Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nikolai" data-source="post: 949639" data-attributes="member: 10130">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.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.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.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 &quot;that much&quot;? I also think how Deflect Arrows influences Manyshot is unclear and arguable.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 &quot;probably&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nikolai, post: 949639, member: 10130"] 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification