I just noticed how poorly-worded 3.5's Improved Precise Shot is.

[Cogidubnus]

Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.

As written, this would ignore armour bonuses, natural armour bonuses, dodge bonuses, deflection bonuses, etc. etc. Obviously that's ridiculous and no DM would use it like that. But that does appear to be RAW. Am I misreading it?

[togapika]

Dodge bonus has nothing to do with miss chance. It may be about getting out of the way, but a miss chance is different.
Also armor is not cover.

[STsinderman]

Personally it seems pretty straight forward, no bonus granted from any form of cover other than total. And as Togapika also pointed out, this has nothing to do with the standard bonus's.

[Cogidubnus]

Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything

Just poor phraseology, that's all I meant.

[Godskook]

Am I misreading it?

Yes, you're blatantly misreading it by thinking too linearly. A deflection bonus is *NOT* less than total cover, *NOR* is it less than total concealment; Its also not more than either of them. Its a tangential bonus that has nothing to do with either. Hence, Improved Precise Shot has no effect on deflection bonuses. Similarly for any and all other bonuses that are not cover or concealment related.

[Andorax]

Your ranged attacks

Any attack that's ranged.

...ignore the AC bonus granted to targets

Reduces any bonus they might have to 0

...by ANYTHING less than total cover

Total Cover > improved cover
Improved Cover (PHB 152) is +8 to AC
"In such situations, the DM can double the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves (to +8 and +4 respectively)."

Since Total Cover > Improved Cover, and Improved Cover = +8,

then "ANYTHING less than total cover" includes ANYTHING less than a +8 bonus.

So one *can* torture the English language into saying that Improved Precise Shot will disregard any and all bonuses, so long as each individual bonus is +8 or less.


Counter this in a way that still allows people to be drowned UP to 0 hps, have metamagics apply negative level adjustments, and to Iron Heart Surge away entire area effects.

It's mostly-obviously not RAI (I have to qualify before I play the RAI card hereabouts), but it seems poorly worded enough to fit right in with other popular blatant abuses of the rules.

[The Glyphstone]

Sure, this works right up until the enemy uses Iron Heart Surge to remove your Improved Precise Shot feat, because 'you having that feat' has a negative effect for them.:smallsmile:

AKA No, you're reading it wrong. Godskook had it right.

[Seerow]

Your ranged attacks

Any attack that's ranged.

...ignore the AC bonus granted to targets

Reduces any bonus they might have to 0

...by ANYTHING less than total cover

Total Cover > improved cover
Improved Cover (PHB 152) is +8 to AC
"In such situations, the DM can double the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves (to +8 and +4 respectively)."

Since Total Cover > Improved Cover, and Improved Cover = +8,

then "ANYTHING less than total cover" includes ANYTHING less than a +8 bonus.

So one *can* torture the English language into saying that Improved Precise Shot will disregard any and all bonuses, so long as each individual bonus is +8 or less.


Counter this in a way that still allows people to be drowned UP to 0 hps, have metamagics apply negative level adjustments, and to Iron Heart Surge away entire area effects.

It's mostly-obviously not RAI (I have to qualify before I play the RAI card hereabouts), but it seems poorly worded enough to fit right in with other popular blatant abuses of the rules.



Even better:


Total Cover
If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.

So if you're going with this reading, you can ignore any AC bonus less than total immunity.


What's really sad is given the prerequisites (BAB+11, and two other feats), I'm finding it hard to consider this broken even with the most broken reading. I mean, it's effectively just letting you treat everyone as AC10, so you get to hit with all of your attacks. Given how late it comes in the game, the prerequisite feats, and the lack of a ranged power attack option to really take advantage of it, I find it really hard to call this overpowering.

[Socratov]

Even better:



So if you're going with this reading, you can ignore any AC bonus less than total immunity.


What's really sad is given the prerequisites (BAB+11, and two other feats), I'm finding it hard to consider this broken even with the most broken reading. I mean, it's effectively just letting you treat everyone as AC10, so you get to hit with all of your attacks. Given how late it comes in the game, the prerequisite feats, and the lack of a ranged power attack option to really take advantage of it, I find it really hard to call this overpowering.

Except that with Hank's Energy Bow (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a) you could make powerattacks.

[Seerow]

Except that with Hank's Energy Bow (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a) you could make powerattacks.

Do people actually consider that as something you can actually use?

[Lostbutseeking]

Do people actually consider that as something you can actually use?

Yes. Given how weak archery is in 3.5 that bow is perfectly fine as a buff to it.