Revision Spotlight (6/17)

[BryonD]

Automatic success

 

[Nail]

Alright...maybe I'm coming around to see Wulf's point. (Not withstanding the absolutely absurd explanation put up by Andy Collins. Buddy, don't shoot yerself in th' foot, please! Not in public!)

The automatic deflect option is easy, and I'll still wager it's not game breaking, or even substantially straining credibility. But there might be better ways to do it.

The ways proposed:
#1) Opposed check, using some BAB variant.

#2) Reflex save

#3) Straight AC mod vs. missile fire.

Each of the three have problems.

#1 is hard on classes (like the monk!) with only moderate BABs.

#2 is hard on those classes with poor ref saves, and doesn't scale easily with level.

#3 A straight AC mod is boring, and loses the flavor of the feat.


So, any others? I don't really like any of the proposed three better than the current mechanic.

 

[BryonD]

Shouldn't this feat be hard on classes with a poor Ref save?

 

[Styracosaurus]

Maybe it should have a Reflex save prerequisite or a higher Dex requirement, but I prefer the automatic success.

Saves time and gives the character a cool ability.

I prefer for archery to be a tool that my players can use, while melee is the meat and potatoes of DnD for my group.

 

[Celtavian]

re

The feat was fine before, yet I don't care one way or the other about the change.

Wulf,

The only time a group of arrow deflecting monks will be attacking the local militia is if you are running a strange encounter in the first place. If the DM does run such a strange encounter, then the constant blocking of arrows will be considered something noteworthy in the course of the story. I personally could only see such an event happening in an OA campaign where it wouldn't seem so bizarre.

Now, at epic levels it could get out of hand. Isn't there some kind of feat that allows a PC with a specific chain of feats to block all incoming missile attacks and possibly even magic missile attacks?

I think they are probably going to have to revise the Epic Level Handbook to adjust for the changes made to 3.0. I would think Andy Collins is looking forward to doing just that.

 

[jasamcarl]

Automatic success

And why is automatic success a problem in and of itself? Especially when the immunity is so rare. And succesfull against what? Not a full attack; there it essentially acts as DR. It won't really decide many encounters, and most (actually, i'd be willing to guess, no) high level monsters and pcs won't really see there viable strategies automatically rendered worthless by this. So I ask again, what is the freakin problem?

 

[Felon]

Oh jeez. How many types of small projectile attacks does one anticipate seeing at higher levels, or even mid levels, that is an appropriate encounter and where a full attack isn't possible. Please, someone answer this before crys of this being a bad mechanic. Its no worse than DR.

Nobody *can* answer this with any degree of assuredness since they have no idea what any given DM will throw at them at any given level. I imagine some DM's will throw archers at their PC's more often than others. I do have to wonder why you think missile attacks become rare beyond low levels. This commonality that you insist is an absolute is actually quite subjective.

And even if it were absolute, and such attacks were rare at best, it wouldn't address the issue of sound mechanics. Rather, it would just decrease the value of the feat without regard to whether it was well-balanced or not. And if that's the case, then either make the feat both balanced and applicable to a broader set of circumstances or just drop it altogether and come with something else to give monks at 2nd level.

Originally posted by Psion
Oh, I can beleive it... as should be evidenced in the fact that I was sort of okay with it at first and was more concerned with the implications of follow-on feats. But the more I got to think about it, the less I like it.

Further, I really can't say I like the philosophy behind it one little bit... which seems to be "make melee king." Melee is king enough; I like variety.

And the more different things I read, the more it seems to me that the fundamental problem with many of these changes are Andy Collins' philosophies regarding "what the game should be." Paladins who pack around their horses like pokemon in the name of "making everyone at their best in dungeons" also makes me blanche. And I fear to see how the druid spell list will change to support this philosophy.

Yep, there's a rather annoying thought process at work: anything that players don't make wide usage of must be inherently weak or non-viable in some way, and therefore needs a big boost in order to make more players fall in love with it. I've seen that mentality expressed again and again with 3.5e--be it with a race, a class, a specific feature of a class, a feat, or something else--and it seems like the designers don't stop to think "you know, maybe there are reasons why this race/class/class feature/feat/whatever isn't as popular as other things in that category that have nothing to do with how powerful it is", or "hey, maybe it's okay that not everything has widespread appeal for its raw utility, as long as the game as a whole has lots of viable options".

 

[BryonD]

Is that a serious question?

Because it makes no sense.

Because, in a combat situation, automatic sucess destroys any competition.

Because it is boring.

Because in D&D virtually nothing is automatic success.
A rogue with +20 Open Locks may be able to automatically open a normal lock. But he can not automatically open ANY lock.

Because it promotes bizzare behavior that evolves from 100% certainty.

Because the idea of deflecting an arrow in particular should be impressive, an accomplishment.

Because a 30th level fighter still has a 5% chance to miss a standard kobold.

Because a L30 Master Archer will be blocked by a L2 monk without so much as a die being thrown.

 

[jasamcarl]

Nobody *can* answer this with any degree of assuredness since they have no idea what any given DM will throw at them at any given level. I imagine some DM's will throw archers at their PC's more often than others. I do have to wonder why you think missile attacks become rare beyond low levels. This commonality that you insist is an absolute is actually quite subjective.

And even if it were absolute, and such attacks were rare at best, it wouldn't address the issue of sound mechanics. Rather, it would just decrease the value of the feat without regard to whether it was well-balanced or not. And if that's the case, then either make the feat both balanced and applicable to a broader set of circumstances or just drop it altogether and come with something else to give monks at 2nd level.



Yep, there's a rather annoying thought process at work: anything that players don't make wide usage of must be inherently weak or non-viable in some way, and therefore needs a big boost in order to make more players fall in love with it. I've seen that mentality expressed again and again with 3.5e--be it with a race, a class, a specific feature of a class, a feat, or something else--and it seems like the designers don't stop to think "you know, maybe there are reasons why this race/class/class feature/feat/whatever isn't as popular as other things in that category that have nothing to do with how powerful it is", or "hey, maybe it's okay that not everything has widespread appeal for its raw utility, as long as the game as a whole has lots of viable options".

Yeah, go through my later posts. If a dm is throwing a high level archer at a party, it will almost certainly be fireing off more than one attack per round, else it wouldn't be worth its CR. I said that encounters in which a ranged attacker relies on one projectile per round are rare to non-existent. The Feat is still useful be it avoids the damage fromt he first attack. It is actually a slightly more random DR in this case. And I agree, it is a narrow feat. Which is why it is absolute, because otherwise its ingame effect would be non-existent except for a few rounds.

 

[BryonD]

You edited your post while I was replying.

I already said that it won't make a big difference.

That does not save it from being bad design.

Heck, a Ref DC:2 would be better because at least a 5% failure would return. It would still be quite poor. But automatic is a bad precedent.