| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If reload 0 said that the interaction required to load this weapon became a free action, then that would 100% back up what you are arguing Darksol, and might be the way to errata it if it is important for there to be a separate interact action happening in the process of firing bows.
I am not sure free actions can interrupt activities though, so that might make feats that have you take two strikes with a bow not work if that free action can’t happen within the activity.
I do not believe there are 0 action actions not contained within an activity that are not free actions or reactions. If that is the position you are arguing thinks 0 actions = 0 reactions, then the problem here is that “0actions” is a made up term. Actions either take actions, are free actions or reactions, or are part of an activity. I stopped using the word subordinate action because it is not a game term and didn’t seem valuable to this conversation. I would suggest we drop 0 action actions as a term as well.
An action that takes no actions to perform is a free action by itself, or part of an activity if it is combined into other actions.
PF2 can add the manipulate trait to a single action if that action now has the complex hand gestures such an action should require, it cannot add actions to other actions without making those actions an activity.
Again, why does something have to be an action for it to be considered something to trigger against? This is literally one of the argument behind "0 actions = 0 reactions." I am not disputing that Reload 0 should be a free action: if it was, then the consequence of it being disrupted is inconsequential, and people would still complain they are taking damage for doing their thing, or having two separate triggers spelled out for them, so enemies with multiple reactions double-whammy them, even though Crossbows already suffer this, but spend more actions to do so.
I am saying that Reload 0 means it doesn't cost an action to reload, but still comes with all of the other baggage of reloading, which includes manipulate. Short of the number of actions needed to do the specified activity, nothing else changes. If anything, the problem is with Paizo deciding that Reload 0 has to be tied to the Strike action when it simply doesn't need to be. A clause of being able to utilize Reload 0 weapons to reload prior to a subordinate Strike action would have sufficed instead of this awkward garbage.
This thread has been going in circles since the exact same positions were given, explained, and even linked since the second page of the thread.
Maybe they are just trying to crack 500 posts? I mean I appreciate that they are taking the time to work through the issues. But there is a lot of repetition here.
Subordinate actions ate a game term. You can literal read it in the "in-depth action rules" of the action page.
It has to be an interact action because that is the action to for drawing and stowing items.
It can't be a free action with a trigger because it would then shut down other abilities that modify strikes as a free action.
Similarly, the strike itself is not a manipulate only loading the weapon. Which is why adding manipulate to the strike doesn't make much sense.
Finally, if Paizo didn't want to make ranged strikes with a reload 0 into activities than they should not have tied reload 0 to striking. They could had made it into a special free action that can interrupts and not provoke, but that is not what they did. And there is no such thing as taking no action to do something.
Ah, I see it now, it is in the sidebar on page 461:
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.
I do not find this that helpful a term, but let's really look closely at it and what it does. I bolded the most relevant part to this discussion.
My reading of subordinate actions still does not allow for one basic action to be combined with new actions and not become an activity. A subordinate action is an action that has been modified to allow it to be used in different circumstances or with different effects. I think they made this exceedingly confusing by first using an example that is part of an unnamed hypothetical activity. The stride subordinate action of this unnamed activity has been modified, you can only move half your speed. But the activity itself tells you that you are taking a stride action. It doesn't say add a stride action to this other action, or if the hypothetical activity did this, it would tell you what actions take place and how many actions the new activity uses, but it is doing so as an activity, not as a modified basic action.
"the action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn't require you to spend more actions or reactions to use a subordinate action doesn't require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so," feels like the part of this rules clarification that allows the strike action to include a subordinate interact action for a lot of people, but there is inconsistent use of the word activity and action in this section of text that is probably leading to different readings. "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" specifically is a real head scratcher.
I can see why some people might read "the larger action" as allowing for actions to contain other actions without becoming an activity, but I think that is a really confusing way to read this entry on subordinate actions, especially because the example they give is of an activity containing an action that is a subordinate action because it has been modified from a normal basic action. My issue is that the sentence explaning reload 0 weapons and what using 0 interact actions means doesn't use interact or strike in establishing what the action of firing a reload 0 weapon is. It uses descriptive text not tied to the rules for both parts of the sentence. I would still argue that this contradicts what we are told in Other Actions on 462, which says that when you are doing something that is not a defined action (like I think we all agree is the case with reloading generally, it is not a defined action), the rules will tell you what actions you are taking and what traits they have. Without that clarity, it seems unlikely that anyone is going to convince anyone about the intention of the rules.
Either you believe reload 0 makes strike into a "larger action" that contains an interact action that takes no actions to perform, or you believe that the description of reload 0 is telling you that you don't need to add any interact actions to a strike action for that action to include the movements of drawing and knocking an arrow.
Because no traits and no subordinate actions are explicitly called out by name in these rules, it will remain GM fiat.
I am willing to acknowledge that "drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action" sounds similar to the language of subordinate actions, but if that was the intention, then use the actual game language. Otherwise it reads to me like descriptive text.
Or to summarize, "Subordinate actions" rules make a muddled mess of the actions vs activities section of the rules that they have been put in a side bar to help explain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or to summarize, "Subordinate actions" rules make a muddled mess of the actions vs activities section of the rules that they have been put in a side bar to help explain.
Unicore, please could you post this discussion in the Subordinate Actions thread? I created that thread as a better place to discuss issues with subordinate actions.
And I thought that the definition of activity was a task that took more time than one action in a turn. Some activities in Encounter Mode cost two or three actions, and some activities in Exploration Mode last just a few seconds but most last a minute or ten minutes.
The root question for me now is whether all all “larger actions” that combine other actions are activities or if an action can combine multiple actions and still be just a basic action.
My reading of all the relevant rules posted above is that, unfortunately, activities are called actions in a general language sense of them being things your character spends actions doing on their turn, but definitionally, they are not basic actions, they cannot substituted in for basic actions, and all combinations of multiple basic actions become an activity. I believe this based on the description of 4 types of actions.
“Larger actions” in “subordinate actions” is only referencing the general language that all activities are actions your character can take in a round. Larger actions = activities.
So I still see no rules way to combine an interact action and a strike action into anything that is not an activity. But if firing a bow becomes an activity, it cannot be used as a strike.
People who feel otherwise, how do you reconcile the definitional differences between activities and actions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a problem with your deductions.
I just accept that the rules are simply not that rigorous.
Or further if the reload is done as part of the Strike then specific beats general, and all your general rules you have just deduced are just not relevant as they have been subverted for this case.
I am fine with specific trumping general. The issue for me is that the reload attribute of weapons doesn't actual use any of the specific language that would change actual rules. It seems to actively avoid using words like strike, or interact when describing "drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action." This is a very bad way of saying, "the interact action to reload the weapon and the strike action are the same action."
It is less misleading to me to read that sentence as avoiding the rules language to just let the strike action remain a strike action that requires 0 interact actions to use.
Ah, yes, the "Strike doesn't have manipulate" argument. Classic, really. The problem is that the Strike action does nothing to reload your weapon, and requires disregarding reload rules for it to make sense. Striking does not reload your weapon, and Reload 0 rules don't change this.but what about grabbed?Grabbed doesn't prevent you from making a Strike, it doesn't prevent you from reaching for your arrow either.
It's absorbed by the Strike action, which doesn't have Manipulate. In-game the reloading happens, but it isn't relevant rules-wise; the quick and easy part is my fluff.it's deemed to be quick and easy enough that it doesn't require an action, nor does it leave an opening for a reaction.[citation needed]
Does a Strike with a sword do things like finding a vulnerable spot in your opponent's armor, moving the blade towards it, spilling blood, moving the weapon back into its original 'guard' position? The rules don't say anything about that, so we have to conclude that such things don't happen, and that you can't actually hit anything: how can you do it, if you aren't physically reaching the enemy with your blade?
The rule is clear: reload 0 means that your reload as part of the Strike action, and that action isn't modified in any way. Adding traits to it is a houserule.Also, fluff is an offensive term, stop using it.
Are you telling me how I can and cannot define the stuff I wrote myself?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, yes, the "Strike doesn't have manipulate" argument. Classic, really. The problem is that the Strike action does nothing to reload your weapon, and requires disregarding reload rules for it to make sense. Striking does not reload your weapon, and Reload 0 rules don't change this.but what about grabbed?Grabbed doesn't prevent you from making a Strike, it doesn't prevent you from reaching for your arrow either.
It's absorbed by the Strike action, which doesn't have Manipulate. In-game the reloading happens, but it isn't relevant rules-wise; the quick and easy part is my fluff.it's deemed to be quick and easy enough that it doesn't require an action, nor does it leave an opening for a reaction.[citation needed]Does a Strike with a sword do things like finding a vulnerable spot in your opponent's armor, moving the blade towards it, spilling blood, moving the weapon back into its original 'guard' position? The rules don't say anything about that, so we have to conclude that such things don't happen, and that you can't actually hit anything: how can you do it, if you aren't physically reaching the enemy with your blade?
The rule is clear: reload 0 means that your reload as part of the Strike action, and that action isn't modified in any way. Adding traits to it is a houserule.Also, fluff is an offensive term, stop using it.Are you telling me how I can and cannot define the stuff I wrote myself?
That is descriptive text. How to reload/wield a 1+hand weapon is not. Strike does what it says it does: attack an enemy within melee reach or ranged range. At what point do you reload with Strike, which doesn't say you reload your weapon first before you attack? And if we want to reference reload 0, baking the reloading into the strike is precisely what causes the strike to be disruptable in the first place.
Paizo writers have identified fluff to be a term offensive to categorize the effort they put into their work. Just because you use it as a means to self-depricate your breakdown (which isn't expressed in the rules at all except for where it says so) doesn't make it acceptable to use on the forums.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is descriptive text. How to reload/wield a 1+hand weapon is not. Strike does what it says it does: attack an enemy within melee reach or ranged range. At what point do you reload with Strike, which doesn't say you reload your weapon first before you attack? And if we want to reference reload 0, baking the reloading into the strike is precisely what causes the strike to be disruptable in the first place.
In my opinion, you are loading into this issue more weight than it's intended (and written, from how I interpret the RAW), and this forces you to bend the general rules to accomodate. You do you, I guess; I'm not particularly interested in the impossible task of finding a general agreement about what the book says, when my interpretation works fine already.
Paizo writers have identified fluff to be a term offensive to categorize the effort they put into their work. Just because you use it as a means to self-depricate your breakdown (which isn't expressed in the rules at all except for where it says so) doesn't make it acceptable to use on the forums.
And in fact I'm not talking about Paizo writers' work, so who am I actually offending besides myself? Can I talk about my cat's fluff or is it unacceptable too?
How do you know that bow strikes aren't intended to be disrupted? Do you have a speed dial for the Paizo office for rules answers that the public isn't privy to, and they answer it and tell you directly? The idea of "you're making this more complicated than what it's written to be" doesn't apply when the writers didn't make it clear that it does trigger reactions/disruptions (such as with bombs), or doesn't (such as with Release or Kip Up). It's unclear, and many others in the thread realize this, hence why there is debate. There is no precedent for baking a 0 action cost activity into another action, and it can't behave like subordinate actions for obvious reasons.
Fluff is offensive for writing in any context, regardless of whatever intentions they might be. Fluff in other contexts (such as fur on a cat) is a whole different meaning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yow! This thread is **still** going on???
Oh, now I see. It's devolved into a discussion of whether or not we should use the word "fluff" to describe so-called "flavor text".
Yes, it's an offensive term, and "flavor text" doesn't exist. It's all part of the rules, even if no mechanical elements are invoked in a given sentence. Everything helps determine intent and usage.
And yes, there is an interact action baked into firing a bow, or any "reload 0" weapon. <g>
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't *know* what the developers have in mind about bow strikes, if even they do share the same idea about it. I do know the wording of the rules I read, and it seems pretty clear to me; clear, simple, and actually working, as compared to a different interpretation that would constitute a unique precedent and that basically breaks another existing feat.
Flavor text definitely exists when I say that what I wrote is flavor text. Or fluff. Please stop making up problems that don't exist implying that I should feel offended by myself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't *know* what the developers have in mind about bow strikes, if even they do share the same idea about it. I do know the wording of the rules I read, and it seems pretty clear to me; clear, simple, and actually working, as compared to a different interpretation that would constitute a unique precedent and that basically breaks another existing feat.
Flavor text definitely exists when I say that what I wrote is flavor text. Or fluff. Please stop making up problems that don't exist implying that I should feel offended by myself.
If by "actually working," you mean "articulated to work by handwaving reload rules," then sure. The idea of a bow being a reload weapon if the intent is they aren't hindered or affected by reloading, as evidenced by them trying to lump reloading into strikes with Reload 0, is a poor design choice. But the fact of the matter is that it is affected by reload rules by having a 0 in the entry, which means it still suffers from reloading rules, and it being tied to strikes should translate to it having manipulate as part of the attack.
And MSS isn't meant to protect from manipulate traits, so saying it is "broken" from this interpretation is debunked by it not working for manipulate traits on strikes. If I take MSS, and throw bombs, I still trigger reactions/disruptions because of traits, not because of not spending an action on it, or because it is a ranged attack, which, by the way, breaks more things than it fixes. MSS isn't a "bows don't trigger feat," nor is it a "manipulates don't trigger" feat, it's a "ranged attacks don't trigger" feat. I.e. thrown weapons.
You being offended by it or not is irrelevant to the fact that it's offensive to state. Making it about you being offended by yourself misses the whole point of the statement being made.
Yow! This thread is **still** going on???
Oh, now I see. It's devolved into a discussion of whether or not we should use the word "fluff" to describe so-called "flavor text".
Yes, it's an offensive term, and "flavor text" doesn't exist. It's all part of the rules, even if no mechanical elements are invoked in a given sentence. Everything helps determine intent and usage.
And yes, there is an interact action baked into firing a bow, or any "reload 0" weapon. <g>
If we get enough posts, maybe devs will notice and either make a statement or post errata or...well...something. As it stands, it's just a circle of frustration.
To a point; descriptive text with mechanical bearings is crucial to highlight. In this case, explaining how 1+ hand weapons function in this game (mechanically), and how Reload 0 functions, are both relevant to the discussion, whether mechanical terms like manipulate traits exist or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strike already has 0 interact actions associated with it all the time anyway. The question is wether adding 0 more is an indication of the addition of a no action cost interact action or no interact actions.
The descriptive text does not use any of this language so it is a GM call to decide the intent. It does seem like a resolvable issue, but it’s urgency in the grand scheme of “work to do” is pretty unknowable to us players. It is fringe enough not to come up too often, but certainly reading it one way or another is impacting people’s build and feat selection some amount, even if the players aren’t talking about.
Just give Strike manipulate since you have to move to hit someone anyway and call it a day.
While we're at it, let's give any Manipulate action the Attack trait because having to waste time messing around with stuff with your hands should make it more difficult to be effective with weaponry. /s
I don't *know* what the developers have in mind about bow strikes, if even they do share the same idea about it. I do know the wording of the rules I read, and it seems pretty clear to me; clear, simple, and actually working, as compared to a different interpretation that would constitute a unique precedent and that basically breaks another existing feat.
Flavor text definitely exists when I say that what I wrote is flavor text. Or fluff. Please stop making up problems that don't exist implying that I should feel offended by myself.
If by "actually working," you mean "articulated to work by handwaving reload rules," then sure. The idea of a bow being a reload weapon if the intent is they aren't hindered or affected by reloading, as evidenced by them trying to lump reloading into strikes with Reload 0, is a poor design choice. But the fact of the matter is that it is affected by reload rules by having a 0 in the entry, which means it still suffers from reloading rules, and it being tied to strikes should translate to it having manipulate as part of the attack.
And MSS isn't meant to protect from manipulate traits, so saying it is "broken" from this interpretation is debunked by it not working for manipulate traits on strikes. If I take MSS, and throw bombs, I still trigger reactions/disruptions because of traits, not because of not spending an action on it, or because it is a ranged attack, which, by the way, breaks more things than it fixes. MSS isn't a "bows don't trigger feat," nor is it a "manipulates don't trigger" feat, it's a "ranged attacks don't trigger" feat. I.e. thrown weapons.
You being offended by it or not is irrelevant to the fact that it's offensive to state. Making it about you being offended by yourself misses the whole point of the statement being made.
I don't want to go back and forth forever, so I'll try to explain one last time with an example. Am I allowed to say: "I'm stupid" here?
That's all.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strike already has 0 interact actions associated with it all the time anyway. The question is wether adding 0 more is an indication of the addition of a no action cost interact action or no interact actions.
The descriptive text does not use any of this language so it is a GM call to decide the intent. It does seem like a resolvable issue, but it’s urgency in the grand scheme of “work to do” is pretty unknowable to us players. It is fringe enough not to come up too often, but certainly reading it one way or another is impacting people’s build and feat selection some amount, even if the players aren’t talking about.
I disagree with the text not telling us the language, because it's already clear in the Reload rules:
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.
Let's start with the basic Crossbow. Everyone can agree on how this works: You have a quiver of bolts, you have a Crossbow held in both hands (as it is a two-handed weapon). It has Reload 1. This means it has a cost of 1 Interact Action to load it in order to consequently fire it as a Strike. So, if you draw your Crossbow out with both hands, and it is unloaded, you must Load, then Strike. Once you resolve the Strike, you must Reload in order to Strike again. Very simple stuff.
Now, how does that contrast to a Bow?
-You have Reload 0 instead of 1. This means it doesn't cost an action to load it. At no point does Reload 0 mean you do not have to load your weapon to Strike with it, as it does not provide a specific rule to trump the general rules of Reloading in this regard. All it does is change the number of actions you spend to Reload from 1 to 0.
-The act of reloading your weapon is tied into the Strike action, instead of it being a separate action on its own, like with the Crossbow.
-The book goes out of its way to explain how you wield, hold, and load/reload your weapon with both of your hands, since it is a 1+ Hand weapon, following the wording of the Interact action rules.
If we apply these differences, here's what we get:
You have a quiver of arrows. You have a Shortbow held in one hand, and the other is free. It has Reload 0. This means it has a cost of 0 Interact Actions to load it in order to consequently fire it as a Strike. Since Reload 0 expressly states that reloading such a weapon is tied into the Strike action, it becomes a part of the Strike action done with this weapon, and any other weapon with Reload 0 (barring Repeating/Capacity traits overwriting this). Since 1+ Hand weapons express reloading it identically to Interact, this means it's not any different from the type of reloading a Crossbow does except for the amount of actions it costs.
Still seems pretty simple to break down, uses all existing RAW, and starts from an already established premise of the game that all agree upon. Feel free to point out what you disagree with and why, and maybe referencing what rules counteract that point.
Honestly, the real reason why this thread has drug on for so long? Archer purists don't want to feel nerfed or that they played it wrong the whole time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since 1+ Hand weapons express reloading it identically to Interact, this means it's not any different from the type of reloading a Crossbow does except for the amount of actions it costs.
This is where it breaks down. Using descriptive text that is similar to what you can do with an Interact action does not automatically imply that you add the traits of an Interact action.
Since 1+ Hand weapons express reloading it identically to Interact, this means it's not any different from the type of reloading a Crossbow does except for the amount of actions it costs.This is where it breaks down. Using descriptive text that is similar to what you can do with an Interact action does not automatically imply that you add the traits of an Interact action.
And why not?
You are doing an undescribed activity not expressed in the Rulebook, since "Reload as part of a Strike" is not an actual defined activity in the game anywhere (else). Rulebook says GM identifies the closest action/activity and relevant traits for such undescribed activities. Descriptive text puts it closest to Interact, as it references reloading, and reloading almost always requires Interact. Interact has Manipulate. Therefore, Reload 0 should have Manipulate by proxy of it essentially piggybacking off of Interact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since 1+ Hand weapons express reloading it identically to Interact, this means it's not any different from the type of reloading a Crossbow does except for the amount of actions it costs.This is where it breaks down. Using descriptive text that is similar to what you can do with an Interact action does not automatically imply that you add the traits of an Interact action.And why not?
You are doing an undescribed activity not expressed in the Rulebook, since "Reload as part of a Strike" is not an actual defined activity in the game anywhere (else). Rulebook says GM identifies the closest action/activity and relevant traits for such undescribed activities. Descriptive text puts it closest to Interact, as it references reloading, and reloading almost always requires Interact. Interact has Manipulate. Therefore, Reload 0 should have Manipulate by proxy of it essentially piggybacking off of Interact.
Because the exact situation you are talking about for rules interpretation is described in the core rule book under other actions.
Sometimes you need to attempt something not already covered by defined actions in the game. When this happens, the rules tell you how many actions you need to spend, as well as any traits your action might have.
How many actions do you need to spend? 0
What traits are we told to add to the action? None.The rules do not tell you to add a manipulate trait to the strike with a reload 0 weapon. 1+ handed weapons do not say “add the manipulate trait.” Strikes that do add the manipulate trait explicitly say so and exist in the game.
Either the intention is there and the execution failed to express the intention, or the intention is not there and the rules are thus intentional in not stating the additional trait, but the descriptive language is so close that it is misleading to some readers and a FAQ to make the intention explicit would be nice.
So I still see no rules way to combine an interact action and a strike action into anything that is not an activity. But if firing a bow becomes an activity, it cannot be used as a strike.People who feel otherwise, how do you reconcile the definitional differences between activities and actions?
There's nothing really to reconcile because the thing you're describing isn't real.
The rules tell us that reloading happens as part of the strike. That's it. There's no reference to subordinate actions, or activities, or fundamentally changing how Striking with a bow works or barring it from working in certain circumstances.
None of that actually exists, implicitly or explicitly. It reads sort of like "let me just make up a reason why this doesn't work" by contriving mechanics that aren't there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since 1+ Hand weapons express reloading it identically to Interact, this means it's not any different from the type of reloading a Crossbow does except for the amount of actions it costs.This is where it breaks down. Using descriptive text that is similar to what you can do with an Interact action does not automatically imply that you add the traits of an Interact action.And why not?
You are doing an undescribed activity not expressed in the Rulebook, since "Reload as part of a Strike" is not an actual defined activity in the game anywhere (else). Rulebook says GM identifies the closest action/activity and relevant traits for such undescribed activities. Descriptive text puts it closest to Interact, as it references reloading, and reloading almost always requires Interact. Interact has Manipulate. Therefore, Reload 0 should have Manipulate by proxy of it essentially piggybacking off of Interact.
Because the exact situation you are talking about for rules interpretation is described in the core rule book under other actions.
Sometimes you need to attempt something not already covered by defined actions in the game. When this happens, the rules tell you how many actions you need to spend, as well as any traits your action might have.
How many actions do you need to spend? 0
What traits are we told to add to the action? None.
The rules do not tell you to add a manipulate trait to the strike with a reload 0 weapon. 1+ handed weapons do not say “add the manipulate trait.” Strikes that do add the manipulate trait explicitly say so and exist in the game.Either the intention is there and the execution failed to express the intention, or the intention is not there and the rules are thus intentional in not stating the additional trait, but the descriptive language is so close that it is misleading to some readers and a FAQ to make the intention explicit would be...
Again, actions spent doesn't translate to actions taken. The argument is about taking an action, no matter how many it costs, not about spending actions on it. This means subordinate actions shouldn't trigger reactions by proxy of that concept.
It's possible the rules wouldn't need to mention added traits because the action type you need to do to reload it (Interact) already comes with the trait, meaning mentioning it again is as redundant as Flurry of Blows mentioning it has the Flourish trait, and all the limitations it conveys. I mean, sure, Paizo has been redundant with descriptions before, but it's often pretty isolated or done when it first mentions an important balance rule (such as the Flourish trait). This is relatively corner-case, on the other hand, so the odds of it being considered worth being redundant are slim.
Bombs are handled different because they are more than just a 1 handed throwing weapon, and so an added trait is called out because the act of striking with the Bomb is more interactively involved than, say, a Javelin, by Paizo's standards. In this case, the bow is less action-costly than most other reload weapons, and making it a free action prior to a Strike doesn't work out with activities referencing (multiple) Strikes, so it makes sense that they went with the "done as part of the Strike action" route. It just comes with other non-added baggage, and if the intent is that it shouldn't come with that, it should be clearly exceptionalized. And it's not.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am surprised you all got this far into this post without anyone mentioning the Shuriken.
Thrown Weapon, Reload 0. If firing a bow doesn't have an Interact action to draw an arrow, then neither would drawing a shuriken, and I bet everyone could agree that would just be silly.
I am surprised you all got this far into this post without anyone mentioning the Shuriken.
Thrown Weapon, Reload 0. If firing a bow doesn't have an Interact action to draw an arrow, then neither would drawing a shuriken, and I bet everyone could agree that would just be silly.
Yet a dart has a reload “-“ which means the interact action was taken into account for that.
Reload 0 is to allow for a strike to occur in a game without added manipulation traits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am surprised you all got this far into this post without anyone mentioning the Shuriken.
Thrown Weapon, Reload 0. If firing a bow doesn't have an Interact action to draw an arrow, then neither would drawing a shuriken, and I bet everyone could agree that would just be silly.
Yet a dart has a reload “-“ which means the interact action was taken into account for that.
Reload 0 is to allow for a strike to occur in a game without added manipulation traits.
If that is actually what Reload 0 said, this thread would not exist.
I am surprised you all got this far into this post without anyone mentioning the Shuriken.
Thrown Weapon, Reload 0. If firing a bow doesn't have an Interact action to draw an arrow, then neither would drawing a shuriken, and I bet everyone could agree that would just be silly.
Who uses the Shuriken in this game? Nobody. Not even NPCs use it, it's that broken. So it would make sense to never be brought up in the thread, because it hasn't seen actual play.
Even if they did, using a Shuriken to Strike still requires taking a hand and drawing a Shuriken out from whatever bandolier or other container it is in, which is Reloading, which is Interacting, which by transitive property includes Manipulating. It would trigger for any other thrown weapon, which takes an action to draw, why not the Shuriken? Because it doesn't cost an action?
It also doesn't make sense that you can't, for example, already have Shurikens in hand to strike with, given that it is a thrown weapon first and foremost. I can have a Javelin drawn and ready to throw, why not a Shuriken? Oh yeah, because Reload for a throwing weapon doesn't make sense, in the same way "-" for a projectile weapon doesn't make sense, just like it was for pre-errata Daikyu. Reload has always been for projectile weapons, not thrown weapons. The rules even say thrown weapons should have "-" in the Reload column, denoting it has to be drawn first to be thrown. It would have made far more sense for the Shuriken to have express rules saying you don't need to spend/take interact actions to draw them out to strike with them, given they are the only printed throwing weapon intended to behave like this.
And MSS isn't meant to protect from manipulate traits, so saying it is "broken" from this interpretation is debunked by it not working for manipulate traits on strikes. If I take MSS, and throw bombs, I still trigger reactions/disruptions because of traits, not because of not spending an action on it, or because it is a ranged attack, which, by the way, breaks more things than it fixes. MSS isn't a "bows don't trigger feat," nor is it a "manipulates don't trigger" feat, it's a "ranged attacks don't trigger" feat. I.e. thrown weapons.
So you are saying, the feat does not do what it says it does?
MSS: "While you're in this stance, your ranged Strikes don't trigger Attacks of Opportunity..."
I mean, the wording is pretty clear: Your ranged strike doesn't trigger AoOs (also not other reactions). Not for being a ranged strike, and not for any other reason. Like, having a Manipulate/Interact baked into it for example. So yeah, it does protect from Manipulate traits after all.
Edit: As for shurikens, they were free to draw in PF1 (by virtue of being ammunition), so you could use all your attacks for throwing them, without needing Quick Draw.
In this sense, they are like the 'bows of the thrown weapons', or at least that seems to be the intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And MSS isn't meant to protect from manipulate traits, so saying it is "broken" from this interpretation is debunked by it not working for manipulate traits on strikes. If I take MSS, and throw bombs, I still trigger reactions/disruptions because of traits, not because of not spending an action on it, or because it is a ranged attack, which, by the way, breaks more things than it fixes. MSS isn't a "bows don't trigger feat," nor is it a "manipulates don't trigger" feat, it's a "ranged attacks don't trigger" feat. I.e. thrown weapons.So you are saying, the feat does not do what it says it does?
MSS: "While you're in this stance, your ranged Strikes don't trigger Attacks of Opportunity..."
I mean, the wording is pretty clear: Your ranged strike doesn't trigger AoOs (also not other reactions). Not for being a ranged strike, and not for any other reason. Like, having a Manipulate/Interact baked into it for example. So yeah, it does protect from Manipulate traits after all.
Edit: As for shurikens, they were free to draw in PF1 (by virtue of being ammunition), so you could use all your attacks for throwing them, without needing Quick Draw.
In this sense, they are like the 'bows of the thrown weapons', or at least that seems to be the intent.
I am saying the feat only addresses a specific trigger (ranged attacks), and not a trigger done as part of (or based on rules text, prior to) the specific trigger (such as the manipulate trait). This is true because even feats like Stand Still, Disrupt Prey, and Implement's Interruption, do not trigger from a ranged attack, they trigger from the Move/Manipulate trait. The feat also says "and other reactions that trigger from ranged attacks," of which those abilities do not have the same trigger as Attack of Opportunity.
Ideally, the feat should work that way, but by RAW it doesn't, because it specifies only AoO, and other reactions with a trigger of a ranged attack. Triggering a trait does not by proxy include a ranged attack. Disrupt Prey and Implement's Interruption would not trigger if a character throws a Javelin. It would still trigger if a character throws a Bomb or fires a Bow, though, because the trait is what causes the trigger, not the strike itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why should we assume this is descriptive text instead of natural language rules text?Since 1+ Hand weapons express reloading it identically to Interact, this means it's not any different from the type of reloading a Crossbow does except for the amount of actions it costs.This is where it breaks down. Using descriptive text that is similar to what you can do with an Interact action does not automatically imply that you add the traits of an Interact action.
Because there is a more consistent way to clearly state the inclusion of subordinate actions and additional traits, and the rules tell us these additions will be clearly stated when they are added.
Reload is not a rules defined action in game. Striking is a rules defined action. When reloading is a part of the strike action to fire a reload 0 weapon is something people disagree about what the rules say. Assuming your way is right when there is no clear consensus leads to circular endless arguments.
We don’t know what the intention here is. GMs will interpret it as they want.
None of your examples are too good to be true, in my opinion, just an advantage of using a weapon that is simple enough to reload that you can ignore that part when it comes to the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because there is a more consistent way to clearly state the inclusion of subordinate actions and additional traits, and the rules tell us these additions will be clearly stated when they are added.
Reload is not a rules defined action in game. Striking is a rules defined action. When reloading is a part of the strike action to fire a reload 0 weapon is something people disagree about what the rules say. Assuming your way is right when there is no clear consensus leads to circular endless arguments.
We don’t know what the intention here is. GMs will interpret it as they want.
Descriptive text is almost always are the beginning of a paragraph, not in a clause at the end. There is no logical reason to throw out the definition of reload 0 as "descriptive text". Instead of reading it as rules. In this case, the rules say reloading is part of the attack.
Reload is defined as an interact action in the previous sentence. Claiming it isn't defined is somewhat bewildering. I think they are clearly stating in the text "reloading is part of the attack", as requiring a reload with 0 additional cost. They cannot use interact and strike, as those would break other activities, but reload always has the manipulate trait, because it is always an interact action, even when combined with the attack as in the case of reload 0.
Assuming your way is correct. It has multiple problematic implications and is too good to be true. We are advised to discard an interpretation if it has problematic implications. CR 443.
Specifically:
1) An archer doesn't suffer a flat check when using a bow when grabbed, but would if he tried to reload any other weapon, or switch to a melee weapon. TGTBT.
2) A bow is now the only ranged weapon that doesn't need to be reloaded. It somehow happens automatically for free, even though the 1+ hands rule states you need a free hand to use these. TGTBT.Is there a more clear way it could have been worded, sure. Different writers, different styles....
These are arguments in favor of an interpretation of the rules based upon your imagination of the narrative of how firing a bow works. The mechanics of PF2 have very little in common with the realities of using any weapons. Many choices have been made for mechanical simplicity. Consistency in language between key terms and application of traits feels more like a fair base line assumption to me than my own imagination of how rolling a dice can somehow simulate the realities of warfare.
If this was somehow, some kind of immersion breaking, fun shattering dealbreaker for me, I would change the rule for my table. Nocking an arrow not being more complicated than being able to swing a maul or use a spiked chain while grappled just doesn’t bother me.
Why should we assume this is descriptive text instead of natural language rules text?Since 1+ Hand weapons express reloading it identically to Interact, this means it's not any different from the type of reloading a Crossbow does except for the amount of actions it costs.This is where it breaks down. Using descriptive text that is similar to what you can do with an Interact action does not automatically imply that you add the traits of an Interact action.
I am calling it descriptive text because it does not convey rules content. In my mind, there is really no distinction here the way you make it out to be. It tells you what you are doing (call it rules or don't, it does not matter); it does not tell you to add the manipulate trait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that describing a rule is an important part of establishing meaning for a rule. I don't think it is wise to dismiss descriptive text.
I am saying that the descriptive text for reload 0 avoids the rules language that would clearly support your reading, while explicitly saying that it takes 0 interact actions to reload a reload 0 weapons, and that the reloading process is just part of a strike action to which no additional traits have been added. "Other actions" tells us that non-rules defined actions will tell us what actions are spent and what traits are involved. Reloading is not a defined action in game. It is an attribute of weapons. No where are we told that "0 interact actions" means a subordinate interact action and not no interact actions. It is far too common to read "0" as "none" for that to pass as something that clearly establishes intention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All ranged attacks provoke. No one is arguing reload 0 weapons don’t provoke AoO.
But the reload weapon trait doesn’t say that interact actions are happening to reload a weapon. It says a number of them are happening to reload them. 0 interact actions doesn’t inherently mean 1 subordinate action. That it the unstated intention that many people are reading into the description.