| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Psyren, that statement does not state 'do not apply this to archery'.
If a GM does not know better (such as being a new GM) he could easily think that this should be applied to all free actions unless he makes an exception to what is 'reasonable'.
- Gauss
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Psyren, that statement does not state 'do not apply this to archery'.
If a GM does not know better (such as being a new GM) he could easily think that this should be applied to all free actions unless he makes an exception to what is 'reasonable'.
- Gauss
You mean the group will have to - gasp! - talk it out like adults and come to an agreement???
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
See, one doesn't pay attention over the weekend and the board explodes into a mouth-frothing rage. That was a pretty epic number of times SKR had to remove posts over those, what, four or five threads?
One thing which has stood out to me is that there are apparently expectations by the design team on how many attacks with firearms per round are considered reasonable so as to be balanced with non-touch ranged attacks.
May I ask politely what those expectations are and maybe also how they were arrived at during the gunslinger class design?
I ran into big problems with the class in my Carrion Crown campaign, because I was such a softy GM as to allow a player two six-shooter guns and I'd like to avoid any such occurences in the future. If I ever allow the Gunslinger or any gun-using class again in my game, which at the moment seems unlikely.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Psyren, the problem is not that people *might* be rational adults. The problem is that Paizo has just proposed a *recommended* cap to the number of free actions which, when followed, has chilling effects on just about any ranged combat build.
So where does that leave people?
A) They ignore the 3 free action recommendation.
B) They pay attention to the recommendation and nerf ranged combat builds.
C) They read the boards, find that the intent is not to nerf most ranged combat builds and apply the intent.
A makes the FAQ more or less pointless.
B is undesirable and not the intent of the FAQ.
C requires information that is not in the FAQ.
Tell me how this is desirable for a FAQ?
The point is, as the FAQ is *currently written* there is no guideline indicating that the FAQ is not intended to cover ranged combat builds outside of Gunslingers.
That is the non-gunslinger issue.
Now, the gunslinger issue. It has been stated by some that the FAQ's second example is designed to cover a specific Gunslinger build. However, it affects ALL gunslinger builds and the example specifically states that the recommended maximum number of reloads for a pistol is 3. Ask anyone prior to the FAQs introduction if they thought a pistol with Rapid Reload has a cap of 3 reloads per round. I bet you would find nobody to say it did.
P.S. I shoot muzzle-loaders and I hate the gunslinger class as it is currently designed and I do not allow them in my games without house rules.
Part of this dislike is that the best historical musket shooters in the world did not average more than one shot every 20 seconds (without cartridges) Even with cartridges reload times were not quick enough to get off more than 1 shot every round.
However, my feelings on the class have no place in a discussion regarding whether or not a rule or guideline is going to lead to unintended consequences.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've edited a post. Remember the most important rule of the Paizo message boards.
You mean "Blame Cosmo."?
|
|
Psyren, the problem is not that people *might* be rational adults. The problem is that Paizo has just proposed a *recommended* cap to the number of free actions which, when followed, has chilling effects on just about any ranged combat build.
1) Their example uses guns, which are specifically the slowest ranged attack out there. That's not "any ranged combat build" by any stretch of the imagination.
2) Their "recommendation" was explicitly a "suggestion." This board has a habit of throwing the spirit of the rules out to adhere to their letter and this is just another expression of that.
Honestly, if gunslingers really deal as much damage as some claim they do, more than an archer does, I would also limit their reloads per round. I wouldn't want to limit crossbows like that on the other hand. They already suck hard enough.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who are stating that "nothing has changed", you're correct in most cases - but if you really think this won't lead to at least a few GMs pointing at the FAQ and saying, "Nuh uh! You can only draw 3 arrows a round so that's all you can shoot!" then I have some ocean front property in Phoenix, Arizona to sell you.
What's the address?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone have thoughts about limiting reloading (and/or free actions) based on ranks in Sleight of Hand? It would provide a cap, with a method of ameliorating it, and would also provide a lot more utility to a little-used skill.
|
|
Does anyone have thoughts about limiting reloading (and/or free actions) based on ranks in Sleight of Hand? It would provide a cap, with a method of ameliorating it, and would also provide a lot more utility to a little-used skill.
Ooh, and it would also have a use in showdowns between two gunslingers! Cool!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone have thoughts about limiting reloading (and/or free actions) based on ranks in Sleight of Hand? It would provide a cap, with a method of ameliorating it, and would also provide a lot more utility to a little-used skill.
If the problem is the juggling weapon cord thing, the easiest, and sanest solution, is to errata the cords to say that a hand attached to a cord is only 'free' for purposes of using the swift action to retrieve the weapon on the cord, not for anything else. This resolves the issue with spellcasters using similar hijinks, with pistoleros (the real problem archetype), and general sillyness with swinging your arms around with a 10 lb sword tied to it and not hurting yourself.
If the problem is guns were not meant to fire that much, it's rather simple again. Make the gunslinger a 3/4 bab class. Non-Gunslingers who have firearms access have such a lesser version of it that it's not a big deal.
|
|
3/4 BAB has implications before you get to multiple attacks though; it restricts your feat access for instance, as well as lowering your chance to hit.
I myself simply take the FAQ at face value; it says "DM, if you think {X free actions} in {Y situation} is too many, don't be afraid to rule against it. You always had the authority to limit free actions per round, here's one way you can use that limit.")
|
Does anyone have thoughts about limiting reloading (and/or free actions) based on ranks in Sleight of Hand? It would provide a cap, with a method of ameliorating it, and would also provide a lot more utility to a little-used skill.
This isn't a bad idea for a patch, but it adds more complexity to a class that is IMHO unnecessarily overly complex to start with.
I think a lot of horses are out of the barn, and I hope in the future (as in next revision) they take a step back and make reloading guns up to attack bonus a class feature/special ability of gunslingers.
And, of course, creating an action category between "Free" and "Swift" :)
|
|
Does anyone have thoughts about limiting reloading (and/or free actions) based on ranks in Sleight of Hand? It would provide a cap, with a method of ameliorating it, and would also provide a lot more utility to a little-used skill.If the problem is the juggling weapon cord thing, the easiest, and sanest solution, is to errata the cords to say that a hand attached to a cord is only 'free' for purposes of using the swift action to retrieve the weapon on the cord, not for anything else. This resolves the issue with spellcasters using similar hijinks, with pistoleros (the real problem archetype), and general sillyness with swinging your arms around with a 10 lb sword tied to it and not hurting yourself.
If the problem is guns were not meant to fire that much, it's rather simple again. Make the gunslinger a 3/4 bab class. Non-Gunslingers who have firearms access have such a lesser version of it that it's not a big deal.
This also isn't a bad patch for that particular issue. It's actually a pretty good fix. But the FAQ isn't just about one particular free action abuse problem.
I really think they won't be able to address it fully until they go to a new revision and add another action category.
|
|
Let's assume for the sake of argument that they really do want to cap gunslingers at 3 attacks per round sustained fire. Do you assert that it is reasonable, or desireable, or good for the game, to reduce that to two attacks if the gunslinger talks at all during combat?If not, then wouldn't you agree that it's a bad suggestion?
Even they point out, in that very answer, that what they want or what they consider reasonable are ultimately irrelevant. Why is it bothering you so much?
This answer is for the DMs that were having misgivings. The ones that weren't, won't care.
|
|
Or just keep gunslingers to campaigns that allow advanced firearms like revolvers. Much of the problem disappears at that point.Does anyone have thoughts about limiting reloading (and/or free actions) based on ranks in Sleight of Hand? It would provide a cap, with a method of ameliorating it, and would also provide a lot more utility to a little-used skill.This isn't a bad idea for a patch, but it adds more complexity to a class that is IMHO unnecessarily overly complex to start with.
I think a lot of horses are out of the barn, and I hope in the future (as in next revision) they take a step back and make reloading guns up to attack bonus a class feature/special ability of gunslingers.
And, of course, creating an action category between "Free" and "Swift" :)
My suggestion basically makes gunslingers walking revolvers at high levels :)
My suggestion basically makes gunslingers walking revolvers at high levels :)
Or just keep gunslingers to campaigns that allow advanced firearms like revolvers. Much of the problem disappears at that point.
Not really, at least, advanced firearms won't solve the problem if you don't want firearms to fire a lot.
SKR was saying it wasn't just the weapon juggling thing, it was also that they didn't really want firearms to fire that rapidly.
That statement, to me, says it's less the weapon cord juggling nonsense (which is rather easily gotten rid of), it's the fact firearms were being fired more than a few times a round. Moving up to advanced wouldn't slow that down, it'd actually exacerbate that issue.
So if the issue is gun juggling, it's easily fixed. If it's 'zomg guns' then that's not fixed by cord fixes and is exacerbated by advanced firearms.
I do agree that the whole firearms idea basically needs to be rethought. I think the basic issue is that they went for 'realistic' rather than 'balanced and playable', and all the quirky rules, and FAQs, and arguments are just bandaids on the sucking chest wound.
You can't do 'realistic and balanced' mixing firearms and magic and antique weapons. They just don't work. You can put firearms in, but you have to sacrifice reality to keep them balanced.
Lead Designer
|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there folks,
Couple of thoughts that I want to add to the discussion here.
1. We are just nibbling around the edges here, trying to see if we can come up with a workable solution to some imbalances without rewriting a number of rules elements. There are some bigger ways to fix these issues, but we thought we would start out small by addressing free action abuse.
2. Yes, this is primarily about the gunslinger. I is not our intent to limit archers with this suggestion. Reloading was part of the balance of the gunslinger class, but with a combination of gear and feats, that issue is removed from the equation, allowing the gunslinger to fire at at his full bab every round for the entire combat. The thought behind this rule was to force the gunslinger to take a "time out" on occasion to get their guns fully loaded.
3. We used the FAQ system for this one just to get it out there in an easily referred to location. Posting it on the boards means that it tends to get lost in the shuffle. We knew this would cause some controversy, which is why it is worded as a suggestion at this point. Primarily so that we could get some discussion going and look for holes with the solution. Its clear that there are some.
4. We are, as always, still evaluating this issue.
5. Thanks to those of you who have remained civil in this discussion. There are a few folks that decided to pitch a fit, which is not very helpful to us or this community. I would like to remind folks that we are all here to play a game. Lets not roast each other alive.
Thanks again for commenting folks. We will be watching..
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
SKR was saying it wasn't just the weapon juggling thing, it was also that they didn't really want firearms to fire that rapidly.
That's a more fundamental problem, because if you make musket rules that are fundamentally incompatible with six-guns or Glocks, then your firearms rules are potentially broken from the ground up -- unless you treat advanced firearms as special magic items (in which case you should be looking at firearm weapon properties that reproduce them now, rather than later), which in my opinion is probably the way to go.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there folks,
Couple of thoughts that I want to add to the discussion here.
1. We are just nibbling around the edges here, trying to see if we can come up with a workable solution to some imbalances without rewriting a number of rules elements. There are some bigger ways to fix these issues, but we thought we would start out small by addressing free action abuse.
If I could suggest, Jason.
One of the biggest issues is weapon cord nonsense. They were never intended to allow juggling of items. They were simply a way to keep from dropping your weapon, and then retrieving it as a Swift action.
I personally think that a very sane, balanced, and non-controversial step in the right direction would be an FAQ that indicates that a hand that has a weapon dangling from it is not 'free' for any purpose other than using a swift action to retrieve said weapon. It's in the spirit of what the item was intended to do, it prevents a lot of nonsense across multiple classes (including wizards dropping weapons to have a 'free hand' despite having a 5 lb sword dangling from their wrist), and frankly goes a long way to fix most of the abuse going on.
SKR was saying it wasn't just the weapon juggling thing, it was also that they didn't really want firearms to fire that rapidly.That's a more fundamental problem, because if you make musket rules that are fundamentally incompatible with six-guns or Glocks, then your firearms rules are broken from the ground up -- unless you treat advanced firearms as special magic items (in which case you should be looking at firearm weapon properties that reproduce them now, rather than later).
I agree. We're actually redoing the weapons for our local group. Four classifications (black powder, cap and ball, cartridge, and advanced). Then hard-wiring the 'reload' issue into the rules themselves and removing any way to speed up loading other than one feat, rapid reload. We're beta testing it now, and it's looking decent.
If a GM told me that he was limiting the number of arrows that could conceivably be fired in a round to six, I'd be weirdly okay with that.
Archery is very effective and somewhat unrealistic. There would be no tears shed by me.
However, as mentioned upthread, the rules haven't really changed. The only thing liable to cause a problem here is brinksmanship between player and GM, where both expect the rules to bolster their reading of the rules.
|
|
Thanks Jason! I love this community!
If I could suggest, Jason.
One of the biggest issues is weapon cord nonsense. They were never intended to allow juggling of items. They were simply a way to keep from dropping your weapon, and then retrieving it as a Swift action.
I personally think that a very sane, balanced, and non-controversial step in the right direction would be an FAQ that indicates that a hand that has a weapon dangling from it is not 'free' for any purpose other than using a swift action to retrieve said weapon. It's in the spirit of what the item was intended to do, it prevents a lot of nonsense across multiple classes (including wizards dropping weapons to have a 'free hand' despite having a 5 lb sword dangling from their wrist), and frankly goes a long way to fix most of the abuse going on.
I agree that this is a good first step. Then you can take a look at gunslingers in general and figure out what the reloading process should look like at low and high-levels for various firearms.
|
|
I think what he was saying (and he can correct me if I'm wrong and I would take no offense) is that they don't want them firing that quickly without significant investment.
There is an item and a spell that gives free reload, after all.
I think the root issue of firearms was that they decided to make a goal for them to be viable primary weapons for all classes, rather than secondary weapons for all classes other than gunslingers due to issues like misfire and reload.
Advanced firearms is a whole other issue, one best left out of a high fantasy setting aside from as a near artifact level rare item, IMHO.
My suggestion then, and now, would be in the revision make guns very dangerous and difficult to use without training (accurate on both points when dealing with medieval firearms) and have the gunslinger class be based on receiving the training that makes them useful and potent.
Go that way and we aren't discussing free action reloads, since only gunslingers could do it and only after a specific level of training that is included in the class.
I think SKR is point out it isn't "just" the weapon cord issue. It is all of the various shenanigans people keep coming up with to abuse free actions, this being one of the biggest and most egregious.
Again as I said earlier, if explaining a act made up of a series of free actions requires a chart....maybe that wasn't as the devs intended.
The fix is coming up with an intermediate term for actions between free and swift.
But that ain't happening until edition/version change.
The fix is coming up with an intermediate term for actions between free and swift.
That's actually, I believe, a horrible idea that will only compound the issue.
When you create a new action type, you're adding more things you can do in a round, and the rules will expand to fill in those extra things.
You'll still have free actions, and swift action, and Immidiate Actions, and Move Actions, and Standard Actions, and Full Attack actions and Full Round Actions.
If you add 'Rapid Actions', then there will be new rules expanded into the Rapid Actions, and then you'll have people using 5 frees, 3 rapids, 1 swift, and a full attack.
More options is good. More divisions of a turn to put those options in is bad, it just adds more things being done in a turn.
I think what he was saying (and he can correct me if I'm wrong and I would take no offense) is that they don't want them firing that quickly without significant investment.
There is an item and a spell that gives free reload, after all.
I think the root issue of firearms was that they decided to make a goal for them to be viable primary weapons for all classes, rather than secondary weapons for all classes other than gunslingers due to issues like misfire and reload.
Advanced firearms is a whole other issue, one best left out of a high fantasy setting aside from as a near artifact level rare item, IMHO.
My suggestion then, and now, would be in the revision make guns very dangerous and difficult to use without training (accurate on both points when dealing with medieval firearms) and have the gunslinger class be based on receiving the training that makes them useful and potent.
Go that way and we aren't discussing free action reloads, since only gunslingers could do it and only after a specific level of training that is included in the class.
I think SKR is point out it isn't "just" the weapon cord issue. It is all of the various shenanigans people keep coming up with to abuse free actions, this being one of the biggest and most egregious.
Again as I said earlier, if explaining a act made up of a series of free actions requires a chart....maybe that wasn't as the devs intended.
The fix is coming up with an intermediate term for actions between free and swift.
But that ain't happening until edition/version change.
Putting in a "middle" action between free and swift wont help anything. It will just make the game more complex and leave the same problem. If there is *any* action which a player can take, that is useful, and is unlimited, it will be abused. This will happen even if you have 37 different types of action speeds. If one of them is unlimited, you didn't fix the problem.
Thanks again for commenting folks. We will be watching..We better be careful. Big brother is watching us! ;-)
Nah, it just conjured the image of a giant red dragon looming over my shoulder as I type with a nametag that says "BIG BROTHER"
|
|
SKR was saying it wasn't just the weapon juggling thing, it was also that they didn't really want firearms to fire that rapidly.That's a more fundamental problem, because if you make musket rules that are fundamentally incompatible with six-guns or Glocks, then your firearms rules are potentially broken from the ground up -- unless you treat advanced firearms as special magic items (in which case you should be looking at firearm weapon properties that reproduce them now, rather than later), which in my opinion is probably the way to go.
I think they are trying to treat advanced as almost artifact level special magic in the sense of being incredibly rare and not able to be replicated. which isn't all that inconsistent with the setting most of the time.
You can't really add an AK 47 to a sword based setting without...issues.
I kind of have the opinion the firearms rules are broken from the ground up, both in the sense I described above (That being either these are things everyone can use effectively, or they are things a specific class can use effectively.) and in all of the weird ammunition exception stuff combined with misfire just making the whole thing cumbersome.
When they decided to make firearms global use items, that caused global issues. If they had instead made them a novelty item for non-gunslingers you then narrow the application to more or less gunslingers and sub-optimal builds.
I am not personally bothered by it being a novelty item for non-gunslingers.
But all of this requires a re-write of the firearms rules and the gunslinger....and that ain't happening right now.
So far, mdt's weapon cord fix makes the most sense to me for that one issue, but doesn't address any of the underlying firearm issues.
Not mdt's fault, his suggestion is the best of a bad set up.
(And people say I never criticize the devs :))
So here we are with weapons that work against touch ac and have X4 crit and lots of weird ammo stuff and...well...yeah.
This probably requires a new thread with rational heads and a lot of math. Who wants to start it?
Hey there folks,
Couple of thoughts that I want to add to the discussion here.
1. We are just nibbling around the edges here, trying to see if we can come up with a workable solution to some imbalances without rewriting a number of rules elements. There are some bigger ways to fix these issues, but we thought we would start out small by addressing free action abuse.
2. Yes, this is primarily about the gunslinger. I is not our intent to limit archers with this suggestion. Reloading was part of the balance of the gunslinger class, but with a combination of gear and feats, that issue is removed from the equation, allowing the gunslinger to fire at at his full bab every round for the entire combat. The thought behind this rule was to force the gunslinger to take a "time out" on occasion to get their guns fully loaded.
3. We used the FAQ system for this one just to get it out there in an easily referred to location. Posting it on the boards means that it tends to get lost in the shuffle. We knew this would cause some controversy, which is why it is worded as a suggestion at this point. Primarily so that we could get some discussion going and look for holes with the solution. Its clear that there are some.
4. We are, as always, still evaluating this issue.
5. Thanks to those of you who have remained civil in this discussion. There are a few folks that decided to pitch a fit, which is not very helpful to us or this community. I would like to remind folks that we are all here to play a game. Lets not roast each other alive.
Thanks again for commenting folks. We will be watching..
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Jason, thanks for this clarification. I think the real problem is soem builds with hwaaaay too many attacks. Rather than limit free actions, why not limit the number of attacks? Say BAB generated +2 + haste + extra generated by TWF? Or whatever appears right.
This also gets rid of the crazy hundred handed eidolon, the four-armed Vivisectionist, the guy who had got 4 claws (what does he stand on?) two horns, a bite, a wing buffet, a hip bump, a high five, two tentacles and of course a weapon in each of four hands*- and many others that plug up this board with their munchkinness.
What'd I suggest is a strict limit on attacks of BaB +1, and then each thing you want to have add extra attacks (Haste, TWF, etc) each have "this feat can add +1 to your maximum number of attacks allowed by BAB".
If it doesn't say it allows more attacks over that maximum, then it doesn't.
* the idea being is that each weapon has a cord so you hit 4 times, drop the weapons then claw four times- then do the hokey pokey......
Advanced firearms is a whole other issue, one best left out of a high fantasy setting aside from as a near artifact level rare item, IMHO.
The problem is that a lot of people seemed to have signed on to the class with the expectation they'd be able to replicate Steven King's Roland from the Tower series.
Without revolvers, they're going to fall mighty short of their expectations.
Yeah. They really should play a Wizard instead.
|
|
The fix is coming up with an intermediate term for actions between free and swift.That's actually, I believe, a horrible idea that will only compound the issue.
When you create a new action type, you're adding more things you can do in a round, and the rules will expand to fill in those extra things.
You'll still have free actions, and swift action, and Immidiate Actions, and Move Actions, and Standard Actions, and Full Attack actions and Full Round Actions.
If you add 'Rapid Actions', then there will be new rules expanded into the Rapid Actions, and then you'll have people using 5 frees, 3 rapids, 1 swift, and a full attack.
More options is good. More divisions of a turn to put those options in is bad, it just adds more things being done in a turn.
I think you would basically turn 90 to 95% of free actions into rapid actions.
Free actions would be limited to things that have pretty much zero impact on the game or are intended to be unlimited, like drawing a bow.
Rapid actions (I kind of like that) are things you can do more than once, but that do impact the game.
At this point you have exactly what you described, with 5 free actions, a swift actions and full actions. That is what is currently happening, without any clear adjudication of how many free actions are too many and which free actions are really free and which are subject to abuse.
The alternative is either what we have (which isn't working) or making a lot of free actions into swift actions...which seems a bad idea.
Something being a free actions should be really, really rare.
And hell, maybe some swift actions would be better labeled as Rapid actions.
Advanced firearms is a whole other issue, one best left out of a high fantasy setting aside from as a near artifact level rare item, IMHO.
The problem is that a lot of people seemed to have signed on to the class with the expectation they'd be able to replicate Steven King's Roland from the Tower series.
Without revolvers, they're going to fall mighty short of their expectations.
Only if they've forgotten the faces of their fathers...
Quoting Dark Tower aside - and I'm sure I'll get lynched for this - would leaving things exactly as they are, but changing firearms so that they target standard AC rather than touch balance things out?
There were a number of discussions during the playtest (still available on the forums) pointing out that black powder weapons really weren't all that effective in penetrating armor; targeting touch AC becomes even less believable when you factor in natural armor (somehow a lead ball burrows through a bulette's +12 Natural armor, but a sword can't, even though they both have to pass through all that armor to hit the creature's vitals?).
So why not leave the rate of fire as is, and instead make them target the same AC as an archer?
|
|
Yeah. They really should play a Wizard instead.
Advanced firearms is a whole other issue, one best left out of a high fantasy setting aside from as a near artifact level rare item, IMHO.
The problem is that a lot of people seemed to have signed on to the class with the expectation they'd be able to replicate Steven King's Roland from the Tower series.
Without revolvers, they're going to fall mighty short of their expectations.
Or magus.
If they had designed the gunslinger to be the guy who can reload the pistol like Roland as a free (as in actually free) action up to the number of attacks, we wouldn't be having this particular section of this discussion.
That is my point.
The Magus and the Wizard can reload better than the gunslinger.
That is wrong.
Note: No redress of free action issues should ignore the insane weirdness of the ride skill, mounting and dismounting.