| 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.
This is a circular argument that makes no sense. If you aren't taking actions to reload your weapon, how are you reloading it? Jedi Mind Tricks? The idea that not spending an action to reload means you aren't taking an action to reload, which means you don't reload, goes against both reload rules and 1+ hand weapon rules, because it's fundamentally the Jedi Defense. "I don't need hands or actions to reload my weapon because it goes against my OP-ness" is not what Reload 0 was meant to convey, treating it like it is suggests this should be a Star Wars game instead.
Why is it a reload weapon in the first place if the idea of it being reloaded is so ancillary that it makes no sense to treat it as a reloadable weapon?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reload 0 weapons can reload as part of the strike action. That is a pretty literal reading of:
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.
All weapons need time to get in position. Many ranged weapons require actions to load and reload. Actions spent reloading a weapon are interact actions. It can take 0 interact actions to reload some weapons if they have the reload 0 trait. Reloading in this instance is just part of the strike action.
A reload 0 weapon still requires ammunition. It is not an unnecessary distinction between reload 0 and other weapons.
This reading isn't some massive stretch of the imagination or of the rules. Traits and actions are innately pretty abstract and don't map super well over our imaginations of "real" combat.
How would striking with this weapon not have the manipulate trait or a reload/regrip action built into it? Because that is needless complexity that the game doesn't need.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you aren't taking actions to reload your weapon, how are you reloading it?
How about that the archer isn't reloading the bow? Have you ever seen a loaded bow? Can the archer carry a bow in one hand in loaded state ready to shoot without drawing an arrow, like a crossbowman can carry a loaded crossbow and a gunslinger can carry a loaded firearm?
A reload of a crossbow involves seriously interacting with it to pull back the bowstring, lock it to the trigger mechanism. draw the crossbow bolt, secure the bolt in the groove, and regripping the crossbow ready to aim. A reload of a flintlock firearm involves seriously interacting with it to clean the barrel, put away the cleaning rod (unless it is the other end of the ramrod), draw gunpowder horn, wadding, and bullet, pour in the gunpowder, drop in the wadding and bullet, ram the wadding and bullet to compress the powder, return the ramrod and powder horn to storage, and regrip the firearm ready to aim. A so-called reload of a bow involves mostly interacting with the arrow other than the bow to draw the arrow and nock it to the bowstring. Pulling back the bowstring is part of the Strike, since the archer cannot maintain that tension for long. The grip on the bow itself never changes.
Bows are not reloaded. The column in the ranged weapons table needed a name, and "Reload" was shorter than "Ammunition Use," even though it did not accurately describe bows and thrown weapons. "Reload -" means thrown, "Reload 0" means ammunition is consumed without preloading, and "Reload 1" and "Reload 2" mean a real reloading.
On the other hand, an arrow is drawn when a bow is used, and drawing an item is usually an Interact action to draw. That is why the archer must start with a free hand. I usually don't bother making this argument that the Interact is to draw rather than to reload, because no-one really cares about the flavor of the Interact action. But Darksol the Painbringer mocked us by saying, "Jedi Mind Trick," and yes, it is a trick. But the trick is thinking that bows need reloading. Nope, bows need a free hand to draw and nock an arrow, and the free hand is written into the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another couple of pages of continual back and forth of the same arguments from the same handful of users. Not only that, the circular argumentation is beginning to spiral even faster, at this rate the space-time continuum is going to start to break down and we will be launched either far into the future, into an alternate dimension where they hired a data scientist to tighten up the loose ends in PF2, or be ejected into the primordial slurry that was our universe .00000000001 seconds after it first emerged.
So, 1/3 odds to achieve something that has a glimmer of hope to resolve the issue and a 2/3rds chance to remove the participants from this conversation (and hopefully nobody else), I don't know if I'd like those odds personally, but um... yeah you all do you I guess. Maybe if we get this to 25 pages of three to five people talking past each other we could stand some hope of, say, Michael S. chiming in with at LEAST an unofficial word on how they personally would rule this.
I don't know about you guys, but it just occurred to me that "The Loaded Bow" would make an excellent tavern name.
Oh. Back on topic I guess?
What part of the spiral are we at now?
What part of the spiral are we at now?
it's very hard to tell when we're constantly circling inward. My guess is somewhere near the Saraswati Supercluster.
Reload 0 weapons can reload as part of the strike action. That is a pretty literal reading of:
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.
All weapons need time to get in position. Many ranged weapons require actions to load and reload. Actions spent reloading a weapon are interact actions. It can take 0 interact actions to reload some weapons if they have the reload 0 trait. Reloading in this instance is just part of the strike action.
A reload 0 weapon still requires ammunition. It is not an unnecessary distinction between reload 0 and other weapons.
This reading isn't some massive stretch of the imagination or of the rules. Traits and actions are innately pretty abstract and don't map super well over our imaginations of "real" combat.
How would striking with this weapon not have the manipulate trait or a reload/regrip action built into it? Because that is needless complexity that the game doesn't need.
Again, either you have to reload, or you don't. If you reload, you have to draw ammunition. Drawing ammunition is what triggers, not the actions, or lack thereof. If you don't have to reload, why give it reload mechanics? If it doesn't take an action to reload, why mention that you need to reload it at all? If it's done "automatically," then requiring reloading, or mentioning it as a mechanic, is superfluous.
Mechanically, the weapon is already being wielded by two hands. It's not a 1+ hand weapon, where you need one hand holding the weapon, and the other directing other parts of the weapon. It doesn't fundamentally change based on how many hands you use to wield it, compared to a weapon with, say, the Two-Hand trait, or if it were a 1+ hand weapon entry.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, I fully understand why you all feel the way you do. I don't think your reasoning is horribly flawed. The language is unclear. I read it a different way. I don't need to keep repeating my arguments but people keep responding as if my logic is inconceivable, which begs me to keep trying to explain myself.
If you aren't taking actions to reload your weapon, how are you reloading it?How about that the archer isn't reloading the bow? Have you ever seen a loaded bow? Can the archer carry a bow in one hand in loaded state ready to shoot without drawing an arrow, like a crossbowman can carry a loaded crossbow and a gunslinger can carry a loaded firearm?
A reload of a crossbow involves seriously interacting with it to pull back the bowstring, lock it to the trigger mechanism. draw the crossbow bolt, secure the bolt in the groove, and regripping the crossbow ready to aim. A reload of a flintlock firearm involves seriously interacting with it to clean the barrel, put away the cleaning rod (unless it is the other end of the ramrod), draw gunpowder horn, wadding, and bullet, pour in the gunpowder, drop in the wadding and bullet, ram the wadding and bullet to compress the powder, return the ramrod and powder horn to storage, and regrip the firearm ready to aim. A so-called reload of a bow involves mostly interacting with the arrow other than the bow to draw the arrow and nock it to the bowstring. Pulling back the bowstring is part of the Strike, since the archer cannot maintain that tension for long. The grip on the bow itself never changes.
Bows are not reloaded. The column in the ranged weapons table needed a name, and "Reload" was shorter than "Ammunition Use," even though it did not accurately describe bows and thrown weapons. "Reload -" means thrown, "Reload 0" means ammunition is consumed without preloading, and "Reload 1" and "Reload 2" mean a real reloading.
On the other hand, an arrow is drawn when a bow is used, and drawing an item is usually an Interact action to draw. That is why the archer must start with a free hand. I usually don't bother making this argument that the Interact is to draw rather than to reload, because no-one really cares about the flavor of the Interact action. But Darksol the Painbringer mocked us by saying, "Jedi Mind Trick," and yes,...
I'm fine with Bows not having reloading as a mechanic. Problem is that they are published to be weapons requiring reloading by having an actual entry in the reload category. Paizo never really had a N/A entry signifying it doesn't have to reload, and it's not even that difficult to implement that. The fact they didn't should indicate that there is obviously something more to this than that they just don't need to be reloaded.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another couple of pages of continual back and forth of the same arguments from the same handful of users. Not only that, the circular argumentation is beginning to spiral even faster, at this rate the space-time continuum is going to start to break down and we will be launched either far into the future, into an alternate dimension where they hired a data scientist to tighten up the loose ends in PF2, or be ejected into the primordial slurry that was our universe .00000000001 seconds after it first emerged.
Don't worry, I am a trained professional. Er, half-trained, so maybe worry a little. I used to be the math component of a data science team, so I can hamdle all the mathy parts of data science. Just don't ask me to maintain a database.
Darksol is using the name in the game for:
* Draw ammunition
* Place ammunition in weaponSo why are you two getting a hang up on that instead of the actual issue.
In data science, one of the biggest headaches is data wrangling, also called data cleaning or data munging. When people collecting data misread the categories, they might sort the data in the wrong data category, so that the numbers are used for the wrong calculation.
Which action category does reloading a bow fit into? Some people put it into the Strike action. Other people put it into a free-action Interact action. Still other people put it into a subordinate Interact action. Where does the reload belong? We end up with different results for whether shooting a bow can be disrupted by an Attack of Opportunity or require a flat check on a Grab based on where the reload fits.
Trying to convince other people to sort things into the right categories is an old habit for me.
But don't worry, we won't spiral into a singularity unless we up the ante.
How are you guys just choosing to ignore one of the most important rules in Pathfinder 2e?Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.
Okay, Temperans just upped the ante.
The main issue in this thread, "Is a manipulate action baked into firing a bow?" is trivial. Striking with a ranged weapon already provokes an Attack of Opportunity. The only difference the manipulate trait makes is whether the Strike will be disrupted by a critical hit with the Attack of Opportunity, whether a multiple-AoO creature such as a Marilith can take multiple Attacks of Opportunity against a single bow Strike, and whether an archer needs a DC 5 flat check to shoot a bow while Grabbed.
These are all infrequent situations and the power difference between No, No, and No and Yes, Yes, and Yes is minor. The generous version is not too good to be true. The restrictive version is not too bad to be true. If Paizo issued a clarification tomorrow that Striking with a Reload 0 weapon has the manipulate trait, I would not mind.
What I mind is people twisting the categories. I am also annoyed that some key sentences and key words in the rules are ambiguous, so that we cannot use simple logic to settle this issue.
Reload 0 exists because those weapons still require ammunition.
Reload feats mention Interacting to reload because they are built to improve the action economy of Reload 1 weapons and as such need to include the Interact as a subordinate action.
I also take issue with random claims of 'too good to be true'. One may as well argue that the converse position would be too bad to be true based on how it affects Mobile Shot Stance. I have also already mentioned Dual-Handed Assault way earlier in this thread, another action where provoking would, in my opinion, be too bad to be true, but I think having it provoke would be an inevitable consequence of the arguments used in this thread.
Everyone here realizes that we are moving in circles, but as has been pointed out, convincing the opposition isn't the only point of a debate. At the very least, it's an exercise in rephrasing one's own position.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If reload 0 worked exactly like combining an interact action with a strike, why not just reference the exact same thing with a feat like risky reload (which explicitly does exactly what everyone is saying reload 0 is intending to do)?
The language of Risky Reload:
Interact to reload a firearm, then make a Strike with that firearm.
This could have been the exact same language used with reload 0 weapons if the intention is for these to be a combined activity. Not using the word interact in the description of what happens when you are drawing an arrow and striking with it in the same action raises far more questions than is necessary if the goal was to make it clear to the reader that reloading a reload 0 weapon is a subordinate interact action and a strike.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If reload 0 worked exactly like combining an interact action with a strike, why not just reference the exact same thing with a feat like risky reload (which explicitly does exactly what everyone is saying reload 0 is intending to do)?
The language of Risky Reload:
This could have been the exact same language used with reload 0 weapons if the intention is for these to be a combined activity. Not using the word interact in the description of what happens when you are drawing an arrow and striking with it in the same action raises far more questions than is necessary if the goal was to make it clear to the reader that reloading a reload 0 weapon is a subordinate interact action and a strike.Interact to reload a firearm, then make a Strike with that firearm.
This method won't work because the action with "Interact to reload a bow" and "Strike with that bow" as subordinate actions would need its own name, such as "Bow Shot." Then it won't combine with other containing actions that say to make a Strike.
A solution to the wrong-name problem would be to name the Bow Shot action as "Strike." But then we would have an action named Strike that contains a different action named Strike. That is even worse.
Another solution is to shoehorn the "Interact to reload a bow" into the basic Strike action. The Strike action is very versatile, but in my analysis the rules about subordinate actions don't stretch enough to add a subordinate action to Strike without mentioning it in the Strike or Reload definitions. Nevertheless, many people support this solution, because it is the way of adding an Interact action with the fewest rules conflicts. We have the badly written sentence, "This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action," which could mean a lot of things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"This can be 0 when the interact action to reload the bow is same action as striking with it." Is how I would imagine the rule could have been written if that was the intention.
Or if they want to make sure that other non-strike attack actions with reload 0 weapons still qualify:
"This can be 0 if the interact action to draw and load the ammunition happens as a part of the action of firing the weapon."
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.
This is the part where I believe you read something into the text it does not actually say.
The feat states 'your ranged Strikes don't trigger AoOs'. That's it. The action does not trigger, period. No matter how many tags you could use to justify getting an AoO from that Strike, you just don't. That's what the feat says.
I do not see how you get to the interpretation that 'your ranged Strikes' is anything other then a clarification that Mobile Shot Stance indeed covers ranged attacks, not melee ones, and also thrown weapons and not just shots. I can not see how you justify that as somehow limiting the effect to merely negating the property of being a ranged attack, and not everything that could otherwise provoke, which the text plainly states it does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The feat states 'your ranged Strikes don't trigger AoOs'. That's it. The action does not trigger, period. No matter how many tags you could use to justify getting an AoO from that Strike, you just don't. That's what the feat says.
You can flip that around and take the opposite position using the same justification: Mobile Shot Stance JUST does what the feat says and it says absolutely nothing about Reloading, Interacting or the Manipulation trait so it doesn't alter how AoO operate with those. To say otherwise would be reading something into it that isn't there... That's what happens when the game bundles Reloading and Striking together in the same action.
For myself, I don't see the answer to 'does a strike with a long/short bow while using Mobile Shot Stance provoke an AoO' any different than if you asked if the same for a bomb Strike or a Strike from Quick Draw while using Mobile Shot Stance: in all cases, IMO, you provoke the AoO as only the ranged strike trigger is removed.
To be clear, I fully understand why you all feel the way you do. I don't think your reasoning is horribly flawed. The language is unclear. I read it a different way. I don't need to keep repeating my arguments but people keep responding as if my logic is inconceivable, which begs me to keep trying to explain myself.
The rules try to simulate reality, except when describing things like magic, which there is no real-world thing to compare to.
If one reading of the rules matches, or at least closely approaches the reality the rule is meant to represent, and the other doesn't, then the one closer to reality is by default the correct one.
Now it is up to you to decide how realistic is is, or is not, to prevent someone from successfully shooting a bow by grabbing or attacking them.
I don't know if you do archery, but shooting a bow involves your whole body. I can see how easy it is to lose your stance, and thus your shot, if someone is interfering with you. If anything, losing a shot only on a critical hit or a roll of 1-4 on a D20 when grabbed is mighty generous.
The feat states 'your ranged Strikes don't trigger AoOs'. That's it. The action does not trigger, period. No matter how many tags you could use to justify getting an AoO from that Strike, you just don't. That's what the feat says.You can flip that around and take the opposite position using the same justification: Mobile Shot Stance JUST does what the feat says and it says absolutely nothing about Reloading, Interacting or the Manipulation trait so it doesn't alter how AoO operate with those.
It does say nothing about Reloading, Interacting or the Manipulation trait, because it does not have to.
For a crossbow, the actual Strike is exempt. It is a mere ranged Strike a basic action, and MSS absolves that from provoking. Loading the quarrel is not immune, since that is not a Strike, but an Interact action. Which MSS does not cover.
But if we argue, that in the case of a 'Reload: 0' weapon, the Strike action includes the Reload action, then the Reload is covered by the blanket immunity MSS offers the Strike action, and no extra mention of the Reload action or any of its traits is required.
Your interpretation requires the Reload to be separate from the Strike. Or the Draw from the Throw in the case of the Quick Draw feat. Which means that MSS doesn't work for thrown weapons either. When your interpretation makes the feat not do what it says it does, I'm inclined to call that interpretation the wrong one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, I fully understand why you all feel the way you do. I don't think your reasoning is horribly flawed. The language is unclear. I read it a different way. I don't need to keep repeating my arguments but people keep responding as if my logic is inconceivable, which begs me to keep trying to explain myself.The rules try to simulate reality, except when describing things like magic, which there is no real-world thing to compare to.
If one reading of the rules matches, or at least closely approaches the reality the rule is meant to represent, and the other doesn't, then the one closer to reality is by default the correct one.
Now it is up to you to decide how realistic is is, or is not, to prevent someone from successfully shooting a bow by grabbing or attacking them.
I don't know if you do archery, but shooting a bow involves your whole body. I can see how easy it is to lose your stance, and thus your shot, if someone is interfering with you. If anything, losing a shot only on a critical hit or a roll of 1-4 on a D20 when grabbed is mighty generous.
Good luck swinging a maul or using a long spear while someone is grappling with you as well. I do not believe the purpose of the rules is to simulate reality, but provide a fun, balanced and clear framework for playing a game collaboratively and building a story together. I don’t know how aiming is not an action that all archers can take either, except that maybe such mundane details of combat felt like they slowed the game down too much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your interpretation requires the Reload to be separate from the Strike. Or the Draw from the Throw in the case of the Quick Draw feat. Which means that MSS doesn't work for thrown weapons either. When your interpretation makes the feat not do what it says it does, I'm inclined to call that interpretation the wrong one.
No it doesn't require Reload to be seperate: individual subordinate actions can be triggers. Quick Draw could trigger the Reaction from Disrupt Prey from the Reloads Interact subordinate action, a reaction from Cut from the Air from the Ranged Strike and a reaction from either the Reload and the Ranged Strike of an AoO. Removal of an individual trigger in no way removes others.
As an example, Step says "Stepping doesn't trigger reactions, such as Attacks of Opportunity, that can be triggered by move actions or upon leaving or entering a square." That doesn't mean your Skirmish Strike [Step + Strike] makes your ranged strikes avoid an AoO because Step mentioned AoO...
That implies that perhaps throwing other thrown weapons does not have the manipulate trait.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it is not having or not having the manipulate trait that effects ranged attacks provoking attacks of opportunity. They all do that anyway. Thrown weapon strikes don’t have the manipulate trait. Striking is not an action that has the manipulate trait unless specific rules language tells us otherwise. I think everyone agrees about that. What we don’t seem to agree on is whether the language of reload 0 is saying “add a subordinate interact action to the strike, or not.”
That implies that perhaps throwing other thrown weapons does not have the manipulate trait.
It doesn't. It's the reason why a Javelin strike cannot be disrupted, and why Bombs can.
Nobody is disputing thrown weapons (besides maybe the unused shuriken, but the shuriken is as broken as the Daikyu), what is being disputed is what happens when the activity of reloading a weapon (via interacting) becomes coupled with the Strike action.
The rules aren't truly clear, but in my opinion an exception to what is already defined (interacting has Manipulate, which triggers) needs to be made/stated for it to overcome the general rules. Reload 0 isn't as clear of a statement as the Bomb rule (which is largely put in there because it is a thrown weapon, which does not typically have manipulate, compared to reloading, which always does by means of Interact), meaning the idea that it circumvents the general reloading rules more than what it says it does (which is reducing action cost and adding its activity to a Strike) is more flimsy an argument than it still following the general rules of reloading.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing I have learned from this thread is that my next character should be built around shuriken, so the next time someone says 'the unused shuriken' I can be all "Well, ACTUALLY..."
:)
I would suggest you use the Advice subforum and confer with your GM how they would rule the Shuriken's function before you go through with it.
Your interpretation requires the Reload to be separate from the Strike. Or the Draw from the Throw in the case of the Quick Draw feat. Which means that MSS doesn't work for thrown weapons either. When your interpretation makes the feat not do what it says it does, I'm inclined to call that interpretation the wrong one.No it doesn't require Reload to be seperate: individual subordinate actions can be triggers. Quick Draw could trigger the Reaction from Disrupt Prey from the Reloads Interact subordinate action, a reaction from Cut from the Air from the Ranged Strike and a reaction from either the Reload and the Ranged Strike of an AoO. Removal of an individual trigger in no way removes others.
As an example, Step says "Stepping doesn't trigger reactions, such as Attacks of Opportunity, that can be triggered by move actions or upon leaving or entering a square." That doesn't mean your Skirmish Strike [Step + Strike] makes your ranged strikes avoid an AoO because Step mentioned AoO...
If anything, your examples prove my point. Neither Skirmish Strike nor Quick Draw have any text involving AoOs, whereas MSS explicitly does.
You have no argument for why MSS should be limited to removing only the 'ranged attack' trigger from a ranged strike, when it explicitly states that the whole Strike does not trigger reactions, period, even going so far to add text making it also not triggering any non-AoO reactions.
Skirmish Strike and Quick Draw work with both melee and ranged attacks, but only ranged attacks provoke. In the case of Quick Draw, we have an Interact action combined with a Strike, and since Quick Draw has no language pertaining to preventing triggering AoOs, you are still liable for suffering an AoO for drawing a weapon.
MSS covers ranged attacks, no matter how you perform them. You can make a bow shot as part of a Skirmish Strike, and your shot would not provoke. The Step doesn't anyway. You can perform a bow shot as the Strike part of Quick Draw, and while you would provoke for drawing your bow, you would not provoke for shooting your bow.
And yes, Cut from the Air is a non-AoO reaction to a ranged Strike, which MSS explicitly calls out for not being triggered.
So yes, as written MSS very much does remove all triggers from ranged attacks, and you have no grounds to argue otherwise.
Good luck swinging a maul or using a long spear while someone is grappling with you as well. I do not believe the purpose of the rules is to simulate reality, but provide a fun, balanced and clear framework for playing a game collaboratively and building a story together. I don’t know how aiming is not an action that all archers can take either, except that maybe such mundane details of combat felt like they slowed the game down too much.The rules try to simulate reality, except when describing things like magic, which there is no real-world thing to compare to.
If one reading of the rules matches, or at least closely approaches the reality the rule is meant to represent, and the other doesn't, then the one closer to reality is by default the correct one.
Now it is up to you to decide how realistic is is, or is not, to prevent someone from successfully shooting a bow by grabbing or attacking them.
I don't know if you do archery, but shooting a bow involves your whole body. I can see how easy it is to lose your stance, and thus your shot, if someone is interfering with you. If anything, losing a shot only on a critical hit or a roll of 1-4 on a D20 when grabbed is mighty generous.
It is a lot easier to hit someone with the shaft or handle of a weapon in a grapple though.
Arguably, maintaining a sense of verisimilitude (like reality, unless noted otherwise) is a basic necessity for a fun and clear framework, Acceptable Breaks from Reality for the sake of balance notwithstanding. This is a trope of its own for a reason.
As far as that goes, one of the upsides of ranged weapons is that, well, you can fight at range. The price to pay for the privilege is that some enemies can mess you up if they are within melee range with you. Unless you have a feat that says otherwise that is. Seems fair to me at least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your interpretation requires the Reload to be separate from the Strike. Or the Draw from the Throw in the case of the Quick Draw feat. Which means that MSS doesn't work for thrown weapons either. When your interpretation makes the feat not do what it says it does, I'm inclined to call that interpretation the wrong one.No it doesn't require Reload to be seperate: individual subordinate actions can be triggers. Quick Draw could trigger the Reaction from Disrupt Prey from the Reloads Interact subordinate action, a reaction from Cut from the Air from the Ranged Strike and a reaction from either the Reload and the Ranged Strike of an AoO. Removal of an individual trigger in no way removes others.
As an example, Step says "Stepping doesn't trigger reactions, such as Attacks of Opportunity, that can be triggered by move actions or upon leaving or entering a square." That doesn't mean your Skirmish Strike [Step + Strike] makes your ranged strikes avoid an AoO because Step mentioned AoO...
If anything, your examples prove my point. Neither Skirmish Strike nor Quick Draw have any text involving AoOs, whereas MSS explicitly does.
You have no argument for why MSS should be limited to removing only the 'ranged attack' trigger from a ranged strike, when it explicitly states that the whole Strike does not trigger reactions, period, even going so far to add text making it also not triggering any non-AoO reactions.
Skirmish Strike and Quick Draw work with both melee and ranged attacks, but only ranged attacks provoke. In the case of Quick Draw, we have an Interact action combined with a Strike, and since Quick Draw has no language pertaining to preventing triggering AoOs, you are still liable for suffering an AoO for drawing a weapon.
MSS covers ranged attacks, no matter how you perform them. You can make a bow shot as part of a Skirmish Strike, and your shot would not provoke. The Step doesn't anyway. You can perform a bow shot as the Strike part of Quick...
It doesn't remove all triggers from ranged attacks, though, only ones that specify ranged attacks. There is a difference.
Look at Disrupt Prey and Implement's Interruption. Both of these trigger off of a Manipulate or Move action (and Concentrate actions for Implement's Interruption). If a Bow Strike has Manipulate by means of Reloading, you can't suggest that it's triggered from a Ranged Attack, because Disrupt Prey and Implement's Interruption does not trigger from a ranged attack. They trigger from Manipulate.
MSS says it disallows AoO, and then includes "other reactions that trigger from ranged attacks," specifying that the intended triggers for a given reaction to not work is that it has to mention it being a ranged attack. It would not work for disallowing Disrupt Prey or Implement's Interruption because these do not trigger from ranged attacks, they trigger from traits those ranged attacks just so happen to possess. Even better, Disrupt Prey and Implement's Interruption will disrupt any of their triggers on a critical, not just a specific set of them, meaning it can disrupt things AoO can't, and it can't trigger on things AoO can, namely a ranged attack. They are completely separate abilities with separate triggers and separate means of disruption. You can't reasonably expect MSS to work with these other reactions because they don't follow the same trigger types MSS calls for.
In short, MSS protects throwing Javelins. It does not protect throwing Bombs, throwing Shurikens, or shooting Bows because of Manipulate trait. If the idea is that MSS should protect the Manipulate trait, it should specify. But it does not. It might be an assumption that it's meant to, but as written, it does not.
Another way to look at this is as so:
Let's take an enemy with AoO and a throwing-built Fighter with MSS. He goes to draw a Trident to throw at an enemy while in ranged of one he is not aware has AoO. Does MSS protect this? No. Because the drawing of the Trident is its own separate Interact action not baked into a Ranged Attack.
Now, let's take this same activity to Quick Draw, the most parallel analogue to the bow strike. If I decide to Quick Draw the Trident to throw instead, because I took Rogue dedication, what does MSS protect against? The Interact to Draw? The Strike? Both? To me, the answer is clearly just the Strike, because the Strike is the ranged attack being made, not the Interact to Draw.
The same concept above applies to Bows, in my opinion. MSS will protect against simply striking with the bow while the ammunition is already drawn and nocked. It will not protect you against the activity of drawing and nocking the arrow, because this is not a strike. This is an interact to reload without costing an action to do so. It is a completely separate trigger that AoO just so happens to also trigger upon (and disrupt). The problem is, not unlike Quick Draw, if the draw to nock is disrupted, the rules already tie that activity to the action to Strike, and the Strike is predicated on the ammunition being drawn.
And again, I'm totally fine with bows simply not following reload rules; IMO, bows having reload rules is dumb if the intent is that they aren't meant to be hindered more than any other non-reload weapon in the game. Reload rules are meant to provide a purposeful hindrance to ranged weapons both as a flavor and mechanics perspective. You can have quick ammunition-based weapons without following reload rules, just make possessing the relevant ammunition a requirement prior to striking with it. That's it. No arrows? No bow strikes. Stupid easy.
If anything, your examples prove my point. Neither Skirmish Strike nor Quick Draw have any text involving AoOs, whereas MSS explicitly does.
What does the Chinese Ministry of State Security have to do with this?
|
If anything, your examples prove my point. Neither Skirmish Strike nor Quick Draw have any text involving AoOs, whereas MSS explicitly does.What does the Chinese Ministry of State Security have to do with this?
Ed, I don't know if this is the funniest joke I've read on the forums in weeks or simply a mere innocent misunderstanding but I'm going to elect to laugh and also try to gently provide context to answer the potential misunderstanding.
MSS in this context relates to Mobile Shot Stance which is part of the discussion about if this Feat bypasses the AoO component when using a Reload 0 Weapon as the wording SEEMS to be pretty straightforward and "top-down" specific that it MIGHT (I'd say probably) work to protect the Weapon user in the grappling corner-case that spurred much of the conversation here.
That said, I wouldn't put it past the CCP and MSS to ensure their soldiers are given at least rudimentary training with traditional Weaponry but alas, I'm admittedly quite ignorant of all that, it still gave me quite the belly laugh though so take my +2 regardless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had to search back through the thread to figure out what MSS was intended to mean. So yeah, my question was intended as a joke.
Way I learned it, if you're going to use a TLA (Three Letter Acronym) you should, the first time you use it, spell it out so people know what you mean. <shrug>
IMHO, the main reason why there aren't specific rules saying that firing a "reload 0" weapon like a bow provokes AoOs because it has a built-in manipulate action is because, for the devs, this fact was blindingly obvious.
How anyone can claim that drawing a nocking an arrow doesn't require manipulation, even if it's not an additional manipulate action as such, is beyond me.
The existence of feats like Mobile Shot Stance just put another nail in the coffin of the "no manipulation for reload 0 weapons" camp. That feat makes it clear what the standard rule is, even if it isn't stated as clearly as some would like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whelpdrake, I am confused by your response. Are you saying that we are just supposed to know that all ranged strikes are manipulate actions and that is why they provoke reactions? Why would bombs then explicitly get the manipulate trait added to their strikes? All thrown weapons used at range are ranged strikes.
Also, I do not understand what you are reading in mobile shot stance that has anything to do with the manipulate trait.
I Don’t think the application of these rules is as straight forward and obvious as you are interpreting it to be.
First decide your conclusion, then come up with arguments to support it.
Whelpdrake, I am confused by your response. Are you saying that we are just supposed to know that all ranged strikes are manipulate actions and that is why they provoke reactions? Why would bombs then explicitly get the manipulate trait added to their strikes? All thrown weapons used at range are ranged strikes.
Also, I do not understand what you are reading in mobile shot stance that has anything to do with the manipulate trait.
I Don’t think the application of these rules is as straight forward and obvious as you are interpreting it to be.
He is saying reload 0 weapons like bows not having easily identified language is because the developers felt it was obvious that it should trigger manipulate-based reactions based on how it is reloaded, and also because of how little it deviates from standard reloading weapons.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reloading a crossbow: Pull back the string to the latch and then draw and load the bolt.
Firing a crossbow: you squeeze the trigger, the mechanisms do the rest.
Reloading a bow: Draw and nock the arrow.
Firing a bow: you pull back the arrow with the bow string and then release, requiring you to physically manipulate the bow.
Both have extremely similar actions. You are adding kinetic energy to the limbs by pulling back on the string. The difference is just when that action occurs. It is indeed much quicker to fire in rapid succession with a bow since you don't have to deal with a latching mechanism in any way, but you are still manipulating the bow and arrows when you strike.
Then the ranged attack action with the bow (or the crossbow) should have the manipulate action. it doesn't? Why is that?
Then the ranged attack action with the bow (or the crossbow) should have the manipulate action. it doesn't? Why is that?
There's plenty of reasons why it's not listed:
1. It's repetitive to point it out, not unlike Flurry of Blows saying it's a Flourish ability. If Reload is already stated to follow Interact, which has Manipulate, why go on to say any form of Reload has Manipulate?
2. It still follows the general rules for reloading. Reloading requires Interacting. Interacting has Manipulate. All Reload 0 does is determine how many actions it costs to do, and designates that reloading is done as part of Striking instead. It denotes no other specifics to latch on to, such as lacking Interacting/Manipulate, or not needing hands to reload, or not needing to reload at all. That is all conjecture that is far less conservative than the rules provided by the rules of Hands.
3. Bows are still the most powerful ranged weapons in the game based solely on their action economy efficiency, this ruling just gives more playstyle distinction and parity to all ranged weapons, making them more viable by comparison to bows.
How anyone can claim that drawing a nocking an arrow doesn't require manipulation, even if it's not an additional manipulate action as such, is beyond me.
How does swinging a greatsword not require manipulation, while nocking an arrow absolutely must?
How anyone can claim that drawing a nocking an arrow doesn't require manipulation, even if it's not an additional manipulate action as such, is beyond me.How does swinging a greatsword not require manipulation, while nocking an arrow absolutely must?
The rules do not explain how you strike with a Greatsword, so there is no evidence to suggest it requires manipulation. Can it? Sure, if you are pulling some crazy maneuvers with it. But the rules don't do this except in regards to feats like Quick Draw or Dual-Handed Assault, and they call those things out.
Drawing and nocking an arrow does have an explanation on how it is done, and is identical to the Interact Action's description. Even more, the rules consider this to be Reloading, which requires Interacting, which has Manipulate.
IMHO, the main reason why there aren't specific rules saying that firing a "reload 0" weapon like a bow provokes AoOs because it has a built-in manipulate action is because, for the devs, this fact was blindingly obvious.
How anyone can claim that drawing a nocking an arrow doesn't require manipulation, even if it's not an additional manipulate action as such, is beyond me.
The existence of feats like Mobile Shot Stance just put another nail in the coffin of the "no manipulation for reload 0 weapons" camp. That feat makes it clear what the standard rule is, even if it isn't stated as clearly as some would like.
Somehow this sort of reply keeps cropping up in this thread and I'm just wondering... do you believe this is a productive way to participate in a debate?
My answer wasn't to a rule argument:
How anyone can claim that drawing a nocking an arrow doesn't require manipulation, even if it's not an additional manipulate action as such, is beyond me.