|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What would be a reasonable limit?My entire point is that all this FAQ does is remind GMs they have latitude on these decisions.No matter how many times you repeat this, it isn't true.
What the FAQ post did, in addition to reminding GMs of what the rules are, is provide an example of 'reasonable' limits.
But the limits, as given in that FAQ, aren't reasonable. That's what most people are objecting to.
Hey, we can get somewhere now. I think a reasonable limit on free actions must include a few things.
One, you should be able to speak freely. Barring other limitations (magical silence, trying to say the entire works of Shakespeare during your turn), we shouldn't limit free actions to speak during a social game.
Two, any character should be able to use all their attacks. If you have spent a feat on Rapid Shot, you should be able to get that attack off. If you've spent a feat on Two-Weapon Fighting, you should be able to do that. That's not to say I advocate the double-barrelled weapon cord build, because I don't. However, a Two-Weapon Fighting pistol build that utilizes Quick-Draw and Rapid Shot has spent a lot of feats to have a flurry of bullets. Let's let players feel awesome, shall we?
So it'll be complicated to figure out a hard limit, but I think that saying three PLUS one for every ability you have which requires a free action to activate might be reasonable. I would also say that the drawing of ammunition and speaking should be exempt.
Therefore an archer is unaffected. A crossbowman can reload as many times as he has attacks and also speak to his buddies and also drop prone or drop a weapon or activate an ability. A gunslinger can do the same, and with Quick-Draw he can free action draw once for every attack.
Anyway, complicated. It would be simple for the FAQ to mention that GMs can put limits on free actions, but to make sure that players can take advantage of their feats and abilities, and that PCs should be able to get in all their attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this is the case I think the wording of FAQ is extremely poorly written. The FAQ appears to me to target free actions across the board, from speech to firearms. I see nothing in the FAQ that would lead me to believe other ammunition using devices or other attack patterns using repetitive free actions (like thrown weapons) would not be included.I find this to be an terrible suggestion to how Pathfinder should be played. And if a GM told me he was enforcing this FAQ any where near as written I would decline to play any ranged martial character.
I despise the double barrel gun mechanic and weapon cords but I find this FAQ a disaster in the making even if it is an attempt to fix items I perceive as problems with the game.
I wouldn't play any character with a GM like that. And that's the main problem of the FAQ.
If the intent is to say "GMs have the power to limit free actions when the players abuse them" then you just say it. You don't suggest a ruling that is obviously counter intuitive and unreasonable ON A FAQ. let alone the very act of suggesting it.
Is there anyone here who believes the example given in the FAQ is a reasonable ruling for a GM to make? If not, then why would you be okay with it being on a FAQ where new players will look for clarification on something they don't understand?
Suggesting an unreasonable ruling that, if accepted by a GM, completely destroys certain classes is not a good idea. On a FAQ it is even worse. Frequently Asked Questions. In other words, people who don't understand, who want to understand, come here to absorb the information so they can understand. And if you give examples or suggestions that are faulty, you spread them.
That is why the FAQ is screwed up. Nobody is saying GM's shouldn't be the final arbitrator on free action spamming. Nobody is saying reminding GM's is a bad idea. But just because you want to do something, it doesn't justify everything else you do in the process. In this case, suggesting a horrible ruling on a FAQ where inexperienced players go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What would be a reasonable limit?My entire point is that all this FAQ does is remind GMs they have latitude on these decisions.No matter how many times you repeat this, it isn't true.
What the FAQ post did, in addition to reminding GMs of what the rules are, is provide an example of 'reasonable' limits.
But the limits, as given in that FAQ, aren't reasonable. That's what most people are objecting to.
One that allows you to get all of your legal attacks with legal reloading/drawing rules.
If there's a problem with certain kinds of weapons or reloading feats or anything else, that's where the fixes should occur. If the gunslinger getting 4 attacks per round is too many, they shouldn't be a full BAB class or they should not be able to achieve a free action load time or two-weapon missile fire should disallow reloading in any form (or some combination of the three). If there's a legitimate problem, fix the problem rather than leave a guideline about limiting some other element of the game not to blame for the real root of the problem.
|
There will always be some people who disagree, maybe, but...
I haven't yet seen a single example of a person who thinks that limiting a gunslinger to 3 attacks per round sustained, 2 if they talk during the round, to be "reasonable". Unless it's the Design Team folks, and even they seem to think it would be unreasonable to apply it to crossbows, even though there's no mechanical distinction between rapid reload on a pistol and rapid reload on a light crossbow.
And asking for a clarification on this specific point is completely reasonable.
And if the Devs come back and say "Yes, you can only reload a single fire arm 3 times in a round as a free action, no matter what" that would be a topic worth discussing, although I'm not sure I disagree with that given it is a weapon acting against touch ac with a X4 modifier.
That I would want to see builds and math on.
But the whole sky is falling because my GM can say how many free actions I can take is just ridiculous.
But the whole sky is falling because my GM can say how many free actions I can take is just ridiculous.
That isn't what people are complaining about. People expect the GM to do that. They don't want to the GM to think that 3 out of four of their attacks they get from BAB is good enough, or that they should only get 2 because they wanted to talk.
Its not the part about the free actions that really gets people, its the examples given as to what is reasonable.
You are not helping by claiming that everyone is complaining about their GM limiting their free actions or that those GMs couldn't possibly exist, even innocently.
|
|
Hey, we can get somewhere now. I think a reasonable limit on free actions must include a few things.
One, you should be able to speak freely. Barring other limitations (magical silence, trying to say the entire works of Shakespeare during your turn), we shouldn't limit free actions to speak during a social game.
Two, any character should be able to use all their attacks. If you have spent a feat on Rapid Shot, you should be able to get that attack off. If you've spent a feat on Two-Weapon Fighting, you should be able to do that. That's not to say I advocate the double-barrelled weapon cord build, because I don't. However, a Two-Weapon Fighting pistol build that utilizes Quick-Draw and Rapid Shot has spent a lot of feats to have a flurry of bullets. Let's let players feel awesome, shall we?
So it'll be complicated to figure out a hard limit, but I think that saying three PLUS one for every ability you have which requires a free action to activate might be reasonable. I would also say that the drawing of ammunition and speaking should be exempt.
Therefore an archer is unaffected. A crossbowman can reload as many times as he has attacks and also speak to his buddies and also drop prone or drop a weapon or activate an ability. A gunslinger can do the same, and with Quick-Draw he can free action draw once for every attack.
Anyway, complicated. It would be simple for the FAQ to mention that GMs can put limits on free actions, but to make sure that players can take advantage of their feats and abilities, and that PCs should be able to get in all their attacks.
And agree with a lot of what you are saying and I wish they had made the gunslinger the way I suggested with a flurry of bullets class feature.
But wishes and fishes.
SKR commented that in a perfect world loading bows would be called something other than a free action so it would not be restricted. And in a perfect world we'll add something between really free action and swift action.
But in the meantime, there has been a lot of cheese put into free actions, and this was an attempt to give GMs the tools to deal with it.
The amount of vitriol thrown at Devs can only pale to what would be thrown at lowly GMs without any backing when they are trying to set a reasonable number of free actions.
But chalk this up as another point toward why we need a new version/edition...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've removed more posts.
I've posted many times to keep it civil, and people aren't, so I'm closing the thread. Remember the most important rule of the Paizo message boards.