So? You can stash tons of ammunition to benefit from this item, so it being destroyed or not is irrelevant. The idea that it's ammunition, but not ammunition, is even dumber design.It'd be like you're forced to take a normal bow only and have to buy magic ammo to stay competitive: with precious material ammo being 1/10th the cost of a weapon, a similar ratio for your main weapon runes sounds pretty untenable o in effect having o buy a new magic weapon every 10 thrown attacks.
Other throwing weapons don't require a feat to function. If the issue is having Returning on a Shuriken/Chakri is too much of a nerf in damage, then you can use...well...literally any other thrown weapon. Also, Reload 0 on a thrown weapon makes no sense, just like Reload - makes no sense on a Daikyu.Yes they do: all other thrown weapons need quick draw until you get returning. LITERALLY EVERY ONE. So I'm not sure where you're going with this as you complained about it taking 2 actions to draw and throw weapons.
The complaint is analogous comparisons does not comprise RAW, and treating it as if it is doesn't work at tables that are more strict on the rules, such as PFS.What? Everything works fine by the book as/is: reload 0 works with thrown weapons as well as reload - does. If you have an issue with the word reload attached to one, you should have it with the other. Reload for a thrown weapon means drawing it:
"An item with an entry of “—” must be drawn to be thrown, which usually takes an Interact action just like drawing any other weapon."
Take that back to reload 0 and it's not hard to see it means 'This can be 0 if drawing
ammunitionweapon andfiringattacking the weapon are part of the same action.' How many people do you foresee not being able to figure this out? I haven't heard of any tables, PFS or any other, having an issue with shurikens: have YOU heard of any tables having the...
It's not like that at all, because the rules don't permit this. You can't enchant Ammunition with Runes. If Shuriken/Chakri are Ammunition, you can't enchant them any more than Bolts/Arrows, which means the complaint of them being destroyed on hit doesn't matter either if they're already being treated as Ammunition for all intents and purposes. Which is fine. But then it can't also be a permanent Thrown weapon at the same time.
My point here is that the only reason why people want an item like the Thrower's Bandolier is because they don't like the Returning property rune tax on their weapon, and that it's the only reason why you don't (really) need Quick Draw as a feat once it's acquired. You can't put such a rune on the Bandolier (it's not a throwing weapon), so once I use the Chakri on my arms, they don't come back (because there is no Returning rune applying to them, and if there was, why even bother with a Bandolier?). In this case, I'm now having to spend actions to draw more of them to strike with, whereas with any other Returning thrown weapon, I don't have to, I can just keep spamming the same weapon Strike action over and over again. Seems to me like the Thrower's Bandolier is a solution in search of a problem that is put there by design; ranged weapons aren't meant to be as damaging or effective in killing as melee weapons, which is why Returning is a staple throwing build rune.
If that's what the rules were meant to say, they'd simply say it, and you wouldn't have to do these mental gymnastics to point out how throwing weapons can be ammunition and how arms are projectile weapons (which aren't listed in the weapons table, by the way). The fact they aren't saying this at all, and you're extrapolating this to create an intended ruling means it either needs errata to properly match this intention that's not spelled out in the rules anywhere, or you're simply wrong. And guess what? I'm totally fine with Paizo backpedaling on their rules, because a lot of them don't even work right as-is. But until that happens, we go with what's written, and don't follow the borked interpretation of arms being projectile weapons.
As for tables coming up with this issue, that's because they don't use those items to begin with, ever. Never heard of any build or character choosing to use such weapons and it being either fun or worthwhile to use, and if you haven't, then there's clearly a bit of merit to that possibility. People are saying that it would work far better in ABP rules, and that's probably true given the logistical costs of that, though it still falls behind compared to actual weapons since it doesn't acquire property runes, and just as well, if the rules for it are broken, people are probably not going to want to use it and have to worry about table variation outright nullifying their character concept between tables. I can assure you that if somebody tried running Shurikens/Chakri at my table, I'd outright tell them that the item is broken and that they probably should use something else, even with ABP rules in place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't put such a rune on the Bandolier (it's not a throwing weapon)
Wait, hold up.
By that logic you can't put any runes on the Bandolier because it isn't a weapon at all.
The point of the Thrower's Bandolier is that you can put on the Bandolier any runes that you could put on the thrown weapons that you put in it.
I have to admit that I have only been skimming through the arguments that you two have been having here, but that line jumped out at me.
You can't put such a rune on the Bandolier (it's not a throwing weapon)Wait, hold up.
By that logic you can't put any runes on the Bandolier because it isn't a weapon at all.
The point of the Thrower's Bandolier is that you can put on the Bandolier any runes that you could put on the thrown weapons that you put in it.
I have to admit that I have only been skimming through the arguments that you two have been having here, but that line jumped out at me.
There's no entry for the item, so it's ultimately speculation until it's printed. I'm fine with admitting I'd be wrong on this, but only when it hits the print.
That being said, Thrower's Bandolier isn't a weapon at all, so it'd need an exception saying that it is, or counts as one, at least for the purposes of enchanting runes.
Even if it could, if you put Returning on the Bandolier, then it defeats the entire purpose of the Bandolier existing in the first place (which is to stash a crap-ton of throwing weapons in there and not have to worry about Returning), at which point what purpose does it serve other than to add needless bloat to the game (and it's bloat that conflates other broken rules to work, no less)?
Well, the Gunner's Bandolier does already exist.
It is also not a ranged weapon, but has a line in its rules text saying that it can be etched with runes as though it was.
The Blog printing of the Thrower's Bandolier had rule language like that too.
So I would think it is a safe bet that the final print version of the item will as well.
It's not like that at all, because the rules don't permit this. You can't enchant Ammunition with Runes. If Shuriken/Chakri are Ammunition, you can't enchant them any more than Bolts/Arrows, which means the complaint of them being destroyed on hit doesn't matter either if they're already being treated as Ammunition for all intents and purposes. Which is fine. But then it can't also be a permanent Thrown weapon at the same time.
Pick a lane and stay in it: YOU suggested reload 0 weapons should be ammo and that then means you need a way to add runes. If you are suggesting that they be ammo and NOT have any rune on them then you are essentially saying they serve no purpose in the game.
My point here is that the only reason why people want an item like the Thrower's Bandolier is because they don't like the Returning property rune tax on their weapon, and that it's the only reason why you don't (really) need Quick Draw as a feat once it's acquired.
You would be incorrect. It can allow you to have a variety of different materials and weapons so you can deal whatever damage type [s/b/p] and material. I also think you'll find that people will have the rune on it so every weapon has return.
You can't put such a rune on the Bandolier (it's not a throwing weapon)
Say what now? "it can be etched with runes as though it were a one-handed thrown weapon." SO it sure can.
so once I use the Chakri on my arms
The main use of them is for abilities that require a reload weapon: as they need to be worn for reload 0, it would be used as a normal reload - weapon in the bandoleer as it NEED to be in it to work. Using arms for reload 0, would be using those weapons with returning and not the bandoleer.
If that's what the rules were meant to say, they'd simply say it, and you wouldn't have to do these mental gymnasticsWell if by "mental gymnastic" you mean a 'mental 1" hop', then sure. Again, how many tables have you heard of with an issue figuring it out?
As for tables coming up with this issue, that's because they don't use those items to begin with, everWell you'd think you'd see some threads about it: I see threads like "Rule question. Monk with shuriken" about someone making a monk with shurikens and they didn't spiral out of control over reload 0. "101 Monk Builds" has shurikens builds and mentions reload 0 but had no issue with understanding it. "Help me understand how Monastic Weaponry interacts with other monk feats" mentions shurikens but debates over how monastic weaponry works, no reload 0. "Why is there no support for munition like thrown weapons?" wants to enable builds for reload 0 thrown weapons with an item like he bandoleer but no issue there either.
You are literally he only person I heard with this issue but I've seen several people with reload thrown weapons
-snip-
Does it? Bows don't have this issue, the runes apply to the ammunition when you Strike with it. Doesn't mean you can craft +1 Striking arrows. Bows would be even more broken than what they are if it didn't work that way. Point is that if the Thrower's Bandolier is meant to stash a ton of basic throwing items (because you can't be arsed for a Returning rune on your favorite ones), then them being as valuable and disposable as ammunition shouldn't be a problem, and them functioning as ammunition makes more sense for them to work with Reload rules than it does to treat them as something wholly separate and have a bunch of unwritten exceptions for them to work currently.
The materials are capped based on quality, so no go there for logistical reasoning. The different damage types would make more sense, but honestly that means keeping track of over 3 different throwing weapon amounts. And if we're just going to permit Returning on them, then it's now more powerful than a Shifting rune, with no added meaningful cost to compensate. People complaining about power creep will have a fit with this one.
Whatever, point is that Returning on the Bandolier means it's no different than if you didn't have the Bandolier to begin with, so it does nothing, bloat for the sake of bloat.
Handwaving how these weapons work is subject to table variation, which means not every table follows what you're preaching. You might reach a common ground for it to potentially work, but that doesn't make it the rules as they're printed. Reloading is for projectile weapons. Arms aren't projectile weapons. Shurikens/Chakri aren't Ammunition to load into such a weapon. So these mental gymnastics about how reload rules work with them can just stop because they accomplish nothing, and are a non-sequitur to how they are meant to work.
Does it? Bows don't have this issue, the runes apply to the ammunition when you Strike with it.
Yeah.
Doesn't mean you can craft +1 Striking arrows.
Right.
Point is that if the Thrower's Bandolier is meant to stash a ton of basic throwing items (because you can't be arsed for a Returning rune on your favorite ones), then them being as valuable and disposable as ammunition shouldn't be a problem,
OK. You lost me on that leap of logic.
and them functioning as ammunition makes more sense for them to work with Reload rules than it does to treat them as something wholly separate and have a bunch of unwritten exceptions for them to work currently...
And now we are way off into the weeds.
Does it? Bows don't have this issue, the runes apply to the ammunition when you Strike with it. Doesn't mean you can craft +1 Striking arrows. Bows would be even more broken than what they are if it didn't work that way. Point is that if the Thrower's Bandolier is meant to stash a ton of basic throwing items (because you can't be arsed for a Returning rune on your favorite ones), then them being as valuable and disposable as ammunition shouldn't be a problem, and them functioning as ammunition makes more sense for them to work with Reload rules than it does to treat them as something wholly separate and have a bunch of unwritten exceptions for them to work currently.
I don't get this at all: the bandoleer has NOTHING to do with ammo.
The materials are capped based on quality, so no go there for logistical reasoning.
What does hat have to do with the bandoleer? You aren't etching the runes on the weapon, only the bandoleer.
The different damage types would make more sense, but honestly that means keeping track of over 3 different throwing weapon amounts.
And? People seem to manage spellcasters with multiple entries just fine.
And if we're just going to permit Returning on them, then it's now more powerful than a Shifting rune, with no added meaningful cost to compensate. People complaining about power creep will have a fit with this one.
There is no "if we're just going to permit Returning": it totally, 100% is allowed.
Whatever, point is that Returning on the Bandolier means it's no different than if you didn't have the Bandolier to begin with, so it does nothing, bloat for the sake of bloat.
No, as I pointed out you can now have different weapons with different stats and traits so you could ranged trip one encounter, agile for secondary attacks, Nonlethal in another. That's not even factoring in the new weapon add-ons in the new book.
Handwaving how these weapons work is subject to table variation, which means not every table follows what you're preaching.
Haven't ever heard of such table variation in play, here in the PF2 forum nor when I just looked in the PFS forum. I think you're good to go 99.9% of the time: we aren't talking about something like minions out of exploration mode here.
-rest-
Again, it's MAYBE a mental 1" hop at best. You seem to be the only one getting tired from gymnastics while for the rest of us it didn't break our stride.
Does it? Bows don't have this issue, the runes apply to the ammunition when you Strike with it.Yeah.
Doesn't mean you can craft +1 Striking arrows.Right.
Point is that if the Thrower's Bandolier is meant to stash a ton of basic throwing items (because you can't be arsed for a Returning rune on your favorite ones), then them being as valuable and disposable as ammunition shouldn't be a problem,OK. You lost me on that leap of logic.
and them functioning as ammunition makes more sense for them to work with Reload rules than it does to treat them as something wholly separate and have a bunch of unwritten exceptions for them to work currently...And now we are way off into the weeds.
The Bandolier was made so people didn't have to enchant a dozen or so throwing weapons separately to maintain combat relevance. Don't need to enchant 10 Light Hammers or Daggers, just enchant the Bandolier. Okay, simple enough, people can spend a few gold on "disposable" throwing weapons, not thousands of gold on enchanted ones. Problem is, once Returning becomes available, you no longer need more than 1 throwing weapon, making the Bandolier, housing multiples of the same thing, useless. Why spend gold on throwing weapons like they are ammunition when you can spend one lump sum and not care about it anymore?
Now, can it house multiple different weapons? Sure. But it's now far more versatile than any other type of weapon in the game. Even more versatile than a Shifting rune. Yet it's the same price as any other non-Shifting weapon, and doesn't take up a rune slot for it. Granted, one could argue that Returning costs a rune slot like Shifting does, but Shifting doesn't let me change from a Light Hammer to a Shuriken to a Javelin to a Bolas, whereas this Bandolier permits this, in essence. It's far more versatile than any other weapon in the game by comparison.
The comparison I'm otherwise making is that, if throwing weapons are being bought and used similarly to ammunition (i.e. the shurikens and chakri), and use reload rules like ammunition, them being categorized as ammunition instead would make more sense than if we tried to argue that they are reloadable throwing weapons. Make sense now?
Does it? Bows don't have this issue, the runes apply to the ammunition when you Strike with it. Doesn't mean you can craft +1 Striking arrows. Bows would be even more broken than what they are if it didn't work that way. Point is that if the Thrower's Bandolier is meant to stash a ton of basic throwing items (because you can't be arsed for a Returning rune on your favorite ones), then them being as valuable and disposable as ammunition shouldn't be a problem, and them functioning as ammunition makes more sense for them to work with Reload rules than it does to treat them as something wholly separate and have a bunch of unwritten exceptions for them to work currently.I don't get this at all: the bandoleer has NOTHING to do with ammo.
The materials are capped based on quality, so no go there for logistical reasoning.What does hat have to do with the bandoleer? You aren't etching the runes on the weapon, only the bandoleer.
The different damage types would make more sense, but honestly that means keeping track of over 3 different throwing weapon amounts.And? People seem to manage spellcasters with multiple entries just fine.
And if we're just going to permit Returning on them, then it's now more powerful than a Shifting rune, with no added meaningful cost to compensate. People complaining about power creep will have a fit with this one.There is no "if we're just going to permit Returning": it totally, 100% is allowed.
Whatever, point is that Returning on the Bandolier means it's no different than if you didn't have the Bandolier to begin with, so it does nothing, bloat for the sake of bloat.No, as I pointed out you can now have different weapons with different stats and traits so you could ranged trip one encounter, agile for secondary attacks, Nonlethal in another. That's not even factoring in the...
If the bandolier has nothing to do with ammunition, then treating throwing weapons as ammunition has nothing to do with how it works either. It still takes actions to draw and throw them out, and such weapons being listed as reload 0 is in error.
Spellcasting is different because the rules tell you how many spell slots you have for a given level. They don't calculate how many of each item type you can store in a container. Apples to Oranges.
Cool, Bandoliers are now more powerful than D12 shifting weapons with that comparison. Thanks for proving my point.
Minions in exploration mode are too subject to GM FIAT, which is why it's bad to assume things. Throwing weapons having a Reload value is just as broken as non-throwing weapons having a reload value, which means they shouldn't work by RAW, and are only allowed to work by obvious handwaving. Not at all the same comparison.
If the bandolier has nothing to do with ammunition, then treating throwing weapons as ammunition has nothing to do with how it works either. It still takes actions to draw and throw them out, and such weapons being listed as reload 0 is in error.
You where the one one suggesting weapons should be ammo... As to an error, it works as well as reload - does and you aren't up in arms over that.
Spellcasting is different because the rules tell you how many spell slots you have for a given level. They don't calculate how many of each item type you can store in a container. Apples to Oranges.
You have to juggle up to 34 spells and 9 spells you can cast at any level... As for as complexity, it seems like an apple to apple comparison as BOTH require calculating how many of something you fit into a specific number of slots.
Cool, Bandoliers are now more powerful than D12 shifting weapons with that comparison. Thanks for proving my point.
What now? Not sure how you got that or what you mean by it.
Minions in exploration mode are too subject to GM FIAT, which is why it's bad to assume things. Throwing weapons having a Reload value is just as broken as non-throwing weapons having a reload value, which means they shouldn't work by RAW, and are only allowed to work by obvious handwaving. Not at all the same comparison.
The difference is there isn't any table difference for one: no one is having issues with reload that I know of: so far you haven' suggested you know of any either. As such, all his handwringing about table variation is pure theater. It's a minor quibble of yours only as far as I can tell
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is, once Returning becomes available . . .
Returning became available the moment the Thrower’s Bandolier was published, because the text of the item clearly allows the Returning rune to be etched once you’ve etched a +1 onto the Bandolier.
There’s room to argue that this is too good, but I don’t think there’s room to argue that it’s not allowed.
|
The comparison I'm otherwise making is that, if throwing weapons are being bought and used similarly to ammunition (i.e. the shurikens and chakri), and use reload rules like ammunition, them being categorized as ammunition instead would make more sense than if we tried to argue that they are reloadable throwing weapons. Make sense now?
Okay. However, they are not ammunition. No rules or requirements that comes from being ammunition suddenly gets applied to items just because they may operate like ammunition in a specific circumstance.
If someone builds a cannon that fires longswords like buckshot, we wouldn't treat the longswords as ammunition unless the cannon specifically instructed us to do so.
Sure. But it's now far more versatile than any other type of weapon in the game. Even more versatile than a Shifting rune. Yet it's the same price as any other non-Shifting weapon, and doesn't take up a rune slot for it. Granted, one could argue that Returning costs a rune slot like Shifting does, but Shifting doesn't let me change from a Light Hammer to a Shuriken to a Javelin to a Bolas, whereas this Bandolier permits this, in essence. It's far more versatile than any other weapon in the game by comparison.
No. Incorrect.
You are confusing a functional hypothetical with something else's actual function.
A throwers bandolier is not more versatile than a shifting rune, simply because the bandolier doesn't just materialise weapons that you need in the moment, you actually have to have them.
A shifting rune turns something you already have into something else. It does directly give an item more versatility. This level of versatility can be functionally achieved with a throwers bandolier, if you happen to carry every possible variation of a thrown weapon you might ever want, all for under 2 bulk.
They are not inherently the same thing.
Also nothing stopping you from having a shifting rune on the knife you keep in your bandolier. Go nuts.
If the bandolier has nothing to do with ammunition, then treating throwing weapons as ammunition has nothing to do with how it works either. It still takes actions to draw and throw them out, and such weapons being listed as reload 0 is in error.
I think you have argued yourself in a circle here.
Cool, Bandoliers are now more powerful than D12 shifting weapons with that comparison. Thanks for proving my point.
They're just different things
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is, once Returning becomes available, you no longer need more than 1 throwing weapon, making the Bandolier, housing multiples of the same thing, useless.
Not at all. The bandolier remains great for anyone relying on poison, talismans, and similar modifiers.
The bandolier lets you have and use up to 20 doses of poison on 20 different weapons without needing to waste actions to apply them (more if they have negligable bulk). Similarly, you can have 20 talismans on 20 different weapons ready to go.
But if you have a single returning weapon? Well, that limits you to one dose of poison, or a single talisman.
The fact that they can all be different weapons sharing the same runes is another boon. This let's you better leverage the power of different weapon traits, critical specializations, etc. for different situations. Along with being able to mix and match different kinds of poisons and talismans this grants you an incredible level of versatility that just isn't possible with a single returning weapon.
The bandolier is far, far from useless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the bandolier remains great even in a world that contains the returning rune because... you don't need to fill a rune slot with returning. That gives you one more property rune to play with than the adventurer next to you who's using a returning rune, and that's before you get things like different metals, poisons, swapping weapon types, and so forth.
Problem is, once Returning becomes available, you no longer need more than 1 throwing weapon, making the Bandolier, housing multiples of the same thing, useless.Not at all. The bandolier remains great for anyone relying on poison, talismans, and similar modifiers.
The bandolier lets you have and use up to 20 doses of poison on 20 different weapons without needing to waste actions to apply them (more if they have negligable bulk). Similarly, you can have 20 talismans on 20 different weapons ready to go.
But if you have a single returning weapon? Well, that limits you to one dose of poison, or a single talisman.
The fact that they can all be different weapons sharing the same runes is another boon. This let's you better leverage the power of different weapon traits, critical specializations, etc. for different situations. Along with being able to mix and match different kinds of poisons and talismans this grants you an incredible level of versatility that just isn't possible with a single returning weapon.
The bandolier is far, far from useless.
It also allows you to effectively have 1 more rune slot compared to someone using returning, as you don't need it. You also have a free hand, which is even more useful. In turn, you need Quick Draw, which has its own limitations.
So yeah, I absolutely don't agree that the bandolier is useless.
If the bandolier has nothing to do with ammunition, then treating throwing weapons as ammunition has nothing to do with how it works either. It still takes actions to draw and throw them out, and such weapons being listed as reload 0 is in error.You where the one one suggesting weapons should be ammo... As to an error, it works as well as reload - does and you aren't up in arms over that.
Spellcasting is different because the rules tell you how many spell slots you have for a given level. They don't calculate how many of each item type you can store in a container. Apples to Oranges.You have to juggle up to 34 spells and 9 spells you can cast at any level... As for as complexity, it seems like an apple to apple comparison as BOTH require calculating how many of something you fit into a specific number of slots.
Cool, Bandoliers are now more powerful than D12 shifting weapons with that comparison. Thanks for proving my point.What now? Not sure how you got that or what you mean by it.
Minions in exploration mode are too subject to GM FIAT, which is why it's bad to assume things. Throwing weapons having a Reload value is just as broken as non-throwing weapons having a reload value, which means they shouldn't work by RAW, and are only allowed to work by obvious handwaving. Not at all the same comparison.The difference is there isn't any table difference for one: no one is having issues with reload that I know of: so far you haven' suggested you know of any either. As such, all his handwringing about table variation is pure theater. It's a minor quibble of yours only as far as I can tell
I'm suggesting it because people are too arsed about the Returning rune feeling like a property (rune) tax to be effective at their schtick (hence why this item was made), and because it makes more sense with how reload rules actually work as printed (i.e. having Reload 0 actually be relevant for throwing weapons, instead of being broken like it is now). Works great for Shurikens and Chakri in my opinion. Maybe not so much with Daggers and Light Hammers (which can also be used in melee), but that's not really what I'm making the suggestion towards. And Reload - calls out that it applies to thrown weapons in particular, and has rules for them. Reload 0 doesn't do this, and applies to weapons like Bows, which utilize Ammunition to Strike with. Do you use Ammunition with Shurikens and Chakri? No. Because they are the Ammunition in this case, being loaded into the Bandolier. It's a redundant tautology that creates a paradox in its function by RAW. Reloading an ammunition by taking the ammunition and loading it into a weapon (no, an arm or hand is not a weapon) is how Reloading works. It doesn't work by drawing it out and consequently hurling it from your hand at the enemy. Handwaving the RAW to suit its obviously intended function (i.e. doesn't take an action to draw to strike with) doesn't mean that's how it works by the rules.
Fine, but the Bandolier has no table that tells you what you have at each given level, so it's still far more open-ended as to how much of it can be used by comparison.
Bandoliers have become one of the most flexible "weapons" in the game because you can do so much with them compared to any other actually printed weapon, including D12 melee weapons, or those D4 weapons with all those fiddly traits. To heck with an Inventor applying their discoveries to a normal weapoon, just give them a Bandolier and turn the discoveries into bonus class feats. It's about the same thing. That level of flexibility is absurd, because nothing else replicates it, not even spells or a fully decked Inventor weapon. Being able to fit one of each thrown weapon in there, and draw it out for any situation you want, just made thrown weaponry the new meta. That is what I mean by it overshadowing every other weapon in the game. Because it's not just one weapon. It's a bunch of numerous different weapons all stuffed and enchanted into one container, meaning you can benefit from any damage dice and any weapon trait you so desire. Schrodinger's Bandolier, anyone?
Ah, yes, the "If nobody complains about it or cares about it, it's not a problem" argument. Next thing you know, people won't care about Cancer until it's Stage 3 or so, where it actually starts causing you issues. I'm glad that for an option to be considered problematic, it has to actually be used or relevant for it to be problematic, when the opposite conundrum (it doesn't get used solely because it's irrelevant or a problem to use it) is probably what's going on here.
Problem is, once Returning becomes available . . .Returning became available the moment the Thrower’s Bandolier was published, because the text of the item clearly allows the Returning rune to be etched once you’ve etched a +1 onto the Bandolier.
There’s room to argue that this is too good, but I don’t think there’s room to argue that it’s not allowed.
That sentence is in regards to when the Returning rune becomes available to the player to etch, which is when they are of an appropriate level and have the appropriate funds, not when it's able to be put on the Bandolier, which can be any time. You strawmanned my argument from something I quickly retracted from due to the PDF chads referencing their copies that we don't get access to yet.
The comparison I'm otherwise making is that, if throwing weapons are being bought and used similarly to ammunition (i.e. the shurikens and chakri), and use reload rules like ammunition, them being categorized as ammunition instead would make more sense than if we tried to argue that they are reloadable throwing weapons. Make sense now?Okay. However, they are not ammunition. No rules or requirements that comes from being ammunition suddenly gets applied to items just because they may operate like ammunition in a specific circumstance.
If someone builds a cannon that fires longswords like buckshot, we wouldn't treat the longswords as ammunition unless the cannon specifically instructed us to do so.
Sure. But it's now far more versatile than any other type of weapon in the game. Even more versatile than a Shifting rune. Yet it's the same price as any other non-Shifting weapon, and doesn't take up a rune slot for it. Granted, one could argue that Returning costs a rune slot like Shifting does, but Shifting doesn't let me change from a Light Hammer to a Shuriken to a Javelin to a Bolas, whereas this Bandolier permits this, in essence. It's far more versatile than any other weapon in the game by comparison.No. Incorrect.
You are confusing a functional hypothetical with something else's actual function.
A throwers bandolier is not more versatile than a shifting rune, simply because the bandolier doesn't just materialise weapons that you need in the moment, you actually have to have them.
A shifting rune turns something you already have into something else. It does directly give an item more versatility. This level of versatility can be functionally achieved with a throwers bandolier, if you happen to carry every possible variation of a thrown weapon you might ever want, all for under 2 bulk.
They are not inherently the same thing.
Also nothing stopping you from having a shifting rune on the...
That's the comparison I was making. Thank you for proving my point that having Reload 0 on throwing weapons makes no sense.
Then let me rephrase it so we don't hang on semantics: A Thrower's Bandolier can effectively have more versatility than any other weapon in the game, by having access of up to 20 or so different weapon types at once. Does it always have it? No. But the fact that it can, means that in an optimizer's case, it will, and there's no reason for them not to if the cost is negligible.
I didn't actually consider having a Shifting Dagger in the Bandolier to switch it into any other weapon you might want, though, so now it really is Schrodinger's Bandolier, where you can pull a Bastard Sword out of there if you really wanted. But, I'm not certain if any runes on the weapons stored are suppressed or overwritten while stored; if so, then it can create issues. Of course, I don't think Shifting works with non-meleeable thrown weapons, so there is that.
Actually, that argument was made in response to people saying throwing weapons with Reload 0 work just fine and don't have any issues or hangups whatsoever, instead of them being Reload - like they are supposed to be, given that they are, well throwing weapons.
Problem is, once Returning becomes available, you no longer need more than 1 throwing weapon, making the Bandolier, housing multiples of the same thing, useless.Not at all. The bandolier remains great for anyone relying on poison, talismans, and similar modifiers.
The bandolier lets you have and use up to 20 doses of poison on 20 different weapons without needing to waste actions to apply them (more if they have negligable bulk). Similarly, you can have 20 talismans on 20 different weapons ready to go.
But if you have a single returning weapon? Well, that limits you to one dose of poison, or a single talisman.
The fact that they can all be different weapons sharing the same runes is another boon. This let's you better leverage the power of different weapon traits, critical specializations, etc. for different situations. Along with being able to mix and match different kinds of poisons and talismans this grants you an incredible level of versatility that just isn't possible with a single returning weapon.
The bandolier is far, far from useless.
Well, most anything that's non-humanoid is immune or highly resistant to Poison, so that's bad to use anyway. Not to mention bad DC scaling and pretty poor effects; Poisons are just a PC killer tool usable by the GM. And Talismans are still single consumable items, which means they'd be expended if the weapon stored wasn't Returning anyway. And if they are, then having 20 Talismans seems quite overkill on spending. But hey, if you really want to pre-emptively have 20 or so Talismans ready without having to spend out-of-combat time reapplying them, then I can't really complain about somebody spending a smart use of their time. Of course, this really only exacerbates the Schrodinger's Bandolier issue with this in mind. No other weapon in the game is this flexible. This is genuine power creep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, most anything that's non-humanoid is immune or highly resistant to Poison, so that's bad to use anyway.
Yes many undead, elemental and construct creatures have some poison immunity. But not all, and this is still only a portion of creatures.
Resistances and immunities are not as ubiquitous as they are in earlier systems. Fire is a much better damage type than it used to be. Poison is better than it used to be. Precision is probably a bit worse.
All in all though the situation is a lot better. There is no need to write off whole damage types.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the comparison I was making. Thank you for proving my point that having Reload 0 on throwing weapons makes no sense.
Actually, that argument was made in response to people saying throwing weapons with Reload 0 work just fine and don't have any issues or hangups whatsoever, instead of them being Reload - like they are supposed to be, given that they are, well throwing weapons.
I've wholly lost the thread of your argument, I'm sorry.
Thrown weapons don't, in the majority, have a reload value. Any and all rules that apply because of the presence of a reload value do not apply to them, except in the circumstances where they somehow acquire one.
The rules for reloading read
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.
Given that some throw weapons do have a reload value, it means we don't follow the part of the bolded rules in paragraph 2, and instead follow the bolded rules in paragraph 1. In the case of the Shuriken, it is a 1 handed, thrown weapon, which requires 0 interact actions to load prior to an attack with it.
Its an IF statement with clear directions on how to handle both cases.
The bandolier works on any number of 1 handed thrown weapons, up to 2 bulk in value.
There isn't much else to this.
If you want to make an argument that the Chakri and Shuriken are printed in error and should be up for errata, that is a different argument to the one you are making.
|
|
Then let me rephrase it so we don't hang on semantics: A Thrower's Bandolier can effectively have more versatility than any other weapon in the game, by having access of up to 20 or so different weapon types at once. Does it always have it? No. But the fact that it can, means that in an optimizer's case, it will, and there's no reason for them not to if the cost is negligible.
This is not a semantic argument. They literally do entirely different things. A hypothetical use case does not mean something else gets worse. You aren't going to be cycling through the array of weapon traits that the shifting rune opens up just because you have a bag of things you can throw. The possible trait spread is nowhere near the same.
Well, most anything that's non-humanoid is immune or highly resistant to Poison, so that's bad to use anyway.Yes many undead, elemental and construct creatures have some poison immunity. But not all, and this is still only a portion of creatures.
Resistances and immunities are not as ubiquitous as they are in earlier systems. Fire is a much better damage type than it used to be. Poison is better than it used to be. Precision is probably a bit worse.
All in all though the situation is a lot better. There is no need to write off whole damage types.
3 very common enemy types. Let's not also forget Dragons and Fiends and Plants and Oozes, whom are also immune and/or highly resistant, and are also relatively common. Yes, there are humanoids, but I haven't really even factored in that this still requires consecutive failed Fortitude saves to be effective, and that Save DCs for poisons are worse than consumables. And they are all extremely good at Fortitude saves to begin with. So even if you want to argue that being resistant or immune to it is irrelevant, the saving throws most certainly are.
Let's count up the light bulk options. Among common weapons that would likely be used for the bandoliers, we have daggers, throwing knives, darts, javelins, chakrams, starknives, light hammers, hatchets, and rungus. It's a decent list but I don't see how this would overshadow anything.
You have access to 3 damage types from comfortable distances, all of which can be made of special materials on the dirt cheap side. Factor in some uncommon weapons, and you got yourself one of the most versatile weapons in the game.
That's the comparison I was making. Thank you for proving my point that having Reload 0 on throwing weapons makes no sense.
Actually, that argument was made in response to people saying throwing weapons with Reload 0 work just fine and don't have any issues or hangups whatsoever, instead of them being Reload - like they are supposed to be, given that they are, well throwing weapons.
I've wholly lost the thread of your argument, I'm sorry.
Thrown weapons don't, in the majority, have a reload value. Any and all rules that apply because of the presence of a reload value do not apply to them, except in the circumstances where they somehow acquire one.
The rules for reloading read
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.
Given that some throw weapons do have a reload value, it means we don't follow the part of the bolded rules in paragraph 2, and instead follow the bolded rules in paragraph 1. In the case of the Shuriken, it is a 1 handed, thrown weapon, which requires 0 interact actions to load prior to an attack with it.
Its an IF statement with clear directions on...
If it doesn't take any actions to load a Shuriken like you say, then what ammunition are you loading the Shuriken with? Arrows? Bolts? The entry assumes it is a projectile-based weapon, not a thrown one, so saying it takes no actions to load it makes no sense because you aren't loading anything into it. Why bother putting reload rules for an item that doesn't reload?
Even taking common sense into account, it couldn't have been difficult to state that drawing a Shuriken is a free action if the intent is that drawing Shurikens doesn't take one of your 3 or 4 actions for the round. Instead, we're going to use bad language to convey a rules intention and just expect people to gloss over it because it should be simple enough to deduce how it's supposed to work? Bad design is bad. Please fix it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
we're going to use bad language to convey a rules intention and just expect people to gloss over it because it should be simple enough to deduce how it's supposed to work? Bad design is bad. Please fix it.
If that is indeed the intent of your statements, then I can agree with that - but you should start the conversation with that in mind.
Arguing in bad faith that some rules interaction is completely clear and makes sense, and also doesn't work... That is just going to be argument for the sake of argument. It isn't helpful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This and the Pistoleer's Bandolier make me want to design a concept that has a round that goes something like:
Quick Draw Pistol
Fire Pistol
Throw Pistol as a Second Attack
Free Third Action
Just because the idea of a Gunslinger/Swashbuckler firing a pistol and then hurling it at their foe seems like a good time. It could also be the case that the round also involves an action to shift grip before throwing the pistol which probably kills the idea.
You could avoid the action to switch between modes of the dagger pistol by using a regular pistol and Weapon Improviser.
Though at that point you risk breaking your pistols.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if you could use rebounding assault with a pistol with a reinforced stock.
You have to Strike with the melee weapon first and then Strike with your firearm (plus the feat requires weapons wielded in different hands), so you couldn't do it with one pistol and its own reinforced stock, but if you had a pair of pistols with reinforced stocks you could use Rebounding Assault to throw one, shoot it with the other, and then catch the first pistol and stock back in your hand.
You could avoid the action to switch between modes of the dagger pistol by using a regular pistol and Weapon Improviser.
Though at that point you risk breaking your pistols.
Swashbuckler with the Weapon Improvisor archetype actually seems like it would be a blast to play. Dedication, Improvised Pummeler, and Surprise Strike all fit the idea of a mad lad who's like as not to throw his pistol at you rather than fire it. The fact that you can use the thrown pistol to catch them flatfooted for a good chunk of finishers is just gravy.
It sounds like we need a one shot pistol that is also a bomb.
It would actually be kinda cool if after firing the pistol, a device captured all the smoke from the black powder and could be a smoke bomb after firing
It sounds like we need a one shot pistol that is also a bomb.
It would actually be kinda cool if after firing the pistol, a device captured all the smoke from the black powder and could be a smoke bomb after firing
Some kind of double-charge pistol that can be reloaded twice with a single action, for a chance of a misfire that deals damage and damages the weapon when fired and which always explodes and breaks when thrown, might be interesting to explore for this concept.
Are there weapons that stick in their targets and cause bleeding by default?
I'm thinking the new 3rd level rune,Authorized could make the target pay dearly for removing the source of the persistent bleed damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are there weapons that stick in their targets and cause bleeding by default?
Bleed damage doesn't really mean that the weapon sticks in the target.
There is the Wounding rune, but that is only for melee weapons.
You could use Bleeding Finisher with Flying Blade.
But I think the only time I have seen a rules mechanic actually say that a weapon sticks into a target is Revealing Stab.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are there weapons that stick in their targets and cause bleeding by default?
Treasure Vault has weapons that cause bleed, and weapons that stick in their targets, but I'm not sure about both.
Edit: Sorry, if memory serves, they were mostly ammunition, not weapons, so the Authorized rune is unlikely to do what you want.