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


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 412 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

BigDTBone wrote:

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.

Oh, no worries!

Look, I'm a big supporter of Paizo and the devs and even I think their numbers are a little low. My personal take would be six. Now, it has never come up in one of my games, but since a round is six seconds and a standard action is more involved then a move action; I've always broken it up as a standard is four seconds, a move is two seconds (give or take). Now a free action is not a non-action so I think calling it one second is reasonable, so six a round. But again that is all in my head and has never been a factor in an actual game.


mdt wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


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.

Again, I agree with you. Now you're just trying to get me to say it over and over again. (You're a crafty one.)


blackbloodtroll wrote:

It creates a "stop roleplaying, it's time for combat" mentality.

I disagree.

Silver Crusade

Having just spent an hour of my life reading this thread, I havs a few comments:-

* I'm amazed that there appear to be some people who didn't know the difference between drawing an arrow and nocking an arrow, either in real life or in game mechanics

There are many 'free' actions which seem to me to have been written as 'free' in the rules even though 'not an action, but part of another action' would be a better model. It takes more words. 'Shifting grip' on a weapon should be as much part of the action used to attack as 'nocking an arrow' is. SKR even thinks that 'drawing ammunition' for a bow should be 'not an action', and I agree. Even the feat Improved Snap Shot seems to either a.) treat it as a free action which can be done outside your own turn, b.) the same, but only if you have the feat, or c.) not an action. The RAW is not clear.

* I'm amazed that anyone thinks that you can use a single shortsword to take all of your 'main' attacks AND all of your extra off-hand attacks! Even if you could, you wouldn't need to swap hands between every single attack; once per round would do

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.

* I don't mind our uber-martials being faster than real life, but it should be 'evenly for every weapon'. But a free action reload of a muzzle-loading firearm does not result in an even increase in speed for every weapon.

In real life, muskets were expected to be loaded and fired 3 times per minute. 4 times was excellent. 5 times was ace! But even with the 5 times that's one reload and fire taking twelve seconds.

Arrows can be drawn, nocked and shot in about 1 second (I've seen the video), and that is drawing a single arrow at a time.

So in real life you can draw, nock and shoot an arrow twelve times more quickly than you can re-load and fire one bullet from a muzzle-loader. Uber-martials should indeed be able to bend this reality, and our game reality should be bent by every weapon equally.

So, if an uber-martial can load and fire sixteen barrels in six seconds (twin double-barrelled pistols, weapon cords) then an uber archer should be able to draw, nock and shoot 192 arrows in the same six seconds.

There is a game mechanics problem here, and that is the reduction of re-load times for muzzle-loaders can be reduced to a free action.

That is what needs fixing, not free actions!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Having just spent an hour of my life reading this thread, I havs a few comments:-

I'm sorry you did that to yourself. There really should be a warning flag at the front.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


* I'm amazed that there appear to be some people who didn't know the difference between drawing an arrow and nocking an arrow, either in real life or in game mechanics

Agree.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


There are many 'free' actions which seem to me to have been written as 'free' in the rules even though 'not an action, but part of another action' would be a better model. It takes more words. 'Shifting grip' on a weapon should be as much part of the action used to attack as 'nocking an arrow' is. SKR even thinks that 'drawing ammunition' for a bow should be 'not an action', and I agree. Even the feat Improved Snap Shot seems to either a.) treat it as a free action which can be done outside your own turn, b.) the same, but only if you have the feat, or c.) not an action. The RAW is not clear.

No-actions and free-actions are a jumbled mess. I remember not to long ago that someone argued that his unconscious character could 5ft shift because the unconscious condition says "you may take no actions" and 5ft shift is listed as a "no action." :p The idea that players should have to worry about "free" actions in regular game play is frankly silly.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


* I don't mind our uber-martials being faster than real life, but it should be 'evenly for every weapon'. But a free action reload of a muzzle-loading firearm does not result in an even increase in speed for every weapon.

In real life, muskets were expected to be loaded and fired 3 times per minute. 4 times was excellent. 5 times was ace! But even with the 5 times that's one reload and fire taking twelve seconds.

Arrows can be drawn, nocked and shot in about 1 second (I've seen the video), and that is drawing a single arrow at a time.

So in real life you can draw, nock and shoot an arrow twelve times more quickly than you can re-load and fire one bullet from a muzzle-loader. Uber-martials should indeed be able to bend this reality, and our game reality should be bent by every weapon equally.

So, if an uber-martial can load and fire sixteen barrels in six seconds (twin double-barrelled pistols, weapon cords) then an uber archer should be able to draw, nock and shoot 192 arrows in the same six seconds.

I don't get the verisimilitude argument. The same argument could be used to say that a wizard should be able to activate a wand as a swift action. It just doesn't take that long to flick my wrist and say "Shazammm!"

No body would think this is a good idea. Because it isn't a good idea. It's a mechanics thing. That's why activating a wand is a standard action. If the problem is mechanics then lets fix the mechanics and let verisimilitude be second chair.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


There is a game mechanics problem here, and that is the reduction of re-load times for muzzle-loaders can be reduced to a free action.

That is what needs fixing, not free actions!

Couldn't possibly agree more.


I think for all ranged weapons you number of reloads should be limited by your Dex bonus. sometimes, even if you know what and how to do something, you're just not fast enough (hence needing higher dex). Shouldn't really be a massive change if the numbers I see floating around the board are an indication of what high level play is like.

Personally, aside from one or two one shots or short (10 game) campaigns over a decade ago I've yet to get past lvl 6 (my current highest character, should actually go the distance this time) due to games just petering out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
'Shifting grip' on a weapon should be as much part of the action used to attack as 'nocking an arrow' is.

You have no idea how much agreeing I am doing here. You've never even seen that much agreement until now. Polearms are amazingly versatile when it comes to what that length is for.

For the rest...

The problem we get with crossbows, bows and firearms is that two of these are being hit, or people demand they be hit, with the reality greatclub, while the other gets gentle taps of the reality sillystring. Is this a fantasy game or not? Someone apparently refused to decide, yet I for one was pretty convinced that the dragons, spellcasters and giant robot spiders were making it pretty clear that this is a historically accurate representation of realistic world travels.

Want realism? Let's point out, being forced to, again, that Bows, longbows in particular, are anything BUT a simple weapon. Don't even TRY to correct with 'martial' when it comes to bows, you can get bow proficiency on a bloody wizard without so much as ever touching a feat if you really want it. They're about a tenth of a feat harder to learn than a point-and-click interface according to Pathfinder. Your option should basically be "learn to use bows, enjoy big damage bonuses and RoF" versus "have full firearms or crossbow proficiency, and two combat feats of your choosing towards the use of that weapon type. Also they don't explode in your hand ten percent of the time you try to shoot them"

On top of this, firing one per second is fine and dandy on a twenty pound draw short-bow against paper targets twenty feet away. Still quite the feat of skill and agility, but we're not talking about pumping out a 300lb draw-weight straight through a horse five hundred feet away here, let alone doing it once or more a second for ten minutes straight without your arm just giving up on its tortured and hellish existence.

So if we're going to inject more realism into firearms and crossbows [and let's face it most people demanding this ONLY EXPLICITLY REFER TO FIRING SPEED] we're going to have to slow them down. We gonna "forget", for "the sake of gaming", about the fact that a winch-loaded crossbow should be punching straight through a horse? Why isn't that bullet causing a whole string of disease rolls given their lead composition and all the dirty pig grease they were stored in? What's this? Let's not worry so much about realism in a fantasy game?

If it's fantasy, give us our bloody autocrossbows and fix the 'free action abuse' rules so that you don't have to be apparently bending RAI over a forklift and violating it until it dies just to get the iteratives you spent feats, gold and *actual class levels* [in the case of guns] in order to be allowed to do.

If it's realism, the first new entry in the equipment list should be a steel-spanned arbalest with numbers that'll make PCs below level 5 utterly **** themselves the next time they consider besieging a castle. You'll only be getting that one shot at the start of the fight, but something's going to DIE to it.

It's also quite unrealistic to have FIVE bolts in a repeating crossbow, as opposed to TEN. The stats on repeaters, being as horrifically cruddy as they are, are pretty spot on though. By the way it's a simple, simple, simple simple weapon. You can teach it to a guy with commoner levels and he might even manage to reload it between chickens.

The development team needs to CHOOSE. And once they do, ALL of those weapons are gonna have to get redone from the ground straight up. Because quite obviously, letting some weapons get the full grace of the gods of fantasy while others have to be realistic but only on the bad sides has left us with a whole bunch of wonky mechanics overriding each-other trying to make up for that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, but the "reasonable" number is going to vary from game to game. Play style to play style. Group to group.

Letting the GM determine that number is the best solution, IMHO.


It was already "letting the gm determine that number". Now that number is "should be three when they're the same thing, or five if multitasking with no repetitions, but bows can fire infinite no problem we never meant for them to be limited in any way". It seems odd that one would find it so difficult to understand that developer-suggested servings are clear indication of the intent of the rules, when they are described as, oh, I dunno, being the intent/clarification of what they've said before.

Such RAI interpretations are also, as I understand it, used as de-facto default rulings for PFS as well. This just makes the error worse.

With unreasonable examples quite explicit to something some pretend is not at all the intended target of the change, that section of FAQ needs to be rewritten.

One cannot simply back it or use it to back their arguments and then turn around and pretend it's inconsequential and that those who disagree with its wording can just ignore it. Doing so borders dangerously close to "this rule is perfectly fine because you can houserule it to fix it" arguments.


The rule has not changed at all.

This is an FAQ not an errata.

It provides a suggested guideline but does not change the rule from its previous state.

I approve of the change for multiple reasons.
1) It empowers GM's to quickly shut down free action abuse (as defined individually on a GM by GM basis)
2) It provides a guideline to what the Developers consider reasonable without setting that guideline in stone.
3)It leaves utilization of the rule to the same person it always has.
4)It leaves determination of a "reasonable' limit to the same person that it always has.
5)It does not and has not set a cap on free actions but, again, leaves that to the individual GM to accomplish.

Dark Archive

I am firmly in Weslocke's corner on this one.

blahpers wrote:
I'm seriously baffled by the "don't abuse free actions and you have nothing to worry about, citizen" attitude. At this point, I have no freaking idea what constitutes abuse of free actions. You can point at "obviously this" and "obviously not this", but I genuinely don't know where that line is even for the developers that wrote the FAQ.

The whole point of all this is that ONE person gets to decide that - your DM. And if you don't agree with their decision, talk about it like adults or find another DM. This really isn't rocket science.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Weslocke wrote:

The rule has not changed at all.

[...]

I approve of the change for multiple reasons.

;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are people having a serious issue with the concept that talking and holding a conversation should limit a person's abilities to do other tasks? Why? (<-- honest question)

It's incontrovertible that multitasking is difficult, that people tend then to focus on one primary task over another, and that doing multiple (even simple) tasks at the same time tends to make performance of the tasks as a whole suffer.

One study using a driving simulator found that drivers conversing by cell phone were more likely than those talking to passengers to drift between lanes and to miss an exit they were instructed in advance to take. When the researchers analyzed the complexity of the conversations in this study, they found that drivers and passengers tended to modulate their speech in response to external traffic cues. For example, they stopped talking when a traffic problem developed, or the passenger would offer advice to help the driver navigate. Conversations taking place by cell phone, on the other hand, did not vary much in response to changing traffic conditions (perhaps no surprise, because only the driver was actually aware of what was happening on the road).

Note the findings: Simply talking while driving impairs one's ability to drive. Why doesn't it tend to be a problem when people in the same car hold a conversation? Because when the driver needs to divert attention to driving, everybody in the care stops talking. It's the same reason people turn down the radio when they're trying to read street signs when following directions to a new place; your brain can only handle so much at one time.

I recognize that people can take exception to pure real-world application to a game setting, but real-world issues still apply. If you don't like the idea of talking inhibiting your ability to take other actions during your turn, fine. But do not act like the idea is patently unreasonable because it's not; it's actually quite well-founded from a scientific perspective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


* I don't mind our uber-martials being faster than real life, but it should be 'evenly for every weapon'. But a free action reload of a muzzle-loading firearm does not result in an even increase in speed for every weapon.
In real life, muskets were expected to be loaded and fired 3 times per minute. 4 times was excellent. 5 times was ace! But even with the 5 times that's one reload and fire taking twelve seconds.

Arrows can be drawn, nocked and shot in about 1 second (I've seen the video), and that is drawing a single arrow at a time.

So in real life you can draw, nock and shoot an arrow twelve times more quickly than you can re-load and fire one bullet from a muzzle-loader. Uber-martials should indeed be able to bend this reality, and our game reality should be bent by every weapon equally.

So, if an uber-martial can load and fire sixteen barrels in six seconds (twin double-barrelled pistols, weapon cords) then an uber archer should be able to draw, nock and shoot 192 arrows in the same six seconds.

I don't get the verisimilitude argument. The same argument could be used to say that a wizard should be able to activate a wand as a swift action. It just doesn't take that long to flick my wrist and say "Shazammm!"

No body would think this is a good idea. Because it isn't a good idea. It's a mechanics thing. That's why activating a wand is a standard action. If the problem is mechanics then lets fix the mechanics and let verisimilitude be second chair.

I can appreciate that, but I don't think using a wand is as simple as waving your hand and saying "Shazamm!" You still have to place the spell, target creatures, draw on your magical training (or fake it), etc. Even if the only physical action required of you is pointing and clicking, there's also conceivably a mental component that isn't reflected in the rules.

Ultimately, Malachi's point is a good one. Already, the average Gunslinger is disproportionately faster at using these types of weapons than people who, in the real world, trained with them their entire lives. That, in and of itself, isn't a terrible thing. But it certainly stretches credibility when you realize just how massive that difference is.

Besides, the purpose behind mechanics (in many places) is to create a game system that mimics reality as closely as possible or as is necessary (depending on context). That's the reason behind rules like falling, drowning, action limitation, attacks of opportunity, massive damage, etc. In the real world, 'x' situation behaves like this, so how can we mimic that in our game system? I don't think it makes much sense to try to divorce verisimilitude from mechanics because game mechanics are typically (though not necessarily uniformly) how we try to achieve some semblance of verisimilitude.

That doesn't mean the rules are a perfect analogue for reality or that they necessarily must be in every situation. Magic is the perfect example. It doesn't exist in the real world like it does in the game world. The purpose of magic is to defy the laws of nature, science, physics, etc. So, it's necessarily understood that magical things will behave differently. No such basic understanding exists for the use of firearms in Pathfinder. Firearms actually exist. We can base their use in the game off of their use in the real world (just like we do with grappling, sword fighting, archery, use of mounts, overland movement, etc.). That's why it makes sense to me to at least consider real world use of game analogues in situations like this.


Asked this earlier in the thread, got ignored but it is integral to the free actions argument.

Combat Reflexes + Improved Snap Shot will give a gunslinger with a 7 Dex mod eight attacks of opportunity per round with 15-foot reach.

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. Source

I don't know much about pistoleros, but a Musket Master with a double-barrel musket is going to need 16 free-action reloads to take all of those attacks of opportunity.

Should I throw away my Musket Master's character sheet?

Silver Crusade

Wolfmang wrote:

Asked this earlier in the thread, got ignored but it is integral to the free actions argument.

Combat Reflexes + Improved Snap Shot will give a gunslinger with a 7 Dex mod eight attacks of opportunity per round with 15-foot reach.

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. Source

I don't know much about pistoleros, but a Musket Master with a double-barrel musket is going to need 16 free-action reloads to take all of those attacks of opportunity.

Should I throw away my Musket Master's character sheet?

Is your question really 'Should I throw away my character sheet'?


Wolfmang wrote:

Asked this earlier in the thread, got ignored but it is integral to the free actions argument.

Combat Reflexes + Improved Snap Shot will give a gunslinger with a 7 Dex mod eight attacks of opportunity per round with 15-foot reach.

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. Source

I don't know much about pistoleros, but a Musket Master with a double-barrel musket is going to need 16 free-action reloads to take all of those attacks of opportunity.

Should I throw away my Musket Master's character sheet?

If I'm GMing this, I'd probably allow the same number of AoO free actions as I'd allow to happen during your regular turn. I haven't really decided how many I'd allow during your turn. Maybe your number of iteratives (before taking into account things like Rapid Shot and/or Haste or after, not sure yet).

YMMV. I don't think you're going to get a uniform answer on that.


You know the more I think about it, I don't believe the 3 actions for reload is what they think is reasonable for a reg build. I think they were trying to imply that if u have a build that is abusing free actions, then restricting that person down to 3 reload free actions is what they think is a reasonable way to do it. Like in another thread about a player asking about speak in the game. His/her dm restricted speaking during combat down to 3 words or else it became another action because past players were abusing the speaking. Now is that the rules? No, but I believe its in the same spirit albeit a very strict one.
The double shot gunslinger who has weapon cords can get 8 attacks off with the build. Dm has a problem with it, so the dev team is saying that if the dm wanted to restrict the reload free action to 3 in a turn to where the gunslinger is getting off 6 shots one round and then 4 the next then back to 6 and so on, the dev team believes that is a reasonable judgement to the dm. At the very lowest, the gunslinger is still getting off 4 shots which is the reg full amount at lvl 20.
After looking at it that way, I can agree with their faq BUT I believe they needed to add to the sentence about the 3 reloads about if the characters build reeks of cheese, THEN restricting them to 3 reload free actions per round is what they believe is reasonable because with the build in question STILL with the faq gets off 4 shots in the very least with 6 shots rotating each other round is something they see as reasonable.
The idea I can get behind but the faq does need to be better worded.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Wolfmang wrote:

Asked this earlier in the thread, got ignored but it is integral to the free actions argument.

Combat Reflexes + Improved Snap Shot will give a gunslinger with a 7 Dex mod eight attacks of opportunity per round with 15-foot reach.

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. Source

I don't know much about pistoleros, but a Musket Master with a double-barrel musket is going to need 16 free-action reloads to take all of those attacks of opportunity.

Should I throw away my Musket Master's character sheet?

Is your question really 'Should I throw away my character sheet'?

Of course not. Are you seriously ignoring the rest of the post to focus on an embellishment? This thread has enough posts already.

If gunslingers are going to be limited to 3 free actions during a full-round plus maybe three during AoO, without a major rehaul of the class or their weapons, then what is the point of ever using a gunslinger?? Musket Master in particular, who cant cheese it up and quick draw extra guns.

With a limit of three free-actions, a level 20 Musket Master with a double-barrel musket can still only fire three bullets per full-attack. Make that five if their barrels were already loaded, but they likely won't be if he has been in combat for more than one round.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You don't think reloading 16 times in 1 round is just a bit excessive? This is exactly the sort of thing the FAQ was meant to help DMs with.

3 may be too little, but 16?

My view of the FAQ is that by putting "3" in their example, the DM can be empowered to say "I know this says 3 over here, but I'm going to be generous and give you 6, or 8." And the player will be less inclined to bog down the game with arguments, because they're actually getting something that exceeds their expectations based on the suggested ruling.

Grand Lodge

fretgod99 wrote:

Are people having a serious issue with the concept that talking and holding a conversation should limit a person's abilities to do other tasks? Why? (<-- honest question)

It's incontrovertible that multitasking is difficult, that people tend then to focus on one primary task over another, and that doing multiple (even simple) tasks at the same time tends to make performance of the tasks as a whole suffer.

One study using a driving simulator found that drivers conversing by cell phone were more likely than those talking to passengers to drift between lanes and to miss an exit they were instructed in advance to take. When the researchers analyzed the complexity of the conversations in this study, they found that drivers and passengers tended to modulate their speech in response to external traffic cues. For example, they stopped talking when a traffic problem developed, or the passenger would offer advice to help the driver navigate. Conversations taking place by cell phone, on the other hand, did not vary much in response to changing traffic conditions (perhaps no surprise, because only the driver was actually aware of what was happening on the road).

Note the findings: Simply talking while driving impairs one's ability to drive. Why doesn't it tend to be a problem when people in the same car hold a conversation? Because when the driver needs to divert attention to driving, everybody in the care stops talking. It's the same reason people turn down the radio when they're trying to read street signs when following directions to a new place; your brain can only handle so much at one time.

I recognize that people can take exception to pure real-world application to a game setting, but real-world issues still apply. If you don't like the idea of talking inhibiting your ability to take other...

Just because something is realistic does not mean it isn't patently unreasonable in a gaming environment. PF is a social game. Players are constantly having conversations both between players and between characters. If someone were to enforce the talking limit people would then have to watch everything they said at the table just to make sure they weren't unintentionally violating the enforcement and limiting their characters just because they wanted to socially interact. Enforcing a rule that makes it difficult to be social in a social game, thus decreasing the fun of the game, especially for the sake of nitpicky realism, is something I would call patently unreasonable.


I think there's a fair discussion to be had on whether three is a reasonable limit. But if the limit is not three, then what do people feel a reasonable limit would be? In my opinion, 16 free actions just to reload all your possible attacks with a double musket is completely unreasonable. But I don't think it's unreasonable to at least let a level 20 Gunslinger make all of his or her iteratives in a round. So, I'd typically allow more than three (though maybe I'd scale it with level).

Regardless, the question is if you think three is too few, how many is ok? And, since people also are objecting to the examples of actions used in the FAQ, which types of free actions count towards that limit?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psyren wrote:

You don't think reloading 16 times in 1 round is just a bit excessive? This is exactly the sort of thing the FAQ was meant to help DMs with.

3 may be too little, but 16?

My view of the FAQ is that by putting "3" in their example, the DM can be empowered to say "I know this says 3 over here, but I'm going to be generous and give you 6, or 8." And the player will be less inclined to bog down the game with arguments, because they're actually getting something that exceeds their expectations based on the suggested ruling.

I'd say ranger being able to retrieve an arrow, nock an arrow, pull back string and release eight times during an AoO is a bit excessive too if we are talking about the realm of normal human capability.

Grand Lodge

fretgod99 wrote:

I think there's a fair discussion to be had on whether three is a reasonable limit. But if the limit is not three, then what do people feel a reasonable limit would be? In my opinion, 16 free actions just to reload all your possible attacks with a double musket is completely unreasonable. But I don't think it's unreasonable to at least let a level 20 Gunslinger make all of his or her iteratives in a round. So, I'd typically allow more than three (though maybe I'd scale it with level).

Regardless, the question is if you think three is too few, how many is ok? And, since people also are objecting to the examples of actions used in the FAQ, which types of free actions count towards that limit?

I think it is unreasonable to tell a player they get less free actions than another player simply because of the class they chose to play.

This is 'class' discrimination (no pun intended), and I find it sad that Paizo is promoting it for one of their legal classes.


trollbill wrote:
Just because something is realistic does not mean it isn't patently unreasonable in a gaming environment. PF is a social game. Players are constantly having conversations both between players and between characters. If someone were to enforce the talking limit people would then have to watch everything they said at the table just to make sure they weren't unintentionally violating the enforcement and limiting their characters just because they wanted to socially interact. Enforcing a rule that makes it difficult to be social in a social game, thus decreasing the fun of the game, especially for the sake of nitpicky realism, is something I would call patently unreasonable.

Sure, that's fair. But I don't think there's any real indication that GMs should be stamping down on table talk unless it gets to the point where it's dragging game play to a halt. I highly doubt it's ever been or going to be an issue. When people are worried about free action abuse, it's rarely about talking.

The only time I'd even really consider in-game talking to be an action that I need to keep track of or concern myself with as a GM is if the character is trying to engage an NPC or if a character is constantly barking out tactical orders to other PCs - that sort of thing. In that context, I think it's perfectly reasonable to limit actions based on talking.

"No, you can't stop concentrating on your spell, draw and reload your bow, take a 5' step, and drop prone. Why? Because you just spent the last twenty seconds of table time telling all of your companions how to maneuver around the battlefield."

If the character talk amounts to "help me flank this guy" or something like that, it's not even going to register to me as something I should keep track of. I'm not going to limit somebody's free actions based on that unless there's some other serious abuse going on (and if there is, the abuse doesn't come from a character saying "help me flank this guy").

Note that I'm not saying that it is uniformly reasonable to limit characters' abilities to speak - circumstance is relevant. My point wasn't that people need to keep a hard track of talking during rounds. My point is simply that it's not abjectly unreasonable to think that talking could be something to keep track of. The objection was, paraphrased, "It's ridiculous to think that talking might impair my ability to do other things." I'm not saying GMs must keep track of talking. I'm not saying GMs always should keep track of talking. I'm not saying you can't be social and I'm not saying players and even characters aren't allowed to talk to one another. But it's not unreasonable to limit in-character conversation that happens in battle, especially if the purpose of it is to gain tactical advantage over enemies. That's all. It can be done if the GM thinks players are abusing it and it's not unreasonable that something as simple as talking could interfere with one's ability to do other even simplistic things (because we see talking doing just that in the real world).


trollbill wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

I think there's a fair discussion to be had on whether three is a reasonable limit. But if the limit is not three, then what do people feel a reasonable limit would be? In my opinion, 16 free actions just to reload all your possible attacks with a double musket is completely unreasonable. But I don't think it's unreasonable to at least let a level 20 Gunslinger make all of his or her iteratives in a round. So, I'd typically allow more than three (though maybe I'd scale it with level).

Regardless, the question is if you think three is too few, how many is ok? And, since people also are objecting to the examples of actions used in the FAQ, which types of free actions count towards that limit?

I think it is unreasonable to tell a player they get less free actions than another player simply because of the class they chose to play.

This is 'class' discrimination (no pun intended), and I find it sad that Paizo is promoting it for one of their legal classes.

That didn't really answer either of my questions.


fretgod99 wrote:

I think there's a fair discussion to be had on whether three is a reasonable limit. But if the limit is not three, then what do people feel a reasonable limit would be? In my opinion, 16 free actions just to reload all your possible attacks with a double musket is completely unreasonable. But I don't think it's unreasonable to at least let a level 20 Gunslinger make all of his or her iteratives in a round. So, I'd typically allow more than three (though maybe I'd scale it with level).

Regardless, the question is if you think three is too few, how many is ok? And, since people also are objecting to the examples of actions used in the FAQ, which types of free actions count towards that limit?

It would take six (3x2) free-action reloads to reload a DB musket for a level 13 Musket Master to take his iteratives. Throw Rapid Shot on top and he needs eight (4x2) reloads.

But consider, is reloading two barrels really the same as reloading one barrel twice? I'd say not really. The barrels on a DB musket are very close together by design. Why cant he grab two cartridges with the same hand and drop them into the barrels? So is it really eight free actions, or four? Is a 24 Dex gunslinger incapable of retrieving and placing two cartridges at the same time?

People also seem to forget that it costs 6gp per cartridge to reload for free, and that cost never goes away (lightning reload only works once per round). The sole cost of going all-out is self-regulating imo. Can my Musket Master shoot eight bullets per round? Yes, but that costs 48gp to do, so I would more often use Dead Shot unless the s+*$ truly hit the fan.

Can my musket master take eight attacks of opportunity, firing both barrels? Yes, but that costs 96gp to do. Not something you would want to do often unless absolutely necessary. Meanwhile rangers can shoot as much as they want with impunity.

Grand Lodge

fretgod99 wrote:
trollbill wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

I think there's a fair discussion to be had on whether three is a reasonable limit. But if the limit is not three, then what do people feel a reasonable limit would be? In my opinion, 16 free actions just to reload all your possible attacks with a double musket is completely unreasonable. But I don't think it's unreasonable to at least let a level 20 Gunslinger make all of his or her iteratives in a round. So, I'd typically allow more than three (though maybe I'd scale it with level).

Regardless, the question is if you think three is too few, how many is ok? And, since people also are objecting to the examples of actions used in the FAQ, which types of free actions count towards that limit?

I think it is unreasonable to tell a player they get less free actions than another player simply because of the class they chose to play.

This is 'class' discrimination (no pun intended), and I find it sad that Paizo is promoting it for one of their legal classes.

That didn't really answer either of my questions.

The answer is implied by the response. If an archer can get 8 free actions in a round, then so should a gunslinger, or a wizard, or a druid....

Dark Archive

fretgod99 wrote:


Regardless, the question is if you think three is too few, how many is ok? And, since people also are objecting to the examples of actions used in the FAQ, which types of free actions count towards that limit?

I think 6-8 is enough. Make it high enough that a hasted dual-wielder can get all their attacks, then add a couple more so they can spout witty banter, and cut it off.

10 would be the absolute ceiling for me and would probably involve being quiet the whole time.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:

But if the limit is not three, then what do people feel a reasonable limit would be? In my opinion, 16 free actions just to reload all your possible attacks with a double musket is completely unreasonable.

If the comparative fighter with a bow can deal an average X points of damage a round at any given level. Then a fighter with a gun (any poor sod who wants to use a ranged weapon other than a bow) needs to be able to deal about an somewhere in the ballpark of an average X points of damage in a round.

If you limit the firearm user to a half number of shots of the bow, then it should be dealing about twice the damage per shot. But the reasonable answer isn't half. Half would scale with the archer. A limit on free actions doesn't scale.

If the firearm wielder is balanced at level 6 with 3 shots, to the archer with 4 at level 6. Then the archer is going to be miles ahead with 7 at level 16 if the firearm wielder is still at 3.

If you limit the firearm wielder to 3 shots, then the firearm will go the way of the crossbow, and be the weapon of wizards and clerics. No competent full BAB character would ever even consider it as an alternative. Much like crossbows/slings have been for the past decade. If you want firearms to be like unused.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, considering the response to my previous comment on this thread, I fully retract any suggestion of clearly defining the number of free actions a character should be limited to.

I'm just going to stick to "if your explanation of your number of attacks requires me, as the GM, to work through a list of 'by the rules' actions more complex than 'iteratives, TWF, haste, and feats X &Y', then I'm not happy". I think that covers it well enough for my table.


Don't know how many times I can repeat this:

If you design a class that can attack X number of times through a standard build without including feats, and then later state that it's reasonable to limit an action type to something less than X, when that action type is required to get all of those attacks, then you screwed up.

It's true that they offer these only as examples, not hard caps, but the fact is that by pointing out that they - the designers - feel those are reasonable examples of limits, when they designed a class that is actively broken by that cap?

No, that's just silly. I respect the designers, but that doens't mean they're infallible.

I also need to repeat that the majority of people complaining about this FAQ are not complaining because it puts a kibosh on firing 16 times in a round. I think that's as ridiculous as anyone.

We're complaining because the examples*, if actually used, would limit a number of legal and common builds to fewer attacks than the build actually allows.

*Out of curiosity: If the designers did not intend GMs to use those examples as guidelines or base lines for 'reasonable' free action usage, then please explain why they included them. Because in my experience, the reason you include an example is because you want to give someone an accurate idea of how the author believes the prior text should be interpreted\applied.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Maezer wrote:


If the comparative fighter with a bow can deal an average X points of damage a round at any given level. Then a fighter with a gun (any poor sod who wants to use a ranged weapon other than a bow) needs to be able to deal about an somewhere in the ballpark of an average X points of damage in a round.

I don't know that I agree with that assessment. If you wanted all options to be equal from a gamist perspective, then yes, that's what you want to do. That would be an appropriate route to take with a board game, in particular, but I'm not convinced that's the best design strategy to take with all role playing games. And for that matter, the D&D line has never really been that particular game (although 4e probably took us closest to that game than we had ever been before).


Xaratherus wrote:

Don't know how many times I can repeat this:

If you design a class that can attack X number of times through a standard build without including feats, and then later state that it's reasonable to limit an action type to something less than X, when that action type is required to get all of those attacks, then you screwed up.

It's true that they offer these only as examples, not hard caps, but the fact is that by pointing out that they - the designers - feel those are reasonable examples of limits, when they designed a class that is actively broken by that cap?

No, that's just silly. I respect the designers, but that doens't mean they're infallible.

I also need to repeat that the majority of people complaining about this FAQ are not complaining because it puts a kibosh on firing 16 times in a round. I think that's as ridiculous as anyone.

We're complaining because the examples*, if actually used, would limit a number of legal and common builds to fewer attacks than the build actually allows.

*Out of curiosity: If the designers did not intend GMs to use those examples as guidelines or base lines for 'reasonable' free action usage, then please explain why they included them. Because in my experience, the reason you include an example is because you want to give someone an accurate idea of how the author believes the prior text should be interpreted\applied.

If you want my honest take on all of this (in particular the Gunslinger aspect), the PDT is stuck working within the already existent action structure. Reloading a gun is massively more complex than drawing and nocking an arrow. It's more complex than drawing a bolt and resetting a crossbow. In any realistic sense, reloading a gun (particular not a modern style with a clip or magazine) shouldn't ever be anything close to a free action. But, if it's anything more than a free action (under the current structure), iteratives are unusable for characters using guns. If it's anything more than a move action, the weapons are virtually worthless altogether.

I believe that it was actually mentioned more than once by members of the PDT that they felt constrained by the action system. It simply doesn't accommodate guns very well.

You shouldn't be able to fire a gun as quickly as you can shoot a bow. Being able to makes no logical sense to me. But the way the rules are constructed, it makes it legal to do so. That's why I don't think the guidelines are honestly all that unreasonable. But, this is a tough time to insert a possible restriction like this. Best case scenario, it should have been done when the class came out, along with all the feats associated therewith. They probably hadn't had an opportunity to play out all the possible ramifications at that point, though.


Wolfmang wrote:
But consider, is reloading two barrels really the same as reloading one barrel twice? I'd say not really. The barrels on a DB musket are very close together by design. Why cant he grab two cartridges with the same hand and drop them into the barrels? So is it really eight free actions, or four? Is a 24 Dex gunslinger incapable of retrieving and placing two cartridges at the same time?

I'd actually say that loading two barrels is roughly the same as loading one barrel twice. You may be able to draw two cartridges at once, but you've still got to drive them into the barrel separately. Reloading a muzzle loader isn't as simple as dropping a cartridge into the barrel. That has a lot to do with why I don't think loading an early firearm should ever be anything close to a free action.

But, the way the rules are constructed, a Gunslinger can reload a one or two-handed firearm with a free action with Rapid Reload, once 11th level is reached. In that context, limiting the Gunslinger's free actions makes a lot of sense. Until 11th level a Gunslinger can't make use of iteratives with a gun, anyway (unless I'm spacing on something).

EDIT: Forgot using a paper cartridge could reduce loading time for one-handed firearms to a free action (and two-handed for Musket-Masters).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:


I don't know that I agree with that assessment. If you wanted all options to be equal from a gamist perspective, then yes, that's what you want to do. That would be an appropriate route to take with a board game, in particular, but I'm not convinced that's the best design strategy to take with all role playing games. And for that matter, the D&D line has never really been that particular game (although 4e probably took us closest to that game than we had ever been before).

Very true. If you don't want firearms to be viable weapons or comparable in damage output to a bow. Then limiting their reloads to significantly fewer than the bow will certainly accomplish that.

If the FAQ stated: We want the bow to be undisputed king of all ranged weaponry. Therefore all weapons except for the bows are subject to this free action limitation. Then there would have been far less confusion. And no one would have mistaken believed they were only trying to reign in double barrel/two weapon fighting firearms.


Blindmage wrote:
I think for all ranged weapons you number of reloads should be limited by your Dex bonus. sometimes, even if you know what and how to do something, you're just not fast enough (hence needing higher dex). Shouldn't really be a massive change if the numbers I see floating around the board are an indication of what high level play is like.

I love that when you try to offer a simple fix to a problem in a thread where everyone is fighting, it just gets ignored.

Dark Archive

Xaratherus wrote:


*Out of curiosity: If the designers did not intend GMs to use those examples as guidelines or base lines for 'reasonable' free action usage, then please explain why they included them. Because in my experience, the reason you include an example is because you want to give someone an accurate idea of how the author believes the prior text should be interpreted\applied.

1) As a preliminary stab at the issue to gauge forum response. JB said as much in the archery thread.

2) As I said above, by suggesting a more stringent cap, they free the DM to set a more lenient one without being challenged as ardently. If Paizo says "maybe try 3?" and the DM says "I'll go ahead and give 6" then the player is going to see his DM as being nice and throwing him a bone. Whereas if the DM had simply said "6" without this ruling, the player would have said "Why 6? Free actions take no time. If you combine haste with full BAB I'm already at 5 then throw in dual-wielding and I'm there. I should have a couple more in case I need to drop both my guns and draw two more while firing off a witty quip. Sure I can do all that in 6 seconds and still 5-foot step, why do you ask?"


Chemlak wrote:
I'm just going to stick to "if your explanation of your number of attacks requires me, as the GM, to work through a list of 'by the rules' actions more complex than 'iteratives, TWF, haste, and feats X &Y', then I'm not happy". I think that covers it well enough for my table.

Oh you mean, what you already had with the core rules telling you to use your own judgement?

And what did the FAQ add to those core rules? Bad suggestions on what reasonable should be.

This is what made it a bad FAQ from the start.

It was compounded when we found out that it wasn't really intended to be a FAQ, but rather a 'test the waters and provoke a response' that didn't want to use other means of communication.

That was a misuse of the FAQ system that should have removing confusion as a goal rather than stirring it up.

All in all it was a bad FAQ and a bad misuse of the system,

-James


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:

I'd actually say that loading two barrels is roughly the same as loading one barrel twice. You may be able to draw two cartridges at once, but you've still got to drive them into the barrel separately. Reloading a muzzle loader isn't as simple as dropping a cartridge into the barrel. That has a lot to do with why I don't think loading an early firearm should ever be anything close to a free action.

But, the way the rules are constructed, a Gunslinger can reload a one or two-handed firearm with a free action with Rapid Reload, once 11th level is reached. In that context, limiting the Gunslinger's free actions makes a lot of sense. Until 11th level a Gunslinger can't make use of iteratives with a gun, anyway (unless I'm spacing on something).

I'll commission a masterwork double ram to seat the powder+bullet for both barrels at the same time. Pathfinder makes no mention of consumables beyond powder+bullet to fire, so nothing else needs to be loaded (such as flint or caps). EDIT: along these lines, note that part of the long reload times for muskets IRL was replacing flint/caps

If we want to make reloading anything more than free, which implies a Move action at least, then the Gunslinger is completely worthless.

Your reference to 11th level free reloads is probably referring the Lightning Reload deed, which can only be used once per round for only one barrel. That means paper cartridges are still required to drop the reload to a free in conjunction with Rapid Reload for any additional reloads.

Dark Archive

james maissen wrote:


All in all it was a bad FAQ and a bad misuse of the system,

Jason explained why they didn't use the blog or the forums; the former is used sparingly and restricted to primarily marketing functions, while the latter would have had the guideline get lost in the shuffle and they wouldn't have gotten as much feedback on it.


fretgod99 wrote:
this is a tough time to insert a possible restriction like this. Best case scenario, it should have been done when the class came out, along with all the feats associated therewith. They probably hadn't had an opportunity to play out all the possible ramifications at that point, though.

They had plenty of time, and plenty of warning for that matter. The gun rules that are used in pathfinder are a PAIZO holdover from 3.5. The rules first came to light in the old Pathfinder Campaign Setting hardcover (ie. NOT the Inner Sea World Guide). When it came time to play-test the gunslinger class these message boards were alight with posters clamoring for new gun rules because the old ones were so terribly bad. The devs stepped in and told everyone that they thought the rules were workable and had no intention to change them.

2.5 years later those same devs are complaining about a complex system of moving parts they inherited (from themselves) with gun rules that include touch AC (Paizo's own rule, that many people expressed concern with BEFORE even the play test) so naturally they need to squash some irregularities that have come up.

It's bogus. The irregularities were completely predictable and preventable. This method of fixing them is terrible. The FAQ in it's current form is terrible. Even the people who are the biggest advocates of the FAQ, when they are pressed and will actually give a straight answer, tell you that the example is NOT reasonable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blindmage wrote:
Blindmage wrote:
I think for all ranged weapons you number of reloads should be limited by your Dex bonus. sometimes, even if you know what and how to do something, you're just not fast enough (hence needing higher dex). Shouldn't really be a massive change if the numbers I see floating around the board are an indication of what high level play is like.
I love that when you try to offer a simple fix to a problem in a thread where everyone is fighting, it just gets ignored.

Because it isn't simple... and its a bad solution. Firstly it would alter the actoon economy for games that use higher or lower point buy or higher or lower WBL.

Secondly it could very well mean that a 10 dex lvl 20 fighter couldnt fire more than a single shot if used a bow as a backup weapon and couldnt even reload for next round

Third it would mean that a temporary dex penalty completely shuts down any archer rather than just being inhibitive

Finally it would leave a class like zen archer dead in the water


Wolfmang wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

I'd actually say that loading two barrels is roughly the same as loading one barrel twice. You may be able to draw two cartridges at once, but you've still got to drive them into the barrel separately. Reloading a muzzle loader isn't as simple as dropping a cartridge into the barrel. That has a lot to do with why I don't think loading an early firearm should ever be anything close to a free action.

But, the way the rules are constructed, a Gunslinger can reload a one or two-handed firearm with a free action with Rapid Reload, once 11th level is reached. In that context, limiting the Gunslinger's free actions makes a lot of sense. Until 11th level a Gunslinger can't make use of iteratives with a gun, anyway (unless I'm spacing on something).

I'll commission a masterwork double ram to seat the powder+bullet for both barrels at the same time. Pathfinder makes no mention of consumables beyond powder+bullet to fire, so nothing else needs to be loaded (such as flint or caps). EDIT: along these lines, note that part of the long reload times for muskets IRL was replacing flint/caps

If we want to make reloading anything more than free, which implies a Move action at least, then the Gunslinger is completely worthless.

In any realistic sense, it should be longer than a move action. If you want to tell me it's superhuman for an archer to fire off 6-8 arrows in a six second span, then follow that up with 6-8 more AoO after his/her turn, I don't disagree with you in the slightest. At that point, we're talking about superhuman feats of dexterity and quickness, by a large margin.

However, we're already in the realm of superhuman agility by firing a muzzle-loading musket once every six seconds. Dropping the reload time of a two-handed firearm to a move action means you can fire once every round. That's already twice as fast as some of the most efficient people in history. Firing multiple times a round goes beyond superhuman into straight up impossibility.

It makes complete sense that muzzle-loaders should be limited to attacking once a round. Unfortunately like I mentioned, guns don't fit well into the existent action structure. If this were to be redesigned from the ground up, you'd never have guns being fired as quickly as they are now. Three shots a round (once every two seconds) is astoundingly fast and you probably wouldn't get there until late-game.


Psyren wrote:
2) As I said above, by suggesting a more stringent cap, they free the DM to set a more lenient one without being challenged as ardently. If Paizo says "maybe try 3?" and the DM says "I'll go ahead and give 6" then the player is going to see his DM as being nice and throwing him a bone. Whereas if the DM had simply said "6" without this ruling, the player would have said "Why 6? Free actions take no time. If you combine haste with full BAB I'm already at 5 then throw in dual-wielding and I'm there. I should have a couple more in case I need to drop both my guns and draw two more while firing off a witty quip. Sure I can do all that in 6 seconds and still 5-foot step, why do you ask?"

But you also allow for the opposite. A GM who might have allowed 3 before can just as easily look at the FAQ and say, "Well, I was allowing 6 - but they say that it's more reasonable to allow 3, so I will allow 3."

And the fact is that the GM was already free to set as lenient a cap as desired, because the FAQ didn't actually change any rules.

[edit]

fretgod99 wrote:
You shouldn't be able to fire a gun as quickly as you can shoot a bow.

Just to make sure, we're talking about pistols? Because I agree.

But if the game is going to use black powder pistols as the baseline firearm, then the class has to be made viable somehow.

The concept is primarily one of a damage-dealing class, so I guess perhaps they could have made the reload take a longer time but up the damage on the gun greatly to even out with what an archer can do?

(I still think that revolvers should have been the baseline weapon for Gunslingers, but...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its crazy to me that anyone thinks that a hard limit on free actions is a good idea or even remotely close to one. Particularly when the real issue here is double barreled guns and weapon chords... guess what? Fix those instead... not that hard. Double crossbows already have the proper language to fix this issue because you can't reload each bolt individually in order to turn it into two free actions rather than 1 move action.

If you have a problem with twf pistoleros and weapon chords just use the stated rules that say it interferes with finer actions... which can easily encompass loading a firearm. Also it takes a swift action to recover (of which you only get 1/round) and that can't ne reduved by quickdraw

And you need a free hand to reload a gun... note that even quickdraw only lets you DRAW a weapon as a free action. Sheathing a weapon is a move action. So unless that pistolero has 7 preloaded pistols... there is no way to load and fire two at the same time. Even two braces of pistols with weapon cords would only let you retrieve one dropped gun per round as a swift action.

Essentially I am saying that there are all sorts of reasonable limits already in the game. To hit something as generic as free actions throws way too many other things into chaos without really addressing the main concern in a fair manner.


BigDTBone wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
this is a tough time to insert a possible restriction like this. Best case scenario, it should have been done when the class came out, along with all the feats associated therewith. They probably hadn't had an opportunity to play out all the possible ramifications at that point, though.

They had plenty of time, and plenty of warning for that matter. The gun rules that are used in pathfinder are a PAIZO holdover from 3.5. The rules first came to light in the old Pathfinder Campaign Setting hardcover (ie. NOT the Inner Sea World Guide). When it came time to play-test the gunslinger class these message boards were alight with posters clamoring for new gun rules because the old ones were so terribly bad. The devs stepped in and told everyone that they thought the rules were workable and had no intention to change them.

2.5 years later those same devs are complaining about a complex system of moving parts they inherited (from themselves) with gun rules that include touch AC (Paizo's own rule, that many people expressed concern with BEFORE even the play test) so naturally they need to squash some irregularities that have come up.

It's bogus. The irregularities were completely predictable and preventable. This method of fixing them is terrible. The FAQ in it's current form is terrible. Even the people who are the biggest advocates of the FAQ, when they are pressed and will actually give a straight answer, tell you that the example is NOT reasonable.

Which example is not reasonable? To be honest, I think limiting shots from a firearm to three is incredibly generous (and even I think I'd allow full iteratives). The problem is, as you stated, guns not meshing well with the rest of the rules, which is why the book explicitly recognizes the GM's right to refuse to allow them. I don't think this method of fixing the issue is terrible. It's really the only way to do it without doing a complete overhaul of the firearm rules (possibly including an overhaul of how actions work). That's no small task.

Honestly, the more I've been involved with this conversation the more I've drifted towards being less lenient with free actions to reload firearms. Firing a muzzling-loading firearm arm once every six seconds is astounding. Firing one once every two is straight up ridiculous. But, I'd abide by the guidelines, since it seems like an attempt to strike some kind of balance between the rules which were in place and any semblance of realism. And of course, I'd let any player who wanted to use firearms now this all ahead of time. If it came to GMing PFS, I'd make my tables aware of any intended restrictions (and I'd still probably be a bit more lenient since the characters almost assuredly would have been put together before this FAQ came out).

*shrug*

I'm fully aware that this opinion isn't going to engender much popular support.


fretgod99 wrote:
However, we're already in the realm of superhuman agility by firing a muzzle-loading musket once every six seconds. Dropping the reload time of a two-handed firearm to a move action means you can fire once every round. That's already twice as fast as some of the most efficient people in history. Firing multiple times a round goes beyond superhuman into straight up impossibility.

Another superhuman feat: getting shot with a musket a half-dozen times from 10 feet away and being in good enough shape to respond by swinging a greataxe. The problem with limiting two-handed firearms to a single attack per round is that it nerfs them to the point of unplayability. If there was a way to fire only a single shot per round but still remain viable in combat, then limiting reloading for firearms would make a lot more sense. The underlying issue is that you need iterative attacks to remain viable at dealing damage at mid to high levels.


Lord_Malkov wrote:
Blindmage wrote:
Blindmage wrote:
I think for all ranged weapons you number of reloads should be limited by your Dex bonus. sometimes, even if you know what and how to do something, you're just not fast enough (hence needing higher dex). Shouldn't really be a massive change if the numbers I see floating around the board are an indication of what high level play is like.
I love that when you try to offer a simple fix to a problem in a thread where everyone is fighting, it just gets ignored.

Because it isn't simple... and its a bad solution. Firstly it would alter the actoon economy for games that use higher or lower point buy or higher or lower WBL.

Secondly it could very well mean that a 10 dex lvl 20 fighter couldnt fire more than a single shot if used a bow as a backup weapon and couldnt even reload for next round

Third it would mean that a temporary dex penalty completely shuts down any archer rather than just being inhibitive

Finally it would leave a class like zen archer dead in the water

Thank you for responding to the idea.

It might not be pretty, but some variation on the idea could work. Obviously, classes that work differently (Zen Archer) would be altered to make it work.

10 dex at lvl 20? really? I've never event seen a lvl 5 character with 10 dex that used a ranged weapon.

How about combining the idea with...can't figure out a simple phrasing right now...but what if you could always reload a ranged weapon equal to the number of attacks granted by your BAB + your Dex Bonus. Dex penalties do not apply to this figure.


fretgod99 wrote:
However, we're already in the realm of superhuman agility by firing a muzzle-loading musket once every six seconds. Dropping the reload time of a two-handed firearm to a move action means you can fire once every round. That's already twice as fast as some of the most efficient people in history.

We're ALSO well into the realm of superhuman agility by nocking, drawing, aiming and loosing all afternoon with no fatigue on something you need a titan's strength to even pull, and doing so at a rate higher than one per second as though the bow we were using was the tiny point-blank ranged things we see in the youtube videos people keep linking here to prove bows can be used quickly.

At that point we're talking about superhuman feats of dexterity and quickness, by a large margin.

At least a pepperbox -which the FAQ was intended to limit to three shots a round as well- has all its barrels preloaded.

251 to 300 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