Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Free Actions Per Turn Poll


Pathfinder Society GM Discussion

51 to 100 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
***

CanisDirus wrote:
Ultimate Combat wrote:
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),

Is it just me or is it here that the problem seems to be? Shouldn't the move action become a swift action? Like JohnF, I thought that was the normal progression of actions.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Swift actions are kind of special, actually. And in any case, "normal progression" or not*, it doesn't change the fact that the text you're quoting is completely clear and therefore functions exactly as it says.

*There's not, actually. You can swap your standard for a move, but you can't swap your move for a swift or anything else.

***

The rule is clearly stated, as you say Jiggy. I didn't say it wasn't "completely clear". I was expressing that, like JohnF, intuitively that is how I would have expected it to go.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Whiskey Jack wrote:
I didn't say it wasn't "completely clear".

Didn't mean to imply otherwise, though re-reading my post it certainly sounds that way. My apologies.

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, California—Fresno aka Sarta

From my perspective, it seems like the intent was for gunslingers to have roughly the same number of shots fired as an archer. As a result, they introduced an avenue which allows them to reload fast enough to take iterative shots.

Is this unrealistic? Sure. So are dragons, fireballs, and monks being able to standing-broadjump 50 feet.

From a historical perspective, we should be more upset that firearms only use touch AC to hit. Early firearms didn't have nearly the armor penetration capabilities as crossbows and longbows.
.

****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Lightning Reload (Ex): At 11th level, 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. Furthermore, using this deed does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

intent I would say is very clear. if you look at a DEED they get at level 11. it specifically says that even if they have BOTH rapid reload and alchemical cartidges AND using this DEED, they can only reload a single barrel of the weapon as a free action.

so how can they reload both barrels before level 11 using just rapid reload and alcemical cartridges as a free action?

does this deed actually make it slower?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

This deed doesn't require you to have both Rapid Reload and alchemical cartridges. You've misread it.

****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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

nope--read it just fine---even if you have both---taking this feat only allows you to reload a single barrel. so how can you reload both barrels without this feat if you have both.

I agree this feat does not require you to have both. but in this feats description it specifically says that if you do have both (and this feat even) you still only get to reload one barrel

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

D'oh! I misread part of your post, thought you were saying you needed both in order to upgrade to a free action instead of swift. Man, I'm off today.

****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For me if I were GMing

If the gunslinger were reloading both barrels using weapon cords for the max shots, I would probably tell him that all GMs may not allow him to do it and also let him know that me allowing him to have unlimited free actions is dependant upon the rest of the players having fun also.

So long as all the players are having fun? I have no attachment to my monsters so I don't care if they kill them faster, so I would let him have all the free actions.

If he was trivializing the scenario and the other players were getting discouraged and not having fun, I would probably start to enforce the free actions limit more--ie only allowing him to reload one of the barrels.

So long as the gunslinger played with some consideration for the other players, it would not become an issue. I have just played with some who DON'T consider the other players. And no--the other players did not have gimp builds. They just never got a chance.

I did talk to another player(not a gunslinger) and he had a valid question. He asked, "What if the gunslinger or archer holds back to allow the others to participate more and someone winds up getting killed?" It is a good question. but if the other players are not having fun?

some players may not mind never getting to participate as long as they get the exp, PP and loot at the end. They are perfectly fine just sitting there while someone else does everything.

other players want to participate and be part of the action.

part of your job as a GM is to judge your players and make sure they have fun. If letting them get involved means enforcing some limit on free actions and possibly a chance at dieing? well if what they want is to participate--that is part of your job. Hopefully the Power character at that table will work with you.

I know some players like to be the bigshot. They want everyone to ooh and ahh over their charactcer. The other players will---IF you pull their butts out of the fire. They wont-if you constantly deny them a chance to play. One is a hero--the other an attention hog.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau aka Arnim Thayer

Hakken wrote:
Lightning Reload (Ex): At 11th level, 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. Furthermore, using this deed does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

From the looks of this, the key thing this Deed does is what I bolded above. It makes it so a player can do what would normally cost both a feat AND alchemical cartridges to do... AND allows them to do it without provoking Attacks of Opportunity.

I agree that allowing too many free actions can impact the game play of the other players at the table in a negative way. But a player should first and foremost police themselves, as a courtesy to the others at the table. If most players would show that kind of respect to the others at their table, GMs wouldn't have to make the call for them.


Honestly, with how confusing gunslingers are, now I kind of wish they were banned in Society. Or at least a FAQ/Errata on it. It wouldn't be that hard...

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Michael VonHasseln wrote:
I agree that allowing too many free actions can impact the game play of the other players at the table in a negative way.

Can you give examples of this? Every time the free action issue comes up, people are talking about gunslingers; yet they take up no more table time than anyone else.

I played with a high level archer whose turns went "Rapid Fire, Deadly Aim, targeting that guy" *rolls dice*

I played with a high level gunslinger whose turns went "Rapid Reload, paper cartridges, targeting that guy" *rolls dice*

So where are these free action whores who spend extra table time announcing a bazillion free actions, and why aren't people talking about them when the free action topic comes up, instead trying to focus on gunslingers who take no longer than anyone else? Did I miss something?

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Michael VonHasseln wrote:
I agree that allowing too many free actions can impact the game play of the other players at the table in a negative way.

Can you give examples of this? Every time the free action issue comes up, people are talking about gunslingers; yet they take up no more table time than anyone else.

I played with a high level archer whose turns went "Rapid Fire, Deadly Aim, targeting that guy" *rolls dice*

I played with a high level gunslinger whose turns went "Rapid Reload, paper cartridges, targeting that guy" *rolls dice*

So where are these free action whores who spend extra table time announcing a bazillion free actions, and why aren't people talking about them when the free action topic comes up, instead trying to focus on gunslingers who take no longer than anyone else? Did I miss something?

It ruins people's verisimilitude when the gunslinger can shoot his old-style powder and shot musket several times in the space of six seconds. It for some reason does not ruin people's verisimilitude when an archer can fire four arrows in the space of six seconds.

*****

Jiggy wrote:
Michael VonHasseln wrote:
I agree that allowing too many free actions can impact the game play of the other players at the table in a negative way.

Can you give examples of this? Every time the free action issue comes up, people are talking about gunslingers; yet they take up no more table time than anyone else.

I played with a high level archer whose turns went "Rapid Fire, Deadly Aim, targeting that guy" *rolls dice*

I played with a high level gunslinger whose turns went "Rapid Reload, paper cartridges, targeting that guy" *rolls dice*

So where are these free action whores who spend extra table time announcing a bazillion free actions, and why aren't people talking about them when the free action topic comes up, instead trying to focus on gunslingers who take no longer than anyone else? Did I miss something?

It's possible that the high level gunslingers are just performing all the free actions without announcing them and wasting everyone's time and attention, though they can tell you the combination of free actions they are using if asked for an audit of their round. I find this to be the best way to do it, though you risk seeming less than transparent if the GM thinks you are hiding your setup for nefarious reasons.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

Mergy wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Michael VonHasseln wrote:
I agree that allowing too many free actions can impact the game play of the other players at the table in a negative way.

Can you give examples of this? Every time the free action issue comes up, people are talking about gunslingers; yet they take up no more table time than anyone else.

I played with a high level archer whose turns went "Rapid Fire, Deadly Aim, targeting that guy" *rolls dice*

I played with a high level gunslinger whose turns went "Rapid Reload, paper cartridges, targeting that guy" *rolls dice*

So where are these free action whores who spend extra table time announcing a bazillion free actions, and why aren't people talking about them when the free action topic comes up, instead trying to focus on gunslingers who take no longer than anyone else? Did I miss something?

It ruins people's verisimilitude when the gunslinger can shoot his old-style powder and shot musket several times in the space of six seconds. It for some reason does not ruin people's verisimilitude when an archer can fire four arrows in the space of six seconds.

Clearly you just need to reply to any concerns about realism in this game with "MAGIC!"

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Okay, so if a gunslinger announces his setup, he's wasting table time and should be disciplined. If he doesn't announce his setup, he's acting suspicious and should be disciplined. Got it! ;)

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Captain, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Thorkull

Walter Sheppard wrote:
Clearly you just need to reply to any concerns about realism in this game with "MAGIC!"

Heh. I have a local player with whom I routinely get into debates with about the realism of the rules. They repeatedly ended with me stating "Dude, it's a game."

Now he ends these discussions in the same way, without my input... :D

*****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Okay, so if a gunslinger announces his setup, he's wasting table time and should be disciplined. If he doesn't announce his setup, he's acting suspicious and should be disciplined. Got it! ;)

I think there is no one person that simultaneously holds both views on the issue, though I could be wrong. Rather some GMs prefer to hear everything all the time and others think it slows down gameplay. As a GM myself, I would want to hear the full setup if I prompted for it, but after hearing it once, I'd be set for the whole game with them just saying "I do the usual." Other GMs are not as kind as I am on the matter, though, and hence this controversy that spawned the thread.

Shadow Lodge **

I have a 'soft' limit of 6 free actions per round. One per second essentially. I say it's a soft limit because I don't know that I've ever had to limit anyone to 6. But then I don't like Gunslingers and don't play with/judge them.

I've seen folks get to six before (high level hasted archers and a pouncing synthesist) but it's rare.

I do think it's up to the judge at the table though and I would NOT have a problem if a judge told my archer that 6 arrows is my limit per round. To me that seems reasonable, and it's a LOT of shots. Still, I would be disappointed naturally and might try to play with someone else in the future... :D

****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Michael VonHasseln wrote:


I agree that allowing too many free actions can impact the game play of the other players at the table in a negative way. But a player should first and foremost police themselves, as a courtesy to the others at the table. If most players would show that kind of respect to the others at their table, GMs wouldn't have to make the call for them.

This +1

my problem comes from gunslingers combined with dual pistols and free actions AND then ruining the fun for others by not giving them a chance.

So long as they can be respectful and not do the very last point--I would not limit them.

same would go for archers who continually one shot every single mob walking in the door before anyone else can even act.

police yourself--consider others and the GM wont have to clamp down. My problem is the couple of gunslingers I have played with did NOT police themself and when the GM tried to slow them so others could have some fun they threw the RAW at the GMs. At both tables it made most of the rest of the players not really care to play with the two gunslinger characters again. I had driven an hour to play in the one game and got off a total of one spell with my cleric the whole scenario.

With that said---I GMed a table with a 3rd level monk of many styles who could basically KI throw a 30 CMD monster at will and had over a 20 AC and 18 strength--yep it was a legal build. He also made the game unfun for others--with people at the table mentioning after the third combat---"I haven't even got to do anything"

for the above Ki throw is suppose to have a prereq of level 10--but monk of many styles ignores all prereqs (except if a style feat must have the basic feat of style first). So they get to ignore prereq feats, levels, attributes etc. at least by RAW--don't know if RAI meant for them to ignore level requirements

any class can make a DPR monster and be a jerk. free actions just let the gunslinger do it and beat the GM at the RAW thing. Don't abuse the free actions and spoil others fun and it will probably never come up at your table.

I played a master summoner--but I always had my eidelon out on the table--5 hps at level 3 and 11 hps at level 5--no killer. so basically had one summon monster up at a time. I understand the frustration at the MS's who would flood the board with 8 summon monster spells for up to 40 mobs. Once again--any class can be broken. some lend themself to it easier

monk of many styles, archer fighters, sythesist, gunslinger, druid, master summoner, etc

those classes should take extra care to be respectful of their fellow players enjoyment.

****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Michael VonHasseln wrote:
I agree that allowing too many free actions can impact the game play of the other players at the table in a negative way.

Can you give examples of this? Every time the free action issue comes up, people are talking about gunslingers; yet they take up no more table time than anyone else.

I played with a high level archer whose turns went "Rapid Fire, Deadly Aim, targeting that guy" *rolls dice*

I played with a high level gunslinger whose turns went "Rapid Reload, paper cartridges, targeting that guy" *rolls dice*

So where are these free action whores who spend extra table time announcing a bazillion free actions, and why aren't people talking about them when the free action topic comes up, instead trying to focus on gunslingers who take no longer than anyone else? Did I miss something?

and my master summoner---the GM had me roll his one summon monsters spell (yes sometimes 3 monsters--same as a wiz could do) on the board at a time--attacks early--while others were going. Then when my turn came I just told him the results. I took less time than any other player at the table.

Shadow Lodge *** Venture-Lieutenant, California—Silicon Valley aka JohnF

Hakken wrote:
Ki throw is suppose to have a prereq of level 10--but monk of many styles ignores all prereqs (except if a style feat must have the basic feat of style first). So they get to ignore prereq feats, levels, attributes etc. at least by RAW--don't know if RAI meant for them to ignore level requirements

To be absolutely nitpicky about the rules, level 10 is not listed as a prerequisite for Ki Throw. As such, RAW doesn't let you ignore it - it simply allows you to gain Ki Throw without having the listed prerequisites (Improved Trip, Improved Unarmed Strike). The ability to gain the feat at Level 10 is a special property of the feat, not a prerequisite.

I wouldn't usually parse the rules that finely, but I sure as hell would if I encountered a third-level monk trying that level of cheesiness.

****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

that may be a good call JohnF. Never thought of it that way. I know it raises hell with trying to challenge that monk.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

It appears that a level 2 human MoMS could have:
Improved Trip (Human)
Improved Unarmed Strike (class)
Ki Throw (level 1)
Janni Style(Style Feat, level 1).
Janni Tempest (Style feat, level 2)

You can't ignore the prerequisites for Ki Throw with MoMS because it is not a Style feat, but can ignore the prereqs for Janni Style and Janni Tempest (other than the style prereq).

Looks like a one-trick pony who'd be pretty sad against oozes, naga, flying creatures, and other untrippables.

Cheliax ****

TetsujinOni wrote:

It appears that a level 2 human MoMS could have:

Improved Trip (Human)
Improved Unarmed Strike (class)
Ki Throw (level 1)
Janni Style(Style Feat, level 1).
Janni Tempest (Style feat, level 2)

You can't ignore the prerequisites for Ki Throw with MoMS because it is not a Style feat, but can ignore the prereqs for Janni Style and Janni Tempest (other than the style prereq).

Looks like a one-trick pony who'd be pretty sad against oozes, naga, flying creatures, and other untrippables.

and maybe not so good on the dance floor either... he keeps stepping on my feet!

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Did I miss the part where he doesn't need Combat Expertise for Improved Trip?


Sadly no you did not Jiggy.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Thefurmonger wrote:
Sadly no you did not Jiggy.

whups, knew I should've done that in HeroLab. Third level, then.

Shadow Lodge *** Venture-Lieutenant, California—Silicon Valley aka JohnF

Hakken wrote:
that may be a good call JohnF. Never thought of it that way. I know it raises hell with trying to challenge that monk.

Not quite as good as it looked on first glance - the restriction to level 10 only applies to when the monk gets to add Ki Throw to the monk bonus feat list; anyone can take it at level one as a combat feat.

I also missed the far more relevant qualification that MoMS only lets you ignore prerequisites for Style feats (and followons).

Fortunately TetsujinOni spotted both of those, and came up with a legal build (after fixing one minor issue).

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Jiggy is correct, I have not seen all this excitement about Free actions until the Gunslinger..

Even with the Messed up Archers it was not about free actions but about the torrent of Feats that allow an Archer to become oh so powerful.

Let me ask you all this. How many of you have seen Gunslingers in your games?

I have seen exactly 2 players with Gunslingers, and only one of those was when I was GMing.

As a Player I had 2 Gunslingers (now 1 since one died this weekend) and I am still the only player I have seen that uses one at a game.

As a GM I have only seen 1 gunslinger, and that was a pre gen at last years GenCon.

Qadira ****

Dragnmoon wrote:

Jiggy is correct, I have not seen all this excitement about Free actions until the Gunslinger..

Even with the Messed up Archers it was not about free actions but about the torrent of Feats that allow an Archer to become oh so powerful.

Let me ask you all this. How many of you have seen Gunslingers in your games?

I have seen exactly 2 players with Gunslingers, and only one of those was when I was GMing.

As a Player I had 2 Gunslingers (now 1 since one died this weekend) and I am still the only player I have seen that uses one at a game.

As a GM I have only seen 1 gunslinger, and that was a pre gen at last years GenCon.

I've seen/played with several - though only one uses the weapon cord trick and I think he is nearing retirement (I haven't played with him in weeks).

One player I play with regularly has a 7th or 8th level gunslinger - he's a lot of fun to play with. He brings a great Disable Device skill to the table he plays at - and tends to be a bit in the shadow of the thrown weapon Fighter who plays with him a lot. (The thrower does more damage faster, with more shots, at a better range... ).

Otherwise I have run a low tier (1-2 I think) for 3 gunslingers and a witch. It was kind of fun, they were three DIFFERENT gunslingers (Pistolero, Musket Master, and Hansome Stranger I think). That was a tough game, with only the witch for spells.

I haven't seen a GunTank yet, so my next character (#10) is going to be a Tiefling named Tank (GunTank).

So Gunslingers are out there, just not in your area. Which is odd, you are in TX right?

Cheliax ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

I've seen at least 4 gunslingers off the top of my head.

Two of them are a gunslinger 1/myrmidarch X build that is quite flashy. (different players)
One of them is a pistolero.
One of them is a musket master "professional soldier hired for professionalism amongst the roughneck agents". (Like this one a lot, though the player who runs it is occasionally a challenge).

Andoran *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like to take it on a circumstantial basis.

I use the rule of, “If it feels wrong, its wrong.”

In general, I try to err on the side of the player and fun for the table. If those two are mutually exclusive, I will err on the side of fun for the table.

I do have to say though, that I am completely and utterly opposed to the idea of restricting it to one free action per round. This just has way too many implications that neuter entire mechanics of the game.

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

So I had a character that was planning on using a weapon cord, but is was not for another Pistol.

My goal was to make my Tengu pistolero, before he was eaten by a Ghast, a Pistol/Sword guy with firing at close range and mixing in some sword strikes with two-weapon fighting.

Andoran *****

Dragnmoon wrote:

So I had a character that was planning on using a weapon cord, but is was not for another Pistol.

My goal was to make my Tengu pistolero, before he was eaten by a Ghast, a Pistol/Sword guy with firing at close range and mixing in some sword strikes with two-weapon fighting.

I believe the weapon cord specifically says you cannot wield another weapon in that hand.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Andrew, I'm right there with you on the "If I feel like you're taking too many free actions, I'll let you know" front.

I'm pretty sure that I've got a pretty high threshold of "too many".

Andoran *****

TetsujinOni wrote:

Andrew, I'm right there with you on the "If I feel like you're taking too many free actions, I'll let you know" front.

I'm pretty sure that I've got a pretty high threshold of "too many".

In general, if you have a series of iterative attacks, and you have a couple feats that add additional attacks, like Rapid Shot… and you spent a feat on Rapid Reload… and also spent feats on two-weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting, and greater two weapon fighting, then I’m not going to begrudge a gunslinger their full complement of attacks. Where I draw the line, however, is when they start doing all that with both barrels of two double barreled pistols.

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
I believe the weapon cord specifically says you cannot wield another weapon in that hand.

Huh? I was not going to wield another weapon in the hand.

One hand would have a Pistol the Other a Sword. The Sword Hand would have a Weapon Cord attached to the Sword.

Andoran *****

Dragnmoon wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
I believe the weapon cord specifically says you cannot wield another weapon in that hand.

Huh? I was not going to wield another weapon in the hand.

One hand would have a Pistol the Other a Sword. The Sword Hand would have a Weapon Cord attached to the Sword.

Ah, to allow you to reload?

Just be aware, that some GM's may interpret the "finer actions" clause in the weapon cord as meaning you can't reload with a weapon cord on your wrist.

So table variance may apply.

Qadira ****

Andrew Christian wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
I believe the weapon cord specifically says you cannot wield another weapon in that hand.

Huh? I was not going to wield another weapon in the hand.

One hand would have a Pistol the Other a Sword. The Sword Hand would have a Weapon Cord attached to the Sword.

Ah, to allow you to reload?

Just be aware, that some GM's may interpret the "finer actions" clause in the weapon cord as meaning you can't reload with a weapon cord on your wrist.

So table variance may apply.

a sort of work around for the "fine action" ... maybe.

actions:
1) fire pistol with right hand.
2) drop sword, switch pistol to left hand.
3) load pistol with right hand.
4) switch pistol to right hand.
5) weapon cord sword back to left hand.

repeat as needed.

Would that work? was that what you had planned Dragnmoon?

but even then, "table variance may apply" (I agree).

Andoran *****

Except that weapon cords require a swift action to recover the weapon.

Qadira ****

Andrew Christian wrote:
Except that weapon cords require a swift action to recover the weapon.

THanks Andrew (just shows how much I use the things - lol!)

so maybe it should be....

1) fire pistol with right hand.
2) drop sword,
3) switch pistol to left hand.
4) load pistol with right hand.
5) switch pistol to right hand.
repeat 3-5 as neededas needed, then
6) weapon cord sword back to left hand, ending your turn.

Would that work?

edit: opps! got to shot the darn thing in #5 I guess... or something like that.

Andoran *****

nosig wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Except that weapon cords require a swift action to recover the weapon.

THanks Andrew (just shows how much I use the things - lol!)

so maybe it should be....

1) fire pistol with right hand.
2) drop sword,
3) switch pistol to left hand.
4) load pistol with right hand.
5) switch pistol to right hand.
repeat 3-5 as neededas needed, then
6) weapon cord sword back to left hand, ending your turn.

Would that work?

edit: opps! got to shot the darn thing in #5 I guess... or something like that.

I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

I’m on the fence though about how you take your iterative attacks when two-weapon fighting.

Is it the intent of the rules that you can take all attacks on one hand first, then all the attacks on the other?

Or is the intent of the rules that you must take all the BAB attacks first, then all the BAB-5, then all the BAB-10, etc.?

You’ll see some table variation on this I assume.

Qadira ****

Andrew Christian wrote:
nosig wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Except that weapon cords require a swift action to recover the weapon.

THanks Andrew (just shows how much I use the things - lol!)

so maybe it should be....

1) fire pistol with right hand.
2) drop sword,
3) switch pistol to left hand.
4) load pistol with right hand.
5) switch pistol to right hand.
repeat 3-5 as neededas needed, then
6) weapon cord sword back to left hand, ending your turn.

Would that work?

edit: opps! got to shot the darn thing in #5 I guess... or something like that.

I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

I’m on the fence though about how you take your iterative attacks when two-weapon fighting.

Is it the intent of the rules that you can take all attacks on one hand first, then all the attacks on the other?

Or is the intent of the rules that you must take all the BAB attacks first, then all the BAB-5, then all the BAB-10, etc.?

You’ll see some table variation on this I assume.

yep.

I tend to avoid it when I can. The only two weapon fighter I have is a knife throwing rogue... and she only gets two knives a round. (BAB is still only +4). Guess I'm going to have to learn how to do this someday... unless she dies I guess.

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:


I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

I’m on the fence though about how you take your iterative attacks when two-weapon fighting.

Is it the intent of the rules that you can take all attacks on one hand first, then all the attacks on the other?

Or is the intent of the rules that you must take all the BAB attacks first, then all the BAB-5, then all the BAB-10, etc.?

You’ll see some table variation on this I assume.

That is a very good question that has never been answered.

I specifically as a GM don't have a rule on that, I don't really care what order they do it in.

As a player I just do my attacks as written on my sheet and all the stat blocks. All the attacks with one weapon, then all the attacks from the other.

Edit: I really don't expect many GMs to have a problem with it, I think most GMs problems was coming from dual wielding 2 double barreled pistols

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau aka Arnim Thayer

@ Jiggy: When I posted my comment, this was the example of abuse that came to mind, even though it IS Rules As Written...

CanisDirus wrote:

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"

I wouldn't unfairly hamper a Gunslinger character (though I think Weapon Cords with guns SHOULD interfere with reloading; that's just cheese!), but a Gunslinger hogging the spotlight and making it so the other players say "Can you just sign my Chronicle... ! might be able to catch another scenario" would find themselves under my discretion. I have the same issue with a dwarven Zen Archer in our local group that carries 10 full quivers at all times (RAW this has NO hampering effect on his abilities; logic dictates otherwise). I am not the kind of GM to unduly judge against a player because of his PC's class. There is room (obviously!) in Golorian for the Gunslinger and I don't have the "no CHOCOLATE in MY PEANUT BUTTER!" attitude I see from some others, players and GMs alike.

It's all about fun... and yours (not meaning anyone in particular!) shouldn't rain on the ability to of others to enjoy the game. This is a cooperative, role-playing game. It should never be about "winning" over any other players.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

@Michael - I don't remember what I said/asked, so... okay! :)

*

I see a problem with the gun combos mentioned, re: the hand switching or taking the iterative attacks with just the main hand then those with the offhand.
By some of the interpretations, it would follow that my TWF melee guy can attack with his best sword with his right hand, then switch that weapon to his left to use again. Perhaps several times.
Not cool, even worse with iterative attacks on both sides.
Even if you only get one switch/round, you could do this if players can change the order of attacks.
So I'd say attacks go in order +x (main hand)/+x (offhand)/+x-5(main hand)/+x-5 (offhand)/etc.
It'd be hard to argue they couldn't switch once though...

I don't see loading as a fine action (and there is no RAW re: PFS).

(Luckily, I have yet to see a Gunslinger in play.)

@nosig: Rapid Shot & TWF can be used together (for cumulative -4/attack) for 3 attacks/round if you like (w/ Quickdraw). It's really cool to have lots of knives flying (even if they miss).

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Captain, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Thorkull

nosig wrote:
So Gunslingers are out there, just not in your area. Which is odd, you are in TX right?

Well, the difference is we don't have to play an RPG to get to play with guns...

In all seriousness, there's one regular gunslinger that I've seen at DFW games, and he's intermittent due to his work schedule. He's a vanilla gunslinger, though, no archetypes. He does well enough but is not overpowered -- no weapon cords, and he uses a musket so the whole double-barrel pistol thing doesn't come up.

51 to 100 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / Pathfinder Society GM Discussion / Free Actions Per Turn Poll All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.