Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Petrosian" data-source="post: 507696" data-attributes="member: 1149">Ahh the old &quot;the reason i do it right is because i run smarter&quot; line of reasoning.Nowhere did i state or even imply that my bad guys just stand around. Now, i can see where it will help your ego to just assume that other people play dumber than you, and so some good comes from the commentary you just provided, but it adds little to the overall discussion.All the cover discussions tend to run into one major problem.Circumstance which prevent archers from getting a shot, also tend to prevent meleers and possibly even spellers from doing so as well. An archer need LOE at range which is typically easier to get than LOE at no range. If a wall prevents my archer from moving 30' and gettin a shot within 30', its likely also going to stop the meleer from getting to melee range.or to put it simply... the ability to attack AT RANGE is not MORE RESTRICTIVE than the necessity of attacking at reach. While circumstances can make both of them more difficult, the number and frequency of circumstances which make the NECESSIY of reach better than the ability to attack at range are fewer than the converse.If your meleer can strike from 5', I can stand right behind him and shoot from 10 with the +4 benefit from GMW evaporating the cover bonus. All i am left with as a lowly archer is one extra attack at my highest BAB. Awww...Sure, there are even some circumstances which prevent attacks from 10' or more, and the rest of your party will likely be worse off than the archer.YMMV, what with you neing so much cleverer and all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Petrosian, post: 507696, member: 1149"] Ahh the old "the reason i do it right is because i run smarter" line of reasoning. Nowhere did i state or even imply that my bad guys just stand around. Now, i can see where it will help your ego to just assume that other people play dumber than you, and so some good comes from the commentary you just provided, but it adds little to the overall discussion. All the cover discussions tend to run into one major problem. Circumstance which prevent archers from getting a shot, also tend to prevent meleers and possibly even spellers from doing so as well. An archer need LOE at range which is typically easier to get than LOE at no range. If a wall prevents my archer from moving 30' and gettin a shot within 30', its likely also going to stop the meleer from getting to melee range. or to put it simply... the ability to attack AT RANGE is not MORE RESTRICTIVE than the necessity of attacking at reach. While circumstances can make both of them more difficult, the number and frequency of circumstances which make the NECESSIY of reach better than the ability to attack at range are fewer than the converse. If your meleer can strike from 5', I can stand right behind him and shoot from 10 with the +4 benefit from GMW evaporating the cover bonus. All i am left with as a lowly archer is one extra attack at my highest BAB. Awww... Sure, there are even some circumstances which prevent attacks from 10' or more, and the rest of your party will likely be worse off than the archer. YMMV, what with you neing so much cleverer and all. [/QUOTE]

Verification