Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2220463" data-attributes="member: 4937">For many or most PC's, that would mean running actually worsened thier AC versus missile weapons.   And note that while it might be semi-realistic to suggest that you are better off standing thier trying to dodge incoming arrows than simply taking off running (though I don't buy that), its completely unrealistic to suggest that the same would be true versus a guy with a handgun.I've already got a few feats in mind.   IMO though, the worst sin a feat designer can commit is to take something that everyone ought to be able to do and make it such that you can only do it if you have a feat.   Maybe you can only do it well with a feat, maybe you are exceptionally good at doing it with a feat, but ordinary manuevers don't require feats.   If you want to design a cool new feat, first design rules for what happens when you don't have the feat, and then let the feat modify or break those rules in some way.That's actually not too bad.  It handles the problem of balistics by noting that non-balistic weapons tend to have large range increments.   On the other hand, it makes the problem of charging opponents being too hard to hit even worse, especially for a hurled weapon like a javelin or a hand axe.   And it doesn't feel right to me with regards to something like the long bow either, since the long bow will basically be able to ignore the motion of targets.   But, in my experience, its a darn good archer that can hit any sort of moving target at beyond 40 yards.   Hitting a moving target with a bow is nothing like hitting a movie target with a firearm, because the projectile is only moving at about 1/10th the speed of a bullet.</blockquote>

Verification