Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ravellion" data-source="post: 940308" data-attributes="member: 538">Well, my game is about to hit 11th level, and I have an Archer in that game. I think he needs about 2500 xp more.Again, the fact that the Archer can do amazing things doesn't bother me. The fact that there will be in-game knowledge that archer's can do these things 100% of the time consistently bothers me.&quot;You are being fired at by crack shot archers! They are very, very good!&quot;&quot;Well, no use taking cover and casting my spell then. I'll just stand here in the open instead. There isn't going to be a difference anyway&quot;Also, there is no melee equivalent, which is strange. I'd think that from 5 feet distance it would be a helluva lot less difficult to ignore cover and concealment than from 200 feet away. But now the 11th level fighter still has a 20% misschance from Blur, whereas the archer can hit the blurred target behind a tree 100 ft away just as easily as if the target were 35 feet away in the open.It also makes some of the Arcane Archer's arrow abilities quite useless. At least these were explained as being magical. This is also where fell shot comes in: it costs something to do a fell shot, and if you do it lots, you'll soon run out of pp. Perhaps IPS might be fun in conjunction with fell shot though... phwoar, eh lads?I'll say it again: Whoever designed this feat looked too much at game balance and &quot;cool&quot;, and not enough at other ramifications, and hence should be shot. In the head. Through an arrow slit. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Rav</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ravellion, post: 940308, member: 538"] Well, my game is about to hit 11th level, and I have an Archer in that game. I think he needs about 2500 xp more. Again, the fact that the Archer can do amazing things doesn't bother me. The fact that there will be in-game knowledge that archer's can do these things 100% of the time consistently bothers me. "You are being fired at by crack shot archers! They are very, very good!" "Well, no use taking cover and casting my spell then. I'll just stand here in the open instead. There isn't going to be a difference anyway" Also, there is no melee equivalent, which is strange. I'd think that from 5 feet distance it would be a helluva lot less difficult to ignore cover and concealment than from 200 feet away. But now the 11th level fighter still has a 20% misschance from Blur, whereas the archer can hit the blurred target behind a tree 100 ft away just as easily as if the target were 35 feet away in the open. It also makes some of the Arcane Archer's arrow abilities quite useless. At least these were explained as being magical. This is also where fell shot comes in: it costs something to do a fell shot, and if you do it lots, you'll soon run out of pp. Perhaps IPS might be fun in conjunction with fell shot though... phwoar, eh lads? I'll say it again: Whoever designed this feat looked too much at game balance and "cool", and not enough at other ramifications, and hence should be shot. In the head. Through an arrow slit. :) Rav [/QUOTE]

Verification