I do not believe anyone would design a multi deflect feat using an automatic mechanic.
I understand the trepedation some have expressed at a free automatic ranged attack negation every round. Universally I believe no one likes to have an action of theirs rendered useless with no recourse, precedents like stoneskin can be negated by dispel magic and so forth and have a built in duration or damage cap. Wulf's dodge tanget is a bit of a straw man argument to me, since a melee attack can deliver so many other effects besides straight damage,(disarm, trip, touch attack, sunder so on and so forth), that generally Ranged attacks do not.
Personaly I was fine with this feat as alleviating the frustration of having a feat,(or class abillity), that was often useless at the level received due to the reflex saving throw requirement. Of course at higher levels,(for monks at least), the feat almost does become automatic, so I did not feel like any great liberties were being take.
Than I read the Andy Collins statement.
I am sure Mr. Collins was speaking casually, not expecting every word of his to be searched for nuanced meaning, and by no means do I want Mr. Collins to stop showing us behind the designers curtain, but his statement that Archery should be less powerful than melee, and that melee is were it is at, bespeaks to me of a play style mandate I find distateful, and that frankly has me dubious about 3.5.
Why should Ranged combat be LESS powerfull than melee?
I certainly dont want Ranged combat to be more powerful, but not substaintaly less, I for one have always felt that 3e finally got Ranged combat right out of all the prior edittions.
Why are close quarted melees to be considered a superior model to ranged combats?
Frankly ranged combats let everyone shine, rogues can sneak, wizards/sorc can use long ranged spells, Bards can do whatever their wide choices allow them to do, fighters can show off how they can master ranged and melee combat, and the pure close ranged combat classes with improved speed, the monk and the barbarian, can use that speed to close on the enemy. Combat in 40'x40' rooms isnt very heroric, shooting your bow at the dragon while mounted on the back of a pegasus is!
This subtle type of game style determince is percisely what I dont want designer doing. Give me options, give me robust systems that allow me to cover a wide range of possibilites, not just robust melee combat potential.
Sigh, I really wish 3.5 rules were given to the collective message board community to debate, I have to think that such debate is as valuable,(if more unwieldly), than playtesting being done by those primarily in the design community.
