Just ban weapon cords, for pity's sake


Pathfinder Society

301 to 350 of 507 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

I disagree that no one has given anecdotal evidence of problems with such builds, there are numerous posts on the subject, not just this one. Most of the time people do not like to single out a person or character to "pick on" so they use generalities instead of specifics.

So if we find potential abuse of rules nothing should be done about it until there are what percentage of players doing it? 1% 5% 50%? At what threshold does one then act to correct it? If there is only one build that shows off an abuse to the rules, we should just allow them to abuse the rules because, well its only one character... If there are not many builds like this, then preventing the abuse will be far less disruptive than ignoring it until it does become a problem.

I agree that weapons cords do not seem to be the underlying cause, doubling of attacks is far more troublesome.

Is it overpowering? /shrug haven't done the damage calcs, but again, unless the gunslinger is designed to do about 50% of other damage dealing classes, unless they choose to use a double barrel gun, seems a bit strange. The only way it would work is if the gunslinger was way under-powered with normal iterative attacks (even without evidence, anecdotal or not, this seems unlikely to me).

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

Kyle Baird wrote:

Slight tangent:

I'm curious to know how many people have enjoyed themselves at a table where players were rolling 5+ attack rolls every turn?

Now that my highest-level character is ninth (soon to be tenth) level, I am beginning to see this more often. But most of the people who do that have multiple dice (or at least multiple colour-coded d20s), and will at least roll all the attack rolls together.

Sometimes you have to take the rolls in order, as what you do on a later attack may be conditional on the outcome of earlier attacks. But a lot of the time you can roll several of the attacks at the same time.

For example: my 9th-level character is a monk. If I'm using 'flurry of blows', I'll roll two (or three, or four, if hasted and/or burning a ki point) blue dice for my primary attacks (at +14, say), and two more red dice for my secondary attacks at +9. Then, once I know how many of those attacks succeed, I'll roll the appropriate number of damage dice.

My wife's character - a TWF rogue - is a little more complicated; as she often uses a different weapon in each hand she has to be able to identify each attack roll. She has enough colour-coded dice to be able to make primary and secondary attacks with each weapon (including one additional attack with her main-hand weapon, if hasted). But the real fun comes if my monk has done his job, and set up a flank for her. That's when the big pile of d6s comes into play.

The first time we played those characters at level 9 we were in a group that included two buffing characters, so we were not only hasted, but also had additional bonuses on both attack and damage rolls. She got to make a full attack against a prone opponent (tripped by my monk), with our +4 flanking bonus from outflank (not to mention her menacing dagger ...). She hit with every attack (and even confirmed a critical with one of those attacks). More importantly, the opponent was susceptible to precision damage, so she also got to count all those extra d6s from sneak attack. Everybody at the table was counting out the damage dice and adding up the totals, just to see how high it would go.

Would we want to do that on every round? No. But it sure is fun on the rare occasions when everything works out right, and you get to roll 30 or more damage dice!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Chris Mortika wrote:

This scenario assumes that the gunslinger with the weapon cords (a) has selected the suite of feats necessary to make this work, (b) starts the round with both guns drawn, (c) with an opponent within close range, and (d) never misfires. That seems at least partially situational.

Now, let's say that the gunslinger's allies are buffing her, using magic to mitigate her misfires, using conjuration magic to get her close to the bad guys, interposing to keep the bad guys off her. Then she's no longer soloing the encounter; then she's acting like the quarterback, and I have no trouble at all letting that kind of team-work win.

Weapon cords and b). As a minimum, if a character is using weapon cords, he would have his weapon constantly dangling from his wrist or in his hands. To put away the weapon you have to untie the weapon cord.

so b) is a non issue for someone using weapon cords.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

MrSin wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
This is not theoretical. These are builds many of us have seen wreck the fun for everyone else.
How is this ruining the fun for everyone else exactly?

I would imagine the same way every other broken build that people regularly complain about spoil the fun.

It spoils the fun for players through table domination through any combination of excessive damage, excessive time taking turns, or an excessive ability to hog the spotlight.

It spoils the fun for DMs by making them feel like they can't provide a challenge to the players.

Silver Crusade 3/5

A bunch of melee cleric hating meanies, says I. First my spring loaded wrist sheath for Breath of Life, and now my weapon chord for casting in combat amid great axe swings.

Please don't ban weapon chords because of one type of broken build.


trollbill wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
This is not theoretical. These are builds many of us have seen wreck the fun for everyone else.
How is this ruining the fun for everyone else exactly?

I would imagine the same way every other broken build that people regularly complain about spoil the fun.

It spoils the fun for players through table domination through any combination of excessive damage, excessive time taking turns, or an excessive ability to hog the spotlight.

It spoils the fun for DMs by making them feel like they can't provide a challenge to the players.

Never had that feeling before to be honest, which is why I'm asking. At worst I've had trouble with spotlight hogging in RP situations, but I don't blame the player for that.

Grand Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can still cast using a greataxe without a weapon cord. Using a two-handed weapon does not impede your ability to have a "free hand" for spells. It's a free action to "pass off" your weapon to one hand, then another free action to pass it back to both hands when you're done.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Kyle Baird wrote:

Slight tangent:

I'm curious to know how many people have enjoyed themselves at a table where players were rolling 5+ attack rolls every turn? I'm sure there's some cases where the player is prepared, prerolls because the GM trusts them, etc. But is that the norm? What about for a wildshaped pouncing druid with a pouncing animal companion. That's like 8+ attack rolls. At what point does it slow the game down enough that it becomes not fun for the majority of the table (GM included)?

With my pouncing raptor, it was fine and fast as long as

1) the critter didn't have dr, then I didn't have to add the strength bonus to each die i could just multiply it by the hits

2) People didn't really care if it was 81 or 83 points of damage, just add it up close enough for state work and go.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

MrSin wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
This is not theoretical. These are builds many of us have seen wreck the fun for everyone else.
How is this ruining the fun for everyone else exactly?

Some people like to play the game a shine sometimes. Not many folks like to feel trivialized every time they play with the same character.


ThreeEyedSloth wrote:
You can still cast using a greataxe without a weapon cord. Using a two-handed weapon does not impede your ability to have a "free hand" for spells. It's a free action to "pass off" your weapon to one hand, then another free action to pass it back to both hands when you're done.

This is correct, but everyone should also keep in mind this can only be done on your own turn.

A similar example is a polearm wielding character with a spiked gauntlet. At the end of your turn, you need to decide if you're wielding your polearm (with both hands), or holding it (in one hand). The latter allows you to threaten adjacent squares with your gauntlet, but no longer at 10-ft. with your polearm (unless you're that certain fighter archetype).

Heck, you can even full attack by attacking with your polearm, then holding it one hand (free action), 5-ft.-step up, punch them your gauntlet, and then decide whether or not to re-wield the polearm or keep the gauntlet hand free. Don't forget to take all the penalties associated with two-weapon fighting before you decide to do this maneuver.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

MrSin wrote:
trollbill wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
This is not theoretical. These are builds many of us have seen wreck the fun for everyone else.
How is this ruining the fun for everyone else exactly?

I would imagine the same way every other broken build that people regularly complain about spoil the fun.

It spoils the fun for players through table domination through any combination of excessive damage, excessive time taking turns, or an excessive ability to hog the spotlight.

It spoils the fun for DMs by making them feel like they can't provide a challenge to the players.

Never had that feeling before to be honest, which is why I'm asking. At worst I've had trouble with spotlight hogging in RP situations, but I don't blame the player for that.

To be sure, there are innumerable ways one can hog the spotlight it Pathfinder, and not everyone wants the same spotlight. But as long as everyone gets their turn, its usually okay. Tabletop RPGs have the interesting conundrum of being a social activity that tends to attract people with poor social skills. The up side to this is that these people get a chance to improve their social skills. The down side is you have to put up with them until they do. Most simply don't realize that they are hogging the spotlight and pointing this out to them can often help, provided you are socially confident enough to do so. The ones that are much more difficult to deal with are the ones who simply don't care if they are hogging the spotlight and that's when people start calling for the ban hammer.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Kyle Baird wrote:
Don't forget to take all the penalties associated with two-weapon fighting before you decide to do this maneuver.

Unless of course the polearm attack was your normal +6 attack and the spiked gauntlet was your normal +1 attack, in which case you're not TWFing. :)


trollbill wrote:
Tabletop RPGs have the interesting conundrum of being a social activity that tends to attract people with poor social skills.

I hit on this topic this past weekend running GM101. PEOPLE!


Jiggy wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Don't forget to take all the penalties associated with two-weapon fighting before you decide to do this maneuver.
Unless of course the polearm attack was your normal +6 attack and the spiked gauntlet was your normal +1 attack, in which case you're not TWFing. :)

Details. People don't need to know everything I have up my sleeve Jiggy.

Silver Crusade

I limit 1 free action per character per round. The character still has to draw a weapon by either a move action or moving and drawing, or quick draw swift. Their action to attack is limited to the first set they drop.
Those pistols hanging from cords are at that point out and I think if someone is cheesing it up you could apply penalties to dex based checks or cmd to grapple because of the ability to grab the weapon hanging from the cord.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Razlin wrote:
I limit 1 free action per character per round.

Then don't ever tell a TWF guy "Drop your weapons or I shoot!", because he'll be incapable of complying.

Sovereign Court

Jiggy wrote:
Razlin wrote:
I limit 1 free action per character per round.
Then don't ever tell a TWF guy "Drop your weapons or I shoot!", because he'll be incapable of complying.

That sounds like a beautiful GM trap, like placing the BBEM who has high DR/Magic in an antimagic field...

Dark Archive

CRobledo wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
For those playing along at home, that's what Panther Style feat chain is supposed to do
That build technique couples very well with snake style as well, Chris. I almost did that combo until I realized that an enemy could just not take their attacks of opportunity and shut it completely down.
Tangent: Start getting creative then! Get a sack and start trying to put it over people's heads. Go crazy nuts on what you want to do in combat, and see if the enemies will or will not take attacks on you.

Continuing tangent: Have one of your companions with a high strength hold one end of a rope. Take the other end of the rope and run circles around the enemy. If they take an attack of opportunity, Panther Style. If they don't, you get to wrap a rope around them. :D

Silver Crusade

This has been quite a big topic, so forgive me for only skimming the middle pages (read the earlier stuff at length) before offering feedback.

I support getting rid of Weapon Cords from PFS play, because you can make a good case for doing so even without considering Gunslingers. These are the key points I see.

An extremely inexpensive item is doing comparable work to a feat. Feats and Traits are some of the rarest things a character gets, but these items essentially let you 'buy a feat' or a 'half feat' in a sense for virtually no meaningful cost. This alone was enough to convince me to resell/discard all the weapon cords on my PFS characters.

They reduce the scope of NPC tactics. I sometimes hear critiques of PFS adventures, that some of them degenerate into melee bash-fests with little to distinguish them from others. Weapon Cords are an inexpensive way to limit this even further because they remove Disarming from the list of things a NPC can reasonably do in the course of a PFS adventure.

Disarms are a relatively benign tactic for NPCs to use. It accomplishes most of what a Sunder does, without actually destroying the item, and even introduces a risk-reward tradeoff: Does the character eat 1 or more AOOs to get the item back? Or do they just switch to their backup item and carry on? That's something you want game interactions to have!

Weapon Cords simply prevent this possibility from coming up, and their drawbacks are clearly not significant enough to discourage their use.

All of this is without getting into the Gunslinger issue, which I will stay out of. Weapon Cords are simply far too good for their cost, limit the options adventure writers and GMs have, and I believe the game would be better with them gone.

Grand Lodge

Razlin wrote:

I limit 1 free action per character per round. The character still has to draw a weapon by either a move action or moving and drawing, or quick draw swift. Their action to attack is limited to the first set they drop.

Those pistols hanging from cords are at that point out and I think if someone is cheesing it up you could apply penalties to dex based checks or cmd to grapple because of the ability to grab the weapon hanging from the cord.

So in your mind its fair to limit an archer who has a BAB of +11/+6/+1 to only being able to shoot two arrows per round, therefore not even getting enough free actions to do their full attack progression?

This is fair because?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Razlin wrote:

I limit 1 free action per character per round.

I've seen several people say this (not in this thread), but there is absolutely no justification for limiting free actions that much. Indeed, the developers FAQ seem to indicate that if you must limit them, that limiting them to 5 or 3 would be appropriate.

I would suggest looking at all the things that are considered free actions and ask yourself again, if you really limit folks to 1 free action a round.


Andrew Christian wrote:
Razlin wrote:

I limit 1 free action per character per round.

I've seen several people say this (not in this thread), but there is absolutely no justification for limiting free actions that much. Indeed, the developers FAQ seem to indicate that if you must limit them, that limiting them to 5 or 3 would be appropriate.

I would suggest looking at all the things that are considered free actions and ask yourself again, if you really limit folks to 1 free action a round.

"I would totally drop my weapon guys, but I had to spend my free action telling you I would drop my weapon."

trollbill wrote:
To be sure, there are innumerable ways one can hog the spotlight it Pathfinder, and not everyone wants the same spotlight. But as long as everyone gets their turn, its usually okay. Tabletop RPGs have the interesting conundrum of being a social activity that tends to attract people with poor social skills. The up side to this is that these people get a chance to improve their social skills. The down side is you have to put up with them until they do. Most simply don't realize that they are hogging the spotlight and pointing this out to them can often help, provided you are socially confident enough to do so. The ones that are much more difficult to deal with are the ones who simply don't care if they are hogging the spotlight and that's when people start calling for the ban hammer.

Well that's much easier to understand.

Shadow Lodge

With the new pistolero example given for what happens in a round, I'm counting 12 free actions. On the grounds of the limited free actions rule alone, it really shouldn't work, unless your GM is extremely generous.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Kyle Baird wrote:

...

Heck, you can even full attack by attacking with your polearm, then holding it one hand (free action), 5-ft.-step up, punch them your gauntlet, and then decide whether or not to re-wield the polearm or keep the gauntlet hand free. Don't forget to take all the penalties associated with two-weapon fighting before you decide to do this maneuver.

Ahem. No.

FAQ wrote:

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 07/26/13

You can use that maneuver with iterative attacks, but not while two weapon fighting.

Entilzha wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Razlin wrote:
I limit 1 free action per character per round.
Then don't ever tell a TWF guy "Drop your weapons or I shoot!", because he'll be incapable of complying.

That sounds like a beautiful GM trap, like placing the BBEM who has high DR/Magic in an antimagic field...

DR/Magic generally is a SU ability and it is suppressed in the anti magic field.


Chris Mortika wrote:
At least at my table, if you roll an attack, you've committed your character to take the swing / shot. So, if you roll 6 attacks, and the second one's a misfire, then you're still shooting with the clogged firearm.

How does that work? Is it if you start making the full attack or only if you roll it?

Seems that would just encourage slowing things down by making everyone roll each attack separately.

Could I just roll all the dice together, knowing the order the attacks go in and say ahead of time: "I'll stop if I misfire."? Then ignore the rolls after the misfire, even if they're good.


thejeff wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
At least at my table, if you roll an attack, you've committed your character to take the swing / shot. So, if you roll 6 attacks, and the second one's a misfire, then you're still shooting with the clogged firearm.
How does that work? Is it if you start making the full attack or only if you roll it?

It works by using house rules and punishing players. Also does slow things down. What I do is I decide certain dice are what number of the attack. Yellow is 1, blue is 2, green is 3, etc. Makes life easier.

Shadow Lodge

Kyle Baird wrote:
A similar example is a polearm wielding character with a spiked gauntlet. At the end of your turn, you need to decide if you're wielding your polearm (with both hands), or holding it (in one hand). The latter allows you to threaten adjacent squares with your gauntlet, but no longer at 10-ft. with your polearm (unless you're that certain fighter archetype).

Huh?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
A similar example is a polearm wielding character with a spiked gauntlet. At the end of your turn, you need to decide if you're wielding your polearm (with both hands), or holding it (in one hand). The latter allows you to threaten adjacent squares with your gauntlet, but no longer at 10-ft. with your polearm (unless you're that certain fighter archetype).

Huh?

Either:

Phalanx Soldier
Phalanx Fighting (Ex): At 3rd level, when a phalanx soldier wields a shield, he can use any polearm or spear of his size as a one-handed weapon. This ability replaces armor training 1.

or

Polearm Master

Pole Fighting (Ex): At 2nd level, as an immediate action, a polearm master can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach and use it against adjacent targets. This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip. The penalty is reduced by –1 for every four levels beyond 2nd. This ability replaces bravery.


Morgrym Anvilstrike wrote:

A bunch of melee cleric hating meanies, says I. First my spring loaded wrist sheath for Breath of Life, and now my weapon chord for casting in combat amid great axe swings.

Please don't ban weapon chords because of one type of broken build.

You can't put a scroll in a SLWS.

Or can you?

5/5 5/55/55/5

Chris Bonnet wrote:
Morgrym Anvilstrike wrote:

A bunch of melee cleric hating meanies, says I. First my spring loaded wrist sheath for Breath of Life, and now my weapon chord for casting in combat amid great axe swings.

Please don't ban weapon chords because of one type of broken build.

You can't put a scroll in a SLWS.

Or can you?

Dm's call. There's multiple threads on it

Liberty's Edge 2/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Rather than banning weapon cords, wouldn't it be better to change what they do? That way we can address the action economy problem without negating the fundamental concept of "tying your weapon to your wrist so it's harder to lose" that, frankly, makes a lot of sense and should exist in the world.

I'd suggest switching it to "you may recover the weapon with a move action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity" (keeping the "won't go more than 5 ft away when dropped" part as well). That way it still has value, by preventing AoOs when recovering disarmed weapons, but doesn't break the action economy at all and the value is more in line with the cost. Poof! Problem gone, but verisimilitude maintained.

Shadow Lodge

Diego Rossi wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
A similar example is a polearm wielding character with a spiked gauntlet. At the end of your turn, you need to decide if you're wielding your polearm (with both hands), or holding it (in one hand). The latter allows you to threaten adjacent squares with your gauntlet, but no longer at 10-ft. with your polearm (unless you're that certain fighter archetype).

Huh?

Either:

Phalanx Soldier
Phalanx Fighting (Ex): At 3rd level, when a phalanx soldier wields a shield, he can use any polearm or spear of his size as a one-handed weapon. This ability replaces armor training 1.

or

Polearm Master

Pole Fighting (Ex): At 2nd level, as an immediate action, a polearm master can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach and use it against adjacent targets. This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip. The penalty is reduced by –1 for every four levels beyond 2nd. This ability replaces bravery.

Neither of which indicate that they do not threaten with the spiked gauntlet. The Phalanx Soldier & Polearm Master do allow you to threaten either 5ft or 10ft, and thus allows you to not need to keep 5ft stepping to attack and to focus on their polearm rather than splitting between enhancing 2 weapons. But that doesn't mean that a character that has a two handed weapon can not attack with the Spiked Gauntlet nor from threatening with it the whole time.


Shisumo wrote:
Rather than banning weapon cords, wouldn't it be better to change what they do?

Can't change the rules of the game for PFS, or at least not in the fashion you suggest.

Liberty's Edge 2/5 5/5

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
MrSin wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Rather than banning weapon cords, wouldn't it be better to change what they do?
Can't change the rules of the game for PFS, or at least not in the fashion you suggest.

Granted, but at this point, the problem seems to extend well beyond PFS.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Chris Mortika wrote:
At least at my table, if you roll an attack, you've committed your character to take the swing / shot. So, if you roll 6 attacks, and the second one's a misfire, then you're still shooting with the clogged firearm.
thejeff wrote:
How does that work? Is it if you start making the full attack or only if you roll it?
MrSin wrote:
It works by using house rules and punishing players. Also does slow things down. What I do is I decide certain dice are what number of the attack. Yellow is 1, blue is 2, green is 3, etc. Makes life easier.

If you want to call it that, you're welcome to do so.

But I don't think a player ought to be able to roll dice for a full attack, then see what he rolled, and then decide whether he wants to take the full action or not. If you want to call that a "house rule", that's your privilege.

If your gunslinger wants to roll a bunch of attacks at once, all well and good. But then, you have to live with that. If you see that two of the dice are "1"s, you don't get to change your mind and decide you only want to take one shot. If you call that punishing players, I'm happy to live with that.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just order the dice, like in a rainbow. ROYGBIV. They are applied in that order, so if it jams first die, then it jams.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
At least at my table, if you roll an attack, you've committed your character to take the swing / shot. So, if you roll 6 attacks, and the second one's a misfire, then you're still shooting with the clogged firearm.
thejeff wrote:
How does that work? Is it if you start making the full attack or only if you roll it?
MrSin wrote:
It works by using house rules and punishing players. Also does slow things down. What I do is I decide certain dice are what number of the attack. Yellow is 1, blue is 2, green is 3, etc. Makes life easier.

If you want to call it that, you're welcome to do so.

But I don't think a player ought to be able to roll dice for a full attack, then see what he rolled, and then decide whether he wants to take the full action or not. If you want to call that a "house rule", that's your privilege.

If your gunslinger wants to roll a bunch of attacks at once, all well and good. But then, you have to live with that. If you see that two of the dice are "1"s, you don't get to change your mind and decide you only want to take one shot. If you call that punishing players, I'm happy to live with that.

I tend to agree with Chris on this. Unless you have approached me ahead of time to discuss it and we come to an agreement, or we are running short on time and you are only doing so to help speed things up.


Chris Mortika wrote:
If you call that punishing players, I'm happy to live with that.

Sort of. I read it as you saying you commit yourself to a full attack and you go through all the blows, rather than talking about the ones you rolled. Still makes it take forever for a guy with too many shots and a reason to care. Gunslingers have a weird thing to care about because of misfire, as oppose to a guy dual wielding and hasted or a pounce charger. Luckily as they grow through the levels they have more and more to make themselves capable of handling misfires(such as the weird spider item I can't think of the name of). On the other hand I think enforcing it if the opponent dies might be awkward, even more so if it explodes and you don't give them a chance to recover but you would if they rolled one at a time. That's the sort of thing I'd be worried about.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Shisumo wrote:

Rather than banning weapon cords, wouldn't it be better to change what they do? That way we can address the action economy problem without negating the fundamental concept of "tying your weapon to your wrist so it's harder to lose" that, frankly, makes a lot of sense and should exist in the world.

I'd suggest switching it to "you may recover the weapon with a move action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity" (keeping the "won't go more than 5 ft away when dropped" part as well). That way it still has value, by preventing AoOs when recovering disarmed weapons, but doesn't break the action economy at all and the value is more in line with the cost. Poof! Problem gone, but verisimilitude maintained.

I 2nd this. It is balances out weapon cords, while allowing a useful and logical item to be retained in the game.

It is also a relativity small errata. Swift action to Move action.

Weapon Cords is an item that is used even in real life. Banning it just won't make any logical sense.

3/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
At least at my table, if you roll an attack, you've committed your character to take the swing / shot. So, if you roll 6 attacks, and the second one's a misfire, then you're still shooting with the clogged firearm.
thejeff wrote:
How does that work? Is it if you start making the full attack or only if you roll it?
MrSin wrote:
It works by using house rules and punishing players. Also does slow things down. What I do is I decide certain dice are what number of the attack. Yellow is 1, blue is 2, green is 3, etc. Makes life easier.

If you want to call it that, you're welcome to do so.

But I don't think a player ought to be able to roll dice for a full attack, then see what he rolled, and then decide whether he wants to take the full action or not. If you want to call that a "house rule", that's your privilege.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a house rule, it is more of a stylistic variance, and it does not really punish players. It just wastes time by making anyone with multiple attacks roll each one in sequence.

Unless players do no have the option of rolling separately, in which case it does punish everyone with more than one attack, which is just about everyone.

Shadow Lodge

Here's a great thread to discuss stopping iterative attacks mid-way (and avoid derailing whether weapon cords are great or not).

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

Mike has already said that he will not be rewriting rules. His post for you to read, again:

Michael Brock wrote:


Folks, I'm not writing or changing rules with how TWF works or what kind of action it takes to reload or to change the cost of something that is already printed. That is the responsibility of the rules team through errata. If you wish to discuss those things, please take that to the rules forum. We also aren't going to outright ban the entire gunslinger class. The same people have clamored for banning the entire class since the UC hit the shelves. The class isn't going to be banned so please stop asking for it to be banned.

We have to work within rules as they are here in PFS, and that restricts us pretty much to banning an item and the like. Of course, there are a lot of smart people here and perhaps someone has a better option than just banning that we can explore without creating anymore new rules seperate from what is currently in print. So, I'm looking for suggestions on how we can improve the play experience of PFS.

Seeing as house rules are not something we can play with in PFS, please stop suggesting these kinds of "fixes."

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Shisumo wrote:

Rather than banning weapon cords, wouldn't it be better to change what they do? That way we can address the action economy problem without negating the fundamental concept of "tying your weapon to your wrist so it's harder to lose" that, frankly, makes a lot of sense and should exist in the world.

Actually the concept don't exist in the real word.

What exist is the lanyard than did and do something only vaguely related what the weapon cords do.
For sure it don't allow the recovery of a weapon with a swift action (BTW, I don't really see how reeling a 2 foot cord with a weapon at the end can be a swift action at all).

In function the weapon cords are more similar to the loop at the base of modern climbing hammers, something that you don't see on historical weapons.
As our ancestors weren't stupid, I suspect that having your weapon dangling from your wrist was a big hindrance in combat and the danger of wounding yourself with your weapon or having it catch on some of your equipment was considered excessive against the utility of not losing your weapon.

Lanyard were often used on horseback (were losing your weapon made it practically unrecoverable during the fight) or on single shooter pistols while ship fighting.

Note that lanyards are long enough that they allow you to sheath the weapon and are around your neck or linked to your uniform, not around your wrist.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
A similar example is a polearm wielding character with a spiked gauntlet. At the end of your turn, you need to decide if you're wielding your polearm (with both hands), or holding it (in one hand). The latter allows you to threaten adjacent squares with your gauntlet, but no longer at 10-ft. with your polearm (unless you're that certain fighter archetype).

Huh?

Either:

Phalanx Soldier
Phalanx Fighting (Ex): At 3rd level, when a phalanx soldier wields a shield, he can use any polearm or spear of his size as a one-handed weapon. This ability replaces armor training 1.

or

Polearm Master

Pole Fighting (Ex): At 2nd level, as an immediate action, a polearm master can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach and use it against adjacent targets. This action results in a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon until he spends another immediate action to return to the normal grip. The penalty is reduced by –1 for every four levels beyond 2nd. This ability replaces bravery.

Neither of which indicate that they do not threaten with the spiked gauntlet. The Phalanx Soldier & Polearm Master do allow you to threaten either 5ft or 10ft, and thus allows you to not need to keep 5ft stepping to attack and to focus on their polearm rather than splitting between enhancing 2 weapons. But that doesn't mean that a character that has a two handed weapon can not attack with the Spiked Gauntlet nor from threatening with it the whole time.

Ah, you meant the opposite "Huh?", well, that is in the FAQ I already cited:

FAQ wrote:


Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 07/26/13

If you are wielding and threatening with a two handed weapon you aren't wielding or threatening with the spiked gauntlets.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Chris Mortika wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
At least at my table, if you roll an attack, you've committed your character to take the swing / shot. So, if you roll 6 attacks, and the second one's a misfire, then you're still shooting with the clogged firearm.
thejeff wrote:
How does that work? Is it if you start making the full attack or only if you roll it?
MrSin wrote:
It works by using house rules and punishing players. Also does slow things down. What I do is I decide certain dice are what number of the attack. Yellow is 1, blue is 2, green is 3, etc. Makes life easier.

If you want to call it that, you're welcome to do so.

But I don't think a player ought to be able to roll dice for a full attack, then see what he rolled, and then decide whether he wants to take the full action or not. If you want to call that a "house rule", that's your privilege.

If your gunslinger wants to roll a bunch of attacks at once, all well and good. But then, you have to live with that. If you see that two of the dice are "1"s, you don't get to change your mind and decide you only want to take one shot. If you call that punishing players, I'm happy to live with that.

The problem with rolling all the dices at once is that you can go: "Oh, this is a total of 17, I assign it to that guy with the low armor class or use it against the wizard with mirror image, this nice 20 go against the guy with super armor class .." and so on.

You can switch target with each attack, but if you already know what you have rolled it is easy to assign them against the best target for the result you have got.


Diego Rossi wrote:
If you are wielding and threatening with a two handed weapon you aren't wielding or threatening with the spiked gauntlets.

The FAQs your referring to only talks about two weapon fighting(its a messy one at that). You can't two weapon fight with a 2 handed weapon and your spiked gauntlets/armor spikes no, but you can still threaten. There NPCs that do this in published Paizo adventures if I remember correctly.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MrSin wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
If you are wielding and threatening with a two handed weapon you aren't wielding or threatening with the spiked gauntlets.
The FAQs your referring to only talks about two weapon fighting(its a messy one at that). You can't two weapon fight with a 2 handed weapon and your spiked gauntlets/armor spikes no, but you can still threaten. There NPCs that do this in published Paizo adventures if I remember correctly.

You are missing something:

"Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks."

If your hand is wielding the two hander, it is unavailable for any attack. If you can't attack, you don't threaten.

As let going of a weapon is a free action that you can take only during your turn, you have to choose at the end of the turn if you are threatening with the two hander or the spiked gauntlet.


Andrew Christian wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
At least at my table, if you roll an attack, you've committed your character to take the swing / shot. So, if you roll 6 attacks, and the second one's a misfire, then you're still shooting with the clogged firearm.
thejeff wrote:
How does that work? Is it if you start making the full attack or only if you roll it?
MrSin wrote:
It works by using house rules and punishing players. Also does slow things down. What I do is I decide certain dice are what number of the attack. Yellow is 1, blue is 2, green is 3, etc. Makes life easier.

If you want to call it that, you're welcome to do so.

But I don't think a player ought to be able to roll dice for a full attack, then see what he rolled, and then decide whether he wants to take the full action or not. If you want to call that a "house rule", that's your privilege.

If your gunslinger wants to roll a bunch of attacks at once, all well and good. But then, you have to live with that. If you see that two of the dice are "1"s, you don't get to change your mind and decide you only want to take one shot. If you call that punishing players, I'm happy to live with that.

I tend to agree with Chris on this. Unless you have approached me ahead of time to discuss it and we come to an agreement, or we are running short on time and you are only doing so to help speed things up.

Well, since this came up in the context of how long it takes to resolve the turns of characters with lots of attacks, I kind of assumed that "speed things up" was the point.

But I will remember to roll each attack separately and wait for you to tell me the results if I play with either of you. Even if it takes 3-4 times as long. Wouldn't want to waste another 4 arrows on the guy I killed with the first shot.

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

Diego Rossi wrote:
The problem with rolling all the dices at once is that you can go: "Oh, this is a total of 17, I assign it to that guy with the low armor class

You can't do that, but I do allow and do assign an order.

Such as 1st on this guy, 2nd on that guy, 3rd on this other guy

or

All on this guy until he drops then switch to this guy.

Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover aka Hayato Ken

Some people here don´t seem to realize that this is the PFS board. No house rules or strange fixes in this waters.

If you roll several attack dice at once you have to call out a target and what you are doing anyway.
If you just roll your dice without saying what you do, you may roll them again after saying what you do.
It might be allowed by the GM that, after knowing and seing something might go down on the first hits of a full attack, a player mmight deliver the rest of the attack to a different target if possible. But also only after calling on that BEFORE the dice are rolled.

Normally if someone has iterative attacks and rolls them at once, it must be very clear which dice represents what and i ask players for a sequence before the game, which then won´t be changed normally. Of course this requires adequately different colored or marked dice.

301 to 350 of 507 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 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.