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


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 412 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

BigDTBone wrote:
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...

I think that the RAI from the perspective of the Devs carries a lot of weight.

And this iterpretation of things throws a lot of builds into question... and not because of what they are doing, but because of the specific use of an action type (free action) which was already an incredibly vague part of the rules and has come into question many times before.

But a Grapple Barb with animal fury, pinning rend and three grapple feats can still get three bites, three grapple checks to deal damage and three additional damage rolls from pinning rend on one turn without using a single free action.


If you have seen people react to the FAQ as though they just watched someone jump to their death from a flaming building then you have seen something I have not, and I have indeed missed something.

If that's what you are saying then I will retract my comment. But I don't believe this thread has had any posts removed, and I haven't seen anything that even comes close.


Not saying I agree with the limit of three free actions but...

Is the argument: this is bad because a brand new DM will come here and read the FAQ (and nothing else), then accidentally nerf his new player's high level Hasted archer with rapid shot and many shot and that will break their game and they'll never play again?

Because that seems a little far fetched.


Not that it would ruin a game, but that it would be a mistake. And one that is encouraged by the FAQ. FAQ's shouldn't encourage mistakes. Not even to mention potential issues with table variation in PFS.


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

10/3/13

Never forget...

Nice, 9/11 joke. You stay classy.

Please note that 'Never Forget' is not specific to 9/11 - it has historically been used for numerous events, among others The Holocaust.


Kudaku wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
ciretose wrote:

10/3/13

Never forget...

Nice, 9/11 joke. You stay classy.
Please note that 'Never Forget' is not specific to 9/11 - it has historically been used for numerous events, among others The Holocaust.

Well, saying "It's not a 9/11 joke, it's a Holocaust joke" doesn't exactly make it seem less like flamebait trolling.


Kudaku wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
ciretose wrote:

10/3/13

Never forget...

Nice, 9/11 joke. You stay classy.
Please note that 'Never Forget' is not specific to 9/11 - it has historically been used for numerous events, among others The Holocaust.

Yea... That does make it... Different. :-/


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.

That seems borderline insulting: you are calling people children or jaded. :P


Starbuck_II wrote:
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.
That seems borderline insulting: you are calling people children or jaded. :P

What was insulting is the statement that preceded it.

Grand Lodge

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

10/3/13

Never forget...

Nice, 9/11 joke. You stay classy.

Nobody took it there. It could have been anything.

You basically took the biggest flame bait ever, and forcibly inserted into the conversation.

You had no proof of any wrongdoing, and decided that they were guilty, until proven innocent.

It is a horrible thing you did with this, and what you say you protect, you mock with this interjection.

Guess it's good thing nobody made a crack about airline food, because obviously, by your standards, it's mocking the tragedy of 9/11.

Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Stay classy, my friend.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
ciretose wrote:

10/3/13

Never forget...

Nice, 9/11 joke. You stay classy.

Nobody took it there. It could have been anything.

You basically took the biggest flame bait ever, and forcibly inserted into the conversation.

You had no proof of any wrongdoing, and decided that they were guilty, until proven innocent.

It is a horrible thing you did with this, and what you say you protect, you mock with this interjection.

Guess it's good thing nobody made a crack about airline food, because obviously, by your standards, it's mocking the tragedy of 9/11.

Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Stay classy, my friend.

Read his reply. I was dead on.


Although, drawing an arrow is considered a free action. I'm sure it's actually a 'Not an Action.'

combat wrote:
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.

Is a thread like this really necessary?


Karlgamer wrote:

Although, drawing an arrow is considered a free action. I'm sure it's actually a 'Not an Action.'

combat wrote:
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.
Is a thread like this really necessary?

Knocking isn't the same as drawing.


MrSin wrote:
Knocking isn't the same as drawing.

I wasn't trying to say it was.


MrSin wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:

Although, drawing an arrow is considered a free action. I'm sure it's actually a 'Not an Action.'

combat wrote:
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.
Is a thread like this really necessary?
Knocking isn't the same as drawing.

Déjà vu...

Dark Archive

But it should be... :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karlgamer wrote:

Although, drawing an arrow is considered a free action. I'm sure it's actually a 'Not an Action.'

combat wrote:
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.
Is a thread like this really necessary?

According to SKR, it should be "not an action", despite being listed as a free action in the core rules.

This raises the question of what other things currently defined as "Free actions" should really be defined as "Not an Action".


BigDTBone wrote:
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...

A new DM who sees the FAQ will see the three free actions suggestion is clearly listed as a suggestion. Such a DM who goes to the FAQ will also come to the forums, and will see it is certainly not a binding rule.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

If you can fire 4 arrows a round you can draw 4 arrows a round.

The FAQ wasn't meant to stop Archers from doing what archers do.

This thread isn't necessary.


Karlgamer wrote:

If you can fire 4 arrows a round you can draw 4 arrows a round.

The FAQ wasn't meant to stop Archers from doing what archers do.

This thread isn't necessary.

What the FAQ was meant to do and what it actually says are two separate things.

Its intention is clear only if you happen to have read the designers' input on the forums.

Without taking that into account, please point to something in the FAQ that states anything along the lines of, "We only intended this to apply to Gunslingers, not to crossbowmen, archers, etc."

And just to point out again what MrSin stated (and that has been quoted earlier in the thread), drawing an arrow is a free action. Drawing =/= nocking.

Finally, your assertion that you can draw 4 arrows a round because you can fire 4 arrows in a round is, in fact, not universal under the rules. The same rule that was restated by this FAQ - that a GM can limit the number of free actions - could technically be used to limit you to one free action a round.

That might not be reasonable, but since the rule basically says, "The GM decides the limit," it's perfectly valid under the rules.


Plus drawing two or more arrows as one free action is still possible and kind of cool.


Rictras Shard wrote:
A new DM who sees the FAQ will see the three free actions suggestion is clearly listed as a suggestion. Such a DM who goes to the FAQ will also come to the forums, and will see it is certainly not a binding rule.

Before I actually started using the forums, I did check the facts. I didn't check the how and why behind every FAQs either. If it looked kind of iffy I just shrugged at it. On the other hand, I play with houserules and don't always follow the FAQs anyway. I didn't even check the forums when I joined PFS games, and I started using it after I stopped going weekly.

Some people take the suggestion more strongly than others, might be the worry. I know some who follow it as law no matter how ridiculous.


Karlgamer wrote:

If you can fire 4 arrows a round you can draw 4 arrows a round.

The FAQ wasn't meant to stop Archers from doing what archers do.

This thread isn't necessary.

That's the point though. The FAQ states that Reasonable DM's would limit attack actions based on the number of free actions the correspond to those attacks.


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

If you can fire 4 arrows a round you can draw 4 arrows a round.

The FAQ wasn't meant to stop Archers from doing what archers do.

This thread isn't necessary.

That's the point though. The FAQ states that Reasonable DM's would limit attack actions based on the number of free actions the correspond to those attacks.

No,it states that it is reasonable for a DM to make limits, not that a reasonable DM would do so.


So this is all because of broken gunslinger builds?


Karlgamer wrote:
So this is all because of broken gunslinger builds?

Basically because of broken builds in general. Unfortuantly they didn't give enough free actions for a lvl 20 gunslinger to receive all their attacks in every round instead of every other round.

Dark Archive

There are outright errors, contradictions, and incomplete/unclear rules littered throughout all of the rulebooks. Hence the need for things like reprints and the FAQ. Is this disputed by anyone?

Add to this the ever evolving and increasing complexity of the rules due to additional content and you are bound to create a system rife with problems.

Given all of that... pointing out that nocking and drawing an arrow are different in two different sections is somewhat less than a compelling argument in my view.

We already have a dev input indicating possible intention... and of course rule zero trumps all.

I understand the desire that people want to play the game "right" but you lose me when that desire extends to how other people play.

When it comes to rules issue... the only concern should be for how you and your group plays. As long as you enjoy yourselves, there is no issue.


Redneckdevil wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:
So this is all because of broken gunslinger builds?
Basically because of broken builds in general. Unfortuantly they didn't give enough free actions for a lvl 20 gunslinger to receive all their attacks in every round instead of every other round.

Which seems to be their intent. Though it was never explicitly stated, and still really hasn't been, gunslingers are apparently the only class designed not to be able to make all the attacks they qualify for every round.

Which is kind of a weird thing not to mention and then to try to fix in a FAQ not explicitly directed at that problem.


thejeff wrote:


Though it was never explicitly stated, and still really hasn't been, gunslingers are apparently the only class designed not to be able to make all the attacks they qualify for every round.

That's why I'd encourage all GMs to make advanced firearms available (even if only to Gunslinger PCs once they need them in order to use all their attacks), so they can use Revolvers and not worry about reloading after each shot.


Lord oKOyA wrote:

There are outright errors, contradictions, and incomplete/unclear rules littered throughout all of the rulebooks. Hence the need for things like reprints and the FAQ. Is this disputed by anyone?

Add to this the ever evolving and increasing complexity of the rules due to additional content and you are bound to create a system rife with problems.

Given all of that... pointing out that nocking and drawing an arrow are different in two different sections is somewhat less than a compelling argument in my view.

We already have a dev input indicating possible intention... and of course rule zero trumps all.

I understand the desire that people want to play the game "right" but you lose me when that desire extends to how other people play.

When it comes to rules issue... the only concern should be for how you and your group plays. As long as you enjoy yourselves, there is no issue.

Except that it's not "nocking and drawing an arrow are different in two different sections". Nocking is defined as not an action in one section. Drawing is defined as a free action in another. There is no conflict or contradiction in the rules as far as that goes.

SKR has stated, in the reaction to the FAQ, that he would have preferred drawing an arrow to be "Not an action". That's the only thing in conflict with the published rules here.


Karlgamer wrote:

If you can fire 4 arrows a round you can draw 4 arrows a round.

The FAQ wasn't meant to stop Archers from doing what archers do.

This thread isn't necessary.

That's the worst part actually. How are people perfectly willing to take the FAQ as "Three shots from a firearm or repeating crossbow is too many you broken rules-abusing cheaters how dare you abuse getting your normal BAB's worth of attacks, we never meant limits to apply to bows that fire twice as often with twice the damage per hit that would just be SILLY"?

Either it applies evenly, including to "drawing an arrow" from ammunition rules because firing eight times in six seconds is also rather much or you don't apply it anywhere. EITHER WAY despite going "well we didn't mean to restrict below even BAB" the example of how to restrict explicitly shows exactly that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, it seems that the limiting of free actions was a mistake.

They probably should just make some changes to the actual classes that cause the broken builds.


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

10/3/13

Never forget...

Nice, 9/11 joke. You stay classy.

Well, they (the devs) do hate us for our freedom (actions)...


Matt Thomason wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Though it was never explicitly stated, and still really hasn't been, gunslingers are apparently the only class designed not to be able to make all the attacks they qualify for every round.
That's why I'd encourage all GMs to make advanced firearms available (even if only to Gunslinger PCs once they need them in order to use all their attacks), so they can use Revolvers and not worry about reloading after each shot.

That, or allowing cheap auto-reload magic, get you around the realism issue.

Unfortunately, slow reloading is also apparently intended as a balance mechanism. Bypassing it with advanced firearms or cheap magic throws that away as well. You also take away the misfire part of the balance.

*I also have a bit of a realism issue with having 19th century firearms tech with no other tech anywhere near that late. I also have similar realism issues with one country having it (and gunslingers from there wandering around the whole world) and no others seeming to care at all. Guns change the world. Even with magic and all the other stuff. Someone's going to start making the damn things in bulk. I can almost swallow the more primitive versions.
Mind you, a world where all the armies and all the bandits and all the humanoid tribes have at least some guns might be an interesting one, but it's not classic D&D.


Lord oKoYa wrote:
Given all of that... pointing out that nocking and drawing an arrow are different in two different sections is somewhat less than a compelling argument in my view.

They are two different things. Drawing an arrow, by definition, is the act of removing the arrow from your quiver and holding it in your hand. Nocking an arrow is setting a bow's string into the notch of an arrow's nock in order to fire the arrow.

You can draw and arrow and never nock it. They're two distinct actions, with two distinct rules in the book - perfectly valid, no mistake at all (save for conflating the two when they aren't equivalent).

Matt Thomason wrote:
That's why I'd encourage all GMs to make advanced firearms available (even if only to Gunslinger PCs once they need them in order to use all their attacks), so they can use Revolvers and not worry about reloading after each shot.

I'm actually of the same mine. Not only does it seem (to me) to be more thematically in line with the class's description, it avoids the whole mess. Does it always take at least a move action to load? Yeah - but you can load the weapon to full capacity.

(That's not to say the advanced firearms are perfect and fix all the rules, but I do greatly prefer them).

Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:

Except that it's not "nocking and drawing an arrow are different in two different sections". Nocking is defined as not an action in one section. Drawing is defined as a free action in another. There is no conflict or contradiction in the rules as far as that goes.

SKR has stated, in the reaction to the FAQ, that he would have preferred drawing an arrow to be "Not an action". That's the only thing in conflict with the published rules here.

You seem really focussed on this point. Would it be helpful to point out that the bit of text about nocking an arrow, included as an example of not an action, was added into the text (presumably by Paizo) as it was not present in the original 3.5 rules?

"Nocking" an arrow is not a defined action at all. It just happens to be a poor example choice.

Arrows being drawn and fired as part of an attack were initially unrestricted (being defined as free actions).

I am somewhat lost as to what this discussion is really about anymore (if I ever really did).

FAQs are not infallible. They are susceptible to the same errors as any of the rules are. They are as easily changed as the rules themselves are as well.

What would we be discussing if the next rules errata changed the drawing of ammunition to "not an action"?

Just to satisfy my curiosity, if the act of firing an arrow is being presented as 3 actions (FA draw arrow, NaA nocking and SA firing) and therefore subject to some arbitrary restriction of 3-5 FA a round, why not the same for melee attacks? I mean, have you ever tried swinging a large two-handed battle axe 6 times in 6 seconds? Where are the free actions to recover and reposition the axe for the next swing? :)

Dark Archive

Xaratherus wrote:
You can draw and arrow and never nock it. They're two distinct actions, with two distinct rules in the book - perfectly valid, no mistake at all (save for conflating the two when they aren't equivalent).

Nocking an arrow is not a distinct and clearly defined action... it is an unfortunate and seemingly random example. Otherwise... quickly give me a comprehensive list of all the other things that are "not an action". :)


Knowledge checks
AoOs
5 ft steps
Most reactionary skills checks (sense motive on a lie, for example)

Just off the top of my head.

Dark Archive

A comprehensive list.


Lord oKOyA wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
You can draw and arrow and never nock it. They're two distinct actions, with two distinct rules in the book - perfectly valid, no mistake at all (save for conflating the two when they aren't equivalent).
Nocking an arrow is not a distinct and clearly defined action... it is an unfortunate and seemingly random example. Otherwise... quickly give me a comprehensive list of all the other things that are "not an action". :)
Combat - Action Types wrote:
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.
Combat - Draw or Sheathe a Weapon wrote:

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon

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

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

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

They are defined in the rules, and they are distinctly different (both in-game and in real life). Drawing an arrow is a free action; nocking it is a 'not an action'. Drawing an arrow is arguably affected by this FAQ; nocking it is not, because the FAQ does not say anything about 'not an action' acts.

I don't see the point of providing a list of 'not an actions' because first, I'm not aware that such a comprehensive list exists, and second, it's irrelevant to the discussion since the topic at hand (nocking an arrow) is inarugably a 'not an action'.

Dark Archive

Are you quoting back the "rules" that I have previously acknowlwdged while ignoring the rest of my posts?

Thank you for confirming my long held belief that the rules question forum is a waste of my time and effort.

I respectfully withdraw...

Please carry on as you were.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How does Combat Reflexes with Improved Snap Shot fit in here?

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


Can a character with Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes make multiple attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon, assuming that loading the ranged weapon is a free action?

Yes. As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat.

A mid-level Gunslinger is going to have a Dex mod of about 7, which grants eight AoO with Combat Reflexes (with 15 foot reach, using Improved Snap Shot). Using a DB weapon, that is 16 free actions to reload.

Feasible IRL? Absolutely not. Should it be possible for the game? Why not? It costs five feats to get to Improved Snap Shot (which makes AoO with firearms feasible), plus a sixth for Combat Reflexes.

Keep in mind it would cost 86-96gp to take this many AoOs.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Lord oKOyA wrote:

Are you quoting back the "rules" that I have previously acknowlwdged while ignoring the rest of my posts?

Thank you for confirming my long held belief that the rules question forum is a waste of my time and effort.

I respectfully withdraw...

Please carry on as you were.

Whoah.

Way to take your ball, and stomp off in a huff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karlgamer wrote:

So, it seems that the limiting of free actions was a mistake.

They probably should just make some changes to the actual classes that cause the broken builds.

Yes.

This is pretty much what the devs should say... or just say nothing and delete their ridiculous suggestion from the faq.

There are a few free actions that might warrant a limitation... there are a few builds and items that are a bit silly... so fix those things specifically.

Instead what they did was set off a bomb under the gunslingers chair while forgetting that all of these other builds were sitting next to him... and they become collateral damage of a horrible suggestion that I doubt anyone thought hard ebough about before posting.

I am actually shocked that they would specificallty use speech as an example. Really? trying to roleplay suddenly should inhibit game mechanics? Man... people have been trying to penalize players for years for speaking OOC ... apparently paizo wants to penalize you for staying in character.


thejeff wrote:
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.

Hi folks, now that my game is over and I have some time, I can actually get around to answering that question. Sorry for the delay, but I had to use part of my prep time for the game just to get in some time for the last query.

Do I think that a Gunslinger using more than three free actions per round to load his guns is abuse of free actions? That is the intended question, correct?
Considering that the Developers have stated that is a possible break point I would consider it and then model some math before I implemented it in my game. Is it abuse, you ask? No. I do not believe that using more than three free actions to reload guns in a round is abuse. I however would not allow the number to exceed a number larger than four before I did consider it abuse. Under the effects of a haste I might allow 5, but again these are not firm numbers. I would have to run some combat simulations before I actually settled on firm numbers. Simply put, my players treat Pathfinder firearms like 15th century firearms. They are not trying to be Clint Eastwood. They want to play Captain Jack Sparrow. Consequently, the problem that the developers referred to has not occurred in my game.
Many of the forum populace plays at a higher power level than my players prefer to though. What can I say? My players are almost all 20+ year gaming vets (and one young lady who has only been playing a year) and they do not like to play the game on easy mode. They like 15 point buy, low WBL, choose traits for flavor not mechanical advantage, moderately combat optimized , campaign story synergized characters that resonate with the setting. They seek challenges and are not afraid to run when faced with a bad situation or overwhelming odds. They do not labor under the illusion that they are mithral snowflakes and that the GM will just save them if they screw up. AND...they love it.
Now, I am not saying how anyone else plays is wrong. I am saying that this is how my players like to play. I am not condemning hyper-optimized 99 point buy mecha-godzilla characters and "lets go kill all the gods" campaigns. I am just saying that all my players outgrew those days long ago. (During 2nd edition as I recall)
Alright, I believe the next intended question was, "Why use that example?" The Developers already explained why. They believe that an appropriate break is three. Depending on whether a gunslinger in my game began to outshine the others if he exceeded this number I may agree with them. At the moment I think it might be one action too low, but that is just my opinion. I am pretty good with rules and balance for my playstyle but getting the pulse of every GM style out there is quite simply beyond me. I suspect that is why no firm numbers were cemented into place with the FAQ and why the number was and is left to the GM to arbitrate. Just like it has been for more than a decade.
You still do not get it though, guys. It does not matter if the FAQ is "about" free action abuse at all. It empowers a GM to shut down free action abuse more quickly and more cleanly than ever before whether that is what it was originally conceived to do or not. So...Do Not Abuse Free Actions And You Will Have No Reason To Fear Your GM Capping Them. And my opinion is that anything that empowers a GM to decrease the time spent on a rule-thumping disruptive player down to near nothing and allow him to get back to helping everyone else have a better time is quite simply, a perfectly good call.


Why not use the Intelligence modifier to determine number of free actions? a character has to think about what he/she is doing in order to do it, seems intelligence should be a reasonable ability to determine free actions.


mdt wrote:
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...

No, I'm not incorrect. It says the Devs think it is reasonable to limit free actions to three to five, depending on circumstance. It doesn't say there is a hard limit. It doesn't even say that the rules as intended create a hard limit. It is merely reinforcing the rule that GMs have discretion to limit this sort of thing. You are, quite simply, reading into the FAQ the things you are complaining about.


It must be said there's a world of difference between, 'GM's can limit free actions if they feel the need' and 'GM's can limit free actions if they feel the need and here's an example that shows limiting long range combatants.' Before a GM could, and occasionally did in my experience, limit things if they felt a player was abusing free actions. Now they're actively encouraged to, if not required, to limit shooting. I think that's probably the big change here - GM's are encouraged to follow FAQ's, updates and such.

If I had any intention of going outside my little circle of friends and playing Pathfinder Society (I keep thinking I should, then reading a thread on here that puts me off) this would discourage me from playing a ranged character. It would be frustrating to sit down at one table and find myself limited to three arrows, sit down at another and find myself getting all of them, and then sitting down at a third and getting a single reload (after all, nothing stops a GM from limiting someone to a single free action). Where as the ever powerful Spellcaster Brigade can still five foot shift and fireball the room to it's heart's content.

The limits, implied or otherwise, are only going to hurt martial characters. It seems like it would have been a lot less grief to fix the broken aspect of the Gunslinger by adding an addition such as 'No gun can fire more times in a round than the Gunslinger's BAB' or some such to allow bows to fire more than guns rather than just walloping the hell out of free actions.

Or at least, so it seems to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weslocke wrote:
Hi folks, now that my game is over and I have some time, I can actually get around to answering that question. Sorry for the delay, but I had to use part of my prep time for the game just to get in some time for the last query.

I know your probably just trying to be a little informal, but its actually a little awkward or off putting when you talk about your social life or make it appear as though people are waiting on you.

Weslocke wrote:
Many of the forum populace plays at a higher power level than my players prefer to though.

Oh really? Have you done some sort of number crunching to determine this or is this just conjecture?

Weslocke wrote:
What can I say? My players are almost all 20+ year gaming vets (and one young lady who has only been playing a year) and they do not like to play the game on easy mode. They like 15 point buy, low WBL, choose traits for flavor not mechanical advantage, moderately combat optimized , campaign story synergized characters that resonate with the setting. They seek challenges and are not afraid to run when faced with a bad situation or overwhelming odds. They do not labor under the illusion that they are mithral snowflakes and that the GM will just save them if they screw up. AND...they love it.

So... what was the point of telling us this? Was it that its better if you chose to be mechanically inferior or make it look like rollplay vs. roleplay? Because you can run a very lethal high power game. Those are the ones I started with actually.

Weslocke wrote:
I am not condemning hyper-optimized 99 point buy mecha-godzilla characters

That's good, because no one uses those.

Weslocke wrote:
Is it abuse, you ask? No.

Why didn't you just say that? The thing about your players doesn't really help much. You could've just said "I think its different for everybody" or something. That said, your current numbers still don't take in rapid shot.

Weslocke wrote:
Do Not Abuse Free Actions And You Will Have No Reason To Fear Your GM Capping Them

Abusing free actions has never been something I've been afraid of personally. Personally, I don't think guns being used for insane TWF is free action abuse, I think its something else entirely. I'd be worried if I played with a GM who honestly thought 3 was enough and that talking should reduce it though...

151 to 200 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