I would agree, except for the fact they specifically called out the example of loading bullets into a gun. This is no different than loading a crossbow (heck, i'd say loading a crossbow takes way more than loading a revolver). That brings it directly into class function. Which means a gunslinger using these 'suggestions' can't fire more than 3 rounds regardless of BAB. And under that logic, nor should a Zen Archer, an Archery Fighter, a Divine Hunter Paladin, etc.The FAQ says that there are no specific rules for limiting free actions. Anything saying that you can only take 3 free actions or 5 free actions is the same as something saying you can only take 99 free actions or 1 free action, it is a limit placed by a GM to prevent abuse of the free action system (like saying everything you know about a creature after a successful knowledge check and spending something around 34 free actions to weapon cord pistol juggle)
Or to summarize, the FAQ is mostly to encourage GM's to prevent free action cheese. It isn't the rule, it is a possible rule.
Reloading a revolver is a move action to load all six shots.
Well, sorry folks, but I must be off to run my Kingmaker game. We play all day Sunday too so I will not be free until tomorrow night. I will catch up on all this Monday. Enjoy your weekend and best of luck to you all.I wouldn't apologize for going off to play a game the rest of us are simply sitting around griping about. Seems to me you're doing it right. (Regardless how you use RAW / RAI / House Rules / Rule 0 / etc.)
Certainly! I'm only here because my GM doesn't arrive for about twenty more minutes. : D
I do agree that suggesting anything that actively interferes with a class' class abilities is bad form.
Whatever they were trying to help with, they harmed more.
Good effort and all, but my lord, the repercussions of this FAQ destroys higher level play.
Considering PFS only goes up to 12, there may be a lack of caring about breaking high level play.
There is no new limit on free actions.
Nothing has changed.
Technically you're correct. But the guideline has now changed from "You might want to put some limits on if it gets out of hand" to "5, 3 if any are the same action".
While a GM can certainly still allow many free actions, it's now very hard to argue that the intent is for guns, especially, to get full iterative attacks.
The guideline also says that the GM can feel free to allow more or less free actions. People seem to be glossing over that sentence.
Whatever they were trying to help with, they harmed more.
Good effort and all, but my lord, the repercussions of this FAQ destroys higher level play.
Worse, it only destroys it for some classes, creating a disparity.
|
Worse, it only destroys it for some classes, creating a disparity.Whatever they were trying to help with, they harmed more.
Good effort and all, but my lord, the repercussions of this FAQ destroys higher level play.
Or if you actually read it, it does none of these things.
But don't let that get in the way of people freaking out because a corner case they thought worked can be restricted by the GM if they choose to.
God forbid the GM be able to say no to something or be given discretion...
Whatever they were trying to help with, they harmed more.
Good effort and all, but my lord, the repercussions of this FAQ destroys higher level play.
Uh...no it doesn't.
It is a guideline to give GM's ammunition to deal with absurdity.
Full stop.
Or possibly to be abusive. Works both ways. Players aren't your enemy after all, and GMs could already say 'woah! too many free actions there bro. I can't have you talk, drive the cart, do your laundry, and walk the dog all at the same time.' as per the rules.
And it does do some harm to high level play if a GM decides archers only get 3 arrows per turn even at level 20. That's pretty painful. I mean, its no harm if you didn't have archers, but its plenty of harm if you did.
|
The guideline also says that the GM can feel free to allow more or less free actions. People seem to be glossing over that sentence.There is no new limit on free actions.
Nothing has changed.
Technically you're correct. But the guideline has now changed from "You might want to put some limits on if it gets out of hand" to "5, 3 if any are the same action".
While a GM can certainly still allow many free actions, it's now very hard to argue that the intent is for guns, especially, to get full iterative attacks.
Exactly.
They will continue to do so, and those "suggested limits" is all they focus on, but without context.
|
|
Whatever they were trying to help with, they harmed more.
Good effort and all, but my lord, the repercussions of this FAQ destroys higher level play.
Uh...no it doesn't.
It is a guideline to give GM's ammunition to deal with absurdity.
Full stop.
Or possibly to be abusive. Works both ways. Players aren't your enemy after all, and GMs could already say 'woah! too many free actions there bro. I can't have you talk, drive the cart, do your laundry, and walk the dog all at the same time.' as per the rules.
And it does do some harm to high level play if a GM decides archers only get 3 arrows per turn even at level 20. That's pretty painful. I mean, its no harm if you didn't have archers, but its plenty of harm if you did.
Apparently not, as this was a FREQUENTLY asked question.
If only a dev had come into the thread and said it doesn't effect arrows...
Oh wait, they did.
This crap really needs to stop. If you don't want to hear from the Devs, don't read the FAQ.
The rest of us like hearing the people who wrote the rules weigh in on the rules and are tired of people who thought they found some weird weapon cord interaction that let them get around the rules throw a fit when the Devs mention that GMs have the right to say "No".
It's completely ridiculous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The guideline also says that the GM can feel free to allow more or less free actions. People seem to be glossing over that sentence.There is no new limit on free actions.
Nothing has changed.
Technically you're correct. But the guideline has now changed from "You might want to put some limits on if it gets out of hand" to "5, 3 if any are the same action".
While a GM can certainly still allow many free actions, it's now very hard to argue that the intent is for guns, especially, to get full iterative attacks.
Exactly.
They will continue to do so, and those "suggested limits" is all they focus on, but without context.
That's an issue with the GM's reading comprehension, which is something no game company can help on. The FAQ clearly reads that this is just a suggestion. The only way it could be more is if that sentence was in large, bold, red letters. If a GM is going to skip that important sentence, and lacks the understanding that these are suggestions, then they probably shouldn't be a GM. Sorry if it sounds mean.
Apparently not, as this was a FREQUENTLY asked question.
Yeah... He could already say it. You could before and you could still now. You just have a suggestion on where to say it. The FAQs didn't change that. Some GMs may not have felt 'empowered' to do so maybe, but you definitely could before and now.
If only a dev had come into the thread and said it doesn't effect arrows...
Yeah, and he said that the rules already allow him to fire as many as his BAB allows. As does the gunslinger. Then they add in many shot, and rapid shot, and possibly do some dual wielding(or flurrying). Really neither were or are changed until the GM wishes it so.
This crap really needs to stop. If you don't want to hear from the Devs, don't read the FAQ.
I didn't hear it from the devs myself. I heard it from the forums first. Then I saw the FAQs and saw that it was a suggestion and that some people were taking it to heart.
|
|
I get why it was made.
Still, when it is put into a FAQ, many assume that something has changed.
Even though there is no change on the number of free actions one can perform, the fact that there is a FAQ on it, puts forth the suggestion, that something is different, or commonly misunderstood.
So, going in to read it, many are looking for that change, and the "suggested limit" sticks in their head, like that's the new change, and the new limit.
That's bad.
|
|
It had to be put in the FAQ because people were apparently telling GMs they couldn't put a limit on free actions, despite it saying in the book, they can.
So the devs gave reasonable guidelines to back up GMs.
Which is exactly what they should do.
That some people are upset that now the GM has backing for the authority they always had to say no to 15 free actions in a 6 second period...well those people have been upsetting people for years so Karma is a wheel...
Worse, it only destroys it for some classes, creating a disparity.Whatever they were trying to help with, they harmed more.
Good effort and all, but my lord, the repercussions of this FAQ destroys higher level play.
Or if you actually read it, it does none of these things.
But don't let that get in the way of people freaking out because a corner case they thought worked can be restricted by the GM if they choose to.
God forbid the GM be able to say no to something or be given discretion...
I DID read it. And it does exactly these things for any GM who agrees with the designers' ideas of what is reasonable and then implements it into their games.
A GM should be able to say no to unreasonable things. Classes being able to get their full number of attacks is NOT unreasonable.
|
I get why it was made.
Still, when it is put into a FAQ, many assume that something has changed.
Even though there is no change on the number of free actions one can perform, the fact that there is a FAQ on it, puts forth the suggestion, that something is different, or commonly misunderstood.
So, going in to read it, many are looking for that change, and the "suggested limit" sticks in their head, like that's the new change, and the new limit.
That's bad.
Worse, it sticks in a DM's head at a society event and your twf knife thrower gets hosed while the archer pumping out more arrows at greater range laughs at you.
Worse, it sticks in a DM's head at a society event and your twf knife thrower gets hosed while the archer pumping out more arrows at greater range laughs at you.
Were they not already?
So is your problem with bad GMs or the FAQ, which urges them to be reasonable?I DID read it. And it does exactly these things for any GM who agrees with the designers' ideas of what is reasonable and then implements it into their games.
A GM should be able to say no to unreasonable things. Classes being able to get their full number of attacks is NOT unreasonable.
FAQs that urge them to be unreasonable...
So is your problem with bad GMs or the FAQ, which urges them to be reasonable?
My problem is with a FAQ that encourages GMs to be UNREASONABLE.
|
|
FAQs that urge them to be unreasonable...So is your problem with bad GMs or the FAQ, which urges them to be reasonable?I DID read it. And it does exactly these things for any GM who agrees with the designers' ideas of what is reasonable and then implements it into their games.
A GM should be able to say no to unreasonable things. Classes being able to get their full number of attacks is NOT unreasonable.
3 to 5 free actions in a 6 second round as a guideline (not a rule, a guideline) is unreasonable...
But carrying loaded firearms on strings at all times, completely reasonable.
Oh crazytown, when will you be full?
Considering PFS only goes up to 12, there may be a lack of caring about breaking high level play.Actually this has not been the case for awhile now. You can bring your PFS characters up to 19th I think right now. They authorized High level Modules and APs for while now.
Ah, ok, I retract that then.
Apparently not, as this was a FREQUENTLY asked question.If only a dev had come into the thread and said it doesn't effect arrows...
Oh wait, they did.
I'm looking through the thread, and not seeing any dev comments at all. So, link and quote?
I'm looking through the thread, and not seeing any dev comments at all. So, link and quote?Apparently not, as this was a FREQUENTLY asked question.
If only a dev had come into the thread and said it doesn't effect arrows...
Oh wait, they did.
Here. Its in another thread.