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.The trigger for AOE is secondary in my book, is it is still a single action and only triggers 1 AOE. The flat check to reload is critical here. bows should not be the only weapon that you can fire when grappled, that is non-nonsensical.
mobile stance would still trigger an AOE for reloading a crossbow, why should it be different from a bow which also takes 2 hands to reload, and also 2 hands to fire. .
Because reloading a crossbow costs actions listed by a value not 0. The reason it doesn’t apply to the bow is because the action cost is 0. I will also go back to how this is a game that uses rules which sometimes break narrative logic in lieu of balance.
I believe pf2e was changed so that developers wouldn't need to intervene into rules discussions.
They are quite willing to move things around and clarify the rules even going so far as to stealth errata some things not in the errata or doing so on some random website not here. I'd even be happy JUST knowing intent for a lot of issues even if it wasn't actually spelled out will errata. If you play at a few different tables where the DM reads wibbly wobbly rules differently it can feel like you're playing another game system not a different group.
Because reloading a crossbow costs actions listed by a value not 0. The reason it doesn’t apply to the bow is because the action cost is 0. I will also go back to how this is a game that uses rules which sometimes break narrative logic in lieu of balance.
A ranged weapon that you do not reload isn't a Reload weapon: if you throw out the Interact then Reload means nothing to the weapon. It might as well be another weapon/trait then.
A ranged weapon that you do not reload isn't a Reload weapon: if you throw out the Interact then Reload means nothing to the weapon. It might as well be another weapon/trait then.
I am not disputing that the weapon has the reload trait attached. I am saying that the action 0 nullifies the cost and with it the traits normally attached to reload. They are not necessarily contradictory ideas.
I believe pf2e was changed so that developers wouldn't need to intervene into rules discussions. They put it into the game that we are supposed to interpret how we think it should work; not some rabid reading of RAW.
And if "how we think it should work" meets your definition of "some rabid reading of RAW"?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not disputing that the weapon has the reload trait attached.
You ARE because you are throwing out the Interact action that you Reload with.
I am saying that the action 0 nullifies the cost and with it the traits normally attached to reload. They are not necessarily contradictory ideas.
Yes it is: you throw out the good with the bad. if you aren't Interacting to Reload, that it logically follows that you aren't Reloading.
It's a simple flowchart:
Weapon is empty ->
Reload [Interact, 0+ actions] ->
Strike with weapon ->
GOTO start
How do you get to a loaded weapon if you don't get to Reload? Where does if EVER say traits vanish? Or the Interact? There are 0 action actions in the game [free and subordinate] but no removal of traits/actions without specific notation. I can't just say my spells drop traits because I cast then as a reaction or free action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leaving apart the evergreen "if something would have worked in a very specific way, they'd have written it rather than making the players lurk within several sets of rules, trying to extrapolate how something is meant to work because of how is written, sometimes even a single word".
I think some rules are a bit too hidden and disorganised to make this work.
How many minions could you have? Surely they would say that in the minion trait? No, you have to either go to specific rituals that create permanent minions or specific items that create permanent minions to know the answer to that is 4.
Before the latest errata, did persistent damage double on crit? Well you had to go to the alchemical item rules to get a clarification for that.
There are many rules which are hidden away in parts where you would not expect them.
There are several items as well that mention this rule
As usual, you can have a maximum of four minions under your control.
It would probably not say as usual if it only applied in this specific circumstance.
The maximum minions under your control is for the ritual only or, being in the CRB, they would have mentioned it in familiar, companion, summons, and so on.
This is begging the question, i.e. assuming that the hypothesis that the rules are never hidden is true and then extrapolating upon that.
The item makes no reference to the ritual and the ritual makes no reference to it only applying to the ritual.
It is saying that you can only have four minions under your control, not that you can only have four minions created from rituals or items.
I can definitely recognize that Mark doesn't seem to think that the limit is 4.
This does mean in my opinion that the intention of the developers and the rules are in clash but it is good to know.
| 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.
As a mathematician who had to program my own operational algorithms, I appreciate a clear coding of operations. The coding answers questions about what will happen in the program. In Pathfinder 2nd Edition, the coding answers questions about what is possible in Encounter Mode.
Let us consider how coding actions affects a zero-action Interact to reload. The Rot Grub The Rules Lawyer's comment #143 that revived this thread provides an example:
I found another interaction in my game last week: an Attack of Opportunity that critted an archer trying to fire a bow. I ruled that Reload 0 included an Interact action, and because Interact has the manipulate trait, then the arrows wasn't drawn.And that if there is an Interact action added to the process then that creates big problemsAgain, no it doesn't. Whether or not you make an archer roll a flat check when they're grappled is pretty much the only scenario in the game where this interaction is relevant at all.
In The Rot Grub's game, the archer's bowshot had a Reload 0 Interact action so a critical hit disrupted the drawing of the arrow. Could the archer immediately take another Reload 0 Interact action to draw an arrow and finish that Strike?
After all, if we had a crossbowman reloading a regular crossbow with a Reload 1 Interact action as his first action, and the enemy made an Attack of Opporunity to disrupt that reloading, the crossbowman could use his 2nd action to reload and his 3rd action to shoot, no problem. Is a bow inferior to a crossbow in that the archer has only one opportunity to reload?
Free Actions
Free actions use this symbol: . Free actions don’t require you to spend any of your three single actions or your reaction. A free action might have a trigger like a reaction does. If so, you can use it just like a reaction—even if it’s not your turn. However, you can use only one free action per trigger, so if you have multiple free actions with the same trigger, you have to decide which to use. If a free action doesn’t have a trigger, you use it like a single action, just without spending any of your actions for the turn.
(1) If the Reload 0 Interact action is a free action triggered by a Strike with a bow, then the trigger gives only one opportunity and that opporunity was disrupted. No second attempt to reload for that Strike is allowed.
(2) If the Reload 0 Interact action is an untriggered free action taken before the Strike, then the archer can attempt a Reload 0 Interact action again at no additional cost. The disruption does not stop the Strike.
(3) If the Reload 0 Interact action is a 0-action-cost action without being a free action, then anything goes because we have no rules about such actions.
(4) If the Reload 0 Interact action is a Subordinate action to the Strike, then the subordinate action is disrupted. I presume that the modified Strike has only one Subordinate action for Interact, and that opporunity was lost. No second attempt to reload for that Strike is allowed.
(5) If the Reload 0 Interact action is merged with the Strike action without being subordinate, so that the combined action has the manipulate trait, then the entire action is disrupted and the reload and the Strike and the action are lost.
In addition, in cases (1) and (4) where drawing the arrow is disrupted with no 2nd try, does the archer have to continue the attack without an arrow? In case (1) can he cancel the bow Strike and take another action? In case (4) he has already begun the Strike and will spend the action for the Strike, but does he have to continue a useless bow attack? Could he change the strike to punching the enemy with his Fist? Can he declare the Strike disrupted, too, so that he does not increase his multiple attack penalty?
graystone give their coding of bow use in comment #207:
Yes it is: you throw out the good with the bad. if you aren't Interacting to Reload, that it logically follows that you aren't Reloading.
It's a simple flowchart:
Weapon is empty ->
Reload [Interact, 0+ actions] ->
Strike with weapon ->
GOTO start
graystone has the Reload before the Strike, so it is not a subordinate action. Nor is a trigger involved. I think this is case (2) where Reload 0 Interact action is an untriggered free action, though case (3), undefined action, is hard to rule out. Thus, if an enemy disrupts the Reload 0 Interact action, then the archer an take another Reload 0 Interact action before the Strike.
bow is empty ->
Reload [Interact, 0 actions] Oh oh, disrupted by AoO!!! ->
Reload [Interact, 0 actions] ->
Strike with bow ->
GOTO next action
Unless the archer is fighting a Marilith that can take 6 attacks of opportunity, disrupting a Reload 0 Interact action won't stop the archer from shooting his bow on schedule.
How do you get to a loaded weapon if you don't get to Reload? Where does if EVER say traits vanish? Or the Interact? There are 0 action actions in the game [free and subordinate] but no removal of traits/actions without specific notation. I can't just say my spells drop traits because I cast then as a reaction or free action.
I made my arguments back in April 2022 (comment #9) that reload is not an Interact action. Reload is a verb meaning to put ammunition into a weapon so that the weapon is ready to Strike. A verb is not an action. Currently, a character's only way to reload is through an Interact action (with the Reload 0 case as a possible exception), but I can imagine other methods.
For example, in the Kineticist Playtest last month, the kineticist has to Gather Element before using his elemental Impulse actions. The element does not count as ammunition or a weapon (though I would prefer it was a weapon to simplify their Elemental Blast attack), but it is essentially drawn or reloaded. And Gather Element has the manipulate trait to reflect that, along with the conjuration, kineticist, and primal traits. Nevertheless, it is not an Interact action.
Or imagine a magic crossbow that upon a command word, Activate [One Action] (command), it creates a phantasmal crossbow as it reloads itself, requiring no external ammunition. The crossbowman is not interacting with the phantasmal bolt, so it is not an Interact action. But it would be a reloading.
The magic crossbow does not exist in PF2, but the Called weapon rune from Knights of Lastwall page 89 has a similar effect for drawing a weapon without an Interact action.
Activate [Two Actions] command, envision; Effect You extend your hand and call the weapon. If the weapon is within 100 feet of you, it appears in your hand even if it was restrained. If the weapon is in another creature's possession, that creature can attempt a Will save against your Will DC. If the creature succeeds, your bond as the owner is broken, and you can't use this activation again until you use the first activation to restore the connection.
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.
That key sentence in the Reload definition has terrible grammar. "if" is the wrong word, because logically it does not say for sure that drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of shooting a Reload 0 ranged weapon, even though that is clearly the intent.
But the problem is deeper, beyond what the Pathfinder developers could specify. Zero is a weird number. We mathematicians who regularly work with integers have no trouble counting with zero, but some other people have trouble calculating with nothing. Four weeks ago I answered a question in Quora that claimed that zero is not a number. And some of the dictionary definitions for number exclude zero. By that definition that zero is not a number, counting items means that we have items to count.
If we count zero apples, we have apples somewhere. "I had four apples. I made apple pie out of them. Now I have zero apples, because I now count the apples as one apple pie." Yet I cannot polish any of those zero apples as a traditional gift to a schoolteacher.
If we measure zero inches, we have inches somewhere. "I stained the wood of my cabinet. I applied the stain with a paintbrush to an appropriate thickness, but after it dried it has zero thickness." Stain soaks into the wood rather than forming a layer atop the wood like paint, so it does not add any thickness to the thickness of the wood.
And if we take zero Interact actions to reload a bow, we have an Interact action to reload somewhere, especially since the archer is definitely reloading. Since this is a game mechanic rather than the real world, we have to logically deduce what zero means rather than checking the real-world result.
Since zero is not clear, zero Interact actions to reload is not clear. We need a good sentence, better than "This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action," to clarify how we reload in zero Interact actions. I myself believe that reload can be separated from Interact and inserted into Strike, so I have a different view from graystone and many others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The way I interpret this RAW is that reloading is not automatically an interact action as others assert.
If you reload quickly (reload 0), you do that as part of the Strike action (no Interact). If it takes longer (reload 1+) then, and only then, those other actions are labeled as Interact actions.
This interpretation does give bows another benefit. However, when viewed in this context the other rules that build from here: AoO specifically stating ranged attacks provoke, Mobile Shot Stance, etc. all make more sense... to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That key sentence in the Reload definition has terrible grammar. "if" is the wrong word, because logically it does not say for sure that drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of shooting a Reload 0 ranged weapon, even though that is clearly the intent.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.
The problem with this is that there are no other examples of Reload 0 weapons that don't already have specifics attached to them (such as weapons with the Capacity trait), meaning the only other existing rule is the only known rule we can go off of.
Most Reload 0 weapons (in Core, anyway,) are also 1+ Hand weapons, and it's clearly stated how you attack with 1+ Hand weapons, the book using Longbow as an example, so the idea that it can't work that way is debunked too. Saying otherwise means you use the Jedi Defense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.The way I interpret this RAW is that reloading is not automatically an interact action as others assert.
If you reload quickly (reload 0), you do that as part of the Strike action (no Interact). If it takes longer (reload 1+) then, and only then, those other actions are labeled as Interact actions.
This interpretation does give bows another benefit. However, when viewed in this context the other rules that build from here: AoO specifically stating ranged attacks provoke, Mobile Shot Stance, etc. all make more sense... to me.
Nobody arguing for bow attacks triggering disrupting reactions is saying it's because of an action cost that isn't there, it's because of a trait that is applied by proxy of Reload rules (and 1+ Hand Weapon rules), of which Reload 0 weapons aren't an exception to (unless they also possess the Capacity trait).
As for Mobile Shot Stance, it's a very niche feat, and it's written relatively poorly in regards to how the rules actually work.
| 4 people 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.
See, this right there is where your hang-up is: Zero does not mean 'nothing'. Zero is a number. The fact that a weapon has a reload entry to begin with informs us of the fact that, yes, that weapon needs to be reloaded. And thus an Interact action does indeed happen.
The numerical value in the entry informs us about how many of our usually 3 actions per turn we need to spend to perform that reload interaction.
In the case of bows, that number happens to be zero. So we have to spend zero of our 3 actions-per-turn on reloading a bow, and 1 action to actually shoot it. Effectively, it is 2-for-1 deal: Do 2 things (reload and shoot) and pay 1 action. So we pay the price of zero actions to perform the reload, but we do indeed perform the reload, because zero is still a price to pay and not 'nothing'.
It is not exactly intuitive, but that is why the invention of the number zero is an important milestone in mathematics.
Remember my earlier example about not having a shield bonus when not wielding a shield? Distinctively different from having a shield bonus with a numerical value of zero. The bow is the other way around: It does have a reload number, it just happens to be zero. But that still means it does have to reload, and thus an interaction happens.
...it's because of a trait that is applied by proxy of Reload rules (and 1+ Hand Weapon rules).
And I disagree that there is any proxy. The additional actions of reloading a 1+ reload weapon are Interact actions. That doesn't mean all reload actions are Interact actions. Venn diagram.
Venn diagram.
There is also a venn diagram between 0 and none. the game allows for actions that do not cost any of your 3 actions but that doesn't mean they do not exist. 0 doesn't mean the action vanishes.
graystone has the Reload before the Strike, so it is not a subordinate action.
To clarify, I meant it to be as simple as possible so I was just showing the order of action and that the Reload actually happens [vs the argument that it doesn't happen as there are 0 Reloads]. I personally see the Reload as a subordinate action in the Strike activity as it says it's part of the attack. Now I wouldn't personally be upset if it WAS a free action but IMO you'd have to rewrite Reload to remove it being part of the attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
graystone has the Reload before the Strike, so it is not a subordinate action.To clarify, I meant it to be as simple as possible so I was just showing the order of action and that the Reload actually happens [vs the argument that it doesn't happen as there are 0 Reloads]. I personally see the Reload as a subordinate action in the Strike activity as it says it's part of the attack. Now I wouldn't personally be upset if it WAS a free action but IMO you'd have to rewrite Reload to remove it being part of the attack.
I would diagram Reload as a subordinate action as:
Strike [One Action] with bow
Requirements Before Strike, bow is empty and gripped properly in one hand, and other hand is free.
..(i) Subordinate Interact action to reload bow with arrow.
..(ii) make ranged attack roll, determine bow damage, etc.
Next Action
My own view is:
Strike [One Action] with bow
Requirements Before Strike, bow is empty and gripped properly in one hand, and other hand is free.
..(i) reload bow with arrow.
..(ii) make ranged attack roll, determine bow damage, etc.
Next Action
...it's because of a trait that is applied by proxy of Reload rules (and 1+ Hand Weapon rules).And I disagree that there is any proxy. The additional actions of reloading a 1+ reload weapon are Interact actions. That doesn't mean all reload actions are Interact actions. Venn diagram.
Except all Reload Actions are indeed Interact Actions, because there is no other form of Actions to be made for Reloading. And no, abilities like Running Reload don't count, since they still use the subordinate Interact action in their ability description.
Even if there somehow is, you'd still have to prove that Reload 0 specifically trumps the general rule that Reloading is Interacting, such that a Reload 0 doesn't have Interacting in it, even though these excerpts outright say you do:
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 have the book clarifying and expressing how 1+ Hand weapons work, and they clearly describe what you are doing with both hands in great detail.
Now, what does Interact have to say in terms of its description?
You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You can grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or produce some similar effect.
Sounds exactly like if you were to, say, grab ammunition stored from a quiver, similar to what is described for 1+ Hand weaponry. It's just that it doesn't cost an action to do, compared to any other Reload X weapon, which does cost an action. Again, what does the action cost have to do with triggering reactions or being affected by flat checks?
Even if you argue that it's tied to the action, the rulebook outright describes an Interact activity taking place here by saying you're taking a hand to retrieve (AKA grab) and nock the arrow, with loosing it being the Strike to make. A GM saying otherwise is ignoring RAW, AKA houseruling. The activity is what triggers, not the action. Otherwise, Quickened 1 Action Harms don't trigger reactions, Quick Draw wouldn't trigger reactions, and Kip Up wouldn't have to outright specify it doesn't trigger reactions if the triggering of reactions is always specifically tied to an Action. Except all of that is completely debunked for the obvious reason that it's because of the trait that they trigger, not because of the action. (And for the record, 3 commonly chosen feats breaking your precedent is far more proof than 1 hardly worthwhile feat that is poorly written to begin with supporting yours.)
graystone has the Reload before the Strike, so it is not a subordinate action.To clarify, I meant it to be as simple as possible so I was just showing the order of action and that the Reload actually happens [vs the argument that it doesn't happen as there are 0 Reloads]. I personally see the Reload as a subordinate action in the Strike activity as it says it's part of the attack. Now I wouldn't personally be upset if it WAS a free action but IMO you'd have to rewrite Reload to remove it being part of the attack.I would diagram Reload as a subordinate action as:
Strike [One Action] with bow
Requirements Before Strike, bow is empty and gripped properly in one hand, and other hand is free.
..(i) Subordinate Interact action to reload bow with arrow.
..(ii) make ranged attack roll, determine bow damage, etc.
Next ActionMy own view is:
Strike [One Action] with bow
Requirements Before Strike, bow is empty and gripped properly in one hand, and other hand is free.
..(i) reload bow with arrow.
..(ii) make ranged attack roll, determine bow damage, etc.
Next Action
Except your own view is impossible, because you can't reload the bow without Interaction, as the book does not describe or have any form of rules that let you reload in any other fashion. This is literally the Jedi Defense; it was pathetic back in pre-errata Battle Medicine, and it certainly isn't much better now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol, our disagreement is clearly about the language used to codify what is happening, not what is happening itself. Many of us feel like, since everything else in the game that puts two actions together into one does so explicitly, and reload 0’s language actually explicitly says that there are 0 interact actions happening during reloading with the weapon, that what a person is doing when firing a bow or other reload 0 weapon is more akin to striking with that weapon, and doesn’t require the time an attention that an interact action requires. Why do we think this, because the act of firing a bow requires 0 interact actions.
You are well come to disagree, but this is what the rules literally say, and every other example calls out what is happening as a subordinate action. I understand why you think the subordinate action is implied. I don’t find implied actions to be acceptable justification for rules arbitration, especially when that happens in contradiction to how other aspects of the game work. There is a better way to accomplish what you are suggesting than the way the rules are currently worded. The language as written says to me that the ease of firing a reload 0 weapon is such that it requires 0 interact actions to accomplish. The act of drawing and firing a bow is just the same action as a strike in complexity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strike doesn't have the Manipulate trait. If no action is taken with the Manipulate trait it doesn't provoke for being Manipulate, regardless of the description of the item. It doesn't say it's a Free Action to Interact. It says it's 0 Interact actions. Nothing with the Manipulate trait happens. Therefore there's no check if you're grappled, and no Attack of Opportunity if you're in Mobile Shot Stance.
Because a Strike in general does not. 1+ hand weapons are the specific rule that trumps this. And no, things that don't cost actions can still have traits associated with them, so the idea that because you don't spend actions on it, it doesn't take place, is debunked by proxy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol, our disagreement is clearly about the language used to codify what is happening, not what is happening itself. Many of us feel like, since everything else in the game that puts two actions together into one does so explicitly, and reload 0’s language actually explicitly says that there are 0 interact actions happening during reloading with the weapon, that what a person is doing when firing a bow or other reload 0 weapon is more akin to striking with that weapon, and doesn’t require the time an attention that an interact action requires. Why do we think this, because the act of firing a bow requires 0 interact actions.
You are well come to disagree, but this is what the rules literally say, and every other example calls out what is happening as a subordinate action. I understand why you think the subordinate action is implied. I don’t find implied actions to be acceptable justification for rules arbitration, especially when that happens in contradiction to how other aspects of the game work. There is a better way to accomplish what you are suggesting than the way the rules are currently worded. The language as written says to me that the ease of firing a reload 0 weapon is such that it requires 0 interact actions to accomplish. The act of drawing and firing a bow is just the same action as a strike in complexity.
Most things that do this are complex variable activities, like Cast a Spell, where the action types can vary, or specific feats which are already opt-in to begin with, like Quick Draw. For the longest time, Battle Medicine was broken or unclear, and for many, this is as well. It's about time Paizo addressed this anyway, whether it is developer comments or straight errata.
I really don't see why a subordinate action has to be called out when the game already calls it out verbatim without saying in neon writing "this is a subordinate action." The only logical argument that has been tossed around for why not is "because game balance," but honestly, even with this "nerf," bows are still the superior weapon, it's just less overpowered in certain circumstances, so it doesn't upset the balance to the point that bows are inferior or unusable in any way.
Except your own view is impossible, because you can't reload the bow without Interaction, as the book does not describe or have any form of rules that let you reload in any other fashion. This is literally the Jedi Defense; it was pathetic back in pre-errata Battle Medicine, and it certainly isn't much better now.I would diagram Reload as a subordinate action as:
Strike [One Action] with bow
Requirements Before Strike, bow is empty and gripped properly in one hand, and other hand is free.
..(i) Subordinate Interact action to reload bow with arrow.
..(ii) make ranged attack roll, determine bow damage, etc.
Next ActionMy own view is:
Strike [One Action] with bow
Requirements Before Strike, bow is empty and gripped properly in one hand, and other hand is free.
..(i) reload bow with arrow.
..(ii) make ranged attack roll, determine bow damage, etc.
Next Action
I had to read back to Saturday's comment #154 and Monday's comment #195 to decipher "Jedi Defense," which seems like an unrelated issue to me.
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).
Grabbed
You're held in place by another creature, giving you the flat-footed and immobilized conditions. 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.
In Pathfinder 1st Edition, a character cannot use a two-handed weapon while grabbed. In Pathfinder 2nd Edition, a character can use a two-handed weapon while grabbed. If Grabbed condition reduced available limbs in PF2, then two-handed weapons, such as greatswords, would be useless. But a Strike with a greatsword does not even gain the DC 5 flat check. On the other hand, the Release free action has the manipulate trait, so trying to drop a greatsword while grabbed could end up with the character still holding the greatsword in a proper grip.
Interact and manipulate do not seem to be about available hands.
As for "you can't reload the bow without Interaction," yes, currently all reloading requires an Interact action, except with the possible exeception of when "drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action." Yet I saw two unusual descriptions when I read about 1+ handed weapons:
A few items, such as a longbow, list 1+ for its Hands entry. You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow. This means you can do things with your free hand while holding the bow without changing your grip, but the other hand must be free when you shoot. To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free.
(1) The description says "retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow," not load or reload an arrow. This is probably because a bow has no storage mechanism to actually load an arrow into it. Nocking the arrow requires holding it in place with the second hand.
(2) Despite switching from holding a bow in one hand to shooting it with two hands, the action did not add an Interact action to change the archer's grip while shooting a bow. After all it is as impossible to change a grip without an Interact or Release action as it is to reload a weapon without an Interact action. Well, except for losing one's grip on a weapon by throwing it in a Strike.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It says it's 0 Interact actions.
It doesn't say that. It says the entry can be 0 if the reloading (and therefore Interact) is part of the strike.
Weapons with a Reload entry of "--" have no reload/Interact as part of their use.
If it meant that 0 meant no reloading occurs, they would have said, "It can be 0 if reloading is not necessary" or some such.
Nobody has said anything new in the past hundred+ posts. Only new people have joined to repeat arguments of either side that have been said a plethora of times each.
The newest thing is the release of repeating weapons with a reload entry of 0, which some people have pointed to as evidence that you don't interact when you reload a bow. However, that argument fails because repeating weapons have the Repeating trait, which explicitly states that the reloading occurs "automatically" until the ammunition in the magazine runs out.
The designers painted themselves into a corner with porting over the old PF1 terminology and symbols for ranged weapons and likely were not even thinking how the phrasing of the Reload entry might interact with Grapple. The AOO is easy: both actions occur simultaneously, you only get one bite of the apple, so shooting a bow can only trigger an AOO/reaction once by whichever means. Mobile Shot Stance is poorly worded so that it can encompass a variety of weapons, including thrown.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol, our disagreement is clearly about the language used to codify what is happening, not what is happening itself. Many of us feel like, since everything else in the game that puts two actions together into one does so explicitly, and reload 0’s language actually explicitly says that there are 0 interact actions happening during reloading with the weapon, that what a person is doing when firing a bow or other reload 0 weapon is more akin to striking with that weapon, and doesn’t require the time an attention that an interact action requires. Why do we think this, because the act of firing a bow requires 0 interact actions.
You are well come to disagree, but this is what the rules literally say, and every other example calls out what is happening as a subordinate action. I understand why you think the subordinate action is implied. I don’t find implied actions to be acceptable justification for rules arbitration, especially when that happens in contradiction to how other aspects of the game work. There is a better way to accomplish what you are suggesting than the way the rules are currently worded. The language as written says to me that the ease of firing a reload 0 weapon is such that it requires 0 interact actions to accomplish. The act of drawing and firing a bow is just the same action as a strike in complexity.
Most things that do this are complex variable activities, like Cast a Spell, where the action types can vary, or specific feats which are already opt-in to begin with, like Quick Draw. For the longest time, Battle Medicine was broken or unclear, and for many, this is as well. It's about time Paizo addressed this anyway, whether it is developer comments or straight errata.
I really don't see why a subordinate action has to be called out when the game already calls it out verbatim without saying in neon writing "this is a subordinate action." The only logical argument that has been tossed around for why not is "because game balance," but honestly, even with...
I would 100% agree with you if the 1 + handed entry used either the word interact or manipulate in it, and that would be a fine way to errata this if the intention is only for 1+ handed weapons to have the manipulate trait. Other people who feel that reloading always has the manipulate trait disagree about that though and feel like the language is implied in the reload 0 entry. This is a big part of why traits and subordinate actions should not be implied.
Without that specific language of manipulate in the one + handed entry, it is still just a nebulous implication that shouldn’t stand as well written rules.
The idea of 0 action reload that is not a free action and not a subordinate action is a stretch of the imagination, sure, but so is pretty much everything about 0 action reloading including bows. It feels incredibly gamist that general aiming of ranged weapons is not generally an action, either optional or required, and is apparently only something incredibly trained rangers and gunslingers ever think to do. As a game, the rules need to tell you what traits are present (and where they are present) in the actions that characters will do thousands of times in their life times. Assuming implied traits as RAW encourages bad game design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except all Reload Actions are indeed Interact Actions,
You have yet to prove this via RAW. You keep saying it is so by proxy or that it is implied. Proxy and implication are rules interpretations, not RAW.
because there is no other form of Actions to be made for Reloading.
I am asserting that RAW says the Strike action includes reloading for reload 0 weapons.
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.
That "same action" being the Strike action.
Except your own view is impossible, because you can't reload the bow without Interaction, as the book does not describe or have any form of rules that let you reload in any other fashion. This is literally the Jedi Defense; it was pathetic back in pre-errata Battle Medicine, and it certainly isn't much better now.I would diagram Reload as a subordinate action as:
Strike [One Action] with bow
Requirements Before Strike, bow is empty and gripped properly in one hand, and other hand is free.
..(i) Subordinate Interact action to reload bow with arrow.
..(ii) make ranged attack roll, determine bow damage, etc.
Next ActionMy own view is:
Strike [One Action] with bow
Requirements Before Strike, bow is empty and gripped properly in one hand, and other hand is free.
..(i) reload bow with arrow.
..(ii) make ranged attack roll, determine bow damage, etc.
Next Action
I had to read back to Saturday's comment #154 and Monday's comment #195 to decipher "Jedi Defense," which seems like an unrelated issue to me.
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)....Grabbed
You're held in place by another creature, giving you the flat-footed and immobilized conditions. 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
The Jedi Defense is a satirical fallacy basically stating that hands aren't necessary or required to do something, that even a Jedi with missing limbs can perform what hands normally do using the Force, even though it should be perfectly obvious that hands are required, in a universe where the Force does not exist. This started back with pre-errata Battle Medicine, which prompted Paizo to errata it to be blatantly clear that hands are required. The reason why I'm calling out the Jedi Defense here is because people are saying you don't reload a Reload 0 weapon because you don't spend actions doing so, which by proxy means you don't need hands for the weapon to work, which means you use the Force to make your weapon work for you. Ergo, Jedi Defense. (The reason why you wouldn't know of it is because I dubbed it myself; it's not a documented or well-known fallacy, or that there is one similar to it that already exists.) This started back with pre-errata Battle Medicine, and this is no different.
While the Grabbed condition refers to Actions in particular, I would find it hard-pressed for a GM to not also apply it to non-action based activities as well, such as exploration tactics or variable activities like Cast a Spell. Of course, a Free Action triggering a flat check is meaningless, since they can keep taking the Free Action continually without recompense or cost until they succeed the flat check. You would still flat check if you were to spend an action to Regrip a Bastard Sword, though, which is working as intended, so I don't understand the point of bringing up PF1 here.
Manipulate is about "suitable limb(s)" for the activity. The 1+ hand rules specify the hand has to be free to wield it. This is pretty obvious as to why that is.
Again, the 1+ hand rules are specific compared to the general rules of wielding weapons.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM's are free to homebrew as they please, however rules as written there's nothing stopping a bow user from using their bow unhindered while grabbed and there's no Manipulate action taking place to trigger an Attack of Opportunity.
I'd argue the opposite: that the RAW is that Reloading is an Interact action and nothing about Reload 0 alters that so 'GM's are free to homebrew as they please, however rules as written [don't allow] a bow user [to use] their bow unhindered while grabbed and there's [a] Manipulate action taking place to trigger an Attack of Opportunity.' Reload 0 [zero] is specifically different from a Reload - [none].
Except all Reload Actions are indeed Interact Actions,You have yet to prove this via RAW. You keep saying it is so by proxy or that it is implied. Proxy and implication are rules interpretations, not RAW.
because there is no other form of Actions to be made for Reloading.I am asserting that RAW says the Strike action includes reloading for reload 0 weapons.
That "same action" being the Strike action.
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.
You've just pointed out the textbook description of Subordinate action:
Subordinate Actions
An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.
So "An action", say Strike, "might allow you to use a simpler action", say Reload. Note the subordinate "action still has its normal traits and effects". It'd need a specific call-out to NOT have it's traits like Manipulate. And it explains WHY Reload takes 0 actions in "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."
I have yet to see something that follows what is under Reload 0 any better than this.
Strike doesn't have the Manipulate trait. If no action is taken with the Manipulate trait it doesn't provoke for being Manipulate, regardless of the description of the item. It doesn't say it's a Free Action to Interact. It says it's 0 Interact actions. Nothing with the Manipulate trait happens. Therefore there's no check if you're grappled, and no Attack of Opportunity if you're in Mobile Shot Stance.Because a Strike in general does not. 1+ hand weapons are the specific rule that trumps this. And no, things that don't cost actions can still have traits associated with them, so the idea that because you don't spend actions on it, it doesn't take place, is debunked by proxy.No it isn't. There's a difference between the action you're taking still having the trait while not having any action cost, and not taking an action that has a trait.
Reload does not have the Manipulate trait. Strike does not have the Manipulate trait. Interact has the Manipulate trait, but as written you don't take an Interact action.
This is different from a Quickened 1 action spell. An activity is still an action that you are taking, and still has the traits associated with it. You are still taking the action, it just does cost you an action.
Action is a defined game term:
There are four types of actions: single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions.If something says you take zero of these, that is not the same as using one of these and it not costing anything. You are explicitly still using the Cast a Spell activity when you use a Quickened spell, and you are explicitly not using an Interact action when you fire a bow.
And there's also a difference in saying you don't take an action versus something not costing an action. Quick Draw, Kip Up, and Quickened Spell falls upon the latter. Simply delaying is the former. The worst part is, either concept you propose makes your side lose. Consider this:
If you say it doesn't cost an action, it means Reloading still occurs, just not for an action, which triggers reactions by nature of it being Reloading, which has Manipulate, and 1+ Hand weapons lumps Reloading into the Strike action, which would disrupt that action. This can be done with the likes of Running Reload as a very common example, where you are Reloading, but not for an action, as you are instead performing a specific activity where you Reload as part of it.
If you say you don't take the action, that means you don't Reload, which means you don't have a projectile to fire with, which means the strike does nothing. I mean, it might work if you have a Repeating weapon, since the RAW for that outright says it automatically Reloads for you, no effort on your part whatsoever. But certainly not for other types of weapons, such as the 1+ Hand weapons in question.
Either way, you are promoting Jedi Archers that conjure Force Arrows to shoot at enemies. Certainly cool and neat, akin to Arcane Archers, for example. But not RAW, and certainly not RAI. And it breaks the game far more than if we just accept 1+ Hand weapon strikes can be disrupted.
Except all Reload Actions are indeed Interact Actions,You have yet to prove this via RAW. You keep saying it is so by proxy or that it is implied. Proxy and implication are rules interpretations, not RAW.
because there is no other form of Actions to be made for Reloading.I am asserting that RAW says the Strike action includes reloading for reload 0 weapons.
That "same action" being the Strike action.
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.
All rules and abilities that refer to Reloading refer to the Interact Action. If you aren't taking an Interact to Reload, then you aren't Reloading, which means your weapon isn't loaded to strike with, and all weapons with the Reload trait must be loaded before they can be struck.
Here's what the Strike action says:
You attack with a weapon you're wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack).
Nothing in there mentions reloading, Reload 0 weapons, or anything. It only refers to attacking with a weapon you wield, or unarmed weapon, affecting a creature within reach or range. Way off base here, pal.
Even so, you're going to say that firing is the same thing as striking, but drawing and/or loading isn't the same as interacting? When we have feats and abilities refer to the Interact action to Reload? That's a hypocritical defense to make, considering what you're arguing against.
SnipYou've missed the option where the Reload happens but it isn't an Interact action because the game is a game and not a simulation and that's what the game says.
The Reload happens as a part of the Strike, instead of as an Interact action, because Reload says it does. Strike does not have the Manipulate trait. Therefore, there are zero actions with the Manipulate trait that happen, the bow is loaded and fired regardless because the game says it is.
When the game includes simulationism to explain how using and wielding an item works, you can't use the "it's a game" defense and expect it to mean anything or debunk anything. The "it's a game" defense only works with the likes of Battle Medicine simply because there is no simulationism expressed in the game for Battle Medicine that stacks up to what else is expressed in the game. You can't do that for this when the game expresses clearly what you are doing in the rules regarding 1+ Hand weapons when "drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action."
Which, by the way, does not include Reloading whatsoever if we are to simply look to the Strike action for guidance as others keep trying to point out. Thanks for inserting the missing puzzle piece on your own without the game telling you "This is Reloading." I do the same thing, but everyone else complains that I'm not looking for the "This is Interacting" neon sign the game is supposed to tell me. The hypocrisy is absurd here.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gunter, just about everyone else either gave up on trying to explain why you're wrong or just doesn't care to help inform you in the first place. The fact that Darksol is patiently hanging out and trying to help you see how, and precisely why you're wrong about this, is astoundingly generous of them.
The rules CLEARLY indicate you're ARE Reloading and that adds the Interact and Manipulate traits - full stop. PERIOD, it doesn't matter if that Reload requires 0 Actions or 3 Actions, it's still a Reload despite it being baked into the Action Cost of the basic (or even specific) Strike/Attack you're making with the Bow. Find us some rules in the actual book that state that Reload 0 is explicitly noted to NOT be a Reload at all and we will happy to give it a rest but this is the Rules (the capital R in RAW) Discussion forum and if you don't have actual rules and game mechanics to back it up then, to be frank, you've already conceded the discussion entirely.
Run it as you like, but please do not try to invent rules that have never been printed or push an interpretation based on your feelings because that has absolutely no place here. If you insist on continuing this circular nonsense, please start a new thread in the Advice or Homebrew subforum.
Gunter, just about everyone else either gave up on trying to explain why you're wrong or just doesn't care to help inform you in the first place. The fact that Darksol is patiently hanging out and trying to help you see how, and precisely why you're wrong about this, is astoundingly generous of them.
Hello Pot. This is Kettle. You’re black.
In other words, that was what our side was thinking of yours. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there is a lot of value of trying to pick sides here. Themetricsystem and Darksol are not even arguing for the same thing.
Darksol is arguing that it is the 1+ handed trait that has an implied manipulate trait.
Themetricsystem is arguing it is reload by default.
The point here is that there is not clarity when traits are not explicitly stated, or subordinate actions are not called out using the language of the game and not generalist langauge that means different things to different people.
In the absence of that language people will have many different interpretations. Does it matter? In this case I think so, but whether it will get an errata remains to be seen. This doesn't seem like a difficult one to errata in the intention is for some aspect of the process of firing a bow to have the manipulate trait. Just put it where it belongs and the confusion will go away. No one will cry nerf/badwrongfun. One feat will become useless in everyones eyes instead of just some.