Shooting Into Melee and Precise Shot

[Yosharian]

Hi, I have a question about this mechanic:

"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.)

Precise Shot: If you have the Precise Shot feat, you don’t take this penalty."

Note the wording: "FRIENDLY character".

This implies that if a player were to shoot at two enemies engaged in melee combat, there would be no penalty.

However, Precise Shot makes no distinction between two enemies engaged in melee combat, and a friendly + enemy engaged in melee combat - it simply states "an opponent engaged in melee".

"Precise Shot

You are adept at firing ranged attacks into melee.

Prerequisite: Point-Blank Shot.

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."

So my question is:

1) Is the Shooting Into Melee rule designed to simulate only the danger of hitting a friendly target, in which case it does not apply to enemy targets engaged in melee with other enemies, or:

2) Is it also designed to simulate the difficulty of hitting an enemy that is engaged in melee combat and thus is parrying, dodging back and forth, maneuvering in an unpredictable manner, etc, in which case it does apply to enemy targets engaged in melee with other enemies?

The reason I'm asking this is partially in case this scenario ever occurs, and also because a player is asking me if he can forsake the -4 penalty and simply risk hitting the relevant friendly target instead.

[Pizza Lord]

It is meant to simulate you firing into combat between one person you do want to hit and one person you do not want to hit.

I would say the wording of Shooting into Melee is enough to remove the penalty from attacking two enemies. I wouldn't allow it against an unknown or even neutral party engaged with your target. Otherwise, I view the mechanic is not being optional. For instance, you can't just 'decide' that your friend isn't your ally for purposes of getting a higher attack bonus. You can't just decide you don't care if you hit your ally ("He's a 10th level fighter and my arrow does 1d8 damage!"), it's there for combat balance reasons and for mechanics purposes.

Not only that, because the mechanic doesn't allow for actually hitting an inadvertent target (unlike if one were actually between you and providing cover AC), so allowing it to be removed because you don't care about hitting another combatant in melee would result in you having an easier time of hitting your target because you aren't trying not to hit the other guy... but without any chance of hitting the other guy. Unless you want to rule that any miss, except maybe a Natural 1, just hits the other guy, but that's definitely in houserule territory... and that's not even having to decide which other guy gets hit if there's more than one. So... two definite enemies... you're probably okay not getting the penalty houserule-wise, but the mechanic doesn't appear to be meant to be ignored.

That, or just tell him fine and any attack he makes automatically hits his ally (except maybe a Natural 1 or Natural 20), assuming it would beat their AC. Eventually they'll get the hint that there's a reason the system just uses a flat 'increased difficulty' penalty.

[Dajur]

Don't forget about one of the worst rules in the game. Soft cover.

[Meirril]

The whole -4 if a friend is engaged in melee combat with your target is to simulate your hesitation to hit your ally. There is no choice to ignore this penalty, just like there is no choice to randomly determine a target. Just like there is no chance of hitting allies if you shoot through their square.

Similarly if you shoot into a melee and miss you don't check if anyone else got hit. These kinds of considerations might be realistic, but it adds complications into the game that take extra time and don't contribute to making the game more satisfying. The simple way it is handled now keeps the game from bogging down more than it already does.

[Yosharian]

I see. So the consensus is, the penalty is designed to simulate avoiding hitting your ally, not necessarily shooting into melee.

Calls into question why the entire rule is called 'Shooting Into Melee' when it's actually about nothing of the sort.

Really confusing.

[Weables]

its because pathfinder isnt meant to simulate every situation ever, and is meant to try to cover the rules that will come up most, the ones involving the adventurers, their exploits, and what happens during their interactions. It's not supposed to cover everything, and thats what a GM is for, to deal with the extra situations.

It's called this because 99/100 times, the situation you're dealing with in game involves your ally and an enemy. the 1/100 times, the GM is the one to rule on it. thats how the game works, its not meant to have a rule on every potential situation or you wouldnt be able to lift the CRB. something you have to accept.

[Glorf Fei-Hung]

So Yes RAW the the penalty only applies when one of the creatures engaged in melee is one of your allies. In the event when it is to people/creatures that you do not know. I rule that if you shoot at one, and don't take the -4 you are also engaging in combat against it as well, and will take appropriate penalties for hostile creatures and such should you decide to diplomacy with it rather than fight it.

In a PFS scenario, there is no option to wave the -4 penalty.

As a house rule, nothing is stopping you from doing so. If I were GM'ing and that request made of me, I might decide to allow avoiding the -4, but consequently rule that a Nat 1 still misses everything entirely, but a 2-5 actually hit your ally rather than the opponent. This increases the players chance to hit the enemy, but also puts in an equal chance to hit your ally as you are taking in penalty to avoid hitting your ally. I would further rule that if your ally does not willingly accept this risk, then you lose the ability to opt out of the -4 penalty.
If you do roll 2-5, possibly a second attack roll to see if you hit him squarely enough to injure. Targeting the ally's Flatfooted AC with no shield bonus, as they are likely not prepared to be shot in the back by their friend.

[Kayerloth]

What Glorf said, I'll point out the rules have evolved from earlier editions where if you fired into a melee it became a random roll based on the sizes of the creature involved to decide who hit (as I recall from way back). Check to see who was potentially hit followed by seeing how the roll compared to the target's AC (or rather THAC0) to determine the outcome. And a lot of that was justified precisely because of your point #2 in the OP. And if I'm not mistaken the justification or reason you also have to deal with the aforementioned 'soft cover' mods as well in the current rule set.

[Yosharian]

Thanks for the clarifications, guys, really appreciate it