Is StarFinder ranged combat more forgiving than Pathfinder?

[Raymond Lambert]

Without much time to dig in yet, but a clock ticking on my first game soon, I am wondering if the rulebfor precise shot is removed? Maybe it was renamed? Maybe the anticipation of prevalent use of guns resulted in a rules system a bit more forgiving to ranged combat? How about cover?

[captain yesterday]

Yup, no more penalties for firing into a melee.

[captain yesterday]

They still have cover.

But it might be different.

[Zandari]

So, soft cover (intervening allies, enemies, or other persons) contributes a -4 to your attack roll. This replaces the old "firing into melee" penalty. If you can maneuver for a clear shot (i.e., no intervening cover), there is no penalty for ranged combat into melee groups. Conversely, if someone moves and stands in between you and your target, your are now at a -4 for cover, instead of what used to be a -2 for soft cover.

[Deadmanwalking]

Zandari wrote:

So, soft cover (intervening allies, enemies, or other persons) contributes a -4 to your attack roll. This replaces the old "firing into melee" penalty. If you can maneuver for a clear shot (i.e., no intervening cover), there is no penalty for ranged combat into melee groups. Conversely, if someone moves and stands in between you and your target, your are now at a -4 for cover, instead of what used to be a -2 for soft cover.

Actually, the cover rules in Pathfinder were basically identical, and not removed by Precise Shot.

But yeah, in Starfinder you're in trouble if trying to shoot directly through someone, but not if you have clear line of sight.

[Raymond Lambert]

Thank you all.

[Zaister]

Zandari wrote:

So, soft cover (intervening allies, enemies, or other persons) contributes a -4 to your attack roll. This replaces the old "firing into melee" penalty. If you can maneuver for a clear shot (i.e., no intervening cover), there is no penalty for ranged combat into melee groups. Conversely, if someone moves and stands in between you and your target, your are now at a -4 for cover, instead of what used to be a -2 for soft cover.

Actually, it's not a penalty to your attack roll, but a bonus to the target's AC. While this is mechanically identical, it's still important to make the distinction, because if you don't, it might happen, if players in their head have different ideas how that situation is applied, that the modifier is applied twice, or not at all:

For example, say I'm the GM, and I know that a monster with cover gets +4 to its AC, but you as the player assume you get –4 to your attack, and in the end we apply both, the modifier is doubled. Or I shoot at your character who has cover, expecting you to add the +4 bonus to your AC, while you think I'd have applied a penalty to my attack roll, and in the end, your bonus is lost. So, in both cases, you have drawn the short stick. It pays to apply this modifier correctly. :)

[Zwordsman]

Also.. there are a lot of effects in this game that work off of "to hit stuff"
like explosion property, maybe burst? I forget which ones exactly.
but the DC is modified by the to hit.

[PaganUniform]

How clear of LoS do you need to avoid this penalty? Would perpendicular to the target and Allie be enough? And do you guys have a rule book page for this?

[Matt2VK]

You need to be able to draw a line from one of your corner squares to all 4 of the targets squares without anything in the way.

Only exception I know of is hard corners prevent this.