Can I fire my longbow six times in a round, ever?

[mdt]

Bizbag wrote:

I'm simply doing what I can to try to remind people on this forum that it is not a Set Rule.

Bugsy : Now look here, see. There's no, eh, what you call it, Set Rule that you have to do what I say, see? But there is a, eh, what you call it, strong recommendation, see?

Player : But, but, it's just a suggestion right?

Bugsy : Ok boys, fill 'im full of lead!

BAM BAM BAM

Goon : Sorry boss, is 3 rounds enough?

[seebs]

To put it another way:

Prior to this FAQ entry, you could advance the arguments that:
1. It would be unreasonable to set the restriction on free actions so low that it prevented a character from taking their full iterative attack if reloading were a free action for them.
2. It would be unreasonable to restrict non-talking actions, like reloading a gun, based on whether or not a character shouted a one or two word phrase in combat.

Those arguments are now absolutely, totally, dead in the water. You can't call either of those things "unreasonable" anymore, because the official FAQ from the Pathfinder Design Team offers both of those as specific examples of reasonable restrictions.

Before this FAQ ruling, a player could at least assert that it seemed like restricting a gunslinger to half their attacks in a round was unreasonable. Now, that's not an option.

So something has changed, because a thing which restricts characters very severely has now been explicitly blessed as an example of a reasonable restriction.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I get your point, seebs. As I said in another thread, in a perfect world, the rulebook would state that drawing ammunition to fire it as part of an attack isn't an action at all, and therefore the "what about my iterative bow attacks" wouldn't even be a question.

Before the 'changing grip' FAQ I advocated the idea that, when wielding a two-handed weapon, the user should be able to let go with one of the two hands, and re-grip it, as part of the attack (as opposed to being a free action). I made the comparison to 'nocking an arrow', which is not an action but part of the attack, and certainly much more involving that changing grip with both hands free to manipulate the weapon. Ever seen a baton-twirling majorette?

For me, it is absurd to suggest that if a creature is able, by the rules, to make 8 attacks per round that the number of free actions he can use to be limited to less than that number.

The problem with the perception that firearms are being loaded too many times per round is not that the number of allowed free actions is two high, but that reloading a firearm is a free action at all! We're not talking 19th century repeating rifles here; a free action is just not appropriate for the kind of firearms/ammunition we're talking about.

[StreamOfTheSky]

seebs wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I get your point, seebs. As I said in another thread, in a perfect world, the rulebook would state that drawing ammunition to fire it as part of an attack isn't an action at all, and therefore the "what about my iterative bow attacks" wouldn't even be a question.

But crossbows, it's not just "drawing ammunition", but also cocking the crossbow, which is clearly something. And prior to seeing this FAQ ruling, I would have assumed that no GM would ever rule that you couldn't take full iteratives with a light crossbow and rapid reload. And it would never, ever, in a million years, have occurred to me to think that whether or not you also talked would be relevant.

Here I thought, only blondes couldn't talk and reload a crossbow at the same time.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

seebs wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I get your point, seebs. As I said in another thread, in a perfect world, the rulebook would state that drawing ammunition to fire it as part of an attack isn't an action at all, and therefore the "what about my iterative bow attacks" wouldn't even be a question.

But crossbows, it's not just "drawing ammunition", but also cocking the crossbow, which is clearly something. And prior to seeing this FAQ ruling, I would have assumed that no GM would ever rule that you couldn't take full iteratives with a light crossbow and rapid reload. And it would never, ever, in a million years, have occurred to me to think that whether or not you also talked would be relevant.

Here I thought, only blondes couldn't talk and reload a crossbow at the same time.

It's a good job chewing gum hasn't been invented yet!

Seriously, far too often the writers write 'free action' when 'not an action' would be more appropriate, with negative rules consequences.

[Sean K Reynolds]

I can't help that some people will interpret a guideline as a firm rule. Just as I can't help that some GMs won't admit they're wrong about a rule unless "a dev confirms that it works the way you say it does."

[Braingamer]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Seriously, far too often the writers write 'free action' when 'not an action' would be more appropriate, with negative rules consequences.

And, to bring this full circle back to the OP -

PRD wrote:

Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.

Nocking an arrow is not a free action, but not-an-action. Archers can shoot all they want, even in your GM limits the number of free actions.

[LoneKnave]

Drawing the arrow however is still a free action, and not a no-action.

Or for throwers drawing daggers or whatever to throw, as if throwers weren't bad enough already.

[Gauss]

Sean K Reynolds, people respect you and the Devs at Paizo so when an example is provided as to what is acceptable limits of an ability people listen. Paizo is the authority on Pathfinder and so when Paizo puts out an example, it is held up as the yardstick for all contexts of a rule or guideline.

This FAQ just set up an example that prevents a gunslinger using one pistol from shooting and reloading more than 3 times regardless of BAB, Feats, or magic. While I recognize the example is probably intended to limit the TWF-Pistol concept it is not worded that way.

I understand this is a guideline, but the example provided in this guideline introduces a concept into the game that did not previously exist. Namely: that you cannot reload a pistol (or by extension, musket or crossbow) more than 3 times in a round.

So I ask this: Is it's Paizo's intent to issue a guideline that states a Gunslinger shooting one pistol cannot shoot and reload more than 3 times in a round?

If the answer is yes, what is different between a Gunslinger using a pistol shooting and reloading more than 3 times per round and a Musketmaster shooting and reloading more than 3 times per round?

If the answer to that is 'there is no difference', would Crossbows be similarly restricted to 3 reloads per round since they also use the same reload mechanic?

- Gauss

[Sean K Reynolds]

Is there a combination of rules that allows a crossbow wielder to fire and reload multiple times with a crossbow in each hand, then drop both of those weapons, quick draw two more crossbows as a free action, and fire and reload multiple times with each hand again?

If so, then yes, the design team's intent is that it's reasonable for the GM to say, "no, you're abusing the rules and you really shouldn't be able to do that"—whether the character is using a gun or a crossbow.

[blackbloodtroll]

That already existed.

This creates a precedent on what is intended as a limit.

[Gauss]

Sean K Reynolds, if the example stated what you just stated then I would understand. However, that is not what the example states.

Free Action FAQ wrote:

Example: In one round you could reload a pistol three times (using alchemical cartridges and Rapid Reload [pistol]), or speak and reload a pistol twice, as you are repeating the same free action multiple times.

There is nothing in the example about dropping weapons, quick drawing more weapons, etc.

What IS in there is that, in this example, you cannot reload a pistol more than three times or speak and reload more then twice.

I have no problem with the FAQ itself. My problem is with the example.

Examples produced by Paizo are the golden standard and set precedents.

The precedent here is that, a level 20 Gunslinger with Haste, Rapid Shot, and Rapid Reload and using cartridges, cannot reload more than 3 times. Prior to this Example the same Gunslinger would have gotten 6 attacks and reloads (4BAB, 1 Rapid Shot, 1 Haste).

I ask again, is it the intent to prevent this?

I really want to know your intent, this is not a rhetorical question.

Since you do like your questions answered here goes.:

Using the Glove of Storing, yes I think there is a combination of rules that allows a user to:
1) Fire two hand-crossbows (TWF)
2) Place one hand-crossbow in the glove as a free action.
3) Reload the remaining glove and continue with Iterative and rapid shot attacks.
4) Use Quickdraw to continue firing with previous weapons.

However, since the user cannot reliably swap crossbows from hand to hand (it takes a free hand to accept the crossbow from one hand to the other) I do not think your specific question is possible. In short, Crossbow A is in Hand A. Crossbow B is in Hand B.

There is no room for Crossbow A to go into Hand B and no room for Crossbow B to go into Hand A. The glove of storing does not get one out of this restriction either since it requires a free hand for the item to appear in.

- Gauss

[Rynjin]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Is there a combination of rules that allows a crossbow wielder to fire and reload multiple times with a crossbow in each hand, then drop both of those weapons, quick draw two more crossbows as a free action, and fire and reload multiple times with each hand again?

If so, then yes, the design team's intent is that it's reasonable for the GM to say, "no, you're abusing the rules and you really shouldn't be able to do that"—whether the character is using a gun or a crossbow.

I think that's a bit of a double standard.

When you've specifically designed an option to be inferior (which you've said IS the case for crossbows), why is it unreasonable for that option to achieve some simulacra of the effectiveness of the superior option through a combination of rules, equipment, and Feat investment when the option designed to be superior can do it with no, or lesser, investment?

This assumes, of course, you're talking about a crossbow equivalent of weapon cords/TWFing with guns and not some rules illegal tactic that lets you get more attacks than your BaB and TWFing allows. It's a bit unclear with the "reloads multiple times and then draws more crossbows for more attacks" comment.

[The Shaman]

In general, at the level a fighter can fire 4-5 arrows per round PCs are at levels that would correspond to mythic heroes. I mean, at this level that PC can take several good hits with a greatsword and keep moving - is it so surprising they can fire a bow with near-preternatural speed?

[Gauss]

The Shaman, 4-5shots a round is not near-preternatural speed. This girl is shoots about one arrow per second while walking! Other speed archers do similarly. Here is a speed archer who can shoot 10 arrows in ~5 seconds

- Gauss

[MordredofFairy]

yeah, also, crossbows.

here's a bit about the Chinese Repeating Crossbows

And another showing what even Lego can do to make a 70-round semiautomatic crossbow

[ciretose]

Gauss wrote:

The Shaman, 4-5shots a round is not near-preternatural speed. This girl is shoots about one arrow per second while walking! Other speed archers do similarly. Here is a speed archer who can shoot 10 arrows in ~5 seconds

- Gauss

And I can swing a sword more than once in 6 seconds.

Which is not the point.

[ciretose]

MordredofFairy wrote:

yeah, also, crossbows.

here's a bit about the Chinese Repeating Crossbows

And another showing what even Lego can do to make a 70-round semiautomatic crossbow

If only repeating crossbows existed in the game...

[ciretose]

Rynjin wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Is there a combination of rules that allows a crossbow wielder to fire and reload multiple times with a crossbow in each hand, then drop both of those weapons, quick draw two more crossbows as a free action, and fire and reload multiple times with each hand again?

If so, then yes, the design team's intent is that it's reasonable for the GM to say, "no, you're abusing the rules and you really shouldn't be able to do that"—whether the character is using a gun or a crossbow.

I think that's a bit of a double standard.

When you've specifically designed an option to be inferior (which you've said IS the case for crossbows), why is it unreasonable for that option to achieve some simulacra of the effectiveness of the superior option through a combination of rules, equipment, and Feat investment when the option designed to be superior can do it with no, or lesser, investment?

This assumes, of course, you're talking about a crossbow equivalent of weapon cords/TWFing with guns and not some rules illegal tactic that lets you get more attacks than your BaB and TWFing allows. It's a bit unclear with the "reloads multiple times and then draws more crossbows for more attacks" comment.

Which is why there are repeating crossbows and multi-fire fire arms.

The point is that being able to reload faster because you dropped and picked up an item is silly, even if technically aa loophole in the rules allows it.

So they are reminding GMs you can say no to such things.

[The Shaman]

@ Gauss - I've seen the video, yes. My point was that even presuming a much harder conditions in a battle and larger bow with heavier pull, the sort of characters who can reach 5-6 attacks per round are on the level where they may exceed what we consider strictly realistic historical examples.

[MordredofFairy]

ciretose wrote:

MordredofFairy wrote:

yeah, also, crossbows.

here's a bit about the Chinese Repeating Crossbows

And another showing what even Lego can do to make a 70-round semiautomatic crossbow

If only repeating crossbows existed in the game...

true...if only. that abomination named repeating crossbow in-game is such a sad excuse for one...and totally exotic to boot. as said...if only they existed-

[thejeff]

ciretose wrote:

Which is why there are repeating crossbows and multi-fire fire arms.

The point is that being able to reload faster because you dropped and picked up an item is silly, even if technically aa loophole in the rules allows it.

So they are reminding GMs you can say no to such things.

And if double barrels or weapon cords had been mentioned in the FAQ and if suggested guideline and examples had only limited them, then few would be complaining.

Instead the specific example limits someone firing a single, one-barreled pistol to reloading 3 times, twice if he talks.

If the intent is what you suggest, why that example?

[ciretose]

thejeff wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Which is why there are repeating crossbows and multi-fire fire arms.

The point is that being able to reload faster because you dropped and picked up an item is silly, even if technically aa loophole in the rules allows it.

So they are reminding GMs you can say no to such things.

And if double barrels or weapon cords had been mentioned in the FAQ and if suggested guideline and examples had only limited them, then few would be complaining.

Instead the specific example limits someone firing a single, one-barreled pistol to reloading 3 times, twice if he talks.

If the intent is what you suggest, why that example?

Ask SKR. He's answered this question in one of these threads, he's explained it doesn't effect bows...

Basically he spent his Saturday night dealing with all of these concerns and now it's down to "Well they didn't say it how I wanted them to say it and so they suck".

It wasn't just about weapon cords, it was about free action abuse.

You can't cite every single example of free action abuse, but there are a number of posters on here who consistently point out ways to manipulate free actions beyond any kind of reasonable limit and this was the FAQ to remind GMs they can say no.

The weapon cord double barrel cheese is one of the most egregious, but by no means the only issue.

[Avh]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I get your point, seebs. As I said in another thread, in a perfect world, the rulebook would state that drawing ammunition to fire it as part of an attack isn't an action at all, and therefore the "what about my iterative bow attacks" wouldn't even be a question.

Well, that's a shame.

You are one of the main Paizo staff, and so you have the opportunity to suggest (at least) changes in the rules.

Don't pretend that "in a perfect world blah blah blah", when you have the direct power to change that.

And that FAQ is dumb : yes a DM can and is encouraged to limit the number of free action. Limiting it to 3 is dumb and does not feel "free action" anymore.

EDIT : And no, I don't play Gunslinger or anything else that uses free action as a class/feat ability for that matter.

[ciretose]

Avh wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I get your point, seebs. As I said in another thread, in a perfect world, the rulebook would state that drawing ammunition to fire it as part of an attack isn't an action at all, and therefore the "what about my iterative bow attacks" wouldn't even be a question.

Well, that's a shame.

You are one of the main Paizo staff, and so you have the opportunity to suggest (at least) changes in the rules.

Don't pretend that "in a perfect world blah blah blah", when you have the direct power to change that.

And that FAQ is dumb : yes a DM can and is encouraged to limit the number of free action. Limiting it to 3 is dumb and does not feel "free action" anymore.

EDIT : And no, I don't play Gunslinger or anything else that uses free action as a class/feat ability for that matter.

So you want them to re-write the core rulebook creating a new category, now.

I'm all for edition change, so I can get behind that, but others not so much...

Also, how many free actions in 6 seconds would be reasonable to you?

[Avh]

ciretose wrote:

Avh wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I get your point, seebs. As I said in another thread, in a perfect world, the rulebook would state that drawing ammunition to fire it as part of an attack isn't an action at all, and therefore the "what about my iterative bow attacks" wouldn't even be a question.

Well, that's a shame.

You are one of the main Paizo staff, and so you have the opportunity to suggest (at least) changes in the rules.

Don't pretend that "in a perfect world blah blah blah", when you have the direct power to change that.

And that FAQ is dumb : yes a DM can and is encouraged to limit the number of free action. Limiting it to 3 is dumb and does not feel "free action" anymore.

EDIT : And no, I don't play Gunslinger or anything else that uses free action as a class/feat ability for that matter.

So you want them to re-write the core rulebook creating a new category, now.

I'm all for edition change, so I can get behind that, but others not so much...

Also, how many free actions in 6 seconds would be reasonable to you?

Free actions should be... free (yeah, I know !).

If something does not feel "free action", then either make it a swift action/move action.

The same goes for the doublebarreled gun : if the developpers (and players except for Gunslingers) don't like the 2 shots per attack, then delete/modify it to allow 1 shot per attack BUT recharging 2 bullets with one action.

Paizo makes FAQs and errata when there is no need to, and when there is a need, they take the problem in the wrong sense 90% of the time.

[thejeff]

ciretose wrote:

thejeff wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Which is why there are repeating crossbows and multi-fire fire arms.

The point is that being able to reload faster because you dropped and picked up an item is silly, even if technically aa loophole in the rules allows it.

So they are reminding GMs you can say no to such things.

And if double barrels or weapon cords had been mentioned in the FAQ and if suggested guideline and examples had only limited them, then few would be complaining.

Instead the specific example limits someone firing a single, one-barreled pistol to reloading 3 times, twice if he talks.

If the intent is what you suggest, why that example?

Ask SKR. He's answered this question in one of these threads, he's explained it doesn't effect bows...

Basically he spent his Saturday night dealing with all of these concerns and now it's down to "Well they didn't say it how I wanted them to say it and so they suck".

It wasn't just about weapon cords, it was about free action abuse.

You can't cite every single example of free action abuse, but there are a number of posters on here who consistently point out ways to manipulate free actions beyond any kind of reasonable limit and this was the FAQ to remind GMs they can say no.

The weapon cord double barrel cheese is one of the most egregious, but by no means the only issue.

I haven't seen a direct statement from SKR about the pistol example. From various comments by him, I've gotten the impression that he thinks full attacks with a single pistol are too much, but I could well be reading into that.

I don't have any problem with reinforcing the "GMs can limit free actions" thing. I just think that the limits suggested are way too low. They're lower than needed to handle the most egregious abuses and they're so low that special exceptions have to be made for standard iterative attacks.

Yeah, yeah, I know. They're only guidelines. But they're bad guidelines.

[james maissen]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Is there a combination of rules that allows a crossbow wielder to fire and reload multiple times with a crossbow in each hand, then drop both of those weapons, quick draw two more crossbows as a free action, and fire and reload multiple times with each hand again?

Well let's see.. first the crossbow wielder would need another hand to reload those crossbows with two hands occupied.

Then he would need the number of attacks that you mention.

He would need the rapid reload feat that was designed for him to fire at the same rate as a bow.

And he would need the quick draw feat.

So what and where, exactly is the problem with the free actions?

Where you have the problem is that you made, essentially, effective crossbows (i.e. guns), you let them do better than bow damage per shot, and then you expressly made ways for them to be reloaded as free actions.

The problem is not free actions.. the problem is in the gun rules if you see that you have a problem in the result.

For example: replace your crossbow shots with javelins. They are drawn and thrown. The character in question only needs quickdraw and the number of free action draws is not limited to 3, but rather his full number of attacks (which could exceed that at 2nd level).

-James

[MordredofFairy]

ciretose wrote:

thejeff wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Which is why there are repeating crossbows and multi-fire fire arms.

The point is that being able to reload faster because you dropped and picked up an item is silly, even if technically aa loophole in the rules allows it.

So they are reminding GMs you can say no to such things.

And if double barrels or weapon cords had been mentioned in the FAQ and if suggested guideline and examples had only limited them, then few would be complaining.

Instead the specific example limits someone firing a single, one-barreled pistol to reloading 3 times, twice if he talks.

If the intent is what you suggest, why that example?

Ask SKR. He's answered this question in one of these threads, he's explained it doesn't effect bows...

Er, no, he said it was not supposed to affect bows.

Written as it is in the FAQ, it does. Just the same as every ranged weapon.

Then again, it would be a horribly decision to only exempt bows which are already the go-to superior ranged weapon and nerf everything else.

If it was only about cheese with weapon cords and dual-pistol-builds, then everything a GM needed was already provided: The option to limit the amount of free actions per turn to a meaningful amount. If GM's decided not to use this tool and subsequently had problems with abuse, they had no one to blame but themselves.

[Talonhawke]

It just dawned on me you actually lose out on reloads because it's one free action to get the ammunition out and a second to reload. So you can reload 1.5 times a turn

[MordredofFairy]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Is there a combination of rules that allows a crossbow wielder to fire and reload multiple times with a crossbow in each hand, then drop both of those weapons, quick draw two more crossbows as a free action, and fire and reload multiple times with each hand again?

If so, then yes, the design team's intent is that it's reasonable for the GM to say, "no, you're abusing the rules and you really shouldn't be able to do that"—whether the character is using a gun or a crossbow.

The ONLY way i could see that working was.

Quickdraw left crossbow(free action)
Fire left crossbow
Rapid Reload left crossbow(free action)
Quickdraw right crossbow(free action)
Fire right crossbow
Fire left crossbow
Drop Left crossbow(free action)
Rapid Reload Right crossbow(free action)
Quickdraw new left crossbow(free action)
Fire right crossbow
Fire left crossbow
Drop Right crossbow(free action)
Rapid Reload Left crossbow(free action)
Quickdraw new right crossbow(free action)
Fire left Crossbow
Fire right Crossbow

Total: 9 free actions.
(for a grand total of 4 iterative attacks with main hand and 3 attacks with offhand, requiring full base attack progression, 3 Two-Weapon Fighting Feats, Rapid Reload and Quickdraw or 10 Levels worth of Feats, with no other Feats like Deadly Aim, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot etc. in the equation.)

The Zen Archer Monk quickdraws his bow and makes a Flurry of Blows, spending an Ki point for an extra attack and a total of 8 attacks each involving drawing an arrow as free action. So without any extra feat expenditure or fancy game mechanics beyond quickdraw, the Zen Archer Monk also just spent the same amount(9) of free actions and made one attack MORE.

You end with 2 empty crossbows after this round(so the zen archer monk has an edge on this again).
Reasonably, a character will not be able to have more than 4 loaded crossbows on reachable spaces of his body to quickdraw them.
If he is allowed to do this for 4-5 rounds suggesting he keeps 20 loaded crossbows on his body at all times, the GM already made a serious mistake before it came to this.

[Mojorat]

Really i think the only actions the new rule stops in general are those that need to be sequentially explained with a chart.

[ciretose]

Mojorat wrote:

Really i think the only actions the new rule stops in general are those that need to be sequentially explained with a chart.

And if you have to explain your actions sequentially with a chart, odds are your are trying to exploit a technicality in the rules.

Which is what the FAq is about

[Fake Healer]

ciretose wrote:

Mojorat wrote:

Really i think the only actions the new rule stops in general are those that need to be sequentially explained with a chart.

And if you have to explain your actions sequentially with a chart, odds are your are trying to exploit a technicality in the rules.

Which is what the FAq is about

Draw 2 arrows from quiver, 2 free actions. Nock to bowstring, part of attack action. Fire both arrows.

Draw 1 arrow from quiver, 1 free action. Nock to bowstring, part of attack action. Fire both arrows.
Draw 1 arrow from quiver, 1 free action. Nock to bowstring, part of attack action. Fire both arrows. OH WAIT, you can't because you are out of free actions....sorry you took your ranger over level 10 now aren't you...btw don't try to talk while you take down your opponents.

The FAQ effects bow also even if SKR says it wasn't meant to, or that drawing an arrow should have been part of the attack action.

Any attack routine can be broken down into a chart to show free actions, swift actions, move actions, etc.
I get that you feel suddenly superior and justified by the FAQ but stop ignoring the effect it has on a ton of stuff besides the broken gunslinger builds.
You can't be a flurrying shuriken ninja anymore, or a knife tossing rogue, or even a full attacking archer, and we all know how they needed nerfing.

[thejeff]

Mojorat wrote:

Really i think the only actions the new rule stops in general are those that need to be sequentially explained with a chart.

Well, since it's not a new rule it doesn't stop anything.

But if you follow the suggestions and examples in the FAQ, gunslingers (and possibly other ranged attackers) should be limited to 3 reloads, even if they're not doing anything more complicated than trying to full attack with a single early pistol. And they should be further penalized if they try to do anything else, like talk.

Now, SKR has clarified that the guidelines aren't intended to apply to bows and maybe not to crossbows or slings, but if they shouldn't even apply to a single pistol, then that was a horrible example to use.

[ciretose]

If the developer says it doesn't.

It is a guideline, intended to remind GMs they don't have to grant unreasonable numbers of free actions.

If you have to break down your routine to show how you are using a free action to get around a limitation in the game, it's probably a technicality.

But keep rules lawyering the FAQ that it isn't rules lawyering.

If anything these threads show what crap GMs are dealing with, because if people will be this aggressive with the ruling from the people who wrote the game, imagine how they are at a table...

[thejeff]

ciretose wrote:

If the developer says it doesn't.

It is a guideline, intended to remind GMs they don't have to grant unreasonable numbers of free actions.

If you have to break down your routine to show how you are using a free action to get around a limitation in the game, it's probably a technicality.

But keep rules lawyering the FAQ that it isn't rules lawyering.

If anything these threads show what crap GMs are dealing with, because if people will be this aggressive with the ruling from the people who wrote the game, imagine how they are at a table...

So do you agree that the pistol example in the FAQ is a bad example and doesn't reflect the intent of the guidelines?

Because, if it doesn't, that's where all the frustration is coming from.

[Cpt_kirstov]

So this FAQ is strengthening Crossbow Mastery

crossbow mastery wrote:

You can fire a crossbow as many times in a full attack action as you could attack if you were using a bow.

[Fake Healer]

My frustration comes from this ruling suggestion against a broken couple rules surrounding Gunslingers that would effect a ton of other flavorful and non-problematic builds, such as a ninja flurrying with shurikens, or a rogue tossing knives about.
If the DEVs want to nerf what I have seen as a totally broken build to keep it reasonable then I have no problems with that. Instead of doing that they have tossed a nerf in that could effect a ton of characters that are nowhere near broken.
All they had to do was throw an errata at the Gunslinger class if they wanted to fix the gunslinger class.

[MrSin]

Cpt_kirstov wrote:

So this FAQ is strengthening Crossbow Mastery

crossbow mastery wrote:

You can fire a crossbow as many times in a full attack action as you could attack if you were using a bow.

No, Crossbow Mastery is no stronger than it was before. There was no change to it. Its also still pretty far into your crossbow training because of its taxes.

[MordredofFairy]

MrSin wrote:

Cpt_kirstov wrote:

So this FAQ is strengthening Crossbow Mastery

crossbow mastery wrote:

You can fire a crossbow as many times in a full attack action as you could attack if you were using a bow.

No, Crossbow Mastery is no stronger than it was before. There was no change to it. Its also still pretty far into your crossbow training because of its taxes.

Yep, exactly the same:

The time required for you to reload any type of crossbow is reduced to a free action, regardless of the type of crossbow used. You can fire a crossbow as many times in a full attack action as you could attack if you were using a bow.

The suggested answer is 3 attacks. For both bows and crossbows, if you shut up during combat.

[Cpt_kirstov]

MrSin wrote:

Cpt_kirstov wrote:

So this FAQ is strengthening Crossbow Mastery

crossbow mastery wrote:

You can fire a crossbow as many times in a full attack action as you could attack if you were using a bow.

No, Crossbow Mastery is no stronger than it was before. There was no change to it. Its also still pretty far into your crossbow training because of its taxes.

Unless you get it for free from crossbow style ranger at 6th, and then retrains the rapid reload, as it isn't a prereq since they got it ignoring prereqs.