I really don't get why they are doubling down on this line of thinking when it doesn't really match up to how the reload mechanic is intended to function.I asked the same thing about the 1+ hands weapons that aren't reload 0 weapons: backpack ballista/catapult are 1+ hands but you don't reload them while wielding them so 1+ as presented makes no sense: there is never a time you're free hand "to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow" and that's the reason they give for the "+"...
I'm pretty sure the idea is that you only need one hand to hold onto them, and only need both hands to Strike with it, that's the concept of it being 1+ Hand.
With it being Reload 1, and the rules saying you need both hands (one on the weapon, one for the ammunition), you need both hands to Load it, and compared to a typical Reload 0, the only difference is the amount of actions it takes to fulfill the activity. It just means that for Reload 1 on a 1+ Hand weapon, you need both hands to both Reload (as an action) and Strike with it (as a separate action), just like a Crossbow, but you don't need both hands to be considered wielding the weapon for other intents and purposes, meaning with such weapons, I can still open doors, draw and drink potions, perform Battle Medicine, etc. and then consequently Strike with it on the next turn, no actions needed to re-grip or anything (assuming it's loaded of course). I couldn't do any of this with a 2 handed projectile weapon like a Crossbow or Arquebus, I would have to spend a free action to drop a hand (and therefore not be wielding the weapon), perform the interact (or whatever other actions I need), then spend another action to regrip.
So the weapon is presented this way because the devs wanted this weapon to benefit from the added versatility of Bows, but still be hindered in the same way that Crossbows and other 2-handed ranged weapons are in terms of reloading action economy. It's actually subtly smart when you look at it this way, and it's infinitely less confusing because it can be quantified with existing rules. It doesn't require you to treat throwing weapons as ammunition or projectile weapons for it to work with existing rules, which makes no sense given the intent behind the weapons' function (which is that...well...you throw them with your hands, not with another weapon, like a Chakri Launcher).
Darksol the Painbringer, to me it makes LESS sense than treating throwing weapons as ammunition. If the ONLY thing written under 1+ was you needed 2 hands to shoot: full stop, then it'd make more sense but it's clearly explaining how a reload bow works and not a reload 1 bow or a reload 1 min crossbow and linking 1+ to drawing and firing ammo in the same action as Striking as/is and that just makes no sense.
A reload 0 bow works the same as a reload 1 bow, the only differences are the number of actions it takes to reload, and that it's now an activity separate from the Strike action (and isn't instead part of the same action). It's otherwise the same. You still need both hands (one on the weapon, one on the ammunition), it still requires Interacting, and so on. Adding an action to reload a 1+ hand weapon doesn't change how it otherwise functions.
Throwing weapons being ammunition means they need to be loaded into something, usually another weapon, and it uses the statistics of that weapon for resolving Strikes, and "Arm" isn't listed as a projectile weapon. Would a Thrower's Bandolier count as such a thing in the future? Maybe. But the simple fact of the matter is that, as it stands, they aren't projectile weapons, and they aren't ammunition, and without a Thrower's Bandolier, it does not function whatsoever in the way they want it to because it requires parsing rules that simply aren't there and simply don't match what's currently written. The fact they need to implement a specific item to work-around the currently written rules is enough to tell me that they probably already know how it currently works and, instead of writing it in a way that works, they decided to double-down on their own mistake(s).
it does not function whatsoever in the way they want it to because it requires parsing rules that simply aren't there and simply don't match what's currently written.
Exactly how I see the 1+ hands on non-reload 0 weapons. If the wording in reload is throwing things off, so too should 1+.
A reload 0 bow works the same as a reload 1 bow, the only differences are the number of actions it takes to reload, and that it's now an activity separate from the Strike action (and isn't instead part of the same action).
And this is exactly why it doesn't work as the 1+ hands section clearly says why you need 2 hands: "You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow." This NEVER happens on a wielded backpack ballista for instance it's pre-loaded when not wielded]. That and the logistics of an over the shoulder crossbow using 2 hands doesn't work out physically [you'd hand the arms of the crossbow or your arm blocking your eyes].
Now the wording works better for reload 1 bows, but you still run into this: "This means you can do things with your free hand while holding the bow without changing your grip, but the other hand must be free when you shoot." This CAN'T happen with a reload 1 weapon: you CAN NOT have a hand free when you Strike with those a reload 1 bow.
Okay, I see the complaint in the first part: Because you already loaded it, the idea that it becomes 1+ is pointless by proxy of not needing a hand to Reload the weapon prior to Striking. And that entry was written before the concept of non-bow 1+ hand weapons.
That being said, the intent behind wielding 1+ Hands is relatively clear: You can hold it in one hand at all times to count as wielding it, but you must have a hand free to Interact to Strike with it. The Interact could mean anything (by design, because Interact is relatively open-ended), even if it was obviously meant to be Reload, but the CRB gives that specific example in regards to Bows. In this case, the Interact could be to put a second hand on the weapon to "stabilize" the weapon for its accuracy, or to press a button, pull a lever, or even untie a rope, to fire the weapon. Yes, this is conjecture and isn't supported by the rules, but it's far more plausible by intent than "Arms are a projectile weapon, I can load them with Chakri/Shurikens without spending actions," especially when Chakri/Shurikens aren't treated or listed as Ammunition in their respective books or entries.
As for the Reload 1 part, I'm of the opinion that the Reload mechanics function more as a "requirement" step than a "process" step. That is, if you already fulfill the requirements, you don't have to do that part of the activity, because it's already been done. Because it otherwise makes no sense and creates a paradox of "I loaded the weapon, but I must load it again as part of the action, but it's already loaded, so I can't load it, so I can't complete the rest of the action." It's not like Quick Draw, which specifies that you strike with the weapon that you performed an Interact action to unsheath. All it says is that you Reload, then Strike. If you already Reloaded as an action, then you don't need to Reload it again, because the requirement to Strike with such a weapon (which is that it's loaded) is already fulfilled.
This CAN'T happen with a reload 1 weapon: you CAN NOT have a hand free when you Strike with those a reload 1 bow.
Sure it can.
You hold the weapon in one hand and you make sure you don't hold anything else in the other.
Bam, conditions satisfied.
That being said, the intent behind wielding 1+ Hands is relatively clear
IMO, it's the same for reload thrown. It's "relatively clear" the intent behind it too.
As for the Reload 1 part
IMO, hands 1+ wasn't future proofed and now has parts that don't mesh with new products.
This CAN'T happen with a reload 1 weapon: you CAN NOT have a hand free when you Strike with those a reload 1 bow.Sure it can.
You hold the weapon in one hand and you make sure you don't hold anything else in the other.
Bam, conditions satisfied.
You really can't: at the start of any action you'd want to fire the weapon, you DO NOT have a free hand. It's not a requirement to wield [which could be 1 hand] but to FIRE it [ie, Strike].
Step one: a weapon with reload has to be loaded to fire.Step 2 for a bow: the weapon requires you to have both hands on the weapon when loaded.
Step 3 for bow: both hands are on the weapon but you're told that to fire, you need a free hand...
Step 4: negative 1 bam...
Removed of context, it should work like a crossbow. There's no problem with a 1+ crossbow but it's just the logic of how a bow functions that's making a little bit of a mess. When you have it loaded, presumably you have an arrow nocked. Naturally, that would need to take up both hands.
I agree: IF hands 1+ just stated that you can carry it in 1 hand but need a free hand for reloading or firing it wouldn't be an issue. The problem comes in when hands 1+ gets mingled with information that is specific to reload 0 bows [it should have been in the weapon description instead]. With it being mingled, it adds that to every hands 1+ weapon. I mean, even if I go with the backpack weapons as needing 2 hands to fire, it just can't figure out how that works as a logistical matter for a 2 handed over the shoulder crossbow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... it's just the logic of how a bow functions that's making a little bit of a mess. When you have it loaded, presumably you have an arrow nocked. Naturally, that would need to take up both hands.
No. No it doesn't. It is super simple to walk around with an arrow knocked holding a bow in one hand with a finger holding the arrow in place. Drawing the bow requires two hands. Simply having an arrow knocked at the ready does not.
That being said, the intent behind wielding 1+ Hands is relatively clearIMO, it's the same for reload thrown. It's "relatively clear" the intent behind it too.
As for the Reload 1 partIMO, hands 1+ wasn't future proofed and now has parts that don't mesh with new products.
This CAN'T happen with a reload 1 weapon: you CAN NOT have a hand free when you Strike with those a reload 1 bow.Sure it can.
You hold the weapon in one hand and you make sure you don't hold anything else in the other.
Bam, conditions satisfied.
You really can't: at the start of any action you'd want to fire the weapon, you DO NOT have a free hand. It's not a requirement to wield [which could be 1 hand] but to FIRE it [ie, Strike].
Step one: a weapon with reload has to be loaded to fire.
Step 2 for a bow: the weapon requires you to have both hands on the weapon when loaded.
Step 3 for bow: both hands are on the weapon but you're told that to fire, you need a free hand...
Step 4: negative 1 bam...Removed of context, it should work like a crossbow. There's no problem with a 1+ crossbow but it's just the logic of how a bow functions that's making a little bit of a mess. When you have it loaded, presumably you have an arrow nocked. Naturally, that would need to take up both hands.I agree: IF hands 1+ just stated that you can carry it in 1 hand but need a free hand for reloading or firing it wouldn't be an issue. The problem comes in when hands 1+ gets mingled with information that is specific to reload 0 bows [it should have been in the weapon description instead]. With it being mingled, it adds that to every hands 1+ weapon. I mean, even if I go with the backpack weapons as needing 2 hands to fire, it just can't figure out how that works as a logistical matter for a 2 handed over the shoulder crossbow.
Regardless, if the intent is that you should be able to draw a thrown weapon as part of a Strike, then the item description needs to reflect that, because the general rules simply don't say this happens at all in regards to Reload, Ranged Weapons, or Throwing. In fact, the item description gives us nothing to work with, the rules say Reload is for weapons that have to be Loaded and Reloaded (of which a Thrown weapon does not qualify for by nature of it being '-'), Ranged Weapons designate whether they have a Reload, and Throwing says that they are '-', which means you must spend an Interact to have the item drawn and wielded prior to Striking. This becomes a Specific Trumps General, and when there is no Specific to Trump with, you revert to General rules. In which case, it's still broken by RAW. And no, having a Thrower's Bandolier doesn't fix this problem, and a Thrown Weapon with Reload 0 is not Specific enough, just like the Daikyu being labeled as '-' when it's meant to be a projectile weapon doesn't work. (Yes, Daikyu was errata'd to be Reload 0, but the fact it had to be errata'd to function should be an indicator that, well, this is clearly wrong, and needs another look/fix.)
I disagree with your step process because it's simply non-congruent and doesn't consider the whole picture. The process is pretty simple to follow:
You have an unloaded backpack weapon, it's held in 1 hand currently, and your other hand is free meaning you count as wielding it, regardless of whether it's loaded or not, not unlike a Bow held in one hand, since you don't need to have a weapon loaded to count as wielding it. It takes 1 action to load, which means the act of loading it requires both hands. It's also a 1+ hand weapon, which means to fire it, you need both hands (presumably) on the weapon.
So, if you spend the action to reload, the only thing that's changed is you now fulfill one of the two requirements to Strike with it. The process of reloading doesn't automatically mean you hold your second hand on the ammunition, the rules never say this except for in regards to bows, of which a backpack weapon is not.
While I can see why you would come to that conclusion for a bow with that step process, a backpack weapon is not a bow (which actually breaks itself regardless, because it becomes Schrodinger's Bow, being both loaded and not loaded, while having both a hand free and not free). It's just a 1+ hand weapon, right? Here's the whole relevant section of 1+ Hand weapons:
A few items, such as a longbow, list 1+ for its Hands entry. You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow. This means you can do things with your free hand while holding the bow without changing your grip, but the other hand must be free when you shoot. To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free.
The first two bolded parts are simply an example, because of the "such as" part of the sentence, and with other 1+ hand weapons, you don't (always) use arrows as ammunition. If we took things literal, then only arrow-based weapons could be 1+ hand weapons, and clearly that can't be the case, otherwise you're breaking more weapons than you are permitting to work with a looser interpretation. So other than the obvious, the bolded portion simply says you just need both hands to load the weapon. This isn't really any different than Crossbows, which already need both hands to load anyway. The final bolded part is the most honest interpretation of what 1+ hand weapons really mean, because this is pretty broad, yet specific enough to be a general indicator on how to run them. Stating "you need a free hand to wield it" could mean anything, it doesn't always mean you need to have your hand on the ammunition at all times, that's an assumption keyed to how a bow usually works, as shown in the example text. That's an assumption you're putting with all 1+ hand weapons because it uses bows as an example in the CRB, which were the only 1+ hand weapon at the time. Do you really need you have your ammunition held by you the whole time when it's loaded into a backpack weapon? Probably not. A backpack is meant to hold things without them randomly spilling out or requiring hands to do so. Stating you need to have a free hand on the ammunition at all times when it's put into an object that clearly shouldn't require hands to maintain is absurd. The game doesn't ask if you have your hands on your backpack straps to make sure it doesn't fall off your back. Why implement that you need hands to make sure ammunition stored onto the backpack (weapon) doesn't fall out?
It just seems like we're overcomplicating a mechanic that's easier to follow when not taken literally, compared to Shurkens/Chakri being "It's a Ranged/Thrown/Projectile Weapon/Ammunition" category that's sprawled everywhere like thugs in the slums, it's far less absurd.