Just ban weapon cords, for pity's sake

[pH unbalanced]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Todd Lower wrote:

Weapon cord does seem like a good use for a grappler build though. I don't have a better solution for this issue, sorry.

Well, we're in a fantasy environment. How about a spell that summons an adjacent weapon to the caster's free hand on a command word? (Casting the spell is a standard action; triggering the effect is a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.) It should be 3rd level or below, to allow non-casters to anoit their weapons with it as an oil.

So something like the 1st level spell Call Weapon.

Call Weapon:

You cause a weapon wielded by an ally within 30 feet to telekinetically fly across the space between you and into your open hand. This extra energy persists in the weapon for the rest of the round, granting you a +2 circumstance bonus on attack rolls and weapon damage rolls made during the same round you cast this spell.

If the ally targeted for this spell is unwilling to give up her weapon, the spell fails. An unconscious or dying ally is considered a “willing” target so long as the weapon to be called is still in contact with the ally’s body.

[CRobledo]

I am still in the camp that reversing MB's ruling on reloading with weapon cords on is still only tackling part of the problem.

Gunslinger reloading cheese is not the only way a 0.5 gold item does affect action economy negatively. I have also seen:

Wizards (and FAMILIARS) with weapon cords on wands so they can switch between wands faster than intended. (2 wands on weapon cords, 2 wands on Spring loaded wrist sheathes).

I have also had casters attach metamagic rods or staves to weapon cords, so they can move, "draw" the metamagic rod and cast on the same turn. Or to get around the "free hand" requirement.

So yes, gunslinger reloading is the most prevalent issue, but not the only issue.

Whether or not my examples above are disruptive or not is a different issue, but just bringing up other uses I have seen.

[Bill Dunn]

CRobledo wrote:

Gunslinger reloading cheese is not the only way a 0.5 gold item does affect action economy negatively. I have also seen:

Wizards (and FAMILIARS) with weapon cords on wands so they can switch between wands faster than intended. (2 wands on weapon cords, 2 wands on Spring loaded wrist sheathes).

I have also had casters attach metamagic rods or staves to weapon cords, so they can move, "draw" the metamagic rod and cast on the same turn. Or to get around the "free hand" requirement.

I think if player tried this in any of the games I play in, we'd tell him it was ridiculous. After all, here's a caster basically tying a wind chimes-like apparatus to his arms to cheese having something akin to a glove of storing for super cheap.

Weapon cords look like chopping block material to me...

[Drogon]

CRobledo's stories are the tip of the iceberg, I'd be willing to bet. Guess I'll just keep beating the "BAN IT" drum...

[Azothath]

CRobledo wrote:

I am still in the camp that reversing MB's ruling on reloading with weapon cords on is still only tackling part of the problem.

Gunslinger reloading cheese is not the only way a 0.5 gold item does affect action economy negatively. I have also seen:

Wizards (and FAMILIARS) with weapon cords on wands so they can switch between wands faster than intended. (2 wands on weapon cords, 2 wands on Spring loaded wrist sheathes).

I have also had casters attach metamagic rods or staves to weapon cords, so they can move, "draw" the metamagic rod and cast on the same turn. Or to get around the "free hand" requirement.

So yes, gunslinger reloading is the most prevalent issue, but not the only issue.

Whether or not my examples above are disruptive or not is a different issue, but just bringing up other uses I have seen.

I don't have a problem with 2 weapon sheaths and 2 wands on weapon cords... PC's can do it. How it actually works (differs from their expectations) is a different matter.

Letting the caster have a weapon corded wand and use another wand in the same hand violates the "cannot use another weapon" (in the weapon corded hand) of weapon cords. Wands count as weapons for provoking and drawing(mostly), and I'm not aware that there is a ruling allowing wands to be used in an already weapon corded hand (to another weapon).

Drawing a metamagic rod/staff/wand as a swift action that provokes is part and parcel of the weapon cord. I'm still wondering where they sheath their quarterstaff, but okay.

I'm going to mention that anytime someone climbs or swims they tend to fully extend their limbs which is going to unsheath the weapon corded weapon as that's more than 2ft reach.

[Gwen Smith]

CRobledo wrote:

I am still in the camp that reversing MB's ruling on reloading with weapon cords on is still only tackling part of the problem.

Gunslinger reloading cheese is not the only way a 0.5 gold item does affect action economy negatively. I have also seen:

Wizards (and FAMILIARS) with weapon cords on wands so they can switch between wands faster than intended. (2 wands on weapon cords, 2 wands on Spring loaded wrist sheathes).

I have also had casters attach metamagic rods or staves to weapon cords, so they can move, "draw" the metamagic rod and cast on the same turn. Or to get around the "free hand" requirement.

So yes, gunslinger reloading is the most prevalent issue, but not the only issue.

Whether or not my examples above are disruptive or not is a different issue, but just bringing up other uses I have seen.

I've seen the weapon cords on wands for buff wands, where the character used it once and then left it dangling for the rest of the combat. One player had a melee character who dropped the buff wands on the ground and go back at the end of combat and pick them up. I actually suggested the player get a get a weapon cord so they didn't have to worry about losing the wand. Little did I know I was breaking the game. At the time, it seemed like an inventive solution to the current situation. Sorry!

It seems pretty logical that you can only have one cord on each hand for the swift action recovery mechanic. Since it takes a full round to change the weapon in a weapon cord, I would interpret that to mean you can't have two weapons/wands dangling from a single arm and choose to recover one as a swift action.

That clarification wouldn't solve the "cycle through 7 wands and let them all dangle without trying to recover any of them", though. In theory, wealth by level should solve that, but maybe wands are just so cheap that wearing them as a kilt is a perfectly feasible fashion choice...

[Relixander]

Why not simply call reloading a gun a "fine" action, thus weapon cords can not be "in use" (i.e. weapon dangling) while you reload a gun.

"... Unlike a locked gauntlet, you can still use a hand with a weapon cord, though a dangling weapon may interfere with finer actions."

I have made this ruling in home games for a while now. Just like I have ruled weapon cords interfere with spell casting with somatic components (although I have only ever seen one spell caster using weapon cords).

Disarm builds are not invalidated by weapon cords, they make it more difficult because now you must work in a sunder or *gasp* rely on a group member for something (like a sunder...)

Although a straight up ban would discourage table variation, so in that way I think a ban is better for the rule set/campaign. I do think the problem could be fixed simply by calling out certain things as "finer" actions. The "out" for reloading cheese and some caster cheese is to enforce the "finer actions" portion of weapon cords.

[El Baron de los Banditos]

Brett Cochran wrote:

Why not simply call reloading a gun a "fine" action, thus weapon cords can not be "in use" (i.e. weapon dangling) while you reload a gun.

Michael Brock wrote:

Folks, I'm not writing or changing rules with how TWF works or what kind of action it takes to reload or to change the cost of something that is already printed. That is the responsibility of the rules team through errata. If you wish to discuss those things, please take that to the rules forum.

[Chris Mortika]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Well, we're in a fantasy environment. How about a spell that summons an adjacent weapon to the caster's free hand on a command word? (Casting the spell is a standard action; triggering the effect is a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.) It should be 3rd level or below, to allow non-casters to anoit their weapons with it as an oil.

pH unbalanced wrote:

So something like the 1st level spell Call Weapon.

Except for the target (unattended weapon vs. ally's weapon), range (weapon touched vs. short range), that bonus to attack for call weapon and the trigger being a swift action ... pretty much.

[Azothath]

Dorothy Lindman wrote:

I've seen the weapon cords on wands for buff wands, where the character used it once and then left it dangling for the rest of the combat. One player had a melee character who dropped the buff wands on the ground and go back at the end of combat and pick them up. I actually suggested the player get a get a weapon cord so they didn't have to worry about losing the wand. Little did I know I was breaking the game. At the time, it seemed like an inventive solution to the current situation. Sorry!

It seems pretty logical that you can only have one cord on each hand for the swift action recovery mechanic. Since it takes a full round to change the weapon in a weapon cord, I would interpret that to mean you can't have two weapons/wands dangling from a single arm and choose to recover one as a swift action.

That clarification wouldn't solve the "cycle through 7 wands and let them all dangle without trying to recover any of them", though. In theory, wealth by level should solve that, but maybe wands are just so cheap that wearing them as a kilt is a perfectly feasible fashion choice...

you gave what you thought was a good solution - which was a good thing.

Yes - there is an impact of having the weapon cord tied to a "weapon" on your wrist.
See my thoughts above about having 2 weapon cords on a wrist.

I'd mention I have a wizard with 14 wands on strings that hang from his belt (I spent the gold for the string, sticks are free{tiny staves} and I have craft sculpting, they can't be used for weapons so there's no custom crafting (lol)). I spend a Move action to draw one, and drop it for free when I'm done, nothing too exciting there. 7 of the wands are actual wands, the other 7 are pretty painted and carved sticks <evil grin>. I do this to confuse thieves and people that tend to get grabby with other people's stuff. *Amazingly* no one has tried to steal one yet. The only mechanic they violate is that when I drop them they don't stay in the square where I drop them. If a GM balks I'd be fine with saying "I sheath the wand". This is the only one of 10 or so wizards I have designed as he is a fake "evoker" (actually a diviner) and has more combat cheese than usual. I do try to provide flavor (and a bit of humor) and stay within the rules as most people know them. If a GM has a problem and I think it'll still be fun I'll try another character, otherwise there's no shame in saying "have a good game" and find another table.

[Harley Quinn X]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

Well, we're in a fantasy environment. How about a spell that summons an adjacent weapon to the caster's free hand on a command word? (Casting the spell is a standard action; triggering the effect is a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.) It should be 3rd level or below, to allow non-casters to anoit their weapons with it as an oil.

pH unbalanced wrote:

So something like the 1st level spell Call Weapon.

Except for the target (unattended weapon vs. ally's weapon), range (weapon touched vs. short range), that bonus to attack for call weapon and the trigger being a swift action ... pretty much.

There's the Called weapon enchantment, which weapon cords essentially remove the need for. Even if they do remove Weapon Cords, Gunslingers can still do what they were doing for about 6000 gold pieces, assuming they got it right after their initial +1 bonus. At high levels that won't matter too much but would limit the low level "slingery".

Called weapon enchantment wrote:

CALLED PRICE

+1 BONUS
AURA moderate conjuration CL 9th WEIGHT —
A called weapon can be teleported to the wielder’s hand as
a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity,
even if the weapon is in the possession of another creature.
This ability has a maximum range of 100 feet, and effects that
block teleportation prevent the return of a called weapon. A
called weapon must be in a creature’s possession for at least
24 hours for this ability to function.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS COST +1 bonus
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, teleport

[trollbill]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Yes but its one of those ugly troll like babies you don't really want to keep anyway

Now that right there is just plain racists.

[Matthew Trent]

I have a philosophy on banning things. Firstly it has to be sufficiently good to imbalance the environment such that alternatives are not being allowed to exist.

PFS has actually got a very easy way to see if this is true. Just look at the number of new gunslingers being registered. If recent trends show a spike in gunslinging (especially among new characters) then clearly something is wrong. If they don't then its likely the internet is just panicking about nothing.

My second rule of banning things is to ban hard. If as others have suggested a the same build continues to work without weapon cords at a significant effect than more than weapon cords need to be banned. Nothing is worse that banning a thing and then not solving the problem. I suggest that the entire archetype be banned along with weapon cords and any feets that enable it. Better to hit a few collateral builds than to leave a banned build dominating.

As an example my home game has been having issues with animal companions completly dominating. In order to fix this percived problem I will ban animal companions, improved famialrs, synthesists, alternate cavalier mounts and the Leadership feat on the next game I run with this crew.

[John Compton]

First off, hey, I'm keeping up with various thoughts and comments. I'd rather wait on commenting about too much until I've had a chance to discuss the matters with Mike and one or more members of the design team.

Just a quick single response to a particular point:

Matthew Trent wrote:

PFS has actually got a very easy way to see if this is true. Just look at the number of new gunslingers being registered. If recent trends show a spike in gunslinging (especially among new characters) then clearly something is wrong. If they don't then its likely the internet is just panicking about nothing.

Unfortunately, that's not something I believe we can do. Remember that a character's tracking information is limited to name, faction, PFS #, and Prestige Points earned. We recently also added the check boxes in Season 5 scenarios and the "mission success" reporting checkbox on one or two Season 4 scenarios. However, at no point are players required to register their characters' classes. Some folks are kind enough to update that in their profiles, but I don't imagine that it's perfectly representative of the player base as a whole.

[Matthew Trent]

Doh. I forgot that that's not part of the required registration info. And I just registered three new characters even.

Too bad. It would help a bit.

[RainyDayNinja]

I vote for the idea of simply ruling that having a weapon cord attached to your arm prevents you from using it for reloading. That would limit the gunslinger cheese while still allowing other uses (like the sword-and-board paladin who needs to Lay on Hands).

[David Bowles]

If this gets banned, at least let pallies switch out their shields for free. Because at the time of character concept creation, this banning wasn't even on the radar.

[Wraith235]

RainyDayNinja wrote:

I vote for the idea of simply ruling that having a weapon cord attached to your arm prevents you from using it for reloading. That would limit the gunslinger cheese while still allowing other uses (like the sword-and-board paladin who needs to Lay on Hands).

the cheese would still be present unfortunatly

Tieflings w/ tails
Witches with hair
Monkey Belt
Gloves of Storing
Alchemists w/ a 3rd Arm

[Arassuil]

Wraith235 wrote:

the cheese would still be present unfortunatly

Tieflings w/ tails
Witches with hair
Monkey Belt
Gloves of Storing
Alchemists w/ a 3rd Arm

Prehensile Tail wrote:

Prehensile Tail Many tieflings have tails, but some have long, flexible tails that can be used to carry items. While they cannot wield weapons with their tails, they can use them to retrieve small, stowed objects carried on their persons as a swift action. This racial trait replaces fiendish sorcery.

I'd say that Tieflings with Prehensile Tails are still subject to GM interpretation, since "small, stowed objects" aren't defined as far as I know.

My PFS Tiefling Barbarian/Monk has a Prehensile Tail, and I try to ask the GM what I can do with it. Usually Potions/Wands are ok, even pulling out slings. Firearms, I'd think, vary from GM to GM.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

All of which are much more expensive an option than a 1sp piece of string.

[GreySector]

Matthew Trent wrote:

As an example my home game has been having issues with animal companions completly dominating. In order to fix this percived problem I will ban animal companions, improved famialrs, synthesists, alternate cavalier mounts and the Leadership feat on the next game I run with this crew.

That seems very heavy-handed to me. A very "take off and nuke the entire site from orbit' approach. I personally prefer my solutions to be a bit more surgical.

For your home game, I would suggest talking to the offending players and asking them to tone it down rather than smacking everybody with the banhammer.

For PFS, I advocate recinding the ruling that allows a hand attached to a weapon cord to be used for reloading (as several other people have mentioned and advocated). Sure, it leaves other ways to do it, but those other ways involve significant costs (either in gold or feats) rather than the simple investment in weapon cords. I would be against banning weapon cords altogether.

[godsDMit]

Michael Eshleman wrote:

A very "take off and nuke the entire site from orbit' approach.

It's the only way to be sure. ;)

[Jiggy]

Count me in for "retract the previous PFS-specific ruling that reloading isn't hindered by weapon cords". It's fast (no waiting for errata), it has no side effects, it's not changing existing rules (just retracting a messageboard clarification that was already PFS-specific to begin with), and we can always give it time and do more later if need be. Perfect first step.

[Wraith235]

Witches w/ Tails and Alchemists w/ 3rd arms dont take feats ... one is a class feature and another is a discovery

Gloves of Storing are 10k
Monkey Belt is 9400

and neither address the Travesty that is the Free Action FAQ Ruling

of course I suppose nothing will address that now that it exists

and I understand they are much more expensive than a piece of lether but as has been said before ... banning weapon cords does nothing to the overall problem it puts a bandaid on the skin where an Artery has been punctured ...

Id be more in favor of banning Double barreled pistols

[Lormyr]

Jiggy wrote:

Count me in for "retract the previous PFS-specific ruling that reloading isn't hindered by weapon cords". It's fast (no waiting for errata), it has no side effects, it's not changing existing rules (just retracting a messageboard clarification that was already PFS-specific to begin with), and we can always give it time and do more later if need be. Perfect first step.

If this is a possible solution from Mike and John's perspective, I think it is the least obtrusive of the reasonable options. So I'll second that vote.

[cartmanbeck]

Lormyr wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Count me in for "retract the previous PFS-specific ruling that reloading isn't hindered by weapon cords". It's fast (no waiting for errata), it has no side effects, it's not changing existing rules (just retracting a messageboard clarification that was already PFS-specific to begin with), and we can always give it time and do more later if need be. Perfect first step.

If this is a possible solution from Mike and John's perspective, I think it is the least obtrusive of the reasonable options. So I'll second that vote.

Agreed. Having a pistol hanging from your arm should be significant enough hindrance to loading the other pistol that it would at least make it take some type of action (Swift? Move?), and no longer be a free action.

[Matthew Trent]

Michael Eshleman wrote:

That seems very heavy-handed to me. A very "take off and nuke the entire site from orbit' approach. I personally prefer my solutions to be a bit more surgical.

I hope that works for you. Much of my philosophy is based on my background with competitive TCGs where bannings are a big deal. I'll refer you to this article for greater elaborations.

[Finlanderboy]

I am all about disallowing andlimiting things from books as the books get published.

Although banning what is already allowed is a different thing. Now bannign things because they are too powerful I actually find ridiculous. There are SOOOO many other powerful builds why pick that one? So as I was told by Mr compton that heavens oracle and crane style are over powered. Why hate on the gunslinger only?

Taking away what has already been given breeds resentment. I have recently seen people complain about the ban on non-gunsliger gun classes. To me since I feel the staff made a choice in the beggining and are now revoking it make the decion proccess look poor.

In this game people are trying to fulfill a fantasy. They want to be the gun flipping sharp shooter, go ahead. Why nerf it to the point a bow makes them look sad.

Playing a gunslinger that kills everything with weapon cords and reloading in the first round is no different than any other powered build killign things in the first round. If that is your problem removing one of the 80 options for it will not fix your problem. Just upset the good people that use it fairly. The people looking to exploit the game will find another way.

[Jander Reiss]

What if we just change the description of weapon cords so that they can only be used on melee weapons? That would solve the gunslinger issue, and not penalize clerics. Maybe Kyra can finally pick up that shield!

[DM Beckett]

Having listened to and considered all the arguments, I'm of the opinion that banning the Weapon Cord probably isn't the rout to go. It seems odd that an item called out in the PFS Survival 101 article would become banned, but it generally isn't (in my experience) a big deal normally.

Weapon Cord:

Weapon Cord (1 sp): Cheap as dirt and twice as useful! If you are disarmed or drop your weapon, it never moves farther away from you than an adjacent square and you can recover it as a swift action. The caveat is you cannot wield another weapon with the same hand the cord is tied to, and removing the cord is either a full-round action (untying) or move action (cutting). Great for archers who never want to be separated from their bows.

Generally Gunslingers are their own issue, and I just don't see the Weapon Cord having any affect at all one the reason so many people complain about that class. But at the same time, it's really nifty for a lot of other things, but I wouldn't say broken.

I have a character that keeps a wand of CLW and a scroll of Breath of Life in the Cord & Sheath because at least for the wand I have had a few times when if I had had to pull it out as a move action, I could either then move or use the want and wait until next round to touch and another player would have died by that time. Same deal with Breath of Life, if you are not basically right next to them, it's useless.

Now, that said, absolutely limiting it to one such item per arm, and not allowing that hand to be used for much else besides reclaiming your weapon seems both perfectly fine and perfectly in line with what I feel it was intended for the whole time.

I'm not really sure I so much see the issue with Disarming. If you Disarm an item attached to a Weapon Cord, I do not see anything that says that the character Disarming (assuming an open hand, ie not using a greatsword) would not still the item. What's worse is that now the character that was just disarmed is partially effectively tied to the character that just ganked them, and might be in for a lot of trouble if they don't have a way to attack without drawing an AoO. They can choose to make the Move Action to break it, which probably draws an AoO itself), so it actually sounds like a pretty amazing tactic for Disarming foes. Sundering, well yes it either does add in a new ting to need to Sunder, or once again is actually a really, really bad thing for the character that just had their weapon Sundered, but it is still tied to them and that means that not only do they need to try to draw another weapon now, but they first need to get rid of the one tied to them and can't until that happens. So, realistically, that sort of sounds like the Weapon Cord already has a bunch of built in down sides, they just don't really jump out at you, and might be easy for DM's to miss with so much going on.

Just my thoughts.

[David Bowles]

Heaven's oracles do need the ban hammer, imo. Especially when they won't stop hitting their own group.

[Arutema]

David Bowles wrote:

Heaven's oracles do need the ban hammer, imo. Especially when they won't stop hitting their own group.

Not wanting to stray too far off topic, but if any character is hitting his own group with AOE effects without permission from all players in the affected area, then he is in violation of the "no PVP" rule and should be removed from the campaign.

[Kyle Baird]

TL;DR

Probably Dumb Question #1: If I have a longsword attached to a weapon cord, and drop it, and then draw a new longsword with the same hand, is it possible to attack? Is there some associated penalty for having a 4-lb. oddly shaped object dangling from my arm?

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Kyle Baird wrote:

TL;DR

Probably Dumb Question #1: If I have a longsword attached to a weapon cord, and drop it, and then draw a new longsword with the same hand, is it possible to attack? Is there some associated penalty for having a 4-lb. oddly shaped object dangling from my arm?

The description of the weapon cord says you cannot wield another weapon in that hand.

PRD: APG: Gear wrote:

Weapon Cord: Weapon cords are 2-foot-long leather straps that attach your weapon to your wrist. If you drop your weapon or are disarmed, you can recover it as a swift action, and it never moves any further away from you than an adjacent square. However, you cannot switch to a different weapon without first untying the cord (a full-round action) or cutting it (a move action or an attack, hardness 0, 0 hp). Unlike a locked gauntlet, you can still use a hand with a weapon cord, though a dangling weapon may interfere with finer actions.

[DM Beckett]

No, you may not. Not with that hand at least, or without first removing the Weapon Cord.

Weapon Cord, Ult Equip:

Weapon Cord Price 1 sp
Weight —
Weapon cords are 2-foot-long leather straps that attach your weapon to your wrist. If you drop your weapon or are disarmed, you can recover it as a swift action, and it never moves any farther away from you than an adjacent square. However, you cannot switch to a different weapon without first untying the cord (a full-round action) or cutting it (a move action or an attack, hardness 0, 0 hit points). Unlike with a locked gauntlet, you can still use a hand with a weapon cord, though a dangling weapon may interfere with finer actions.

or

Adv Armory:

Weapon Cord: Weapon cords are leather straps that
attach your weapon to your wrist, typically about 2 feet long. If you drop your weapon or are disarmed, you can recover it as a swift action, and it never moves any further away from you than an adjacent square. However, you cannot switch to a different weapon without first untying the cord (a full-round action) or cutting it (a move action or an attack, hardness 0, 0 hp).

[James Risner]

DM Beckett wrote:

No, you may not. Not with that hand at least, or without first removing the Weapon Cord.

To be clear, not everyone shares the opinion that you can't have 100 weapon cords hanging off your one hand.

[thejeff]

James Risner wrote:

DM Beckett wrote:

No, you may not. Not with that hand at least, or without first removing the Weapon Cord.

To be clear, not everyone shares the opinion that you can't have 100 weapon cords hanging off your one hand.

Everyone is entitled to their own wrong opinion.

Or more specifically, since this is PFS, I wouldn't count on it.

[pH unbalanced]

Wraith235 wrote:

RainyDayNinja wrote:

I vote for the idea of simply ruling that having a weapon cord attached to your arm prevents you from using it for reloading. That would limit the gunslinger cheese while still allowing other uses (like the sword-and-board paladin who needs to Lay on Hands).

the cheese would still be present unfortunatly

Witches with hair

As much as I love the Prehensile Hair hex, it has one serious drawback -- it's only useable 1 min/lvl per day, taken in one minute increments. Which means unless a gunslinger is doing more than dipping into Witch, she will only be able to use this trick for one or two combats a day. That doesn't seem overpowered to me.

[Drogon]

James Risner wrote:

DM Beckett wrote:

No, you may not. Not with that hand at least, or without first removing the Weapon Cord.

To be clear, not everyone shares the opinion that you can't have 100 weapon cords hanging off your one hand.

I think James is secretly a saboteur on the side of banning the weapon cord. He seems to be on the side that wants to keep them, but he keeps on pointing out how ridiculous they can be so that Mike's and/or John's head explodes roughly every 40th post.

Keep up the good work, James. (-;

[James Risner]

Drogon wrote:

I think James is secretly a saboteur on the side of banning the weapon cord.

I'll be clear. I think they should be banned.

But I strongly disagree that anything inside the item limits it in any way that is indicated above. I don't see anything that limits you from having 2 weapon cords on your hand and switching between them.

This means that at any table I'm running, I'll allow multiple cords on one hand and switching between them with a swift. I'll do so believing I'm following RAW. At least until I see a FAQ, banning, or PFS FAQ saying otherwise.

[Drogon]

Ah. Fascinating what reading words on a computer screen does to tone. All this time I figured you were saying, "Don't ban! Look how cool!" Thanks for pointing out (once again) how silly my assumptions of other peoples' stances can be.

[Jiggy]

James Risner wrote:

Drogon wrote:

I think James is secretly a saboteur on the side of banning the weapon cord.

I'll be clear. I think they should be banned.

But I strongly disagree that anything inside the item limits it in any way that is indicated above. I don't see anything that limits you from having 2 weapon cords on your hand and switching between them.

This means that at any table I'm running, I'll allow multiple cords on one hand and switching between them with a swift. I'll do so believing I'm following RAW. At least until I see a FAQ, banning, or PFS FAQ saying otherwise.

Interesting. I presume your reasoning is that when the item's description talks about "switch to a different weapon", that it means attaching that individual weapon cord to a different weapon than it was already attached to?

I'm curious how it could be interpreted that way when one of the written solutions to the prevention of "switching weapons" is to cut the cord.

[DM Beckett]

James Risner wrote:

DM Beckett wrote:

No, you may not. Not with that hand at least, or without first removing the Weapon Cord.

To be clear, not everyone shares the opinion that you can't have 100 weapon cords hanging off your one hand.

Heck, I agree with that too. :) That however, does not mean you can draw (or use for that matter) any of those weapons attached to any of those 100 Weapon Cords attached to your one hand if you are disarmed or have dropped any one that is also attached to that one hand.

:)

You can draw a wand, but it's completely up to the DM if that constitutes finer actions or not, and if the wand requires a touch or ranged touch attack, well then it's a weapon, so nogo at that station. Or are you referring to something else?

[Hayato Ken]

I vote for changing Mike´s ruling for reloading with weapon cords.
Something dangling on your arm always hinders you.
Also weapon cords should be restricted to one on each arm.
Or at least penalties should be cumulative.

But i have to say one thing. This whole debate here falls under one rule for me: "Don´t be a jerk".

It´s just the same amount of cheese and dickness that already made it necessary to install the new play up rules and some other stuff.
This seems to me as an american problem and also a bit hysteric.

As GM´s you are free to send players which such abusive builds away.
Perhaps you start to be a bit more restrictive within your means?
One hears a lot of tales about some people being such great GM´s and so system-mastery-full and deadly. Why whine about such things then?
Seems a bit off.

Are your people there so sensitive over their powergaing builds and cheese?

[David Bowles]

How do these gunslingers take all these shots without misfiring anyway? Or is that rule just forgotten in the flurry of die rolls?

[Chris Mortika]

Benjamin Falk wrote:

As GM´s you are free to send players which such abusive builds away.

In private PFS games, yes. Not so much at conventions or store games, Benjamin, not if it's a legal build.

Nobody's compelling a GM to fulfill his commitments, so you can just refuse to run a table if so-and-so is running his Gunslinger, 'cause you don't like the build. But so-and-so might have paid money to come to the con and sit at your table, and you might be the only GM willing to take that stand.

[Drogon]

Benjamin Falk wrote:

Are your people there so sensitive over their powergaing builds and cheese?

Yes. Yes, they are.

Interesting thing, though: most of the players who fall into this category will simply shrug their shoulders when the tool they used to break the game gets banned. They may complain a little bit, but they eventually start looking around for the NEXT tool that will allow wide open breakage. It is how they derive fun from the game. I see it all the time in Magic (well, "all the time" being relative; I've been playing/judging Magic 20 years and have seen a lot of bannings - they don't happen willy-nilly the way my statement may lead you to believe).

But, seriously, I think you'd be surprised how upset people get when you use the simple phrase, "You can't do that," at the table.

[Drogon]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Benjamin Falk wrote:

As GM´s you are free to send players which such abusive builds away.

In private PFS games, yes. Not so much at conventions or store games, Benjamin, not if it's a legal build.

Nobody's compelling a GM to fulfill his commitments, so you can just refuse to run a table if so-and-so is running his Gunslinger, 'cause you don't like the build. But so-and-so might have paid money to come to the con and sit at your table, and you might be the only GM willing to take that stand.

And then you're the jerk who walked away from the table and let those guys who paid money sit there and do nothing. You will not be well loved when you take those kinds of stances. Not at all.

[Drogon]

David Bowles wrote:

How do these gunslingers take all these shots without misfiring anyway? Or is that rule just forgotten in the flurry of die rolls?

The right selection of feats, class skills, and usage of grit will make you misfire only on a 1. And then you can usually clear it with ease due to other feats, class skills or usage of grit.