Sayonara. *Click* (3.5 Feat, PEACH)

[NeoSeraphi]

Design Notes:
I am just such a fanboy for Naoto Shirogane, and the game designers of Persona 4 Ultimate did her finishing attack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHnHNL9-0aU&feature=player_detailpage#t=156s) so well, that I have been moved to make a feat based on it.



Good-Bye Shot (Ranger)
As you take careful aim, you whisper a single word of farewell to your target, and let loose one powerful projectile aimed right for the head or pelvis. Your target falls to the ground, dead, just as you predicted.
Prerequisites: Able to cast hunter's mercy as a divine spell, Precise Shot, BAB +6, Dex 15
Benefit: As a standard action, you may take aim at the area a target possesses that you deduce to be its primary weak point, and fire a powerful shot. You make a single ranged attack against that target with a -2 penalty. If your attack hits, it deals normal damage, and the creature must make a Fortitude save or be knocked prone and stunned for 1 round, and a Will save or be shaken for one minute. The DC for each save is 10+1/2 your character level+your Dexterity modifier. Additionally, if your attack delivers a successful critical hit to the creature, the creature takes a -4 penalty on each of its saving throws against the effects of this feat.

As a constant, secondary benefit of this feat, the critical multiplier for all ranged weapons you wield increases by 1.
Special: A ranger may select Good-Bye Shot as her 6th level ranger feat.

[Lord_Gareth]

The archivist thing doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that the feat is literally only useable in one situation; that level of specialization is inherently crippling. No one'd ever use it.

[Cwymbran-San]

I would indeed use it, i would just need to find a way to have a permanent [I]Hunter's Mercy[I] effect on me. The prereq says i need to be able to cast it, not that i need to do it myself every time i want to trigger the feat. Some magic item perhaps (preferably as a weapon enchantment, heh, heh) that allows me to cast it and i would be fine :smallbiggrin:

[NeoSeraphi]

The archivist thing doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that the feat is literally only useable in one situation; that level of specialization is inherently crippling. No one'd ever use it.

Really? Because when I play rangers, I fill absolutely every one of my spell slots (of every level) with hunter's mercy, because it is a ridiculously good spell. I think I'd actually get quite a lot of use out of this feat. Plus, you get it as a bonus feat, so it's not like you have to waste a feat slot on it. (Unless you want Manyshot, but full-attacking is generally better for single-classed rangers anyway. If you're a Swift Hunter, yeah, you probably wouldn't take this feat).

Edit: Changed the feat to always be active and apply to all critical hits.


I would indeed use it, i would just need to find a way to have a permanent Hunter's Mercy effect on me. The prereq says i need to be able to cast it, not that i need to do it myself every time i want to trigger the feat. Some magic item perhaps (preferably as a weapon enchantment, heh, heh) that allows me to cast it and i would be fine

Hmm...if only you could put a wand chamber in a bow...that would be awesome.

[Lord_Gareth]

Really? Because when I play rangers, I fill absolutely every one of my spell slots (of every level) with hunter's mercy, because it is a ridiculously good spell. I think I'd actually get quite a lot of use out of this feat. Plus, you get it as a bonus feat, so it's not like you have to waste a feat slot on it. (Unless you want Manyshot, but full-attacking is generally better for single-classed rangers anyway. If you're a Swift Hunter, yeah, you probably wouldn't take this feat).

You would get a lot of use out of it, yes, but that doesn't excuse sloppy design. There's a ton of other very good ranger spells out there, and a lot of them even revolve around archery. Aside from which, archery isn't about full-round volleys - it's about enabling standard-action volleys.


Edit: Changed the feat to always be active and apply to all critical hits.

A bit better, balance-wise. It's now on par with other feats that affect critical hits. The problem, of course, is that critical-hit feats are also bad design (mostly on WotC's part) because they're both passive (no-no) and of highly limited utility (no-no) whilst also relying on an incredibly rare event to go off.

[NeoSeraphi]

A bit better, balance-wise. It's now on par with other feats that affect critical hits. The problem, of course, is that critical-hit feats are also bad design (mostly on WotC's part) because they're both passive (no-no) and of highly limited utility (no-no) whilst also relying on an incredibly rare event to go off.

Well, I can't make it any better unless I have a suggestion on how to do so.

[Lord_Gareth]

Make it an active ability somehow. Perhaps you let loose a powerful shot that increases the critical threat and also knocks your enemy prone? Maybe you bull rush at range? A mighty rain of arrows slices through a line of foes?

[NeoSeraphi]

Make it an active ability somehow. Perhaps you let loose a powerful shot that increases the critical threat and also knocks your enemy prone? Maybe you bull rush at range? A mighty rain of arrows slices through a line of foes?

Making a shot that increases the critical threat seems pointless when the prerequisite for the feat is the ability to cast a spell that lets you auto-threaten.

Prone is decent, though Ranged Trip is already a feat, and Bull Rush is not what I'm going for at all. I want this to be a well-aimed, deadly headshot, not some kind of knock-back stagger thing.

And it's definitely only going to be one shot, so no volley attacks...hmm...let me think...

[Lord_Gareth]

Making a shot that increases the critical threat seems pointless when the prerequisite for the feat is the ability to cast a spell that lets you auto-threaten.

You're already re-designing the feat, I think the pre-reqs are up for change :p

[NeoSeraphi]

There, it's an active feat now.

[Story Time]

...keeping in mind what happened to me the last time I posted in one of Seraphi's threads, I'll just say that I think it's an interesting feat. The only improvement that I can think of is to add the pelvis as a target as well as the head. But...that's just my knowledge of real-world marksmanship sitting up and looking around. I have no complaints.

[Lord_Gareth]

Only thing I'd rec at this point would be to find a way to cut the number of saves down. I'd say that Fortitude could pull the weight on both the prone and stun; rolling large numbers of saves vs. single effects tends to bog the table down a bit, and two is pretty much the cut-off point in most cases (see: phantasmal killer).

[Cieyrin]

Looks alright and interesting to me. Didn't see prior versions of it but I don't think the archivist note is applicable anymore, since Rangers will be getting it before Archivists will with the BAB requirement.

[NeoSeraphi]

Only thing I'd rec at this point would be to find a way to cut the number of saves down. I'd say that Fortitude could pull the weight on both the prone and stun; rolling large numbers of saves vs. single effects tends to bog the table down a bit, and two is pretty much the cut-off point in most cases (see: phantasmal killer).

Alright, good advice, thanks for all your help.


...keeping in mind what happened to me the last time I posted in one of Seraphi's threads, I'll just say that I think it's an interesting feat. The only improvement that I can think of is to add the pelvis as a target as well as the head. But...that's just my knowledge of real-world marksmanship sitting up and looking around. I have no complaints.

Always like to have accurate fluff, so I'll fix that right now, thanks.

And I hope I didn't upset you too much last time you posted in one of my threads. :smallfrown:

[Story Time]

Always like to have accurate fluff, so I'll fix that right now, thanks.

And I hope I didn't upset you too much last time you posted in one of my threads. :smallfrown:

You're welcome. :smallredface: I...didn't expect the fluff to change. It's your feat, but I was kind of thinking a note or rule stipulation for valid targets would make more sense. Either way, I'm glad I was helpful. I'd certainly want that pelvis option in there. :smallbiggrin:


...about the rest, I'll send you a private message.

[NeoSeraphi]

You're welcome. :smallredface: I...didn't expect the fluff to change. It's your feat, but I was kind of thinking a note or rule stipulation for valid targets would make more sense. Either way, I'm glad I was helpful. I'd certainly want that pelvis option in there. :smallbiggrin:


Well, it's just fluff. The fluff itself is by no means restrictive (as it shouldn't be. After all, there are plenty of creatures that have far greater weaknesses than their heads (beholders come to mind)).

When you use this feat, you take aim at whatever spot you feel would be the primary weakness for that specific creature. But I'll put a note in about that to make sure everyone understands it. :smallsmile: