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.
I don't have Precise Shot. But, I do have this snazzy bow and arrow.
Which of the following scenarios, if any, suffer a -4 penalty to attack due to shooting into a melee?A) Two armed bugbears are currently in melee combat, feuding over who will get to eat me. Neither are my friend. Both would happily kill one another and me. I don't care which I hit.
B) A bugbear and the party rogue, disguised as a bugbear, are in melee combat. The bugbear would attack me, the rogue would not. I can't tell which is which, but happen to select the real bugbear as my target when I attack.
C) A bugbear and a disguised rogue are side by side. Neither are currently in melee, but both are armed and suspicious. Both have a readied action that if anyone attacks, they'll melee one another. I choose to attack, and trigger the readied actions in the process.
D) A bugbear and that one Chaotic-Stupid rogue are engaged in melee combat. The bugbear would attack me, the rogue would remain an ally- probably. No disguises. I don't care which I hit. Seriously; an 'Accident' would be perfectly fine here. Please.
E) A bugbear and the party monk are engaged in melee combat. The bugbear would attack me. The monk would not; He has Deflect Arrows, and sincerely doesn't care if I hit him by accident. I don't care which I hit.
F) A bugbear and a Lawful-Stupid monk are engaged in melee combat. The bugbear would attack me. The monk would not attack me- Unless I miss the bugbear. He has Deflect Arrows, Snatch Arrows, and Throw Back Arrows. If I hit the bugbear, the monk will remain an ally. If I miss, he will be my enemy. If, somehow, he counts as being targeted, he'll throw it right back. In spite of my best interests, I choose to be Chaotic-Stupid and go for it anyways.
Scenarios A through F; Which are fine, and which are friendly?
Bonus Round)
The monk from scenario F and the rogue from scenarios B&C , are in melee combat. The rogue is disguised as the monk, and has betrayed the party. Same rules as F apply for the monk. I attack, and question my life choices and judgement of character.
A) Technically they would both still inflict a -4 to your attack from fighting each other and you have to pick one but it would be a fair house ruling that they don't. You could maybe also just roll a d2 to determine which's AC you are checking against and hitting.
B) If the Bugbear and the disguised Rogue are fighting each other, then you do take the -4. It doesn't matter if they are fighting you because you should be able to 5ft step away and break melee contact with yourself.
C) Same scenario here, because their Readied attacks interrupt your attack, and I assume they are now fighting each other, when your attack resumes its resolution, it now has the -4.
D) They are still engaged in melee combat, so still -4.
E) You would still have the -4, as it doesn't just represent the other character being in the way (there's a separate bonus something gains to its AC if they are actually gaining cover from an ally being in the way of the shot), but the excessive movement of the targets. (There is a feat that you are looking for if you want to "shoot into allies with risk of hitting them": Friendly Fire but it requires precise shot.)
F) You still take the -4 as they are engaged in melee, and the monk would provoke for making a ranged attack next to the Bugbear.
BR) There is a melee going on, -4.
I don't think you understand the point and qualifying factor of the -4. It's not about whether you, the shooter, are in a melee with a target or otherwise, but whether or not you are shooting a target in a melee with anyone. This also seems like you are forgetting the soft cover provided by interposing creatures to the target of your shot, a +4 to their AC making it effectively a second -4 to your attack.
Key word is 'Friendly' here. I understand perfectly fine that in all the above scenarios, there are melee shenanigans going on (With the possible exception of C, depending on how you interpret it).
But of course, not all of them have a Friendly amidst the combat. And, some do, but for the shooter, they realistically wouldn't be aiming to avoid them.
So, I repeat; in which of these scenarios are you shooting into a melee involving a friendly character? Or, has some FAQ already been answered somewhere to completely ignore the 'friendly character' bit?
To properly answer this question you need to be able to determine who is an ally or not - and that is going to vary from GM to GM. For the rogue in disguise I would not apply the penalty, since you have no reason to believe they are an ally and will not treat them as such. Secondly, I personally don't like to tell my players who they may or may not consider an ally - in my mind that is fluid, and can change easily if an ally gets mind controlled/confused/feared (and you want to prevent them from charging deeper into the unexplored dungeon), so you want to disable them in some fashion.
But I also don't like rules players can simply ignore because it is inconveniant to them, so in the above I'd rule E as a friendly. The others, you either can't identify them as a true friendly, or such as F, they are an ally only by matter of conveniance at the moment, so not really friendly.
But the real problem with the entire -4 rule of course is that there are no consequences for missing a target (-4 applied or not). There are no rules that if you miss the first target you have a chance of hitting another nearby target.
But the real problem with the entire -4 rule of course is that there are no consequences for missing a target (-4 applied or not). There are no rules that if you miss the first target you have a chance of hitting another nearby target.
Yeah, that's the main issue with the rule in general. I thought this post would just be a fun exercise highlighting this rare little dilemma. Nearly anyone that builds for range has Precise Shot anyways.
Like gnoams, and a few other players I know, I'd house-rule in a chance to hit the wrong target somewhere along the way. My personal approach, though it takes a bit of math, would be to take the d20 used in the attack roll, multiply it by 5, and have that be the % chance you hit the correct target. ( I.E. if I rolled a 15 + modifiers to hit the bugbear, I'd have an 75% chance hit the bugbear and a 25% chance to hit my buddy.) I'd then roll percentile dice.
The caveat in C doesn't make a difference, given the definition of "engaged in melee" that you quoted: "Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other." So two people who are willing to attack one another (enemies) and are adjacent to one another (threatening) are, in fact, engaged in melee.
I'd rule no -4 on A-C and yes on the last three. An ally is an ally, good, sensible or not. And no matter how safe you know your ally is, I imagine your instincts are to not shoot them. Plus, an arrow that finds its mark in your enemy is more useful than one deflected harmlessly by your ally.
If you want an even more stringent ruling, what about a scenario where you're aiming into a melee that involves your ally, a fighter who's never done you wrong and never would, but is rough and crude and aloof and cold and...well, just not friendly at all?
Here's my take... any time you are shooting into melee and actively trying to choose which target you hit (and actively trying to miss the other) is when the -4 would apply. If you choose not to take the -4, then I 50/50 which target is selected and apply your hit roll against that ones AC.
Um, it's not, it doesn't care if anyone is friendly to the shooter, it just matters that there is a melee:
Benefit: You can shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee without taking the standard –4 penalty on your attack roll.
Note: Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other.
Um, it's not, it doesn't care if anyone is friendly to the shooter, it just matters that there is a melee:
Benefit: You can shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee without taking the standard –4 penalty on your attack roll.
Note: Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other.
That's a simplified reiteration of the rule, and it works for the 99% of cases where you're not attacking two enemies who are fighting one another. The actual rule is:
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.)
If your target (or the part of your target you’re aiming at, if it’s a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the -4 penalty, even if the creature you’re aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.
You only get the penalty if your target is in melee with someone you wouldn't want to risk hitting.
The caveat in C doesn't make a difference, given the definition of "engaged in melee" that you quoted
...
I'd rule no -4 on A-C and yes on the last three. An ally is an ally, good, sensible or not. And no matter how safe you know your ally is, I imagine your instincts are to not shoot them. Plus, an arrow that finds its mark in your enemy is more useful than one deflected harmlessly by your ally.
Ah, but in C's case, are both the rogue and the bugbear not flat-footed when you've decided to attack? Even though they're most definitely not flat-footed once your arrow flies.. but I imagine flat-footedness and threatened spaces are a whole other can of worms. Anyways, thanks for the response. :)
I tend to go by Matthew Downie's interpretation of:
You only get the penalty if your target is in melee with someone you wouldn't want to risk hitting.
Hence, I'd omit the -4 penalty when it came to the rogue in D, but maybe agree that you'd rather hit the bugbear instead of your monk, even if he's cool with it. Debatable. Such a minor, but distinct difference between D and E .
As for the fighter example:
Maybe he's not good at socializing. That's fine. Everything's solved if You're an aloof murder-hobo.
Unless there is volley fire rules for mass combat, you are aiming at a target you pick out... picking out a target in the middle of a melee is difficult due to the maelstrom of movements involved.
Is there melee happening? Are you using a ranged attack? If yes to both, you suffer a -4 to your attack.
Unless you have splash weapons, you are shooting at specified targets... there is no such thing as not caring which one you hit. You don't get to just shoot into a square and hit whatever AC you happen to beat.
If the situation qualifies as melee combat, and you are shooting into it... minus 4 penalty. I am not going to sit here and wait for BS shenanigans about who is friendly to whom.
^Especially when there is a second penalty for shooting around a target because of obstruction.
Is there melee happening? Are you using a ranged attack? If yes to both, you suffer a -4 to your attack....
If the situation qualifies as melee combat, and you are shooting into it... minus 4 penalty. I am not going to sit here and wait for BS shenanigans about who is friendly to whom.
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.)If your target (or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.
If your target is two size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with, this penalty is reduced to –2. There is no penalty for firing at a creature that is three size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with.
Okay. I might have agreed, but:
- The rules explicitly state the conflict is due to a Friendly character being in the mix. In a clear-cut scenario, like the hate triangle in situation A, there's no issue.- It's not Just the fact they're engaged in melee. Two medium creatures with exception reach can be engaged in melee at 10ft distance, and there'd be no problem. In theory, those characters are still dancing and parrying as would a duel in close quarters.
- It's not a matter of cover or soft cover. Those rules are covered elsewhere.
...So, yes, you really do need to figure out the "BS shenanigans"
Seems like pathfinder just simplifies the matter of 'not accidentally hitting your friend' by slapping on a flat penalty to your attack, and subsequently puts forth a feat that eliminates the issue that's a must-have for any ranged build.
But the rules are still there.
So, figure em out! :P
Bane Wraith, I read that last bit in the wise but extremely chastising voice of my grandfather... thank you for the reminder to do things correctly, and not be lazy.
In my limited time as GM, there hasn't been a whole lot of scenarios where the party is shooting into someone else's BS... it's always their BS! Lol. They seem to be in the middle of every fight, so there is almost always a party member in the melee.
I do not ask the archer if they are still on the same team as they were last turn before each turn. In fact, I run almost entirely on an honor system and told the players during Session Zero that this is my first time GM'ing PF1, and if they are shooting into melee, to take the penalty on their own merit.
I am still responsible for calling out soft cover and $#!+ like that due to positioning on the battlefield... or I was until the archer got Improved Precision Shot, and that eliminated the need for either of us to waste our time with such things. If the Warpriest decides to start flinging flechettes out of their Rod of Razors, I will determine cover accordingly... same if the Slayer is throwing daggers.
But that's me adding a +4 to the enemy's AC. It's still up to the players to subtract 4 from their rolls. Whether or not they actually do, I have no way of enforcing, so I just don't give a $#!+, honestly.
The game also assumes that you won't be fighting things that aren't fighting exclusively you or dealing with Chaotic Stupid party members who will look for any excuse to PvP, so maybe you/your party needs to "figure em out." Scenario A from your original post is the only scenario where I said it wouldn't apply unless you were specifically trying to hit one over the other (thus making the other friendly).
For ambiguous cases, I might say, "You can avoid the -4 penalty if you're willing to randomly select who you shoot at with a dice roll." A 50% chance of failing to even try to hit the actual dangerous enemy is enough of a penalty to make it not seem abusive.
@VoodistMonk: -thumbs up-
... it wouldn't apply unless you were specifically trying to hit one over the other (thus making the other friendly).
"You can avoid the -4 penalty if you're willing to randomly select who you shoot at with a dice roll."
Neat! Alright. So, you both seem to suggest that if the marksman even remotely prefers aiming at one target over the other, the penalty applies. In AwesomenessDog's case, this applies to scenarios where you don't even know *which* of the targets you'd prefer to hit (Since they would apply it in scenario B with the disguised rogue)
That's certainly clear-cut for the player, though naturally the 50% chance is a houserule and/or GM's fiat.
...So, new scenario for you:
G) A bugbear and a green hag are currently engaged in melee. Equipped with a fancy new Slaying Arrow, I want to hit the stronger hag, and not waste it on the bugbear. Both these creatures would eagerly attack me, if I were to move within range.
Do I take the penalty? ... And if so, why?
Before you answer, consider the other place that a "Friendly Character" is mentioned:
Friend: You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging.
...
Opponent: You can't move through a square occupied by an opponent unless the opponent is helpless.
In light of that, look through the scenarios again.
For ambiguous cases, I might say, "You can avoid the -4 penalty if you're willing to randomly select who you shoot at with a dice roll." A 50% chance of failing to even try to hit the actual dangerous enemy is enough of a penalty to make it not seem abusive.
Come to think of it, I would maybe even rule on a circumstantial bonus to the attack, given that the shooter is in essence taking aim at a Large target.
- I'd do so on the fly during a game but should the players try to replicate the tactic, I'd crunch numbers before implementing it more in depth -
Come to think of it, I would maybe even rule on a circumstantial bonus to the attack, given that the shooter is in essence taking aim at a Large target.
- I'd do so on the fly during a game but should the players try to replicate the tactic, I'd crunch numbers before implementing it more in depth -
That's setting a dangerous precedent. If you're going to take two creatures together as a "Large" target, you could shoot an arrow into an army and be practically guaranteed to hit Something. Not even touch attacks always hit one in a crowd. Similarly, I wouldn't allow a player to target a 5ft cube (AC 5) on a Gargantuan creature. (Though, that's what the touch AC often is, so -shrug- )
So, you both seem to suggest that if the marksman even remotely prefers aiming at one target over the other, the penalty applies.
If both are unambiguously your enemies, by my understanding of RAW you're free to target either without penalty.
I was only suggesting the 50% chance houserule for special cases such as when the player is claiming they don't care if they hit a fellow PC so they shouldn't get the penalty.
That's setting a dangerous precedent. If you're going to take two creatures together as a "Large" target, you could shoot an arrow into an army and be practically guaranteed to hit Something.
To be fair, it's entirely realistic that it would be a lot easier to hit an army of people than an individual. But that seems like adding too much complexity.
However, a large creature is 2 by 2 by 2, which is to say it has a size of about eight medium people; a mere two people isn't anywhere near equivalent.
The difference is intention. If these Bugbears are literal clones of one another who for what ever reason are fighting, you as a player have no reason to select Bugbear A over Bugbear B, but the game says you must and this would be a fair point to say "you don't take the -4". If however, one is way more dangerous looking than the other, it would be in your interest to prioritize one over the other so when they finish their scrap, they're weaker when they come to you next, and I would say yes, the fact you now care about A over B should apply the -4, because you are trying to be sure you hit A.
However, a large creature is 2 by 2 by 2, which is to say it has a size of about eight medium people; a mere two people isn't anywhere near equivalent.
I was trying to acknowledge the increase in the solid angle presented by a target consisting of two persons rather than one, using the AC adjustment according to creature size as a guide.
As I've said, I'd do it once on the fly then I'd crunch numbers after the game should I think the situation would repeat.I'd say two persons proportionally present roughly as much lacunar surface than one, however, they present twice roughly as much absolute surface. I was not thinking of awarding more than a +2 for an indiscriminate shot.
- and I am aware of the inconsistencies, that in edge cases, a target with high AC could possibly become easier to hit when others are around it than when standing alone -
Anyhow, let's close this parenthesis about houserules so as not to derail the original topic further.
- Thanks for answering me at length, though^^ -
The difference is intention. ... I would say yes, the fact you now care about A over B should apply the -4, because you are trying to be sure you hit A.
No doubt, that's the easiest rule of thumb to stick by when you're at the table and need to make a snap decision. Unfortunately, because you wouldn't be able to move through a bugbear's space uncontested, I wager that's against the RAW; They're most definitely, by any stretch of the word, not a 'friendly' character.
That said, I think that's as far as this little topic can be taken. There's not really any other rule in the books that mentions 'friendly characters'; Everywhere else, the words 'Ally' or 'Willing' are used. Allies are used largely for beneficial effects or teamwork feats, too, and almost always selected by the player.
@ Agénor and others : Thanks for taking part! :D
Bugbear B could let you pass, you don't know in this scenario, but you probably aren't willing to check because you're a ranged character who is shooting at them.