|
I think the biggest problem here is for Organized play (Pathfinder Society).
In a home game you can decide whatever you like as a GM and as long as the players do not draw and quarter you, you are probably OK. ;b You can just set a limit on Free Actions that makes sense to your game.
To me it is the PFS efforts to create an "Even Experience" no matter what GM you have at your table that is most at issue here.
For PFS we need to have a set limit (or lack there of) for Free Actions, or we will have arguments over everything. Either it needs to be unlimited Free Actions - which is more or less what we have now. Or, we need a specific cap on Free Actions that is not a "Suggestion" but a hard rule.
It is not fair to rule that a Gunslinger can take x # of Free Actions but a Zen Archer can take Y # Free Actions.
It should be a level playing field for all as far as the rules go.
(Also, as someone who regularly is on the receiving end of gunslingers with Dbl Brl Pistols one-turn killing everything, including 350hp BBEG before they can even act, I would like to see a solution to this. Just one that is fairly applied across the board.)
For PFS we need to have a set limit (or lack there of) for Free Actions, or we will have arguments over everything. Either it needs to be unlimited Free Actions - which is more or less what we have now. Or, we need a specific cap on Free Actions that is not a "Suggestion" but a hard rule.
Well the large difference between PFS and a home game is that you aren't playing with the same guy everytime. There really wasn't a change, and the talk about it was mostly brought up by the FAQs and someone confusing it with a strict ruling rather than a suggestion. The major downside is that a GM may decide your being cheesy when your not, but that ideally could already happen.
Ideally nothing really changed.
Prior to the FAQ I thought the gun juggler was stupidly unrealistic and potentially game breaking, so I wouldn't play it (this comment may be funny to some people that play with me because I get a lot of cracks about making overpowered builds), but I also wouldn't prevent another player from using this trick because I thought it was OK by RAW. After this FAQ and the explanation of the intent, I would have no problem telling a PFS player what I already felt about this combo. It sounds like that was exactly the desired outcome of the FAQ. I don't see a problem here unless people actively try to make it one.
Could they have just directly addressed guns and not been so general? I am sure they could, but I also think they actively try to avoid errata unless absolutely necessary. If this FAQ about an old rule is implemented as expressly intended, no errata is necessary.
|
|
I agree that we are basically under the same situation as before as far as the Free Action rules go for PFS.
Ideally, the FAQ should clarify rules though - in this case I think it made it cloudier in some ways.
I think "Should I follow the suggested limits suggested by the powers that be, or should I just let the Free Actions roll?" will be a conversation (and argument) that is had a lot in the coming days.
I just like things that make things very clear - and the FAQ should do that. I think it did the opposite here.
For PFS we need to have a set limit (or lack there of) for Free Actions, or we will have arguments over everything. Either it needs to be unlimited Free Actions - which is more or less what we have now. Or, we need a specific cap on Free Actions that is not a "Suggestion" but a hard rule.Well the large difference between PFS and a home game is that you aren't playing with the same guy everytime. There really wasn't a change, and the talk about it was mostly brought up by the FAQs and someone confusing it with a strict ruling rather than a suggestion. The major downside is that a GM may decide your being cheesy when your not, but that ideally could already happen.
Ideally nothing really changed.
|
For PFS we need to have a set limit (or lack there of) for Free Actions, or we will have arguments over everything. Either it needs to be unlimited Free Actions - which is more or less what we have now. Or, we need a specific cap on Free Actions that is not a "Suggestion" but a hard rule.Well the large difference between PFS and a home game is that you aren't playing with the same guy everytime. There really wasn't a change, and the talk about it was mostly brought up by the FAQs and someone confusing it with a strict ruling rather than a suggestion. The major downside is that a GM may decide your being cheesy when your not, but that ideally could already happen.
Ideally nothing really changed.
But now it lets DMs the option to say "Ok, Mr. Shootypants McShootsalot, tone it down a bit. Limit it to a few less shots per round. You know that there are a few other players that would like to have a go at the encounter. Let them shine as well." And this would be in total range of what they can do as a PFS DM without breaking any rules.
|
But now it lets DMs the option to say "Ok, Mr. Shootypants McShootsalot, tone it down a bit. Limit it to a few less shots per round. You know that there are a few other players that would like to have a go at the encounter. Let them shine as well." And this would be in total range of what they can do as a PFS DM without breaking any rules.
They could do this before.
Now, we just have muddied water.
But now it lets DMs the option to say "Ok, Mr. Shootypants McShootsalot, tone it down a bit. Limit it to a few less shots per round. You know that there are a few other players that would like to have a go at the encounter. Let them shine as well." And this would be in total range of what they can do as a PFS DM without breaking any rules.
GMs always had that option.
What this does (the specific example given) is allow a GM who thinks that someone using the base class without cheese is too powerful to nerf them and point to the FAQ to say it's the developers statement.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe we are looking at this backwards... A TWF with quick draw pulls both weapons and yells "For Cardassia!" Is now immune to trip and disarm Manuevers for the rest of the round because he is out of "time" to be able to drop those weapons or fall prone.
It might not be the place but how does this effect a pepper box?.....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care if it's optional. It's bad. You can't defend an option with "you don't have to do it, so it's fine!". Even if nobody ever does this (and I sure hope so!), it shows just how little care was put into this.
Funny, nobody seemed to mind when the "reasonable limits to free actions" rule appeared in the DMG 10 years ago.
You think weapon cord GS are OP? Make retrieving the weapons with weapon cords a swift.
Retrieving a weapon with a weapon cord is already a swift action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've removed more posts. Do not insult other posters. Do not blow this out of proportion with ridiculous hyperbole, it doesn't help the conversation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care if it's optional. It's bad. You can't defend an option with "you don't have to do it, so it's fine!". Even if nobody ever does this (and I sure hope so!), it shows just how little care was put into this.Funny, nobody seemed to mind when the "reasonable limits to free actions" rule appeared in the DMG 10 years ago.
You think weapon cord GS are OP? Make retrieving the weapons with weapon cords a swift.Retrieving a weapon with a weapon cord is already a swift action.
Mr. Reynolds, I love your game. I just got back from playing it, and tomorrow I return to playing a goblin gunslinger, a character that does not wield two pistols or use weapon cords, has undersized guns from the norm, and hasn't even take Rapid Shot yet, though I plan to have him do so.
Your design team gave an example of a "reasonable limit" that limits a gunslinger to three shots per round, regardless of BAB, and not even getting into a feat designed specifically I give the gunslinger an extra shot each round.
That example was bad. Almost objectively bad. It goes way past preventing abuse and instead leaves an entire base class a confusing mess--a class that gets full BAB progression that nevertheless cannot take all of its iterative attacks more than once per combat--and, as written, it even affects situations that simply didn't need fixing, such as archers. If that was an unintended consequence as some claim, it was an easily foreseeable one. What's worse, it actually went against the stated purpose of the FAQ (to remind GMs and players that while free actions are normally free, the GM is fully empowered to limit them as seen fit) by establishing, however unofficial and optional, an RAI baseline that encourages GMs to avoid the responsibility of adjudicating reasonable limits and instead point to the suggestion and say, "See, the developers hate ranged attackers, too!"
I know this post is highly critical, and I hope it isn't taken personally or as a general evaluation of your design team's level of excellence. The fact that people are so upset by this ruling speaks of the massive popularity of the game and the vested interest we have in keeping it great. And it must be even more frustrating when you want to avoid issuing actual errata for books that have infrequent or nonexistent reprinting cycles, as that just confuses the game even further. But like anybody else, designers make a bad call once in a while. When that happens, the best thing is to fix it and move on.
The good news is that it's just a game. We can play it the way we want, and even the FAQ makes that clear. So Scram Cheesemaker, Goblin Pistolero, will likely have no issue taking his four or five shots by level 16 thanks to having a GM with consummate discretion. If the GM rules otherwise, well, there's always Dead Shot, I suppose....
Hopefully the design team will revisit this issue and not take the protests as merely the whiny rants of impossible-to-please munchkins. The vast majority of us appreciate your hard work and just want to have a good time without worrying whether our understanding of the game conflicts with that of our fellow players.
(My personal house rule: Objects dangling from weapon cords impose a -4 penalty per pound to actions taken by that hand, and firing both barrels of a double-barreled pistol never targets touch AC. It still lets a desparate gunslinger try to juggle-shoot, but the chance of pulling off anything significantly better than they'd get from forgoing the TWF and double-shots is small enough that I might even give them back a grit point for pulling it off.)
[edited for typos and clarity]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your design team gave an example of a "reasonable limit" that limits a gunslinger to three shots per round, regardless of BAB, and not even getting into a feat designed specifically I give the gunslinger an extra shot each round.
The action economy was always intended as a limitation on early firearms. People found a way around that. Encouraging GMs to set reasonable limits to the firearm ROF puts firearms back where they were intended to be: limited by the action economy.
We're dealing with a 3-year-old tune-up to what was a 10-year-old game engine, with some crazy custom parts and materials that weren't even invented when the engine was built. There are going to be some rough spots where old and new parts fit together, and there will be parts of the engine where a clever user can find ways to "supercharge" the engine that weren't intended by the designers 1, 3, or 10 years ago.
Sometimes the solution is to change out an expensive part and hope that it doesn't throw the engine out of whack.
And sometimes the solution is to tell the driver, "don't drive faster than 60 mph, this old thing is twitchy." And some drivers don't like being told how to drive, or hearing that going too fast might wreck their MPG (or the engine), even if the way they drive isn't fun for anyone else in the car.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your design team gave an example of a "reasonable limit" that limits a gunslinger to three shots per round, regardless of BAB, and not even getting into a feat designed specifically I give the gunslinger an extra shot each round.The action economy was always intended as a limitation on early firearms. People found a way around that. Encouraging GMs to set reasonable limits to the firearm ROF puts firearms back where they were intended to be: limited by the action economy.
I don't know if saying "people found a way around that" is completely honest in the context of limiting firearms to fewer than full iterative attacks per round considering that it only requires one feat whose explicit purpose with regards to one-handed firearms is to make reloading them a free action. There's just no hidden, emergent property involved in that scenario. Applying such a restriction now comes off more like feature remorse (which is understandable) or a reflexive overreaction to the more ridiculous builds that ends up going too far in the opposite direction (also understandable).
Again, I apologize if this comes across as out of line, and having said my piece I'll bow out and leave it for your consideration or dismissal. Though I'm liable to crack wise about My gunslinger suddenly developing stupidfingers in a relevant thread from time to time. : D
We're dealing with a 3-year-old tune-up to what was a 10-year-old game engine, with some crazy custom parts and materials that weren't even invented when the engine was built. There are going to be some rough spots where old and new parts fit together, and there will be parts of the engine where a clever user can find ways to "supercharge" the engine that weren't intended by the designers 1, 3, or 10 years ago.
Sometimes the solution is to change out an expensive part and hope that it doesn't throw the engine out of whack.
And sometimes the solution is to tell the driver, "don't drive faster than 60 mph, this old thing is twitchy." And some drivers don't like being told how to drive, or hearing that going too fast might wreck their MPG (or the engine), even if the way they drive isn't fun for anyone else in the car.
But if the speed limit is set lower than even the listed specs, that crankiness is justified. I'm willing to bet that nearly any player that didn't already have it in for Gunslingers on principle would never have believed that the Gunslinger, as of Rapid Reload's publication, wasn't intended to get at least four shots per round with a pistol at 20th level. If that was the intention, why publish Rapid Reload that way at all?
Yeah, d20 is a beast. It's still better than many of the systems out there, and PF is the best d20-based system I've found so far, so much credit for your crazy custom job. The fact that Paizo stays involved with its community even at this fine-grained level is one of the things that keeps me coming back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m really glad to see Paizo issue some guidance which tells both GMs and players that it is OK for the GM to impose reasonable limits on the Gunslinger as well as giving some guidelines on what limits might be reasonable. Sure, GMs technically could have imposed some limits before using "Rule 0", but the backlash in this thread (and many others in the past) is a pretty good illustration of the struggles and accusations of unfairness that those GMs might have had to endure. Now GMs can feel that Paizo "has their back" on this issue. That's good to know.
Regarding assertions that this FAQ wasn't needed, I think that guidelines which make it easier for groups to agree on what's reasonable and how things should work seem like a big part of what the rules and official clarifications should ideally be about. Not everything can get an official fix, but I feel like particularly squeaky wheel has been oiled here. Sure, there are probably still other "broken" things in the game, but a plan like "X is broken, so Y should be broken too so it can keep up" wouldn't help lead to a fun game in my opinion.
@FakeHealer - I do still like the idea of requiring a standard action to fire both barrels of the double barreled pistol though I don’t think it fully addresses the game balance concerns with the Pistolero. Something else which might have helped would be changing the rules for Alchemical Cartridges. If they could only be used a certain number of times per round (perhaps based on BAB) that might help neatly address the double double barreled Pistolero issues without causing undue concern about other free actions. Unfortunately it is often more daunting for a GM to outright change a rule than just choose to interpret a vague rule conservatively.
|
|
If you are upset about rules needing to be clarified because people are using an exploit, be upset at the people looking for exploits.
On topic, you can fire a single weapon with a free hand to your attack bonus if you have the feats.
The only thing that "may" change is your GM may now remember the rule that free actions aren't unlimited and are subject to reasonable caps, and no longer say that you can dual wield and reload at the same time using some technicality in the rules.
If people would stop looking for technicalities in the rules, we wouldn't have these problems.
So maybe direct your anger where it belongs.
Meanwhile the rest of us are a hell of a lot more interested in input from the developers of the game than from some guy on the internet who thinks he found a way to abuse the wording of the rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the FAQ was long overdue. It gives the GM some guidelines as to what the Developers (the people who wrote the game) believe is a reasonable number of free actions.
God forbid you are only allowed to do the same free action 3 to 5 times in a round.
And damn that Developer taking time on a Saturday night to come on the boards to answer questions and clarify that it wasn't intended toward standard bow use or reloading with a free hand.
I never ceased to be amazed at the level of vitriol toward the people who you are paying to write the rules telling you what the rules were intended to be.
It is really disgusting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing i find funny amongs all te nerd rage is there are ways around the limitation. Honestly i dont think it will affect people firing a single gun at all. But there should be more prevailance of the pepper box pistol for example.
|
It's not intended to limit bows or crossbows, but there has been some abuse in certain firearms combos, and (because there's "no limit" to how many free actions you can take in a round) some GMs feel they aren't empowered to set limits on how many crazy gun-related actions they can take in a round.
In the design team's discussions, I brought up that the "5 or perhaps 3" suggestion would limit high-speed archers. But, given that the FAQ is just reiterating the Core Rulebook rule that the GM determines how many free actions per round is "reasonable," and that the rules already expressly allow an archer to fire as many times per round as his BAB indicates, the FAQ is not changing any rules in the game.
In a perfect world, the rulebook would state that drawing ammunition to fire it as part of an attack isn't an action at all (if it's a free action, and you have unlimited free actions in a round, it doesn't need to be defined as a free action because doing so has no effect).
Sean, it has been my personal experience and view that the gunslinger class itself, while strong, is not really too bad. What makes that class get out of hand is the double-barrel firearms and the ability for a pistolero to use signature deed with the up close and deadly deed.
If this FAQ change was primarily aimed to reign those things in a bit would it be possible to review the offending items/class features themselves rather than take the particular approach currently in place?
@Mojorat - The pepperbox seems like a bad example of the FAQ not affecting single gun users since it requires a free action to rotate the barrels between each shot. It would be a great gun for somebody who doesn't have all the feats and alchemical cartidges required to shoot early firearms quickly, but it would in theory still be affected by the guideline.
@Loromyr - While I don't have a problem with the FAQ I agree that the Up Close plus Signature Deed combo is problematic. Limiting Up Close (or maybe Signature Deed) to once per round might help a lot. Requiring a standard action to fire both barrels of double guns would be good too.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Mojorat - The pepperbox seems like a bad example of the FAQ not affecting single gun users since it requires a free action to rotate the barrels between each shot. It would be a great gun for somebody who doesn't have all the feats and alchemical cartidges required to shoot early firearms quickly, but it would in theory still be affected by the guideline.
@Loromyr - While I don't have a problem with the FAQ I agree that the Up Close plus Signature Deed combo is problematic. Limiting Up Close (or maybe Signature Deed) to once per round might help a lot. Requiring a standard action to fire both barrels of double guns would be good too.
Until they separate free action from reloading a weapon with your off-hand in the next edition, this will remain the case.
Which is why this is a guideline, not a rule.
It is a helpful reminder that if your player tries to abuse the free action rule, you aren't required to let them.
A lot of smoke is being thrown up because people are being called out for exploiting a loophole and they like to be indignant, but that doesn't mean there is actually a fire.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing i find funny amongs all te nerd rage is there are ways around the limitation. Honestly i dont think it will affect people firing a single gun at all. But there should be more prevailance of the pepper box pistol for example.
Pepperbox pistols require a free action to turn the barrel each time....still can't get full attacks out of it. So what way do you get around the limitation? By making up stuff that isn't true and calling people who question it "nerd ragers"?
|
|
If I was looking for a rule to block the abuse, I'd probably start with
you can still use a hand with a weapon cord, though a dangling weapon may interfere with finer actionsand say that the dangling weapon would keep reloading from going below swift action.
This is what should be part of a FAQ, and maybe a ruling that firing both barrels of a double barreled pistol is a standard action.
And maybe some something limiting precision damage to one barrel of a double barreled gun. My GM has some excellent ideas on this having dealt with the pistolero before....
Until they separate free action from reloading a weapon with your off-hand in the next edition, this will remain the case.
Which is why this is a guideline, not a rule.
It is a helpful reminder that if your player tries to abuse the free action rule, you aren't required to let them.
A lot of smoke is being thrown up because people are being called out for exploiting a loophole and they like to be indignant, but that doesn't mean there is actually a fire.
I don't know that I would call it a loophole, that makes it sound like there is some little secret that players are using to break what they know are desired rules. I have a gunslinger and I had a clear goal with a clear path to get reload to a free action. Now some argue that getting as many attacks as possible in a round is a clear goal with a clear path; prior to this, I don't think I have ever seen anyone expressly say that for guns, this was a design goal being circumvented.
The problem here lies in the synergy value of these these two things....well the synergy value of these two things with Gun Training and UCaD.
I really can agree with both sides here who are offering potential solutions to this issue. I don't think the design team could have chosen either route without upsetting someone.
The thing i find funny amongs all te nerd rage is there are ways around the limitation. Honestly i dont think it will affect people firing a single gun at all. But there should be more prevailance of the pepper box pistol for example.Pepperbox pistols require a free action to turn the barrel each time....still can't get full attacks out of it. So what way do you get around the limitation? By making up stuff that isn't true and calling people who question it "nerd ragers"?
Sigh, the exagerated panic response is what im talking about. First, this clarification has nothing to do with alot of te stuff people are panicing over.
First, it doesnt effect bow users at all, second it doesnt effect crossbow users Because rapid reload states you can use it to make a full attack.
I also doubt it affects pepper box pistols either because i doubt anyone has said gee thats action is far too complex. No the character is just firing the gun fullcattack and rotating te barrel as intended.
It also probably should not effect the ability to full attack with a single gun. ( though there are some vague suggestions itmay)
What it really does affet is any case where your clearly repeating multiple actions in a round in a pretty complex order the ccling it over and over.
Basicall, if someone has to look up multiple rules to understand what the character is doing or it has to be written out or explained in a fow chart.
But fin3, lvl 11 gunslinger rapid shot rapid reload. Fire, reload, fire rapid reload , fire reload. (3 free actions) fire reload (swift action). I just did my full alotment of attacks.
No issues, fo fuzzy game mechanics.
|
|
But fin3, lvl 11 gunslinger rapid shot rapid reload. Fire, reload, fire rapid reload , fire reload. (3 free actions) fire reload (swift action). I just did my full alotment of attacks.No I heard you. You spoke. So one fewer reload for you. And I notice you conveniently ignore that picking up that alchemical cartridge was a free action too. Bad form.
The example given is terrible. The suggested numbers are silly. I truly believe there are better ways to address the problems. Yeah they probably involve erratas which are more problematic that FAQ entries, but this FAQ is worse than if they had said nothing at all.
And the complaint seems to be that somewhere, sometime in the future a theoretical GM will limit the number of free actions taken.
OH NO!!!!
As opposed to currently, as in is actually happening, players are using exploits for unreasonable numbers of free actions in frankly silly machinations of technicalities in the rules because GMs didn't feel empowered to say "I think that is too many free actions" , and this is an FAQ reminding GMs that free actions can be limited and offering some helpful guidelines.
Again mountain/mole hill.
And people wonder why I keep saying players will scream at GMs for unreasonable rulings as being RAW.
The FAQ just says "Hey, here are some guidelines, remember you decide" and primal nerd rage ensues...
|
|
Could you point out where that line is in the FAQ.
The FAQ just says "Hey, here are some guidelines, remember you decide" and primal nerd rage ensues...
Yes
"A: Core Rulebook page 181 says,
"Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more fr ee actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM."
Core Rulebook page 188 says,
"Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn."
Although there are no specific rules about how many free actions you may take in a round, it is reasonable for a GM to limit you to performing 5 free actions per round if each is a different free action, or perhaps 3 free actions per round if two or more are the same free action.
Part of this is for the sake of game balance (as some abilities used together may allow you to perform an unlimited number of useful free actions on your turn).
Part is for realism (as just because you can do something as a free action doesn't really mean you could realistically perform that action 5 or more times in 6 seconds).
Part is to speed up gameplay (as one character taking a dozen actions on his turn slows down the game compared to a character who only takes a standard action and move action on her turn).
Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except it is about what ill call "complex free acrions" the lvl 11 bow user hasted is getting 5 shots and 6 arrows. The crossbowman gets his full alotment of attacks. They can talk all they want. This change has nothing to do with them. The game repeats in multiple areas they can get full attacks.
The faq is a guideline nothing more.
Trying to pretend this involves anything but what it was intended to involve is part of the whole "nerd rage" thing I referenced earlier.
Its now clear you can't string 15 or 18 free actions together and pretend they are still free actions.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then say 15-18. Don't give a limitation of 3-5 and then say "oh, it only applies when you're REALLY abusing it."
Everyone is going to have different ideas of what abuse is. By setting the bar so low, you are giving GMs (especially PFS GMs) the license to prevent any ranged attacker from getting off his iterative attacks.
|
|
Yep. and thats good. Now i have a FAQ stating it's "reasonable for me as GM to limit my archer player to 3 free actions per round if two or more are the same free action".
So no more rapid-shotting with full iterative gravity bow. 3 Attacks is all you get.
Since the developer came into the thread and specifically said this is not so, and this has been pointed out to you multiple times, at this point it is safe to assume you are either you are trolling or being willfully ignorant.
Either way, your nerd rage in the face of a developer literally saying what you are describing isn't the case only helps my case by showing that my assertion about the nature of the objection. Specifically people are mad they are being told a loophole is closed, and the other stuff is a red herring as they will ignore anything that doesn't support their narrative.
So thank you!