The last FAQ and the Devs intent

[Nicos]

This is what Stephen Radney-MacFarland said about the last FAQ.

Quote:

IMO no one should be counting free actions as regular play, but a GM should have some recourse when a player seems to be taking advantage of some strange bit of the free action economy.... We want you to shoot all the arrows you can. We want you to do cool things, just as long as your GM is cool with it...

Although the intention is pretty good in the end the Text of the FAQ end doing totally the contrary. Before the FAQ People never worried about how much free action they use in a round, now they are counting their free action to see if their number is within what the FAQ advice.

So, can we convince the Dev team to replace the FAQ with stephen´s better worded version? (or something like that?)

[Jiggy]

Nicos wrote:

...the Text of the FAQ...

The text of the FAQ wrote:

Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can allow more...

[Atarlost]

The FAQ is an attempt to swat a fly with a fragmentation grenade.

The problem was never free actions. The CRB gives a GM enough excuse to stop abuse. No FAQ was needed for that and every GM can decide what's reasonable without his players looking at the FAQ and second guessing him.

The problem was, apparently, firearms. Fix the problem, not something only tangentially related to the problem that impacts numerous other game systems.

[RedDogMT]

Atarlost wrote:

The FAQ is an attempt to swat a fly with a fragmentation grenade.

Oh, don't be so over-dramatic.

The Dev team was trying to clarify the scope of free actions to give GMs a basis to start from. The FAQ didn't change the game at all as they included a disclaimer that GM should decide for themselves how to handle it.

The problem came from silly, complaining trolls who wanted to cause trouble.

[mln84]

RedDogMT wrote:

Atarlost wrote:

The FAQ is an attempt to swat a fly with a fragmentation grenade.

Oh, don't be so over-dramatic.

...

The problem came from silly, complaining trolls who wanted to cause trouble.

Oh, don't be so over-dramatic.

I think the whole thing is overblown, but when the dev team comes into threads to say "x isn't what we meant by that suggestion", then maybe the suggestion could be better worded.

It is cool that they are both doing the fact and being involved on the board discussions. I love that about Paizo.

[ShadowcatX]

Where was the whole gunslinger build ever actually a problem? I haven't seen any threads where the developer team commented on any threads about it. I mean seriously, if we're wanting to put out FAQs to nerf theoretical builds. . .

[cnetarian]

So now that the devs have fixed things by getting rid of the free action FAQ and changing weapon cords, are the best gunslingers now tieflings with prehensile tails? back to requiring a dip into witch for prehensile hair or alchemist for an extra limb for the other races I guess.

[Jiggy]

cnetarian wrote:

So now that the devs have fixed things by getting rid of the free action FAQ and changing weapon cords,

Wait, what?

EDIT: Whoa, the free action FAQ dropped all the specifics! Neat!

Now what's this about weapon cords?

EDIT2: Whoa! Move action!

[BigDTBone]

Jiggy wrote:

cnetarian wrote:

So now that the devs have fixed things by getting rid of the free action FAQ and changing weapon cords,

Wait, what?

EDIT: Whoa, the free action FAQ dropped all the specifics! Neat!

Now what's this about weapon cords?

EDIT2: Whoa! Move action!

relevent post by JB

[Jamie Charlan]

That's all it took to remove the one abusive build for gunslingers.

So much cleaner and simpler ain't it?

[BigDTBone]

Jamie Charlan wrote:

That's all it took to remove the one abusive build for gunslingers.

So much cleaner and simpler ain't it?

Indeed.

[Nicos]

Ok, does somebody have a problem with the change to weapon cord? it seems perfect to me.

[Lemmy]

I liked it better as a swift action, but I don't really care about weapon cords. I never liked TWF gunslingers in the 1st place.

EDIT: Actually, the build is still possible if the Gunslinger has Gloves of Storing.

[BigDTBone]

Lemmy wrote:

I liked it better as a swift action, but I don't really care about weapon cords. I never liked TWF gunslingers in the 1st place.

EDIT: Actually, the build is still possible if the Gunslinger has Gloves of Storing.

At the cost of 10,000gp. What's your move action worth? :)

[Lemmy]

BigDTBone wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

I liked it better as a swift action, but I don't really care about weapon cords. I never liked TWF gunslingers in the 1st place.

EDIT: Actually, the build is still possible if the Gunslinger has Gloves of Storing.

At the cost of 10,000gp. What's your move action worth? :)

Move action? Not much... A full-attack, though...

[Claxon]

Yeah...this doesn't stop the problem build. It just makes it slightly more difficult and expensive to pull off.

Edit: The Dev's are trying though, and I appreciate that.

[Owly]

Oh look. Another one of these threads.

I think the devs' intent is to establish a workable system wherein everyone is having a good time, and no one enjoys too much of an advantage by cheesing the system in ways that were never intended. I think that's their intent.

Pointless equivocation, false dilemmas, begging-the-question, these are the tools of certain species who live under bridges and whose intent is to spark reaction in order to make themselves seem important. Don't feed them.

[princeimrahil]

I'm out of the loop. What was the problem build in question?

[MrSin]

princeimrahil wrote:

I'm out of the loop. What was the problem build in question?

TWF gunslingers using double barrels and feats to get as many attacks as possible, if I remember correctly.

[Jamie Charlan]

The previous "fix" was to 'strongly suggest' [see 'point buy' values, recommended WBL, allowed races, etc] limiting free actions to 5 if they're all different or 3 if they are repeated.

This was explicitly done to reduce firearm shots to three per round, but happened to also affect repeating crossbows, crossbow mastery, throwing weapons, monk flurries, and, despite so many not having thought so at first, drawing arrows from a quiver for your bow.

[lantzkev]

the biggest problem was that when folks had to "juggle" basically while firing two handed with their guns and reloading them (in the air? who knows)

cool things are allowed to happen, generally it costs either feats, special features, or some items to make it happen...

usually it's not a piece of rope tied to your wrists....

[MrSin]

lantzkev wrote:

the biggest problem was that when folks had to "juggle" basically while firing two handed with their guns and reloading them (in the air? who knows)

cool things are allowed to happen, generally it costs either feats, special features, or some items to make it happen...

usually it's not a piece of rope tied to your wrists....

Would you say its worth a feat then? It was already using at least 3.

[lantzkev]

if they wanted to make a improved rapid reload, probably.

There's no feat I know of that lets you wield things in each hand and count as having a hand free to reload.

[Mordo the Spaz - Forum Troll]

Nicos wrote:

...about the last FAQ.

Wait! This last FAQ? No more? That sad!

RedDogMT wrote:

The problem came from silly, complaining trolls who wanted to cause trouble.

Hey! Who you call silly?

[MrSin]

Mordo the Spaz - Forum Troll wrote:

Nicos wrote:

...about the last FAQ.

Wait! This last FAQ? No more? That sad!

RedDogMT wrote:

The problem came from silly, complaining trolls who wanted to cause trouble.

Hey! Who you call silly?

Complaining trolls. I don't think I saw you complain until just now though.

Day old post though. Early enough to call it a necro?

[The black raven]

Nicos wrote:

Ok, does somebody have a problem with the change to weapon cord? it seems perfect to me.

My PFS Rogue with a dip in wizard was basically juggling with wands attached to weapon cords. Including wands for low duration spells. The new rule greatly hampers him.

But if it was done to prevent the rising tide of TWF gunslingers that we have seen overwhelming the tables, then all is well and good I guess.