Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 728319" data-attributes="member: 4937">Only if you are going to spend an equal ammount of time pointing out that most melee feats are completely useless unless you are within 5' of the opponent.   This would seem to be a much bigger restriction in my opinion.  It would seem to me that if melee combat didn't allow a better chance to hit, more damage, and more security than missile combat that the system inherently favored missile combat since the ability to attack at range is such a powerful ability in and of itself.   Even if a melee fighter has a slight advantage over a missile fighter in damage output, the missile fighter has an ABSOLUTE advantage at any range beyond the length of the melee fighters weapon.   In most situations this more than makes up for the whatever theoretical advantage the melee fighter may have.Imagine I introduced a feat 'Longarm' which gave you the ability to make melee attacks anywhere within 30' provided you gave up your threat zone.  Would you agree that that was unbalancing?   Imagine further that the feat 'Longarm' gave you enhanced attacks per round at an attack bonus rather than an attack penalty.  You'd probably wonder what I was smoking.  Imagine then I made a new feat in the 'Longarm' feat chain that let you take a full attack action while moving.  What would you think of my rule design skills?If the only penalty missile weapons have is a theoretical vunerability to certain special manuevers, I don't think this is nearly a sufficient penalty to offset all the advantages of archery's absolute advantage, plus generally superior feat chain, and generally superior PrC's.  The absolute advantage of missile weapons is unquestioned.  What is questionable is whether archery needs superior feat chains and PrC's.</blockquote>

Verification