and find the arguments lackluster to say the least, but everyone bringing in the literal meaning of the English word manipulate isn't really helping that side of the argument. Not everything in pf2 that involves manipulating an object has the manipulate trait. In fact, most don't.
Were reload 0 to be Errata’d to include a subordinate interact action, I would be happy with that decision. It honestly makes more logical sense for it to.
and there you have your answer. There are two ways to read the rules and you insist on picking the other. The game does have another rule that covers ambiguous situations.
But I think the absurdity of retrieving an arrow from a quiver into your hand taking an action, but drawing it to fire from a bow not, to be enough of a clear sign that the game design around this does not care enough about logic for me to think 0 interact actions means anything other than no interact actions.
Shooting is more than the mechanics of loading the bow. It includes aiming and timing as well.
Regardless the net effect of bows being faster to fire than crossbows, is traditional in the game and relected in real life. So the result is fair. (Pity they don't consider sustained fire or fatigue.) That is surely much more reasonable than arguing over why an action counts as zero cost.I think the game is cleaner if subordinate actions are specified within the action that grants them, and if that is the intention, it is not that complicated of a fix compared to other outstanding issues in the game (like how acid splash works).
It would be better if they made it a free action and put the right traits on it. Then we wouldn't have a problem. You couldn't argue zero meant it didn't happen. Subordinate actions are fine - just a pest to look up.
Were reload 0 to be Errata’d to include a subordinate interact action, I would be happy with that decision. It honestly makes more logical sense for it to. But I think the absurdity of retrieving an arrow from a quiver into your hand taking an action, but drawing it to fire from a bow not, to be enough of a clear sign that the game design around this does not care enough about logic for me to think 0 interact actions means anything other than no interact actions.
I think the game is cleaner if subordinate actions are specified within the action that grants them, and if that is the intention, it is not that complicated of a fix compared to other outstanding issues in the game (like how acid splash works).
Or you could consider that combat rounds in D&D/PF are supposed to take about 6 seconds. If this is covered by 3 actions, then each of those covers about 2 seconds of activities.
It is absolutely possible for a skilled archer to shoot more then 3 arrows in the span of 6 seconds and still hit a target, so this is more a matter of the action system not having enough granularity to depict the loading and shooting of a bow as individual actions.
GURPS uses 1-second rounds for example, that would be like PF using 6 actions per round. It would just be a bit awkward to have to make most things use 2 or 4 actions, just so that (re)loading and shooting a bow could be represented by 1 action each, just to avoid the idea that a 0 action activity 'doesn't actually happen'.
The game has the granularity for an action to include 2 subordinate actions. It does this frequently, it just needs to state that is what is happening. In the case of reload, we specifically get language that counters this idea by telling us a weapon with 0 reload requires 0 interact actions.
I’d rather not assume that subordinate actions can be implied within the game system. Even if the original design intention was for all ranged attacks to always have the manipulate trait, if the language is not there then we have 3 potential outcomes:
1. Most players assume it has the manipulate trait, so they test it as such in play and the issue never will get errata because it never causes issue in play enough to get attention in PFS or on the boards.
Most players could be getting it wrong if that was not the intention, but since assuming it is more restrictive will lead more players to avoid it, it comes up less.
2. Most players are unsure, so they try to follow the wording in the book vs how they think it should work. Lots more people start using bows in these situations and it becomes an issue that gets attention. If the intention is that reload 0 does not require an interact action, no errata will be forth coming. If it does force the issue (like it did with battle medicine) then the game gets clearer rules as a result. Some players will get upset because they feel an option got nerfed, but at least then it will be because the game was really designed that way and not because other players are assuming restrictions the language doesn’t say.
3. It is a minor enough game issue that the developers don’t really care which way it is played. Either way people run it turns out to fine and fun and not really ruin anyone’s fun or build. It remains confusing for organized play, but otherwise people figure it out at their table and that is good enough.
My personal feelings about these rules have changed over time to where, as a GM, I prefer to run ambiguous rules as permissively as possible and talk about how running them that way affects my game as much as possible, because it tests out that scenario in a way that either works out fine, or encourages faster Errata if the issue is really causing problems. Others won’t. That is fine. I think trying to convince others that more restrictive readings of the rules is what is intended, and thus should be followed probably only slows down the process because options players don’t use don’t really cause enough problems to get fixed.
Yes, I think it much harder to argue that an arrow isn't being manipulated than it is to say it is.Players shouldn't be expected to go through the mental gymnastics as reading 0 as different from none.As opposed to the mental gymnastics of reloading that's not actually reloading?I also find it hard to argue that attacking with a sword doesn't involve manipulating the sword. However, it would be absurd to say that it has the manipulate trait because we aren't given any indication that it does.
I understand the argument that striking with a reload 0 weapon has the manipulate trait even if I personally disagree with it and find the arguments lackluster to say the least, but everyone bringing in the literal meaning of the English word manipulate isn't really helping that side of the argument. Not everything in pf2 that involves manipulating an object has the manipulate trait. In fact, most don't.
The reason why the manipulate trait isn't on the weapon is because your hand is already on the sword. The game is abstract enough that it doesn't state you need to constantly change grips on your weapons in the throes of battle. Compared to the game outright defining how you attack with a projectile weapon, such as a longbow, there is less evidence supporting the claim that melee weapons are manipulative.
Now, if you had to draw your sword from your scabbard to attack with it every time, even if it didn't take actions to do so (such as with Quick Draw), then you would definitely provoke reactions every time you attacked with it. This is literally no different actions-wise with a Reload 0 projectile weapon. If Quick Draw triggers reactions, why shouldn't Reload 0 weapons? I mean, they technically already do, but a Reload 0 weapon being fired into melee can't ever be disrupted, which makes no sense when you consider the game defines a clearly manipulative activity taking place when utilizing a bow. And honestly, it gives better parity between other ranged options. Throwing weapons don't get disrupted, they already pay for it by having to waste a weapon rune on functionality. Crossbows only get disrupted for loading, not attacking.
Nobody is bringing in real-world definitions for their argument, this is a strawman. The argument is that the game is inconsistent with what does or does not possess manipulate traits, and that drawing an item from a bandolier triggers reactions, but drawing an item from a quiver onto a bow (or even just in your hand) does not, just because it has actions. Especially when there is no general rule that Free Actions can't trigger Reactions, and is further evidenced by the Kip Up feat outright specifying it doesn't trigger reactions despite being a Free Action to perform.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game has the granularity for an action to include 2 subordinate actions. It does this frequently, it just needs to state that is what is happening. In the case of reload, we specifically get language that counters this idea by telling us a weapon with 0 reload requires 0 interact actions.
But it already does, in greater detail than any other type of weapon in the game.
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 [hand] to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow.
So we are given a clear description of how 1+ entry weapons work. You take one hand to hold the weapon, and the other draws/retrieves, nocks, and looses ammunition (such as arrows). Very simple stuff, and it doesn't mess with other Reload 0 weapons that don't have 1+ entries, such as Air Repeaters, Repeating Crossbows, etc. This argument of "striking triggers reactions and risks disruption" only applies to weapons like bows, because the game expresses clearly defined manipulation in regards to its operation, more than any other projectile weapon, and because Reload weapons state they must be loaded prior to being fired, disrupting the activity it's baked into consequently means the attack itself is disrupted (because it can't function until the weapon is loaded, and the activity it's baked into is disrupted). Incidentally, this is no different than if a reaction disrupted a Quick Draw feat; if the Interact to Draw is disrupted from a critical hit, the following attack doesn't take place.
Consequently, you don't have that clear description for things like swords, axes, javelins, firearms, etc. so the manipulation argument doesn't apply to them. It's too abstract for it to be universally applicable. Not for 1+ entry weapons, though, which gives a clear and concise example. So, I'm fine with conceding that Air Repeaters, Repeating Crossbows, etc. don't cause disruptions when attacking, because they are already balanced around having lower damage dice and having a limited capacity, in which case they are useless for an entire round (barring haste); it also doesn't make sense given their intended function is to not have to spend time (and risk retaliation) to reload, and is done by having a contraption baked into the weapon do it for you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reload 0 ranged weapons trigger Attack of Opportunity (and related) by virtue of being ranged attacks, so I'm not sure what the issue is.
Edit: Ah, the grapple thing. Well bows are meant to be the easiest to get the most out of. The book seems pretty clear there are 0 Interact actions being used. Not that it's a Free Action, that would still have the Manipulate trait, there are just 0 actions of any kind being used.
A Quickened 1-Action Harm would still trigger reactions from Attacks of Opportunity despite not taking an action (not even a free action) to perform. The same goes for Quick Draw with any melee weapon, as well as Kip Up expressly having to state that it does not trigger reactions despite already being a Free Action. The idea that no actions taking place means no reactions take place is debunked because of these situations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reload 0 ranged weapons trigger Attack of Opportunity (and related) by virtue of being ranged attacks, so I'm not sure what the issue is.
Edit: Ah, the grapple thing. Well bows are meant to be the easiest to get the most out of. The book seems pretty clear there are 0 Interact actions being used. Not that it's a Free Action, that would still have the Manipulate trait, there are just 0 actions of any kind being used.
There's also Mobile Shot Stance which removes the ranged attack AoO. Since Fighters typically use bows, having a provoking Manipulate action in a Reload 0 "action" makes this 8th level feat useless for its obvious intent. That, or it's only meant for throwers? Or maybe it really is for crossbow wielders because the AoO it grants requires a loaded weapon (but seriously, how many ranged strikers want to set up AoOs?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would have been incredibly easy for the 1+ handed weapon entry to include language about interacting or manipulating. When writing rules, if you have terms like these, and you mean for them to apply, you should use them and not expect players to “add traits where you think it makes sense.” Not for common every session actions.
No one can anticipate every possibility but “does firing a bow have the manipulate trait?” Is not a fringe situation that GMs need to arbitrate.
|
It would have been incredibly easy for the 1+ handed weapon entry to include language about interacting or manipulating. When writing rules, if you have terms like these, and you mean for them to apply, you should use them and not expect players to “add traits where you think it makes sense.” Not for common every session actions.
No one can anticipate every possibility but “does firing a bow have the manipulate trait?” Is not a fringe situation that GMs need to arbitrate.
While I agree in theory, I believe it is a case of the answer being so obvious to the devs that they did not think of writing it down.
And, when it appeared to be a FAQ-worthy case, they decided to let every GM and their group decide on what they like best. So, no answer.
I also find it hard to argue that attacking with a sword doesn't involve manipulating the sword. However, it would be absurd to say that it has the manipulate trait because we aren't given any indication that it does.
Apples and oranges: all weapons don't require manipulation and all reloads do by default. It's the attempt to carve put an exception that I see as hard to argue as it's 100% clear that the weapon is being reloaded. A query over the defaults is, like why weapons aren't manipulation, something entirely different from why something should be an exception from all the rest.
I understand the argument that striking with a reload 0 weapon has the manipulate trait even if I personally disagree with it and find the arguments lackluster to say the least, but everyone bringing in the literal meaning of the English word manipulate isn't really helping that side of the argument. Not everything in pf2 that involves manipulating an object has the manipulate trait. In fact, most don't.
I don't understand as I was referring to manipulating as the trait. I guess I should have capitalized it but I thought it was clear. My bad.
Throwers have to Interact to Draw still.Reload 0 ranged weapons trigger Attack of Opportunity (and related) by virtue of being ranged attacks, so I'm not sure what the issue is.
Edit: Ah, the grapple thing. Well bows are meant to be the easiest to get the most out of. The book seems pretty clear there are 0 Interact actions being used. Not that it's a Free Action, that would still have the Manipulate trait, there are just 0 actions of any kind being used.
There's also Mobile Shot Stance which removes the ranged attack AoO. Since Fighters typically use bows, having a provoking Manipulate action in a Reload 0 "action" makes this 8th level feat useless for its obvious intent. That, or it's only meant for throwers? Or maybe it really is for crossbow wielders because the AoO it grants requires a loaded weapon (but seriously, how many ranged strikers want to set up AoOs?)
Throwers should have acquired a Returning Rune by 8th level. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not everything in pf2 that involves manipulating an object has the manipulate trait.
But reloading does.
Reload doesn't, Interact does.
Congratulations on making a distinction without a difference! *golf clap*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reload includes Interact > Interact add Manipulate
How is this thread still even a discussion?
Because the discussion is “what happens when reloading takes 0 interact actions?” Some people read 0 as None. Even in the camp that says 0 equals neither 1 nor none debate whether a weapon like a repeating air rifle would have the manipulate trait or not. The language here is unclear, and confusion is fair. Which is again why I will continue to read 0 as none until the position is clarified.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the discussion is “what happens when reloading takes 0 interact actions?” Some people read 0 as None. Even in the camp that says 0 equals neither 1 nor none debate whether a weapon like a repeating air rifle would have the manipulate trait or not. The language here is unclear, and confusion is fair. Which is again why I will continue to read 0 as none until the position is clarified.Reload includes Interact > Interact add Manipulate
How is this thread still even a discussion?
Even if we rule that 0 is none, this then means you don't Reload a Bow, which means the Bow doesn't even function as a weapon, because you aren't Reloading it. Remember the pre-errata Daikyu? Basically the same concept here.
Either you are performing the Reload activity for 0 Actions, which has Manipulate, or you are not. If you are not, then you can't Strike with the weapon per the rules for Reload. If you are, you suffer all the baggage that comes with Manipulate, which is flat checks and potential disruptions for 1+ Hands weaponry.
Repeating weapons have specific rules for their reload mechanics which overcome the general rules for reloading, so the idea that an Air Repeater provokes for its Reload 0 is still debunked by proxy that it's not the same as the general rules for Reloading.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All ranged weapons provoke attacks of opportunity. It is in the definition of attack of opportunity.
The question is weather bows would still provoke with a feat like mobile shot stance, because the 0 actions spent to reload the bow would be a manipulate action, and thus provoke separately…and whether firing a bow can be disrupted by a critical success, and whether they require the dc 5 flat check.
Mobile s**% stance is a bad feat if you still provoke when you fire a bow. I don’t think the intention here is as clear cut as some are arguing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mobile s%@+ stance is a bad feat if you still provoke when you fire a bow. I don’t think the intention here is as clear cut as some are arguing.
Well we've seen some bad feats come out, so it being a bad feat isn't really proof of anything. I mean in most cases Armor and Weapon proficiency feats are trap options or niche ones that you retrain out of but I don't think they are proof that something isn't working as intended.
I really don't see why this is looked at any differently than things like Raconteur's Reload where you see a Reload and another action in a single action.
PS: Mobile Stance also allows the fighter to AoO with a ranged weapon and there are abilities, like Cut from the Air, that trigger from a ranged attack and not from Manipulate so it still has uses. Niche sure, but even is all it did was allow AoO it'd have uses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All ranged weapons provoke attacks of opportunity. It is in the definition of attack of opportunity.
The question is weather bows would still provoke with a feat like mobile shot stance, because the 0 actions spent to reload the bow would be a manipulate action, and thus provoke separately…and whether firing a bow can be disrupted by a critical success, and whether they require the dc 5 flat check.
Mobile s#*% stance is a bad feat if you still provoke when you fire a bow. I don’t think the intention here is as clear cut as some are arguing.
Technically yes, because it's provoking for having the Manipulate trait, not from being a ranged attack. It would technically provoke twice, but since it's part of the same activity (which is the Strike), you would have two triggers and could only choose one to react to, in the same way that a character that Strides only provokes once per action spent to Stride if they traverse multiple threatened squares. It's no different than if a character with a Crossbow both reloaded and struck while within a threatened square; two activities, two triggers. The only difference is one spends an action for each component (reload and strike), whereas one does not. Abscence of actions doesn't mean the activity does not take place, which means yes, Bows provoke twice, the same as Crossbows. Whether that's intended or not is a whole other thread discussion, but RAW, that's what it is.
As for Mobile Shot Stance, it's not like they can't errata it if the intention is that you don't provoke for ranged attacks in addition to reloading. Heck, if you use Mobile Shot Stance with a Reload 1 weapon, you'd still provoke there anyway, because as you state, it only affects ranged attacks, not reloading. What makes Reload 0 ignore the fact that it's a manipulate activity that has to take place prior to Striking with a projectile weapon?
To be clear, the difference between Reload 1 and Reload 0 is the number of actions required to be spent to Reload the weapon. That's it. It does not mean the weapon does not need to be Reloaded, it does not mean that you don't need to perform the activity required, it does not mean that it can't be disrupted, affected by flat checks, the list goes on.
This whole argument is never going to be solved in the rules forum. So the only solution is GM decides. And for such a niche occurrence, I am not sure why people care so much about trying to convince everyone what it should be.
It's a debate that directly impacts how a Common Fighter/Archer feat works so it's not as niche as you make it, especially as your levels go up as Reactions triggered by Manipulate and creatures Reach also tends to increase.
And "GM decides" isn't a great solution for those that don't have a single set DM, which is another reason people post/complain. No matter which way you think it should be run, the current situation isn't ideal.
There is quite a large difference between eating an AoO and eating an AoO that can disrupt your action.
I think it's niche because firing an arrow already triggers opportunity attacks, so it comes into play with grapple and other spells like black tentacles.
There are reactions that aren't called Attack of Opportunity and the feat in question removes the Ranged attack trigger: as such, it's not "niche" for a ranged spec martial to think about such a feat. It can come as a shock when someone Mobile Shot Stance gets hit with an AoO and I don't see that feat as an uncommon pick for a Ranged build if they read it as getting rid of AoO.
More proof that the developers didn't intend bows to have a manipulate action - if it did, the feat does nothing.
AGAIN, there are other reactions other than AoO so it works on ones that trigger off of Ranged attack like Cut from the Air. Secondly, if you check out the feat, it allows AoO with a ranged weapon if you have AoO. So, NO it isn't proof of anything, let alone intent, and it DOES do something even if it's limited to removing Ranged triggers only. It's just that since people tend to link the Interaction to reload and the Ranged attack together for the bow, since they both trigger AoO, when they see something prevents ranged from triggering that forget about the Interact.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Source Core Rulebook pg. 279 3.0
“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.”
“…how many actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0…”
How do you interpret 0 to mean something other than nothing?
Also, how does the idea it still is an action using the manipulate trait work for the air repeater and similar weapons that also follow the 0 reload rule?
This is a game based on coding. The code is 0. There is no extra action regardless of narrative logic. At least that is how I see it.
The majority of reactions in the bestiary are attack of opportunity which works on both. If the feat was designed to not work vs most reactions, then it's a pretty crappy feat.
*shrug* if you want to intentionally ignore the fact that it also allows the user to make AoO with their ranged weapon I can't force you to. Plus NPC's can be built the same way as PC's so it's not just monster reactions you need to look at.
In the rules, it states if it's too good to be true, it should be ruled too good to be true. In corollary, if it's too bad to be true, it should be ruled too bad to be true.
I agree too bad to be true should be looked at... The thing is though, the game has some VERY questionable feats already in game so when you look at the bottom floor for what's acceptable, IMO Mobile Stance doesn't come close no matter which way you'd rule.
“…how many actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0…”
How do you interpret 0 to mean something other than nothing?
Activities and subordinate actions answered that question. Also ou can cast Loremaster's Etude as a free action, 0 actions out of your 3 for the round, that also triggers because of somatics. Number of actions doesn't have a corollary with traits. 0 meaning it doesn't happen just doesn't hold water when there are literally actions in game that cost 0 actions to use.
Also, how does the idea it still is an action using the manipulate trait work for the air repeater and similar weapons that also follow the 0 reload rule?
This is a game based on coding. The code is 0. There is no extra action regardless of narrative logic. At least that is how I see it.
Mark had to come in and say that Repeaters didn't need a hand to Reload while their was ammo in the magazine. That and Repeating saying that the ammunition is automatically loaded sidesteps the issue with them as you never Interact with the ammo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Source Core Rulebook pg. 279 3.0
“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.”“…how many actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0…”
How do you interpret 0 to mean something other than nothing?
Also, how does the idea it still is an action using the manipulate trait work for the air repeater and similar weapons that also follow the 0 reload rule?
This is a game based on coding. The code is 0. There is no extra action regardless of narrative logic. At least that is how I see it.
0 actions doesn't mean you don't reload your weapon. Reloading your weapon is what triggers, because it has the manipulate trait by way of Interact.
The Jedi Defense is beyond absurd and translates to 1+ hand weapons making no sense to be 1+ hands in the first place when you don't use both hands to load your bow, when the rules outright use it as an example of loading such a weapon.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, adding the manipulate trait to reloading generally, rather than having it reside in the number of interact actions the reload takes would be much cleaner, clearer rules, and not difficult to Errata if that is the intention.
Second, if that is the way it is “supposed” to play, we will never know it if a large quantity of people assume it is true and not acknowledge that the rules were not written to make that clear.
Thirdly, everyone should play the way the want at their own tables anyway. This only really matters where people are in disagreement at the same table, and one character has actively built into their character making assumptions about the rules based on their nderatanding. It really doesn’t negatively effect the game as a whole for reload 0 not to have the manipulate trait. Even if I were GMing in PFS, if a player had selected mobile shot stance under the pretense that they wouldn’t provoke when firing, in the absence of rules clarity, I would give it to them until there was an official PFS ruling otherwise. At a home table, I would hope the issue would get talked through long before level 8.
Reload 0, rather than as a free action is already gamist absurdity in a game of magical over the top-ness. Yes, battle medicine got Errata’d to fix too much absurdity. I think everyone would be fine with a similar outcome, but insisting it is clear in the rules when attached to language that says reload 0 requires 0 interact actions to reload the bow, and interact is the only action with the manipulate trait is being disingenuous. It is fine to feel like the reload action should always have the manipulate trait. That doesn’t mean the rules were written that way and there is enough moving pieces connected to it to make it a GM call.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, adding the manipulate trait to reloading generally, rather than having it reside in the number of interact actions the reload takes would be much cleaner, clearer rules, and not difficult to Errata if that is the intention.
It doesn't really fix things though as having it linked to the reload instead of individual Interact actions means that interrupting reloading a heavy crossbow, or other multiple action reload weapon, means losing 2+ actions vs 1.
Second, if that is the way it is “supposed” to play, we will never know it if a large quantity of people assume it is true and not acknowledge that the rules were not written to make that clear.
I'm sure people have played it both ways if for no other reason they didn't think about reload triggering separately from the ranged attack.
Thirdly, everyone should play the way the want at their own tables anyway.
That's fine in a vacuum but it'd be nice to sit down at a new table and be on the same page with how the rules are meant to be played. If I sit down and ask about house rules and they say 'none', having a different idea on how things like this works is an issue.
I think everyone would be fine with a similar outcome, but insisting it is clear in the rules when attached to language that says reload 0 requires 0 interact actions to reload the bow, and interact is the only action with the manipulate trait is being disingenuous. It is fine to feel like the reload action should always have the manipulate trait. That doesn’t mean the rules were written that way and there is enough moving pieces connected to it to make it a GM call.
IMO, it's unclear only when you ignore it saying "This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. It being 0 comes with the proviso that it becomes part of the same action not that it goes away as is suggested. If 0 mean no Interaction at all, then the bolded text is meaningless if that action doesn't exist anymore: it can be part of the same action if it vanishes entirely.
First of all, adding the manipulate trait to reloading generally, rather than having it reside in the number of interact actions the reload takes would be much cleaner, clearer rules, and not difficult to Errata if that is the intention.
Second, if that is the way it is “supposed” to play, we will never know it if a large quantity of people assume it is true and not acknowledge that the rules were not written to make that clear.
Thirdly, everyone should play the way the want at their own tables anyway. This only really matters where people are in disagreement at the same table, and one character has actively built into their character making assumptions about the rules based on their nderatanding. It really doesn’t negatively effect the game as a whole for reload 0 not to have the manipulate trait. Even if I were GMing in PFS, if a player had selected mobile shot stance under the pretense that they wouldn’t provoke when firing, in the absence of rules clarity, I would give it to them until there was an official PFS ruling otherwise. At a home table, I would hope the issue would get talked through long before level 8.
Reload 0, rather than as a free action is already gamist absurdity in a game of magical over the top-ness. Yes, battle medicine got Errata’d to fix too much absurdity. I think everyone would be fine with a similar outcome, but insisting it is clear in the rules when attached to language that says reload 0 requires 0 interact actions to reload the bow, and interact is the only action with the manipulate trait is being disingenuous. It is fine to feel like the reload action should always have the manipulate trait. That doesn’t mean the rules were written that way and there is enough moving pieces connected to it to make it a GM call.
The Manipulate trait is always generally added to Reloading. Reloading requires Interacting, and Interacting has Manipulate associated with it. By the Transitive Property, Reloading has Manipulate. This sets the general precedent, which means you need specific wording to trump it. Unfortunately, there is none that exist for the 1+ hand weapons; and no, Reload 0 not taking actions doesn't mean you aren't Interacting to Reload your weapon. It just doesn't cost you an action to Interact to Reload. That's it.
Plenty of things written in the book that people assume works one way and instead actually works in a different way. Both of my groups are guilty of doing this, this is just another one of those cases for other groups. Could the rules be clearer? Sure. But the precedent is already set within the first sentences of the rules, and the "exceptions" people keep pointing out simply don't apply; projectile weapons require reloading. Reloading requires interacting. Interacting has manipulate. Reload 0 does not change any of these concepts whatsoever. The reason Capacity weapons get a pass is because the Capacity trait specifies you aren't Interacting to reload the weapon until the magazine is empty; the magazine loads it for you, no physical activity required on your part. Which does not affect the 1+ hand weapons in any way unless they also have the Capacity trait. If anything, I actually applaud Paizo for their subtle consistency in this regard.
If tables want bows to not trigger reactions, flat checks, or even just make them 1 handed weapons, that's their purview. It just means Archers are going to be the bee's knees at those tables. The problem is that you can't just translate those changes to be RAW when they are, as you put it, a GM call being made, and nothing more. AKA, houserules. As this is the rules forum, and not the houserules forum, it's apples to oranges.
Battle Medicine got errata'd because of too much table variation and inconsistency in regards to what is or isn't required. Funnily enough, a big contention point of it boiled to the Manipulate trait/Interact activity. If anything, I like Battle Medicine far more because it's more codified to what it is or isn't. Before, people would have Jedi Medics with missing arms from poor Lightsaber duels trying to "patch up" people in areas of Silence by screaming at them. Now, it's clear that you need Healer's Tools (slotted or held) and a hand free to heal creatures adjacent to you, no screaming required, and works in areas of Silence. Great stuff there.
Not this "I'm reloading, but with my mind because I don't need to spend actions or have hands to do so" Jedi Defense that keeps getting thrown around by ignoring the game outright telling you how 1+ hand projectile weapons are reloaded. (Which is, surprise surprise, with a hand interacting with ammunition.)
I think everyone would be fine with a similar outcome, but insisting it is clear in the rules when attached to language that says reload 0 requires 0 interact actions to reload the bow.Except it doesn't actually say that. It says reloading is part of the same action as firing.
And it also says that all ranged attacks trigger AoO, so why the double up of the trigger? By saying that using a ranged attack in melee reach will trigger AoO, and saying that the act of firing a bow triggers AoO, we have a pointless redundancy. It also adds a problem when mobile stance is taken into account meaning that it only works in every ranged attack but a bow regarding the prevention of triggering AoO. And lastly, though it this was said by another, I find interpreting 0 to mean not nothing to be the real Jedi mind trick.