firing into melee [Archive] - Wizards Community

firing into melee [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
bobobravado
08-30-07, 10:37 PM i don't like the idea you HAVE to take the -4 to fire into melee. what are some of the house rules you dm's out there use. personally i like the 2nd ed. version of rolling to see which creature you strike depending on the size of it...all ideas are welcome!!!!
Dielzen
08-31-07, 01:20 PM Point Blank Shot
godbeepit
08-31-07, 05:15 PM i don't like the idea you HAVE to take the -4 to fire into melee. what are some of the house rules you dm's out there use. personally i like the 2nd ed. version of rolling to see which creature you strike depending on the size of it...all ideas are welcome!!!!

Personally, I fully understand the reasoning behind that rule. From playing some different First Person Shooters, it is always harder to snipe somebody who is currently involved in fighting somebody else simply because they are moving around so much more and randomly.

Also, third edition has rules for shooting somebody else in that if a creature is blocking the path to the targeted creature that creature provides soft cover. This gives a +4 cover bonus to AC and if the attacking creature misses by 4 or less then he would hit the creature in the way.

From playing some different First Person Shooters, it is always harder to snipe somebody who is currently involved in fighting somebody else simply because they are moving around so much more and randomly.

Point Blank Shot

Actually, you are thinking of Precise Shot. Point Blank Shot only gives +atk/damage within 30 feet.
Alurvelve
08-31-07, 05:49 PM So the person fireing into melee without precise shot takes a -4 Atk, and if someone is in the path besides the general target thats a +4 AC, (effectivaly a +8AC boost for said target).

My question is if there are multuple people in the pathway do they each provide a cover bonus or just one?
dragonheart
09-01-07, 10:47 PM realistically only the first one provides cover - if he didn't he wouldn't be in the way :P and any beyond him are already shielded by him so they don't really provide additional cover.

I'm in full agreement with godbeepit - in 1990 (as reported in guns and ammo) the NYC police did a study on police gunfights:
average range: 2-5 feet
average number of shots fired: 12 (officer & perp combined)
Average number of shots hit: 4
% of "one shot stops" < 25%

following training in aimed fire ( effectively precise shot as a new feat):
range: 2-5 feet
shots fired: 7
shots hit: 3
% "one shot stops": 75%
MarkHall
09-02-07, 01:00 AM following training in aimed fire ( effectively precise shot as a new feat):
range: 2-5 feet
shots fired: 7
shots hit: 3
% "one shot stops": 75%

Wouldn't that be Point Blank Shot, since Melee isn't taking place?

You don't threaten people with unarmed or missile weapons (barring feats to do so).
It is training to hit targets at close range effectively and for more damage (a +1 to hit and damage).
dragonheart
09-02-07, 08:14 AM in the study we are looking at a real life modern melee - no they aren't trying to stab each other or bash each other - they are trying to shoot each other and trying to avoid shooting each other. They are both effectively shooting into melee. Point Blank shot gives a +1 to attack (& damage) but you are at -4 for shooting into mele so that leaves you with an overall -3 to hit. Precise shot removes the -4 for shooting into melee. obviously the best shots on the police had both :D I would certainly reccomend that anyone planning on doing a lot of such action take both.

the (more or less) exact equivalent of this in FR would be a duel betweengondist gnomes wiht smoke powder pistols and you would need to add negatives for cover as well from all the smoke produced after firing. reports from the old west in the days before "smokeless powder" were occasionally laughable - 2 guys firing across a table (over cards) 12 shots fired - neither hit even once - you can see why a room cleared out quickly when idiots went for their guns - and why having the quickdraw feat could be so important - you could actually see yoru oppenent for yoru shot while havign cover from his shot afterwards.
godbeepit
09-05-07, 09:01 PM It's not often I'll admit this about core rules, but I think I'm wrong in saying that would be v3.5. I believe that it would be v3.0 but I have not had the time to check a v3.0 PHB. However, as of v3.5 it appears that you take the -4 because you have to avoid shooting your ally. It is fully possible that you shoot just as your ally attacks and miss by one foot and hit your friend instead.

As such, I think it would be a choice of taking the -4 after all. You just need to find a way to house-rule what happens if you don't take the -4. Which I believe, happens to be what the OP was asking.

We use rules for shooting somebody else in that if a creature is blocking the path to the targeted creature that creature provides soft cover. This gives a +4 cover bonus to AC and if the attacking creature misses by 4 or less then he would hit the creature in the way.

Emphasis added on change.

There are some things that I just never caught on the update (Since when did they get rid of 5x10 Larges??:P )
Eli_the_Tanner
09-05-07, 11:34 PM The application of the -4 penalty always apply if firing at someone involved in melee as that person is being attacked, dodging etc. which all mean that hitting your intended target is much harder, hence the penalty.

The +4 to your targets AC can also apply depending on your position.

In this first instance the archer is firing from the side at the left hand combatant, because he is involved in a fight his attacks suffer a -4 to hit.

-4
:duel:
^
^
^
^
:elf:

In the next encounter the archer is attacking the same opponent (left hand side), but now he has to shoot past the other opponent aswell as into the chaos of melee. Therefore the archer suffers the -4 to hit and the target gains +4 ac. For a grand total of -8 to hit.

-4 ......+4
:duel:<<<<<<<<:elf:

Generally I reserve the chance that you'll hit the other opponent to grappling, where both creatures occupy the same square. Remember you are targeting the square that the opponent is in, that's why the shot is more difficult - obstacles blocking that square or interfering with the target in that square. If you miss the target then it lands in the square, AC 5. So unless you roll a 1, you are not going to have a chance to hit anywhere else.
godbeepit
09-06-07, 09:31 PM Hahahah very nice visual aids. But, I must disagree. After re-reading the section on that with my DM we've decided that those are in fact older rules or things we thought up that make sense. However, as per v3.5 PHB that -4 is the archer having to make sure that he doesn't hit his ally. So, that would mean that the +4 soft cover is redundant.

One thing to note, is that most situational modifiers in d20 are +/-2s and the DMG actually says something along the lines of "If it's not on this chart, it's probably just a +/-2". Along that line of thought, perhaps they took the two together and stacked them into one modifier?

I, however, personally prefer the idea of having the soft cover and -4 for shooting into melee being separate modifiers. It just makes more sense to me.

Also, the grapple rules say that it's just a flat 50% chance to hit your intended target instead of the person grappling them. I figure that if multiple people are involved in the grapple, the percent changes proportionally.
MerrikCale
09-06-07, 10:12 PM Personally, I fully understand the reasoning behind that rule.

I'm with you, it makes sense to me
Diffan
09-09-07, 06:06 PM I'm with you, it makes sense to me

As do I. I play in a sport called Dagorhir that uses bows and melee fighting and I'll tell you it's pretty darn hard to shoot someone who's engaged with 1 or 2 people, has a shield, and knows your there. More or less he'll deflect your shot unless you shoot one of your own people.
Eli_the_Tanner
09-09-07, 08:20 PM As do I. I play in a sport called Dagorhir that uses bows and melee fighting and I'll tell you it's pretty darn hard to shoot someone who's engaged with 1 or 2 people, has a shield, and knows your there. More or less he'll deflect your shot unless you shoot one of your own people.

I think clarification is needed for bobobravado's initial point. I don't believe (correct me, if I'm wrong) he was saying there was anything wrong about penalties applying to firing into melee, rather that the mechanic used (he feels) doesn't properly reflect the danger of doing so.

It boils down to what happens if someone decides to forego trying to avoid shooting an ally e.g. two of your enemies fighting each other.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bobobravado 08-30-07, 10:37 PM	i don't like the idea you HAVE to take the -4 to fire into melee. what are some of the house rules you dm's out there use. personally i like the 2nd ed. version of rolling to see which creature you strike depending on the size of it...all ideas are welcome!!!!
Dielzen 08-31-07, 01:20 PM	Point Blank Shot
godbeepit 08-31-07, 05:15 PM	i don't like the idea you HAVE to take the -4 to fire into melee. what are some of the house rules you dm's out there use. personally i like the 2nd ed. version of rolling to see which creature you strike depending on the size of it...all ideas are welcome!!!! Personally, I fully understand the reasoning behind that rule. From playing some different First Person Shooters, it is always harder to snipe somebody who is currently involved in fighting somebody else simply because they are moving around so much more and randomly. Also, third edition has rules for shooting somebody else in that if a creature is blocking the path to the targeted creature that creature provides soft cover. This gives a +4 cover bonus to AC and if the attacking creature misses by 4 or less then he would hit the creature in the way. From playing some different First Person Shooters, it is always harder to snipe somebody who is currently involved in fighting somebody else simply because they are moving around so much more and randomly. Point Blank Shot Actually, you are thinking of Precise Shot. Point Blank Shot only gives +atk/damage within 30 feet.
Alurvelve 08-31-07, 05:49 PM	So the person fireing into melee without precise shot takes a -4 Atk, and if someone is in the path besides the general target thats a +4 AC, (effectivaly a +8AC boost for said target). My question is if there are multuple people in the pathway do they each provide a cover bonus or just one?
dragonheart 09-01-07, 10:47 PM	realistically only the first one provides cover - if he didn't he wouldn't be in the way :P and any beyond him are already shielded by him so they don't really provide additional cover. I'm in full agreement with godbeepit - in 1990 (as reported in guns and ammo) the NYC police did a study on police gunfights: average range: 2-5 feet average number of shots fired: 12 (officer & perp combined) Average number of shots hit: 4 % of "one shot stops" < 25% following training in aimed fire ( effectively precise shot as a new feat): range: 2-5 feet shots fired: 7 shots hit: 3 % "one shot stops": 75%
MarkHall 09-02-07, 01:00 AM	following training in aimed fire ( effectively precise shot as a new feat): range: 2-5 feet shots fired: 7 shots hit: 3 % "one shot stops": 75% Wouldn't that be Point Blank Shot, since Melee isn't taking place? You don't threaten people with unarmed or missile weapons (barring feats to do so). It is training to hit targets at close range effectively and for more damage (a +1 to hit and damage).
dragonheart 09-02-07, 08:14 AM	in the study we are looking at a real life modern melee - no they aren't trying to stab each other or bash each other - they are trying to shoot each other and trying to avoid shooting each other. They are both effectively shooting into melee. Point Blank shot gives a +1 to attack (& damage) but you are at -4 for shooting into mele so that leaves you with an overall -3 to hit. Precise shot removes the -4 for shooting into melee. obviously the best shots on the police had both :D I would certainly reccomend that anyone planning on doing a lot of such action take both. the (more or less) exact equivalent of this in FR would be a duel betweengondist gnomes wiht smoke powder pistols and you would need to add negatives for cover as well from all the smoke produced after firing. reports from the old west in the days before "smokeless powder" were occasionally laughable - 2 guys firing across a table (over cards) 12 shots fired - neither hit even once - you can see why a room cleared out quickly when idiots went for their guns - and why having the quickdraw feat could be so important - you could actually see yoru oppenent for yoru shot while havign cover from his shot afterwards.
godbeepit 09-05-07, 09:01 PM	It's not often I'll admit this about core rules, but I think I'm wrong in saying that would be v3.5. I believe that it would be v3.0 but I have not had the time to check a v3.0 PHB. However, as of v3.5 it appears that you take the -4 because you have to avoid shooting your ally. It is fully possible that you shoot just as your ally attacks and miss by one foot and hit your friend instead. As such, I think it would be a choice of taking the -4 after all. You just need to find a way to house-rule what happens if you don't take the -4. Which I believe, happens to be what the OP was asking. We use rules for shooting somebody else in that if a creature is blocking the path to the targeted creature that creature provides soft cover. This gives a +4 cover bonus to AC and if the attacking creature misses by 4 or less then he would hit the creature in the way. Emphasis added on change. There are some things that I just never caught on the update (Since when did they get rid of 5x10 Larges??:P )
Eli_the_Tanner 09-05-07, 11:34 PM	The application of the -4 penalty always apply if firing at someone involved in melee as that person is being attacked, dodging etc. which all mean that hitting your intended target is much harder, hence the penalty. The +4 to your targets AC can also apply depending on your position. In this first instance the archer is firing from the side at the left hand combatant, because he is involved in a fight his attacks suffer a -4 to hit. -4 :duel: ^ ^ ^ ^ :elf: In the next encounter the archer is attacking the same opponent (left hand side), but now he has to shoot past the other opponent aswell as into the chaos of melee. Therefore the archer suffers the -4 to hit and the target gains +4 ac. For a grand total of -8 to hit. -4 ......+4 :duel:<<<<<<<<:elf: Generally I reserve the chance that you'll hit the other opponent to grappling, where both creatures occupy the same square. Remember you are targeting the square that the opponent is in, that's why the shot is more difficult - obstacles blocking that square or interfering with the target in that square. If you miss the target then it lands in the square, AC 5. So unless you roll a 1, you are not going to have a chance to hit anywhere else.
godbeepit 09-06-07, 09:31 PM	Hahahah very nice visual aids. But, I must disagree. After re-reading the section on that with my DM we've decided that those are in fact older rules or things we thought up that make sense. However, as per v3.5 PHB that -4 is the archer having to make sure that he doesn't hit his ally. So, that would mean that the +4 soft cover is redundant. One thing to note, is that most situational modifiers in d20 are +/-2s and the DMG actually says something along the lines of "If it's not on this chart, it's probably just a +/-2". Along that line of thought, perhaps they took the two together and stacked them into one modifier? I, however, personally prefer the idea of having the soft cover and -4 for shooting into melee being separate modifiers. It just makes more sense to me. Also, the grapple rules say that it's just a flat 50% chance to hit your intended target instead of the person grappling them. I figure that if multiple people are involved in the grapple, the percent changes proportionally.
MerrikCale 09-06-07, 10:12 PM	Personally, I fully understand the reasoning behind that rule. I'm with you, it makes sense to me
Diffan 09-09-07, 06:06 PM	I'm with you, it makes sense to me As do I. I play in a sport called Dagorhir that uses bows and melee fighting and I'll tell you it's pretty darn hard to shoot someone who's engaged with 1 or 2 people, has a shield, and knows your there. More or less he'll deflect your shot unless you shoot one of your own people.
Eli_the_Tanner 09-09-07, 08:20 PM	As do I. I play in a sport called Dagorhir that uses bows and melee fighting and I'll tell you it's pretty darn hard to shoot someone who's engaged with 1 or 2 people, has a shield, and knows your there. More or less he'll deflect your shot unless you shoot one of your own people. I think clarification is needed for bobobravado's initial point. I don't believe (correct me, if I'm wrong) he was saying there was anything wrong about penalties applying to firing into melee, rather that the mechanic used (he feels) doesn't properly reflect the danger of doing so. It boils down to what happens if someone decides to forego trying to avoid shooting an ally e.g. two of your enemies fighting each other.