Maybe so and it seems like a better approach to me, but it really seems that the devs think firearms should be limited to only a few reloads a round.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.
Then they shouldn't have built revolvers, which can be fully reloaded as a move action (swift with rapid reload).
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
What I meant about the passing example was the limit of three reloads. That's not the FAQ, that's an example they list of how the FAQ may be applied. It was prefaced with several qualifiers.
I don't think the issue is about experience (I'd guess I'm less experienced than most of your players having played maybe twenty sessions of PF ever?) I think it's about where one falls on the "DM as arbiter of some loose guidelines" to "DM as stopgap adjudicator for those rare instances where the rules aren't explicit" spectrum.
I think it's good for a new DM to run into the idea that there's no real answer - part of the job of DMing is making a judgement call as to what's a reasonable number of free actions. I'm glad the developers gave their opinion, even though I don't happen to share it. I don't want them to avoid FAQs which involve a judgement call. Nor do I want them to avoid giving their opinions on what constitutes "reasonable".
| 1 person 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.
Considering that this is the same forums where people thought you couldn't sneak attack while using Stealth, no. This'll never happen.
Considering that this is the same forums where people thought you couldn't sneak attack while using Stealth, no. This'll never happen.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.
Well, attacking breaks Stealth, right?
*ducks to avoid flurry of tomatoes*
I was going to throw a whole flurry of tomatoes at you, but I could only draw three of them from my Basket o' Rotten Fruit per round. :PConsidering that this is the same forums where people thought you couldn't sneak attack while using Stealth, no. This'll never happen.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.
Well, attacking breaks Stealth, right?
*ducks to avoid flurry of tomatoes*
Perhaps if you drew one, loaded another, grabbed the third, picked up the fourth and readied the fifth? Might get in on a technicality...
|
Perhaps if you drew one, loaded another, grabbed the third, picked up the fourth and readied the fifth? Might get in on a technicality...I was going to throw a whole flurry of tomatoes at you, but I could only draw three of them from my Basket o' Rotten Fruit per round. :PConsidering that this is the same forums where people thought you couldn't sneak attack while using Stealth, no. This'll never happen.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.
Well, attacking breaks Stealth, right?
*ducks to avoid flurry of tomatoes*
Only if your third cousin's daughter's second wife is traveling up a flight of stairs backward whilst trying to remember what it was like to just play a game without worrying about all these -redacted- arguments.
Touché.
Considering that this is the same forums where people thought you couldn't sneak attack while using Stealth, no. This'll never happen.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.
Considering I've had a PFS DM tell me I couldn't crit a construct, this doesn't surprise me in the least.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to throw a whole flurry of tomatoes at you, but I could only draw three of them from my Basket o' Rotten Fruit per round. :PConsidering that this is the same forums where people thought you couldn't sneak attack while using Stealth, no. This'll never happen.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.
Well, attacking breaks Stealth, right?
*ducks to avoid flurry of tomatoes*
Actually, you just used your free action to speak out of turn so you should only have two tomatoes.
I"m thinking about house ruling something like this: "if a pc uses two "weapon cord" he gets a -5 penalty on all his attacks".
It suffices to simply rule that an object hanging from a weapon cord impedes that hand, rendering it "not free". A penalty is not a bad idea, though; it beggars belief that you could simply use the hand normally given that wielding a weapon can require your hand to be anywhere from low to the ground to stretched above your head.
I'd like to see a feat chain for weapon cords. The first feat lets you buy off the penalty. The second treats the hand as "free". The third lets you wield a hanging melee weapon without retrieving it; increase the reach by five feet but apply the improvised weapon penalty.
I'd also like to see retrieving a weapon with a weapon cord errata'd to a move action that does not provoke. A feat would allow you to retrieve it as a swift action. (Seriously, tie a sword to your wrist with a two-foot cord and tell me you can easily retrieve it with a tug. Unless you're a juggler or have had a lot of practice, that'd be quite a feat.)
I'd like to see a feat chain for weapon cords. The first feat lets you buy off the penalty. The second treats the hand as "free". The third lets you wield a hanging melee weapon without retrieving it; increase the reach by five feet but apply the improvised weapon penalty.
Someone's been watching Bleach.
|
Considering that this is the same forums where people thought you couldn't sneak attack while using Stealth, no. This'll never happen.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.
Well, attacking breaks Stealth, right?
*ducks to avoid flurry of tomatoes*
Ah, but you wasted your free actions declaring you would drop prone and typing up the quote, and now have no free action to drop prone. But since I have already wasted my actions speak/typing, I can't reach my tomato anymore :P
Someone's been watching Bleach.
I'd like to see a feat chain for weapon cords. The first feat lets you buy off the penalty. The second treats the hand as "free". The third lets you wield a hanging melee weapon without retrieving it; increase the reach by five feet but apply the improvised weapon penalty.
Nah, sword-chucks, yo.