Is a manipulate action baked into firing a bow?


Rules Discussion

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
Megistone wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
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?

Because the rules say so.

Its the same reason why familiars cannot do anything without constant supervision, why changing hand grip costs an action, why 2 handing a 1 handed sword doesn't always give more damage, etc.

The core issue here is that not everyone agrees that this is what the rules say. Stating an interpretation as fact can be aggressive and feel like someone is being told they are unintelligent for have a different reading of text which explicitly does not say “striking with a reload 0 weapon adds the manipulate trait to the strike action,” nor does it directly say “reloading this weapon can require 0 interact actions if the reloading action becomes a subordinate interact action that does not otherwise alter the strike action.”

You can say, “my reading of the rules makes me believe that this was the intention” but literally every example used to try to explain why “this is what the rules literally say” is relying on comparing rules text that is very different and more explicit (quick draw, throwing bombs, etc) and saying, “doesn’t it feel like this is close enough to the same that the same language should be applied?”

That is why comparisons to other forms of striking with weapons that have lengthy and disruptable striking processes in real life seems relevant to this conversation. It is fine to disagree, but it is coming across as hostile to keep stating that the rules explicitly say something they do not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Megistone wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
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?

Because the rules say so.

Its the same reason why familiars cannot do anything without constant supervision, why changing hand grip costs an action, why 2 handing a 1 handed sword doesn't always give more damage, etc.

The core issue here is that not everyone agrees that this is what the rules say. Stating an interpretation as fact can be aggressive and feel like someone is being told they are unintelligent for have a different reading of text which explicitly does not say “striking with a reload 0 weapon adds the manipulate trait to the strike action,” nor does it directly say “reloading this weapon can require 0 interact actions if the reloading action becomes a subordinate interact action that does not otherwise alter the strike action.”

You can say, “my reading of the rules makes me believe that this was the intention” but literally every example used to try to explain why “this is what the rules literally say” is relying on comparing rules text that is very different and more explicit (quick draw, throwing bombs, etc) and saying, “doesn’t it feel like this is close enough to the same that the same language should be applied?”

That is why comparisons to other forms of striking with weapons that have lengthy and disruptable striking processes in real life seems relevant to this conversation. It is fine to disagree, but it is coming across as hostile to keep stating that the rules explicitly say something they do not.

When I answered that question I saw it as asking what makes a strike with a melee weapon different from reloading or a strike with a ranged weapon. Hence my answer of "because the rules say so", meaning that regardless of what we may think if the rules say X happens than X is what happens by default. The reason I though they were asking about reload in general and not reload 0 is because "nocking an arrow" is how all bows (including crossbows) operate. So instead of assuming reload 0, I assumed they were talking about the general case outside of rules language.

I did not mean to sound aggressive or imply someone is less intelligent, and I was not arguing my point in that specific comment. Just stating the fact that game works like it does because it says it does (barring houserules and rules adjudication).

******************

Having said all that, both major sides are using more or less the same tactics to support their arguments. Not sure about the argument for manipulate trait being added.

The side that says it doesn't have manipulate or interact is using Mobile Shot Stance as a reasoning for why.

The side that says interact is a subordinate action is using all the various rules and feats that behave similarly.

My stance is based on where the most evidence exist, not what I feel it should be. Hence why I support reload 0 applying the subordinate action rules over free anti-AoO.


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

The original question was whether being grabbed prevents you from firing your bow.

Grabbed says "If you attempt a manipulate action while grabbed, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or it is lost".

A manipulate action is an action that has the manipulate trait.

There are a lot of things list under manipulate.[/url Reloading (or loading) a bow isn't one of them.

[url=https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=228]Reload says "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."

Seems to me one question is "if you're grabbed, do you have a free hand?" If there was a clear "no" to that, then yeah, you can't fire a bow if you're grabbed. But there isn't a clear answer, so we need to look elsewhere. But that last sentence... switching your grip is an interact action. But reloading a bow takes no interact actions. So it doesn't have the manipulate trait. Logically it should, but nothing says the rules of this game have to be logical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The issue here is that, as has been treaded over time and time again, EVERY Interact Action (which is explicitly part of every Reload) has the Manipulate Trait bolted onto it.

This is where the rabbit hole begins before diving so far into the depths we risk awakening the Balrog and spiraling down the infinite well and are crushed by the weight of our arguments and the irreversible spin that creates g-forces in excess of what even a falling insect could survive as we approach the center of the planet mass and gravity begins to act funny.

Also, reloading and interacting/manipulating costing 0 Actions for a bow does not mean that no interaction/manipulation/reload takes place, it simply indicates that it doesn't reduce the number of available Actions you have to spend during your turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Person-Man wrote:


Also, reloading and interacting/manipulating costing 0 Actions for a bow does not mean that no interaction/manipulation/reload takes place, it simply indicates that it doesn't reduce the number of available Actions you have to spend during your turn.

Where in the rules does it state this explicitly?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is what the rules for reloading actually say:

Quote:


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.

Requiring 0 interact actions is not saying "requires a subordinate interact action." The sentence saying that the act of reloading the weapon and the firing of the weapon specifically does not use the word interact in it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:

The original question was whether being grabbed prevents you from firing your bow.

Grabbed says "If you attempt a manipulate action while grabbed, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or it is lost".

A manipulate action is an action that has the manipulate trait.

There are a lot of things list under manipulate. Reloading (or loading) a bow isn't one of them.

Reload says "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."

Seems to me one question is "if you're grabbed, do you have a free hand?" If there was a clear "no" to that, then yeah, you can't fire a bow if you're grabbed. But there isn't a clear answer, so we need to look elsewhere. But that last sentence... switching your grip is an interact action. But reloading a bow takes no interact actions. So it doesn't have the manipulate trait. Logically it should, but nothing says the rules of this game have to be logical.

Pretty sure the last clause is put in so people aren't forced to spend additional actions to Change Grip on weapons that require two hands to fire; it's not intended to mean the action lets you ignore things like Interact, nor does it mean you don't Reload your weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Person-Man wrote:


Also, reloading and interacting/manipulating costing 0 Actions for a bow does not mean that no interaction/manipulation/reload takes place, it simply indicates that it doesn't reduce the number of available Actions you have to spend during your turn.
Where in the rules does it state this explicitly?

It doesn't need to state this explicitly to make this the clearly logical conclusion to come to. 3 - 0 = 3. This doesn't mean you don't do the mathematical equation simply because the result is still the same as what you started with. It's not complicated.

Unicore wrote:

This is what the rules for reloading actually say:

Quote:


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.
Requiring 0 interact actions is not saying "requires a subordinate interact action." The sentence saying that the act of reloading the weapon and the firing of the weapon specifically does not use the word interact in it.

Ah, yes, "It doesn't say it's an Interact, so it's not an Interact." Then what is it? You can't say you don't Reload your weapon with nothing, because that's basically the Jedi defense, and it defeats the entire purpose of both the Hand rules and the whole concept of projectile weapons requiring Reloading to function.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Isn't that something that sort of speaks for itself? If a Weapon is one that needs to be reloaded then reloading needs to be done... and the Reload 0 Rules say absolutely nothing to the effect that no Interact Action happens, instead it merely says that it's part of the Strike you make with the Weapon.

The Rules are permissive rather than prohibitive and unless they state that X or Y works in a specific way or that they are exempt from Rules that otherwise govern the entire group of Actions/Activities that define X or Y then... they aren't exempt. In other words, because the Reload 0 Rules don't say that no Interact Action takes place (in fact it says the opposite in that it says the Action is done as part of the Strike) then it is subject to everything any other Reload Action is as well.

Man alive, the downward sucking force of this thread keeps pulling me in because all of this has already been covered by myself and others in the last ten pages. Perhaps I've just deluded myself into half believing that continuing to participate will make an impact or rouse someone on Staff to have a meeting, conclude on the topic and then come comment on it in some, ANY official capacity ... but really I know better than that.

Much respect for everyone here for your stamina in the conversation no matter your position too, I want to just be sure that nobody feels I'm trashing them because I may disagree with them.


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

Look carefully. Reload 0 doesn’t say “how many actions spent interacting,” it says “how many interact actions it takes to reload the weapon.” Reloading a reload 0 weapon requires 0 interact actions.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Person-Man wrote:

The issue here is that, as has been treaded over time and time again, EVERY Interact Action (which is explicitly part of every Reload) has the Manipulate Trait bolted onto it.

This is where the rabbit hole begins before diving so far into the depths we risk awakening the Balrog and spiraling down the infinite well and are crushed by the weight of our arguments and the irreversible spin that creates g-forces in excess of what even a falling insect could survive as we approach the center of the planet mass and gravity begins to act funny.

Also, reloading and interacting/manipulating costing 0 Actions for a bow does not mean that no interaction/manipulation/reload takes place, it simply indicates that it doesn't reduce the number of available Actions you have to spend during your turn.

When is an interact action not an interact action? Better yet, when is an interact action both an interact action and not an interact action?


Unicore wrote:
Look carefully. Reload 0 doesn’t say “how many actions spent interacting,” it says “how many interact actions it takes to reload the weapon.” Reloading a reload 0 weapon requires 0 interact actions.

So you don't need to Reload, so you don't need Hands, so the Hands rules section should just be cut from the book due to providing conflicting information. Gotcha.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Look carefully. Reload 0 doesn’t say “how many actions spent interacting,” it says “how many interact actions it takes to reload the weapon.” Reloading a reload 0 weapon requires 0 interact actions.
So you don't need to Reload, so you don't need Hands, so the Hands rules section should just be cut from the book due to providing conflicting information. Gotcha.

Or reloading a reload 0 weapon happens just as part of a strike action with no interact actions. The same way striking with a Kusarigama can happen at reach without a character ever having to release and regrip their weapon all as a part of their strike action, even though that is very obviously and visibly what is happening when someone fights with one.

Liberty's Edge

RE: Quantum states - After a certain point, the cyclical nature of this begins to make all of this meaningless, methinks.


and this is why it's such a pain that they named the currency to act during your turn the same as the things you do during your turn. As written, it is unclear if the rules are talking about interact actions the currency or all interact actions regardless of the source.

* Ruling that it doesn't have a subordinate interact would trigger the too good to be true given how all other ranged weapons have worse stats and provoke twice. Bows would be literally the only viable ranged weapons (Shurikens and Air Repeaters are not viable) that can shoot without ever triggering reactions. Plus all the other stuff that bows already get.

* Ruling that it does have a subordinate interact would not trigger the too good to be true rule and would make Shurikens and Air Repeater worse than they already are. Reload 1 ranged weapons would become more viable and reasonable to use with Mobile Shot Stance.


Placing this in a separate post since its easier.

After thinking about it for some time a question popped up in my head, and I do not mean to be rude in asking it I am honestly curious.

What is the end goal of having it so that shortbows and longbows don't trigger reactions from interacting? The only thing I can think of is wanting to get Mobile Shot Stance to make it so using a shortbow never provokes in melee while keeping all the benefit of using a shortbow and getting none of the issues that come from reloading a weapon.

We already know that shortbows are overtuned and it is used as a point against ever making any ranged weapon too strong because "shortbows are the limit and you can't possibly do better" (paraphrasing). The only limit shortbows have is that they still require you to reload them, but the argument here is that you cannot interrupt a reload 0 weapon because they spend no action (not even a subordinate action) reloading.

The only way for a reload 0 crossbow to be viable is if you are playing a Drow Shootist or a Gunslinger. Drow Shootist requires 2 feats as a tax, it's an uncommon archetype with very specific lore, and at best you deal less damage than a shortbow. Gunslinger doesn't have the feat tax and can use repeating crossbow, but it's also preventing you from using any other class, and you still don't deal better damage than a composite longbow. Meanwhile, reload 0 firearms are limited to Air Repeaters, while they specifically say that "adding repeating to dueling pistols would be too powerful". That is right an advanced (-2 to hit for everyone but gunslinger) 1d6 p fatal d10 repeating (need 3 actions to reload magazine) range 60ft is too broken. But a martial (no to-hit penalty) 1d6 piercing deadly d10 propulsive range 60 ft is perfectly fine.

So, I ask once again, what is the goal with wanting to make it even easier to use a short/longbow compared to all other ranged weapons?


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

My goal is for the rules to be written clearly and consistently. It is not about power or narrative. I just want subordinate actions and manipulate traits to be clearly laid out where they happen and when.

Even folks who agree that there is either a subordinate interact action or a manipulate trait interpret what that means and how it works differently. Some people think it is tied to the 1 handed trait. Others say it would apply to all reload 0 weapons, even repeaters. If the ammunition was magical, does it count as having been fired, and should be expended? (it does for a thrown bomb since the strike itself has the manipulate trait, but that is different for a subordinate interact action.

Subordinate actions need more explanation than has happened here and reading that into the description makes all of this far more messy than it needed to be.

Whereas, everything stays very simple if it is just a regular strike. Range weapon strikes that provoke are not disrupted by an attack of opportunity.


Unicore wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Look carefully. Reload 0 doesn’t say “how many actions spent interacting,” it says “how many interact actions it takes to reload the weapon.” Reloading a reload 0 weapon requires 0 interact actions.
So you don't need to Reload, so you don't need Hands, so the Hands rules section should just be cut from the book due to providing conflicting information. Gotcha.

Or reloading a reload 0 weapon happens just as part of a strike action with no interact actions. The same way striking with a Kusarigama can happen at reach without a character ever having to release and regrip their weapon all as a part of their strike action, even though that is very obviously and visibly what is happening when someone fights with one.

How is that any different from what I've established is essentially your argument? Saying you don't need to reload because the value is 0 and therefore you don't do interact actions to reload it is exactly what I'm explaining you're doing: Not using hands to reload or wield a weapon. You don't need hands to reload your weapon, because you don't need to reload your weapon. You don't need to wield your weapon because again, you aren't reloading it. This is literally how the Jedi Defense works: You don't use hands, because you aren't required to do so. You use the Force instead. Except: The rules for 1+ Hand weapons expressly tell you how you're using your hands, which debunks the idea that you aren't Interacting with Ammunition to Strike with the Bow. And considering most every other Reload 0 weapon has either Repeating/Capacity rules which override standard Reload 0 rules, this is expressly a Bows problem.

You're comparing a projectile weapon to a reach weapon. They aren't the same thing, or even in the same category of weapon. A Kusarigama doesn't use ammunition and doesn't have to be reloaded. A two-handed grip is on it at all times, shifting between different points of the weapon, and is considered unwieldable when not held with both hands, not unlike any other polearm, which is far more comparable. Saying they should have the same rules as projectile weapons is far more absurd than expecting bows, which are projectile weapons, to follow the same rules already established with other projectile weapons. It's an apples to tomatoes comparison. You might be better off comparing Bows to Shurikens, but even that's awful because Shurikens are as broken as pre-errata Daikyu.


If they want it to trigger they should add explicit language somewhere, probably in the bow group, like is in alchemical bombs to the effect of "since this involves drawing ammunition the strike gains the Manipulate trait".

Because logically yes it should trigger reactions and be hard to do when grappled for bows, probably shuriken too. But not for hand crossbows or air repeaters.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Guntermench wrote:
But not for hand crossbows or air repeaters.

Why not?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Having said all that, both major sides are using more or less the same tactics to support their arguments. Not sure about the argument for manipulate trait being added.

The side that says it doesn't have manipulate or interact is using Mobile Shot Stance as a reasoning for why.

The side that says interact is a subordinate action is using all the various rules and feats that behave similarly.

My stance is based on where the most evidence exist, not what I feel it should be. Hence why I support reload 0 applying the subordinate action rules over free anti-AoO.

I believe that Striking with a Reload 0 ranged weapon has neither manipulate nor Interact, and I have never used Mobile Shot Stance as an argument, because that argument does not work.

Mobile Shot Stance [One Action] Feat 8
Fighter, Stance
Source Core Rulebook pg. 149 3.0
Archetype Archer*
* This archetype offers Mobile Shot Stance at a different level than displayed here.
Your shots become nimble and deadly. 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.
If you have Attack of Opportunity, you can use it with a loaded ranged weapon you're wielding. The triggering creature must be within 5 feet of you for you to do so.

Mobile Shot Stance specifically prevents Attack of Opportunity from triggering. Thus, it does not matter whether the ranged Strike also has manipulate, as with an alchemical bomb. Attack of Opportunity won't trigger regardless.

Disrupt Prey and Stand Still allow a Strike reaction triggered by a move or manipulate action, but they are not triggered by a ranged attack specifically, so Mobile Shot Stance does not apply to them.

Part of the reason that this thread keeps continuing is that we arguers have more than two sides.

My own view has much in common with Unicore, who recently said in comment #451:

Unicore wrote:
You can say, “my reading of the rules makes me believe that this was the intention” but literally every example used to try to explain why “this is what the rules literally say” is relying on comparing rules text that is very different and more explicit (quick draw, throwing bombs, etc) and saying, “doesn’t it feel like this is close enough to the same that the same language should be applied?”

I prefer to take the rules literally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

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.

I agree that shooting a bow in real life obviously is an action that manipulates the bow and arrow in a way that qualifies for the manipulate trait in Pathfinder 2nd Edition.

I also think that a Fireball is obviously fire, yet the developers explicitly gave it the Fire trait despite it being obvious. I think that a Strike is obviously an attack, yet the developers explicitly gave it the Attack trait despite it being obvious. I think that an Acid Flask is obviously alchemical, yet the developers explicitly gave it the Alchemical trait despite it being obvious. They don't leave off a trait from an action's or item's list of traits just because it is obvious.

The developers either made a mistake or they made a deliberate exception in not explicitly putting manipulate on a Strike with a bow.

If they made a mistake, which mistake was it?
(1) They just forgot. But they have had two errata lists (or do we have more?) to fix an oversight.
(2) They thought that Attack of Opportunity triggering on ranged attacks was just the same as triggering on manipulate, so they left manipulate off as redundant. But it is not redundant, because it makes a difference for disruption and grabbed.
(3) They thought that the zero Interact action to reload automatically added the manipulate trait, and their standard is to not repeat traits from another source. But if so, is the zero Interact a free action, a subordinate action, or a non-action that is absorbed into the Strike action in a new way that gives it manipulate? Their mistake would be in not clarifying the Interact action.

If they made an exception, what is the reason behind the exception?
(1) They thought that having two separate reasons to trigger Attack of Opportunity, both manipulate and ranged attack, would be confusing, so they left manipulate off. But if so, why did they put both manipulate and ranged attack on alchemical bombs?
(2) They did not want the grabbed condition to interfere with using a bow. But in Pathfinder 1st Edition, grabbed prevents bow use, because a bow is a two-handed weapon in PF1, so why should PF2 design chose differently?
(3) They did not want a critical hit from Attack of Opportunity to disrupt shooting a bow.
(4) They wanted to emphasize that a Reload 0 is really not a reload action at all. It is merely drawing and nocking an arrow. But that does not make sense, because drawing an arrow from a quiver is just as much interaction as drawing a sword from a scabbard, so even if the reload is nothing significant, drawing an arrow should be.

I favor the deliberate exception for Rules as Written, because the developers have given exceptions without explanation. But I believe, as I said back in comment #3 that adding a manipulate trait to the Strike with a bow is a justifiable houserule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
So, I ask once again, what is the goal with wanting to make it even easier to use a short/longbow compared to all other ranged weapons?

Because historically, bows were the weapon with the superior speed. The only use of a crossbow or a primitive firearm was that training a novice in a crossbow or firearm was much faster than training them in bows. In Pathfinder, that is represented by making crossbows a simple weapon while bows are a martial weapon; however, that difference does not accurately represent the lifetime of training required to be a good archer. The old saying is that to train a proper Welsh longbowman, start with his grandfather.

Unfortunately, making bows an advanced weapon would largely eliminate them from the game, and they are too ubiquitous in fantasy and history for that fate. Giving them a significant disadvantage (stares belligerently at volley trait) would also conflict with historic accounts. Giving them a trivial disadvantage, such as manipulate trait, is no problem but still leaves them as the superior weapon.

I myself am curious how the atatl spear-thrower will be represented in PF2, aside from its appearance as item 23, Hunter's Dawn, which conjures its own spear.


Mathmuse wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Having said all that, both major sides are using more or less the same tactics to support their arguments. Not sure about the argument for manipulate trait being added.

The side that says it doesn't have manipulate or interact is using Mobile Shot Stance as a reasoning for why.

The side that says interact is a subordinate action is using all the various rules and feats that behave similarly.

My stance is based on where the most evidence exist, not what I feel it should be. Hence why I support reload 0 applying the subordinate action rules over free anti-AoO.

I believe that Striking with a Reload 0 ranged weapon has neither manipulate nor Interact, and I have never used Mobile Shot Stance as an argument, because that argument does not work.

Mobile Shot Stance [One Action] Feat 8
Fighter, Stance
Source Core Rulebook pg. 149 3.0
Archetype Archer*
* This archetype offers Mobile Shot Stance at a different level than displayed here.
Your shots become nimble and deadly. 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.
If you have Attack of Opportunity, you can use it with a loaded ranged weapon you're wielding. The triggering creature must be within 5 feet of you for you to do so.

Mobile Shot Stance specifically prevents Attack of Opportunity from triggering. Thus, it does not matter whether the ranged Strike also has manipulate, as with an alchemical bomb. Attack of Opportunity won't trigger regardless.

Disrupt Prey and Stand Still allow a Strike reaction triggered by a move or manipulate action, but they are not triggered by a ranged attack specifically, so Mobile Shot Stance does not...

I am not talking specifics about who is using Mobile Shot as their reasoning, just that it has been pointed out and I disagree with the logic using it as a defense.

Mathmuse wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Temperans wrote:
So, I ask once again, what is the goal with wanting to make it even easier to use a short/longbow compared to all other ranged weapons?

Because historically, bows were the weapon with the superior speed. The only use of a crossbow or a primitive firearm was that training a novice in a crossbow or firearm was much faster than training them in bows. In Pathfinder, that is represented by making crossbows a simple weapon while bows are a martial weapon; however, that difference does not accurately represent the lifetime of training required to be a good archer. The old saying is that to train a proper Welsh longbowman, start with his grandfather.

Unfortunately, making bows an advanced weapon would largely eliminate them from the game, and they are too ubiquitous in fantasy and history for that fate. Giving them a significant disadvantage (stares belligerently at volley trait) would also conflict with historic accounts. Giving them a trivial disadvantage, such as manipulate trait, is no problem but still leaves them as the superior weapon.

I myself am curious how the atatl spear-thrower will be represented in PF2, aside from its appearance as item 23, Hunter's Dawn, which conjures its own spear.

That is why the question popped up in my mind. Bows were faster, but they needed more training to use effectively and otherwise just dealt less damage. But for PF2 Paizo has made it so the easiest and strongest ranged weapon are the short/longbows. With every single instance of any weapon being able to shoot as fast or hit as hard has being shot down for being "too strong".

Crossbows that are known to deal more damage and be easier to use? They deal the same or less damage than a bow while being harder to use (advance crossbows are a joke).

Firearms that are known to deal more damage and be easier to use? They deal the same or less damage while being harder to use. Air Repeater is literally worse than a shortbow, and they explicitly said a repeating dueling pistol (revolver) is too strong.

They were made to be the superior weapon by stats and ruling here that they don't ever provoke if you get a single feat just feels like throwing balance out the window because "Bows cool". Now that I realize how busted this whole thing is it just feels gross to me how they made so you have to actively work for all other ranged attacks except bows, and here we are arguing that bows are even more broken still.


Ed Reppert wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
But not for hand crossbows or air repeaters.
Why not?

Because they don't draw anything to fire. You just pull the trigger.

Their Interact reloads come from replacing the magazine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Look carefully. Reload 0 doesn’t say “how many actions spent interacting,” it says “how many interact actions it takes to reload the weapon.” Reloading a reload 0 weapon requires 0 interact actions.
So you don't need to Reload, so you don't need Hands, so the Hands rules section should just be cut from the book due to providing conflicting information. Gotcha.

Or reloading a reload 0 weapon happens just as part of a strike action with no interact actions. The same way striking with a Kusarigama can happen at reach without a character ever having to release and regrip their weapon all as a part of their strike action, even though that is very obviously and visibly what is happening when someone fights with one.

How is that any different from what I've established is essentially your argument? Saying you don't need to reload because the value is 0 and therefore you don't do interact actions to reload it is exactly what I'm explaining you're doing: Not using hands to reload or wield a weapon. You don't need hands to reload your weapon, because you don't need to reload your weapon. You don't need to wield your weapon because again, you aren't reloading it. This is literally how the Jedi Defense works: You don't use hands, because you aren't required to do so. You use the Force instead. Except: The rules for 1+ Hand weapons expressly tell you how you're using your hands, which debunks the idea that you aren't Interacting with Ammunition to Strike with the Bow. And considering most every other Reload 0 weapon has either Repeating/Capacity rules which override standard Reload 0 rules, this is expressly a Bows problem.

You're comparing a projectile weapon to a reach weapon. They aren't the same thing, or even in the same category of weapon. A Kusarigama doesn't use ammunition and doesn't have to be reloaded. A two-handed grip is on it at all times, shifting between different points of the weapon, and is...

I posted a video of someone fighting with a Kusarigama previously. The weapon is very clearly a double weapon more than a true two handed weapon and involves changing the positioning of your hands constantly, as well as recoiling the weapon after a strike with the flail/chain. Choosing to decide that we are going to just stick with categories, traits, actions and conventions of the game instead of trying to project real world motions over combat is a perfectly fine choice. That is what I am suggesting we do with reload 0 as well. Requiring 0 interact actions is not the language of "subordinate interact action." That language exists in the game and gets used regularly when and where it applies. Adding the manipulate trait to specific kinds of ranged attacks exists in the game and can be done to 1+ handed weapons or reload 0 weapons as necessary, if that is the intention as well.

Or the intention could be that those things are not what is happening and that is why the language around 1+handed weapons and reload 0 don't use that language in describing what happens when you strike with one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have to prove something is happening instead of something is not happening. Again, the rules don't tell you how you fight with a Kusarigama, so it's not defined enough to clearly state that it requires any more or less manipulation than Polearms or Daggers or Shuriken. Since there is no rule to define it, there is no proof that it is, so it isn't by proxy.

Conversely, the rules do, in fact, tell you how you are reloading your weapon as a 1+ hand weapon. The rules also delegate Interact for the purposes of Reloading every time it is done as part of an activity, and hasn't used any other action type to do so, meaning we have evidence both for a standard as well as a precedent for future reloading activities.

At this point, the general rules for Reloading are established, so it's up to the specifics to overwrite them, and so far they just haven't done so in a way that supports your interpretation without also consequently breaking how they are written to function, which is as a projectile weapon that requires reloading.

451 to 477 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.