
Scottybobotti |

So for an Exocortex Mechanic with Combat Tracking the CRB p. 79 says it is a move action to establish your target lock for full BAB. Does that mean you have to use a move action every turn to establish the lock or does it mean once you've established it and continue to have line of sight you don't have to use a move action to continue the lock. This would allow the mechanic to say make a full attack with full BAB in his second turn after establishing the target lock the turn before.
"As a move action during combat, you can designate a foe for your exocortex to track. As long as that target is in sight, the exocortex feeds you telemetry, vulnerabilities, and combat tactics, allowing you to make attacks against that target as if your base attack bonus from your mechanic levels were equal to your mechanic level." CRB p. 79

![]() |

Yeah, but it's allow you to make attacks as if your BAB were equal to your level against the target.
Attacks made with deadly aim against that target could benefit from it.
I'm not saying they do, but I am saying I can see it being a reasonable interpretation and that the wording is unclear.
I guess it would be a table variance thing? It isn' that great a feat in my opinion. Things like unwieldy weapons benefit more since you can't full attack.

HammerJack |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I am pretty sure that Deadly Aim should be affected by combat tracking.
By the same token, weapon focus should be affected, so you would only get the +1 bonus, if your BAB is normally low ekough to get the +2, but is full level with tracking, for that shot.

![]() |

I am pretty sure that Deadly Aim should be affected by combat tracking.
By the same token, weapon focus should be affected, so you would only get the +1 bonus, if your BAB is normally low enough to get the +2, but is full level with tracking, for that shot.
I honestly never thought about that. I also think that is rather silly to add to the feat. Why not just fix the class BAB to reflect this and just have the feat be +1?

HammerJack |

For one thing, "fixing the class BAB" would be a more complicated process as the current BAB progression is a consistent pattern, and multiclassing is an option.
For another, it is possible for a character to not take weapon focus.
I don't really see weapon focus giving an extra little boost to characters with lower BAB as a problem that needs a solution, let alone a complicated, messy one.

![]() |

For one thing, "fixing the class BAB" would be a more complicated process as the current BAB progression is a consistent pattern, and multiclassing is an option.
For another, it is possible for a character to not take weapon focus.
I don't really see weapon focus giving an extra little boost to characters with lower BAB as a problem that needs a solution, let alone a complicated, messy one.
I don't see much multi-classing outside of a dip into soldier. But I get what you mean.