Improved Precise Shot

[Stalker0]

Flawed analogy.

You're looking at it in terms of numbers rather than what the numbers represent.
Let's assume that a fighter will only miss on a natural 1, whether his target is behind an arrow slit or a chair. This is fine, because while one is harder in an abstract sense, they're both so easy for the fighter that there's no way he will fail.

Then, said targets get, say, Shield cast on them. Suddenly, super archer may have a chance of missing the guy behind the arrow slit, but probably not the guy behind the chair. Given what was described last paragraph, that makes total sense.

Imp. Precise shot does away with that. They would be the same difficulty to hit when they both got buffed. That doesn't match the logic above.

It makes perfect sense to me. A fighter has become so adept at fighting that the conditions around him don't bother him.
By the same token, an archer has taken a lot of specific time and training (hence a feat) should no longer be bothered by the cover an opponent has.

Once your at that high a level, reality has to give way to fantasy somewhat. But from a fantasy standpoint, what's wrong with a character has specifically trained to ignore cover, that he can ignore any kind of cover?

 

[LokiDR]

Then, said targets get, say, Shield cast on them. Suddenly, super archer may have a chance of missing the guy behind the arrow slit, but probably not the guy behind the chair. Given what was described last paragraph, that makes total sense.

Shield in 3e gives a cover bonus, which would not stack with the arrow slit.

The point is still valid.

 

[Bismark]

Regardless of what the prereqs are, you should never make arrow slits useless.

At least you're clear on your priorities, no matter how odd.

 

[Gwarok]

"I don't care HOW good you are, it's harder to hit someone through a 1 inch slit than behind a a chair."

If you are standing behind a one inch arrow slit, and I am good enough to shoot thru that arrow slit every time at a distance of under 30 feet, and some people in the real world are that good much less fantasy folks, then that cover might as well not even be there. Your not accounting for people of exceptional skill simply because you think its too difficult to do.

How many folks think this feat was created the day after Lord of the Rings was released?

 

[DonAdam]

Shield in 3e gives a cover bonus, which would not stack with the arrow slit.

Actually shield in 3.5 gives a shield bonus, so they will stack.

If you are standing behind a one inch arrow slit, and I am good enough to shoot thru that arrow slit every time at a distance of under 30 feet, and some people in the real world are that good much less fantasy folks, then that cover might as well not even be there. Your not accounting for people of exceptional skill simply because you think its too difficult to do.

I am accounting them. It's called attack bonus.

Being good at something does not change relative difficulty. I don't care if you can do it every time. It's still harder than doing it without the arrow slit.

If you had to carefully aim for a weak point in magical armor you would have an easier time if the wearer was in the open than behind an arrow slit. Period.

 

[LokiDR]

The feat should also negate all size bonus to AC. To a person with this feat, all targets must be considered the same size.

 

[jaldaen]

With a +11 BAB I suppose you do in fact essentially "ignore" that +10 Cover bonus provided by nine-tenths cover... ;-)

It's almost like its not there... and your opponent is standing behind a fig leaf!

BAB is broken!!! ;-)

My Two Cents,
Jaldaen

PS: But semi-seriously folks... I think the IPS feat would have been nice with just a single category decrease... though perhaps a GPS (pun intended ;-) feat would have been a good third feat in the chain... granting what the current IPS feat does.

 

[jaldaen]

The feat should also negate all size bonus to AC. To a person with this feat, all targets must be considered the same size.

Yeah! The feat could also count all enemies as Colossal Space Hamsters for purposes of size modifiers!

Jaldaen

 

[Coredump]

Perhaps if it was a full round action?

.

 

[LokiDR]

Yeah! The feat could also count all enemies as Colossal Space Hamsters for purposes of size modifiers!

Jaldaen

Mmm, Spa-ham.

The fact that size isn't accounted for means the reasoning behind the feat is flawed or this is an oversight.