Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 1060923" data-attributes="member: 8158">Re: Re: Provoking Attacks of Obtusemess <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Speaking for myself, I just want to allow guns to be used for defensive AoO's, like thos provoked by starting a disarm, grapple, or bull rush. 5ft. can suffice for that. I suppose the Gunslinger can extend that out to 10ft as his first-level ability.OK, I've already pointed this out several times now, but in many settings it is reasonable for melee to be an extremely undesirable choice. If you were running a WWII or S.W.A.T. or the aforementioned Thomas Wolfe campaign, for instance, it would be wildly inappropriate to have a character that eschewed guns for martial arts. In those campaigns, an unarmed character would not even think of confronting an opponent with a firearm if he had a choice.Yes. Right on. You'd have to be either totally desperate or out of your mind to use melee in a gunfight. You've got it. Exactimundo. That can be perfectly acceptable for some campaigns. See above.They'll still have the superior damage, range, and bullet capacity, so they'll hardly be hedged-out by allowing handguns to threaten a 5ft radius. Handguns will simply have an edge in those situations. We've already visited this territory as well. Everyone will not be threatening everyone. Everyone will just not stand face-to-face with each other during a gun battle. They'll do the sane thing at try to use distance and cover to their advantage.Lol...and the award for best actor in a messageboard melodrama goes to....This is just a wild, ridiculous, overreaction. Yes, if a guy says something foolish I'll call him on it. If he comes across like a clueless kid, then that's how I'll respond to him (and no, dastard that I am, I won't go hire a private investigator to research his background first). If he quacks, I'll trust my instincts and call him a duck. Now, if I'd said something deeply cruel and hurtful--something genuinely inflammatory and abusive, not just a little verbal sparring--then you'd have some grounds for this over-the-top ourtrage on Tak's behalf. But it's just not there.If you genuinely want to keep this discussion fresh, then let's cut the indignant routine, and stick to the topic. All of this niggling and harping over points I've already addressed is unproductive as hell, Kae.</blockquote>

Verification