| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Whatever the subtlety one of us is missing, it looks like we are many to stick with each interpretations. So my conclusion still stands: Expect table variation on this ruling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The book has literal math equations and discusses the rules for numbers and how they work in the system. Saying that math isn't discussed in the rules is complete BS.
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.
There is 0 indication anywhere that the "interact actions are done w/ a free hand" rule is broken, and that is instead reinforced.
------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I believe that "requires a free hand" bit was written knowingly to prompt a "but what about 2-H" question. The next sentence explains that the drop a hand and regrip actions are contained within the reload action, neatly encapsulating every reload weapon within one small set of rules.
.
To put this idea to other contexts:
An enemy thief has stolen a sword & board character's healers kit off their hip mid-combat.
After that thief is downed, the owner character drops their sword, and grabs the Healer's Kit.
Are they allowed to use it for Battle Medicine on their next action?
What about after the Battle Medicine, must it stay in-hand, or does it go back to their hip?
"This allows you to draw and replace the tools as part of the action that uses them."
.
What happens if a Monk does Flurry of Blows and only punches once? Is that illegal?
.
What happens if a 2-H Alch Xbow is in one hand, and the Alchemist scoops up a dropped bolt on the ground? They've got the weapon in 1-H and the bolt in the other. Are they "allowed" to reload?
-----------------------------------------------------------
By what authority do you omit actions from said order of operations?
The order outlined is very clear, raw wise, that's also where the conditional is:
Release, reload, regrip.
You can't omit the "release" part of the sequence just because you don't like it.
Nor can you say "Well, I don't need that step so I'm skipping it". That is not how activities work.
If you don't release, as part as the reload action where this sequence is, you don't get to the later parts of it which includes "regrip".
The whole point is that the rules were written to make it IMPOSSIBLE to perform a 2-H reload if you take your reading, just to avoid this issue.
When you properly understand that the drop hand and then regrip are **included inside** of the Reload, that means the "drop a hand early and do stuff" leads to a redundant action that is not needed, which does not break the chain.
It is not "omitting" the release, it is a (sometimes) redundant action, in the same way the regrip is a (sometimes) irrelevant action. That chain of included actions is the ONLY reload. It's not a special case for just 2-H weapons. ALL reloads follow that rule!
If in your reading it is mandatory to always first drop a hand, **that's impossible**, because the previous sentence just MANDATED that a free hand is required. That kind of writing is there explicitly to help people avoid wrong interpretations. It cannot be "must be 2-H wielding" exact match because that breaks the interact rules and free hand requirement.
At no point ever is a there a "Reload is an interact, **expect when**" type of clause. It's always an interact, and always follows the interact rules. Meaning, free hand required. If you don't have a hand free, the first part of the activity is to drop one to enable that interact. If you do already have a free hand, nothing breaks. And, sometimes, the last action in the activity is to regrip the weapon.
A 1-H weapon needs a hand free, and might drop something at the start of the reload to make it possible. It does not break the reload that there's no 2nd hand slot to regrip at the end. Manually dropping what's in the off-hand early also does not disrupt a reload, nor is it required. If needed, it's the first step in the process.
That's what it means to be "included in" it might happen, and if so, it's not a separate action cost.
Again, this rule applies to all reload weapons, not just 2-H. That last sentence explaining the freeing a hand and regripping covers 1-H weapons too, there is no "in the case of 2-H..."
If that action chain is required exactly, this makes your reading break as impossible in most circumstances.
When you have actions included in other activities/actions, if they are needed, then they happen, if they are not applicable, they are skipped without issue.
|
Trip, your stealing example is fundamentally flawed. You can't Steal mid combat, and you can't steal an entire kit like that without something like Legendary Thief. All tools also have a line added at the end of their entry stating "You can use a set of tools with 1 hand if you're wearing them or 2 if you're holding them." so no, you can't use Battle Medicine if you're holding tools and a shield.
What happens if a Monk does Flurry of Blows and only punches once? Is that illegal?
This can only occur if somehow they don't have any valid targets after the first strike. If that happens, the Flurry just ends. You can't Flurry and then choose to only Strike once.
What happens if a 2-H Alch Xbow is in one hand, and the Alchemist scoops up a dropped bolt on the ground? They've got the weapon in 1-H and the bolt in the other. Are they "allowed" to reload?
Yes, they can reload the crossbow. They still need an action to re-grip the crossbow properly before being able to use it though.
|
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.
There is 0 indication anywhere that the "interact actions are done w/ a free hand" rule is broken, and that is instead reinforced.
------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I believe that "requires a free hand" bit was written knowingly to prompt a "but what about 2-H" question. The next sentence explains that the drop a hand and regrip actions are contained within the reload action, neatly encapsulating every reload weapon within one small set of rules.
.
To put this idea to other contexts:
An enemy thief has stolen a sword & board character's healers kit off their hip mid-combat.
After that thief is downed, the owner character drops their sword, and grabs the Healer's Kit.
Are they allowed to use it for Battle Medicine on their next action?
What about after the Battle Medicine, must it stay in-hand, or does it go back to their hip?
"This allows you to draw and replace the tools as part of the action that uses them."
.
What happens if a Monk does Flurry of Blows and only punches once? Is that illegal?
.
What happens if a 2-H Alch Xbow...
As you likely noticed, several posters do not agree with this. While several other posters think you're right.
So, it's a matter of interpretation.
Which means a clarification is needed.
An activity will specify what is and is not required.
I ask you to seriously answer my presented scenario.
An Alch scoops up a bolt from his thief-stolen pouch. 1-H is holding the 2-H Xbow, 1-H has the bolt. Are they allowed to reload?
Does that Healer's Kit get to return to the hip?
-------------------------------------------------
You have to do every single listed action.
Those are the rules.
You don't get to decide "I'm going to skip this step because I don't like it."
I am begging you here, actually apply that logic to the real text. It breaks.
Those are the rules on how to reload EVERY WEAPON.
It is not possible to require a 1-H weapon to regrip, FFS.
You cannot, absolutely cannot, just insert imagined clauses in order to fit your expectation. If there's no "for 2-H weapons, " clause, you do not get to add it in to match your preconception.
The only way for the reload rule to function for all weapons is if it is understood that the sub-actions are optionally included. As written, that exact chain being required would break the ability to reload every 1-H weapon, at minimum.
snip
I forgot that the Healer's Tools required 2-H if being held, that does break the example, thank you.
The adjusted prompt would be someone with that 2nd hand free, and then does a Battle Medicine.
The "draw, use, return" is not a prescribed activity like Scout's Charge.
Does the kit get to return to the hip? Why wouldn't it?
Yes, they can reload the crossbow. They still need an action to re-grip the crossbow properly before being able to use it though.
The only way to allow that reload is understand that the mandatory free hand is an optional/done-if-needed precursor to the item interacts. That same logic that would deny the regrip would have them drop the bolt.
Meaning there's no reason to deny the regrip but arbitrary whim/insertion of "only if" or other phrase.
Yet again, there's no "if you were wielding a 2-H in both hands, you can get a free regrip at the end."
That one rule applies to all reloads of all weapon types.
I still can't see how it would break 1 handed reload.
The "necessary grip for wielding" 1 handed weapons is 1 hand.
The text clearly refers adjusting your grip for the necessary grip to wield, if it's 1 hand, there's no need for any of that.
Exactly. If the action is needed/relevant, it happens. If not, it does not break the action.
If you think the Stride of a Scout's Charge is mandatory, then you have to understand that the same "exact series" of actions DOES NOT fit here. Otherwise, no one would be allowed to reload a 1-H weapon.
------------------------------------------
The healer kit scenario is flawed to begin with because you are quoting rules that ONLY apply when you have the kit worn to begin with, not when you are simply holding it.
"If you wear your healer's tools, you can draw and replace them as part of the action that uses them."
So, do you agree that if that conditional clause were to be deleted, you could return it to the hip?
Sorry for the gotcha, but if you do correctly understand that
You don't need to "wield" a weapon to reload it.
Then the only way to think "it's required to full wield to get the regrip" is if you are adding some imaginary "if" conditional where none exists.
|
|
It's not specified how long it would take to equip a tool kit, since it's assumed you equip it during your daily prep, and it's almost impossible to remove in the middle of an encounter. I would say at least a minute, and it needs two hands. It's not some bag hanging off your belt, it's more like a bandolier or toolbelt filled with various tools that are very easy to access.
The rule explaining how to reload a 2-handed weapon is not there to allow you to skip required actions, it's there to make reloading 2-handed weapons possible in the first place. The way you would hold a 2H weapon in one hand is different than how you would be holding it while reloading.
Imagine you're holding a breech loading rifle in one hand. You would likely be holding it in center mass, as that's the easiest way to hold a long item. When holding it in 2 hands, you have one hand on the grip and one on the barrel. When reloading with 2 hands, you would tuck the grip under your arm while holding the barrel to load the round, but it would be in a position where it's easy to regrip the weapon properly. Meanwhile, if it was being held center mass, you wouldn't easily be able to open the weapon without first shifting your grip.
Crossbows are actually pretty difficult to reload. They either require a large amount of force to pull back the string before loading the next bolt, or have a winch or lever mechanism to do it for you. The fact that you could reload a crossbow in a single action at all is amazing, since cocking it and loading the bolt should take at least two separate actions.
You are intertwining 2 different sentences.Sentence 1) you need a free hand to reload.
Which means as long as you have 1 free hand you can reload.
Sentence 2) you can "release, reload, then regrip" in necessary hands using the reload actions.
One doesn't preclude the other.
That's not what sentence 2 says, it says both the actions are included in the actions you spend reloading.
There is no textual way to get from "these two actions are included in..." to something like "you can optionally do this exact chain of actions"
Both freeing a hand, and regripping the weapon, are sub-actions that are inside of every reload. If they are irrelevant, like regripping & 1-H ers, then that action is ignored.
.
The point of the example is that the only condition attached to the regrip is the reload action itself. It's not an alternative: "in the case of 2-H" it is the only one.
If you understand that you're supposed to ignore the free-hand drop when appropriate, such as if the bolt is already in-hand, then there's no possible reason to apply that half-way. The regrip is inside that reload, period.
The rule explaining how to reload a 2-handed weapon is not there to allow you to skip required actions, it's there to make reloading 2-handed weapons possible in the first place. The way you would hold a 2H weapon in one hand is different than how you would be holding it while reloading.
Holy shit this is getting exhausting.
There is no rule explaining how to reload a 2-H weapon.
It does not exist, and the reason for your confusion is that you keep adding in words that are not there.
There is one, singular set of actions for reloading every weapon.
If everyone is saying the rule exists, and only you are saying it doesn't then maybe some introspection is needed.
Dude...
You are literally making the argumentum ad populum fallacy, and when the text that could *prove* you correct is right there. But, because you're wrong/lying, you wont quote it.
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.
0 mention of 2-H weapons anywhere in the reload rules.
The mentioned sub-actions, that regrip, are included inside of every reload.
The fact that you could reload a crossbow in a single action at all is amazing, since cocking it and loading the bolt should take at least two separate actions.
^This.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
0 mention of 2-H weapons anywhere in the reload rules.
And what, pray tell, is the reason the whole "Switching to a free hand/regrip weapon" part is there? Is it maybe because if you're wielding a 2-handed weapon that needs to be reloaded, you would need a specific rule to make sure reloading works?
Also, mentioning logical arguments doesn't make you look smart, it just makes people see you as pompous.
Literally this whole thread the majority of the people here have not agreed with you, and many of us have been playing 2e for years. We know the rules pretty well. Yes, sometimes a fresh viewpoint might make people realize they were running things wrong, but this isn't one of those instances. Please, just let this go and stop posting. Trust me, I have been in these situations on this forum many times before. It's not worth the stress.
The majority of this thread was about a different topic than the one now being talked about so using what is basically "well for all this thread you have been disagreed with so you're wrong and should stop posting" I think sucks especially as one who was disagreeing with the quick alchemy stuff
0 mention of 2-H weapons anywhere in the reload rules.And what, pray tell, is the reason the whole "Switching to a free hand/regrip weapon" part is there? Is it maybe because if you're wielding a 2-handed weapon that needs to be reloaded, you would need a specific rule to make sure reloading works?
That's not how any of this works. You cannot add in entire phrases due to your personal implication. You have to trust that if the rules meant to specify "If wielding a 2-H" then it would say so. This is an admission that you are changing the rules because you feel like it.
That rule is there to encompass all possibilities in one umbrella. One chain of actions for every reload.
As irrelevant as they are, you cannot even think through the RL example you present it applies to this discussion to see that it is OPPOSITE what you want it to be
the fact that you could reload a crossbow in a single action at all is amazing, since cocking it and loading the bolt should take at least two separate actions.
No matter how you try pretend otherwise, it would only make the reload FASTER if your hand was already free to grab for the ammo than if it were still in the firing grip. If the process was slow enough to take two actions, then it would be a reload-2, and still have the "free" regrip included inside.
You are not engaging in good faith here.
If you have ANY textual reason to support your claim, please share that, instead of declaring yourself correct.
--------------------------------------
Literally this whole thread the majority of the people here have not agreed with you, and many of us have been playing 2e for years. We know the rules pretty well. Yes, sometimes a fresh viewpoint might make people realize they were running things wrong, but this isn't one of those instances. Please, just let this go and stop posting. Trust me, I have been in these situations on this forum many times before. It's not worth the stress.
And I've been around long enough to know it's always the contrarian minority that post, while a magnitude more roll their eyes.
And I've been around long enough to know that an incorrect reading can be confidently spread though a community just as easily as a correct one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The majority of this thread was about a different topic than the one now being talked about so using what is basically "well for all this thread you have been disagreed with so you're wrong and should stop posting" I think sucks especially as one who was disagreeing with the quick alchemy stuff
Did anyone agree with the quick alchemy stuff? When I was actually involved in the thread at the start, most people were not on board with what Trip as suggesting. I then fell off and when I came back suddenly there's 200 more posts and the subject is completely different from the original topic, and STILL I see people disagreeing with them.
All I'm trying to say is that it's futile to try to change people's minds here. You can interpret rules however you want, that's why rule 1 exists. But if you come here trying to overturn the community's preconceptions and they refuse to see from your point of view, just leave it alone. Trying over and over to say the same things isn't helping anyone.
The majority of this thread was about a different topic than the one now being talked about so using what is basically "well for all this thread you have been disagreed with so you're wrong and should stop posting" I think sucks especially as one who was disagreeing with the quick alchemy stuffDid anyone agree with the quick alchemy stuff? When I was actually involved in the thread at the start, most people were not on board with what Trip as suggesting. I then fell off and when I came back suddenly there's 200 more posts and the subject is completely different from the original topic, and STILL I see people disagreeing with them.
All I'm trying to say is that it's futile to try to change people's minds here. You can interpret rules however you want, that's why rule 1 exists. But if you come here trying to overturn the community's preconceptions and they refuse to see from your point of view, just leave it alone. Trying over and over to say the same things isn't helping anyone.
The whole point of being here is to learn, AKA the continual process of being shown that you are wrong.
As soon as someone pointed me to the text of the Processed trait, instead of making irrelevant "how my table has done it" statements, my stance on Quick Alchemy was completely reversed. That's the point of posting.
(man I wish there was a "I now disown this post" button after the edit window closes)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will also add since I forgot to in the last post, I am on board with trip's reading of reload and the idea of needing to regrip before you can reload which requires releasing the grip feels to me like being excessively restrictive in your possible reading of rules because you have already made up your mind that things must be as restrictive as possible
|
|
I will also add since I forgot to in the last post, I am on board with trip's reading of reload and the idea of needing to regrip before you can reload which requires releasing the grip feels to me like being excessively restrictive in your possible reading of rules because you have already made up your mind that things must be as restrictive as possible
The latter is quite untrue at least as far as I'm concerned. It's just that I and several others have a different reading of the RAW.
So, it is IMO useless to continue arguing : there is disagreement and a clarification is needed.
mentioning logical arguments doesn't make you look smart, it just makes people see you as pompous.
He didn't start all of those logical arguments
Literally this whole thread the majority of the people here have not agreed with you,
Not true he has significant support on the reload issue anyway
Please, just let this go and stop posting.
That is a silly thing to say. Stop reading - now everyone is happy.
People can talk till they have had enough. Just don't expect that people who stated their disagreement have changed their mind.