Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 5879338" data-attributes="member: 58416">I don't find OAs time consuming either.&nbsp; How much time is &quot;hey, I make an attack&quot;?As for your suggested fix, I would honestly prefer something like that, but I do not feel most people would.&nbsp; I also play GURPS, and the added granularity of needing to draw the arrow and 'load' the bow is part of ranged attacks.&nbsp; Each weapon has ups and downs; that's really all I'm asking for here.&nbsp; IMO, D&amp;D already has too many no-brainer choices; if ranged attacks have advantages without drawbacks, that simply just adds another one.I agree that OAs are not elegant.&nbsp; However, unless other changes were made such as adding a little more granularity to differentiate weapons and having active defenses rather than static defenses, I prefer having them in the game to not having them in the game.&nbsp; I'm not pretending.Here's the thing: I cannot attack with a melee weapon from range.&nbsp; That is a drawback.If I could choose a ranged weapon and do everything I can do with a&nbsp; melee weapon without any drawbacks and then still be able to attack from&nbsp; range, that seems a little unbalanced to me.&nbsp; If those were my two&nbsp; options, I would choose the ranged weapon every time.Combat need not be more static because of OAs.&nbsp; What I get out of them&nbsp; isn't static combat; instead, what I get out of them is combat which&nbsp; takes a little more thought -something I feel is good.&nbsp; Granted, in 4th&nbsp; Edition I usually just chose to provoke an attack anyway because the&nbsp; monsters struggled to hurt me, but that's a different discussion.You also seem to be forgetting that a lot of D&amp;D adventures take place in dungeons (not all, but a lot.)&nbsp; A defining feature of many dungeons is close quarters combat.&nbsp; In those situations, whether you are making a ranged attack or a melee attack is indeed important because getting away from the enemy is not as easy.&nbsp; Again though, if there were no drawback to just point blank using a ranged weapon, ranged weapons gain a benefit while melee weapons still retain their downfalls.&nbsp; With one of the design goals being to have flatter math (which I take as meaning less disparity between options; by proxy also giving me the impression of giving all options their own place to shine without stepping on the toes of other options too much), it seems a bit counter intuitive to give one style of combat such an obvious advantage over another.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 5879338, member: 58416"] I don't find OAs time consuming either. How much time is "hey, I make an attack"? As for your suggested fix, I would honestly prefer something like that, but I do not feel most people would. I also play GURPS, and the added granularity of needing to draw the arrow and 'load' the bow is part of ranged attacks. Each weapon has ups and downs; that's really all I'm asking for here. IMO, D&D already has too many no-brainer choices; if ranged attacks have advantages without drawbacks, that simply just adds another one. I agree that OAs are not elegant. However, unless other changes were made such as adding a little more granularity to differentiate weapons and having active defenses rather than static defenses, I prefer having them in the game to not having them in the game. I'm not pretending. Here's the thing: I cannot attack with a melee weapon from range. That is a drawback. If I could choose a ranged weapon and do everything I can do with a melee weapon without any drawbacks and then still be able to attack from range, that seems a little unbalanced to me. If those were my two options, I would choose the ranged weapon every time. Combat need not be more static because of OAs. What I get out of them isn't static combat; instead, what I get out of them is combat which takes a little more thought -something I feel is good. Granted, in 4th Edition I usually just chose to provoke an attack anyway because the monsters struggled to hurt me, but that's a different discussion. You also seem to be forgetting that a lot of D&D adventures take place in dungeons (not all, but a lot.) A defining feature of many dungeons is close quarters combat. In those situations, whether you are making a ranged attack or a melee attack is indeed important because getting away from the enemy is not as easy. Again though, if there were no drawback to just point blank using a ranged weapon, ranged weapons gain a benefit while melee weapons still retain their downfalls. With one of the design goals being to have flatter math (which I take as meaning less disparity between options; by proxy also giving me the impression of giving all options their own place to shine without stepping on the toes of other options too much), it seems a bit counter intuitive to give one style of combat such an obvious advantage over another. [/QUOTE]

Verification