Revision Spotlight (6/17)

[Felon]

Exactly. Your skill here is being opposed by someone else, so the idea that you can automatically suceed regardless of how good a shot your enemy is completely unacceptable within any kind of sane rule framework...

Yep. Doesn't matter how good the shooter is, and doesn't matter how good the attacker is. Level and individual ability have been factored right out.

The idea that a character can be completely immune to an enemy's attacks (even if only at low levels) for the price of one feat is absurd.

It really is that rudimentary. Does it really take a deep understanding of game mechanics required here to grasp the problem here? One low-prereq feat should not provide an unassailable defense from an attack. The likelyhood of iterative attacks is not a mitigating factor. The commonality of missile attacks is neither here nor there (not there's much merit behind any assertion that opponents stop using projectile weapons at any given level in any given campaign).

The fact that it's "just one attack" is not a balancing factor, because at low levels, unless someone has Rapid Shot, it confers immunity against a single enemy with ranged weapon, and at higher levels, the fact that it's automatic lets you nullify the effect of someone's first attack, which is often an almost-automatic hit.

Yep. If a foe doesn't have a full-attack action, he may as well not even shoot. If he does have a full attack, then his best attack has been instantly negated. Who signed off on this klunker?

 

[mmu1]

I have no idea how anyone can think having an automatic outcome for a combat action can possibly be a good thing... I must have been dreaming when I saw all those threads complaining about spells with no saves, and automatic Tumbling...

It's especially absurd in a situation like this, where the change strains both verisimilitude and the game mechanics...
True Strike still fails on a bad enough roll, but now there are two things that never fail - Magic Missile and a 2nd level monk's ability to deflect any "normal" projectile.
Don't bother going for 9/10th cover... That only gives you a big (but finite) AC bonus, you can just automatically deflect that Bolt of Horrible Death with your hand. (But if you're holding a shield, you'll never be able to do it, because shields make it harder to deflect arrows). In fact, the best way of stopping an attack is using a bare hand, even when you're not a Monk.
And hey, no one using a crossbow powerful enough to kill a knight in full plate can even scratch you, but beware the halfling who throws more than one rock at you per round, because you can always deflect one, but you'll never be able to deflect two.

 

[Felon]

Not nonsense, from what I've seen. I've seen it used a couple of times (usually unsuccessfully) and then quickly forgotten.

Don't mistake unpopularity for ineffectuality. The feat does what it promises, and although it could do it better, it still won't be popular until it stops having Improved Unarmed Attack as a prereq. Deflecting arrows with a sword is a common enough heroic tactic.

I'm suggesting that it's a good idea that needed a tweak to make it effective in the game, and the new version sounds like it will accomplish that.

It will be too effective against one missile each round, and ineffectual against the rest. That's not balanced, that's lopsided. I agree it could've used a tweak, but in terms of good design, the revised version of this feat is actually a step backwards. I myself like the idea that Deflect Arrows actually provides a deflection bonus against missile attacks. I just hope they didn't give the same treatment to Mounted Combat...

 

[Hikaru]

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.

In real life, a crossbow bolt is enough to kill you. In D&D, your opponent often has enough HP to survive several, and he will not slow down for being wounded; for that reason, makes sense to gang up on one, to eliminate quickly one source of attacks.

 

[Felon]

In real life, a crossbow bolt is enough to kill you. In D&D, your opponent often has enough HP to survive several, and he will not slow down for being wounded; for that reason, makes sense to gang up on one, to eliminate quickly one source of attacks.

Of course, hit points represent defensive acts like defliecting an incoming attack. The old Deflect Arrows feat was essentially a variant form of Evasion. I sure hope nobody gets the bright idea for an "Ultra Evasion" feat that allows rogues and monks to automatically succeed at one Reflex save per round for no damage...

 

[John Crichton]

Yep. If a foe doesn't have a full-attack action, he may as well not even shoot. If he does have a full attack, then his best attack has been instantly negated. Who signed off on this klunker?

He can still shoot if the deflector hasn't noticed him. And it's not always the best attack that is negated. The deflector must choose to block an attack that hits. Thus if I block shot 1, shot 2 could still critical. I do not get to choose from both, I would have to just knock down the first one or potentially waste the attempt. With feats like manyshot and rapid fire I don't see this being an issue.

The character with this feat won't be able to use it all the time and sure if your common guard with his BAB+1 and a crossbow can kill my monk, shame on my monk. And who's going to stand there and shoot arrow after arrow at a guy (or gal) who is deflecting each one. At that point, you take your longsword and charge.

 

[MadScientist]

I don't like that it's automatic either. Before, I did think the DC for the save was just plain too high (difficult even for chars with good reflex saves) I kinda wish they had just lowered the save, maybe to 15. (Or perhaps 10 + 1/2 BaB of the attacker... actually I like this one)

Well since this conversation drifted into possible house rules, I figured I would reiterate my second idea here (Making deflect arrows dependent on a reflex save equal to 10 + 1/2 the attackers BaB). The more I think about it the more I like it. It works out so that a character with a good relex save will deflect an arrow fired from a fighter of equivalent level approximately half the time, a nice perk. Also success isn't assured (and therefore avoids alot of weirdness) and the skill of the attacker affects the DC (which I think makes alot of sense). I think with this house rule limiting the deflections to one per round wouldn't be necessary however. Unless I some real problem with this get brought to my attention I'll probably use this as a house rule.

Edit: On further reflection DC of 1/2 BaB is too low. Making the DC 10 + attacker BaB is more appropriate. (Thats what a get for thinking about these things at the bar )

 

[coyote6]

An archer jas no chance whatsoever to even hit the monk without taking a full attack action.

Well, that's not completely true; I'm sure that, at least with respect to 3.5e, a certain sort of archer might be able to do it.

*koff*Manyshot*koffkoff*

Sorry, allergies are acting up.

 

[Kai Lord]

A stoic Arcane Archer fires three well-placed arrows at a black cloaked fighter who spent three feats to deflect one arrow per round.

FIGHTER: "Antilia, help!"

Bending over backward in a dazzling display of agility the fighter catches the first arrow but must wriggle and twist to avoid the other two. One arrow nicks his side, the other his shoulder.

ANTILIA: "You moved like a Monk. I've never seen anyone move that fast."

Dropping the arrow he caught, the fighter rises to his feat and notices the lacerations.

FIGHTER: "It wasn't fast enough."

Both the fighter and Antilia hear the arcane language of magic, 60 feet away. The Arcane Archer fires an arrow Imbued with Fireball.

ARCANE ARCHER: "Catch this."

 

[jasamcarl]

What the heck type of high-level, encounter-appropriate projectile attacker would not use a full attack? And of course certain campaigns can be heavily skewed to challenge or not challenge a given party. But look at the freakin distribution of common attacks for MM monsters and tell me that in most groups this will be an issue in many groups.

Please, explain how a definitive immunity is actually unbalanced, especially in regards to such a narrow range of attacks such as this. 'Boring' mechanic really doesn't do it. The granuarity with this feat comes in the damage avoided across a range of encounters, not in a single one. Jeez, i wish my fighter could dimension door atleast a short distance!!! There are a lot of qualitative abilities in DND, most notably certain utility spells or the item creation feats. Just because this one is a martial ability does not make it any less valid.