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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 7110885" data-attributes="member: 6802951">Including melee characters? Once they're toe-to-toe, that extra move isn't going to stop them getting hit. You might want to clarify this. I can't off the top of my head think of a single player character, even a melee-focused one, who didn't have a range option better than 30ft once they had opportunity to pick one up. Even if it was just a dagger or javelin or two.Even outside of a game with my houserule allowing either Dex or Str to be used with bows, many melee-focused fighter-types carried longbows. On the contrary, due to the bounded accuracy, increasing your AC from 18 to 21 very significantly reduces incoming physical damage. More than the step from 15 to 18 AC will for example. I would imagine that most fighters put on their armour in the hope that it would stop them getting hit. If its working, its not the opposite reason.  <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    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />While they only get one attack of opportunity a round, few monsters intelligent enough to recognise their chances of hitting the heavily-armoured character want to be the one to provoke it. The situation however, also can contribute to this. If the DM runs a lot of encounters in open plains rather than cave systems, buildings, forests or urban areas for example, the setting can affect the most common tactics adopted by both sides. What is the "norm" and how was it determined? Where was that observation made, and what was the sample size? IIRC a single run of OotA is probably a bad sample set because the situation and environment encourage stealth and make it quite hard to obtain heavy armour. I support this.  <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    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" /> I'd certainly support this idea from a realism standpoint.No, but it seems to be a claim that you have made.</blockquote>

Verification