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."
You're presuming that because the FAQ states that it is reasonable to limit free actions that the only reasonable course of action is to limit free actions. "We think it's reasonable to limit free actions" does not mean "We think it is uniformly unreasonable to not limit free actions".
It's not the reasonable thing; it is a reasonable thing. It's only one word, but the difference in meaning is incredible.
EDIT: for grammar
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...
You're acting like the rules wouldn't have explicitly allowed any of this anyway, prior to this FAQ being released.
After all, the language straight out of the rule book is:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
In other words, GM's can place reasonable limits on the number of free actions a character takes per turn.
This FAQ just reaffirmed the rules that were already in place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, GM's can place reasonable limits on the number of free actions a character takes per turn.
This FAQ just reaffirmed the rules that were already in place.
Well, yes it reaffirmed that, but then it gave examples. Arguably terrible examples.
Either you are too young to remember that day or you are a terribly jaded individual. In either case, that statement crossed a line.This seemed as tragic to some people on here...Nice, 9/11 joke. You stay classy.10/3/13
Never forget...
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?
I didn't have a problem with it. *shrug*
And it's not like September 11, 2001 was the first time anybody said "Never forget" ...
|
Those that would like to mock concerns, by saying the FAQ only reminds of what is already in the rules, I will like to point out this:
We all are very aware of that the FAQ reminds of what is in the rules, but it does more than just that.
It gives us examples, and defines what they believe to be "reasonable".
This sets a RAI precedent as what a reasonable limit is.
This also suggests, that allowing more, would be unreasonable.
Doing this, has effects upon the entire Pathfinder Community.
How much varies, but it is widespread, and this cannot be denied.
Well, yes it reaffirmed that, but then it gave examples. Arguably terrible examples.In other words, GM's can place reasonable limits on the number of free actions a character takes per turn.
This FAQ just reaffirmed the rules that were already in place.
Arguably, sure. But the point is the rule was already there and a large chunk of the people arguing against the rule seem to be acting like the limiting of free actions is some brand new concept. It is not. It appears to me that the intent of the FAQ was the give GMs who attempt to enforce this part of the rules a bit more authority.
Is providing even a concrete guideline a good idea? I think it's a fair debate. Without one though, I think it's far too nebulous and don't change much, if anything, from simply restating the already existent rule. But again, that's why they framed it as a guideline and not a hard rule, then close it off with a reminder that each GM is free to arbitrate how he or she sees fit.
I can see why some people have questions, based on some of the examples used. I honestly cannot see why this is such a huge deal, though. The extent of the reaction doesn't make sense to me.
Those that would like to mock concerns, by saying the FAQ only reminds of what is already in the rules, I will like to point out this:
We all are very aware of that the FAQ reminds of what is in the rules, but it does more than just that.
It gives us examples, and defines what they believe to be "reasonable".
This sets a RAI precedent as what a reasonable limit is.
This also suggests, that allowing more, would be unreasonable.
Doing this, has effects upon the entire Pathfinder Community.
How much varies, but it is widespread, and this cannot be denied.
First, I'm not mocking concerns. I'm not sure if that was directed at me or someone else, but I'm certainly not mocking anybody.
Aside from that, I disagree that the FAQ sets RAI that a reasonable limit is 3-5. I believe the FAQ sets RAI as it being reasonable to set a limit. Subtle difference, but important, in my opinion.
It does not suggest in any way that allowing more than 3-5 free actions is unreasonable. Saying, "We think doing 'x' is reasonable" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "We think doing 'not x' is unreasonable" nor does it necessarily mean the same things as "We think not doing 'x' is unreasonable". That is a huge distinction that people seem to be ignoring here.
"We think a reasonable limit is 3-5, but as always the GM is free to decide" does not mean there is one and only one reasonable answer (that being limiting free actions to 3-5 per round).
|
Whoah.
Way to take your ball, and stomp off in a huff.
No huffing or stomping here, just frustration. :P
I was acknowledging that MY continued participation would be neither productive nor satisfying.
I may have worded it very poorly in my previous post, and for that I apologize unreservedly. I truly meant no offense.
Cheers
|
|
Whoah.
Way to take your ball, and stomp off in a huff.
No huffing or stomping here, just frustration. :P
I was acknowledging that MY continued participation would be neither productive nor satisfying.
I may have worded it very poorly in my previous post, and for that I apologize unreservedly. I truly meant no offense.
Cheers
It happens.
It's not the reasonable thing; it is a reasonable thing.Is it though?
It is reasonable?
The examples there don't seem reasonable to me.
And when called on it, they didn't seem reasonable to the devs themselves either.
-James
Well, that's something of a different conversation. The question I was addressing was whether saying "We think it is reasonable to limit this to 'x'" necessarily means that limiting whatever to anything but 'x' is unreasonable.
Whether the examples and limitations actually provided as guidelines are reasonable in and of themselves is a separate matter.
|
Consequences of this? RAI vs RAI, FIGHT!
RAI an archer with a BAB of 20 will have 4 shots available, 5 with rapid shot
RAI only 3ish free actions per turn
uuuummmm... as with RAW, specific trumps general? Your still able to get your shots...
I'm not choosing sides, but I do think the Dev's should have worded this a bit more carefully
a large chunk of the people arguing against the rule seem to be acting like the limiting of free actions is some brand new concept.
Where are these people? I have only seen people suggesting that limiting free actions to 3-5 is a new concept. Because it is. I see people suggesting that limiting free actions because a character spoke is a new concept. Because it is.
|
|
Indeed.
Just the fact that they used talking, as an action that limits one's ability to reload, as a horrible example, that sets a horrible precedent.
Players refusing to talk, to maximize free actions.
Not because the DM will, but because the precedent is set, they could, and with the support of FAQ behind them.
Literally suggesting extracting the roleplay element from a roleplaying game.
|
|
I can find nothing reasonable about denying one's ability to even speak, whilst performing another action.
This FAQ suggests otherwise.
The idea of a DM telling the Rogue that he cannot pull out enough daggers to throw, as part of a full attack, simply because he decided to say "gotcha" whilst doing so, is entirely unreasonable.
This FAQ suggest otherwise.
Reminding us of the DM's power to limit free actions, in this FAQ, is not the issue.
We all know that, and is not in question.
Defining what is a "reasonable" limit, as a lowly 3, and using speaking, as a "reasonable" limiter of what else one can do, is what is causing an uproar.
Indeed.
Just the fact that they used talking, as an action that limits one's ability to reload, as a horrible example, that sets a horrible precedent.
Players refusing to talk, to maximize free actions.
Not because the DM will, but because the precedent is set, they could, and with the support of FAQ behind them.
Literally suggesting extracting the roleplay element from a roleplaying game.
Don't people say combat should be over in three rounds are less? You're upset people might not talk for 18 seconds?
Well, yes it reaffirmed that, but then it gave examples. Arguably terrible examples.In other words, GM's can place reasonable limits on the number of free actions a character takes per turn.
This FAQ just reaffirmed the rules that were already in place.
Arguably, sure. But the point is the rule was already there and a large chunk of the people arguing against the rule seem to be acting like the limiting of free actions is some brand new concept. It is not. It appears to me that the intent of the FAQ was the give GMs who attempt to enforce this part of the rules a bit more authority.
Is providing even a concrete guideline a good idea? I think it's a fair debate. Without one though, I think it's far too nebulous and don't change much, if anything, from simply restating the already existent rule. But again, that's why they framed it as a guideline and not a hard rule, then close it off with a reminder that each GM is free to arbitrate how he or she sees fit.
I can see why some people have questions, based on some of the examples used. I honestly cannot see why this is such a huge deal, though. The extent of the reaction doesn't make sense to me.
It is not a barnd new concept in the sense that a gm can always adjudicate in any situation to the benefit of his or her game. One could reasonably limit access to certain items materials races feats weapons etc. One can also decise that any sequence of actions is limited even if it wouldn't be according to RAW.
However, the specific examples given are very new. Never before has it been suggested that speaking would take away from someone's combat options in such a direct way. These things have always been left up to gms... and since edge cases are the usual culprits when it comes to abuse, this has usually been pretty simple.
But that isn't what is in the faq. What is in the faq are examples of incredibly common actions... like a full attack from a gunslinger with a single pistol being unable to make use of 4 iterative attacks.
Worlds apart.
Don't people say combat should be over in three rounds are less? You're upset people might not talk for 18 seconds?Indeed.
Just the fact that they used talking, as an action that limits one's ability to reload, as a horrible example, that sets a horrible precedent.
Players refusing to talk, to maximize free actions.
Not because the DM will, but because the precedent is set, they could, and with the support of FAQ behind them.
Literally suggesting extracting the roleplay element from a roleplaying game.
Really? Is this sarcasm? I honestly can't tell. Are you being serious?
In the event that this is a serious comment, I'll just say that while combat may last 18 seconds for my character, it can last 20-30 minutes for my players.
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.
I was making a comment on a specific incorrect statement that you have made, despite the fact that the relevant rule has been quoted to you. The rules make a clear mechanical difference between nocking an arrow (not an action) and drawing an arrow (a free action).
If you said something else that indicated that you understood that and I missed it, I apologize - although to be called out on supposedly not reading your comments, when your first post in the thread opens with an admission that you hadn't read the entire thread... yeah.
"We think a reasonable limit is 3-5, but as always the GM is free to decide" does not mean there is one and only one reasonable answer (that being limiting free actions to 3-5 per round).
Let me ask, then: Since the rules already allowed for a GM to set reasonable limits on actions, what other purpose - save for providing a sort of suggested baseline that the designers believe is reasonable - does the FAQ serve?
If the intention was simply to call attention to the fact that the rule existed, then the examples seem wholly unnecessary.
|
|
Don't people say combat should be over in three rounds are less? You're upset people might not talk for 18 seconds?Indeed.
Just the fact that they used talking, as an action that limits one's ability to reload, as a horrible example, that sets a horrible precedent.
Players refusing to talk, to maximize free actions.
Not because the DM will, but because the precedent is set, they could, and with the support of FAQ behind them.
Literally suggesting extracting the roleplay element from a roleplaying game.
I cannot believe you would defend such a restriction.
How long, or short, the combat, is irrelevant.
This is no different than saying someone they cannot stomp, and yell at the same time.
Yeah, I didn't see a play on 9/11. Get over yourself.Either you are too young to remember that day or you are a terribly jaded individual. In either case, that statement crossed a line.This seemed as tragic to some people on here...Nice, 9/11 joke. You stay classy.10/3/13
Never forget...
Might I suggest that if you believe the statement crossed a line, then report it - and if the forum mods agree, they'll remove it?
And in the meantime, implying that it crossed everyone's line is more than a bit presumptuous.
Don't people say combat should be over in three rounds are less? You're upset people might not talk for 18 seconds?Indeed.
Just the fact that they used talking, as an action that limits one's ability to reload, as a horrible example, that sets a horrible precedent.
Players refusing to talk, to maximize free actions.
Not because the DM will, but because the precedent is set, they could, and with the support of FAQ behind them.
Literally suggesting extracting the roleplay element from a roleplaying game.
Really? Is this sarcasm? I honestly can't tell. Are you being serious?
In the event that this is a serious comment, I'll just say that while combat may last 18 seconds for my character, it can last 20-30 minutes for my players.
Your players are still allowed to talk.
Don't people say combat should be over in three rounds are less? You're upset people might not talk for 18 seconds?Indeed.
Just the fact that they used talking, as an action that limits one's ability to reload, as a horrible example, that sets a horrible precedent.
Players refusing to talk, to maximize free actions.
Not because the DM will, but because the precedent is set, they could, and with the support of FAQ behind them.
Literally suggesting extracting the roleplay element from a roleplaying game.
I cannot believe you would defend such a restriction.
How long, or short, the combat, is irrelevant.
This is no different than saying someone they cannot stomp, and yell at the same time.
Not so much defending, just think its a slight over reaction to say the FAQ rips role playing out of the game because your character can't speak for 18 seconds.
Your players are still allowed to talk.Don't people say combat should be over in three rounds are less? You're upset people might not talk for 18 seconds?Indeed.
Just the fact that they used talking, as an action that limits one's ability to reload, as a horrible example, that sets a horrible precedent.
Players refusing to talk, to maximize free actions.
Not because the DM will, but because the precedent is set, they could, and with the support of FAQ behind them.
Literally suggesting extracting the roleplay element from a roleplaying game.
Really? Is this sarcasm? I honestly can't tell. Are you being serious?
In the event that this is a serious comment, I'll just say that while combat may last 18 seconds for my character, it can last 20-30 minutes for my players.
And I would prefer that they talk about what is happening in front of them, rather than about whatever happened at anything else. Discouraging people from talking in character discourages participation.
If it is in a FAQ, it should be RAW, or RAI.
If the suggestions are not RAW, then they must be RAI.
If they are neither, then they don't belong there.
That is an incredibly clear and concise way to encapsulate the issue I have with the FAQ. Kudos.
It is not a barnd new concept in the sense that a gm can always adjudicate in any situation to the benefit of his or her game. One could reasonably limit access to certain items materials races feats weapons etc. One can also decise that any sequence of actions is limited even if it wouldn't be according to RAW.However, the specific examples given are very new. Never before has it been suggested that speaking would take away from someone's combat options in such a direct way. These things have always been left up to gms... and since edge cases are the usual culprits when it comes to abuse, this has usually been pretty simple.
But that isn't what is in the faq. What is in the faq are examples of incredibly common actions... like a full attack from a gunslinger with a single pistol being unable to make use of 4 iterative attacks.
Worlds apart.
To amplify, the entry in the FAQ will almost certainly not be simply ignorable by people who GM for PFS without the campaign heads there having to weigh in on the examples and define what is reasonable for the campaign. The main campaign's level limits may make the concern about 4 iterative attacks largely moot, but characters with 3 iterative attacks by BAB + Rapid Shot are, I presume, not uncommon and the FAQ is written in such a way that archers are affected as much as gunslingers even if they weren't intended to be the targets of such attention by the GM.
And I would prefer that they talk about what is happening in front of them, rather than about whatever happened at anything else. Discouraging people from talking in character discourages participation.Your players are still allowed to talk.Don't people say combat should be over in three rounds are less? You're upset people might not talk for 18 seconds?Indeed.
Just the fact that they used talking, as an action that limits one's ability to reload, as a horrible example, that sets a horrible precedent.
Players refusing to talk, to maximize free actions.
Not because the DM will, but because the precedent is set, they could, and with the support of FAQ behind them.
Literally suggesting extracting the roleplay element from a roleplaying game.
Really? Is this sarcasm? I honestly can't tell. Are you being serious?
In the event that this is a serious comment, I'll just say that while combat may last 18 seconds for my character, it can last 20-30 minutes for my players.
So, for thirty minutes, your players are only allowed to talk in character about the eighteen seconds of combat occurring in front of them? Are they allowed to have thirty minutes of dialogue as a free action?
So, for thirty minutes, your players are only allowed to talk in character about the eighteen seconds of combat occurring in front of them? Are they allowed to have thirty minutes of dialogue as a free action?And I would prefer that they talk about what is happening in front of them, rather than about whatever happened at anything else. Discouraging people from talking in character discourages participation.Your players are still allowed to talk.Don't people say combat should be over in three rounds are less? You're upset people might not talk for 18 seconds?Indeed.
Just the fact that they used talking, as an action that limits one's ability to reload, as a horrible example, that sets a horrible precedent.
Players refusing to talk, to maximize free actions.
Not because the DM will, but because the precedent is set, they could, and with the support of FAQ behind them.
Literally suggesting extracting the roleplay element from a roleplaying game.
Really? Is this sarcasm? I honestly can't tell. Are you being serious?
In the event that this is a serious comment, I'll just say that while combat may last 18 seconds for my character, it can last 20-30 minutes for my players.
I don't recall saying either. What I said was "Discouraging people from talking in character discourages participation."
|
|
So, for thirty minutes, your players are only allowed to talk in character about the eighteen seconds of combat occurring in front of them? Are they allowed to have thirty minutes of dialogue as a free action?And I would prefer that they talk about what is happening in front of them, rather than about whatever happened at anything else. Discouraging people from talking in character discourages participation.Your players are still allowed to talk.Don't people say combat should be over in three rounds are less? You're upset people might not talk for 18 seconds?Indeed.
Just the fact that they used talking, as an action that limits one's ability to reload, as a horrible example, that sets a horrible precedent.
Players refusing to talk, to maximize free actions.
Not because the DM will, but because the precedent is set, they could, and with the support of FAQ behind them.
Literally suggesting extracting the roleplay element from a roleplaying game.
Really? Is this sarcasm? I honestly can't tell. Are you being serious?
In the event that this is a serious comment, I'll just say that while combat may last 18 seconds for my character, it can last 20-30 minutes for my players.
You know that's not what he is saying.
I don't recall saying either. What I said was "Discouraging people from talking in character discourages participation."So, for thirty minutes, your players are only allowed to talk in character about the eighteen seconds of combat occurring in front of them? Are they allowed to have thirty minutes of dialogue as a free action?And I would prefer that they talk about what is happening in front of them, rather than about whatever happened at anything else. Discouraging people from talking in character discourages participation.Your players are still allowed to talk.Don't people say combat should be over in three rounds are less? You're upset people might not talk for 18 seconds?Indeed.
Just the fact that they used talking, as an action that limits one's ability to reload, as a horrible example, that sets a horrible precedent.
Players refusing to talk, to maximize free actions.
Not because the DM will, but because the precedent is set, they could, and with the support of FAQ behind them.
Literally suggesting extracting the roleplay element from a roleplaying game.
Really? Is this sarcasm? I honestly can't tell. Are you being serious?
In the event that this is a serious comment, I'll just say that while combat may last 18 seconds for my character, it can last 20-30 minutes for my players.
Then I just don't understand. The players can still talk. They can talk about the game. They can talk in character. The only thing the FAQ says about talking is that it is a free action. You say this discourages role playing somehow. How? Unless they were talking in character about the eighteen second combat for thirty minutes, how does this affect them?
Again, I'm not trying to defend the FAQ. I just find this particular nit pick fascinating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not so much defending, just think its a slight over reaction to say the FAQ rips role playing out of the game because your character can't speak for 18 seconds.Don't people say combat should be over in three rounds are less? You're upset people might not talk for 18 seconds?Indeed.
Just the fact that they used talking, as an action that limits one's ability to reload, as a horrible example, that sets a horrible precedent.
Players refusing to talk, to maximize free actions.
Not because the DM will, but because the precedent is set, they could, and with the support of FAQ behind them.
Literally suggesting extracting the roleplay element from a roleplaying game.
I cannot believe you would defend such a restriction.
How long, or short, the combat, is irrelevant.
This is no different than saying someone they cannot stomp, and yell at the same time.
Two things:
1: what is the reaction of a new player playing a piratey gunslinger who wants to shout "avast! Ye scrurvy dogs!!" As he fires his salvo of gunfire who is told by the gm that he can only fire twice rather than three times because he chose to speak. Is that helping or hindering roleplaying? Will that player just choose to shut up and make his attacks? Or gimp himself sohe can roleplay? For me.. that sshouldn't ever have to be a choice.
2: if this applies to players.. it should certainly apply to villains... who will have the same choice to make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the FAQ says that talking in character should be used to reduce the amount of actions you can take in a combat round. Since talking will almost always be a sub-optimal way to spend those actions, talking will be a less used choice in how to spend ones now precious few free actions.
I find it to be poor design to suggest that an archer would need to choose between making 3 shots, or 2 shots and saying "I got him!" The idea that this could even POSSIBLY be a choice in an social game is (to me) simply insane.
2: if this applies to players.. it should certainly apply to villains... who will have the same choice to make.
And we all know that if this was forced to a choice that BBEG's would die in the first 2 rounds because they spent all their actions on their monologue.
Not so much defending, just think its a slight over reaction to say the FAQ rips role playing out of the game because your character can't speak for 18 seconds.Don't people say combat should be over in three rounds are less? You're upset people might not talk for 18 seconds?Indeed.
Just the fact that they used talking, as an action that limits one's ability to reload, as a horrible example, that sets a horrible precedent.
Players refusing to talk, to maximize free actions.
Not because the DM will, but because the precedent is set, they could, and with the support of FAQ behind them.
Literally suggesting extracting the roleplay element from a roleplaying game.
I cannot believe you would defend such a restriction.
How long, or short, the combat, is irrelevant.
This is no different than saying someone they cannot stomp, and yell at the same time.
Two things:
1: what is the reaction of a new player playing a piratey gunslinger who wants to shout "avast! Ye scrurvy dogs!!" As he fires his salvo of gunfire who is told by the gm that he can only fire twice rather than three times because he chose to speak. Is that helping or hindering roleplaying? Will that player just choose to shut up and make his attacks? Or gimp himself sohe can roleplay? For me.. that sshouldn't ever have to be a choice.
2: if this applies to players.. it should certainly apply to villains... who will have the same choice to make.
He can fire as many times as he likes, only his reloads are hindered.
Honestly speech can be "abused" (don't really consider it abuse in the sense of being overpowered but it works for the purposes of this thread). People often over estimate what can be said in six seconds. I think (can't prove) that many people over look the six seconds. Yes combat can take awhile. Yes a character can do a lot within a round. Six seconds is still six seconds.
(Side note: can the wizard casting a spell with a verbal component talk as much as the fighter?)
Not so much defending, just think its a slight over reaction to say the FAQ rips role playing out of the game because your character can't speak for 18 seconds.Don't people say combat should be over in three rounds are less? You're upset people might not talk for 18 seconds?Indeed.
Just the fact that they used talking, as an action that limits one's ability to reload, as a horrible example, that sets a horrible precedent.
Players refusing to talk, to maximize free actions.
Not because the DM will, but because the precedent is set, they could, and with the support of FAQ behind them.
Literally suggesting extracting the roleplay element from a roleplaying game.
I cannot believe you would defend such a restriction.
How long, or short, the combat, is irrelevant.
This is no different than saying someone they cannot stomp, and yell at the same time.
Two things:
1: what is the reaction of a new player playing a piratey gunslinger who wants to shout "avast! Ye scrurvy dogs!!" As he fires his salvo of gunfire who is told by the gm that he can only fire twice rather than three times because he chose to speak. Is that helping or hindering roleplaying? Will that player just choose to shut up and make his attacks? Or gimp himself sohe can roleplay? For me.. that sshouldn't ever have to be a choice.
2: if this applies to players.. it should certainly apply to villains... who will have the same choice to make.
He can fire as many times as he likes, only his reloads are hindered.
Honestly speech can be "abused" (don't really consider it abuse in the sense of being overpowered but it works for the purposes of this thread). People often over estimate what can be said in six seconds. I think (can't prove) that many people over look the six seconds. Yes combat can take awhile. Yes a character can do a...
He can't fire an empty gun... so loading and firing are both necessaru for the example... don't sidestep like that it goes nowhere.
I maintain my position... frankly... they should just say that you can speak for 6 seconds.
My players are not combat trained. Their characters are. What may take my players several minutes to workout (strategy, information checks, ect.) their characters should be able to work out in a few seconds with short commands, hand signals, hoots, whistles, or whatever. So if my players spend minutes hammering out their strategy I don't have a problem with it. I really like it when they do this in character. Even if their character may be having that conversation in a different way, I still like and encourage that sort of exchange to take place in character.
I also think that even if they were limited on what they said in character that the players would still exchange that information between each other. So all limiting free actions if you talk really does is encourage people to break immersion. That is a big problem for me. No rules, errata, FAQ, guideline, ect. should encourage people to break immersion.
EDIT: I will say that I do have one exception to this on my table. Only one question/response per round between different players. Namely this goes for things like perception checks. "Did you see anything over there?" "No" "It just occurred to me that we are in the woods, what do you know about tree elves?" I would step in and tell the player that the response to that question will need to wait until the next combat round.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the reasonable thing; it is a reasonable thing.Is it though?
It is reasonable?
The examples there don't seem reasonable to me.
And when called on it, they didn't seem reasonable to the devs themselves either.
-James
Well, that's something of a different conversation. The question I was addressing was whether saying "We think it is reasonable to limit this to 'x'" necessarily means that limiting whatever to anything but 'x' is unreasonable.
Whether the examples and limitations actually provided as guidelines are reasonable in and of themselves is a separate matter.
Except that those of us who are upset over the examples provided ARE upset because they are not reasonable in and of themselves, and the holier than thou types who keep insulting people (if you were a role player rather than a roll player, if you were not a cheese head, if you weren't playing 99 pt uber cyber codzilla builds, etc) who are upset keep missing the point (despite it being stated hundreds of times).
Nobody has any issues with limiting free actions. It's the fact that an obviously unreasonable limit and example were given, and the given justification (but but guns, black powder, ack!) indicates that the issue is not the free actions but the core rules for firearms.
And by the devs own posts, they acknowledge it was the core rules for firearms that caused the problem (being able to reload as a free action) and weapon cords, rather than the free actions themselves. But they also said they were trying to find a way to fix it without errata.
If it is the mechanics that are broken, fix the mechanics. Yes errata is a pain, but it's the right way to fix it.
If your car's air conditioner is broken, it's an expensive pain to fix it. It's a lot cheaper and easier to smash all the windows in the car so you've got good airflow through the passenger cabin. That doesn't mean that the easy fix (smashing things) is a good way to fix it. Bite the bullet (HAH!) and errata weapon cords and firearm rules.
My players are not combat trained. Their characters are. What may take my players several minutes to workout (strategy, information checks, ect.) their characters should be able to work out in a few seconds with short commands, hand signals, hoots, whistles, or whatever. So if my players spend minutes hammering out their strategy I don't have a problem with it. I really like it when they do this in character. Even if their character may be having that conversation in a different way, I still like and encourage that sort of exchange to take place in character.
I also think that even if they were limited on what they said in character that the players would still exchange that information between each other. So all limiting free actions if you talk really does is encourage people to break immersion. That is a big problem for me. No rules, errata, FAQ, guideline, ect. should encourage people to break immersion.
EDIT: I will say that I do have one exception to this on my table. Only one question/response per round between different players. Namely this goes for things like perception checks. "Did you see anything over there?" "No" "It just occurred to me that we are in the woods, what do you know about tree elves?" I would step in and tell the player that the response to that question will need to wait until the next combat round.
So you, as a GM, set a reasonable limit on what they're allowed to say?
So you, as a GM, set a reasonable limit on what they're allowed to say?My players are not combat trained. Their characters are. What may take my players several minutes to workout (strategy, information checks, ect.) their characters should be able to work out in a few seconds with short commands, hand signals, hoots, whistles, or whatever. So if my players spend minutes hammering out their strategy I don't have a problem with it. I really like it when they do this in character. Even if their character may be having that conversation in a different way, I still like and encourage that sort of exchange to take place in character.
I also think that even if they were limited on what they said in character that the players would still exchange that information between each other. So all limiting free actions if you talk really does is encourage people to break immersion. That is a big problem for me. No rules, errata, FAQ, guideline, ect. should encourage people to break immersion.
EDIT: I will say that I do have one exception to this on my table. Only one question/response per round between different players. Namely this goes for things like perception checks. "Did you see anything over there?" "No" "It just occurred to me that we are in the woods, what do you know about tree elves?" I would step in and tell the player that the response to that question will need to wait until the next combat round.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but if your next statement is going to be "That's what the FAQ is doing" then I call shenanigans. Because that's not ALL it does. It tells people that a reasonable limit is 3 actions if 2 or more are the same. It tells people that speaking should count toward that limit of 3.
If ALL is said was "Hey GM's, remember rule 0! :D ~PDT" I wouldn't have a problem with it. Suggesting that this is all the FAQ states is disingenuous.
...Not so much defending, just think its a slight over reaction to say the FAQ rips role playing out of the game because your character can't speak for 18 seconds.Don't people say combat should be over in three rounds are less? You're upset people might not talk for 18 seconds?Indeed.
Just the fact that they used talking, as an action that limits one's ability to reload, as a horrible example, that sets a horrible precedent.
Players refusing to talk, to maximize free actions.
Not because the DM will, but because the precedent is set, they could, and with the support of FAQ behind them.
Literally suggesting extracting the roleplay element from a roleplaying game.
I cannot believe you would defend such a restriction.
How long, or short, the combat, is irrelevant.
This is no different than saying someone they cannot stomp, and yell at the same time.
Two things:
1: what is the reaction of a new player playing a piratey gunslinger who wants to shout "avast! Ye scrurvy dogs!!" As he fires his salvo of gunfire who is told by the gm that he can only fire twice rather than three times because he chose to speak. Is that helping or hindering roleplaying? Will that player just choose to shut up and make his attacks? Or gimp himself sohe can roleplay? For me.. that sshouldn't ever have to be a choice.
2: if this applies to players.. it should certainly apply to villains... who will have the same choice to make.
He can fire as many times as he likes, only his reloads are hindered.
Honestly speech can be "abused" (don't really consider it abuse in the sense of being overpowered but it works for the purposes of this thread). People often over estimate what can be said in six seconds. I think (can't prove) that many people over look the six seconds. Yes combat
Honestly I've always felt the reload times were way to fast for that style of gun. (Again, my personal preference. Not defending the limit of three free actions.) I prefer the fire and forget style of old time-y gunslingers. (If you've seen the commercial for the new show Sleepy Hollow there is a funny scene where the main character fires his modern gun once and throws it away, much to the dismay of his partner.) but back to my point. I wasn't sidestepping, I was being deliberate. I think firing a gun; yes as many times as you have attacks, you can pull that trigger. Reloading a gun; that takes some time (or it should anyways), so I think it's reasonable to limit.
So you, as a GM, set a reasonable limit on what they're allowed to say?My players are not combat trained. Their characters are. What may take my players several minutes to workout (strategy, information checks, ect.) their characters should be able to work out in a few seconds with short commands, hand signals, hoots, whistles, or whatever. So if my players spend minutes hammering out their strategy I don't have a problem with it. I really like it when they do this in character. Even if their character may be having that conversation in a different way, I still like and encourage that sort of exchange to take place in character.
I also think that even if they were limited on what they said in character that the players would still exchange that information between each other. So all limiting free actions if you talk really does is encourage people to break immersion. That is a big problem for me. No rules, errata, FAQ, guideline, ect. should encourage people to break immersion.
EDIT: I will say that I do have one exception to this on my table. Only one question/response per round between different players. Namely this goes for things like perception checks. "Did you see anything over there?" "No" "It just occurred to me that we are in the woods, what do you know about tree elves?" I would step in and tell the player that the response to that question will need to wait until the next combat round.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but if your next statement is going to be "That's what the FAQ is doing" then I call shenanigans. Because that's not ALL it does. It tells people that a reasonable limit is 3 actions if 2 or more are the same. It tells people that speaking should count toward that limit of 3.
If ALL is said was "Hey GM's, remember rule 0! :D ~PDT" I wouldn't have a problem with it. Suggesting that this is all the FAQ states is disingenuous.
More disingenuous than, this FAQ strips the game of role playing?
More disingenuous than, this FAQ strips the game of role playing?So you, as a GM, set a reasonable limit on what they're allowed to say?My players are not combat trained. Their characters are. What may take my players several minutes to workout (strategy, information checks, ect.) their characters should be able to work out in a few seconds with short commands, hand signals, hoots, whistles, or whatever. So if my players spend minutes hammering out their strategy I don't have a problem with it. I really like it when they do this in character. Even if their character may be having that conversation in a different way, I still like and encourage that sort of exchange to take place in character.
I also think that even if they were limited on what they said in character that the players would still exchange that information between each other. So all limiting free actions if you talk really does is encourage people to break immersion. That is a big problem for me. No rules, errata, FAQ, guideline, ect. should encourage people to break immersion.
EDIT: I will say that I do have one exception to this on my table. Only one question/response per round between different players. Namely this goes for things like perception checks. "Did you see anything over there?" "No" "It just occurred to me that we are in the woods, what do you know about tree elves?" I would step in and tell the player that the response to that question will need to wait until the next combat round.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but if your next statement is going to be "That's what the FAQ is doing" then I call shenanigans. Because that's not ALL it does. It tells people that a reasonable limit is 3 actions if 2 or more are the same. It tells people that speaking should count toward that limit of 3.
If ALL is said was "Hey GM's, remember rule 0! :D ~PDT" I wouldn't have a problem with it. Suggesting that this is all the FAQ states is disingenuous.
About as disingenuous as trying to put those words in my mouth.
I think firing a gun; yes as many times as you have attacks, you can pull that trigger. Reloading a gun; that takes some time (or it should anyways), so I think it's reasonable to limit.
Please point out where anyone has said it's unreasonable to limit reloading the black powder gun.
What the complaints have been is that the method chosen was the worst possible way to do it given that the FAQ doesn't even talk about limiting gunslingers or anything like that, it just uses them in a very horrible example.
The correct way to limit the reloading of firearms . The developers are the one who wrote the rules for Pistolero, Paper Cartridges, Weapon Cords, and Rapid Reload. They specifically made loading a black powder double barreled pistol a free action with the rules they wrote.
If it's an issue, then fix the rules.
The major issue I have is that they are now trying to fix it by saying 'free actions are limited' but 'only certain free actions, not these free actions', and then only doing it in forum posts, not in the actual FAQ itself.
Which free actions are limited and which ones arent'? RAI per the FAQ is all of them. Per SKR's posts, some, but even he's not sure which ones (crossbows maybe yes, maybe no, firearms yes yes yes, archery never ever).
An FAQ that brings up 10 times more questions than it answers is not an FAQ.
...So you, as a GM, set a reasonable limit on what they're allowed to say?My players are not combat trained. Their characters are. What may take my players several minutes to workout (strategy, information checks, ect.) their characters should be able to work out in a few seconds with short commands, hand signals, hoots, whistles, or whatever. So if my players spend minutes hammering out their strategy I don't have a problem with it. I really like it when they do this in character. Even if their character may be having that conversation in a different way, I still like and encourage that sort of exchange to take place in character.
I also think that even if they were limited on what they said in character that the players would still exchange that information between each other. So all limiting free actions if you talk really does is encourage people to break immersion. That is a big problem for me. No rules, errata, FAQ, guideline, ect. should encourage people to break immersion.
EDIT: I will say that I do have one exception to this on my table. Only one question/response per round between different players. Namely this goes for things like perception checks. "Did you see anything over there?" "No" "It just occurred to me that we are in the woods, what do you know about tree elves?" I would step in and tell the player that the response to that question will need to wait until the next combat round.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but if your next statement is going to be "That's what the FAQ is doing" then I call shenanigans. Because that's not ALL it does. It tells people that a reasonable limit is 3 actions if 2 or more are the same. It tells people that speaking should count toward that limit of 3.
If ALL is said was "Hey GM's, remember rule 0! :D ~PDT" I wouldn't have a problem with it. Suggesting that this is all the FAQ states is disingenuous.
Well, BBT said originally ("literally extracts role playing"), then you jumped in the conversation. My whole "devil's advocate" bit has been in response to that.
I appreciate that you have been carrying on multiple conversations at the same time, and that can get confusing. But people on these threads have been trying to twist my words on this topic for more than a week. It's a bit frustrating really...
Anyway no hard feelings.
I think firing a gun; yes as many times as you have attacks, you can pull that trigger. Reloading a gun; that takes some time (or it should anyways), so I think it's reasonable to limit.Please point out where anyone has said it's unreasonable to limit reloading the black powder gun.
What the complaints have been is that the method chosen was the worst possible way to do it given that the FAQ doesn't even talk about limiting gunslingers or anything like that, it just uses them in a very horrible example.
The correct way to limit the reloading of firearms . The developers are the one who wrote the rules for Pistolero, Paper Cartridges, Weapon Cords, and Rapid Reload. They specifically made loading a black powder double barreled pistol a free action with the rules they wrote.
If it's an issue, then fix the rules.
The major issue I have is that they are now trying to fix it by saying 'free actions are limited' but 'only certain free actions, not these free actions', and then only doing it in forum posts, not in the actual FAQ itself.
Which free actions are limited and which ones arent'? RAI per the FAQ is all of them. Per SKR's posts, some, but even he's not sure which ones (crossbows maybe yes, maybe no, firearms yes yes yes, archery never ever).
An FAQ that brings up 10 times more questions than it answers is not an FAQ.
I mostly agree. (And I think several people have called out a limit of three reloads unreasonable) In fact, in that post you quoted, I said I thought reloads were too fast and I disagreed about the limit of three free actions. (Or I think it was that post, too lazy to check!)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mostly agree. (And I think several people have called out a limit of three reloads unreasonable) In fact, in that post you quoted, I said I thought reloads were too fast and I disagreed about the limit of three free actions. (Or I think it was that post, too lazy to check!)
No, they've called a limit of 3 free actions unreasonable.
It's a subtle point that a LOT of people seem to be missing.
The point is, if you are going to limit firearm reloads, limit firearm reloads, but, don't do it by limiting free actions.
Do it by fixing the real problem, which is all the rules that you wrote that explicitly allow free action reloads.
It's a simple as that.
The current FAQ is like trying to fix a broken leg by chopping it off at the knee.