NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Corwin" data-source="post: 6981562" data-attributes="member: 1560">A handful of problems here... First, your attempts to extrapolate leave me wanting. Yes, I spoke to my last session because it was fresh in my mind from the night prior. No, I never commented on how often OAs happen in the countless sessions leading up to that. Second, I did not identify, numerically, how many times in that same session, a creature's (be it PC or NPC) action choice was influenced by threat of a potential OA. Let's just say it was numerous times, since it would be tough to count them all. Again, that is the significant point being made here. Not the actual times the threat went unheeded and an OA was taken (BTW, one of the two that night was a critical by a yuan-ti pitmaster for 53 points of damage on our 9th-level wood elf archer ranger!).  We are already aware that your table's playstyle weighs encounters significantly towards benefiting ranged attackers. This is not news. The problem here, is that you attempted to equate the number of OAs from one of *my* group's sessions to how many attacks *your* fighter misses in yours. Since we are at too different tables, playing the game significantly differently, these values are incomparable. There is zero basis for relating the two in any way. Want to know how many attacks our melee fighters missed out on in that same session involving two OAs? Zero. I can't think of a single instance of a melee fighter missing out on taking an attack, due to range, the other night. Yet, I cannot stress enough, how potent (tactically) our rogue and paladin were in locked an enemy down, or shielded access to our squishier PCs, with the threat of an OA. Same for several monsters last night forcing *us* to make less than ideal tactical decisions, or put ourselves at risk.</blockquote>

Verification