Precise shot unbalanced?

[wolfpunk]

If the monk can switch out some of their abilities for feats, I dont have a problem with the ranger doing it. However, the monk can't switch out every ability they gain, and I would say the ranger should be limited in such fashion as well. Perhaps they can switch out the two weapon fighting, but they can't switch out ambidexterity.

However, that is just my thought.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Somehow, you`re all getting total off topic.
The original question was wether precise shot is unbalanced or not. (Can`t you let the horse rest in peace? Why have you still to beat it? )

----
I say it is not. You take a feat, and loose a penalty. (Like with Wepaon Profiency). You still suffer some other penalties - targets engaged in melee might give cover to each other.
And many fighters and barbarians really love to be hit by the archer`s arrows.
---

But for beating the dead horse: Somewhere, Someone gave some clues why two weapon fighting might make sense for a ranger:
Two Weapon Fighting is a option for the ranger, not a duty.
Imagine someone trying to sneak through the forest (or some other "natural enviroment". Sneaking means: I avoid heavier armors, because you don`t get better in it with armor. So, you let the shield at home, take a chain shirt / leather armor or whatever light armor you might have.
But who knows what happens? If you get attacked, you will want a weapon. Hmm. Greatsword is a fine weapon - but on the other hand, it is very large. Not really good for sneaking and moving. Let`s take a smaller one - longsword perhaps?
Hmm. But we still have some place - one hand is free. Perhaps, just to have still another fighting option, get a dagger and a short sword. Now let`s go.
What can we do, if we are getting attacked now? We get out the sword. Hmm. But we aren`t well armored. And our weapon doesn`t have such a great reach. Perhaps you should take the second weapon in the off-hand, to be able to hit more often.
Even if not all of this is reflected by the core rules, it may make sense. I am fine with the ranger...

 

[shilsen]

On the original topic:

Precise Shot is balanced. All it does is allow you to drop the -4 for firing into melee, and if you do so, it's a rare combat where opponents won't benefit from cover of some sort from you allies. Trust me, I know - last night I shot the party melee machine in the back of the head

On the ranger swapping feats:

We're currently using a variant ranger, where (instead of the automatic amib/twf at 1st lvl) the PC gets to select a "package" of feats, gaining one each at first and second level. You can choose packages like Archery (1st - Point-Blank Shot, 2nd - Precise Shot), Brute Force (1st - Power Attack, 2nd - Cleave), Dual-Wielding (1st - Ambidexterity, 2nd - Two-Weapon Fighting), Horseback (1st - Mounted Combat, 2nd - Ride-By Attack), Movement (1st - Dodge, 2nd - Mobility), Presence of Mind (1st - Expertise, 2nd - Blindfighting). You have to meet the requirements for each of the feats, and lose them while wearing heavy armor. We've also made changes to the favored enemy concept and added a favored terrain. There are 2 rangers in the party, and it's worked quite well.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I've seen the package feats, but I don't think they really cover what the ranger gets.

If I start a new game, the ranger can either take the two weapon/ ambi feats, or the rapid shot feat. Either allows two attacks at -2 and I'm not gonng give them a free Point Blank Shot.

I'll also change the Enemy to a +1 bonus that you choose at 1,3,6,9 etc, you can either assign the bonus to the same one (stacking) or new enemies, allowing you to choose where and how your bonuses go and avoiding the "+5 vs orc" thing at high level.

 

[Erithtotl]

Heh, what was this topic again?

For those of you who are wondering, I use a variant of Monte's variant posted by someone else on his messageboard. It's not quite as different as Monte's, but instead of ambdex and 2 weapon fighting at 1st, I give a bonus feat at 1st, 4th, etc...
I feel this makes more sense, since I guess I don't really think of rangers as two weapon fighters. I also do feel that ranger is broken in the sense that they get pretty much all their really good powers at first level, and not much later on. This variant at least gives the ranger something more to look forward to as he goes up in level. This particular character took the bow skills, but he could have just as easily gone another path.

I guess my big complaint is that the rule seems unrealistic, not necissarily unbalanced. I was thinking of restricting it to the first range increment which seems quite reasonable. I'll have to think on it some more. One argument is that it is a 'heroic game' so you're going to have some things like this, but I have trouble visualizing in my head someone shooting from that far away accurately.

Ian

 

[hong]

(snip the classic TWF sneak attacking PC)

Then go rogue the rest of the way, for the ultimate two-fisted, sneak attacking halfling knive fighter.

It made sense for the character.

Yeah, that's what they ALL say.