Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JustinA 03-09-07, 01:42 PM	Aim When making a full attack with a ranged weapon, you can choose to take careful aim and sacrifice one of your attacks in order to gain a +2 circumstance bonus to one ranged attack. You can sacrifice multiple attacks to gain multiple circumstance bonuses and these bonuses can stack with each other. (For example, if you can normally make four attacks as part of a full attack sequence, you can sacrifice your third and fourth attacks to either gain a total +4 circumstance bonus to your first attack or to gain a +2 circumstance bonus to each of your first two attacks.) Since you’re focused on aiming, you are considered flat-footed until the start of your next turn.
JustinA 03-09-07, 01:47 PM	My one area of concern with this rule right now is that it can't be used until you've got iterative attacks. The other option I played with basically boiled down to: "When taking the full attack action you can choose to sacrifice one or more attacks and gain a +2 bonus per sacrificed attack on the first attack on your next turn. You cannot take more than a 5 foot step before making your attack on your next turn without sacrificing the bonus from aiming. Since you’re focused on aiming, you are considered flat-footed until the start of your next turn." I backed away from this version because it seemed less useful. I also considered allowing either version, but that seemed kludgy and overly complicated. Thoughts?
Lethrin 03-09-07, 03:07 PM	I like it. I would suggest the first version because I don't think archers need much of a boost at lower levels anyways. Being flat-footed might not be necessary, but I'm not sure.
Xeviat-DM 03-10-07, 04:06 PM	I wouldn't do this. I'd have it cost a move action. That way, you have a reason to choose between making a standard attack and a full attack. The balancing factor is that you lose your Dex and Dodge bonus to AC while doing such. Then an Improved Aim feat could be made, which might increase the bonuses gained from aiming in relation to how many attacks you have.
JustinA 03-12-07, 11:52 PM	I wouldn't do this. I'd have it cost a move action. That way, you have a reason to choose between making a standard attack and a full attack. The balancing factor is that you lose your Dex and Dodge bonus to AC while doing such. What's your reason for preferring this method? It only seems to make a difference at level 11+, at which point the option suddenly becomes less appealing. Why would higher level fighters have to cripple themselves more in order to get the same bonu as lower level fighters? That fails the "does it make any sense?" test for me. Also, effectively taking options off the table for high-level fighters seems counter-intuitive to me, given the general consensus that high-level fighters need all the help they can get as options for spellcasters continue to multiply. On a complete tangent: What do people think about dropping the ranged weapon requirement? If the flat-footed requirement stays, that would effectively mean that you'd be looking only at attacks made with surprise or while hidden or invisible.
Xeviat-DM 03-13-07, 02:30 PM	Because Aim should be able to be done by low level characters. Higher level character's bonus from Aim should be higher, or they should have feats to improve it. It's not a complex tactic that should only be allowed to individuals with +6 BAB.
StormKnight 03-13-07, 06:00 PM	Because Aim should be able to be done by low level characters. Higher level character's bonus from Aim should be higher, or they should have feats to improve it. It's not a complex tactic that should only be allowed to individuals with +6 BAB. One could argue that since a low level character only manages to make one attack in the time allowed, she is already spending all the time aiming and its assumed in the attack. As the character goes up level, she can deliver the same accuracy with less time aiming, and thus gets multiple attacks. But she could spend more time aiming, thus sacrificining those extra shots for a better bonus. Sounds reasonable, but I haven't paid any thought to how it works out numerically.
FrostHammer 03-13-07, 07:39 PM	I personally think you should be able to sacrifice AC for Attack bonus, up to x per turn, where x is half your BAB, rounded up. You can do this for up to 2 rounds 9for a total of 2x to your AB and -2x to your AC), and you don't have to decide at the beginning how long you're going to aim. You can hold your aim however long you want, but you won't gain any more benefits. when you finally do attack, all of your attacks that round will get the bonus.
JustinA 03-15-07, 03:27 AM	Because Aim should be able to be done by low level characters. Higher level character's bonus from Aim should be higher, or they should have feats to improve it. It's not a complex tactic that should only be allowed to individuals with +6 BAB. ... but your revision reduces the damage that can be done by a higher level character. I'm not following your logic.
JustinA 03-15-07, 03:43 AM	Here's the new version. This version tries to have it both ways: It lets you either take careful aim (by sacrificing all your attacks) or take a quick aim (sacrificing one of your attacks). The former gives you a bigger bonus, but leaves you flat-footed. You can only do the latter if you have iterative attacks, and the bonus is smaller, but you don't have to leave yourself flat-footed to do it. Aim [Attack] When making a full attack, you can choose to sacrifice all of the attacks you could normally make and take careful aim at a specific target. On your next attack against that target, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus for each attack you sacrificed. You cannot take any other action or move more than a 5 foot step before making your attack without losing the circumstance bonus. Since you are focused on aiming, you are considered flat-footed until you make your attack. Quick Aim: If you can make more than one attack as part of a full attack maneuver, you can choose to sacrifice one of your attacks in order to gain a +2 circumstance bonus to a single attack taken on the same turn. You can sacrifice multiple attacks to gain multiple circumstance bonuses, and these circumstance bonuses stack with each other. Example: If you can normally make four attacks when using the full attack maneuver, you can sacrifice your third and fourth attacks to gain a +4 circumstance bonus to your first attack. You could also sacrifice those attacks and gain a +2 circumstance bonus to each of your first two attacks.
Xeviat-DM 03-15-07, 04:45 AM	+4 for every attack sacrificed? Does that mean I could use Rapid Shot, accepting a -2 to my attacks to gain +1 attack, then sacrifice that attack to gain +4, netting +2 to hit? But I do agree with it scaling a bit. Aiming isn't something you do in every situation. It's something you do when you're fighting something that you just can't hit. Against very high AC creatures, increasing your attack bonus will net you more damage than having multiple attacks, except in situations of only being able to hit on 20's anyway.
JustinA 03-15-07, 10:35 AM	+4 for every attack sacrificed? Does that mean I could use Rapid Shot, accepting a -2 to my attacks to gain +1 attack, then sacrifice that attack to gain +4, netting +2 to hit? Dang. And it's even worse than that because Rapid Shot applies the penalties to the attacks you're sacrificing, not to the attack you take on your next round. -thinks about it for a bit- I'd already considered two-weapon fighting, and concluded it wasn't a problem. (With the Two-Weapon Fighting feat you exactly cancel out the penalty of having the weapon in your second hand when you're quick-aiming, but only for a single attack.) Rapid Shot seems more problematic. But, in my experience, ranged weapons are already fairly sub-par compared to melee. So something that gives the rogue the ability to stand outside of melee range, spend an entire round focusing, and get off one decent attack roll probably isn't the end of the world. But what this does seem to call into question is the potential of a build designed simply to maximize the number of attacks you get (it doesn't matter the penatly) just to get a huge bonus to a single attack on your next turn. Possible solutions: 1. Instead of having the bonus apply to the next attack against a specific target (which I put in there specifically to allow people to use it with an AoO), require them to use their first attack on the next turn against the target (and gain the bonus to that attack and no other). This means they can't take an AoO against a target while aiming, which means that if a target sees them gearing up for a massive strike they just need to move away and the effort is wasted. (This reduces the effectiveness of any melee builds trying to crank up their attacks in order to gain the bonus.) 2. In addition to being flat-footed, aiming could also provoke an attack of opportunity. (This would, similarly, devalue it as a melee option, which is where I see the biggest abuses being possible.) 3. Specifically word the feat so that you don't gain any bonus from extra attacks granted by feats or class abilities. You could either do this by somehow saying "you only gain bonuses from iterative attacks due to a high BAB" (this would elminate feats, class abilities, the extra attack from two-weapon fighting, the extra attack from haste and similar effects, and also cover monsters with multiple natural attacks in their full attack routine). Or you could just say "no feats or class abilities" (which leaves two-weapon fighting, multiple natural attacks, and haste). I think I need to actually consider what abilities can be used to boost the number of attacks and if any seem horrendously unbalanced. Off-hand I can think of: - Two-Weapon Fighting (up to three bonus attacks if you pursue the fat all the way to Greater Two-Weapon Fighting) - Haste (one extra attack) - Rapid Shot (one extra attack, doesn't stack with Two-Weapon Fighting) - Extra arms (shapeshifting into a girallon) What else could give you extra attacks that would interact with aim? (Manyshot, for example, gives you extra attacks but you could't use it with aim.) But I do agree with it scaling a bit. Aiming isn't something you do in every situation. It's something you do when you're fighting something that you just can't hit. Against very high AC creatures, increasing your attack bonus will net you more damage than having multiple attacks, except in situations of only being able to hit on 20's anyway. The mechanic can also be used in tandem with Power Attack to significant effect. If you allow a Power Shot feat (like Power Attack, but it applies to ranged attacks), the rule can be used to model a sniper without breaking a sweat. (The effectiveness of quick aim with Power Attack in certain borderline cases -- particularly when you need a natural 20 to hit -- is why I'm still tempted to enforce a flat-footed state even on quick aiming. Or have it provoke an attack of opportunity. Or maybe just an AoO from everyone except the target of your aim? I'm resisting the inclination because I like to keep a rule as simple as I can. Throwing non-standard AoOs into a combat maneuver always makes it more complicated and less likely to see use in actual play, IME.) Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
bigboy5584 03-15-07, 01:43 PM	Has there been any thought into a concentration check being made to determine if you are flat-footed dc 15+the amount of attacks you are losing / the bonus you would be gaining. something obtainable by lower levels, but still relatively difficult working your way up in levels and maintaining its difficulty. I say this because a true archer has the ability to zero in on one opponent, but can still recognize if he is in danger himself. Now that could or could not reference melee attacks being that ranged attacks are a tad bit more difficult to recognize, however they are an archer and are much more accustomed to those sights and sounds then the norm. Just a random thought.
JustinA 03-15-07, 02:30 PM	Has there been any thought into a concentration check being made to determine if you are flat-footed dc 15+the amount of attacks you are losing / the bonus you would be gaining. something obtainable by lower levels, but still relatively difficult working your way up in levels and maintaining its difficulty. I say this because a true archer has the ability to zero in on one opponent, but can still recognize if he is in danger himself. Now that could or could not reference melee attacks being that ranged attacks are a tad bit more difficult to recognize, however they are an archer and are much more accustomed to those sights and sounds then the norm. Just a random thought. Kind of an "aim defensively"? I like it! I've always wanted to find ways to make Concentration a skill useful for something other than casting spells. Although if you did this, you'd probably want to make Concentration a class skill for fighters and rogues. And once you've done that you might as well make it a universal class skill (since only barbarians would be left out of the party at that point, IIRC). Thanks for the idea.