Q: Shooting into a Grapple [Archive] - Wizards Community

Q: Shooting into a Grapple [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
DarkKnight
05-09-06, 10:11 PM Ok, this came up this last weekend and we were not able to find the relevant rules. Can some one point out the page number where it states that you take a 50% miss chance when firing into a grapple. I thought it was in the grapple rules but I couldn't find it.

Also if someone could point out where the rules are for sniping (shooting a bow and remaining hid), if there are any.

Thanks,
Sieylianna
05-09-06, 10:25 PM Ok, this came up this last weekend and we were not able to find the relevant rules. Can some one point out the page number where it states that you take a 50% miss chance when firing into a grapple. I thought it was in the grapple rules but I couldn't find it.

You don't have a 50% miss chance. You randomly strike one of the grappling parties. It's in the combat modifiers table, foot note 3.

Barring magic and special class abilities - You can not shoot a bow and remain hidden. You can shoot a bow and use a move action to hide.

Ed
DarkKnight
05-09-06, 11:14 PM Thanks for the grapple reference it was driving us up a wall.

And just so my archer is clear:

He's hiding in a bush, badguy comes by and he (not as a surpise round) shoot him, he can then take his move action to hide again. Are there any modifiers to this check? Also you mention class abilities and magic, I'm assuming you're refering to Greater Invis but what class abilities are you refering to?

Thanks for the help,
kenobi65
05-09-06, 11:26 PM Also you mention class abilities and magic, I'm assuming you're refering to Greater Invis but what class abilities are you refering to?

Probably things like Hide In Plain Sight (class ability of the Shadowdancer prestige class).

And, as far as hiding after shooting, read the "Sniping" subsection of the Hide skill (PHB, p. 76). If you were hidden before shooting, at least 10' from the target, you can make one ranged attack, then hide again at a -20 penalty. (And, there's no DC, it's an opposed check vs. the target's Spot.)
Gelth
09-14-06, 11:13 AM The only place I've found the random chance mentioned is in the text of Improved Precise Shot, which negates that chance.
I will not that it never specifies how that chance is calculated or what the odds are, so I tend to count the number of squares each grappler takes up and base the odds on that. A large (4 square) creature grappling a medium 1 square) creature would be targeted by 4/5 of attacks fired into the grapple.
Extra bonus question: Do reach attacks also suffer this randomization?

--Penn, Ket Triad
pedr
09-14-06, 12:34 PM The only place I've found the random chance mentioned is in the text of Improved Precise Shot, which negates that chance.
I will not that it never specifies how that chance is calculated or what the odds are, so I tend to count the number of squares each grappler takes up and base the odds on that. A large (4 square) creature grappling a medium 1 square) creature would be targeted by 4/5 of attacks fired into the grapple.
Extra bonus question: Do reach attacks also suffer this randomization?

--Penn, Ket TriadThe text of Improved Precise Shot doesn't mention what the chance of hitting each grappler is either.

Improved Precise Shot [General]

<snip>
In addition, when you shoot or throw ranged weapons at a grappling opponent, you automatically strike at the opponent you have chosen.

Normal

<snip>
Without this feat, a character who shoots or throws a ranged weapon at a target involved in a grapple must roll randomly to see which grappling combatant the attack strikes.

The primary rules reference is on Table 8-6 'Armor Class Modifiers' (PH151). It doesn't give any guidance on the % chance, it simply says 'roll randomly' so there's plenty of scope for a DM to assign the chances of hitting each creature.
GorTeX
09-14-06, 12:37 PM Extra bonus question: Do reach attacks also suffer this randomization?

No. Reach attacks use the range rules for determining cover, but nothing else..they are still melee attacks.
Gelth
09-14-06, 01:48 PM I thought reach attacks used ranged rules for determining targeting, which includes cover. I don't have my books here though, was I wrong?

--Penn, Ket Triad
pedr
09-14-06, 02:26 PM www.d20srd.org is your friend :)

The only place where melee attacks are treated like ranged attacks are when determining cover. The random chance of hitting grappling opponents is only referenced in the table which lists AC modifiers. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm

I believe it's reasonably clear that reach attacks use the 'melee' column' not the 'ranged' one. I've not heard anyone suggest that attacks with a reach weapon are at a -4, not a +4 against a prone opponent, for instance.
Gelth
09-14-06, 02:33 PM If that's the case, then I've been doing it right. It's the way that makes sense. I was merely wondering if anyone could find wording the other way.
That's why it was the bonus question.
I have indeed idly wondered whether reach attacks should get the -4 against prone, and again dismissed it as foolish.

--Penn, Ket Triad
JamesMaissen
09-14-06, 02:56 PM I tend to count the number of squares each grappler takes up and base the odds on that. A large (4 square) creature grappling a medium 1 square) creature would be targeted by 4/5 of attacks fired into the grapple.

--Penn, Ket Triad

Well possibly depending on the kind of large creature, doesn't it also have height? For example an ogre really has 8 squares and not just 4.

-James
shuntsbe
09-15-06, 12:41 AM Well possibly depending on the kind of large creature, doesn't it also have height? For example an ogre really has 8 squares and not just 4.

-James

Some judges just roll 50:50 or 1/n where n is the number of grapplers.

It is best to ask the judge before shooting, and also ask the player of
the possible unfriendly fire recipient, before taking the risky shot.
chesspiece
09-15-06, 09:41 AM Well possibly depending on the kind of large creature, doesn't it also have height? For example an ogre really has 8 squares and not just 4.

-James

Although this is Judge's perogative, I'd recommend using the 4 squares (2-D) for a large creature. You're shooting at one face of a creature (like 1 side of a cube), not the whole 3-D creature. You aren't going to hit the ogre's back if you shoot at his front - so the depth component shouldn't significantly affect the odds.

- Steve

C-3PO: Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1.
Han Solo: Never tell me the odds.
JamesMaissen
09-16-06, 02:33 AM Although this is Judge's perogative, I'd recommend using the 4 squares (2-D) for a large creature. You're shooting at one face of a creature (like 1 side of a cube), not the whole 3-D creature. You aren't going to hit the ogre's back if you shoot at his front - so the depth component shouldn't significantly affect the odds.

- Steve

While a possible point, that's assuming that you have no angle on the creature to see more than one 'face'. It's very possible (depending on relative location) to directly see 6 out of the 8 squares an ogre occupies and yet another of the 2 ellusive ones if you have a different altitude than the ogre in question.

-James
clik_ml
09-19-06, 04:34 AM I've had it come up with gelatinous cubes (who treat engulfed characters as grappled), and my judge (fairly, I think) ruled that all ranged attacks would hit the cube, but we rolled randomly 1/n to see who in the cube would be also hit, or if just the cube would be hit.
chesspiece
09-19-06, 08:18 AM While a possible point, that's assuming that you have no angle on the creature to see more than one 'face'. It's very possible (depending on relative location) to directly see 6 out of the 8 squares an ogre occupies and yet another of the 2 ellusive ones if you have a different altitude than the ogre in question.

-James

If we use real world logic, that falls apart. A human's profile isn't 100% larger because you're shooting him from the front-right (as opposed to the front), nor 200% larger because you're shooting from a 45-degree elevation.

But even in the game, the example fails. You're trying to hit a 2D surface - the creature's skin - so counting 5'x5'x5' cubes isn't practical. You should only count 5'x5' sqare surfaces. Looking at an ogre (10' cube) and a human (5' cube), I assumed a shot from a single face resulting in a 4:1 ratio. But if you were to assume a shot that hits 2 or 3 faces, you still have... a 4:1 ratio.

Of course, in the Real World Game (nice tie in for the first 2, eh?) the person in the Judge's seat says how the greay areas of the game are modelled, so the above can't be binding. Also, your proposal is generally kinder to the PCs so there aren't likely to be any complaints.

Cheers,

Steve

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DarkKnight 05-09-06, 10:11 PM	Ok, this came up this last weekend and we were not able to find the relevant rules. Can some one point out the page number where it states that you take a 50% miss chance when firing into a grapple. I thought it was in the grapple rules but I couldn't find it. Also if someone could point out where the rules are for sniping (shooting a bow and remaining hid), if there are any. Thanks,
Sieylianna 05-09-06, 10:25 PM	Ok, this came up this last weekend and we were not able to find the relevant rules. Can some one point out the page number where it states that you take a 50% miss chance when firing into a grapple. I thought it was in the grapple rules but I couldn't find it. You don't have a 50% miss chance. You randomly strike one of the grappling parties. It's in the combat modifiers table, foot note 3. Barring magic and special class abilities - You can not shoot a bow and remain hidden. You can shoot a bow and use a move action to hide. Ed
DarkKnight 05-09-06, 11:14 PM	Thanks for the grapple reference it was driving us up a wall. And just so my archer is clear: He's hiding in a bush, badguy comes by and he (not as a surpise round) shoot him, he can then take his move action to hide again. Are there any modifiers to this check? Also you mention class abilities and magic, I'm assuming you're refering to Greater Invis but what class abilities are you refering to? Thanks for the help,
kenobi65 05-09-06, 11:26 PM	Also you mention class abilities and magic, I'm assuming you're refering to Greater Invis but what class abilities are you refering to? Probably things like Hide In Plain Sight (class ability of the Shadowdancer prestige class). And, as far as hiding after shooting, read the "Sniping" subsection of the Hide skill (PHB, p. 76). If you were hidden before shooting, at least 10' from the target, you can make one ranged attack, then hide again at a -20 penalty. (And, there's no DC, it's an opposed check vs. the target's Spot.)
Gelth 09-14-06, 11:13 AM	The only place I've found the random chance mentioned is in the text of Improved Precise Shot, which negates that chance. I will not that it never specifies how that chance is calculated or what the odds are, so I tend to count the number of squares each grappler takes up and base the odds on that. A large (4 square) creature grappling a medium 1 square) creature would be targeted by 4/5 of attacks fired into the grapple. Extra bonus question: Do reach attacks also suffer this randomization? --Penn, Ket Triad
pedr 09-14-06, 12:34 PM	The only place I've found the random chance mentioned is in the text of Improved Precise Shot, which negates that chance. I will not that it never specifies how that chance is calculated or what the odds are, so I tend to count the number of squares each grappler takes up and base the odds on that. A large (4 square) creature grappling a medium 1 square) creature would be targeted by 4/5 of attacks fired into the grapple. Extra bonus question: Do reach attacks also suffer this randomization? --Penn, Ket TriadThe text of Improved Precise Shot doesn't mention what the chance of hitting each grappler is either. Improved Precise Shot [General] <snip> In addition, when you shoot or throw ranged weapons at a grappling opponent, you automatically strike at the opponent you have chosen. Normal <snip> Without this feat, a character who shoots or throws a ranged weapon at a target involved in a grapple must roll randomly to see which grappling combatant the attack strikes. The primary rules reference is on Table 8-6 'Armor Class Modifiers' (PH151). It doesn't give any guidance on the % chance, it simply says 'roll randomly' so there's plenty of scope for a DM to assign the chances of hitting each creature.
GorTeX 09-14-06, 12:37 PM	Extra bonus question: Do reach attacks also suffer this randomization? No. Reach attacks use the range rules for determining cover, but nothing else..they are still melee attacks.
Gelth 09-14-06, 01:48 PM	I thought reach attacks used ranged rules for determining targeting, which includes cover. I don't have my books here though, was I wrong? --Penn, Ket Triad
pedr 09-14-06, 02:26 PM	www.d20srd.org is your friend :) The only place where melee attacks are treated like ranged attacks are when determining cover. The random chance of hitting grappling opponents is only referenced in the table which lists AC modifiers. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm I believe it's reasonably clear that reach attacks use the 'melee' column' not the 'ranged' one. I've not heard anyone suggest that attacks with a reach weapon are at a -4, not a +4 against a prone opponent, for instance.
Gelth 09-14-06, 02:33 PM	If that's the case, then I've been doing it right. It's the way that makes sense. I was merely wondering if anyone could find wording the other way. That's why it was the bonus question. I have indeed idly wondered whether reach attacks should get the -4 against prone, and again dismissed it as foolish. --Penn, Ket Triad
JamesMaissen 09-14-06, 02:56 PM	I tend to count the number of squares each grappler takes up and base the odds on that. A large (4 square) creature grappling a medium 1 square) creature would be targeted by 4/5 of attacks fired into the grapple. --Penn, Ket Triad Well possibly depending on the kind of large creature, doesn't it also have height? For example an ogre really has 8 squares and not just 4. -James
shuntsbe 09-15-06, 12:41 AM	Well possibly depending on the kind of large creature, doesn't it also have height? For example an ogre really has 8 squares and not just 4. -James Some judges just roll 50:50 or 1/n where n is the number of grapplers. It is best to ask the judge before shooting, and also ask the player of the possible unfriendly fire recipient, before taking the risky shot.
chesspiece 09-15-06, 09:41 AM	Well possibly depending on the kind of large creature, doesn't it also have height? For example an ogre really has 8 squares and not just 4. -James Although this is Judge's perogative, I'd recommend using the 4 squares (2-D) for a large creature. You're shooting at one face of a creature (like 1 side of a cube), not the whole 3-D creature. You aren't going to hit the ogre's back if you shoot at his front - so the depth component shouldn't significantly affect the odds. - Steve C-3PO: Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1. Han Solo: Never tell me the odds.
JamesMaissen 09-16-06, 02:33 AM	Although this is Judge's perogative, I'd recommend using the 4 squares (2-D) for a large creature. You're shooting at one face of a creature (like 1 side of a cube), not the whole 3-D creature. You aren't going to hit the ogre's back if you shoot at his front - so the depth component shouldn't significantly affect the odds. - Steve While a possible point, that's assuming that you have no angle on the creature to see more than one 'face'. It's very possible (depending on relative location) to directly see 6 out of the 8 squares an ogre occupies and yet another of the 2 ellusive ones if you have a different altitude than the ogre in question. -James
clik_ml 09-19-06, 04:34 AM	I've had it come up with gelatinous cubes (who treat engulfed characters as grappled), and my judge (fairly, I think) ruled that all ranged attacks would hit the cube, but we rolled randomly 1/n to see who in the cube would be also hit, or if just the cube would be hit.
chesspiece 09-19-06, 08:18 AM	While a possible point, that's assuming that you have no angle on the creature to see more than one 'face'. It's very possible (depending on relative location) to directly see 6 out of the 8 squares an ogre occupies and yet another of the 2 ellusive ones if you have a different altitude than the ogre in question. -James If we use real world logic, that falls apart. A human's profile isn't 100% larger because you're shooting him from the front-right (as opposed to the front), nor 200% larger because you're shooting from a 45-degree elevation. But even in the game, the example fails. You're trying to hit a 2D surface - the creature's skin - so counting 5'x5'x5' cubes isn't practical. You should only count 5'x5' sqare surfaces. Looking at an ogre (10' cube) and a human (5' cube), I assumed a shot from a single face resulting in a 4:1 ratio. But if you were to assume a shot that hits 2 or 3 faces, you still have... a 4:1 ratio. Of course, in the Real World Game (nice tie in for the first 2, eh?) the person in the Judge's seat says how the greay areas of the game are modelled, so the above can't be binding. Also, your proposal is generally kinder to the PCs so there aren't likely to be any complaints. Cheers, Steve