Talk:Super Snipe (3.5e Feat)

Ratings

Tarkisflux dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.

I have mixed feelings about this feat. Parts of it seem pretty reasonable for its stated balance, or at least potentially so. Proficiency, who-cares bonus to attack, range increment increases, attack rerolls, ranged coup de grace, and a ranged threat area sound pretty workable. But there are a few implementation issues that make things problematic. The crit range boost stacks in ways that may not be intended. The coup de grace mention doesn't have a range indicated, and doesn't require an attack roll so you could arguably coup de grace anyone sleeping anywhere. Things like that seem unintentionally broken, but it's hard to tell for sure because the writing isn't consistent. The feat is almost written in two different styles - it could use a bit more words in places and a bit less in others. The terse parts either don't consider common possibilities or are intended to include those things without explicitly saying so (which would make it more clear). The long parts are either so overly explicit that they're redundant with the material they reference or are so narrow in application as to seem unnecessary. It's not necessary to include a bunch of secondary interactions with other possible feat choices. Really really. The problems get it a dislike. The wording seems like a stylistic choice on the author's part, and just gets called out as weird. Except for the secondary interaction parts. I can't call that good form in a feat.

	Dragonexx dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	What I said before, needs to be summarized and shortened. If you can't explain what the ability does in a few sentences then you've already lost most players.

	Undead Knave opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	Too wordy, too many loopholes, poorly laid out, no consistent power level, and the abilities are ordered strangely.

Loopholes? There are loopholes?!? Gah! Where are they?!? The whole point of my walls of text is to avoid loopholes!!! --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The walls of text are what cause the loopholes. Suggestion: try writing less. --Undead_Knave (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you pointed out the loopholes to me so that I could fix them. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting

This would be prettier if you used the Combat feat template. Also, the BAB mark of 20 is a little bit pointless. --Foxwarrior (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It helps make sure that the combat-centric classes get it first. (Epic attack bonus counts as base attack bonus for the purpose of qualifying for feats, prestige classes, etc.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy Wall of Text Batman!

This feat is long. Like, INSANELY long! While the abilities they give are okay, is there any way of shortening or summarizing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonexx (talk • contribs) at

I'm afraid not, whoever the heck you are. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments

"The threat range of your ranged weapons is increased by 1"

Generally this is regarded as a dangerous ability to give out. A +1 keen throwing kukri has a threat range of 13-20, for example. Add in (the cheesy) disciple of dispater and you get a 5-20 crit range. A quick dumpster dive will get an extra +1 range from Mythic Exemplar, x4 crit multiplier from kaorti resin, and another +1 crit multiplier from master thrower. This gives a final 4-20/x5 crit (which would have been 8-20/x5 without this feat).

"+10: You may reroll any ranged attack roll that fails to beat the target's Armor Class. This reroll may only be made once per attack."

This ability is pretty redonculous. Suppose you have a 50% chance of hitting. You now have a 75% chance (equivalent to +5 to hit).

"+15: Boom, headshot! ...lots of text..."

Attack rolls generally scale way too fast for AC to keep up (especially given all sorts of tricks that can make them touch attacks). Fort 10 + damage dealt? The way that scales makes it pretty much impossible to save.

The text can easily be shortened here too: You can perform a coup de grace with your ranged weapons.

As a full-round action, you can make an attack at -4 penalty to hit that also doesn't benefit from the increased critical threat range from this feat. If the attack is a critical hit, treat it as a coup de grace.

Any creature that does not have a head, is immune to critical hits, or has multiple heads is immune to these abilities.

"+20: ..."

Okay, this one is way too wordy. You could probably just replace it with: You threaten every square within half the range your ranged weapon can reach, but you can only use a ranged weapon to make attacks of opportunity granted from this additional threat range. Any attack of opportunity you make with a ranged weapon has its range increment halved.

Cheers! --Aarnott (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you asked for someone to point out the loopholes, I'll give it a go. I don't know what UK considered a loophole, and I have no idea whether you'd call any perceived loopholes a feature or a bug, but whatever. Words!

The +0 bonus is untyped, but also small and boring and I sort of don't care. Untyped stuff is generally loopholley though, so there you go.

If the +1 bonus is supposed to exclude melee weapons with ranged increments, it should probably include that exemption for clarity. And also specify whether you gain proficiency with every ranged exotic weapon ever, or just the simple and martial ones. Proficiency in weird exotics may or may not be a loophole.

The +5 crit range boost was already discussed by Aarnott. Not sure if loophole, since it's written like want it to stack to the heavens. Unless you're trying to get lots of crit range stacking going, changing this to "adds 1 to the crit range after all other modifiers have been applied" or whatever seems like less of a bug. Note that flat threat increases like this (as opposed to multiples) preference weapons with high crit mods over weapons without, which is also generally a bug unless you want people to use bows preferentially. Not a loophole though, just weird.

The +10 was also discussed by Aarnott. It's strong, but variable based on what you're aiming at and I don't really care about that part. It's unclear how it stacks with other reroll sources, like luck. The 1 / attack limit prevents run away rerolling though, so it's a small loophole at best.

+15... Hey, an actual real loophole that I don't think you'll write off as a feature. Normal CdG attacks are auto-hit and auto-crit and save-or-die, and you're giving that against helpless foes at any range. Any range!?! I'll assume that you want that actually limited by the maximum range of the weapon and that you don't want intercontinental kill you in your sleep arrows or similar nonsense, but even that interpretation is nuts. Projectile weapons have a 10 increment maximum range, and you doubled all of their increments, so you can auto-hit guys out to 2200ft with your composite longbow. Almost half a mile, and you can CdG them without an attack roll. Honestly, add an attack roll to all of the uses here. That deals with the weird range bits, the arguments over line of sight / effect that an auto-hit at range might lead to, and plugs the hole nicely I think. I'll withhold comments on the ability in general.

+20... I don't see any loopholes here. I see a lot of unnecessary exceptions to exceptions, and then more exceptions, and then some unnecessary explanatory bits, but no loopholes. I won't bother to suggest anything to ameliorate that even though I think you can do it without adding loopholes or unwanted behavior, because I think it's a stylistic choice on your part. Also Aarnott did already and you didn't respond to him. It is weird that normal movement, a thing that snipers are quite adept at taking advantage of, is called out as not a valid AoO trigger though unless you have some other weird thing.

Anyway, there you go. Having done all that, I'll probably rate this in a day or 3, see which parts of this are bugs and which aren't first. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 05:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)