I want to make sure I have this right:
I have a gunslinger, level 11, with Rapid Reload, Quick Drawn, and the lightning reload deed. He has a point of grit, and a massive arsenal of firearms that need loaded. Let's say 1000 of them. He's also holding enough bullets to shoot everyone in the world twice. He's pretty encumbered, so he's dropping each one as he Quick Draws and reloads.
So, as far as I can tell, he loads them all in a single round. What GM would allow this is beyond me, but as far as RAW goes it seems feasible.
Dropping back a little from the exaggerated numbers, and imagine he has 4-7 firearms. This I could imagine, and it still seems like a lot of action for 6 seconds.
What am I missing?
In the core book it's expressly stated that a GM can tell a player that they have taken all the free actions they are allowed in the round. There isn't a hard maximum, just the oxymoron of common sense to prevail.
All well and good, but what I'm getting from this is that I'm not missing anything. I don't think it's a stretch to say that there are players, both in home games and organized play, who would happily exploit these rules as far as they'll endure. And of those players, there are a number who would consider it unfair treatment to have their class abilities limited by GM arbitration.
Realistically, a GM doesn't need a specified statement to know that they can say 'no' to a player trying to exploit the rules. Better is a rulebook with rules that aren't so easily exploited. Honestly, what gunslinger isn't going to have all of the requisite components I listed in the original post by level 11?
The best use of a rulebook to prevent this is to use it against the player's head until he stops talking or twitching -- which ever happens first.
What stops him? His GM. There are things in the book that are up to GM arbitration. Free actions encompass several things, and while it might not be realistic to reload seven thousand guns at once, it might be realistic to drop one gun, draw it with Quick Draw at the same time. That's why there isn't a hard cap on free actions, instead left up to the GM.
|
All well and good, but what I'm getting from this is that I'm not missing anything. I don't think it's a stretch to say that there are players, both in home games and organized play, who would happily exploit these rules as far as they'll endure. And of those players, there are a number who would consider it unfair treatment to have their class abilities limited by GM arbitration.
Then as a GM you should let them know you will limit this kind of thing before they make the character.
Realistically, a GM doesn't need a specified statement to know that they can say 'no' to a player trying to exploit the rules. Better is a rulebook with rules that aren't so easily exploited. Honestly, what gunslinger isn't going to have all of the requisite components I listed in the original post by level 11?
Some GM's need the help of the rules to justify their actions, many if not all GM's have players that will argue a ruling forever if its not in the book. This helps keep them quiet.
If we had absolutely perfect rules that required no interpretation the GM would be superfluous and we'd have a table top computer game.
What stops him? His GM. There are things in the book that are up to GM arbitration. Free actions encompass several things, and while it might not be realistic to reload seven thousand guns at once, it might be realistic to drop one gun, draw it with Quick Draw at the same time. That's why there isn't a hard cap on free actions, instead left up to the GM.
Look, I'm not about taking anything out of the GMs hands, but when looking at a playtest and seeing something that stretches the realms of belief in obvious and probable ways, I find it difficult to be satisfied with "It works until the GM says it doesn't". In other words, this class feature is only as good as your GM wants it to be.
A number of us aren't going to use the rules as written. Touch AC firearms, grit, class skills and skills per level, bonus feats - people are all over the forums mentioning aspects they aren't going to run the way the class is presented. We are illuminating the problems in hopes that the RAW is as close to what we want as possible. Which means the GM arbiter solution isn't a solution. It isn't in the best interest of the game to have such vague limitations - assuming the designers want to consistent play experience - for which I present exhibit: Society.
This isn't exactly a unsolvable riddle. We shouldn't write it off as necessarily vague just yet.
Some GM's need the help of the rules to justify their actions, many if not all GM's have players that will argue a ruling forever if its not in the book. This helps keep them quiet.
If we had absolutely perfect rules that required no interpretation the GM would be superfluous and we'd have a table top computer game.
With all due respect, and in hopes of curbing this before it becomes aggravating, I'm not suggesting a boycott on GMs or rules interpretations. If there were fascist police hanging outside my door every week waiting for me to make a house ruling for my game, I don't think I'd be comfortable playing the game. But what I have just stated is an extreme version of my argument, just as your 'table top computer game' is an extreme version of yours. GM unity. Carpe GM.
This isn't a huge issue for me. My house rule? It's a swift action. If I feel generous, it's a free action that can be taken each round a number of times equal to the character's Dex modifier. My issue stems from the fact that it's a rule that allows a character, by RAW, to do something that would be easily ruled as impossible.
Ask yourself how you'd rule it. It's a decision a lot of GMs with a 11th level gunslinger will have to make. Or the developers could give a baseline and avoid the issue altogether.
And so I mention it. This doesn't mean I'm going to build a robot to run my games for me. It's a playtest forum. I found what I consider to be a flaw - and an easily fixed one at that. Should the developers choose to alter the rule, it's simply a matter of GM choice whether to follow the new rule.
Heck then we should stop archers from taking 7 attacks in a round because it's unreasonable they can draw that many arrows and fire them in 6 seconds.
This goes doubly true for crossbows.
And drawing and throwing that many javalins? Completely out.
Heck then we should stop archers from taking 7 attacks in a round because it's unreasonable they can draw that many arrows and fire them in 6 seconds.
This goes doubly true for crossbows.
And drawing and throwing that many javalins? Completely out.
I always hated the 6 seconds concept.
But yeah the DM would be the one to step in here.
|
|
With all due respect, and in hopes of curbing this before it becomes aggravating, I'm not suggesting a boycott on GMs or rules interpretations. If there were fascist police hanging outside my door every week waiting for me to make a house ruling for my game, I don't think I'd be comfortable playing the game. But what I have just stated is an extreme version of my argument, just as your 'table top computer game' is an extreme version of yours. GM unity. Carpe GM.This isn't a huge issue for me. My house rule? It's a swift action. If I feel generous, it's a free action that can be taken each round a number of times equal to the character's Dex modifier. My issue stems from the fact that it's a rule that allows a character, by RAW, to do something that would be easily ruled as impossible.
Ask yourself how you'd rule it. It's a decision a lot of GMs with a 11th level gunslinger will have to make. Or the developers could give a baseline and avoid the issue altogether.
And so I mention it. This doesn't mean I'm going to build a robot to run my games for me. It's a playtest forum. I found what I consider to be a flaw - and an easily fixed one at that. Should the developers choose to alter the rule, it's simply a matter of GM choice whether to follow the new rule.
Didn't mean to antagonize there, the "rules must cover everything and cannot be interpreted" argument/attitude came up recently for me so its a tender topic. I'm very Rules As Intended rather than Rules As Written, but I'm getting off topic.
While I like your Dex bonus limitation(which could easily be 7+ by 11th level) I would actually just let them away with as many attacks as they can make using their BAB and any feats that increase attacks. Any realistic limitations we mere humans suffer disappear at around level 6 or 7 anyway, so why limit this one thing just because its not realistic?
I'm not saying that everyone should make that ruling of course, but if you have a gunslinger in among your players you may want to let them know the limits you'll be placing on them(if any), before they become invested in the character.
I want to make sure I have this right:
I have a gunslinger, level 11, with Rapid Reload, Quick Drawn, and the lightning reload deed. He has a point of grit, and a massive arsenal of firearms that need loaded. Let's say 1000 of them. He's also holding enough bullets to shoot everyone in the world twice. He's pretty encumbered, so he's dropping each one as he Quick Draws and reloads.
So, as far as I can tell, he loads them all in a single round. What GM would allow this is beyond me, but as far as RAW goes it seems feasible.
Dropping back a little from the exaggerated numbers, and imagine he has 4-7 firearms. This I could imagine, and it still seems like a lot of action for 6 seconds....
This isn't a huge issue for me. My house rule? It's a swift action. If I feel generous, it's a free action that can be taken each round a number of times equal to the character's Dex modifier. My issue stems from the fact that it's a rule that allows a character, by RAW, to do something that would be easily ruled as impossible.
Two things:
1) I really like your Dex based fix. Not only does it SEEM to work well, but it rewards the character for having a high Dex. Which it should in the first place. :)2) I you really play it RAW, then "she can reload a SINGLE BARREL of the weapon as a free action EACH ROUND instead.", meaning you only get to reload 1 barrel for free each round. Yes, that makes it pretty suck-tastic, but since deeds are given and not chosen there really isn't any reason to complain.
Heck then we should stop archers from taking 7 attacks in a round because it's unreasonable they can draw that many arrows and fire them in 6 seconds.
This goes doubly true for crossbows.
And drawing and throwing that many javalins? Completely out.
Unless the suggestion is that we should allow an unlimited number of standard actions and iterative attacks, I'm not sure what the utility of your statements are.
These features of the battle system offer a reasonably warped version of reality that strains what we understand of human capability in order to maintain balance within the game. I wasn't arguing against the spirit of that balance.
In fact, that balance is precisely what I'd like to see preserved. Which can be accomplished. What I'm seeing in response is an unexpected resistance to having this particular feature wrestled from GM arbitration, followed by unnecessary sarcasm. Had I any reason to expect that this reloading situation was one of emotional agitation, I might have avoided the issue entirely.
Two things:
1) I really like your Dex based fix. Not only does it SEEM to work well, but it rewards the character for having a high Dex. Which it should in the first place. :)
2) I you really play it RAW, then "she can reload a SINGLE BARREL of the weapon as a free action EACH ROUND instead.", meaning you only get to reload 1 barrel for free each round. Yes, that makes it pretty suck-tastic, but since deeds are given and not chosen there really isn't any reason to complain.
1) I've always been a fan of features that reward a character for their ability scores. In general, I get a lot of mileage out of the idea in homebrew design.
2) I read it both ways, and I figured the wording was vague enough to benefit from clarification - if it is the intent that only a single barrel be reloaded per round, regardless of the action it uses. I don't think that the common understanding is that it only works once, and there's certainly room for interpretation there.One might argue that a good reason to complain is that deeds are given, not chosen - but that's a different thread.
Didn't mean to antagonize there, the "rules must cover everything and cannot be interpreted" argument/attitude came up recently for me so its a tender topic. I'm very Rules As Intended rather than Rules As Written, but I'm getting off topic.
While I like your Dex bonus limitation(which could easily be 7+ by 11th level) I would actually just let them away with as many attacks as they can make using their BAB and any feats that increase attacks. Any realistic limitations we mere humans suffer disappear at around level 6 or 7 anyway, so why limit this one thing just because its not realistic?
Appreciated. I'm seeing a whole lot of passionate disagreement over this class (and the firearm), and it offers very little incentive for attempting civil discussion of the issues. I'm honestly getting a bit exasperated going through them.
In any case, the 7+ is manageable to me - considering that the character earned it through having a high Dex. I like that people like the suggestion - but I'm not totally in love with it myself.
The one simplification that I was hoping to instigate was to render that conversation between gunslinger and GM unnecessary. Doing so promotes ease of play and a common understanding of how the rules work - which strike me as goals worth pursuing.
Unless the suggestion is that we should allow an unlimited number of standard actions and iterative attacks, I'm not sure what the utility of your statements are.
Then how is reloading all those guns any different than reloading 7,000 hand crossbows?
These features of the battle system offer a reasonably warped version of reality that strains what we understand of human capability in order to maintain balance within the game. I wasn't arguing against the spirit of that balance.
Then where is the problem with allowing someone to reload a whole lot of firearms -- where is the problem? Either it is a problem or it isn't... it can't be both.
In fact, that balance is precisely what I'd like to see preserved. Which can be accomplished. What I'm seeing in response is an unexpected resistance to having this particular feature wrestled from GM arbitration, followed by unnecessary sarcasm. Had I any reason to expect that this reloading situation was one of emotional agitation, I might have avoided the issue entirely.
You misunderstand -- I have no emotional attachment to this issue -- I find it funny that you are saying this is a problem that the rules should cover with a limit on free actions, then state that this isn't something that is a problem for another weapon type.
First, it's not different. Simply another manifestation of an old problem with new flavor.
Second, there are two sides to a balance. When one side goes infinite, that balance is, as one might expect, disrupted. Your sarcasm was comprised of standard actions, iterative attacks, and the mechanics based around drawing those items, which was never the issue.
And third, my 'misunderstanding' was merely offering a potentially understandable explanation for what otherwise might be considered unnecessary and unproductive negativism. Since I would prefer to imagine that contributions to these discussions are made with only the most viable end result at heart, I chose to provide the benefit of the doubt as to your motivations.
Ah, see I thought you were drawing exception to the gunslinger doing it but not to the crossbow users doing it (or the other similar abilities).
I agree that it is an exception that would need filled in a video game -- but since we have GM's and the number of free actions is solidly under their control I don't mind in this case.
Finally I guess I was a bit short and sarcastic -- I blame the "It's broke It's Broke!" crowd -- they weary me, and I was sleepy from working and not getting the sleep I needed.