From a realism perspective, you're quite correct. But them, from a realism perspective, neither guns nor crossbows should be reloadable in one turn, likely not in the same combat with as fast as combats go in D&D. But this is distinctly unplayable from a mechanical perspective. The full attack is king in D&D, and a weapon that can't make one is almost definitionally inferior. And if you create options-absolutely basic options, more or less specifically noted--to reload a firearm as fast as a bow, it should not be a surprise that people make full attacks with firearms.
Firearms have a unique advantage no other non-magical weapon has... they hit at touch AC. And that's before the special gunslinger tricks come in.
There are legal ways of full attacking with a firearm.
1. Operate in a campaign where revolvers are allowed weapons. (sorry that leaves out PFS)
2. Do what we did in Living Arcanis.... Carry more guns. A person carrying three flintlocks would not be that much out of order.
You can also use the Pistol of the Infinite Sky. Although you can't really afford them until at least 13th level, probably 14th. And two at 16th for unlimited two-weapon firing.
Really this goes back to something that was said before. If you want to reload black powder weapons without breaking verisimilitude, use magic. Don't just say, "Well he is just 12 times faster when he is reloading than when he is doing anything else."
And just for fun...
People have posted videos of fast bowmen (or women), but I am incredibly impressed with this guy. If you are impatient, forward to 8:40 for something truly amazing.
Quick Draw
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.
Yeah but then that's like saying "you have a 20% miss chance against a concealed target unless an ability, feat, etc. says otherwise" or "you can't sacrifice some of your attack bonus to increase your damage unless an ability, feat, etc. says otherwise"
Abilities and feats always grant you some exception to another rule, be it a limitation because it wasn't stated that you can do it or an explicit rule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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. :)I apologize if I misunderstood but I took this comment to mean that you agreed.
In any case, if we are to ignore the FAQ then it has failed to do it's job as a guideline. If we pay attention to the FAQ then it creates unintended consequences such as limiting the number of arrows you can draw per round to 3 (the FAQ does not state that bows are not part of the limit, that is only in Dev comments).
- Gauss
From the FAQ: "Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances."
So I think you should pay attention to the FAQ, even when it says, hey your milage may vary.
The thing is, this is trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to say "3 same or 5 different is the rule, but not really, but we recommend it, but you can change it, no big deal, but seriously, 3 same or 5 different, maybe."
Most game designers I've met are real sticklers for language. In fact, they tend to be the most, er, talented rules lawyers I've ever met. I've also seen game designers that are more, "eh, whatever works for you guys, specific rules language is a straitjacket". This is fine too, but they tend to work on games with pretty simple rulesets and the commandment for GMs and players to fill in the gaps themselves. They wouldn't give a recommendation like 3-5 because it just doesn't fit the philosophy of "you can figure out what works for you".
Besides, do you and the rest of the designers really have a problem with gunslingers getting 4 shots a round, even though you guys built it into the class and made feats specifically to support this? If so, why make it not only possible, but obviously so? It's right there in the BAB and the specific language of alchemical cartridges that allows them to be reloaded as a free action with Rapid Reload. Nobody I've met would read that and think that a gunslinger that invested in that feat would be unable to take even their regular 4 iteratives at level 20--no TWF, no double-barreled, no weapon cords, just one gun. But here comes the "guideline"....
This doesn't even touch on why a general FAQ like this was presented if the intention was solely to rein in the gunslinger. You could have done that with a simple errata to the weapon cord and double-barreled firearms. The former is terrible as written (a dangling weapon doesn't hinder your hand for non-fine actions, even if you draw another weapon and make an overhand chop?), and the latter is terrible as designed because it does one of the following:
(a) doubles your attack count for little drawback (misfire chance can be made negligible, misfires are annoying at most for gunslingers, and -4 to hit means little when you're hitting touch AC), or
(b) doesn't increase your attack count at all, because the GM implemented the FAQ's guideline, making the double-fire mechanic a trap option, something Pathfinder generally manages to avoid.
In any case, the FAQ didn't even work. It didn't clarify "GM can limit free actions" for anyone that didn't already know it. It presented a guideline that confused more people than it helped and, if adopted as written, wrecks many of the assumptions that other rules are based upon--the idea that free actions are generally free unless they get obviously ridiculous. And, most tragically of all, it failed to actually solve the gunslinger problem. They'll just find other ways of getting their shots off without using "free" actions. Pistols of the Infinite Sky aren't all that expensive for a gunslinger high enough level to cause a major balance problem.
Face it; this FAQ was a disaster. You folks spend a lot of your time diving into these threads and answering questions, reviewing FAQ requests, trying to clean up tricky issues like Stealth, and so on. You guys are good people. But everybody drops the ball from time to time. This was a bad FAQ, from any angle--worse than nothing at all. As long as nobody from Paizo seems to understand that (even as an opposing but reasonable point of view), I'm going to have less incentive to read, much less implement, future FAQs. And I know I'm not the only one.
Fixing imbalances should probably be done on the smallest scale possible. If there is something wrong with the gunslinger, or guns, it's better to fix them, rather than a global rule that effects them.
As blahpers illustrated the change doesn't really affect gunslingers, because there are ways to work around it, considering that a limitation to 3 reloads a turn only affects a high level gunslinger in the first place. You need either rapid shot and +11 BAB or no feat and +16 BAB to fire more than 3 shots. And in turn you hit all manner of other limitations all of a sudden. You nerf crossbows even more, including repeating crossbows (pulling the lever is a free action), thrown weapons are hit by the change and of course now everyone is much more limited in their free actions. All because one class using one specific type of weapon is dealing too much damage.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People have posted videos of fast bowmen (or women), but I am incredibly impressed with this guy. If you are impatient, forward to 8:40 for something truly amazing.
Quick Draw
Very cool, and our heroic gunslingers should be able to match, and even exceed, Bob's ability.
But no-one here is saying that firing guns can't be done that fast. We're saying that reloading a muzzle-loader cannot be done that fast!
Even Bob, reloading a revolver with metal cartridges, wasn't doing it with free action-like speed.
To impress us, someone post a link to a video of superhuman muzzle-loading reload speeds. Start with a loaded weapon, fire, reload, fire, reload, fire, all in six seconds. That would impress me, and that's just two reloads.
I'll make the challenge even easier: start with loaded muzzle-loader, fire, reload, fire, all in six seconds. That's just one reload!
IMO no one should be counting free actions as regular play, but a GM should have some recourse when a player seems to be taking advantage of some strange bit of the free action economy. That is the purpose of the guideline. We want you to shoot all the arrows you can. We want you to do cool things, just as long as your GM is cool with it. That's it. That is all. That is the whole point of the FAQ.This is why we are saying that the FAQ was done badly, because it so spectacularly fails to do this and instead does quite the opposite.
It suggests that counting free actions (rather than evaluating them or putting much context on them) is what is meant by a DM using judgement on free actions. This is horrid.
The core rules already say exactly what you are saying is needed here, and absent of the FAQ's suggestions would accomplish just this. And had the FAQ stopped at merely quoting the core rules, it would have been fine and accomplished what you've stated.
But should the fact that a PC is talking cut down on the number of times they can fire their projectile weapon??? I can't see this as anything that one would consider as reasonable.. and it certainly conflicts with what you are suggesting above.
This FAQ has fundamental and glaring problems with it. It is worse than having nothing in the FAQ addressing it.
-James
Meh, I read the FAQ exactly as intended: it's a tool for GMs to use to stamp down on free action abuse, if they find that doing so is necessary. It's a reaffirmation of GM discretion, that is all.
As for talking, I posted about that in another thread. No matter how many times people want to roll their eyes at the idea that talking can limit your ability to do other things, it's actually scientifically well-founded. Talking is distracting. Multitasking is suboptimal. Talking while doing something else is multitasking.
But again, this FAQ does not in any way say that any time a character talks during a round a GM should limit that characters actions. This FAQ says it is a possibility available to the GM, if the GM believes the circumstances call for it.
IMO no one should be counting free actions as regular play, but a GM should have some recourse when a player seems to be taking advantage of some strange bit of the free action economy. That is the purpose of the guideline. We want you to shoot all the arrows you can. We want you to do cool things, just as long as your GM is cool with it. That's it. That is all. That is the whole point of the FAQ.This seemed clear on my initial reading - I completely failed to anticipate the controversy which greeted the example (even though my first thought was 'It's silly to make someone shoot less for talking').
I wonder whether the FAQ would actually be improved if you just cut out the examples? That might still give the DM the 'written authority' to do whatever seemed reasonable to them - perhaps this is one area of the rules best served by the designers not appearing to be prescriptive (since it's inherently a judgement call).
That's toeing a fine line. Without any examples, the direction is fairly meaningless. It doesn't state anything that isn't in the CRB already. Reiterating that a GM may curtail free actions in the face of abuse doesn't really help with identifying what may constitute abuse in certain circumstances.
That's not to say that the examples used are necessarily the best way to assist some GMs in identifying what may constitute abuse. I'm just saying that I think examples are probably necessary. If we want to quibble about what the examples actually should be, that seems reasonable.
|
|
If some free actions should really be considered 'not an action, but part of another action', like nocking an arrow, then I'm glad that the PDT are finally expressing the opinion I've been advocating for years!
For years 're-gripping' was undefined in terms of what action (if any) it was. For years, I was saying (and posting) that re-gripping was as much part of the attack with a melee weapon as nocking an arrow was part of attacking with a bow.
I also said that many actions which are officially defined as 'free actions' should really be 'not an action, but part of another action', but that 'free action' was easier to type, and who cares since free actions are unlimited. The free action grab should not be a free action, just part of the grapple. Drawing a weapon with Quick Draw should be part of the attack, not a separate free action (as long as you attack with it immediately); it's even written that way in 4th ed.
However, when the action cost for 're-gripping' was finally defined by the PDT a short while ago, did they define it as 'not an action, but part of the attack', in the way we've just been told the PDT really think of these things? No, it was defined as a 'free action'.
If you are holding a two-handed reach weapon in one hand, while the other hand is free, you can't attack with it. Adding that free hand so that it is now held in two hands enables the weapon to be used to attack. This parallels the situation with a bow: it's held in one hand with no arrow, then the archer can draw an arrow, nock it and shoot (in the process actually re-gripping the bow in two hands en passant), enables the weapon to be used to attack.
If the PDT thinks that the bow example, even though it involves the 'free action' of drawing an arrow, should be do-able outside your own turn (because even though it says it's a free action it's really just part of the attack), then adding your free hand to the reach weapon should be do-able outside your own turn, by that same logic!
Since the bow example subsumes re-gripping the bow as well as drawing and nocking an arrow, the reach weapon re-gripping (which doesn't have extra things like drawing and nocking) should be even easier!
And since the 'free action' of drawing an arrow should, according to the PDT, be do-able outside your own turn because it's required in order to take the AoOs granted by Snap Shot, then surely the 'free action' of re-gripping your held reach weapon should also be do-able outside your own turn in order to take your AoOs!
This means that any two-handed melee weapon held in one hand while the other is free, does threaten!
At last!
This position will not meet with universal agreement on these boards, but if the PDT think that the free action of drawing an arrow to take an AoO is okay outside your own turn, then the PDT should equally think that the free action of adding your second hand to the weapon to take an AoO is equally okay!
Meh, I read the FAQ exactly as intended: it's a tool for GMs to use to stamp down on free action abuse, if they find that doing so is necessary. It's a reaffirmation of GM discretion, that is all.
The thing is, that already exists:
"However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM."The problem people have with the faq is that it puts out two specific numbers, which people read as what a "reasonable" amount should be about.
As for talking, I posted about that in another thread. No matter how many times people want to roll their eyes at the idea that talking can limit your ability to do other things, it's actually scientifically well-founded. Talking is distracting. Multitasking is suboptimal. Talking while doing something else is multitasking.
With this I can agree.
Drawing an arrow to make an AoO outside of your turn is allowable as "part of the attack" if you have the necessary feat(s) to make it so.
Meh, I read the FAQ exactly as intended: it's a tool for GMs to use to stamp down on free action abuse, if they find that doing so is necessary. It's a reaffirmation of GM discretion, that is all.The thing is, that already exists:
"However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM."The problem people have with the faq is that it puts out two specific numbers, which people read as what a "reasonable" amount should be about.
I recognize it's already there (mentioned it in my second post). But insofar as the FAQ is concerned, it's a reinforcement of that with guidelines that could be used in the event restriction is necessary. The most important phrase in the entire thing, from my perspective, is "Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances."
This FAQ gives the GM more leverage when arguing with the type of player who would actually need to have their free action abuse curtailed. It's a more concrete argument for a GM to make (regarding what a reasonable limit on free actions might be) than "Well the CRB says I can limit them, so I'm limiting them."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I recognize it's already there (mentioned it in my second post). But insofar as the FAQ is concerned, it's a reinforcement of that with guidelines that could be used in the event restriction is necessary. The most important phrase in the entire thing, from my perspective, is "Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances."
This FAQ gives the GM more leverage when arguing with the type of player who would actually need to have their free action abuse curtailed. It's a more concrete argument for a GM to make (regarding what a reasonable limit on free actions might be) than "Well the CRB says I can limit them, so I'm limiting them."
These are just guidelines mind you.
Reasonably, you can do 3 things. Maybe 5 if they're different things.
This is, quite literally (in the correct sense of that word) what the FAQ says.
That it is reasonable to limit people to 3 free actions. Maybe 5 if they are different free actions.
"I want to draw 5 arrows this round to fire my full bab attacks plus haste."
"You can't, that is unreasonable. Be reasonable, 3, plus you can talk and throw a knife if you have quick draw."
"I want to fire my hand cross-bow 4 times this round. My feat says I can do so and load it as fast as I have iterative attacks."
"You can't, that's not reasonable. Reasonable would be 3 times. Maybe let you say a few words, and throw a dagger if you have quick draw. Be reasonable, the Paizo developers themselves said 3 was reasonable. You're not trying to be unreasonable are you? It's RAI, Dev's said so."
"I want to swing my 14 lb Earth Breaker 4 times in six seconds, and once for haste. Oh, and I have a feat that let's me take a 5 ft step during the attack."
"Let's see, no free actions, sure, you're good to go! So glad you were being reasonable, not like those unreasonable ranged jerks."
|
|
Drawing an arrow to make an AoO outside of your turn is allowable as "part of the attack" if you have the necessary feat(s) to make it so.
Although you must be able to use the 'draw an arrow' free action when using Snap Shot, the feat itself makes no mention of this.
So we can't tell, by reading that feat or its associated FAQ, whether this 'outside your own turn free action' is specifically granted by the feat (without saying so) or whether the Devs believe that it can be done because that particular 'free' action is really just part of the attack and not a separate action at all. This second interpretation has just been supported by Radley-MacFarland (in general terms), so by that logic 're-gripping' is also really just part of the attack and therefore it's a free action that can be done outside your own turn.
Drawing an arrow to make an AoO outside of your turn is allowable as "part of the attack" if you have the necessary feat(s) to make it so.
Yep. And I do have the feats I need to make AoOs outside my own turn. As it turns out, feats aren't needed to make just one AoO. So I definitely have the necessary feat(s).
I recognize it's already there (mentioned it in my second post). But insofar as the FAQ is concerned, it's a reinforcement of that with guidelines that could be used in the event restriction is necessary. The most important phrase in the entire thing, from my perspective, is "Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances."
This FAQ gives the GM more leverage when arguing with the type of player who would actually need to have their free action abuse curtailed. It's a more concrete argument for a GM to make (regarding what a reasonable limit on free actions might be) than "Well the CRB says I can limit them, so I'm limiting them."
These are just guidelines mind you.
Reasonably, you can do 3 things. Maybe 5 if they're different things.
This is, quite literally (in the correct sense of that word) what the FAQ says.
That it is reasonable to limit people to 3 free actions. Maybe 5 if they are different free actions.
"I want to draw 5 arrows this round to fire my full bab attacks plus haste."
"You can't, that is unreasonable. Be reasonable, 3, plus you can talk and throw a knife if you have quick draw."
"I want to fire my hand cross-bow 4 times this round. My feat says I can do so and load it as fast as I have iterative attacks."
"You can't, that's not reasonable. Reasonable would be 3 times. Maybe let you say a few words, and throw a dagger if you have quick draw. Be reasonable, the Paizo developers themselves said 3 was reasonable. You're not trying to be unreasonable are you? It's RAI, Dev's said so."
"I want to swing my 14 lb Earth Breaker 4 times in six seconds, and once for haste. Oh, and I have a feat that let's me take a 5 ft step during the attack."
"Let's see, no free actions, sure, you're good to go! So glad you were being reasonable, not like those unreasonable ranged jerks."
No, the FAQ says it could be reasonable to limit people to perhaps three free actions. Recognizing how the FAQ is actually worded completely changes the tenor. And again, there's a difference between a reasonable option and the only reasonable option. Some people insist upon reading the latter into the FAQ when it's quite clearly intentionally worded as the former.
And if the GM at that particularly table thinks it's reasonable to limit everybody to three free actions per turn, then whatever. GM prerogative. That could have happened before, anyway. Just like GMs are free to say "no guns". Just like GMs are free to say "No SLA to qualify for prestige classes". Just like GMs are free to say "re-gripping is a non-action in my games. So, if you want to TWF with a greatsword and a gauntlet, go for it."
If you don't like how a GM is going to run his or her game, have a discussion about it or play with someone else. Why should this free action issue be any different?
People have posted videos of fast bowmen (or women), but I am incredibly impressed with this guy. If you are impatient, forward to 8:40 for something truly amazing.
Quick DrawVery cool, and our heroic gunslingers should be able to match, and even exceed, Bob's ability.
But no-one here is saying that firing guns can't be done that fast. We're saying that reloading a muzzle-loader cannot be done that fast!
Even Bob, reloading a revolver with metal cartridges, wasn't doing it with free action-like speed.
To impress us, someone post a link to a video of superhuman muzzle-loading reload speeds. Start with a loaded weapon, fire, reload, fire, reload, fire, all in six seconds. That would impress me, and that's just two reloads.
I'll make the challenge even easier: start with loaded muzzle-loader, fire, reload, fire, all in six seconds. That's just one reload!
Here's the closest I think we get: Shoot, load, shoot, load, shoot, load, shoot. in 46 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQIf you want a heroic gunslinger in the campaign, why not give him guns that can do what the class can do? Revolvers are fine for this. Why is it necessary to have flintlock breechloaders that magically fires as fast as a semi-automatic pistol?
15 to 16 second reloads. That's nearly three rounds to reload and fire the weapon once. A level one character without any feats other than firearm proficiency is already much faster than that, with a full-round action to reload a musket. They would fire 3 shots in 36 seconds and be able to move in between.
Drawing an arrow to make an AoO outside of your turn is allowable as "part of the attack" if you have the necessary feat(s) to make it so.Although you must be able to use the 'draw an arrow' free action when using Snap Shot, the feat itself makes no mention of this.
So we can't tell, by reading that feat or its associated FAQ, whether this 'outside your own turn free action' is specifically granted by the feat (without saying so) or whether the Devs believe that it can be done because that particular 'free' action is really just part of the attack and not a separate action at all. This second interpretation has just been supported by Radley-MacFarland (in general terms), so by that logic 're-gripping' is also really just part of the attack and therefore it's a free action that can be done outside your own turn.
Drawing an arrow to make an AoO outside of your turn is allowable as "part of the attack" if you have the necessary feat(s) to make it so.Yep. And I do have the feats I need to make AoOs outside my own turn. As it turns out, feats aren't needed to make just one AoO. So I definitely have the necessary feat(s).
You can't make AoO with ranged weapons without the appropriate feats. The FAQ on the feat says you can reload as a free action as a part of making your attack of opportunity. So, I'm not sure why it's relevant to two-handed melee weapons. Sure, one could try to extrapolate as you have done. But in so doing, you have to assume that the taking of the feat is irrelevant to the ability to carry out what the feat is actually designed to allow you to do.
Snap Shot is unusable if you cannot draw and load as a part of the attack (or at least take that free action outside of your turn). It's implicit.
Since there's a feat involved, I do not believe you can extrapolate the intent re: free actions as a part of the attack to a situation which does not involve the same or a similar feat.
Snap Shot is unusable if you cannot draw and load as a part of the attack (or at least take that free action outside of your turn). It's implicit.
Alternatively, be like my last GM and think it only allows one AoO per round.
@Friends of the Dork: Or if the concern is that allowing everyone access to rapid-shooting firearms makes other weapons near-pointless (and it would - it did so in reality), then make the single-shot black powder pistols martial weapons, and get rid of the 'advanced' firearms and restrict them to the Gunslinger class (or gun-based archetypes).
|
|
You can't make AoO with ranged weapons without the appropriate feats.
True, but you can take AoOs with melee weapons without needing a feat.
The FAQ on the feat says you can reload as a free action as a part of making your attack of opportunity. So, I'm not sure why it's relevant to two-handed melee weapons. Sure, one could try to extrapolate as you have done. But in so doing, you have to assume that the taking of the feat is irrelevant to the ability to carry out what the feat is actually designed to allow you to do.
Yes, you do need to be able to draw arrows outside your own turn in order to make use of this feat. But the feat just grants you the ability to use a ranged weapon to take an AoO, it does not say anything about giving you the ability to take free actions outside your own turn, nor does it say that the feat changes 'drawing ammunition' from a free action to 'not an action but part of the attack'.
Snap Shot is unusable if you cannot draw and load as a part of the attack (or at least take that free action outside of your turn). It's implicit.
Agreed. But we can't tell (by reading the feat OR the FAQ) whether the feat grants this ability (without saying so!) or whether drawing arrows is considered 'part of the attack'.
Since there's a feat involved, I do not believe you can extrapolate the intent re: free actions as a part of the attack to a situation which does not involve the same or a similar feat.
It's just as much extrapolation either way!
So, which is it? Granted (silently!) by the Snap Shot feat? Or a core assumption by the PDT that 'free' actions which are actually 'part of the attack' can be taken whenever the attack is taken?
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.
So, the PDT thinks that this 'free' action is 'part of the attack'. Since the Snap Shot feat doesn't explicitly grant this, it must be a general assumption of the rules. That 'free' actions which are really 'part of the attack' can be done whenever that attack is made, and this assumption is why there was no need to give the Snap Shot feat the special ability to do this, because it isn't special to the Snap Shot feat at all!
Snap Shot is unusable if you cannot draw and load as a part of the attack (or at least take that free action outside of your turn). It's implicit.Alternatively, be like my last GM and think it only allows one AoO per round.
Without Combat Reflexes, that's how it's supposed to work.
If you want to get pedantic with it, he says "When reloading with Snap Shot ...", meaning the feat is something of a necessary component.
Regardless, we're getting far afield. We could discuss this topic alone for quite a while, but it's not really germane here. All I'm saying is don't get too excited with possible implications that extend beyond what the PDT might be explicitly talking about. That sort of thing is how we end up with really restrictive interpretations in the first place, because Developers don't want their answers taken out of the intended consequence to imply other things they didn't mean in other areas that they weren't even discussing in the first place.
This issue has nothing to do with two-handed melee weapons.
And if the GM at that particularly table thinks it's reasonable to limit everybody to three free actions per turn, then whatever. GM prerogative.Only as much as everything is.. along the same lines as limiting melee fighters to two attacks in a full attack action is.
The FAQ directly contradicts the RAW with the examples given.
It puts forth that counting free actions is reasonable, and even the devs will say that it is not.
It doesn't address the issue that the devs have said it was created to address.
And it was merely intended as flame bait in the first place.
All in all, it has left me disappointed in Paizo on many levels.
Pathfinder was a great start in cleaning up 3.5, and they did a great job.. but now its seeming as if they are never going to complete that monumental task.. and worse are falling into whatever trap exists on that huge dev side that WotC fell into.
-James
No it doesn't. RAW says GMs can limit free actions, in their discretion. FAQ says GMs can limit free actions, in their discretion.
Counting free actions can be reasonable. That's what the FAQ says. It says you can count free actions; it doesn't say you must.
|
|
@fretgod99: while I can sympathise with those sentiments, these things aren't done in a vacuum, whatever the intentions of the devs.
Are free actions (the kind which are conceptually 'part of the attack') allowed to be used to enable an AoO that you qualify for to take place?
Whatever the answer, it would apply equally to any AoO that you are allowed to take, whether with a two-handed weapon or with a bow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No it doesn't. RAW says GMs can limit free actions, in their discretion. FAQ says GMs can limit free actions, in their discretion.
Counting free actions can be reasonable. That's what the FAQ says. It says you can count free actions; it doesn't say you must.
It says that, RAI, you should be limited to 3 to 5 free actions per round. It says that that is reasonable. It doesn't say it's reasonable only for a single class, or type of free action. It just says it's reasonable to limit them, and that 3 to 5 is a reasonable limit.
By definition, that 3-5 is RAI now, because the developers said it was a reasonable limit.
Before they backed off on it in message after message, and hemmed and hawed and said they don't think any GM should be counting, and it shouldn't apply to anything other than firearms, well, maybe cross-bows, even if the feat says something different, or maybe not.
Actually, you should just ignore the FAQ, per the devs in the forum posts, but it's still RAI until it's removed from the FAQ. Only it's not RAI, just a suggestion, but we think it's totally reasonable, except when it affects things we didn't want it to affect, but we don't feel we need to specify what it should affect.
You'll know it when you see it, honestly, truely. Like good art... but 3 is reasonable, yeah.. except when it isn't...
What was this supposed to clarify again?
|
|
Radley-MacFarland says that the devs don't want us to go around counting out the free actions we take.....!
Cool!
How does that gel with the '3-5 free actions' mentioned in the FAQ?
The reason that we didn't care if reloading a crossbow was technically one free action or two is because we didn't have to count them! They're free!
The only reason to count them....is this FAQ!
Before then we used our judgement to prevent abuse. Now, we count. : /
@fretgod99: while I can sympathise with those sentiments, these things aren't done in a vacuum, whatever the intentions of the devs.
Are free actions (the kind which are conceptually 'part of the attack') allowed to be used to enable an AoO that you qualify for to take place?
Whatever the answer, it would apply equally to any AoO that you are allowed to take, whether with a two-handed weapon or with a bow.
Unless what allows the combination for ranged weapons is the fact that you've taken a feat to do it. And the wording of the FAQ implies that you need to have the feat. So, there's still a difference. That's my point.
No it doesn't. RAW says GMs can limit free actions, in their discretion. FAQ says GMs can limit free actions, in their discretion.
Counting free actions can be reasonable. That's what the FAQ says. It says you can count free actions; it doesn't say you must.
It says that, RAI, you should be limited to 3 to 5 free actions per round. It says that that is reasonable. It doesn't say it's reasonable only for a single class, or type of free action. It just says it's reasonable to limit them, and that 3 to 5 is a reasonable limit.
By definition, that 3-5 is RAI now, because the developers said it was a reasonable limit.
Before they backed off on it in message after message, and hemmed and hawed and said they don't think any GM should be counting, and it shouldn't apply to anything other than firearms, well, maybe cross-bows, even if the feat says something different, or maybe not.
Actually, you should just ignore the FAQ, per the devs in the forum posts, but it's still RAI until it's removed from the FAQ. Only it's not RAI, just a suggestion, but we think it's totally reasonable, except when it affects things we didn't want it to affect, but we don't feel we need to specify what it should affect.
You'll know it when you see it, honestly, truely. Like good art... but 3 is reasonable, yeah.. except when it isn't...
What was this supposed to clarify again?
No, it doesn't.
It says a GM could limit you to 3 or 5 free actions. Or more. Or fewer. Because it's up to the GM.
It never says must. It never says every round. It never says every instance. All of these things would be implied if the language used was "You should limit free actions to ..." or anything even remotely similar. But it never says, in any way, that a GM must (or should) uniformly limit free actions to 3 or 5 per turn. Not once. If it did, then you would be correct that the RAI would be to limit free actions to 3 to 5 per character per round. But, again, it does not.
You are reading into the FAQ what you want to see. It is not mandatory to require a counting of free actions for every character every turn and limit their free actions to 3 to 5. That is in no way a legitimate reading of the FAQ.
And frankly, that's been my only reason for commenting. If you don't like the FAQ regardless of whether it's laying out a mandatory rule or not, fine. We can have that discussion. But that's different entirely from saying there is now a new RAI that every GM must track every free action for every character every turn because each character can only have 3 or 5 free actions. That reading is wholly unsupported by the language in the FAQ itself and it is nowhere near the intent of the PDT.
It is a suggested guideline on when and how GMs can exercise their discretion, not must. The difference between the two is massive. If you don't like even the suggestion of a guideline, that's fine. That's a perfectly fair discussion to have. So let's do that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
fretgod99, the problem is, how does a GM define what is "reasonable"?
There is only one definition of what is reasonable, in the FAQ. What is reasonable has never been defined up until that FAQ.
Prior to the FAQ what was reasonable was a nebulous concept where the GM was mostly limited to whatever was legal except in obvious (to the GM) cases of abuse.
After the FAQ what is reasonable has now been defined as 3 or 5 free actions and the GM has to intentionally override them in order to allow more.
While experienced GMs will happily override the FAQ inexperienced GMs won't know all of the chat that has occurred. They will not know it is not intended to apply to bows, crossbows, or dagger throwing.
Yes, it is a suggestion we can ignore. But, it is a suggestion that people may follow and as a result nerf things that were not intended to be nerfed.
Of course, the counter-argument will be: Why are such newbies GMing?
Because they do, I see posts from newbie GMs on these and other forums. GMs that picked up the game with their friends and are giving it a try. All of them new, none of them having ever touched it before.
Do you really expect these people to read hundreds of comments to find out that the Devs did not mean for the FAQ to apply to X, Y, and Z?
Hell, that doesn't even cover the slightly more experienced that simply read it and then follow the guideline because they think that if it is good enough for Paizo it is good enough for them. Again, all because they did not read hundreds of posts.
If a FAQ leads people to an incorrect conclusion about what is reasonable in a game is it a good FAQ?
- Gauss
I pointed out in another thread that the entire reason you put forward gudielines is because you intend for them to be used by others as a basis for their decisions.
As an example, if you go to an event that has no actual entry fee, but you see a sign outside stating that "Donations of $5 or more are appreciated!" what is the intention of the sign? It's not a requirement, but it's obvious that the people holding the event would like for all attendees to donate $5 or more.
If you're taking a health supplement, and the bottle is labeled "Recommended dose: 2 pills a day", how many pills are most people going to take?
In the case where you offer numeric examples as a guideline, your intention - even if you explicitly state, "...but it's up to you" - is that the person reading it uses those examples in their decision-making process. Moreso when you use words like 'reasonable', which imply that alternatives to the offered values are unreasonable.
No it doesn't. RAW says GMs can limit free actions, in their discretion. FAQ says GMs can limit free actions, in their discretion.
Counting free actions can be reasonable. That's what the FAQ says. It says you can count free actions; it doesn't say you must.
It says that, RAI, you should be limited to 3 to 5 free actions per round. It says that that is reasonable. It doesn't say it's reasonable only for a single class, or type of free action. It just says it's reasonable to limit them, and that 3 to 5 is a reasonable limit.
By definition, that 3-5 is RAI now, because the developers said it was a reasonable limit.
Before they backed off on it in message after message, and hemmed and hawed and said they don't think any GM should be counting, and it shouldn't apply to anything other than firearms, well, maybe cross-bows, even if the feat says something different, or maybe not.
Actually, you should just ignore the FAQ, per the devs in the forum posts, but it's still RAI until it's removed from the FAQ. Only it's not RAI, just a suggestion, but we think it's totally reasonable, except when it affects things we didn't want it to affect, but we don't feel we need to specify what it should affect.
You'll know it when you see it, honestly, truely. Like good art... but 3 is reasonable, yeah.. except when it isn't...
What was this supposed to clarify again?
No, it doesn't.
It says a GM could limit you to 3 or 5 free actions. Or more. Or fewer. Because it's up to the GM.
It never says must. It never says every round. It never says every instance. All of these things would be implied if the language used was "You should limit free actions to ..." or anything even remotely similar. But it never says, in any way, that a GM must (or should) uniformly limit free actions to 3 or 5 per turn. Not once. If it did, then you would be correct that the RAI would be to limit free actions to 3 to 5 per character per round....
TRUE/FALSE
The FAQ has the number 3 in it.The FAQ has the number 5 in it.
The numbers 3 and 5 are in the context of limiting free actions.
There are numbers other than 3 and 5 in the same context.
If you answered True, True, True, False; then you must agree that either:
A) The numbers are arbitrary.
B) The numbers are not arbitrary.
If you believe A to be the case then it is reasonable to understand why people do not like their inclusion. It gives a printed credibility to an arbitrary choice.
If you believe B to be the case then it is reasonable for people to suggest that their choice is terrible and doesn't represent any forethought of repercussions in the game.
Using his own criteria.fretgod99, the problem is, how does a GM define what is "reasonable"?
Then why offer an example at all?
Nicos, without the GM having experience his criteria is usually the game's and Devs criteria. The Devs just stated 3-5 is the criteria.
- Gauss
Nicos, without the GM having experience his criteria is usually the game's and Devs criteria. The Devs just stated 3-5 is the criteria.
- Gauss
Yet another reason the example is unfortunate.
TRUE/FALSE
The FAQ has the number 3 in it.
The FAQ has the number 5 in it.
The numbers 3 and 5 are in the context of limiting free actions.
There are numbers other than 3 and 5 in the same context.
If you answered True, True, True, False; then you must agree that either:A) The numbers are arbitrary.
B) The numbers are not arbitrary.If you believe A to be the case then it is reasonable to understand why people do not like their inclusion. It gives a printed credibility to an arbitrary choice.
If you believe B to be the case then it is reasonable for people to suggest that their choice is terrible and doesn't represent any forethought of repercussions in the game.
When did I ever say the number weren't arbitrary? We're talking about rules. Of a game. Everything is arbitrary.
Whether the numbers chosen are more or less arbitrary than other numbers that could have been chosen is ultimately irrelevant to my point, which is that the FAQ does not create a situation of uniformly and mandatorily limiting any and all characters to 3 to 5 free actions.
fretgod99, the problem is, how does a GM define what is "reasonable"?
There is only one definition of what is reasonable, in the FAQ. What is reasonable has never been defined up until that FAQ.
Prior to the FAQ what was reasonable was a nebulous concept where the GM was mostly limited to whatever was legal except in obvious (to the GM) cases of abuse.
After the FAQ what is reasonable has now been defined as 3 or 5 free actions and the GM has to intentionally override them in order to allow more.
While experienced GMs will happily override the FAQ inexperienced GMs won't know all of the chat that has occurred. They will not know it is not intended to apply to bows, crossbows, or dagger throwing.
Yes, it is a suggestion we can ignore. But, it is a suggestion that people may follow and as a result nerf things that were not intended to be nerfed.
Of course, the counter-argument will be: Why are such newbies GMing?
Because they do, I see posts from newbie GMs on these and other forums. GMs that picked up the game with their friends and are giving it a try. All of them new, none of them having ever touched it before.
Do you really expect these people to read hundreds of comments to find out that the Devs did not mean for the FAQ to apply to X, Y, and Z?
Hell, that doesn't even cover the slightly more experienced that simply read it and then follow the guideline because they think that if it is good enough for Paizo it is good enough for them. Again, all because they did not read hundreds of posts.
If a FAQ leads people to an incorrect conclusion about what is reasonable in a game is it a good FAQ?
- Gauss
Again, what was posited in the FAQ was not the reasonable answer; it was a reasonable answer. Regarding the rest of the potential confusion stemming from the FAQ, I'm not disagreeing with that, which is ultimately my point. That's a discussion we can have. But running around saying the FAQ created new RAI and everybody is now limited to 3 to 5 free actions is not only flatly incorrect, but creates more confusion.
It was not "The reasonable solution is to limit free actions to 5, or 3." It was, "It is reasonable to limit free actions to 5, or perhaps 3, but as always, it's up to the GM to figure out." None of that means, "You must do this unerringly."
EDIT: And to be clear, I'm not here to be an absolute defender of the FAQ. I'm not saying everything about it is great. If there are things to address, let's address them. What I am saying is that carrying on by critiquing the FAQ for creating new mandatory free action counting standards is as incorrect as it is unhelpful. Address the things about the FAQ that you do not like. There's no need to attack the FAQ based on things you don't like, but the FAQ doesn't actually do.
TRUE/FALSE
The FAQ has the number 3 in it.
The FAQ has the number 5 in it.
The numbers 3 and 5 are in the context of limiting free actions.
There are numbers other than 3 and 5 in the same context.
If you answered True, True, True, False; then you must agree that either:A) The numbers are arbitrary.
B) The numbers are not arbitrary.If you believe A to be the case then it is reasonable to understand why people do not like their inclusion. It gives a printed credibility to an arbitrary choice.
If you believe B to be the case then it is reasonable for people to suggest that their choice is terrible and doesn't represent any forethought of repercussions in the game.
When did I ever say the number weren't arbitrary? We're talking about rules. Of a game. Everything is arbitrary.
Whether the numbers chosen are more or less arbitrary than other numbers that could have been chosen is ultimately irrelevant to my point, which is that the FAQ does not create a situation of uniformly and mandatorily limiting any and all characters to 3 to 5 free actions.
I didn't say you did, in fact I gave you a choice. It seems you believe they are arbitrary. So I would reaffirm my point in that case.
If the numbers are arbitrary then it is reasonable to understand why people do not like their inclusion. It gives a printed credibility to an arbitrary choice.
I pointed out in another thread that the entire reason you put forward gudielines is because you intend for them to be used by others as a basis for their decisions.
As an example, if you go to an event that has no actual entry fee, but you see a sign outside stating that "Donations of $5 or more are appreciated!" what is the intention of the sign? It's not a requirement, but it's obvious that the people holding the event would like for all attendees to donate $5 or more.
If you're taking a health supplement, and the bottle is labeled "Recommended dose: 2 pills a day", how many pills are most people going to take?
In the case where you offer numeric examples as a guideline, your intention - even if you explicitly state, "...but it's up to you" - is that the person reading it uses those examples in their decision-making process. Moreso when you use words like 'reasonable', which imply that alternatives to the offered values are unreasonable.
True. You put out guidelines to use as a basis. So, the event-goer sees a suggested donation of $5 and says, "Hm. $5? That's a bit much for how long I'm going to be here. Here's $3." The next event-goer says, "I don't have a $5, but I really want to support the arts, so have $10." The next event-goer doesn't say anything, s/he just hands over a $5.
$5 is a nice baseline for expected donations. Everybody is free to assess how much they are willing to donate, using the baseline as a starting point.
Just like every GM can look at the FAQ and say, "Meh, even 5 is too few." Or, "I'm not going to worry about it, just like always, unless somebody is making a mess of things." Or, "3 sounds good, except for [a few specific instances]."
3 to 5 free actions has been established as a baseline. So people can use it as such. Or not. Whatever.
TRUE/FALSE
The FAQ has the number 3 in it.
The FAQ has the number 5 in it.
The numbers 3 and 5 are in the context of limiting free actions.
There are numbers other than 3 and 5 in the same context.
If you answered True, True, True, False; then you must agree that either:A) The numbers are arbitrary.
B) The numbers are not arbitrary.If you believe A to be the case then it is reasonable to understand why people do not like their inclusion. It gives a printed credibility to an arbitrary choice.
If you believe B to be the case then it is reasonable for people to suggest that their choice is terrible and doesn't represent any forethought of repercussions in the game.
When did I ever say the number weren't arbitrary? We're talking about rules. Of a game. Everything is arbitrary.
Whether the numbers chosen are more or less arbitrary than other numbers that could have been chosen is ultimately irrelevant to my point, which is that the FAQ does not create a situation of uniformly and mandatorily limiting any and all characters to 3 to 5 free actions.
I didn't say you did, in fact I gave you a choice. It seems you believe they are arbitrary. So I would reaffirm my point in that case.
If the numbers are arbitrary then it is reasonable to understand why people do not like their inclusion. It gives a printed credibility to an arbitrary choice.
I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not talking about the arbitrariness of the numbers. I'm not talking about whether people can or cannot dislike the inclusion of more concrete guidelines in the FAQ. I'm talking about whether the inclusion of the more concrete guidelines establishes something for which there is mandatory compliance.
It does not. The FAQ goes out of its way to make clear that it's discretionary.