Talk:Distracting Barrage (3.5e Feat)

Ratings

	Foxwarrior dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	As Surgo was saying, this is like flanking for ranged attacks; just like flanking, this gets ridiculous with large power disparities. Unlike flanking, because this is a single target ranged effect, it has few cool geometric influences on combat to make the CR 1/2 usage forgivable.

Wait... so it's okay for an effect like this to be used by a wizard as a spell (Crushing Despair for example), but not by a fighter guy?

Huh, I guess fighters can't have nice things... --Ghostwheel 04:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comparison isn't a good one here, as the spell allows a save to avoid. There is no save or attack roll or other sort of activation roll with this, it just works all the time. As a result it is useful against creatures who might otherwise ignore you, while the spell is unlikely to work on a creature who might otherwise ignore you. That discrepancy and auto-hit seems to be what Surgo and Fox are referring to, not the power itself. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 04:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Curse of Impending Blades then. -2 to defenses rather than attacks, no save. There's even a mass version--have a single level 5 wizard travel with you when you're level 15 and have him cast just that for the same effect. How's that any different? That said, if that's truly the problem, then there's an easy solution. --Ghostwheel 05:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

	Surgo is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	Now that the flavor is fixed, the feat at least fits a bit better into the D&D universe. It works about as well as some other abilities do, it's just not particularly exciting.

So... *headtilt* Let me see if I understand; you're opposing this feat based on the feat's flavor and name rather than the mechanics, is that correct?

If I were to rename it "penalizing super magic shot" or "gnat's annoyance" and change the flavor to "you apply negative effects to opponents by enchanting your arrows as you shoot them with magical might that you get from taking this feat" would your rating change dramatically? --Ghostwheel 00:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

	TK-Squared likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	It goes a good way in attempt to make ranged builds interesting.

Jota likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.

Expanded options are always good. Options for ranged combat, somewhat the red-haired stepchild to melee combat, are also nice. Given the ability to take a full attack from nearly anywhere I'm not sure it will see a lot of use before it's available as a swift action, though I can understand the imposition of such a limit for balance reasons. We've been over the significance back of -1 and +1 many times, but I think the area spray is also rather weak. I would point to the expected lifespan for creatures vs. players when making my argument as to the significance of the single digit, but overall it's still a reasonable feat.

	Eiji-kun likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	Hmm, being able to attack and still do something else useful (via move or swift action) is good. The mass bonus isn't too hot but the focused bonus is perfect for pinning down opponents and making life difficult. Basically I would get this feat for the focused effect, since the -1 isn't enough to matter. An effective debuff for that. I approve.

	ThunderGod Cid likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	What others above said (viable ranged characters, options, etc.), in addition to it being a potentially devastating individual debuff if you have some other source of penalties with which to shut down the opponent.

	Undead Knave likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	This is actually a valid choice for a feat now. I approve.

Attack Rolls Only?

The morale penalty only applies against attack rolls? Shouldn't it apply to skill, ability, and damage rolls also? --Havvy 04:04, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Why should it be to those? (Not too many people care about those in combat anyway, so unsure what difference it'd make...) --Ghostwheel 04:47, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

About those debuff amounts...

Note that -3 is effectively a 30% decrease if the character starts at a 50% chance of success. --Aarnott 16:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also I'd hope that it's at the end of a one-feat "chain" (:-P) as people would take this feat. --Ghostwheel 17:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There does seem to be a general consensus that the "-1" part is pretty lame, however. Perhaps if you had it deal some minor amount of damage (or reduce AC as well), it would be up to par. --Aarnott 21:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of for keeping the -1 so low is that it affects everyone in like 100' of you if you're using a bow. The circular radius part is equally lame as far as I'm concerned (I think a cone much more appropriate), as is the fact that that it affects your allies. I'd basically never use that portion of it. I'd consider using the -3 once in a while, since it affects ability save DCs, but never against spellcasters since I could instead be readied manyshotting them instead and just interrupt the damn thing.

So it's either simultaneously too broad and weak for me to want to use it, or not as good as other things that I could be doing. There are some situations where it would be valuable, but I don't see them coming up all that often. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 21:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It takes a move action to use, so you can do this and your multishot. --Aarnott 21:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I misread that then, and will ponder that while I revise my opinion. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 22:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That does make it a better call in general, but not for reasons that I particularly like. Now the targeted one is something I use whenever I don't need to move, because it's an automatic ranged debuff that just costs some ammo (and that shit is cheap). So instead of my original read that it was an inferior use of a standard action, it looks now like an amazing use of a move action while I ready my manyshot. I still probably never use the large scale one though, since my allies are targets under a strict reading. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 23:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

How does this actually work?

Are you actually making 5 shots/throws, or just making one with a pile of stuff? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 21:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If I understand, it's suppressing fire. You're not hitting anyone, you're spraying fire to keep them dodging and cowering. The 5 ammo restriction is there to make sure you have the ammo needed to spray fire around. -- Eiji-kun 21:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That's why I didn't call it an attack. What I want to know is if you're loading 5 arrows in your bow and shooting (or 5 daggers in your hand, or whatever), or if you're just making 5 really inaccurate shots. Because the inclusion of bolts for a crossbow is weird in either interpretation. They don't fire 5 at a time (though you could maybe argue that they could), and 5 separate shots means that you need to be reloading as a free action instead of a move. It's something that bugged me when I read it. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 21:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Touche. Rapid Shot works better fluffwise for crossbows. Probably would replace Precise Shot IMO (which Precise Shot actually is strange since this is very much not precise...) -- Eiji-kun 21:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, old school guns are retardedly slow. As in you were considered freakishly fast is you can get off five shots in a minute slow. Thus I suggest that that rapid shot be a requirement for all muzzleloaders, gun or crossbow.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 00:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Always meant it to be targets you choose. Replaced "target" with enemy". And remember that as soon as you hit level 9, it's a swift action. I may change the penalty to -2 instead of -3. But yeah, it's basically a free minor debuff for anyone with a ranged weapon. --Ghostwheel 00:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Further edits - MS convinces. --Ghostwheel 01:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

CommFave

By the new standards, this does not qualify as a community favorite. Should it be removed from rotation, or are old ones grandfathered in? --DanielDraco 20:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I was planning on grandfathering things in until enough ratings had been updated for it to be clear that they no longer qualified, or enough new ratings were added that it was clear they could no longer qualify. With Surgo's addition here, this probably fits those criteria now. So yes, unless you can think of a problem with that plan it should probably be removed from rotation. I would still like to give articles a week before making that change though. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 23:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it at your discretion--it wouldn't have hit commfav anyhow. --Ghostwheel 01:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)