Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6990140" data-attributes="member: 6778044">I agree with #5 and #6, and a variation of #2. But not for your reasons.Archers were deadly. Ranged attacks (preferably from behind cover) should be a go-to tactic for just about anybody. The #1 reason why? Because you can't get killed if they can't hit you.But, you need ammo, and I don't see any reasonable explanation as to why charging requires a feat. Hold your spear down and run at the other guy.For #2, I think it's trying to target somebody else when there is somebody next to you with a sword is stupid. Opportunity attack, absolutely. And if that hits, it ruins your shot.  In fact, I might go so far as AoO with advantage.No to #1. If anything I'd do the opposite. Bowhunters are looking for a 1 shot kill, whether it's a deer, a bear, lion, whatever. Humans are much easier (although armor was effective, past short range anyway).No to #3. The economy of actions works really well in this edition. I wouldn't change that.No to #4, either. For the same reason, you're taking time to not do something. But a ready action would negate any bonus the archer had for being hidden.No to #7. At least in part. Advantage + max damage is too much. As for #8, I'm certainly not opposed to additional move amounts. However, in my campaign we use AD&D-style 1 minute rounds. A normal person can move 120 feet in a round without running, and much more if they sprint. To put it another way, I usually don't worry about how far somebody can move in a round, it's almost always irrelevant.Running across a field towards some archers. That's a different story. The longer you're in range and not within melee closing range is a dangerous proposition.</blockquote>

Verification