Do Dead Shot and Far-Reaching Sight Stack?

[UndeadDan]

Pretty much just as the subject says:

I am wondering if you can gain the benefit of the Far-Reaching Sight (Full round action to get attacks vs. Touch AC at any range increment(Ultimate Combat, p. 143)) while performing the Dead Shot Deed (Ultimate Combat, p. 11).

They both require full round actions but I don't see why they couldn't stack.

[Nightskies]

Far-Reaching Sight:

Aura faint divination; CL 3rd
Slot none (see below); Price 4,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
DESCRIPTION
This sight can be attached to a single two-handed firearm. When this is done, the sight becomes part of the weapon, but can be removed from that weapon with a full-round action. A firearm wielder can choose to spend a full-round action to make a single shot with a firearm that has this sight. When she does, she can resolve the attack against the touch AC of her target regardless of the range increment.

Dead Shot (Ex):

At 7th level, as a full-round action, the gunslinger can take careful aim and pool all of her attack potential into a single, deadly shot. When she does this, she shoots the firearm at a single target, but makes as many attack rolls as she can, based on her base attack bonus. She makes the attack rolls in order from highest bonus to lowest, as if she were making a full attack. If any of the attack rolls hit the target, the gunslinger's single attack is considered to have hit. For each additional successful attack roll beyond the first, the gunslinger increases the damage of the shot by the base damage dice of the firearm. For instance, if a 7th-level gunslinger firing a musket hits with both attacks, she does 2d12 points of damage with the shot, instead of 1d12 points of damage, before adding any damage modifiers. Precision damage and extra damage from weapon special abilities (such as flaming) are added with damage modifiers and are not increased by this deed. If one or more rolls are critical threats, she confirms the critical once using her highest base attack bonus –5. For each critical threat beyond the first, she reduces this penalty by 1 (to a maximum of 0). The gunslinger only misfires on a dead shot if all the attack rolls are misfires. She cannot perform this deed with a blunderbuss or other scatter weapon when attacking creatures in a cone. The gunslinger must spend 1 grit point to perform this deed.

At a glance, it does seem as though one needs to spend a full round to specifically benefit from the scope, but that is not the case. It merely says that with it, one can use a full round action to shoot one shot, which is an unnecessary statement in itself. The Far-Reaching Sight benefit is achieved whenever a full-round action is spent to make a single shot. Dead Shot would benefit from this. They're not really stacking- it can be misleading to say they do. An AC enhancement bonus and a resistance enhancement bonus don't stack in the same sense. You just get both benefits.

[Stynkk]

I respectfully disagre with Nightskies. This is not the case that you can use both at the same time.

You must use a full-round action to activate Far-Reaching Sight and a full-round Action to activate Dead Shot Deed. They are two separate effects athat require two separate activations, the abilities do not stack together because you cannot take two full-round actions in one turn.

Note they both start with: as a full-round action you can do _____.

If Far-Reaching Sight were worded like the feat Rapid Shot (Core), then I would agree with his conclusion.

Note the difference in Rapid Shot:

PRD - Core - Feats - Rapid Shot wrote:

Rapid Shot (Combat)

You can make an additional ranged attack.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Point-Blank Shot.

Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round. All of your attack rolls take a –2 penalty when using Rapid Shot.

Clearly rapid shot can activate *whenever* you make a full-attack action which is different than the abilities we're discussing because each requires their own activation (a full-round action).

[Nightskies]

I agree with this logic, though I stand by what I said. In the "_____" spot, they both say the same thing- make a single shot. On that same token, Vital Strike (part of an attack action), Deadly Stroke (a standard action) and Cleave (a standard action) do that as well, but one can't use any two of them at the same time, which goes toward what Stynnk said. Then again, the Far-Reaching Sight can be rearranged without changing the meaning at all as such:

'When a firearm wielder chooses to spend a full-round action to make a single shot with a firearm that has this sight, she can resolve the attack against the touch AC of her target regardless of the range increment.'

So the room for interpretation comes to this: It takes a full-round action to use the scope with a single shot, or the scope is used when a full-round action is used to fire a single shot.

The wording seems to say the latter. It is a weapon enhancing 'magic' item, not an ability (though it does grant ability, like any weapon). This is all I have to say, lest my interpretation changes- I do not mean to argue.

[Stynkk]

Nightskies wrote:

Then again, the Far-Reaching Sight can be rearranged without changing the meaning at all as such:

'When a firearm wielder chooses to spend a full-round action to make a single shot with a firearm that has this sight, she can resolve the attack against the touch AC of her target regardless of the range increment.'

It could be arranged that way, except that's not the way it is arranged. Your arrangement is noticably different than the original text:

A firearm wielder can choose to spend a full-round action to make a single shot with a firearm that has this sight. When she does, she can resolve the attack against the touch AC of her target regardless of the range increment.

Note it does not say *when you spend a full-round action*, but as a full-round action you may use this ability (a single ranged attack, no range increment).

Nightskies wrote:

The wording seems to say the latter. It is a weapon enhancing 'magic' item, not an ability (though it does grant ability, like any weapon). This is all I have to say, lest my interpretation changes- I do not mean to argue.

I would say my interpretation is you gain the ability to use this scope, using it is a full round action that allows a single attack. I submit that if it was meant to be used with any attack the wording would be different.

I also do not mean to argue, but bring up a counter proposal to the one Nightskies put forth.

[Nightskies]

Regarding 'It could be arranged that way, except that's not the way it is arranged.':

The two sentences can be reconstructed in the manner I presented without changing the meaning, tone, or intent. It may be interpreted either way in either the original or rearranged version. Example:

"Summersdale was hit by a tornado ten years ago which devastated many people who lived there. After that, the town didn't have a hospital anymore."

'That' refers to the first sentence. Replacing 'that' with the first sentence, the two may be merged with syntax corrections. The result would be interchangeable with the original.

"After Summersdale was hit by a tornado ten years ago which devastated many people who lived there, the town didn't have a hospital anymore."

Compare.

"A firearm wielder can choose to spend a full-round action to make a single shot with a firearm that has this sight. When she does, she can resolve the attack against the touch AC of her target regardless of the range increment."

'Does' refers to the first sentence. They may be merged, putting the first sentence in place of 'does', then fixing syntax and tense to preserve meaning.

"When a firearm wielder chooses to spend a full-round action to make a single shot with a firearm that has this sight, she can resolve the attack against the touch AC of her target regardless of the range increment."

If this is wrong, please show specifically what is wrong.

[Stynkk]

Nightskies wrote:

"When a firearm wielder chooses to spend a full-round action to make a single shot with a firearm that has this sight, she can resolve the attack against the touch AC of her target regardless of the range increment."

If this is wrong, please show specifically what is wrong.

First, bear with me here, we've entered the grammar zone. I'm not the most deft opponent here, but I hope to communicate my idea.

In the example you've provided you're attempting to reword the feat to mean: "When[ever] the the firearm wielder chooses to make a full-round action..."

However, that is not the equivalent to what the orignal wording of the magic item says. The PF rules can be very reliant on context and sentence construction to convey their meaning.

The magic item Far-Reaching Scope is instead saying this: A firearm wielder can choose to spend a full-round action to make a single shot with a firearm that has this sight. When she does, she can resolve the attack against the touch AC of her target regardless of the range increment.

What this rules text is saying is: you may use Far-Reaching Scope's ability (a single shot without range penalties) in exchange for a full-round action (the cost). As a Full-Round Action you may activate this item and do what the item says.

This is not the same as saying whenever you meet this critera (your character takes a full-round action) you may use Far-Reaching Scope, Which is what you presented as your interpretation in your second post.

The user must implicity choose to activate the item, it is *not* activated if you used a full-round action to activate something else like Dead Eye Deed. Since you only get one full-round action per turn, you must choose: do you use a Full-Round Action on Dead Eye Deed OR do you use a full-round action on Far-Reaching Scope?

[Nightskies]

I have to ask straightforwardly: do these have any difference at all?

"Whenever a firearm wielder chooses to spend a full-round action to make a single shot with a firearm that has this sight..."
and
"A firearm wielder can choose to spend a full-round action to make a single shot with a firearm that has this sight..."

More discussion on grammar:

We seem to disagree on interpretation and English syntax, then. I meant to say in my last post was how and why exactly the restructured sentences had the same meaning- in effect that it could be interpreted either way. In other words, I agree that the wording could be saying that it takes a full round action to specifically benefit from the scope. However, the wording could be interpreted otherwise. All the following mean the same thing, and say exactly what the original says. These are not interpretations nor are they flavored to favor any interpretation, though some make more intuitive sense than others.

"When a firearm wielder makes a single shot from a firearm that has this sight, choosing to spend a full-round action in doing so, the attack is against the touch AC of the target regardless of the range increment."
"A firearm that has this sight can resolve an attack against the touch AC of her target regardless of the range increment, if the firearm wielder spends a full-round action to make a single shot with it."
"A full-round action can be spent making a single shot from a firearm that has this sight is resolved against the touch AC of her target as an attack, at any range increment for the firearm wielder."
"An attack can be resolved against the touch AC of her target at any range increment when the firearm that has this sight is used to make a single shot, by the firearm wielder spending a full-round action."
"A single shot can be made while spending a full-round action by choice with a firearm that has this sight. The firearm wielder resolves the attack against the touch AC of her target regardless of the range increment when doing so."

I tried to make one that sounds like it favors your idea without changing grammar. Of course, simply moving words around can create different meanings, but that is not happening in these examples.

Grammar aside, I am saying that a marksman benefits from using a scope while sniping, according to the rules.

[Stynkk]

Nightskies wrote:

I have to ask straightforwardly: do these have any difference at all?

"Whenever a firearm wielder chooses to spend a full-round action to make a single shot with a firearm that has this sight..."
and
"A firearm wielder can choose to spend a full-round action to make a single shot with a firearm that has this sight..."

Yes, they do have a difference in game mechanics in which they are extremely different.

The first implies a passive activation, the second implies a conscious activation.

Nightskies wrote:

Grammar aside, I am saying that a marksman benefits from using a scope while sniping, according to the rules.

And I am offering an alternative view to yours that says the scope is not a passive boost. You must activate the scope thus you must choose between the scope's ability or the Dead Eye Deed. I think you're letting your past histories of game interactions with scopes color your judgement with how the rules are taking scopes into account in Pathfinder.

I must point out that there are very few ways to use a Full-Round Action to take a single shot (not the same as a Full-Attack action) so your reading of the scope would be more limited than my own.

[Purple Dragon Knight]

I agree with Nightskies on this issue; the Far-reaching Sight does seem to have been designed with Dead Shot in mind...

[Bob Bob Bob]

Both require a full round action to use, they can't be used together (unless you have some way to do two full round actions?).

"A firearm wielder can choose to spend a full-round action to make a single shot with a firearm that has this sight." Requires that you spend a full-round action and gives you a single attack.

"At 7th level, as a full-round action" Requires that you use a full-round action to use it.

[Purple Dragon Knight]

Dead shot is a single shot

[Bob Bob Bob]

Dead shot is one attack, yes. That has its own special rules and is initiated as a full-round action. You can't do it without spending a full-round action for it. A different full-round action than you spent to use the Far-Reaching Sight.

Neither of these two things say "any time you spend a full-round action". Both require you to spend a full-round action to use them. That full-round action is spent and gone, you can't use it on anything else.

[Purple Dragon Knight]

I call overlap Pete as a witness!

[Overlap Pete]

I totally think that overlapping requirements can satisfy one another. The Gunslinger has a special ability to make a single shot as a full round action. So he's the only one who can use the far reaching sight that way.

Way to go Gunslinger. It's like that item was destined for YOU!

[Bob Bob Bob]

Using your own alias to make it look like more people agree with you is very poor form.

Let me be as blunt as possible. You are wrong and actively misleading people by passing off a flawed interpretation as correct. The gunslinger can spend a full-round action to use the Dead Shot (Ex) deed, that it makes many attacks count as a single attack is irrelevant. What they're doing is using "Dead Shot (Ex)". The Far-Reaching Sight requires you to spend a full-round action and gives you a single shot. While this isn't defined the only possible conclusion is that you get to make a single ranged attack. Not use deeds, not make a full attack, make a single ranged attack.

Let's take your overlap idea to it's logical conclusion. I'm a wizard and spend a standard action casting a spell. I cast every @#$%ing spell I know that only takes a standard action. Because I spent a standard action once, that means I can cast every spell that requires a standard action. I hope you see why this is wrong.

Both the deed and the sight require their own full-round action to use. One says "spend a full-round action", the other says "as a full-round action". Both mean the same thing and there is no ambiguity in these statements. If you can disprove this with something other than "but I think it should work" then do so. But unless you can disprove what I've said this is the rules forum, and by the rules it doesn't work.

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

You are wrong and actively misleading people by passing off a flawed interpretation as correct.

I thought that was the point of the rules forum, is it not?

[Purple Dragon Knight]

i thought it was pretty obvious it was a joke... leading into it and all with an alias named 'overlap pete'

lol - lighten up folks! ;)

PS: hmm... overlap pete sounds like a good villain name... what would be is M.O.? hmmm....

[Overlap Pete]

I would probably be working on a way to Deadly Aim Power Attack Piranha Strike thrown agile returning daggers at my enemies!