|
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.
So you are upset they gave a number and then say that they aren't giving clarity...
Complex free actions is what I'm using to refer to the issues the faq actually addresses. The faq itself doesn't need to explain this. Look people are trying to make this about stuff it isn't about. My combat round doesn't stop because I talked. However if I start using a lot of free actions this won't ever come up.
Basically in normal games what I'm aware of dms usually take issue with free actions when they need to be explained with a list or flow chart.
The only actual issue is free action gets used a lot as a term. And people as part of panic propaganda are trying to apply it ro everything under the sun.
So I repeat, it does not affect archers or crossbows with rapid reload. Talking whike shooting your bow or crossbow won't add too many free actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. However I'm done with this discussion( hopefully) as someone in another thread point out the panic comes down to people not trusting those they play with to apply the rule fairly.
|
|
Just answer straight up: Which is correct, the FAQ or the developer?
Because they 100% contradict each other, which is the source of much confusion right now.
No they don't.
The developer explained, in detail, that if they could do it all over and add a new category that notching an arrow would be called something other than a free action.
But they can't.
The guideline...ahem...GUIDELINE...suggests that saying 5 free actions in a round is generally reasonable, and that 3 of the same kind is generally reasonable and...and this is the big part.
"Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances."
So again, we have what is actually happening (players abusing the free action rule) and what is feared may happen (GMs saying no)
And the Dev came in to clarify by citing a rule on how bows work, which OVERRULES ANY GUIDELINE BY DEFINITION.
But you keep ignoring it, because it hurts your argument.
Okay , since some posters in this thread are ignoring civil, rational arguments about the given example and broad-brushing every dissenter as a cheeseball who wants 14 attacks a turn, I see no point in continuing to talk about it. I'm glad that the design team wanted to give an example of a reasonable number of free actions, but the specific example they gave is just plain bad. No amount of knee-jerk defense is going to change that.
On the bright side, there are magical guns that never need to be reloaded, so there's a solution (however expensive) that works even if the GM follows the terrible example--at least until someone complains that pulling the trigger should be a "free" action.
|
|
On the bright side, there are magical guns that never need to be reloaded, so there's a solution (however expensive) that works even if the GM follows the terrible example--at least until someone complains that pulling the trigger should be a "free" action.
The fact that these guns exist is kind of the point of the ruling.
Why have pepperboxes, reloading crossbows, etc...if you can get around it by cheesing free action technicalities.
That is why they are making the ruling. I am perfectly fine with them saying that they intend 3 reloads of a musket as a cap, when there are other ways to get your full attacks.
It is a musket, after all.
I've removed a post. Keep in mind the most important rule of the Paizo message boards, and the general guidelines for posting.
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 could read that part into the response, but I'm not worried about the DMs that will do that.
|
So what? A druid ay similar levels can do as much or more with a SINGLE attack.
A spellcaster can do 200-300 damage at those levels to DOZENS of targets WITHOUT AN ATTACK ROLL.
The gunslinger was perfectly balanced as is. Now, in games where GMs agree with the designers' idea of what is reasonable, gunslingers will be as dead in the water as rogues.
A minimally optimized Pistolero will put out around 660 damage a round, and this is without dipping into the realm of wielding 2 pistols. Short hand math is 12 attacks a round (4 bab, 1 rapid shot, 1 haste, x2 for using a single double-barrel pistol), each doing roughly:
13 dex
5 weapon enhancement
3 pistol training
12 deadly aim
5d6 precision from up close and deadly + signature deed
1d8+33+5d6 a shot becomes 12d8+60d6+396 a round over 12 shots for an average of 660 damage a round. That ramps up to about 800-900 a round if you really optimize it without remorse.
In my humble opinion, comparing them to spellcasters is in error because most spellcasters of 20th level can warp reality to sufficient degree to simply "win" against a non-caster. What we should be comparing is the gunslinger/pistolero's performance against other weapon-based combatants.
|
|
On the bright side, there are magical guns that never need to be reloaded, so there's a solution (however expensive) that works even if the GM follows the terrible example--at least until someone complains that pulling the trigger should be a "free" action.
The fact that these guns exist is kind of the point of the ruling.
Why have pepperboxes, reloading crossbows, etc...if you can get around it by cheesing free action technicalities.
Taking Rapid Reload for a light Crossbow is "cheesing free action technicalities"?
The whole damn point of Rapid Reload for a light crossbow is to get your iterative attacks.
If you are attempting to dual wield and rapid reload both at the same time...
|
|
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 could read that part into the response, but I'm not worried about the DMs that will do that.
It is amazing how scared everyone is of the person they picked to be the adjudicator of their game...
It is amazing how scared everyone is of the person they picked to be the adjudicator of their game...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 could read that part into the response, but I'm not worried about the DMs that will do that.
I don't remember hand picking him.
|
|
I don't remember hand picking him.It is amazing how scared everyone is of the person they picked to be the adjudicator of their game...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 could read that part into the response, but I'm not worried about the DMs that will do that.
Your GM or the person who wrote the ruleset you decided to use?
Because you picked both.
I don't remember hand picking him.It is amazing how scared everyone is of the person they picked to be the adjudicator of their game...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 could read that part into the response, but I'm not worried about the DMs that will do that.Your GM or the person who wrote the ruleset you decided to use?
Because you picked both.
No. I did not hand pick who owns my game. I did not go out, search, find the developers, and decide those are the guys who made the game. They decided that long before I decided to play pathfinder. That's just not how it works. I can choose what game to play, or who to play with, but I don't pick who can run a game or who makes one.
I did not handpick who developed the game.
|
|
No. I did not hand pick who owns my game. I did not go out, search, find the developers, and decide those are the guys who made the game. They decided that long before I decided to play pathfinder. That's just not how it works. I can choose what game to play, or who to play with, but I don't pick who can run a game or who makes one.
I did not handpick who developed the game.
You picked this game to play. 3.5, 4e, Gurps, etc...you picked this one.
And you pick the GM who runs the table you are at, who is the one adjudicating the new FAQ. You do this when you sit down at the table and allow them to GM.
|
|
It is amazing how scared everyone is of the person they picked to be the adjudicator of their game...
Ciretose, while I won't attempt to speak for others, I will offer my own concern for your consideration.
First, I understand this is not a hard rules change. It is a suggestion for GMs, who can evaluate and employ the 3 or 5 school of thought as they will.
Second, I acknowledge SKR coming in and effectively saying this situation occurred in attempt to put a kibosh on silly pistol juggling.
Should a gm choose to employ a 3 or 5 interpretation though, this unfortunately has more consequences for play than simply putting a kibosh on rules abuse. As Jiggy pointed out earlier but likely got missed, free actions are a factor in drawing an arrow to fire it. It is correct that knocking the drawn arrow requires no action whatsoever as part of the attack. As worded, should a gm choose to employ this FAQ, it limits most (but not entirely all) ranged weapons to 3 or 5 attacks as well - including bows and crossbows. For reference:
Ammunition: Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), darts (for blowguns), or sling bullets (for slings and halfling sling staves). When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading (as noted in their descriptions). Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost.
Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.
So if a GM chooses to employ this faq in their game, unless you have means to draw your ammo as a not-action, you must still spend free actions to draw it even though you can nock it for free.
In a home game, this has much less concern as you can simply reason with your gm to a mutually agreeable level. In PFS, such as at a major convention, this really gives a GM an indisputable tool with which to be a titanic jerk and nerf ranged characters if they are so inclined.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though SKR has explicitly said that drawing an arrow doesn't count.
Very good, I had missed that in my attempts to intake all these posts. I will re-sift through them then. Thanks for the look out bud.
Edit: Found where he said this "is not intended to limit bow or crossbow users". That intention doesn't help clarify from the game mechanics if one were to just read the faq and look up those mechanics in the CRB, though.
I agree gunslinger/firearms needed addressed (mostly just nixing pistol juggling, as well as doing away with double-barrel firearms and up close and deadly + signature deed), but this just seems like a really messy way to do it when they could just errata and post it in the faq.
|
|
Gloves of storing doesn't bother me as much as that is a 10k investment for one gun, but again I'm not bothered if they put a free action cap on that as the logic is you make the gun disappear to load another gun.
If a player said "I dual wield but after I fire the gloved hand, it goes into storage so I can reload the main hand" that makes sense.
It is the reloading both hands while they dangle around on strings that gets kind of stupid.
I've removed some posts. Be civil to other posters. Thank you.
Gloves of storing doesn't bother me as much as that is a 10k investment for one gun, but again I'm not bothered if they put a free action cap on that as the logic is you make the gun disappear to load another gun.
If a player said "I dual wield but after I fire the gloved hand, it goes into storage so I can reload the main hand" that makes sense.
It is the reloading both hands while they dangle around on strings that gets kind of stupid.
All opinion. I think they're both pretty silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gloves of storing doesn't bother me as much as that is a 10k investment for one gun, but again I'm not bothered if they put a free action cap on that as the logic is you make the gun disappear to load another gun.
If a player said "I dual wield but after I fire the gloved hand, it goes into storage so I can reload the main hand" that makes sense.
It is the reloading both hands while they dangle around on strings that gets kind of stupid.
Which, as I've said ad naseum, should have been an errata to weapon cords, indicating that dangling weapons leave the hand attached unable to be used for any free or swift action other than retrieving said dangling weapon. Full stop, end. Simple, sweet, and stops the abuse without opening this can of worms.
It has the added benefit of making complete and internal sense, and working the same for every class without stomping on ranged builds only.
It is amazing how scared everyone is of the person they picked to be the adjudicator of their game...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 could read that part into the response, but I'm not worried about the DMs that will do that.
Less picked and more was the last one to say "1 2 3.. not it...." :)
|
|
Gloves of storing doesn't bother me as much as that is a 10k investment for one gun, but again I'm not bothered if they put a free action cap on that as the logic is you make the gun disappear to load another gun.
If a player said "I dual wield but after I fire the gloved hand, it goes into storage so I can reload the main hand" that makes sense.
It is the reloading both hands while they dangle around on strings that gets kind of stupid.
Is it a game balance issue or just that you think the dangling bit is stupid?
The fixes are different. Even 10K might not be enough if it's the first. Way too much if it's the second.
Both.
10k and a hand slot (don't forget the slot) doesn't let you do it with two weapons, only with one hand. And you can't have something else in the glove, so that is two opportunity costs (the hand slot and use of the storing gloves for something like a melee weapon)
And with the FAQ, the free action of getting the gun isn't unlimited either.
Which is the root of all of this. Using a glove of storing to retrieve a stored gun is exactly the purpose of the item. There is a trade off with doing so as well as a cost.
No one can reasonably argue it was not an intended purpose of the item to use it in that way.
Unlike many of the machinations I've seen with free action (release, regrip, release...) which is a point being glossed over.
This isn't "just" about the weapon cord cheese.
This is about free action cheese, in general.
This entire FAQ is a reminder to GM's that they don't have to allow free action abuse if they don't want to.
I think 137ben said it best.
If this is how people react to the idea of someone possibly saying no...
So what do you think the 4th attack in the gunslinger's full attack (listed under "base attack bonus" in the class table) means? Ya know, for a 16th level gunslinger, it says
+16/+11/+6/+1.
If you actually think it is cheese for a gunslinger to fire four shots, as its base attack bonus indicates it can, I wonder if there is anything in your game that would NOT be called cheese...Unless you seriously expect people to believe that the developers never intended to give gunslingers full BAB, it is suppose to have only medium BAB, and everything suggesting it is a combat focused class with the same attack bonuses as the other combat focused classes, including the fact that it is explicitly given the same BAB as a fighter, is just 'abuse'.
|
|
A pepperbox is still a free action to rotate. Why are you so adamantly defending something that is broken for high level play?Ask why the 16th level gunslinger doesn't have a pepperbox, Pistol of the Infinite Sky, etc...
How is it broken for high level play when there are ways around it at high levels?
You are arguing that you are going to play with a GM who is going read a GUIDELINE in a way that negates your ability to use a pepper box ignoring "When making a full-attack action, you may fire a firearm as many times in a round as you have attacks, up to this limit, unless you can reload the weapon as a swift or free action while making a full-attack action."
Why are you playing with this GM...
But putting that aside, there is an item that allows you get around it in high level play, the pepperbox at absolutely worst possible idiot GM you are letting play for some reason gives you 4 shots per pepperbox rather than the completely obvious 6.
This entire argument assumes you've selected a GM who doesn't understand the meaning of the word guideline.
Someone who as far as I can tell DOES NOT EXIST IN REALITY OUTSIDE OF STRAWMAN HYPERBOLE.
While we actually, really and truly had players who don't understand that "free action"s can be capped to a reasonable amount.
Can anyone, anywhere, find anyone who will say you can't fire a pepperbox up to the full attack bonus.
And if you find this person, can you please explain who the hell let them be the GM.
I really want to see this strawman in the flesh, because I have seen a hell of a lot of free action cheesers.
They actually exist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've removed a post. Do not attack other posters.
I've had to remove a LOT of posts this weekend. Perhaps I should close these threads if people can't be civil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've removed a post. Do not attack other posters.
I've had to remove a LOT of posts this weekend. Perhaps I should close these threads if people can't be civil.
May as well lock all but one, anyhow. It's not like they're very different.
|
How is it broken for high level play when there are ways around it at high levels?A pepperbox is still a free action to rotate. Why are you so adamantly defending something that is broken for high level play?Ask why the 16th level gunslinger doesn't have a pepperbox, Pistol of the Infinite Sky, etc...
I'm having some trouble naming a single way other than the pistol of the infinite sky to fire multiple times without requiring a free action of some sort in between shots. Either with Quick-Draw, to move the barrel, or to draw and load more shots, in some way there is a free action involved. Incidentally, the pistol of the infinite sky is banned for PFS play.
In any case, for a PFS player and GM like myself, and especially as a coordinator for events and conventions, I like to assume that most tables will have a similar rules experience. Such a guideline doesn't provide that. Either GMs are given a hard-line 3 reloads (which both breaks gunslingers and is also likely not what is intended), or we're all just more confused than before.
It would have been perfectly fine to remind everyone that there can be a limit on free actions. It would be fine to say that trying to reload two pistols for double the number of attacks is an abuse of free actions. However, an arbitrary limit was given as an example, and that's just confusing.
|
|
Let us assume for the purposes of this discussion that the mythical evil GM exists and for some reason you allowed them to be in charge as the GM.
If your GM follows the strictest reading of the guideline, you have up to 5 free actions.
Double barrel is two shots, per hand for 4 shots.
reloading one 3 times is up to 7 shots.
Quick drawing another one is up 9 shots.
You still have a free action to quick draw yet another one, or glove of storing pull another one, etc...
Again, assuming the mythical evil GM exists.
That is by my count 11 possible shots.
Let us assume for the purposes of this discussion that the mythical evil GM exists.
The term mythical infers there are no evil GMs. Coordinated events you don't get to pick your GMs that well, if at all.
If your GM follows the strictest reading of the guideline, you have up to 5 free actions.
3, 2 if you want to talk, 1 if he thinks its entirely up to him. Obviously the 3rd is a bit of a stretch, but supposing he's not evil and doing what he considers right by following guidelines(doesn't mean a mythical evil entity), then its entirely possible to see 3. No?
Double barrel is two shots, per hand for 4 shots.
reloading one 3 times is up to 7 shots.
Quick drawing another one is up 9 shots.
You still have a free action to quick draw yet another one, or glove of storing pull another one, etc...
Reloading each barrel of a double barrel is a free action of itself. May need to change those numbers. Its also pretty circumstantial to use a gun of the infinite sky or a magical glove that cost 10k.