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


Rules Questions

301 to 350 of 412 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

fretgod99 wrote:
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.

Honestly, if the FAQ said that it was intended to limit firearms I would be a lot happier with it. If it had just limited firearm reload free actions to 3-5 a round I would have been a lot happier. If it had not used speaking a factor to reduce other free actions I would have been a lot happier.

To answer your question though, giving an example of 3 free actions (if two of them are the same) as a reasonable limit is just really bad. There are too many things which use free actions that are just not a big deal (and I know it has been beat to death, but this does include drawing arrows) to do a bunch of times.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
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 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.

If I were redesigning gun rules one of the things I would do would be to up damage per hit.


Gunslingers wrote:
Man, what bullcrap! This limit totally destroys my character if I can't reload 16 + times a round. What a bad FAQ! It's not even needed because of expense and misfires, no one is reloading that much anyways!

Wha..?


Jamie Charlan wrote:
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.

Undoubtedly. If I were redesigning those rules as well, I'd probably reduce how quickly an archer can fire. Not by a ton, but definitely some. The difference in realism from how bows are used compared to firearms though is massive.


BigDTBone wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
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.

Honestly, if the FAQ said that it was intended to limit firearms I would be a lot happier with it. If it had just limited firearm reload free actions to 3-5 a round I would have been a lot happier. If it had not used speaking a factor to reduce other free actions I would have been a lot happier.

To answer your question though, giving an example of 3 free actions (if two of them are the same) as a reasonable limit is just really bad. There are too many things which use free actions that are just not a big deal (and I know it has been beat to death, but this does include drawing arrows) to do a bunch of times.

Using talking as a limiting free action isn't unreasonable (though for me to do it, it'd have to be something more than "flank this guy" or something like that). Personally, I also wouldn't limit it to three if, for instance we're talking and reloading. I'd probably limit it to three reloads, but I'd probably still allow the 5' step and something else, depending on circumstance.

I do think if the intent was to limit firearms specifically, that could have been made more apparent. I do agree that if the intent was to limit weapon cord abuse, that could have been made more apparent. But I don't think having everybody reminded that free actions are still limited is a bad thing.


fretgod99 wrote:
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
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 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.
If I were redesigning gun rules one of the things I would do would be to up damage per hit.

Take all your iteratives, reloading is a move equivalent action. Full AC to hit opponent. If you hit, the opponent makes a fort save against 10+ 1/2 gunslinger level + d(4-12 depending on the weapon) or gains the unconscious and dying conditions (even if their HP are above 0), bleed equal to the dice roll. Staunching the bleed will revive the victim if HP are above 0 or are returned to above 0.


fretgod99 wrote:
If I were redesigning gun rules one of the things I would do would be to up damage per hit.

If I were redesigning the combat rules, I'd decrease the number of attacks and increase damage per attack across the board. Instead of getting more attacks in a full attack as your BAB goes up, you'd instead do extra damage. Limiting the rate at which hit points increase with level would also help.

But that's not the state of the rules in Pathfinder. If you limit reloading two-handed firearms to once per round the result will be that PCs won't use two-handed firearms past low levels (if they even use them then). It will just turn that two-handed firearms into yet another trap option, a section of the rules that is just ignored by players with sufficient system mastery. Pathfinder doesn't need more options that never get used because they are weak to the point of unplayability.


Quote:
he difference in realism from how bows are used compared to firearms though is massive.

Yes. It is.

For example they get differing draw weights so they can hit like bloody trucks with every shot. Crossbows don't even get a 12str's level of impact because "they're simple weapons" and firing slowly wasn't nasty enough for them.

Bows do not need to remain unstrung until immediately prior to their use. A firearm will still end up with wet powder if not explicitly protected fromthe elements.

Bows get to fire their full rates at full power with full accuracy instead of just in massed volleys with minimal training, while it takes years to learn the simplistic hand-it-to-beaver repeating crossbow's mechanisms.

Bows get to fire two arrows at once with no major frame modifications, not even the refletching required of arrows to pull this off or any penalty on aiming such a difficult affair. A double-pistol's at -4.

Bows get bracers specific to them to improve their output, but magical gear that improves a held firearm or crossbow's performance is not available as standard [and thus in PFS], leaving them with less of a level of usable 'fantasy'.


Blindmage wrote:
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.

Its not that this couldn't work theoretically. Its that this would be a hugely overcomplicated way to solve a pretty specific concern. We already know that the devs don't really mean for this to apply to bows. Really free action is a term littered throughout many aspects of the game.. and if the real concern is firearms and reload times for them... then that is the thing to address. Otherwise its a weird workaround with them saying " limit free actions.. oh but not for bows... or crossbows.... actualy just for guns.... and speaking apparently"

Honestly... the firearm problems are not that hard to fix.

Problem 1: touch ac does not scale through the beastiary where all other defenses do.
Solution 1: the gunslinger hits touch ac on the first attack each round (making deadshot a much more viable option)

Problem 2: double barreled guns effectively double a gunslingers attacks
Solution 2: use the double crossbow language to ensure that reloading both barrels in the same round is a specific action that takes a full round action, a standard action with rapid reload, a move action with alchemical cartridges, and down to a swift action with musket master archtype... so with that full investment into reloading faster a musket master can get 1 exrra attack per round... exactly like manyshot


Are we comparing bows and crossbows or bows and firearms? Because everybody and their brother can recognize that crossbows got the short end of the stick a long time ago.

But even with all that stuff going for bows there, firearms can potentially fire at 10-20x the rate (and higher) that ordinarily would be possible.


Lord_Malkov wrote:

Problem 1: touch ac does not scale through the beastiary where all other defenses do.

Solution 1: the gunslinger hits touch ac on the first attack each round (making deadshot a much more viable option)

Problem 2: double barreled guns effectively double a gunslingers attacks
Solution 2: use the double crossbow language to ensure that reloading both barrels in the same round is a specific action that takes a full round action, a standard action with rapid reload, a move action with alchemical cartridges, and down to a swift action with musket master archtype... so with that full investment into reloading faster a musket master can get 1 exrra attack per round... exactly like manyshot

Honestly, I think if you fix the rate of fire issue, the first one isn't a problem. Have them fire more slowly, but make it easier for them to hit. On the second problem, that seems workable to me.


Double Crossbow language is a felling blow against the weapon actually. The Double Crossbow people actually use is the 'minotaur' one, which with near-abuse optimization of vital strike can get you a bit over half of a longbow's DPR in that one mega double-shot.

Unlike the 'other' double, crossbow mastery allows full reloads of that one as free actions. no strength bonus, definitely can't be dual-wielded, but at least you can do quite well.

Rather, if you want "exactly like manyshot", you just have to word it that way. A double-barreled firearm can twin-fire one attack a round, for a -4 to that attack - you hit both hit, and apply precision damage and bonus elemental dice only once.


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?

Well the houserule I use is that free-actions cannot immediately follow free-actions and the player must do something, not necessarily an action but something maybe an attack, between free actions. This houserule predates gunslingers, I forget exactly what caused the rule but I recall it involved doing 1d3 acid damage an unlimited number of times and is ignored if the stacked free actions aren't abusive. This houserule prevents the TWF double pistol pistolero while allowing the TWF pistol gunslinger to make all their attacks and AoOs.

As far as I can tell the TWF double pistol pistolero isn't really that good until magic items are commonplace, and at that point the game breaks down so that it isn't the most overpowered build. Admittedly I've only played a TWF double pistol pistolero once when I was allowed to sub a level 7 in for a day (houserule suspended) but the performance was far from impressive with misfires up the wazoo, and this was a dwarf with the -1 from racial options. I like gunslingers as they are a fun, quirky class in action but they are not reliable damage dealers - enemies who don't cooperate by standing 15-25' away, misfires, wind wall and so on can easily make them quite weak.


Jamie Charlan wrote:

Double Crossbow language is a felling blow against the weapon actually. The Double Crossbow people actually use is the 'minotaur' one, which with near-abuse optimization of vital strike can get you a bit over half of a longbow's DPR in that one mega double-shot.

Unlike the 'other' double, crossbow mastery allows full reloads of that one as free actions. no strength bonus, definitely can't be dual-wielded, but at least you can do quite well.

Rather, if you want "exactly like manyshot", you just have to word it that way. A double-barreled firearm can twin-fire one attack a round, for a -4 to that attack - you hit both hit, and apply precision damage and bonus elemental dice only once.

I agree, but I also have to say that it is pretty easy to not allow an item from Classic Monsters Revisited which predates the printing of the current double crossbow. One could argue that since the APG version of Double Crossbow (even though it doesn't say Minotaur Double Crossbow) supersedes the old version.

Either way, though, I think that you need to address exactly how a double barreled gun is reloaded and what sort of action that takes. And simply leaving it to a swift action with full class/feat investment has the same effect as saying you can fire both barrels 1/round (although it would be possible with a preloaded gun to get 4 shots on 2 attacks... that doesn't worry me)

Anyway, what I meant about the double crossbow language is to ensure that you couldn't parse up the load times into 2 separate free actions and instead to enforce that loading both barrels is a single action that takes more than a free action.

On a totally different thought... if you clean up the language for drawing ammunition to not take an action... you probably could limit free actions to: One free action for every action, attack, AoO, etc.

That would mean that you could reload once for each attack, but not quickdraw a gun, load it and attack. You could still quickdraw and shoot OR reload and shoot, but not both. Free actions are already described as usually being part of some other action, so this would seem to be pretty reasonable if limiting free actions was really a thing that needed to happen.

Dark Archive

Xaratherus wrote:


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 then, like adults, they will hopefully evaluate the impact on their game and decide if the gunslinger player is having fun or not.

The larger problem here was the people trying to reload 16 times in one turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psyren wrote:
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.

They *are* the company, and they can make whatever categories that they wish.

Calling it a FAQ when it is not, is disingenuous and fosters confusion. After this point when I see a FAQ I won't know whether or not it is a new rule, a clarification that they believe in, or something that they are just testing out.

They've made places for discussion.. we're ON one of them. They could easily make it a sticky and generated as much interest without resorting to silly tricks like this.

It's a bad move. They wanted feedback.. this is the feedback that they should get.

-James


Psyren wrote:
The larger problem here was the people trying to reload 16 times in one turn.

But an archer firing 20 times in a round is not a problem?

The larger problem is that they didn't make this extra feature the way that they wanted it. They should fix that, and not let that problem bleed over to the parts with which they don't have a problem.

-James

Dark Archive

james maissen wrote:
After this point when I see a FAQ I won't know whether or not it is a new rule, a clarification that they believe in, or something that they are just testing out.

That's actually easy. A rule/clarification won't have the following line: "Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can {X} as appropriate to the circumstances."

If you see that, it's a suggestion. If not, it's a clarification/rule. Simple.

james maissen wrote:
But an archer firing 20 times in a round is not a problem?

There are double-barreled bows?


Psyren wrote:
james maissen wrote:
After this point when I see a FAQ I won't know whether or not it is a new rule, a clarification that they believe in, or something that they are just testing out.

That's actually easy. A rule/clarification won't have the following line: "Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can {X} as appropriate to the circumstances."

If you see that, it's a suggestion. If not, it's a clarification/rule. Simple.

james maissen wrote:
But an archer firing 20 times in a round is not a problem?
There are double-barreled bows?

20th level zen archer with haste and extra ki attack, snap shot, combat reflexes and a 30 DEX can make 20 arrow attacks in a round. But this FAQ isn't meant to reduce arrow attacks from bows...


Psyren wrote:
james maissen wrote:
After this point when I see a FAQ I won't know whether or not it is a new rule, a clarification that they believe in, or something that they are just testing out.

That's actually easy. A rule/clarification won't have the following line: "Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can {X} as appropriate to the circumstances."

If you see that, it's a suggestion. If not, it's a clarification/rule. Simple.

james maissen wrote:
But an archer firing 20 times in a round is not a problem?
There are double-barreled bows?

Hmmm... well a zen archer can have 7 shots at 16... and a regular fighter can get y shots with rapid shot and manyshot... +1 to both with haste

The only real way to get a ton of shots is with snap shot, improved snap shot and combat reflexes.

Ostensibly an 11th level archer archetype fighter with all these feats along with greater trip could make 2 shots at his first target within 15' and make one of those shots a trip. Greater trip means that a successful trip provokes... so that is three shots, continue tripping and getting aoos on the haste shot, rapid shot shot, and the second and third iteratives for a total of 11 shots in one round. (Potentially 13 at level 16)

Then... assuming that the fighter has a dex mod of +12 AND enough creatures provoke the fighter could get up to 20 shots off in one full round of combat... though target of opportunity could make that slightly easier.

Yeah its theoretically possible.... but definitely not comparable to a gunslinger doing it every round unconditionally.


james maissen wrote:
Psyren wrote:
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.

They *are* the company, and they can make whatever categories that they wish.

Calling it a FAQ when it is not, is disingenuous and fosters confusion. After this point when I see a FAQ I won't know whether or not it is a new rule, a clarification that they believe in, or something that they are just testing out.

They've made places for discussion.. we're ON one of them. They could easily make it a sticky and generated as much interest without resorting to silly tricks like this.

It's a bad move. They wanted feedback.. this is the feedback that they should get.

-James

If you're worried about whether something in a FAQ is supposed to be a hard, fast rule, look to the FAQ. For instance, this one says "Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances." It's not intended to be a hard, fast rule so you needn't treat it as one.


Psyren wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:


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 then, like adults, they will hopefully evaluate the impact on their game and decide if the gunslinger player is having fun or not.

The larger problem here was the people trying to reload 16 times in one turn.

Not everyone that plays tabletop games are adults. I started in on tabletop games when I was around 13 - and we had a number of really stupid fights over rules much like this one.

But let me ask: You point out that the larger problem here was the abuse of reloading by some Gunslingers.

Since the FAQ does absolutely nothing to fix that problem - it restates a rule that already existed - then what is the purpose of the FAQ?


BigDTBone wrote:
Psyren wrote:
james maissen wrote:
After this point when I see a FAQ I won't know whether or not it is a new rule, a clarification that they believe in, or something that they are just testing out.

That's actually easy. A rule/clarification won't have the following line: "Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can {X} as appropriate to the circumstances."

If you see that, it's a suggestion. If not, it's a clarification/rule. Simple.

james maissen wrote:
But an archer firing 20 times in a round is not a problem?
There are double-barreled bows?
20th level zen archer with haste and extra ki attack, snap shot, combat reflexes and a 30 DEX can make 20 arrow attacks in a round. But this FAQ isn't meant to reduce arrow attacks from bows...

Snap Shot threatens out to 5'. How often is someone provoking 15 unique attacks of opportunity within 5'? And the 16 free action reload question didn't stem from a 20th level character, which may or may not be relevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
If you're worried about whether something in a FAQ is supposed to be a hard, fast rule, look to the FAQ. For instance, this one says "Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances." It's not intended to be a hard, fast rule so you needn't treat it as one.

Guideline: A statement or other indication of policy or procedure by which to determine a course of action

A guideline might not be a hard rule in itself, but it is, by its very definition, meant to be used as a basis for making decisions in similar situations.

The examples were included with specific numbers, calling those numbers reasonable, with the intention that people will use those as a basis for decisions in their games.

Again, I ask: If the designers didn't intend you to take these examples as a sort of framework upon which to base your limitation of free actions, why did they call them 'gudelines', and in fact why did they include them in the first place?

You don't make suggestions expecting them to be completely ignored; you make them with the intention that the person will implement them, or at the very least reference them specifically in their own decisions.


fretgod99 wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Psyren wrote:
james maissen wrote:
After this point when I see a FAQ I won't know whether or not it is a new rule, a clarification that they believe in, or something that they are just testing out.

That's actually easy. A rule/clarification won't have the following line: "Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can {X} as appropriate to the circumstances."

If you see that, it's a suggestion. If not, it's a clarification/rule. Simple.

james maissen wrote:
But an archer firing 20 times in a round is not a problem?
There are double-barreled bows?
20th level zen archer with haste and extra ki attack, snap shot, combat reflexes and a 30 DEX can make 20 arrow attacks in a round. But this FAQ isn't meant to reduce arrow attacks from bows...
Snap Shot threatens out to 5'. How often is someone provoking 15 unique attacks of opportunity within 5'? And the 16 free action reload question didn't stem from a 20th level character, which may or may not be relevant.

Improved Snap Shot threatens at 15 feet.

And 16 free actions does not imply 15(16?) attacks of opportunity. It is eight attacks of opportunity, each firing two barrels at the same target. This was based on a level 11 musket master with a 7 dex mod and a DB musket. Also bear in mind misfires which, if my math is correct, is going to occur at least once 91% of the time.


fretgod99 wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Psyren wrote:
james maissen wrote:
After this point when I see a FAQ I won't know whether or not it is a new rule, a clarification that they believe in, or something that they are just testing out.

That's actually easy. A rule/clarification won't have the following line: "Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can {X} as appropriate to the circumstances."

If you see that, it's a suggestion. If not, it's a clarification/rule. Simple.

james maissen wrote:
But an archer firing 20 times in a round is not a problem?
There are double-barreled bows?
20th level zen archer with haste and extra ki attack, snap shot, combat reflexes and a 30 DEX can make 20 arrow attacks in a round. But this FAQ isn't meant to reduce arrow attacks from bows...
Snap Shot threatens out to 5'. How often is someone provoking 15 unique attacks of opportunity within 5'? And the 16 free action reload question didn't stem from a 20th level character, which may or may not be relevant.

Well I assume we're talkinf about improved snap shot which is 15ft.

And I would agree that its far less abusive since its obviously so conditional


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xaratherus wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
If you're worried about whether something in a FAQ is supposed to be a hard, fast rule, look to the FAQ. For instance, this one says "Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances." It's not intended to be a hard, fast rule so you needn't treat it as one.

Guideline: A statement or other indication of policy or procedure by which to determine a course of action

A guideline might not be a hard rule in itself, but it is, by its very definition, meant to be used as a basis for making decisions in similar situations.

The examples were included with specific numbers, calling those numbers reasonable, with the intention that people will use those as a basis for decisions in their games.

Again, I ask: If the designers didn't intend you to take these examples as a sort of framework upon which to base your limitation of free actions, why did they call them 'gudelines', and in fact why did they include them in the first place?

You don't make suggestions expecting them to be completely ignored; you make them with the intention that the person will implement them, or at the very least reference them specifically in their own decisions.

No one has really been able to defend that piece of things... most of the people defending the faq are saying that its just a guideline so it can be ignored.

Nobody arguing against the faq is suggesting that it isn't anything but a suggestion.

What people seem to be missing is that a suggestion, when it comes from the developers in the form of an official faq, does carry weight.... and the examples given are extreme to say the least. They have far reaching consequences that range across many builds and also many monsters that come right from the beastiary. So, even though it is just a suggestion... if anyone were to follow it.. it would have huge consequences and damage the game.

All that being said... the faq should be removed


Xaratherus wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
If you're worried about whether something in a FAQ is supposed to be a hard, fast rule, look to the FAQ. For instance, this one says "Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances." It's not intended to be a hard, fast rule so you needn't treat it as one.

Guideline: A statement or other indication of policy or procedure by which to determine a course of action

A guideline might not be a hard rule in itself, but it is, by its very definition, meant to be used as a basis for making decisions in similar situations.

The examples were included with specific numbers, calling those numbers reasonable, with the intention that people will use those as a basis for decisions in their games.

Again, I ask: If the designers didn't intend you to take these examples as a sort of framework upon which to base your limitation of free actions, why did they call them 'gudelines', and in fact why did they include them in the first place?

You don't make suggestions expecting them to be completely ignored; you make them with the intention that the person will implement them, or at the very least reference them specifically in their own decisions.

They did intend people to take them as a framework to base limitations of free actions. I never said otherwise. But saying "We think this is a reasonable way to adjudicate this, but feel free to adjust based upon circumstance" doesn't create a situation of mandatory compliance.

They provided the guidelines because they thought there were a reasonable starting point. Individual GMs are free to adjust accordingly, per their own games' and groups' preferences. Doing so doesn't mean the guidelines are ignored; it means the guidelines are the starting point for the discussion. That's ultimately the point.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If those who feel they need to defend the FAQ, because it has no effect on your game, and you don't really care if the limit is 3 or not, then why does it matter to you?

You have no fight.

No reason to care if the examples are there, or not.

It is those that could be negatively effected that care, because with this now established RAI, people will react, and likely take it to heart.

We are the one's that want the examples removed, and we have valid reasons for it.

So, if you don't have anything to fight for, then you are pushing to limit those who you will never meet, never game with, and have no investment in having them run it either way.

Think about it. Why would you do it?

Is spite? Is self righteousness?
Do you need to prove your gaming style is superior to others?
Do you feel you need defend everything the Developers do?

What do get if it's changed, or not?

Dark Archive

BigDTBone wrote:


20th level zen archer with haste and extra ki attack, snap shot, combat reflexes and a 30 DEX can make 20 arrow attacks in a round. But this FAQ isn't meant to reduce arrow attacks from bows...

That is such a singular circumstance, involving multiple supernatural elements, that the GM could reasonably grant far more free actions than his normally allowed limit.

Xaratherus wrote:


Since the FAQ does absolutely nothing to fix that problem - it restates a rule that already existed - then what is the purpose of the FAQ?

Part of it is to reinforce the DM's rights, or to call the DM's attention to something that does require adjudication. Having the power to restrict something doesn't mean that power is exercised without a little nudging. For example, the FAQ for Charm Person notes that the creature is treated as a friend, and how far that friendship goes is up to the DM. This is not a new rule, but by referring to the GM in the FAQ entry, that individual may realize where they didn't before that a charm spell shouldn't be treated like Dominate.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

If those who feel they need to defend the FAQ, because it has no effect on your game, and you don't really care if the limit is 3 or not, then why does it matter to you?

You have no fight.

No reason to care if the examples are there, or not.

It is those that could be negatively effected that care, because with this now established RAI, people will react, and likely take it to heart.

If you are negatively impacted by this, either you deserve to be (because you were taking way more free actions than you reasonably should), or you don't (in which case you should sit down and talk to your GM, who is hopefully mature enough to want to engage in dialogue over your concerns.) And if you're playing with immature people - may I ask why?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

I don't have even a bit of a problem with high level martial characters performing blatantly superhuman feats.


Psyren wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


20th level zen archer with haste and extra ki attack, snap shot, combat reflexes and a 30 DEX can make 20 arrow attacks in a round. But this FAQ isn't meant to reduce arrow attacks from bows...

That is such a singular circumstance, involving multiple supernatural elements, that the GM could reasonably grant far more free actions than his normally allowed limit.

Ok, where is the point in between 9 free actions it takes to fire his regular volley and 20 free actions it takes to exhaust his AOO's that it becomes abusive to do this on a regular basis?

Also, it seems that you have no problem with the 9 free actions it takes to fire the regular volley because your rationally for allowing such a round is that it wouldn't happen often.

It seems fair to point out then that you are OK with a limit a full 300% greater than that offered by the FAQ, and a full 450% greater if the archer yells "death to my mortal foes!" while his does his thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@BBT: Because I get tired of end-of-the-world style raging because rules might not work the way a person originally thought? Because it really bothers me when people create strawmen to argue about rules? Because titles of threads like this and others create massive confusion where none (or at least far less) need exist? Because people attribute interpretations and motives to other posters and the PDT for which there is little or no support, then endlessly complain about that for which there is little or no support? Because I might play in more games with Gunslingers in the future and I want to know how I and others might treat the rules under which they're governed? Because I don't think the examples used in this FAQ are egregious or necessarily unreasonable? Because I want people to argue accurately and honestly in any debate they have, whether I am invested in the outcome or not?

Dunno. Can't speak for everybody. I imagine there are a few that I missed in there. I mean, one of the more eye-roll inducing thing for me was people raging at even the mere concept that speaking during a round could interfere with other things a person might want to do. Not only is that not preposterous, it's scientifically well-founded. Or that a limit of three is patently unreasonable. Unless your argument is that no limit should exist at all, the limit you suggest will necessarily be arbitrary. Just as arbitrary as three or five. That's a perspective that's frequently missed in these debates. The purpose behind the ruling is missed in the angry response. You may not like the examples and the limits but there's a legitimate purpose for the ruling that often (though not exclusively) gets missed by people busy complaining about how the PDT makes decisions.

*shrug*

Am I not allowed to participate and provide a different perspective because I don't have a Gunslinger character at the moment?


Coriat wrote:
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.
I don't have even a bit of a problem with high level martial characters performing blatantly superhuman feats.

I don't really either, but we're not talking about high level martial characters with firearms doing superhuman things.

YMMV. *shrug*

Dark Archive

BigDTBone wrote:


Ok, where is the point in between 9 free actions it takes to fire his regular volley and 20 free actions it takes to exhaust his AOO's that it becomes abusive to do this on a regular basis?

*shrug* It honestly depends. I'll know it when I see it, if I'm DMing.

I do know that point would arrive for guns sooner than it would for bows though.


fretgod99 wrote:

I don't really either, but we're not talking about high level martial characters with firearms doing superhuman things.

YMMV. *shrug*

So... What are we talking about then?


Psyren wrote:


I do know that point would arrive for guns sooner than it would for bows though.

So do you feel that reducing gun reloads to a free action is a bad idea? Keep in mind that free actions are what they are, and drawing an arrow is one.


MrSin wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

I don't really either, but we're not talking about high level martial characters with firearms doing superhuman things.

YMMV. *shrug*

So... What are we talking about then?

By "high level" I'm talking like 15+ at least. Shooting a musket twice in a round is mindbogglingly superhuman when it comes to rate of fire. That occurs relatively early.

I'm not trying to stamp out any and all utility of firearms. I recognize that characters at times do things that defy science, logic, physiology, etc. But the quote that was responded to excised the first part of my point: I recognize that archers firing 6-8+ arrows a round is superhuman (and I wasn't discussing AoO at the time), but it isn't until you get late in the game that for archers you really start getting into superhuman rates of fire; for firearms it's relatively early.

Just providing context from which my original quote was taken.

Dark Archive

BigDTBone wrote:
Psyren wrote:


I do know that point would arrive for guns sooner than it would for bows though.
So do you feel that reducing gun reloads to a free action is a bad idea? Keep in mind that free actions are what they are, and drawing an arrow is one.

What I think is that not all free actions are created equal. There's already precedence for this with speaking, and I think other, different free actions should be treated differently based on circumstance and reason.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Psyren wrote:

If you are negatively impacted by this, either you deserve to be (because you were taking way more free actions than you reasonably should), or you don't (in which case you should sit down and talk to your GM, who is hopefully mature enough to want to engage in dialogue over your concerns.) And if you're playing with immature people - may I ask why?

So, I either deserve to be screwed, or my friends and anyone I game with are immature dolts?

So, is it spite? For what? Prove how awesome and superior you are?

Do you see the develops as deities to worship, and to disagree is blasphemy in your eyes?

This is a downright jerk response, dripping with self-righteousness.

Is groveling you desire? Should I be ashamed to disagree, or be upset?

What right do you have to declare how, or how not I react?

What right do you have, to accuse me of nefarious behavior, or that those I game with are childish twits?

No.

Those here who disagree have the absolute right to do so.

Never forget that.


"If you're defending the developers, are you doing it out of spite or self-righteousness?"
"What right do you have to accuse me of nefarious behaviour?"

Interesting.

Regardless as you say, those who disagree have the absolute right to do so. Similarly, those who agree also have the absolute right to do so, without being accused of doing so merely out of spite or self-righteousness, mind you.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I only asked.

I never said it was the only possible reasons.

Though, I did wonder if a few had done so, for those reasons.


fretgod99 wrote:
MrSin wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

I don't really either, but we're not talking about high level martial characters with firearms doing superhuman things.

YMMV. *shrug*

So... What are we talking about then?

By "high level" I'm talking like 15+ at least. Shooting a musket twice in a round is mindbogglingly superhuman when it comes to rate of fire. That occurs relatively early.

I'm not trying to stamp out any and all utility of firearms. I recognize that characters at times do things that defy science, logic, physiology, etc. But the quote that was responded to excised the first part of my point: I recognize that archers firing 6-8+ arrows a round is superhuman (and I wasn't discussing AoO at the time), but it isn't until you get late in the game that for archers you really start getting into superhuman rates of fire; for firearms it's relatively early.

Just providing context from which my original quote was taken.

But then we, again, return to the point of nerfing firearms and not free actions.... which is (or should be) a completely different discussion that doesn't effect free actions at all. This is, of course, unless the Devs want to go through and errata every single action that is currently listed as a free action.

So if loading 16 shots into double barreled pistols is a problem that breaks verisimilitude for the group above and beyond the other supernatural acts that martial characters can perform... okay! Lets change the rules for firearms and double barreled ones in particular. But don't release a FAQ that makes no mention of being firearm specific and presents a shockingly low number for free actions and then back-peddle on the forums by saying that bows or crossbows or thrown weapons shouldn't be affected.

If the problem is with firearms, fix firearms. Simple as that.

Because otherwise you enter weird territory where a kraken can't use all of its grab attacks. This FAQ if followed to the letter will cause a lot of collateral damage, and if you follow the Dev forum posts then it instead creates about 100 edge cases and exceptions.


I'm on board with changing the rules for firearms. I think that'd be a good solution. I don't think having a guideline for capping free actions is per se unreasonable, though. So, I don't really have a massive disagreement with the FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
I mean, one of the more eye-roll inducing thing for me was people raging at even the mere concept that speaking during a round could interfere with other things a person might want to do. Not only is that not preposterous, it's scientifically well-founded. Or that a limit of three is patently unreasonable. Unless your argument is that no limit should exist at all, the limit you suggest will necessarily be arbitrary. Just as arbitrary as three or five. That's a perspective that's frequently missed in these debates.

First, you're talking about a game where animals talk, people throw fireballs, and dragons exist. Basing an argument on something that is 'scientifically well-founded' is, well, questionable. The game tends to reflect high fantasy; witty banter while in the midst of a sword duel is a pretty common staple, the realism of distraction from talking be damned.

So no, I don't agree that limiting your free actions for shouting a pquip during combat is 'reasonable', because it goes against a common trope of the genre.

Pathfinder really isn't a game designed for gritty realism (if it was, it'd include as default rules [rather than optional] 'fun' things like wound penalties and death from one blow); when I start arguing things from a point of realism I (try to) immediately check myself because the mechanics of the game have at best a tenuous connection to our own reality and our own physics.

What I do ask is that there be consistency within the rules themselves as often as possible.

I agree that 15, or 20, shots is unreasonable. But I also argue that 3 is an unreasonable limit because it does not allow the class, as written, using the basic weapon type of the class, to make use of a common and completely legal build.

A 10th level Gunslinger wielding a single-barreled pistol has 2 attacks from its BAB, is likely to have an extra attack from Rapid Shot, and will often have one more shot due to Haste.

In round 1, the Gunslinger will be able to take full advantage of this very common build, assuming that he takes no free actions other than reloading (which already irks me because of the whole 'witty banter during combat' fantasy trope). In round 2 and beyond, he will be able to shoot 3 times maximum.

To me, that is inconsistency within the game mechanics. The Gunslinger in question is in no sense using an uncommon build for a ranged attacker, but the new guidelines on free actions essentially invalidate it.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I only asked.

I never said it was the only possible reasons.

Though, I did wonder if a few had done so, for those reasons.

Undoubtedly, I'm sure there are. I'm sure there are some who are being as vocal about their disagreement with the FAQ for the same or similar reasons, though (not point fingers at anyone, here).


Psyren wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Psyren wrote:


I do know that point would arrive for guns sooner than it would for bows though.
So do you feel that reducing gun reloads to a free action is a bad idea? Keep in mind that free actions are what they are, and drawing an arrow is one.
What I think is that not all free actions are created equal. There's already precedence for this with speaking, and I think other, different free actions should be treated differently based on circumstance and reason.

If they are not created equal then it would seem like folly to make a suggestion with any numerical reference at all.

Even worse when in the game they are created equal and the developers make suggestions as though they are not.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I admit at times, I may seem to overreact, but it is not only the FAQ.

It is the dismissive nature, amongst many who seem to need to defend it, and the unfounded accusations that only those who would game the system, for the "cheesiest" of options would disagree.

It is incredibly insulting, and the many reactions to such accusations should be evidence enough.

Dark Archive

blackbloodtroll wrote:


So, I either deserve to be screwed, or my friends and anyone I game with are immature dolts?

If you're being toned down deservedly, then you aren't being screwed.

If you're being toned down undeservedly, and your DM refuses to see reason, then yes, you're better off with a new group.

I don't see anything jerkish in pointing out that your DM is supposed to be fair.

BigDTBone wrote:


If they are not created equal then it would seem like folly to make a suggestion with any numerical reference at all.

But the FAQ itself has guidelines in this regard. It gives two examples, not one - one with 5 free actions and one with 3.

That in itself should suggest to you that not all free actions take the same amount of time, since we're dealing with the same 6-second interval in both cases.


Xaratherus wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
I mean, one of the more eye-roll inducing thing for me was people raging at even the mere concept that speaking during a round could interfere with other things a person might want to do. Not only is that not preposterous, it's scientifically well-founded. Or that a limit of three is patently unreasonable. Unless your argument is that no limit should exist at all, the limit you suggest will necessarily be arbitrary. Just as arbitrary as three or five. That's a perspective that's frequently missed in these debates.

First, you're talking about a game where animals talk, people throw fireballs, and dragons exist. Basing an argument on something that is 'scientifically well-founded' is, well, questionable. The game tends to reflect high fantasy; witty banter while in the midst of a sword duel is a pretty common staple, the realism of distraction from talking be damned.

So no, I don't agree that limiting your free actions is 'reasonable', because it goes against a common trope of the genre. Pathfinder really isn't a game designed for gritty realism (if it was, it'd include as default rules [rather than optional] 'fun' things like wound penalties and death from one blow); when I start arguing things from a point of realism I (try to) immediately check myself because the mechanics of the game have at best a tenuous connection to our own reality and our own physics.

What I do ask is that there be consistency within the rules themselves as often as possible.

I agree that 15, or 20, shots is unreasonable. But I also argue that 3 is an unreasonable limit because it does not allow the class, as written, using the basic weapon type of the class, to make use of a common and completely legal build.

Holding conversation is distracting. Period. Not everything has to be purely based in the real world (hence, magic). But the things for which there is a real-world analogue, people tend to expect to behave relatively similarly to how it does in the real world. I mentioned this a couple pages ago. There's a reason grapple rules are made the way they are. There's a reason environmental exposure acts like it does. Same for fatigue, poison, encumbrance, riding horses, swinging a sword, weapon proficiency, etc. behave the way they do. Because the rules were constructed to replicate (to varying degrees of accuracy) the real world with which we are all familiar. That doesn't mean it's perfect, or that concessions aren't made from time to time for ease of play or some other reason. But the ultimately the point is that a vast majority of the rules are designed to replicate real world type things.

So, the fairer discussion isn't whether we are bound by things that occur in the real world, the question is by how much. You cannot eschew verisimilitude in its entirety. And that "scientifically well-founded" bit was specifically about talking being a distraction. You cannot dispute that. I'm not saying that every sentence should count as a free action or that every time a character opens his or her mouth, a free action should get ticked off. But the idea that talking could conceivably be accounted for when determining how a character's time is spent during a round is not a preposterous one - the mere act of holding a conversation means that a character is much more likely to perform more poorly on any other tasks attempted at the same time. The point was simply to address the outrage people were expressing at the idea that talking could be counted against you. It actually makes sense to do so, despite the multitudinous protestations against it. That doesn't mean one has to, but it certainly would be a reasonable thing to take into consideration.

And if you agree that 15 or 20 shots is unreasonable, then you're necessarily agreeing that there ought to be some limit (meaning that having a restriction is therefore reasonable). The question then isn't whether a limit can or should be imposed, but at what point. That's a fair question. I'm open to discussion there. That's been my only purpose for involvement here. Imposing limits on free actions is not necessarily an unreasonable thing to do (and yes, that could include talking).

If the disagreement is with imposing a limit of three or five on free actions, then discuss what limit would be more appropriate.

301 to 350 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