| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are we really arguing whether or not the developers intended to have so many free actions for using firearms when they just made a FAQ about free actions entirely due to using firearms basically saying "No, that's not intended"?
Are we really arguing whether or not the developers intended to have so many free actions for using firearms when they just made a FAQ about free actions entirely due to using firearms basically saying "No, that's not intended"?
It's the double-standard that's part of what has people up-in-arms here, methinks.
Is it your intention that firearms should be able to reload as many times as people have been able to produce via RAW? - No
Is it your intention that arrows should be able to be drawn as many times as people have been able to produce via RAW? - Yes
Same mechanic, different answers.
Are we really arguing whether or not the developers intended to have so many free actions for using firearms when they just made a FAQ about free actions entirely due to using firearms basically saying "No, that's not intended"?It's the double-standard that's part of what has people up-in-arms here, methinks.
Is it your intention that firearms should be able to reload as many times as people have been able to produce via RAW? - No
Is it your intention that arrows should be able to be drawn as many times as people have been able to produce via RAW? - YesSame mechanic, different answers.
Ahh, well what gets me is the examples given include a guy who can't fire a 16 BAB, which is somewhat understandable at a very low level, and the guy who can't reload and talk at the same time apparently, which is just... bleh.
Are we really arguing whether or not the developers intended to have so many free actions for using firearms when they just made a FAQ about free actions entirely due to using firearms basically saying "No, that's not intended"?
Yeah, I think I am - because it's the first time of which I'm aware that they've offered examples of their design intentions in such a way as to limit a class from taking all of their iterative attacks without investing in multiple weapons.
At 11th level, it's not unreasonable to believe a Gunslinger will regularly have Haste and will have taken Rapid Shot, giving him 5 total attacks per round. With an example of a 'reasonable limit' on the repetition of a particular free action - reloading - actually applied, the only option a Gunslinger has to get all of those attacks is to carry multiple weapons because he can only reload 3 times.
And yes, I know there are a couple of other options - the Beneficial Bandolier allows you to teleport a bullet into your gun. But it's the principle that the class is obviously designed to allow a certain number of attacks, yet with the example limitation they gave, they have to undertake unusual options to make all of those attacks.
|
Are we really arguing whether or not the developers intended to have so many free actions for using firearms when they just made a FAQ about free actions entirely due to using firearms basically saying "No, that's not intended"?
Yes.
Which is exactly why the Devs felt we needed to be reminded of the fact the GM can make the call as to what is to many and to give them a guideline.
Because even when the design team explains in detail what they intend, some people still try to argue what they intended based on how they personally read the rule.
Think about that.
|
|
I really don't think it was entirely due to firearms. Free actions can be abused. And the question does come up. I've seen people try to just fast mount/dismount to get free movement by jumping over horses. I've seen people quickdraw 15 weapons and drop all as free actions in a round, so they have ammunition for telekinesis. Free actions can be abused and the question comes up enough, I don't remotely think a FAQ post about free actions is at all unreasonable.
The only thing the FAQ really says about firearms in particular is the reloading is a repetitive action. And of course the universally reviled idea of loosing reloads for speaking. And if only reading the FAQ I could easily see reloading any weapon be exchanged for a reloading a firearm.
I agree. This was them dipping a toe into suggestion rulings rather than pure "This is the rule" rulings.
I like it because I actually care what the people who wrote the game intended when they wrote it, and because I like getting suggestions from them.
YMMV if you only want to be "right" about how things work in an imaginary game where you think you could possibly better understand the intent of something better than the persons who wrote it.
I really don't think it was entirely due to firearms. Free actions can be abused. And the question does come up. I've seen people try to just fast mount/dismount to get free movement by jumping over horses. I've seen people quickdraw 15 weapons and drop all as free actions in a round, so they have ammunition for telekinesis. Free actions can be abused and the question comes up enough, I don't remotely think a FAQ post about free actions is at all unreasonable.
The only thing the FAQ really says about firearms in particular is the reloading is a repetitive action. And of course the universally reviled idea of loosing reloads for speaking. And if only reading the FAQ I could easily see reloading any weapon be exchanged for a reloading a firearm.
I agree. This was them dipping a toe into suggestion rulings rather than pure "This is the rule" rulings.
I like it because I actually care what the people who wrote the game intended when they wrote it, and because I like getting suggestions from them.
YMMV if you only want to be "right" about how things work in an imaginary game where you think you could possibly better understand the intent of something better than the persons who wrote it.
But the DEV's didn't do that. It took people on the forums asking "REALLY, IS THAT REALLY WHAT YOU MEANT?" to get in insight on the development.
Oh, and as it turns out, what they wrote in the FAQ is actually NOT what they meant. SKR had to come out and explain that free actions =/= free actions. Only CERTAIN free actions bare scrutiny. JB came out and said that this is just testing the waters.
So as it turns out the reaction was justified. Because the suggestion opened up a can of worms and people with $1000's and 100's of hours invested in a game wanted to know if the developers really meant to suggest that curtailing granted class abilities with a table variation was a good idea.
The developers then clarified the matter. They told the community that it was not their intention to do that. However, reading the FAQ (even now) without context wouldn't give you that impression (or at the least, a reasonable person could read it and come to the wrong conclusion.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because even when the design team explains in detail what they intend, some people still try to argue what they intended based on how they personally read the rule.
Think about that.
I think that's misleading actually. I think people are more worried about the repercussions and consequences and people aren't blatently ignoring what they say so much as they don't know it and draw their own conclusions. The FAQs itself doesn't state 'this is to limit free action madness and targets gunslingers to keep them level' nor does it give an example of how many free actions you can take may change over time. What it does say is that talking should reduce your number of free actions, and that three are reasonable. That's something that's likely to have repercussions. The fact is the further explanations about the FAQs aren't just there next to the FAQs, they're hidden in threads.
And it looks like was ninja'd by BigT.
Surely he should have gotten a size penalty to his stealth check to ninja you?And it looks like was ninja'd by BigT.Because even when the design team explains in detail what they intend, some people still try to argue what they intended based on how they personally read the rule.
Think about that.
Are you saying I'm fat? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Surely he should have gotten a size penalty to his stealth check to ninja you?
I don't have perception in class and I thought I should put my points into knowledge: 3.5 edition instead.... Don't judge me!
Besides, always good to have someone clarify things, even if its not me.
Are you saying I'm fat? :)
I think he's saying you have a great dex score actually... Are we too off topic yet?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think he's saying you have a great dex score actually... Are we too off topic yet?
We could probably do better. Breaking Bad finale, thoughts?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
YMMV if you only want to be "right" about how things work in an imaginary game where you think you could possibly better understand the intent of something better than the persons who wrote it.
This, coming from the person whe keeps on plugging the suggestion that some actions get re-classified, despite the devs having made it very clear that is not what they intended, and they will not do that?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ciretose:
You have a "I must be just too dang smart, or you're all too dang stupid" attitude coming off, and this seems to be directed at anyone who dislikes, or disagrees, with any part of this FAQ.
There are others with a seemingly similar stance and attitude, but you just happen to be the most vocal.
This borders on flamebait.
Let us not walk that path.
This borders on flamebait.
Borders?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ciretose:
You have a "I must be just too dang smart, or you're all too dang stupid" attitude coming off, and this seems to be directed at anyone who dislikes, or disagrees, with any part of this FAQ.
There are others with a seemingly similar stance and attitude, but you just happen to be the most vocal.
This borders on flamebait.
Let us not walk that path.
He apparently gets a free pass on personal attacks. His most outrageous comments get favorited by staff members...
Sometimes you just ignore him, sometimes you feed him. But he never goes away and he always wins.
@ciretose:
You have a "I must be just too dang smart, or you're all too dang stupid" attitude coming off, and this seems to be directed at anyone who dislikes, or disagrees, with any part of this FAQ.
There are others with a seemingly similar stance and attitude, but you just happen to be the most vocal.
This borders on flamebait.
Let us not walk that path.
He apparently gets a free pass on personal attacks. His most outrageous comments get favorited by staff members...
Sometimes you just ignore him, sometimes you feed him. But he never goes away and he always wins.
Careful, you'll stumble onto a plot and a portion of your existence could be erased.
We really have gone off topic though so... bout' them longbows. Did you know that your only as limited as your DM makes you? Bring brownies or pizza, I hear that helps.(Personally I prefer cheesecake or strawberries. Not a bribe just... Yeah, okay, its a bribe).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My understanding is that for every slice of pizza you bring a DM then you get an extra free action per round.
I find the trick it to cut the pizza up into really small slices. Is that considered cheeseing the rules?
My understanding is that for every slice of pizza you bring a DM then you get an extra free action per round.
I find the trick it to cut the pizza up into really small slices. Is that considered cheeseing the rules?
If its a deep dish Sicilian hold the cheese is it tomato-ing? Who cares, you only make me hungry.
And If someone were to serve me a slice of pizza in six hundred and forty two pieces I think I'd consider it a punishment more than anything. Sounds like a good enough time to change rules to me!
Maybe we should specify minimum volume necessary for it to be considered a valid pizza slice.
If it's pepperoni, it's worth twice as many free actions, though.. Pepperoni rocks!
Maybe we should specify minimum volume necessary for it to be considered a valid pizza slice.
If it's pepperoni, it's worth twice as many free actions, though.. Pepperoni rocks!
And if we don't like him we get him Anchovies and Artichoke Hearts and no cheese? I mean, those have got to be worth negative points or something.
I think I like this idea.
|
You know, I have been toying with a house-rule where the default mechanic for attacks with a firearm was the Deadshot grit mechanic.
With a single shot, you make multiple attack rolls with increased damage based on the number of attack rolls that hit.
Replace Deadshot with 'Expend a grit point to reload a number of times up to your maximum number of attacks per round including effects like rapid shot and haste'.
The single shot mechanic would work well for any single shot weapon.
Single shot weapons can spend a finite resource in order to shoot multiple shots.
The weapons with multiple attacks (such as a six shooter) can use those normally without having to spend a grit point.It is a rough idea and I haven't really had a reason to think about it more than what I just posted.
- Gauss
The More I think about this idea, the more I like it. Gunslinger can make a great glass cannon.
You turn all the gunslinger's irritative attacks and any hasted attack into one dice pool that is rolled for a single attack, with the number of successes determining the amount of damage done.
That attack is a standard action and reloading is a move action that can never be reduced. That way the gunslinger is a deadly immobile damage dealer, who needs to choose between reloading and moving.
You can add allow grit to be used to add other fun stuff to the attack and at some point gain the ability to make a pin-point shot as a full round action.
Having a single shot as a full round action then will allow you replicate skirmishing, where you spend your turns between taking a crack shot, and moving & reloading.
To make them extra fragile, reloading a gun provokes.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to work out how the damage should scale, but they should be on par with a a dedicated archer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe we should specify minimum volume necessary for it to be considered a valid pizza slice.
If it's pepperoni, it's worth twice as many free actions, though.. Pepperoni rocks!
And if we don't like him we get him Anchovies and Artichoke Hearts and no cheese? I mean, those have got to be worth negative points or something.
I think I like this idea.
Anchovies and no cheese???!!!
Why would you want to make "Rocks fall, everyone dies!" a justified reaction?
Give that pizza to the local munchkin. Tell him he has all the cheese he needs in his character sheet!
Actually, don't. That guy might be me... -.-'
Give that cheeseless abomination to the guy who accuses everyone of rollplaying. Or the one who blindly agrees with every thing the GM/game designer/local munchkin says.
|
You know, I have been toying with a house-rule where the default mechanic for attacks with a firearm was the Deadshot grit mechanic.
With a single shot, you make multiple attack rolls with increased damage based on the number of attack rolls that hit.
Replace Deadshot with 'Expend a grit point to reload a number of times up to your maximum number of attacks per round including effects like rapid shot and haste'.
The single shot mechanic would work well for any single shot weapon.
Single shot weapons can spend a finite resource in order to shoot multiple shots.
The weapons with multiple attacks (such as a six shooter) can use those normally without having to spend a grit point.It is a rough idea and I haven't really had a reason to think about it more than what I just posted.
- Gauss
The More I think about this idea, the more I like it. Gunslinger can make a great glass cannon.
You turn all the gunslinger's irritative attacks and any hasted attack into one dice pool that is rolled for a single attack, with the number of successes determining the amount of damage done.
That attack is a standard action and reloading is a move action that can never be reduced. That way the gunslinger is a deadly immobile damage dealer, who needs to choose between reloading and moving.
You can add allow grit to be used to add other fun stuff to the attack and at some point gain the ability to make a pin-point shot as a full round action.
Having a single shot as a full round action then will allow you replicate skirmishing, where you spend your turns between taking a crack shot, and moving & reloading.
To make them extra fragile, reloading a gun provokes.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to work out how the damage should scale, but they should be on par with a a dedicated archer.
I absolute love this idea! It allows the gunslinger to remain competitive without reducing a complex set of actions that should take about 15 seconds IRL to a free action!
...the gunslinger's irritative attacks...
This is the funniest and most appropriate Freudian slip I've seen in ages. : )
I'm not using Wikipedia, I'm using VIDEO.
look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o9RGnujlkI
Granted, she's using a shortbow. But still, she's doing 1/3 seconds.
This one was a head turner. watch Lars at work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g
Also an awesome reason to use a shortbow. Due to the draw length, you couldn't do this with a longbow. Just an Awesome Ten Arrows technique.
You can get to some good videos by Googling 'speed archery'.
Granted, longbow technique, and especially with volley fire, is going to take longer. But you can certainly fire faster if you want to.
And there is definitely a difference between composite long and short bows.
The daikyu is a composite bow, and seven feet long on average. That's definitely a longbow.
A Mongol's bow is three, maybe four feet long, tops, and is definitely a short bow, as well as the world's first composite bows.
==Aelryinth
AWESOME video Aelryinth. Really eye-opening and jaw-dropping. 3 shoots while jumping is just plain absurd.
In the 18th century English regulars using the Brown Bess flintlock could manage a rate of fire of 4 shots per minute (once every 15 seconds). Crack troops could manage 5 shots per minute (once every 12 seconds).
The Brown Bess was a smoothbore musket so was not slow to reload compared to rifled muskets. The English were using paper cartridges at that point (as opposed to patch, powder horn/flask, and ball) .
Now, this is Pathfinder where reality doesn't mean a whole lot. I've accepted that Gunslingers are just plain unrealistic even at a 1/round rate of fire. However, they could be made competitive while still keeping to a 1/round rate of fire. But, that is for house rules. If someone wants to discuss house rules regarding converting the Gunslinger to a 1/round rate of fire, Im up for that but we should move that to the House Rules forum. :)
- Gauss
|
|
As for 1: I don't actually recall the Musketeers using guns in any of their fights. There were a few scenes when they went to war where they had them, but all the dramatic fights were sword duels. The Musketeers were renowned as great swordsmen. Are gunslingers really built on that model?They WERE called the Musketeers for a reason. The thing is the firearms of the day were all muzzleloaders. So typically they'd be fired once, and then the rest of the combat would be melee.
And yes as it's been stated, the gunslingers are built on a roughly, 16th, 17th century Rennaissance model, basically a bit past the original arquebus. That's one reason I think the class is poorly named. The name is flavored American Western, but the class is built along Renniassance Europe.
Trivial bonus note: Did you know that Lafayette. (yes THE Lafayette of the American Revolution) was a Musketeer?
And yes I would do the same for a melee or archer character.
I think the one thing everyone in the thread agrees on is that gunslingers will need a major revisit in the next edition.
|
|
Nah, Just play with a reasonable GM and do not try to do absurd things so you Gm have not to hit ou with a d20 dice.Which is where I go back to maybe making some current free actions into non-actions.
And reasonable players who don't nerd rage when anyone doesn't agree with how they read something.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ciretose:
You have a "I must be just too dang smart, or you're all too dang stupid" attitude coming off, and this seems to be directed at anyone who dislikes, or disagrees, with any part of this FAQ.
There are others with a seemingly similar stance and attitude, but you just happen to be the most vocal.
This borders on flamebait.
Let us not walk that path.
As someone who has been called a monster and told to go to hell in this discussion, and called an idiot who clearly can't read in many other threads (including by you if I recall...such things get removed) I'm reminded of a saying about glass houses.
Have you heard it?
Also I find it helpful if you quote me rather than say I said things I didn't say, and state they were insulting.
That, I call flamebait.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is funny that ciretose doesn't know what a diviner wizard does.
Anyway I did write it incorrectly, my wizard just always acts on 45 initiative, even in the surprise round. That is without any spells, pretty easy
It never ceases to amaze me how when someone several people comment on a post, I end up being the one cited as commenting on it.
I must be loved.
Citation of my misunderstanding? I don't recall any discussion of diviner wizards, but all threads end up wizard threads so maybe I missed it?
I agree. This was them dipping a toe into suggestion rulings rather than pure "This is the rule" rulings.
I like it because I actually care what the people who wrote the game intended when they wrote it, and because I like getting suggestions from them.
YMMV if you only want to be "right" about how things work in an imaginary game where you think you could possibly better understand the intent of something better than the persons who wrote it.
It's not like the people who wrote this things haven't been surprised in the past by the collateral effects of their rulings. The Aasimar gaining an early entry into Theurge and being able to craft magic items because they ruled spell-like abilites are considered caster levels for prerequisites come to mind. They later added a comment about it, saying it was something they didn`t foresee, but they'll accept for now.
The fact they rendered Duelist (the +4 initiative version) useless because they ruled that you have to "wield" (ie: use in combat) a weapon to get its benefits (to nerf the Defending weapon stuff) also comes to mind. If you have to attack to get the bonus, you get +4 initiative only after you have rolled initiative, which is absolutelly pointless.
They might know the intent of a FAQ better than us, that's sure. I'm not sure they know better the consequences of such FAQs.
|
|
I think they don't define "useless" the way many people on here define it.
After being called all sorts of lovely things in lots of threads when I dared to say that I didn't think the Devs intended interactions that players found in the rules, I find it absolutely refreshing that the Devs are taking the time to clarify.
No one has to follow the clarification, they specifically said so in the FAQ.
Yet the very implication that the GM may be reasonable in saying you can't only have so many free actions in a round, or that you need to "wield" a weapon, etc...seems to throw people into absolute nerd rage.
The game is large, and there for unintended synergies and interactions will at times occur. When these occur, the devs sit down, discuss and react to them based on how they designed the game to be played, and presumably how they play them.
They are players too, after all.
For all the commentary from some on here about "not judging me or telling me I'm doing it wrong" they certainly don't hesitate to tell the people who wrote the game that they are wrong.
Seems pretty hypocritical to me.
I personally think (hope may be a better word) that they are trying things out in preparation for the next iteration of the game, which will address some of the concerns and problems that do exist.
Because some absolutely do exist.
But problems created by some of the more creative readings of the game, like the weapon cord stuff, are problems created by the reading and lack of a GM managing the game.
When I play video games and can cheese move a level, that is not generally what the people who made the game intended. If they put out a patch closing my cheese move, that isn't generally viewed a bad thing.
For some reason it is different here for some people.
If it weren't the same people who tell us all how broken the game is that get so angry when the devs remove the things they like, it probably wouldn't be bothersome.
When someone who doesn't cry wolf (Cheapy and Evil Lincoln pop to mind, but there are many others) are worried, I worry.
But wolf has been shouted so often and so loudly at this point, I almost take it as a sign of a good ruling if it upsets some people.
I was just looking thru the inner sea world guide and they had the feat rapid reload in the back of the book. If u read the feat, it specifically states that it effects crossbows and firearms...BUT at the end of the feat description, it lists ONLY light and hand crossbows are able to make as many attacks in a full round action as bows do. It doesn't say fire arms at all even though firearms were listed in the feat. And the book has 1 handed firearms AND 2 handed firearms.
So it looks like even when inner sea world guide was printed, single shot firearms weren't supposed to fire off as many times as a gunslinger could attack, it looks like that's what pepperboxes were supposed to be for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they don't define "useless" the way many people on here define it.
If you are talking about my comment for Duelist weapons (I guess so, but there's no quote), then it's useless by the very definition of the word: it has no use.
It gives you +4 to a roll, that can only be rolled before you get the +4, so it gives you +4 to a roll you can't make. It was an undesired side-effect of a non-enough thought rule that was aimed to a very different problem (mostly, to defending property being a dodge bonus, and thus being able to stack with itself, which gives your character too much AC by cheesing defending stuff in weapons he's not going to use, such as gauntlets, spiked shields, and spiked armors). I'm not saying the rule wasn't needed, or it wasn't a good idea. But the execution of the rule had consequences they did not foresee in different weapon properties who *were* working as intended. The fact they acknowledged something similar with the aasimar early entry to prestige classes show this sideffects do exist.
If the free-action limit has, or has not, such undesired side-effects is a matter for a different argument. But that the developers sometime make rulings, without full knowledge of what effects such rulings have in other parts of the game's engine, is something that has been proven in the past, and acknowledged by them. (And it's something understandable too, this is a very complex game engine to begin with)
|
|
I think they don't define "useless" the way many people on here define it.
If you are talking about my comment for Duelist weapons (I guess so, but there's no quote), then it's useless by the very definition of the word: it has no use.
It gives you +4 to a roll, that can only be rolled before you get the +4, so it gives you +4 to a roll you can't make. It was an undesired side-effect of a non-enough thought rule that was aimed to a very different problem (mostly, to defending property being a dodge bonus, and thus being able to stack with itself, which gives your character too much AC by cheesing defending stuff in weapons he's not going to use, such as gauntlets, spiked shields, and spiked armors). I'm not saying the rule wasn't needed, or it wasn't a good idea. But the execution of the rule had consequences they did not foresee in different weapon properties who *were* working as intended. The fact they acknowledged something similar with the aasimar early entry to prestige classes show this sideffects do exist.
If the free-action limit has, or has not, such undesired side-effects is a matter for a different argument. But that the developers sometime make rulings, without full knowledge of what effects such rulings have in other parts of the game's engine, is something that has been proven in the past, and acknowledged by them. (And it's something understandable too, this is a very complex game engine to begin with)
I have no idea what you are talking about. I just went to the FAQ and to Dualist on the PRD and nothing matches what you are describing. I must be missing something.
Wield means to hold ready to attack. You can wield in one hand or you can wield in two hands, but you can't do both at the same time. A wizard with an arcane focus weapon wields it but never attacks with it.
If you had your weapon in hand (where it can be disarmed or sundered) you are wielding it.
Is this one of the many things thrown up during the TWF nerd rage episode.
I'm not saying side effects never exist or the Devs are infallible. I'm saying most of them are created by people reading things into the rule that was never intended to be there. Generally clearly never intended, like the weapon cord thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea what you are talking about. I just went to the FAQ and to Dualist on the PRD and nothing matches what you are describing. I must be missing something.
There are 2 properties named "Duelist". One give +4 initiative, the other one double the bonus for maneuvers. I was talking about the Initiative one
Wield means to hold ready to attack. You can wield in one hand or you can wield in two hands, but you can't do both at the same time. A wizard with an arcane focus weapon wields it but never attacks with it.
If you had your weapon in hand (where it can be disarmed or sundered) you are wielding it.
No, that was what wielding *meant* in the past. It got ruled to be "used in combat", to deal with some exploits. To be explicit: a wizard could be wielding (ie: hold ready to atack) a +5 defending dagger, +5 defending spiked shield, +5 defending spiked haramaki and +5 defending spiked armored kilt, for a whooping +20 dodge bonus with weapons he is "holding and ready to attack", although he is never really going to do so. I'm quite sure this exploit *had* to be solved. The problem is, the way they did ("you need to use the weapon to get the property benefits"), also had side-effects that weren't foreseen. If you have to use (ie: attack) with a Duelist weapon before you get your +4 to initiative, then the +4 to initiative is completelly useless, because you already rolled initiative when you use your weapon. They should have targeted the defending cheese, by targeting the defending property, not the rule that define "wielding", because that way you can silo the effect of the new ruling to only what you want to address.
Same goes with this whole gunslinger stuff. Yes, the gunslinger *has* to be addressed. But the way they chosed, targeting to free actions, have undesired consequences in some other parts of the engine (like drawing arrows). There's a problem with how fireweapons, weapon cords, and alchemic cartridges work. They should change firewapons, weapon cords and alchemic cartridges, not free actions.
The problem seems to be that, for the design team, that's a harder step to do. Maybe because they don't want to override published content (such as the gunslinger rules), or maybe because it's a way to acknowledge that the gunslinger was not properly tested.
The thing is: I feel that if you have a problem, and you try to solve it by "attacking" something else than the problem, you compound the problem itself. You might end fixing what is broken, but at the cost of breaking something else that was fixed. They should nerf fireweapons, weapon cords, alchemic cartridges and/or gunslingers, not basic rules which have a lot of different interactions with things that aren't really broken.