Do swarms automatically hit and deal damage, or do they still need to beat AC?
If so, are there any penalties? Naturally, I'd assume armor wouldn't apply...

edit: nevermind, found it
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubty...m#swarmSubtype

Are the ranger's combat styles considered feats? I.e. do they qualify for other feats based on the combat style? (For instance if I took two-weapon fighting as the combat style could I choose two weapon defense as a feat?)

Yes.
However, only so long as he meets the armor restriction:
Should he wear medium/heavy armor, he looses the benefit of the combat style and thus the virtual feats - and thus the prerequisite for any follow-up feat (which would then become unusable until he meets the prereqs (i.e. switches to light armor) again.)

D&D 3.5 Question: Can the spell Steeldeance (SpC) be empowered so that the daggers deal extra damage?

Serenity RPG

There's this one manuever known as "Called Shot", where you take a penalty to an attack roll in exchange for additional damage and forcing the target to make an endurance save versus death/K.O/dismemberment. Are called shots a full round kind of action, or just a modifier placed on a normal attack action?

I ask because last night, I didn't find a clear answer in the source book and just ruled that its a modification of a normal attack. My reasoning was that I don't want to punish people with good marksmanship by depriving them of their defensive actions and don't want to eclipse the All-Out-Attack and Aim mechanics, which are full round. In response, on of my PC's (sniper who has crazy ranks in Guns: Rifle) gets this bright idea:

"Okay, I take three attack actions for the cumulative 2-step penalty, and each of these attacks is going to be a miniscule called shot--right between the eyes."

Miniscule Called Shots do an extra d12 damage and require an endurance save vs. death. He has awesome dexterity, the Talented trait for his rifle, a bunch of his skill points sunk into shooting, his targets just ate a flashbang and are stunned (one is behind cover).

Its his first action after the susprise round where they got ambushed, the party's canoe is on fire, one of the PC's is down to 50% HP and has a gimped leg, the NPC-party babbysitter has bailed out into the river to extinguish himself and has lost almost all of the good equipment (bye, laser). Sniper winds up for his three shots...

--And ends the encounter. I'm worried, because I'm sensing a major cheese in the making here; his friend reduces enemies to an Easy target with a launcher-fired flashbang, and then the sniper drops them three-by-three, hurrah (hurrah).

Should I take away the multiple called shots? I mean, I thought it was a cool trick and I'd prefer to improve the opposition instead of hobble the characters, especially since this is pretty much the sniper's only selling point. Furthermore, and I quote: "But River Tamm got to do it!"

But at the same time, no one else has equivalent capacity in their respective schticks; its not like the Companion can seduce a sheriff, pastor, and mayor all with one die roll and put a once-hostile town under heel. Also, the power level is Greenhorn, so I'm reluctant to make the enemies soul-crushing for everyone else just because he can chew through them like Mike & Ikes: The ranger-hippy character, a much more reasonable build, was already on her last leg (heh) after a Guard with a breechloader slapped her with an extraordinary success on the surprise round. Seems a little disgruntled, she's supposed to have this friendly rivalry thing going with Sniper-The-God-Of-Sharpshooting except that she can't ever practice her discreet, stealthy style before the world comes crashing down.

I'm toying with idea of making the guy's Three Course Buffet cost plot points to even attempt; people seem to get really excited whenever plot points come out, and I guess that would reinforce the cinematic mystique of the manuever while limiting how often it comes into play. Win-win? If so, how much should it cost? I'm thinking...two?

Another stipulation I was considering is that the enemies should have to be roughly the same range and direction for him to get into the groove, and that all three have to be in immediate succession--no skipping a guy or selectively targeting only the important ones, just three melons in a row. Does this sound fair? What I don't like about this is that it requires mapping and facing considerations, a whole can of worms that has really slowed things down in the past and was not fun.

Alternatives include just giving fighter-type enemies inhumanly good saves (they already have 5w damage reduction, which is why the PC goes for the save-vs-death shot to bypass that whole rigamarole.) The enemies usually use cover, grenades, plot points, ambush tactics and my personal favorite for dynamic duos like sniper and grenadier, divide-and-conquer.


I hope I wasn't too wordy for the thread. Actual questions are bolded for digestability

:-/

3.5 Question:
In the CWar (Maybe it was the CAdv), there's a feat called Acrobatic Tumble, or the like.
In the table, it says it give a +6 to the next attack roll against an enemy you tumble by, while in the actual description it gives a +4. Which should I go by?

Generally speaking, text trumps tables.

M'kay. Thanks.

Spyglass,

I would say make it cost 1 plot point per additional target he is attempting to show at with that technique, that should make the manuver's 'game breakage' fit in well with the idea of what he is doing.

That seems reasonable to me. Mixed in with at least occasional improved tactics/saves, it allows him to do his thing from time to time, but not utterly walk away with the game.