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)
In a situation like that, Gustavo, simply allow them to act on their rolled initiative and as soon as their weapon is in hand increase their initiative total to include the bonus. Aldori Swordlords have a similar mechanic. This works just fine with them. Many things can cause a PC's initiative to change mid-round. This is just another one of those things.
Hey if you want to try a really complex but in depth initiative system check out the one used in the Stargate SG-1 RPG. Take Dmg? Initiative goes down. Move to high ground in the middle of combat? Initiative goes up. Unleash area effect or tactical weapons? Initiative goes down. Take a standard action getting your bearings and observing the bad guys movements? Initiative goes up. Push initiative up high enough and you get an extra action. If it falls into negatives then lose a round completely, but alter your initiative total to an unmodified 20 on the round afterwards.
|
Or have the characters have the ability when they have weapons in hand, as in it only works when you have your weapon out.
Which to me makes perfect sense.
I need a citation on what you are referring to about wielding because there is nothing like that in the FAQ. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying I have not seen anything remotely like what you described in the FAQ so I'm assuming this is a board post.
Sorry Ciretose, you missed the FAQ. Wielding a weapon is not wielding it unless you attack with it.
Defending Weapon Property: Do I have to make attack rolls with the weapon to gain its AC bonus?
Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no effect.—Sean K Reynolds, 06/06/11
Or have the characters have the ability when they have weapons in hand, as in it only works when you have your weapon out.
Which to me makes perfect sense.
For a magical weapon quality I would be inclined to agree, Ciretose.
For a class ability, not so much. At that point it is the PC's special training and muscle-memory coming into play. These abilities should be evident as soon as the weapon is in hand and should impact the PC's initiative totals as soon as his second action.
Example: An Aldori Swordlord gets a +2 to initiative when wielding his signature sword. He finds himself in a combat situation unexpectedly with a half-orc. They both roll initiative and the half-orc gets an 18 and the swordlord a 17 without sword drawn.
The half orc readies a weapon as part of a move and attacks but misses.
The Swordlord readies his sword, increasing his initiative next round to a 19, and attacks but misses.
Next round the Swordlord acts first on 19.
I just feel that this better represents the special training undertaken on the swordlords part rather than a blanket "you did not have it out when I said to roll so you lose it" call IMHO.
|
|
mdt - Thanks.
Although reading it dualing has a specific rule that I would think supercedes.
"This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. A dueling weapon (which must be a weapon that can be used with the Weapon Finesse feat) gives the wielder a +4 enhancement bonus on initiative checks, provided the weapon is drawn and in hand when the Initiative check is made. It provides a +2 bonus on disarm checks and feint checks, a +2 bonus to CMD to resist disarm attempts, and a +2 to the DC to perform a feint against the wielder."
Specific over general and such.
Or have the characters have the ability when they have weapons in hand, as in it only works when you have your weapon out.Some weapons aren't "in hand" to "be ready", like spiked armor, and some others are actually in hand: dagger, gauntlet and spiked mithral buckler are all of them in hand.
I need a citation on what you are referring to about wielding because there is nothing like that in the FAQ. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying I have not seen anything remotely like what you described in the FAQ so I'm assuming this is a board post.
It's curious, because as far as I remember, it was you who pointed it to me in a post about wizards builds, where I had a spiked mithral shield with a defending spike. Maybe I'm confusing you with some other posters.
In any way: In the PRD
"Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon — by wielding (attacking with) it."
In the http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm]in the FAQ
And specifically about defending weapons
"Defending Weapon Property: Do I have to make attack rolls with the weapon to gain its AC bonus?
Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no effect."
So if you have a Duelist spiked buckler, you only get your duelist bonus if you shield bash with it. If you have a Duelist dagger, you only get your Initiative bonus if you attack with it. But once you have attacked, the bonus is useless, by the default rules.
However, we are derailing the thread too much, this isn´t about defending and duelist properties. Nor it is about how Aasimars now qualify for Prestige classes. It is about free actions and reloading bows/guns, and I brought those two examples just as a way to show that, sometimes, the developers try to fix something that is (undeniably) broken, but they miss the shot and end breaking something else, because they target general rulings (like free actions or wielding weapons to gain properties), instead of targeting the real problem: the wrong/broken feat/property/spell which was released with not enough playtesting
|
|
Serious question, could a 16 Musket Master with Rapid Shot,Haste, Alchemical bullets, and a Beneficial Bandolier,use dead shot and gain two more attacks added to his base of four attacks? Meaning Dead Shot would now roll 6 dice instead of four? Since those would be the full round action pool of all his potential attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
mdt - Thanks.
Although reading it dualing has a specific rule that I would think supercedes.
"This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. A dueling weapon (which must be a weapon that can be used with the Weapon Finesse feat) gives the wielder a +4 enhancement bonus on initiative checks, provided the weapon is drawn and in hand when the Initiative check is made. It provides a +2 bonus on disarm checks and feint checks, a +2 bonus to CMD to resist disarm attempts, and a +2 to the DC to perform a feint against the wielder."
Specific over general and such.
That's highly debatable, but even if it is (which I think it's not), it doesn't change the fact that the ruling has affected the rest of weapon properties. For example:
Courageous now gives you a bonus to fear saves while you attack, and does not while you have it in your hand.
"A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus."
Same goes with Defiant, which nows give you bonus to stabilization rolls only if you attack with it while dying. Somewhat useful for people with some feats, I guess. However it's going to be "hard" to get that bonus to Hold Person saves, for example.
"A defiant weapon helps its wielder stay alive in desperate conditions. It stays in its wielder's hand even if she is panicked, stunned, or unconscious. She adds the weapon's enhancement bonus as a bonus on checks to stabilize when dying and on saving throws to end ongoing conditions such as disease, poison, and hold person."
And so on. I could go searching one by one the properties, but it's not needed. The point in the argument is not how it affected certain properties (which may or may not include Duelist, but that's a matter for another debate), but the fact that altering a *base rule* to deal with a *specific problem with a single item/feat/power* is problematic.
Just imagine Magic the Gathering, that instead of baning certain powerful cards that went out of control, they decide to alter the basic rules. Right now the rules would be a giant mess.
If something is wrong with in the game (and gunslingers probably are), you should deal with THAT stuff that is wrong, not with a basic rule like free actions.
To make an example: imagine the developers decide that firearms touch attacks are too powerful, as they make Dragons look like sitting ducks. So they decide to change Touch attacks: no longer affect natural armor. Does it solve the gunslinger is overpowered stuff? Yes. Is it a good idea? No, because it breaks a lot of other stuff (like touch attack spells). Isn't it a better idea to fix the fireweapons doing touch attack instead?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That's not what people are complaining about though. Its misleading to state that people are nerd raging over reasonable GMing.
Yes, I know they were the "Musketeers" for a reason. I agree it would be more realistic to have early firearms be "fire once then melee" items. I don't think the class design reflects that at all..So why do you think that the base gunslinger is given proficiency on ALL martial weapons then?
Is it reasonable to believe that a Fighter built primarily around using a bow will make it a habit to regularly pull out a broadsword just because his class has the basic expertise to use it? I don't think so.
Characters generally are built to be effective with a certain weapon or certain class of weapon. The concept of ranged weapon combat almost requires that you'll specialize in it (due to the number of feats required compared to the total number available) and be only minimally effective with other types of weapons.
So to state that a Gunslinger was designed around "fire once and then melee" is questionable given the basic mechanics of the game system.
|
|
Courageous and defiant makes perfect sense. You get the bonus in battle, but not when you aren't in battle.
I think you are projecting things into the ruling to make a point.
@Mr Sin - If that isn't what they are complaining about, there is nothing to discuss as that is all the ruling says.
Also, you and I are kind of oil and water. I'll stop replying to you if you stop replying to me.
@Mr Sin - If that isn't what they are complaining about, there is nothing to discuss as that is all the ruling says.
Still plenty to discuss. Its just not about "OMG I NEED CHEESE!" so much as "Huh, does this mean my gunslinger shouldn't be firing four bullets at level 11 and actually can't talk and reload at the same time?" There's also a bit of confusion as to how it affects other free actions, such as archery, among other things. There's a huge difference between whining that I can't fire 20 bullets in a round vs. 3-5.
Also, you and I are kind of oil and water. I'll stop replying to you if you stop replying to me.
Oi, we don't mix well. I agree with that.
Btw, its not unreasonable to give all classes who are expected to go into combat martial weapons(all full BAB classes get that). Gunslingers get martial weapons sure, but their class doesn't really get anything to make them use them well so its hard to imagine their focus being the ability to fire one shot and run in.
Yes, I know they were the "Musketeers" for a reason. I agree it would be more realistic to have early firearms be "fire once then melee" items. I don't think the class design reflects that at all..So why do you think that the base gunslinger is given proficiency on ALL martial weapons then?Is it reasonable to believe that a Fighter built primarily around using a bow will make it a habit to regularly pull out a broadsword just because his class has the basic expertise to use it? I don't think so.
A smart and savvy Fighter built around a bow will keep at the very least a secondary melee weapon for those times when he's pressed and can't shoot. And given that a Fighter DOES have feats to spare, will invest one or two feats over time in making himself good with that weapon. But any full BAB class would be able to hit competently with it.
The downfall of many an Archer player has been the the monomaniacal focus on one particular style of combat, and finding themselves totally helpless when that style is thwarted.
In your example, that 'smart and savvy Fighter' will only enter melee combat when circumstances deny him the use of his primary weapon - for example, because the foe has feats built to keep him in melee range of his attacker. He won't be put into that position because he can't reload his primary weapon fast enough to be effective with it.
There's a drastic difference between being forced into a situation because you cannot avoid melee combat, and being forced into melee because your ability to fire your primary weapon outstrips your ability to reload it.
As to being a full BAB class that can hit effectively, even with a high BAB you are not anywhere near guaranteed to hit with a melee weapon. Generally speaking, the reason a melee Fighter hits consistently is because he has a full BAB and he has a high STR score. In order to have an equivalent effectiveness, a Gunslinger would have to burn yet another feat on Weapon Finesse - or he'd have to burn ability points on STR, which isn't really an effective point expenditure for the class.
It's true that there will be situations where any physical-based class will be forced to resort to using a non-optimal weapon during combat. I don't think it's true at all that the inclusion of additional proficiences for the Gunslinger indicate that the intent was that they "shoot once and then draw a sword"; the rest of the build of the class doesn't back that up in the slightest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Courageous and defiant makes perfect sense. You get the bonus in battle, but not when you aren't in battle
How do you get a bonus to Hold saves? You you have to both
a) being heldb) attacking
Which isn't possible by the rules.
Same goes to the bonus to stabilize. You get the bonus if you are:
a) dying (and thus disabled)
b) attacking.
Which is possible only for a very small subset of characters who are able to fight while being at negative hit points (often being stabilized anyways)
I doubt the Courageous property was built so you don't get a bonus in the first round of combat vs a dragon, when you have your weapon in your hand, and ready to strike, but you haven't yet because the Dragon is flying or won the initiative. If the weapon is suppossed to give you bonus only in the rounds where you have attacked, then it's (even more) overpriced.
The thing is, that wasn't the intent of those weapon properties. The intent of Defiant was that you could get a bonus to Hold Person and a bonus to Stabilize, not that you paid for a bonus to Hold Person which actually can't be used. But now you can't (by RAW), because they toyed with the "wielding" definition because some other property was somewhat broken. And now Defiant (and Duelist, Courageous and other) does not make sense at all, unless you shoehorn them until they somewhat fit into the new "wielding" rule without looking totally useless.
Also, I'd want to notice that the other example I gave (Aasimars now being able to enter prestige classes as a side-effect of a ruling who wasn't intended to do so) haven't been touched, and it's just as relevant for this thread as the Defiant Property: it's an example of how trying to fix a specific item (such as a feat or weapon property) with a ruling over a general rule can fix some things, but break or alter some others. Fortunatelly, Aasimars entering soon to Theurge does not make a problem (because theurges suck anyway), but the point is... that was not something the developers did on purpose. It was a surprise side-effect.
I restate my point: if firearms being touch attack is a problem, then fix that. If gunslinger is too powerful, then fix that. If alchemic cartridges or rapid reload are too powerful, then fix that. But if you toy with a general rule (like free actions), then you are touching something that relates with a lot of other things (both current and future), and you aren't sure about what else are you breaking to fix the broken thing.
It's MUCH easier to fix the firearms themselves. But that requires to backpedal and acknowledge that full BAB attacking to touch attack might not be the brightest idea ever.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'll weigh in.
1) I think the design team is awesome. They're great guys!
2) I think the design team is mortal. They have limits!
3) I think the idea behind the FAQ is good. "Free actions" are able to be abused!
4) I think the example within the FAQ is pretty bad. It limits far too many things.
5) I think the statements of the FAQ (that this is just a suggestion) is a good thing to add. It allows freedom of interpretation!
6) I think the belief that (otherwise) reasonable people won't take this as more "firm" than it is, is fallacious, at best. I've had too much experience that says otherwise.
-6a) Corollary: I think a better (suite of) example(s) would assist players who are, for various reasons, stuck with a moderately "unreasonable" GM.
-6b) a "moderately" unreasonable GM is a GM who may be reasonable in many cases, but is not in certain areas. This does not mean they are a bad GM. It means that, for whatever reason (morals, ethics, past-history, whatever) they are not reasonable on a particular subject.
-6c) yes, people do get "stuck" with moderately unreasonable GMs. I know the counter, "GM yourself", but GMing actually requires work, effort, and concentration that not all people can afford.
-6d) There are also the "innocently unreasonable" GMs. This is a slightly different category. Usually this is broken by time, but it's a thing that not everybody gets free of.
7) I think the fact that this was intended to generate discussion, and it did, means that the intent (to generate discussion) was successful
-7a) I think that this intent means the designers know they have not (and ultimately cannot have) fully thought out all the ramifications, and are, in their own way, playtesting it here.
-7b) I think this makes them clever designers
-7c) I also think it creates its own suite of problems, as mentioned about moderately unreasonable GMs, above.
In the end, I think it would be a good idea. I would have preferred it if they'd framed it within the FAQ that this was a point of discussion, and meant to generate feedback. They did not, alas (though if they did, I have no doubt that people would be complaining about lazy designers handing off stuff to other people - it's almost as if they're mortal and have finite time!). They did, however, note, twice, that it's a suggestion, not a rule. This is a very good thing.
()
Regardless of anything else, I'm glad the Design Team effectively "asked" about this, before implementing it as a rule. I don't like their example, but I like the idea of asking first. Good move.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any way: In the PRD
"Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon — by wielding (attacking with) it."In the http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm]in the FAQ
And specifically about defending weapons
"Defending Weapon Property: Do I have to make attack rolls with the weapon to gain its AC bonus?
Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no...
Eh... Gotta agree with ciretose on this one. (Not something you see every day. So enjoy!)
1st, there is a "usually" written there, which implies it's not always the case. 2nd, the Dueling property does specify otherwise. It says you get the benefits as long as you have the weapon in hand.That said, I'll also agree with Gustavo Iglesias. Targeting free actions to fix a problem that is not caused by them is a terrible idea. As much of a terrible idea as it was to defined "wielding" as "attacking in combat" to try and fix the Defending enhancement.
If the designers want to address a problem, they should address the problem. Not try to circumvent it by changing somewhat related rules. That tends to create all sorts of unexpected consequences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good post, Tacticslion
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh... Gotta agree with ciretose on this one. (Not something you see every day. So enjoy!)
1st, there is a "usually" written there, which implies it's not always the case.
Sure, because some weapons are used by command words for example (you don't have to attack to get a luck blade wish). But the sentence from SKR in the second quote specifically says that unless noted otherwise, "wield" does not mean "just hold", but you need to attack
2nd, the Dueling property does specify otherwise. It says you get the benefits as long as you have the weapon in hand.
I disagree with this reading, the text is not much different from other "wielding" texts in other properties. However, I agree this is how it should work RAI, so it's pointless. I'd run it that way in my games, and I'm sure most reasonable GMs would also. It might be a problem which requires a FAQ/ruling for PFS, but that's a different beast.
In any case, even if Duelist still works, it doesn't help the case. The important thing is not if they broke Duelist property or not. The important thing is that they *might* have broken it, because they were toying with a rule that would cause retroactive changes in every single property with the "wielding" clause. IT does render Defiant useless in most cases, for example. And it could had break several other, depending on the wording.
That could have been avoided if they would had siloed the problem, and ruled against Defending specifically, instead of ruling about "wielding". If a specific card is making a broken combo in Magic because the recycling of the graveyard, they ban that card, they don't ban graveyards. If Drawing 3 cards for 1 blue mana is too powerful, they ban Ancestrall Recall, they don't ban drawing cards.
If an exception to the rule is causing problems, you should target the exception, not the rule. Reloading ranged weapons isn't broken. Firearms are. So ban/nerf firearms, not reloading. I've never seen anyone crying for nerf to Crossbows, so it's obvious that reloading isn't broken. Weapon-corded double-barrelled guns are.
In any case, even if Duelist still works, it doesn't help the case. The important thing is not if they broke Duelist property or not. The important thing is that they *might* have broken it, because they were toying with a rule that would cause retroactive changes in every single property with the "wielding" clause. IT does render Defiant useless in most cases, for example. And it could had break several other, depending on the wording.
That could have been avoided if they would had siloed the problem, and ruled against Defending specifically, instead of ruling about "wielding". If a specific card is making a broken combo in Magic because the recycling of the graveyard, they ban that card, they don't ban graveyards. If Drawing 3 cards for 1 blue mana is too powerful, they ban Ancestrall Recall, they don't ban drawing cards.
If an exception to the rule is causing problems, you should target the exception, not the rule. Reloading ranged weapons isn't broken. Firearms are. So ban/nerf firearms, not reloading. I've never seen anyone crying for nerf to Crossbows, so it's obvious that reloading isn't broken. Weapon-corded double-barrelled guns are.
Yeah, that's the part I agreed with you:
That said, I'll also agree with Gustavo Iglesias. Targeting free actions to fix a problem that is not caused by them is a terrible idea. As much of a terrible idea as it was to defined "wielding" as "attacking in combat" to try and fix the Defending enhancement.
If the designers want to address a problem, they should address the problem. Not try to circumvent it by changing somewhat related rules. That tends to create all sorts of unexpected consequences.
;)
|
|
Courageous and defiant makes perfect sense. You get the bonus in battle, but not when you aren't in battleHow do you get a bonus to Hold saves? You you have to both
a) being held
b) attackingWhich isn't possible by the rules.
Same goes to the bonus to stabilize. You get the bonus if you are:
a) dying (and thus disabled)
b) attacking.
Which is possible only for a very small subset of characters who are able to fight while being at negative hit points (often being stabilized anyways)
Because you were using the item in combat when the status occurred.
As in, if these thing occurred when you were surprised, not in the course of battle with that weapon (and not your bow,etc...), you don't get the bonus.
Otherwise you don't.
I'm not reading the FAQ as narrowly as you are. I'm not saying your reading is not a possible reading, I just don't think the ruling is incompatible with it still having utility. If I swing and miss, then get held/killed, I was using the weapon and so I get the bonus.
@Lemmy - Over time you will come around...I'm going to grow on you like fungus :)
|
|
Good post, Tacticslion
I can get behind this, although I don't think the examples were that awful as apparently they wanted those specific items to be less 'abused'.
I also am of the belief that a certain segment of the board will nerd rage over any perceived correction of what they believe to be true, particularly if it is a 'nerf'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Courageous and defiant makes perfect sense. You get the bonus in battle, but not when you aren't in battleHow do you get a bonus to Hold saves? You you have to both
a) being held
b) attackingWhich isn't possible by the rules.
Same goes to the bonus to stabilize. You get the bonus if you are:
a) dying (and thus disabled)
b) attacking.
Which is possible only for a very small subset of characters who are able to fight while being at negative hit points (often being stabilized anyways)Because you were using the item in combat when the status occurred.
As in, if these thing occurred when you were surprised, not in the course of battle with that weapon (and not your bow,etc...), you don't get the bonus.
Otherwise you don't.
I'm not reading the FAQ as narrowly as you are. I'm not saying your reading is not a possible reading, I just don't think the ruling is incompatible with it still having utility. If I swing and miss, then get held/killed, I was using the weapon and so I get the bonus.
I bolded the relevant part. Sure, if you miss, you attacked. If you are being held by Hold Person, though, you didn't attack. Or if you are disabled in the floor trying to stabilize.
Sean K. Reyonolds ruling said:"Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit."
It's clear cut. You attack, I cast hold person on you. You get the benefit that turn, because you attacked. You fail, next turn you don't get the benefit, because you didn't attack. Same goes if you attack, then I hit you and drop you at -1. You get the benefit this round, but only this round. Just like if you attack in the first round of combat with your defending dagger, you don't get the +AC for the rest of the combat even if you don't attack. If I drop you before your initiative, or Hold Person you, you don't get the benefit. If I stun or panick you before your initiative take turn, you drop your weapon, because you aren't the "wielder" yet. If you panick for 2+ rounds, you drop your weapon in the 2nd round, because you didn't attack. And so on.
Now it's me who thinks you are trying to read things into the rule to make a point. Yes, the rule does not make sense RAW, and it should be used RAI. That's because they thought the rule for a specific problem (the Defending property), and this is a sideeffect. They never thought about this property when they did the ruling, just like they never thought about Aasimar theurges when they did the spell-like ability ruling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's the part I agreed with you:In any case, even if Duelist still works, it doesn't help the case. The important thing is not if they broke Duelist property or not. The important thing is that they *might* have broken it, because they were toying with a rule that would cause retroactive changes in every single property with the "wielding" clause. IT does render Defiant useless in most cases, for example. And it could had break several other, depending on the wording.
That could have been avoided if they would had siloed the problem, and ruled against Defending specifically, instead of ruling about "wielding". If a specific card is making a broken combo in Magic because the recycling of the graveyard, they ban that card, they don't ban graveyards. If Drawing 3 cards for 1 blue mana is too powerful, they ban Ancestrall Recall, they don't ban drawing cards.
If an exception to the rule is causing problems, you should target the exception, not the rule. Reloading ranged weapons isn't broken. Firearms are. So ban/nerf firearms, not reloading. I've never seen anyone crying for nerf to Crossbows, so it's obvious that reloading isn't broken. Weapon-corded double-barrelled guns are.
I'll toss in another vote for that position, for what my opinion's worth. What really bothers me about this issue is that the Devs seem to keep make this same mistake over and over, without learning from it or taking steps to address it. Everyone can make a mistake once, but when they keep making the same mistake over and over, it says to me that there's a bigger issue. Free actions, wielding, spell-like abilities, and breaking the mounted combat rules to stop Rage-Lance-Pounce are all obvious (and infamous) examples I can think of at a moment's notice, and I'm not even especially active on the boards.
Sure, a reasonable GM can work around the problematic FAQs, but most reasonable GMs also know how to deal with ridiculously overpowered builds without needing an FAQ in the first place.
I'm starting to suspect there might be a groupthink issue with the Paizo Devs, and they're in need of someone whose job it is to look at potential rulings and go "Maybe we shouldn't..."
|
|
"Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit."
[/i]
You do realize if you act on your turn, it would continue to work at minimum for the entire round, correct?
Feel free to FAQ.
If your position is that they shouldn't do FAQs just in case they effect a corner case by certain reading of the FAQ, I disagree with you.
The perfect should not be made the enemy of improvement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your position is that they shouldn't do FAQs just in case they effect a corner case by certain reading of the FAQ, I disagree with you.
I don't think this is his position. I think his position is the opposite: that corner cases should be ruled on as corner cases in the FAQ as opposed to sweeping changes to related but indirect issues.
In other words, if the problem is the gunslinger, the FAQ should be about the gunslinger. If it's with the mount/dismount it should be about the mount and dismount.
The perfect should not be made the enemy of improvement.
I agree entirely.
(Something must really be wrong!) :D
"Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit."
[/i]You do realize if you act on your turn, it would continue to work at minimum for the entire round, correct?
Of course. I'm not saying it doesn't work that way. It does not work in the next round.
You attack me with your +1 Defiant longsword, but I don't die. I cast Hold Person on you. Next round, you DO roll your hold person with +1. If you fail, you no longer get +1 to hold person rolls. That's not the intent, because the intent is to give bonus to *ongoing* status, not to *first round status*. Same goes with rolls to stabilize: the intent is not to have a bonus to the round you fall to the floor only. The intent was to give a bonus to *every roll* to stabilize, even if you haven't attacked in 3-4 rounds because you are in the floor bleeding and disabled.
If your position is that they shouldn't do FAQs just in case they effect a corner case by certain reading of the FAQ, I disagree with you.
The perfect should not be made the enemy of improvement.
My possition is that they should have addressed Defending property, not wielding. Wielding wasn't broken, Defending was. Nobody was complaining about people having bonuses to Hold Person because they were holding a Defiant weapon. They were complaining because Defending with 4 weapons you don't even plan to use (or even know how, as you might not have proficiency with them) was incredibly overpowered, raising your AC by 20 if you want to spend the cash on it.
Same goes with this thread. Reloading is NOT broken. Nobody has a problem with characters using crossbows and reloading them. What is broken, is Firearms (and specificially, weapon-corded double-barrelled pistols with alchemic cartridges, to be exact). They should target firearms, not reloading, because the former is what is broken, not the later.
|
|
gustavo iglesias - Your are assuming it wasn't the intention to limit the effects of weapon properties to when they are being used. Maybe that is exactly what they intended.
And you are assuming they didn't have a problem with reloading.
And the FAQ was not just about firearms, but free action abuse in general.
gustavo iglesias - Your are assuming it wasn't the intention to limit the effects of weapon properties to when they are being used. Maybe that is exactly what they intended.
And you are assuming they didn't have a problem with reloading.
And the FAQ was not just about firearms, but free action abuse in general.
LOL.
Yes, I'm assumming it wasn't their intention to make Defiant bonus to ongoing save for Hold person not work at all in ongoing saves for Hold person. And its save bonus for stabilize, not working for, well, stabilize rolls. All of that while they made a ruling for a different property, which was, actually, being abused.A dire guess, I'd say. ;).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I start to think this could all be solved by something along the lines of "you can't reload a firearm if you have an weapon dangling from an weapon cord attached to your hands" or some such... ¬¬'
Not that I even think TWFing Gunslingers are all that powerful.
That's a very expensive and feat-intensive trick to pull off. And it still doesn't do anything to boost your incredibly short range, innate fumble mechanics, difficulty to deal with melee opponents with reach and more than limited options on any situation that doesn't involve shooting stuff...
Gunslingers are cool, but by Desna, PF firearm mechanics are terrible...
I start to think this could all be solved by something along the lines of "you can't reload a firearm if you have an weapon dangling from an weapon cord attached to your hands" or some such... ¬¬'
I've been saying that for 4 days now.
EDIT : Except I'd go further, I'd say the hand doesn't count as free for anything other than a swift action to grab the weapon. It shouldn't count as a free hand for loading, it shouldn't count as a free hand for casting, it shouldn't count as a free hand for dervish dance. It's not free, it's being weighted down by a gun or sword or whatever.
EDIT : Except I'd go further, I'd say the hand doesn't count as free for anything other than a swift action to grab the weapon. It shouldn't count as a free hand for loading, it shouldn't count as a free hand for casting, it shouldn't count as a free hand for dervish dance. It's not free, it's being weighted down by a gun or sword or whatever.
So it shouldn't count as a free hand for anything?
I start to think this could all be solved by something along the lines of "you can't reload a firearm if you have an weapon dangling from an weapon cord attached to your hands" or some such... ¬¬'
I've been saying that for 4 days now.
EDIT : Except I'd go further, I'd say the hand doesn't count as free for anything other than a swift action to grab the weapon. It shouldn't count as a free hand for loading, it shouldn't count as a free hand for casting, it shouldn't count as a free hand for dervish dance. It's not free, it's being weighted down by a gun or sword or whatever.
I completely agree with this, it allows the weapon cord to do what it was designed to do (and what its cost is worth), namely, not to drop a weapon to the ground when it gets knocked out of your hand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT : Except I'd go further, I'd say the hand doesn't count as free for anything other than a swift action to grab the weapon. It shouldn't count as a free hand for loading, it shouldn't count as a free hand for casting, it shouldn't count as a free hand for dervish dance. It's not free, it's being weighted down by a gun or sword or whatever.So it shouldn't count as a free hand for anything?
Yep, it counts as a free hand for making a swift action to grab the weapon dangling from it. That's the only thing it should count as free for.
Yep, it counts as a free hand for making a swift action to grab the weapon dangling from it. That's the only thing it should count as free for.EDIT : Except I'd go further, I'd say the hand doesn't count as free for anything other than a swift action to grab the weapon. It shouldn't count as a free hand for loading, it shouldn't count as a free hand for casting, it shouldn't count as a free hand for dervish dance. It's not free, it's being weighted down by a gun or sword or whatever.So it shouldn't count as a free hand for anything?
Although I've done it earlier, I'll do it again: Totally second this idea.
From a house perspective, I'm actually using this rule going forward - one slight modification, I will allow a caster to use the hand for somatic components, but I'll require a concentration check and the spell has a failure chance (even if it's a divine caster).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I have solved the whole weapon cord issue is to simply say that as long as your hand has a weapon cord attached to it it is occupied. As in, not available for other things and actions except to use the weapon it is tied to. Once the weapon is not connected to the cord then you can use that hand again.
Stops all sorts of abuse.
- Gauss
|
|
The way I have solved the whole weapon cord issue is to simply say that as long as your hand has a weapon cord attached to it it is occupied. As in, not available for other things and actions except to use the weapon it is tied to. Once the weapon is not connected to the cord then you can use that hand again.
Stops all sorts of abuse.
- Gauss
That sounds pretty good, actually.
The way I have solved the whole weapon cord issue is to simply say that as long as your hand has a weapon cord attached to it it is occupied. As in, not available for other things and actions except to use the weapon it is tied to. Once the weapon is not connected to the cord then you can use that hand again.
Stops all sorts of abuse.
- Gauss
That's odd... How does having an weapon dangling in your hand stop you from holding stuff? And what would be the point of weapon cords then? You just turned them into inferior locked gauntlets.
I'd just limit it to dangling weapons being to disruptive to allow you to reload firearms... Although that also doesn't make much sense when the character can have super-human dexterity.
That's odd... How does having an weapon dangling in your hand stop you from holding stuff? And what would be the point of weapon cords then? You just turned them into inferior locked gauntlets.
I'd just limit it to dangling weapons being to disruptive to allow you to reload firearms... Although that also doesn't make much sense when the character can have super-human dexterity.
Not exactly. A locked gauntlet always takes a full-round action to free up. A weapon cord can be 'freed' using a move action (by cutting it).
Not exactly. A locked gauntlet always takes a full-round action to free up. A weapon cord can be 'freed' using a move action (by cutting it).That's odd... How does having an weapon dangling in your hand stop you from holding stuff? And what would be the point of weapon cords then? You just turned them into inferior locked gauntlets.
I'd just limit it to dangling weapons being to disruptive to allow you to reload firearms... Although that also doesn't make much sense when the character can have super-human dexterity.
But if the only purpose is to keep yourself from being disarmed, then the locked gauntlet is superior in a lot of situations. I don't want to free the hand if I can't do anything with it.
But if the only purpose is to keep yourself from being disarmed, then the locked gauntlet is superior in a lot of situations. I don't want to free the hand if I can't do anything with it.Not exactly. A locked gauntlet always takes a full-round action to free up. A weapon cord can be 'freed' using a move action (by cutting it).That's odd... How does having an weapon dangling in your hand stop you from holding stuff? And what would be the point of weapon cords then? You just turned them into inferior locked gauntlets.
I'd just limit it to dangling weapons being to disruptive to allow you to reload firearms... Although that also doesn't make much sense when the character can have super-human dexterity.
Precisely.
Lemmy, there are three options here:
A) Weapon cords do not interfere with anything except wielding a second weapon
B) Weapon cords have a specific (as of yet undecided) list of things it interferes with)
C) Weapon cords interfere with any use of the hand other than wielding the weapon the cord is attached to.
A is as currently written but is prone to abuse.
B is complicated and difficult to remember.
C is simple and solves the abuse issue at the cost of being possibly inferior to a locked gauntlet depending on your point of view.
Personally, Im ok with "C". The Weapon Cord is easier to disengage than the locked gauntlet and you aren't wearing a gauntlet (which would have to be removed in it's own right if you need to remove it).
In practice, I generally run it as "C" but I allow reasonable exceptions on a case by case basis which pushes it closer to "B"
Additionally, I find that Locked Gauntlets are a lot less valuable than advertised. Sure, you cannot be disarmed, but you cant switch weapons easily either. Frankly, I don't like weapon cords for similar reasons but at least they are quicker to get back to a usable hand.
- Gauss
Edit: Rereading the rules on Locked Gauntlet, it is not superior to a weapon cord.
Weapon Cord: You have no bonus against being disarmed. However, if disarmed you can retrieve the weapon as a swift action.
Locked Gauntlet: You have a +10 bonus against being disarmed. This does not make you immune to being disarmed. No swift action to reclaim the weapon.
To me this means Weapon Cord is equal if not maybe superior. Sure, you get disarmed, but you get it right back.