|
| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ricochet Shot Deed (Grit)
You can ricochet a firearm shot off the wall and still hit your target.Prerequisites: Grit class feature or Amateur Gunslinger feat, Blind-Fight.
Benefit: You can fire a shot at a wall or piece of solid terrain, and have it ricochet off. When you do, use the square immediately in front of the wall or piece of solid terrain to determine line of sight to a target, and this square is considered the new origin square of the attack. Use that square to determine the effects of cover, and your own square to determine the effects of concealment. You can make this shot as long as you have at least 1 grit point. When making this shot, you can spend 1 grit point to ignore the effects of all cover or concealment. You must choose to spend the grit point before you make the attack roll.
I was looking into the possibilities for a pistol-based Myrmidarch Magus build (which is really fodder for another thread entirely) and in browsing the various Grit Feats, to see if the Amateur Gunslinger Feat was worth it for such a build or not (again, a discussion for another time) I came across the Ricochet Shot Deed. Now, the line...
... and this square is considered the new origin square of the attack...
... seems to be saying that you'd count the range of the shot from that new origin square. That would make this Deed Feat absolutely amazing! Forget about bouncing shots around corners - just firing at the gun's maximum range, but bouncing the bullet off the floor next to the guy you want to hit, using the 'no Grit cost' version of this Feat, and you not only ignore range penalties, but get to target touch AC, as he's within the first range increment of your gun (based on where the bullet is considered to 'originate' from, thanks to the Deed Feat).
Now, obviously the more logical approach would be to count all the squares the bullet passes through for purposes of calculating range... but that's not what the Feat is saying, as far as I can tell. So - is that an intended part of the Feat, or something in need of errata?
Now, obviously the more logical approach would be to count all the squares the bullet passes through for purposes of calculating range... but that's not what the Feat is saying, as far as I can tell. So - is that an intended part of the Feat, or something in need of errata?
Nope, it just needs some good old fashioned GM fiat. I, for example, would rule that no, you shoul count all the squares for calculating the final range. RAW don't say that, but RAW don't actually exist. You always need a GM that will have to interpreter them and to fill in the blanks of uncertainty. So ask yours.
PS: if you want a "official" answer from the developer, mark your post as FAQ as I did.
|
As a good old fashioned GM, I'd read this feat and implement as written. While the touch attack at range seems overly beneficial, you have to consider that the player must deal with concealment and cover if no Grit is applied, or lose 1 Grit point to ignore concealment and cover. Either way, those penalties seem a fair trade off.
As I said, rules need to be interpreted and different GMs may come to different solutions.
|
|
It's not the bouncing around cover aspect which is the issue here, really - it's using the 'Grit free' version of the Feat when the target isn't behind cover or concealed to negate all range penalties and claim the firearms' touch AC feature as well. There's no reason you couldn't do that with every shot you ever take.
Personally, if it came up in a game of mine, I'm pretty sure I'd rule that you need to count all the squares (from weapon to ricochet point to target). The pre-requistites of the Feat aren't too heavy (some form of Grit and Blind Fight), and a complete negation of range penalties plus targeting touch AC seems way to much of a payoff, especially when compared with stuff like the Gunslinger's Deadeye Deed (which costs 1 Grit per range increment to target touch AC, and doesn't negate range penalties at all). So... I guess I'm saying that I hope that the whole ignoring range thing wasn't the intent...