Pg. 195 of the CRB: "When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks." And Improved Precise Shot changes those rules. Sound reasonable?
No.
Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.
Reach weapons are still melee weapons, not ranged. Quoted from the PRD.
I would say no, improved precise does not work for reach weapons. Because a reach weapon uses a melee attack and improved precise states it is only used for ranged attacks.
Yes, and reach weapons use the rules for determining cover and concealment from ranged attacks. Which is what Improved Precise Shot modifies. Seems obvious to me, but I have some skin in the game, so I decided to run it by the community in case that's coloring my judgment. :)
You specifically use only the cover rules for ranged attacks when using a melee weapon for non-adjacent attacks.
It does not say "treat the attack as ranged." That is a big difference, it is only explaining how to calculate cover, not changing the type of attack you are making.
Thus, no, you can't use the feat, as the attack never classifies as "ranged." Your skin in the game is blinding you to the obvious.
It modifies it for ranged attacks, which reach weapons don't do. They do melee attacks.
If a reach user wants to blow THREE feats for the benefit of one feat and wait till level 11+, I don't particularly mind.
Ideally, you would just import the Precise Swing feat from 3E.
Or even more ideally, the Goggles of Foefinding, from the 3E Magic Item Compendium. They are a face/eye/mask slot item, that cost a mere 2500 gp. They allow you to ignore cover bonuses of foes you attack (no restriction related to melee or ranged attacks only), but not total cover.
You specifically use only the cover rules for ranged attacks when using a melee weapon for non-adjacent attacks.
It does not say "treat the attack as ranged." That is a big difference, it is only explaining how to calculate cover, not changing the type of attack you are making.
Thus, no, you can't use the feat, as the attack never classifies as "ranged." Your skin in the game is blinding you to the obvious.
Hey now! I didn't even let *myself* get away with thinking that my POV was obvious, which is why this thread exists. So let's double-check here. Are feats rules? I think so, and I'm not the only one. Feat text is often quoted in rules discussions, with people even distinguishing between whether a particular reading of a feat is RAW or RAI.
And here we have a feat with rules for ignoring partial cover and partial concealment from ranged attacks. I don't think it's really "obvious" that such a feat would not be included in "the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks" (pg. 195) and "the rules for determining concealment from ranged attacks" (pg. 196-197) that melee attacks use for non-adjacent attacks.
There might be a good argument for that, but I haven't heard it yet; a dev clarification, but I haven't seen it yet; or at least a community consensus -- but there haven't been enough posters to this thread yet. So we'll see! :)
If a reach user wants to blow THREE feats for the benefit of one feat and wait till level 11+, I don't particularly mind.
I've long been partial to rangers, and as it happens, I currently have one in a Serpent's Skull game and one in PFS. Both are switch-hitters with the archery combat style (albeit very different in most other respects), which means that they can get IPS at 6th without even meeting the pre-reqs. ;)
|
Your ranged attacks ignore...
Using the rules for ranged attacks for determining the effect of cover does not equate to 'attacks with reach weapons are ranged attacks!'
When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
While it uses the rules for ranged attacks when determining cover, it does not become a 'ranged' attack, it remains a 'melee' attack. The feat only applies to 'ranged' attacks.
Are feats rules? I think so, and I'm not the only one. Feat text is often quoted in rules discussions, with people even distinguishing between whether a particular reading of a feat is RAW or RAI.
Feat "flavor text" is not a rule. It's flavor text.
The "rule" portion of a feat that has flavor text has the terms Benefit:, Normal:, Special:, etc...
If a feat does not have flavor text, the rule is the entire sentence.
A perfect example of this is two weapon fighting.
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
If you read the flavor text (bold italics) as a rule, you would never be able to use anything but weapons wielded in your hands as attacks. Sorry, monks, no kicking for you unless you take your feet off and wield them in your hands. Sorry, boot blade, but that doesn't work unless you take off your boot and wield it in your hands.
THIS is correct.
Your ranged attacks ignore...Using the rules for ranged attacks for determining the effect of cover does not equate to 'attacks with reach weapons are ranged attacks!'
When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.While it uses the rules for ranged attacks when determining cover, it does not become a 'ranged' attack, it remains a 'melee' attack. The feat only applies to 'ranged' attacks.
See the difference?