Revision Spotlight (6/17)

[Wulf Ratbane]

Sure, but the basis for opposition to this new feat is that a feat should not be used to balance melee vs. ranged combat.

Actually, my opposition to the feat (despite the fact that any automatic success is inherently unbalanced-- not to be confused with unbalancing-- and incongruous with the existing d20 ruleset) was, is, and ever shall be verisimilitude. (Yeah, some of you don't like the word... Too bad.)

Anything "automatic" changes the REALITY of the game world. It completely changes the perceptions and experience of the people who live in that world.

Objects fall due to gravity. This is automatic. This makes sense. It is consistent with the real world. It is internally consistent in the game world.

Low level humans, fighters, rogues, monks, what have you, should not automatically bat away an arrow or crossbow bolt every time you shoot one at them, regardless of how good a shot you are.

Should it be possible for someone to do this? Sure.

Should it be a universal constant? No.

In the massive Gnomish physics textbooks of Faerun, I do not expect to see the Theory of Deflect Arrows codified right next to the other constants of the universe.

But speaking again in terms of game design and balance, it is a lazy, stupid, clunky "fix" to a problem that Andy Collins can't even seem to define-- and when he does get close to defining the problem, it raises serious doubts about his intentions in addition to the doubts we already have about the solution that was implemented.

Wulf

 

[Psion]

Sure, but the basis for opposition to this new feat is that a feat should not be used to balance melee vs. ranged combat.

No, that's one reason (and a darn good one if you ask me. Not only is a single feat not going to create a balance in the whole game, but the intent is dubious), but certainly not the basis.

IMC, and IMHO, combat should be speeded up whenever possible. That usually means reducing the number of dice rolled. (yeah, I know: some people just love 'ta roll dice!).

Tell me about it. There was a person who used to post here that frothingly hated that in the SWRCRB, they had made jedi deflect blaster into an AC modifier instead of a roll.

That said, I see nothing wrong with ONE roll. 4 is a lot. One for a person whose turn it is currently not is not a big deal. (Shall we phase out saves vs. spells while we are at it? )

Dunno. Actually, automatic looks a heck of a lot easier.

The easy way is not always the right way.

 

[Nail]

The easy way is not always the right way.

Ah, you are wise, Psion-san.

As an aside: What would have been wrong with the designers posting their proposed rule changes, and gauging the arguments (as distinct from the "response", which might be knee-jerk) for and against? Of course someone would have to eventually chose, but at least the choice might be better informed.

I say this because when we've heard from the designers about their reasons, they always seem to have missed a few, some, or indeed all of the points relative to th' change.

I, for one, like talking these sorts of changes over with my players, rather than enacting them "fiat". Surely that could have been done over the internet?

 

[Daedrova]

This has been an interesting thread to follow, and as usual, I have found good points to both sides of this argument.
The original problem was the feat seemed to limited or not useful enough. Most would agree, though it sometimes did see use, but again, at lower levels, even a monk had a hard time making the reflex save, making it usable, but not particularly useful. At higher levels, the mechanic of rolling became just a mere step, because the monk was almost assured to make the save. Possible fix:
Make the reflex save lower, say DC 10 or 15. This makes the feat at least useful (not just limited in practical use) for the low level monk, and the save is assured at earlier levels. Thus, a mid or higher level monk will likely have the 95% success rate (must roll a 1 to fail). I you really want that "verisimilitude", that "simblance to reality", this would sure be it, right? Now they only automatically deflect the first ranged attack in a round 95% of the time... wow, what a difference.. I am sure you will see it in just about every encounter. Seriously though, I do understand that thought, but it will really not be much of a difference.
Yes, the save being vs the attack roll might seem to make sense, but it really does not. As previously stated, nothing about how that skilled archer fires his bow is going to make that same arrow, coming at that same velocity, any harder to deflect. The things that will affect its difficulty will be velocity of the arrow, angle to the defender, and the knowledge the defender has of the attack. The last is already addressed, the second can not be an issue when you can be considered to be facing any way within your 5 ft. square (and not using squares, this issue overlaps the third or last), so we are left with velocity. If you are looking for "realism" you could add to the DC for mighty composite bows, since their increase damage is obviosly the result of heavier pull (and higher velocity).
Honestly tell me who wants to see the Deflect arrows feat changed into an AC mod? I don't believe that would be a bad mechanic, but would take the flavor completely out of the feat, and, again, would be boring.
In retrospect, this change doesn't seem to be such an outrages thing, and I believe play testing (which we all have yet to do) will reveal similar results.
Ranged attacks cannot be seriously compared to melee attacks when considering if there should be a feat that will allow a similar type of "defletion". I do hope this does not need spelled out for anyone... but let me know if it does...

 

[smetzger]

Back to debating the feat:
An automatic success does seem a bit excessive. Not game breaking, by any stretch, but excessive. So is there a better mechanic to use? I've listed the options in a previous post.

You could also keep the Auto Success and then put the additional restriction(s):
Uses up one of your AoO and/or provokes an AoO

If they really wanted to boot Deflect Arrows they should have gotten rid of it and _replaced_ it with Snatch Arrows

 

[Jesster]

Why should Ranged combat be LESS powerfull than melee?

Simple. Greater risk should garner greater reward. By charging into the middle of any battle, melee fighters generally take a lot more hits, soak a lot more spell effects, and basically put themselves at greater risk than archers who stand back in relative safety and plunk off several arrows every round. As a melee fighter, I don't mind soaking some damage in order to ensure that the more fragile members of my party don't drop dead in one round. However, when it's time for me to attack, and I consistently due significantly less damage than the Arcane Archer who's standing back next to the party wizard and hasn't taken a point of damage yet, I start to get a little annoyed.

Sure, but the basis for opposition to this new feat is that a feat should not be used to balance melee vs. ranged combat. That's something that should be done within the mechanics of combat itself. Feats are separate.

I disagree. Its exactly the various feats and class abilities available to the different types of fighters that can throw off the balance between them. Rapid Shot is currently, an all-around better feat than Two-Weapon-Fighting. The various abilities given by Archer-oriented prestige classes just make matters worse. In order to fix the imbalance, you can either nerf the archer abilities, or give melee fighters added benefits such as the changes to Power Attack and Deflect Arrows.

Originally posted by Wulf Ratbane
Anything "automatic" changes the REALITY of the game world. It completely changes the perceptions and experience of the people who live in that world.

Objects fall due to gravity. This is automatic. This makes sense. It is consistent with the real world. It is internally consistent in the game world.

Low level humans, fighters, rogues, monks, what have you, should not automatically bat away an arrow or crossbow bolt every time you shoot one at them, regardless of how good a shot you are.

Should it be possible for someone to do this? Sure.

Should it be a universal constant? No.

The idea that the game mechanics should never contain absolutes is, in itself, an absolute. I agree, that game mechanics should usually be scalable, but there is no harm in the occasional absolute rule that only applies in specific circumstances.

I don't recall anyone complaining about Uncanny Dodge, the first level of which is not at all scalable. A 20th level Rogue who is hidden, invisible, or otherwise undetected normally get's an additional 10d6 sneak attack damage against anyone he attacks. However, pit him against a 2nd level Barbarian, and all that extra damage get's tossed out the window.

Anyone who has a problem with the absolute nature of DA should also have a problem with:

Uncanny Dodge (dex bonus to AC)
Magic Missile
Shield spell / Brooch of shielding (negation of Magic Missiles)
Elves immunity to Sleep
Elves immunity to Ghoul paralysis
Paladin's immunity to Fear
Paladin's immunity to Disease
Holy Liberator's immunity to enchantments
A whole host of monster immunities too numerous to itemize.

I'm sure there are other examples. These are just what I came up with off the top of my head. None of these diminish the game in any way as far as I'm concerned.

-=The Jesster: Gatchaba Goose=-

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Simple. Greater risk should garner greater reward. By charging into the middle of any battle, melee fighters generally take a lot more hits, soak a lot more spell effects, and basically put themselves at greater risk than archers who stand back in relative safety and plunk off several arrows every round. As a melee fighter, I don't mind soaking some damage in order to ensure that the more fragile members of my party don't drop dead in one round. However, when it's time for me to attack, and I consistently due significantly less damage than the Arcane Archer who's standing back next to the party wizard and hasn't taken a point of damage yet, I start to get a little annoyed.

I don't disagree that they should be more effective, but I do disagree with the reason. Its way too easy to get anyone in thump on them range for the range benefit to be a real damage avoider so maybe mellee is slighty worse of meat grinder wise but not by much IMO.

But I do think the ability to shoot at range helps in these areas and so mellee combat should be suitable compensated.

1. more full attacks.
2. range means can hit foes in hard to get to places, like behind arrow slits, in the air, across a chasm etc.

The idea that the game mechanics should never contain absolutes is, in itself, an absolute. I agree, that game mechanics should usually be scalable, but there is no harm in the occasional absolute rule that only applies in specific circumstances.

I don't recall anyone complaining about Uncanny Dodge, the first level of which is not at all scalable. A 20th level Rogue who is hidden, invisible, or otherwise undetected normally get's an additional 10d6 sneak attack damage against anyone he attacks. However, pit him against a 2nd level Barbarian, and all that extra damage get's tossed out the window.

Anyone who has a problem with the absolute nature of DA should also have a problem with:

Uncanny Dodge (dex bonus to AC)
Magic Missile
Shield spell / Brooch of shielding (negation of Magic Missiles)
Elves immunity to Sleep
Elves immunity to Ghoul paralysis
Paladin's immunity to Fear
Paladin's immunity to Disease
Holy Liberator's immunity to enchantments
A whole host of monster immunities too numerous to itemize.

I'm sure there are other examples. These are just what I came up with off the top of my head. None of these diminish the game in any way as far as I'm concerned.

-=The Jesster: Gatchaba Goose=-

I've complained about almost all of those especially uncanny dodge. And its because I hate absolutes. I recognize there are other ways to get sneak attacks but its moronic beyond all comprehsion to me that a 20th level rogue with skill focus hide and sneak, some two-fer skill bonus feat on these skills, the skills maxed out, and some nice big skill bonus items for both skills, still can't get a total drop on a barbarian level 2 or rogue level 3.

It should of provided a 2nd check with some scaling bonus to spot and listen, and if this time you notice them you can't act in the surprise round but you aren't flat footed.

 

[Technik4]

Might be wrong but I thought if you were 4 levels higher you "pierced" through the other's UDodge.

Ah, found it:

1st printing PHB pg 25 column 2

"...the exception to this defense is that a rogue at least 4 levels higher than the barbarian can flank him (and thuis sneak attack him)."

Perhaps this got overturned by the Sage or FAQ at some point?

Technik

 

[Technik4]

Wulf:

What if for monks it was an automatic success but everyone else needed to make a reflex save? Then it is a specific class ability (like Uncanny Dodge) which is "automatic". Or as others have stated, what about a reflex save DC 10? Its not automatic, just rarely failed then.

Either way, the extra time rolling dice when it is NOT your turn (as you don't get fired upon during your own initiative) is still spent. Which is the reason I like the 3.5 version-to-be. And deflect arrows isnt quite as meaningless as it was.

Technik

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

"...the exception to this defense is that a rogue at least 4 levels higher than the barbarian can flank him (and thus sneak attack him)."

Perhaps this got overturned by the Sage or FAQ at some point?

Hasn't changed; just often overlooked.