You can't take free actions when it is not your turn.
I have been waiting for that clarification for so long, ever since the Snap Shot FAQ about drawing ammo.
Thanks.
Guess this also answers the Grab UMR on an AoO.
You can't take free actions when it is not your turn.For another example, let's take the Enforcer feat.
Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action.
This means all attacks, even AoOs.
Any PC with Combat Reflexes can get this off more than 3 times a round, at first level.
According to FAQ, this could be seen as abuse.
This is not drawing an arrow, or reloading, or anything else that seems to be a focus here.
This is even more restricted if one decides to speak, while being intimidating, because that is definitely abuse then.
At least, according to these "reasonable" suggestions.
And it amazes and upsets me that the designers either don't realize this or refuse to acknowledge it.
Hopefully, they will see the error of their ways and change it.
It's probably more accurate to say, "You can't take free actions when it's not your turn, unless an ability, feat, etc. specifically states otherwise."
With the exception of snap shot, but yes.You can't take free actions when it is not your turn.
Technically no. While this is splitting hairs a bit, I admit, when reloading with Snap Shot you are doing it as part of the ranged weapon attack, with the caveat that you can only do this if you have the ability to reload the weapon as a free action.
You are not actually taking a free action when it is not your turn.
It's probably more accurate to say, "You can't take free actions when it's not your turn, unless an ability, feat, etc. specifically states otherwise."
That should be assumed for anything.
It's probably more accurate to say, "You can't take free actions when it's not your turn, unless an ability, feat, etc. specifically states otherwise."You can't take free actions when it is not your turn.For another example, let's take the Enforcer feat.
Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action.
This means all attacks, even AoOs.
Any PC with Combat Reflexes can get this off more than 3 times a round, at first level.
According to FAQ, this could be seen as abuse.
This is not drawing an arrow, or reloading, or anything else that seems to be a focus here.
This is even more restricted if one decides to speak, while being intimidating, because that is definitely abuse then.
At least, according to these "reasonable" suggestions.
And it amazes and upsets me that the designers either don't realize this or refuse to acknowledge it.
Hopefully, they will see the error of their ways and change it.
We actually try to avoid doing that wherever possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I foresee people raging about this argument :)
Oh, I hope not. It seems a silly thing to rage about, given that is also what the FAQ states about the subject.
I foresee people raging about this argument :)Oh, I hope not. It seems a silly thing to rage about, given that is also what the FAQ states about the subject.
Yes, well....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I foresee people raging about this argument :)Oh, I hope not. It seems a silly thing to rage about, given that is also what the FAQ states about the subject.Yes, well....
::shrugs:: I guess that just makes me an optimist.
Oh wait, the caveat about not technically taking the free action out of turn, but rather as part of the attack action means grab does work on AoOs.
Either way, there's one persistent argument killed. Thanks, Stephen.
Stephen, I know you wrote the FAQ so I am not questioning your authority on this.
However, how I read the Snap Shot FAQ is:
1) If you reload a weapon as a free action you can do so due to the FAQ even though it is using free actions when it is not your turn.
2) The FAQ "technically" does not cover drawing ammunition, a different type of free action.
3) The FAQ's intent is clear, you can do what it takes to draw ammunition and reload your weapon so long as those actions are free actions, even when it is not your turn.
4) This intent may even be expanded to include any free action that is normally part of the attack (such as Grab).
An interesting sidenote: It is two free actions for reloading a firearm or crossbow. One to draw the ammunition and another to reload it (if you can reload as a free action). So for a crossbow shooting 4 times that is 8 free actions.
- Gauss
So.... wait... what does that mean about the Grab and/or Trip ability on an AoO?
Does the logic behind the snap shot FAQ apply to those?
To wit, I fully understand why someone cannot normally take a free action outside of their turn. It would be bedlam. However, I also understand that the spirit of a free action is that it is done as part of some other action. So if you run past a crocodile and procoke an attack... and that croc hits you... does it get its chance to grab you?
Also... since you're here... rock catching is listed as a free action which is taken out of turn in response to being attacked. The language should probably be changed to mimic something like Snatch Arrows instead.
You can't take free actions when it is not your turn.
Seems like other designers aren't on the same page then. For example, the Order of the Warrior Honor in All Things ability grants a +4 to a saving throw (or skill check) as a free action. Wouldn't that mean it's applicable to saves that occur only on the Samurai's (or Cavalier's) turn?
Actually.. while were on the topic of grab... I think thay ability could use a ton of clarity. I have had to simply use workarounds and houserulings to allow a kraken to grapple multiple creatures at the same time (more specifically to maintain multiple grapples)
I sort of just change the maintain grapple check from being an action to instead being a free action (at -20) that denies any other use of the grabbing limb. I also allow those who are grappled to escape against a -20 cmd (according to RAW the cmd doesn't get altered)
You can't take free actions when it is not your turn.Seems like other designers aren't on the same page then. For example, the Order of the Warrior Honor in All Things ability grants a +4 to a saving throw (or skill check) as a free action. Wouldn't that mean it's applicable to saves that occur only on the Samurai's (or Cavalier's) turn?
Also does this mean if you become panicked you can't drop your held items till your turn, since dropping an item is a free action?
This also seem to go against the rules themselves. considering the immediate actions says "an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action."
Stephen, I know you wrote the FAQ so I am not questioning your authority on this.
However, how I read the Snap Shot FAQ is:
1) If you reload a weapon as a free action you can do so due to the FAQ even though it is using free actions when it is not your turn.
2) The FAQ "technically" does not cover drawing ammunition, a different type of free action.
3) The FAQ's intent is clear, you can do what it takes to draw ammunition and reload your weapon so long as those actions are free actions, even when it is not your turn.
4) This intent may even be expanded to include any free action that is normally part of the attack (such as Grab).An interesting sidenote: It is two free actions for reloading a firearm or crossbow. One to draw the ammunition and another to reload it (if you can reload as a free action). So for a crossbow shooting 4 times that is 8 free actions.
- Gauss
::sigh:: Actually, there are not two free actions involved here. I will admit that we are a little loosey-goosey with our language here (don't get me started on the two ways you can draw ammunition in the case of the bow). With arrows we talk about drawing the ammunition and with other weapons (like the crossbow) we talk about loading the ammunition. They functionally mean the same thing. It all involves taking out the ammunition from its container, and readying it to fire.
You will notice that we never tell you what action it is to "draw" the ammunition in the case of the crossbow or the shuriken (though, obviously some assume it is a free action due to the sentence about using a bow).
In other words, retrieving the ammunition is part of the action for reloading it (or drawing it in the case of the bow).
You can't take free actions when it is not your turn.Seems like other designers aren't on the same page then. For example, the Order of the Warrior Honor in All Things ability grants a +4 to a saving throw (or skill check) as a free action. Wouldn't that mean it's applicable to saves that occur only on the Samurai's (or Cavalier's) turn?
I did say that we try to avoid it. I didn't say we were always successful.
Stephen, I know you wrote the FAQ so I am not questioning your authority on this.
However, how I read the Snap Shot FAQ is:
1) If you reload a weapon as a free action you can do so due to the FAQ even though it is using free actions when it is not your turn.
2) The FAQ "technically" does not cover drawing ammunition, a different type of free action.
3) The FAQ's intent is clear, you can do what it takes to draw ammunition and reload your weapon so long as those actions are free actions, even when it is not your turn.
4) This intent may even be expanded to include any free action that is normally part of the attack (such as Grab).An interesting sidenote: It is two free actions for reloading a firearm or crossbow. One to draw the ammunition and another to reload it (if you can reload as a free action). So for a crossbow shooting 4 times that is 8 free actions.
- Gauss
::sigh:: Actually, there are not two free actions involved here. I will admit that we are a little loosey-goosey with our language here (don't get me started on the two ways you can draw ammunition in the case of the bow). With arrows we talk about drawing the ammunition and with other weapons (like the crossbow) we talk about loading the ammunition. They functionally mean the same thing. It all involves taking out the ammunition from its container, and readying it to fire.
You will notice that we never tell you what action it is to "draw" the ammunition in the case of the crossbow or the shuriken (though, obviously some assume it is a free action due to the sentence about using a bow).
In other words, retrieving the ammunition is part of the action for reloading it (or drawing it in the case of the bow).
Actually, you do... under the description for "draw or sheathe a weapon" in the CRB
"Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action."
::sigh:: Actually, there are not two free actions involved here. I will admit that we are a little loosey-goosey with our language here (don't get me started on the two ways you can draw ammunition in the case of the bow). With arrows we talk about drawing the ammunition and with other weapons (like the crossbow) we talk about loading the ammunition. They functionally mean the same thing. It all involves taking out the ammunition from its container, and readying it to fire.
You will notice that we never tell you what action it is to "draw" the ammunition in the case of the crossbow or the shuriken (though, obviously some assume it is a free action due to the sentence about using a bow).
In other words, retrieving the ammunition is part of the action for reloading it (or drawing it in the case of the bow).
I've got to ask now; So how do we know what's a free action and what's a non action? Particularly in cases like being told drawing ammunition is a free action in one place but otherwise we know it as a non action? Also, would my game explode if I ran free actions during other peoples turns or should I for the most part not even notice?
So.... wait... what does that mean about the Grab and/or Trip ability on an AoO?
Does the logic behind the snap shot FAQ apply to those?
To wit, I fully understand why someone cannot normally take a free action outside of their turn. It would be bedlam. However, I also understand that the spirit of a free action is that it is done as part of some other action. So if you run past a crocodile and procoke an attack... and that croc hits you... does it get its chance to grab you?
Yes. While we attempt to avoid latching on free actions when it is not your turn, we are inconstant in this, partially due to legacy. When something grants you the ability to do something as a free action when it is not your turn, of course you can do it. We do try to avoid it for something a little cleaner (as part of an action). But that is more a design decision than any attempt to limit older rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the rules, I only know what is written (which I may then choose to ignore).
Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.
Benefit: The time required for you to reload your chosen type of crossbow is reduced to a free action (for a hand or light crossbow) or a move action (for a heavy crossbow). Reloading a crossbow still provokes an attack of opportunity.
Drawing ammunition and reloading are two separate actions. For a light crossbow they are normally a free and then a move action. Since the move action for a Light Crossbow is then reduced to a free action that becomes a free action to draw the bolt and then a free action to reload the crossbow. Still two actions as defined in the CRB.
For bows, there is drawing ammunition (free action according to CRB p187) and nocking (no action according to CRB p182). Thus, only one free action is being used.
Personally, it doesn't matter for me, I am not using the new FAQ. However, this is important when understanding how we are reading this FAQ since it is actually two free actions to reload a crossbow as written in the CRB.
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've got to ask now; So how do we know what's a free action and what's a non action? Particularly in cases like being told drawing ammunition is a free action in one place but otherwise we know it as a non action? Also, would my game explode if I ran free actions during other peoples turns or should I for the most part not even notice?
I believe it says "nocking an arrow" is a "not an action." ::rolls eyes:: There are "activities" that are "not an action." Rolling eyes is one of them.
I do know that editors hate when we use the term "as not an action" and for good reasons, so we have started to saddle things within other actions for clarity and sanity when we don't want the baggage of free actions but we want you to do things when it is not your turn.
Trust me, there are plenty of things in the action economy of this game I would love to streamline, but we do our best to do so little by little without invalidating or making great changes to the game as it stands.
So, if something says you can do something as a free action when it is not your turn, do it. But, we endeavor to limit those exceptions wherever possible, so we can have more interesting actions and exceptions in the game with a minimum (or so we hope) of fuss from the player base.
|
You can't take free actions when it is not your turn.For another example, let's take the Enforcer feat.
Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action.
This means all attacks, even AoOs.
Any PC with Combat Reflexes can get this off more than 3 times a round, at first level.
According to FAQ, this could be seen as abuse.
This is not drawing an arrow, or reloading, or anything else that seems to be a focus here.
This is even more restricted if one decides to speak, while being intimidating, because that is definitely abuse then.
At least, according to these "reasonable" suggestions.
And it amazes and upsets me that the designers either don't realize this or refuse to acknowledge it.
Hopefully, they will see the error of their ways and change it.
Wait...what? When did the rules change?
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.
Immediate Actions are actions (only 1 example) you can take when it is not your turn and the rules specifically state you can take free actions when taking another action.
Drawing ammunition and reloading are two separate actions. For a light crossbow they are normally a free and then a move action. Since the move action for a Light Crossbow is then reduced to a free action that becomes a free action to draw the bolt and then a free action to reload the crossbow. Still two actions as defined in the CRB.
For bows, there is drawing ammunition (free action according to CRB p187) and nocking (no action according to CRB p182). Thus, only one free action is being used.
Personally, it doesn't matter for me, I am not using the new FAQ. However, this is important when understanding how we are reading this FAQ since it is actually two free actions to reload a crossbow as written in the CRB.
- Gauss
I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I really don't think that is how most people played it, and as a designer, I'm really not interested in that level of granularity in the action economy. I just don't see the purpose.
|
|
Wait...what? When did the rules change?
They never did.
Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds in order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.)
|
|
Oh wait, the caveat about not technically taking the free action out of turn, but rather as part of the attack action means grab does work on AoOs.
Either way, there's one persistent argument killed. Thanks, Stephen.
I'm glad, after I snatched a cavalier out of his saddle with a AoO Grab during Siege of the Diamond City at RinCon.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland, as I said, it is not how I play it either. But I know I am not playing it the way it is written.
I do not mind house ruling things in my games, but I make sure I understand the rules as written before I start issuing clarifications and house rules.
What I am trying to say is that this is one source of the consternation with the FAQ.
You are not the first Dev to state this so it is clear that the Devs do not feel drawing and reloading to be separate actions or even non-actions. However, that isn't what is written and it is what is written that people examine before they then choose to ignore it (or not).
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I really don't think that is how most people played it, and as a designer, I'm really not interested in that level of granularity in the action economy. I just don't see the purpose.
I'm not really sure I'm comfortable with that last bit.
I would argue that the designers are EXACTLY the people who MUST deal with ALL levels of granularity when creating the game rules. Rules that are full of ambiguity, inconsistencies, and outright contradictions are not rules at all, they're simply broken guidelines.
It's the game designers' JOB to eliminate these whenever possible, regardless of the granularity of the rule conflicts. You might say it is exactly the "purpose" of the game designer. Or certainly one of his purposes.
|
|
Wait...what? When did the rules change?They never did.
Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds in order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.)
I fail to see how that quote dispels any confusion. The general rule is you can take free actions when you can take other actions. The general rule is you can take immediate actions when it isn't your turn. So the general rule is you can take free actions when you take an immediate action. So obviously a general rule that states you cannot take free actions when it is not your turn contradicts this.
I understand specific rules trump general rules, but the rules for both free actions and immediate actions are general rules, not specific ones. So this would be a case of a general rule trumping a general rule.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland, as I said, it is not how I play it either. But I know I am not playing it the way it is written.
I do not mind house ruling things in my games, but I make sure I understand the rules as written before I start issuing clarifications and house rules.
What I am trying to say is that this is the source of the consternation with the FAQ.
You are not the first Dev to state this so it is clear that the Devs do not feel drawing and reloading to be separate actions. However, that isn't what is written and it is what is written that people examine before they then choose to ignore it (or not).
- Gauss
The rules have always stated that the GM can limit the number of free actions. This FAQ gives guidance to something the GM always had power over. Some could say "but the GM might use it!" Which I think is how the argument goes, and my only response is "damn skippy!" It was always hers to restrict in any way she deems fit. The flip side is that she can decide not to, which was also within her prevue.
I don't think this is the source of the consternation. I think this is just drawing out the argument, which is a non-argument. To be honest, the Core Rulebook is not clear. That might be the sources of some consternation, not for this particular FAQ answer. This FAQ is advice and nothing more.
I understand specific rules trump general rules, but the rules for both free actions and immediate actions are general rules, not specific ones. So this would be a case of a general rule trumping a general rule.
I hear what you are saying, and I'm not unsympathetic to it. But the fact is many of these old free-action-when-it-is-not-your-turn exceptions tend to be latched on to attacks of opportunities and things that are not an action, like saving throws. And that makes it even weirder.
Just say'n.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, on that point we will have to agree to disagree. From what yourself and other Devs have stated you see it as a restatement of what is already stated in the CRB. I can understand that.
However, I and others see it as a restatement with a tacked on guideline that did not exist prior to the FAQ.
It is the guideline that is the problem. It gives GMs an arbitrary idea of what Paizo considers reasonable.
Now, can they ignore that? Yes. But, if Paizo has done it's job people will listen to your recommendations and be loathe to go against them.
That is what happens when an authority states: 3 of the same kind is reasonable and 5 of different kinds is reasonable.
Either the authority will be heeded, or it wont.
If it is heeded, then it has successfully done it's job. If it is not heeded, then it has failed to do it's job as an authority. Like it or not, for good or ill, Paizo is THE authority on Pathfinder. You say 3 is too much, who are people to argue?
So, where does that leave us? An arbitrary limit that you did not intend to interact with a variety of weapons such as bows, crossbows, and (probably) dagger throwing. But they DO interact because you did not provide an exception in the FAQ to these items and the CRB states all of these use 1 (or more) free actions.
Anyhow, I am just trying to explain the problem. It is up to you guys to resolve it or not but I plan on ignoring this FAQ because it does set up an unreasonable guideline in an attempt to nerf one specific build.
Forgive me if this was overly long, and if I haven't said it already, thank you for the work you guys do.
- Gauss
Well I think that any issues with language are tough.
There are enough things in the rules that are vague or unclear that we, as players, often latch on to anything that is presented in a clear manner even if this doesn't quite sit rihht with interpretation at times.
A good example is combat expertise. In 3.5 the bonus from having ranks in acrobatics appliead to this feat as well as fighting defensively... but in pathfinder this is not the case. It may seem like the two options are really similar and that this should be the case but we grab on to the RAW. this is also true for two weapon defense. And quite a few other abilities that address fighting defensively but not expertise.
Of course we can point to GM fiat but most GMs are wary about handing out bonuses... because of the ever expanding catalogue of rules, and the potency of some available builds, it can often feel like we are one misstep away from "breaking the game". So it is really important that we be able to fall back on the RAW as a place of balance. So we may get a little nit-picky but that is because the rules tend toward specificity and granularity... especially when it comes to key terms. And the action economy is such a huge pillar of the game that anything dealing with it can have very big effects.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Someone quoted earlier a very explicit section of the rules where it states that drawing ammunition, including arrows, is a free action. There's not really any room for confusion in what that passage says.
If the intent is that drawing an arrow is not a free action but part of the action of firing, then we have a passage where the RAI and the RAW are inarguably in contradiction. Could we get that FAQ'ed as well?
Like it or not, for good or ill, Paizo is THE authority on Pathfinder. You say 3 is too much, who are people to argue?
::looks around:: Yeah, I don't think this is a problem. :)
|
|
Someone quoted earlier a very explicit section of the rules where it states that drawing ammunition, including arrows, is a free action. There's not really any room for confusion in what that passage says.
If the intent is that drawing an arrow is not a free action but part of the action of firing, then we have a passage where the RAI and the RAW are inarguably in contradiction. Could we get that FAQ'ed as well?
Well both SKR & SRM seem to be in agreement on that. They just need to get the rest of the designers on board.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree with you Stephen that most people didn't note two separate actions (free or otherwise) when a player drew a bolt and then loaded said bolt into a crossbow. That was however before the FAQ suggesting that 3-5 free actions was a reasonable limit. Now, people are counting actions to determine if this is a viable suggestion for their game. Many of us are baffled by the inconsistency of what "free actions" should count as free actions and what "free actions" should not count as free actions, and what "free actions" should get bundled together to make one "free action."
Help us Stephen, you're our only hope!
I still disagree with any suggestion of creating a flat cap for free actions... I think that it creates far too many edge cases. OTOH if there was an erratta that said that drawing ammo and loading were part of the same action, one could reasonably limit free actions to 1 plus 1 per each action or attack.
The CRB loosely states that free actions are generally associated with another action. The confusion there is that an iterative attack is not an action in and of itself. And the word "action" is pretty clearly defined
Well both SKR & SRM seem to be in agreement on that. They just need to get the rest of the designers on board.Someone quoted earlier a very explicit section of the rules where it states that drawing ammunition, including arrows, is a free action. There's not really any room for confusion in what that passage says.
If the intent is that drawing an arrow is not a free action but part of the action of firing, then we have a passage where the RAI and the RAW are inarguably in contradiction. Could we get that FAQ'ed as well?
For what it's worth, I'm in agreement as well - because then the recent FAQ could be dumped completely, and they could put out a 'fix' to the balance problem with Gunslingers (which is, IMO, what should have been done to begin with).
Stephen Radney-MacFarland, nor did I say it was (a problem). But, if you (Paizo) are going to operate under the idea that you (Paizo) are the authority you (Paizo) cannot be surprised when we follow it to it's logical conclusion.
Before FAQ: Free actions to draw arrows before shooting said arrows in a bow was no big deal. Heck, I doubt most people even knew that drawing the arrow was a free action.
After FAQ: People are now checking what is and is not a free action since Paizo has now stated that 3 is a reasonable limit.
So, if we are following your FAQ, with no evidence to the contrary (other than personal statements by yourself and other Devs) you cannot draw more than 3 arrows a round and thus cannot fire a bow more than 3 times.
This is simply logic.
A) IF we follow your FAQ's guideline
B) AND drawing an arrow is a free action (which it is even if the intent is that it is not)
C) THEN you cannot draw more than 3 arrows per round.
In summary, you have agreed we should follow the FAQ since you are the authority. However, without reading a ton of comments by Devs, the authority has, in effect, stated that you cannot draw more than 3 arrows per round.
Something is wrong, it is either the FAQ guideline or it is the rules.
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
james maissen,
How did it come up? I read the rules.
The moment I saw Snap Shot I knew it was a problem because of the free action to draw an arrow. So, before it was even FAQ'd I had already decided that drawing an arrow wasn't going to be a free action in my games.
But, I generally do not bring up my house rules in a rules forum. It is not *usually* the appropriate place for them.
Free actions are a catch-all that seems to grab anything that is not specifically designated as a Full, standard, move, swift/immediate, or non-action. There is very little rhyme or reason to it.
Free actions are in need of some redesign. Simply put, anything that is a free action but should be part of another action shouldn't be a free action. For me, reloading a crossbow (rapid reload), drawing ammunition, etc is in this group.
Free actions should also not be in the situation where you can use them when it is not your turn. On these boards this is something people are regularly corrected on. It can be confusing which free actions can and cannot be used when it is your turn.
Prior to the Snap Shot FAQ the answer was: Talking.
After the Snap Shot FAQ the answer is: Talking, Reloading, and maybe anything that is part of an attack?
- Gauss
I think the major complaint here is that the FAQ examples moreso than the guidelines themselves have a huge impact on actions that I don't think anyone saw as abusive (if taken ay face value)
There have been other actual abuses of free actions like using mount/dismount for free movement. Using drope proen and the stand up rogue trick combined with 'come and get me' to get bonus attacks by provoking aoos. Even double loading a double-barreled musket could be taken this way.
But the faq didn't reestablish or reempower the gm to adjudicate these edge cases. It instead suggested that an action as common as loading a crossbow should be inherently limited. It also never suggests that this type of free action should scale at all with a characters available number of attacks. The direct implication from the example given is that the character could fire three shots from his pistol but should be limited if he chooses to speak. This would also clearly implicate that with 4 iterative attacks, rapid shot and haste a character should still be limited to three shots.... two if he used quickdraw to pull the gun.... but then he can't speak.
This makes for some weird cases. That character would actually (under these guidelines) be better served by drawing his gun as a move action and taking 2 rapid shots as a standard action to save the free action for speech. Which effectively makes quickdraw a wasted feat.
It actually means that a player might start to ask to be able to downgrade a swift action to perform an extra free action.
Either way.. for martial characters this game is all about action economy and trying to get the most out of it. So changing that economy has a big impact.
I would agree with you Stephen that most people didn't note two separate actions (free or otherwise) when a player drew a bolt and then loaded said bolt into a crossbow. That was however before the FAQ suggesting that 3-5 free actions was a reasonable limit. Now, people are counting actions to determine if this is a viable suggestion for their game. Many of us are baffled by the inconsistency of what "free actions" should count as free actions and what "free actions" should not count as free actions, and what "free actions" should get bundled together to make one "free action."
Help us Stephen, you're our only hope!
LOL. Well I don't know if I will be much help on that front. The juggling of free actions, and the GM's ability to limit them is more art than science. I will freely admit that. And the FAQ suggestion seems more like science, but I guess I see it more as giving relative guidelines for the art of it.
Here is a technique. Use it when it makes sense, abandon it when it doesn't.