Question about ranged attack penalties


Rules Questions


Okay, in a mod with my new level 1 ranger we were fighting skeletons down a hall, I was told that in order to hit this skeleton (m) that was in melee with an ally (a) I (i) would take both the -4 shooting onto melee as well as the -4 for cover that my ally was granting to the mob.

I don't think these should stack, since in essence it's like penalizing me twice for the same thing. and a basic board setup looked like this;

---------------------------
(m)(a) (i)
---------------------------

Now honestly, I never played 3.5 (haven't played since '94 with 2.0 rules.) so the group I play with know the rules better than I, it's just that this seemed really odd to me and put me at a -8 to hit and could only hit the skeleton with a roll of 19-20, which for a first level mod just seems kinda out of whack.


The -4 to shoot into melee is due to the soft cover rules. Precise shot allows you to ignore that. You are correct.

Dark Archive

Assuming this is a 5 foot wide hall.

First alternative... The slow retreat.

Have your ally (a) five foot away from the skeleton (m) at the end of each of his turns. You'll need to ready or hold your action until after your ally's turn but before the skeleton's turn.

---------------------------
(m) (a) (i)
---------------------------

Second alternative... The tumbler.

Have your ally (a) tumble to the other side of the skeleton (m), so it looks like this:

---------------------------
(a)(m) (i)
---------------------------

Now the monster doesn't get soft cover from your ally. You'd still take a -4 penalty for your ally being in melee with the skeleton.

Second alternative revised... The tumbler followed by the slow retreat.

---------------------------
(a) (m) (i)
---------------------------

Yeah, that's right. His first turn, your ally tumbles behind the skeleton (m) and every turn after that, he finishes his action by five footing away. Now you take no penalty.

Watch out for monsters with high intelligence and wisdom. If they realize you're doing all the damage, they'll have a clean run straight at you.


I've always played with these two penalties stacking.

The melee penalty being caused by the target moving to avoid attacks from your ally. Note that adjacent enemies don't incur this penalty.
The cover penalty being caused by you ally or an enemy blocking your attack.

The way to avoid these penalties is to play tactically and use teamwork like trikreed suggests.
Or by taking the Precise Shot and Improved precise Shot feats.
If the penalties were not to stack, why design two feats to do the same?


nidho wrote:

I've always played with these two penalties stacking.

The melee penalty being caused by the target moving to avoid attacks from your ally. Note that adjacent enemies don't incur this penalty.
The cover penalty being caused by you ally or an enemy blocking your attack.

The way to avoid these penalties is to play tactically and use teamwork like trikreed suggests.
Or by taking the Precise Shot and Improved precise Shot feats.
If the penalties were not to stack, why design two feats to do the same?

The second feat is to avoid cover penalties such as hiding behind a wall since precise shot does nothing for hard cover.


wraithstrike wrote:
nidho wrote:

I've always played with these two penalties stacking.

The melee penalty being caused by the target moving to avoid attacks from your ally. Note that adjacent enemies don't incur this penalty.
The cover penalty being caused by you ally or an enemy blocking your attack.

The way to avoid these penalties is to play tactically and use teamwork like trikreed suggests.
Or by taking the Precise Shot and Improved precise Shot feats.
If the penalties were not to stack, why design two feats to do the same?

The second feat is to avoid cover penalties such as hiding behind a wall since precise shot does nothing for hard cover.

I want to believe you, this rule is really annoying for archers, but in my opinion IPS still is required against soft cover beacause PS does nothing to avoid it. There's this scenario:

---------------------------
(a) (m) (i)
---------------------------

where PS is needed to avoid the melee penalty, but there's absolutely no possible cover(soft or hard) for (m) from (i)...


nidho wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
nidho wrote:

I've always played with these two penalties stacking.

The melee penalty being caused by the target moving to avoid attacks from your ally. Note that adjacent enemies don't incur this penalty.
The cover penalty being caused by you ally or an enemy blocking your attack.

The way to avoid these penalties is to play tactically and use teamwork like trikreed suggests.
Or by taking the Precise Shot and Improved precise Shot feats.
If the penalties were not to stack, why design two feats to do the same?

The second feat is to avoid cover penalties such as hiding behind a wall since precise shot does nothing for hard cover.

I want to believe you, this rule is really annoying for archers, but in my opinion IPS still is required against soft cover beacause PS does nothing to avoid it. There's this scenario:

---------------------------
(a) (m) (i)
---------------------------

where PS is needed to avoid the melee penalty, but there's absolutely no possible cover(soft or hard) for (m) from (i)...

Reading it again, it does seem to that you may be right. I think a -8 is just too much, but the penalty does lessen with the distance between creatures, and also depends on the size difference between two creatures.

That is one of those things I will continue to ignore, especially since Improved Precise Shot is not available until your BAB is 11.

As for the OP, I can only suggest that you pick up precise shot, and improved precise shot with your bonus feats so you have them by level 6, and pick up a melee weapon for when the -8 is not avoidable.


Let's try to add some clarity here.

You always need Precise Shot to fire into melee unhindered, even when there are no obstacles:

(m)......(i)
(a)

and

(a) (m)......(i)

and

(m) (a)......(i)

All three of these scenarios cause you to take a -4 penalty when firing into melee. The reason is that you are being extra super careful to miss y our ally. You are aiming so far away from the ally that it reduces your chance to hit the monster.

Unless you take Precise Shot, in which case you are able to aim closer to your ally, aiming and timing the shot with great precision, and you no longer suffer the -4 penalty in any of those situations.

Cover is something else entirely.

(m) (t).......(i)

(m)......(t).......(i)

In these two situations, (t) is a tree. The tree gives the monster cover. Your ally does not give cover because, in this example, you don't even have an ally. Just the monster, a tree, and you.

Note that in the second situation, the monster is not even close to the tree, but he still gets cover from it.

(m) (m).......(i)

(m).......(m).......(i)

Similar situations, except the monster farthest from you is getting cover from a second monster that is between you and the first monster. You can shoot the nearest monster that has no cover, or try to shoot past it at the farthest monster that has cover.

Again, in the second situation, the two monsters are not near each other, but the farthest still gets cover from the nearest.

(m) (a).......(i)

(m).......(a).......(i)

In these two cases, the mosnter gets cover from your ally. In the first case, your ally is in melee with the monster. In the second case your ally is a fellow archer that causes the monster to have cover.

All of these situations are identical. The cover is caused by something being in the direct line between you and your target. It does not matter whether that cover is near or far, so long as it is in your direct line of fire. It does not matter whether that cover is a tree, a monster, or an ally.

In exactly one of these 6 Cover cases you have an ally in melee range of your target. In that one case, both penalties apply. Firing into melee and Cover. You take a -8 penalty (actually, I believe cover adds to the target's AC, so really you take a -4 for firing into melee and the enemy gets +4 AC for the cover).

And as a final note, you can take any of those cover examples and add an ally in melee range, and suddenly both penalties apply again, such as this, for example:

(m)......(t).......(i)
(a)

From your perspective, your ally is off to the side, but you still have to "aim away" from him to be sure you don't accidentally hit him, so the -4 penalty applies for firing into melee, unless you have Precise Shot. And because there is a tree in your direct line of fire, your target has cover, too.

And a final note about cover. The cases where the cover is a tree are examples of "cover". The cases where the cover is your ally or another monster are examples of "soft cover". But in these cases, the term "soft cover" is irrelevant. It still gives your target +4 AC against your missile fire. It doesn't matter unless you're trying to hit him with a spell like Cone of Cold, in which case "soft cover" won't help him like real "cover"

Hopefully this clears it all up.

Dark Archive

DM_Blake wrote:


All three of these scenarios cause you to take a -4 penalty when firing into melee. The reason is that you are being extra super careful to miss y our ally. You are aiming so far away from the ally that it reduces your chance to hit the monster.

I believe you may have misunderstood my post and incorrectly misquoted my examples and second guessed my post based on this. Let me just clarify.

In the examples given, both Khalanad's and mine, there is clearly a difference. (Admittedly this is difficult to see.)

---------------------------
(m)(a) (i)
---------------------------
---------------------------
(m) (a) (i)
---------------------------
---------------------------
(a)(m) (i)
---------------------------
---------------------------
(a) (m) (i)
---------------------------

The diffence is that in #2 and #4, there is a 5 foot square now between (a) and (m), or (m) and (a). Thus no -4 penalty for shooting into melee.

So again (using the original hallway example) with '.' to indicate empty five foot squares (instead of the spaces I originally used), it would look like this:

---------------------------
.....(m)(a).....(i)..
---------------------------
---------------------------
.....(m).(a).....(i).
---------------------------
---------------------------
.....(a)(m).....(i)..
---------------------------
---------------------------
.....(a).(m).....(i).
---------------------------

So my point is very much valid.

Round 1. Skeleton Attacks. Ally attacks and tumbles to far side of the Skeleton removing himself as a potential source of cover. Archer fires at skeleton at -4 penalty for being in melee.

Round 2. Skeleton Attacks. Ally attacks and takes a 5 foot step back, removing the 'in melee' condition. Archer fires at skeleton at -0 penalty.

Note: Having an archer stay out of the first 20 feet when possible will prevent many monsters from charging the poor archer instead of taking a five foot to the archer's ally and full rounding... while still allowing the archer to get the bonus from Point Blank Shot.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 8

Since the two negatives are from different sources, cover and opponent being in melee, my groups have always assumed they stacked.

On a side related note, what happened to hitting your friend in the back by accident.

Back in 3.0, they had rules for hitting cover that I had not realized had been removed up until now.

In 3.0 you checked to see if your attack roll would have hit before cover, and if it would hit you would check the statistics of the item, or creature, providing cover. If the character would not have been hit due to dexterity or dodge bonuses, then the intended target is hit, otherwise the cover is hit. My groups always ruled that a total +4 bonus would essentially negate the cover an ally would give to enemy he or she was in combat with.

They got rid of hitting cover in 3.5 as far as I can see, and Paizo didn't add anything about it either. Take the -8 to hit with your piercing weapons against the skelly, and be happy that you don't have to explain to your teammates why Mr. (a) has arrows sticking out of his back.


I simply took the -4 for shooting into a melee as being the extra care needed to not hit the 'cover' which happens to be the friendly player.

I don't agree that its -4 for a melee, and -4 because my buddy is in the way - why would simply the act of being in melee bring an additional -4 chance to hit?


Shifty wrote:

I simply took the -4 for shooting into a melee as being the extra care needed to not hit the 'cover' which happens to be the friendly player.

I don't agree that its -4 for a melee, and -4 because my buddy is in the way - why would simply the act of being in melee bring an additional -4 chance to hit?

Try shooting into a melee where you don't care about either person... you'll still have a hard time hitting your target. Melee causes too much movement... having someone in the way causes your target to be concealed... the problems while related are different.

Sovereign Court

Because the creatures in the melee are not standing still in front of each other in some kind of staring contest, they are ducking and weaving and hopping and swinging etc etc etc. Firing into a melee is harder even if your allies are not between you and your target because you are taking care not to accidently shoot your friends. In fact, you are SO good at not shooting your friends, you never do.


Twowlves wrote:


Because the creatures in the melee are not standing still in front of each other in some kind of staring contest, they are ducking and weaving and hopping and swinging etc etc etc.

Uhuh, which means they wont be in 'cover' for the whole time, and that a limited window to 'shoot' will come available - but the time waiting and the limited opportunity is what (in my mind) constitutes a -4, a similar challenge to trying to hit someone bobbing about sniping from cover.

So in short I don't think the penalties should stack, but I DO think some consideration needs to be made about what happens to an errant arrow... it will likely hit SOMETHING.

And with a melee, do I have to take any minuses if I just want to shoot into it and don't actually care who gets hit? :p


Shifty wrote:


And with a melee, do I have to take any minuses if I just want to shoot into it and don't actually care who gets hit? :p

You aren't listening, it still matters because you still have to place the shot. Otherwise you'll simply bounce the arrow off of something non-important or do a minimal hit for no damage. If someone is ducking and weaving like that (in melee) it's hard to hit a point that's actually going to do any good. In addition if someone is standing between you and the target it's just that much harder in addition to the bobbing and weaving (which is against the guy in your way too).


Shifty wrote:
Twowlves wrote:


Because the creatures in the melee are not standing still in front of each other in some kind of staring contest, they are ducking and weaving and hopping and swinging etc etc etc.

Uhuh, which means they wont be in 'cover' for the whole time, and that a limited window to 'shoot' will come available - but the time waiting and the limited opportunity is what (in my mind) constitutes a -4, a similar challenge to trying to hit someone bobbing about sniping from cover.

Have you even read all the posts in this thread?


nidho wrote:


Have you even read all the posts in this thread?

I have, and I happen to agree with him. The attack penalty is imposed because the archer is trying to avoid hitting his ally. Treating the ally as both 'cover' and 'in melee' constitutes applying the penalty twice.

Not to mention that from a game balance perspective, it completely denies the archer the ability to contribute to the encounter.


I do not claim that the following is how the rules are meant to be interpreted, but I have always played that the penalty is only -4, and precise shot negates it- and never much worried about the exact positioning.
Most of the time, I have also played that, when firing into a melee, a natural 1 on an attack roll, means that the ally closest to the target is struck (which has never been in the rules).


Thanks Nidho and Abraham,

I have indeed read the forum at lenghth, I just don't happen to agree with you.

By taking a couple of the claims made in this thread to their natural conclusions...

* If I have a pile of guys in a huge heap tackling each other, the whole 10 foot high pile of bodies is -4 to hit, because they are ducking and weaving.

* From now on I will claim that all my characters being fired upon, in melee or otherwise, are 'ducking and weaving' adding a -4, even though that is what a high Dex is supposed to represent (ie the ability to be ducking and weaving making their AC improve)

So yeah, in short, I just don't agree.

The various modifiers are already accounted for, you don't get to double dip them.


Except being in a grapple is different too, and being prone is different as well giving different penalties in addition to those you started with.

When you fire you are aiming at someone... if you don't care which you hit aim for the closer one he is easier to hit. If you aim for the 'far' one he will be harder to hit. More so than just for being in melee.


Abraham spalding wrote:
When you fire you are aiming at someone...

Really?

Im firing at a pile, that happens to be full of bodies.

The pile has a large mass, so I aim generally at the center of it (CMASS) and let rip.

How is this still picking a target?

The arrow will probably smack into it somewhere - I don't care where, as long as it tags the 'pile', so why am I taking -4 to hit what is essentially a target at least twice man sized?


At that point, as a DM I would probably randomly assign the damage to a body... if you hit the melee.

Even then your random shot probably won't get anyone significantly... after all you aren't going to be using deadly aim, or point blank shot so no damage from that (can't be deadly with your aim if you aren't aim...can't fire point blank at a target if you aren't aiming at a target).


Mynameisjake wrote:
nidho wrote:


Have you even read all the posts in this thread?

I have, and I happen to agree with him. The attack penalty is imposed because the archer is trying to avoid hitting his ally. Treating the ally as both 'cover' and 'in melee' constitutes applying the penalty twice.

Not at all.

The archer gets a penalty to hit for shooting into melee.
And his opponent gets a bonus to AC for having cover.
They are two different modifiers and they stack.
Different conditions are necessary to trigger them. If some situations generate all these conditions then all the consequences should apply.

You claim to have read the posts but you seem to be ignoring them. Specially the ones where people has made the effort to provide different scenarios and analyzed them.

Quote:


Not to mention that from a game balance perspective, it completely denies the archer the ability to contribute to the encounter.

Why? Because it has to get a favorable position to avoid penalties? That's hardly a drawback considering the benefits of archery. And there's feats to offset these penalties.

Want to pull off your full attack volley? Tell your ally to adjust it's position to give you a clear shot just like he adjusts to give the rogue flanking. It's not that difficult.


Shifty wrote:

Thanks Nidho and Abraham,

I have indeed read the forum at lenghth, I just don't happen to agree with you.

By taking a couple of the claims made in this thread to their natural conclusions...

* If I have a pile of guys in a huge heap tackling each other, the whole 10 foot high pile of bodies is -4 to hit, because they are ducking and weaving.

* From now on I will claim that all my characters being fired upon, in melee or otherwise, are 'ducking and weaving' adding a -4, even though that is what a high Dex is supposed to represent (ie the ability to be ducking and weaving making their AC improve)

So yeah, in short, I just don't agree.

The various modifiers are already accounted for, you don't get to double dip them.

There is a penalty for both. It sucks and I house rule it out of the game, but it is RAW.

Anytime you are shooting into melee you take -4.

If your buddy is between you and the enemy he is providing soft cover and gives another -4

If the soft cover was the same as the penalty for firing into melee then your buddy or you(the archer) could simply reposition themselves to get rid of it. You will notice that precise shot specifically excludes shooting into melee, but says nothing about soft cover(which can come in various forms).

Improved precise shot ignores all cover expect total cover.

As you can see from what I bolded in the feats below one takes care of shooting into melee and the other takes care of cover.

-------------------------
Precise Shot (Combat)

You are adept at firing ranged attacks into melee.

Prerequisite: Point-Blank Shot.

Benefit: You can shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee without taking the standard –4 penalty on your attack roll.

---------------------------
Improved Precise Shot (Combat)

Your ranged attacks ignore anything but total concealment and cover.

Prerequisites: Dex 19, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.

Normal: See the normal rules on the effects of cover and concealment in Combat.

Edit: I will print the cover rules also.

Cover

To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.

Technically it is not a -4. The cover gives a +4 AC bonus to the enemy but it is mathmatically the same thing.


The last post was long than I wanted it to be so basically you have a -4 for shooting into melee, and the enemy also gets a +4 to AC if your buddy is between you and him.


The soft cover also applies for reach weapons if you are going over your allies in front of you.


Well we are just going to have to agree to disagree here.

Shooting into a melee is difficult because the person is deemed to have cover from other combatants, hence you have -4 to hit, due to that 'cover'

The notion that they are "ducking and weaving" is something that would be taking place REGARDLESS of their melee state (short of being caught flat-footed), which is covered in their DEX bonus (if applicable).

Other than the notion that cover is being offered by 'other bodies in mele'e, the act of being in a melee in and of itself is not a state that would further induce additional penalties, or the rules would have clearly stated in the same stanza that both modifiers should be brought to bear.

It doesn't, however, and hence they shouldn't.


Abraham spalding wrote:
The soft cover also applies for reach weapons if you are going over your allies in front of you.

True, and I ignore that one also. I guess I should inform the group so the other DM. He should at least have a choice when he is DM'ing.


Shifty wrote:

Thanks Nidho and Abraham,

I have indeed read the forum at lenghth, I just don't happen to agree with you.

By taking a couple of the claims made in this thread to their natural conclusions...

* If I have a pile of guys in a huge heap tackling each other, the whole 10 foot high pile of bodies is -4 to hit, because they are ducking and weaving.

The combat rules assume all the combattants are single entities.

That heap of bodies of yours would be considered a crowd or by the system.
By the way the rules for treating with crowds are in the environment section.

Quote:


* From now on I will claim that all my characters being fired upon, in melee or otherwise, are 'ducking and weaving' adding a -4, even though that is what a high Dex is supposed to represent (ie the ability to be ducking and weaving making their AC improve)

You mean actively ducking and weaving? As in total defense? +4 to AC for you, of course. ;)

Quote:


So yeah, in short, I just don't agree.

Congratulations you expressed your opinion.

Quote:


The various modifiers are already accounted for, you don't get to double dip them.

They're different, one's a penalty and the other a bonus and they apply to different recipients. They stack.

edit: wow, lots of things happening while I'm away...


Shifty wrote:

Well we are just going to have to agree to disagree here.

Shooting into a melee is difficult because the person is deemed to have cover from other combatants, hence you have -4 to hit, due to that 'cover'

The notion that they are "ducking and weaving" is something that would be taking place REGARDLESS of their melee state (short of being caught flat-footed), which is covered in their DEX bonus (if applicable).

Other than the notion that cover is being offered by 'other bodies in mele'e, the act of being in a melee in and of itself is not a state that would further induce additional penalties, or the rules would have clearly stated in the same stanza that both modifiers should be brought to bear.

It doesn't, however, and hence they shouldn't.

The rules clearly separate the two.

One applies due to the placement of minis on the mat, and the other applies all the time, unless you can find verbage to suggest otherwise. A -4 to hit, and a bonus to AC are clearly two different things.

In addition

Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)

Once again its own little entry and it is not in the "cover" section


Im sorry Shifty but Id have to rule with the majority here.

There are 2 different modifiers for 2 different events.

-4 to YOUR hit chance for firing into melee (attack roll penalty)

+4 to TARGETS AC for firing through soft cover (AC bonus).

Effectively this can be treated as either a -8 to your to hit chance or +8 to their AC but the reality is that it is 2 different circumstance modifiers that are occurring.

Nowhere does it state that if you fire into a melee you can ignore the effects of softcover if the cause of that soft cover is the meleer.

Edit:
Seems others ninja'ed my post reasons.

Also there are 2 separate feats that allow you to ignore each of one of these situations.

*sigh* as was mentioned before (ninja'ed again :P )


My point is that you are taking the -4 because they are behind softcover, ie other melee participants.

I am arguing that it doesn't make sense to pay the penalty twice.

Player: "ok I shoot into the melee and nail the orc"
DM: "OK its -4 to shoot into the combat"
Player: "why is that?"
DM: "Because its hard to hit the person, there's another person in the way you need to shoot past, this is making them harder to hit"
Player: "Oh fair enough, ok I'll still shoot at them... -4 you say"
DM: "No, -8"
Player: "Huh?"
DM: "The Orc is behind cover"
Player: "What cover"
DM: "The same 'cover' I just charged you a -4 for shooting past".

So yeah, that's how I see it.

It seems odd that in the first instance the penalty for firing into melee takes into account the size of the various protagonists in a combat (ie inferring how much cover they are providing) and then separately re-assigning cover values elsewhere in the ruleset.

As I say, its my opinion based upon looking at what the RAW is trying to achieve, that said, I can appreciate both sides of the argument.

Perhaps some kind Dev would come along and set the story straight at some point.


Shifty wrote:

My point is that you are taking the -4 because they are behind softcover, ie other melee participants.

I am arguing that it doesn't make sense to pay the penalty twice.

Player: "ok I shoot into the melee and nail the orc"
DM: "OK its -4 to shoot into the combat"
Player: "why is that?"
DM: "Because its hard to hit the person, there's another person in the way you need to shoot past, this is making them harder to hit"
Player: "Oh fair enough, ok I'll still shoot at them... -4 you say"
DM: "No, -8"
Player: "Huh?"
DM: "The Orc is behind cover"
Player: "What cover"
DM: "The same 'cover' I just charged you a -4 for shooting past".

So yeah, that's how I see it.

It seems odd that in the first instance the penalty for firing into melee takes into account the size of the various protagonists in a combat (ie inferring how much cover they are providing) and then separately re-assigning cover values elsewhere in the ruleset.

As I say, its my opinion based upon looking at what the RAW is trying to achieve, that said, I can appreciate both sides of the argument.

Perhaps some kind Dev would come along and set the story straight at some point.

One person's bonus to AC is not another person's penalty. Penalties and bonuses are two completely seperate things in the game. I do think it's harsh, but the fairness is not what we are discussing. The discussion is what the rules actually state.


concerro wrote:
I do think it's harsh, but the fairness is not what we are discussing. The discussion is what the rules actually state.

On this point we do agree :)

Anyhow, in final summation:

A doubling up of an effect seems more like a rules oversight to me, and the RAW are far from perfect, hence why we all have such a good time debating them.

As I say, perhaps some kind Dev will set the record straight.


Shifty wrote:
concerro wrote:
I do think it's harsh, but the fairness is not what we are discussing. The discussion is what the rules actually state.

On this point we do agree :)

Anyhow, in final summation:

A doubling up of an effect seems more like a rules oversight to me, and the RAW are far from perfect, hence why we all have such a good time debating them.

As I say, perhaps some kind Dev will set the record straight.

But its not a rules doubling up. It was that way in 3.5 also. They are two completely different rules.

They might look over it again and errata it to change it, but that does not affect the standing as of right now.

It is no different than a caster who is in a grapple and taking damage while casting a spell have to deal with both events.

I don't think I can convince you though, since I have posted all relevant rules. I will leave it alone until after the 1st or until evidence shows up that points in the other direction.


The case for what the rules actually are (RAW) is clear. Allies provide cover for your enemies, raising their armor class.

However, this is frequently ignored, because it is unpopular with many people, and arguably doesn't make any more sense than simply ruling that your allies do not provide cover for your enemies, and I think that many gamers would like it to simply disappear.

I am one of them


Dilvish the Danged wrote:

The case for what the rules actually are (RAW) is clear. Allies provide cover for your enemies, raising their armor class.

However, this is frequently ignored, because it is unpopular with many people, and arguably doesn't make any more sense than simply ruling that your allies do not provide cover for your enemies, and I think that many gamers would like it to simply disappear.

I am one of them

I do agree that its an unpopular rule, and I have yet to play in one group that enforces it. With that said it may as well be changed.


We enforce it regularly and truthfully don't consider it a bad thing. For one it reflects what we have found to be true in life -- it's hard to hit a guy in melee... it's hard to hit a guy with cover... and it's just about doubly hard to hit a guy in melee with cover.

In addition it does quite the number on ranged touch attacks, and helps for the fact that archers can full attack almost at will with little to no issue and with more attacks to boot. It hasn't completely nerfed ranged combat and most people stop shooting into melee as soon as it is joined. Those that don't usually take the feats and don't mind doing so as it gives them a very much feared ability to reach out and hurt someone when they want to.


Abraham spalding wrote:

We enforce it regularly and truthfully don't consider it a bad thing. For one it reflects what we have found to be true in life -- it's hard to hit a guy in melee... it's hard to hit a guy with cover... and it's just about doubly hard to hit a guy in melee with cover.

In addition it does quite the number on ranged touch attacks, and helps for the fact that archers can full attack almost at will with little to no issue and with more attacks to boot. It hasn't completely nerfed ranged combat and most people stop shooting into melee as soon as it is joined. Those that don't usually take the feats and don't mind doing so as it gives them a very much feared ability to reach out and hurt someone when they want to.

I will try it to see how it works out, but if I disappear I blame my group. :)

Sovereign Court

Shifty wrote:
A doubling up of an effect seems more like a rules oversight to me, and the RAW are far from perfect, hence why we all have such a good time debating them.

Not a rules "oversight", it's working exactly as intended. There is no "doubling up", one is a penalty, one is a bonus. Taking a -8 to hit a guy in melee with cover is how the rules are written to work, because that's how they are intended to work.

There are feats specifically designed to mitigate both of these modifiers. Ignoring these rules makes those feats worthless. If my guy is under the effect of a Haste spell and yours is under a Slow spell, would you complain that these shouldn't "stack"?

"Shifty' wrote:
As I say, perhaps some kind Dev will set the record straight.

They did. They even put it in print, under "Firing into melee" and "Cover" in the core rulebook.


Twowlves wrote:
Shifty wrote:
A doubling up of an effect seems more like a rules oversight to me, and the RAW are far from perfect, hence why we all have such a good time debating them.

Not a rules "oversight", it's working exactly as intended. There is no "doubling up", one is a penalty, one is a bonus. Taking a -8 to hit a guy in melee with cover is how the rules are written to work, because that's how they are intended to work.

There are feats specifically designed to mitigate both of these modifiers. Ignoring these rules makes those feats worthless. If my guy is under the effect of a Haste spell and yours is under a Slow spell, would you complain that these shouldn't "stack"?

"Shifty' wrote:
As I say, perhaps some kind Dev will set the record straight.

They did. They even put it in print, under "Firing into melee" and "Cover" in the core rulebook.

+1 to both ;)

I'm using my bow too, with a Ranger, and it does makes shooting into melee harder.

But in ALL my other sessions with DnD, I'm usually the ONLY person who gets mad when someone shoots an arrow (or shoots a gun) while I'm in melee.

It's supposed to hard as hell, because there is a VERY large chance to hit your ally. And I think Pathfinder did the right thing.

Now .. you HAVE to take the precise shot feat to negate the penalty. Small deal, and then you just have to be more careful where to stand. The cover only exists when you can't draw a straight line.

So you just move once and shoot. No more cover, and the precise shot feat takes care of the other -4 penalty.

It's not that hard ... you just have to place yourself as an archer more strategically :)

-TDL

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Khalanad wrote:

Okay, in a mod with my new level 1 ranger we were fighting skeletons down a hall, I was told that in order to hit this skeleton (m) that was in melee with an ally (a) I (i) would take both the -4 shooting onto melee as well as the -4 for cover that my ally was granting to the mob.

I don't think these should stack, since in essence it's like penalizing me twice for the same thing. and a basic board setup looked like this;

Remember all the times you collected multiple stacking bonuses becasue they were of different types? Now is when you find that penalties of different types stack just as well. Firing into melee is a circumstance penalty, The placement you had induced a cover penalty... so yes.. there are times when it really sucks to be a low level archer.

Your DM was right. It's up to you as the strategic players to change the battlefield.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Both modifiers stack, and both are needed. It can be harsh, but it makes sense - you just *don't* shoot a bow or a gun at someone right behind a friend who's fighting them. And there really is a difference between shooting over a friend's shoulder at someone a distance away, and shooting at someone they are swinging at.

Personally, I think of the melee penalty as more of a shield bonus - your ally's armor or weapon could block the shot and you need to avoid that. It's really just a conglomeration of possible things that give a generic penalty.

Pathfinder *did* make a change though - at least I think it's a change. You only take half the penalty if it's a large creature and you can aim elsewhere, away from any ally.


I'm pretty sure every group I've been in follows the written rule, which is applying 'firing into melee' and 'cover' separately.

Partly because any archer worth his salt is going to be taking precise shot at his earliest convenience, anyway.

As for why separately... are you really suggesting that the -4 penalty for shooting into melee considers your ally 'soft cover' when the penalty applies just as much if your ally is on the opposite side, off to the right or left, or whatnot?

If you remember 3e, the rule was different: if you fire into melee and miss, there was a chance at hitting an ally. Precise shot (if I remember right) skipped the chance at hitting an ally.

3.5e and onward simply rolls that into 'being more careful about shot placement.'


TDLofCC wrote:
It's supposed to hard as hell, because there is a VERY large chance to hit your ally. And I think Pathfinder did the right thing.

Well....50% chance :p

I take the line from Braveheart -

Longshanks: Archers.
English Commander: I beg pardon sire. Won't we hit our own troops ?
Longshanks: Yes... but we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack.

As I say, I see both sides of the argument.

PS is about firing into melee, IPS adds a lot more battlefield utility (imo) and isn't just designed to further shoot into melee... its for the sneaky buggers trying to snipe back thinking they are safe behind cover :)


A bit off topic but;

Shifty wrote:

Longshanks: Archers.

English Commander: I beg pardon sire. Won't we hit our own troops ?
Longshanks: Yes... but we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack.

This made me think about great armies and mass archery so I tried to find some rules for it, I found this, hope you find it as interesting as I did.


nidho wrote:

This made me think about great armies and mass archery so I tried to find some rules for it, I found this, hope you find it as interesting as I did.

Of all the Homebrew/Houserules, I think this is one of the most sensible lot I have seen.

Excellent find that!

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Question about ranged attack penalties All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.