Hitting the wrong target - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Hitting the wrong target

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
evilkobra
Jan 29, 2009 9:26:03 One of the house rules we're contemplating for our next (grittier) campaign is to remove the "allies do not block line of sight and give no cover" clause. I feels really, really silly to have five guys lined up in a narrow corridor, and the ranger all the way at the back being perfectly able to Twin Strike a monster who's in melee with the Fighter in front. All my players agree, and I doubt anyone would be able to argue convincingly against it.

The trickier thing is to model hitting the wrong target with ranged attacks. I am considering two general alternatives for now:

A) The miss margin determines whether another creature along the line of attack is hit instead;

or

B) After a missed attack, the attack is re-rolled against the other intervening creatures.

Method A is obviously simpler, and can be modelled in a variety of ways. For example, if a natural 1 was rolled, a random creature could take the damage instead. Of if the miss margin is 1-4, the projectile is simply lost, and on a margin of 5+ it strikes an intervening creature N-4 spaces away from the target.

Method B is probably more realistic, but also more time-consuming as it requires additional rolls. You'd have to roll vs AC (or whichever defense the original attack targeted) against the nearest intervening creature. If that missed, you'd roll vs the next, and so on until a creature was hit or all rolls missed.

Comments? Other ideas?
#2
bastard_dm
Jan 30, 2009 11:16:21 I can appreciate the desire to make allies provide cover to your opponents- it's something that occasionally bothers me in 4e as well (generally in the same circumstances- fighting in a 10' wide hall should not be an optimal situation for the party!)

However, this change already puts a (potentially severe) limitation on the power of ranged characters in combat. Including additional rules for hitting the wrong target starts going down the same path as critical fumbles. Not only does it make the heroes of the game look incompetent, it grants a penalty to only a subset of characters, damaging game balance.

If I were to go down this road, I'd simply make heroes provide cover (-2 to hit) to enemies behind them, and add a feat --Precise Shot-- to negate this penalty. Although this would add a "feat tax" to playing a ranged character, it would also allow a ranged-focus class to feel special compared to those that just dabble in ranged abilities (especially at low level).

Also, if this rule was in place, I think Precise Shot would be better than Defensive Mobility as a bonus feat to grant an Archery-focused ranger.

In the end, though- I think that all this does is needlessly penalize ranged characters. If the party is optimized for it, the DM may need to simply make sure that not every encounter takes place in a 10' wide hallway.

My party calls themselves the "Hallway Heroes" for a reason...
#3
Krusk
Jan 30, 2009 12:31:04 Id say precise shot can negate the penalty as well.

But I would do it like so.

Allies provide cover to enemies. You can ignore the cover granted to the enemy if you want. On a miss, if you ignore the cover, you hit your ally.

Precise shot- If you have this feat, when ignoring cover from allies thre is no chance of hitting your ally.
#4
evilkobra
Jan 30, 2009 12:58:22 Thanks for your input, bastard_dm. I frankly disagree with your observations, but the suggestions are welcome nonetheless.

I just wish that, one day, when I ask for advice on how best to do something I don't just get told not to do it...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 evilkobra Jan 29, 2009 9:26:03	One of the house rules we're contemplating for our next (grittier) campaign is to remove the "allies do not block line of sight and give no cover" clause. I feels really, really silly to have five guys lined up in a narrow corridor, and the ranger all the way at the back being perfectly able to Twin Strike a monster who's in melee with the Fighter in front. All my players agree, and I doubt anyone would be able to argue convincingly against it. The trickier thing is to model hitting the wrong target with ranged attacks. I am considering two general alternatives for now: A) The miss margin determines whether another creature along the line of attack is hit instead; or B) After a missed attack, the attack is re-rolled against the other intervening creatures. Method A is obviously simpler, and can be modelled in a variety of ways. For example, if a natural 1 was rolled, a random creature could take the damage instead. Of if the miss margin is 1-4, the projectile is simply lost, and on a margin of 5+ it strikes an intervening creature N-4 spaces away from the target. Method B is probably more realistic, but also more time-consuming as it requires additional rolls. You'd have to roll vs AC (or whichever defense the original attack targeted) against the nearest intervening creature. If that missed, you'd roll vs the next, and so on until a creature was hit or all rolls missed. Comments? Other ideas?
#2 bastard_dm Jan 30, 2009 11:16:21	I can appreciate the desire to make allies provide cover to your opponents- it's something that occasionally bothers me in 4e as well (generally in the same circumstances- fighting in a 10' wide hall should not be an optimal situation for the party!) However, this change already puts a (potentially severe) limitation on the power of ranged characters in combat. Including additional rules for hitting the wrong target starts going down the same path as critical fumbles. Not only does it make the heroes of the game look incompetent, it grants a penalty to only a subset of characters, damaging game balance. If I were to go down this road, I'd simply make heroes provide cover (-2 to hit) to enemies behind them, and add a feat --Precise Shot-- to negate this penalty. Although this would add a "feat tax" to playing a ranged character, it would also allow a ranged-focus class to feel special compared to those that just dabble in ranged abilities (especially at low level). Also, if this rule was in place, I think Precise Shot would be better than Defensive Mobility as a bonus feat to grant an Archery-focused ranger. In the end, though- I think that all this does is needlessly penalize ranged characters. If the party is optimized for it, the DM may need to simply make sure that not every encounter takes place in a 10' wide hallway. My party calls themselves the "Hallway Heroes" for a reason...
#3 Krusk Jan 30, 2009 12:31:04	Id say precise shot can negate the penalty as well. But I would do it like so. Allies provide cover to enemies. You can ignore the cover granted to the enemy if you want. On a miss, if you ignore the cover, you hit your ally. Precise shot- If you have this feat, when ignoring cover from allies thre is no chance of hitting your ally.
#4 evilkobra Jan 30, 2009 12:58:22	Thanks for your input, bastard_dm. I frankly disagree with your observations, but the suggestions are welcome nonetheless. I just wish that, one day, when I ask for advice on how best to do something I don't just get told not to do it...