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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Peterson" data-source="post: 3130548" data-attributes="member: 21431">First off, I missed that part - where you said In My System.  I apologize, but it would make it easier to get feedback if you included relevant rule changes as a seperate line item - something that stands out that says "Hey, I'm more important than just words".Second, so not only did you change/modify one rule to for AOO, you did so for a number of items.  See - you just made it a little more work on the readers' part to understand your system since you've now adjusted how AOO work (especially for ranged weapons), and you've specialized small 1-handed ranged weapons.Which brings up a question - is the ruling that changes the AOO provoked for using a ranged weapon subject to the size of the weapon or the handedness of it?  The reason I ask is because you put "small 1-handed" in the description, and that's actually two different things.  Example: A "small" weapon could be considered a Glock, but in the hands of a Gnome or other Small-sized creature, its actually a 2-handed weapon.  Therefore, one begs the question - can my Gnome use his Glock to take ranged AOO or does he provoke an AOO?  That's a big deal.As to the Autofire rule, let's consider this:  Automatic fire is deadly for a few reasons.  One of those reasons is because it makes charging the operator of an automatic weapon more dangerous.  However, your rule change about Ranged AOO actually makes "small 1-handed" firearms MORE dangerous because they can take AOO against a charging enemy where as a SAW can not.  This sort of breaks the game, making an Automatic Weapon (which is already penalized with weight, extra required feats, and limited ammo) LESS USEFUL vs melee opponents that are charging or moving from cover to cover.  Thus, this rule change - in regards to "Automatic Fire cannot be used as a ranged AOO" - doesn't seem to be a worthwhile change to me.Again, just feedback.Peterson</blockquote>

Verification