Scott Wilhelm wrote: Charon's Little Helper wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote:
And the answer is yes, you can. You can throw your shield as a Free Action, Full BAB.
No. No you can't. Not unless your GM doesn't know what he's doing. Or if your GM follows the rules. A more accurate response would be if your GM doesn't understand the rules and the context under which the rules are written.
What do you think is more likely Scott, the devs made an error on a Gladiator (a category new to the game) weapon description in Ultimate Combat, or this is the only thrown weapon out of all the thrown weapons in all the books that can be drawn and thrown as a Free action?
Not even palm-sized shuriken can be thrown as a Free action, but you're going to tell us with a straight-face that the game meant for a heavy shield to be strapped to your arm and then thrown as a Free action for a mere 50gp?
N N 959 wrote: Not even palm-sized shuriken can be thrown as a Free action, but you're going to tell us with a straight-face that the game meant for a heavy shield to be strapped to your arm and then thrown as a Free action for a mere 50gp?
The comparison between the two is not a rules issue, it is a balance issue. To say "It shouldn't do that because it is too cheap" is a valid balance statement, but is a difficult thing to support in the rules, as it is subjective.
As I am reading it, yes, the Devs probably made a mistake, missed a comma or a word, and it has lead to an unbalanced ability (by this, I also mean it is not seen anywhere else).
Really, to sort all of these things out, they need to errata the ability to this:
..you may unclasp this shield to throw it, as a free action.
Aydin D'Ampfer wrote: It seems to me that a lot of this 'the rules are intended to say this..' comments are rooted not in rules but in balance. Meanwhile, the other side of the argument is reading the rules with no mind to balance. Neither of these arguments will progress, because they are reading from two different playbooks.
If there was an item that you could buy for, lets say, 2000gp, and it was a magical Quickdraw shield with the ability "Once per day, you may unclasp this shield and throw it as a free action."
Now, would this item work as Scott Wilhelm is saying? Would my 2000gp shield only allow me to throw it once a day, at the cost of both a free action and a standard/full action? Or would it let me throw it for free, once, per a normal thrown weapon attack?
Is this entire discussion fueled by multiple people reading the written rules differently, or by people who have different ideas of what the balance of the rules should be?
Considering this is primarily a martial option, and practically all of the Paizo Dev rulings, in the past, result in (essentially) "Martials can't have nice things," it's more than obvious that's not what the Devs had in mind. Balance is certainly a concern, and it's one that the Devs tend to keep with their own class types.
**EDIT** But yes, your suggested Errata is most likely what the Devs intended.
@ Scott: There's still going to be table variation, even if we take your interpretation, something which, in PFS, should not happen at all (table variation, that is). One GM will rule you can do X, another Y, another Z, and some will probably even take our side and say you can't do any; PFS isn't supposed to work that way, and suggesting that it should, is no different than those commercial scams. Order now, and we'll throw in this random doohickey absolutely free - just pay separate processing and handling.
If we're supposed to offer consistent, reliable answers to how things can and should be ran, and the "answer" you give is neither consistent, nor reliable, it's misleading to those who want to accomplish that concept, and that's not acceptable, nor is it condoned here on the messageboards. That's the biggest reason why we stick to our interpretation.
Protoman wrote: one can't use the free action OUTSIDE of one's turn to attack someone. I said that already.
I wrote: Another thing to bear in mind, is that Free Actions cannot be taken out of turn, so it doesn't quite replace an Attack of Opportunity.
Aydin D'Ampfer wrote: rules but in balance.... the other side of the argument is reading the rules with no mind to balance. Neither of these arguments will progress, because they are reading from two different playbooks. I have been thinking my differences with the people I'm arguing with on this thread are irreconscileable, since my arguments are based on what the rules say, and they are dismissing those rules as mistaken.
I wrote: It seems our arguments are oblique to each other at this point, and it seems that all 3 of you have pretty much acknowledged and conceded to me as to what the rules say, word-for-word. That being the case, I have little more to say. Although, in this case I have indeed been giving close thought to game balance. Free Actions specifically have written into them a limitation imposed upon them by the GM, meaning there will be no infinite free action attack loop unless the GM wants one.
So, what is the player getting? At the cost of 50 gp, he gains 1 extra attack taken as a Free Action that does 1d4 and has a -4 to attack.
At the cost of a Feat, no -4.
At the cost of another Feat, the player may have several of these attacks at the cost of 7# encumberence and 109 gp per shot with a number of attacks/round limited by the pleasure of the GM.
At the cost of a 5000gp magic item, the player may have the shield return back to him and probably be able to draw it and use it again as a shield as a free action, maybe throw it again, but again, this is at the pleasure of the GM.
Of course it is possible for a GM to make bad decisions about how many Free Actions are to be allowed, but I think the rules forum can leave it up to the GMs as to how many is "reasonable," especially since that is what the rules say to do.
I just don't think 5159gp and 2 feats in order to gain 1 free throwing attack that does 1d4 damage is an unbalancingly cheap price to pay.
In fact, this enhances game balance. If there is another player character who had an overpowered build, the GM can allow more Free Action attacks from the shield-thrower. If the GM accidentally throws an encounter at the party that is too much for them and is going to lead to an unwanted TPK, the GM can allow the shield thrower as many attacks as he needs to restore balance.
This is a plot device that the GM can use as well as the player. I don't think it disrupts game balance at all!
N N 959 wrote: What do you think is more likely Scott, the devs made an error on a Gladiator (a category new to the game) weapon description in Ultimate Combat, or this is the only thrown weapon out of all the thrown weapons in all the books that can be drawn and thrown as a Free action? Even if the developers created this rule in error, it is nevertheless a rule, and binding upon PFS players and referees until and if it is corrected with some kind of erratum, FAQ, or official rules post.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: @ Scott: There's still going to be table variation, even if we take your interpretation, something which, in PFS, should not happen at all (table variation, that is). One GM will rule you can do X, another Y, another Z, and some will probably even take our side and say you can't do any; PFS isn't supposed to work that way, and suggesting that it should, is no different than those commercial scams. Order now, and we'll throw in this random doohickey absolutely free - just pay separate processing and handling. Well, that is true. In this case the number of Free Action attacks the character is allowed is completely determined by the pleasure of the GM, who isn't even required to be consistent with himself! He just has to be "reasonable."
That's what it says in the rules in the descriptions of Free Actions.
But remember, Darksol, that if this is a problem that is going to ruin your game, this is a problem I discovered, not a problem I created. When
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: the "answer" you give is neither consistent, nor reliable, it's misleading to those who want to accomplish that concept, and that's not acceptable, nor is it condoned here on the messageboards. That is completely unfair, and totally false. I am being perfectly consistent. I am looking straight at the rules and interpreting them literally. I am exploring problems and issues in a nuanced manner. I am considering arguments that are likely to come up at the table if a gamer brings the ideas discussed and pointing to the rules that back up the position.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: The RAW is the LAW, and there's no reneging out of it. I just don't think it's fair to call me inconsistent, unreliable or misleading.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: N N 959 wrote: What do you think is more likely Scott, the devs made an error on a Gladiator (a category new to the game) weapon description in Ultimate Combat, or this is the only thrown weapon out of all the thrown weapons in all the books that can be drawn and thrown as a Free action? Even if the developers created this rule in error, it is nevertheless a rule, and binding upon PFS players and referees until and if it is corrected with some kind of erratum, FAQ, or official rules post. I'll bet you 50 cents that not even Mike Brock is going to allow you to throw your shield as a Free Action. More importantly, I would never attempt to do so as a player or expect a GM to allow me to do so.
N N 959 wrote: What do you think is more likely Scott, the devs made an error on a Gladiator (a category new to the game) weapon description in Ultimate Combat, or this is the only thrown weapon out of all the thrown weapons in all the books that can be drawn and thrown as a Free action? I think it is more likely that a company checked their work for mistakes before they published it. And while mistakes happen, I certainly think it is more likely that they meant what they said than if they didn't. Most of the rules in the rule book are not mistakes. And just because the throwing shield is the first weapon that is unclasped and thrown as Free Action, that doesn't mean that it must be a mistake. You need more. Lance is the only weapon that does double damage when used from a charging mount, but that doesn't mean it was a mistake.
NN, you do realize that that very description of the Throwing Shield is not only in Ultimate Combat, but also in Ultimate Equipment? What do you think is more likely, that they made the same mistake twice, or that they meant what they said the first time? I mean, how stupid do you think the development team is?
In response to your bet, NN, gambling is against my religion, but I do suspect that your Mike Brock is a business man, and I am his customer. He wants my money, and I want his rulebook to be binding at the events that he himself sponsors.
Paizo has all the power in the world to change their rules officially with errata, FAQs, and Official Rules Posts.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I think it is more likely that a company checked their work for mistakes before they published it. And while mistakes happen, I certainly think it is more likely that they meant what they said than if they didn't.
Yes, the base rate accuracy is very high, but probability analysis is highly dependent on available information and the available information makes it 100% clear that it should have read as Aydin suggested
"..you may unclasp this shield to throw it, as a free action."
Quote: Most of the rules in the rule book are not mistakes. And most lines of code in a computer program are bug free. But even when a company like Microsoft spends tens of millions in development and testing, they still publish software with coding errors, logic errors, etc. Paizo doesn't have 1/100th the resources of Microsoft so I would expect a few more errors. And from what I've read, the ACG is littered with errors.
Quote: And just because the throwing shield is the first weapon that is unclasped and thrown as Free Action, that doesn't mean that it must be a mistake. On the contrary, that's exactly how we know it's a mistake because weapons don't work like that.
Quote: Lance is the only weapon that does double damage when used from a charging mount, but that doesn't mean it was a mistake. There are several "brace" weapons that do double damage if set for a charge. Same principle with a lance. Doing double damage given a specific set of circumstances is not unique among weapons. What you're suggesting is that suddenly Paizo decided we'd let someone throw a shield as a Free action. This means that someone could strap a shield to each arm and throw both of them in a single round, while moving and attacking. That's right, your supposition means I get two 1d6 attacks at the start of combat in addition to my normal attack with a +1 BAB. You really and truly think that was intended? If you do, there's not much more to talk about.
Quote: NN, you do realize that that very description of the Throwing Shield is not only in Ultimate Combat, but also in Ultimate Equipment? What do you think is more likely, that they made the same mistake twice, or that they meant what they said the first time? I mean, how stupid do you think the development team is? Psssst. There's a neat tool on a word processor called cut and paste. Saves a lot of time...but it's not too good at catching errors.
Quote: In response to your bet, NN, gambling is against my religion, but I do suspect that your Mike Brock is a business man, and I am his customer. He wants my money, and I want his rulebook to be binding at the events that he himself sponsors. And PFS's focus is to make sure the game is fair. PFS has and will continue to actually change the rules for PFS if something is too good or presents a problem. They've done it many times.
Look, I've given you rock solid reasons why this is clearly a mistake. You're only argument is that's not a mistake. You've got nothing else. There are no other weapons that work this way and there is nothing in the rules that suggest why this one weapon would be allowed to ignore the paradigm. If a double weapon doesn't give you a free attack, why would a throwing shield? There isn't even a real world rationale that justifies or supports what you're claiming.
Play the game as you see fit.
N N 959 wrote: You're only argument is that's not a mistake. I am arguing no such thing. I am such a complicated and sophisticated thinker and writer, that you need to actually read what I write before you can effectively respond to it. Read it this time.
I wrote: Even if the developers created this rule in error, it is nevertheless a rule, and binding upon PFS players and referees until and if it is corrected with some kind of erratum, FAQ, or official rules post. I've seen good evidence that this might be a mistake, and I agree with you that Aydin's version of the rule is better, "..you may unclasp this shield to throw it, as a free action." But that is not what the rules SAY. Even if the rules do turn out to be written in error, they are still rules, and still binding upon players and referrees in PFS events.
you wrote: If a double weapon doesn't give you a free attack, why would a throwing shield? There isn't even a real world rationale that justifies or supports what you're claiming. All good stuff, I don't pretend to have a real world rationale that gives this ability to a throwing shield and not to a Dire Flail. But we're not talking about the real world, we're talking about a fantasy world. We aren't talking about the laws of nature or the rules of logic: we are talking about the rules of a game. Never mind if the rules don't make sense, that's what the rules say! If you don't like it, write your own game, open an online forum about it, and I will defend the literal meaning of your rules from people like you.
I wrote: NN, you do realize that that very description of the Throwing Shield is not only in Ultimate Combat, but also in Ultimate Equipment? What do you think is more likely, that they made the same mistake twice, or that they meant what they said the first time? I mean, how stupid do you think the development team is? you wrote: Psssst. There's a neat tool on a word processor called cut and paste. Saves a lot of time...but it's not too good at catching errors. I cut and paste things all the time, and I read what I write and think about it to prevent and correct mistakes. And I'm not even doing it professionally. To say that they just cut and paste one section into another without reading it or thinking of consequences, and ot make the same mistake twice, you are presuming some pretty unprofessional behavior on the part of Paizo, I think. That is a harsh criticism of Paizo publishing. No wonder you only offered to bet 50 cents on Mike Brock's word: you clearly don't think much of its worth.
you wrote: PFS has and will continue to actually change the rules for PFS if something is too good or presents a problem. They've done it many times. Evidently, they haven't yet. If they had, you would have brought it up, and I would publicly acknowledge that you were right and I was wrong. When they do, I will acknowledge that the rules have changed. In the meantime,
you wrote: Play the game as you see fit. Thank you for your permission. I think I will do just that, and advise the readers on this forum to do the same.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: N N 959 wrote: What do you think is more likely Scott, the devs made an error on a Gladiator (a category new to the game) weapon description in Ultimate Combat, or this is the only thrown weapon out of all the thrown weapons in all the books that can be drawn and thrown as a Free action? Even if the developers created this rule in error, it is nevertheless a rule, and binding upon PFS players and referees until and if it is corrected with some kind of erratum, FAQ, or official rules post. Some people don't believe in "RAW".
Try what you're saying at any PFS table. You'll find a difficult time finding any GM that'll go along with it, or any VO you can complain to.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Nefreet, clearly that link is not RAW and has no place on this part of the forums.
:)
Nefreet wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: N N 959 wrote: What do you think is more likely Scott, the devs made an error on a Gladiator (a category new to the game) weapon description in Ultimate Combat, or this is the only thrown weapon out of all the thrown weapons in all the books that can be drawn and thrown as a Free action? Even if the developers created this rule in error, it is nevertheless a rule, and binding upon PFS players and referees until and if it is corrected with some kind of erratum, FAQ, or official rules post. Some people don't believe in "RAW".
Try what you're saying at any PFS table. You'll find a difficult time finding any GM that'll go along with it, or any VO you can complain to. I don't think I would find a difficult time impressing a store manager or owner were I to complain that his PFS GMs are bullying his paying customer(s) out of the store because they aren't willing to follow the rules of their own game. He'll really take notice if I start returning my books or selling them back to him. Places of business tend to notice when their customers walk out with complaints about the product, even 1 customer.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
LOL! I don't have any idea what to say to that.
I think I might have thought that a free action could be taken any time in the initiative, but that is an immediate action. I think I also was thinking of speaking out of your initiative as a free action.
It looks like that part of my question is easily answered and now I understand.
So... anyone know of a feat that lets you throw a shield as an immediate action at full BAB? Hehe!
I don't, Cornellius.
Somebody else on this thread suggested you could keep an action Readied to throw your shield (or any throwing weapon). I believe that Readying an Action requires a Standard Action almost all of the time.
There are feats that increase your reach. Lunge and Combat Patrol come to mind. Lunge only applies to attacks made during your turn. Combat Patrol requires you set up a defensive zone as a Full Round Action, which most players don't seem to want to bother with.
Take a look at the Snap Shot feats. They let you Threaten squares with Ranged Weapons for the purposes of making attacks of opportunity.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
