| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That house rule would indeed kill the gunslinger.
It would also kill the bow user, as they can't use a free action to draw the ammunition for their bow after every shot.
Sorry for your lots.
|
hes' wrong. You can take as many free actions in a round as you want. YOu're limited to one swift action. He's free to limit free actions if he wants, as he's GM, but that is not in the actual rules. and I agree with cheapy, that actually prevents ANY ranged attacker from taking more than two attacks in a round. throwers, archers, crossbows, guns... ouch
That house rule would indeed kill the gunslinger.
It would also kill the bow user, as they can't use a free action to draw the ammunition for their bow after every shot.
Sorry for your lots.
Drawing an arrow is not a free action, it is not an action at all (specifically, it is made as part of the attack action.) It's actually the example for "not an action."
Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.
hes' wrong. You can take as many free actions in a round as you want. YOu're limited to one swift action. He's free to limit free actions if he wants, as he's GM, but that is not in the actual rules.
He's not wrong, the rules explicitly support that type of ruling.
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.
Not saying I agree with him, but it's not even a Rule 0 call, it's right there in the standard rules.
You're thinking of nocking an arrow:
Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.
I was referring to drawing the arrow:
Ammunition: Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), darts (for blowguns), or sling bullets (for slings and halfling sling staves). When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading (as noted in their descriptions). Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost.
This fact is the reason for this FAQ about using the free action to load the ranged weapon on an AoO.
"1" is not a reasonable limit.
Well, one way is to see if you could use quick draw and carry several double pistols or pepperboxes. Pepper box is like a bootleg revolver (1,500 gp with gunsmithing, so not too hard to get), so there is that too. Maybe see if you could get your gm to let you reload the higher capacity firearms a few at the time if you use a move action.
While I could see a GM limiting the number of times you can reload with a double pistol (since that could get up to 8 or 9 times a round at level 20) the very crux of the gunslinger class at higher levels is the ability to fire more than once or twice a round, and it is an assumption it was based around. Unless this is an E6 campaign (where you'd never get beyond that one or two shots), the GM might as well say that there should be no fire arms at all and tell you to make an archer. I'm probably exaggerating, but it is still too harsh.
Of course, you might of spooked him by going towards a dual wielding gunslinger first. If he had seen any of the builds on this forum, I can see how he could go overboard. Most of the one's I've seen involve juggling firearms tied to strings.
honestly i would not play any kind of ranged character in such a campaign, least of all a gunslinger. As others had said this restricts archery (drawing ammunition is a free action even for bows), which isnt reasonable. It also kills crossbow use which also needs those free actions to be able to fire multiple times in a round. Essentially this is a bad ruling by a gm not clear on the rules.
|
Oh god, the horrors this houserule will create.
Thrown weapon builds will not exist.
Players will be unable to speak.
Players will be unable to drop weapons.
Many feats, and class features will not work.
Each player will be forced to odd knee-jerk actions, unable to use things like "tactics" or actions that require common sense, or resemble anything that does not break down the suspension of disbelief, and destroy anything resembling verisimilitude.
In short, batsh*t madness.
The rules explicitly support limiting people to ONE free action a round? could you show this explicit support?
I didn't say one per round, but I already posted the text allowing the GM to limit it to one per action.
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.
It doesn't say "You can perform as many free actions as you want", it says "you can perform one or more".
It is a most curious fact that that little bit is only exercised for when a GM wants to nerf something to uselessness without explicitly disallowing it. Oddly enough, most of the time it involves firearms. Of course, the same bit tends to not apply to bows and other things that require multiple free actions to do, like casting most spells. At least this is an interesting take on the restrictive free actions and gets past the "inability to cast spells" issue. Most people just try to say "X number of free actions" to nerf something. But one per "type"? That's innovation right there.
Actually, gunslinger would be the most viable ranged class, once you got 'dead shot' you could use that in place of full-round attacks...but yeah, that houserule is way too restricting.
Yeah, I'm really leaning towards making a pepperbox as the first thing you do once you get around third level. I think your GM might also be put off by the double pistol. It seems like one of those weird weapons one would rather not deal with. A pepperbox has six barrels that can be rotated as a free action....wait...no that might not work either? Well, you could still get three shots off in a round (fully loaded, fire, turn, fire, reload the same barrel, fire). With quick draw and a double pistol, you can get up to 5 in a round.
This just further shows that firearms were built around the idea that you can do more than one free action of a type per round. While I could see reloading as a long and complicated action that could be limited, would the same be said about turning a barrel?
Yes RumpnRufus, they CAN. but Gms can also take away feats, say you get ten million skills points, or make magic work like pokemon. That doesnt mean it's a good idea. And the key word 'reasonable' here. ONe is not reasonable.
Well, balance issues aside, I find it silly that reloading an early firearm would ever be a free action - do you know how long it took to reload early guns? You had to load the powder and bullet in separately and then tamp it all down. Cartridges weren't even invented until the 19th century. Personally I think firearms should do more damage and take longer to reload, but that's just my opinion.
Back to the rules, my point was the developers said the number of free actions per turn is limited by the GM. It's not a Rule 0 call like your "ten million skill points", it's something the devs thought was important enough to include in the rules. And as far as "reasonable", from a verisimilitude standpoint it's absolutely reasonable to limit someone to one reload per round. From a game balance standpoint though, it throws things off, which is why I think guns should do more damage.
Does it really make sense to you that someone could muzzle-load a gun 18 times in 6 seconds, like some of the builds that have been posted here have?
Oh god, the horrors this houserule will create.
Thrown weapon builds will not exist.
Players will be unable to speak.
Players will be unable to drop weapons.
Many feats, and class features will not work.
Each player will be forced to odd knee-jerk actions, unable to use things like "tactics" or actions that require common sense, or resemble anything that does not break down the suspension of disbelief, and destroy anything resembling verisimilitude.
In short, batsh*t madness.
That's a little extreme. In one 6-second round, an 11th level paladin with the proper feats could:
Cease Concentration on 'Detect Undead'
Move 5 feet
Attack three times with his main-hand weapon (full attack action)
Attack three times with his off hand weapon (full attack action) (TWF feats)
Heal himself with Lay on Hands (swift action)
Talk once (free action, speaking)
Drop his main hand weapon (free action)
Drop his off hand weapon (free action)
Quickdraw a fresh main-hand weapon (free action)
Quickdraw a fresh off-hand weapon (free action)
Drop prone (free action)
Make multiple attacks of opportunity (interrupt actions) (Combat Reflexes)
Prepare Spell Components for a spell he isn't casting yet (Free action)
Cast Feather Fall (Immediate Action) (Unsanctioned Knowledge)
Per the OP, each of those actions can be taken once. He can't drop/draw an endless stream of weapons, talk multiple times, etc... but all of that would be ok, as each free action is only being taken once. I'm taking the liberty of assuming that each hand is separate, but still, I think this is what we're looking at.
I agree that it would mean that a thrown-weapon build would have issues, as you could throw a weapon, draw a weapon, then throw it, but not draw the third weapon. It also screws over crossbow builds, as they convert move actions to free actions to reload. Depending on how anal the GM is, it could potentially screw archery builds.
I don't feel that a limit of one type of free action is overly restrictive, it's a good 'gut' rule to stop certain sillyness. I'd resolve this problem by going to the GM and saying 'my build relies on free actions to get his iteractive attacks, this is how I want to do it, is that cool?' and not 'hey, are you gonna limit free actions in any way?'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes RumpnRufus, they CAN. but Gms can also take away feats, say you get ten million skills points, or make magic work like pokemon. That doesnt mean it's a good idea. And the key word 'reasonable' here. ONe is not reasonable.Well, balance issues aside, I find it silly that reloading an early firearm would ever be a free action - do you know how long it took to reload early guns? You had to load the powder and bullet in separately and then tamp it all down. Cartridges weren't even invented until the 19th century. Personally I think firearms should do more damage and take longer to reload, but that's just my opinion.
Back to the rules, my point was the developers said the number of free actions per turn is limited by the GM. It's not a Rule 0 call like your "ten million skill points", it's something the devs thought was important enough to include in the rules. And as far as "reasonable", from a verisimilitude standpoint it's absolutely reasonable to limit someone to one reload per round. From a game balance standpoint though, it throws things off, which is why I think guns should do more damage.
Does it really make sense to you that someone could muzzle-load a gun 18 times in 6 seconds, like some of the builds that have been posted here have?
Does it really make sense to you that someone can roll bat feces and sulpher in their hands and throw fire, like some builds posted here? Or, cause lightning to strike targets of their choosing, also as posted recently? Unless you run a zero magic game with only first lv humans, and animals, you're not playing realistically anyway. To use that as a basis for limiting one class and not another is quite inconsistent.
It is a most curious fact that that little bit is only exercised for when a GM wants to nerf something to uselessness without explicitly disallowing it. Oddly enough, most of the time it involves firearms. Of course, the same bit tends to not apply to bows and other things that require multiple free actions to do, like casting most spells. At least this is an interesting take on the restrictive free actions and gets past the "inability to cast spells" issue. Most people just try to say "X number of free actions" to nerf something. But one per "type"? That's innovation right there.
I use it for conversations during battle. After, the first minute of what ever speech they are saying, I tell the players the free speech is at an end...wrap it up or continue it the next round. Really, outside of that, I guess I have been lucky with what players try to do with free actions.
Greg
No, that is when you get a broken hand. A second 1 would have the hand explode (monks are nitro powered, right?)
Well there are ways around this, and at earlier levels there is no difference, but this does leave only very specific ways for a gunslinger to get iteratives. Musket master is out of the running almost entirely. While I can see one justify it because muzzle loading is long (3 shots a minute was considered good for as soldier...but those were never held to high standards anyway) and tedius compared to melee, you must also realize: This game lets you have 40-70 attacks with a melee weapon per minute. That can be a hell of a cardio-workout. Reality is not that deeply tied to a PC's actions.
"Why didn't you tell me there was a goblin back there?"
"I was out of free actions."
How would this actually work in play? If you're in combat, then everyone has 360-degree vision, so the mystery goblin must be stealthing or invisible in some way, and then one person sees the goblin, but others don't?
If you've already spoken this turn, maybe you don't have time to say 'Hey, there's a goblin behind you!' since in a given 6-second period of strenuous, stressful activity there's only so much you can say.
If everyone who sees the goblin has already spoken, then maybe the goblin successfully sneak attacks you. If you can see a goblin and don't warn people about it, what *did* you spend your free action to speak on?
|
|
"Why didn't you tell me there was a goblin back there?"
"I was out of free actions."How would this actually work in play? If you're in combat, then everyone has 360-degree vision, so the mystery goblin must be stealthing or invisible in some way, and then one person sees the goblin, but others don't?
If you've already spoken this turn, maybe you don't have time to say 'Hey, there's a goblin behind you!' since in a given 6-second period of strenuous, stressful activity there's only so much you can say.
If everyone who sees the goblin has already spoken, then maybe the goblin successfully sneak attacks you. If you can see a goblin and don't warn people about it, what *did* you spend your free action to speak on?
Really?
You support this?
I *can* support it, obviously.
Again, the GM appears to be trying to codify a 'reasonable' limit on free actions. Now, I'd be the type to say this is something you shouldn't codify, but instead should 'be reasonable' about.
I'm just pointing out that if the GM uses 'speaking as a free action is limited to once per 6 seconds' as a way to transmit tactical data to your compatriots, then it's just another action resource.
Considering most tables I've observed or played at or GM'd have had a wizard discuss tactics for 30-60 seconds per round on positioning, I can see this GM's frustration with that and wanting to limit it. I've had other GMs put a 6-second timer on a clock and when it runs out you stop talking, whcih seems *less* reasonable to me than this.
In the end, though I appreciate the GM's effort to codify a rule, the reality is he should codify a guideline and then use reasonable analysis to break the guideline when necessary. Possibly including being able to shout a brief warning despite having already spoken this round.
I *can* support it, obviously.
Again, the GM appears to be trying to codify a 'reasonable' limit on free actions. Now, I'd be the type to say this is something you shouldn't codify, but instead should 'be reasonable' about.
You support limiting archers to 1 arrow/rd (drawing the arrow is a free action)?
Gunslingers using a Pistol and Deadshot Deed are the most viable option.
Especially if you can get a Pistol of the Infinite Sky from Ultimate Equipment.
I typically limit Free Actions to 7 or 10.
BTW:
A trained soldier and a Trained Gunman are different.
Cartridges were used well before firearms became Mass Produced.
And finally, a skilled swordsman can swing a Bastard Sword used in 2-Hands 5-7 times in 6-7 seconds.
You support limiting archers to 1 arrow/rd (drawing the arrow is a free action)?I *can* support it, obviously.
Again, the GM appears to be trying to codify a 'reasonable' limit on free actions. Now, I'd be the type to say this is something you shouldn't codify, but instead should 'be reasonable' about.
I already pointed out that depending on how anal the GM was, and what level of 'realism' he was going for, that the ruling as stated screwed Thrown weapon builds and crossbow builds, and might screw archery builds.
Which is why I stated that I understand the GM's concept with the ruling, and that instead of playing games with free actions, you should just point to the GM and say 'My build relies of free actions for my iterative attacks, is that ok, or are they limited too?'
As to my opinion, I think that it's reasonable for any build to get as many attacks per round as TWF melee build can get, BUT I can see a GM making a rule to limit ranged combat as an acceptable house ruling. I wouldn't do it, but I can understand why one might.
