Is a manipulate action baked into firing a bow?


Rules Discussion

251 to 300 of 477 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
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.

Yes, it is the same arguments. I resisted for nine days before entering the discussion again this September, because I had stated all my arguments back in April. However, I really liked Lucerious's comment #190 about the coding of the game mechanics, so I joined back in yesterday to elaborate on his idea.

I also like Guntermench's comment #235, "If something says you take zero of these, that is not the same as using one of these and it not costing anything."

Blake's Tiger wrote:
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.

Switching a design paradigm has risks. Pathfinder 2nd Edition has a fairly rigorous coding, but with less rigorous games and still to some degree with PF2, we players rely on a visualization of the characters' actions rather than on tracing out the rules as we play. I myself default to what I did in PF1 when a PF2 rule seems ambiguous to me.

I think that manipulate trait is a good idea, but it really means, "manipulating an object or gesturing for a spell during this action causes the character to leave an opening for an enemy reaction," rather than "manipulating an object." Furthermore, Interact action with its built-in manipulate trait makes sense for reloading a crossbow, but does not make sense for drawing a sword, because scabbards are designed to allow drawing a weapon without leaving an opening for an enemy. And I do not understand why the Release action has the manipulate trait, since it ends the manipulation of an object.

I believe that Paizo designers left the manipulate trait off of a Strike with a bow, because they were mimicking the bow use from PF1, which already provoked an enemy reaction due to focusing attention to aim for a ranged attack. Nocking an arrow is not really reloading a bow, since the arrow is not locked into place into a groove like a crossbow bolt or rammed down a barrel like a muzzle-loading firearm bullet. An archer could walk around holding the arrow nocked (without the string drawn back) but that would eliminate the free hand. I think that drawing the arrow from a quiver is more distracting, but the arguments here have been about reload rather than draw. An Interact action to reload has drawing ammunition built into it, though not as a separate Interact action to draw.


Guntermench wrote:

What hypocrisy? I'm looking at what I'm presented. Reload says that that entry is how many Interact actions are required. It also says that it can be 0, meaning there is no Interact action taken. Bows say 0, therefore there's no Interact action. Nowhere does it say the Reload statistic gives the Strike action the Manipulate trait, and it doesn't natively have the trait.

You are adding something that does not exist. Should it exist? Maybe, and if Paizo agrees with you it'll be added in an errata. However as it stands it does not.

You are just completely ignoring the possibility that Reload is simply a statistic for all ranged weapons and that some simply don't require an Interact action, like some say - when they need to be drawn then thrown, and by saying 0 they do in fact mean 0.

Yes, there is no Interact ACTION being taken. I've never disputed this. That doesn't mean there is no Interact happening whatsoever. You're saying there isn't one happening whatsoever because you aren't spending an action on it. And to be clear, you don't have to spend an Action on it. Quicken Harm would trigger reactions. Same with Quick Draw. Same with Kip Up if it lacked the Reactions clause.

Ah, yes, the RAW that I've referenced several times demonstrating that it is verbatim an interact activity, does not exist. Thanks for completely ignoring my source material to support your claims. And you say I'm ignoring stuff? Okay.

It doesn't have to be, though. Or rather, it shouldn't be, if the reality is you don't actually Reload. And that's fine. But it's not RAW. Furthermore, Drawing a throwing weapon still needs an Interact Action to do, which is referenced by -, so you're wrong there, too.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Interact is an action, not a trait. Either there is a subordinate interact action happening somewhere (where? There is disagreement here, even amongst folks that insist it is happening) or there is not. I read 0 interact actions as no interact actions happening.

Some aspect of firing a bow may have intended to have a manipulate trait, but describing something as sounding similar without giving the trait is a mistake if it is supposed to be read the same way. They did Errata battle medicine for this reason, the description didn’t match the traits it had and caused confusion. Until they did that though, there was no reason to call people names or suggest they are arguing in bad faith for playing the game the way they read the rules. The same applies here.


Unicore wrote:

Interact is an action, not a trait. Either there is a subordinate interact action happening somewhere (where? There is disagreement here, even amongst folks that insist it is happening) or there is not. I read 0 interact actions as no interact actions happening.

Some aspect of firing a bow may have intended to have a manipulate trait, but describing something as sounding similar without giving the trait is a mistake if it is supposed to be read the same way. They did Errata battle medicine for this reason, the description didn’t match the traits it had and caused confusion. Until they did that though, there was no reason to call people names or suggest they are arguing in bad faith for playing the game the way they read the rules. The same applies here.

There are examples in-game where you are performing an Interact without spending an action on it. This proves you can indeed Interact without spending an action for it. The point is, in those examples, you can Interact for 0 Actions and still trigger by proxy of lacking an action not meaning you lack traits that come with it. In fact, it would have to work this way, because once again, you are saying there is no Interact happening, which means there is no Reload happening, as there is no other means to Reload a weapon aside from Interact, regardless of how many actions it might take.

Again, if it's a mistake, it would have been very easy to write it that way. The fact they didn't should mean something. You even pointed this out for pre-errata Battle Medicine, and the main contention point was with Manipulate not stating how many hands were needed. (It even got to the point people wanted to not need hands for it, hence the origins of the Jedi Defense being born.) At the end of the day, the description said the GM decided, so the game basically said "GM FIAT determines," which didn't work for PFS, and permitted obviously unintended shenanigans, like not needing hands, not needing Healer's Tools, being able to work in areas of Silence without traits, etc.

Also, Hypocrisy is a prime example of arguing in bad faith. I call out a verbatim Interact activity (not action, there is a difference) taking place, I'm told it's not valid to treat it as an Interact activity. Loosing an arrow as a Strike activity taking place is equally invalid for the same reasons, because we can't treat that as a Strike action/activity. The problem is that even if we argue that it should be possible for the game to be more fluid with its wording, which is fine, this argument also fuels my argument by proxy of it being the same foundation, which is where the hypocrisy comes from.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
I read 0 interact actions as no interact actions happening.

Why specify at all if that's the goal? If the design intent is that you never need to reload a bow, then defining reload in terms interact actions and specifcying that bows perform that function as part of making a strike (rather than needing an additional action) is all meaningless text.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Unicore wrote:
I read 0 interact actions as no interact actions happening.
Why specify at all if that's the goal? If the design intent is that you never need to reload a bow, then defining reload in terms interact actions and specifcying that bows perform that function as part of making a strike (rather than needing an additional action) is all meaningless text.

The Pathfinder 2nd Edition developers wanted a Reload column in their table of ranged weapons. It would tell how many Interact actions were required to reload weapons like crossbows. Reload time is an important statistic for combat efficiency and should be given up front. For other weapons, they put either a "-" for weapons that did not need reloading or a "0" for weapons that did not consume Interact actions to reload before the Strike action.

The writers folded the description of Reload 0 into the description of Reload 1 and Reload 2, so the description is not clear about Reload 0. And the clarifying sentence, in italics below, is little help.

Reload
Source Core Rulebook pg. 279
While all weapons need some amount of time to get into position, many ranged weapons also need to be loaded and reloaded. This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity, or you can spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn.
An item with an entry of “—” must be drawn to be thrown, which usually takes an Interact action just like drawing any other weapon. Reloading a ranged weapon and drawing a thrown weapon both require a free hand. Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon.

This thread is an argument whether the Reload 0 means no Interact actions or an Interact action that has zero action cost. The difference is that an Interact action has a manipulate trait, so it triggers attacks of opportunity which could disrupt it on a critical hit. And it requires a DC 5 flat check when grabbed.

We "no Interact action" people admit that bows use arrows as ammunition and that those arrows must be drawn from a quiver (not that PF2 has quivers for sale to characters; instead, the quivers are assumed to be part of their clothing) and nocked to the bowstring. But adding an actual Interact action to drawing and nocking an arrow raises questions of what happens when the Interact action is disrupted. Can the archer just draw an arrow again without losing the Strike action to shoot the arrow? The rules don't answer that, and we feel that the question was never meant to be asked because Reload 0 has no Interact action.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Unicore wrote:

Interact is an action, not a trait. Either there is a subordinate interact action happening somewhere (where? There is disagreement here, even amongst folks that insist it is happening) or there is not. I read 0 interact actions as no interact actions happening.

Some aspect of firing a bow may have intended to have a manipulate trait, but describing something as sounding similar without giving the trait is a mistake if it is supposed to be read the same way. They did Errata battle medicine for this reason, the description didn’t match the traits it had and caused confusion. Until they did that though, there was no reason to call people names or suggest they are arguing in bad faith for playing the game the way they read the rules. The same applies here.

There are examples in-game where you are performing an Interact without spending an action on it. This proves you can indeed Interact without spending an action for it. The point is, in those examples, you can Interact for 0 Actions and still trigger by proxy of lacking an action not meaning you lack traits that come with it. In fact, it would have to work this way, because once again, you are saying there is no Interact happening, which means there is no Reload happening, as there is no other means to Reload a weapon aside from Interact, regardless of how many actions it might take.

Again, if it's a mistake, it would have been very easy to write it that way. The fact they didn't should mean something. You even pointed this out for pre-errata Battle Medicine, and the main contention point was with Manipulate not stating how many hands were needed. (It even got to the point people wanted to not need hands for it, hence the origins of the Jedi Defense being born.) At the end of the day, the description said the GM decided, so the game basically said "GM FIAT determines," which didn't work for PFS, and permitted obviously unintended shenanigans, like not needing hands, not needing Healer's Tools, being able to work in areas of...

Darksol,

In my reading of the PF2 rules, "activities" are higher level categories for groups of actions that are undertaken together. Interact is almost never an activity. It might be a subordinate action of an activity (like the quick draw activity that combines an interact action of drawing a weapon with striking with that weapon). This is an important distinction because activities need to list the subordinate actions they include, using the language of the game, to be consistent in how the rules get applied. There was a decision at some point with reload 0 not to go this route. One possibility is because the act of drawing an arrow to fire it with a bow is not an interact action. It is just a part of firing a bow, same as winding up to make a strike with a maul has all kinds of dangers the game doesn't factor in, as to why a maul would be a much more dangerous weapon to use in a combat than a great sword. Or how aiming is not its own separate action. It is not asking for Jedi Mind tricks that are not already a part of the game to suggest that traits that belong with actions and activities need to be written in the language of the game, or else they are not present.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
There are examples in-game where you are performing an Interact without spending an action on it.

Such as?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

In the three action economy, things that take one action are actions. Things that take more than one action are activities. Some activities take two or three actions and can be done in Encounter mode, some take more and must be done in Exploration (or, I suppose, Downtime) mode.


Ed Reppert wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
There are examples in-game where you are performing an Interact without spending an action on it.
Such as?

Quicken Harm. You spend a Free Action to remove an action from the next spell you cast. Harm as 1 action means no action when Quickened. And I guarantee you that players would try to argue that it doesn't trigger reactions even though you are performing a 0 action cost Manipulate activity via Casting a Spell. You can choose other 1 action spells and it's basically the same paradigm.

Running Reload. You spend an action to both step, Stride, or sneak, as well as reload in your choice of order. The rules don't specify which part the action covers, so you might be spending an action reloading, or you might not.

Quick Draw. You spend an action to draw, then strike. Again, which part counts as the action? Hard to say, since the rules don't designate action cost in regards to activities. But it could be argued you aren't spending an action to draw, which means you shouldn't be disrupted.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
There are examples in-game where you are performing an Interact without spending an action on it.
Such as?
Quicken Harm. You spend a Free Action to remove an action from the next spell you cast. Harm as 1 action means no action when Quickened. And I guarantee you that players would try to argue that it doesn't trigger reactions even though you are performing a 0 action cost Manipulate activity via Casting a Spell. You can choose other 1 action spells and it's basically the same paradigm.

Quickened Casting [Free Action] Feat 10

Bard, Concentrate, Metamagic, Oracle, Sorcerer, Witch, Wizard
Source Advanced Player's Guide pg. 80 2.0, Core Rulebook pg. 102 3.0
Archetype Time Mage*
Frequency once per day
* This archetype offers Quickened Casting at a different level than displayed here.
If your next action is to cast a cantrip or a spell that is at least 2 levels lower than the highest level spell slot you have, reduce the number of actions to cast it by 1 (minimum 1 action).

Special This can only be used on a cantrip or spell from the class matching the one you gained this feat from.

(1) Cast a Spell is not Interact.

(2) Quickened Casting has a minimum of one action.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Running Reload. You spend an action to both step, Stride, or sneak, as well as reload in your choice of order. The rules don't specify which part the action covers, so you might be spending an action reloading, or you might not.

Running Reload [One Action] Feat 4

Gunslinger, Ranger
Source Core Rulebook pg. 172 3.0
Archetypes Alkenstar Agent*, Archer*, Drow Shootist*, Game Hunter*
* This archetype offers Running Reload at a different level than displayed here.
You can reload your weapon on the move. You Stride, Step, or Sneak, then Interact to reload.

Running Reload explicitly contains Interact as a subordinate action. Running Reload specifies that the Interact to reload occurs after the movement, which is rather annoying because the character might prefer the Interact action at the beginning of the movement rather than the end of movement due to where enemy fighters stand.

I gave my NPC time oracle Amelia Running Reload.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Quick Draw. You spend an action to draw, then strike. Again, which part counts as the action? Hard to say, since the rules don't designate action cost in regards to activities. But it could be argued you aren't spending an action to draw, which means you shouldn't be disrupted.

Quick Draw [One Action] Feat 2

Gunslinger, Ranger, Rogue
Source Core Rulebook pg. 172 3.0
Archetypes Alkenstar Agent*, Butterfly Blade*, Vigilante*
* This archetype offers Quick Draw at a different level than displayed here.
You draw your weapon and attack with the same motion. You Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon.

Once again, Interact is a subordinate action.

I admit that Interact as a subordinate action is spending an action on the containing action rather than the subordinate action. But Ed Reppert quoted your sentence from comment #254. I am interested in a similar sentence from comment #252.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yes, there is no Interact ACTION being taken. I've never disputed this. That doesn't mean there is no Interact happening whatsoever. You're saying there isn't one happening whatsoever because you aren't spending an action on it. And to be clear, you don't have to spend an Action on it. Quicken Harm would trigger reactions. Same with Quick Draw. Same with Kip Up if it lacked the Reactions clause.

A subordinate Interact action is an ACTION.

Darksol the Painbringer is using only the time-slot meaning of the game term "action" and denying the single-task meaning by ignoring the rules on subordinate actions. This is confusing, but part of the blame is on the Paizo developers for giving two meanings to "action."


Okay, how about we all look at the greater picture for a moment? What actually does it mean that a reload is an interact action? Mostly that it provokes AoOs and can be disrupted. Also that a grappled character has to make a DC 5 flat check or lose the action.

About that: The action cost for the reload action for a bow is 0 actions. So if the DC 5 flat check fails, the character has to redo the reload action, pay the cost of 0 actions again and roll the flat check again. They have to repeat that until they either succeed at the flat check, or run out of actions. Whichever happens first. Computing the chances for each of those two scenarios occurring is left as an exercise to the reader.

If reloading draws an AoO and can be disrupted, well, if it gets disrupted, the character again has to make another reload and pay another 0 actions for the privilege. And then can perform the ranged strike with the bow unscathed, seeing that most enemies only get 1 AoO per round.

A savvy enemy, presumably, would not waste their only AoO on the reload action however, but try to disrupt the strike action instead. Because the cost of retrying that one is 1 action and -5 MAP.

Now a certain Fighter feat makes the archer not take AoO on ranged strikes. Does the reload provoke? Technically yes, but again an enemy presumably wants to stop the character from actually shooting, so would try to disrupt the strike, an learn the hard way they can't. How often that works before the enemy just tries to get in the AoO is another matter.


Mathmuse wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
There are examples in-game where you are performing an Interact without spending an action on it.
Such as?
-snip-

Okay, I forgot that last clause for Quicken Spell, my mistake, so it's not valid since you are still spending an action for a Manipulate trait activity. Seems a little silly for it to not work on 1 action spells, given it is already really restrictive, but it is what it is.

The others still circle back to interacting/manipulating without spending an action for it, though, which was the point being thrown at me: if you don't spend an action for it, you don't trigger reactions on it. Just because it's a subordinate action for a specific activity doesn't mean anything when the point being disputed was that the action cost is what creates the trigger, not the action itself (such as if it didn't cost an action for Reload 0).

@Lycar: If the Reload 0 was it's own thing that wasn't slapped onto a Strike action, this thread probably would not exist. Really, all this thread has proven is that errata is needed for Reload 0, since it's extremely paradoxical.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:


In my reading of the PF2 rules, "activities" are higher level categories for groups of actions that are undertaken together. Interact is almost never an activity.

I find this claim ironic, as the very next sentence gives an interaction that is an activity (at GM discretion):

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.

Remember also that defining reload 0 as a 1-action activity would preclude the use of ranged feats like multishot, as they cannot be combined with other actions or activities.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
There are examples in-game where you are performing an Interact without spending an action on it.
Such as?

Quickdraw, running reload, quickbomber.

all of the activities add an interaction for no additional cost.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:

Okay, how about we all look at the greater picture for a moment? What actually does it mean that a reload is an interact action? Mostly that it provokes AoOs and can be disrupted. Also that a grappled character has to make a DC 5 flat check or lose the action.

About that: The action cost for the reload action for a bow is 0 actions. So if the DC 5 flat check fails, the character has to redo the reload action, pay the cost of 0 actions again and roll the flat check again. They have to repeat that until they either succeed at the flat check, or run out of actions. Whichever happens first. Computing the chances for each of those two scenarios occurring is left as an exercise to the reader.

This isn't correct. They have to pay the 1 action cost for the attack, which includes the reload. If they fail the flat check the action is disrupted, after paying the cost.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The others still circle back to interacting/manipulating without spending an action for it, though, which was the point being thrown at me: if you don't spend an action for it, you don't trigger reactions on it. Just because it's a subordinate action for a specific activity doesn't mean anything when the point being disputed was that the action cost is what creates the trigger, not the action itself (such as if it didn't cost an action for Reload 0).

Subordinate actions still trigger reactions, because they are actions. Thus, if my character uses Quick Draw next to an enemy with Attack of Opportunity, then the Interact action to draw a weapon subordinate to the Quick Draw action is a manipulate action and triggers the Attack of Opportunity.

Consider that if the enemy makes a critical hit with the Attack of Opportunity, then the Interact is disrupted and my character fails to draw the weapon. Quick Draw gives only one Interact action to draw a weapon, so I cannot try to draw again during the Quick Draw. Next, Quick Draw says to Strike with the weapon I drew, which I failed to draw, so the Strike is cancelled. Thus, the action used for Quick Draw is wasted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The others still circle back to interacting/manipulating without spending an action for it, though, which was the point being thrown at me: if you don't spend an action for it, you don't trigger reactions on it. Just because it's a subordinate action for a specific activity doesn't mean anything when the point being disputed was that the action cost is what creates the trigger, not the action itself (such as if it didn't cost an action for Reload 0).

Subordinate actions still trigger reactions, because they are actions. Thus, if my character uses Quick Draw next to an enemy with Attack of Opportunity, then the Interact action to draw a weapon subordinate to the Quick Draw action is a manipulate action and triggers the Attack of Opportunity.

Consider that if the enemy makes a critical hit with the Attack of Opportunity, then the Interact is disrupted and my character fails to draw the weapon. Quick Draw gives only one Interact action to draw a weapon, so I cannot try to draw again during the Quick Draw. Next, Quick Draw says to Strike with the weapon I drew, which I failed to draw, so the Strike is cancelled. Thus, the action used for Quick Draw is wasted.

But they did not cost actions to do them, so they can't trigger reactions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jared Walter 356 wrote:
Unicore wrote:


In my reading of the PF2 rules, "activities" are higher level categories for groups of actions that are undertaken together. Interact is almost never an activity.

I find this claim ironic, as the very next sentence gives an interaction that is an activity (at GM discretion):

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.

Remember also that defining reload 0 as a 1-action activity would preclude the use of ranged feats like multishot, as they cannot be combined with other actions or activities.

I am not sure what “claim” you find ironic. My literal statement was “Interact is almost never an activity.” “Almost” explicitly because reloading is one of those rare circumstances where the whole activity is a number of interact actions taken to reload…when the reload takes multiple actions to accomplish. Reload 0 is not an activity. Firing a weapon with reload 0 is just a regular strike, hence why it works with feats that call for a basic strike. It is not possible in game to preemptively take the reload action with a reload 0 weapon so that you could be ready to strike immediately, if reload 0 does not include a subordinate reload action, then this is perfectly fine and causes no problems. If firing a reload 0 weapon includes the subordinate interact action, then this is a very large problem for all the multi shot feats.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Subordinate actions still trigger reactions, because they are actions....
But they did not cost actions to do them, so they can't trigger reactions.

I figured that some thread must have explained subordinate actions before now, so I searched on "Subordinate Actions" in the Rules Forum. I discovered that we had two previous threads about Reload 0: Does firing a Reload 0 weapon have the manipulate trait? in January 2020 and Interrupting Reload 0 in December 2021. I also saw that Ascalaphus is in the no Interact actions camp, which assures me, because Ascalaphus understands the rules better than I do.

Unfortunately, I did not find a thread that explained subordinate actions. Rather than arguing about them here, I will create a new thread for that. But I need time to write a good start to that thread, since I don't have a question. That will have to wait for Friday or Saturday.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The others still circle back to interacting/manipulating without spending an action for it, though, which was the point being thrown at me: if you don't spend an action for it, you don't trigger reactions on it. Just because it's a subordinate action for a specific activity doesn't mean anything when the point being disputed was that the action cost is what creates the trigger, not the action itself (such as if it didn't cost an action for Reload 0).

Subordinate actions still trigger reactions, because they are actions. Thus, if my character uses Quick Draw next to an enemy with Attack of Opportunity, then the Interact action to draw a weapon subordinate to the Quick Draw action is a manipulate action and triggers the Attack of Opportunity.

Consider that if the enemy makes a critical hit with the Attack of Opportunity, then the Interact is disrupted and my character fails to draw the weapon. Quick Draw gives only one Interact action to draw a weapon, so I cannot try to draw again during the Quick Draw. Next, Quick Draw says to Strike with the weapon I drew, which I failed to draw, so the Strike is cancelled. Thus, the action used for Quick Draw is wasted.

But they did not cost actions to do them, so they can't trigger reactions.

The definition of subordinate interactions says the subordinate action maintain all their traits and continue to trigger reactions:

CRB Pg 461 wrote:
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.

Bolding my own. Of course, in the example there, the Stride didn't cost 0 actions - but whenever you're doing an activity (particularly one that changes the action economy), you don't know the cost of an individual action in the activity. I could just as argue that Quick Draw is giving you a Strike at no cost, and the Interact action is still a full action, and so should provoke on your basis. There just isn't a clear distinction as to where your actions are being spent - so I find it very strange to say that Quick Draw, or Running Reload, or similar abilities are giving you a 0-action interact action. The same logic could be applied to Sudden Charge - maybe the Strike action there is costing 2 actions for some strange reason, and none of the movement should provoke? Maybe the first Stride costs an action, but the second doesn't, so it doesn't provoke reactions?

There's no way to split up the cost of the actions in an activity - Quick Draw costs an action to Interact and Strike, neither of those actions has an action cost. Trying to change the way the game reacts to the activity depending on what one personally thinks the action cost of each action is doesn't lead anywhere good, in my opinion.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Subordinate actions have their own traits which can trigger things. That's clearly in the rules, as quotes by Arcaian above me.

The traits of subordinate actions don't bubble up to the activity that they're subordinate to. You can clearly tell, because across hundreds of feats and other abilities, they use subordinate actions but don't have those traits in their own entry.

They don't have to, because the traits of the subordinate actions are still valid. If traits of subordinate actions bubbled up, activities would end up having twice as many traits, because the subordinate actions still have them too.

So reloading takes some number of Interact activities. Each of those Interacts has its own traits. If you tried to reload a crossbow with Reload 2, it would be an activity with two subordinate actions with Manipulate, so if you were grappled you'd have to pass two flat checks to finish.

If a bow has Reload 0, then there are 0 subordinate Interact activities, which counts up to 0 Manipulations.

---

If you think it doesn't make sense that reloading wouldn't involve any manipulations because you're handling an object, well so does hitting someone with a sword, but that doesn't have Manipulate either.

Pet peeve: something that's "implied" is by definition not RAW. If it was written then it would be explicit and thus isn't implicit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
If you tried to reload a crossbow with Reload 2, it would be an activity with two subordinate actions with Manipulate, so if you were grappled you'd have to pass two flat checks to finish.

That is 100% up to the DM: the DM may also say it's just 2 interact actions instead of a combined activity: "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."

Ascalaphus wrote:
If a bow has Reload 0, then there are 0 subordinate Interact activities, which counts up to 0 Manipulations.

It doesn't say that though: it says 0 actions AND that it takes place with your strike. "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" SOUNDS a lot like it's taking 0 actions of it's own and is instead counted as the activity action count only. Lets fill in the actions for a reload 0 once:

'The action [Strike] that allows you to use a subordinate action[Reload] doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so [0 actions]; that cost is already factored in.

Ascalaphus wrote:
Pet peeve: something that's "implied" is by definition not RAW. If it was written then it would be explicit and thus isn't implicit.

"This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action" just jumps out to me as a textbook example of a subordinate action in an activity. Really the only thing it's missing is a 'hey, this is a subordinate action!!!'. I just don't get the read that there is no reload involved with a Reload weapon... It negates the trait for Reload 0 weapons so why would it be there if that was true?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
If you tried to reload a crossbow with Reload 2, it would be an activity with two subordinate actions with Manipulate, so if you were grappled you'd have to pass two flat checks to finish.
That is 100% up to the DM: the DM may also say it's just 2 interact actions instead of a combined activity: "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."

Doesn't matter. Two loose actions with a Manipulate trait each, or one activity with two subordinate actions with a Manipulate trait each, it's 2 either way.

graystone wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
If a bow has Reload 0, then there are 0 subordinate Interact activities, which counts up to 0 Manipulations.
It doesn't say that though: it says 0 actions AND that it takes place with your strike.

It says:

CRB p. 279 wrote:
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.

So it's counting the number of Interact actions. 0 means 0 Interact actions. Drawing an arrow doesn't use the Interact action at all, it's part of the Strike action. Just like slashing with a sword doesn't take any Interact actions even though it's handling an object with your hands. And since the Interact actions are the only thing with a Manipulate trait in there, if there aren't any, then there is no manipulation going on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
If you tried to reload a crossbow with Reload 2, it would be an activity with two subordinate actions with Manipulate, so if you were grappled you'd have to pass two flat checks to finish.
That is 100% up to the DM: the DM may also say it's just 2 interact actions instead of a combined activity: "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."
Doesn't matter. Two loose actions with a Manipulate trait each, or one activity with two subordinate actions with a Manipulate trait each, it's 2 either way.

Two separate Interact actions to load a heavy crossbow or a single two-action Interact activity to load the same crossbow or a nameless two-action activity that has two subordinate Interact actions to reload all spend the same number of actions. Yet they have a difference in their relationships (I almost said "interaction" but that sounds too much like "Interact") with other features of the game.

If my character were reloading his heavy crossbow next to one enemy with attack of opportunity, I would prefer 2 separate Interact actions. If the enemy disrupts an Interact with a critical hit, I would lose only one action.

If my character were grabbed by Black Tentacles, I would prefer a two-action Interact activity. I would have to succeed at only a single DC 5 flat check.

If my character shot his heavy crossbow on the 2nd action of my turn, two separate Interact actions would let me split the reloading across two turns. For example, my first turn could have been Draw Loaded Crossbow, Strike with Crossbow, Interact for 1st half of reload (draw back the string and lock it in place). Then if an enemy moved adjacent to me between turns, my 2nd turn would be Step, Interact for 2nd half of reload (draw bolt, place it in groove, and regrip crossbow ready for a Strike), Strike with Crossbow. On the other hand, as a GM, I would dislike the half-reloaded state of the crossbow across turns. We could easily forget that the reloading is not finished and default to thinking it fully loaded.

A two-action activity with two subordinate Interact actions combines the other two interpretations for maximum inconvenience to the player.

Mostly, however, I dislike rules that say, "Let the GM decide," without providing any clues about which conditions favor which choices.


Jared Walter 356 wrote:
Lycar wrote:

Okay, how about we all look at the greater picture for a moment? What actually does it mean that a reload is an interact action? Mostly that it provokes AoOs and can be disrupted. Also that a grappled character has to make a DC 5 flat check or lose the action.

About that: The action cost for the reload action for a bow is 0 actions. So if the DC 5 flat check fails, the character has to redo the reload action, pay the cost of 0 actions again and roll the flat check again. They have to repeat that until they either succeed at the flat check, or run out of actions. Whichever happens first. Computing the chances for each of those two scenarios occurring is left as an exercise to the reader.

This isn't correct. They have to pay the 1 action cost for the attack, which includes the reload. If they fail the flat check the action is disrupted, after paying the cost.

In this case, there also is no problem with Mobile Shot Stance. The reload is subsumed into the Strike action, and the feat explicitly absolves the Strike action from any AoOs. So the reload technically provoking does no longer matter.

Would also mean that, yes, a grappled archer without Mobile Shot Stance stands a 20% chance to lose their action.

So, uh, what was this thread about again...?

markrivett wrote:

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

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

Yeah, that. So, unless we go with '0 action cost to reload means no interaction happens', that question is now answered as 'Yes, being grabbed does influence shooting a bow'.

Silver Crusade

Jared Walter 356 wrote:
Lucerious wrote:

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.

This is being misread. The "This" in the third sentence ties back to "This Entry" in the second sentence and not "the amount of interactions" in the second sentence.

It should be:

This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This (entry) can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action.

and not
This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This (amount of interactions) can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action.

This (reply) is the most non-sensical thing in this entire thread full of non-sensical things.


Arcaian wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The others still circle back to interacting/manipulating without spending an action for it, though, which was the point being thrown at me: if you don't spend an action for it, you don't trigger reactions on it. Just because it's a subordinate action for a specific activity doesn't mean anything when the point being disputed was that the action cost is what creates the trigger, not the action itself (such as if it didn't cost an action for Reload 0).

Subordinate actions still trigger reactions, because they are actions. Thus, if my character uses Quick Draw next to an enemy with Attack of Opportunity, then the Interact action to draw a weapon subordinate to the Quick Draw action is a manipulate action and triggers the Attack of Opportunity.

Consider that if the enemy makes a critical hit with the Attack of Opportunity, then the Interact is disrupted and my character fails to draw the weapon. Quick Draw gives only one Interact action to draw a weapon, so I cannot try to draw again during the Quick Draw. Next, Quick Draw says to Strike with the weapon I drew, which I failed to draw, so the Strike is cancelled. Thus, the action used for Quick Draw is wasted.

But they did not cost actions to do them, so they can't trigger reactions.

The definition of subordinate interactions says the subordinate action maintain all their traits and continue to trigger reactions:

CRB Pg 461 wrote:
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
...

Yes, but only if you spend an action on them, which the activity rules debunk by saying no extra actions are spent. The argument has been that, because you don't spend an action on it, no reactions can trigger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Arcaian wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The others still circle back to interacting/manipulating without spending an action for it, though, which was the point being thrown at me: if you don't spend an action for it, you don't trigger reactions on it. Just because it's a subordinate action for a specific activity doesn't mean anything when the point being disputed was that the action cost is what creates the trigger, not the action itself (such as if it didn't cost an action for Reload 0).

Subordinate actions still trigger reactions, because they are actions. Thus, if my character uses Quick Draw next to an enemy with Attack of Opportunity, then the Interact action to draw a weapon subordinate to the Quick Draw action is a manipulate action and triggers the Attack of Opportunity.

Consider that if the enemy makes a critical hit with the Attack of Opportunity, then the Interact is disrupted and my character fails to draw the weapon. Quick Draw gives only one Interact action to draw a weapon, so I cannot try to draw again during the Quick Draw. Next, Quick Draw says to Strike with the weapon I drew, which I failed to draw, so the Strike is cancelled. Thus, the action used for Quick Draw is wasted.

But they did not cost actions to do them, so they can't trigger reactions.

The definition of subordinate interactions says the subordinate action maintain all their traits and continue to trigger reactions:

CRB Pg 461 wrote:
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
...

This is a misrepresentation of the issue. The question is whether 0 interactions means no interaction subordinate action (whatever part of the action drawing the arrow is is just a part of the action of striking with it) or if it means implied subordinate interact action with no cost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not exactly. The argument of "0 actions = 0 disruptions" is solely predicated on the fact that reloading gets disrupted because it takes an action to do, and that if an action isn't spent, it can't be reacted to or disrupted. Kip Up would suggest otherwise, since it has to actually call out not triggering reactions, since a free action is about as equivalent to no actions as we can get, but nobody cares about that enough to use it as precedent, so why shouldn't I do the same when people reference subordinate actions as evidence? Even so, this would imply reload is a subordinate action of the Strike, and the opposite side has not agreed to this, so apples to oranges on that being relevant evidence anyway.

Really, the non-action of reloading a bow is tied to making a Strike, so you have this weird juxtaposition with bows that isn't present with any other weapons because they don't have exclusively defined reload rules or unclear mechanics tied to them.


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

Darksol, you are going to great lengths to build a false argument to rail against. Subordinate actions are called out within the activities that have them. You strongly believe there is supposed to be a subordinate interact action somewhere between the reload description and the 1+ hand weapon description, but is just not clearly stated. That is why I am trying to be fair to your argument by calling it an implied subordinate action.

I agree with you that, at times, the description of both 1+ weapons and the reload trait get close to that, but they don’t ever actually say that, and saying exactly that would have been possible and not that complicated to add so that it is in the right place to tell people where the subordinate action is happening.

The other possibility is that the description of firing an arrow from a bow is causing you (and many other people as well) to add something that was not intended to be there. In which case a FAQ would be nice, but additional language/ errata would be unnecessary.

I understand that you don’t think this second option is true, but it is the position that I, and others are arguing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I haven't read all the old arguments prior to The Rules Lawyer's necro, but it occurs to me that there is already precedent for Strike to have a subordinate interact action like the 0 reload might be, though again they're careful not to call it that because of the argument for turning such Strikes into an activity instead of the basic action. "Due to the complexity involved in preparing bombs, Strikes to throw alchemical bombs gain the manipulate trait. The bomb is activated when thrown as a Strike—you don’t have to activate it separately." CR 544

If they were to clarify reload 0 to end this argument, I'd like to see it be treated like that if their intention was to have reload 0 be subject to Grabbed and the like. Something akin to, "due to reloading during the attack, Strikes with reload 0 weapons which lack the repeating trait gain the manipulate trait." That could also be an opportunity to clear up its interaction with Mobile Shot Stance


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

Darksol, you are going to great lengths to build a false argument to rail against. Subordinate actions are called out within the activities that have them. You strongly believe there is supposed to be a subordinate interact action somewhere between the reload description and the 1+ hand weapon description, but is just not clearly stated. That is why I am trying to be fair to your argument by calling it an implied subordinate action.

I agree with you that, at times, the description of both 1+ weapons and the reload trait get close to that, but they don’t ever actually say that, and saying exactly that would have been possible and not that complicated to add so that it is in the right place to tell people where the subordinate action is happening.

The other possibility is that the description of firing an arrow from a bow is causing you (and many other people as well) to add something that was not intended to be there. In which case a FAQ would be nice, but additional language/ errata would be unnecessary.

I understand that you don’t think this second option is true, but it is the position that I, and others are arguing.

How is it that "no actions = no reactions/disruptions," translates to "a false argument to rail against?" People in this very thread have said that because you spend 0 interact actions to reload that you don't trigger reactions or suffer from disruptions. This is not a false argument at all. Several people in this very thread have stated this factoid as an argument for disallowing Reload 0 to trigger reactions or suffer disruptions. Therefore, it's not a false argument. I certainly find it to be a laughable argument, but that doesn't make it false, in the sense that it's not an argument that hasn't be presented. Because it has been, and it's been repeated numerous times. And each time it has, it means it doesn't happen, which means you're just holding a curved, fashioned stick in your hand that's not a Club.

To add onto this, a Reload 0, 1+ Hand weapon, is not described as something that doesn't take any action, activity, or effort on the character's part, or even better, that the action, activity, or effort is useless/ancillary, and the action that it's tied to (Strike), isn't predicated on this activity/effort coming to pass, so the idea that there can't be any form of disruption or reaction to take place is absurd.

Also, how can it be an "implied" subordinate action? Either it is one or it isn't one. This "yes but actually no" argument doesn't make sense when it's a binary question with only one true answer, neither of which is helpful to your argument.

If it is one, then it affects the action it's tied to, which is Striking, which means it triggers reactions based on it being a 1 action activity. Of course, if it isn't, then it requires a separate activity that's not quantified or spelled out in the book, in which case the weapon does not function. And no, you can't reference Interact, because then you're invoking all of the baggage that comes with it, which the whole point of the counterargument is that it absolutely does not, under any circumstance, call for Manipulate to apply. Even if a GM needs to come up with a 0 action activity for reloading, because one doesn't exist, the closest one to that is, surprise surprise, Interact, which comes with Manipulate, because the only difference between Reload 1 and Reload 0 is the number of actions required.

Incidentally, the second problem is that, because the rules paraphrase reloading and shooting as part of the same action (Striking), and because you can't Reload without Interact (Strike rules don't say you Reload a Reload 0 weapon as part of your action, assuming the action automatically does it for you is handwavium bogusness), you're back to square 1 of it disrupting the Strike it's tied to. Incidentally, if it was a separate activity, it would still trigger reactions (though can't be disrupted; or rather, it is superfluous to be disrupted), so it would actually be better if it was ruled this way. And really, all the other Reload weapons work this way; why should Reload 0 be any different?

And Baarogue's kind citation gives us precedent of other ranged attacks invoking traits without adding actions to Interact, Reload, etc. Incidentally, this is far clearer to spell out while getting the same effect across, even though they are simple 1-action Strikes, the same as bows.

So wait; bombs, which require preparing something already in your hands trigger reactions and be disrupted, but bow shots, which require retrieving ammunition from an easily-accessible container, doesn't? Even though they both take the same amount of actions to do? This revelation has now firmly planted me in the "it triggers reactions and disruptions, deal with it" camp, and short of Paizo Errata, you can't convince me otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think it is interesting that we had completely different reactions to Baarogue's post. Seeing that they would add specific text to spell out that a bomb's strike action has the manipulate trait makes me feel like if firing a bow was supposed to have the trait, then wouldn't that mean that attacks that have traits added to them should explicitly spell that out?

Again, if an Errata came that did add the manipulate trait to 1+ handed weapon strikes, or to the reload 0 trait, I would be perfectly fine with that decision. I don't think this issue affects balance very much one way or another. I just think it is very important for their to be consistency in rules language, especially with traits and and subordinate actions.

I just also think that the game doesn't suffer much bows continuing to be in this magical space of favored weapons of the gods. So many other decisions lean that way that it just doesn't feel impossible that firing a bow is supposed to be a streamlined single action strike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
So wait; bombs, which require preparing something already in your hands trigger reactions and be disrupted, but bow shots, which require retrieving ammunition from an easily-accessible container, doesn't? Even though they both take the same amount of actions to do? This revelation has now firmly planted me in the "it triggers reactions and disruptions, deal with it" camp, and short of Paizo Errata, you can't convince me otherwise.

You have the same thing with Quick Bomber [one action to Interact to draw a bomb, then Strike with it] or Quick Draw [one action to Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon]. It's not like we're in a unique situation or that any other ability specifically calls out that something is a subordinate action: you just get activities with multiple actions/abilities involved tied together with a total cost which is often less that what they'd be if counted separately. I just can't wrap my head around not taking it as that and instead inventing a new type of non-action action that doesn't have any traits and rules of that type of weapon. How does having a reload weapon you never reload make any kind of sense? I don't get it. :P

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Jared Walter 356 wrote:

This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This (entry) can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action.

and not
This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This (amount of interactions) can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action.

This (reply) is the most non-sensical thing in this entire thread full of non-sensical things.

First of all, that is just insulting.

Secondly, this (mis)reading of the text is at the heart of all the disagreement. These two reading have very different implications.

People are claiming that a 0 entry means no interact happens, when an zero entry explicitly calls out the reload as part of the strike*

* Edit: Attack

Grand Lodge

Lycar wrote:


In this case, there also is no problem with Mobile Shot Stance. The reload is subsumed into the Strike action, and the feat explicitly absolves the Strike action from any AoOs. So the reload technically provoking does no longer matter.

Would also mean that, yes, a grappled archer without Mobile Shot Stance stands a 20% chance to lose their action.

Yeah, that. So, unless we go with '0 action cost to reload means no interaction happens', that question is now answered as 'Yes, being grabbed does influence shooting a bow'.

This is my interpretation as well. Since the specific text of Mobile Shot says the attack no longer provokes, and the reload is part of the attack, it no longer provokes, and yes a grappled archer would suffer a 20% change to lose their action if they tried to use their bow.


Unicore wrote:

I think it is interesting that we had completely different reactions to Baarogue's post. Seeing that they would add specific text to spell out that a bomb's strike action has the manipulate trait makes me feel like if firing a bow was supposed to have the trait, then wouldn't that mean that attacks that have traits added to them should explicitly spell that out?

Again, if an Errata came that did add the manipulate trait to 1+ handed weapon strikes, or to the reload 0 trait, I would be perfectly fine with that decision. I don't think this issue affects balance very much one way or another. I just think it is very important for their to be consistency in rules language, especially with traits and and subordinate actions.

I just also think that the game doesn't suffer much bows continuing to be in this magical space of favored weapons of the gods. So many other decisions lean that way that it just doesn't feel impossible that firing a bow is supposed to be a streamlined single action strike.

To a point. This does demonstrates that Paizo can certainly express the ability to spell this intent out clearly, but it also demonstrates there is some significant inconsistency in what does or does not follow this intent, provided based on my prior summary. I have a sneaking suspicion the reason it's different/clearer is because you don't reload Bombs when you throw them as a Strike, and Reload, as ancillary as it is, is still tied to firing a Bow, whether it takes actions or not. A doesn't have to finagle Reload mechanics into its function. A Bow does. Hence why it doesn't track that Bombs can trigger reactions and be disrupted, but Bows cannot.

At the end of the day, it really boils down to Reload 0 being poorly written and not having a proper exception to it, or if it's supposed to have one at all. I'd be fine with errata clarifying one way or the other, since it's been obvious from the beginning that the wording is just awful. But until that happens, I'm not changing my opinion on the matter in any way.


graystone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
So wait; bombs, which require preparing something already in your hands trigger reactions and be disrupted, but bow shots, which require retrieving ammunition from an easily-accessible container, doesn't? Even though they both take the same amount of actions to do? This revelation has now firmly planted me in the "it triggers reactions and disruptions, deal with it" camp, and short of Paizo Errata, you can't convince me otherwise.
You have the same thing with Quick Bomber [one action to Interact to draw a bomb, then Strike with it] or Quick Draw [one action to Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon]. It's not like we're in a unique situation or that any other ability specifically calls out that something is a subordinate action: you just get activities with multiple actions/abilities involved tied together with a total cost which is often less that what they'd be if counted separately. I just can't wrap my head around not taking it as that and instead inventing a new type of non-action action that doesn't have any traits and rules of that type of weapon. How does having a reload weapon you never reload make any kind of sense? I don't get it. :P

I mean, in terms of a binary "Does it/Does it not trigger reactions/disruptions," no. In both cases, you are triggering a reaction that is prone to disruption.

But the amount of actions spent, and the book outright outlining the operation of simply Striking with a Bomb, changes the paradigm to a whole new parallel not conceived of before. A Strike with a pre-held Bomb triggering reactions/disruptions while having seemingly less Manipulation involved just seems highly suspicious for the rules to not defend with a mechanic of some sort (no, not the non-existent Reload mechanic). The portion that can trigger reactions/disruptions (only the Strike, as there is no other activity/action taking place) certainly changes this paradigm, and can come up in play if you're, say, a low level Bomber Alchemist coming into battle with a Bomb pre-drawn, and get surprised by melee enemies that end up having Attacks of Opportunity.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I mean if your vision of bombs is that they work like grenades, that is one thing, but if you have a vision of bombs where they have a fuse that must be lit, that adds a lot of complexity to the action, far exceeding that of nocking an arrow.

But I think getting bogged down in trying to approximate logical narratives of real world activities over game mechanics will always lead to these kind of debates unless you use game specific language to pair like with like, and avoid saying “add relevant traits as feels appropriate” to well defined game mechanics that really should use consistent language.

In those instances where the mechanical language exists, I think everyone should advocate for their usage, regardless of how you feel like the rules “should work” for balance or narrative purposes.

My decision as a GM to run no implied subordinate actions is based on this logic. Other GMs might prefer to run it the way that it feels like it should work for balance or narrative reasons, but I think it just boils down to what you are wanting to get out of the gaming experience.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It's not really about balance or narrative tbh, those are just points that reinforce the core issue, which is mostly about rules.

If Paizo erratas it to work the way Unicore wants it to work, it won't really be that big of a deal in terms of balance or narrative (odd, but really not a big deal).


Unicore wrote:

I mean if your vision of bombs is that they work like grenades, that is one thing, but if you have a vision of bombs where they have a fuse that must be lit, that adds a lot of complexity to the action, far exceeding that of nocking an arrow.

But I think getting bogged down in trying to approximate logical narratives of real world activities over game mechanics will always lead to these kind of debates unless you use game specific language to pair like with like, and avoid saying “add relevant traits as feels appropriate” to well defined game mechanics that really should use consistent language.

In those instances where the mechanical language exists, I think everyone should advocate for their usage, regardless of how you feel like the rules “should work” for balance or narrative purposes.

My decision as a GM to run no implied subordinate actions is based on this logic. Other GMs might prefer to run it the way that it feels like it should work for balance or narrative reasons, but I think it just boils down to what you are wanting to get out of the gaming experience.

We have the rules explaining how to wield 1+ hand weapons in a way that can be construed as a Manipulate action, because verbatim, it's no different from drawing a weapon, reloading a weapon, re-gripping a weapon, etc. Bombs do not have such an explanation, other than that there is "complexity" involved to the point that the rules simply state it gets the trait on Strikes it makes. What counts as "complexity" is basically whatever the GM decides, but as you state, that can range from it being like a grenade, or by having a proper chemical reaction mixture at just the right time. With the rules being silent on the matter, we could take either extreme: If it's more complex than a bow shot, then it should be explained as such to justify the trait. If it's less complex than a bow shot, why is it that bombs can get hand-waved into being disrupted (they already can trigger reactions by nature of being a ranged attack), but bow attacks cannot? It certainly isn't because of balance reasons, bombs are worse than bows in every aspect: Worse range, worse damage, worse traits, etc. Because a bomb is more "complex" than a bow? Again, it's unclear, compared to a clearly defined bow strike that requires two hands to wield while constantly drawing and manipulating ammunition between each strike that is very loosely defined as an interact activity. Because every single publisher of TTRPGs is a part of the Legolas Fan Club? Conjecture at-best, even if it's my most prevalent tin foil hat theory to propose on that matter.

You're describing what the GM has to do when the rules don't explain how something works precisely: If the rules aren't clear on what the rule does, the GM decides, or at best comes to an agreement with the players on how it works. The unclear rules clause determines this. Furthermore, all actions are activities, but not all activities are actions. Fitting, given we are talking about something that isn't an action, but is an activity that currently needs to be done prior to striking an enemy.

Again, that's only if the mechanical language exists. When it doesn't, we have to refer to balance/narrative to guide us, and honestly, bows are currently the most powerful ranged option there is. And adding this option here gives other ranged options more parity, so I don't need to look at "Legolas Lookalike #273" as a character. If Reload 0 actually meant it doesn't trigger reactions, or that a Reload activity of any sort isn't necessary? Sure. And if it did, this thread wouldn't exist. So it kind of defeats the point in bringing this up.


Jared Walter 356 wrote:
Lycar wrote:


In this case, there also is no problem with Mobile Shot Stance. The reload is subsumed into the Strike action, and the feat explicitly absolves the Strike action from any AoOs. So the reload technically provoking does no longer matter.

Would also mean that, yes, a grappled archer without Mobile Shot Stance stands a 20% chance to lose their action.

Yeah, that. So, unless we go with '0 action cost to reload means no interaction happens', that question is now answered as 'Yes, being grabbed does influence shooting a bow'.

This is my interpretation as well. Since the specific text of Mobile Shot says the attack no longer provokes, and the reload is part of the attack, it no longer provokes, and yes a grappled archer would suffer a 20% change to lose their action if they tried to use their bow.

Straying into slightly off topic territory, but I would argue that this doesn't save a bow strike from AoO's if they include Manipulate. Mobile Shot Stance is pretty specific in what it does.

Mobile Shot Stance wrote:
While you're in this stance, your ranged Strikes don't trigger Attacks of Opportunity or other reactions that are triggered by a ranged attack.

MSS wouldn't stop the manipulate sub-action of drawing the arrow from provoking by virtue of having Manipulate, since it isn't itself a "ranged attack". In fact it would make Bow Strikes susceptible to any reaction triggered by a Manipulate action, even if they don't spell out triggering based on a Ranged Strike. Disrupt Prey or Implement's Interruption spring to mind, and they are both relevant to the discussion since they both disrupt on a critical hit.

My point is that even if you remove one trigger, you don't remove all possible triggers of an action.


beowulf99 wrote:
My point is that even if you remove one trigger, you don't remove all possible triggers of an action.

How so? If the argument is that the Reload action gets subsumed into the ranged Strike action, it means the Strike inherits all the traits of the subsumed action, hence the Strike action of a Reload-0 weapon has both Manipulate and Interact traits. So far so good.

Since Mobile Shot Stance explicitly says that your ranged Strikes do not trigger AoOs, it does not matter how many traits there are that could trigger a reaction. And the part after the 'or' relates to things other then AoOs, so is not relevant here.

To clarify: The feat expressively negates AoOs from the ranged Strike, period. It merely clarifies that it also negates non-AoO reactions, that would otherwise be triggered. I do not see how your argument holds water. Disrupt Prey and Implement's Interruption would be either a form of AoO, which MSS explicitly negates, or they would fall under 'other reactions', which MSS also cancels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:
Jared Walter 356 wrote:
Lycar wrote:


In this case, there also is no problem with Mobile Shot Stance. The reload is subsumed into the Strike action, and the feat explicitly absolves the Strike action from any AoOs. So the reload technically provoking does no longer matter.

Would also mean that, yes, a grappled archer without Mobile Shot Stance stands a 20% chance to lose their action.

Yeah, that. So, unless we go with '0 action cost to reload means no interaction happens', that question is now answered as 'Yes, being grabbed does influence shooting a bow'.

This is my interpretation as well. Since the specific text of Mobile Shot says the attack no longer provokes, and the reload is part of the attack, it no longer provokes, and yes a grappled archer would suffer a 20% change to lose their action if they tried to use their bow.

Straying into slightly off topic territory, but I would argue that this doesn't save a bow strike from AoO's if they include Manipulate. Mobile Shot Stance is pretty specific in what it does.

Mobile Shot Stance wrote:
While you're in this stance, your ranged Strikes don't trigger Attacks of Opportunity or other reactions that are triggered by a ranged attack.

MSS wouldn't stop the manipulate sub-action of drawing the arrow from provoking by virtue of having Manipulate, since it isn't itself a "ranged attack". In fact it would make Bow Strikes susceptible to any reaction triggered by a Manipulate action, even if they don't spell out triggering based on a Ranged Strike. Disrupt Prey or Implement's Interruption spring to mind, and they are both relevant to the discussion since they both disrupt on a critical hit.

My point is that even if you remove one trigger, you don't remove all possible triggers of an action.

I don't think it's necessarily off-topic, since Mobile Shot Stance has been used as a piece of evidence suggesting the feat was written with the intent that Reload 0 doesn't trigger reactions/disruptions into the action it's baked into. It's a good thing to discuss, especially since IMO, it should need errata for future-proofing purposes if the intent is that ranged attacks can't trigger reactions.

Looking at Disrupt Prey, though, it has separate triggers: It includes manipulate, move, or leaving squares during a move, and only works on your hunted target(s). Does it include ranged attacks? By RAW, no, meaning throwing a javelin, for example, would not be grounds for Disrupt Prey to trigger, since thrown weapons (sans bombs) don't have an Interact activity/Manipulate trait to them. As such, Mobile Shot Stance wouldn't apply to this, as it's not a reaction that is triggered by a ranged attack.

Implement's Interruption is similar wording: It includes concentrate, move, manipulate, or leaving squares during a move. Again, it does not include ranged attacks in particular, meaning a Javelin toss is A-OK. It also requires you to have used your actions to Exploit Vulnerability on the targeted creature, similar to Disrupt Prey requiring it to be a hunted target. This would work with 1-action spells like Shield or True Strike, since it also works with Concentrate actions (of which Verbal components possess), and it may disrupt any of the given actions in question, making it stronger in this respect, only becoming more prevalent at 17th level with the Major Implement feature. Again, it's not "AoO Lite," because it works on any of the triggers/actions, and has specific requirements for targeting, and none of those triggers/actions include a ranged attack unless said ranged attack is also a manipulate.

Looking at these in-depth, only AoO works on a ranged attack, as the other two do not reference a ranged attack in any way, and if the idea is that Mobile Shot Stance only works for ranged attacks, and not anything else tied to a ranged attack (such as a manipulating reload), it shouldn't be errata'd to include manipulate traits on ranged attacks, either. IMO, if Mobile Shot Stance doesn't work with protecting a Bomb attack (because it has manipulate), then it's not intended to work with other manipulate things, which IMO includes bow shots. Other throwing weapons or non-manipulating ranged attacks are protected, but certainly not bombs, and contentionally not bow shots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Where do the rules say that a Reload action has the Manipulate trait? For that matter, where do the rules say that "Reload" is an action? Just point me to the page number(s).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reload is always an Interact action:

Reload
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.

Interact always has the manipulate trait:
Interact
Manipulate
Source Core Rulebook pg. 470 3.0
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. You might have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful.


Lycar wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
My point is that even if you remove one trigger, you don't remove all possible triggers of an action.

How so? If the argument is that the Reload action gets subsumed into the ranged Strike action, it means the Strike inherits all the traits of the subsumed action, hence the Strike action of a Reload-0 weapon has both Manipulate and Interact traits. So far so good.

Since Mobile Shot Stance explicitly says that your ranged Strikes do not trigger AoOs, it does not matter how many traits there are that could trigger a reaction. And the part after the 'or' relates to things other then AoOs, so is not relevant here.

To clarify: The feat expressively negates AoOs from the ranged Strike, period. It merely clarifies that it also negates non-AoO reactions, that would otherwise be triggered. I do not see how your argument holds water. Disrupt Prey and Implement's Interruption would be either a form of AoO, which MSS explicitly negates, or they would fall under 'other reactions', which MSS also cancels.

I think you are thinking about this backwards. MSS doesn't stop Ranged Strikes from provoking entirely, it only stops them from provoking by virtue of them being ranged strikes. It doesn't stop any other trigger as far as I can tell.

MSS stops your Ranged strikes from provoking because they are ranged strikes, but doesn't stop them from fulfilling other triggers. It doesn't say that it does, so it doesn't.

The way I interpret MSS, it doesn't even stop AoO entirely. It only stops AoO from being able to trigger based on the fact that the ranged strike is... a ranged strike. If that ranged strike also has Manipulate, it would still trigger just fine as far as I can tell.


Jared Walter 356 wrote:

Reload is always an Interact action:

Reload
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.

Interact always has the manipulate trait:
Interact
Manipulate
Source Core Rulebook pg. 470 3.0
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. You might have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful.

I agree that Interact action always has the manipulate trait, but I disagree that reload requires an Interact action of its own. An alternative explanation for the Interact is that the game designers knew that crossbows needed time, i.e., actions, to reload, and Interact is the default non-attack action to handle objects. Being the default does not make it innate.

As a counterexample, Interact is also the action to open doors. But Force Opne can also open doors. Interact can be used to grab a ladder, but grabbing a ladder to ascend it is a Climb action.

Release is another basic action very similar to Interact. It also has the manipulate trait, but with an extra clause that that its manipulate does not provoke reactions. Shooting an arrow from a bow requires releasing that arrow. Thus, by the logic that reload must be Interact, loosing an arrow must be Release.

We could fall down a rabbit hole of dozens of subordinate actions if every step that required an action to perform on its own created a subordinate action whenever performed as part of another action. Reloading a crossbow requires drawing a bolt, so the Interact action to reload must also require an Interact action to draw. For playability, a line must be drawn after which the lesser actions are absorbed into the overall action without a chain of subordinate actions. I believe that for Reload 0 the line is drawn before creating a subordinate Interact action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
We could fall down a rabbit hole of dozens of subordinate actions if every step that required an action to perform on its own created a subordinate action whenever performed as part of another action. Reloading a crossbow requires drawing a bolt, so the Interact action to reload must also require an Interact action to draw. For playability, a line must be drawn after which the lesser actions are absorbed into the overall action without a chain of subordinate actions. I believe that for Reload 0 the line is drawn before creating a subordinate Interact action.

I don't think there is a reason to draw any line. There are only a finite number of things your character can or will be doing at any one time. For reloading a crossbow, that means drawing and placing the bolt in the crossbow. For a bow that means drawing and knocking the arrow.

I don't see how one is more or less complicated than the other. In one case you draw and load without shooting. In the other you draw and knock then loose.

Trying to claim that there are so many, "dozens of subordinate actions" involved feels like blowing it way out of proportion.

251 to 300 of 477 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Is a manipulate action baked into firing a bow? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.