| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please?
Clearly the goal of the FAQ was not to rewrite full attack combat rules for every ranged attack option.
Geez, there are half a dozen threads already with hundreds of posts all about how the new FAQ totally breaks the game.
That was not the intent and it should be clear to everyone that was not the intent.
Exactly
All the FAQ really is saying is "if you try to abuse free actions the GM is perfectly within their rights to nerf you"
Which comes under the heading of "thats the GMs job for every rule in the game" anyway, imo, so frankly I'm disappointed people had to be told....but there you go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A New Page has appeared in the Holy Book of Paizo: It's words must be applied to all other texts. All deeds. And all our thoughts.
BTW: is thinking, breathing, standing, gripping, tasting, watching, etc. free actions :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A New Page has appeared in the Holy Book of Paizo: It's words must be applied to all other texts. All deeds. And all our thoughts.
BTW: is thinking, breathing, standing, gripping, tasting, watching, etc. free actions :D
No, only the actions defined as free actions are free actions, like drawing an arrow.
The scope defined in the FAQ is not limited to a particular type of free action nor does it provide a context for how it should be read. A reasonable person could EASILY read the FAQ as 3 of the same free action in a round is suggested as a limit by the design team so I will use their input and limit my players to three ranged attack a round.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I suppose most of us will agree that the FAQ itself was a major mistake by Paizo, but they were clearly reacting to people abusing free actions.
I wish the FAQ had simply said "Free actions are one of the many, many rules in the game that can be abused by players out to seek unreasonable mechanical advantages. GM's can do whatever the hell they feel necessary to stop that abuse."
That's probably how I'd have worded it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I suppose most of us will agree that the FAQ itself was a major mistake by Paizo, but they were clearly reacting to people abusing free actions.
I wish the FAQ had simply said "Free actions are one of the many, many rules in the game that can be abused by players out to seek unreasonable mechanical advantages. GM's can do whatever the hell they feel necessary to stop that abuse."
That's probably how I'd have worded it.
I think that would have been great
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why it is a "major mistake". I think it could be improved by saying why it was posted in the first place (to remind GMs they don't need to suffer from dual double pistol gunslingers).
But people wanted guidelines, and they got guidelines.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why it is a "major mistake". I think it could be improved by saying why it was posted in the first place (to remind GMs they don't need to suffer from dual double pistol gunslingers).
But people wanted guidelines, and they got guidelines.
I think that is like saying people want to have electricity so that's why we electrocuted them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because crossbows were friggin' OP, amirite?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see the FAQ as a sort of test of your gaming experience and psychology.
Those vastly disturbed by it are worrying a little too much about "rules as written" , which suggests they still have some wonderful eye opening roleplaying experiences yet to come.
I think that is like saying people want to have electricity so that's why we electrocuted them.I don't see why it is a "major mistake". I think it could be improved by saying why it was posted in the first place (to remind GMs they don't need to suffer from dual double pistol gunslingers).
But people wanted guidelines, and they got guidelines.
Not at all. As has been stated many times, not a thing has changed with these FAQs.
They are a re-affirming of the rules as presented in the CRB.
Something I've been thinking about was the sort of question that would spawn this FAQ. When I make posts asking for FAQs, I generally have the specific question and then the general question. For example, on one for Thundercaller bard, I asked specifically about that archetype, but had the general question on bardic performances as well. The general question, as one would expect, loses the granularity of the specific question. That question being answered would answer the specific question, but in a way that doesn't explicitly mention the specific question.
That's what we have here, isn't it? Someone didn't like the dual double pistol action some gunslingers cheesed. Rather than asking about that, they asked about free actions, as that build requires the abuse of many free actions. And now we got a FAQ reaffirming the rule in the CRB about 'the GM may set reasonable limits", and it gives a few examples to set it in stone. The last time they had a FAQ about this sort of fundamental thing, the forums got pissed (some would say petulant) that there weren't any examples to round it out.
But...I asked Sean yesterday about any plans to change the rules on the dual double pistols, and he mentioned he didn't think there were any at this time. So what if the person who made the thread(s) that sparked this had specifically asked about the dual double pistols? Well, theystill probably wouldn't have changed in how they work.
But instead, we got the general answer, which will help quite a bit in future cases of rules issues. And which does empower/remind GMs to limit that specific abuse.
I don't have a point for all of that, but I thought it was interesting enough to post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was not the intent and it should be clear to everyone that was not the intent.
Because folks never go with whats said and instead go with whats meant right?
That was not the intent and it should be clear to everyone that was not the intent.
Because folks never go with whats said and instead go with whats meant right?
Sigh, I suppose you're right BNW, and this is yet another windmill I have foolishly attempted to tilt....
I don't see why it is a "major mistake". I think it could be improved by saying why it was posted in the first place (to remind GMs they don't need to suffer from dual double pistol gunslingers).
But people wanted guidelines, and they got guidelines.
Cheapy, it is, imho, objectively a "major mistake" because it has dominated these messageboards with multiple 100+ threads posted in just a few hours each. This may be another such thread. Clearly whatever the intent was in releasing the FAQ, throwing the gaming community into chaos was not the intent.
I suppose that's a good reason for it being a major mistake, but I wouldn't necessarily place the blame on the PDT.
It's kind of funny that the FAQ existed for two days before things blew up, isn't it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose that's a good reason for it being a major mistake, but I wouldn't necessarily place the blame on the PDT.
It's kind of funny that the FAQ existed for two days before things blew up, isn't it?
It's like a supersaturated solution just waiting for that seed crystal that starts the cascading crystallization effect...
Nobody'd noticed?I suppose that's a good reason for it being a major mistake, but I wouldn't necessarily place the blame on the PDT.
It's kind of funny that the FAQ existed for two days before things blew up, isn't it?
My guess on that is because it does not correspond to any discussion which was subsequently marked as "answered in FAQ"
|
I suppose that's a good reason for it being a major mistake, but I wouldn't necessarily place the blame on the PDT.
It's kind of funny that the FAQ existed for two days before things blew up, isn't it?
Yeah, because before someone decided to post that they thought this was RAW (a 2 day time period apparently), we all knew that this was essentially in the CRB, and new that this wasn't RAW, but suggestion.
BTW: is thinking, breathing, standing, gripping, tasting, watching, etc. free actions :D
You know, breathing isn't listed anywhere as an action AFAIK. Does that mean I need a bottle of air (which says you can take a standard action to breathe from) to breath? I guess my PFS characters (where GMs "need" to rule RAW) need to be retired :p
Thinking breathing etc are done as part of other actions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is nerdraging a free action?
Is nerdraging a free action?
I remember playing a shifter barbarian/psychic warrior back when Eberron first came out. My DM was incredulous that I could rage, shift, and manifest claws in one round, then proceed to full attack someone. He's like "I think raging is a swift action, so you'll have to choose between raging and popping claws."
Thinking breathing etc are done as part of other actions.really? I always believed blonde characters with int as dump stat had to spend a swift action to remember to breathe...
may just have been my table though.
That brain hasn't been getting oxygen for years anyway
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What bugs me about the furore is that people are complaining about the wording of the FAQ, not what it says (that DMs cab impose limits on free actions). It seems to me they're complaining on some hypothetical PFS player's behalf.
There's lots of posts along the lines of "a DM might outlaw multiple attacks with a longbow" but nobody suggesting that's what they are going to do. The FAQ doesn't say you should do that. People are ignoring the many qualifying phrases and assuming this hypothetical PFS DM is going to just look at the example and extrapolate from there.
There are plenty of places you have to think when you read Pathfinder's rules and plenty of places where it's possible to do things differently from what the designer intended. The need for a human adjudicator is a feature of role playing games. Sure that means a DM can screw over their players - but that's nothing new.
The only thing that's changed is that it's been made explicit - the "DM can make judgement calls" rule trumps the "free actions take no time" rule.
Steve, yes, the GM can be reasonable, see past the examples, and say that it is not right to limit archers, crossbowmen, and gunslingers to less than BAB+Rapid shot attacks. And despite some assertions to the contrary, this IS about attacks since reloads (or drawing an arrow) = attacks. Without the reload/drawing an arrow there is no attack.
Not all GMs will. Some GMs will see Paizo stating point blank that a good example of a limit is that gunslingers are limited to 3 reloads (thus 3 shots) per round.
To put this another way: Imagine you are a brand new GM. You have read all the books and then you read this FAQ.
Is there anything in this FAQ to state that you do not apply it to an Archer's "draw an arrow" free action?
What is our new GM going to do? Well, he is going to take it as reasonable to limit "draw an arrow" to 3 per round because Paizo said so.
- Gauss
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM isn't a robot. If they interpret it as "only three arrows a round", then there are greater problems with the game he'll be running than this FAQ.
Steve, yes, the GM can be reasonable, see past the examples, and say that it is not right to limit archers, crossbowmen, and gunslingers to less than BAB+Rapid shot attacks. And despite some assertions to the contrary, this IS about attacks since reloads (or drawing an arrow) = attacks. Without the reload/drawing an arrow there is no attack.
Not all GMs will. Some GMs will see Paizo stating point blank that a good example of a limit is that gunslingers are limited to 3 reloads (thus 3 shots) per round.
To put this another way: Imagine you are a brand new GM. You have read all the books and then you read this FAQ.
Is there anything in this FAQ to state that you do not apply it to an Archer's "draw an arrow" free action?What is our new GM going to do? Well, he is going to take it as reasonable to limit "draw an arrow" to 3 per round because Paizo said so.
- Gauss
Maybe. I haven't seen anyone say that's what they're going to do though. I've seen lots of quite virulent posts on behalf of some hypothetical, misunderstanding GM. That's my point. People's responses are overwrought.
The furore here seems to be people saying "I know what you mean, but others won't". I think it's overblown and that the beginner DM you refer to is quite unlikely to respond that way. I'm a poor DM when it comes to rules comprehension and it wouldn't occur to me to extrapolate in the way you're suggesting. Extrapolating from one specific example to other, similar cases is not a novice DM trait, in my view.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cheapy, how does the GM not being a robot have anything to do with it? He is following Paizo's recommendation with NO data to contradict it.
In my (not so hypothetical) example of a new GM he has no knowledge that yes, you are supposed to exceed 3 arrows a round. He will read the book, look at the FAQ, and draw the obvious conclusion that 3 free actions of the same type (draw an arrow) is reasonable because that is what the manufacturer's stated is reasonable.
Sometimes, it is worthwhile to set aside the years of experience people have and approach the game from the perspective of a new player or GM. It helps identify issues like this.
- Gauss
The reason I'm expressing concern is that, while of course the GM gets to make the call, I would consider a GM telling someone with rapid reload that they can't take their full iterative attacks to be pretty blatantly unreasonable, because that is the entire point of the Rapid Reload feat. And I would likewise consider it ridiculous for a GM to take an attack away because a character talked during combat.
And yet, those are now explicitly blessed as an example of a reasonable restriction a GM could apply under normal circumstances.
Disagreeing as to what's reasonable is inevitable though, isn't it?
Fwiw, I think another side of being reasonable is allowing people to rebuild their characters if they've chosen feats based on a different understanding of the rules. It would also seem reasonable (to me) to say that if three attacks is the usual limit, someone who'd taken a feat for an extra attack should get four.
Steve Geddes, you don't even have to extrapolate when it states in the FAQ that 3 free actions of the same type is a reasonable limit.
As for comprehension etc, I have a number of relatively new gamer friends. I have already brought this FAQ to their attention, showed them the relevant comments and rules.
I then asked for a conclusion. The conclusion in all cases was: so I can only draw 3 arrows a round?
Now, I did present the information in the format of: rule on drawing an arrow, quideline on free actions, FAQ, what is your conclusion. That is a line that may not occur to another new gamer but IF that line occurs the conclusion will be the same. Note: They already knew about BAB and Rapid Shot etc so I did not need to explain that again.
- Gauss
Steve Geddes, you don't even have to extrapolate when it states in the FAQ that 3 free actions of the same type is a reasonable limit.
As for comprehension etc, I have a number of relatively new gamer friends. I have already brought this FAQ to their attention, showed them the relevant comments and rules.
I then asked for a conclusion. The conclusion in all cases was: so I can only draw 3 arrows a round?
Now, I did present the information in the format of: rule on drawing an arrow, quideline on free actions, FAQ, what is your conclusion. That is a line that may not occur to another new gamer but IF that line occurs the conclusion will be the same. Note: They already knew about BAB and Rapid Shot etc so I did not need to explain that again.
- Gauss
I think you did the extrapolating for them by drawing their attention to the rules on drawing an arrow and asking them to consider that information in light of the FAQ. When I read it, I didn't think of arrows at all. It was a FAQ about DM discretion - what caught my eye was that it seemed redundant to me, just repeating the core rules.
Steve, that is not extrapolation, that is presenting a list of rules and guidelines and then asking them to draw a conclusion. It is their conclusion that is the extrapolation.
Extrapolate: to form an opinion or to make an estimate about something from known facts
I presented known facts. I did not lead them to the conclusion though I did present the facts. I'm pretty good about not indicating my opinion when presenting these things.
- Gauss
Steve, that is not extrapolation, that is presenting a list of rules and guidelines and then asking them to draw a conclusion. It is their conclusion that is the extrapolation.
Extrapolate: to form an opinion or to make an estimate about something from known factsI presented known facts. I did not lead them to the conclusion though I did present the facts. I'm pretty good about not indicating my opinion when presenting these things.
- Gauss
What I meant is that I don't think a new DM is going to extrapolate from the FAQ to conclude that you can't fire more than three arrows in a round with a longbow. By giving them the arrow rules, the FAQ and then asking them to draw a conclusion I think you've led them somewhere they wouldn't have gone on their own. (I certainly didn't and am confident my table wouldn't even consider it).
The furore here seems to be people saying "I know what you mean, but others won't". I think it's overblown and that the beginner DM you refer to is quite unlikely to respond that way. I'm a poor DM when it comes to rules comprehension and it wouldn't occur to me to extrapolate in the way you're suggesting. Extrapolating from one specific example to other, similar cases is not a novice DM trait, in my view.Leave out the "extrapolating", and just look at the specific case. If I have a BAB of +16, and Rapid Reload, how many attacks can I make in a round with an advanced firearm? Rapid Reload is explicitly stated to work with them; it reduces the move action to a free action. And assume I want to continue fighting for more than one round, so we can't use cheese like "I started with it loaded, so I only need to reload N-1 times to fire N times".
Prior to this FAQ, I don't think any GM anywhere would have said anything other than "you can make your 4 iterative attacks, 5 if hasted." If you asked whether talking would change this, they would laugh and say of course not, that'd be silly.
Now, if you got into crazy stuff like the weapon cords and gun-juggling, maybe someone would say "no, that's stupid". And maybe some wouldn't.
But with this FAQ, even with rapid reload, people are going to say that, first, you can't even take full iterative attacks, and second, talking eats one of them. And that strikes me as a bad ruling.
Yeah me too. I don't think that's reasonable, so if I'm DM I'm not going to impose that limitation.
Whenever you give an example of what's "reasonable" people are going to disagree. The point of this FAQ isn't about that - the point is, the DM's power to impose limitations trumps the definition of free actions as taking a negligible amount of time.
I think the FAQ entry wouldn't have created such an upset if the FAQ didn't double as Pathfinder's errata. Entries carry more rules authority than a true FAQ, because it's the only place to find official resolutions to rules that are too vague to function without revision.
I agree that the topic of that FAQ entry was to reinforce the idea that DMs can limit free actions at their own discretion, but the suggested guidelines and examples defy the function of that core rule by suggesting some hard limits that would steer the game in the wrong direction if implemented.
I think this is a good point (although reprints of the rulebook line is another source of errata, it's pretty infrequent and limited by layout).
I also wonder whether the "usual" Pathfinder fan likes to have complete, clear rules for as many situations as possible. The FAQ was a bit of a nonissue to me, but I'm firmly at the "no rules, only guidelines" end of the spectrum anyway. Perhaps that might explain why a qualified example is (in some cases) being held up as the essential part of the FAQ.
Whenever you give an example of what's "reasonable" people are going to disagree. The point of this FAQ isn't about that - the point is, the DM's power to impose limitations trumps the definition of free actions as taking a negligible amount of time.And yet, they give that as an explicit example of a reasonable ruling. They haven't said that any other rulings are necessarily unreasonable, but they've said that this one absolutely is reasonable.
Sure, that's no doubt what they consider to be reasonable (although the limit to three free actions of the same type is qualified as "perhaps" being reasonable).
That's my point - you might disagree with the line of reasonableness that the design team uses, but that is inevitable. In any rule set where "reasonable" limits are to be imposed, there will be controversy around what that actually entails.
This FAQ though isn't about what's reasonable. The part people are often citing as "The FAQ" is just a passing example and is both qualified plus specifically called out as not being a hard and fast rule. This FAQ is about explicitly calling out one section of the rules as being a good place for DM adjudication - how many free actions are possible.
I have said it before, I'll say it again.
The issue was not free actions.
The issue was weapon cords. A simple errata to weapon cords stating that a weapon dangling from a weapon cord rendered the attached hand not free would have solved the issue. No reloading, no having wizards drop their two-handed heavy repeating crossbow to keep a buckler bonus on one arm and still cast somatic with the other, no juggling weapons, no issues.
It would then get the weapon cord back to what it was intended to be, a way to keep from dropping your weapon and provoking an attack of opportunity to get it back, as well as turning it into a swift action to rearm, instead of a move.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Steve Geddes, in a way, you just proved my point. Experienced people will naturally draw the conclusion because the FAQ is alien to the existing rules.
Inexperienced people who do not have years of experience telling them not to apply the FAQ to bows will, when they see the FAQ, think that 3 is the maximum "reasonable" limit to free actions of the same type.
So, when they then see that drawing an arrow is a free action what other conclusion can be drawn? There is no exception to the FAQ about "3" being the maximum "reasonable" limit so the conclusion is that archers can draw 3 arrows.
Many people may go a long time without ever seeing the clause that GM's can limit the number of free actions. That is not what I am addressing. What I am addressing is the conclusion that an inexperienced player or GM will draw when they see both the clause and the FAQ.
Regarding the FAQ being a "passing example" when a game publisher produces an example or guideline of how to run the game which is more reasonable:
1) People listen, follow the example/guideline, and thus learn how to play the game.
2) People listen, ignore the example/guideline, and stumble around trying to learn how to play the game.
Examples and guidelines are there to clarify rules and provide guidance. People will of course follow them because that is the intent. If a bad guideline is written then people will have to choose to follow it or not..IF they realize it is a bad guideline.
In any case, this FAQ does not affect me in any way shape or form. I am either the GM in my games or play with GMs who are experienced. However, I do have a number of friends who are very new to RPGs in general and Pathfinder in specific. They find Pathfinder's layout and rules organization to be extremely confusing and difficult. This FAQ has muddied up one more section of the rules rather than clearing them up. With that said, I still love PF and have no intention of leaving it.
- Gauss