Isn't legal to fire in melee attack


Rules Questions


Hello everybody !

I'm Dimitri I'm a novice as a GM and player in Starfinder. I have a big debate with my group.

In the core Rulebook, we can't find a clearly definition if the ranged attack can be done or not or with malus in contact with a ennemi.

I think we can fire in contact with a longarm or other ranged weapon in contact.

But I didn't find any rules to demonstrate that.

Is there a page in the book to find this answer?

It's a big problem in my group so if you have the proof in the book or another official source, it's very great.

Sovereign Court

There is no rule to stop you doing so, and there's no rule giving you a penalty to hit.

However, it's dangerous: you can provoke an attack of opportunity.


An attack of opportunity is a special melee attack you can make against a target you threaten (usually an adjacent opponent), even if it is not your turn. See Reach and Threatened Squares for more details on threatening. You can use your reaction to make an attack of opportunity against an opponent in any of these three cases.

When you threaten a space and the opponent moves out of that space in any way other than a guarded step or withdraw action (see above), you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against the opponent.

When the opponent in a space you threaten makes a ranged attack, you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against the opponent.

When the opponent in a space you threaten casts a spell or uses a spell-like ability, you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against the opponent.(irrelevant stuff here)

So you can whack people that try to shoot you

The text assumes that person is right next to you.


Yes I agree with you but the argument against that is:

You have two enemies A and B.
You are in contact with enemy A.

If you attack enemy B the enemy A as an attack of opportunity.

And we told me that, this rule is just for that.

The problem for my group is when you attack in contact this isn't a ranged attack.


KronosIII wrote:

Yes I agree with you but the argument against that is:

You have two enemies A and B.
You are in contact with enemy A.

If you attack enemy B the enemy A as an attack of opportunity.

And we told me that, this rule is just for that.

The problem for my group is when you attack in contact this isn't a ranged attack.

If it is a ranged weapon (such as a longarm or small arm), it is considered a ranged attack and would take an attack of opportunity, even if you are doing it at point blank against the adjacent enemy.

If you use a Thrown melee weapon against a ranged target, it is also considered a ranged attack, even if it is a melee weapon, but if you use the melee weapon in melee against a target in your Reach, there is no attack of opportunity.


KronosIII wrote:


The problem for my group is when you attack in contact this isn't a ranged attack.

then why would an aoo usually happen against an adjacent opponent?


Ok thank you for your answer it's a good point. ^^


BigNorseWolf wrote:
KronosIII wrote:


The problem for my group is when you attack in contact this isn't a ranged attack.

then why would an aoo usually happen against an adjacent opponent?

In fact, for my group you can't attack a target in your direct contact with a ranged weapon. Because there would be no 'range' .A rangeless attack disqualifying it as 'ranged'. You would need minimum 5 feet.

Wayfinders

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As of COM, there is the category of punch guns, which are technically ranged weapons that specifically state that they do not provoke when used on an adjacent target (the only legal targets for them in the description and tables). Given the existence of this exception, unless a class ability or feat removes the aoo trigger, any ranged attack at an adjacent target will provoke.


KronosIII wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
KronosIII wrote:


The problem for my group is when you attack in contact this isn't a ranged attack.

then why would an aoo usually happen against an adjacent opponent?
In fact, for my group you can't attack a target in your direct contact with a ranged weapon. Because there would be no 'range' .A rangeless attack disqualifying it as 'ranged'. You would need minimum 5 feet.

if you are next to someone you are 5 feet away.

You cannot usually share a space with a hostile creature.


There's definitely something wrong with the way you're doing things in your group, but I can't say I'm sure what it is. But I suspect Garretmander is on the right track.

What do you mean by "in contact"? This isn't a term used in Starfinder rules.

If a player is right next to a bad guy, they're 5 feet away in the next square. They may not share a square with a hostile creature. They can make a ranged attack against that creature, or any other creature they can see. They will (probably) provoke an attack of opportunity from the hostile creature.

It is usually unwise to take make a ranged attack when you are being threatened (standing in the threatened square of a hostile creature) but it can be done.


As additional citation:

Page 240 "Who can I attack?" talks about shooting at anyone you can see.

Page 248 talks about attacks of opportunity.

Sovereign Court

KronosIII wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
KronosIII wrote:


The problem for my group is when you attack in contact this isn't a ranged attack.

then why would an aoo usually happen against an adjacent opponent?
In fact, for my group you can't attack a target in your direct contact with a ranged weapon. Because there would be no 'range' .A rangeless attack disqualifying it as 'ranged'. You would need minimum 5 feet.

Well, you came here to the rules forum to ask what the official rules were. What you do with them is up to you, but these are the official rules -

* You can make attacks with ranged weapons against enemies standing next to you. There's no rule saying you can't. And that's not strange: if your character is standing next to mine, you can pull out a gun and shoot my character in the face. The rules call this a ranged attack because it's done with a ranged weapon.

* Although you're allowed to make ranged attacks against adjacent enemies, it's not necessarily a smart idea to do so, because ranged attacks provoke attacks of opportunity. While you're trying to shoot me in the face, I might take advantage of the gap in your defense to bite you (I'm a freaky alien with huge teeth).


I believe he's looking for proof for a rules discussion and there might be a bit of a language barrier involved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I believe he's looking for proof for a rules discussion and there might be a bit of a language barrier involved.

Yes, we are playing in french. We have the french book too.

In my group, we are all GM and player each his turn.

I play a human class Mechanic in heavy armor (exocortex) and I shoot in contact sometimes with a full attack, I do two attacks with penality.
And the creature in face has just one Attack of opportunity in reaction.

For my group, it didn't equilibrate.

But with your all answers I can proof definitely, that I'm legal in my action. Thank you very much !!!

Sczarni

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I wonder if "in contact" is supposed to mean "in melee"?


It is true that if you are in melee range of your opponent and you attack, you can expect an attack of opportunity in return. Creatures generally get a single attack of opportunity each round so regardless of whether you do a full attack or a regular attack, you'd only provoke an attack of opportunity once from the target.

If there were other creatures in melee range of you, they'd all get attacks of opportunity on your first shot.


Nefreet wrote:
I wonder if "in contact" is supposed to mean "in melee"?

The impression i got was that their figures bases were touching, as from warhammer


KronosIII wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
KronosIII wrote:


The problem for my group is when you attack in contact this isn't a ranged attack.

then why would an aoo usually happen against an adjacent opponent?
In fact, for my group you can't attack a target in your direct contact with a ranged weapon. Because there would be no 'range' .A rangeless attack disqualifying it as 'ranged'. You would need minimum 5 feet.

The problem here is that this mindset is simply incorrect. There's nothing in the rules to support this view. The type of attack is determined by the type of weapon (and sometimes how it's used, in the case of melee weapons that can be used as thrown weapons).

Ranged weapons make ranged attacks, even if you're attack someone in an adjacent square.

Firing a gun at someone next to you doesn't make it not a ranged attack, but because you're next to them they get an Attack of Opportunity.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
I wonder if "in contact" is supposed to mean "in melee"?
The impression i got was that their figures bases were touching, as from warhammer

I learned something new today!


Ok thank again for your all answers.

I have the last question because for my group they are a rule to allow for the GM to deny a ranged attack against an enemy an adjacent square.

With this rule: LINE OF EFFECT P.271

If a weapon, spell, ability, or item requires an attack roll and has a
range measured in feet, it normally requires that you (or whoever
or whatever is using the ability) have a line of effect to the target
to be effective (subject to GM discretion). A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what an attack or ability
can affect. A line of effect is blocked by a solid barrier that can
stop the effect in question (such as a wall, for most effects), but
it is not blocked by purely visual restrictions (such as smoke or
darkness). You cannot have line of effect that exceeds planetary
range, unless otherwise indicated. ...

Because for my group if I'm close to an enemy you can't trace a line between two square. To trace a line you need one square between me and the enemy. And also if the enemy is to close (just the next square) the GM can decide (subject to GM discretion) if I can make a ranged attack or not


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Creatures don't block line of effect

Cover

To determine whether your target has cover from your attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover.

A creature can't block their own square, or they'd always have cover.

Woot sérendipité

#1: Altronus is adjacent to the ksarik, and nothing blocks him from reaching it. The ksarik does not have cover against him, but he also does not have cover against it. If Altronus makes a ranged attack against the ksarik, he provokes an attack of opportunity from it.

There's the exact situation you're looking for.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Creatures don't block line of effect

Cover

To determine whether your target has cover from your attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover.

A creature can't block their own square, or they'd always have cover.

Woot sérendipité

#1: Altronus is adjacent to the ksarik, and nothing blocks him from reaching it. The ksarik does not have cover against him, but he also does not have cover against it. If Altronus makes a ranged attack against the ksarik, he provokes an attack of opportunity from it.

There's the exact situation you're looking for.

OMG Thanks a lot!

You save my character! The debate is finish.

Thanks, thanks

Community / Forums / Starfinder / Rules Questions / Isn't legal to fire in melee attack All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.