| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it elitist? Stating that a class needs system mastery is factual.Because just about all players are capable of learning the class as they go, even when new to pf2e.
Declaring that only ____ players should attempt it is to say some players are in a class above most others. An "elite" subset. Hence, elitism.
Do you not play with new players or people who don't read and retain the rules well? Because I do, and I would not advise those people play the alchemist. Everything about it is harder than a fighter. This is not me being an "elitist," it is me trying to keep my friends from having a bad time. People can still do it and I won't stop them, but some classes are harder to learn as they go and it is weird to pretend otherwise. Classes and builds run a spectrum of how straightforward they are to play, with flurry ranger or non-shield fighter being the easiest and alchemist being the hardest.
A lot of alchemical nuance isn't even learned "as you go" through actual play. You learn by combing through the vast catalogue of alchemical items between games to figure out which formulas you should get. No amount of sessions will tell you that skunk bombs are a staple because you won't be aware skunk bombs exist unless another person tells you, you comb through the Treasure Vault items, or you consult some kind of guide or build advice forum.
A lot of alchemical nuance isn't even learned "as you go" through actual play. You learn by combing through the vast catalogue of alchemical items between games to figure out which formulas you should get. No amount of sessions will tell you that skunk bombs are a staple because you won't be aware skunk bombs exist unless another person tells you, you comb through the Treasure Vault items, or you consult some kind of guide or build advice forum.
I think it's a better idea to provide that accurate description of player type. I am the sort of player who enjoys reading through a new list of items upon level up, theory crafting of how to use them, and implementing said ideas next session.
I would describe that as "learn as you go," and the expected level of player buy-in.
It's not harder, it's just a different type of player.
---------------------
That said, I have seen enough to know how many players seem to lack the curiosity to spend even an hr in between sessions to perform a level up, and that the Alchemy-compatible players may be a minority.
As long as the informative bit of nuance around why an Alchemist is not lost, it's fine to acknowledge that it's not for everyone.
For me, I was warned of said bookkeeping / wikidiving recommendations, and because I had those details, I was able to accurately judge it to be a great fit for me. I can powergame a fair bit, without it upsetting the game balance at a table next to those less inclined to do so.
Even though I'm well aware another class would reward such optimization far more, I'm totally on board w/ the role play side of a little Alchemist needing to scrape every +1 they can to keep up next to some Goddess-chosen Cleric or Lightning slinging Magus.
Just for laughs, I built this guy. Feel free to critique him:
Arthur Dee
Human alchemist 1 (Advanced Player's Guide)
NG, Medium, Human, Humanoid
Heritage versatile human
Background secular medic
Perception +5
Languages Common, Draconic, Elven, Goblin, Kelish, Osiriani
Skills Acrobatics +3, Anatomy Lore +7, Arcana +7, Crafting +7 (+9 to identify alchemical items you have the forumla for.), Medicine +5, Nature +5, Occultism +7, Religion +5, Society +7, Survival +5
Str 10 (+0), Dex 12 (+1), Con 14 (+2), Int 18 (+4), Wis 14 (+2), Cha 10 (+0)
Items studded leather, dagger, sling (20 sling bullets), alchemist's tools, backpack, batches of infused reagent, bedroll, caltrops (2), chalk (10), flint and steel, lesser antidote (3), lesser antiplague (2), minor elixir of life (6), minor numbing tonic[TV] (2), rations (1 week) (2), rope (foot) (50), soap, The Basics of Crafting, The Fundamentals of Alchemical Medicine, tindertwig (5), torch (5), waterskin, familiar, money, purse (5 gp, 5 sp, 8 cp)
--------------------
AC 16; Fort +7; Ref +6; Will +5
HP 18
--------------------
Speed 25 feet
Melee [1] dagger +4 (versatile S, thrown 10 ft., agile, finesse), Damage 1d4 P
Ranged [1] dagger +4 (versatile S, thrown 10 ft., agile, finesse), Damage 1d4 P
Ranged [1] sling +4 (propulsive, range increment 50 feet, reload 1), Damage 1d6 B
Ancestry Feats Natural Ambition
Class Feats Alchemical Familiar, Alchemical Savant
Skill Feats Alchemical Crafting, Battle Medicine, Forensic Acumen[APG]
Other Abilities advanced alchemy, chirurgeon, extra reagents, familiar, formula book, infused reagents, quick alchemy, research field, restorative familiar (1d8), signature items
--------------------
Arthur Dee earned his baccalaureate degree in alchemy and his doctor of medicine from a prestigious university in Absalom. As primarily a physician, he takes his oath to do no harm seriously, so he has no interest in tossing bombs around or otherwise physically engaging enemies -- though he will defend himself as best he can when necessary.
Tiny
Homunculus
N, Tiny, Animal, Minion
low-light vision
--------------------
AC 16; Fort +7; Ref +6; Will +5
HP 5
--------------------
Speed 25 feet
Other Abilities land speed
Hero Lab and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free demo available at https://herolab.online
Pathfinder and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Inc., and are used under license.
Hm. A homunculus is not an animal, it's a construct. I don't see how to get the formula for one, so I don't know how I'd create it. Note: Homunculus is in the Bestiary, but no real clue there.
You have used alchemy to create life, a simple creature formed from alchemical materials, reagents, and a bit of your own blood. This alchemical familiar appears to be a small creature of flesh and blood, though it might have some unusual or distinguishing aspects depending on your creative process.Homunculus
A homunculus is a tiny servitor construct created by a crafter to serve as a spy, scout, messenger, or assistant. When a crafter first begins to study the art of creating constructs, she often crafts a homunculus first, since the creation process is simple and inexpensive due to a magical shortcut: the use of the creator’s own blood.
I can see where Hero Lab would take the shortcut of describing an Alchemical Familiar as a homunculus.
Herolab didn't do that, I did. There's not an option in HL, AFAIKS, to make a homunculus familiar. Not for an alchemist anyway. Maybe for an inventor, I'd have to check.
Perhaps I'm treading old ground here, but....
Given Paizo's involvement with organized play, it is simply not credible to believe that, over the entire time, that Paizo saw zero Alchemists being played, using Quick Alchemy to create Elixirs/Mutagens/Tools/Poisons, have their durations last more than the one turn, even if consumed, and not say something if that were the incorrect way to use them.
Especially given the amount of errata published concerning the Alchemist class that is already in existence.
Nope there are plenty of other clearly broken rules they just haven't got to.
The alternative explanations include:a) they are happy for people to play the game how they like even if its different to other groups.
b) they are happy for the community to sort it out themselves. Then maybe they will look at that resolution to see if it is problematic.
c) they don't have the time or the money to revisit it.
d) they don't need the grief or embarassment. It is not that big an issue to them.
e) they think it is obvious. But they can't see the forest for the trees they planted.
There has never been any clause that separates the created item from the effects caused by using it. Nothing to say "you popped the smoke, the item itself is timed out, but the smoke stays the full minute."
Quick Alchemy:
You create a single alchemical consumable item of your advanced alchemy level or lower that's in your formula book without having to spend the normal monetary cost in alchemical reagents or needing to attempt a Crafting check. This item has the infused trait, but it remains potent only until the start of your next turn.The Infused trait:
You created an alchemical item with the infused trait using your infused reagents, and it has a limited time before it becomes inert. Any nonpermanent effects from your infused alchemical items, with the exception of afflictions such as slow-acting poisons, end when you make your daily preparations again.
Yes I agree it is worthy of clarification. Trip is insisting that the potency of the infused items includes all its effects, where as the majority are separating the activation from the effect so quick alchemy effects like smoke bombs, mutagens and poisons are actually useful.
Potency has not been well defined. But I'll be going with the majority opinion on reasonableness grounds at least till we see the new Alchemist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I mentioned, Reload weapons get the option to regrip for free without action loss whenever you Reload.
Thanks for this. I had missed it. The reload rules include
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.Which means dropping a hand off your 2 handed weapon before you reload it has no extra cost implications.
Nope there are plenty of other clearly broken rules they just haven't got to.
The alternative explanations include:
a) they are happy for people to play the game how they like even if its different to other groups.b) they are happy for the community to sort it out themselves. Then maybe they will look at that resolution to see if it is problematic.
c) they don't have the time or the money to revisit it.
d) they don't need the grief or embarassment. It is not that big an issue to them.
e) they think it is obvious. But they can't see the forest for the trees they planted.
"And when we got there, we discovered there was a third alternative that we hadn't even considered, and we were all arrested." -- Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restaurant"
|
The Alchemical Crossbow is a 2-handed weapon, so now you cannot heal anymore.I'm going to assume that you're not trolling, but that's not super easy to believe. I suppose it takes "system mastery" to understand, but that statement is just flat out wrong.
As I mentioned, Reload weapons get the option to regrip for free without action loss whenever you Reload.
This means an Alch can shoot --> drop a hand, and be free to do whatever they want until the Reload.
What you describe here is a 1+ hands weapon such as the bow : "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."
2-handed weapons with Reload are not 1+ hands weapons.
The bit about regrip for free is not exactly regrip for free. It is "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."
The whole activity is included in reloading a weapon. It is not free a hand, do whatever and then regrip.
When you are reloading a weapon as described above, you are not doing Battle Medicine at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I mentioned, Reload weapons get the option to regrip for free without action loss whenever you Reload.
No. Reload states that if you start with both your hands on your weapon you can reload it fine and end up with both hands on your weapon. But it doesn't state that if you hold your weapon with one hand you can reload just fine. That's purely GM dependent and you can be sure there'll be some table variation on that. I personally consider that you need both hands to start reloading a crossbow as drawing the bolt is one of the last actions you need to perform to get a loaded crossbow.
Also, thanks for the personal attack. You should really think in putting a point or 2 in Diplomacy.
I refused to take the Feat tax of Far Lobber, and even in Abm Vlts, I'm often farther than the 20ft increment.
Ok, so there's history to your point of view.
The issue here is that you play an Alchemist in AV, definitely the worst environment to play an Alchemist. So, in this context, I understand why you insist on grabbing an at will attack ability. But this is not an advice you can generalize on the Alchemist, it's extremely specific to Alchemists played in the wrong environment, environment where you shouldn't play an Alchemist at all. Play PFS with an Alchemist and you'll quickly drop the bow as it's overall pointless to the Alchemist.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I mentioned, Reload weapons get the option to regrip for free without action loss whenever you Reload.No. Reload states that if you start with both your hands on your weapon you can reload it fine and end up with both hands on your weapon.
No it doesn't say that. Thats is all you.
But it doesn't state that if you hold your weapon with one hand you can reload just fine.
But it does mention free hand and putting the hand back on the weapon explicitly in the reload action. So I'm happy to give it to him.
That's purely GM dependent and you can be sure there'll be some table variation on that..
Probably but GMs change lots even when they are trying not to so...
2-handed weapons with Reload are not 1+ hands weapons.
Definitely not. The reload is not the same as the attack. Reloading and shooting are clearly still separate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2-handed weapons with Reload are not 1+ hands weapons.Definitely not. The reload is not the same as the attack. Reloading and shooting are clearly still separate.
This is an interpretation. The rules state that a 2-handed weapon asks for 2 hands to be wielded. Considering that reloading doesn't ask you to wield the weapon is a clear interpretation. It's also not in line with reality where the first thing you need to do to reload a crossbow is to pull a lever (if I'm not making a mistake, I'm no crossbow specialist, but I'm pretty sure you don't start by drawing the bolt). So we are definitely not following RAW by allowing that, there are many implications that have to be done to end up with this rule working.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
what it says is that if you free a hand to reload, regrip is free. But only when you actively have to free a hand to do so in the first place.
Switching your grip to free a hand is already defined as a free action.
If your second hand is already free, because you have already done that, we are in a situation where we are doing strictly less work.So I can't do less in the same action? That is a bizarre interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've found the proper rule, there are 2 "Hands" chapters:
Hands
Source Core Rulebook pg. 287 4.0
This lists how many hands it takes to use the item effectively. Most items that require two hands can be carried in only one hand, but you must spend an Interact action to change your grip in order to use the item. The GM may determine that an item is too big to carry in one hand (or even two hands, for particularly large items).
So you can't reload the weapon if you hold it with one hand. You first need to change your grip and then reload.
On the other hand, if you have a 1-handed weapon, I'd definitely allow you to reload and end up with both hands on the weapon even if you started with only one on it (it can be useful with a Jezail for example).
Switching your grip to free a hand is already defined as a free action.
If your second hand is already free, because you have already done that, we are in a situation where we are doing strictly less work.
Because you can't perform the actions in the wrong order. The first action to reload a crossbow is not to release your grip.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Gortle.
Reload just compress the grip action in it. The entire statement is:
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.
So both cases are valid. If you have a free-hand and want to reload a 2-handed weapon that you are currently holding you will only need a 1-action to reload and regrip. If you already have both hands into your weapon you also only needs a 1-action to free your hand (because is included into reload action but also is a free-action anyway) and then regrip.
Force to use all your action just because your hand is currently free will not only force too much the logic but also will be excessively punitive to use a 2-handed reload weapon.
I've found the proper rule
Yep that is the first thing I checked before posting the first time. I disagree.
The first action to reload a crossbow is not to release your grip.
It does in fact say just that.
Did not expect that reload blurb to be so contentious.
Kind of a funny part about being a newbie and going through all this without much contact w/ the larger zeitgeist I suppose.
But yes, the core nugget is that:
You need a free hand to even do the Reload action.
If you didn't get the free regrip, there could be no 2-H, Reload-1 weapons.
Combine that with how bad 2-handed ranged weapons are otherwise, every bit of data aligns with the notion that, so long as an attack always is the next action after a reload (enabling one to clip across turns), a 2-H crossbow is totally able to drop a hand and do stuff.
I mean, the entire weapon would be worthless otherwise to be honest. It's still a huge ask to need a reload action every shot, the main reason to use the Alch Xbow is that it's a simple weapon that needs 0 training.
Any single observation that would trigger one to dismiss an entire category outright as useless/worthless/ect SHOULD be a personal flag to re-asses, as an important detail might have been missed.
-----------------------------------
Also, thanks for the personal attack. You should really think in putting a point or 2 in Diplomacy.
Hey, I make a real effort to be amicable, but when someone goes out of their way to be s$@@ty to me, I'll return to sender. With hindsight, it looks like I might have tossed an extra dig of spice on top, and I think it's worth it to offer a quick apology for that.
-----------------------------------
Just for laughs, I built this guy. Feel free to critique him:
The main perk of Chiurgeon IMO is the Medicine-->Crafting sublimation, not the 3:1 healing elixirs. Which you're not taking advantage of.
While nice to have for those Will saves, I'd move the +2 Wis into Str. Maybe theme him up a bit as a cloistered (-Wis) and over-packed city slicker lugging around a bit too much gear (+Str).
My Alch is a ratfolk, and I consider it a big mistake to have started w/ -1 Str for thematic purposes. Athletics and carry weight are a whole lot more painfully relevant than Wis problems, IMO.
If you don't need to throw the dagger, why not a Sickle? It's more thematic, has trip, and its identity is as a tool used to harvest plants, while a dagger is made for stabbing people.
Could also genuinely consider a shield. If you don't want him to use a weapon much, just being there to deflect hits (and stay in Trip range) can help.
Yes I agree it is worthy of clarification. Trip is insisting that the potency of the infused items includes all its effects, where as the majority are separating the activation from the effect so quick alchemy effects like smoke bombs, mutagens and poisons are actually useful.
Potency has not been well defined. But I'll be going with the majority opinion on reasonableness grounds at least till we see the new Alchemist.
IMO the Infused blurb really looks like it's trying to define potency as the item's scheduled timeout taking the effects with it.
-------------------------------
However, that ruling is incompatible with the Treasure Vault when it added the Processed trait.
Whatever the original intention of Quick Alchemy, RaW there's literally 0 available duration overlap to get use out of Processed quick items.
Meaning the potency effect-killing timeout reading is incompatible with the class' own features post Treasure Vault. So I'm fine with that version of the rules, which leaves the other problem.
That ruling does leave the all-day Quick Alch injury poison exploit as pretty much RaW, and I'm still surprised at how many people report their tables being fine with such an obviously unintentional exploit.
is pretty clear RAW-wise
Clearly not, given your confusion in this thread.
"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."
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=228
-------------------------
Man, I'm just glad it only takes a sec to double check and make sure I'm not misremembering. Still sucks how easily people will call out direct text reading as "100% wrong." Like, cmon, at least throw an "I think" or other qualifier in there.
"...requires a free hand."
"This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons."
The act of Reloading is an Interact. It is not possible to wield a 2-H weapon and do an Interact at the same time. Hence, freeing a hand and NOT wielding the weapon, is the required state.
This means any reload of a 2-H assumes you drop said hand from the weapon as a free action.
Once that's understood as a certainty, then proceeded to next sentence.
"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."
This is just as it says. Now that we know the hand must be freed to do a reload, this text clarifies that yes, the hand drop and regrip are separate actions, and these actions can be included in the reload.
----------------------
Another context clue: this free regrip phrase only applies to 2-H weapons, as 1-H weapons can only be reloaded with the hand not holding them in the first place, else they'd be dropped to the floor.
I honestly cannot wrap my head around an interpretation of this text that does not allow for a reload to end with the weapon being properly wielded.
I'm guessing shroudb somehow thinks the weapon *must* be wielded in 2-H in order to be eligible to reload, which is in direct contradiction with the RaW here.
I think it might be helpful to understand the reload action as a long chain of sub-actions, which that rule is trying to explain.
An Xbow reload might look like:
free a hand (free action) --> grab bolt off hip (1-action draw) --> put bolt in receiver (1-action interact) --> cock the action (1-action interact) --> regrip firing mechanism (1-action interact)
Doing each one on its own would cost a whole lot of actions.
This rule clarifies that all that is **inside of** the listed Reload action cost.
That's what the rule is trying to explain.
As a consequence, this means that any Reload can end with the weapon fully wielded, and by specifying it must start with a free hand, the devs are pretty clearly telling the player they can/should make use of the "free regrip" by doing other stuff with that hand first.
That ruling does leave the all-day Quick Alch injury poison exploit as pretty much RaW, and I'm still surprised at how many people report their tables being fine with such an obviously unintentional exploit.
I don't see it as a big deal. There are limits on Quick Alchemy, and level limits on Perpetual Infusions. As far as I can tell lower level poisons are always going to be relatively cheap and anyone can do this sort of thing anyway.
I try to stay out of Alchemist threads as I can't convince my players to take them any more. I'll try to push the class again after its gets remastered.
That ruling does leave the all-day Quick Alch injury poison exploit as pretty much RaW, and I'm still surprised at how many people report their tables being fine with such an obviously unintentional exploit.I don't see it as a big deal. There are limits on Quick Alchemy, and level limits on Perpetual Infusions. As far as I can tell lower level poisons are always going to be relatively cheap and anyone can do this sort of thing anyway.
I try to stay out of Alchemist threads as I can't convince my players to take them any more. I'll try to push the class again after its gets remastered.
If the "slathering an injury poison bypasses the Quick Alch timeout" is used, then that's one single Feat that gives a class DC scaling, save or suck effect to the whole party's slashing/piercing dmg.
I don't think there's anything else in the game that can compare w/ that value.
A core feature of the Tox is that they get scaling class DC on all poisons they make.
Quick Alch enables all Alch items to scale w/ class DC, and if a Chiurgeon/ect can bypass the timeout, they can get a BIG portion of the Tox's entire sub-class power via that one single Breadth Feat. Yes, the poison damage is low, but the status aliments/ debuffs don't care about level.
No Reagent budgeting, no decision making. No combat action cost. "After every combat, I spend a minute reapplying poison to my quiver, and everyone's weapons."
Very party-dependent, but still waaaaaay into the "too good to be true" zone for a L8 Feat.
Considering that the Chiurgeon got slapped w/ the "10-min cooldown" when out of combat healing is already very easy, I cannot imagine the same devs would be fine with this poison interaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules say: Most items that require two hands can be carried in only one hand, but you must spend an Interact action to change your grip in order to use the item.
So the only way for reload to be possible with one hand on the weapon is for the GM to consider that reloading a weapon is not using it. It's pure GM fiat and not at all RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I can't do less in the same action? That is a bizarre interpretation.
Also, this is plain wrong. If I follow that logic I could end up with both hands on my weapon while making a Dual-Handed Assault. So Shroudb is also right.
Overall, you need a truckload of shenanigans and directed rules interpretation to allow reloading a 2-handed weapon with one hand.
Overall, you need a truckload of shenanigans and directed rules interpretation to allow reloading a 2-handed weapon with one hand.
"Reloading a ranged weapon and drawing a thrown weapon both require a free hand."
This is where we are folks.
Can one of the naysayers please actually acknowledge and present an argument addressing this?
--------------------------------------------------------
Your example Dual-Handed Assault Feat works in favor of "reload free regrip" dude.
"When the Strike is complete, you resume gripping the weapon with only one hand. This action doesn't end any stance or fighter feat effect that requires you to have one hand free."
That clearly addresses the regrip question, and says Regrip? No.
Back to Reload:
"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."
Regrip? Yes.
"actions" plural, talking about the chain of actions. The first of which is to free a hand, and the last is to regrip the weapon.
Both of those two actions, are "INCLUDED IN" the actions needed to reload the weapon. As in, inside of said reload action.
----------------------------------------------------
Rules say: Most items that require two hands can be carried in only one hand, but you must spend an Interact action to change your grip in order to use the item.
So the only way for reload to be possible with one hand on the weapon is for the GM to consider that reloading a weapon is not using it. It's pure GM fiat and not at all RAW.
"is for the GM to consider that reloading a weapon is not using it"
Yes. I have no idea why there is any ambiguity when reading the reload rules. A free hand is required. Holding it, carrying it, is not the same as wielding it, having it ready to fire.
Hence, "... place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon."
Because YES. YOU ARE NOT WIELDING A WEAPON WHEN YOU RELOAD IT. That is not possible via the interact rules, nor the sentence of reload rules directly preceding:"...both require a free hand".
Only the LAST ACTION in the reload process involves regripping it to have it ready to fire, and you are wielding it again.
At that point, dropping a hand is an unavoidable action loss.
---------------------------------------
Overall, you need a truckload of shenanigans and directed rules interpretation to allow reloading a 2-handed weapon with one hand.
"Reloading a ranged weapon and drawing a thrown weapon both require a free hand."
|
|
I think it might be helpful to understand the reload action as a long chain of sub-actions, which that rule is trying to explain.
An Xbow reload might look like:
free a hand (free action) --> grab bolt off hip (1-action draw) --> put bolt in receiver (1-action interact) --> cock the action (1-action interact) --> regrip firing mechanism (1-action interact)
Doing each one on its own would cost a whole lot of actions.
This rule clarifies that all that is **inside of** the listed Reload action cost.
That's what the rule is trying to explain.
As a consequence, this means that any Reload can end with the weapon fully wielded, and by specifying it must start with a free hand, the devs are pretty clearly telling the player they can/should make use of the "free regrip" by doing other stuff with that hand first.
That is not what the devs are telling. It is what you read in it. Note how the sequence you described does not have a "do whatever you want with your free hand" step in it.
It's like a Spellstrike : no putting another action (for example activating a scroll to cast your attack spell) within it.
Otherwise, what would be the difference with a 1+ weapon ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Reloading a ranged weapon and drawing a thrown weapon both require a free hand."
Unfortunately, you can reload without a free hand. Isolating one sentence out of its context is not the way rules have to be read.
The rule says: 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.
So you have 2 ways to reload a weapon. Either you have a free hand or you have both of your hands on the weapon.
Then there's the rule about handedness saying: Most items that require two hands can be carried in only one hand, but you must spend an Interact action to change your grip in order to use the item.
These 2 rules interact with how you can reload a 2-handed weapon. You can either consider that the rule about Reload is the specific rule and the rule about handedness the general one and as such you can reload if you don't hold your weapon with both hands. Or you can consider that both rules interact properly and the only way to reload a 2-handed weapon is to have both hands on it at the start of the reload action.
2 different interpretations that are both valid.
Then you have: 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.
The "then" is an implication. If you don't release your grip to free a hand you can't grip your weapon afterwards.
Here, you use an implication that Gortle describes roughly as: Who can do more can do less. So we are out of RAW and we are in RAI territory.
Unfortunately, Dual-Handed Assault shows pretty clearly that in the case of grip if an activity allows you to free your hand and grip, you can't perform only the grip and not the release.
So we have 2 visions of RAI: One based on logic and one based on comparison with other rules.
Grip is a purely gamey action. There's no logic in it costing one action outside the fact that the developers don't want PCs to change their grip all the time for free. So I stick to the interpretation that you can't grip the weapon after reloading even if your GM considers you can reload without both hands on the weapon. In my opinion, your interpretation is wrong in this case.
But what is 100% sure is that this case is not crystal clear and that you can't say "it's RAW.". It's RAI and it also asks for a specific interpretation of RAW. So expect a lot of table variation.
I think it might be helpful to understand the reload action as a long chain of sub-actions, which that rule is trying to explain.
An Xbow reload might look like:
free a hand (free action) --> grab bolt off hip (1-action draw) --> put bolt in receiver (1-action interact) --> cock the action (1-action interact) --> regrip firing mechanism (1-action interact)
Doing each one on its own would cost a whole lot of actions.
This rule clarifies that all that is **inside of** the listed Reload action cost.
That's what the rule is trying to explain.
As a consequence, this means that any Reload can end with the weapon fully wielded, and by specifying it must start with a free hand, the devs are pretty clearly telling the player they can/should make use of the "free regrip" by doing other stuff with that hand first.
That is not what the devs are telling. It is what you read in it. Note how the sequence you described does not have a "do whatever you want with your free hand" step in it.
It's like a Spellstrike : no putting another action (for example activating a scroll to cast your attack spell) within it.
Otherwise, what would be the difference with a 1+ weapon ?
Firstly, I would still like some other way to comprehend the "requires a free hand" bit of the reload rules.
This unambiguously mandates one cannot be wielding the weapon to reload it, as having a free hand means it's not wielded. Whatever actions are done w/ that free hand prior to the reload are irrelevant, only that it's understood that holding a 2-H in just one hand is the normal state that precedes a Reload.I don't know if it'll help, but let's toss in a bit of the Wielding Items rules:
"You're wielding an item any time you're holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you're not just carrying it around—you're ready to use it. Other abilities might require you to be wearing the item, to be holding it, or simply to have it."
---------------------------------------------------------
The difference would be that once reloaded, you are committed to wielding the 2-H weapon, which is not the case for a 1+.
The idea of a 2-H weapon would mean that there's *always* going to be 1-interact action needed between shots.
If you reloaded at the end of a turn to regain the 2-H grip, but now you need to drop a hand and Battle Medicine a buddy, it'll cost you an action to get the weapon back on target, loaded or not.
It still mandates 2 actions per Strike in a way that 1+ weapons do not.
|
|
I think it might be helpful to understand the reload action as a long chain of sub-actions, which that rule is trying to explain.
An Xbow reload might look like:
free a hand (free action) --> grab bolt off hip (1-action draw) --> put bolt in receiver (1-action interact) --> cock the action (1-action interact) --> regrip firing mechanism (1-action interact)
Doing each one on its own would cost a whole lot of actions.
This rule clarifies that all that is **inside of** the listed Reload action cost.
That's what the rule is trying to explain.
As a consequence, this means that any Reload can end with the weapon fully wielded, and by specifying it must start with a free hand, the devs are pretty clearly telling the player they can/should make use of the "free regrip" by doing other stuff with that hand first.
That is not what the devs are telling. It is what you read in it. Note how the sequence you described does not have a "do whatever you want with your free hand" step in it.
It's like a Spellstrike : no putting another action (for example activating a scroll to cast your attack spell) within it.
Otherwise, what would be the difference with a 1+ weapon ?
Firstly, I would still like some other way to comprehend the "requires a free hand" bit of the reload rules.
This unambiguously mandates one cannot be wielding the weapon to reload it, as having a free hand means it's not wielded. Whatever actions are done w/ that free hand prior to the reload are irrelevant, only that it's understood that holding a 2-H in just one hand is the normal state that precedes a Reload.I don't know if it'll help, but let's toss in a bit of the Wielding Items rules:
"You're wielding an item any time you're holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you're not just carrying it around—you're ready to use it. Other abilities might require you to be wearing the item,...
Holding a 2-h weapon in just one hand is not the normal state that precedes a Reload.
Otherwise, why write that switching your grip to free a hand is included in the actions you spend to reload in the "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." text ?
Since freeing a hand is a free action, it would have been simpler to just write "Switching your grip to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon is included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon."
I read the current, longer, wording as being required by the fact that you need to have both hands on your weapon to reload it and that releasing one hand to reload (as required by the Reload action) is included in the actions spent to reload the weapon.
But I agree that it should be clarified.
Otherwise, why write that switching your grip to free a hand is included in the actions you spend to reload in the "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." text ?
Because the sentence just before said it is impossible to reload without a free hand.
That both doubles up with affirmation, that yes, you do indeed drop a hand, and to assure that you don't need to manually call that out, nor loose an action to the regrip at the end.-----------------------------
The "then" is an implication. If you don't release your grip to free a hand you can't grip your weapon afterwards.
"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."
If the full 2-H grip was required to start a reload, IMO there would be some "If __" conditional statement to precede that "then".
At the very least, it's hard to imagine they would leave the "requires a free hand sentence" as is, and not put an "unless" clause or equivalent.
I read that "then" as a way to mandate a required chronology / order of operations.
For me,
"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"
reads:
"Reload, X-action(s) (requires a free hand) = { [Drop a free hand] --> [unknown Interacts futzing with arrow/bolt/powder/weapon action] --> [end with the regrip.] }
Note that this is written to cover all reload weapons in the same rule, but means more to a 2-H. As mention of a drop & regrip wouldn't even matter to a 1-H.
-----------------------------
More importantly,
*If* you don't release your grip...
I need to clarify there is no conditional requirement in the RaW, you are inserting one based on interpretation, and I can only provide real input if I understand why or where that's coming from.
Though, it seems the disagreement has been found.
The core niggle is some think a 2-H must be wielded in 2-H to initiate a reload.
Others do not.
Reload Rules: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=228
If, and only if, you had to adjust your grip to get a free hand, you get to put it back in the weapon.
That's not what it says dude.
There's no if. There's no "requires a free hand, unless..." clause either.
If the two "drop & regrip" actions were considered a single, unbreakable unit, the wording would use a singular.
It does not, and uses a plural. "...are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon."
There is no conditional word or phrase, it is saying you spend a bunch of actions to reload a weapon, and any hand dropping or regripping are within the specified action cost of the reload.
---------------------
Again, if one was even allowed to reload with two hands on the weapon, there would be no need to mention the hand drop as a part of the reload, but it does.
--------------
p.s.
No one that tries to justify the "free regrip" has addressed the actual rule text of "and then" clearly saying, in no ambiguous terms, that one effect has to follow the previous effect.
It's mandating an order of operations, which prevents shenanigans.
First, the wield must be broken to start the Interacts, then draw bolt + load + cock/ect, then it ends with the regrip, and you are wielding it again.
That order matters, hence the use of then.
What is missing, is some "if" or other conditional. There is none.
I need to clarify there is no conditional requirement in the RaW, you are inserting one based on interpretation, and I can only provide real input if I understand why or where that's coming from.
"Then" is a mathematical implication: if the part before the then is false you don't know if the second one is true or not.
If I say "I go to the pharmacy then I go to the doctor", you don't know what happens if I can't go to the pharmacy, you can't be sure I'll go to the doctor but I may still go. It's the same here, nothing tells you if freeing your grip is necessary or not to get your grip back on the weapon again.
I need to clarify there is no conditional requirement in the RaW, you are inserting one based on interpretation, and I can only provide real input if I understand why or where that's coming from."Then" is a mathematical implication: if the part before the then is false you don't know if the second one is true or not.
If I say "I go to the pharmacy then I go to the doctor", you don't know what happens if I can't go to the pharmacy, you can't be sure I'll go to the doctor but I may still go. It's the same here, nothing tells you if freeing your grip is necessary or not to get your grip back on the weapon again.
In mathematical terms, Reload is an ordered set, with Regrip as a subset of Reload designated last.
https://www.whitman.edu/mathematics/higher_math_online/section05.03.htmlhttps://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Subset
In your example:
[going to the pharmacy] and then [going to the doctor] are both included in the actions you spend to [go on a car trip].
I still do not understand what part of this causes some to add in an "only if" or conditional string attached.
it's saying that for Reload:R
R = ([free action drop] ≺ [unknown interacts] ≺ [regrip action])
(ps I hate the notation symbol is <, just confusing)
The reason it specifies that the regrip happens last is precisely to avoid a scenario where someone may think the need to spend 1 action to reload, then a 2nd action to regrip afterward.
Because, again, every rule reinforces the idea that you need a hand free to reload the weapon, including the prior sentence.
----------------------
nothing tells you if freeing your grip is necessary or not to get your grip back on the weapon again.
The prior sentence is there to establish that a free hand is mandatory to reload, before any specifics of the action chain totally ordered subset may confuse the reader.
In your reading, the "requires a free hand" sentence is in direct contradiction with the next. How can a set of actions require a free hand, when the first action in the sequence "must be" to free that hand?
If it's just trying to communicate an inclusive set of actions, that's how. There's no conditional "if only" in there, and it would render the whole operation impossible.
[going to the pharmacy] and then [going to the doctor] are both included in the actions you spend to [go on a car trip].
I still do not understand what part of this causes some to add in an "only if" or conditional string attached.
We invented the atomic bomb then the nuclear power plants => no implication, it's purely temporal and nuclear power plants could have been invented before the bomb.
To go from Belgium to Portugal, you need to go through France then Spain => strict implication as you can't go through Spain before going through France first.
I save the world then I propose her => even if both propositions are unrelated we clearly hear the implication that saving the world is much more important and that the proposition won't come if the world is not saved.
"Then" can carry an implication, it's unclear if it does. That's why I say it's a mathematical implication: You don't know if you can grip the weapon if you haven't released it before. It may be an ordered set or a linked list.
|
|
No, it's totally not. Or it can be not that. Which still means that it's totally not. Don't try to put formal logic in it. It's natural language where 'then' only means that re-gripping is the last action in the sequence. These two actions 'are both included' in reloading. There's absolutely nothing else to read into here.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.
The "then" is an implication. If you don't release your grip to free a hand you can't grip your weapon afterwards.
Maybe just that no other action is included but that both of those have to be taken to reload.
"Then" can carry an implication, it's unclear if it does. That's why I say it's a mathematical implication: You don't know if you can grip the weapon if you haven't released it before. It may be an ordered set or a linked list.
I think we might be approaching nonsense here.
You don't know if you can grip the weapon if you haven't released it before.
Yes, thanks to the preceding sentence, I understand that having a hand free to Interact with the weapon is required, period. Leaving "free regrip inside a reload" as a the only compatible reading.
- - - -
Yes, thanks to understanding what it means for one action to be "included in" another, I understand that such knowledge can be useful. Like when wearing tools.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1456
You can make a set of tools (such as alchemist's tools or healer's tools) easier to use by wearing it. This allows you to draw and replace the tools as part of the action that uses them. You can wear up to 2 Bulk of tools in this manner; tools beyond this limit must be stowed or drawn with an Interact action to use.
------------------------------------
The 10 min cooldown is so they don't spam infinite healing in combat.
I mean, if an Alch can manage to make a 2-action, touch, 1d6 heal worth it during L7+ combat, I'd give it to them without a cool down. My first guess is that it's to cap out of combat healing, as that's when repeated 1d6 might add up quickly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's totally not. Or it can be not that. Which still means that it's totally not. Don't try to put formal logic in it. It's natural language where 'then' only means that re-gripping is the last action in the sequence. These two actions 'are both included' in reloading. There's absolutely nothing else to read into here.
Yeah, sure. Half of the people in this discussion don't speak English properly.
At some point, you have to realize that if there's such a strict opposition between 2 significant groups of people around the meaning of a sentence it may be because the sentence has 2 potential meanings.
Then can carry an implication, or not. And as such the rule is unclear. Hence this whole discussion and the reason why the proper conclusion is: Expect table variation on that.
At some point, you have to realize that if there's such a strict opposition between 2 significant groups of people around the meaning of a sentence it may be because the sentence has 2 potential meanings.
Honestly I really don't see that that is the case here.
Everything you said on Dual-Handed Assault is irrelevant. That is another separate case. I really can't see the point there either."Then" is a mathematical implication
Which is ridiculous because we are supposed to be reading natural language not maths. "and then" and "and both included" clearly split the phrase. The mathematical implication of potential combination is invalidated from "and then" is not legitimate because of the separation of "both included".
You are just reading something in you want to see.
At some point, you have to realize that if there's such a strict opposition between 2 significant groups of people around the meaning of a sentence it may be because the sentence has 2 potential meanings.Honestly I really don't see that that is the case here.
Everything you said on Dual-Handed Assault is irrelevant. That is another separate case. I really can't see the point there either."Then" is a mathematical implicationWhich is ridiculous because we are supposed to be reading natural language not maths. "and then" and "and both included" clearly split the phrase. The mathematical implication of potential combination is invalidated from "and then" is not legitimate because of the separation of "both included".
You are just reading something in you want to see.
And still refusing to see the "require a free hand." bit.
That's a separate, independent sentence that contradicts the notion that "both hands must be wielding the 2-H" weapon to begin the reload.
------------------------
IMO, and especially in comparison to much of the Alchemist stuff, those Reload rules were written quite well to maintain clarity and density.
I read them once and understood that "regrip inside reload" bit, I had no idea there was some sort of ongoing argument w/ opposing sides.
As soon as Reload labels itself as an Interact, it should be perfectly clear that you need a free hand to perform it, and I'm glad they doubled down to spell that out.