ninthcouncil
First Post
How does being move equivalent stop it from being stupid? I've entirely failed to follow your reasoning here, I'm afraid....
Feat to Avoid friendly fire.
- Thread starter Happiest_Sadist
- Start date
Hulkamaniac
First Post
It's nice to see how the people that willingly risk their lives for our saftey are thanked.
mirzabah
First Post
I'm reluctant to get drawn into an argument over something fundamentally as dumb as this, but...Crothian said:
What the hell do you think your opponent is doing while this is going on? While you're standing there measuring up your buddy's line of sight, do you think your opponent is going to oblige you by standing still and maybe painting a big red bullseye over his nether regions? Maybe you think your opponent could hold the marker while you and your friend operate the theodolite?
You can argue that that's the point of the feat - a person with your feat can control the combat in such a way as to allow an opening for an archer. I say that implies the possibility of a counter-feat (or that it's effect could be negated by an opponent with the same feat). At about that point the whole thing gets silly (well, sillier). Why would anyone bother? Let the archer take precise shot - they probably would anyway.
That being said, nobody in the world can stop you from making it a house rule (except maybe your players). If you're really attached to the idea, then do it. I couldn't care less. But as far as I'm concerned, 3E combat works pretty well as it is. If you want to get fancy, there are plenty of supplements.
Crothian
First Post
mirzabah said:
Your opponent can do a lot of things. He can take a full round action. He can seek cover behind something. He can advance on the archer and attack him. It's up to him to decide how he was going to respond.
It's not fundementally dumb. Resorting to name calling is the sign of a person with no ground to stand one. It's a viable action if one makes it so. Are you saying people should not be able to position themselves in such a way that they will not interfer with a friends shot?
As this is the House Rulkes Forum, you might want to widen your imagination into the realms of possiiblities. THis is about ideas beyond the rules. You might notice I'm trying to help this person make a feat that does make sense. Not insulting it and being arguementitive. That helps no one.
mirzabah
First Post
Not really. Seeking cover against an archer, or attacking him is not something you do when the archer fires his arrow - you do it in your turn. But the proposed feat implies that the archer's friend can (attempt to) make an opening at the time the archer fires. This kind of breaks the rules of initiative. Your argument is also besides the point. d20 melee combat abstracts a lot of dancing around, what the feat implies is that a person that has taken it dances (no pun intended) in such as a way to offer an archer a shot at his opponent. What I'm saying is that if someone tried that on me, I'd dance right back.Crothian said:
If their friend is aiming at a rock, perhaps, but a real live opponent is not going to just sit there and make like a pincushion. If you're fighting someone who is obviously trying to make room for an archer to get a shot in wouldn't you attempt to counter such a move? If you allow the first, you must also allow the second - either by introducing an counter-feat, or by allowing your feat to be used in a defensive fashion. Or by dropping the whole mess.Crothian said:
OK, so I was being a bit rude. Sorry to all concerned. But it still doesn't make the feat a good idea. I wouldn't say that it was unbalanced - except in the sense that perhaps it's underpowered. Rather, I think it's just silly and doesn't really fit the rules.Crothian said:
Similar Threads
