
psychicmachinery |

If a weapon has the Seeking quality, do targets in melee still receive the +4 bonus to AC against ranged attacks from that weapon.
My group seems to think that the Seeking property only applies against concealment, while my reading of the RAW, to wit:
'The weapon veers toward its target, negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment.'
(emphasis added by me)
suggests that a weapon with the Seeking property would negate the AC bonus, similar to the Precise Shot feat.
What says the message board?

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Since it says it 'veers towards its target' and not 'veers around any obstacles between it and its target', and nowhere says 'you do not suffer the -4 for your target being in melee' or 'acts as the Precise Shot feat' I am going with your group in that it does not negate the penalty for firing into melee.

kyrt-ryder |
Read it carefully my friend.
It says it negates miss-chances. Not penalties to hit.
If your opponent has concealment (say they're in the dark, or behind a bunch of bushes or whatever) then it will hit so long as you make the attack roll (you won't have to roll to beat the miss chance)
One might also argue that it would also prevent the chance to strike a target other than your intended target when your target is in a grapple, but that's not explicit in the rules.

![]() |

One might also argue that it would also prevent the chance to strike a target other than your intended target when your target is in a grapple, but that's not explicit in the rules.
When you get the chance, you might tell me where that rule is, because we had an argument over it in my SCAP game and I couldn't find the 'may hit the wrong grappler' rule anywhere. :)

kyrt-ryder |
kyrt-ryder wrote:One might also argue that it would also prevent the chance to strike a target other than your intended target when your target is in a grapple, but that's not explicit in the rules.When you get the chance, you might tell me where that rule is, because we had an argument over it in my SCAP game and I couldn't find the 'may hit the wrong grappler' rule anywhere. :)
You know... I just searched the whole PRD (I have it downloaded so I was using the cnt f search function) and I didn't find it. Weird.

![]() |

You know... I just searched the whole PRD (I have it downloaded so I was using the cnt f search function) and I didn't find it. Weird.
You won't find it in the 3.5 SRD either. I think it is a older edition rule that everyone thinks is in the rules but isn't. Similar to how a natural 1 is only an automatic miss, but everyone thinks the fumble rules are RAW instead of a variant.

kyrt-ryder |
kyrt-ryder wrote:You know... I just searched the whole PRD (I have it downloaded so I was using the cnt f search function) and I didn't find it. Weird.You won't find it in the 3.5 SRD either. I think it is a older edition rule that everyone thinks is in the rules but isn't. Similar to how a natural 1 is only an automatic miss, but everyone thinks the fumble rules are RAW instead of a variant.
I know I read the grapple miss-targeting rule SOMEWHERE, and I have never read any of the older editions, and in the few sessions of 2E I did play grapple never even came up.

Maezer |
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm
You won't find it in the 3.5 SRD either. I think it is a older edition rule that everyone thinks is in the rules but isn't. Similar to how a natural 1 is only an automatic miss, but everyone thinks the fumble rules are RAW instead of a variant.
As mentioned before its found in a foot note. In Pathfinder Core Rulebook, p195 you'll find similar tables but no such footnote.