I allow just about infinite because so many little things are free actions that by setting low limits to ruin very niche builds, you're just going to be hurting regular characters who bump against it unwittingly.
I am the same on near-infinite free actions--unless a player gets ridiculous in which case my player's know to expect the GM-hammer of Non-Ridiculousness.
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
I allow unlimited, but others... I really wish they'd put a hard limit on how many free actions you can take, makes playing a gunslinger difficult to impossible, what with GM fiat...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on the actions. I don't have a set number because not all free actions are equal.
|
It really depends, it is really up to the GM.
Since this is a PFS forum, I usually limit players to one a round, if it sounds reasonably I may allow more specifically at high tiers. 7-11 games with 6 players combat can take allong time.
Higher level play opens up more uses of free actions.
I have had players take large amounts of time taking many free actions. While other players may take mere seconds to take the same amount.
My main consideration is to allow everyone at the table to have fun. If we have 6 players and 5 take 3 minutes to act and the 6th takes 15 minutes every round. This may cause concern.
Ideally anything that can be done within a combat round, subject to GM discretion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You get unlimited free actions, especially in PFS since that is what RAW says and you can't houserule the limit down at a PFS table.
That said I did once have to politely ask a player who wanted to use 5 quickdraw throwing shields in a round to please not do it on the basis of it being very silly and clearly not RAI.
|
|
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
There are limits to free actions. Not every aspect of the game should need to be quantified. Unless it is throwing 50 quickdraw shields.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
There are limits to free actions. Not every aspect of the game should need to be quantified. Unless it is throwing 50 quickdraw shields.
I won't go against a GM from limiting free actions, though I don't personally think PFS is the place for that.
That said, one free action a round is ridiculously limiting, at that point you might as well call it a Swift action, which it is not.
|
|
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
There are limits to free actions. Not every aspect of the game should need to be quantified. Unless it is throwing 50 quickdraw shields.
Reasonable sure, limiting to one a round is neither reasonable nor RAW. By RAW the players get one or more, so at least two if they'd like.
In addition limiting to one a round means that an archer can't use rapid shot, since reloading a bow is a free action.
Or a druid couldn't handle his companion and load a bow at the same time.
Hell a fighter wouldn't even be able to quickdraw a weapon and warns his allies of danger.
Limiting to one would be an insane limit that would ruin many classes.
Now I personally don't have a limit, but I also haven't seen anyone try and real free action exploit yet.
|
I believe free actions should be limited according to what they encompass. Speaking freely should take into consideration the real time it takes from accomplishing a task. Actual free actions that required physical interaction should be taken on a case by case basis and within reason.
Leaving it up to GM discretion on an individual basis is in my opinion the correct way to go about things. Yes, you might run into some argument at some point, but a hard-and-fast rule about something that involves such a varied number of tasks is ludicrous.
Leaving it up to GM discretion on an individual basis is in my opinion the correct way to go about things. Yes, you might run into some argument at some point, but a hard-and-fast rule about something that involves such a varied number of tasks is ludicrous.
That goes into the realm of singling players out. I would not be happy if I only got 2 free actions while someone else got five.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If one character does X, Y, Z, and A1 through A2 with iterative attacks plus a swift action, and the free actions involved seem "too much", the GM has every right to limit that character's free actions (depending on what they are), while a PC who just takes a double-move might get more.
"One or more" is in the RAW, meaning it's up to the GM.
Debate is nice, but this is one of those "expect table variance" things that I don't think really *needs* to be given a PFS-wide definition by fiat.
|
|
If one character does X, Y, Z, and A1 through A2 with iterative attacks plus a swift action, and the free actions involved seem "too much", the GM has every right to limit that character's free actions (depending on what they are), while a PC who just takes a double-move might get more.
"One or more" is in the RAW, meaning it's up to the GM.
Debate is nice, but this is one of those "expect table variance" things that I don't think really *needs* to be given a PFS-wide definition by fiat.
A GM has a right to limit free actions, but it'd be a really jerk move to apply different limits to different players based on how reliant their characters are on them. All players should have the same rules to play with. It just doesn't seem fair to favor certain players with free actions because you like what they are doing over other players.
|
I have to stand by the fact that a round is a measure of 6 seconds. Only so much can be accomplished in that time, short of magic or divine intervention some limit to free actions should be evident. As a GM you will have to decide if number of free actions being taken by one character is reasonable or not.
|
|
A GM has a right to limit free actions, but it'd be a really jerk move to apply different limits to different players based on how reliant their characters are on them. All players should have the same rules to play with. It just doesn't seem fair to favor certain players with free actions because you like what they are doing over other players.If one character does X, Y, Z, and A1 through A2 with iterative attacks plus a swift action, and the free actions involved seem "too much", the GM has every right to limit that character's free actions (depending on what they are), while a PC who just takes a double-move might get more.
"One or more" is in the RAW, meaning it's up to the GM.
Debate is nice, but this is one of those "expect table variance" things that I don't think really *needs* to be given a PFS-wide definition by fiat.
All due respect, but please don't put words in my mouth here - I fully agree that a GM who allows different # of free actions based on whether they like what the PC is doing or not is not fair.
What I said is that if a GM thinks about it in their head (totally made-up out of my head example) -
"So the player wants to take a free action to drop sword, a swift action to quick-draw crossbow, a full-round action to fire crossbow multiple times w/ free actions to reload crossbow in the middle of iterative attacks, a free action to shout that arrows don't seem to work against the monster, a free action to drop the crossbow, and then on top of it the PC wants to take another free action to draw a different weapon and shield so they have a slightly better AC bonus when the monster goes...that seems a bit much for a single round"
And says -
"Yea, sorry, you can shout, you'll have to wait on the stuff after that for your next turn."
I think that GMs should be allowed to make the call as to whether or not to limit the # of free actions beyond the bounds of believability - we may be playing a fantasy game, but there have to be limits. By the same token, if at a different table a different GM is ok with all of the above + even other stuff I didn't think of, that's their call too.
"Expect table variance." This should be one of those things that GMs are allowed to make the call on as long as they're being fair about the rationale that goes into said call.
|
|
All due respect, but please don't put words in my mouth here - I fully agree that a GM who allows different # of free actions based on whether they like what the PC is doing or not is not fair.
I didn't put words in your mouth you said "If one character does X, Y, Z, and A1 through A2 with iterative attacks plus a swift action, and the free actions involved seem "too much", the GM has every right to limit that character's free actions (depending on what they are), while a PC who just takes a double-move might get more."
To me it reads as saying that is a GM thinks a player free actions are "too much" he will limit that players free actions, while another player who double moves might get more free actions than the other player.
I don't see how you can say one player could get more free actions, and then say I'm putting words in your mouth when I read it that way.
|
|
Well... I'd ask the player. How many does he think seems reasonable? and base my decision on that.
(guess that means Chris Bonnet only gets one? - heck, I'd not do that to a guy. He get's what I think is reasonable.)
(and Mystic Lemur gets 67. - heck, I'd even let him have a couple more too).
Unfortunatley you will find a person out there, however rare that wants to manipulate or game a system of mechanics. Through series of obscure rules containing or allowing free actions. Such as throwing 50 quickdraw shields. Or pulling out a wondrous figurine activate it, quick mount, detect evil, draw lance lance, smite evil, handle mount, charge.
However rule savy players are action economy needs to be maintained at the table.
These are my personal experiences, which I am 100% fine with enforcing action economy.
Are there actions that would be unreasonably? Yes. Are there resonable players out there? Yes. Are there unreasonable players out there? Yes.
Does the rules allow a GM to restrict Free actions? Yes.
Did I run into any player using 100 free actions at GenCon? No. Did I limit free actions every game I ran? No. Did I limit what a player could do as a free action? Yes.
Did I allow take 10? Yes.
Doea every facet of the game need to be ruled on? My answer no.
|
|
I don't see how you can say one player could get more free actions, and then say I'm putting words in your mouth when I read it that way.
A GM has a right to limit free actions, but it'd be a really jerk move to apply different limits to different players based on how reliant their characters are on them. All players should have the same rules to play with. It just doesn't seem fair to favor certain players with free actions because you like what they are doing over other players.
My apologies if I read it that way - it seemed to me that you were suggesting that my example implied that a GM should limit actions based on how reliant a PC is on them - I was, rather, trying to imply that a GM should limit actions based on "how much stuff" a single character is trying to accomplish in the span of a single round.
I also read it that you were suggesting that I was advocating that a GM should make a decision on limiting actions based on if I "like what they are doing over other players". If that wasn't your intention, then my apologies for that also.
The way you phrased it seemed to imply that I was trying to say it's ok for a GM to be a jerk, and I wanted to be clear that I think it should be based on the GM's opinion about realistic number of things that can be done concurrently in a single 6-second span, to be applied to everyone at the table in the same way, not based on if the GM thinks it's cool or boring or somesuch.
|
In a world where unlimited table-talk and meta-gaming is permitted, limits on free actions seems the least of our worries.
IMO, a GM should only limit free actions if the player is doing so much it is significantly impacting the other player's fun at the table. If s/he always seems to win initiative and kill the enemy before anyone else gets to act, and jumps into non-combat encounters and solves them before anyone else can participate, then that player is stealing the spotlight. But then again, that is more akin to the don't be a jerk rule and should more than likely be dealt with away from the game. Alternately, you can just declare them the winner and move on. YMMV
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did think you were advocating a GM should limit free actions based on how much he liked the players actions in your first post. I read it that way because the generic x, y, z terminology made it hard to interpret as an example of free action abuse and combined with the note that the other player could have more free actions caused me to think you were saying something different than what I now see you intended.
I'm sorry if I offended you with my first reply to you I obviously read your post in a different matter than you intended it to be read which caused the confusion. I probably take this issue a bit more seriously than I should since when I do get to play I play a Gunslinger which is a class that GMs like to restrict free actions too. Once again, let me apologize for reading your post in a worse light than you intended.
But it seems that we agree that a GM should be able to limit the free actions taken by the players at the table in order to curb abuse and preserve some sense of realism in the game.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Columbus
|
for the example of the gunslinger you gave. say at level 11. He could have 6 attacks--or 7 attacks with haste.
round 1 he fires both his dual barrel pistols, then reloads one of them twice and the other one 3 times---reloading a total of 10 barrels or 10 free actions and 1 free action to drop a pistol and 1 swift action to retrieve a pistol from weapon cord
round 2-since both weapons are empty--he starts with one dangling from a cord and reloads the other--fires it 4 times--with 3 reloads for 8 barrels reloaded--or 8 free actions. then free action to drop it and a swift action to pick up the other which he reloads--then fires 3 times for another 6 barrels reloaded--or 6 more free actions
so round 1 he used 11 free actions and 1 swift action
round 2 he used 15 free actions and 1 swift action
you don't think that is a little much?
that is like telling someone they can't recite the gettysburg address as a free action. then they ask if they can recite one line of it and you saying yes. They then say--well I will use 75 free actions to recite it then.
there has to be some limit. like someone pointed out before--line 100 peasants up--each with an arrow--one peasant fires with a bow--drops it, the next uses swift action to pick it up, fires it--drops it. then the next so on. a militia only needs one bow for the entire town unless the GM steps up to call BS.
I don't think the gunslinger is broke---but the dual pistol IS.
I think everyone would like to buy a weapon at level 4 or so that automatically doubled all their attacks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't even think the double-barreled pistol is broke, but it seems the weapon cord is. I think the "official" ruling was that reloading a pistol is considered a fine action. Therefore wearing a weapon cord would foil reload attempts because it interferes with fine actions. IMO, that is a reasonable evaluation to limit PC's from cheesing outside of their expected power curve. Perhaps it affects gunslingers more than others, but it is not the only ruling that affects one class more than another.
It depends on the actions for me.
There is no such thing as a "fine" action.
|
|
The part of this that's almost funny to me is where I fall in this part of the conversation - my "main" character in PFS is also a Gunslinger, and he has the double-barrel pistol and weapon cord to-boot.
That being said, even if mechanically I could shoot with both barrels, reload both, shoot an iterative attack with both, reload both, and shoot a rapid shot on top of it all (reloading again to be ready for next round), all with one hand on top of it (in case I had something else to do with my other hand like shoot something else), I don't.
Why do I put myself at a mechanical disadvantage? Because I have to look down at what's going on and try not to make myself feel like I'm jumping the shark (even though my gunslinger *is* a pirate ship captain...arrr...there be some shark jumping involved sometime or other...). I'd actually feel like I'm cheating by breaking the spirit of the way the rules are written if I did.
Given that, even with cartridges, early firearms were all muzzle-loaders, you're either cramming powder/wadding/bullet down the barrel or a cartridge (let's forget cramming, let's just say you slide a little paper packet down the barrel). Trying to do that one-handed while your weapon is dangling from your wrist is something I'll bet could earn you money on-stage in Vegas (at a pirate- or western-themed place) or at a Ren Faire, but isn't realistic to do with two barrels simultaneously multiple times in a six second time-span.
Whenever I'm getting more than one shot with my pistol in a round, I make sure I keep my character's second hand totally free to justify the free actions to reload, and I'm even debating denying myself using both barrels simultaneously when taking iterative/rapid-shot actions that allow for more than two "firings" (trigger-pulls) because it just seems silly otherwise.
When I GM I try to keep the same sense of "ok, come on, really?" in my mind, much like what Hakken said just above, and I never let myself do in-play what I'd deny someone else to do when I GM.
...Am I in the minority in this?
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I don't think the gunslinger is broke---but the dual pistol IS.
I think everyone would like to buy a weapon at level 4 or so that automatically doubled all their attacks.
Don't forget that -4 to hit, and the increased misfire probability.
Reloading multiple barrels of a black-powder pistol per round as free actions is getting into the grey area, even without all the weapon cord shenanigans. If you want multiple shots per round from the same pistol, that's what a pepperbox is for (or even the doubleshot pepperbox from Skulls & Shackles; while that still has the -4 to hit, it doesn't seem to have an increased chance of misfire).
There is no such thing as a "fine" action.I don't know... I think every action I do is Fine! ;)
LOL. I can't even think of a comeback.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't even think the double-barreled pistol is broke, but it seems the weapon cord is. I think the "official" ruling was that reloading a pistol is considered a fine action. Therefore wearing a weapon cord would foil reload attempts because it interferes with fine actions. IMO, that is a reasonable evaluation to limit PC's from cheesing outside of their expected power curve. Perhaps it affects gunslingers more than others, but it is not the only ruling that affects one class more than another.
Actually, I seem to remember Michael Brock posting the opposite: that a weapon cord was fine for reloading a gun. Of course I could be mistaken.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I don't even think the double-barreled pistol is broke, but it seems the weapon cord is. I think the "official" ruling was that reloading a pistol is considered a fine action. Therefore wearing a weapon cord would foil reload attempts because it interferes with fine actions. IMO, that is a reasonable evaluation to limit PC's from cheesing outside of their expected power curve. Perhaps it affects gunslingers more than others, but it is not the only ruling that affects one class more than another.Actually, I seem to remember Michael Brock posting the opposite: that a weapon cord was fine for reloading a gun. Of course I could be mistaken.
That was my recollection, too - somebody from Paizo definitely weighed in with the opinion that reloading a gun could be done even while you had a weapon (type unstated, IIRC) dangling from a weapon cord. I couldn't swear that it was Mike Brock, though.
I don't recall any official pronouncement about how many barrels could be reloaded per round.
I guess I'm still confused as to how all these reloads get to be free actions in the first place, anyway. Normally it's a standard action to reload one barrel of a single-handed firearm, and a full-round action to reload a two-handed firearm. Both Rapid Reload and using alchemical cartridges would reduce these by one step (full round => standard => move => swift); in combination, this would make reloading a single-handed firearm a swift action.
At eleventh level a Gunslinger gets Lightning Reload:
As long as the gunslinger has at least 1 grit point, she can reload a single barrel of a one-handed or two-handed firearm as a swift action once per round. If she has the Rapid Reload feat or is using an alchemical cartridge (or both), she can reload a single barrel of the weapon as a free action each round instead.
That would seem to limit the free reload actions to (at most) one reload per weapon per round; if there were no limit it wouldn't need to mention a single barrel, or add the "each round" qualifier.
Am I just being obtuse? Or is there something else that makes reloading a free action?
|
|
Am I just being obtuse? Or is there something else that makes reloading a free action?
Nah, it's hidden in the minutiae is all:
The time required for you to reload your chosen type of weapon is reduced to a free action (for a hand or light crossbow), a move action (for heavy crossbow or one-handed firearm), or a standard action (two-handed firearm). Reloading a crossbow or firearm still provokes attacks of opportunity.
Alchemical cartridges make loading a firearm easier, reducing the time to load a firearm by one step (a full-round action becomes a standard action, a standard action becomes a move action, and a move action becomes a free action),
So rapid reload makes a one-handed firearm reloading into a move action, and the cartridge makes it a free action.
I was surprised by that when I first started thinking about playing a Gunslinger too.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
So my mistake was thinking "full => standard => move => swift"; that last one is apparently "free", not "swift".
I don't think it makes sense (at least for alchemical cartridges; I can see free action fitting rapid reload of arrows, crossbow bolts, etc.), but the rules are the rules.
The gun-slinger + weapon cord combo confuses me. I always thought that you had to take your attacks in order of bonus. So when TWF, you need to take turns shooting with each hand. So you can't shoot one gun 4 times, and then shoot the other gun 3 times. The only gunslingers who can TWF are the ones that have tails.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As a GM, I have never felt the need to enforce a limit to free actions.
As a player, I have never felt that, had I been the GM for situation X, I would have established a limit.
Come to think of it, until gunslingers arrived and tried to full-attack just like a crossbowman, I never even heard this topic come up.
I think it is rare enough that most of the time, it is not a concern. I have only seen it be an issue for theoretical builds, but just in case a player comes up with something I had not seen I would never say "no limits".
|
|
There is no such thing as a "fine" action.
While I agree it is not clearly defined, "fine" actions are referenced in the text of the weapon cord. I supposed that leaves it up to the GM to determine fine actions at their table. If that is the case, unlimited reloading dual-barrel pistols using free actions becomes a GM fiat and subject to table variation.
Can't remember where I seen this: Fine actions are actions that require fine movements to complete. E.g.: Picking a lock.
I haven't ran into any issues with gunslingers. In fact I usually have more problems with my Archers...
Now then on topic:
I have no limit on free actions as a part of another action or such. E.g.: Reloading a Bow, crossbow, etc. As long as they don't get gimmicky. Other than that it is a case-by-case ruling.
This hasn't failed me for my past 50 campaigns. So for 2 years no difficulties with players complaining about me limiting their actions.
This hasn't failed me for my past 50 campaigns. So for 2 years no difficulties with players complaining about me limiting their actions.
I'm sorry, but I really had to ask.
You have run 50 Campaigns in only 2 years?
I would add more to the question, but really, I don't think I need to.
