Sniper's Goggles and Far-Reaching Sight

[Roaming Shadow]

Not entirely sure if this is precisely a rules question, but since it's a matter of magical item interaction, this seemed the most appropriate place to ask.

As the title implies, I'm wondering about the interaction between Sniper Goggles (Advanced Players Guide) and Far-Reaching Sight (Ultimate Combat). Sniper Goggles are equiped to the eye slot (logically), and the Sight is attached to a weapon, and therefore not an item slot on the body. Can the two therefore be used in conjunction with one another?

RAW seems to be yes as far as I've read, but I've also heard no because they both utilize the eye (looking through the lens and looking down the sight). While that makes sense for a scope, a sight I believe is a different matter. Neither even say they technically magnify vision, so it's not even that they're doing the same thing. So far I've only heard "real world logic" answers for why "no" that aren't very strong (someone with night vision goggles can aim down a sight as far as I know), and I was hoping the community might have a more definitive and convincing answer one way or the other.

[Morganstern]

I haven't read anything in the rules that states otherwise, so I would say that it would be allowed. Although we can both agree it's a little nasty.

[Howie23]

Roaming Shadow wrote:

As the title implies, I'm wondering about the interaction between Sniper Goggles (Advanced Players Guide) and Far-Reaching Sight (Ultimate Combat).

Sniping Goggles:

The leather strap attached to these bulbous lenses allows their wearer to fit them to his head. The wearer of these goggles can make ranged sneak attacks from any distance instead of the normal 30 feet. When making ranged sneak attacks within 30 feet, the wearer gains a +2 circumstance bonus on each sneak attack damage die.

Far Reaching Sight:

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.

The general rule that applies is from the Magic chapter: "Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient."

Both items can be equipped. The magical effects work as described. It works. It is nasty. From a rules mechanics standpoint, it would require a rule that is an exception to the general rule, or a ruling that this combo is somehow outside the scope of "usually."

The combination, by the way, is a good example that rebuts the position that options, in themselves, do not lead to power creep. The synergy of options can, in itself, result in a result that is greater than the parts.

[Gauss]

Personally, I see no problem with this combination. It allows a person to make one touch sneak attack at any range (up to maximum) per round. While painful (even deadly) it is not game breaking in my opinion.

- Gauss

[Morganstern]

Gauss wrote:

Personally, I see no problem with this combination. It allows a person to make one touch sneak attack at any range (up to maximum) per round. While painful (even deadly) it is not game breaking in my opinion.

- Gauss

I'm not saying it's game breaking, just pretty nasty. I know that if i tried that as a rogue with my group, the DM would really start to dislike me.

[Roaming Shadow]

Thanks for the input. For me, the biggest problem is mostly in getting that range; most DMs have their encounter setups on whatever will fit on a grid on the table, or will otherwise go out of their way to prevent such long distance tactics from even being feasible. They don't like the idea of people being able to shoot enemies from a safe distance, especially from a distance where the "snipe" application of the stealth skill would actually be possible (the -20 kinda needs that distance penalty to Perception, though there are ways now to reduce it to -10).

It does get kind of frustrating when the game offers so many ways to be an effective long range marksman or sniper and DMs will go out of their way to prevent such tactics. I can understand that I can't pull it off every encounter, but DMs often seem to prevent it ever being a possibility either by oversight (battles traditionally take place on a grid that can fit on the table), or intentionaly (not wanting players to be able to hurt/kill monsters without the monsters being able to hit them back).

[Kringress]

personally I would say no due to the spell base is the same. True Strike

[_Ozy_]

That is 100% irrelevant.

[CBDunkerson]

Well.... I'd say 99%.

In cases like this where the item effect and the effect of the spell used in construction are completely different I agree that the spell does not factor in at all.

However, if the effect of the item is the same as the spell then it usually makes sense to treat them as two 'castings' of the same effect.

[_Ozy_]

Quote:

However, if the effect of the item is the same as the spell then it usually makes sense to treat them as two 'castings' of the same effect.

Well, yeah, that's the point. if the EFFECT is the same, they don't stack. The effect matters, the underlying spell 100% does not.

[Helpful Harry]

This seems equivalent to saying you couldn't wield a magic weapon with a hand wearing a magic glove. I don't think anyone would support that argument.