The 10 / 03 / 13 FAQ suggests drawing an arrow 3 times is the max you can draw is a reasonable limit.


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 412 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Weslocke wrote:

No, it does not say that you should.

It says that you can.

Big Difference

And my DM *can* rule that if I roll a 1 to hit, I stab myself with my sword. (Of course, if he did that, he would no longer be my DM)

Should they put that horrible idea into an FAQ as well, to remind DMs that they *can* do it?


The difference is there and understood - most of us who take/took issue with the FAQ is as a result of RAI interpretations.

Basically, when folks aren't sure, one of the first things they can do is go see FAQs or errata to see what the devs "actually meant".

It's an issue. People unsure of a new part of the game, or new to the game outright take it as a lesson of "no this is how it's supposed to be".

When the examples break basic class abilities at mid, or even LOW levels [shuriken monks], they are simply bad examples. Just going "well it's not like the rules force you" doesn't solve the bad lesson being there, but "Well we didn't mean it for BOWS, that would be silly. Bows aren't supposed to be limited by realism or our interpretation of the rules like crossbows or firearms in a game" was even worse.

Rules and interpretations have to be consistent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Weslocke wrote:

No, it does not say that you should.

It says that you can.

Big Difference

And my DM *can* rule that if I roll a 1 to hit, I stab myself with my sword. (Of course, if he did that, he would no longer be my DM)

Should they put that horrible idea into an FAQ as well, to remind DMs that they *can* do it?

In your opinion it is a horrible idea. The mere existence of the Fumble deck indicates that others disagree.

There is more than one style of play. Unless, of course, you are asserting that anything not matching your opinion is BadWrongFun.


You do realize that guidelines are quite literally boundaries meant to guide those who use them? As in, "this is what we recommend you follow, but there is not hard rule to keep you from going outside them."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This FAQ simply reminds GM's that they do have the power to stop the abuse of free actions by players. By remaining flexible, while simultaneously supplying the GM with suggested guidelines complete with suggested numbers this FAQ has empowered GM's to shut down any argumentative, rules-savvy player bent on exploiting free actions in his tracks.

It does not say you should do anything.

It says that you can.

Just like it has said that you could limit free actions for ten years. Any complaints about limiting free actions are, frankly, a decade too late to do any good.

The only difference is now there are numbers that suggest a possible limit. Not mandate. Not demand. Suggest!

The FAQ states this is a guideline.


Caedwyr wrote:
You do realize that guidelines are quite literally boundaries meant to guide those who use them? As in, "this is what we recommend you follow, but there is not hard rule to keep you from going outside them."

Yes I do. As in, "This is what we suggest if you have a rules-savvy player who is abusing free actions.".


In fact, the very fact that this is a FAQ and not errata confirms that it is not a hard cap on how many times you can do something in a round. A FAQ doesn't change rules, it clarifies them. Now this is sometimes seen as a change when people have been playing it the other way, but (in theory) it isn't. If the devs meant to put a hard cap on the # of free actions that could be done in a round, they would have errata'd the section in the core rulebook that says you can do as many as you want.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weslocke wrote:

This FAQ simply reminds GM's that they do have the power to stop the abuse of free actions by players. By remaining flexible, while simultaneously supplying the GM with suggested guidelines complete with suggested numbers this FAQ has empowered GM's to shut down any argumentative, rules-savvy player bent on exploiting free actions in his tracks.

It does not say you should do anything.

It says that you can.

Just like it has said that you could limit free actions for ten years. Any complaints about limiting free actions are, frankly, a decade too late to do any good.

The only difference is now there are numbers that suggest a possible limit. Not mandate. Not demand. Suggest!

The FAQ states this is a guideline.

It suggests that 3 is a good limit. And is in fact the designer's intent. Which suggests that 4 is "abuse of free actions" or "exploiting free actions".

Claiming it's nothing more than "repeating you can limit free actions like you always could" is disingenuous.

RAW has not changed, true. But our understanding of RAI has. That's important.


That "clarification" is the problem. "Oh, we're supposed to impose limits on free actions. What's reasonable for this system? Oh. Three? Three, okay"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Now, as much as I would just love to stay and debate this. My Kingmaker campaign will be starting in about 45 minutes and I need to go set up to, you know, actually play the game.

Do not abuse free actions and there is no need to worry about your GM capping them.

Have a great day,
Weslocke


Weslocke wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
You do realize that guidelines are quite literally boundaries meant to guide those who use them? As in, "this is what we recommend you follow, but there is not hard rule to keep you from going outside them."
Yes I do. As in, "This is what we suggest if you have a rules-savvy player who is abusing free actions.".

And by "rules-savvy player who is abusing free actions", we include pistoleros using a single single-barreled pistol with gear and feats designed to help him reload.

But not archers with Many-Shot, Rapid Shot, Haste, etc. Despite the rules saying it's the same type of action, they're just following the rules, not exploiting them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weslocke wrote:

Now, as much as I would just love to stay and debate this. My Kingmaker campaign will be starting in about 45 minutes and I need to go set up to, you know, actually play the game.

Do not abuse free actions and there is no need to worry about your GM capping them.

3 shots with a pistol and trying to talk is abuse, I take it.


thejeff wrote:
Weslocke wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
You do realize that guidelines are quite literally boundaries meant to guide those who use them? As in, "this is what we recommend you follow, but there is not hard rule to keep you from going outside them."
Yes I do. As in, "This is what we suggest if you have a rules-savvy player who is abusing free actions.".

And by "rules-savvy player who is abusing free actions", we include pistoleros using a single single-barreled pistol with gear and feats designed to help him reload.

But not archers with Many-Shot, Rapid Shot, Haste, etc. Despite the rules saying it's the same type of action, they're just following the rules, not exploiting them.

Quoting Sean K. Reynolds:

The game accurately models what humans can do, for at least some levels of the game. That's so you can understand what your character is capable of, because it's what a real human should be capable of.

So the game spends some of its rules text defining how far you can jump, how easily you can swim, how far you can recognize details, how likely you are to hit something, and how quickly you heal. Because if a 1st-level character couldn't jump 5 feet with a running start, that would break suspension of disbelief. As would a 1st-level character who could swim 20 feet in 1 second. Or hitting a stationary target 100 feet away 100% of the time. Or recovering from near-mortal wounds in a day.

So you accept that the rules model those things.

But at some point, you want human characters to start to bend, and even break, the limits of what a real human could do in real life. And you want them to do it without magic.

So, for example, the monk has an extraordinary ability to fall farther, safely, and you accept that the ability starts at level 4, and improves over time, until the monk is eventually able to fall any distance (so long as he's able to make contact with the wall occasionally, meaning he's catching on ledges, crashing through clotheslines, and so on, slowing his fall).

And that's why a fighter eventually gets armor mastery, the extraordinary ability to ignore damage when wearing armor, so that a hit that penetrates the armor (hits the armor's AC) does less or no damage (presumably because the fighter knows just how to turn his body so the armor catches the attack on the strongest part).

But you're still accepting that there are certain limits to what a human can do in the game without magic. You accept that a ftr20 can make 4 effective attacks in 6 seconds, or perhaps 7 attacks in 6 seconds if using TWF, ITWF, and GTWF, and you accept that as a limit.

And, presumably, a gunslinger20 with two fully-loaded revolvers could fire 4 shots with one and 3 with the other, for a total of 7 attacks in 6 seconds. You accept that as a limit.

But if someone suggests that reloading multiple shells (in addition to taking all 7 of those attacks in 6 seconds) is exceeding the limit of what a person should be able to do in 1 round, you start bringing up the idea that the character is "superhuman."

So how come the gunslinger gets surplus actions (more actions than the attacks from BAB and GTWF) from being "superhuman," and the fighter doesn't? If the gunslinger also gets all those reload actions, what other cool (and damage-aiding) free actions should the fighter get on his turn?

Part of the problem with "he can do this because he's superhuman" is because you aren't defining where the line is between "human" and "superhuman." Is it 6th level? 10th level? 15th? 20th? The line seems to be "wherever is convenient that I my character gets all the actions I want so long as I can justify it in the rules."

There are a lot of ways to cheese the game rules. A lot of those ways arise because of the game's action economy, which is rickety and needs an overhaul. But just because there are ways to exploit the action economy doesn't change that it's cheese to do so.

* Weapon cords were written before the firearm rules.
* As were the free action rules.
* The intent of weapon cords was to prevent you from losing a weapon, not to allow you to free-action-drop and quick-draw a second set of weapons for more attacks.
* The reload time for firearms was a deliberate brake to slow down firearm damage compared to bows (because firearms attack touch AC and therefor hit more often), so that bows would remain a viable character option in the game (i.e., game balance).
* The limitations to the action economy setup means that once you improve a reload time to a swift action, the only way you can improve it again is to make it a free action.
* Which means you're in the "you can take any number of free actions on your turn" zone, which bypasses the damage brake for firearms.
* Which means you theoretically could quick-draw 100 firearms per round, reload all of them, and drop them in your square, because of that word "any."
* Which you have to agree is total cheese.
* So the problem is that you don't agree with what is a "reasonable" number of free action reloads per turn.
* But when a gunslinger11 with GTWF and two revolvers is able to shoot 6 times in one round, and the archer7 is only getting 5, and the gunslinger is attacking touch AC, that's a real problem. If it were just the 1st round, that wouldn't be so bad, but unlimited reloads means the gunslinger can do this every round.
* So it's a combo that not only obliterates the archer's damage, but has the gunslinger making a full set of attacks and a bunch of reload actions, which means her hands are like lightning compared to the sword-swinging fighter—and the fighter actually has to be in melee range of his opponents, so the gunslinger is clearly better.

So... problems.


FAQ wrote:

Although there are no specific rules about how many free actions you may take in a round, it is reasonable for a GM to limit you to performing 5 free actions per round if each is a different free action, or perhaps 3 free actions per round if two or more are the same free action.

...

Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances.

I simply don't see this as being difficult to interpret or understand. All it's saying is: GMs, figure it out. You don't need to sit back and allow someone to make a bajillion actions in a round because "free actions don't take any time".

Without something like this in place, clearly demonstrating that the intent really is to keep free actions in check, despite the apparent lack of time-investment, you run into players complaining because "the rules say it doesn't take any time, so you should be able to do however many you want".

It's clarifying that the GM has discretion. It's clearly not making hard or fast rules, and you don't have to read copious posts in multiple threads to understand that.


Weslocke wrote:

Now, as much as I would just love to stay and debate this. My Kingmaker campaign will be starting in about 45 minutes and I need to go set up to, you know, actually play the game.

Do not abuse free actions and there is no need to worry about your GM capping them.

Have a great day,
Weslocke

Yup. Pretty much this.


Shadowdweller wrote:
There are, regrettably, a fair number of stackable means of reducing or even eliminating misfire. Amongst them: Alternate racial favored class abilities, weapon enchantments and other magic items, class and class archtype abilities...
3.
  • there are no base gunslinger class abilities which reduce or eliminate misfires
  • the two archetypes (musket master & pistolero) which eliminate them kick in at level 13 and has already been mentioned
  • the mysterious stranger archetype swaps gun training (+DEX to damage) for the ability to ignore a limited number of misfires and doesn't have the quick clear deed for when the misfires per day exceed CHR (which will probably be before 5 rounds of combat if TWFing with double pistols)

2. a) The weapon enchantments are non-stackable, and going by WBL guidelines a level 11 pistolero could have a pair of +1 reliable (-1 to misfire) double pistols which will be obsolete at level 13 when the no misfire ability kicks in. The example level 5 pistolero with one regular double pistol and one +1 reliable double pistol has spent over 1000 GP more than the WBL for a level 5 character before clothes or more importantly ammo. and a +1 greater reliable double pistols costs 33,750GP
b) the glorious slate spider is the only other magic item, and it reduces misfires for only 10,000 GP. It takes a standard action to activate lasts for one minute per day and the wording of it's description is such that when used with double pistols only one of the two shots can misfire. But with a 10,000 GP price tag and only lasting for one combat using slate spiders is sorta a high level thing.
c) an arrow of greater slaying (less than half the price of a +1 reliable double pistol or slate spider) kills instantly if a fort save DC23 is missed and does 100 points of damage if the save is made. a level one vanilla fighter with rapid shot can fire two of these a round doing a minimum of 200 points of damage. if we are going to consider a limitless supply expensive magic items in the possesion of the gunslinger than the comparison should also have free access to expensive magic items.

1. there is one race, dwarves, which has a racial favored class option which reduces misfires. each level a dwarven gunslinger can reduce the misfire chance of one type of firearm by 1/4th. While this is a fine option if the character never intends to go to level 13 as a pistolero (really the only archetype to consider for TWF double pistol) because at level 13 all of those favored class options taken suddenly become useless. there is a significant downside to dwarves, they get no bonus to DEX which is the most important attribute for a gunslinger, so a dwarf trades a -1 to hit and -1 to damage relative to a race which can take +2 dexterity at character creation for that reduction in misfire chance. although since strength is a dump attribute for gunslingers Slow and Steady would be real nice for a dwarf gunslinger when carrying all those slate spiders.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Weslocke wrote:

this FAQ has empowered GM's to shut down any argumentative, rules-savvy player bent on exploiting free actions in his tracks.

In my humble opinion, that is what all this uproar is really about.

Your opinion is wrong. And frankly, your opinion is what is what caused the flame war last weekend. People with your holier than thou attitude "came to the defense" of the almighty paizo staff and started throwing around ridiculous off-the-cuff insults like this one. Insults that attacked the motives of people you have never met. Ever.

You have NO IDEA what anyone's motives are, but you come in here like Santa Claus the Firefighter, ready to judge good and bad and save the world. Stop it. Just stop it. You are being a jerk. And the tone of every one of your posts wreaks of it.

Just for your own knowledge, I only DM games. I don't have a single gun-user in my games. But I do have new players who I encourage to seek out answers on their own. And as it stands, if they were to find this FAQ, they would believe that their archery builds that use 4 free actions drawing arrows at level 6 to manyshot, rapidshot, and iterative are cheese. Because nothing the development team says in that FAQ would give them ANY BLOODY INDICATION that they HAVEN'T crossed the line.

Sometimes the hardest part about getting people into our community to is the "badwrongfun" barrier. People are worried they are doing it wrong. Being told by a developer that your build is cheese [and don't try to skirt this, the way the FAQ is currently written, THE DEVELOPERS ARE CALLING MORE THAN 3 OF THE SAME FREE ACTION CHEESE-ABUSE] even if it is still legal doesn't exactly inspire people to keep playing, or invite others to play.

This doesn't even get in to the discussion about how discouraging people from talking at the table (a SOCIAL gathering) effects people wanting to return. That part is beyond asinine.

So the next time you decide that you want to assume you know what is motivating people, remember what assuming does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weslocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Weslocke wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
You do realize that guidelines are quite literally boundaries meant to guide those who use them? As in, "this is what we recommend you follow, but there is not hard rule to keep you from going outside them."
Yes I do. As in, "This is what we suggest if you have a rules-savvy player who is abusing free actions.".

And by "rules-savvy player who is abusing free actions", we include pistoleros using a single single-barreled pistol with gear and feats designed to help him reload.

But not archers with Many-Shot, Rapid Shot, Haste, etc. Despite the rules saying it's the same type of action, they're just following the rules, not exploiting them.

Quoting Sean K. Reynolds:

The game accurately models what humans can do, for at least some levels of the game. That's so you can understand what your character is capable of, because it's what a real human should be capable of.

So the game spends some of its rules text defining how far you can jump, how easily you can swim, how far you can recognize details, how likely you are to hit something, and how quickly you heal. Because if a 1st-level character couldn't jump 5 feet with a running start, that would break suspension of disbelief. As would a 1st-level character who could swim 20 feet in 1 second. Or hitting a stationary target 100 feet away 100% of the time. Or recovering from near-mortal wounds in a day.

So you accept that the rules model those things.

But at some point, you want human characters to start to bend, and even break, the limits of what a real human could do in real life. And you want them to do it without magic.

So, for example, the monk has an extraordinary ability to fall farther, safely, and you accept that the ability starts at level 4, and improves over time, until the monk is eventually able to fall any distance (so long as he's able to make contact with the wall occasionally, meaning he's catching on ledges, crashing through...

Good for Sean.

Put it in the FAQ.

When I have to go search the forums for the 14-paragraph reasoning behind the FAQ in order to see that the FAQ is in no way intended to do what it appears to do - and I'm sorry, it does not in any way clearly indicate that the basis of the FAQ is on Gunslingers; it in fact appears to affect the very same Archer that Sean complains is being overshadowed by the Gunslinger - then it's a bad FAQ. Period.

Just to point out about your earlier comment re: Hitting the FAQ button leading to disaster, please explain how to avoid it when many of the people on the forums participate in PFS, and PFS seeks to avoid table variation as much as possible?

I totally agree that the rules work best when applied by a flexible GM who can account for the specifics of a given situation. At the same time, I understand that since there is moderated play in PFS, that flexibility has to be controlled or it would be a nightmare. So what do you do? And note, I doubt anyone is really going to like the idea, "Get rid of PFS".


I think that once again, the FAQ doesn't even follow the rules of the game.

What is the number of free actions you need to reload a gun (with all related feat/magic items/class abilities) ? At least 2 : draw an ammunation and load the gun. So, you won't load a gun 3 times a round or twice and speak, but once.

The same goes for crossbows.

As for bows, you can reload them 3 times a round with no problem (draw an arrow), as "reloading" a bow is a no action. The same goes for thrown weapons and slings.

The FAQ does not "change" the rules, BUT, limiting to 3 free action is not reasonnable. We can only conclude that this FAQ is not only futile, but is very toxic to the game.

I suggest (and I'm far from being the only one) the Paizo Staff to simply delete this FAQ entry. That would solve SOOOOOO many problems. Simple.

If we have problems with the gunslinger, the staff should fix the gunslinger. Nothing more, nothing less. Just the gunslinger.

Here are the first solutions that come to my mind :
- Guns shoot against standard AC, not touch AC.
- Guns crits on 20/x2. Modern guns on 19-20/x2.

And for those that claims D&D is supposed to model normal humans : check the rules and what characters can do past 5th level please. And I'm not writing about spells and magic items, just standard class abilities, BAB HP, skills and saves (what is called "mundane" stuff).

Then read the falling rules, the carrying capacity rules, the bestiary (especially animals, that are easily understood, 'cause we have the same in RL).

You should be able to understand the foolishness to limit reload time to such people.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It is amazing to me how many people sitting across the planet can accurately stare into their crystal balls and decide that because I hate the FAQ as it stands, that I am an abusive player who is ticked off because my free action abuse is being questioned.

Personally I think they should sue whoever sold them their mystic powers, as they are obviously seriously broken.

I'm a GM more than a player, and I hate this FAQ because AS IT IS WRITTEN IT SAYS THE RULES AS INTENDED BY THE DEVELOPERS IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN 3 FREE ACTIONS OF A GIVEN TYPE IN A ROUND, AND THAT TALKING SHOULD IMPEDE ON THOSE.

AND ARGUING THAT IT DOES NOT SAY THAT IS A FLAT OUT LIE! AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FAQ THAT LIMITS IT TO FIREARM RELOADING AND SAYING THERE IS ANYTHING IS ANOTHRE LIE!.

Again, it is a horrible FAQ because it, prima facia, says the intent of the devs is 3 free actions a round. Full stop. You can argue till you are blue in the face that it's a suggestion. I don't argue that, it is, it is an indication of the Dev's RULES AS INTENDED, not RAW. If you cannot understand that, I suggest you go re-read the FAQ without all the commentary from SKR in your head (feel free to slam your head into a wall until you forget it if that helps). Nothing in it limits it to gunslinger reloads, it only uses those as an example. And even if it did, this is a broken way of fixing the gunslinger issue as it doesn't play well with the rules for everything else in the system.

If the problem is gunslinger reloading, then fix gunslinger reloading. If the problem is free action abuse then fix free action abuse. But don't try to mix the two together because then you either break archery or you introduce an inconsistency where free actions aren't equal. A free action is a free action is a free action. If you want it to take more time than a free action then errata the stupid power to not take a free action. Don't pretend that 3 free actions for one class (Gunslinger) are different than 8 free actions for another class (Zen Archer).


Another amusing consequence of this faq: If I am concentrating on a spell, and I fire my my gun three times, I can't take the free action to stop concentrating on a spell. Then the world explodes.


Weslocke wrote:
The FAQ states this is a guideline.

Would it be safe to say a guideline that says you can't talk and reload at the same time is terrible?


Knight Magenta wrote:
Then the world explodes.

Judging by the reaction on the forums, I think it already did!

More seriously though, thank you MDT for an excellent and well explained summary of your issues with the FAQ. I think you have some legitimate concerns that need to be addressed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avh wrote:


As for bows, you can reload them 3 times a round with no problem (draw an arrow), as "reloading" a bow is a no action. The same goes for thrown weapons and slings.

Of course we only learned that drawing an arrow is supposed to be a "no action" as part of the fallout to this FAQ. The rules still say it's a free action.

As are drawing weapons to throw, if you have Quick Draw. And reloading a sling, if you have whatever feat that it. And reloading a light crossbow if you have Rapid Reload.
Or for that matter reloading certain firearms with Rapid Reload & alchemical cartridges.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Got to admit I've been finding these discussions truly interesting, and I can see where both sides are coming from. I happen to generally agree with the FAQ response, though I'm not entirely comfortable with the suggested limits, and as a GM I will be making my own mind up about what I think reasonable limits are.

Something like:

If you get more than (2x iteratives) attacks a round, you're probably cheesing.
If you get more than (iteratives +1) attacks per round without using TWF or Haste, you're probably cheesing.
If I conclude that you're cheesing, expect limits to be applied.

Or the far easier:

If you have to explain to me how you got that many attacks, and it's more than "flurry/TWF + Haste and Feat X", expect me to apply limits.


Chemlak wrote:

Got to admit I've been finding these discussions truly interesting, and I can see where both sides are coming from. I happen to generally agree with the FAQ response, though I'm not entirely comfortable with the suggested limits, and as a GM I will be making my own mind up about what I think reasonable limits are.

Something like:

If you get more than (2x iteratives) attacks a round, you're probably cheesing.
If you get more than (iteratives +1) attacks per round without using TWF or Haste, you're probably cheesing.
If I conclude that you're cheesing, expect limits to be applied.

Or the far easier:

If you have to explain to me how you got that many attacks, and it's more than "flurry/TWF + Haste and Feat X", expect me to apply limits.

So, would you say that a hastened, level 6 archer using rapidshot and manyshot is cheesing? That's 5 arrows on 4 attacks, 2 from iterative.

What about a hastened level 7 TWF who gets 5 attacks, with 2 from iterative? This would seem to trip your cheese-meter with no free-actions at all.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mystically Inclined wrote:
Knight Magenta wrote:
Then the world explodes.

Judging by the reaction on the forums, I think it already did!

More seriously though, thank you MDT for an excellent and well explained summary of your issues with the FAQ. I think you have some legitimate concerns that need to be addressed.

No problem, glad someone is being reasonable. Whether you agree with the FAQ or not, posting on here that any one that disagrees with it (as some have, not you) is just attempting to start a flame thread.

I have several FAQs I dislike (none as much as this one), but I just shrug and house rule them in my own games. I certainly don't tell someone who dislikes an FAQ that they are a spoiled cheese monster who should shut up. :) Or at least, I don't think I've ever done that. I do have a short temper, so it's entirely likely I have at some point.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm seriously baffled by the "don't abuse free actions and you have nothing to worry about, citizen" attitude. At this point, I have no freaking idea what constitutes abuse of free actions. You can point at "obviously this" and "obviously not this", but I genuinely don't know where that line is even for the developers that wrote the FAQ. I discussed it with my GM, who seemed baffled that there was a limit at all. (Then again, we are playing mythic.) I know that many things are up to the GM and that the GM is free to alter any part of the game mechanics so long as the players know where they stand, but I'd never have thought a GM would be asked to weigh in on "how many attacks do you really get at +16 BAB?". I feel like Paizo issued an FAQ saying "it's reasonable to disallow fighters from making saving throws".

I'm really, really glad that I'm not playing PFS right now and instead have the freedom to rule as I like in my own games and take a walk from any table who believes that a free action per attack is just too much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

So, would you say that a hastened, level 6 archer using rapidshot and manyshot is cheesing? That's 5 arrows on 4 attacks, 2 from iterative.

What about a hastened level 7 TWF who gets 5 attacks, with 2 from iterative? This would seem to trip your cheese-meter with no free-actions at all.

I'd say that from the FAQ that a 6BAB hasted rapid shot PC throwing daggers via quick draw is 'cheesing' by using exactly what is printed in the feat that they took (quick draw).

The FAQ is evidently now a forum for testing the waters and provoking response, rather than answering frequently asked questions.

Further those answers are hidden in the wrong places to what they are answering.

I think that Paizo should delineate what the role of each should be and perhaps change the names of the things involved here.

-James


james maissen wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

So, would you say that a hastened, level 6 archer using rapidshot and manyshot is cheesing? That's 5 arrows on 4 attacks, 2 from iterative.

What about a hastened level 7 TWF who gets 5 attacks, with 2 from iterative? This would seem to trip your cheese-meter with no free-actions at all.

I'd say that from the FAQ that a 6BAB hasted rapid shot PC throwing daggers via quick draw is 'cheesing' by using exactly what is printed in the feat that they took (quick draw).

The FAQ is evidently now a forum for testing the waters and provoking response, rather than answering frequently asked questions.

Further those answers are hidden in the wrong places to what they are answering.

I think that Paizo should delineate what the role of each should be and perhaps change the names of the things involved here.

-James

I agree with all that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight Magenta wrote:
Another amusing consequence of this faq: If I am concentrating on a spell, and I fire my my gun three times, I can't take the free action to stop concentrating on a spell. Then the world explodes.

The FAQ doesn't say something like this is verboten. The FAQ states that if the GM feels doing this is unreasonable, the GM is free to disallow it. Chances are, your GM isn't going to think this is unreasonable.

It really seems like people are (incorrectly) reading the FAQ to be "You can only ever take three free actions ever and if you consider doing more than that you're an evil, cheesy, cheeser-gamer". It doesn't say that. It says free actions can be limited, then provides some guidelines that the PDT generally thinks are applicable. Nothing more than that.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
Knight Magenta wrote:
Another amusing consequence of this faq: If I am concentrating on a spell, and I fire my my gun three times, I can't take the free action to stop concentrating on a spell. Then the world explodes.

The FAQ doesn't say something like this is verboten. The FAQ states that if the GM feels doing this is unreasonable, the GM is free to disallow it. Chances are, your GM isn't going to think this is unreasonable.

It really seems like people are (incorrectly) reading the FAQ to be "You can only ever take three free actions ever and if you consider doing more than that you're an evil, cheesy, cheeser-gamer". It doesn't say that. It says free actions can be limited, then provides some guidelines that the PDT generally thinks are applicable. Nothing more than that.

You are incorrect. What it says is, the Devs Rules As Intended is that 3 to 5 free actions is all you are allowed. It then gives an example of how to limit them using a gunslinger, and limiting them to 3.

Remember, RAI is extremely important, and this FAQ by the way it's worded, gives Paizo Developer RAI on free actions, and then says it's 3 to 5 actions, with the example being SO heavily limiting that it indicates 3 is the RAI limit.

That is my main problem with it. It states a RAI of 3 to 5, gives an example of talking as limiting you to 2 others.

It's a bad FAQ for that reason. So arguing that it's a 'suggestion' is meaningless. Rule Zero applies to all games out of PFS (your own argument is just a rule zero argument). Sure, I can make a rule that says nobody get's haste ever, and nobody ever can reload any weapon, be it gun, sling, or crossbow in under 10 rounds. That doesn't mean that I'm following RAI by invoking Rule Zero.

This FAQ says RAI is 3 free actions. Full stop. Sure, I can invoke another rule (Zero) to override that RAI, but the RAI is that 3 is the limit. Just as the RAI is for the Haste spell to be on the Wizard/Sorcerer list, and for sword fighter to get 4 iterative attacks if his BAB is 16 or higher.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly I think if the Devs didn't want someone to be able to reload a black powder weapon as a free action, the correct solution would be to errata the firearm section and specify that Early Firearm reload times can never be reduced to a Free Action via any combination of methods and be done with it. Simple, doesn't cause all this confusion, doesn't give the 'I am holier than thou because I worship at the altar of Paizo' people ammunition (hah!) to fire insulting broadsides at posters who dislike the FAQ. It also doesn't give the 'I will prove I am better than Paizo and shall post how dumb they are' jerks any ammunition (hah!) either.

It would also deprive the 'Gah that is the worst possible way to solve the issue and doesn't really even address it what were you thinking!' lot (which I'm in) of ammunition (hah!) as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
Knight Magenta wrote:
Another amusing consequence of this faq: If I am concentrating on a spell, and I fire my my gun three times, I can't take the free action to stop concentrating on a spell. Then the world explodes.

The FAQ doesn't say something like this is verboten. The FAQ states that if the GM feels doing this is unreasonable, the GM is free to disallow it. Chances are, your GM isn't going to think this is unreasonable.

It really seems like people are (incorrectly) reading the FAQ to be "You can only ever take three free actions ever and if you consider doing more than that you're an evil, cheesy, cheeser-gamer". It doesn't say that. It says free actions can be limited, then provides some guidelines that the PDT generally thinks are applicable. Nothing more than that.

You SHOULD do the REASONABLE thing, right? In every scenario you can ever think of, in this game, in your daily life, from the moment you are born to the moment you die, you SHOULD do the REASONABLE things, right?

If so, then this FAQ is saying you probably SHOULD limit gunslingers to 3 reloads per round. Oh, you don't have to, but we, the developers, the people who make the rules, we think it is REASONABLE to do so.

Remember! You don't have to. You don't have to do the REASONABLE thing. You don't even have to read this! Hell, you don't even have to breathe! It's just the REASONABLE thing to do....

See the point? There's a difference between saying "it's up to your discretion" and "it's up to your discretion, but the reasonable thing to do is X". They are two completely different things.

It's not even really about us, the people on this forum. It's not about the people who have been playing for a while and have a grasp on most of the rules. It's about the new guys coming in and learning the rules for the first time, going to the FAQ when they need clarification, and seeing the DEVELOPERS saying that "a REASONABLE thing to do is X". The new guy is thinking to himself: "What the hell do I know? These guys are the ones writing the rules and I don't want to screw up, I had better listen to what they say since they're actually telling me what the REASONABLE thing to do is."


mdt wrote:

Honestly I think if the Devs didn't want someone to be able to reload a black powder weapon as a free action, the correct solution would be to errata the firearm section and specify that Early Firearm reload times can never be reduced to a Free Action via any combination of methods and be done with it. Simple, doesn't cause all this confusion, doesn't give the 'I am holier than thou because I worship at the altar of Paizo' people ammunition (hah!) to fire insulting broadsides at posters who dislike the FAQ. It also doesn't give the 'I will prove I am better than Paizo and shall post how dumb they are' jerks any ammunition (hah!) either.

It would also deprive the 'Gah that is the worst possible way to solve the issue and doesn't really even address it what were you thinking!' lot (which I'm in) of ammunition (hah!) as well.

And a pistolero can still use TWF, Rapid Shot, and a pair of magic never-reload, never-misfire guns (which are both craftable by level 11, or sooner if the rest of the party contributes) to make 8 you-ain't-gonna-miss shots a round, still destroying any other ranged build in terms of DPR, thereby displaying that they aren't even addressing the problem they think they are, much less solving it. Not that it's a problem anyway, because that's what pistoleros are for--dominating the short range DPR game and not being much good at anything else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always wonder what other DMs are doing. As a DM I have taken the time to work out what I allow with free action within a round.

1. Talk for up to six seconds.

2. Fire all arrows with a bow.

3. Cycle in and out of rage once. This makes some barbarians unhappy. I don't really care because I'm not allowing multiple I get really angry, then calm down, then get really angry, then calm down in a six second period. I don't like the visual of that at all.

4. Switch a weapon or an item once back and forth from a free hand.

5. I haven't played with a gunslinger yet. I'll base my rulings on cinematic gunfighters. They'll be no reloading of two guns in a single round with a free action. It will be one gun per free action per round.

I encourage every DM to take the time to work out and test out their free action limits. It helps a lot in making sure you're ready to rule on free actions without major arguments and with consistency. As long as you're consistent, players generally don't complain.

Sczarni

I think the thing is that weapon cords bypass the need to get that magically reloading gun... wealth is a very real limitation in games, and to bypass it with a few gold is silly =d


Raith Shadar wrote:

I always wonder what other DMs are doing. As a DM I have taken the time to work out what I allow with free action within a round.

1. Talk for up to six seconds.

2. Fire all arrows with a bow.

3. Cycle in and out of rage once. This makes some barbarians unhappy. I don't really care because I'm not allowing multiple I get really angry, then calm down, then get really angry, then calm down in a six second period. I don't like the visual of that at all.

4. Switch a weapon or an item once back and forth from a free hand.

5. I haven't played with a gunslinger yet. I'll base my rulings on cinematic gunfighters. They'll be no reloading of two guns in a single round with a free action. It will be one gun per free action per round.

I encourage every DM to take the time to work out and test out their free action limits. It helps a lot in making sure you're ready to rule on free actions without major arguments and with consistency. As long as you're consistent, players generally don't complain.

In 10 years of DMing I have never felt it necessary to limit the free actions of my players. A handful of times I have had to curtail talking (beyond 1 question and response and I will put an end to it) but otherwise this just isn't a problem. Maybe I'm lucky, maybe I'm a push over, but for certain if I ran my game by the guidelines in this FAQ I would have (1) a riot and (2) no group to DM for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's because weapon cords as written are terrible.

They should never have given you the benefits of a free hand while a weapon hung from them. How is your hand "free" to make, e.g., an overhand chop if a freaking battleaxe is hanging from it by a two foot cord?

On top of that, somebody got the idea that your hand was basically free with a dangling weapon, even though it states that such a situation interferes with finer actions. That idea shot blazed through the player base, setting entire forums aflame, and here we are today.

The answer was simple: Errata weapon cords and double-barreled firearms. Yes, errata are a pain, but are they more of a pain than painting a giant question mark on the concept of ranged attacks? The action the design team took instead was "safer", but it's (rightly or wrongly) perceived as a passive-aggressive cop-out.


Raith Shadar wrote:

I always wonder what other DMs are doing. As a DM I have taken the time to work out what I allow with free action within a round.

1. Talk for up to six seconds.

2. Fire all arrows with a bow.

3. Cycle in and out of rage once. This makes some barbarians unhappy. I don't really care because I'm not allowing multiple I get really angry, then calm down, then get really angry, then calm down in a six second period. I don't like the visual of that at all.

4. Switch a weapon or an item once back and forth from a free hand.

5. I haven't played with a gunslinger yet. I'll base my rulings on cinematic gunfighters. They'll be no reloading of two guns in a single round with a free action. It will be one gun per free action per round.

I encourage every DM to take the time to work out and test out their free action limits. It helps a lot in making sure you're ready to rule on free actions without major arguments and with consistency. As long as you're consistent, players generally don't complain.

This sounds like a pretty good set of guidelines to me. I'd probably also rule that you can do any of the above simultaneously as long as it doesn't involve the use of the same body part (thus removing any issues with speech preventing something else happening), and I'd possibly even rule the barbarian can either go in *or* out of rage but not a complete cycle.

With reference to the gunslinger issue, I'd probably make advanced firearms available, and problem solved as far as I'm concerned. In a campaign where they're not generally available, a GM probably needs to make the call as to whether to allow just Gunslinger PCs to have access (by making them themselves or having access to the person that just invented the first experimental ones), or make it clear to the players their Gunslingers may end up somewhat crippled due to the lack of technology. Any of the above options seem far better to my personal playstyle than just allowing unlimited reloads, but the relatively simple call of making advanced firearms available to PC Gunslingers seems to solve that particular problem and seems like the best option to me.


BigDTBone wrote:
Raith Shadar wrote:

I always wonder what other DMs are doing. As a DM I have taken the time to work out what I allow with free action within a round.

1. Talk for up to six seconds.

2. Fire all arrows with a bow.

3. Cycle in and out of rage once. This makes some barbarians unhappy. I don't really care because I'm not allowing multiple I get really angry, then calm down, then get really angry, then calm down in a six second period. I don't like the visual of that at all.

4. Switch a weapon or an item once back and forth from a free hand.

5. I haven't played with a gunslinger yet. I'll base my rulings on cinematic gunfighters. They'll be no reloading of two guns in a single round with a free action. It will be one gun per free action per round.

I encourage every DM to take the time to work out and test out their free action limits. It helps a lot in making sure you're ready to rule on free actions without major arguments and with consistency. As long as you're consistent, players generally don't complain.

In 10 years of DMing I have never felt it necessary to limit the free actions of my players. A handful of times I have had to curtail talking (beyond 1 question and response and I will put an end to it) but otherwise this just isn't a problem. Maybe I'm lucky, maybe I'm a push over, but for certain if I ran my game by the guidelines in this FAQ I would have (1) a riot and (2) no group to DM for.

The two instances as a DM that caused me to create free action rules were:

1. Moving an item from one free hand to another for spellcasting and item use as well as dropping things. Things can get a little goofy with Quickdraw, free action drops, moving an item from one hand to another, and the like. I like actions to make some kind of sense to maintain verisimilitude.

2. Barbarian rage cycling. Barbarian wanted to cycle rage powers on every hit because he read he can technically do that on this forum. I don't like the feel of that even if the rounds get spent. So I don't allow it. Has nothing to do with balance and everything to do with how I feel an ability should work.

If your group would riot or leave you over reasonable limitations on free actions, I don't know what to tell you. My group and I discuss any rulings I or another DM make. Then we write it into our house rules and expect all of us to use the ruling consistently. Then again I've had the same group for going on twenty plus years. That is a luxury not many people have.

I know some put no limitations on free actions. I don't like it when actions reach a goofy level of cheese that takes away any sense of reality. Once the game turns into a "how can I exploit the mechanics game", I'll riot and not DM my group any longer. I DM to engage in cooperative story telling. That's the focus I like to keep as much as possible.

For the most part I don't have players losing their mind with free actions like buying one +5 weapon and then tossing it to their other hand for two-weapon fighting. I would never allow that. I don't know many players that would think that was ok. I'm fortunate to have fairly reasonable players.

Players can be a crazy bunch. You never know what they'll throw at you. I like to be prepared.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I limit rage cycling to once per round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Weslocke wrote:

this FAQ has empowered GM's to shut down any argumentative, rules-savvy player bent on exploiting free actions in his tracks.

In my humble opinion, that is what all this uproar is really about.

Your opinion is wrong. And frankly, your opinion is what is what caused the flame war last weekend. People with your holier than thou attitude "came to the defense" of the almighty paizo staff and started throwing around ridiculous off-the-cuff insults like this one. Insults that attacked the motives of people you have never met. Ever.

You have NO IDEA what anyone's motives are, but you come in here like Santa Claus the Firefighter, ready to judge good and bad and save the world. Stop it. Just stop it. You are being a jerk. And the tone of every one of your posts wreaks of it.

Just for your own knowledge, I only DM games. I don't have a single gun-user in my games. But I do have new players who I encourage to seek out answers on their own. And as it stands, if they were to find this FAQ, they would believe that their archery builds that use 4 free actions drawing arrows at level 6 to manyshot, rapidshot, and iterative are cheese. Because nothing the development team says in that FAQ would give them ANY BLOODY INDICATION that they HAVEN'T crossed the line.

Sometimes the hardest part about getting people into our community to is the "badwrongfun" barrier. People are worried they are doing it wrong. Being told by a developer that your build is cheese [and don't try to skirt this, the way the FAQ is currently written, THE DEVELOPERS ARE CALLING MORE THAN 3 OF THE SAME FREE ACTION CHEESE-ABUSE] even if it is still legal doesn't exactly inspire people to keep playing, or invite others to play.

This doesn't even get in to the discussion about how discouraging people from talking at the table (a SOCIAL gathering) effects people wanting to return. That part is beyond asinine.

So the next time you decide that you want to assume you know what is motivating people,...

I caused the flame war? Wars are conducted by many people. I am but one. Additionally, I was only here posting for an hour or two. That war lasted all weekend, right?

I think that you fail to understand causality and responsibility in a major way. I cannot be responsible for events that I did not coordinate, participate in or witness. Additionally, I did not post the query about the FAQ. I just copied and pasted it to the thread asking about it and notified a few posters that I knew would be interested as they were talking about a free-action-intense subject in another thread. When everyone started over-reacting (like they still are!) I tried to calm people down by pointing out that this FAQ is just a Guideline (you know, like EVERY OTHER RULE IN THE BOOKS).I was off the boards for more than an hour before SKR ever posted the fist "removed some posts" post. That is far from starting a flame war and accusing me of being responsible for it is not only disingenuous, but an outright manufactured falsehood stated by someone too busy posting to bother to check their facts.

Maybe you should explain the FAQ to your new players. I did to mine. That is one of the most important aspects of being a GM, teaching the game to others. The late Gary Gygax thought it the most important aspect. New gamers are not birds to be pushed out of nests to fly or fail on their own system knowledge.

My opinion is just as valid as yours. Period. No more. No less. I will tolerate yours if you will tolerate mine. Your opinion is that I am "Santa Claus the Firefighter (Name calling? Wow, just...wow.). My opinion is that you are deliberately overreacting about the FAQ and that is all. Now, which one of us is violating the "most important rule of the message boards" again?

Show me where it says, in a post from a developer, that any build that uses 3 or more repetitive free actions is abuse. You cannot . Because there is not one. There has never been one

Have a wonderful day,
Weslocke of Phaz-Daliom


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Weslocke wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Weslocke wrote:

this FAQ has empowered GM's to shut down any argumentative, rules-savvy player bent on exploiting free actions in his tracks.

In my humble opinion, that is what all this uproar is really about.

Your opinion is wrong. And frankly, your opinion is what is what caused the flame war last weekend. People with your holier than thou attitude "came to the defense" of the almighty paizo staff and started throwing around ridiculous off-the-cuff insults like this one. Insults that attacked the motives of people you have never met. Ever.

You have NO IDEA what anyone's motives are, but you come in here like Santa Claus the Firefighter, ready to judge good and bad and save the world. Stop it. Just stop it. You are being a jerk. And the tone of every one of your posts wreaks of it.

I caused the flame war? Wars are conducted by many people. I am but one. Additionally, I was only here posting for an hour or two. That war lasted all weekend, right?

No, you didn't. Your attitude, on the other hand, was pretty much center stage spewing out venom.

Weslocke wrote:


Show me where it says, in a post from a developer, that any build that uses 3 or more repetitive free actions is abuse. You cannot . Because there is not one.

The FAQ, written by the DEVs.


FAQ wrote:

Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances.

appropriate to the circumstances

If you GM limits you to drawing 3 arrows per turn then you need new GM.


mdt wrote:
Weslocke wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Weslocke wrote:

this FAQ has empowered GM's to shut down any argumentative, rules-savvy player bent on exploiting free actions in his tracks.

In my humble opinion, that is what all this uproar is really about.

Your opinion is wrong. And frankly, your opinion is what is what caused the flame war last weekend. People with your holier than thou attitude "came to the defense" of the almighty paizo staff and started throwing around ridiculous off-the-cuff insults like this one. Insults that attacked the motives of people you have never met. Ever.

You have NO IDEA what anyone's motives are, but you come in here like Santa Claus the Firefighter, ready to judge good and bad and save the world. Stop it. Just stop it. You are being a jerk. And the tone of every one of your posts wreaks of it.

I caused the flame war? Wars are conducted by many people. I am but one. Additionally, I was only here posting for an hour or two. That war lasted all weekend, right?

No, you didn't. Your attitude, on the other hand, was pretty much center stage spewing out venom.

Weslocke wrote:


Show me where it says, in a post from a developer, that any build that uses 3 or more repetitive free actions is abuse. You cannot . Because there is not one.

The FAQ, written by the DEVs.

I was trying to calm people down last weekend. Wars are conducted by many people. I am but one. Additionally, I was only here posting for an hour or two. That war lasted all weekend, right?

I think that you fail to understand causality and responsibility in a major way. I cannot be responsible for events that I did not coordinate, participate in or witness. Additionally, I did not post the query about the FAQ. I just copied and pasted it to the thread asking about it and notified a few posters that I knew would be interested as they were talking about a free-action-intense subject in another thread. When everyone started over-reacting (like they still are!) I tried to calm people down by pointing out that this FAQ is just a Guideline (you know, like EVERY OTHER RULE IN THE BOOKS).I was off the boards for more than an hour before SKR ever posted the fist "removed some posts" post. That is far from starting a flame war and accusing me of being responsible for it is wildly inaccurate.

The FAQ does NOT say "Any build that uses more than two repetitive free actions is cheese". Period. DOES NOT SAY THAT


StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Weslocke wrote:

No, it does not say that you should.

It says that you can.

Big Difference

And my DM *can* rule that if I roll a 1 to hit, I stab myself with my sword. (Of course, if he did that, he would no longer be my DM)

Should they put that horrible idea into an FAQ as well, to remind DMs that they *can* do it?

Wait, is that, "I stab myself with my sword" as StreamOfTheSky stabs himself or your character?

Because if he makes you, the person, stab yourself then you really shouldn't keep him as a DM.

MrSin wrote:
Weslocke wrote:
The FAQ states this is a guideline.
Would it be safe to say a guideline that says you can't talk and reload at the same time is terrible?

Correct.


Weslocke wrote:
mdt wrote:
Weslocke wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Weslocke wrote:

this FAQ has empowered GM's to shut down any argumentative, rules-savvy player bent on exploiting free actions in his tracks.

In my humble opinion, that is what all this uproar is really about.

Your opinion is wrong. And frankly, your opinion is what is what caused the flame war last weekend. People with your holier than thou attitude "came to the defense" of the almighty paizo staff and started throwing around ridiculous off-the-cuff insults like this one. Insults that attacked the motives of people you have never met. Ever.

You have NO IDEA what anyone's motives are, but you come in here like Santa Claus the Firefighter, ready to judge good and bad and save the world. Stop it. Just stop it. You are being a jerk. And the tone of every one of your posts wreaks of it.

I caused the flame war? Wars are conducted by many people. I am but one. Additionally, I was only here posting for an hour or two. That war lasted all weekend, right?

No, you didn't. Your attitude, on the other hand, was pretty much center stage spewing out venom.

Weslocke wrote:


Show me where it says, in a post from a developer, that any build that uses 3 or more repetitive free actions is abuse. You cannot . Because there is not one.

The FAQ, written by the DEVs.

I was trying to calm people down last weekend. Wars are conducted by many people. I am but one. Additionally, I was only here posting for an hour or two. That war lasted all weekend, right?

I think that you fail to understand causality and responsibility in a major way. I cannot be responsible for events that I did not coordinate, participate in or witness. Additionally, I did not post the query about the FAQ. I just copied and pasted it to the thread asking about it and notified a few posters that I knew would be interested as they were talking about a free-action-intense subject in another...

I don't think he's saying you caused anything. I think he's saying that your opinion and your attitude and the people who shared them caused the flame war.

And no the FAQ does not quite say that. It does say that 3 free actions is a reasonable limit if two of them are the same, which a lot of people think is pretty unreasonable.
Then having defenders jump in and say that the FAQ is only intended to stop cheesy exploit builds is actually what drove most of the flame war, since it strongly implies that any build which relies on more than 3 reloads is an exploit.
Which is apparently the devs opinion.


blahpers wrote:

That's because weapon cords as written are terrible.

They should never have given you the benefits of a free hand while a weapon hung from them. How is your hand "free" to make, e.g., an overhand chop if a freaking battleaxe is hanging from it by a two foot cord?

On top of that, somebody got the idea that your hand was basically free with a dangling weapon, even though it states that such a situation interferes with finer actions. That idea shot blazed through the player base, setting entire forums aflame, and here we are today.

The answer was simple: Errata weapon cords and double-barreled firearms. Yes, errata are a pain, but are they more of a pain than painting a giant question mark on the concept of ranged attacks? The action the design team took instead was "safer", but it's (rightly or wrongly) perceived as a passive-aggressive cop-out.

This.


Wow. Look everybody! Someone who disagrees with me spoke to me like a human being. Thanks, thejeff.

About the flame war: I was not even here when the insults started flying. It takes TWO sides to have a flame war. Both sides must share equal responsibility. I did not have a single post deleted last weekend and never argued with anyone except BBT about the definition of the word "clarification" and to tell him that "DM FIAT!" and "Houserule! Houserule!" more inflammatory than what I was posting. I was trying to calm people down! Not that they listened. If people had been reflecting my attitude they would have been deconstructing the FAQ from a rational standpoint instead of a reactive one (which still appears to be prevalent). The flamewar last weekend is solely the responsibility of those who participated. No more, no less.

I have maintained the entire time that the FAQ appeared to be to stop free action abuse. Not to limit "cheesy" builds. Free action abuse can occur with any build whatsoever, it just hits its heights with certain builds designed to exploit it.

Now, I do think that many posters are outraged because their favorite loophole just got closed. But I also posted upthread that there are multiple styles of play and I have not condemned any of them.

Many of you seem to be projecting an anger into my posts which simply does not exist. I did say that I think some of you are being disingenuous about the reason for your condemnation of the FAQ. Several of the other side of the debate have also accused me of being disingenuous with my representation of the FAQ. I did not attack them for that. I just kept right on posting. Why the double standard, people?

Finally, I would like to thank thejeff, for conducting a debate as it should be. We need more posters like yourself, sir. I disagree with your assessment of what the FAQ implies. Specifically, I believe that it does not imply that anyone who uses more than three free actions a round is a "cheese" player. I believe that it implies, "Do not abuse free actions and you will have no reason to fear your GM capping them." I said as much upthread.

Now, as always on Sundays mornings, I must prep for my Campaign.

Have a wonderful day,
Weslocke of Phaz-Daliom

51 to 100 of 412 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / The 10 / 03 / 13 FAQ suggests drawing an arrow 3 times is the max you can draw is a reasonable limit. All Messageboards