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


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 412 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
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.

It would be absolutely fine with me if the FAQ said something like:

Q: One of my players is using a TON of free actions every round and it is slowing combat down a lot... can I limit free actions?

A: Absolutely, free actions usually are performed as part of another action, and they do not take any measurable time, but if the number of free actions that a character is taking seems to be out of control, you as GM, can certainly put a limit on how many free actions (or even free actions of a particular type) can be performed in a round.

Example: Bob the rogue has the Stand Up rogue talent, which allows him to stand up from prone as a free action. Dropping to Prone is also listed as a free action. According to RAW, Bob the rogue could drop prone and stand up again a near infinite number of times, but as the GM you could reasonably limit the use of this free action to prevent that sort of activity.

Restating that GMs can limit free actions is totally fine...even giving examples is totally fine, as long as those examples are pretty undeniably absurd, like a rogue doing 300 push ups before making a full attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
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.

Then come up with such guidelines, but don't use the ones listed in the FAQ, as they are very poor guidelines and violate the few rules on free actions that do exist.

-James


blackbloodtroll wrote:

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.

I get that. There have been people implying that the only people affected by this are those who are gaming the system or cheesy and that is absolutely unfair.

This FAQ has a major impact on Gunslingers in particular, and I recognize why people are frustrating with that impact. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that there is a purpose behind the FAQ, and that purpose is not necessarily unreasonable. Nor do I think that the tactic or the examples provided are necessarily unreasonable.


james maissen wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
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.

Then come up with such guidelines, but don't use the ones listed in the FAQ, as they are very poor guidelines and violate the few rules on free actions that do exist.

-James

Do you disagree with the numbers provided or the activities mentioned? If it's the activities, what is wrong with their mention of them?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Lord_Malkov wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
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.

It would be absolutely fine with me if the FAQ said something like:

Q: One of my players is using a TON of free actions every round and it is slowing combat down a lot... can I limit free actions?

A: Absolutely, free actions usually are performed as part of another action, and they do not take any measurable time, but if the number of free actions that a character is taking seems to be out of control, you as GM, can certainly put a limit on how many free actions (or even free actions of a particular type) can be performed in a round.

Example: Bob the rogue has the Stand Up rogue talent, which allows him to stand up from prone as a free action. Dropping to Prone is also listed as a free action. According to RAW, Bob the rogue could drop prone and stand up again a near infinite number of times, but as the GM you could reasonably limit the use of this free action to prevent that sort of activity.

Restating that GMs can limit free actions is totally fine...even giving examples is totally fine, as long as those examples are pretty undeniably absurd, like a rogue doing 300 push ups before making a full attack.

This is an excellent example. It reminds a DM of the limits he can impose, gives an example of a situation that a DM would, and puts no suggestion of a "flat limit" for all actions, as a "reasonable limit", and thus, putting forth a RAI precedent that is simply absurd.


Psyren wrote:
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.

No, it doesn't suggest that at all. What it does suggest is that some actions may be taken consecutively and that some are taken simultaneously.

Dark Archive

"300 is too much" doesn't help the DM at all. Anybody could deduce that.


Out of all this discussion, I have not seen mention of the cost for Gunslingers to reload as a free action, which is a major factor Gunslingers must take into account. To reload as a free action, all gunslingers must use a paper cartridge which will always cost 6gp minimum. That cost adds up very quickly. The gunslinger must purchase these upfront too, so he can run out of his free reloads on an extended journey unless he spends 2,000+gp on ammo.

At what point is 6gp per bullet trivial?

100gp is enough for someone to live an "wealthy" lifestyle for a month. A Gunslinger could easily expend 100gp in an encounter (in as little as two rounds perhaps).

Perhaps the inherent cost of reloading as a free action was intended to make gunslingers consider options that don't cost as much gp? Maybe something like the level 7 deed Dead Shot?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

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.

I get that. There have been people implying that the only people affected by this are those who are gaming the system or cheesy and that is absolutely unfair.

This FAQ has a major impact on Gunslingers in particular, and I recognize why people are frustrating with that impact. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that there is a purpose behind the FAQ, and that purpose is not necessarily unreasonable. Nor do I think that the tactic or the examples provided are necessarily unreasonable.

I understand the purpose, and that purpose does not seem entirely unreasonable to me.

It's the execution, and it's repercussions amongst the community.

The suggestion that a flat limit, on all free actions, indiscriminately, is reasonable, and thus, RAI, sets a terrible precedent.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Psyren wrote:
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.

Why would he refuse to see reason, when he is being told by the developers themselves, what is, and is not, reasonable.

One striving to stay to the spirit of the rules, will take this as RAI, which is important to them.

If this FAQ is not RAI, then what is it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Psyren wrote:
"300 is too much" doesn't help the DM at all. Anybody could deduce that.

of course anyone could... but many on this thread have said that all the FAQ does is remind the GM that they can set reasonable limits. My rewrite still has the same effect, and yes the example is an absurd edge case, but the point is that THAT edge case of 300 pushups is still RAW.

The idea behind the wording should be: yes you can limit free actions and just because something is RAW does't mean that further adjudication may not be required.

Any other flat arbitrary guidelines that you put out there with hard numbers or set caps will cause problems.... and rather than be taken as a restatement of the power of a GM to limit free actions, will instead be taken as a suggestion that each GM decide some number of free actions to be a hard cap. The number they suggest is 3-5, but a GM can set a different cap if they prefer.

The idea of setting a flat cap regardless of the types of free actions being performed and not on a case by case basis is, to me, a very new idea. And introducing that idea by using an example of things that are nowhere near edge cases... actions that may, in fact, occur every single round like loading a primary weapom/drawing an arrow or bolt/loading a crossbow and speaking throws things into further disarray.

This holds particularly true when the idea of abuse is brought up. They are prima facia suggesting that a level 11 gunslinger with rapid shot and a single pistol is a character build that could reasonably be considered abusive (4 free action reloads per round). The same would then have to be true for a level 6 zen archer (4 free action arrow draws per round) with no added haste attacks.

So while 300 pushups is so obvious that no one would need clarity that such an act is ridiculous, it is a good idea to remind every GM that such ridiculous things can, in fact, be achieved by a strict reading of the rules. That should then be followed by reminding the GMs out there that what is possible doesn't really depend on arcane combinations of rules but upon the better judgement of the GM.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Lord_Malkov wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
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.

It would be absolutely fine with me if the FAQ said something like:

Q: One of my players is using a TON of free actions every round and it is slowing combat down a lot... can I limit free actions?

A: Absolutely, free actions usually are performed as part of another action, and they do not take any measurable time, but if the number of free actions that a character is taking seems to be out of control, you as GM, can certainly put a limit on how many free actions (or even free actions of a particular type) can be performed in a round.

Example: Bob the rogue has the Stand Up rogue talent, which allows him to stand up from prone as a free action. Dropping to Prone is also listed as a free action. According to RAW, Bob the rogue could drop prone and stand up again a near infinite number of times, but as the GM you could reasonably limit the use of this free action to prevent that sort of activity.

Restating that GMs can limit free actions is totally fine...even giving examples is totally fine, as long as those examples are pretty undeniably absurd, like a rogue doing 300 push ups before making a full attack.

This is an excellent example. It reminds a DM of the limits he can impose, gives an example of a situation that a DM would, and puts no suggestion of a "flat limit" for all actions, as a "reasonable limit", and thus, putting forth a RAI precedent that is simply absurd.

This is actually a pretty terrible example. Nobody would disagree or have any question about whether a GM can tell a character that they're not allowed to do 300 push ups in a round. It's preposterous. Plus, there's not conceivable, useful, in-game circumstance in which a character would want or need to do 300 push ups (particularly not in a single round) which would necessitate this being a disputed issue. The example would in no way assist a GM who is attempting to adjudicate a close case regarding any (or even this) type of free action. Can the GM limit the character to doing this routine twice? What about just once? A preposterous example does nothing to clarify where the issue actually needs to be addressed, which is when the use of free action borders on abuse (which I'm not using pejoratively here), not when it's so far beyond the border you can't even see reasonableness from there.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, excellent example of a good start.

At least ideas are coming around for what is really being discussed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Lord_Malkov wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
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.

It would be absolutely fine with me if the FAQ said something like:

Q: One of my players is using a TON of free actions every round and it is slowing combat down a lot... can I limit free actions?

A: Absolutely, free actions usually are performed as part of another action, and they do not take any measurable time, but if the number of free actions that a character is taking seems to be out of control, you as GM, can certainly put a limit on how many free actions (or even free actions of a particular type) can be performed in a round.

Example: Bob the rogue has the Stand Up rogue talent, which allows him to stand up from prone as a free action. Dropping to Prone is also listed as a free action. According to RAW, Bob the rogue could drop prone and stand up again a near infinite number of times, but as the GM you could reasonably limit the use of this free action to prevent that sort of activity.

Restating that GMs can limit free actions is totally fine...even giving examples is totally fine, as long as those examples are pretty undeniably absurd, like a rogue doing 300 push ups before making a full attack.

This is an excellent example. It reminds a DM of the limits he can impose, gives an example of a situation that a DM would, and puts no suggestion of a "flat limit" for all actions, as a "reasonable limit", and thus, putting forth a RAI precedent that is simply absurd.

This is actually a pretty terrible example. Nobody would disagree or have any question about whether a GM can tell a character that they're not allowed to do 300 push ups in a round. It's preposterous. Plus, there's not conceivable, useful, in-game circumstance in which a character would want or...

But if the goal of the FAQ is indeed to remind GMs that they have the ability to limit free actions when something seems wrong or abusive to them, then this example still satisfies that goal.

It doesn't really matter that this would never come up... the point is that RAW sometimes allows things that are patently absurd or abusive. It is the GM's responsibility to find out where that line is on a case by case basis

the current FAQ instead suggests that a GM should instead create a blanket restriction on free actions, including restricting archers to some set number of attacks. They go on to suggest that this is a shared pool of free actions wherein any free action would count toward a character's total per round, including something as innocuous as speaking. Further, it is never suggested that this "hard cap" scale in any way with spell effects, levels or abilities.

The overall implication is that free actions were never meant to occur more than 3-5 times in a round, and that taking abilities like Stand Up, and using them in unison with, say, Quick Draw and throwing attacks borders on abusive. While just throwing lots of daggers with TWF, imp TWF, and g. TWF plus quickdraw, regardless of the fact that there are built in penalties and heavy feat requirements is outright abuse in the eyes of the developers. Furthermore, it suggests that this is somehow beyond superhuman when a character with those same penalties should be able to make that same number of melee attacks with no fear of adjudication from the GM.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Is the suggestion an implication that the RAI is that all free actions be limited to no more than 3-5 times in a round?

If not, then why is it there?

Again, I say, that if it is not RAW, and not RAI, it does not need to be in a FAQ.


A suggestion was given. Suggestions are not rules that must be followed.

An example was made. Examples are not legally-binding contracts.


Rictras Shard wrote:

A suggestion was given. Suggestions are not rules that must be followed.

An example was made. Examples are not legally-binding contracts.

No, but they are something someone might set you too and those examples are terrible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rictras Shard wrote:

A suggestion was given. Suggestions are not rules that must be followed.

An example was made. Examples are not legally-binding contracts.

sigh...

YES it is just a suggestion. So are average Hit Points per level. So is the point buy system. So is the Character Wealth by level table. Saying that it is a suggestion does not suddenly eliminate the effect that it can have on the game.

But those suggestions i just listed haven't worked their way into the game at all have they??

Yeah

The issue here is that the developers are suggesting a hard cap on free actions and then suggesting that said cap be 3-5. This, if followed, causes problems... hence the massive threads.

More importantly, if you don't think anyone should care.. then it would be hypocritical for you yourself to care.... and if you don't care, then why post at all?


fretgod99 wrote:
Do you disagree with the numbers provided or the activities mentioned? If it's the activities, what is wrong with their mention of them?

I disagree with the way the FAQ was used as a discussion board to stir interest.

I abhor how it misses the mark on what they wanted to do, and the very concept of 'let's change this core idea for this new specific problem'.

I disagree with the FAQ giving a 'system' that had no thought given to it (3 or 5 free actions, etc) that violate even the core rules.

I disagree with the examples as being reasonable.

Being able to draw ammunition should not be limited below the number of attacks you could make (and likely not at just that). Certainly they believe this for arrows, why would bullets be any different?

Even if bullets are different, then that should be something for the specific item and not the rules on free actions!

I mostly disagree with it because it is sloppy and bad game design; this frightens me as Paizo knows better.

-James


fretgod99 wrote:
If the disagreement is with imposing a limit of three or five on free actions, then discuss what limit would be more appropriate.

That's the thing - I don't know if I believe limiting free actions it the appropriate fix problem.

Theoretically, even with this FAQ GM could allow Mr. Rogue to do 300 push-ups. Do I think he'd be silly to do so? Yes. But can he allow it per RAW? Absolutely. Just as the whole "500 kilometer mount-dismount" is technically perfectly legal by RAW if you can make the requisite Ride checks to do it as a free action (that may have been a 'better' example).

So unless you put a hard cap on free actions, you aren't fixing any problems, because you're still leaving it up to the GM and therefore leaving the potential for the problem to continue in place.

I think a better fix to the problem is to alter the rules surrounding firearms so that a Gunslinger can reload and fire a number of times to in order to deal potential damage equal to other combat-oriented classes at the same level. If a 'normalized' archer build can deal 40 damage at X level, then a Gunslinger should have a BAB and a fire\reload capacity to be able to deal around the same amount of damage.

That said, such a fix is outside the realm of an FAQ. If I restrict myself solely to looking at "fixing" this through suggested limits on free actions (I put "fix" in quotes because as I mentioned, offering a suggested limit on free actions doesn't really do anything at all)... then my suggestion would be that a Gunslinger be able to perform enough free actions to reload and fire an equivalent number of shots (not an equal number of attacks, but an equal number of shots) equal to an archer of the same level.

Dark Archive

MrSin wrote:


No, but they are something someone might set you too and those examples are terrible.

That is the fault of those people then, not the FAQ or devs.

Lord_Malkov wrote:


More importantly, if you don't think anyone should care.. then it would be hypocritical for you yourself to care.... and if you don't care, then why post at all?

You can care, but care for the right reasons. Don't pretend it's not a suggestion when it is.

Xaratherus wrote:


So unless you put a hard cap on free actions, you aren't fixing any problems, because you're still leaving it up to the GM and therefore leaving the potential for the problem to continue in place.

Why is leaving it up to the GM a "problem?" The GM is there precisely so the designers don't have to spell out every single interaction possible.


Psyren wrote:
MrSin wrote:
No, but they are something someone might set you too and those examples are terrible.
That is the fault of those people then, not the FAQ or devs.

Devs and FAQs can't be at fault? Why not?


Xaratherus wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
If the disagreement is with imposing a limit of three or five on free actions, then discuss what limit would be more appropriate.

That's the thing - I don't know if I believe limiting free actions it the appropriate fix problem.

Theoretically, even with this FAQ GM could allow Mr. Rogue to do 300 push-ups. Do I think he'd be silly to do so? Yes. But can he allow it per RAW? Absolutely. Just as the whole "500 kilometer mount-dismount" is technically perfectly legal by RAW if you can make the requisite Ride checks to do it as a free action (that may have been a 'better' example).

Though I'd say limiting free actions isn't a fix to the mount/dismount thing at all. It's still a stupid abuse if you only do it 3 times to move 15' without using a move action.

The appropriate solution is to thwap anyone seriously suggesting it on the head with a rolled up newspaper. Or at least throw dice at them.


Psyren wrote:
MrSin wrote:


No, but they are something someone might set you too and those examples are terrible.

That is the fault of those people then, not the FAQ or devs.

Lord_Malkov wrote:


More importantly, if you don't think anyone should care.. then it would be hypocritical for you yourself to care.... and if you don't care, then why post at all?

You can care, but care for the right reasons. Don't pretend it's not a suggestion when it is.

Xaratherus wrote:


So unless you put a hard cap on free actions, you aren't fixing any problems, because you're still leaving it up to the GM and therefore leaving the potential for the problem to continue in place.
Why is leaving it up to the GM a "problem?" The GM is there precisely so the designers don't have to spell out every single interaction possible.

Don't do that... don't quote me and then edit it down so you can pretend that I didn't, in that very post, say that it was a suggestion three times.

I think when I start my post with "Yes its just a suggestion" you can gather that I am not "pretending that its not a suggestion"

Either you can't read or are just trolling... either way your opinion no longer counts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MrSin wrote:


Devs and FAQs can't be at fault? Why not?

My guess would be that if they were wrong about one thing, it might mean they were (gasp!) wrong about other things. And then certain people's worlds would fly apart at the seams. They would have seen the clay feet, the emperor's clothes, the guy behind the curtain.


A) Rule 0 means that all problems in your game are your fault.
B) When the developers do something dumb, refer to A.

Some people here will see this as sarcasm, some people will see it as serious. That is the argument we are having here.


mdt wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Devs and FAQs can't be at fault? Why not?
My guess would be that if they were wrong about one thing, it might mean they were (gasp!) wrong about other things. And then certain people's worlds would fly apart at the seams. They would have seen the clay feet, the emperor's clothes, the guy behind the curtain.

Certainly they can make a mistake. I'm just not going to presume it because they make a ruling I don't like or don't agree with. Just because I don't like a ruling doesn't mean they were wrong. Maybe they just (gasp!) see things differently than I do.

And if they change their mind, whatever. It's not a really big deal. It's not going to hurt my feelings if they alter their suggestions. My discretion as a GM (outside of PFS) is still intact, just like it was before.

Dark Archive

MrSin wrote:


Devs and FAQs can't be at fault? Why not?

Nonsense, of course they can, but you can hardly blame them for the actions of your personal DM. That's like saying "Waah, my DM ruled I couldn't Charm Person the King into making me his sole heir, it's all SKR's fault!"

mdt wrote:


My guess would be that if they were wrong about one thing, it might mean they were (gasp!) wrong about other things. And then certain people's worlds would fly apart at the seams. They would have seen the clay feet, the emperor's clothes, the guy behind the curtain.

Careful, don't pass out from the thin atmosphere up there on your high horse.


Psyren wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Devs and FAQs can't be at fault? Why not?
Nonsense, of course they can, but you can hardly blame them for the actions of your personal DM. That's like saying "Waah, my DM ruled I couldn't Charm Person the King into making me his sole heir, it's all SKR's fault!"

Erm... I don't think that's what I was talking about at all. Bit of hyperbole there maybe? I think that's what you call it anyway.

I have to ask, do you think its good advice to only give someone 3 free actions and reduce that if they speak?


Psyren wrote:
Why is leaving it up to the GM a "problem?" The GM is there precisely so the designers don't have to spell out every single interaction possible.

The designers have stated that they believe there's a balance issue - a problem - with dual-wielded double-barreled pistols.

I'm not certain how to put it any more plainly than this: The balance issue arose because the designers left the limitation of free actions up to the GM. They've now . . . still left the limitation of free actions up to the GM, and threw in some examples that can be ignored since they are based on the same rule that was already being ignored to cause the problem in the first place.

So explain how anything has been fixed, at all, in any way, since nothing has changed?

Dark Archive

MrSin wrote:


I have to ask, do you think its good advice to only give someone 3 free actions and reduce that if they speak?

I think it's good advice for the DM to give more or less based on the specific circumstances.

Xaratherus wrote:


So explain how anything has been fixed, at all, in any way, since nothing has changed?

As Jason said, this is a preliminary step. They're not done yet.


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


I have to ask, do you think its good advice to only give someone 3 free actions and reduce that if they speak?

I think it's good advice for the DM to give more or less based on the specific circumstances.

Xaratherus wrote:


So explain how anything has been fixed, at all, in any way, since nothing has changed?
As Jason said, this is a preliminary step. They're not done yet.

It is a stupid preliminary step.

It would be the same thing if they decided that Wizard Ability X was too powerful, and then released a FAQ suggesting that all spell casting should have reduced effectiveness. And then went on to the forums to say that they didnt mean it for sorcerers... or clerics, druids, oracles, bards, magus etc. etc....

And we would then, as we are now, be scratching our heads wondering what in the world they were thinking, and wondering simultaneously how anyone could not have seen the can of worms that such a statement would be.

We would then collectively ask why, if Wizard Ability x was the intended target of the suggested "reduced effectiveness of spellcasting", wasn't Wizard Ability X simply addressed and/or fixed directly?


Psyren wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
So explain how anything has been fixed, at all, in any way, since nothing has changed?
As Jason said, this is a preliminary step. They're not done yet.

That's not really an answer, Psyren. I'm pretty much done here; I gave you a specific answer to the question you asked, and then got a dodge-non-answer in return. Have a good evening.


Psyren wrote:
MrSin wrote:
I have to ask, do you think its good advice to only give someone 3 free actions and reduce that if they speak?
I think it's good advice for the DM to give more or less based on the specific circumstances.

Really? Under what circumstance is punishing your players for speaking during combat good advice?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Psyren wrote:
MrSin wrote:
I have to ask, do you think its good advice to only give someone 3 free actions and reduce that if they speak?
I think it's good advice for the DM to give more or less based on the specific circumstances.
Really? Under what circumstance is punishing your players for speaking during combat good advice?

When you really really hate ranged martial classes.

Or hey... maybe the gunslinger at your table has a grating and obnoxious voice.

Dark Archive

Good night Xaratherus.

Lord_Malkov wrote:


It would be the same thing if they decided that Wizard Ability X was too powerful, and then released a FAQ suggesting that all spell casting should have reduced effectiveness. And then went on to the forums to say that they didnt mean it for sorcerers... or clerics, druids, oracles, bards, magus etc. etc....

And we would then, as we are now, be scratching our heads wondering what in the world they were thinking, and wondering simultaneously how anyone could not have seen the can of worms that such a statement would be.

This analogy doesn't work because treating guns and bows differently actually makes sense. There are plenty of people that didn't scratch their heads over this, especially once they explicitly stated that bows would be unaffected.


Lord_Malkov wrote:
Or hey... maybe the gunslinger at your table has a grating and obnoxious voice.

I've had to play with those guys before! Once I had to listen to a guy give an hour long speech in character. That was... ouch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psyren wrote:

Good night Xaratherus.

Lord_Malkov wrote:


It would be the same thing if they decided that Wizard Ability X was too powerful, and then released a FAQ suggesting that all spell casting should have reduced effectiveness. And then went on to the forums to say that they didnt mean it for sorcerers... or clerics, druids, oracles, bards, magus etc. etc....

And we would then, as we are now, be scratching our heads wondering what in the world they were thinking, and wondering simultaneously how anyone could not have seen the can of worms that such a statement would be.

This analogy doesn't work because treating guns and bows differently actually makes sense. There are plenty of people that didn't scratch their heads over this, especially once they explicitly stated that bows would be unaffected.

Did you read the FAQ? You know... the one that doesn't say anywhere in it that it applies specifically to guns. You know the FAQ that, taken at face value, affects bows and guns in exactly the same way? Or guns and crossbows, or guns and thrown weapons?

I could understand if they wanted to treat guns differently... but that would be a completely different FAQ about... oh I don't know... guns? Not one about an action type used by multiple classes and weapon types completely unrelated to guns?


MrSin wrote:
Psyren wrote:
MrSin wrote:
I have to ask, do you think its good advice to only give someone 3 free actions and reduce that if they speak?
I think it's good advice for the DM to give more or less based on the specific circumstances.
Really? Under what circumstance is punishing your players for speaking during combat good advice?

My players always get mad when I punish them for having them miss when their attack roll is too low. Or their nineth level spell caster can't cast nineth level spells, or [third example of following rules of the game].


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Psyren wrote:
MrSin wrote:
I have to ask, do you think its good advice to only give someone 3 free actions and reduce that if they speak?
I think it's good advice for the DM to give more or less based on the specific circumstances.
Really? Under what circumstance is punishing your players for speaking during combat good advice?
My players always get mad when I punish them for having them miss when their attack roll is too low. Or their nineth level spell caster can't cast nineth level spells, or [third example of following rules of the game].

Okay... but those are entirely different things.

Edit: Do people really get mad at the GM for those two things? I mean, I might if my first level guy is fighting a character with 32 AC, but that's an AC is too high more than an attack roll is too low thing.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord_Malkov wrote:


Did you read the FAQ?

Yeah, I read the part that says to use DM judgment depending on the circumstance. You see, using a firearm and using a bow are different circumstances.

I also read Jason's post.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If a FAQ doesn't change anything, but still manages to piss a bunch of people off, then why have it?

What exactly was "fixed"?

What exactly was "clarified"?


Oh oh! Can I answer? I think I know this one!

blackbloodtroll wrote:
What exactly was "fixed"?

Nothing.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
What exactly was "clarified"?

That the GM can dictate the number of free actions in a round.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
If a FAQ doesn't change anything, but still manages to piss a bunch of people off, then why have it?

Erm... They thought it would help? Probably not the wanted results.


MrSin wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Psyren wrote:
MrSin wrote:
I have to ask, do you think its good advice to only give someone 3 free actions and reduce that if they speak?
I think it's good advice for the DM to give more or less based on the specific circumstances.
Really? Under what circumstance is punishing your players for speaking during combat good advice?
My players always get mad when I punish them for having them miss when their attack roll is too low. Or their nineth level spell caster can't cast nineth level spells, or [third example of following rules of the game].

Okay... but those are entirely different things.

Edit: Do people really get mad at the GM for those two things? I mean, I might if my first level guy is fighting a character with 32 AC, but that's an AC is too high more than an attack roll is too low thing.

My players don't actually get mad at those things because they have never considered playing a game by the rules as punishment. Now if they didn't like a rule, we might change it. If they didn't like the game, we would play a different one. Never would we consider it punishment.


Not the wanted results indeed.

Their example was chosen about as badly as they possibly could have. Sure, nothing is "forced", BUT the RAI remains: By the FAQ, reloading THREE, no more, times per round is reasonable. Four is not, unless you are a bow. It is okay with bows - they were never meant to be slowed by such a silly thing as thinking one gets too many free actions. Really now, which is it?

As, effectively, an explanation of the RAI behind the RAW, it becomes "word of the gods", just short of an errata, in the eyes of many - to the point where if left alone rather than the explosion that resulted, those saying "just ignore that" would begin to sound like cheesemongering ruleslawyers. We're fighting to avoid this result, and already many arguments dismissing folks with an issue with the FAQ are pretty clearly leaning on that way of thinking.

Really, just imagine six months with that FAQ having been left unaddressed.
"The FAQ is pretty clear man, you wouldn't be disagreeing with three free actions a round if you weren't trying to double your attacks per turn. Go houserule that you can do this s*** if you really must be oh so overpowered for your little fantasy"

The intent itself was rather ... concerning anyways. That there is issue with the rules having accidentally allowed people with very very specific, feat/class/equipment intensive combos, to match what a longbow can do is apparently a problem? The ivory tower sways a little in a hurricane, so let's kill all the engineers?


MrSin wrote:
Psyren wrote:
MrSin wrote:
I have to ask, do you think its good advice to only give someone 3 free actions and reduce that if they speak?
I think it's good advice for the DM to give more or less based on the specific circumstances.
Really? Under what circumstance is punishing your players for speaking during combat good advice?

Because that's precisely what they're advocating - uniformly punishing any player who utters anything during combat.


Jamie Charlan wrote:
By the FAQ, reloading THREE, no more, times per round is reasonable. Four is not, unless you are a bow. It is okay with bows - they were never meant to be slowed by such a silly thing as thinking one gets too many free actions. Really now, which is it?

This is absolutely, 100%, patently false and why it is frustrating to have these conversations.

The FAQ never, at any point, suggests that THREE free actions is the only reasonable answer. It says, "It is reasonable for a GM to limit you to performing 5 free actions per round if each is a different free action, or perhaps 3 free actions per round if two or more are the same free action." Then, it also states, "The GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances."

You can quibble about the likely effect of printing guidelines such as this all you want. That's a fair conversation. But you cannot, with any degree of legitimacy, claim that this FAQ says that the only reasonable answer is THREE free actions per round. There is a distinct and noticeable difference between a reasonable answer and the only reasonable answer. One precludes other answers, one doesn't. This FAQ does not preclude other answers. Even if you want to claim it implies a "best" or "most reasonable" answer, it does not claim to be the only reasonable answer. Arguing this FAQ does that is unequivocally wrong. People need to stop doing that. It does not help the discussion.


fretgod99 wrote:
This is absolutely, 100%, patently false and why it is frustrating to have these conversations.
Quote:

Although there are no specific rules about how many free actions you may take in a round, it is reasonable for a GM to limit you to performing 5 free actions per round if each is a different free action, or perhaps 3 free actions per round if two or more are the same free action.

Part of this is for the sake of game balance (as some abilities used together may allow you to perform an unlimited number of useful free actions on your turn).
Part is for realism (as just because you can do something as a free action doesn't really mean you could realistically perform that action 5 or more times in 6 seconds).
Part is to speed up gameplay (as one character taking a dozen actions on his turn slows down the game compared to a character who only takes a standard action and move action on her turn)

They explain the reasoning behind those exact numbers. It is only not technically "The Only Answer" in that it is an FAQ and suggested values, as opposed to a hardline switch through the errata.

That's the whole reason behind the arguing. They don't just leave what's reasonable in the wind. They provide specific numbers, the reasons why, and then two specific examples of applying them. That is equivalent to throwing the whole 'we developed this game' authority of rules-intent behind those very numbers.

Sure, TECHNICALLY they never said "it can only be this". TECHNICALLY they did not state you HAVE to impose limitations either. TECHNICALLY.

But to use such a technicallity as a reasoning for why it should be left as is is pretty much calling on anyone who disagrees with the suggested values to "just houserule it".

A great number of us are seeing it for what it is. So if they did NOT intend for it to be read this way, there's no reason for them not to change it away from what it is. Yet there it is in plain text, being still the same after a solid week of arguing.


"Jamie Charlan wrote:


Sure, TECHNICALLY they never said "it can only be this". TECHNICALLY they did not state you HAVE to impose limitations either. TECHNICALLY.

TECHNICALLY the limit was already there. The FAQ just added numbers.

351 to 400 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