Talk:Siege Shot (3.5e Feat)

Homebrew Ranged Class
I am curious about DD's rating, I saw a few homebrew ranged class and I must say it hardly make them overpowered. The worse thing with this feat I can this of is while using a splitting ranged weapon... and it really the item fault in this case. --Leziad (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not. Splitting specifies that bonus damage, such as sneak attack, is not split.  I'd imagine this falls into the same category. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am still curious about which class break this feat. --Leziad (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, any class which is already gaining H-appropriate damage for ranged attacks should not have access to this feat, because it means they're now doing far more damage than is appropriate. As for a specific example, I can't name terribly many, but one would be GW's Sharpshooter. --DanielDraco (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Too many damages? You realize siege shot is only one attack right? That mean things like manyshot and the like won't be terribly useful. Beside at best you deal +15d6 at level 20th, which is nothing compared to a H-level TWF combat rogue. +15d6 on a single attack is... good but not terribly gamebreaking, especially since you consumed your whole round and thus gained very little Aim points. --Leziad (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's really more of a theoretical argument than anything. Imagine that a class exists which allows a solitary ranged attack to do level-appropriate H-balanced damage. Such a class is a reasonable concept, might easily exist (and by similar logic to rule 34, probably does), and would be neither overpowered nor underpowered. Now imagine a character of that class gaining this feat. They're now dealing more damage than a character of their level should. --DanielDraco (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed but should such an edge case influence rating in any way? Could it be said for pretty much every pieces of material featured on this wiki? I mean such interaction exist in DnD 3.5e because of the sheer number of material, in this case it the fault of neither the class or the feat. Siege shot is completely compatible with most homebrew classes, be it the sharpshooter or the marksman and allow some fun character concept like the one-shot sniper who win battle with a single well-placed shot instead of a volley. I do get the point this could turn sour given the proper setup, but such reality exist in pretty much all optimization. --Leziad (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It comes down to design philosophy. I believe, for the theoretical reason I described, that large damage boosts like this should be class-specific or at least class-restricted, because otherwise their balance effects are unpredictable. If class features can bring your damage up to snuff, and feats can also bring your damage up to snuff, then they need to somehow be made mutually exclusive so that there is no overlap. If these components might be written by different authors (as is the case in homebrew), then every component must ensure that its functionality remains exclusive to similar functionalities. It's a necessary consideration in modular design such as you find in D&D 3.5. This is the same reason that some authors have begun to, when writing a feature that adds an ability modifier to AC, add a clause that says it won't stack with other effects that add an ability modifier to AC. They themselves might never have written anything which breaks the game in combination with their feature, but it is still their responsibility as designers to predict such a combination and protect against it. --DanielDraco (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "I hate fighters." says the feat-denyer. :P -- Eiji-kun (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * How about the Cas' Commando or Tome Assassin? --Foxwarrior (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What about them? The assassin would be much better off making a full death attack no? --Leziad (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * At level 7 or higher, yes. But before that, this changes the Assassin/Cas' Commando's damage from "a respectable quantity" to "now this is why I spent all that time hiding in the first place!" I'm sorry if that didn't sound very negative. --Foxwarrior (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The feat require Bab +6. Which is 8th level Tome Assassin. Cas's Commando grant sudden strike, still better at full-attack. --Leziad (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Eiji: Yup. I believe that the design of the fighter is fundamentally flawed. By forcing it to depend purely upon feats for vertical power, the designers necessitate violating the modular layout of the game system -- allowing feats to cause vertical advancement, when the vertical dimension (a.k.a. "character level") maps to classes far more readily. I think this is a problem. --DanielDraco (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't follow any of that design philosophy. --Leziad (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There is another valid design philosophy: "I was here first." Now that Leziad's made this feat, any class of the type you described would be overpowered. :P
 * It's not like classes and feats really have that sort of modular distinction anyways. --Foxwarrior (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

(DD) You may feel such, and that's fair enough, but it denies the fact it exists that way as a normal part of D&D. When making homebrew, it's important to assume your work applies to D&D as is, and not assume houserules or the addition of other homebrew elements. Part of this is because of the physical impossibility to knowing all material and its interactions. Part of this is because its impossible to know what is and isn't being used. Thus, the only thing that can be assumed to be used commonly is stuff made by WotC.

Whenever I see something like "But this spell/feat/item breaks when you combine it with the homebrew Tome Nosepicker class", it doesn't mean anything to me because it's not something you can assume to be used in play. Now, it's a GOOD thing if, once you're alerted to it, to try and nip the problem in the bud and close any loopholes, but by no means should it be a requirement. It only helps increase the adaptability of the spell/feat/item in question.

I also don't believe in downrating from a design philosophy standpoint, since if I did, I'd probably shitlist most of Tome on principle. Instead, I try to understand the intended effect and philosophy of the creator, then ask if its broken in some fashion; by broken mechanics, dissonant fluff, or unintended consequences (rather than completely intended consequences).

On this feat specifically, I find it fascinating that there's argument to such a degree over it. Single shot tactics have NEVER been good. It needs serious optimization to pull off. Sure, if you add homebrew this might chance, but as above, you cannot consider homebrew in your considerations. Out there, there might be the SUPERSNIPER class who gets a million damage a level on a single attack and nothing else. But you know, it's not something I can assume will see play.

I can instead determine how this interacts with what exists. Current feats, maneuvers, spells, and class abilities. Originally my concern was Rapid Shot, for example, but they can't actually use it so its ok. I always become concerned when there's rating based on design philosophy over other methods. It's possible to destroy any article under those methods.

Anyway, ultimately this is 1d6/lvl+normal single attack damage a round. Ask yourself, in the limits of non-homebrew, what breaks this wide open? I doubt you'd find much. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a little overly restrictive. In order for this wiki to be really convenient, it's better to at least compare with everything that exists on the wiki at this and lower balance points. --Foxwarrior (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not possible. My material alone outnumbers most what people can remember.  Hell, I can't remember it sometimes and I've made it!  I would never expect anyone to know all things I have made, it's not possible.


 * It makes sense from a DM's perspective too. Say I allow some homebrew from here.  What's more likely, I allow things on a case by case basis, or I allow "everything".  No one is that foolish.  THis even applies some to Wizard's stuff... Core is almost certain, Completes are likely, Ghostwalk of the Seven Seas of Xorait, a 3rd party splat, is pretty unlikely.  So it's fair to discount anything from these rare things.  Worry if you're compatible with Core and Complete.


 * What you imply when you say "should be balanced with homebrew" is the same thing as saying it should be balanced with GotSSoX and all 3rd party books. We're not "kosher", we're rare. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You're so mean, calling me foolish like that. It sometimes works, you know. --Foxwarrior (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "When making homebrew, it's important to assume your work applies to D&D as is, and not assume houserules or the addition of other homebrew elements. Part of this is because of the physical impossibility to knowing all material and its interactions."
 * Oh dear god no. Just the opposite. Precisely because you cannot predict everything that will be involved in the game, you must ensure that the intended functionality of your work is incorruptible. When you design under the delusion that no other homebrew will be used, you drastically increase the potential for problematic interactions. That lack of consideration is why things like Pun-Pun and the d2 Crusader happen -- once upon a time, all the things that went into those builds were homebrew (or may as well have been), and those designers didn't think about how their material's intended function might be open to interference.


 * I'm not making any argument that it breaks in combination with any specific class -- hell, I didn't produce an example until I was pressed for one. The problem is that it flings the door wide open for abuse simply by virtue of giving an ability usually restricted to class features, and stacking with those class features.


 * Honestly, I feel that I misspoke when I said it came down to design philosophy. It would be more a more apt expression of my opinion to say that it comes down to a fundamental rule of good design. Yes, there is a practical limit to how much abuse you can foresee and lock out, but this feat doesn't even get started in attempting it. Eiji, you cite unintended consequences as a valid reason to downrate an article. I don't think it's much of a stretch to go a little further and downrate on the basis of the incredibly-wide-open potential for unintented consequences.


 * As an example of how this might have broken the game, look at my Gentleman Explorer. It's based on single shots. The only thing that prevents this combo from being broken is the fact that the door was closed on the GE's side -- instead of being a full attack, Elephant Gun is a full-round action (after level 7, anyway). If it were a full attack action, both pieces of material would be balanced when you look at them individually, but would break when combined because the damage would stack. (I hesitated to pull out that example. I didn't want to just wave around my own class like a boasting jackass, but it's the only real example I know of a single-shot archer that is [nearly] broken by this feat.) --DanielDraco (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It closed on the Siege Shot side too actually. I remain unconvinced Siege shot can problematic, it don't stack with things that are not passive abilities (Sneak Attack) and more attacks if almost always better in DnD. Siege shot was made to make the single shot archer good, in homebrew or iin core. Frankly I'd rather balance with WoTC Standard than with homebrew that contain some of Fraken Kesley's article. --Leziad (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * But that's just it. What you ask for is impossible for any person to achieve.  Don't get me wrong... it's an ideal.  It should be striven for.  But it is impossible for one man to know and account for all material ever produced.  It's also impossible to account for which fragments of articles will be employed and which will not.  There's too many variables, and no DM will ever say "the entire wiki is free game", it'll always be done case by case.  Methinks you ask too much.


 * With that said, it seems to me you're just looking for some sort of disclaimer clause. Claiming something is too easily abusable is fine, but I think your case is always stronger when you bring up it screwing up with something common instead of something obscure.  If I pointed out that this breaks rangers cause of X, that is infinitely more weighty than pointing out it messes up with a class from Dragonmech's splatbook Dragon magazine expansion.  Perhaps... something like "this can't be combined with any maneuver or class ability".  Don't ask me how to word it, and its brute force as all hell, but would that solve your tiff? (Also, BLOODY EDIT CONFLICTS!  This keeps happening!) -- Eiji-kun (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have at no point claimed that "one man [should] know and account for all material ever posted". I don't know why you keep trying to frame my argument that way, when I've refuted that several times. I am only saying that reasonable precautions should be taken -- and when they are not taken, that is a flaw. I see no precautions here. A disclaimer of the sort you mentioned is exactly what I'm looking for. I admit that I don't know how it should be phrased either, but the lack of a known solution does not imply the lack of a problem. One other change that I would suggest, which is far easier, is to change it to a full-round action instead of a full attack action -- that way, it's much harder to combine with other things to yield unwanted results. --DanielDraco (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it too much to take this as a Combatant? At level 6 that is one attack at +12d6 damage, up to +40d6 at level 20, which seems like it might be overpowered.--TheDarkWad (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It only one attack though, a two-weapon fighting rogue deal much more damage. --Leziad (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)