Hmmm... I stand corrected... I was thinking skill checks I suppose...
I really like some of Selgard's suggestions here, but I do want it clear that Selgard and I are not making the same argument.
I'm saying that as a GM I would totally let the player try this. I'm just saying that it will have an extremely low chance of success. I could see ruling this as a reflex or dex check, or I could see using an attack roll, either way it's going to be difficult.
Now if you are a level 20 fighter with ridiculous attack bonuses, then yes you'd have a better shot at being successful than a first level sorcerer trying the same thing.
I do sort of like the redirection to using the full defense action and flavoring missed arrows as being knocked out of the air. That has the benefit of being "successful" on more than one arrow too. But it's just flavor.
While mechanically that works, it leads to some very odd things going on.
A person standing in place waiting to dodge your arrow is basically giving up his dodge bonus. It is, for all intents and purposes, a stationary target.
While the level 20 fighter has a better chance not to miss the target than a level 10 fighter, the ability to hit his arrow should be exactly the same. (that is to say-assuming both roll high enough to hit you, they are two identical arrows).
Now I'm not against the magical'ness of the arrow having some play in it but I can't see how figher X having a huge attack bonus vs fighter Y, would play somehow into a defender being able to slice the arrow.
Now the pull of the bow would- since that would yield to a faster arrow. (which is what yields the higher damage- unless I'm just completely wrong about all that.)
So while fighter 20 and fighter 1 have different odds of hitting the target that shouldn't really effect the ability of a defender to hit the arrow- assuming they are using the same bow and arrow.
Of course this changes once you have a moving target- but someone readying an action to slice an arrow isn't a moving target.
I mean, it works mechanically to work out to the same thing as what I said in my post: the DM is telling you its not gonna work- one is just using an absurdly high to-hit roll to accomplish it while the other is telling the PC "you are about to get pin coushined"
As a player I'd rather just be told it ain't happening, than to be told I can do it when in reality I can.
"hey can I jump that 400 foot chasm"
DM: "sure, make your roll"
PC: "20, awesome"
DM: "whats the total?"
PC: "42"
DM: "sorry, you fall."
PC: "but you said I could do it!"
DM: "no, I said you could try it. You can try anything."
The opposed roll stuff sounds nice cept if its an attack roll they still succeed on a 20 (when it shouldn't succeed 5% of the time imo) and also leads to the weirdnes where two people of similar combat skill have a good chance to knock each others arrows out of the air, or a higher level person a good chance to knock a lower person's out of the air- when the level of the combatant really shouldn't play a hand in the ability to knock an arrow out of the air.
Clearly though those are just my opinions on the matter.
-S
Personally, I'm not in favor of the opposed attack roll purely from a mechanical point of view. Pathfinder doesn't often use opposed rolls the way other RPGs will (White Wolf, I'm looking at you!) An action is against a static DC in almost, if not all, situations. Attacks against AC, CMB against CMD, and skill rolls against DCs dictated by the situation. Adding an opposed roll to a system that regularly creates game terms simply to avoid it is clunky in my eyes.
I believe Selgard and Adamantine Dragon have persuaded me to favor the active defense method. A fighter gets to be cool simply through combat flavor with a system already in place, while the feat continues to offer a bonus unavailable to those without it.
I'm generally in favor of keeping it simple. While readying an attack vs. an arrow itself doesn't bother me much, total defense is a mechanic already in place that solves much the same issue, and doesn't change the initiative while we're at it.
It only gets more interesting once somebody is trying to swat down an arrow aimed at somebody else. Then there's more questions when something like that comes along.
Do you need to be adjacent to the target of the attack (trajectory and all might make it hard to swat an arrow mid-flight)? Since you can 5-ft-step when you ready, can you step in the way, granting a cover bonus to an ally? I'm sure more would come up mid-game.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/combat/duels.html
You can have it function similar to something like the dueling parry. It's a little shabby, I think, but there you go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a major falacy.
First, of all they are taking up an entire round to try to do something creative, i.e. not defined in the rules.
And this is your major fallacy. It is covered in the rules, they've even given it a name: Deflect Arrows.
Whenever there is a situation that is simple, like this one, and a player wants to do something creative - let them. This gives them a chance to think of even more creative solutions to problems - it's called roleplaying.
I agree, but for what you're suggesting, why bother with rules at all? Just act out stories, because the rules just seem to be suggestions to you. Why bother with feats or class abilities at all?
This can be a DMs best friend, because it becomes a memorable moment in your game when a player goes "remember that time when..." It also makes up for all the Nos that a DM is likely to say to the outrageous questions players will ask.
Let me finish that sentence for you: "Remember that time when Biff wasted two feats to get deflect arrows, and the GM completely slapped him in the face by letting me do it for free?"
You may think that's an example of great GM'ing, but some of us disagree. And don't try to make this out to be more than the issue being discussed. There are times when there are situations that really aren't covered in the rules (this not being one of them), where GM's will let the players get creative. But to screw others over because someone else thinks a move is "cool", is just wrong.
Second they are taking possibly an entire round, not damaging an enemy or casting a spell to knock an arrow out of the way. Sure there is a feat for it, but with that feat one is able to take a full round action and still bat away an arrow. The feat serves it's purpose. If someone wanted to ready an action to bat an arrow away, they can't
Okay, while we're talking about fallacies, let's talk Slippery Slope: If I'm a 20th level mage, and I swing my staff with +20 BAB? I mean if I take a full action for it. A fighter gets to make a lot of attacks at +20 BAB, the Wizard will only be taking 1 a round, that's fair right?
And the fighter, if he spends a whole round rolling sulfur in a ball, can he cast fireball? A wizard can do it as a standard action, so if the fighter takes a full round, it's balanced right?
I think the biggest problem people have with "Use the feat that already exists" is that mechanically the 2 ideas are very different. Deflect Arrows requires you to have one hand free, so in no way are you "cutting the arrow out of the air"
The PrC Duelist has the ability to cut arrows out of the air. Wanna guess how they built it? Deflect Arrows only usable with Duelist weapons.
|
I think the biggest problem people have with "Use the feat that already exists" is that mechanically the 2 ideas are very different. Deflect Arrows requires you to have one hand free, so in no way are you "cutting the arrow out of the air"The PrC Duelist has the ability to cut arrows out of the air. Wanna guess how they built it? Deflect Arrows only usable with Duelist weapons.
I was not aware that anyone using the deflect arrows feat or duelist ability where giving up all other actions in their turn to try that and may not succeed. That really lowers the power level of that feat or class ability.
Do you also deny the charge maneuver from everyone since the monk gets the ability to move 60+ feet and still attack by 9th level? Or the ability to draw a weapon as part of a move action to all characters with out quick draw feat?
I will now turn my snark off. Sorry all, I get caught up in some of these sometimes.
more serious question for you though, and for those against the idea of anyone trying to do this without the feat or duelist ability:
How would you represent, in the rules, a character readying an attack to break a potion in flight expecting the NPC to toss the potion to a minion (for what ever reason). Basically, how would you represent "baseball", and could you expand upon that idea to allow it vs arrows, but at a higher difficulty? Or would all "baseball" players either have to be duelists or have the deflect arrows feat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure...so you agree that you have to make something completely different than the current feat that exists, Paizo chose to make something like that work within a PrC, I offer a Combat Maneuver that would work someway...do they have to work identically? no.
Not really.
The feat and the PrC ability are free actions that automatically succeed. We are talking about a readied action that has a chance to fail. What if I have the deflect arrows feat, but it has already stopped one arrow, and I have a readied action to attack an incomming arrow? I have the feat you say I need, what happens?
It is possible to ready an action to cut a rope holding a bridge up if the enemy tries to cross. So, it is possible by RAW to ready an action to attack an unattended object without a feat.
If is possible to ready an action to attack a potion if a foe tries to drink it. So it is possible by RAW to attack an attended object without a feat.
An arrow in flight is an object, attended or otherwise, it is possible to attack it with a readied action without a feat. The only real question is how hard should it be to hit an arrow in flight.
Do you also deny the charge maneuver from everyone since the monk gets the ability to move 60+ feet and still attack by 9th level? Or the ability to draw a weapon as part of a move action to all characters with out quick draw feat?
No, and I don't stop anyone from eating pickles when it's rabbit season either. Sorry since you were throwing out random and completely unrelated things, I wanted to play too. Or more to the point, I don't let players create rules that will screw other players out of their abilities.
more serious question for you though, and for those against the idea of anyone trying to do this without the feat or duelist ability:
How would you represent, in the rules, a character readying an attack to break a potion in flight expecting the NPC to toss the potion to a minion (for what ever reason). Basically, how would you represent "baseball", and could you expand upon that idea to allow it vs arrows, but at a higher difficulty? Or would all "baseball" players either have to be duelists or have the deflect arrows feat?
That would depend, is the potion half an inch thick and traveling at 150mph? If it is, then no you can't knock it out of the air, unless you had deflect arrows or similar ability. If the potion is going considerably slower, like someone threw it, and it was considerably larger, like in a potion bottle. Are there specific rules for grabbing a potion bottle out of the air? Are you seeing the difference?
I think the biggest problem people have with "Use the feat that already exists" is that mechanically the 2 ideas are very different. Deflect Arrows requires you to have one hand free, so in no way are you "cutting the arrow out of the air"The PrC Duelist has the ability to cut arrows out of the air. Wanna guess how they built it? Deflect Arrows only usable with Duelist weapons.I was not aware that anyone using the deflect arrows feat or duelist ability where giving up all other actions in their turn to try that and may not succeed. That really lowers the power level of that feat or class ability.
Do you also deny the charge maneuver from everyone since the monk gets the ability to move 60+ feet and still attack by 9th level? Or the ability to draw a weapon as part of a move action to all characters with out quick draw feat?
I will now turn my snark off. Sorry all, I get caught up in some of these sometimes.
more serious question for you though, and for those against the idea of anyone trying to do this without the feat or duelist ability:
How would you represent, in the rules, a character readying an attack to break a potion in flight expecting the NPC to toss the potion to a minion (for what ever reason). Basically, how would you represent "baseball", and could you expand upon that idea to allow it vs arrows, but at a higher difficulty? Or would all "baseball" players either have to be duelists or have the deflect arrows feat?
A tossed or thrown potion vs a baseball vs an arrow.
I mean, a tossed/thrown potion I could see being a 13, 15, maybe 20 AC.
A baseball is a little more odd. To simpilfy it in game terms I'd just make it an attackroll vs an AC but I think it would fall under a skill rather than a to-hit actually with the DC determined by the skill of the pitcher :)
-S
Its true that the feat deflect arrows doesn't exactly match/mirror cutting an arrow out of the sky.
But, its really the closest the rules have to doing so. Close enough in fact, to require very very little modification. Its also the exact same thing- but done with a hand rather than a weapon. It just has pointless fluff in it to keep a fighter or someone like that from taking it. (which is silly- but thats a whole other thread)
So if a player came to me and asked about doing this, we'd sit down and check out the feats that exist and if they make sense.
My breakdown would be thus:
Deflect Arrows requires UAS, and a free hand. This is done to prevent fighters and such from taking it while making it simple for a monk to get.
no idea why.
But: I'd just create a new feat.
Slicing the Arrow(Combat)
Your skill with a weapon allows you to knock arrows out of the sky.
Prerequisites: Str or Dex 13, Weapon Focus in chosen weapon
Benefit: You must have the weapon in hand that you qualified for the feat with to use this feat. Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may attack it so that you take no damage from it. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed. Attempting to deflect a ranged attack doesn't count as an action. Unusually massive ranged weapons (such as boulders or ballista bolts) and ranged attacks generated by natural attacks or spell effects can't be deflected. Attacked arrows are automatically broken as though they had struck their target and the defender takes no damage. The weapon used to strike the arrow must have an enhancement bonus equal to or greater than the arrow or this feat has no effect. Only the actual enhancement bonus applies, not special abilities.
Special: This feat can only be taken once. Its effects apply to any weapon the wielder has Weapon Focus in.
Clearly I'm not a rules-writer, so that could have probably been made more clear. I think I got the idea across, however.
It adds the wrinkle of the enhancement bonus but really- i could live without that. it requires 2 feats (just like the original) and the "feat tax' is something most melee guys are going to have anyway (just like UAS for the monk)
I do believe there are things you just can't do without proper training. The game quantifies this with skills by making some things just impossible if you aren't trained in them and such. I think this is one of those things.
-S
Cutting an arrow as it flies, by holding an action to do so, treads in the same direction as the arrow deflection feats and duelist power, but it doesn't really tread on them. It certainly doesn't do so any more than punching someone treads on improved unarmed strike - the feat primarily makes the option a whole lot better. The deflect arrows feat is a whole lot better than giving up a standard action to have a chance to break one arrow in flight.
I am willing to entertain the idea that attempting to cut down an arrow with a held action is closer to treading on the parry option for the duelist, but I still think that power is substantially better than trying to hold an action to cut down an arrow.
I"m just curious... its been proven that the Deflect Arrows Feat IS the closest thing to what the OP was trying to say (about cutting an arrow in half,ect)..
..with that said..
Can a Fighter try to Power Attack without Power Attack Feat?
Can a Sorcerer try to scribe a scroll without Scribe Scroll Feat?
Can a Bard try to Run x5 without the RUN Feat?
Feats allow you to do extraordinary things.. .and while you could try to SCRIBE a SCROLL without the FEAT... you will never be able to make a magical scroll per RAW..
Even if someone rolled two 20s on a d20 in a row I would not allow them to "cut" an arrow in half. Its just not going to happen
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can a Fighter try to Power Attack without Power Attack Feat?
Can a Sorcerer try to scribe a scroll without Scribe Scroll Feat?
Can a Bard try to Run x5 without the RUN Feat?
A lot of people have been giving examples that state similar rules like this lately, and I must say this is very flawed logic. If you want to make a point using analogies, you have to use equivalent analogies, otherwise the logic falls apart.
To put it bluntly, using a readied action to attack an arrow is not the same as the feat, which is a free action. So all of your examples, which are exactly the same as their corresponding feats, are completely inapplicable to a true analogy.
It certainly doesn't do so any more than punching someone treads on improved unarmed strike - the feat primarily makes the option a whole lot better.
This is a fair and equal analogy. ^.^
All of this being said, I have actually been convinced to simply allow this kind of flavor with the total defense action, so I may even be on your side. But this point you tried to make has been made before, and it's a flawed one, so I was hoping to clear that up so that perhaps more convincing arguments can start taking the floor.
Hmmm, that sounded insulting. >.< Anyway, I hope you don't take my criticism of the argument personally.
A lot of people have been giving examples that state similar rules like this lately, and I must say this is very flawed logic. If you want to make a point using analogies, you have to use equivalent analogies, otherwise the logic falls apart.
Okay to make it a fair analogy: Would you allow a fighter without Power Attack, to Power Attack as a Full Action instead of a Standard Action? Would you let a sorcerer scribe scroll without the feat, if it took twice as long? Would you let a Cleric cast Fireball as a full action instead of a standard one?
Would you let someone take a standard action to not get an AOO from any of the maneuvers that take a feat to not eat an AOO?
Blind Fighting, Arcane Armor Training, Arcane Strike- where do we draw the line here?
Can't I just take a little longer to use a feat I don't have? It would be so epic.
Someone inclined to do so can whip up some rationale for nearly any feat as to why they should be able to do it without taking it. If there *is* no similar rule and you are just making it up as yuo go along then that's one thing.. but if there *is* a rule that's identical or so similar as to be so- then you should probably just use it. Or slightly tweak it so its usable.
Or ditch the feat entirely and just allow it to be done feat-less. But don't let someone do it without the feat, and also keep the feat. thats just a trap.
-S
Also to back up Grenmera not only is it taking longer but isnt even auto success. Its a chance so yes i might let a fighter attempt a check of some sort to gain a bonus on his to damage and a penalty to hit.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
That's why I brought up the concept of Feint, to me what the OP wants to do sounds a great deal more like someone wanting to feint while doing something similar to Deflect Arrows, hence why I put out my idea of how to solve this using a combination of rules sets.
Feint can be used by anyone, trained or not, adding to your bluff skill increases the likelihood that you'll be successful in your Feint attempt, but it takes a Full Standard Action.
Then you have the Improved Feint feat which reduces the action cost to a move action, (allowing you to now attack after a feint making it better).
I can kinda see where you're going, and I agree that a skill-based approach would be ideal, but I really don't see Feint as being all that appropriate for this type of action.
Feinting is all about convincing your enemy you're doing one thing so you can catch him off guard by doing another. It's applied BSing. You don't need to be precise in your movements with a feint, you just need to be convincing. That's why it's a Bluff skill check (with some bonuses for knowing your way around a blade). Further, it's based off Charisma, so you get weird situations where classes that favor Charisma and classes with Bluff as a class skill are somehow better at deflecting arrows than classes that don't (at least that strikes me as weird, that class like the bard would be better at blocking arrows than a fighter).
Chopping arrows mid flight is all about reflexes, eye hand coordination, and spatial reasoning. It's not a matter of psyching the archer out, or convincing him to shoot somewhere other than where you'll be.
Unfortunately, I can't really think of an alternative skill that would be appropriate, and I don't like using an attack roll or saving throw for the reasons I mentioned above, so I think I'll stick to my guns on treating this like a Total Defense.
Okay to make it a fair analogy: Would you allow a fighter without Power Attack, to Power Attack as a Full Action instead of a Standard Action? Would you let a sorcerer scribe scroll without the feat, if it took twice as long? Would you let a Cleric cast Fireball as a full action instead of a standard one?
Those are much stronger analogies! It also helps get your point across better too. Aside from the auto success of the feat, this is basically there, and you can already see the difference with how much more compelling these examples are.
Thank you for taking my critiques non personally, and I think you've improved your argument in tow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people have been giving examples that state similar rules like this lately, and I must say this is very flawed logic. If you want to make a point using analogies, you have to use equivalent analogies, otherwise the logic falls apart.Okay to make it a fair analogy: Would you allow a fighter without Power Attack, to Power Attack as a Full Action instead of a Standard Action? Would you let a sorcerer scribe scroll without the feat, if it took twice as long? Would you let a Cleric cast Fireball as a full action instead of a standard one?
While these are better analogies, they still miss the point.
- The rules say you can attack objects, attended or otherwise.
- The rules say you can ready an action to attack when a specific condition happens.
Thus, you can ready an action to attack a flying object that passes near you.
Nowhere do the rules state that you can power attack without the power attack feat.
If a new feat comes out that lets you cast a fireball as a move action without a spell level increase, does that mean you can no longer cast fireball as a standard action if you don't have the feat? Because that is what you are effectively proposing.
The existence of the deflect arrows feat and similar abilities is completely irrelevant. This is about what the RAW allows you to do without needing to have a feat. There could be a feat that does the exact same thing, and it still wouldn't matter.
Why do we even need feats?;)
They help with balance. While some certain subsections of our population REALLY enjoy them, I do find toes to be quite ugly.
Why do we even need feats?;)
Because they allow you to do something you couldn't do without them.
Power Attack allows you to do something you normally cannot do(Trade hit for damage).
Deflect Arrows allows you to do something you normally cannot do(automatically stop 1 arrow per round as a free action).
Because the weapon profiency feat lets you attack with a weapon without a penalty, does that mean you you cannot attack with a longsword unless you have weapon profiency(longsword)? No, you can attack, you just take a penalty.
By RAW, I can attack a potion being tossed from one bad guy to another with a readied action, but if it is an arrow, suddenly it is all different, and I am not allowed to do it because there exists a feat somewhere that does something vaguely similar? No, the same rules apply to both situations. You can still attempt to stop arrows without deflect arrows, but you take a penalty to the action(give up you attacks and have a chance to miss).
No one answered my earlier question. What if I have deflect arrows, and I ready an action to attack an arrow that comes near me? The first arrow is deflected as per the feat. What happens to the second arrow shot at me?
What if I have deflect arrows, and I ready an action to attack an arrow that comes near me? The first arrow is deflected as per the feat. What happens to the second arrow shot at me?
I'd say that since you readied a standard action (or even otherwise) against the first thing to come towards you (or you even specified the arrow), you have finished your readied action when the conditions were first met and you are open prey to all subsequent arrows.
What if I have deflect arrows, and I ready an action to attack an arrow that comes near me? The first arrow is deflected as per the feat. What happens to the second arrow shot at me?I'd say that since you readied a standard action (or even otherwise) against the first thing to come towards you (or you even specified the arrow), you have finished your readied action when the conditions were first met and you are open prey to all subsequent arrows.
But nothing in the deflect arrows feat allows you to ready an attack against arrows.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is, at least, still allowed to ready an action to set the tower shield to provide total cover vs the archer once they fire. That way you can stop all the arrows that they fire with no chance of failure.
Glad that the rules let me move a 45 lb giant wooden shield in place to block the arrow while it was in flight. Also works to block bullets! Per the RAW, I can say "I am readying my action so that as soon as he fires, I will set my tower shield to provide total cover from him, thus stopping the bullet." That must be the fastest tower shield in the land!
Okay then can I ready an action to stop a sword? I'm just going to stand there and wait until you attack, and when you do, I'm going to knock your sword away with my sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay then can I ready an action to stop a sword? I'm just going to stand there and wait until you attack, and when you do, I'm going to knock your sword away with my sword.
I'm fairly certain that's called readying a Sunder (or Disarm depending on your motive).
Okay then can I ready an action to stop a sword? I'm just going to stand there and wait until you attack, and when you do, I'm going to knock your sword away with my sword.I'm fairly certain that's called readying a Sunder (or Disarm depending on your motive).
Except, a readied Sunder goes off before the attack. I want to attack the sword while it's swinging.
What if you can't reach the foe to sunder? I want to ready an attack to attack a reach weapon.
Why do we even need feats?;)Because they allow you to do something you couldn't do without them.
Power Attack allows you to do something you normally cannot do(Trade hit for damage).
Deflect Arrows allows you to do something you normally cannot do(automatically stop 1 arrow per round as a free action).Because the weapon profiency feat lets you attack with a weapon without a penalty, does that mean you you cannot attack with a longsword unless you have weapon profiency(longsword)? No, you can attack, you just take a penalty.
By RAW, I can attack a potion being tossed from one bad guy to another with a readied action, but if it is an arrow, suddenly it is all different, and I am not allowed to do it because there exists a feat somewhere that does something vaguely similar? No, the same rules apply to both situations. You can still attempt to stop arrows without deflect arrows, but you take a penalty to the action(give up you attacks and have a chance to miss).
No one answered my earlier question. What if I have deflect arrows, and I ready an action to attack an arrow that comes near me? The first arrow is deflected as per the feat. What happens to the second arrow shot at me?
The second (and third, fourth, fifth, and however many) that come your way stab you in the chest and decrease your HP accordingly- assuming they get through your denied-dexteriry armorclass to do so anyway.
There are perils to "I want to stand there and try to swing at the projectile". One of them is "I'm not dodging out of the way".-S
RAMVORD selgard nothing under readied actions denies you your Dex bonus.
No clue what "ramvord" is,
But nothing under ready actions says you can use it to cut an arrow outta the sky either. Actions have consequences. Stand in front of the arrow and declare you are gonna stand there and try to hit it? Have some up close and personal time with the medic.
-S
I can ready a standard action.
Attacking an object is a standard action.
Ergo I can ready to attack an object.
Do you also deny dex for the guy sticking his polearm in the ground and aiming it at the charging guy on horse back?
No, because the rules support attacking him that way. Or even his horse.
Or you can sunder his weapon.
But you can't ready an action to stop him from hitting you. Which is what you are trying to accomplish with the arrow thing.
"I ready an action to use my shield to block the first hit"
is the same thing as saying "i ready an action to knock the first arrow to come at me out of the sky"
Neither works.
You guys didn't seem to like the DM just saying no, so I've given alternatives.
They all revolve around it not working without the same feat investment as Deflect Arrows, however, and my strongly dissuading the player from trying it without said feat.
Take the feat, or skip it. Don't try to get around the feat. It exists for a reason.
-S
If he said he had a longsword instead of an appropriate weapon would you still let him ready it against the charge, using the ready against the charge rules- or any other weapon without the Brace feature?
Guy says "hey I'm an expert with the longsword, I should get double damage too, right? I mean he's charging me- moving quick.. I can ready my sword and just gut him like a fish. I deserve the 2x damage."
or do you say
"sorry, the rules say you need specfic weapons to do that, I'm not going to allow it."
-S
And for those who can use the feat its great. As I already said in my games its covered by Kirthfinders built in parrying.
However for a TWF or a THF Deflect arrows is not only 2 feats in to a group they probable don't want but neither can use it anyway do to lack of free hand.
I can actually ready several actions to stop him from hitting me including a sunder or disarm. OR even a move action to not be there when he swings. All of which work just as easily as saying that I ready to attack the first arrow to come into my threatened range. At no point is this massive reduction in what I could do on my turn stepping on the monk or shield guys ability to ignore that arrow and still pummel something.
I do agree that it would be better if there were a feat to deflect with a weapon or better rules for attacking moving objects but nothing in the rules disallows this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
On the subject of getting around feats one thing I hate to hear is that something can't be done because a feat exist that "allows"it. Allows is in quotes because there are things that no one would disallow you to then sometimes a feat comes out that says you can do it and it gets banned.
For instance Blinding Flash. Before this feat this would be something you would do with Dirty Trick or even something you DM might let you do for a penalty of some sort(this is what the floating GM +/- 2is for) however now a GM would be justified in denying the dirty trick user from blinding his foes with his sword because a new feat "allows" you to do it.
And for those who can use the feat its great. As I already said in my games its covered by Kirthfinders built in parrying.
However for a TWF or a THF Deflect arrows is not only 2 feats in to a group they probable don't want but neither can use it anyway do to lack of free hand.
I can actually ready several actions to stop him from hitting me including a sunder or disarm. OR even a move action to not be there when he swings. All of which work just as easily as saying that I ready to attack the first arrow to come into my threatened range. At no point is this massive reduction in what I could do on my turn stepping on the monk or shield guys ability to ignore that arrow and still pummel something.
I do agree that it would be better if there were a feat to deflect with a weapon or better rules for attacking moving objects but nothing in the rules disallows this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
On the subject of getting around feats one thing I hate to hear is that something can't be done because a feat exist that "allows"it. Allows is in quotes because there are things that no one would disallow you to then sometimes a feat comes out that says you can do it and it gets banned.
For instance Blinding Flash. Before this feat this would be something you would do with Dirty Trick or even something you DM might let you do for a penalty of some sort(this is what the floating GM +/- 2is for) however now a GM would be justified in denying the dirty trick user from blinding his foes with his sword because a new feat "allows" you to do it.
Then delete the feat and say "anyone can do it". Problem solved.
But don't include the feat /and/ let folks do it- or something substantially equivalent to it- without the feat. That just makes the feat a trap.
I'd be really curious as to how readying an action would work as
"I ready an action to move 5 feet west if someone comes towards me from the east and attacks me". But thats really something for another thread.
You are right though that some folks have a hard time qualifying for the Deflect ARrows feat. This is more though because its a bad feat than anything else. I stated above how I'd fix it for everyone else.
(make it require wep focus, and have it work with any weapon that you had weapon focus for).
You are essentially house-ruling it to work anyway imo (the ready action vs arrow) so might as well just go whole hog and fix the underlying problem- make two feats one for monk/UA folks and one for weapon wielders.
Or remove the feat entirely and just make it a reflex save or attack roll or a freebie or whatever.
But don't keep the feat and make it a freebie.
-S
edit:
made a new thread about readying an action vs an attack generally:
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5rjw?Ready-Action-vs-Getting-Attacked#1
Its not quite a freebie as long as a decent AC to hit is used. Giving up a whole round vs. Doing something for free are even close to the same. But without Dev input either way seems RAW viable and by that I mean Allow vs. Disallow.
Okay then can I ready an action to stop a sword? I'm just going to stand there and wait until you attack, and when you do, I'm going to knock your sword away with my sword.I'm fairly certain that's called readying a Sunder (or Disarm depending on your motive).
So I can't ready an action to knock a sword away? Why? Because there are already rules governing this sort of thing? Sunder and Disarm use CMB/CMD, I want to attack the object. Is it allowed or not? If not, how is it different than an arrow?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am absolutely astounded at the resistance against the idea. I myself came up with it years ago in v3.5 and don't believe there is ANYTHING in the RAW that would prevent it, only people's assumptions and the personal limitations they impose on their (and others' creativity). It's not even broken as it accomplishes very little (except for sheer entertainment value of everyone at the table).
Can't help but think roleplaying is dead for some of these naysayers.
I would treat it as a sunder attempt against the archer's CMD. That's the wonderful thing about combat maneuvers, they are modular, easy to use, take into account varying skill levels of those involved, and the GM can apply the mechanic to all kinds of crazy fantasy-fighter moves without too much thought or time wasted.
I once had a GM who allowed me to pick up a heavy table and flip it over onto a pair of thugs with a combat maneuver. It was glorious.
I am absolutely astounded at the resistance against the idea. I myself came up with it years ago in v3.5 and don't believe there is ANYTHING in the RAW that would prevent it, only people's assumptions and the personal limitations they impose on their (and others' creativity). It's not even broken as it accomplishes very little (except for sheer entertainment value of everyone at the table).
Can't help but think roleplaying is dead for some of these naysayers.
I would treat it as a sunder attempt against the archer's CMD. That's the wonderful thing about combat maneuvers, they are modular, easy to use, take into account varying skill levels of those involved, and the GM can apply the mechanic to all kinds of crazy fantasy-fighter moves without too much thought or time wasted.
I once had a GM who allowed me to pick up a heavy table and flip it over onto a pair of thugs with a combat maneuver. It was glorious.
I have to say I disagree with your notion that disallowing this cheese attempt to avoid a feat equates with RP being dead.
Feats exist for a reason. Advocate for it being banned or something but don't just come in trying to find some back-door way to do it anyway.
A DM letting you flip a table over onto a pair of thugs sounds like fun to me- but far astray from the question asked in this thread.
Improv is good. It should be encouraged- but not when its just a feeble attempt to skip something that requires two feats and an ability score requirement to do.
Clearly my opinion isn't the only one- but saying those of us who dislike this idea can't or won't RP or allow others to do so just isn't a fair statement.
-S