For those interested...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yessir!
All good, Easter can get busy.
Calhoun slowly turns and looks at the thug who just hit him.
"That...was not a wise move!" he says and fires an arrow from his bow.
So Calhoun… Do you have something to prevent from taking attacks of opportunity when you fire your bow in melee? Or are you hoping for the best? :)
Score one for any games that don't have AoOs for firing in melee... ;)
Just wait until you try to fire into melee without Precise Shot (which, fun fact ALSO requires Point Blank Shot, for no good reason anyone ever could prove!!!). "Lessee - that's -4 for firing into melee, plus -4 for cover made by your friend, plus -8 for trying to have fun.....(does a quick tally) - you need a natural 38 to hit the unarmored beggar!"
OSGMO - Don't throw things at me - you'll need Point Blank Shot to need Precise Shot!!! Plus I'm standing behind Helaman...
Score one for any games that don't have AoOs for firing in melee... ;)
Should we change to Old School Essentials then? I thought you liked PF1e :)
Just wait until you try to fire into melee without Precise Shot (which, fun fact ALSO requires Point Blank Shot, for no good reason anyone ever could prove!!!). "Lessee - that's -4 for firing into melee, plus -4 for cover made by your friend, plus -8 for trying to have fun.....(does a quick tally) - you need a natural 38 to hit the unarmored beggar!"
OSGMO - Don't throw things at me - you'll need Point Blank Shot to need Precise Shot!!! Plus I'm standing behind Helaman...
Well, at least you don’t risk hitting your ally haha, probably will not hit anything at all.
Wait, does this mean also in this case you actually prefer the Old School way OSW? :O
Shoot first, and check who gets hit next?
Is that 2-0 for OSR?
(And please don’t say Elephant in the Room, or I will leave)
Yep, I seem not to like EitR as it seems yet another system to bolt on to PF1.
No, not a vote for Old Skool either. Just…do away with the overzealous granularity.
GM: “No, you can’t hit adjacent foes with your longspear.”
Player: “Hmm. Ok then, I’ll bash them with the haft.”
GM: “Ok, but that counts as an improvised weapon, only does 1d6 damage and is…non-lethal.”
Player: “Ok, I’ll punch them with my spiked gauntlet.”
GM: “Ok, but you’ll need to take one hand off your longspear and decide which hand you are hitting them with.”
Player: “Umm…Ok. Why does it matter which hand I’m holding it in?”
GM: “In case you want to hold it again….”
Player: “In the same hand?”
GM: “Up to you.”
This was my gripe with ALLENDM’s Greyhawk game. We are first level. We shouldn’t be trying to work out which hand we have on our weapon, we should be dropping foes with dice rolls, or being dropped!
Like I get it. You have rules or you don’t have rules. But where I see a rule that gets in the way of enjoyment or story, it’s just…dross. Needless minutiae there to irritate and slow the game down. Of course, where that line is is completely different for each player/GM.
Mostly I have no problem. Almost every character I ever made in PF1 had a longspear and a spiked gauntlet on top of whatever melee weapon they generally used. I’m not really into casters or ranged wonks. But ehrmagherd the firing into melee schtick was punishing and feat intensive….Which is why I like PF2, it is all so, so much simpler.
Ultimately, Oldskool just doesn’t have enough options. For example here, I’m a half-orc Cleric with the Magic and Trickery Domains that can throw my falchion at foes up to 30 feet away using my Wisdom as my attack modifier.
Try telling that to an OSE and they’ll be blubbering into their iron rations wondering how you have a race AND a class, let alone be a Cleric of…Magic. That wields a sword. That you can throw.
|
Well it looks like I will be getting an attack, but I do have point blank shot...lol
I understand both sides of the argument, having been the DM and player when it has come up. I do like some realism in my games, but I also understand the need to sometimes let something slide to keep the fun in the game. That said, I am up for either way it needs to be run...just let me know! :-)
Yep, quite happy here.
And having said I “like” PF2, I have my problems with some aspects of it, and am happy to houserule it to suit. I like PF1 enough to play it, and those old irritations haven’t exactly gone away with time. I accept the ruleset.
I’m here for the company, and the game. Apologies if I’m poor company. ;)
Yep, I seem not to like EitR as it seems yet another system to bolt on to PF1.
No, not a vote for Old Skool either. Just…do away with the overzealous granularity.
GM: “No, you can’t hit adjacent foes with your longspear.”
Player: “Hmm. Ok then, I’ll bash them with the haft.”
GM: “Ok, but that counts as an improvised weapon, only does 1d6 damage and is…non-lethal.”
Player: “Ok, I’ll punch them with my spiked gauntlet.”
GM: “Ok, but you’ll need to take one hand off your longspear and decide which hand you are hitting them with.”
Player: “Umm…Ok. Why does it matter which hand I’m holding it in?”
GM: “In case you want to hold it again….”
Player: “In the same hand?”
GM: “Up to you.”
This was my gripe with ALLENDM’s Greyhawk game. We are first level. We shouldn’t be trying to work out which hand we have on our weapon, we should be dropping foes with dice rolls, or being dropped!
Like I get it. You have rules or you don’t have rules. But where I see a rule that gets in the way of enjoyment or story, it’s just…dross. Needless minutiae there to irritate and slow the game down. Of course, where that line is is completely different for each player/GM.
Mostly I have no problem. Almost every character I ever made in PF1 had a longspear and a spiked gauntlet on top of whatever melee weapon they generally used. I’m not really into casters or ranged wonks. But ehrmagherd the firing into melee schtick was punishing and feat intensive….Which is why I like PF2, it is all so, so much simpler.
I guess the trick is to find the right balance of rules that works for you. I have some replies but it is time for my workout :D
Well it looks like I will be getting an attack, but I do have point blank shot...lol
I understand both sides of the argument, having been the DM and player when it has come up. I do like some realism in my games, but I also understand the need to sometimes let something slide to keep the fun in the game. That said, I am up for either way it needs to be run...just let me know! :-)
Yeah, we are going PF1e, so you are actually taking two attacks :/
Yep, quite happy here.
And having said I “like” PF2, I have my problems with some aspects of it, and am happy to houserule it to suit. I like PF1 enough to play it, and those old irritations haven’t exactly gone away with time. I accept the ruleset.
I’m here for the company, and the game. Apologies if I’m poor company. ;)
Happy to have you here Sir!
And like I said from the start, discussing the rules is also one of the reasons I am here, finding out what is a must have, a good to have, and the stuff we can just get rid of.
Personally, I never had an issue with any of the Feat Taxes in PF1e, not as a player and not as a DM. So I never felt the need to remove them. In the particular case of Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, I find them both interesting, and I like the extra considerations they add to the life of an archer. I see it as a part of becoming better at what you do.
Of course one can always debate how much crunchiness is good, and how much is too much, which we also do around these parts :)
We have ascertained that for you B/X is too little, and PF1e is too much. PF2e seems to be closer to the sweet spot. By the way, how does archery work in PF2e? Doesn't matter if you are in melee and doesn't matter if you are firing into melee?
... By the way, how does archery work in PF2e? Doesn't matter if you are in melee and doesn't matter if you are firing into melee?
As I said I don't play archers much, so I have little experience with bows while in melee. Scranford or Eric might have more experience/advice.
* From a quick look in the Player Core, ranged weapons (p.276) and ranged combat (p.403) only mention penalties for range. Nothing about adjacency. And, given most creatures don't get AoO's (I think they are Remastered to be "Reactive Strikes", or at least the AoO ability for Fighters is called that...) I don't see anything about firing while in melee.
I *guess* you could add the Manipulate trait to bows/slings/crossbows/guns/thrown weapons; seeing as Manipulate seems to trigger Reactive Strikes and I think other Reactions. Strangely, Manipulate doesn't give a page reference in the Index, so I'm having trouble finding more about it - Archives of Nethys link uses the Index text where the trait is parsed. That's it. Weird.
* As for firing into melee, if you consult "Cover" (p.424), a creature (ally or enemy) milling in combat who is in the line of sight provides Lesser Cover to the target - +1 to the target's AC.
Happy to have you here Sir!
And like I said from the start, discussing the rules is also one of the reasons I am here, finding out what is a must have, a good to have, and the stuff we can just get rid of.
Personally, I never had an issue with any of the Feat Taxes in PF1e, not as a player and not as a DM. So I never felt the need to remove them. In the particular case of Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, I find them both interesting, and I like the extra considerations they add to the life of an archer. I see it as a part of becoming better at what you do.
I think that this is the problem I have with PF1 and 2. Essentially too many things are locked as feats.
I would give anyone Point Blank shot for free... you are very close, you hit easier, but in PF2 perhaps they could also use an extra action to double the bonus.
Precise shot....I guess given the absurd "soft cover" (PF1 CRB, p.194; +4 AC) plus firing into melee (PF1 CRB, p.184; -4 penalty to attack) melange...maybe I would keep it as a feat. But I would probably just remove the mess completely and do away with the feat entirely.
We have ascertained that for you B/X is too little, and PF1e is too much. PF2e seems to be closer to the sweet spot.
I think it is important to note that I do like playing all three - OSR/E, PF1 and PF2. They each have their place and their quirks. OSR/E is great for "classic" fantasy - dwarves/elves/halflings whether that be beer and pretzels, naked doom, quest of heroes or grimdark or everything in between...etc. PF1 opens up the character options, and widens the campaign lens. PF2 narrows those character options a little (currently) but provides me with the greatest action/narrative agency. Or perhaps not greatest, but most...elegant? Usable? Closest to my preferred verisimilitude?
Like clearly, firing into melee in real life is a very...dicey affair (terrible pun I know). You *should* need to overcome cover, especially that provided by allies; and the chances that the target doesn't move or your friend doesn't move in the split second you fire and your arrow travels are...slim. The likelihood of a miss or friendly fire are likely high. But I don't need a -8 when they also already have an AC*.
Ok, maybe I should just be tactically clever, do something different, change weapons; and/or invest in the heroism and take the feats for the unerring shot. I think that is called tactics. ;)
*This brings me to the weird disconnect between armor as "harder to hit" and armor as "stopping power/damage reduction". Or... the fact that maybe...if I'm firing into melee and am trying to get around soft cover - perhaps the target's fricking Dexterity shouldn't count. I can see a rule that ranged attacks on "meleeing" or otherwise oblivious targets ignore Dex bonuses of the target... But I won't go there...
Got it - PF2e archery doesn't look THAT much simpler than PF1e to me, but granted maybe it is just because I am definitely more used to PF1e, and I already know all the modifiers by heart (I think).
And lets face it, 'archery in melee' in PF1e in earlier stages is simply a matter of taking a 5' step back (if you have room of course) and firing. If you don't have room, draw steel. If you've got the minerals you can fight it out, otherwise get the hell out of there or fight defensively until the cavalry arrives. Done.
In any case, that's the beauty of it - most of the things you pointed out that you might change, make sense to me as they are, whether I am a player or a DM in PF1e. So I guess it all boils down to taste in the end, as usual. I don't feel the need to give Point Blank Shot to everyone automatically, and I like the fact it needs an 'archery' feat investment. You don't invest? Sure, you can still fire an arrow, but the 'archer' does it better. I don't find it overly convoluted. I find it simple.
You are also using the worst case scenario for the 'firing into melee' I think. Yes, you get -4 for firing into melee, and I like it exactly because of the reason you invoked - it forces you to think about your options: coordinate with your fighters, make them give you time for your volleys before they charge, swap weapons and go to town, use positioning and tactics, think smart. The warrior also has to move to reach his opponent in melee, so he has his own tactical challenges to overcome. Archers should have them too like everyone else. Just to point out it makes sense to me.
The additional -4 for soft cover (in my opinion) does not necessarily apply if your opponent is in melee. It may or may not.
I actually think in general, archery in PF1e is a very strong 'fighting style' - all the characters I played as archers were absolute monsters: Bards, Inquisitors, Fighters, Rangers, Monks, Paladins, Clerics, Druids, all brutal. But they all their 'ups and downs' and this is paramount for me. When your archer is already able to use his bow while in melee, firing into a scuffle easy peasy, and treats cover as a breeze, all from level 1, it does not add up in my head.
On the armor debate, there really isn't much I can say - there are simpler approaches like the AC abstraction, there are systems when you always hit and only roll for damage, others for which armor only gives damage reduction, others that combine it all. So on and so forth.
And I do agree/can perfectly see your reasoning about people engaged in melee might being 'oblivious' to ranged attacks while trying to keep their opponent's mace from crushing their skull, and thus denied their Dex bonus. But like you said, going there might take us down a rabbit hole...
One person's rabbit hole is another person's hill to die on!
Yep, was worst case scenario. If you are flanking (side-on to or behind) then their may not be any soft cover. It was probably a quirk of "that one time" I wanted to throw my harpoon at a pirate and was told I would be at -8 to hit....should have thrown - pirates don't wear much armor! ;)
I completely forgot about 5' step being a) not an action (not even a Free Action) and b) not incurring a AoO. Super weird concept too. Sounds like a rule I would have created to skirt around getting smacked for using a bow up in front of someone.
"Let's see. Let's create a rule for an action that is movement that is not a Move Action and...also....doesn't make you take an AoO to get a way from a combatant". We'll categorise it a "No Action".
What is to stop you from 5' Step and then using a Move Action to Move? Or to put it another way, wouldn't everyone always take a 5' step ( a free, non-Move Action) before taking a Move Action and thus always avoid AoO's?
And yes, folks, it is completely a movement action that is categorised as a No Action. Right there on page 183 of the CRB...
It is worth noting that Cover rules will still apply. Your friend and teammate might be providing Lesser Cover to your target on accident. Use the “Draw a Line” rule above, and if your line is interrupted then your target will get a Cover bonus.
In Melee here can also mean firing at someone who is adjacent to your square.
There are no hard and solid attack penalties for specifically making a ranged attack while you are engaged in Melee, except for the Volley trait listed above under ranged penalties.
Though it is necessary to consider that when firing while adjacent to an enemy, you might provoke an Attack of Opportunity (AoP). Not everyone gets an AoP, but it is a valid concern. You might want to put an arrow into the face of an Orc, but instead, he might smack you.[/ooc]
There aren't any direct negatives. There are a lot of negatives though.
Ranged weapons in general are weaker since they don't get full str.
You get hit by reactive strikes
If using a longbow you have a -2 and if using a short bow your weapon die is weaker.
If you are using a non longbow there is no direct negatives except attack of oppurtunities.
@Scranford - sorry, I'm having trouble understanding some of your post, can you clarify? I really want to understand this ranged stuff, in both systems...
There is no strict ranged penalty in Pathfinder 2e about firing into a Melee scrum. If your friend is tangling with a monster and you want to give them some fire support, then you are free to let fly.
It is worth noting that Cover rules will still apply. Your friend and teammate might be providing Lesser Cover to your target on accident. Use the “Draw a Line” rule above, and if your line is interrupted then your target will get a Cover bonus.
Yep I covered that.
* As for firing into melee, if you consult "Cover" (p.424), a creature (ally or enemy) milling in combat who is in the line of sight provides Lesser Cover to the target - +1 to the target's AC.
Is all of this for PF1 or PF2? I'm getting confused.
In Melee here can also mean firing at someone who is adjacent to your square.
There are no hard and solid attack penalties for specifically making a ranged attack while you are engaged in Melee, except for the Volley trait listed above under ranged penalties.
Though it is necessary to consider that when firing while adjacent to an enemy, you might provoke an Attack of Opportunity (AoP). Not everyone gets an AoP, but it is a valid concern. You might want to put an arrow into the face of an Orc, but instead, he might smack you.
You mention an AoO, so is this for PF1?
There aren't any direct negatives. There are a lot of negatives though.
What do you mean by "direct negatives"?
Ranged weapons in general are weaker since they don't get full str.You get hit by reactive strikes
If using a longbow you have a -2 and if using a short bow your weapon die is weaker.
If you are using a non longbow there is no direct negatives except attack of oppurtunities.
This mentions both Reactive Strikes (a PF2 term) and AoO (PF1).
Also, why does a longbow incur a -2, and to what, and in which system? And there are bows "built for strength", right, that give a Strength bonus to damage? Do those exist in PF2?
Isn't there a Feat for Attacks of Opportunity in PF2e? And don't Fighters get it as a class ability or something?
I just copy/pasted some exerts I found online. Basically, the only penalty for firing into melee is the -1 for soft cover if it applies. The rules somewhere I read state that the party is used to working together, so know the other players tactics and hand wave any other mechanical disadvantage.
Other than the "Volley" penalty for a long bow and others there is no penalty for shooting a bow in melee that I can see you can haul off and shoot your short bow right in the face of the enemy next to you.
Some of these references are probably for PF2 not remastered, and though rare Attack of Opportunity hadn't been renamed in PF2 until remastered.
Direct negatives mean there is no penalty except for the soft cover one, If there is nobody between you and your target... fire away.
Composite bows add this property to the bow.
Propulsive
Source Player Core pg. 282
You add half your Strength modifier (if positive) to damage rolls with a propulsive ranged weapon. If you have a negative Strength modifier, you add your full Strength modifier instead. It took me a while to get used to them, but the traits for almost everything in PF2 are very informative and helpful.
Longbows and some other bows add the following property:
Volley
Source Player Core pg. 283
This ranged weapon is less effective at close distances. Your attacks against targets that are at a distance within the range listed take a –2 penalty.
NOTE: Many of the questions can be solved by searching in Archives of Nethys. That's what I do when queried.
Thanks scranford. I do use AoN, and find it can be either hit or miss. It’s search functions are at times borked - when I was looking up the Familiar stuff for PF2R I had to follow a pretty roundabout route to get various pieces of the information. But what I really like about Archives is the Legacy toggle to see how the rules have changed between Remaster. Also handy for checking PF1 stuff for this game… I love AoN.
I find my physical Player Core poorly laid out for my tastes - Basic Actions in Encounter Mode doesn’t have the information for pretty regular Combat Activities like Trip and Shove - you have to find them in the Skills section under Athletics. I guess the argument is they aren’t “Basic Actions” but having to search around various sections of the book for “regular” activities is annoying. Obviously by the time you play enough you don’t need to search for anything…
The Manipulate trait isn’t actually described anywhere in the text, the text for the trait is found in the Index, as if it were also some kind of Glossary.
Having said that, upon consulting the Monster Core (thanks to your kind self sharing the Demiplane source) I find it nicely laid out with informative little breakout text.
Isn't there a Feat for Attacks of Opportunity in PF2e? And don't Fighters get it as a class ability or something?
Your PF2 fighter Telurion gets Reactive Strike for free at 1st level…is essentially AoO.
Volley
Source Player Core pg. 283
This ranged weapon is less effective at close distances. Your attacks against targets that are at a distance within the range listed take a –2 penalty.
Huh. I hadn’t noticed that. And a Longbow has “Volley 30ft.”, so within that range it is -2 to hit in PF2. Interesting. Thanks scranford!
Isn't there a Feat for Attacks of Opportunity in PF2e? And don't Fighters get it as a class ability or something?Your PF2 fighter Telurion gets Reactive Strike for free at 1st level…is essentially AoO.
Yeah, so if I understand correctly it is a Fighter class feature, right?
I was trying to avoid botting Dragomir, so I will give it some more time. If by the end of the day Helaman has not popped up, I might just have him delay his actions or something.
Hope all is well with him, and this is only the usual RL meddling into gaming :)
Reactive Strike
Ever watchful for weaknesses, you can quickly attack foes that leave an opening in their defenses. You gain the Reactive Strike reaction.
Reactive Strike [reaction]
Source Player Core pg. 138Requirements A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it's using.
You lash out at a foe that leaves an opening. Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature. If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action. This Strike doesn't count toward your multiple attack penalty, and your multiple attack penalty doesn't apply to this Strike.
I was trying to avoid botting Dragomir, so I will give it some more time. If by the end of the day Helaman has not popped up, I might just have him delay his actions or something.
Hope all is well with him, and this is only the usual RL meddling into gaming :)
Yep, I’d prefer to wait and see what Helaman wants Dragomir to do. It’s pretty important for this group to start working together in combat. ;)
My bad on this one guys. I misinterpreted the distances in the battlefield. Darcy would never have attacked if she'd known she was that far away from the others.
Lesson learned... if she lives... which is doubtful at this point. :-)
Live and learn. Or, in Darcy’s case…bravely run away!
Hey Team! It was a good run, but I am calling it - time of death is 17th April 2024 7:28PM CEST.
It was a pleasure to play with all of you, and I apologise in advance for my long tirades about games systems and long winded discussions about roleplaying games.
Also apologies for the back and forth with game systems and any loss of motivation it may have caused.
I just feel I have not achieved 'critical mass' with this game, and thus the unforgiving PbP media has taken its toll. Lesson learned from my end on the importance of a 'session 0', and establishing clear expectations from DM and players regarding the game.
Truth is, the game has stopped being rewarding for me, so I see no point in insisting.
Hope to see you all around the boards.
Take care,
OSGMO
EDIT: I will set the campaign to inactive over the weekend.
Thanks for running. I can see how this has become hearding cats. :-)
Thanks for the ride GM! (It was short but SWEET!) I wonder if Lewill will ever find true love...
Well I can’t say I’m not disappointed, but I can say I’m happy to have explored a little of Grimmsgate! Thanks for running the game OSGMO. Looks like I have a little extra time on my hands…I really should run a game…but it won’t be just yet….patience…
Also your long tirades on games systems is what started this thread! I for one contributed many a tirade! And learnt a lot. So thanks to everyone who also contributed!