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


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 769 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Cpt_kirstov wrote:
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.

The earliest you could get it before is 7. I think six was pretty far into your career. Still not any stronger than it was before.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
ciretose wrote:
MordredofFairy wrote:


If no: Do you agree that all ranged weapons should be nerfed across the board to a maximum of 3 attacks per round without speaking?

You mean exactly the opposite of the clarification given by the Dev?

But again, don't let the facts get in the way of they hyperbolic anger you seen to be feeling that the GM is allowed to do what has always been in the rules...

Again: Do you believe the pistol example is a bad example and doesn't reflect the intent of the rest of the FAQ?

I think it could be clearer. But it is also a guideline, not a rule.

I'm fine if the clearer is that you can only reload 3 times, given there are other weapons with a higher capacity.

I'm more bothered by the cheese than the nerf.

The Exchange

Barbarians enter and exit a rage with free actions.
Barb rages and now can't throw more than 2 javelins on his first round of combat. limited to 3 thereafter.


MordredofFairy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
MordredofFairy wrote:


If no: Do you agree that all ranged weapons should be nerfed across the board to a maximum of 3 attacks per round without speaking?

You mean exactly the opposite of the clarification given by the Dev?

But again, don't let the facts get in the way of they hyperbolic anger you seen to be feeling that the GM is allowed to do what has always been in the rules...

oh, you mean that clarification given by the dev that 100% contradicts what they put into the FAQ?

Good thing everything is clear now. Before, it was all so fuzzy, now we have a FAQ saying one thing and a dev saying the exact opposite thing, and feats and builds possibly affected by any limitation of free actions or maybe not after all.

Glad you cleared that up for me.

And a couple of years from now, when someone cites the FAQ to stop archers from full attacking, we'll get to have the whole discussion about rules/errata/FAQ vs random comments found on the boards. Joy.


Fake Healer wrote:

Barbarians enter and exit a rage with free actions.

Barb rages and now can't throw more than 2 javelins on his first round of combat. limited to 3 thereafter.

And you better not be shouting a flavorful warcry when entering rage because otherwise you're down to 1 javelin.

Well, maybe we can let that slip as part of the free action to enter rage.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
MordredofFairy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
MordredofFairy wrote:


If no: Do you agree that all ranged weapons should be nerfed across the board to a maximum of 3 attacks per round without speaking?

You mean exactly the opposite of the clarification given by the Dev?

But again, don't let the facts get in the way of they hyperbolic anger you seen to be feeling that the GM is allowed to do what has always been in the rules...

oh, you mean that clarification given by the dev that 100% contradicts what they put into the FAQ?

Good thing everything is clear now. Before, it was all so fuzzy, now we have a FAQ saying one thing and a dev saying the exact opposite thing, and feats and builds possibly affected by any limitation of free actions or maybe not after all.

Glad you cleared that up for me.

And a couple of years from now, when someone cites the FAQ to stop archers from full attacking, we'll get to have the whole discussion about rules/errata/FAQ vs random comments found on the boards. Joy.

Or they will cite SKR's clarification on bows as everyone goes "Guideline".

Mountain out of a mole hill.


ciretose wrote:
thejeff wrote:
ciretose wrote:
MordredofFairy wrote:


If no: Do you agree that all ranged weapons should be nerfed across the board to a maximum of 3 attacks per round without speaking?

You mean exactly the opposite of the clarification given by the Dev?

But again, don't let the facts get in the way of they hyperbolic anger you seen to be feeling that the GM is allowed to do what has always been in the rules...

Again: Do you believe the pistol example is a bad example and doesn't reflect the intent of the rest of the FAQ?

I think it could be clearer. But it is also a guideline, not a rule.

I'm fine if the clearer is that you can only reload 3 times, given there are other weapons with a higher capacity.

I'm more bothered by the cheese than the nerf.

Which early firearms have a higher capacity? Remember that the pepperbox takes a free action to rotate.

Even so, after the first round or two, you'll be down to reloading anyway. Or pulling out other pistols, I suppose.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
You can shoot a longbow 8 times a full-attack as a 20th level zen archer.

Actually 9 times per full attack for a zen archer: 7 through FoB, 1 via Haste, 1 via Ki. And you can do that by level 16.

As far as I know, haste and ki stack, because the extra attack through ki is not a haste effect.

Liberty's Edge

Because

1. Pepper box

2. "A firearm’s capacity is the number of shots it can hold at one time. When making a full-attack action, you may fire a firearm as many times in a round as you have attacks, up to this limit, unless you can reload the weapon as a swift or free action while making a full-attack action."

3. Last time I checked, the Zen archer is not against touch AC.


ciretose wrote:

Because

1. Pepper box

2. "A firearm’s capacity is the number of shots it can hold at one time. When making a full-attack action, you may fire a firearm as many times in a round as you have attacks, up to this limit, unless you can reload the weapon as a swift or free action while making a full-attack action."

3. Last time I checked, the Zen archer is not against touch AC.

pepperbox wrote:
The entire barrel housing can be quickly rotated by hand between shots (a free action requiring one free hand), allowing all six bullets to be fired before the weapon must be reloaded.

So yet another free action that doesn't fall under the new free action guidelines.

And of course, once you've emptied it, you can only reload 3 of those barrels in a round, so you'll get down to 3/round anyway.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Because

1. Pepper box

2. "A firearm’s capacity is the number of shots it can hold at one time. When making a full-attack action, you may fire a firearm as many times in a round as you have attacks, up to this limit, unless you can reload the weapon as a swift or free action while making a full-attack action."

3. Last time I checked, the Zen archer is not against touch AC.

pepperbox wrote:
The entire barrel housing can be quickly rotated by hand between shots (a free action requiring one free hand), allowing all six bullets to be fired before the weapon must be reloaded.

So yet another free action that doesn't fall under the new free action guidelines.

And of course, once you've emptied it, you can only reload 3 of those barrels in a round, so you'll get down to 3/round anyway.

Or 9 attacks.

As a guideline.

So again I ask, what would be a reasonable guideline?


ciretose wrote:
thejeff wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Because

1. Pepper box

2. "A firearm’s capacity is the number of shots it can hold at one time. When making a full-attack action, you may fire a firearm as many times in a round as you have attacks, up to this limit, unless you can reload the weapon as a swift or free action while making a full-attack action."

3. Last time I checked, the Zen archer is not against touch AC.

pepperbox wrote:
The entire barrel housing can be quickly rotated by hand between shots (a free action requiring one free hand), allowing all six bullets to be fired before the weapon must be reloaded.

So yet another free action that doesn't fall under the new free action guidelines.

And of course, once you've emptied it, you can only reload 3 of those barrels in a round, so you'll get down to 3/round anyway.

Or 9 attacks.

As a guideline.

So again I ask, what would be a reasonable guideline?

Damned if I know. I suggested restrictions on weapon cords, to limit the 2WF abuse. (Weapons dangling slow you restricting reloading to at best a swift action.)

I think the whole double-barrel thing needs a rework. But I haven't played enough with gunslingers to know where the problem really starts.

I don't think a limit on free actions that requires redefining most things previously called free actions as something else is the right approach. If there's a problem with specific abuses, target those. Don't make apparently blanket guidelines that are really only supposed to be applied to those cases.

OTOH, if they really want to let gunslingers get multiple attacks, but not under the same rules as everyone else uses for multiple attacks, then they need to rewrite the firearms rules to make that happen.

Part of the problem with the limiting free actions approach is that it has no effect early on. The pistolero can still get up to 3 shots per round just as quickly as he always could. Then he stops, as everyone else continues picking up more iterative attacks. That's not a good way to balance.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The concern with this FAQ isn't about the rules. The concern with this FAQ is people expressing lack of trust in GMs making reasonable rulings, or in the grey areas about what is reasonable. Have some faith in your fellow players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

So again I ask, what would be a reasonable guideline?

Addressing the problem head on, whatever problem that might actually be?

It's not free actions.

-James


ciretose wrote:


So again I ask, what would be a reasonable guideline?

2x(# of iteratives granted by bab)+DEX bonus = # free actions in a round.


Howie23 wrote:
The concern with this FAQ isn't about the rules. The concern with this FAQ is people expressing lack of trust in GMs making reasonable rulings, or in the grey areas about what is reasonable. Have some faith in your fellow players.

You know I hadn't looked at it like that. I actually feel.a bit bad about calling it nerd rage now.


Howie23 wrote:
The concern with this FAQ isn't about the rules. The concern with this FAQ is people expressing lack of trust in GMs making reasonable rulings, or in the grey areas about what is reasonable. Have some faith in your fellow players.

The concern with this FAQ is that the suggested example limits are unreasonable.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
Howie23 wrote:
The concern with this FAQ isn't about the rules. The concern with this FAQ is people expressing lack of trust in GMs making reasonable rulings, or in the grey areas about what is reasonable. Have some faith in your fellow players.
The concern with this FAQ is that the suggested example limits are unreasonable.

"Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances."

GMs have the full ability to set the number, as the FAQ is written, to apply this to different types of free actions to meet the goals and play style of the game that the group wants to play. In other words, he can do exactly what he's always been able to do.

I'll worry about this if and when we see large scale reports of archers and throwers being nerfed.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Can someone cite for me where the rulebook says drawing an arrow is a free action? Under Actions in Combat, nocking an arrow as part of an attack is stated to be "not an action."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Howie23 wrote:
The concern with this FAQ isn't about the rules. The concern with this FAQ is people expressing lack of trust in GMs making reasonable rulings, or in the grey areas about what is reasonable. Have some faith in your fellow players.
The concern with this FAQ is that the suggested example limits are unreasonable.

not only that, in addition, this FAQ does NOTHING to solve perceived problems.

Either you slash free action count across the table or you don't.

If you do the former, you fixed the TWF weapon cord pistolero and broke the ranger, the archery monk, the fighter and the ranged paladin.

If you do the latter, all problems that even make a free action limit reasonable persist.

Basically the FAQ is saying: If a player is troublesome, slash his free actions down to 3 and leave everybody else alone. Because the pistol reloading is given as example, but then a developer states it should never affect bows.


RJGrady wrote:
Can someone cite for me where the rulebook says drawing an arrow is a free action? Under Actions in Combat, nocking an arrow as part of an attack is stated to be "not an action."

nocking is, drawing not.

"Draw or Sheathe a Weapon

Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.

If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.

Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action."


Howie23 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Howie23 wrote:
The concern with this FAQ isn't about the rules. The concern with this FAQ is people expressing lack of trust in GMs making reasonable rulings, or in the grey areas about what is reasonable. Have some faith in your fellow players.
The concern with this FAQ is that the suggested example limits are unreasonable.

"Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances."

GMs have the full ability to set the number, as the FAQ is written, to apply this to different types of free actions to meet the goals and play style of the game that the group wants to play. In other words, he can do exactly what he's always been able to do.

I'll worry about this if and when we see large scale reports of archers and throwers being nerfed.

Yes, obviously as I've stated many times, I know they're only guidelines and can be ignored.

The problem I have is that they should be, which makes them bad guidelines and bad examples, even if you can ignore them.

Unless you want to argue that firearms should be limited to 3 reloads in a round, 3 if you try to talk. Most defenders of this FAQ keep skipping right over that.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I can't help that some people will interpret a guideline as a firm rule.

Well, it's a guideline for what rule to use. The GM gets to set restrictions; here's a suggested restriction to set.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


Damned if I know. I suggested restrictions on weapon cords, to limit the 2WF abuse. (Weapons dangling slow you restricting reloading to at best a swift action.)
I think the whole double-barrel thing needs a rework. But I haven't played enough with gunslingers to know where the problem really starts.

And this is where I come in to these threads so annoyed.

I love the double barrel thing. I think it is an awesome idea.

I think it sucks that because someone can figure out a way to exploit it, we have to consider getting rid of cool things.

I read this FAQ as "Seriously guys, stop with the free action manipulations. We'll fix it in the next version since apparently some people can't have nice things without abusing them, but for now we remind GMs they are allowed to say no and here are some guidelines to think about.

We shouldn't need this FAQ for the weapon cord thing. The fact that it is so utterly ridiculous when described is enough for most people to go "yeah...that clearly was not how it was meant to work..."

The more we childproof the game to deal with people seeking loopholes, the less cool options for the rest of us and the more we have these nerd rage fits from people who were looking for loopholes and get ticked off and throw hissy fits when they are closed.

As if they were ever put there in the first place.

So the Devs try a new approach to the FAQ where it is a suggested guideline for GMs rather than saying "Here is a hard and fast rule" and boom, the messageboards still blow up.

Why?

Because some people make a game of gaming the system and don't get that most of us don't want to play that way.

And "Suggestions" that say that = Nerd rage.

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:
ciretose wrote:

So again I ask, what would be a reasonable guideline?

Addressing the problem head on, whatever problem that might actually be?

It's not free actions.

-James

It is free actions. The firearms thing is one example of the free action abuse, far from the only one.

God forbid they remind people that what is a reasonable number of free actions can be determined by the GM...

Next edition will have another action category because people can't deal with someone saying "More than 5 free action in 6 seconds without any impact on other actions you can take may be a bit excessive."


No, the message boards blow up because a GM who actually used the suggested example rulings would be utterly crippling legitimate characters being played in a reasonable way.


ciretose wrote:
james maissen wrote:
ciretose wrote:

So again I ask, what would be a reasonable guideline?

Addressing the problem head on, whatever problem that might actually be?

It's not free actions.

-James

It is free actions. The firearms thing is one example of the free action abuse, far from the only one.

God forbid they remind people that what is a reasonable number of free actions can be determined by the GM...

Next edition will have another action category because people can't deal with someone saying "More than 5 free action in 6 seconds without any impact on other actions you can take may be a bit excessive."

Except for all the free actions we think it's perfectly fine to take. Or those things we had defined as free actions, but aren't really.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've removed a post.

Remember that the design team comes to an agreement before deciding on a FAQ.

Remember that the existence of a profanity filter is not an excuse to use profanity.

Silver Crusade

From reading the FAQ and comments from SKR, it appears that the problems the devs perceive are:-

a.) swift action weapon cords

b.) free action firearm re-load times

The respective solutions are (should be):-

a.) move action weapon cords

b.) minimum swift action firearm re-load time

The suggested solution given in the FAQ:-

a.) suggested cap for free actions per round, no matter what type of free actions, and including speaking (even though speaking can be done when it's not your turn. Does that between-turn speaking reduce the re-load you did last round or the re-load you haven't even started yet?)

b.) er...that's it!

Although the devs are right about the perceived problems, their suggested solution was like using a rusty sledge hammer to extract a single rotten tooth.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

From reading the FAQ and comments from SKR, it appears that the problems the devs perceive are:-

a.) swift action weapon cords

b.) free action firearm re-load times

The respective solutions are (should be):-

a.) move action weapon cords

b.) minimum swift action firearm re-load time

The suggested solution given in the FAQ:-

a.) suggested cap for free actions per round, no matter what type of free actions, and including speaking (even though speaking can be done when it's not your turn. Does that between-turn speaking reduce the re-load you did last round or the re-load you haven't even started yet?)

b.) er...that's it!

Although the devs are right about the perceived problems, their suggested solution was like using a rusty sledge hammer to extract a single rotten tooth.

THIS a thousand times !

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As always, the snark here makes me wonder why I bother trying to engage with the people here. At all. Maybe you'd prefer that Jason or Stephen answer your questions.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

I've deleted a post. Try not to be confrontational with other posters on the Paizo boards. Remember the most important rule of the Paizo message boards.

Thanks.


The Shaman wrote:
@ 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.

The second video I posted showed more extreme conditions. Jumping off a platform and firing three arrows in mid-air. Rapid firing arrows into chain armor (clearly a high enough strength bow).

As for historical examples, perhaps you should watch the second video where he discusses the historical techniques for rapid firing which he has been recreating.

- Gauss

Grand Lodge

So, specifically, it was Weapon Cords and Reloading that prompted this?

Liberty's Edge

Let's talk to each other reasonably.

There seems to be a lot of anger here, so let's marshal our best respective arguments. Maybe then, we can come up with solutions to this problem.

Talking briefly should be allowable, particularly when it adds to the role playing nature of the game. A good question, behind our other questions, is what is reasonable. (As someone who pretty much plays in Pathfinder Society, I do understand the need for clear rulings.)

I appreciate the time everyone at Paizo takes to talk to us. Pathfinder exists in large part because of the feedback of players and Paizo listening to those who were not happy with the edition of another game. Despite the differences that I see on this thread, I think that we are closer than we thik.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
As always, the snark here makes me wonder why I bother trying to engage with the people here. At all. Maybe you'd prefer that Jason or Stephen answer your questions.

Sean, I've tried to avoid snark, possibly not always successfully.

Can I ask you seriously about the chosen example?
Is it really the intent that a gunslinger should be limited to reloading 3 times in a round? That the example in the FAQ is a good one and reflects the developers intent? Even the bit about losing a reload for talking?

I know there are ways to get more shots off, at least at the start of a fight, but it does seem odd that they should be denied the standard iterative attacks everyone else can get. Even after investing in feats and special ammunition.
I know that's still very fast by real world flintlock standards, but this is fantasy game.:)


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
As always, the snark here makes me wonder why I bother trying to engage with the people here. At all. Maybe you'd prefer that Jason or Stephen answer your questions.

all we do is try to understand how this introduced "suggestion" can be reasonably applied to fix anything.

The way it is implemented and worded, i can EITHER set a limit that seems reasonable to me as GM, which means the two-weapon pistolero with weapon cords still does his thing, OR i can slash free actions across the board which hits pretty much EVERY build with a ranged weapon or dependent on free actions.

This is a problem with the wording in the FAQ, and the fact one of the examples suggests cutting down a reload action if someone speaks in his turn doesn't help.

We are trying to point out perceived problems with this suggestion, because if people are NOT adopting it as-written, it does nothing to solve problems, and if people ARE adopting it as-written, it will cause countless new ones.

We love the game, and thats why we want this to work out. That is WHY we point out the holes in this.
I have no idea what you had to delete, but i believe most people are not trying to be snarky or poke holes into this, but just point out that this new entry in the FAQ has more potential to break things than to fix them.

Plus if the idea is to only limit guns, slings and crossbows, while keeping the bow as it is, it basically eliminates a whole branch of weapons from being even remotely valid even in highly specialized builds.
Of course we cannot know what exactly your goals are, but i suppose most people doubt that adaptive composite longbows should be the only valid ranged weapon IF any kind of definite free action limit is implemented at a table.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

I've removed some more posts. Please abide by the message board rules.

101 to 150 of 769 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can I fire my longbow six times in a round, ever? All Messageboards