|
....
I'm curious to know how many people have enjoyed themselves at a table where players were rolling 5+ attack rolls every turn? I'm sure there's some cases where the player is prepared, prerolls because the GM trusts them, etc. But is that the norm? What about for a wildshaped pouncing druid with a pouncing animal companion. That's like 8+ attack rolls. At what point does it slow the game down enough that it becomes not fun for the majority of the table (GM included)?....
As I understand it, Master Summoner got banned because it took too much time for a person to take their turn and was very complicated to experience, and cut back on other character fun.
For an experience gunslinger, and I have played with one, the rolls happen a lot together with colored D20 and same colored damage dice, and doesn't take that long - but he is not a mega-shooter - I think he shoots only 4-5 times a round.
It does sound like the double barreled pistol is more the issue than weapon cords - and banning them hurts fewer characters than banning weapon cords. If that doesn't solve the problem, one can always ban weapon cords later.
At least at my table, if you roll an attack, you've committed your character to take the swing / shot. So, if you roll 6 attacks, and the second one's a misfire, then you're still shooting with the clogged firearm.
On a tangent, as someone with a little knowledge about how early firearms work, there really should be no way of reloading and firing a muzzle loader, pistol or musket, without clearing the weapon first.
If a muzzle loader jams, it means the bullet is stuck in the barrel. Maybe the powder did not fully ignite, or the bullet was improperly shaped and it got wedged, whatever.
If you try and reload the weapon without clearing it, all that happens is that the new powder charge and bullet get wedged in FRONT of the old bullet, and at worst... the weapon simply won't fire. The old bullet will prevent the primer charge from igniting the new powder charge. It certainly won't 'explode'.
I chalk it up to the firearms rules authors perhaps not knowing their early firearms, perhaps confusing them with modern breech-loading weapons where you CAN sometimes reload and fire a round in a jammed weapon.
Then again, clearing jams and misfires in a muzzle loader should really take a lot longer than it does. In real life, clearing a stuck bullet from an early firearm can sometimes take hours.
-j
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off, I don't think Weapon Cords should be banned. They made it through two rounds of designer scrutiny and emerged intact and unchanged (AA and UE). If there is a problem with abuse, it's not the cord's fault, it's the combination it's used with's fault.
Secondly, the idea that "This is PFS, we can't do house rules" is hogwash. There is a huge list of "Additional Resources" that can be used in PFS, and conversely anything NOT on that list can't, and this constitutes a giant pile of house rules. Not only that, the boards have a metric crap-ton of "clarifications" on rulings that are essentially the same thing. I know Mr Brock has said we ain't changing the rules, so don't suggest fixes that require a rule change, and I respect that. But the whole idea of "no house rules in PFS" is bunk.
Thirdly, a Weapon Cord does NOT replace a feat (Quick Draw). Not even close, so quit using that arguement in your Cord-Discord arguements.
Fourthly, a Weapon Cord does NOT do the job of a Glove of Storing. The glove keeps an item in an extra-dimentional/non-dimensional space, where not only is it safe from any and all environmental effects, it's also 100% undetectable. What's he got in his glove? A scroll of Breath of Life? A lit torch? A bouquet of roses? Who knows?? Also, accessing the item in a GoS is a free action, not a swift action. You can access it as many times per round you want (assuming you had a reason). You can access it and still have your swift action for the round (Hello Quicken Spell!), which seems to make this a must-have for Magi. It's WAAAAYYYY better than a Weapon Cord, with zero of the drawbacks. There is no comparison.
Fifthly, it's a common sense item that should not be banned because it has multiple legitimate uses that have nothing to do with gunslinger cheese. Both of my main PFS characters have one, because both are weapon/heavy shield casters. Without it, they would be massively penalized, mainly because of the apparant lack of love for the sword'n'board fighting style. No one should ever fear losing their prized magic weapon because they are in a water-themed or airborne adventure either. Disarms aren't the only thing that can make you drop your weapon, and dropping your weapon when on a bridge over a chasm, or while swimming, or flying at high altitudes means a massive wealth dump. "Yeah man, sorry you lost your 18,000+gp blade because you got stunned while swimming in the ocean. Better luck next time I guess."
Finally, instead of just griping, I'll contribute my option toward a solution. The item description clearly states that having a weapon dangling from a cord "might interfere with finer actions". Clarifying this statement to better define "finer actions" A) changes no RAW and B) falls right in line with many of the message board clarifications that already exist. Instead of lobbying to ban the cords, working together to make a list of PFS "finer actions" would be a better use of our efforts.
In my opinion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fourthly, a Weapon Cord does NOT do the job of a Glove of Storing. The glove keeps an item in an extra-dimentional/non-dimensional space, where not only is it safe from any and all environmental effects, it's also 100% undetectable. What's he got in his glove? A scroll of Breath of Life? A lit torch? A bouquet of roses? Who knows?? Also, accessing the item in a GoS is a free action, not a swift action. You can access it as many times per round you want (assuming you had a reason). You can access it and still have your swift action for the round (Hello Quicken Spell!), which seems to make this a must-have for Magi. It's WAAAAYYYY better than a Weapon Cord, with zero of the drawbacks. There is no comparison.
Subject to table variation. Also, don't try to talk while retrieving it.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Secondly, the idea that "This is PFS, we can't do house rules" is hogwash. There is a huge list of "Additional Resources" that can be used in PFS, and conversely anything NOT on that list can't, and this constitutes a giant pile of house rules. Not only that, the boards have a metric crap-ton of "clarifications" on rulings that are essentially the same thing. I know Mr Brock has said we ain't changing the rules, so don't suggest fixes that require a rule change, and I respect that. But the whole idea of "no house rules in PFS" is bunk.
Now, how did I know that would come up? (-;
You're correct: PFS is loaded with house rules, all on that list. But the "house rules" consist of a single statement that is easy to administer: You can/cannot play <this>.
Going beyond that statement is writing all new rules, and is significantly more difficult to administer. Awareness of no/yes rules is easy to achieve. Awareness of how to correctly apply a rewritten rule for weapon cords is most certainly not, as proven by the number of people who are unaware of PFS "clarifications." Frankly, I wish they'd all go away. Starting here would be a good thing.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
At least at my table, if you roll an attack, you've committed your character to take the swing / shot. So, if you roll 6 attacks, and the second one's a misfire, then you're still shooting with the clogged firearm.On a tangent, as someone with a little knowledge about how early firearms work, there really should be no way of reloading and firing a muzzle loader, pistol or musket, without clearing the weapon first.
If a muzzle loader jams, it means the bullet is stuck in the barrel. Maybe the powder did not fully ignite, or the bullet was improperly shaped and it got wedged, whatever.
If you try and reload the weapon without clearing it, all that happens is that the new powder charge and bullet get wedged in FRONT of the old bullet, and at worst... the weapon simply won't fire. The old bullet will prevent the primer charge from igniting the new powder charge. It certainly won't 'explode'.
I chalk it up to the firearms rules authors perhaps not knowing their early firearms, perhaps confusing them with modern breech-loading weapons where you CAN sometimes reload and fire a round in a jammed weapon.
Then again, clearing jams and misfires in a muzzle loader should really take a lot longer than it does. In real life, clearing a stuck bullet from an early firearm can sometimes take hours.
-j
Mostly moot. The Pathfinder Rules for emerging Firearms are way off compared to reality in many ways. Even getting 1 shot off every 6 second rounds is about 4 times faster than the fastest anyone could do with a Civil War era muzzle loader, and I would hardly call that an Emerging Firearm. Of course, I don't think I have ever heard of anyone getting 7 arrows off in 6 seconds while using a bow either. This is a fantasy game, after all.
I can see, though, why the designers might have veered away from reality here.
Proficiency Historically, one of the biggest benefits of firearms has been how easy they are to use compared to things like longbow or even swords. So in game terms they should be Simple Weapons. They should not require the special proficiency Pathfinder requires.
Rate of Fire Part of this depends on the actual technology. Realistically emerging firearms should really be Matchlocks which are reported have a reload time of around 2 minutes but part of that what that there was no standardized reloading methods back then. But Pathfinder early firearms appear to be based on Flintlock technology which first appeared in the early 1600s. Most of the reload time data I could find was from the 1800s but I will be generous and use those stats. The average proficient soldier could get off about 1 shot every 36 seconds (6 rounds). A highly skilled one (Rapid Reload feat) could cut that down by about 6 seconds (1 round). Add in a paper (alchemical) cartridge and you could cut that down by around another 6 seconds (1 round). So a highly skilled soldier using paper cartridge could get off 1 shot every 24 seconds, perhaps a little faster under perfect conditions. So realistically, you shouldn't be able to fire more than once every 4 rounds in Pathfinder (barring magical aid which historically did not exist).
Accuracy Historically a musket wasn't very accurate past 100 feet so Pathfinder probably does a fairly accurate job with this.
Penetrating Power Muskets did have good penetrating power which Pathfinder simulates by making it go against touch attacks. But to say that armor had no effect on muskets would be inaccurate. A rule allowing for only half the armor and shield bonuses to count would we be a lot more accurate, though also a lot more difficult to deal with in the game unless they want to add a 4th AC type to their listings.
Damage Musket balls were actually pretty large (up to .50 caliber by today's measurement standards). A .50 Caliber round can do a lot of damage. So Pathfinder might actually be low here, at least as far as the base weapon goes.
Misfire Barring some sort of complicated misfire chart, I would say Pathfinder does a reasonable job in the reality department here.
So what would all that get you if the designers chose to go with historical accuracy in Pathfinder? You would end up with a Simple Weapon with a rate of fire so low taking more than one shot in combat would be impractical, and that would hit consistently at close ranges for good damage with some small mitigation from misfires.
I remember playing an old combat oriented RPG where you had only 3 stats, Strength, Agility and Intellect. You rolled 3d6 for each one and you slowly bump them as you got XP. Your Strength WAS your hit points. The best weapons in the game could do 2d6 damage with one exception. The Heavy Crossbow could do 3d6 (i.e. average damage was the average HP for a standard humanoid enemy) but took 3 rounds to reload. It's only other drawback was a fairly high Strength requirement to use, but even wizards wanted a good Strength in that system because you used hit points as spell points in the game. But for that much damage, anyone who could use a heavy crossbow would own one. They would fire it on the first round, then drop it and do whatever else they wanted to do after that. It was just too effective mechanically not to do that.
And if Pathfinder had historically accurate firearms, you would likely see that very same thing. I think the designers looked at that and went, "lets just make them mechanically similar to bows with some flavor-based changes."
Druids can still do this; even better, actually. The ban hammer is sometimes capricious.
I won't entirely disagree, but I should note the master summoner was all about summoning in legions, but a druid is likely to use other options. Any full caster can call in the legions, they may earn the ire of everyone at the table for it though...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Secondly, the idea that "This is PFS, we can't do house rules" is hogwash. There is a huge list of "Additional Resources" that can be used in PFS, and conversely anything NOT on that list can't, and this constitutes a giant pile of house rules. Not only that, the boards have a metric crap-ton of "clarifications" on rulings that are essentially the same thing. I know Mr Brock has said we ain't changing the rules, so don't suggest fixes that require a rule change, and I respect that. But the whole idea of "no house rules in PFS" is bunk.
Now, how did I know that would come up? (-;
You're correct: PFS is loaded with house rules, all on that list. But the "house rules" consist of a single statement that is easy to administer: You can/cannot play <this>.
Going beyond that statement is writing all new rules, and is significantly more difficult to administer. Awareness of no/yes rules is easy to achieve. Awareness of how to correctly apply a rewritten rule for weapon cords is most certainly not, as proven by the number of people who are unaware of PFS "clarifications." Frankly, I wish they'd all go away. Starting here would be a good thing.
You do realize that re-clarifying that reloading is considered a finer action is not creating a new rule right?
Also Rapid reload only works for a single type of firearm. Are these dual-wielding double-barrel pistoleers waiting until 13 fame or level 3.1 if you max out possible fame.
Throwing the book at people won't fix anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Secondly, the idea that "This is PFS, we can't do house rules" is hogwash. There is a huge list of "Additional Resources" that can be used in PFS, and conversely anything NOT on that list can't, and this constitutes a giant pile of house rules. Not only that, the boards have a metric crap-ton of "clarifications" on rulings that are essentially the same thing. I know Mr Brock has said we ain't changing the rules, so don't suggest fixes that require a rule change, and I respect that. But the whole idea of "no house rules in PFS" is bunk.
Now, how did I know that would come up? (-;
You're correct: PFS is loaded with house rules, all on that list. But the "house rules" consist of a single statement that is easy to administer: You can/cannot play <this>.
Going beyond that statement is writing all new rules, and is significantly more difficult to administer. Awareness of no/yes rules is easy to achieve. Awareness of how to correctly apply a rewritten rule for weapon cords is most certainly not, as proven by the number of people who are unaware of PFS "clarifications." Frankly, I wish they'd all go away. Starting here would be a good thing.
It would be as easy as adding a line to the Guide in the section under Gunslingers (where there are already "House Rules" regarding Gunsmithing, the price of ammo, etc) stating "reloading a firearm counts as 'fine manipulation' for the purposes of what cannot be done with a weapon dangling from a weapon cord". There are legitimate uses for weapon cords that would suffer by indiscriminately swinging the ban hammer, when the real problem lies elsewhere.
|
Druids can still do this; even better, actually. The ban hammer is sometimes capricious.I won't entirely disagree, but I should note the master summoner was all about summoning in legions, but a druid is likely to use other options. Any full caster can call in the legions, they may earn the ire of everyone at the table for it though...
I think it has been well-established that "ire of the table" means nothing to a certain segment of players. Also, don't forget that druids can dump *every spell readied* as a summons. Ace Ventura time!
|
|
The problem with rolling all the dices at once is that you can go: "Oh, this is a total of 17, I assign it to that guy with the low armor classYou can't do that, but I do allow and do assign an order.
Such as 1st on this guy, 2nd on that guy, 3rd on this other guy
or
All on this guy until he drops then switch to this guy.
I wouldn't do that, but you really think that there wouldn't be people trying it?
They would say that RAW they can assign any attack as they see fit.I have seen a good number or poster in this forum stretching and bending the rules to get the maximum profit.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
You do realize that re-clarifying that reloading is considered a finer action is not creating a new rule right?Secondly, the idea that "This is PFS, we can't do house rules" is hogwash. There is a huge list of "Additional Resources" that can be used in PFS, and conversely anything NOT on that list can't, and this constitutes a giant pile of house rules. Not only that, the boards have a metric crap-ton of "clarifications" on rulings that are essentially the same thing. I know Mr Brock has said we ain't changing the rules, so don't suggest fixes that require a rule change, and I respect that. But the whole idea of "no house rules in PFS" is bunk.
Now, how did I know that would come up? (-;
You're correct: PFS is loaded with house rules, all on that list. But the "house rules" consist of a single statement that is easy to administer: You can/cannot play <this>.
Going beyond that statement is writing all new rules, and is significantly more difficult to administer. Awareness of no/yes rules is easy to achieve. Awareness of how to correctly apply a rewritten rule for weapon cords is most certainly not, as proven by the number of people who are unaware of PFS "clarifications." Frankly, I wish they'd all go away. Starting here would be a good thing.
Not really, no. It's a clarification that people will have to be made aware of. Every time a player sits down with a weapon-corded two-gunslinger they're going to have to be made aware of the re-clarification of the clarification of the rule and told, "You can't do that anymore." Arguments will ensue.
Ban weapon cords, no arguments necessary.
|
|
Also Rapid reload only works for a single type of firearm. Are these dual-wielding double-barrel pistoleers waiting until 13 fame or level 3.1 if you max out possible fame.Throwing the book at people won't fix anything.
Making sure they follow the fundamental rules of the game does not make me a badguy
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Also Rapid reload only works for a single type of firearm. Are these dual-wielding double-barrel pistoleers waiting until 13 fame or level 3.1 if you max out possible fame.
I know I didn't get my one and only double-barrel pistol (have no intentions of going the TWF route) until 3rd level. Using a regular pistol with Alchemical Cartridges still lets you get off 1 shot a round if you don't move, so it was livable. I also had a bow for backup. You can also mitigate this via the free level one rebuild or simply by dumping GM credits to bring you up to 3.1.
|
|
Making sure they follow the fundamental rules of the game does not make me a badguyAlso Rapid reload only works for a single type of firearm. Are these dual-wielding double-barrel pistoleers waiting until 13 fame or level 3.1 if you max out possible fame.Throwing the book at people won't fix anything.
This.
This.Making sure they follow the fundamental rules of the game does not make me a badguyAlso Rapid reload only works for a single type of firearm. Are these dual-wielding double-barrel pistoleers waiting until 13 fame or level 3.1 if you max out possible fame.Throwing the book at people won't fix anything.
Didn't say it did.
|
|
Didn't say it did.This.Making sure they follow the fundamental rules of the game does not make me a badguyAlso Rapid reload only works for a single type of firearm. Are these dual-wielding double-barrel pistoleers waiting until 13 fame or level 3.1 if you max out possible fame.Throwing the book at people won't fix anything.
Then why the comment?
Most of the major issues I've seen are because a player either doesn't fully understand the rules or willfully and maliciously misinterprets them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize that re-clarifying that reloading is considered a finer action is not creating a new rule right?Not really, no. It's a clarification that people will have to be made aware of. Every time a player sits down with a weapon-corded two-gunslinger they're going to have to be made aware of the re-clarification of the clarification of the rule and told, "You can't do that anymore." Arguments will ensue.
Ban weapon cords, no arguments necessary.
Wait, what? A rules clarification is not the same as creating a new rule from whole cloth, and you disagree?
How is telling a player who sits down at your table "Weapon Cords are banned, you can't play your Four-Barrelled Two-Gun Kid gunslinger any more" any different from telling the same player with the same character "You can't reload guns as a free action with a weapon hanging from your weapon cord anymore"? You think telling someone their whole character concept doesn't work as intended anymore WON'T cause an arguement no matter what the reason? I can see that putting something in the "Additional Resources" section hits more eyeballs than "Go look at this online FAQ", but neither hits as many eyes as one sentence in the Guide to Organized Play.
And all of this is beside the point, it doesn't have to reach a lot of players, just the ones playing two-double barrelled pistol-wielding gunslingers.
Then why the comment?
Most of the major issues I've seen are because a player either doesn't fully understand the rules or willfully and maliciously misinterprets them.
Because, in a discussion about fixing things and finding solutions, pointing fingers won't solve anything. I could ask you the very same thing. If your talking about weapon cords in particular, just punishing the players won't solve anything. They're well within their RAW rights atm to build a character who can deliver 12 bullets a round to evil. Making it harder could detour them, but they could still use rebuild rules or find their own solutions.(Besides, it can breed mistrust and abuse. Are you doing it just because you want the rules followed? Or... See?)
Look at weapon cords, not at people. You can fix the first, not so much the latter. If you ban weapon cords there is no way they could possibly dual wield, but would you like to punish everyone over one use?
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
You do realize that re-clarifying that reloading is considered a finer action is not creating a new rule right?Not really, no. It's a clarification that people will have to be made aware of. Every time a player sits down with a weapon-corded two-gunslinger they're going to have to be made aware of the re-clarification of the clarification of the rule and told, "You can't do that anymore." Arguments will ensue.
Ban weapon cords, no arguments necessary.
Wait, what? A rules clarification is not the same as creating a new rule from whole cloth, and you disagree?
How is telling a player who sits down at your table "Weapon Cords are banned, you can't play your Four-Barrelled Two-Gun Kid gunslinger any more" any different from telling the same player with the same character "You can't reload guns as a free action with a weapon hanging from your weapon cord anymore"? You think telling someone their whole character concept doesn't work as intended anymore WON'T cause an arguement no matter what the reason? I can see that putting something in the "Additional Resources" section hits more eyeballs than "Go look at this online FAQ", but neither hits as many eyes as one sentence in the Guide to Organized Play.
And all of this is beside the point, it doesn't have to reach a lot of players, just the ones playing two-double barrelled pistol-wielding gunslingers.
To be clear, the fact that a clarification has to be made to clarify the clarification is a "new rule" in its treatment. Kinda like what I'm doing right now, we have to argue about its meaning.
If the "clarification" had never existed in the first place that would have been better for all involved. But, it existed, and word spread of how it was being ruled. Thus, everyone has an expectation of how this rule works. Now, in order to reverse that expectation, a new "rule" has to be put out there. Just because it's a new way of looking at the rule doesn't take away from the fact that people have to be told, "This is how the rule now works."
By the way: I am pretty firmly in the camp that, even without gunslingers, weapon cords should not be a part of the game for a variety of different reasons that have been covered throughout this thread. I'm not the best guy to have this argument with, as I am already pretty biased.
Edit: Let me try it this way: The "rule" in the United States is that you are allowed to drive when you are 16, so long as you have a driver's license. How you get that license, and the qualifications for that license, changes all the time. But you have the license to drive, so you have no idea what all those changes are. After all, there is no reason for you to go to the DMV regularly and check. But there is a possibility that you are in violation of some regulation that would prohibit you from having a license. Which would be lousy to find out when you got pulled over one day.
Obviously, that's very heavy-handed, and I'm sure you can poke all kinds of holes in my example. But the idea of clarifying a clarification is going to operate the same way: people will have to be told to change the way they are doing things. I can promise you that no one is going to the boards or to the Guide on a regular basis to be sure that their gunslinger still operates the way they were told it did in the first place.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let us not also forget that the gun spammer build isn't a conclusion arrived at by accident. If someone built their character to function in that manner, odds are very strongly in favor of it being done knowing full well how janky it is, and that doing so is a form of system exploitation that as of yet they can still get away with. Bearing that in mind, I would have no qualms with informing someone that their entire unspeakably cheap character build has been invalidated by a change of rules. If they wanted to argue, they could leave the table.
Let us not also forget that the gun spammer build isn't a conclusion arrived at by accident. If someone built their character to function in that manner, odds are very strongly in favor of it being done knowing full well how janky it is, and that doing so is a form of system exploitation that as of yet they can still get away with. Bearing that in mind, I would have no qualms with informing someone that their entire unspeakably cheap character build has been invalidated by a change of rules. If they wanted to argue, they could leave the table.
Little brutal there isn't it? Another way to view it is that weapon cords are the only way to dual wield guns in pathfinder outside of magic or growing a third arm. Its not the least attractive trope and not everyone does it out of pure maliciousness.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Let us not also forget that the gun spammer build isn't a conclusion arrived at by accident. If someone built their character to function in that manner, odds are very strongly in favor of it being done knowing full well how janky it is, and that doing so is a form of system exploitation that as of yet they can still get away with. Bearing that in mind, I would have no qualms with informing someone that their entire unspeakably cheap character build has been invalidated by a change of rules. If they wanted to argue, they could leave the table.
There are a fair number of people who are not that good at system mastery but still want well built characters. These people tend to simply take builds they find online that others have done and since other people are obviously using these builds, they assume it is perfectly acceptable to do it themselves. These people often don't even know they have an "unspeakably cheap character build."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, the fact that a clarification has to be made to clarify the clarification is a "new rule" in its treatment. Kinda like what I'm doing right now, we have to argue about its meaning.
If the "clarification" had never existed in the first place that would have been better for all involved. But, it existed, and word spread of how it was being ruled. Thus, everyone has an expectation of how this rule works. Now, in order to reverse that expectation, a new "rule" has to be put out there. Just because it's a new way of looking at the rule...
I find it ironic that you start a sentence with "To be clear", then rattle off a tongue twister about clear clarifications of clarifications that isn't in the least bit.... well, clear.
Nevertheless, the very scenario you say is so horrid (revisiting a "clarification") has happened multiple times in the history of PFS, and the walls ain't come tumbling down yet. I realize you are the OP and want Weapon Cords banned. But I disagree, and the counterpoints raised by myself and others seem to me compelling and valid (obviously, I made them). The pro-banning arguement seems overreaching and vicious overkill. I'm sure you and I are destined to disagree about this, but I feel compelled to have the opposing viewpoint expressed loudly and strongly, especially when it will affect my non-gunslinging, non-cheesy characters.
|
|
Let us not also forget that the gun spammer build isn't a conclusion arrived at by accident. If someone built their character to function in that manner, odds are very strongly in favor of it being done knowing full well how janky it is, and that doing so is a form of system exploitation that as of yet they can still get away with. Bearing that in mind, I would have no qualms with informing someone that their entire unspeakably cheap character build has been invalidated by a change of rules. If they wanted to argue, they could leave the table.There are a fair number of people who are not that good at system mastery but still want well built characters. These people tend to simply take builds they find online that others have done and since other people are obviously using these builds, they assume it is perfectly acceptable to do it themselves. These people often don't even know they have an "unspeakably cheap character build."
There may be a fair number not good and system mastery (I am one) but they still want that "unspeakably cheap character build." That's why they are looking for them. And like The Beard, I would have no problem telling them their build is cheese, cheap and illegal at my table.
Because of a gunslinger in an AP I ran, I won't allow them at any non-PFS table I run, EVER.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I find it ironic that you start a sentence with "To be clear", then rattle off a tongue twister about clear clarifications of clarifications that isn't in the least bit.... well, clear.
Which was my point. Glad you caught it. (-:
Nevertheless, the very scenario you say is so horrid (revisiting a "clarification") has happened multiple times in the history of PFS, and the walls ain't come tumbling down yet. I realize you are the OP and want Weapon Cords banned. But I disagree, and the counterpoints raised by myself and others seem to me compelling and valid (obviously, I made them). The pro-banning arguement seems overreaching and vicious overkill. I'm sure you and I are destined to disagree about this, but I feel compelled to have the opposing viewpoint expressed loudly and strongly, especially when it will affect my non-gunslinging, non-cheesy characters.
I will happily comply with whatever is done. I have my preference, but will be content with any solution, so long as there IS a solution, as opposed to no action at all.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
No action is an action. If they decide that the rules are best where they are, that is still a fair judgement.
I am not vested in this arguement, but I disagree with banning anyhthing long standing.
I would think if he chooses to ban these, modify them, or leave them would be a fair judgement.
Sure. Doesn't mean I'll be content, though. (-;
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't had a chance to read through everything but I'm sure this suggestion came up in regards to Weapon Cords, just make it a Move Action recover the weapon that does NOT provoke an attack of opportunity.
I'm not sure how this would effect the issue in regards to the Gunslinger though.
|
|
I haven't had a chance to read through everything but I'm sure this suggestion came up in regards to Weapon Cords, just make it a Move Action recover the weapon that does NOT provoke an attack of opportunity.
I'm not sure how this would effect the issue in regards to the Gunslinger though.
That's a rules change, and Mike Brock has said a rules change is not a possibility on this thread, so don't discuss it.
One point that is being repeated, is changing a ruling (not a rule) that Mike himself made, from a weapon dangling on a weapon cord not interfering in reloading, to that it does interfere, by defining reloading as a fine manipulation task.
Another camp says that banning weapon cords is the way to go.
|
|
Let us not also forget that the gun spammer build isn't a conclusion arrived at by accident. If someone built their character to function in that manner, odds are very strongly in favor of it being done knowing full well how janky it is, and that doing so is a form of system exploitation that as of yet they can still get away with. Bearing that in mind, I would have no qualms with informing someone that their entire unspeakably cheap character build has been invalidated by a change of rules. If they wanted to argue, they could leave the table.There are a fair number of people who are not that good at system mastery but still want well built characters. These people tend to simply take builds they find online that others have done and since other people are obviously using these builds, they assume it is perfectly acceptable to do it themselves. These people often don't even know they have an "unspeakably cheap character build."
I will agree with that. Thing is, it's usually pretty easy to tell the ones that just looked online for something good versus the seasoned player that just wanted to break the game.
Now back on the topic of the weapon cord itself... If changing the rules is not an option, then banning the weapon cord is the next best thing. Besides it really does do a lot more than what it should for something so cheap.
Besides it really does do a lot more than what it should for something so cheap.
I'm curious, should cheap or mundane items not do nice things?
|
|
Besides it really does do a lot more than what it should for something so cheap.I'm curious, should cheap or mundane items not do nice things?
Not THAT nice considering its laughable price, even if you ignore the existence of gunslingers for argument's sake. It brings a good deal of benefits to the proverbial table with no real drawbacks. Benefits that, might I add, mimic some feats in a lot of ways. Benefits that would otherwise require a much more costly approach (Not necessarily speaking in terms of currency) to gain. For such a low priced item to eliminate all risk of disarm (assuming they can even do it, which is a pain to begin wit if you've got one of those cords) or other methods of weapon loss is yeaaah.
but you get the idea.
I do, I just don't like the idea of banning a mundane item for being useful. As I said earlier, I haven't seen a disarm focused opponent in PFS(though I have been told about sunder focused ones). I'm much more afraid about abuse of it than the loss of a single maneuver I'm not sure I'd see often enough to make a large difference, and it'd be a shame to lose it because a particular gunslinger build is over the top. Oddly enough some time ago I remember an argument being made that double barrel TWF gunslingers weren't overpowered at all, if you'd believe it.
|
|
but you get the idea.I do, I just don't like the idea of banning a mundane item for being useful. As I said earlier, I haven't seen a disarm focused opponent in PFS(though I have been told about sunder focused ones). I'm much more afraid about abuse of it than the loss of a single maneuver I'm not sure I'd see often enough to make a large difference, and it'd be a shame to lose it because a particular gunslinger build is over the top. Oddly enough some time ago I remember an argument being made that double barrel TWF gunslingers weren't overpowered at all, if you'd believe it.
See, I was following pretty well until you got to that last sentence. You lost me at "double barrel TWF gunslingers weren't overpowered at all." Suffice to say I can see your point, at any rate. It is a good item. The fact of the matter is that it would probably have remained off the radar, were it not for the gunslinger trick. If a change of rules is not applicable, what other options are there? The only one I can really see being practical would be removing the item from PFS.
The only one I can really see being practical would be removing the item from PFS.
Practical, but a little extreme imo. Can't argue against it very well beyond that(maybe after coffee and a nights sleep). Maybe we'll see errata on the thing soon though, who knows.
Because tying something to yourself so that it doesn't get lost is 'over the top' :pAnother camp says that banning weapon cords is the way to go.
I think it falls down actually. Its under it. Gravity does that.
What if you are doing a handstand?
Then my feet are my tops... I think... But does my top hat move to my shoes? Ahh, I think the world just stops making sense and is flipped upside down.
|
|
That's a rules change, and Mike Brock has said a rules change is not a possibility on this thread, so don't discuss it.
Everything that we are discussing in this thread is a rules change, which is fine since Mike can make whatever house rules he wants for PFS and I think that house ruling to stop the most excessive dual wielding gunslinger builds is completely reasonable.
That is why the best outcome is just repealing the rule from before about being able to reload, since that is the only solution which does not make more rules changes.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, California—Los Angeles (South Bay)
|
I haven't had a chance to read through everything but I'm sure this suggestion came up in regards to Weapon Cords, just make it a Move Action recover the weapon that does NOT provoke an attack of opportunity.
I'm not sure how this would effect the issue in regards to the Gunslinger though.
That's a rules change, and Mike Brock has said a rules change is not a possibility on this thread, so don't discuss it.
One point that is being repeated, is changing a ruling (not a rule) that Mike himself made, from a weapon dangling on a weapon cord not interfering in reloading, to that it does interfere, by defining reloading as a fine manipulation task.
Another camp says that banning weapon cords is the way to go.
I have seen a few movies where characters placing bullets in a chamber had to take time to do it right, or risk dropping the bullets. So, I would argue that making reloading the sorts of firearms we will see in PFS a fine manipulation task is a reasonable option.
Also, I don't recall gunslingers in our world really relying on weapon cords to increase the number of shots that they could make against enemies.