Talk:Adjusted Accuracy (3.5e Feat)

Ratings

	Spanambula favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	You can build a powerful PC, but when the dice hate you, the dice hate you. This gives you a well-needed pat on the shoulder and a bump to the probability table. Great idea, great implementation.

	Maninorange likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	Tarkisflux has removed the funny taste. I quite like what this adds to combat, as well.

	Foxwarrior likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	It's a pretty cool feat which opens up options for attacking things that are very hard to hit (or intentionally taking penalties), without being complicated. The Special section is a total kludge, though.

	Eiji-kun favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	Missing is no fun. Hitting is fun. This gives more hit. Therefore this is fun.

	Aarnott favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	A nice way to make missing an attack seem not so bad for a fighting guy. It favors fast attack, low accuracy abilities like flurry of blows, but abilities like that usually need some loving anyways. I'd definitely consider this for a character that likes making attack rolls and probably try to squeeze it in a TWF build.

The-Marksman is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand I like the concept of the feat and while I agree with Maninorange about the flavor I also agree with Ghost about how the mechanic is more important and would get muddled if it was more complicated. The reason this gets a neutral for me tho is like Fox mentioned, the special section. The problem I have is the wording allows for a creative player to try and abuse this. So it only says a "viable" enemy. That's very vague. If I start out combat and I am 10 feet away from a Goblin and start making attack rolls from 10 feet away the Goblin is absolutely a legitmate enemy and therefore some players might argue a "viable" target, even if he's out of range. Fix the wording to not allow for abuse and I will increase rating.

Question(s)

Is this bonus meant to be applied to attacks against opponents which you have not missed against?
Example: I attack a dragon 3 times, missing on all of them, and then I attack some other enemy, say a werewolf, with a +6 bonus. Is this meant to work? It just seems to be a little bit weird based on the flavor I get from the title. --Maninorange (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because keeping a separate track for every single monster on the field that you try to hit and miss is going to be a pain for book-keeping. That said, the special section is there so it's not abused, either. --Ghostwheel (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be a rather simple task to have it reset if you attack a different creature. Again, I'm not saying this because the feat isn't a good one as it is, but because I find it strange that 'adjustments' based on previous failures against one monster would assist you in attacking another. I'll give a like anyway. --Maninorange (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If that were the case, then it would be wasted much of the time that you spent attacking something if you missed and before your turn came up again someone else had killed it. I'd rather keep the feat investment useful in that case. The way you're suggesting leads to players feeling frustrated at the death of an enemy when they should be celebrating and congratulating their ally. That's not the kind of game design I want to encourage.

If you want the flavor to make sense to you, then just imagine the feat allowing you to take the wind, light conditions, and other environmental factors into account with each shot... or something. At any rate, the actual mechanical effects--and especially their ramifications--interest me far more than their default flavor. And even with that said, flavor is incredibly mutable.

EDIT: And now looking back at the feat, I can see that I don't have any actual flavor in the feat itself. So I'm not even sure what you're complaining about. Just have whatever flavor fits that makes it feel right to you. --Ghostwheel (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Not the [absent] flavor text, but the feelz I get from reading the title. It's not particularly important either to my rating or to whether I would let a player pick this up; I was just trying to rationalize it in a way that made sense. --Maninorange (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible Fluff Options...

... for those so inclined. Or for inclusion in the blurb if Ghost wants.

I agree that the fluff options on this are a bit odd because the normal "get better at hitting the 1 guy you suck at hitting" fluff doesn't apply. So I thought these up and felt like sharing them.

• The frustration of missing your foe, any foe, builds and builds, making you more reckless and your swings harder to dodge. It is only relieved by a successful strike.
• Possessed with uncanny luck in combat, every stroke of bad luck just makes your inevitable good luck come more quickly.
• Favored by the gods, they just won't let you miss your foes as much as others do.

There ya go. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Since it's been on a week, mind adding it to the commfav list? :-3 --Ghostwheel (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)