Just ban weapon cords, for pity's sake


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 507 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

Todd Lower wrote:
Doesn't the highlighted portion prevent having more than one weapon per hand?

No, not in the slightest. That just tells us that you can't change the weapon on the end of the weapon cord. It doesn't say you can't have more than one cord.


James Risner wrote:
Todd Lower wrote:
Doesn't the highlighted portion prevent having more than one weapon per hand?
No, not in the slightest. That just tells us that you can't change the weapon on the end of the weapon cord. It doesn't say you can't have more than one cord.

It's not clear to me whether that means you can't change weapons in the hand or just that it takes time to move the cord from one weapon to another.

For sanity's sake, I assume the first.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi. I play a gunslinger/paladin. She is my favorite character. She gets many attacks per round. Perhaps too many? I don't know. I only am mentioning that for perspective. I certainly am not anti-gunslinger--in fact, I think they are the coolest class in the game. I just want to give you my thoughts on the discussion.

Weapon Cords
Banning these would be a great first step to reigning in cheesy builds. My GS doesn't use them; she has Quick Draw and several expensive guns instead. That is what makes weapon cords cheesy: they accomplish at a cost of 1 sp (!) what by all rights should cost at least a feat (and a significant chunk of money). There are other ways to accomplish this as well (vestigial arm, etc.). None of those strike me as particularly cheesy either because of the investment (class levels, feats, cash, whatever). Ban the weapon cords.

But that is not the whole story.
Double-Barreled Firearms
I think these are the real culprit to the cheesy build. My GS is level 6, and just recently picked up a double-barreled musket. Damn thing FEELS cheesy. Why? Because it requires only an attack action to fire both barrels. Doing the same with a bow requires a feat (Manyshot), and only let's you perform the double blast on your first attack, and only during a full attack action. Double-barreled firearms really should require a standard action to fire both barrels, in my opinion (alternatively requiring a feat to use). But, since we are discussing this in the context of PFS and rules changes are right out, I would not be disappointed to see multi-barreled guns removed from the campaign entirely.

Abundant Ammunition
For whatever reason, I am not bothered by this one. My GS has never used abundant ammunition, and I have no plans to. She pays for all of her ammo, and it costs quite a bit each scenario. No big deal. But I also don't see a problem with this spell.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


If we let the faq stand a few details need to be hammered out

-The clarification that its not supposed to stop archers and crossbow types needs to be up in neon lights.
- As written it needs to be clarified where exactly shennanigans end and intent begins. A rapid shotting musketeer will technically violate the three free actions limit.

-Clarify exactly which free actions don't count.

-Establish a standard for how many free actions that do count can be taken. If it's 5 different or 4 repetitive, make that clear. If it's something else, make that clear.

- If it's as low as suggested, allow rebuilds for those who relied on more than that.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know this is not a democracy, but if it were, banning weapon cords and double-barrelled pistols would have my vote.

Ideally we could change the rules for both (move action for weapon cord and double-barrelled pistols can only fire both barrels as a standard), but as that's off the table, let's just get rid of the things that are causing the problem.

I also plan to allow as many free actions as each player would like to take. I will ask only that each player be reasonable to me and to their fellow players.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

James Risner wrote:
Todd Lower wrote:
Doesn't the highlighted portion prevent having more than one weapon per hand?
No, not in the slightest. That just tells us that you can't change the weapon on the end of the weapon cord. It doesn't say you can't have more than one cord.

Very well, then. I see we are reading the same words. We just choose to see them different ways. To me, that screams table variation, and even more reason to punt the offending item.

Dark Archive

I'm picturing someone with a clutch of daggers hanging from each arm. To attack, he spins rapidly in a circle and the daggers fly out randomly.


The Fox wrote:

Abundant Ammunition

For whatever reason, I am not bothered by this one. My GS has never used abundant ammunition, and I have no plans to. She pays for all of her ammo, and it costs quite a bit each scenario. No big deal. But I also don't see a problem with this spell.

Check out Abundant Ammunition and Named Bullet. I heard of a gamer stacking these two for cheese.

Of course we're really off topic here.


The Fox wrote:

Weapon Cords

Banning these would be a great first step to reigning in cheesy builds.

But that is not the whole story.
Double-Barreled Firearms
I think these are the real culprit to the cheesy build.

After thinking about the topic quite a bit, The Fox has it.

-Matt

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West aka JohnF

BigNorseWolf wrote:

For PFS there are three options that I can see

Ban weapon cords
Ban Double pistols
Ban both
Ignore the FAQ completely because it is a suggestion to the DM and Mike Brock is functionally the DM of PFS.
Let the FAQ stand with no change.

I'd like to suggest an alternative to any of these:

Mike Brock re-visits the ruling he made about a year ago that a weapon dangling from a weapon cord didn't interfere with reloading a (different) firearm.

That's not a change to underlying Pathfinder rules: RAW doesn't define whether or not reloading is a 'fine action' (and thus impossible while a weapon cord is in use).

Weapon cords are nice when you need to drop your ranged weapon to draw your melee weapon (especially if you're mounted at the time); using them to juggle multiple weapons is where most of the abuse seems to come.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka thistledown

Drogon wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Michael Meunier wrote:

I've never seen the weapon cord pistelero gunslinger cheese in play personally. However, at the same time I have also made it clear that as a GM, I do have a solution if I should ever see them.

Sundering the weapon cords.

No no no....you sunder the WEAPON. You need a full round action to remove the broken weapon so you can pull a new weapon out, or use a move action to draw an edged weapon to cut the cord off and then use your standard to cut the cord off.

You have a devious mind, sir. I like how you think.

That said, I'm still not going to do it unless I know the player can fix his problem during the game instead of after. I don't need to draw that kind of ire down on myself.

There are only 5 scenarios where Disarm is listed in tactics or implied by abilities. 6 scenarios for sunder.

It's not something you're allowed to do very often anyways.

(did a search-in-pdf for the words. I think a'misunderstood" / "misunderstanding" came up more than "sunder". I'll admit I only have about half of season 4, but based on the other seasons I don't think it'd be much higher.)

Sovereign Court 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thistledown wrote:

There are only 5 scenarios where Disarm is listed in tactics or implied by abilities. 6 scenarios for sunder.

It's not something you're allowed to do very often anyways.

(did a search-in-pdf for the words. I think a'misunderstood" / "misunderstanding" came up more than "sunder". I'll admit I only have about half of season 4, but based on the other seasons I don't think it'd be much higher.)

Sure, that's when it's listed in the tactics. But when someone takes a ranged attack next to an intelligent enemy, you can bet they're going to try to disarm the ranged weapon. Smarter enemies will take the first AoO to sunder the weapon cords.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka thistledown

James McTeague wrote:
thistledown wrote:

There are only 5 scenarios where Disarm is listed in tactics or implied by abilities. 6 scenarios for sunder.

It's not something you're allowed to do very often anyways.

(did a search-in-pdf for the words. I think a'misunderstood" / "misunderstanding" came up more than "sunder". I'll admit I only have about half of season 4, but based on the other seasons I don't think it'd be much higher.)

Sure, that's when it's listed in the tactics. But when someone takes a ranged attack next to an intelligent enemy, you can bet they're going to try to disarm the ranged weapon. Smarter enemies will take the first AoO to sunder the weapon cords.

You have to stick to written tactics though. Which will typically go about 3 rounds at least before you are allowed to do anything else.

edit: sorry about the de-rail. I've actually run into similar problems several times as a GM. I'll admit I am probably mistaken about how close I have to stay to the tactics and if someone would like to enlighten me on when I'm allowed to deviate, please PM me.

Dark Archive

thistledown wrote:
James McTeague wrote:
thistledown wrote:

There are only 5 scenarios where Disarm is listed in tactics or implied by abilities. 6 scenarios for sunder.

It's not something you're allowed to do very often anyways.

(did a search-in-pdf for the words. I think a'misunderstood" / "misunderstanding" came up more than "sunder". I'll admit I only have about half of season 4, but based on the other seasons I don't think it'd be much higher.)

Sure, that's when it's listed in the tactics. But when someone takes a ranged attack next to an intelligent enemy, you can bet they're going to try to disarm the ranged weapon. Smarter enemies will take the first AoO to sunder the weapon cords.

You have to stick to written tactics though. Which will typically go about 3 rounds at least before you are allowed to do anything else.

edit: sorry about the de-rail. I've actually run into similar problems several times as a GM. I'll admit I am probably mistaken about how close I have to stay to the tactics and if someone would like to enlighten me on when I'm allowed to deviate, please PM me.

Quite a few melee enemies in PFS have tactics that involve getting in a ranged character's face. I don't think I've seen any tactics that include specifics on how to use the enemy's attack of opportunity. I will often try to disarm a ranged weapon if it's used point-blank; if the player tells me he uses a weapon cord, then I'll sunder the weapon instead.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Tactics are a preference, not an ironclad script. If the individual enemy has someone provoking AOO's in their face.... take them based on the enemy's tactical outlook, but I don't recall (haven't gone looking... yet...) seeing an enemy that got into the level of detail of what kinds of AOOs they will and won't take.

Grand Lodge 4/5

thistledown wrote:
James McTeague wrote:
thistledown wrote:

There are only 5 scenarios where Disarm is listed in tactics or implied by abilities. 6 scenarios for sunder.

It's not something you're allowed to do very often anyways.

(did a search-in-pdf for the words. I think a'misunderstood" / "misunderstanding" came up more than "sunder". I'll admit I only have about half of season 4, but based on the other seasons I don't think it'd be much higher.)

Sure, that's when it's listed in the tactics. But when someone takes a ranged attack next to an intelligent enemy, you can bet they're going to try to disarm the ranged weapon. Smarter enemies will take the first AoO to sunder the weapon cords.

You have to stick to written tactics though. Which will typically go about 3 rounds at least before you are allowed to do anything else.

edit: sorry about the de-rail. I've actually run into similar problems several times as a GM. I'll admit I am probably mistaken about how close I have to stay to the tactics and if someone would like to enlighten me on when I'm allowed to deviate, please PM me.

If the written tactic is to disarm and the player has a weapon cord, then the players have negated written tactics and your free to go off the reservation. I have found a LOT of scenerios without written tactics for large swaths of critters. Many goons have written tactics no deeper then they fight to the death or they flee at X hp.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

thistledown wrote:
5 scenarios where Disarm

16 more in season 0-3

Grand Lodge

Golariofun wrote:

Check out Abundant Ammunition and Named Bullet. I heard of a gamer stacking these two for cheese.

This combination doesn't work unless your lacklustre GM is somewhat tipsy and time-stressed. Key difference is that some spells affect projectiles and some spells only effect one projectile only.

I wouldn't mourn if weapon cords became useless and gave no in-game benefit whatsoever.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Todd Lower wrote:
Doesn't the highlighted portion prevent having more than one weapon per hand?
No, not in the slightest. That just tells us that you can't change the weapon on the end of the weapon cord. It doesn't say you can't have more than one cord.

And so your gonna mutilate the basic understandings in the English language to get there...yeah...I don't say no to a lot of things...but stuff like that I say no to...early, often and twice on sunday.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James McTeague wrote:
thistledown wrote:

There are only 5 scenarios where Disarm is listed in tactics or implied by abilities. 6 scenarios for sunder.

It's not something you're allowed to do very often anyways.

(did a search-in-pdf for the words. I think a'misunderstood" / "misunderstanding" came up more than "sunder". I'll admit I only have about half of season 4, but based on the other seasons I don't think it'd be much higher.)

Sure, that's when it's listed in the tactics. But when someone takes a ranged attack next to an intelligent enemy, you can bet they're going to try to disarm the ranged weapon. Smarter enemies will take the first AoO to sunder the weapon cords.

And the smartest ones sunder the bow itself...thereby making the poor foolish archer waste a round before they can get another weapon.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka thistledown

James Risner wrote:
thistledown wrote:
5 scenarios where Disarm
16 more in season 0-3

Strange. 0-3 are what I DO have all of. Only found 1 in season zero, 1 in season two, and 2 in season three. But I was pretty cursory in my searching.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Unlike a locked gauntlet, you can still use a hand with a weapon cord, though a dangling weapon may interfere with finer actions."

Why not say that reloading is a finer action.

Or rewrite the relevant FAQ:

Do weapon cords prevent reloading?

Yes.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

Cold Napalm wrote:
And so your gonna mutilate the basic understandings in the English language to get there

One could argue I'm operating the Weapon Cords in a permissive way (it doesn't say I can't have two cords each on different weapons.)

But I've been involved in a number of discussions with you on the permissive side while I held the non-permissive view.

I chalk it up to the beautiful thing called English, which has so many varied interpretations by different individuals.

In short, Weapon Cords range from insanely versatile worth 100's of times what that cost to nothing depending on your interpretation.

I'm no fan of how trivially they (Weapon Cords) make operating a Cleric/Paladin in a way that allows them to ignore "free hand" restrictions.

Scarab Sages

Joseph Caubo wrote:

I am all in favor of banning weapon cords. I have never liked them to begin with and it just seems rife with abuse.

/My favorite was the "adamantine weapon cord" at GenCon 2013.
//Wish I could find what source that comes from.

The Beard wrote:

... Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait.

Adamantine weapon cord? I think reading your post just caused me to suffer a minor stroke.

Well, it would be more of a chain, than a cord.

But I don't like it, since I've always been led to believe adamantine was really difficult to work, so you can chip flakes off it to make something approximating a hammer head or blade, but you shouldn't be able to draw it into wire, or form chain links.

Scarab Sages

thistledown wrote:

You have to stick to written tactics though. Which will typically go about 3 rounds at least before you are allowed to do anything else.

edit: sorry about the de-rail. I've actually run into similar problems several times as a GM. I'll admit I am probably mistaken about how close I have to stay to the tactics and if someone would like to enlighten me on when I'm allowed to deviate, please PM me.

As a player of PFS, I have zero problem with a GM ditching written tactics, as soon as they become irrelevant, or a more effective tactic presents itself.

I would be unsatisfied by an encounter, where a PC mage is allowed to walk into the middle of the enemy and cast unmolested, enemy tanks running straight past him, because their listed tactic was to engage heavily armored opponents.

Or if the PCs send a summoned fire elemental after the BBEG, and he spends round after round shooting it with scorching rays, 'because that's what it says in the script'.

Grand Lodge 4/5

James Risner wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
And so your gonna mutilate the basic understandings in the English language to get there

One could argue I'm operating the Weapon Cords in a permissive way (it doesn't say I can't have two cords each on different weapons.)

But I've been involved in a number of discussions with you on the permissive side while I held the non-permissive view.

I chalk it up to the beautiful thing called English, which has so many varied interpretations by different individuals.

In short, Weapon Cords range from insanely versatile worth 100's of times what that cost to nothing depending on your interpretation.

I'm no fan of how trivially they (Weapon Cords) make operating a Cleric/Paladin in a way that allows them to ignore "free hand" restrictions.

And the fact that someone who is on the EXTREMELY permissive side is going...umm yeah no doesn't make you ponder that maybe that's a BAD THING?!? Like I said, if I'm the voice of reason, something has gone terribly wrong here.

Paladins and clerics can already ignore the free hand restriction with a feat tax of quickdraw and quickdraw shields + a 100 GP item. Besides which, you get SO much more tactics available this way too. I suppose the extra AC from a heavy shield is nice...but meh...like tactical options better.

Also I don't use weapon cord because I like tactical options on pretty much all my characters...and these just get in the way for me way too often. Yeah I know, I'm weird....

4/5

Weapon Cord (APG)
1) normally picking up your weapon is a Move Action that provokes. This item makes it a swift action (that provokes).
2) You can ONLY use the weapon tied to the weapon cord (you cannot switch to another weapon) so tying on TWO weapon cords (to the same wrist) makes both weapons unusable. You can tie two or three weapon cords onto your wrist so long as only ONE of them is attached to a weapon. Dangling cords (loose weapon cords) from your wrists are going to provide grapplers with an easy method to bind you or tie you to them.
3) Disarm - "If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped." This means you have your opponents weapon and a weapon cord on the weapon that goes to his wrist (if he is using a weapon cord). He cannot regain the weapon without taking it from you (there are several methods but none of them a swift action).

I don't see any reason to ban them.

Shadow Lodge

I hate to do this ... because I know this isn't the answer either

I'll mention it with the understanding that this would nerf gunslingers to the point that banning may have been better

Paper cartridges are also a big part of the equation into the gun-cheese-monster - again .. I know what this means so read that statement and move on I don't want to be flamed for pointing out something noone has mentioned

baring that ... I think Im in agreement with the double barrel pistols being the Root of this

Weapon Cords would be a bandaid that would fall off after 2-3 days

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Banning weapon cords seems overkill. What is to stop players from buying string, twine or rope and tied their weapon to their wrist with those?
It effectively does the same thing.

It just don't seem logical that Pathfinders in Golarion, can't think of using a length of leather to help secure their weapons to themselves.
It just feels insulting to Pathfinders.

The problem is not weapon cords, but the cheese abuse of two-weapon fighting with firearms. If so, then the problem should be addressed as such and not dumped on weapon cords.

Banning Weapon Cords feels like a "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" over reaction.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secane wrote:

Banning weapon cords seems overkill. What is to stop players from buying string, twine or rope and tied their weapon to their wrist with those?

It effectively does the same thing.

It just don't seem logical that Pathfinders in Golarion, can't think of using a length of leather to help secure their weapons to themselves.
It just feels insulting to Pathfinders.

Without the cords being an item with written rules for how they work they don't allow the yo yo mechanic or anything else the cords allow. Its pretty unrealistic for a cord to work that well without getting tangled even for a fantasy setting.

Quote:
Banning Weapon Cords feels like a "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" over reaction.

Yes but its one of those ugly troll like babies you don't really want to keep anyway

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I don't really understand the issues with the Weapon Core because I don't own Ultimate Combat and am therefore not familiar with Gunslingers, however two of my PFS characters use weapon cords and thus I would not like to see them banned.

One character has Improved Trip uses a Flail which is a Trip weapon - which in PF doesn't do anything other than allow my character to drop his weapon rather than be tripped if he fails a Trip attempt by 10 or more. The Weapon Cord is used to allow me to on occasion take advantage of this very limited Trip weapon quality ability and not be at a significant disadvantage for long.

My other character uses a quarterstaff and is also a grappler, I use the weapon cord to allow for him to drop the quarterstaff when he wants to attempt to grapple but if that fails, to recover his staff again quickly. In my mind he would actually be using the staff and weapon cord to help with the grapple, but ruleswise it is dangling to one side.

Whilst weapon cord benefits for these characters is limited, they are a nice thing to have that allows them to use a weapon quality or feat a bit more often by not having to give up their weapon so I would be sad to see them go.

The other thing to note is that as a player, my character doesn't go around with the weapon cords attached to his wrists - if ambushed my characters would either need to forego the cord or spend the Full Round action to attach it (I assume it is a FRA). Weapon cords are most of use if expecting battle.

I wonder whether other players aren't being so considerate of the realities of walking around having a 2 foot long tether between their wrist and a holstered weapon?

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Francis wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

For PFS there are three options that I can see

Ban weapon cords
Ban Double pistols
Ban both
Ignore the FAQ completely because it is a suggestion to the DM and Mike Brock is functionally the DM of PFS.
Let the FAQ stand with no change.

I'd like to suggest an alternative to any of these:

Mike Brock re-visits the ruling he made about a year ago that a weapon dangling from a weapon cord didn't interfere with reloading a (different) firearm.

That's not a change to underlying Pathfinder rules: RAW doesn't define whether or not reloading is a 'fine action' (and thus impossible while a weapon cord is in use).

Weapon cords are nice when you need to drop your ranged weapon to draw your melee weapon (especially if you're mounted at the time); using them to juggle multiple weapons is where most of the abuse seems to come.

This is by far the best solution because it creates the least ripple effect of house rules, as it modifies only an existing PFS house rule. It is by far the most parsimonious solution which is what the leadership should be going for in making any PFS specific rule since the point of the special PFS rules is to homogenize the experience of play as much as possible.

The Exchange

Secane wrote:

Banning weapon cords seems overkill. What is to stop players from buying string, twine or rope and tied their weapon to their wrist with those?

It effectively does the same thing.

It just don't seem logical that Pathfinders in Golarion, can't think of using a length of leather to help secure their weapons to themselves.
It just feels insulting to Pathfinders.

The problem is not weapon cords, but the cheese abuse of two-weapon fighting with firearms. If so, then the problem should be addressed as such and not dumped on weapon cords.

Banning Weapon Cords feels like a "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" over reaction.

I have wanted to see weapon cords bite the dust even before the rise of overpowered gunslingers. And go ahead and buy a string, twine, or rope and tie your weapon to your wrist. As a GM, I'll ask you where in the rulebook you're getting that mechanic from. When you can't give me an answer, or refer to something that's banned, I'll then tell you it doesn't work like that and that will be the end of it.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The only two things that need be done to reconcile this FAQ with PFS is:

1) retract the clarification that weapon cords don't restrict reloading. If you can't reload with a weapon cord, the cheese of that build is severely limited.

@ Todd: yup I remember that math. 6 attacks is on par with other classes while 10 or 12 double shots is not.

2) clarify that based on SKRs clarification that the FAQ is mainly to limit gun reloading cheese, that in PFS GMs should only limit reloading free actions to the number of iterative attacks plus feats plus haste. That only one barrel can be reloaded per attack.

This allows a gunslinger to actually take advantage of the class's built in iterative attacks and feats like rapid shot ant two weapon fighting. But not get a double shot every attack.

The FAQ, in my mind is an admission by the development team that the gunslinger was very poorly balanced.

Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover aka Hayato Ken

Banning weapon cords has a lot of other side effects.
I´m using one on my Trip Lore warden, because it allows me to let go off my trip weapon instead of getting tripped myself on a failed trip and then recover the weapon as a swift action.
But as i said before, i also take the negatives. Doing a lot of stuff with something fixed to your arm and dangling there imposes penalties.
Reloading a firearm is surely no different from using disarm device, which is definately defined as a finer action, so you will be facing a penalty there at my table. This penalty might very well work on attack actions too.

After looking into it, i clearly think the problem presented here is not the weapon cord. There are many voices which don´t like them, but most for different reasons. A lot seem to come of from people being reluctant of imposing the right penalties (and nowhere is it written i know of a penalty has only to be -2).

At my table i limited free actions long before that FAQ.
Reloading a bow as allowed by feats and rules is fine.
Abusing esoteric combinations to metaplay or "win" the game and therefore taking fun from others never was. I even had players take immediate actions to communicate in character and no one complained. It also depends on the time you use for your turn and actions and what you gonna do on your turn.

The problem with the pistolero thing here seems to me like a big loophole, mainly consisting from double-barred firearms and free reloads due to papercartridges. Changing this without changing the rules is probably not possible and not our duty, nor Mikes.

Considering this, i would say banning or seriously limiting certain types of firearms might be the best bet.
-Bows, the most supported ranged combat else, have to spend a feat with some prerequs. All other ranged combat options are already nerfed and weak or really difficult. I remember that halfling sling staff ruling, which frankly pissed me off.
-Siege weapons are already banned, as are advanced and modern firearms. Double-barred firearms and some others, a.k.a. scatter weapons seemed like cheese and totally off-balance to me from the beginning.
-Please also revisit Tiefling gunslingers with tails, alchemist/gunslinger and witch/gunslinger combos. Why? Quick-draw has a serious thing going on there only allowing to draw weapons or ammunition. All of the above mentioned combos are cheese per se and in my eyes also violate the freak show code of Golarion and PFS.


Benjamin Falk wrote:
Reloading a firearm is surely no different from using disarm device, which is definitely defined as a finer action, so you will be facing a penalty there at my table. This penalty might very well work on attack actions too.

Do note that on this point specifically, Mike Brock has ruled that weapon cords do NOT interfere with reloading.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

CRobledo wrote:
Benjamin Falk wrote:
Reloading a firearm is surely no different from using disarm device, which is definitely defined as a finer action, so you will be facing a penalty there at my table. This penalty might very well work on attack actions too.
Do note that on this point specifically, Mike Brock has ruled that weapon cords do NOT interfere with reloading.

And if you see my above post you'll note that if that ruling is reversed and specifically ruled that it does interfere then this becomes a non issue and weapon cords can go back to being a cool niche item instead of part of a broken combo.

Sovereign Court

DigitalMage wrote:
allow(s) my character to drop his weapon rather than be tripped if he fails a Trip attempt by 10 or more.

I don't know what level your tripper is, but if he has more than a few levels, you haven't failed a trip by more than 10 in recent history. (unless you've been trying to trip spiders again :-)) The loss of the weapon cord wouldn't be that big a deal as compared to helping level the playing field vs. two double barreled gun wielding stuff.

Weapon cord does seem like a good use for a grappler build though. I don't have a better solution for this issue, sorry.

Sovereign Court

John Francis wrote:

Mike Brock re-visits the ruling he made about a year ago that a weapon dangling from a weapon cord didn't interfere with reloading a (different) firearm.

That's not a change to underlying Pathfinder rules: RAW doesn't define whether or not reloading is a 'fine action' (and thus impossible while a weapon cord is in use).

Weapon cords are nice when you need to drop your ranged weapon to draw your melee weapon (especially if you're mounted at the time); using them to juggle multiple weapons is where most of the abuse seems to come.

After reading this thread and pondering things for a bit, I think I'd have to agree with this post as probably the best solution.

My 2 CP - Warning: Giant Wall of Text:

This argument is modelled after Jiggy's discussion of Magical Knack, so thanks to him

Premise #1: The issue at hand is Two-Weapon Fighting with multiple Double-Barelled Pistols creating an onscene number of attack rolls.
Premise #2: To create some balance in the campaign, limit the number of attack rolls a Gunslinger can make.
Premise #3: Gunslingers who take 2 levels of Alchemist or buy a Glove of Storing can still bypass restrictions, but this has a built-in cost.
Premise #4: Banning Weapon Cords, Double-Barelled Weapons affect others who are not abusing these options.
Premise #5: Mike Brock has ruled in the past that a weapon dangling from a weapon cord does not interfere with reloading a different firearm. Changing this should contain the issue within PFS as best as can be done under the circumstances.
Premise #6: Any character who currently has a Gunslinger who is performing this type of character will be affected, but no more so than any characters who have been affected by changes to the campaign, such as Synthesist Summoners. A character rebuild should help with these players.
Conclusion: To restore balance to PFS, change this ruling so that reloading a firearm while a different weapon is dangling is not possible.

----

Reasoning:

Premise #1:
The reason why a Gunslinger can make so many attack rolls in a round is due to the following:

1) The Gunslinger takes Two-Weapon Fighting.
2) The Gunslinger acquires Double-Barelled Pistols.
3) The Gunslinger uses Weapon Cords, Rapid Reload, and Alchemical Cartidges to reduce the time it takes to reloading to a free action.

This causes the Gunslinger to take several free actions to reload his firearms while the weapon dangles from his hands.

Premise #2:
In order to create balance to the Gunslinger, limiting the number of attack rolls he can make may be the best solution. This cannot be done through any actual rules changes, since that is on part of the Rules team. Therefore, something else must be changed.

Premise #3:
Taking levels of Alchemist or buying a Glove of Storing are tradeoffs which a character must make, which has Pros and Cons built within.

A Gunslinger who takes 2 levels of Alchemist to get that third hand now delays the remainder of his class features of Gunslinger by 2 levels. So instead of getting his Dexterity modifer to damage rolls at 5th level, he now gets them at 7th level. This is a choice that each person must make, as as I believe has been stated before, choice is part of Pathfinder's design (because this was the design of the previous iteration of the game, D&D 3rd edition).

Premise #4:
Weapon Cords, by themselves, I do not think are broken:

Weapon Cord wrote:
Weapon cords are 2-foot-long leather straps that attach your weapon to your wrist. If you drop your weapon or are disarmed, you can recover it as a swift action, and it never moves any further away from you than an adjacent square. However, you cannot switch to a different weapon without first untying the cord (a full-round action) or cutting it (a move action or an attack, hardness 0, 0 hp). Unlike a locked gauntlet, you can still use a hand with a weapon cord, though a dangling weapon may interfere with finer actions.

Apparently, this has been argued by some people that they can carry multiple weapon on a weapon cord and can switch between them as a swift action. I, myself, have never seen that interpretation, as I assumed that a weapon on a weapon cord prevented that hand from using any other weapon. If this is causing an issue, then perhaps this needs to be brought up to the Rules team (as I am pretty sure this is nothing that Mike Brock can change for PFS). If this can be done, a FAQ on this item by the Rules team will help solidify not only PFS, but home groups as well.

Premise #5:
The following line from the text of Weapon Cords states:

Excerpt from Weapon Cords wrote:
Unlike a locked gauntlet, you can still use a hand with a weapon cord, though a dangling weapon may interfere with finer actions.

This says that Weapon Cords explicitly can interfere with finer actions. However, this is a GM's call on what, exactly, is a "finer action". Since Mike Brock is the GM for the PFS campaign, he has the authority to rule that, for PFS, a dangling weapon can interfere with reloading a weapon. In addition, this sets precedence for further rulings on Weapon Cords should any new item gets added into the campaign that, when combined with Weapon Cords, causes issues.

In addition, if people are abusing Weapon Cords to have multiple weapons tied to one arm, until the Rules team rules one way or another on that matter, Mike Brock can rule that, for PFS, having multiple weapon cords on one arm causes that arm to not be able to wield any other weapon, since the weight interferes with that arm to properly wield a weapon.

Premise #6:
As with Synthesist Summoners, Vivisectionist Alchemists, etc., when something has changed within the Campaign, it has been allowed for existing characters to be rebuilt to become a legal character once something has been banned. Something could exist once a clarification of Weapon Cords is made within PFS.

I do not know to what extent any character rebuilding should be done, but I am sure that can be done by the campaign staff and/or Mike Brock.

----

Conclusion:
By ruling that Weapon Cords affect whether or not a Gunslinger can reload a Firearm with a second Firearm attached to a Weapon Cord, this causes the issue to become curtailed, although not entirely eliminated. However, the amount by which it curtails the issue should be sufficient for play within PFS.

(My apologies if the above statements do not make any sense; And my apologies if they do make sense :-)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Todd Lower wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:
allow(s) my character to drop his weapon rather than be tripped if he fails a Trip attempt by 10 or more.
I don't know what level your tripper is, but if he has more than a few levels, you haven't failed a trip by more than 10 in recent history. (unless you've been trying to trip spiders again :-)) The loss of the weapon cord wouldn't be that big a deal as compared to helping level the playing field vs. two double barreled gun wielding stuff.

My character is now level 3 (just and I took a level of Rogue rather than a 3rd level of fighter) so it is still a possibility, also based on some recent scenarios I have seen with my other character you can get some humanoid NPCs set up to have high CMDs - if those are focussed on stopping being tripped I could still be failing even with another level or two.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Todd Lower wrote:
Weapon cord does seem like a good use for a grappler build though. I don't have a better solution for this issue, sorry.

Well, we're in a fantasy environment. How about a spell that summons an adjacent weapon to the caster's free hand on a command word? (Casting the spell is a standard action; triggering the effect is a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.) It should be 3rd level or below, to allow non-casters to anoit their weapons with it as an oil.


So are the people asking to ban weapon cords/gunslinger weapons because they are too good?

Grand Lodge

So I was previously under the impression that drawing an arrow was considered a non-action, as part of firing the bow, since it is the one type of ranged weapon that doesnt have at least a move action to reload. Then I found This.

The PRD wrote:

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon

Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.

If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.

Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.

Emphasis mine.

So unless this is contradicted someplace else in the rules, I think limiting the number of free actions or 'like' free actions is going to affect all ranged based characters, not just the gunslinger. This might have been obvious to everyone already, but I think its worth pointing out, just in case.

Silver Crusade

Historians have recently figured out that very high rates of fire were obtained by holding arrows in the hand for fast firing, not drawn out of the quiver. So I'll just have my characters draw five arrows at once so this isn't an issue. Because that's what people really did.

Lantern Lodge

Seth,

You are absolutely correct about the drawing ammo as a free action issue. SKR did write in one of his posts in a now locked thread that the faq clarification "was not intended to affect bow and crossbow users", however.

So essentially, as far as I can tell, the design team's intention is for limited reloading to affect firearms only. Unfortunately, unless you happened to see that post from SKR, reading just that faq by itself is very likely to lead some GM's who choose to employ it at their table to limit bows and crossbows as well.

Silver Crusade

Those are the same GMs I'm probably already walking away from their table, however.

4/5

Saint Caleth wrote:
John Francis wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

For PFS there are three options that I can see

Ban weapon cords
Ban Double pistols
Ban both
Ignore the FAQ completely because it is a suggestion to the DM and Mike Brock is functionally the DM of PFS.
Let the FAQ stand with no change.

I'd like to suggest an alternative to any of these:

Mike Brock re-visits the ruling he made about a year ago that a weapon dangling from a weapon cord didn't interfere with reloading a (different) firearm.

That's not a change to underlying Pathfinder rules: RAW doesn't define whether or not reloading is a 'fine action' (and thus impossible while a weapon cord is in use).

Weapon cords are nice when you need to drop your ranged weapon to draw your melee weapon (especially if you're mounted at the time); using them to juggle multiple weapons is where most of the abuse seems to come.

This is by far the best solution because it creates the least ripple effect of house rules, as it modifies only an existing PFS house rule. It is by far the most parsimonious solution which is what the leadership should be going for in making any PFS specific rule since the point of the special PFS rules is to homogenize the experience of play as much as possible.

a big "+1"

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Lormyr wrote:

Seth,

You are absolutely correct about the drawing ammo as a free action issue. SKR did write in one of his posts in a now locked thread that the faq clarification "was not intended to affect bow and crossbow users", however.

So essentially, as far as I can tell, the design team's intention is for limited reloading to affect firearms only. Unfortunately, unless you happened to see that post from SKR, reading just that faq by itself is very likely to lead some GM's who choose to employ it at their table to limit bows and crossbows as well.

And is why this thread exists, Seth. I am trying to point out that if an FAQ was created to deal with limiting free actions, and the free action abuse was originally created by the weapon cord, getting rid of the weapon cord solves the issue without creating a mess of other things (like arrows).

To reiterate: I, personally, am getting the feeling that the FAQ was a result of PFS complaining (if it were home games, the standard dev team answer of "house rule it" would be completely adequate). So, they did an FAQ in an effort to stem the tide, then got hit from the other side by a completely different tsunami, which even resulted in a locked thread.

If PFS has a problem with weapon cord use, and this created the FAQ problem, solve it all by banning the weapon cord. The FAQ goes away and "house rule it" becomes the dev answer, again. Everyone is happy. Except weapon cord users, I suppose...

4/5

Stephen Ross wrote:
a big "+1"

I'd like to add something to think about.

Having the weapon corded weapon sheathed under a simple ruling does not affect the limits placed on the wrist & hand that are corded to the weapon. It is a 2ft cord. For the sake of simplicity this makes sense.

Should there be a caveat that the (weapon corded) hand could be used to reload a gun, draw an arrow or bolt to reload a bow or crossbow, or used for fine manipulations IF the weapon corded weapon is sheathed at the time? (I understand it is not supposed to affect bows/crossbow reloading)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My preference would be to see the rule (clarification?) that having a weapon dangling on a weapon cord does prevent reloading a firearm. Failing that, I would like to see weapon cords banned in PFS.

My home campaign has already adopted a house rule that reloading both barrels of a double-barreled firearm is at least a Swift Action, in order to keep Gunslingers more in line with Manyshot archers.

101 to 150 of 507 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Just ban weapon cords, for pity's sake All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.