Hit and Run tactic

[Algernon Pike]

This feat seems weak in a game where most combat is ranged. I'm not sure how to balance it though. Granting an ally a dodge action is a bit OP and granting a move action is covered by the "Rush" tactic.

Perhaps granting all allies extra move (+2m?) would work? Anyone agree, disagree, or have other thoughts on this feat?

 

[chitinid]

I kind of like the idea of granting an ally dodge. Given you don't know who the enemies are going to shoot at, it doesn't seem overpowered

[1001100x02]

Disengage basically lets you charge right past opponents blocking your way without getting shot in the back, so not a bad idea as a present to give a team mate

[Algernon Pike]

 

38 minutes ago, 1001100x02 said:

Disengage basically lets you charge right past opponents blocking your way without getting shot in the back, so not a bad idea as a present to give a team mate

Only melee attacks can be made with attacks of opportunity so you can still be shot in the back (which is why I suggested granting a dodge action instead). While I can imagine the situation you're describing, I think my initial point still stands about its very limited use in a system where melee unlikely/rare.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Algernon Pike

[1001100x02]

1 hour ago, Algernon Pike said:

 

Only melee attacks can be made with attacks of opportunity so you can still be shot in the back (which is why I suggested granting a dodge action instead). While I can imagine the situation you're describing, I think my initial point still stands about its very limited use in a system where melee unlikely/rare.

As that's a rule from a game of muscle powered ranged weapons, I'd absolutely allow someone with a readied handgun to get an AOO freebie off against an enemy fleeing them or just moving right past them. But even if it is melee, chances are they're fighting jaffa who are at least very likely to be armed with staff weapons they can try to whack or trip you with.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by 1001100x02

[Algernon Pike]

I agree on the Jaffa point, but if you're in melee with a Jaffa you already lost.  Also, given the "living" campaign has to be uniform, your house rule doesn't address the issue.

My question is... given that the exact circumstance your describing is the reason I made the change for it to grant a dodge action, I don't understand your opposition in the slightest. You're already willing to homebrew things so could you explain your opposition beyond just being in opposition?

[1001100x02]

Because you were the one who thought Dodge was too good, basically, so exploring? Though technically, RAW, it shouldn't apply to the AoO provoked by escaping melee range as your back is to them thus meaning you can't see them.

(Also, I think AoO does needs to be updated to account for modern weapons, even if it provides disadvantage on a firearm attack in that circumstance. As the current status of prone indicates, the mechanical updates required for modern arms use haven't been fully integrated)

[Algernon Pike]

45 minutes ago, 1001100x02 said:

Because you were the one who thought Dodge was too good, basically, so exploring? Though technically, RAW, it shouldn't apply to the AoO provoked by escaping melee range as your back is to them thus meaning you can't see them.

(Also, I think AoO does needs to be updated to account for modern weapons, even if it provides disadvantage on a firearm attack in that circumstance. As the current status of prone indicates, the mechanical updates required for modern arms use haven't been fully integrated)

I could get behind that. Thanks for clarifying on the opposition. I do think the feat as written is pretty much useless, but perhaps another idea will come to me.

[akaramis]

It comes in real handy for or against jaffa...because the ma'tok is only fireable every other round, so the tend to shoot and close, then beat to death...

Edited November 3, 2020 by akaramis