Revision Spotlight (6/17)

[Nail]

Extrapolate to absurdity... Imagine the battlefields... Every bowman is taught to aim, not at the enemy in general, but specifically at the same guy his buddy is aiming at. Cause, you know, that enemy might have Deflect Arrows.

Uhm....

Okay.

Currently in 3e, without the Deflect Arrows feat, mook crossbowmen do tend to pair up (or worse) on their targets. Why? It's called hp. One bolt ain't gonna take out a PC reliably. And what if you miss?

If the DM splits up the bad guys, one to a good guy, the bad guys are pasted easily.

Don't tell me you're arguing for realism here, Wulf.

 

[Storminator]

Re: Perhaps a different mechanic than Reflex save or automatic?

Perhaps the original flaw in Deflect Arrows was that it did
not take into consideration the skill of the opponent.

IE, there is an equal chance for a monk of a given level (IE,
level 2 or higher) to deflect the arcane archer's arrow of
death, or Chauncey Commoner's xbow bolt at -4 for DEX 2.

<SNIP>

Is this really an issue? An arrow can only be aimed so well. At most you'll have to deflect the arrow half your body width, never more, usually less.

And an arrow can only fly so fast, based on the pull of the bow, and is also independent of the archer. Once the arrow's off the string, the skill of the archer is pretty meaningless.

That said, I never minded the Ref save. And I too wondered about the Infinte Deflection/Deflect Spell/Reflect Attack combo. Please, try to Disintegrate me.

PS

 

[Delgar]

Except for the strain it puts on verisimilitude.

A mob of 1st level monks completely immune to the local militia's 1st level crossbowmen?

Extrapolate to absurdity... Imagine the battlefields... Every bowman is taught to aim, not at the enemy in general, but specifically at the same guy his buddy is aiming at. Cause, you know, that enemy might have Deflect Arrows.

It isn't worth getting excited over, I agree there. It's pretty much an instant Rule Zero without even breaking a sweat. It's lazy and stupid.


Wulf

I hate to have to disagree with Wulf, him being my hero and all!

Your using a situation that seems far too unlikely to happen to nix a feat.

First of all 1st level monks don't get deflect arrows, 2nd level monks do and I believe they get a choice so some may have it some may not. The odds of a mob of monks attacking a local militia seems unlikely (campaign dependant). I doubt very many armies would be made up of 2nd level monks (again campaign dependant). Second DnD is not a set of rules designed to handle large scale combat, it can be used as such but it really tends to break down.

I don't see the problem with a feat that allows you to block one arrow a round for free. It's a simple smooth mechanic that keeps the game flowing. If you made it an opposed check, odds are it would relegate the feat back into uselessness because we all know that twink archers are better than monks! Seriously though I don't think it's all that powerful of an ability and in all the games I've played in and DMed including Living Greyhawk, I don't think I've seen the ability come up more than a handful of times.

So can it if you want but I mean don't monks suck enough?

Delgar

 

[NewJeffCT]

Anybody seen Hero? Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung deflect like a gazillion arrows...

Yes but I would definitely say they are both well into the epic level range.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

So can it if you want but I mean don't monks suck enough?

First, it's not a monk-only feat.

And second, taken at face value, it's a feat that allows you to be completely immune to one attack per round, regardless of your skill or the relative skill of the attacker.

So, yeah... It's just plain bad design.

Hell... Why not do the same thing with Dodge? One melee attack per round, automatically misses. Why not?


Wulf

 

[NewJeffCT]

Except for the strain it puts on verisimilitude.

A mob of 1st level monks completely immune to the local militia's 1st level crossbowmen?

Extrapolate to absurdity... Imagine the battlefields... Every bowman is taught to aim, not at the enemy in general, but specifically at the same guy his buddy is aiming at. Cause, you know, that enemy might have Deflect Arrows.

It isn't worth getting excited over, I agree there. It's pretty much an instant Rule Zero without even breaking a sweat. It's lazy and stupid.


Wulf

Well, having been involved in D&D where we were part of a large gaming group (8-10 PCs at a time), we'd often face off against either several large monsters, or a horde of low level types. Against several more powerful opponents, you quickly learn to take them down one at a time by concentrating your attacks rather than spreading them to each bad guy. 4 attacks from 4 ogres is better than 5 attacks from 5 slightly wounded ones.

I would assume that the local militia would opt to do the same.

 

[Nail]

So, yeah... It's just plain bad design.

(Hmm. I disagree with you. How bizarre.)

Could you suggest an alternative mechanic?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well, having been involved in D&D where we were part of a large gaming group (8-10 PCs at a time), we'd often face off against either several large monsters, or a horde of low level types. Against several more powerful opponents, you quickly learn to take them down one at a time by concentrating your attacks rather than spreading them to each bad guy. 4 attacks from 4 ogres is better than 5 attacks from 5 slightly wounded ones.

I would assume that the local militia would opt to do the same.

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

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Could you suggest an alternative mechanic?

Easy: An opposed attack roll, or (if you prefer) a Reflex save vs. the attack roll.

It works for Disarm, it works for Trip, it works for Sunder... etc.

The Deflect Arrows practitioner should get better and better at deflecting the arrows of lesser foes.

It leaves the door open for a feat chain with the "Multi-Deflect" others have mentioned.


Wulf

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I like neither the opposed attack roll or reflex vs attack roll. Yes I can see they should get better, but unarmed combatants and reflex saves in no way come close to scaling with AB of archers. The feat would be useless against anyone with the skill to even hit you at mid levels on.

I personally prefer the star wars revised method for deflecting blasters, an AC bonus. I'd say a +1 to ac vs ranged attacks +3 if the off hand is left to be just on defense, so either a shield, or off hand that doesn't attack.

I know many were't happy with this way though so i may be in the minority here.