Revision Spotlight (6/17)

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Well, Monks don't have ANY good saves (unless that's changed in 3.5e). Instead of +12/+6/+6 they are +7/+7/+7 @ 20th... So, Deflect (and Snatch) Arrows becomes better for Rangers and Rogues than Monks...

What PHB are you using? Monks have ALL good saves (+2/+2/+2 at 1st; +12/+12/+12 at 20th) in my 2d print.

 

[Steverooo]

Tolkien Rewritten

What a shame ol' Smaug didn't have Deflect Arrows.

Of course, in the future, IMC, he will...

Bard the Bowman: "Ha, HA, Smaug-san! I have arrows of Dragon-Slaying! Take THAT!" Twang, twang!

Smaug the Dragon: "HA, HA, puny mortal! I have Improved Unarmed Strike and Deflect Arrows! I will take that and.."

ACK!

Bard: "HA, HA, Smaug-san! You failed save on second Arrow of Slaying!"

 

[Steverooo]

What PHB are you using? Monks have ALL good saves (+2/+2/+2 at 1st; +12/+12/+12 at 20th).

Hmmm! Beats me!... Post deleted...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I've always found the mechanics of Dodge to slow down play. I hate having to remember who the +1 AC bonus is applied to; I hate having to wait on the player with Dodge to tell me. Dodge is such a terrible feat that many players forget to use it entirely-- it's just a springboard to later feats.

So, using the exact same reasoning Andy Collins has so far given us with Deflect Arrows, why not simply allow the character with Dodge to turn any one melee attack into a miss?

Wulf

 

[Psion]

So, using the exact same reasoning Andy Collins has so far given us with Deflect Arrows, why not simply allow the character with Dodge to turn any one melee attack into a miss?

I've always found that making anything automatic is a recipe for unanticipated trouble.

I think a dodge feat that negates one hit per round would be a must-have feat. Take two equal fighters and give one a dodge feat and the other one any other feat, and I'll put my money on the uberdodge guy. After all, the one fighter may have more than one attack per round, but in all likelihood, if the character has reasonable AC for level, only the first 1 or 2 blows will hit due to the iterative attack bonuses dropping by five a pop. Give the guy a high AC, it plays really strongly in his favor.

The more I think about it, the more that the deflect arrows is sounding dubious as well on the same grounds. It doesn't just negate one attack. It negates one *successful* attack, meaning that this one automatic negation actually counters more than one attempted attack.

I think that the main purpose is to approach a position held by archers. Perhpas the thing to do to balance it would be to make it take a move equivalent action (or even an attack or an attack action) to perform. This makes it a viable "approach" feat, but less viable as a "in the heat of it" feat. Otherwise, I am thinking the "automatic deflect" thing is too much.

 

[NewJeffCT]

And I'd say that severely streches verisimilitude. It requires knowledge of the metagame that the participants in the scene should not have.

Four militiamen with crossbows will quite naturally want to cover all four opponents, one to a man.

It stretches believability that those four opponents-- low level monks or fighters with deflect arrows, whichever-- will know with a certainty that they are each going to deflect the attack, guaranteed.

And if the versimilitude argument doesn't sway you, again, just look at it on face value. It is a FEAT (not even an exclusive monk class ability) that lets you ignore one ranged attack per round, automatically.

Wulf

Why would they naturally want to cover one to a man? As the poster above said, historical ranged combat has been fought just the opposite way. Usually, you try to make a hole or split in the enemies’ lines by concentrating your fire in one area or place, not try to take them all on one on one.

Maybe if the militia men carried pistols in a world with no magic, they would try to pick out individual opponents, but in a world of magic and adventurers, I would assume militia types would not be surprised if a 12 foot tall hill giant just looked angry if a single crossbow bolt or arrow hit him in the shoulder or chest? Just like how a hunter is not surprised if a single bullet does not fell an elephant. No, I think it stretches realism if you think PCs and NPCs are living in a vacuum with no knowledge of the more common monsters or the things that adventurers and mages can do with magic. Heck, we have those stories in our world, and we do not have any magic or real monsters.

The militia are going to be trained to try to take down at least one opponent, as various magic means may then be a way to deduce where their partners in crime are located. If there is one dead or crippled bad guy, you have something that can be charmed or cast speak with dead on, or whatever. If 4 slightly wounded bad guys get away, you’re a lot harder pressed to find them.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Why would they naturally want to cover one to a man?

Ask a cop.

We're not talking about ogres or hill giants or even mid-level heroes. We're talking about a lone militia crossbowman being unable to take down a single, low-level, unarmored foe before that foe rushes up and beats his brains out. That's how the scene will play out EVERY GODDAMN TIME, without fail, without any interjection of random chance.

The established "game reality" is that the crossbow is the single most powerful Simple ranged weapon that a militiaman can get his hands on. In the previous established reality, it made perfect sense, not only from a game mechanics standpoint, but also in the way that it meshed with our own reality (verisimilitude). Most towns don't have the luxury of trained fighters with two feats to spend on Point Blank and Rapid Shot or-- worse yet-- multiple attacks by way of BAB or Manyshot.


Wulf

 

[NewJeffCT]

Ask a cop.

We're not talking about ogres or hill giants or even mid-level heroes. We're talking about a lone militia crossbowman being unable to take down a single, low-level, unarmored foe before that foe rushes up and beats his brains out. That's how the scene will play out EVERY GODDAMN TIME, without fail, without any interjection of random chance.

The established "game reality" is that the crossbow is the single most powerful Simple ranged weapon that a militiaman can get his hands on. In the previous established reality, it made perfect sense, not only from a game mechanics standpoint, but also in the way that it meshed with our own reality (verisimilitude). Most towns don't have the luxury of trained fighters with two feats to spend on Point Blank and Rapid Shot or-- worse yet-- multiple attacks by way of BAB or Manyshot.


Wulf

I think I had said that above that if the militia carried pistols and there was no magic or monsters in the world (i.e., modern day police), then maybe it is a safe bet to target individuals, as one shot can kill anybody. But, in the gaming world, the stories of monsters or people that took a dozen crossbow bolts and kept on coming are real.

And, you are also talking about a worst case scenario. I cannot imagine that if the PCs keep dodging arrows, rampaging about town, etc., that the militia won’t have a backup plan… “You know, two weeks ago, we had another bunch of scum in here that liked to dodge arrows of our militia <you did say it will happen *EVERY GODDAMN TIME*>… now, we have several brothers and sisters from the local temple that have volunteered to help with these waves of arrow dodging criminals that plague our fair city, and we have developed tactics to fight these evil doers..." and these members of the local temple then cast “Hold Person” or similar to slow down the arrow dodging criminals. If it keeps happening, the local militia will adapt.

I think you are talking of very rare instances. Adventurers are rare in the gaming worlds I have played in before. Then, among these rare adventurers, those even eligible to take the feat are fewer still. And, of those that can take the feat, there are still many, I am sure, that will opt to take different ones. I am sure many fighter types would elect to take offensive feats, rather than a limited defensive one.

 

[nikolai]

Andy Collins has commented...
Archery shouldn't be more powerful than melee combat; in fact, at most levels it should probably be weaker except in ideal circumstances. The game's just more robust and entertaining at close quarters, one of the many reasons why the dungeon remains the most popular default settings.

True or not, this is irrelevent for the purposes of Deflect Arrows, since it should apply to characters who don't have the feat. Designing powerful defensive feats against ranged attacks isn't the appropriate way to balance ranged attacks against melee attacks.

And the archer's hardly useless against the monk, he just has to work a little harder.

* Against a hidden archer, DA is useless. An archer with a ring of invisibility (or with a buddy casting greater invisibility on him) is still pretty dangerous.

* Against an archer with surprise or initiative, DA is useless until the monk's first action. The sniper can still cut down the unwary monk.

These are special cases, most the time they won't apply. A hidden or invisible archer just means the feat can't be applied to the first attack - it can still be applied to subsequent attacks. Anyway you don't have to believe that archer's are now useless against people with the feat to think that it's a horrid piece of design.

* Against an archer with Rapid Shot, all DA does is negate the beneficial effect of the feat (the extra attack), leaving the archer with the same attacks as he'd normally get, with a -2 penalty.

Completely wrong. Deflect arrows doesn't negate an attempted attack, it negates a successful attack. The archer now has to successfully hit twice in order to land an attack (with a -2 penalty). It's slightly disturbing that he doesn't appear to be aware of the influence of his changes on the rules.

* Against an archer with Manyshot, all DA does is reduce the damage by 1/3 (and really not even that much, if you have any bonuses from precision and the like).

Is he really arguing that Deflect Arrows is okay because people with a uber-feat chain [Prerequisites: Dex 17, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, base attack bonus +6] aren't effected "that much"? I also think how Deflect Arrows influences Manyshot is unclear and arguable.

* Against an archer with none of those advantages, the monk gets to turn one attack per round into a miss. That's it. The archer's still probably making more attacks per round against the monk than the melee guys (since the monk's moving around too much), meaning that even with DA, he probably gets more attacks per round on average than the melee types.

This is what's going to happen most the time. The real effect of this is to nullify plenty of monsters who aren't min-maxed archers but who use missile attacks. The fact that archer's still "probably" get more attacks per round than melee attackers is neither here nor there (and is also debatable), since there are seperate rules to represent this (spring attack etc.). And the feat design is still apalling. I can't believe that there's even a debate going on as to how such a terrible piece of rules could be okay.

I do hope there aren't too many more of these changes waiting to come out the woodwork.

nikolai.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I can't believe that there's even a debate going on as to how such a terrible piece of rules could be okay.

Tell me about it. I feel like I'm in Bizzarro World.


Wulf