There are a lot of items, like alchemical elixirs, healing potions, etc, with Activate(manipulate).
However, other items, like Dark Pepper Powder, have Activate(Interact) entries instead.
The differences between when each is used seems to be too consistent to be an accident.
The old Smokestick|Interact was even changed into a Smoke Ball|Manipulate in the remaster.
What is the intended difference in the mechanics of the two types?
Is one intended to be more restricted than the other? In what way?
_______________________________________________
I'm am seeking out alternative explanations before I present my own best conclusion, but this seems to be a rather important detail that I've not encountered in a discussion before.
I will point to the GM core Treasure Trove section, with pg 220 being the Activating Items section, and smaller subsection of Manipulate Activations.
The Player Core section on carrying, wearing, and wielding items is on PC pg 267.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2148
____________________
It looks like a few other items also got altered in their remaster upgrade.
The old Barkskin Potion was (Interact), while the new Oak Potion was changed to (manipulate).
________________
If anyone has noticed the reverse, an old (manipulate) becoming an (Interact) in the remaster, I'd like to know, as the context of that could be a mark against my current theory.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that technically 'Activate: Manipulate' shouldn't be a thing. It isn't one of the listed Item Activation methods.
There is 'Activate: Interact' which has the Manipulate trait. And there is the rule for item activations with the Manipulate trait.
So I think that the difference is that 'Activate: Manipulate' is a typo worthy of errata to 'Activate: Interact'. But it is a low value errata - the conversion is something that most people will do without any published errata without even noticing that they are doing it.
As many old Activate(Interact) items were changed into Activate(manipulate),
we can safely say that part is incorrect.
It's important to note that section you quote from the old core rulebook is completely deleted and gone. It's also the one spot I could find, due to a single word swap, that created a conflict (and it's not there anymore).
.
If the remaster wanted to fully delete one of the two between manipulate/Interact, that narrow contextual change is not a big lift/workload, and genuinely could have been done in the remaster.
Because Paizo both cared enough to change some items from one to the other, and maintained the existence of both, the only conclusion I can make is that there is a meaningful difference.
.
My best guess is that
"If an activation has the manipulate trait, you can activate it only if you’re wielding the item (if it’s a held item) or touching it with a free hand (if it’s another type of item)."
Is a restriction intended for Activate(manipulate),
and the usage of Activate(Interact) is intended to be a way to not invoke that restriction. Meaning (Interact) would be the the more permissive counterpart of (manipulate).
.
If a PC is adjacent to a table that has an unattended _____, how do you know if they could reach over and Activate it, or if they must first wield the item?
It makes sense that you cannot Activate a healing elixir without properly wielding it first, and therefore need it in hand before the Activate.
It also makes sense that you could Activate a sack of Dark Pepper Powder without first picking it up off the table.
.
I think that was the intended difference, and that Paizo silently did seek to clean up items to better align with that idea in the remaster (such as altered potions ending as manipulate post-remaster).
.
While I do think this holds up for unattended items, it's important to say that items being worn are NOT available for use. As far as I can tell, being worn is a form of light stowage that blocks such actions.
A character carries items in three ways: held, worn, and stowed. Held items are in your hands; a character typically has two hands, allowing them to hold an item in each hand or a single two-handed item using both hands. Worn items are tucked into pockets, belt pouches, bandoliers, weapon sheaths, and so forth, and they can be retrieved and returned relatively quickly. Stowed items are in a backpack or a similar container, and they are more difficult to access.
I think it is that worn item detail of inaccessibility that has made the issue easy to miss or to be moot most of the time. If the same action that pulls a worn item out of storage also wields it, that leaves the difference easy to never notice.
.
I'm sure that I'm not alone in trying to figure out why there's so many "dump all your contents onto the floor" actions in pf2 despite no obvious benefit.
If the (Interact) unattended items are able to be used directly in that state, it gives the "dump them all" a real use case. Still risks any foe with reach being able to take or use them the same way, but I could genuinely see a ratfolk Alchemist dumping their Cheek Pouches if a subset of items, like Mustard Powder & Emetic Paste, could then be Activated by any ally with reach upon that square (and the open hand(s)).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because Paizo both cared enough to change some items from one to the other, and maintained the existence of both, the only conclusion I can make is that there is a meaningful difference.
I don't think that logic holds. There are several other reasons why some items may be changed from one to the other.
Most notably involving the fact that the game rules and item content creation are done by multiple people each. Different people sometimes have different ideas of how things are supposed to be.
So check that you aren't inadvertently adding an assumption to your logic that 'Paizo' is a single monolithic consciousness that can keep all of the details of every rule in active memory at the same time. It isn't. It is a group of individual people.
Design docs/bibles, etc, exist. Especially for companies that hire a lot of "mercenary devs," such writers are not expected to create without guardrails. They are given access to large sets of "dos" and "do nots" to follow. Blank templates, charts & figures, etc.
.
The main crux of the point is that when reinventing items for the OGL removal, some items were changed to match the norm of that item group, like the potions becoming manipulate.
Those potions are a unique circumstance in which the creation of said item is not ex nihilo. Even in the absolute worst, zero design bibles case (and devs can always miss/ignore/disobey design docs), the prior item provides a template context/norm that *must* have been read by the dev in order to create a new substitute.
Which means that deviation from that prior (Interact) version requires intentionality. And the direction of that intentional change indicates which is the intended norm (manipulate).
______________________
!Note that items like Antiplague underwent a Interact --> Manipulate change with 0 other difference!
.
The case for there being 0 mechanical difference requires Paizo to have update some into manipulate, while *also* copy/paste reprinting other items with the defunct Activate(Interact), while knowing that it did not make sense/exist as something apart from Activate(manipulate).
While I think it is not the case, the possibility must be acknowledged.
The work to update those old items is an edit that can literally be automated with a single regex script, and then hand checked by iterating across each occurrence. All that work would take at most half a day for a single dev to finish, with however many extra sanity checks from other devs after that if they so desired.
_____________________
I think there easily could be some rule I'm missing that would reverse the dynamic I've presented, and that Interact may be the **more** restrictive variant compared against manipulate.
But as far as I can tell right now, this balloon of an idea has not been punctured.
____________________
It is also important to be fully transparent, and that you are absolutely correct with different devs/books not being consistent.
While the remaster rather firmly indicates manipulate is the intended norm for drinkables like elixirs, the Treasure Vault went with all Interact all the time, with every alch consumable being Activate(Interact). Afaik, there are 0 Activate(manipulate)s in the book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because Paizo both cared enough to change some items from one to the other, and maintained the existence of both, the only conclusion I can make is that there is a meaningful difference.I don't think that logic holds. There are several other reasons why some items may be changed from one to the other.
Most notably involving the fact that the game rules and item content creation are done by multiple people each. Different people sometimes have different ideas of how things are supposed to be.
So check that you aren't inadvertently adding an assumption to your logic that 'Paizo' is a single monolithic consciousness that can keep all of the details of every rule in active memory at the same time. It isn't. It is a group of individual people.
Yeah, I think we can safely assume Interact Activations are Manipulate Activations as only Manipulate Activations are listed in Activations and there isn't any real meaningful difference between saying it's an Interact action(s) vs an action(s) with the manipulate trait. With the rushed schedule for the remaster books, it's not hard to imagine some editing fell through the cracks: it's much harder to imagine a conspiracy to invent a new classification of Activation and intentionally not tell how it works.
While the first remaster books are a mess for a "both are the same" reading due to category-consistent variation of (Interact) vs (manipulate), I have flipped and now agree with the take. As far as I can tell, Activate(Interact) is not supposed to exist.
.
Player Core 2 went full 0 on Activate(Interact). Someone made certain it does not exist in there.
Even though many items are of the same categories as what were previously (Interact) such as activated ammo and inhaled poisons, all were changed into (manipulate).
.
While I suppose it is a backhanded way of saying that holy crap what a s%#+show the remaster must have been the remaster was rushed, it seems that they got it together to be consistent for PC2.
Any Activate (interact/envision/command) in remaster product is an error. It should be Activate (manipulate/concentrate) only.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose they wanted to get rid of "envision" in the same way they wanted to get rid of "somatic" and just shaved off one layer of abstraction that wasn't doing enough to justify it's existence.
And then you can wonder "why does this have to be Interact anyway?" too.