Deflect Arrows

[RigaMortus2]

...but to give that PC archer a chance to have his ONE special arrow possibly hit the BBEG when that ONE arrow is the party's best chance at beating him (again, a scenario....so treat it as such).

Despite popular belief, not all party members are going to be 100% effective all the time. A melee-centric character is going to have a hard time fighting against a flying foe. A ranged-centric character is going to have a hard time fighting against a foe with a lot of movement and feats like Deflect Arrows. A magic-centric character is going to have a hard time going against enemies with magic resistance. Not all characters will shine in every encounter, nor should they. Just to clarify, there should be battles where all characters shine and there should be battles where one type of character build will do better than others.

Also, if you are relying on ONE special arrow to take down a mighty foe, you need to rethink your strategy a little bit. And if you have some sort of knowledge before hand that the BBEG has a way to block arrows, use a little bit of common sense and some tactics. Don't fire your Arrow of BBEG Slaying as the first arrow. Bluff him. Fire a normal arrow so he wastes his Deflect Arrows on that, then fire your Arrow of BBEG Slaying as your second attack.

I fail to see the problem.

With that said, I don't disagree that a Deflect Arrows mechanic is necessarily a BAD idea. I just personally don't see a need for it at all. For me, I think it is just extra steps that will slow down combat even more AND I also like to play with the least amount of house rules as possible.

 

[c0mA]

It's like you're only skimming my posts. You see certain key words and just fill in the blanks... No, I never stated that you conceded Deflect Arrows is fine.

Let me fill in the blanks here...

Okay, so you're conceding that as written Deflect Arrows is fine

I stated that your problem with Deflect Arrows is one of believability, rather than one of balance. You've dropped all your balance arguments and stuck only to the single scenario describing a single problem: you think it's unreasonable to be able to automatically deflect an arrow while engaged in melee with three or more assailants. Believability, not balance.

The scenario is just that, a scenario. It's just one example and that's all it needs to be.
Here is where we have a difference of opinion. To me, the feat isn't believable in the RAW because it seams obsurd that a 1st level character could be engaged in melee and automatically deflect an arrow coming in @ 300'/second every round (which would be harder to see than a sword swung from an enemy in melee when the focus is on those melee combatants). This unbelievability (key part: 1st level character) is why it is unbalancing in our eyes. Perhaps the archer is hindered in only being able to take a standard action per round, or perhaps the archer decides to make a single attack when the combatant is currently focused on one of his melee targets. In 3.5e a combatant is usually able to defend all his sides regardless of the attack, so with Deflect Arrows, this archer is useless; our house rule gives that arrow a chance to hit especially when ranged attacks don't give flanking bonuses.

I'm arguing that Deflect Arrows is not more powerful than Rapid Shot.

You are arguing with yourself, unless someone else has challenged this here and I missed it.

You seem intent on ignoring my responses to your scenario and sighing a lot in exasperation.

Not ignoring, just not seeing the relevance of your responses to the issue at hand. For instance, the response below...

The only scenario I can envision in which this would be true is a party facing a dragon with an arrow of slaying. And if a party goes up against a dragon with an arrow of slaying as their best chance of beating him, they need to rethink their strategy.

You took the 1st level character with Deflect Arrows right out of the heart of my argument, making this scenario irrelevant to the discussion.

No, my point was to compare the 4th orc to the incoming arrow. i.e. in both cases there are three distracting orcs. What makes an incoming arrow being dodged more difficult to believe than that fourth orc being defended against? I wasn't suggesting a scenario in which there are 4 orcs and an incoming arrow.

I saw your point. I added the archer to show an even more unbelievable, unbalancing situation.

Um...no. Where in the world are you getting this? Seriously. Where have I suggested that you're the only one who dislikes Deflect Arrows? This thread alone shows that there are more folks that just you who feel it needs to be changed.

So I guess I didn't get my objection to Deflect Arrows entirely based on just my personal believability threshold.

If the guy from The Last Dragon can do it, I'm going to assume it's doable.

Again, totally irrelevant. Or do you think the hero of that movie, a virtual master of the martial arts, would equate to a 1st level monk?

 

[c0mA]

Despite popular belief, not all party members are going to be 100% effective all the time.

But to make them 0% effective is a bit harsh I think.
Flying foes and magic resistance foes are beyond most 1st level encounters.

Also, if you are relying on ONE special arrow to take down a mighty foe, you need to rethink your strategy a little bit. And if you have some sort of knowledge before hand that the BBEG has a way to block arrows, use a little bit of common sense and some tactics. Don't fire your Arrow of BBEG Slaying as the first arrow. Bluff him. Fire a normal arrow so he wastes his Deflect Arrows on that, then fire your Arrow of BBEG Slaying as your second attack.

That's what I would do too. But the scenario in question seemed a bit of a stretch to begin with.

I fail to see the problem.

With that said, I don't disagree that a Deflect Arrows mechanic is necessarily a BAD idea. I just personally don't see a need for it at all. For me, I think it is just extra steps that will slow down combat even more AND I also like to play with the least amount of house rules as possible.

I'd say an opposed roll takes a second or two to resolve and wouldn't happen often, which means the 'nerfed' feat wouldn't come in to play much anyway.

 

[Artoomis]

Let's see - you have to have a free hand for this. Who has a free hand? Not most fighters, certainly. A monk does, of course, but they can really specialize in survival anyway, so no big deal.

I do not see this as a big deal. Actually, I'd be tempted to skip this feat as written. I'd prefer it to be a reflex save for EVERY arrow coming in, not just one. Perhaps with a DC set by the attack roll, though that might be too high a DC. It ought to allow at least a monk to have a decent chance.

But that's in the category of house rules.

As written, it is hardly unbalancing and, I suspect, is not often taken, especially by fighters for whom this is really a sub-optimal choice.

 

[vulcan_idic]

I have watched this particular thread with interest having seen both ways in play and seing both sides. I had not a preference to one way or another before this as I was torn between the two interpretations. I must say however that the good Lord Pendragon has, in this case, won me over with his impeccable logic.

To sir cOmA I must say only this in reply to his difficulty.

We've decided that Deflect Arrows as written needed a change, a random factor, rather than black and white; again, our house rule, so why the indigestion?

If this is the case then I wish you all luck and hope I and many of the good persons here can help you come up with a satisfactory, yet sufficiently dice light, house rule to assuage your difficulty. However, if that is indeed the intent of this thread then perhaps one of the beneficent Admins could be so kind to relocate this thread to the House Rules forum which focuses on discussion of house rules rather than the D&D Rules forum which generally focuses on RAW questions such as what they are and if they're balanced, which is where part of this miscommunication may be coming from.

 

[mrtauntaun]

I don't see how deflecting an incomming speeding arrow, for a character who has performed proper research and training (ie the feat) is any less believable than many of the other things that first level characters can do.
Its no less believable, for example, than a first level character, with research and training, to be able to conjure a projectile out of thin air and automatically hit an opponent (Magic Missile). Typical first level defensive effectivness? 0%.
So why is an automatic hit any less believable than an automatic miss?

 

[c0mA]

If this is the case then I wish you all luck and hope I and many of the good persons here can help you come up with a satisfactory, yet sufficiently dice light, house rule to assuage your difficulty.

Well actually, if you will notice; we already have a house rule for it, which takes no time at all to resolve.

However, if that is indeed the intent of this thread then perhaps one of the beneficent Admins could be so kind to relocate this thread to the House Rules forum which focuses on discussion of house rules rather than the D&D Rules forum which generally focuses on RAW questions such as what they are and if they're balanced, which is where part of this miscommunication may be coming from.

I don't see a miscommunication. 'The D&D Rules forum which generally focuses on RAW questions such as what they are and if they're balance' is what we were communicating. You're entitled to follow Sir Pendragon's logic and the RAW supports it. I'm entitled to discuss why I think the feat is broken in the RAW as well.

 

[c0mA]

I don't see how deflecting an incomming speeding arrow, for a character who has performed proper research and training (ie the feat) is any less believable than many of the other things that first level characters can do.
Its no less believable, for example, than a first level character, with research and training, to be able to conjure a projectile out of thin air and automatically hit an opponent (Magic Missile). Typical first level defensive effectivness? 0%.
So why is an automatic hit any less believable than an automatic miss?

Magic Missile at best can be performed a few times a day for a first level character; and it's magic.

 

[RigaMortus2]

But to make them 0% effective is a bit harsh I think.
Flying foes and magic resistance foes are beyond most 1st level encounters.

And facing 3 orcs and a 20th level fighter with ranged attacks isn't? :rollseyes:

Why is it ok for you to give some contrived scenario for a level 1 guy to go against, but when anyone else does so, you invalidate it? Seems like a double standard to me, just to try and get your point across.

And who is making a character 0% effective? We are making 1 attack (or, more specifically, one attack ROLL) 0% effective. Not a big deal IMO, and hardly broken.

 

[c0mA]

And facing 3 orcs and a 20th level fighter with ranged attacks isn't? :rollseyes:

Why is it ok for you to give some contrived scenario for a level 1 guy to go against, but when anyone else does so, you invalidate it? Seems like a double standard to me, just to try and get your point across.

Where were you showing a scenario with a level 1 guy? I missed it. Anyhow, lower the archer down to 5th level w/o rapid shot, the 1st level fighter's party died via bad rolls, etc. It makes no difference what the scenario is; the scenario is just an example. Yours was constructed to show how the flying creature or one with magic resistance is difficult to hit (not impossible, btw), not a level 1 guy.