Exact Targeting contains the following line that is highly problematic:
"You cannot select a target with total cover or concealment".
Consider the following situation - a creature moves and then casts invisibility. Everyone knows where it is - it ended its turn by casting invisibility. Everyone else can target the square(s) its in as usual, and accepting their 50% miss chance. Assuming the text works as intended, the person with exact targeting can't even try to hit them because of this feat - creatures who are invisible have total concealment.
More ridiculously, someone with a large piece of fabric and wood crossbeams could hold it up between you and them (gaining total concealment) and you couldn't shoot at them. Its on par with rogues getting total cover from tower shields so they can hide, which incidentally hides the tower shield as well!
Of course, technically, the rules prohibit you from attacking any creature with total cover or total concealment at all. In the case of total concealment you attack into their square. At which point that line of text does absolutely nothing.
So if you assume the line of text is supposed to mean something, it leads to non-intuitive behavior where the skilled targeter is prohibited from doing things other characters can do. If you read it literally, it means absolutely nothing in the context of the rules, and thus only causes confusion.
I think it only creates confusion if you take it out of context.
It seems very clear as I read the full feat description.
For everyone else, that sentence is saying that you can not ignore total cover or total concealment with the feat. Not that you can't attack them.
Edit: It is not a bug.
I have to admit, I don't agree on this failure.
While you do not gain an additional profit from the exact targeting feat in this situation, you still have the careful targeting ability which reduces the 50% (invisibility) miss chance to 30% and therefore grants you a better possibility to hit the invisible opponent.
Class B bug? Frank Trollman? Is that you? You know, you were only suspended for a week, you didn't have to create a new account.
Vigil wrote: Class B bug? Frank Trollman? Is that you? You know, you were only suspended for a week, you didn't have to create a new account. Is that really necessary to throw out those accusations?
Vigil wrote: Class B bug? Frank Trollman? Is that you? You know, you were only suspended for a week, you didn't have to create a new account. Nope, he's funnier than I am.
On it not being a bug:
If they wanted to be clear as to what the feat was doing, the following would be a better wording:
Benefit: Select one target to which you have both line of sight and line of effect. That target gains no benefit from concealment or cover against attacks from you this round. You lose the benefit of this feat if you move.
However, there are still a couple of other undocumented features. (1) If you select a target and ready an action, and they turn invisible/pull out a kite for total concealment, and then trigger your readied action you get to ignore the 50% miss chance because you already targeted them. This may be intentional, it may not be. (2) If you make your attack and then move, you've already gained the benefit of the feat. Nothing prohibits you from moving, you just lose the benefit of the feat *after* you do so. (Think of it this way, when you make your attack the game checks to see if you've moved. If you haven't, you get the benefit. Then you make your move and stop gaining the benefits from the feat).
Edit: Pinpoint targeting includes the same line, with no other reference to the word 'target' in the feat description, at which point the only logical conclusion is the 'target' is the creature you are attacking.
Not an accusation. Frank's the only guy I ever read talking about Class X bugs. The OP has done so a couple of times, now. The OP also referred to some of Frank's writings, and seems to have the same analytical approach to DnD. And while he's been more civil as Squirrelloid, he's been bated a couple of times and responded harshly. I honestly think he is Frank, and honestly think he should have no shame in returning to these boards AS Frank. I mean, Lich-Loved is back, and welcome, too. Frank would be welcomed back just as warmly.
Vigil wrote: Not an accusation. Frank's the only guy I ever read talking about Class X bugs. The OP has done so a couple of times, now. The OP also referred to some of Frank's writings, and seems to have the same analytical approach to DnD. And while he's been more civil as Squirrelloid, he's been bated a couple of times and responded harshly. I honestly think he is Frank, and honestly think he should have no shame in returning to these boards AS Frank. I mean, Lich-Loved is back, and welcome, too. Frank would be welcomed back just as warmly. Seriously, this screenname has a history in various places going back 10 years, and if you're really obsessive compulsive you can check my and Frank's IP addresses. I'll confess, I read Frank's stuff - oh noes, the horror.
Imagine that, more than one person can believe in an analytical approach to improving D+D. Amazing.
Why are you even classifying it as a B bug anyway?
Vigil wrote: Not an accusation. Frank's the only guy I ever read talking about Class X bugs. It is an accusation and both off topic and inviting this thread to descend into old arguments. Frank primarily works from a board of people who share his ideas about design- and therefore share a classification system for what they see as bugs. I'm not a fan, but c'mon, if Frank were coming back he wouldn't do so under a disguised screenname. Not in his nature.
However it seems to be a different classification system than the one I've seen from Frank. If I were to call this a bug, using Frank's system I would call it a class C bug.
Zynete wrote: Why are you even classifying it as a B bug anyway? Because it can stop the game in its tracks if for some reason the rest of the party is unable to assist (disabled somehow) and you have to fight an invisible monster and cannot do so.
The other undocumented features I note are probably Class D bugs (game works fine, but effects are not as intended in mechanics and/or flavor).
Squirrelloid wrote: Because it can stop the game in its tracks if for some reason the rest of the party is unable to assist (disabled somehow) and you have to fight an invisible monster and cannot do so. How? As far as I can tell the only way I can get this from what you have said is by ignoring the first sentence of the feat's benefit.
Zynete wrote: Squirrelloid wrote: Because it can stop the game in its tracks if for some reason the rest of the party is unable to assist (disabled somehow) and you have to fight an invisible monster and cannot do so. How? As far as I can tell the only way I can get this from what you have said is by ignoring the first sentence of the feat's benefit. Pinpoint targetting has the same quoted line and no such 'opening line'.
Squirrelloid wrote: Pinpoint targetting has the same quoted line and no such 'opening line'. And? They are different feats.
Still, all that feat say is that you can't use Pinpoint Targeting on someone with total concealment or cover.
I'm still not sure how you get from "you can't target some creatures with this feat" to "you can't target some creatures."
ithuriel wrote: Vigil wrote: Not an accusation. Frank's the only guy I ever read talking about Class X bugs. It is an accusation and both off topic and inviting this thread to descend into old arguments. Frank primarily works from a board of people who share his ideas about design- and therefore share a classification system for what they see as bugs. I'm not a fan, but c'mon, if Frank were coming back he wouldn't do so under a disguised screenname. Not in his nature. Seriously (can't use the term "frankly", people will think I'm flaming someone), I don't care if he's Ghengis Khan ready to reclaim Karakorum. If he can maintain the respectful tongue that Frank failed at, I don't even much care if he decides to name himself for the arboreal abominations he does.
(Intended as humor, BTW.)
As for the OP (and subsequent details): The meaning of not targeting concealed creatures is fairly clear if placed in context. If it had an effect outside of that context, it would have been clearly stated as occuring out of that context.
If you cannot target creatures with total cover/concealment, then you cannot target creatures with total cover/concealment. If they gain total cover or concealment before triggering your action, then you lose targeting.
Squirrelloid wrote: Exact Targeting contains the following line that is highly problematic:
"You cannot select a target with total cover or concealment".
Consider the following situation - a creature moves and then casts invisibility. Everyone knows where it is - it ended its turn by casting invisibility. Everyone else can target the square(s) its in as usual, and accepting their 50% miss chance. Assuming the text works as intended, the person with exact targeting can't even try to hit them because of this feat - creatures who are invisible have total concealment.
It's a combat feat -- you're not forced to use it on any given round. In fact, you can't use it if you're using a different combat feat. In the case of an invisible opponent, I'd use the prerequisite feat, Careful Targeting, instead.
I do agree that the wording of many abilities is a bit mushy, though.
Pneumonica wrote: If you cannot target creatures with total cover/concealment, then you cannot target creatures with total cover/concealment. If they gain total cover or concealment before triggering your action, then you lose targeting. I'm not sure where you're getting that conclusion from. You already targeted them - nothing implies the act of targeting is an effect that needs to be continuously occurring/valid. It happens once, it lasts until you move or your next turn.
@Hogarth: That is a valid point that such feats are not always on. (Of course, its one of the things I dislike the most about Combat Feats, which is probably why I didn't think about it)
But yes, better wording would be vastly preferable. Some effort on tightening the wording would be greatly appreciated.
Squirrelloid wrote: Pneumonica wrote: If you cannot target creatures with total cover/concealment, then you cannot target creatures with total cover/concealment. If they gain total cover or concealment before triggering your action, then you lose targeting. I'm not sure where you're getting that conclusion from. You already targeted them - nothing implies the act of targeting is an effect that needs to be continuously occurring/valid. It happens once, it lasts until you move or your next turn. How is it you've stopped targeting somebody when you haven't attacked them yet? You have to target them to attack them (unless we're using some really strange definition of "targeting".
Pneumonica wrote: Squirrelloid wrote: Pneumonica wrote: If you cannot target creatures with total cover/concealment, then you cannot target creatures with total cover/concealment. If they gain total cover or concealment before triggering your action, then you lose targeting. I'm not sure where you're getting that conclusion from. You already targeted them - nothing implies the act of targeting is an effect that needs to be continuously occurring/valid. It happens once, it lasts until you move or your next turn. How is it you've stopped targeting somebody when you haven't attacked them yet? You have to target them to attack them (unless we're using some really strange definition of "targeting". Ok, if by target it means 'designate them for the purpose of this feat', that happens at a discreet point in time when you say 'i designate X as the target for this feat in this round'. They are now the target and remain so until a condition arises which cancels that condition (the only one given being you move). Conditions which would prevent you from targeting them but don't end the targeting once its been designated have no effect unless you haven't designated them yet.
If by target we mean 'the person I am attacking', then this feat can, in fact, stop you from taking actions other people can take - ie, attacking invisible creatures. (At least assuming that text is supposed to be read that way and not the literal rules interpretation where you may still target the square which makes that line of text irrelevant).
So choose which interpretation of target you want to go with, but its hard to discuss a moving target.
Recent threads in Skills & Feats
|
