I've never quite liked the idea that when you shoot into melee you have no chance of hitting a friendly target. It stands to reason if you miss badly enough you could hit your friend, particularly in the chaos of battle and exchange of blows that takes place during a round.
Our group has employed a house rule for this, and I was kind of hoping Pathfinder would put a variant rule in place. So my questions are:
1. Any change Pathfinder will implement rules for this sort of thing. Seems unlikely based on what I saw in the beta but I am curious; and
2. Do any of you house-rule this, and if so do you mind sharing your house-rules? I would like to consider possibilities for adjudicating this sort of things.
Thanks!
I used to ...back in the day. A natural 1 was a botch just as a natural 20 was a crit. You confirmed the botch by missing on the second roll. So a botch on a missle fire attempt resulted in a friendly fire incident. It worked fine, wasnt to heavy handed to the point where players where wrecking each other and actually provided some good RP on occasion. My current group doesn't do botches so on the rare times I have been DM I never implemented it.
I used to ...back in the day. A natural 1 was a botch just as a natural 20 was a crit. You confirmed the botch by missing on the second roll. So a botch on a missle fire attempt resulted in a friendly fire incident. It worked fine, wasnt to heavy handed to the point where players where wrecking each other and actually provided some good RP on occasion. My current group doesn't do botches so on the rare times I have been DM I never implemented it.
Thanks Warmaster. That is certainly a quick way to adjudicate it. The system I currently use requires a second attack roll against the friendy's AC, so their armor and protection are taking into consideration. It sounds like you do (or did) an automatic friendly hit on a roll of one, right?
One way to handle it is to use the rules for hitting cover. Which depending on how people are place, your friend in melee may actually be providing to your target. These were rules in the 3.0 combat section, and variant rules in the DMG 3.5.
Basically if you miss due to cover (by 4 or less) then you may accidentally hit the cover instead. I think a second attack roll was used... although you could just use first one and see if that total (without the cover) hits.
I'll see if I can find the exact rule in the old 3.0 SRD when I have the chance, or maybe its in the modern SRD.
I'll see if I can find the exact rule in the old 3.0 SRD when I have the chance, or maybe its in the modern SRD.
Thanks. I had forgotten about that. I think we used the variant for a while, then decided it didn't account for people beyond the target, so we abandoned it. I'll go look at it again.
My DM tends to do this, but there doesn't seem to be a set rule that he follows for when you are going to hit someone friendly. As a result, I'm scared to death shoot rays into melee with my wizard :(.
I don't like it in the first place to be honest. Give the -4 to hit, leave it at that. It doesn't really add any enjoyment to the game, and just penalizes people who play a ranged class in a way that melee classes don't get penalized.
Actually, it does add to our enjoyment of the game, or I wouldn't have posed the question. YMMV.
It makes sense that this risk is there, rather than having ranged classes sit back and carelessly fire arrows into groups that include their friends.
We normally state that if you crit fail on an ranged attack into melee, you hit one of the other combatants. It's not THAT bad at mid and high levels, and adds a sense of danger.
Yeah, that sounds kind of like what Warmaster is doing. I like the simplicity of it, but don't like that it doesn't take into account the friendly targets armor or other protection.
Gives me some things to think about though. I appreciate the discussion.
A simpler (but potentially much more brutal) method is to apply a +4 to the enemy's AC for the roll (instead of subtracting the 4 from the player's roll). If it's a miss, but the roll will hit an adjacent ally who is engaged in melee with the target, then it does so.
Example:
Target's AC 13.
Ally fighter's AC 15.
Roll vs. AC 17: Player rolls a 16.
16 > fighter's AC but less than target's AC. Player hits ally instead, rolls damage normally.
We normally state that if you crit fail on an ranged attack into melee, you hit one of the other combatants. It's not THAT bad at mid and high levels, and adds a sense of danger.
I can't agree with that. It depends on the archer build. If my swift hunter build crits, and gets in the skirmish damage due to telling blow that is about 7d6 plus 3d8 + any properties that my weapon may have. On average that is 33 hit points gone, before special abilities are strength modifiers on a composite bow are factored in. If it does not crit it still does about 25.
|
On that topic, the beta mentions both a -4 to hit in melee with a ranged attack and a +4 to AC against ranged attacks when you have soft cover. Are these cumulative or are they the same thing just with a different wording ?
If I have the Precise shot feat and I shoot at an enemy who is in melee with one of my friends and my friend is in my line of fire (see below), does the enemy gets +4 to AC or nothing ?
Enemy - Friend ----------- Me
They are cumulative.
The first -4 attack for shooting into melee is an abstracted way of saying 'you can't accidentally shoot your friends', which was the case in earlier editions (IMO it made playing a archery focused character very difficult sometimes).
The +4 cover AC bonus is for exactly what you setup
Enemy - Friend ----------- You
If your friend is between you and your target they are giving it soft cover. You could also, at times, try using a friend to give you soft cover from enemy fire. However you can always try to move to get a clear shoot, space allowing.
Improved Precise Shot will let you ignore that kind of cover, and I think there are some class abilities that let you ignore it as well.
I don't like it in the first place to be honest. Give the -4 to hit, leave it at that. It doesn't really add any enjoyment to the game, and just penalizes people who play a ranged class in a way that melee classes don't get penalized.
To be clear... its ok for ranged classes to be able to kill monsters hundreds of feet away, but having a possibility of hitting their friends when shooting into melee is penalizing them?
The reason melee classes aren't penalized is because they have to stand next to the monster to hit it and therefore will almost certainly get hit themselves.
I would say a 20% chance to hit the wrong target is more realistic than a -4 to hit. The -4 to hit just glosses over the real possibility of hitting your friend.
It seems to me that almost all ranged builds tend to forget the advantages of ranged combat, and then want all the best bits of being a melee class.
Isn't there a scatter diagram in the DMG? If an arrow completely misses (greater than a margin granted from armor), then you could roll to see which trajectory the arrow (or whatever) flies, and then reroll if it passes through an ally's square. (Of course, this is more work, and more of a pain.)
But, melee builds generally do a lot more damage than ranged builds. I always thought the +4 only applied once since the friend in combat and the softcover were the same thing. It seems pretty ridiculous to apply a -8 penalty or even a -4 all the time. Unless I pulls some cheese there is no way I can compete the melee guy for damage so the lack of damage makes up for my relative safety.
my only concern is some DM using this as some means to justify gimping an archer character. Say the DM saying that an attack actually hits the guys fighter friend on a regular basis (something I've seen happen before in 3.0. No matter the feats involved, size of the opponents or anything else the DM in question always gave you a flat 50% chance to hit your friend... even on a crit!). Personally I would like to see precise shot figure into this some too.
Beyond those things not a bad idea.
I've never quite liked the idea that when you shoot into melee you have no chance of hitting a friendly target. It stands to reason if you miss badly enough you could hit your friend, particularly in the chaos of battle and exchange of blows that takes place during a round.
Our group has employed a house rule for this, and I was kind of hoping Pathfinder would put a variant rule in place. So my questions are:
1. Any change Pathfinder will implement rules for this sort of thing. Seems unlikely based on what I saw in the beta but I am curious; and
2. Do any of you house-rule this, and if so do you mind sharing your house-rules? I would like to consider possibilities for adjudicating this sort of things.
Thanks!
Lets see, you have a dwaven defender with next to maxed out AC in melee with some other medium sized bad guy. You shoot at the bad guy, but even though you need a natural 20 to hit him if he had a dex of 0 due to being immobilized, you hit him because you happened to miss the guy you wanted. How does that make sense, really?
My house rule I probably would implement. You take the -4 to hit, you have no chance except on a nat 1 of hitting your friend.
If you get a nat 1 period, I would use the fumble deck from paizo.
If it said hits a friend, then I would have them roll an attack against a friend at the same bonus to hit, and resolve the attack normally against a normal attack.
|
|
To be clear... its ok for ranged classes to be able to kill monsters hundreds of feet away, but having a possibility of hitting their friends when shooting into melee is penalizing them?
The reason melee classes aren't penalized is because they have to stand next to the monster to hit it and therefore will almost certainly get hit themselves.
I would say a 20% chance to hit the wrong target is more realistic than a -4 to hit. The -4 to hit just glosses over the real possibility of hitting your friend.
It seems to me that almost all ranged builds tend to forget the advantages of ranged combat, and then want all the best bits of being a melee class.
I've been playing a ranged build for the very first time a few weeks ago, but I think you are forgetting a lot of factors a ranged attack has to take into account that the melee character will never need to care about.
- Cover
- Concealment
- Hitting a target in melee
- Fixed damage that you can not raise when your STR gets a temporary boost (through rage, buff spells ...)
- No heavy-damage Feat, as they are reserved for melee attacks
Furthermore, the benefit you get from having a high AC (due your high DEX) plays far less of a role than it does for a melee character. Also, you do not provide flanking bonuses to your friends, nor do you threaten enemies.
Finally, most encounters in ready-to-play modules are designed with melee characters in mind, and you almost never take full advantage of your weapon's long range. In fact, most of the time, you will be in charging distance of an enemy. And when you become part of a melee, all the precious feats you invested in hitting and damaging targets with your ranged weapon become pretty useless.
Fumble deck works well for this. I envision most ranged characters either yelling out a warning of their shot, or waiting for a moment when their ally is jumping back to avoid an attack which thus presents a clear opening to shoot through. Both of which are convincing reasons for the -4, your either giving the enemy warning, or not taking an easy shot in order to take a safe shot.
I can say this much, from some archery in my youth and some SCA in my adulthood, the -4 seems about right, if you care about the saftey of your allies at all. You will wait till you have a clear shot, and while that may mean your shots are less efficient, you arent putting a razor sharp arrow into your friend's skull.
Realistically, as the ranger, I'm more worried about the rogue on the other side of the monster than I am about the fighter on my side of it. Arrows that miss are going to be quite dangerous for him. I would be interested to see what others have to say about this situation.
I have allowed a player to not take the -4, but they gain a miss chance proportional to the relative size of the "ally" and target. So a medium ally and a medium target = 50/50 miss chance. A large target (4 squares) and a medium ally (1 square) would be a 20% "hit your ally" chance. If the ally is also granting the monster cover, the chance is 1.5 times higher, so 75% and 30%, respectively.
Harsh? Yes. But then again, you are running the risk of shooting your ally just to have an easy shot at the enemy. That kind of callous disregard for the saftey of companions is just plain stupid. Only an idiot would do it, as there is no tactical advantage to it. At least, in the real world combat, there is not advantage, and so I beleive there should be no advantage in the simulation of combat in D&D.
I can already see this: Enemy has too high an AC? Just shoot your ally, hope you miss (have dex as a dump stat to be sure) and soon dragons will fear hordes of 1st-level commoners with slings aided by a few "bullet baits".
If we want realism, how about accidentally hitting others in melee? There's several people going at each other with weapons in close quarters, and there's no chance you miss your target and hit your friend instead?
All or nothing I say.
No, for standard PF, the -4 is enough. If you want more realistic, that's the job for house rules.
As far as I know, the PF core book won't have (m)any house rules in it.
The game should also include balance, which IMHO should trump realism. Why play an archer with a penalty to hit, who even when you do hit don't do much damage. On top of that, as previously stated one charge means you are now in melee range.
|
I have to say I'm on the opposite end. I hate that people think you should have a chance to hit an ally. Mostly because they make it happen entirely too often. I want to play a competent warrior, not a stooge who slaps his buddy once every fight.
To answer your question of house rules, I'm planning on changing fumbles to requiring two 1's in a row. This drops the chance from 5% to a much smaller number I can't do the math for right now. ^^'
I've always run fumbles like crits. You have to confirm them. If the player rolls a 1 on an attack, he then rolls again. If that new roll, with all the origional modifiers, doesn't hit the target's AC, he confirms the fumble. This makes high end fighters less likely to fumble, which is good in my book.
However, I feel that in a contest between the relative capacity of skill and lack of skill to affect a situation, a greivious lack of skill can have far more (negative) impact than an equal presence of (positive) skill.
So I allow any attack that ends up below 1 to "threaten" a fumble. Rolling a 3 with a net -3 attack roll will threaten a fumble. Catastrophic failure hits more often than incredible success. This also helps to balance out the wider threat range of certain weapons (although I have debated having some weapons have wider "fumble ranges" like the spiked chain, 3 section staff, and generally any other weapon you could easily entagle/maim yourself with).
Which is why many a low level archer who takes the -8 to hit (-4 for ally in melee, -4 for cover provided by ally) will end up fumbling. Makes sense to me. You've spent your life hunting, and have developed some skill with a bow. Now try to make a shot at a slobbering monster without putting the arrow in your companions ear, but before the monster bites his face off. Under that kind of stress, most people will make mistakes, up to and including shooting their companion.
|
|
And that's fine for you. Me, I like my crits and fumbles to be very rare occurances. I forgot to mention I plan on making crits only happen on double 20s as well. I think low levels are already swingy enough as it stands. Missing an opponent is bad enough, let alone having a good chance of smacking your buddy.
(Also, 'competent warrior' in my previous post applies to 1st level characters too. ^_^ )
I used to ...back in the day. A natural 1 was a botch just as a natural 20 was a crit. You confirmed the botch by missing on the second roll. So a botch on a missle fire attempt resulted in a friendly fire incident. It worked fine, wasnt to heavy handed to the point where players where wrecking each other and actually provided some good RP on occasion. My current group doesn't do botches so on the rare times I have been DM I never implemented it.Thanks Warmaster. That is certainly a quick way to adjudicate it. The system I currently use requires a second attack roll against the friendy's AC, so their armor and protection are taking into consideration. It sounds like you do (or did) an automatic friendly hit on a roll of one, right?
In my case you still confirm, but by a second miss after the threatened botch ...works just like a crit but in reverse. For RP flavor I would often modify the botch by how badly the second roll missed as well. For example you you roll a one which threatens a botch. Then you roll another D20, if you missed by one, you might just snap your bow string ( takes one round to restring), if you miss by 5 you hit a random adjacent etc...
It seems to me that both sides in this debate are already appropriately handled/compensated to the degree that can be reasonable in the rules as are (and were in 3.5).
Shooting into melee - you take a -4 to be cautious, and for all those swords being flung about blocking your shot. Precise Shot removes this.
Shooting past an ally - they give +4 Cover to the target's AC. If you miss due to that bonus (by 1 to 4) you apply your attack roll vs. your ally - if it is high enough to hit them, you do. No zapping your dwarven defender when he's standing in front of an unarmored mage. And no peasant armies hitting a dragon on every strike because they're shooting the knight on the other side of him. This is removed with Improved Precise Shot.
So if a friend is in the way, you can hit them. If they aren't, you take a penalty to make sure you don't.
Fumbles are fumbles, and rules for that are 99% house rules. They don't really have a bearing on cover and shooting into melee penalties.
I have to say I'm on the opposite end. I hate that people think you should have a chance to hit an ally. Mostly because they make it happen entirely too often. I want to play a competent warrior, not a stooge who slaps his buddy once every fight.
To answer your question of house rules, I'm planning on changing fumbles to requiring two 1's in a row. This drops the chance from 5% to a much smaller number I can't do the math for right now. ^^'
1 in 400, or 0.25%. Had a couple of characters die from those odds.
In fact, once it was three 1s in a row, for 1 in 8000 or 0,0125% (Nat1 on save against spell, nat1 on massive damage save, nat1 on rolling again just to see whether the Lady really hated me that day).
One way to handle it is to use the rules for hitting cover. Which depending on how people are place, your friend in melee may actually be providing to your target. These were rules in the 3.0 combat section, and variant rules in the DMG 3.5.
Basically if you miss due to cover (by 4 or less) then you may accidentally hit the cover instead. I think a second attack roll was used... although you could just use first one and see if that total (without the cover) hits.
I'll see if I can find the exact rule in the old 3.0 SRD when I have the chance, or maybe its in the modern SRD.
Yes, that's one way.
But the -4 penalty on attack rolls doesn't assume your friend is in the way, giving cover.
Combat is mobile, fluid, ever-changing. Melee combatants move around, ducking, dodging, attacking, looking for the right opportunity to strike. Even if your friend is in a 5' space between you and your target (also in his own 5' space), he's not in your way all the time.
Sometimes you might be perpendicular to the two combatants so that your friend is to the left or to the right of your target and not in the way at all. Sometimes you might be behind your target and your friend is on the other side of the target.
But they're still moving around and you're still being careful.
The real reason for the penalty is that it represents the fact that you are being extra careful with your aim. You are making sure you shoot so far away from your friend that there is no chance to hit him, but in return, it reduces your chance to hit your target, too.
When you get better with your ranged attack (by taking the Precise Shot feat), you have become so good that aiming away from your friends is 2nd nature to you, and you do it effortlessly without taking the penalty anymore.
If we want realism, how about accidentally hitting others in melee? There's several people going at each other with weapons in close quarters, and there's no chance you miss your target and hit your friend instead?
All or nothing I say.
I am glad someone said thsi, because I was going to say it myself. And I still am...
Archers and others who rely primarily on ranged weapons are already penalized enough.
I have never been in a 3.x group that had a primary melee and a primary ranged combatant where the ranged combatant did anywhere near the damage output of the melee combatant. Usually it's somewhere between 50% and 75% depending on builds.
In addition to lower damage, the ranged combatant starts with penalties (-4 for firing into melee). The melee combatant does not. So anyone relying on ranged attacks has to burn 1 feat (Point Blank Shot is a decent feat, so it's not "burned") just to gain even ground with melee combatants regarding chances to hit.
The feat selection for melee weapons is exhaustive, but for ranged combat it's much more limited. Melee combatants have many avenues to explore, while ranged combatants run out of feats early in their career then turn to basic stuff like Dodge and Toughness, etc.
If your ranged weapon of choice is muscle powered (thrown), you can get your STR damage modifier, but only at very close range. Otherwise, you don't get your STR modifier.
If you want to hit things at a decent range, you must go with Crossbows (but you won't get iterative attacks and you'll never get your STR mod for damage) or bows. With bows, you can get compound bows, but half of the bows you find in treasure hoards will be ordinary bows. A +2 compound bow that allows you to get +3 damage from STR is probably better than a +3 regular bow. Melee combatants never have to throw away or sell half of the weapons they find due to not being able to use their STR modifiers.
If you do find a way to use your STR mod for ranged damage, you have to build your character with a good STR and DEX to deal damage effecively, but if you're a melee combatant, you really only need STR to deal damage effectively.
And let's not forget cover and concealment. Many terrain features and magical effects grant targets cover or concealment against ranged attacks but not against melee attacks. Ranged combatants are far more likely to be penalized for cover or concealment than melee combatants.
Likewise, there are effects (e.g. Entropic Shield) that grant defensive bonuses against ranged attacks. On the other hand, effects that grant general AC (e.g. Shield or Mage Armor) are effective against melee and against ranged attacks. I cannot off the top of my head think of a defensive spell that only affects melee attacks without affecting ranged attacks. Thus, ranged oombatants are more likely to encounter effects that reduce their chances to hit than melee combatants.
With all these factors working against the ranged combat specialist, it just seems crazy to penalize them further by giving them a chance to hurt their friends.
Unless, of course, you give everyone that chance. Let the melee combatant have the same chance to accidentally whack his friends in combat.
But wait - many times the melee combatant will not any friends next to him. Even if you do implement a melee chance to hit allies, the melee combatants will, most likely, have nowhere near the frequency of accidents that ranged combatants will experience.
No, I think ranged oombatants have a hard enough time, let's not punish them anymore.
If you do find a way to use your STR mod for ranged damage, you have to build your...
The OP is just looking for house rules. I can almost guarantee that Jason wouldn't be putting something like this into the rules, precisely for the reasons mentioned (plus a dozen more).
Same with fumbles. Fumbles aren't an official rule (critical fumble decks notwithstanding) in 3.5 or PF. So for those of you who are talking about creating a house rule that requires fumbles to be confirmed, just remember that the fumble is a house rule to begin with (a natural 1, except on skills, is only an automatic failure).
Another thing that I can't recall, if this was a house rule I made or a feat I found, was adding dex mod to ranged attack dmg (except for thrown or composite bows).
|
When I DM middle school kids, they like a lot of action so we crit on a nat 20 with no need to confirm. And we fumble on a nat 1, melee or ranged. If you fumble, count up ALL combatants you threaten, friend or foe, and randomly determine which one you unintentionally attack. Roll vs. their AC. Cross your fingers - maybe your arrow bounces and hits the intended target anyway, or maybe you stab your buddy. We had one character who earned the title "friend-killer" for crit'ing a friend after fumbling against an orc. The friend was bummed for a few minutes until somebody healed him, but the story lasted for months. Good times!
my only concern is some DM using this as some means to justify gimping an archer character. Say the DM saying that an attack actually hits the guys fighter friend on a regular basis (something I've seen happen before in 3.0. No matter the feats involved, size of the opponents or anything else the DM in question always gave you a flat 50% chance to hit your friend... even on a crit!). Personally I would like to see precise shot figure into this some too.
Beyond those things not a bad idea.
Yeah. Precise shot figures into my current method because it reduces the penalty and therefore reduces the chance of a miss in the first place.
Archers and others who rely primarily on ranged weapons are already penalized enough.
This is a poor way of looking at the issue IMHO. In my group. we're more concerned with what makes sense. You are looking at it strictly from a metagaming standpoint. I prefer not to do that.
Yes, a melee player could accidentally hit another melee player. Because of this, if at all possible they tend to give each other a little space. At the same time this reduces the chance of a ranged person hitting a friendly because there are less friendlies on the same monster.
I've been playing a ranged build for the very first time a few weeks ago, but I think you are forgetting a lot of factors a ranged attack has to take into account that the melee character will never need to care about.- Cover
- Concealment
- Hitting a target in melee
- Fixed damage that you can not raise when your STR gets a temporary boost (through rage, buff spells ...)
- No heavy-damage Feat, as they are reserved for melee attacksFurthermore, the benefit you get from having a high AC (due your high DEX) plays far less of a role than it does for a melee character. Also, you do not provide flanking bonuses to your friends, nor do you threaten enemies.
Finally, most encounters in ready-to-play modules are designed with melee characters in mind, and you almost never take full advantage of your weapon's long range. In fact, most of the time, you will be in charging distance of an enemy. And when you become part of a melee, all the precious feats you invested in hitting and damaging targets with your ranged weapon become pretty useless.
Yep, that sounds just about how it should be! Don't forget Deadly Aim [Power Attack for ranged weapons].
Its a balancing act between reality and fantasy. A more realistic solution would involve taking into account distances. If you're 10ft away from your mate Bob, who is fighting a monster, you are probably not going to accidently shoot Bob, but if you were 100ft away from the fight, there would be a far greater chance that Bob would have moved to where you aimed - after you shot but before the arrow reached it's destination.
You could use a simple increment system.
Up to 30ft --- 0% chance of hitting the wrong target
31 - 60ft --- 5% chance of hitting the wrong target
61 - 90ft --- 10% chance of hitting the wrong target
etc.
I guess it depends on how much number crunching you want to do before actually doing something, some people want more, most want less.
[So many things I agree with, and...]
I cannot off the top of my head think of a defensive spell that only affects melee attacks without affecting ranged attacks.
Perhaps you wouldn't count it as defensive, but Fire Shield affects melee only.
If we want realism, how about accidentally hitting others in melee? There's several people going at each other with weapons in close quarters, and there's no chance you miss your target and hit your friend instead?
All or nothing I say.
I am glad someone said thsi, because I was going to say it myself. And I still am...
Sorry if I was unclear, my method applies to all attacks, not just missle. So you could infact accidentally drop a melee weapon, stab a friend ...or yourself for that matter.
Archers and others who rely primarily on ranged weapons are already penalized enough.
This is a poor way of looking at the issue IMHO. In my group. we're more concerned with what makes sense. You are looking at it strictly from a metagaming standpoint. I prefer not to do that.
Yes, a melee player could accidentally hit another melee player. Because of this, if at all possible they tend to give each other a little space. At the same time this reduces the chance of a ranged person hitting a friendly because there are less friendlies on the same monster.
Of course it's metagamey. There's no way to discuss rules intelligently without being metagamey.
Metagaming is only frowned upon during the roleplaying session itself, not during game design.
What makes sense, IRL, is that firing any ranged attack into melee is incredibly risky to your allies who are in that melee.
It's why cops don't just shoot someone who takes a hostage and "grapples" them while threatening them with a gun or knife, etc., because there's too much risk they'll hit the hostage.
Cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, Civil War reenactments, or any other modern combat involves primarily ranged combat with little or no melee.
But D&D is a game where most of the combat is done at close quarters, or worded better, most (nearly all) combats involve some close quarters melee regardless of whether those same combats also have ranged attacks as well.
This kind of combat simulation makes ranged attacks useless if we try to apply a "makes sense" real world model of the risks involved with firing into melee.
Now, if your game wants that kind of brutal reality, just make it clear to any player who joins the game that it would be foolish to design their character as being primarily a ranged combat specialist, since, over time, he will do far far more damage to the party's fighter than he ever does to any monster, he will burn countless heals from the cleric due to all his accidents, and he will ultimately hinder the party and limit their "15-minute adventuring day" more than any other character in the party.
Because if you don't, and you get a player who understands that D&D is built to facilitate ranged combat as being worthwhile (if a bit weak), and he builds a character concept around that expectation, then that player will be very frustrated with your "makes sense" alterations to the combat system.
Your assumptions are all false DM_Blake. What you fail to realize is I have been using such a rule in D&D for multiple campaigns and many, many groups since the early 1980s. Ranged specialists still do just fine in the game, it just adds an extra touch of danger and realism to how combat is adjudicated.
I posted here because I am interested in finding out how others who use such a rule handle it because I am always open to better ways of doing things.
You, on the other hand, seem to subscribed to the idea that if someone isn't playing the way you like or want them to, then they are playing wrong. So I'm not sure why you bothered to respond to this thread in the first place. It is clear from my initial post that I was looking for ideas from fellow gamers who employ a rule for shooting into melee, not for pronouncements from people who think their way is the only valid way of playing. Thanks anyway, though.
Your assumptions are all false DM_Blake. What you fail to realize is I have been using such a rule in D&D for multiple campaigns and many, many groups since the early 1980s. Ranged specialists still do just fine in the game, it just adds an extra touch of danger and realism to how combat is adjudicated.
I posted here because I am interested in finding out how others who use such a rule handle it because I am always open to better ways of doing things.
You, on the other hand, seem to subscribed to the idea that if someone isn't playing the way you like or want them to, then they are playing wrong. So I'm not sure why you bothered to respond to this thread in the first place. It is clear from my initial post that I was looking for ideas from fellow gamers who employ a rule for shooting into melee, not for pronouncements from people who think their way is the only valid way of playing. Thanks anyway, though.
Ouch.
You got me.
Or not.
I don't think my way is the only way. In fact, I've been through a number of systems with far more realistic combat than D&D. I've played systems where firing into melee will kill your own allies faster than it will kill your enemies.
Does anyone remember Twilight 2000? Of course, in that game making a melee specialist was suicide...
I've played with fumble charts, and right now we're playing with Paizo's Critical Fumble Deck.
In fact, our last game session, we had a glaive-wielding cleric fumble and drew the card that said "hit nearest ally, roll to confirm a critical hit." the crit was confirmed, and our level 1 cleric did 23 points of damage to our level 1 monk, dropping the monk instantly into deep negative HP and requiring the cleric's full allotment of Cure Light Wounds just to get the monk almost healed to full. It was the start of our adventuring day and the cleric was trying to hack open a locked door so we could get into the dungeon. We turned around and went home - no point soldiering on with no healing, we'll come back tomorrow.
That same game session, my paladin fumbled with his longsword and hit himself causing 2 bleed damage per round. The cleric instantly healed me before I started draining my HP away, but at 1st level, bleeding 2 HP per round is scary.
But you're right, my way is the only way.
Or not.
The problem with fumbles that can dish out damage, or worse, with rules that cause firing into melee to damage your allies, is that both of these kinds of rules drain PC resources.
By doing damage to your allies, they are easier for the monsters to kill. At the end of the fight (or during it) your party healer(s) have to spend more healing spells to restore the damage taken than they would have without rules that let you damage yourself or your allies.
More resources spent means you have to camp and restore your resources more often. If the resources are scrolls, potions, wands of curing, etc., those may be very hard to replenish mid-dungeon.
Sure, it can make it much more realistic, but does D&D really need realism that detracts from adventuring?
How often did Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, Martin Riggs, Legolas, or any Arnold Schwartzenegger character hit their allies in any adventure they took part in? (I would have included Rambo, but he was always alone with no allies to shoot...)
I was simply explaining the rules as written, and how those rules are very heavily stacked against being an effective ranged combat specialist in D&D/Pathfinder, and using that as a basis to argue against implementing houserules that further impede ranged combat.
You'll note my two examples of non-RAW fumble badness in my campaign are with melee weapons. In our campaign, we haven't singled out ranged combat and selectively applied rules that only make it harder to use ranged combat. We've appied fumble rules all around; everyone gets equal chances to screw up, melee or ranged.
You want fumbles, go ahead and use them, but understand how they impact your PCs' resources.
You want fumbles or other mechanics that screw up ranged combat, then go ahead and use them, but understand how they screw up anyone who builds a character concept around being a ranged specialist, and also understand how they impact your PCs' resources.
And for Pete's sake, everyone MUST play MY way or ELSE!
It doesn't really add any enjoyment to the game, and just penalizes people who play a ranged class in a way that melee classes don't get penalized.
Melee does get penalized for cover, but it's more situational and a ton less frequent than someone whose primary focus is ranged...
1. When cornering. (Most common in narrow hallways or large parties)2. When using Reach weapons. (Spiked Chain, Whip, Polearms)
3.5 PHB, Page 150(Picture of "cornering" on that page also)
"When making a melee attack against an adjacent target,your target has cover if any line from your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks."
"Bull***t! Same rules for everyone!" - Rob Schneider, Big Daddy
3.5 PHB, Page 150(Picture of "cornering" on that page also)
"When making a melee attack against an adjacent target,your target has cover if any line from your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.""Bull***t! Same rules for everyone!" - Rob Schneider, Big Daddy
I did not know about that rule. Now myself and the other DM will have to decide if we will start enforcing it. Thanks. :)
I did not know about that rule. Now myself and the other DM will have to decide if we will start enforcing it. Thanks. :)
3.5 PHB, Page 150(Picture of "cornering" on that page also)
"When making a melee attack..."Bull***t! Same rules for everyone!" - Rob Schneider, Big Daddy
You're welcome. I found out about it roughly a year or so ago when my "Castlevania-esq Undead Hunter" chain-fighter got whirlwind.
Not a big deal for a Fighter, very similar to the mechanic used with '3.5E power attack', soak +4 attack = get extra damage... soak +4 attack = hit monster in 2nd row of a crowd.
Long story short, it didn't make the character any less fun. That Rob Schneider quote pretty much sums it up in my mind. :)
I've run using the 3.0 rules for firing into melee and allies providing cover (yes, a cumulative -4 to attack rolls, + 4 to enemy's AC, chance to hit ally if you miss by 4 points when ally is providing cover). Of course, I compare the initial attack roll to the ally's AC if he's providing cover, which means that, if that ally has any business being in combat, there's a decent chance it'll ping off his armor instead. I've never had a problem.
Of course, the only time I've had a campaign with a ranged-focused character, he was the most reliable attacker in the party, almost always successfully hitting his enemies. He may have done less damage (being a halfling and all), but he was much more consistent than the swinging meleers. So, perhaps it's my gaming style, perhaps not, but I don't really see how archers are more penalized than melee characters. They can prioritize one stat (DEX) above two/three (STR, CON, and DEX) that close warriors need, have the benefit of avoiding retaliatory strikes more readily, and have several feats that give them major bonuses (Precise Shot, after all, is an effective +4 to hit, even if it is circumstantial).
I'll continue to use the rules I've been using, from back when they were official, and I don't forsee having any problems moving forward.
But, yes, you always have a -4 to hit when firing into melee, and if your ally is between you and the target, you've got to account for cover bonuses to AC. They're two different impediments and are expected to both come into play.
|
|
A halfling ranged attacker ?
If he is so efficient at hitting foes (which he had better be if he doesn't want to hit his friends by your rules), why don't the opponents get close to him ? After all, he cannot move that far in a round ;-)
Once they are within melee range, he will greatly regret having so-so CON and STR modifiers, especially if he selected only archery-enhancing feats (ie, no Weapon Finesse, no Dodge, no Combat Expertise ...).
It seems to me that the reasoning you put in building an effective ranged attacker (no need for STR and CON especially) is based on the assumption that all fights involving this character will be at range. But it is not so, unless the DM decides that no enemy will ever try to reach him.
A big difference between a viable meleeist and a viable ranged-attacker is that the former can concentrate on one and only one combat situation (ie, melee) in his built, while the latter has to include both his primary combat style (ranged) AND a secondary combat style (ie melee) for when the enemies are closing in.
For better and for worse, the melee combat is the primary fight situation in DnD.
|
|
Well, I've actually used both rules as well. and as a DM I've had to deal with three seperate range focused rangers. (I blame it on always having new players to deal with and legolas, someone always wants to be legolas).
The way I run it though I give the player the option. They can take the -4 for firing into melee and not risk hitting anyone other than their target, or they can shoot without the -4 but if they miss they have a chance of hitting an adjacent target.
Soft cover I work differently, if you miss because of cover you struck the cover, now to determine if you hurt the cover in the case of soft cover you compare your attack roll to their flat footed AC if it hits then you roll damage against the soft cover. Typically high AC characters don't have to worry as their armor protects them.
Precise shot gets rid of the -4 and the risk of hitting allies. Soft cover always risks getting hit, but the party quickly develops tactics to ensure that they either have a high enough AC to not worry about it, or ensure that they aren't providing cover. My ranged players never complained, (well one did, but he played in a game before where cover rules weren't enforced at all so his ranged character had been much more powerful because it only had to deal with firing into melee. once he learned that he settled down.)
Also I've found that after about level 4-5 neither of these things affects a ranged character much between party adaptation and their increasing abilities and feats the only time I saw allies struck was when they crit fumbled using paizo's crit fumble deck which I also use.
Just don't forget when we're comparing our melee apples to our ranged oranges, that Precise Shot, while it does solve everything (regarding firing into melee) as some people in this thread claim, it's still a tax that every ranged specialist *must* take this feat just to be even with the melee specialists who can, at the same levels, take whatever feats they want.
Just don't forget when we're comparing our melee apples to our ranged oranges, that Precise Shot, while it does solve everything (regarding firing into melee) as some people in this thread claim, it's still a tax that every ranged specialist *must* take this feat just to be even with the melee specialists who can, at the same levels, take whatever feats they want.
Honestly, Precise Shot probably is a Feat Tax, but that's NOT a complaint. Because I've tried going without it and even 'Ranged Touch Attacks' are ugly and frustrating with a -8 ATTACK tacked on to every shot! It's much happier to just remove the -4 for melee and do you best to get a clear shot/avoiding partial cover. Have a Sorcerer with a Longbow, I usually just switch to 'Ranged Touch Attacks' or 'Magic Missile-esq' spells(auto-hit) when the AC is to hard to crack.
Precise shot gets rid of the -4 and the risk of hitting allies.
I actually like that explanation a lot! PHB pg. 140 actually reads "...you have to aim carefully to avoid hitting your friend."
Just don't forget when we're comparing our melee apples to our ranged oranges, that Precise Shot, while it does solve everything (regarding firing into melee) as some people in this thread claim, it's still a tax that every ranged specialist *must* take this feat just to be even with the melee specialists who can, at the same levels, take whatever feats they want.
It's not really a Tax, more of a trade off.
You don't run the risk of being hit continually [and therefore can spend your money on something more interesting than armour] at the price of 1 Feat. I've never has a player complain about taking it.
The melee guy can, as you say, can look at more interesting Feats but he hasn't got any money because he spent it all on improving the fridge-freezer he's wearing!