I was just curious.
It seems like a reasonable usage: I mean, if you get the benefits of critical hits and sneak attack damage with spells requiring a to-hit roll, why wouldn't you be able to apply Deadly Aim?
EDIT: Forgive the failed attempt at italicization, please...
Because casters aren't allowed to have nice things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because casters already have plenty of nice things to work with.
Fixed for accuracy.
It is not true true that deadly aim does not work with spells. It is true that ranged touch attacks don't work with it. It just happens that most ranged spells are also ranged touch spells.
The idea is to stop someone from being able to target touch AC and do even more damage than is needed. This affects martial types more than it will affect a caster.
The 3.5 wraithstrike spell would jack people up. It was a 2nd level spells, and all melee attacks became melee touch, and you could still power attack.
No I am not named after the spell, but when I found it I LOL'd.
Deadly aim when used with touch attacks on a mage build for it (high dex) would be a no brainer. There really is no drawback. With ranged classes at least the iterative attacks can fail with the to hit penalty.
Deadly Aim
You can make exceptionally deadly ranged attacks by pinpointing a foe's weak spot, at the expense of making the attack less likely to succeed.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all ranged attack rolls to gain a +2 bonus on all ranged damage rolls. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
Seems reasonable.
The 3.5 wraithstrike spell would jack people up. It was a 2nd level spells, and all melee attacks became melee touch, and you could still power attack.
It was pretty nice alongside another low-level spell (the name escapes me at the moment), which allowed you to make all your melee attacks at a 30 ft range :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Partly the spell aspect and how stupid easy it would be to stack damage.
Another aspect, I believe, is that Jason Bulmahn really didn't like the flask thrower rogues. These were rogues that would use touch attacks to get sneak attack damage using those cheapo acid vials or whatever. He obliterated that concept pretty hard, so he was probably aware of the effects of touch attacks on combat for a general class.
The 3.5 wraithstrike spell would jack people up. It was a 2nd level spells, and all melee attacks became melee touch, and you could still power attack.It was pretty nice alongside another low-level spell (the name escapes me at the moment), which allowed you to make all your melee attacks at a 30 ft range :)
I know what you are talking about. I used it with dragons a few times. I think it is bloodwind but it was only useful with natural attacks and unarmed strikes. It was a first level spell.
I saw a few touch attack builds in 3.5. I think it was a good idea to not allow them to use deadly aim and power attack.
K, thanks guys. I think we can let this thread die a quiet death...
Other than, if one researched a non-touch-attack spell that required a to-hit roll, who among you would let said spell use Deadly Aim? (It'd be RAW at that point...) Who simply dislikes the idea of spell targeting?
K, thank guys. I think we can let this thread die a quiet death...
Other than, if one researched a non-touch-attack spell that required a to-hit roll, who among you would let said spell use Deadly Aim?
A non-touch attack spell was made that would be strange unless it was made for a medium to high BAB class such as an inquisitor or paladin. The low BAB classes will be needing 15 or higher most likely to hit the target AC, and will probably need a nat 20 in a boss fight.
If the spell is not using the "touch" mechanic then by RAW deadly aim should work.
Another aspect, I believe, is that Jason Bulmahn really didn't like the flask thrower rogues. These were rogues that would use touch attacks to get sneak attack damage using those cheapo acid vials or whatever. He obliterated that concept pretty hard, so he was probably aware of the effects of touch attacks on combat for a general class.Well... the concept of using a weapon whose defining characteristic is that it gets around armor by "splashing" around it to do extra damage based on precisely pinpointing small pieces of anatomy IS a bit nonsensical...
"sigh"
Is my response. Sneak attack applies to the touch attack not the splash.
The splash is extra.
You can totally aim a vial of acid in real life. The person you hit an be hit in a more vital area, though the area around him will be burned (with splash).
Splash weapons great because Touch not splash.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my games, if it's a regular attack, even with a bonus (like a spell from 3.5...Ice Lance, or something like that) I'd allow deadly aim to work on it. Amusingly, though, I just realized that Deadly Aim doesn't work with firearms in their first range increment. Heh. That sure doesn't make sense...
Thank you, that helps a bit. I didn't have it in front of me, I was just remembering. *shrugs*
"sigh"
Is my response. Sneak attack applies to the touch attack not the splash.
The splash is extra.And disdain is mine. It's a touch attack to begin with because the weapon "splashes", guy.
You can totally aim a vial of acid in real life. The person you hit an be hit in a more vital area, though the area around him will be burned (with splash).Which is already represented in the rules by the variable damage thing and chance of a crit. You cannot pinpoint an enemy's jugular with a loosely aimed spray of liquid, though you might be able to direct it in the -general- direction.
Why are you aiming for the jugular?
Vials should be thrown at the eyes. :P
|
for balance ?
to avoid x2 or x3 damage on a cantrip (acid bolt)?
sneak dice are situational (and come from multiclassing-mainly), deadly aim can be "permanent"
x2 damage on a cantrip, with a 3 feat investment for deadly aim, is still less than the minimum damage dealt by an equal level melee with power attack. Remember, that caster's BAB is only progressing half as fast as the fighters. He won't be increasing to +4 dmg until 8th level and caps with +6 dmg at 16th level.
That would put acid splash, with point blank shot, precise shot and deadly aim doing 2(1d3+8+1+6) damage on a crit at 16th level. 36 points of damage max. I'm playing with barabians doing 40+ points of damage per hit without rolling a critical at 7th level. Opponents armor class is nearly meaningless to those players, the benefit of having full BAB + massive strength.
Or we would could compare the damage that wizard is doing with his single cantrip per round to the damage dealt by an optimized archer. You know darned well who's going to deal more damage.
Higher level spells will deal more damage, but even with a critical they are still only adding +12 dmg from deadly aim at levels 16+
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Power Attack forbids touch attacks as well. I think the clear intent is to not be able to use these feats in situations where the to-hit roll is more of a formality than a barrier, so it's an actual choice to use them or not.
Whether that's a laudable intent or whether the designers achieved that goal is something that can be discussed. A high level fighter or barbarian can often easily hit on a 2 while using Power Attack or Deadly Aim, at least on the first attack. So if you were only going to make one attack, using it would be the no-brainer choice that the restriction purports to avoid.
And yeah, many casters will still use ranged touch spells with out Precise Shot. The touch AC usually more than makes up for the -4. Discussing high levels is a bit out of place as well as there are what, two?, ranged touch damage spells above 2nd level.
|
|
Targeting Touch AC? I doubt.
what 3 feat invesmnet?
If your not taking Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, your in the same boat as any other ranged build that lacks those feats.
At level 16, your typical ranged build will have +12 to hit over what a caster has with rays (+8 BAB, +4 enhancement). Now you saying the caster is perfectly fine suffering an additional -8 penalty, for a 20 point difference in attack?
Firing into melee at 16th level without feats, a caster is going to have +0 to his attack roll with no possibility of an enhancement bonus. Yes, even touch AC is becomes extremely difficult to hit. The same difficulty exists at lower level where a -8 penalty makes even AC 10 challenging to hit. Ray builds have Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot no later than 3rd level for the exact same reason archers do. They are unable to hit anything in melee before that point in time.
Now, IF I hit, there is still the possibility of spell resistance. A possibility that increases as the disparity in attack values increases.
The wording preventing Deadly Aim from working with touch attacks was, IIRC, added after the beta, so it is certainly a deliberate nerf of something. My money is on a rogue/alchemist's fire nerf that also happens to affect ray casters.
At level 16, your typical ranged build will have +12 to hit over what a caster has with rays (+8 BAB, +4 enhancement). Now you saying the caster is perfectly fine suffering an additional -8 penalty, for a 20 point difference in attack?
Well, no reason to rely on gut feeling to decide whether something will work or not when the numbers are just a click away, right?
A planetar's touch AC is 19 points lower than its regular AC
A horned devil's is 18 points lower
An ancient brass dragon's is 30 points lower
And an ancient black dragon's is also 30 points lower.
You can also ignore the -4 for anything that is big enough to have part of the creature ten feet or more from the person it is in melee with. So against any Huge or larger monsters you should mostly not even take the penalty at all.
|
I know what you are talking about. I used it with dragons a few times. I think it is bloodwind but it was only useful with natural attacks and unarmed strikes. It was a first level spell.The 3.5 wraithstrike spell would jack people up. It was a 2nd level spells, and all melee attacks became melee touch, and you could still power attack.It was pretty nice alongside another low-level spell (the name escapes me at the moment), which allowed you to make all your melee attacks at a 30 ft range :)
Bloodwind + Wraithstrike +Girallon's Blessing = Druid Animal Companion Death Machine.
I had forgotten about Girallon's blessing, and for some reason I never thought of that combo, but then again I did not even touch a druid until just before PF was finalized. When making the first one I was OMG, I can't believe this class is this good. I then decided not to use it because my GM would have been giving me evil looks.
The 3.5 wraithstrike spell would jack people up. It was a 2nd level spells, and all melee attacks became melee touch, and you could still power attack.It was pretty nice alongside another low-level spell (the name escapes me at the moment), which allowed you to make all your melee attacks at a 30 ft range :)
In the last 3.5 campaign I was in I ran a Wizard 4/Warblade 6/Jade Phoenix Mage 10. Extended Wraith Strike + Greater Invisibility leading into a next turn Avalanche of Blades and Lightning Recovery to keep it going on that first miss. I took down two different BBEGs by hitting them 11+ times with a greatsword.
I miss that character...
Anyways, I take issue with DA not affecting guns that are within their touch range, but boosting ones past that point.
"I can't hit you in your weakspot when you're within 20 ft of me, but by the gods when I finish backpedaling you will suffer!"
Early Firearms: When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves normally, including taking the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment. Unlike other projectile weapons, early firearms have a maximum range of five range increments.
Anyways, I take issue with DA not affecting guns that are within their touch range, but boosting ones past that point.
"I can't hit you in your weakspot when you're within 20 ft of me, but by the gods when I finish backpedaling you will suffer!"
I have must have missed that bolded bit god only knows how many times. Now I feel stupid for bringing it up.