Improved Precise Shot

[Skagul]

Would IPS allow the Scout to make Skirmish attack on creatures with concealment?

From SRD
Improved Precise Shot:
Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.

btw, Scout can't make Skirmish attack while the target has concealment, right?
What about when the target has cover?
Does Skirmish has the same restrictions as Sneak attack? Because it says: 'A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach'
If it does, then IPS doesn't allow Skirmish attacks on targets with concealment (if you read it literally)

The problem is that all 3 attacks (Sneak/Skirmish/Sudden Strike) are written differently.

How do you play it?

Thanks

 

[irdeggman]

The Rules Compendium (pg 42) combined sneak attack, skirmish and sudden strike (as examples) into one category called "precision damage" with a common set of rules.

one is - "to deal precision damage, the attacker must see (or otherwise sense) the target accurately enough to pick out a vital spot. Any degree of concealment foils the ability to deal damage."

Improved precise attack does not negate cover only the AC and miss chance bonuses.

But cover does not provide concealment and thus does not disallow precision damage.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think ignoring the AC penalty for cover basically IS ignoring the cover, since the AC bonus is the only mechanical effect of cover...

In any case, all the matters for skirmish is concealment, not cover, anyway. IPS will let you ignore all but total concealment (50%, like with invisibility) and thus let you skirmish. IPS's BAB +11 requirement also makes it a pretty unrealistic goal for most scouts. Even ranger/scout swift hunters won't get it until fairly late. You should look into a Seeking bow as soon as you can afford one. Only a +1 enhancement, and lets you ignore ANY concealment (so, for your purposes, actually makes it better than IPS anyway).

 

[irdeggman]

In any case, all the matters for skirmish is concealment, not cover, anyway. IPS will let you ignore all but total concealment (50%, like with invisibility) and thus let you skirmish. IPS's BAB +11 requirement also makes it a pretty unrealistic goal for most scouts. Even ranger/scout swift hunters won't get it until fairly late. You should look into a Seeking bow as soon as you can afford one. Only a +1 enhancement, and lets you ignore ANY concealment (so, for your purposes, actually makes it better than IPS anyway).

Nope - IPS won't help for skirmish attacks.

It does not ignore concealment it only allows ignoring the miss chance from concealment (one of the benefits not all of them). The character still has all of the other benefits that concealment would allow (like allowing a hide check for instance).

IMPROVED PRECISE SHOT [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.

In addition, when you shoot or throw ranged weapons at a grappling opponent, you automatically strike at the opponent you have chosen.

Normal: See the normal rules on the effects of cover and concealment. Without this feat, a character who shoots or throws a ranged weapon at a target involved in a grapple must roll randomly to see which grappling combatant the attack strikes.

Special: A fighter may select Improved Precise Shot as one of his fighter bonus feats.

An 11th-level ranger who has chosen the archery combat style is treated as having Improved Precise Shot, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

So, by your definition, a rogue can NEVER sneak attack anything with concealment, no matter how much he completely and utterly ignores that concealment? Even a seeking bow doesn't let you SA someone in an obscuring mist? Just having concealment is all that matters, even if the miss chance is being completely negated.

 

[irdeggman]

So, by your definition, a rogue can NEVER sneak attack anything with concealment, no matter how much he completely and utterly ignores that concealment? Even a seeking bow doesn't let you SA someone in an obscuring mist? Just having concealment is all that matters, even if the miss chance is being completely negated.

Not my definition - RAW.

Per RAW you can't do precision damage against a foe with concealment.

Now if something specifically states it ignores concealment then it would work.

IPS only ignores the miss chance not the concealment (or else you wouldn't be able to still attempt to hide would you)

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Not my definition - RAW.

Per RAW you can't do precision damage against a foe with concealment.

Now if something specifically states it ignores concealment then it would work.

IPS only ignores the miss chance not the concealment (or else you wouldn't be able to still attempt to hide would you)

Well no, you wouldn't. If you have no miss chance, you're not really concealed anymore.

*Sigh* I hate mindlessly strict RAW. So Rogues are completely unable to function, huh? And yes, I'd call being completely neutered by a level 1 spell AND being unable to overcome it, even with much much much higher level magic items and feats "unable to function."

 

[Jhaelen]

Well no, you wouldn't. If you have no miss chance, you're not really concealed anymore.

*Sigh* I hate mindlessly strict RAW.

Ditto. The game would be unplayable using RAW alone. This ultra-strict interpretation results in endless amounts of silly and thus must be wrong. Any sane DM will not rule it like irdeggman suggests.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Ditto. The game would be unplayable using RAW alone. This ultra-strict interpretation results in endless amounts of silly and thus must be wrong. Any sane DM will not rule it like irdeggman suggests.

To be fair, he's just quoting what the exact RAW is, something until yesterday I wasn't even aware of. Probably due to the sheer stupidity of interpreting the words that way, it just never registered before he spelled it out. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he doesn't actually think running a game with that ruling is a good idea, though.

 

[irdeggman]

To be fair, he's just quoting what the exact RAW is, something until yesterday I wasn't even aware of. Probably due to the sheer stupidity of interpreting the words that way, it just never registered before he spelled it out. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he doesn't actually think running a game with that ruling is a good idea, though.

Yes - it was only RAW. It would have been a whole lot easier if the RAW had simply stated you ignore all concealment except for total. Then it would have been absolutely clear.

It is interesting to look at though.

Can the person being targeted by the IPS still make a hide check? Well, actually it shouldn't matter since the IPS only applies to the time when the archer is making is attack action,

There is also another way to look at it.

There are different degrees of concealment other than concealment and total (PHB pg 153) so one could rule that the amount of concealment is less than that providing a miss chance but still enough to allow a hide check (or other benefits that concealment provides).

For example - the archer with IPS is skilled enough in targeting a concealed foe to not suffer a miss chance but still can't pick out a vital area with sufficient detail to gain precision damage.

If a character coiuld somehow make a hide check as an immediate action - would he be allowed to defeat IPS? Since a successful hide check renders him invisible (i.e, total concealment) - of it had readied the action to make a hide check and thus interupting the attack?

Interesting rules queries.