Archery Full Round Attack

[Greenfield]

Different words, same end result.

 

[Water Bob]

Hey! Look at that! We're in agreement!

 

[Greenfield]

I never thought we had to disagree, I just wanted to know the logic you used to conclude "it's logical".

 

[Empirate]

Wow, still going on. Greenfield, you're very tenacious, gotta hand it to you. You should listen to WaterBob's advice, though, and just leave the thread be. I made my peace with him after a little round of snarking, and I'm determined not to get in any of this kind of arguments again. It really IS better for your health...

 

[Greenfield]

Eh. I suggested that we both walk away. He didn't.

After that I was just going to reply to others, but then he addressed me directly.

As I said early on, I'd probably allow it in my game if anyone was stupid enough to try it. And while the numbers prove that it's a good maneuver, when shooting at huge inanimate objects, they also prove that it sucks when used on things with an AC of 10 or higher. I honestly don't know of that many AC 1 monsters, so I'll stick with my numbers.

But I won't be sticking around much. Archery club meets this morning.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

While there aren't any creatures with 1 AC under normal rules, plenty of things do have crappy Touch AC.

If using the Defense Roll variant where the combatant rolls a D20 to determine base AC for the round I'm inclined to allow a feat or set of feats where a character can determine another's AC roll with a move then later a swift action or something. This might allow a character to assess whether taking penalties to gain more attacks is worthwhile.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Water Bob, you missed the good ol' days, back when there was a House Rules section, and people that posted in it that didn't mind rules being questioned. People wouldn't take offense at what you wrote, and the grass was always greener there...

Ah, good times. I just wish it hadn't disappeared so soon after I joined during The Great Forum Merger.

As always, play what you like

 

[Water Bob]

Water Bob, you missed the good ol' days, back when there was a House Rules section, and people that posted in it that didn't mind rules being questioned. People wouldn't take offense at what you wrote, and the grass was always greener there...

I do find it strange that--should I say several? ...people have automatically assumed that I am looking to change the rules or house rule them just because I'm discussing a rule. I mean, if he's discussing it, he must not agree with it and is probably changing his game, right?

Well, not right. Many times (most times), I'm just discussing a rule for the discussion's sake.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You keep saying things like that, but this thread is full of you saying, "Shouldn't the rules logically say [this] and not [that]?"

If that's not a discussion about changing the rules, then I don't know what is.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I do find it strange that--should I say several? ...people have automatically assumed that I am looking to change the rules or house rule them just because I'm discussing a rule. I mean, if he's discussing it, he must not agree with it and is probably changing his game, right?

Well, not right. Many times (most times), I'm just discussing a rule for the discussion's sake.

People automatically assume you're trying to change a rule or etc because so many of them are set in stone. What kind of discussion is there to be had about getting a second attack from BAB for instance? Practically none unless you're trying to make tweaks or something.