Is precise shot that good?

[Diskordant]

I'm planning on playing a mobile fighter/archer and between archery feats, weapon feats, getting mobility and nimble moves as difficult terrain is very common and I'd rather that than Point Blank Master, I have a very feat intensive build. Common wisdom in the 3.0 days was you had to take precise shot. Now I'm not so sure.

Rules:

Shooting 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.

If your target is two size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with, this penalty is reduced to –2. There is no penalty for firing at a creature that is three size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with.

Precise Shot : If you have the Precise Shot feat, you don't take this penalty.

First off I noticed no chance to hit an ally. Secondly the penalty is reduced by half if the target is 2 size categories larger, and eliminated if 3. interstingly if you maneuver yourself right, and your allies do to, you can avoid the penalty altogether whenever fighting a large creature, or larger, by aiming at a part of him that is 10' away from your ally:

x = empty space
a = aimed at part
e = enemy
f = friend
x x x x
x a e x
x e e x
x x x f

If you aim at the "part" of the enemy in box a it is at least 10' away. Might be a bit of a stretch.

Further more, if your ally is not an AoO junkie you can always use refocus to go after your ally, before your target so he can always 5' outta melee. Then there's also all the times that as the ranged support you'll be taking out bigger threats(like casters) while your frontline holds off the brutes.

Has anyone ever had any experience trying an archer without precise shot? Is it a viable build?

[Joegoat]

Depends, how often do you fight large or larger creatures? I know with my group most of what we fight are rarely that large in which case you're taking the neg. 4 penalty more often than not. I guess it all depends on if you're willing to gamble not fighting anything smaller than a large 4x4city creature, cause even a large 2x44x4city creature you would take that neg. With.

[Dabbler]

At the end of the day given the range of engagements you are almost always going to have to shoot at a foe in melee with an ally. So yes, it's worth it.

[Charlie Bell]

Is a feat that effectively gives your main attack routine +4 to hit probably 75% of the time that good?

[Diskordant]

What about refocusing initiative and team tactics to keep your melee guys 5' out from their targets on your turn? Everyone seems to say that you will have to shoot into melee most of the time, but I've seen spell casters skirt baddies like this for years, and if the tank started doing it and you just attacked after him wouldn't that solve the whole issue?

I think I'm gonna try it, at least for a few levels. I'm a fighter after all, I can always pick it up later if I think it's not working. I was just hoping somebody had tried working around it, rather than accepting the feat tax.

[MC Templar]

Essentially it is the feat of choice for archers that don't think the guy who is keeping the enemy from charging the archer should be responsible for altering his own tactics to accommodate the archer.

[Knight Magenta]

It could work. If the rest of your part is up to doing the arrow dance, I think it could lead to more dynamic combats. I say go for it.

[cnetarian]

Diskordant wrote:

What about refocusing initiative and team tactics to keep your melee guys 5' out from their targets on your turn? Everyone seems to say that you will have to shoot into melee most of the time, but I've seen spell casters skirt baddies like this for years, and if the tank started doing it and you just attacked after him wouldn't that solve the whole issue?

I think I'm gonna try it, at least for a few levels. I'm a fighter after all, I can always pick it up later if I think it's not working. I was just hoping somebody had tried working around it, rather than accepting the feat tax.

The guys in the front line should not be adjusting position based upon a bowman in the back line getting a clear line of sight. It is far more important for the front line people to position themselves for AoOs and stopping the enemy from getting through. A front liner is not going to worry about some bowman getting a clear shot because the bowman cannot be bothered to buy an essential feat when the chance of someone in a bathrobe eating a pounce and dying is in the equation.

[DrDeth]

cnetarian wrote:

Diskordant wrote:

What about refocusing initiative and team tactics to keep your melee guys 5' out from their targets on your turn? Everyone seems to say that you will have to shoot into melee most of the time, but I've seen spell casters skirt baddies like this for years, and if the tank started doing it and you just attacked after him wouldn't that solve the whole issue?

I think I'm gonna try it, at least for a few levels. I'm a fighter after all, I can always pick it up later if I think it's not working. I was just hoping somebody had tried working around it, rather than accepting the feat tax.

The guys in the front line should not be adjusting position based upon a bowman in the back line getting a clear line of sight. It is far more important for the front line people to position themselves for AoOs and stopping the enemy from getting through. A front liner is not going to worry about some bowman getting a clear shot because the bowman cannot be bothered to buy an essential feat when the chance of someone in a bathrobe eating a pounce and dying is in the equation.

Right. Look, this is a "must have" for archers, and even many spellcasters.

I mean, what better feat would you pick? Isn't every feat a "feat tax"?

[Tallkid]

Plain and simple if your going to be using a bow/xbow/thrown weapon/firearm then you have to take Precise Shot. The only time I see it as a maybe is if your using a firearm. But even then your almost taking away your advantage of targeting touch AC by constantly firing at -4. I know it sucks because you have to take point blank shot but a dip into Divine Archer Pld archetype can yield you Precise Shot w/o the pre-req if you desire.

[Helic]

Or you could take the following view: Having this feat means I never have to try to figure out if I have to deal with the penalty, speeding up gameplay and making everyone's game more enjoyable.

Sometimes convenience is a good thing.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Precise shot doesn't negate the need to have melee characters adjust position for archers. You need to negate cover for that, which is done with "improved precise shot".

Precise shot only means you don't take the penalty for firing into melee. If you are behind your melee characters you still have to deal with cover.

[Skerek]

Diskordant wrote:

I've seen spell casters skirt baddies like this for years

yes and spell casters generally do what they need to do as standard, archers on the other hand want full round actions to unleash death

[Diskordant]

cnetarian wrote:

The guys in the front line should not be adjusting position based upon a bowman in the back line getting a clear line of sight. It is far more important for the front line people to position themselves for AoOs and stopping the enemy from getting through. A front liner is not going to worry about some bowman getting a clear shot because the bowman cannot be bothered to buy an essential feat when the chance of someone in a bathrobe eating a pounce and dying is in the equation.

That seems a bit harsh. Forgive me for trying to pull one feat out of a feat intensive build by, god forbid, suggesting a change in the 'accepted' practice. Like I said if the tank isn't AoO specialized then a 5' back isn't likely to open up a 'pounce' on any casters, in fact pounce is a fairly rare ability except in hypothetical builds, cats and AM BARBARIANs. Besides when nessicary obviously the archer would just suck up the -4, but I think that if you can get 3/4 of your attacks not focused on a melee combatant, through targeting enemy caster types, large and larger creatures, and group effort, then the use of the feat elsewhere will be better.

[Skerek]

Diskordant wrote:

I think that if you can get 3/4 of your attacks not focused on a melee combatant, through targeting enemy caster types, large and larger creatures, and group effort, then the use of the feat elsewhere will be better.

You know how you just mentioned hypothetical builds and dismissed for, well being hypothetical, which i don't mind, but you are kind of going into hypothetical situations here. By all means, go for the caster up the back, or go for the other archers, but sometimes that guy in melee is also really putting on the pressure and you need him down right away.

It's a good feat, and 'accepted' practice because it opens up your combat options so much. If your GM likes to throw lots of ranged support, casters and huge or larger enemies at you then skipping it might be an option.

[cnetarian]

Diskordant wrote:

cnetarian wrote:

The guys in the front line should not be adjusting position based upon a bowman in the back line getting a clear line of sight. It is far more important for the front line people to position themselves for AoOs and stopping the enemy from getting through. A front liner is not going to worry about some bowman getting a clear shot because the bowman cannot be bothered to buy an essential feat when the chance of someone in a bathrobe eating a pounce and dying is in the equation.

That seems a bit harsh. Forgive me for trying to pull one feat out of a feat intensive build by, god forbid, suggesting a change in the 'accepted' practice. Like I said if the tank isn't AoO specialized then a 5' back isn't likely to open up a 'pounce' on any casters, in fact pounce is a fairly rare ability except in hypothetical builds, cats and AM BARBARIANs. Besides when nessicary obviously the archer would just suck up the -4, but I think that if you can get 3/4 of your attacks not focused on a melee combatant, through targeting enemy caster types, large and larger creatures, and group effort, then the use of the feat elsewhere will be better.

I mention pounce because as a front liner I was mispositioned when a GM pulled a pounce past me, and while the squishie didn't die, he wasn't far from it and 2 characters lost 2 rounds of action while he fled and was healed. Despite my attempts to blame the rogue, I got grief because if I had been one square forward it wouldn't have happened. A charge is certainly an option for almost everything you will be fighting and can be as bad as a pounce, any GM worth his salt should at least consider charging the squishies when the players leave an opening. Don't leave a straight line from a bad guy to a squishie. It is harsh, but a front liner screwing-up positioning has harsh effects.

It's also not a question of just taking a 5' step away to get out of melee range. Often the 5' step is spent getting into melee range to attack - against a large creature if the front liner is using a 5' reach weapon they have to be at 5' to attack and retreat to 15' to get the out of melee with the creature. The common pole-arm/armor spike build (halfling mounted lance and shield build, whip/trip build or whatever reach build you like) also has to be 15' away to get out of melee and creatures with a 5' reach are going to get to 5' range on their turn, meaning to get out of melee the pole arm wielder has to move 10'. 5' step to get out of melee is nice, but often not an option and no one should build around the concept.

AoOs, everyone gets one for free without any special build. It's important to be ready to use it, moreso if you have imp. trip and amazingly important if you have cbt reflexes and stand still. An AoO front liner can have a little more freedom of positioning than one without cbt. reflexes, but still it is a consideration.

I could go on with flanking, squishie non-range-touch attacks, buff ranges and whole slew other issues - the point is that there are a lot of factors which weigh into deciding the best position for a front liner to end their turn. There is a reason precise shot is considered accepted practice and that's because the cost of having an archer spend a feat on it is usually less than the cost of having front liners adjust position to compensate for not having it. Not always, but usually. I play with GMs who gleefully exploit any weakness in party tactics (only fair, they're up against groups of players who do the same to their carefully planned encounters), so maybe I'm too concerned with positioning.

Expecting a front liner to use a 5' step for the convenience of an archer is too much for me, it's forcing another player to do something to compensate for an optional choice for the archer. If 3/4ths of the time you aren't attacking melee combatants and you aren't asking the front liners to account for your lack of precise shot very often and that's OK, but the only time I've seen that it might have been viable is in a Kingmaker campaign. If you are taking a -4 to fire into melee then you are losing about 20% of your damage potential, that's not good.

[Tallkid]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Precise shot doesn't negate the need to have melee characters adjust position for archers. You need to negate cover for that, which is done with "improved precise shot".

Precise shot only means you don't take the penalty for firing into melee. If you are behind your melee characters you still have to deal with cover.

Absolutey. So in those situations if you don't have precise shot your looking at -6 to -8(actually I think it would be -8 all of the time as there is no more partial cover). So at least if you have it you remove the possibility of -8 and only have to deal with the penalty from cover. And then later on you can take Improved Precise Shot(of which precise shot is a pre-req) and negate that -4 too. So if you think about it it's not really that big of a feat tax(3 feats) to remove the possibility of ever firing at -8. Thats a big bonus, especially for a character that has less than full BAB. However, if you intend to take Improved precise shot you can't really go the divine archer route for free precise shot because point blank shot is a pre-req for that as well(unles divine archer is what you want and then you could always take point blank anyway).

So IMHO precise shot is definitely worth it:
1)no -4 to fire into Melee ever
2)faster combat because you never have to ask yourself "is that guy in Melee"
3)your Melee/tank party members never have to worry about moving out of what they may see as an advantagous position to set you up for a clear shot.(xcpt of course that darn cover thing)

[hogarth]

I have an alchemist who uses a bow from time to time with PBS and Rapid Shot but without Precise Shot. The -4 penalty is annoying sometimes, but at least she can fall back on using bombs (where the penalty is fairly trivial at this point in her career).

For a dedicated archer, I wouldn't go without it.

[Remco Sommeling]

Diskordant wrote:

First off I noticed no chance to hit an ally. Secondly the penalty is reduced by half if the target is 2 size categories larger, and eliminated if 3. interstingly if you maneuver yourself right, and your allies do to, you can avoid the penalty altogether whenever fighting a large creature, or larger, by aiming at a part of him that is 10' away from your ally:

x = empty space
a = aimed at part
e = enemy
f = friend
x x x x
x a e x
x e e x
x x x f

If you aim at the "part" of the enemy in box a it is at least 10' away. Might be a bit of a stretch.

Further more, if your ally is not an AoO junkie you can always use refocus to go after your ally, before your target so he can...

1) You can not target a creature's specific square unless it is an AoE effect, you target the creature if it is within 10' you suffer the penalty.

2) The tanks can not always take a 5' step to convenience you, difficult terrain is often common place and stepping away from a creature might mean they miss a full attack next round. Basically they want to optimize their output as much as you do and that often does not coinside with your wishes.

3) The -4 penalty is commonplace, -2 penalty happens quite a bit, additionally 'tanks' have the tendency to 'grow' so counting on bigger foes to target might not be wise.

4) improved precise shot, terrain, effects, large allies and large enemies that give cover bonuses are not exactly rare so most people definately want improved precise shot too.

I think it is one of the better feats to pick really.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Tallkid, I don't know what you mean about there no longer being any partial cover. I have not seen a change to the rules in that area.

[Tallkid]

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Tallkid, I don't know what you mean about there no longer being any partial cover. I have not seen a change to the rules in that area.

I stand corrected. I thought they removed the +2 AC for partial cover and just made cover a blanket +4 AC(which by the way I was only calculating as a negative to attack to make the point). But you sir are correct, Partial cover does still exist and is subject to DM discretion and still grants the +2 AC. I will have to let my group know we were wrong about the elimination of partial cover.

[Black_Lantern]

Yes, it's required for other good archery feats and it sucks to have -4 to attack rolls.

[Diskordant]

Remco Sommeling wrote:

1) You can not target a creature's specific square unless it is an AoE effect, you target the creature if it is within 10' you suffer the penalty.

I think you may be wrong about this:

PFSRD wrote:

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.

That seems to say I can pick a part of a big target to aim at. Since called shots are an optional rule released way after the fact, the only other way to pick a part of a target is to target a specific square of that target, much like trying to attack a large invisible creature. Besides where does it say you can't pick which square of a monster to target?

[Tallkid]

Interestingly enough I did just notice that it is not a pre-req for what I see as the two best feats ever created for ranged fighters....Snap Shot and Improved Snap Shot! Although point blank shot is.

@OP I'm sorry you feel like we chastised you for thinking outside the precise shot box. I just don't see it as a wise or viable option for an effective ranged fighter. It is of course your character though and you are always welcome to do as you please. Heck, try it out for a couple games and just take it later if you want or roll up a new character if you decide it was a bad idea. But talk to the rest of your party first and see if they are willing to do the arrow dance with you, don't just expect them to know they need to move for you. If they are willing to try; give it a shot(no pun intended), but I think you'll find it more difficult to avoid that -4 than you think. Especially against opponents with reach since in order to not be engaged in Melee they will have to be 15' from the nearest ally whic makes your Melee out of full attack range.

[Theconiel]

Yes! Absolutely!
With Precise Shot, Improved Precise Shot and Point-Blank Master, I can shoot just about any enemy at any time without worrying about melee, cover or AoO. All I need to do is stay out of the way and pepper every enemy in sight.
(Actually "in sight" is another issue entirely. I wish someone in the party could cast Glitterdust.)

[Forgember]

I don't think you even need Precise Shot if you have Improved Precise Shot. Granted only a ranger can skip taking both(that I know of) but seems to me the penalty for shooting into melee is already a cover penalty. Taking Improved by itself should be enough.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Forgember wrote:

I don't think you even need Precise Shot if you have Improved Precise Shot. Granted only a ranger can skip taking both(that I know of) but seems to me the penalty for shooting into melee is already a cover penalty. Taking Improved by itself should be enough.

I don't believe this is true. I can't find the RAW, and this may just be how we've always played, but the difference between "shooting into melee" and "cover" is that "shooting into melee" means you are trying to hit someone who is jumping around, swinging weapons and shields, and so closely engaged with an enemy that the two are sometimes intertwined as their weapons, armor or shields collide.

"Cover" is specifically related to the battlegrid positioning and has specific rules about what is and isn't cover.

Improved precise shot will not remove your -4 for shooting into melee. Or at least that's how every GM I have played with rules it.

[Forgember]

Yeah your probably right about RAW there, just has always seemed to me that "trying to hit someone who is jumping around, swinging weapons and shields, and so closely engaged with an enemy that the two are sometimes intertwined as their weapons" = cover bonus/negative.

[Adamantine Dragon]

Forge, I don't agree with you in the specifics, but I agree with you in principle. The penalties for shooting into melee with cover are too severe, it makes it virtually impossible to play an archer without the feats. And if it is truly that hard to deal with cover or shooting into melee, an effective +4 to attacks in that situation make those the most overpowered feats in the game.

I'd prefer to see lower penalties and then the feats wouldn't be absolutely required and wouldn't seem so out of line with other feat benefits.

[kinevon]

Nope, the -4 for shooting into melee is NOT a cover penalty, it is defined as a penalty for shooting into melee.

If there is also someone standing between you and your target, they will get a +4 AC for your having to shoot into cover.

While the effects will be similar, something defined as a -4 to hit is not the same as something defined as a +4 to AC.

For the OP, having your front-liners move around like that can cause many bad things to happen.

1) Rogues/ninjas/vivisectionists have a significant chance of losing their flanking bonus. And, therefore, a significant part of their damage boosts.

2) Your front-liner has to not just 5' step back from the enemy, but they will also need to do some lateral movement to remove the cover penalty, as well as the into melee penalty.

That, at a minimum, opens a charge lane right at YOU. Which, as an archer, is not something you want to happen. You are spending your money on your bow and arrows, not on armor, so you are certainly much more of a squishy target than that fighter that could have blocked the charge lane to you.

It also opens things up for other ugly tactic from the enemy, including a bullrush from the "free" target opening an actually safe charge lane for the reach weapon user in the second rank, which makes for even uglier possibilities for the end of that charge.

An archer who is prone is basically out of combat until he either switches to a melee weapon, or stands up, taking an AoO.

An archer whose bow is on the ground, even if he isn't, is also in bad shape. Hopefully, you have a spare bow, and the guy who disarmed you doesn't have any AoOs left to do it again....

And, also, an archer whose bow is sundered is in bad shape. By 6th level, Greater Sunder is a feat available to that Sunder expert, and it doesn't take long for that NPC fighter to have enough money for an adamantine +1 greatsword, which is probably going to have a good shot of breaking your bow on the first attack, and have damage leak over to you, as well.

Seeking is nice, but it doesn't make up for either firing into melee or firing past allies.

Someone who is targeting Touch AC might be able to live with the cumulative penalties, but, even there, only the Gunslinger has the BAB to really handle it at all well.

TL;DR Having your allies reposition themselves to give you a clear shot at your enemies ALSO gives them a clear shot at you.

[Lord Twig]

My reasoning for Precise shot is purely RP. If I have an awesome archer, then he is going to be so good that he can shoot strait past his friends ear while he is in the middle of combat with my target and hit. I am not going to yell out, "Hey, move out of the way so I can shoot him! I'm not good enough to just shoot past you!"

But that's just me. I frequently take skills and feats that are sub-optimum because I just can't picture my character NOT having it. In this case though I think Precise Shot is both flavorful and optimal, so I get the best of both! ;-)

[Chernobyl]

I think you'd take a cover penalty for trying to shoot at the back corner of that large creature in melee with your ally...after all, the front of the creature is in the way!