Precise Shot Feat & Spells

[Dax Doomslayer]

Hi,
I was wondering if the Precise Shot Feat works with Ranged Touch Attack Spells in addition to the typical Bow Feats. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't but would it need to be "specific" for Ranged Touch Attacks or would just taking the feat in general allow for both? I appreciate any input on this. Thanks and Happy New Year!

 

[kreynolds]

I was wondering if the Precise Shot Feat works with Ranged Touch Attack Spells in addition to the typical Bow Feats.

If you are asking if Precise Shot works with spells that require a ranged touch attack roll, then yes. If you are asking if you need to take it more than once, then no. If you are asking of other similar feats, like Point Blank Shot work, then yes.

 

[Dax Doomslayer]

Thanks!! That is kind of what I thought. I appreciate your input!

 

[dkilgo]

Puts on his "What Kreynolds said!" hat on...

 

[Dingleberry]

A related inquiry: I've ruled that when a spellcaster is using a ranged touch spell that would have no effect on his allies, he doesn't have to take the -4 penalty (barring Precise Shot) for firing into melee (e.g., a sorcerer targeting a disrupt undead at a skeleton who is in melee with his fighter buddy). Because the spell couldn't hurt the ally, I figure that the penalty (which expressly results from having to aim carefully to avoid hitting your ally) shouldn't apply.

How do others handle this?

 

[hammymchamham]

I'd rule the -4. Their is still the chance they hit their ally, but their would be no effect, just a wasted spell

 

[Dingleberry]

I'd rule the -4. Their is still the chance they hit their ally, but their would be no effect, just a wasted spell

I'd agree with you if there was a game mechanic for hitting the ally (assuming no cover), but there's not. If you shoot at an enemy orc which is in melee with an enemy goblin, you don't suffer the -4 because you don't care if you hit the goblin - but there's also no chance that you WILL hit the goblin. Seems to me that If I'm shooting a disrupt undead at an enemy skeleton which is in melee with an ally, you shouldn't suffer the -4 because you don't care if you hit the ally - and there's no chance you will hit the ally.

 

[dkilgo]

I do think that there is something in the errata about striking cover. I could, and most possibly am, be wrong.

When it comes to dealing with cover being struck, or not, I like to rely on the mechanics that D20 Modern and Star Wars uses. Perhaps, if the information that you seek is not in the errata, then you could look at those two sources, and make your decision.

 

[Dingleberry]

I do think that there is something in the errata about striking cover. I could, and most possibly am, be wrong.

There are rules in the PHB about striking cover. The problem is that it's possible that your ally is in melee with your target but is not in a position that provides cover to the target.

AT
xx
xx
xx
xx
xY

You (Y) are shooting at Target (T), which is in melee with your Ally (A). A is not providing cover for T, but is in melee with T.

Do SW or Modern do it differently?