Hello!
I have a player that wants to fire into combat and forego the -4 penalty to avoid hitting his allies. That is, he'll take his chances and hope not to hit them. But *shrug* if an accident happens.
Is there a rule for this? Perhaps d100 to determine who gets hit if the shot is successful or something else?
Side note that any existing rule for this seems like it would be tough to manage because the ACs of allies and enemies are likely to be different, compounded by which targets, if any, get the +4 AC for cover.
Thanks in advance for your help!
No, there are no rules for it.
You could give a weighted probability based on size:
Fine =1
Diminutive =2
Tiny =4
Small = 8
Medium =16
Large =32
Huge =64
Gargantuan =128
Colossal =256
(Note, for most fights you could start at small =1 and get the same results)
Sum the totals for all creatures that are in the group being fired at, assign each possible target a range of results, and randomly determine which result is the target. Apply cover rules normally for the target in question.
This would give a big advantage when fighting creatures larger than yourself. I would be inclined to not allow targeting specific squares of large+ creatures to avoid cover penalties.
Well the character can just take Precise shot and it is no longer a problem!
Though size of the target can effect the penalty: Shooting Into Melee
Though what I recommend is utilizing soft cover: Cover
So yes, -4 to the players attack, a +4 to the targets AC if the attack passes through another player's square. If the attack lands in range of the AC that is the soft cover bonus, they hit the character providing soft cover is my suggestion.
D&D 3.5 used to give you the option to either take a -4 penalty or risk a 20% chance to hit an ally, but they have removed that option in Pathfinder. I still allow the choice in my homebrew games.
D&D 3.5 used to give you the option to either take a -4 penalty or risk a 20% chance to hit an ally, but they have removed that option in Pathfinder. I still allow the choice in my homebrew games
I thought that I remembered something like that. Do you know where in the 3.5E rules to find it?
Huh, apparently it has been removed from 3.5 as well. Online sources are updated, but if you have an older edition of the core rulebook then you should find it under combat in the "Firing into melee" section.
You sure it wasn't 3.0?
Ok. Perfect. Will have to dig out my books, but I really think it's in the version I have. Thank you so much!
Missile weapons are intended mainly as long-range weapons. Ideally, they are used
before the opponents reach your line. However, ideal situations are all too rare, and
characters often discover that the only effective way to attack is to shoot arrows (or
whatever) at an enemy already in melee combat with their companions. While possible,
and certainly allowed, this is a risky proposition.
When missiles are fired into a melee, the DM counts the number of figures in the
immediate area of the intended target. Each Medium figure counts as 1. Small (S) figures
count as _, Large as 2, Huge as 4, and Gargantuan as 6. The total value is compared to
the value of each character or creature in the target melee. Using this ratio, the DM rolls a
die to determine who (or what) will be the target of the shot.
I'm not sure I'd allow the player to forego the -4. Melees can get kind of chaotic - intended targets within one probably should get a bonus to their AC even if a shooter is being reckless. There's just a higher chance of something, anything, getting in the way and deflecting the shot. I'm not even talking about hitting the shooter's ally. I'm talking about just having a hard time hitting anything intentionally. Taking a feat to trump the penalty seems about the right cost to me.
|
The -4 isn't because you're trying to avoid your allies, either. It's because combat is dynamic and people are moving around, making it more difficult to pinpoint where to fire.
Imagine if the PC were firing into a melee where two different groups of enemies were engaged (PCs vs Enemy1 vs Enemy2). Removing the -4 penalty, and allowing a chance of just hitting either target, would be a huge boon to the PC.
Or, turn the tables the other way. Imagine if two groups of enemies engage the PCs: one at range and one in melee. The CR of the encounter increases dramatically if the ranged enemies effectively receive +4 to their attacks.
The -4 isn't because you're trying to avoid your allies, either. It's because combat is dynamic and people are moving around, making it more difficult to pinpoint where to fire.
Its exactly because you are trying to avoid hitting any ally. That's why the rules state:
"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."
I'd somewhat agree here, if for some reason two of your enemies were fighting and you didn't actually care which one got a new arrow to the knee. But generally you're aiming at someone.
So when asked for an option to remove the -4, I'd gently suggest Precise Shot as the one your player needs. Precise Shot: When You Want to Keep Your Friends (TM).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep wondering if people are thinking of 3e's cover rule when they're bringing up the possibility of hitting their ally. In 3e, not only did a person shooting into melee suffer -4 to hit (amelioratable by precise shot) but if there was anything between them and the melee, including their own ally, the target got a cover bonus and if you missed by a margin less than the cover bonus, you might hit the cover. And that could be your buddy. See page 123 of the 3.0 PH.
They demoted that rule in 3.5.
I keep wondering if people are thinking of 3e's cover rule when they're bringing up the possibility of hitting their ally. In 3e, not only did a person shooting into melee suffer -4 to hit (amelioratable by precise shot) but if there was anything between them and the melee, including their own ally, the target got a cover bonus and if you missed by a margin less than the cover bonus, you might hit the cover. And that could be your buddy. See page 123 of the 3.0 PH.
They demoted that rule in 3.5.
I think you're right in that part of the confusion stems from that, but the other part comes from the existence of "soft cover" in the current rules (see John Templeton's post above). So you still have the -4 (Precise Shot negates), but you can still have another +4 to the target's AC if anyone (friend or foe) is in the way.
The difference is that Pathfinder doesn't assume you hit the "soft cover" if you miss in that added +4 range.
|
And after you get Precise Shot, you can qualify for Friendly Fire, if you really don't care if your friends get hit or not.
1. If I were in a group and one of my "allies" shots me or any of my other allies in the back during a fight, I would have a serious problem with that guy. I'd grudgingly forgive him one time. but not if his reply is "shrug". That guy gets no forgiveness - he gets removed from my group. Period. I would never repeatedly enter life-or-death combat with "allies" at my back shooting me or my other allies. Ever.
As a player, I would have this talk with any other player at the table - I would start in-character but if the player doesn't get the idea, I would take it out-of-character. If the player still doesn't get the idea, then I guess he'll be surprised when my PC refuses to adventure with his PC. Hopefully it wouldn't get that far.
2. Assuming none of the above matters to anyone in your group, then here is how I would rule it if I were GMing that group. This is not RAW since, by RAW, this cannot be done (not even Darth Vader is that careless with the people fighting on his side). Since -4 represents 20% of the possibilities on a d20, so I translate that into a 20% miss chance for the intended target (the equivalent of having normal concealment). The shooter rolls normally but I apply the miss chance FIRST even before the attack roll. If it's in the 80% range, the shooter attacks normally, but if it's in the 20% range, then he accidentally shoots an ally and must roll his attack roll vs. that ally. If more than one ally is in melee with the target, I'd let each player roll a "luck" * roll to see which one of them is the unlucky target.
* For me, a luck roll is just a d20 - everyone involved rolls, the higher the better (highest roll is most lucky, lowest roll is most unlucky). Ties are re-rolled amongst only those who tied, and only if their "luck" would have decided the outcome in one of their favor.
It does seem odd, though, that if two people that you don't really care about are engaged in melee, you can aim and reliably hit the one that you're aiming for and don't actually have a chance to hit the other one. I'd say the "friendly" part is just a presumption that the party is going to be fighting just a single group of enemies and that, if running a more "complicated" campaign that involved multiple factions of adversaries that are also opposed to each other, that you take a -4 penalty against any target in melee and, if you miss, determine if you hit one of the other melee combatants instead.The -4 isn't because you're trying to avoid your allies, either. It's because combat is dynamic and people are moving around, making it more difficult to pinpoint where to fire.
Its exactly because you are trying to avoid hitting any ally. That's why the rules state:
"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."I'd somewhat agree here, if for some reason two of your enemies were fighting and you didn't actually care which one got a new arrow to the knee. But generally you're aiming at someone.
So when asked for an option to remove the -4, I'd gently suggest Precise Shot as the one your player needs. Precise Shot: When You Want to Keep Your Friends (TM).
Many of the rules are "off" in some situations.