View Full Version : Woodland Archer seems ambiguous...
Totema
2013-12-20, 04:15 PM
This is concerning the first tactical option.
Adjust for Range: To use this maneuver, you must shoot a projectile weapon against a foe and miss. Subsequent shots you take against that foe this round gain a +4 bonus, because you’re able to quickly adjust your aim to compensate. (emphasis mine)
As it's written, it suggests that you apply the bonus to attacks, and not to damage, but it's not specific. "Shots" is not a widely-used term in the game's literature. Am I reading this right?
It looks dysfunctional to me.
Sounds like it should be posted in the dysfunctional rules thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304817).
Totema
2013-12-20, 04:49 PM
;_; Wow, I found my first dysfunctional rule, all by myself... I feel like I've taken my first step into a larger world.
Urpriest
2013-12-20, 05:25 PM
In general, that sort of phrasing gets applied to attack rolls. But yeah, it's not explicit.
As an aside, if you can get iteratives at -3 rather than -5 (Maho-Bujin if you bring it forward unaltered) then this feat is an excellent way to break Curmudgeon's brain.
CyberThread
2013-12-20, 05:26 PM
Sounds lil Wayne gets a +4 as long as everyone misses
Pluto!
2013-12-20, 05:26 PM
Would anyone rule that this applies to damage?
CyberThread
2013-12-20, 05:37 PM
I wOuld not
Seerow
2013-12-20, 05:43 PM
Would anyone rule that this applies to damage?
I would. Simply because I see no reason not to. It won't break the game, it's a pretty crappy feat supporting an underwhelming style that's already feat intensive, giving a few extra points of damage after you've missed an attack won't hurt anyone. Given that the wording, as noted, is vague, I'd rule in favor of the player.
sleepyphoenixx
2013-12-20, 05:55 PM
I would. Simply because I see no reason not to. It won't break the game, it's a pretty crappy feat supporting an underwhelming style that's already feat intensive, giving a few extra points of damage after you've missed an attack won't hurt anyone. Given that the wording, as noted, is vague, I'd rule in favor of the player.
It's pretty clear that it means to hit imo. I wouldn't mind using your interpretation as a house rule though, for the reasons you listed.
Eldariel
2013-12-20, 06:04 PM
It's amazing with a machine gun build with Time Stands Still, Rapid Shot/Whirling Frenzy/Hail of Arrows & al.
Seerow
2013-12-20, 06:05 PM
It's pretty clear that it means to hit imo. I wouldn't mind using your interpretation as a house rule though, for the reasons you listed.
It says +4 to your shot. As shot is an undefined term in the game, any given interpretation of it could be used without needing to be houseruling. The fact that the feat requires Point Blank Shot (which provides its bonus to attack and damage), despite having nothing that requires being in close range, would also support that interpretation.
Optimator
2013-12-20, 06:05 PM
If you take Deadly Aim or some sort of Power Shot feat then it adds to damage...
sleepyphoenixx
2013-12-20, 06:16 PM
It says +4 to your shot. As shot is an undefined term in the game, any given interpretation of it could be used without needing to be houseruling. The fact that the feat requires Point Blank Shot (which provides its bonus to attack and damage), despite having nothing that requires being in close range, would also support that interpretation.
It triggers on a miss and talks about adjusting your aim. That, to me, is enough to interpret it as affecting to hit. It's a matter of context.
If it was just "Your shots get a +4 bonus" i'd agree with you.
Seerow
2013-12-20, 06:19 PM
It triggers on a miss and talks about adjusting your aim. That, to me, is enough to interpret it as affecting to hit. It's a matter of context.
If it was just "Your shots get a +4 bonus" i'd agree with you.
More precise aim is also justification for bonus damage (see: Sneak attack), and either way that's fluff. The "your shots gets a +4 bonus" is the relevant mechanical text.
Biffoniacus_Furiou
2013-12-20, 07:14 PM
"...because you’re able to quickly adjust your aim to compensate."
Aim = accuracy = chance to hit, it doesn't mention anything about the power or damage of your shots. Absolutely nothing ambiguous here, you're just ignoring the unambiguous portion.
CyberThread
2013-12-20, 08:28 PM
but but but... if ...if my aim is better.then..then.. my aim can get past the armor.... and ..and hit that glowing red spot.... for a critical hit.
Firechanter
2013-12-21, 02:23 AM
Wow. It would never ever have crossed my mind that this feat could ~possibly~ do anything about damage. To me it's absolutely clear that the Bonus is To Hit, and I'm having a hard time seeing any indication to the contrary.
Totema
2013-12-21, 02:31 AM
Maybe "ambiguous" wasn't the right word, but regardless, they didn't write it in terms defined by the rules. And where the RAW gets muddy, players find crazy loopholes.
Spuddles
2013-12-21, 02:52 AM
If you take Deadly Aim or some sort of Power Shot feat then it adds to damage...
Or feats that let your grapple via ranged pinning.
nyjastul69
2013-12-21, 02:54 AM
Maybe "ambiguous" wasn't the right word, but regardless, they didn't write it in terms defined by the rules. And where the RAW gets muddy, players find crazy loopholes.
Or, when RAW is muddy, crazy players find loopholes.
ericgrau
2013-12-21, 08:36 AM
Reminds me of a recent thread comment using the rule "fire resistance and immunity provides immunity to lava" to say that prestidigitation => WotC online article using it to create dampness => fire resistance 2 => lava immunity. Which is slightly more solid reasoning than the +4 damage here IMO, but still cwazy.
I think that the RAI is obvious here, it's just the RAW which is ambiguous.
CyberThread
2013-12-21, 10:44 AM
Cool I can use a damp cloth to walk on lava.... am going to go do this now, because d&D is based on reality.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.