|
As title.
Usage: attached to a melee weapon
Activate: Interact
This set of tubing snakes down the striking surface of a weapon to deliver alchemical explosives. A single lesser alchemical bomb can be fitted to the weapon siphon as an Interact action. The bomb must be one that deals energy damage, such as an acid flask, alchemist's fire, bottled lightning, frost vial, or thunderstone. The next three attacks made with the weapon deal 1d4 damage of the bomb's damage type in addition to the weapon's normal damage. If the second and third attacks aren't all made within 1 minute of the first attack, the bomb's energy is wasted. These attacks never deal splash damage or other special effects of the bomb and aren't modified by any abilities that add to or modify a bomb's effect.
Adding a weapon siphon to a weapon throws off its balance, causing the multiple attack penalty with the weapon to be one greater than usual (usually –6 on a second attack and –11 on a third; or –5 and –10 with an agile weapon).
Q) Can you pre-load it (say, during Daily Preparations)?
Q) Is the MAP penalty -1 per iteration of MAP, or just -1 total?
Q) During Encounter Mode, how many hands to Interact to load a 1-handed weapon?
Q) During Encounter Mode, how many hands to Interact to load a 2-handed weapon?
Q) Do you need to Regrip a 2-handed weapon after Interacting to load it?
Cheers.
=)
Q) Can you pre-load it (say, during Daily Preparations)?
Yes, that seems to be the intent. Not necessarily during daily preparations, but at some point before battle, load up a bomb and have it ready for your first three attacks with the weapon during the next fight.
Q) Is the MAP penalty -1 per iteration of MAP, or just -1 total?
It gives pretty clear examples for the most common MAP progression values.
usually –6 on a second attack and –11 on a third; or –5 and –10 with an agile weapon
So only -1 to each MAP value individually, not doubled to -2 on the 3rd stage MAP.
Q) During Encounter Mode, how many hands to Interact to load a 1-handed weapon?
Q) During Encounter Mode, how many hands to Interact to load a 2-handed weapon?
Q) Do you need to Regrip a 2-handed weapon after Interacting to load it?
It looks like this particular weapon adjustment item is patterned after the Alchemical Crossbow. But neither actually says how many hands are needed in order to load a bomb.
I would probably run it similar to Reload. It would take a free hand and an action to draw the bomb in addition to the interact action to load the bomb into the Weapon Siphon, but I wouldn't require Release/Regrip actions to get a hand free from a 2-hand weapon.
usually –6 on a second attack and –11 on a third; or –5 and –10 with an agile weaponSo only -1 to each MAP value individually, not doubled to -2 on the 3rd stage MAP.
-10 on Agile third attack is -2.
For a non Agile weapon it's -1 and for an Agile weapon it removes the Agile bonus.I personally rule that the Weapon Siphon removes the Agile trait on Agile weapons, to avoid rules shenanigans where Agile weapons have a set chance to hit (like Double Slice) that the player uses to avoid the penalty from Weapon Siphon.
|
|
Q) Is the MAP penalty -1 per iteration of MAP, or just -1 total?It gives pretty clear examples for the most common MAP progression values.
usually –6 on a second attack and –11 on a third; or –5 and –10 with an agile weaponSo only -1 to each MAP value individually, not doubled to -2 on the 3rd stage MAP.
The examples are unclear, actually, seeming to apply two different methods of assigning additional MAP.
Hence the question.
I would probably run it similar to Reload. It would take a free hand and an action to draw the bomb in addition to the interact action to load the bomb into the Weapon Siphon, but I wouldn't require Release/Regrip actions to get a hand free from a 2-hand weapon.
While I agree that an additional Regrip action required for a 2-handed weapon seems like a lot at first glance, it does seem that running it "by the book" would be involved here, at least the way I interpret it.
"Hands" is, after all, the difference between higher damage die sizes, so, it's not nothing.
-10 on Agile third attack is -2.usually –6 on a second attack and –11 on a third; or –5 and –10 with an agile weaponSo only -1 to each MAP value individually, not doubled to -2 on the 3rd stage MAP.
Mmmm... So the example is less clear than it seems. Since the rule in Weapon Siphon doesn't mention removing the Agile trait, I have to conclude that one of the sets of example numbers is wrong.
Fine. I'll go to the actual rules text then:
The definition of Multiple Attack Penalty only defines the default penalty. It mentions that there are things such as the Agile trait that can reduce the penalty. It also provides a table that has the standard MAP in one column and the pre-calculated Agile MAP in the next column.
The Agile trait lists specific values to use for each stage of MAP. -4 for the second stage and -8 for the third stage.
Flurry Ranger Edge also lists out specific values to use for each stage of MAP both with and without the Agile trait.
I have to assume here that these listed out values are the 'usual' values for MAP.
So looking at how Weapon Siphon interacts with MAP, it says:
Adding a weapon siphon to a weapon throws off its balance, causing the multiple attack penalty with the weapon to be one greater than usual
So with a non-agile weapon, the usual MAP is -5/-10 and increasing that by one would give -6/-11. With an agile weapon, the usual MAP is -4/-8 and increasing that by one would give -5/-9.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally rule that the Weapon Siphon removes the Agile trait on Agile weapons, to avoid rules shenanigans where Agile weapons have a set chance to hit (like Double Slice) that the player uses to avoid the penalty from Weapon Siphon.
I don't see Double Slice being a fixed value MAP.
If you use double slice while at stage 2 MAP and using a non-agile weapon in one hand and an agile weapon in the second, then the first attack would be rolled with a -5 penalty and the second (agile) attack would be rolled with a -4 penalty because of the agile trait.
It seems perfectly reasonable to have the Weapon Siphon increase the usual MAP penalty value for a particular weapon by one. If it was the first (non-agile) weapon that had the attachment, then it would be rolling with -6 in that same scenario. Similarly the second (agile) weapon would be rolling with -5.
I personally rule that the Weapon Siphon removes the Agile trait on Agile weapons, to avoid rules shenanigans where Agile weapons have a set chance to hit (like Double Slice) that the player uses to avoid the penalty from Weapon Siphon.I don't see Double Slice being a fixed value MAP.
Fixed value MAP?
I'm speaking of abilities with set chances to hit for Agile weapons. Double Slice gives different chances to hit for Agile and non Agile weapons. As it doesn't give a value for Agile + Weapon Siphon (obviously as Weapon Siphon was not a thing back there) I use the non Agile value for Agile + Weapon Siphon.
As it doesn't give a value for Agile + Weapon Siphon
So why not use the value for Agile Double-Slice and modify that usual value with the change required in Weapon Siphon?
Or would doing what is literally written be a problem for some reason?
I think that I am not understanding what your concern is. Maybe a concrete example or two would make that easier to follow.
As it doesn't give a value for Agile + Weapon SiphonSo why not use the value for Agile Double-Slice and modify that usual value with the change required in Weapon Siphon?
Or would doing what is literally written be a problem for some reason?
I think that I am not understanding what your concern is. Maybe a concrete example or two would make that easier to follow.
There are many abilities who are stating the actual bonus of using an Agile weapon, like Double Slice: Non Agile = -2, Agile = 0. As Weapon Siphon is basically removing the bonus from Agile, I just consider for all these abilities that the weapon is no more Agile. It avoids shenanigans where you manage to remove the penalty from the Weapon Siphon by using an Agile Weapon and benefit from set values written before Weapon Siphon was even a thing.
So if you attack with Double Slice and your second weapon is Agile with a Weapon Siphon, you attack at -2.
So if you attack with Double Slice and your second weapon is Agile with a Weapon Siphon, you attack at -2.
But why do you think that is RAW?
If you are holding a longsword in one hand and a shortsword with a Weapon Siphon in the other and use Double Slice with longsword first, then shortsword - the shortsword does have the Agile trait. The Weapon Siphon does not remove that.
So if using Double Slice as your first attack, both attacks would be made at stage 1 MAP = 0 penalty.
If you use Double Slice as a second attack while at stage 2 MAP, then the longsword would be rolling at -5 because non-agile. And the shortsword would normally be rolling at -4 because it is agile, but the Weapon Siphon increases the penalty by 1 to -5 (which BTW matches what Weapon Siphon states the penalty should be for stage 2 MAP).
It looks like it works just fine when following the rules as they are currently written. Even if the example that is given in Weapon Siphon for Agile weapons at stage 3 MAP is incorrect.
So if you attack with Double Slice and your second weapon is Agile with a Weapon Siphon, you attack at -2.But why do you think that is RAW?
I've never said it's RAW. I just said I forbid Agile shenanigans to avoid the penalty from Weapon Siphon around my table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is it avoiding the penalty of Weapon Siphon?
Weapon Siphon doesn't impose a penalty on a non-MAP attack. So Double Slice as a first attack shouldn't have a penalty on it with a Weapon Siphon.
And the penalty is there in the stage 2 and stage 3 MAP. Even in my example with Double Slice.
He means that by avoiding MAP entirely while benefitting from using two of them means you're reaping the rewards of power creep while avoiding all the downsides of this particular item, which apparently sits poorly with him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He means that by avoiding MAP entirely while benefitting from using two of them means you're reaping the rewards of power creep while avoiding all the downsides of this particular item, which apparently sits poorly with him.
That's what Dual Slice does. That's the entire purpose and point of the feat. You get to make two attacks with two different weapons for two actions (which you could do already with no feat needed), but with the added benefit of not having any MAP penalty on the second attack.
i mean, having 2 different weapon siphons already means using 2 actions to activate them.
so it's not like there are no drawbacks to begin with in a dual weapon siphon build.
Are those activation actions not the ones needed to load the bombs in the first place? As that is done out of combat, I didn't think there was an extra cost once you entered combat.
He means that by avoiding MAP entirely while benefitting from using two of them means you're reaping the rewards of power creep while avoiding all the downsides of this particular item, which apparently sits poorly with him.That's what Dual Slice does. That's the entire purpose and point of the feat. You get to make two attacks with two different weapons for two actions (which you could do already with no feat needed), but with the added benefit of not having any MAP penalty on the second attack.
You do get a penalty on the second attack.
Anyway, my tables, you know. I tend to follow RAW to the letter, but obvious shenanigans is something I dislike. Weapon Siphon removes the benefit from Agile but in many places in the rules Agile is directly used instead of a more generic term like "reduced MAP penalties". That's where I intervene as a GM. You can say my ruling is not RAW (it isn't) but you can't say it's not sensible.
I can, in fact, say many things such as your ruling is not sensible. It does not remove the Agile property. It adds a penalty to MAP. It even calls out the use of an Agile weapon. If it removed such a property, I'd imagine it'd call it out and I don't see why they would add the Agile numbers in the first place.
At most, I'd say this would give the Agile weapon making the second attack in Double Slice at -1.
I'm happy with just saying that it is a houserule and not RAW. From the initial posting of this ruling up here that wasn't very clear.
That ruling follows from the example numbers that the item gives. But the example numbers don't match the rule text. And if the example doesn't match the rule text, I am going to go with the rule text.