Talk:Deflect Blow (3.5e Feat)

Ratings

Eiji-kun favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!

Bloody losing my original rating. tl;dr version it is... I have no problems with Deflect Arrows, nor this. The one downside is how it interacts with maneuvers and strikes. A way you might get around that is something like "Against maneuvers you get opposed attack rolls to deflect it." I've no problems with the "hard counter" of canceling one attack a round, as you often have to handle more than one by virtue of high BAB, natural weapons, or facing more than one opponent. These situations are common enough to not be all-powerful. Fix the maneuver thing, earn a like. (EDIT: You earn a like. And not being strikist earns a love. Actually, this is just growing on me with time. So have some love.)

Like this: codex deflect blow? --Leziad (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

	Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	I dislike this for the same reason I hate Deflect Arrows. It should be an opposed attack roll as an immediate action or... something. But it's too easy this way, and completely screws over people who use martial strikes.

Well if deflect arrow is houserule so is this fat, given it behave exactly like deflect arrow. --Leziad (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you're opposing (read: asking to be removed from the wiki) on the grounds that it works like a published mechanic that you dislike? That's super weird, particularly since I just defended one of your feats from an oppose for similar reasons. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 22:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent reason, the objective is to make homebrew that is good; making homebrew that resembles published content is more a goal of the paleowiki :P. --Foxwarrior (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Published content and being good are not mutually exclusive. There is nothing wrong with Deflect Arrows, ergo things which ape it don't carry problems by that reason alone. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Nor are they mutually inclusive. Deflect Arrows is retarded, ergo things which ape it are problematic for that reason alone. I'm with Foxwarrior on this one--mechanics should be good independent of what WotC did, and just because "they did it first" doesn't give a blank check to copy their mistakes. --Ghostwheel (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah that's right, you don't like Deflect Arrows, I remember. I disagree, but that's a debate for another time. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

While the debate might be for next time, I think a more thorough explanation then "shuts down martial strikes" might be in order, particularly given Leziad's changes that disallow a number of martial strikes from being blocked. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 16:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The majority of martial strikes are extraordinary abilities, so most of them would be still be block-able. --Ghostwheel (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like deflect arrows either but whatever, it part of the game and most group play with it. This feat is made for groups that play with more WotC-like stuff, I would greatly recommend the codex version of this feat instead but sometime you just need to tail the line and that what I did. --Leziad (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Spell" Effects

Leziad, deflect arrows specifically disallows blocking of ranged attacks generated by spell effects. I suspect this would disallow melee attacks generated by spell effect, but what about melee attacks generated by initiator effect? As there are no ranged weapon schools in ToB, I suspect that there isn't an official-ish ruling on those interactions anywhere yet. Seems like the sort of thing you should write in here, even if it's just something like "(Su) and (Sp) melee attacks may not be deflected". - Tarkisflux ^Talk 22:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point, i added that you cannot deflect supernatural ranged attacks. Seem in line with what deflect arrow would do. --Leziad (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Requirements

Since you can use this feat with a shield in your hand, why would its access be limited to unarmed fighters only? I would recommend adding an alternative, shield-oriented prerequisite to the feat, such as Shield Specialization or such. -HarrowedMind (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That's how it is it seems, it's unarmed OR tower shield proficiency. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)