Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Broken Feat: Allied Defense from Shining South
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="uzagi_akimbo" data-source="post: 1931490" data-attributes="member: 15945"><p>Two things .</p><p></p><p>For one, the bonus from the CE + AD combo should be a <strong>non-stacking</strong> type, rather than a <em>"dodge"</em> bonus of all things (which would prevent all the cheesy power-mongering from rows of CE+AD using combatants. It's the single AC bonus that does stack <em>ad nauseam</em>). Deflection would be far more appropriate, being applicable only once, although even that would still be cheesy, as it doesn't solve the problem/paradox of a greatsword wielding combatant (especially one in heavy armour) being far more difficult to hit with missile weapons or ranged touch attacks when using CE ... Ever tried to parry a "Scorching Ray" or an "Enervation" ? How about "Disintegrate" ? If it was a dodge bonus, why is there no reference to Dexterity as a prequisite ? Make it a circumstance bonus, and everyone should be fine.</p><p></p><p>It would also help if the AD rules had clarified that the CE+AD using character actually needs to be in range of the opponent defended against, otherwise one might find a "turtleshell" like formation with one character in the middle of a square formation of nine combatants defending the other eight(!) guys around him at the same time.... Possibly even without a shield or anything... say, like a wizard out of spells etc.... or a "densive specialist using CE, Imp. CE and AD in conjunction.....</p><p></p><p>So, the problem of AD are founded mostly in the wording of CE (with the ludicrous "dodge" type), and only parially in "Allied Defense" itself. </p><p>As a strict "house rule", IMC we use the "in range" and "not a dodge-bonus" approach, which balances the feat out nicely.</p><p></p><p>Limiting the AC bonus gained to the original CE bonus only, might help as well, forfeiting the enhanced benefits from swashbucklers dueleists and their ilk for their fellow brothers-in-arms.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="uzagi_akimbo, post: 1931490, member: 15945"] Two things . For one, the bonus from the CE + AD combo should be a [B]non-stacking[/B] type, rather than a [I]"dodge"[/I] bonus of all things (which would prevent all the cheesy power-mongering from rows of CE+AD using combatants. It's the single AC bonus that does stack [I]ad nauseam[/I]). Deflection would be far more appropriate, being applicable only once, although even that would still be cheesy, as it doesn't solve the problem/paradox of a greatsword wielding combatant (especially one in heavy armour) being far more difficult to hit with missile weapons or ranged touch attacks when using CE ... Ever tried to parry a "Scorching Ray" or an "Enervation" ? How about "Disintegrate" ? If it was a dodge bonus, why is there no reference to Dexterity as a prequisite ? Make it a circumstance bonus, and everyone should be fine. It would also help if the AD rules had clarified that the CE+AD using character actually needs to be in range of the opponent defended against, otherwise one might find a "turtleshell" like formation with one character in the middle of a square formation of nine combatants defending the other eight(!) guys around him at the same time.... Possibly even without a shield or anything... say, like a wizard out of spells etc.... or a "densive specialist using CE, Imp. CE and AD in conjunction..... So, the problem of AD are founded mostly in the wording of CE (with the ludicrous "dodge" type), and only parially in "Allied Defense" itself. As a strict "house rule", IMC we use the "in range" and "not a dodge-bonus" approach, which balances the feat out nicely. Limiting the AC bonus gained to the original CE bonus only, might help as well, forfeiting the enhanced benefits from swashbucklers dueleists and their ilk for their fellow brothers-in-arms. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Broken Feat: Allied Defense from Shining South
Top
