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


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 412 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Weslocke wrote:

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.

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.

So do you think that a gunslinger attempting to reload more than 3 times in a round in order to get his iterative attacks (or Iteratives + Rapid shot/haste/whatever) is abusing free actions? More so if he tries to talk?

Because that's what the FAQ suggests as a reasonable limitation. And various statements by the devs seem to back this up as their intent. Including that SKR quote you keep posting. :)
Note that the FAQ doesn't call it abuse, but it also doesn't say it should only apply if someone is abusing free actions. Whatever "abusing" means.
It's very hard to look at that example and read someone's claim that the FAQ only affects "abuse" and closes "loopholes" and conclude anything other than that a bog-standard single gun gunslinger reloading and taking all his attacks is considered abusive and exploiting a loophole.


thejeff wrote:
Weslocke wrote:

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.

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.

So do you think that a gunslinger attempting to reload more than 3 times in a round in order to get his iterative attacks (or Iteratives + Rapid shot/haste/whatever) is abusing free actions? More so if he tries to talk?

Because that's what the FAQ suggests as a reasonable limitation. And various statements by the devs seem to back this up as their intent. Including that SKR quote you keep posting. :)
Note that the FAQ doesn't call it abuse, but it also doesn't say it should only apply if someone is abusing free actions. Whatever "abusing" means.
It's very hard to look at that example and read someone's claim that the FAQ only affects "abuse" and closes "loopholes" and conclude anything other than that a bog-standard single gun gunslinger reloading and taking all his attacks is considered abusive and exploiting a loophole.

Personally, I could not care less about gunslingers. They are a non-issue to me. Every single gun-using character in my games has always taken a single shot (two tops) with their pistol and then tucked it into their belts to close for melee. Including the gunslingers. The slingers are just more likely to quickly reload for a parting shot if one side or the other flees. My players steadfastly refuse to purchase Rapid Reload for firearms. They claim (to the one) it breaks immersion for them.

I care about free action exploits like two weapon fighting with a single short sword.(and using five or six free actions a round to do so)

Two weapon fighting with a two handed weapon, weapon spikes, boulder helmet, barbazu beard and boot knife while carrying a shield for defense. (I know, but some posters actually believe this should be possible!)

Gunslingers loading 22 guns per round and tossing them at their feet to be retrieved and fired by shipmates. (Hello Skull & Shackles boarding actions)

I care about free action abuse.

Liberty's Edge

My archer-build fighter just made five bow attacks in one round because he has been able to do that for the last 13 years and nothing in the FAQ has changed his ability to do so.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
HangarFlying wrote:
My archer-build fighter just made five bow attacks in one round because he has been able to do that for the last 13 years and nothing in the FAQ has changed his ability to do so.

Kind of depends, now, on whether your GM believes that reloading more than 3 times fits the FAQ's guideline for unreasonable, doesn't it? The FAQ, as written, calls into question whether or not gaining all your legal attacks is actually reasonable, and I find that problematic if the problem's root isn't really free action abuse but bad interactions of other rules.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
My archer-build fighter just made five bow attacks in one round because he has been able to do that for the last 13 years and nothing in the FAQ has changed his ability to do so.
Kind of depends, now, on whether your GM believes that reloading more than 3 times fits the FAQ's guideline for unreasonable, doesn't it? The FAQ, as written, calls into question whether or not gaining all your legal attacks is actually reasonable, and I find that problematic if the problem's root isn't really free action abuse but bad interactions of other rules.

Situations where a GM might just read the FAQ and not dig through 100,000 posts to see if a Dev made a 'clarification' of the FAQ (which makes my head hurt just to think that an FAQ needs clarification, kind of defeats the purpose).

A) New GM looking for clarification, does Google search...
B) PFS GMs are required to go by what Devs post, including the FAQs, so if you get one who's new or just a hard ass...
C) Any stickler for the RULES as Paizo specifies...
D) Any GM that wants to be a tyrant at his table and just needs an excuse...


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.

Hi Weslocke,

I think that while the basic message of the FAQ is fine, the example is actively counterproductive to the goals of the FAQ (clarifying questions, rather than creating questions to clarify) as well as a misguided suggestion in general. As such, while I recognize that it is only a suggestion, I believe it to be a bad one that has nonetheless been featured in the FAQ, and I think it would be a net positive if Paizo removed it.

I also currently play a 15th level sword and board fighter, a 5th level caster oracle, and a first level witch. None of them use firearms or even primarily ranged weapons. In fact I have not touched the firearm rules (or a weapon cord or whatever) at any point in my Pathfinder career even with a ten foot pole because I dislike them.

I mention these latter facts just to remind you that not everybody who might post about their dislike of this FAQ need have an exploitative and sinister ulterior motive for doing so.

Best,

Coriat


mdt wrote:
I limit rage cycling to once per round.

As do I. Rage is measured in rounds, using different rages multiple times in the same round just doesn't make sense. Rage Cycling each round means 1/rage powers become 1/round, which is plenty.

(Of course, I also treat dropping out of rage as a non-action, so the barbarian isn't stuck with the stupid RAW where he has to wait till his turn starts to drop out and end up losing 2 rounds of rage, and essentially finds it impossible to actually have a SINGLE round of rage ever...stupid RAW is stupid)

Most of Raith's limitations seemed reasonable. I'd allow more weapon switches, I've seen plenty of (cinematic, granted) swordfights where a guy has a 1H or bastard type sword and is frequently switching between 2-handing and 1-handing it.

I don't like the FAQ example, though. It is not reasonable and poisons countless characters and fighting styles for no good reason while not actually fixing the one very specific fighting style it sought to nerf, NOR BOTHERING TO SAY NERFING ONLY GUNS WAS THE INTENT OF THE FAQ WITHIN THE FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weslocke wrote:
Wow. Look everybody! Someone who disagrees with me spoke to me like a human being.

And there you go again.

Weslocke wrote:
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.

In as much as the way that someone who pops a few rounds of machine gun fire into a crowded room then promptly runs away isn't "one of the ones that caused all the chaos" that ensued. Like this:

Weslocke wrote:

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.

But I guess because you said you're not condemning anyone (even though you just did, the sentence beforehand), you really did not.

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

And I'm getting sick of this subtle, passive-aggressive dig at the rest of us. None of us announce, "well, I'm off to play my weekly game now." You do it to insinuate that while you actually play the game, we just sit around and argue about it on the internet. Of course, last time you announced you had to go prep for your game, you were back 20 minutes later favoriting posts that agreed with you...


Weslocke wrote:
Personally, I could not care less about gunslingers. They are a non-issue to me.

That isn't an answer to the question that was asked. It's avoidance of the question.

The fact is that in the discussions the designers have had on the forums, they state that the impetus for the FAQ was Gunslinger abuse of free actions to get more attacks than other 'similar' classes can. The entire quote you put forward by SKR reflects this.

The FAQ states that it is suggested 'reasonable' limit to only allow someone to perform the same free action 3 times in a round.

Applying that to the Gunslinger, which is explicitly identified in the discussion as one of the classes that triggered the FAQ, a Gunslinger cannot, by designer suggestion, reasonably reload his gun more than 3 times in one round.

That means the designers suggest that allowing a reload more frequently than that is unreasonable, even though the class has a BAB, and common feat builds (frequent among other ranged combatants), that allows for more than 3 attacks around.

So, again, to re-ask the question to see if you'll answer it:

thejeff wrote:
So do you think that a gunslinger attempting to reload more than 3 times in a round in order to get his iterative attacks (or Iteratives + Rapid shot/haste/whatever) is abusing free actions? More so if he tries to talk?


Probably the only reason they backed off on this being "OF COURSE we will be making this an official ruling" was the sudden realization that it applies to bows. First thought when I read it certainly was "very specific high level gunslinger builds with specific equipment and use of things can almost match up to bows, and we have to fix this"


Xaratherus wrote:
Weslocke wrote:
Personally, I could not care less about gunslingers. They are a non-issue to me.

That isn't an answer to the question that was asked. It's avoidance of the question.

The fact is that in the discussions the designers have had on the forums, they state that the impetus for the FAQ was Gunslinger abuse of free actions to get more attacks than other 'similar' classes can. The entire quote you put forward by SKR reflects this.

The FAQ states that it is suggested 'reasonable' limit to only allow someone to perform the same free action 3 times in a round.

Applying that to the Gunslinger, which is explicitly identified in the discussion as one of the classes that triggered the FAQ, a Gunslinger cannot, by designer suggestion, reasonably reload his gun more than 3 times in one round.

That means the designers suggest that allowing a reload more frequently than that is unreasonable, even though the class has a BAB, and common feat builds (frequent among other ranged combatants), that allows for more than 3 attacks around.

So, again, to re-ask the question to see if you'll answer it:

thejeff wrote:
So do you think that a gunslinger attempting to reload more than 3 times in a round in order to get his iterative attacks (or Iteratives + Rapid shot/haste/whatever) is abusing free actions? More so if he tries to talk?

He wont directly answer it. No one defending this FAQ will directly answer any question related to it. He will either ignore you, or attempt to re-frame it. He knows that if he answers it like a rational person that the follow up question is, "Then why use that example?" and then he would have to admit that the FAQ is terrible.


BigDTBone wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
Weslocke wrote:
Personally, I could not care less about gunslingers. They are a non-issue to me.

That isn't an answer to the question that was asked. It's avoidance of the question.

The fact is that in the discussions the designers have had on the forums, they state that the impetus for the FAQ was Gunslinger abuse of free actions to get more attacks than other 'similar' classes can. The entire quote you put forward by SKR reflects this.

The FAQ states that it is suggested 'reasonable' limit to only allow someone to perform the same free action 3 times in a round.

Applying that to the Gunslinger, which is explicitly identified in the discussion as one of the classes that triggered the FAQ, a Gunslinger cannot, by designer suggestion, reasonably reload his gun more than 3 times in one round.

That means the designers suggest that allowing a reload more frequently than that is unreasonable, even though the class has a BAB, and common feat builds (frequent among other ranged combatants), that allows for more than 3 attacks around.

So, again, to re-ask the question to see if you'll answer it:

thejeff wrote:
So do you think that a gunslinger attempting to reload more than 3 times in a round in order to get his iterative attacks (or Iteratives + Rapid shot/haste/whatever) is abusing free actions? More so if he tries to talk?
He wont directly answer it. No one defending this FAQ will directly answer any question related to it. He will either ignore you, or attempt to re-frame it. He knows that if he answers it like a rational person that the follow up question is, "Then why use that example?" and then he would have to admit that the FAQ is terrible.

Or he would have to admit that the FAQ is mostly about limiting gunslingers and not really about free action abuse.

Which is pretty much the devs intent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Snowleopard wrote:

In reality off course you can not attack with a melee weapon 5 times in 6 seconds. And the same goes for a bow or a gun.

The rules bend reality for more awesome playing. And since it seems to bend the rules evenly for every weapon, it seems pretty fair that everyone get's their 'unfair' share of the load of attacks they can launch.
May I remind everyone that guns(even flintlocks) are a significantly better weapon over swords and bows. So if you are complaining that firearms are better weapons, then you are right. It's the main reason I will not allow them in one of my campaigns as a GM. I think that they change the game to a cowboys vs. indians type of game with the unfair advantage going to the firearmed equiped cowboys (no offence intended)

That may be true in the real world, but in Pathfinder, Firearms are actually pretty much the worst weapon in the game, until you've invested a huge amount of feats and specific class levels into them. They have all the problems of crossbow, plus they cost a gold or more a shot, blow up in your face, are nearly as expensive as a magic weapon just to get the base version, and using the feature which makes them worthwhile--targeting touch AC--requires being uncomfortably close to people wielding greataxes.


BigDTBone wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
Weslocke wrote:
Personally, I could not care less about gunslingers. They are a non-issue to me.

That isn't an answer to the question that was asked. It's avoidance of the question.

The fact is that in the discussions the designers have had on the forums, they state that the impetus for the FAQ was Gunslinger abuse of free actions to get more attacks than other 'similar' classes can. The entire quote you put forward by SKR reflects this.

The FAQ states that it is suggested 'reasonable' limit to only allow someone to perform the same free action 3 times in a round.

Applying that to the Gunslinger, which is explicitly identified in the discussion as one of the classes that triggered the FAQ, a Gunslinger cannot, by designer suggestion, reasonably reload his gun more than 3 times in one round.

That means the designers suggest that allowing a reload more frequently than that is unreasonable, even though the class has a BAB, and common feat builds (frequent among other ranged combatants), that allows for more than 3 attacks around.

So, again, to re-ask the question to see if you'll answer it:

thejeff wrote:
So do you think that a gunslinger attempting to reload more than 3 times in a round in order to get his iterative attacks (or Iteratives + Rapid shot/haste/whatever) is abusing free actions? More so if he tries to talk?
He wont directly answer it. No one defending this FAQ will directly answer any question related to it. He will either ignore you, or attempt to re-frame it. He knows that if he answers it like a rational person that the follow up question is, "Then why use that example?" and then he would have to admit that the FAQ is terrible.

Gunslinger at lvl 20 has 4 attacks correct?

Gunslinger shots his gun, free action to reload, shots a second time, second free action to reload, shoots his 3rd shot, uses 3rd free action to reload, and gunslingers shoots his 4th shot.
3 reloads and he gets his full actions
:-)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

With this suggested "reasonable" limit, a PC with the Snap Shot feat could easily be unable to make AoOs with his selected ranged weapon, despite having the Combat Reflexes, no matter how high his dex is.


Redneckdevil wrote:


Gunslinger shots his gun, free action to reload, shots a second time, second free action to reload, shoots his 3rd shot, uses 3rd free action to reload, and gunslingers shoots his 4th shot.
3 reloads and he gets his full actions
:-)

And then next round he only gets 3, since he's starting with an empty gun. :-(

And that assumes no haste, Rapid Shot, Snap Shot AoO or anything else.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Of course, now, if a Gunslinger wanted say "Pow!" every time he shot his gun, that would be unreasonable.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Of course, now, if a Gunslinger wanted say "Pow!" every time he shot his gun, that would be unreasonable.

Or 'dakka'. I'm more used to dakka myself. And its not unreasonable, its only unreasonable if he wants to say it and get as many shots as the guy who's totally mute.


No Kenny, not "pew pew" it's "BANG BANG BANG!"

Dark Archive

I admit to not having read the entire thread but the basic premise of the OP seems odd considering...

page 182 Core

"Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are
not even considered free actions. They literally don’t take
any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of
doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of
an attack with a bow."

Drawing an arrow and knocking it is considered "not an action", specifically called out in the rules.

And if she (link) can do it in the real world... :)


Lord oKOyA wrote:
Drawing an arrow and knocking it is considered "not an action", specifically called out in the rules.

Knocking is called out in your quote, not drawing. Drawing ammunition such as arrows is called out as a free action in the equipment section of the CRB.

PFSRD wrote:
mmunition: Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), darts (for blowguns), or sling bullets (for slings and halfling sling staves). When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading (as noted in their descriptions). Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Lord oKOyA wrote:
Drawing an arrow and knocking it is considered "not an action", specifically called out in the rules.

Knocking is called out in your quote, not drawing. Drawing ammunition such as arrows is called out as a free action in the equipment section of the CRB.

PFSRD wrote:
mmunition: Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), darts (for blowguns), or sling bullets (for slings and halfling sling staves). When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading (as noted in their descriptions). Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost.

Yup.

'Nocking' and 'drawing' are two separate items. Nocking an arrow simply describes the act of taking an arrow you already have in-hand, and setting its nock on the bowstring. Getting the arrow in-hand is drawing it, and drawing an error is definitely considered a free action.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Also, a vanilla 8th level Monk cannot Flurry with Shuriken only, if such a "reasonable" limit was implemented.

Dark Archive

The issue is born of the fact that the rules were written (and then copy and pasted) by a multitude of different people over a relatively long period of time, and are constantly evolving*. The FAQ continues this tradition/trend.

It is not surprising then that different sections appear to contradict themselves.

Applying retroactive changes to basic core rules have unintended consequences. *shrugs*

*Swift and immediate actions did not exist in the beginning when the vast majority of the core rules were written. They were added in later.

Dark Archive

Xaratherus wrote:

Yup.

'Nocking' and 'drawing' are two separate items. Nocking an arrow simply describes the act of taking an arrow you already have in-hand, and setting its nock on the bowstring. Getting the arrow in-hand is drawing it, and drawing an error is definitely considered a free action.

So the archer who "draws" and holds 6 arrows in his hand at a time has no problem then? :D


Lord oKOyA wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

Yup.

'Nocking' and 'drawing' are two separate items. Nocking an arrow simply describes the act of taking an arrow you already have in-hand, and setting its nock on the bowstring. Getting the arrow in-hand is drawing it, and drawing an error is definitely considered a free action.

So the archer who "draws" and holds 6 arrows in his hand at a time has no problem then? :D

A bow is a 2-handed weapon. You need 2 free hands to use it. :)

Of course, as part of this fiasco SKR has claimed that drawing arrows really should be considered "no action", just part of shooting a bow. It's not clear what other things currently defined as "free actions" should also be "no action"?

Is drawing other types of ammunition no action? Or free action?

None of this mattered when "free action" was understood to be essentially the same as "no action", with the possibility of GM limitation.
If you start thinking of limits on the order of 3 or 5, suddenly all these free actions become important.


Lord oKOyA wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

Yup.

'Nocking' and 'drawing' are two separate items. Nocking an arrow simply describes the act of taking an arrow you already have in-hand, and setting its nock on the bowstring. Getting the arrow in-hand is drawing it, and drawing an error is definitely considered a free action.

So the archer who "draws" and holds 6 arrows in his hand at a time has no problem then? :D

Unless drawing 6 arrows is 6 actions...


I'm actually fine with limiting gunslingers to three reloads. My group might consider that too much, really. But I generally play in a low powered game.

Just a little side note but I think Hasted could add to your number of free actions. That seems pretty reasonable.

Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:

Of course, as part of this fiasco SKR has claimed that drawing arrows really should be considered "no action", just part of shooting a bow. It's not clear what other things currently defined as "free actions" should also be "no action"?

Is drawing other types of ammunition no action? Or free action?

None of this mattered when "free action" was understood to be essentially the same as "no action", with the possibility of GM limitation.
If you start thinking of limits on the order of 3 or 5, suddenly all these free actions become important.

Which was my initial point. :)

Dark Archive

BigDTBone wrote:
Unless drawing 6 arrows is 6 actions...

He goes to his quiver once and draws 6 arrows. No problem! ;)

[sarcasm]There is no rule that states he can't.[/sarcasm]


Lord oKOyA wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Unless drawing 6 arrows is 6 actions...

He goes to his quiver once and draws 6 arrows. No problem! ;)

[sarcasm]There is no rule that states he can't.[/sarcasm]

Derp.


Just fire all six arrows at once! Easy solution.

Dark Archive

Alarox wrote:

Because holding 5 arrows in your hand as you try to nock an arrow and fire it is just as precise and efficient as trying to nock an arrow and fire it with an empty hand? I don't think so.

Firing a bow and nocking an arrow both require a free hand. Holding 5 arrows in your hand is not free.

*sigh*


MrSin wrote:
Just fire all six arrows at once! Easy solution.

Agreed. When I make a gunslinger I'm going to load all my bullets in the same barrel at once as well.


Lord oKOyA wrote:
Alarox wrote:

Because holding 5 arrows in your hand as you try to nock an arrow and fire it is just as precise and efficient as trying to nock an arrow and fire it with an empty hand? I don't think so.

Firing a bow and nocking an arrow both require a free hand. Holding 5 arrows in your hand is not free.

*sigh*

Completely missed the sarcasm in your quote, not going to lie. That's what I get from not scrolling down far enough...

Dark Archive

No worries. :)

I myself failed my will save by opening the "rules questions" forum in the first place. :D


The issue I have to take with the FAQ is that there are plenty of reasonable questions that could use answers surrounding Free Actions already.
Can a monster use the Grab ability on an AOO?
How about Trip?
If free actions are limited to being used only on the creature/player in question's turn, then how is it that they ruled that you can draw and fire enough times off-turn to make AOOs with Snap Shot up to your total amount with Combat Reflexes.
Similarly, how is Rock-Catching even remotely useful? It uses a free action, but is in response to being attacked with a thrown rock.

Similarly, if dropping prone is a free action, then could it interrupt a ranged attack and grant the AC bonus?

A lot of these things can be easily adjudicated by a good GM, but they are very shady when it comes to defining a free action and when it can actually happen.

Then this FAQ, and outside of even the Archery concerns, there are plenty of free action builds/items/uses that abound in this game. Panther Style/Panther Claw used to run through enemies comes to mind. You make retaliatory strikes against enemies as free actions.. up to a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier. The limit is built in, but according to this FAQ it would be "unreasonable" to allow any more than three.

Since there is a stated limit, should that be considered reasonable and override the FAQ suggestion (if one were adopting it as a rule). How about quick draw and thrown weapons? Should the specific statement that you can make your full allotment of attacks override?

What about a Kraken that has 8 tentacles that all have the grab ability. With the new limits it could only use Grab up to 3 times and still be "reasonable". More comically, if it does grapple three targets on round 1, on round 2, the Kraken would be spending all of its free actions just to release the grapple on those three targets. (Note: even if these rules apply only to PCs, a wildshaping druid taking the form of a Tendriculous would have the same issues).

And this is all very much counter to the term "FREE".

So what needs to happen is that the DEVs need to go through the rules and figure out what needs a limit (like Rage Cycling, switching items from hand to hand, and maybe even reloading guns) and what doesn't need a limit, and just write those limits into the rules.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

10/3/13

Never forget...

Dark Archive

ciretose wrote:

10/3/13

Never forget...

LOL!

Nice!

Dark Archive

The "real" issue if you ask me is that all things currently labelled "free" actions should be revisited and some changed to swift and immediate actions. This would help straighten and balance things out imo. Trying to retroactively limit free actions is just putting a band aid on the issue. Again, just my opinion. :P

(And it would be a lot of work for Pazio.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord oKOyA wrote:

The "real" issue if you ask me is that all things currently labelled "free" actions should be revisited and some changed to swift and immediate actions. This would help straighten and balance things out imo. Trying to retroactively limit free actions is just putting a band aid on the issue. Again, just my opinion. :P

(And it would be a lot of work for Pazio.)

I agree. And if there is a concern about abuse or the need for a limit, just put a limit on the ability.

The language for an ability like Deflect Arrows is marvelously clear. It isn't an action. If you have Snatch Arrows and want to throw back a thrown weapon, still not an action. Limit 1/turn.

The language for something like Quickdraw should be changed to something like, "for the purposes of thrown weapons you may draw a single weapon as part of any thrown weapon attack without spending an action." That same language should be used for drawing arrows, or loading crossbows with rapid reload/crossbow mastery. It should also be used for Monster Abilities... and if the intent is truly for them to not be used except for on the monster's turn, then just say that.

"Grab: when this monsters hits .... can makes a grapple check immediately without spending an action ... this ability can only be used during this creature's turn."


thejeff wrote:
Lord oKOyA wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

Yup.

'Nocking' and 'drawing' are two separate items. Nocking an arrow simply describes the act of taking an arrow you already have in-hand, and setting its nock on the bowstring. Getting the arrow in-hand is drawing it, and drawing an error is definitely considered a free action.

So the archer who "draws" and holds 6 arrows in his hand at a time has no problem then? :D

A bow is a 2-handed weapon. You need 2 free hands to use it. :)

Of course, as part of this fiasco SKR has claimed that drawing arrows really should be considered "no action", just part of shooting a bow. It's not clear what other things currently defined as "free actions" should also be "no action"?

Is drawing other types of ammunition no action? Or free action?

None of this mattered when "free action" was understood to be essentially the same as "no action", with the possibility of GM limitation.
If you start thinking of limits on the order of 3 or 5, suddenly all these free actions become important.

Truth.

Also... the fact is that most martial builds try very hard to get extra attacks, actions, maneuvers etc. out of a rather stingy action economy. This is why things like manyshot and rapidshot are prized. This is why TWF can be worth the feat tax and penalties. Every player that is trying to maximize their effectiveness wants to get a little bit more out of the action economy. Metamagic Rods of Quickening are prized for a reason. Everyone is looking to get Pounce abilities or extra attacks from greater trip and the list goes on and on.

What bugs me, is that if you look at the feats they have come up with (the grapple feats are a good example), they clearly know that this is the case. "Do More Stuff" is a pretty common goal for players.. the whole progression of iterative attacks falls right in line with that being a form of character advancement/power increase.

To, then, retroactively suggest that this was not the intent of certain feats and abilities without calling those particular offenders out means that you throw the whole action economy into question and cause... well... this... a justifiable uproar.


Lord_Malkov wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lord oKOyA wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

Yup.

'Nocking' and 'drawing' are two separate items. Nocking an arrow simply describes the act of taking an arrow you already have in-hand, and setting its nock on the bowstring. Getting the arrow in-hand is drawing it, and drawing an error is definitely considered a free action.

So the archer who "draws" and holds 6 arrows in his hand at a time has no problem then? :D

A bow is a 2-handed weapon. You need 2 free hands to use it. :)

Of course, as part of this fiasco SKR has claimed that drawing arrows really should be considered "no action", just part of shooting a bow. It's not clear what other things currently defined as "free actions" should also be "no action"?

Is drawing other types of ammunition no action? Or free action?

None of this mattered when "free action" was understood to be essentially the same as "no action", with the possibility of GM limitation.
If you start thinking of limits on the order of 3 or 5, suddenly all these free actions become important.

Truth.

Also... the fact is that most martial builds try very hard to get extra attacks, actions, maneuvers etc. out of a rather stingy action economy. This is why things like manyshot and rapidshot are prized. This is why TWF can be worth the feat tax and penalties. Every player that is trying to maximize their effectiveness wants to get a little bit more out of the action economy. Metamagic Rods of Quickening are prized for a reason. Everyone is looking to get Pounce abilities or extra attacks from greater trip and the list goes on and on.

What bugs me, is that if you look at the feats they have come up with (the grapple feats are a good example), they clearly know that this is the case. "Do More Stuff" is a pretty common goal for players.. the whole progression of iterative attacks falls right in line with that being a form of character advancement/power increase.

To, then, retroactively suggest that this was not the...

Especially since they specifically added text to most of those feats to allow them to be used with guns: certainly Rapid Shot and Rapid Reload.


ciretose wrote:

10/3/13

Never forget...

Nice, 9/11 joke. You stay classy.


The argument I seem to keep seeing here is that a DM might decide to use this suggestion as an ironclad rule in order to screw over the players. Even if this FAQ entry had never happened, such a DM would find other ways to achieve his or her goals.

Liberty's Edge

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

10/3/13

Never forget...

Nice, 9/11 joke. You stay classy.

This seemed as tragic to some people on here...


Rictras Shard wrote:
The argument I seem to keep seeing here is that a DM might decide to use this suggestion as an ironclad rule in order to screw over the players. Even if this FAQ entry had never happened, such a DM would find other ways to achieve his or her goals.

Not really, I haven't seen anyone make that argument. What I have seen (and agree with) is concern that a new DM might see this FAQ and run their game that way not knowing any better.

Among other issues...


ciretose wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
ciretose wrote:

10/3/13

Never forget...

Nice, 9/11 joke. You stay classy.
This seemed as tragic to some people on here...

Either you are too young to remember that day or you are a terribly jaded individual. In either case, that statement crossed a line.

Liberty's Edge

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

10/3/13

Never forget...

Nice, 9/11 joke. You stay classy.
This seemed as tragic to some people on here...
Either you are too young to remember that day or you are a terribly jaded individual. In either case, that statement crossed a line.

36. Remember it well. Also remember Challenger, start of the first Iraq war on CNN and the Tsunami.

This entire topic has crossed many lines and I thought I would attempt to inject a bit of perspective.

Which was the point perhaps you missed?

101 to 150 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