Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Werebat 06-26-07, 01:35 AM	Improved Precise Shot allows a character to ignore "the percentage miss chance" for all but total concealment. If a rogue has Improved Precise Shot, and attacks a character with partial concealment (say, from a blur spell), can the rogue deal sneak attack damage? The feat doesn't say that it negates concealment, just that it allows the character to ignore the percantage miss chance. Any official ruling on this? - Ron ^*^
Leilond 06-26-07, 03:45 AM	Improved Precise Shot allows a character to ignore "the percentage miss chance" for all but total concealment. If a rogue has Improved Precise Shot, and attacks a character with partial concealment (say, from a blur spell), can the rogue deal sneak attack damage? The feat doesn't say that it negates concealment, just that it allows the character to ignore the percantage miss chance. Any official ruling on this? - Ron ^*^ You gave the official ruling. The effect of the feat is the one you said. It doens't ignore concealment, only the miss chance. More official than the manuals?
Werebat 06-26-07, 11:03 AM	You gave the official ruling. The effect of the feat is the one you said. It doens't ignore concealment, only the miss chance. More official than the manuals? For some reason this hasn't come up in my campaign before this, and the PCs are 15th level or so. Last night was a fight with a dragon so things were tense and the Master Thrower's player firmly believed that his sneak attacks would work on a dragon with concealment because of the character's Improved Precise Shot. It seems like it could be *implied* that the concealment is lifted because the miss chance is also lifted, but a strict reading doesn't say anything about concealment's effect on sneak attacks being lifted. I had the player keep the SA damage on a separate tally and in the end the party killed the dragon without needing it (Platinum Knight scored a critical with Smite Evil Dragon and some spell that doubles damage on a charge). Still I'd like to see some official clarification on the matter because I'm sure this isn't the first time it'll come up. Seems like one of those things the players will interpret one way when they are trying to SA something with concealment and then interpret another when they are being SA while under concealment. The player in question actually said that if Improved Precise Shot DIDN'T allow a rogue to SA things with concealment, then rogues were "totally useless". - Ron ^*^
Leilond 06-26-07, 11:20 AM	Here it isn't a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of rules It is pretty clear. They're not "interpreting", they're adding words to a rule If the rule intended to ignore concealment there should be written "ignore concealment" and not "ignore miss chance for concealment". It's so plain You're players can accept it or you can accept your players house rule, but I dubt that there can be a such clarification for someghing so plain clear! It's like asking for a clarification for adding the strenght bouns to the hit roll when using a sword
tarkin 06-26-07, 11:38 AM	Basic rule is nothing is EVER implied. When they say "It is implied" they really mean: "It doesn't say this, but I think it is sort of kind of possible." It is possible for a lightning bolt to wield all the joints in metal armor shut, turning it into a prison. But the spell does not say it does that, so despite that someone may logically think it is implied by the fact that it does 10d6, the spell does NOT do this.
jaelis 06-26-07, 12:33 PM	Would you say that if you had IPS, it would be impossible for an opponent to use concealment to hide from you? I certainly wouldn't. Concealment has a few effects: a miss chance, the opportunity to hide, and the negation of sneak attacks. IPS only affects the miss chance. The converse logic also works, and is in the rogue's favor. If a creature has a miss chance that does not come from concealment, then you can still sneak attack him.