Precise Shot Feat

[Water Bob]

3.5 GMs, correct me if I'm wrong, but a character with the Precise Shot Feat have a 0% chance of hitting an ally when firing or throwing ranged weapons at targets engaged in melee.

That's the whole point of that feat, yes?

(And, it seems like a powerful Feat to me.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

As far as I remember, characters normally have a 0% chance to strike an ally when firing or throwing into melee in a 3.5 game, they just take a penalty on the attack. The feat just negates the penalty.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Note Shooting or Throwing into a Melee a little ways down at Actions In Combat :: d20srd.org.

hooting or Throwing into a Melee

If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)
If your target (or the part of your target you’re aiming at, if it’s a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the -4 penalty, even if the creature you’re aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.
Precise Shot

If you have the Precise Shot feat you don’t take this penalty.

Basically, it's just avoiding a penalty. There's nothing about hitting your ally.

 

[Asmo]

So what´s the point with Improved Precise Shot?

Asmo

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Improved Precise Shot ignores (non-total) cover (including the soft cover of an ally between you and the target...grr...) and concealment, and lets you fire into a grapple without the nasty % chance of hitting your friend. It is a very good feat.

And yes, how the rules work is:
With Precise Shot - Shoot into melee no probs (other than possibly soft cover)
Without Precise Shot - Shoot into melee w/ a -4
Never - Chance to hit allies in melee. It's a (dumb) option houserule in the DMG.

You CAN hit an ally if you shoot into a grapple, which is why IPS is awesome.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

However if you want to get creative just in case somebody rolls a 1...

 

[Jackinthegreen]

However if you want to get creative just in case somebody rolls a 1...

I'm reminded of Fiona telling Shrek "There's an arrow in your butt!"

 

[Water Bob]

Would you consider a target that is engaged in melee with your ally to be flatfooted with respect to you, even if he knows you're there?

There may be several melees going on around the target. He's aware of a lot of people, 99.99% of his attention is on his immediate threat--his current melee foe.

Does it stand to reason that he'd be considered flat footed for a warrior about to throw a javelin at him?

 

[anest1s]

No. Unless in melee = grapple; then you lose your dexterity bonus but you are not flat-footed.

 

[Li Shenron]

3.5 GMs, correct me if I'm wrong, but a character with the Precise Shot Feat have a 0% chance of hitting an ally when firing or throwing ranged weapons at targets engaged in melee.

That's the whole point of that feat, yes?

(And, it seems like a powerful Feat to me.)

In 3.0 that's not exactly the case.

Precise Shot just removes the penalty for firing into a melee, and you have such penalty whether your target has cover (e.g. from a friend of yours in melee with your target and standing between you and him) or not.

The chance of hitting your friend depends only on whether he provides cover or not. It is possible that he provides cover even if he's not in melee (could be on the line of sight but not necessary even close to your target).

In 3.5 cover was simplified a lot, so these rules may have changed or even be removed...

Would you consider a target that is engaged in melee with your ally to be flatfooted with respect to you, even if he knows you're there?

No, I wouldn't. Flat-footed was mostly meant as a condition to apply when surprised or when losing initiative. I wouldn't reason too much over it (or other game-defined conditions) because otherwise you'll start getting reasonable arguments from your players about changing when/how conditions should work, usually to their advantage. I would just apply it only when the game says so (although things such as cover are always at least partially subjective).