|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
p. 134 Sniper alternate Rogue feature "Accuracy": "At 1st level, a sniper halves all range increment penalties when making ranged attacks with a bow or crossbow."
p. 124 Far Shot: "You only suffer a –1 penalty per full range increment between you and your target when using a ranged weapon."
p. 144 Range: "Any attack at more than this distance is penalized for range. Beyond this range, the attack takes a cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment (or fraction thereof) of distance to the target. For example, a dagger (with a range of 10 feet) thrown at a target that is 25 feet away would incur a –4 penalty."
Example: A composite longbow has a range of 110 feet. At 115, the archer takes a -2 penalty. Accuracy reduces that in half to -1, and Far Shot knocks the -1 penalty to 0(?).
So should these two abilities, for lack of a better term, stack? Because it looks like a Sniper with Far Shot could shoot an arrow from a composite bow up to 1,100 feet away without a penalty for distance. Or should Accuracy be seen, essentially, as a bonus Far Shot feat, because, despite the dissimilar wording, they're both doing the same thing?
Based on the way that you've got them phrased above, I'd say they don't stack. Sniper shot cuts the penalty in half. That penalty is -2 normally, it becomes -1. But the phrasing of Far Shot replaces the normal penalty of -2 with a -1.
Or, if you want to be evil, remember that rounding rules are generally to round down. One half of the -1 penalty of Far Shot is - 1/2. Rounding that downward takes you to -1 again;)
|
|
Or, if you want to be evil, remember that rounding rules are generally to round down. One half of the -1 penalty of Far Shot is - 1/2. Rounding that downward takes you to -1 again;)
Rounding it down wouldn't go to 0? Generally in situations where things are cut in half there's an addendum that the minimum can be 1 (e.g. the ranger's tracking ability). Of course, Far Shot didn't anticipate Accuracy. I know the rule is, in general, round down, but is there a stipulation that something can't round down to 0?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rounding it down wouldn't go to 0? Generally in situations where things are cut in half there's an addendum that the minimum can be 1 (e.g. the ranger's tracking ability). Of course, Far Shot didn't anticipate Accuracy. I know the rule is, in general, round down, but is there a stipulation that something can't round down to 0?
Whatever you can convince your DM of and sleep at night works for me!
The conclusion we came to in the Rules Forum over this is that the combination quarters (half of half) the total penalty, rather than the incremental penalty. In other words, firing at 10 range increments would give a -4 penalty (10 range increments is -18 normally; half is -9, half again is -4.5, rounded down to -4), rather than -0 (each range increment having a penalty of -2 halved to -1 halved to -0.5, rounded down to -0). Either way, it's still a very nice combo.
|
|
The conclusion we came to in the Rules Forum over this is that the combination quarters (half of half) the total penalty, rather than the incremental penalty. In other words, firing at 10 range increments would give a -4 penalty (10 range increments is -18 normally; half is -9, half again is -4.5, rounded down to -4), rather than -0 (each range increment having a penalty of -2 halved to -1 halved to -0.5, rounded down to -0). Either way, it's still a very nice combo.
Good idea, Zurai. I can totally live with that.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
The conclusion we came to in the Rules Forum over this is that the combination quarters (half of half) the total penalty, rather than the incremental penalty. In other words, firing at 10 range increments would give a -4 penalty (10 range increments is -18 normally; half is -9, half again is -4.5, rounded down to -4), rather than -0 (each range increment having a penalty of -2 halved to -1 halved to -0.5, rounded down to -0). Either way, it's still a very nice combo.
This is what I would do (not the OP, just have same avatar). Bit of a math pedant: rounding down does not mean closer to 0. Rounding -4.5 down gives you a -5. (-5 is lower than -4)
|
This does not seem particularly worthwhile. From the SRD:
If an assassin studies his victim for 3 rounds and then makes a sneak attack with a melee weapon that successfully deals damage,
So ir doesn't appear that Pathfinder allows for ranged assassination. And since sneak attack is range limited far more than would require Far Shot, I don't think it will do what you thought.