Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Revision Spotlight (6/17)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="satori01" data-source="post: 950552" data-attributes="member: 7859"><p>I do not believe anyone would design a multi deflect feat using an automatic mechanic.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Than I read the Andy Collins statement.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Why should Ranged combat be LESS powerfull than melee? </p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p></p><p>Why are close quarted melees to be considered a superior model to ranged combats? </p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="satori01, post: 950552, member: 7859"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Revision Spotlight (6/17)
Top