- This has been a point of some contention. If you search the threads you will likely come up with a reasonable fix...OR, you can wait for one of the more 'traveled' posters to point you in the right direction.If you'd prefer a realistic game, you can either allow people with guns to make Attack of Opportunity, which will make guns the weapon of the game, or you can eliminate them entirely, which will make positioning in melee less important, but if it's a gun-focused game, then that might not be a problem.
You're the GM. It's up to you. Change the rules as you see fit. If you and your players have fun, then you're doing it right.
I have 2 of my rule munger players that it's a point of contention with them and they have never been in a real world CQB situtation. It's hard to make them understand.
I would point out that most people who have firearms do threaten the area around them according to the Rules As Written because everyone wielding a firearm is also wielding a melee weapon called either pistol whip or rifle butt.
Threatened Squares
A character threatens the squares into which he or she can make a melee attack, even when it is not the character’s action. Generally, that’s all squares adjacent to the character’s position. An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from the character. A character can only make attacks of opportunity with melee weapons, never with ranged weapons.
Now, I have a house rule that allows someone armed with a firearm to threaten a number of tiles at range equal to the number of AoO that they can take if they declare this beforehand and give up their normal threatened area.
Even in a standard game, you have the ability to ready an action to shoot if the melee target moves if you have the initiative. And if you do not have the initiative, you are likely flat footed anyway and could not have taken an AoO.
If you allow Ranged AoO, that would be the death warrant for mages. No more hanging back & casting, you hang back & get shot while trying to cast.
- If you are looking for realism, let the ranged AoO occur...as TheRealOrion said...guns will become THE weapon of the game, just like REAL life! :D - If your opponent has a gun you have a problem. Hand to hand will still work, but as with reality, if you pull a sword and he pulls a gun you hide like a frightened school-girl until you come up with one hell of a plan. ;)Just wanted to say, in regards to wizards, if you're going for a more gritty game, I think it's entirely reasonable that they should have to hang back and take cover in order to cast. That said, in a gritty game, you might not want F/X at all, in which case it's all good.
Now, the related question is whether you provoke an attack of opportunity for pulling a trigger? Again, in D&D, that's the equivalent of casting or knocking an arrow, but in Modern, your gun is already up, if you're in a fight (flat-footed with a gun is that it's at your side, I'd imagine). So firing really is a matter of aiming and moving one finger. Any particular reason this should provoke? I can't think of one. But if you enact that rule, then guns really are the be-all, end-all weapon.
Again, that matches reality, but you have to ask yourself if that's what you're going for in your games. I'm not particularly interested in replicating reality, myself, but with your professional experience, I can imagine that the reality of firearms would be more important to you.
How about you provoke an attack of opportunity for drawing and reloading (I think that sounds fair), and for changing your aim towards the guy next to you, but not for firing at him?
This means you could stand 10 feet away, hold your gun at a person, advance 5 feet towards him and shoot him in the face without worrying about the AoO, but the moment you turn to shoot the other guy 20 feet away, or if you reload, you provoke the AoO as normal.
Reasonably close to the rules, but allowing for the fact that firing a gun is not as difficult as reloading a bow.
How about you provoke an attack of opportunity for drawing and reloading (I think that sounds fair), and for changing your aim towards the guy next to you, but not for firing at him?
Sounds pretty close to what we need.
I'd change the phrasing a bit
Shooting at anyone but this threatener
That way you dont draw AoO by the guy you are shooting at, but anyone else close to the shooter gets to AoO on the shooter that is not engaging them. It lets 2 guys fight without AoO, but if any other guys threaten the shooter they get AoO. Kinda like you dont get free stabs on a guy pointing the gun at you, but you do get the free stabs on a guy pointing at somebody else.
Then why doesn't a guy with a sword swinging at one guy, when another is threatening him, draw an attack of opportunity? It's not like the Sword guy takes any less time to engage/dodge/block the threatener he's not attacking.
Um. Yes, er...
I'm not going to be able to come up with an answer that is entirely consistent, but I think it's about taking your attention off of someone. The reason why you get flanking bonuses is because the person being flanked has to divide his attention between two or more people, and can't defend as well. You get an attack of opportunity when someone nearby takes his attention off you, for example to reload a gun, notch an arrow, cast a spell etc.
The sword guy can theoretically threaten everyone around him (this is somewhat dubious), because he can catch you on his backswing, but a guy with a gun really can't.
Is that good enough? It's an interpretation at any rate.
If you're assuming a guy proficient with a sword is proficient enough to keep an eye on his melee opponents, you'd think a person proficient in personal firearms would deserve the same assumed awareness. Gun-fights are about being aware of your surroundings, too. :P
I think we're in agreement that the AoO system is difficult to follow at times, but I do think (and have had discussions in pub on topic) that a gun is not the best tool for using right next to someone, and you're quite likely to end up with them grappling you for your weapon. I do think you should take the AoO for changing your aim, or any of the fiddly stuff right next to someone.
When you see people in the movies pop up within a group of people and calmly shoot each one in the head, that's cool, but in reality one of them is going to try something (assuming they have some combat experience and are not surprised).
Pistoleer takes one shot at Bob the clubber, then takes another at Jimmy the Jock -who's charging and has drawn an attack of opportunity from Pistoleer-. Pistoleer draws an attack of opportunity from Bob the clubber -who isn't wielding his club right now-. Bob attempts a grapple as an attack of opportunity, but because he does not have Improved Grapple, he draws an attack of opportunity from Pistoleer -who has Combat Reflexes-... and Pistoleer aims at Bob as part of his attack of opportunity, and Bob gets another attack of opportunity on Pistoleer... But Bob is already trying to grapple Pistoleer and..
What happens now? lol!
Here's an idea: Slight of Hand check for "defensive shooting" to avoid drawing an attack of opportunity.
Another note: If you're taking parrying into account, then why don't martial-artists using their fists draw an attack of opportunity from sword/club wielders? You're not going to block a sword/club with your hands, so you need to dodge. Someone with a gun (or pistol at least) could dodge just as well as someone without.
Master_Vega: I'm currently trying to program for two different maths assignments at master's level (subjects are applied linear algebra and optimisation), working on several different files, figuring out the optimal preconditioner for PCG iteration with SSOR, to compare the performance of several different algorithms trying to solve a 1000x1000 system of linear equations, and my reasonably fast computer is spending 10 minutes on calculations, and has developed a worrying whine. All the while coding things up in LaTeX.
And your post just broke me :P
Situation: Pistoleer Bill is a fast hero with personal firearms proficiency, and combat reflexes.
Jim the Jock is a thug who's bullrushing Pistoleer Bill.
Bob the Clubber is a guy who normally wields a club, but for this example, he's trying to grapple and disarm like you mentioned in your post.
Pistoleer starts this scenario firing at Bob the Clubber at point blank. We're assuming he has been aiming at Bob since before he was right next to him.
Jim charges at Pistoleer and attempts a bullrush, drawing an attack of opportunity from Pistoleer (who, under the current proposed rules, gets an attack of opportunity on Jim). Pistoleer takes his attack of opportunity and fires at Jim.
Bob the Clubber, wanting to disarm this punk and take him to 'da boss', drops his club and tries to strangle (initiate grapple) him, which provokes an attack of opportunity from Pistoleer because Bob does not have improved grapple.
After shooting Jim, Pistoleer takes his attack of opportunity on Bob, which was caused by an attack of opportunity Bob took -I really don't think you can grapple as an AoO unless you have improved grapple-. Normally it would end here with either Pistoleer dropping Bob, or Bob grappling Pistoleer and giving him some new problems to worry about... but let's say Bob has combat reflexes as well. Pistoleer's change in aim draws another attack of opportunity from Bob. Bob is already in the middle of making a touch attack to grapple, so how does this work? Do Pistoleer and Bob get to burn all of their attacks of opportunity on each other before the grapple starts?
And sorry to hear that about your computer. Good luck on your Masters-level math.
-It is not designed to accurately represent realworld combat, it is designed to allow players to create characters that will perform similar to their favorite TV/Movie action hero
-If Bruce Willis or Jack Bauer can do it, the rules probably allow the players to do it too, no matter how stupid it really is. (like wtf does jack run around with a handgun and not a nice shorty AR-15 of some sort)
Which brings me to my next point: shooting can provoke AoOs from melee folks who threaten the shooter. So even if someone provokes an AoO from the shooter, if he's got a swordsman in his face, he probably won't take the shot against the perceived lesser threat and risk getting chopped or disarmed.
And my third point: Within a certain distance, it's hard to get a shot off before the bad guy reaches you. This is even more true if you need to draw your weapon first. To reflect all of these facts, let's try this houserule:
Reactive Shooter
Prerequisites: Personal Firearms Proficiency, Improved Initiative, Point Blank Shot, Spot 5 ranks
Benefit: If you are armed with a slung or holstered firearm and an opponent charges you from a distance equal to or greater than his normal movement speed (i.e. 30' for normal humans), he provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you already have the weapon out and ready, these distances are halved. You take your attack when the target is halfway through his charge action.
If you have the Quick Draw feat and a weapon capable of being drawn as a free action (in other words, not deep concealment), you are treated as having the weapon ready and may draw it as a part of the attack of opportunity.
Normal: Charging does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the target
Obviously, flat-footed shooters can't make AoOs (or draw weapons), so they're SOL in such a situation. Spot and Listen are your friends, as is Sense Motive.
Benefit: If you are armed with a slung or holstered firearm and an opponent charges you from a distance equal to or greater than his normal movement speed (i.e. 30' for normal humans), he provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
But what about other activities that provoke AoO?
Can a guy 40' away cast a spell at you (or TreatInjury / HackComputer / ChangeRingtones) , but if he was next to you you could pistolwhip him for casting in combat?
Speaking of which, I just figured something out.
[INDENT] [INDENT]
If you want to
As for AoOing on folks at range, I'm kind of torn. Something that takes a reasonable amount of time to do (i.e. a full-round action) should probably provoke an AoO, but anything that can be done as a standard or move action should probably not. If you're sitting in the open for six seconds, you'll likely get shot. If you just pop out to do something quickly and then dive back under cover, you're not as likely to be hit unless the shooter is waiting for you to do it (i.e. a readied action to shoot you when you pop out of cover).
It allows for guys to spend some of the round being on the defense, but the guys doing FullRound stuff dont have time to pay attention & maintain active defense.
Without the FullRound Provoke requirement, the act of shooting will provoke a Ranged AoO, which would itself provoke one, bringing another counter Ranged AoO, provoking...... ad nauseum. It would also allow taking pot shot at anyone that moves more than 5' within Garand range of GI Joe with CombatReflexes.
With the FullRound Provoke required for ranged AoO, the shooter will only be able to take pot shots at guys that really deserve it while leaving normal activities relatively safe. Also, Mongo can still Melle AoO club GI Joe for shooting at the medic putting on bandages 75' away while Mongo was next to the shooter.
Medic provokes Ranged AoO with the full round Treat,
GI Joe provokes Mongo's Melle AoO for attempting to shoot someone other than Mongo,
GI Joe can try a Shooting Defensively roll to avoid provoking Mongo
Mongo can try a Disarm, normally provoking the target, but GI Joe wasnt engaging Mongo so no ranged AoO from Joe defending against the Disarm. Since Joe's Garand was already used for shooting (this enemy turn), it is not in melee carry so no bayonete or butstock melee AoO from Joe from Mongos disarm provoke.
Further, Mongo's Disarm attempt wouldnt provoke Sarge to take a ranged AoO to help GI Joe, because Mongo isnt doing a FullRound Provoke
I gotta look it up, but aint Charge a fullround that includes an attack at the end?
Making a ranged attack should only provoke an AoO from a MELEE threat.
Making a disarm attack should only provoke an AoO from the target that's being disarmed.
Making a ranged attack should only provoke an AoO from a MELEE threat.
Why?
How are you less defensive when shooting to provoke a Melee AoO, but somehow your fully attuned to the battlefield & are plenty defensive to not provoke a Ranged?
Would you have a guy using FullRound DeadAim not provoke a ranged AoO? Because firing doesnt provoke ranged? They didnt specify ranged & nonranged Provoke, because you can only provoke those guys that Threaten. RAW kindly didnt let range weapons threaten, so there could be no ranged AoO.
But we are discussing how to allow Ranged AoO.
Which is giving an entire 1 RI Threat Range (that's a lot for a Garand).
So if you do something to provoke those that threaten you,
... and a Garand can threaten folks over 70' away,
we now have to decide which activities are Ranged Provoke and which are not. Something you just arbitrarily did with
"Making a ranged attack should only provoke an AoO from a MELEE threat."
Great, that is one case, what about every other activity that might provoke?
Initiating a Bull Rush
First, you move into the defender’s space. Doing this provokes an attack of opportunity from each opponent that threatens you, including the defender.
------
Disarm
Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to disarm
---
Charge
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action
These made it easy, they say whether it is Target or all threateners, and even that charging is a FullRound that dont provoke (we discussd a new ability to allow special individuals to RevieceCharge).
We just came up with the Full Round Provoke to prevent that from being a problem. Attack Action shot, no ranged provoke. DeadAim shot, YES it would provoke a ranged AoO, cause shooting provokes and this time it meets the FullRound req we put on Ranged AoO.
Lets keep it simple,
would you say Casting A Spell would provoke our Garand Guy 50' away?
I think the idea behind ranged attacks provoking AoOs is supposedly because when you shoot, you aren't making evasive movements, it isn't a case of lost in translation, since in D+D you took an AoO for shooting a crossbow, which would take about the same amount of time as pulling a gun trigger. People that don't provoke AoOs on ranged attacks are the ones that don't make themselves easy targets, though I would say it should be a feat as well as a class ability.
Why?
How are you less defensive when shooting to provoke a Melee AoO, but somehow your fully attuned to the battlefield & are plenty defensive to not provoke a Ranged?
Why does it make sense for everyone with a gun to instantly and automatically get a free shot against you the instant you pull the trigger?
If you're standing in the middle of the street, and I pop out of cover to shoot at you, why should you get a free shot at me first? That would negate initiative.
But we are discussing how to allow Ranged AoO.
Which is giving an entire 1 RI Threat Range (that's a lot for a Garand).
So if you do something to provoke those that threaten you,
... and a Garand can threaten folks over 70' away,
we now have to decide which activities are Ranged Provoke and which are not. Something you just arbitrarily did with
"Making a ranged attack should only provoke an AoO from a MELEE threat."
Great, that is one case, what about every other activity that might provoke?
The way you had worded it was equally arbitrary until now. I was just trying to tone it down a little.
Initiating a Bull Rush
First, you move into the defender’s space. Doing this provokes an attack of opportunity from each opponent that threatens you, including the defender.
------
Disarm
Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to disarm
---
Charge
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action
These made it easy, they say whether it is Target or all threateners, and even that charging is a FullRound that dont provoke (we discussd a new ability to allow special individuals to RevieceCharge).
We just came up with the Full Round Provoke to prevent that from being a problem. Attack Action shot, no ranged provoke. DeadAim shot, YES it would provoke a ranged AoO, cause shooting provokes and this time it meets the FullRound req we put on Ranged AoO.
Lets keep it simple,
would you say Casting A Spell would provoke our Garand Guy 50' away?
Casting a spell, yes. (strange example, but assuming an Urban Arcana game, sure)
What I was trying to avoid was having the first shot fired resulting in said shooter's death.
The shooter will just stand there (with 50% cover if you wish), for an entire round, yet DeadAim doesnt Provoke. Why? Because Shooting does. But while Mongo may enjoy taking his AoO stab at the shooter, Sarge with a rifle has to just watch the shooter provoke away because rifles dont threaten in RAW.
We are trying to fix that by alowing firearms to threaten,
so Sarge can take his Ranged AoO on a guy doing a FullRound Provoke, like some fool staying popped up from cover with a provoking activity (Fullround TreatInj, Fullround Casting, Fullround Shooting).
However this already takes into account that the wise teammate oft he DeadAim guy is just popping up to shoot and duck & bob. Just a plain Attack Action shot wouldnt Ranged AoO provoke Sarge because it is an attack action activity not meeting our Full Round Provoke requirement for Ranged AoO. Even +11/+6/+1 shots wouldnt, despite FullRound Iterative Attacks is technically a fullround action it is actually a bunch of seperate shots. This is an interpretation for game balance, to interperate it that Iterative Attacks would provoke would unbalance the game.
The proposed ideas we've had in this thread,
- Firearms can threaten within first RI
- Ranged AoO requires Fullround provoke activities
- Reactive Shooter to repell charges
- Shooting Defensively Roll to not provoke while shooting
- Not provoking the adjacent target of your shot (maybe?)
But to say shooting cannot Ranged Provoke then requires a case by case when the shooter is just siting there begging to be shot. It would be a collection of a bunch of similar rules trying to cover every possible situation, rather than a overlieing rule Fullround Provoke Required that cases can be held up to.
Does Shooting provoke Ranged AoO?
It does when it takes a Fullround... when that is, is upto the various situations & activities.
Do you not agree that the DeadAim fullround shooter should provoke Ranged as well as Melee AoO?
This is what I like about this forum,
We can debate our opinions on a subject without namecalling, resulting in a more indepth discussion of the subject details.
The proposed ideas we've had in this thread,
- Firearms can threaten within first RI
- Ranged AoO requires Fullround provoke activities
- Reactive Shooter to repell charges
- Shooting Defensively Roll to not provoke while shooting
- Not provoking the adjacent target of your shot (maybe?)
A few points:
- I like Reactive Shooter, but I think the requirements are a little steep. How about removing the Spot requirement?
- Shooting Defensively makes sense
- not sure I understand that last one. If 2 guys are standing near each other, and I shoot at one, the other can't get an AoO?
But to say shooting cannot Ranged Provoke then requires a case by case when the shooter is just siting there begging to be shot. It would be a collection of a bunch of similar rules trying to cover every possible situation, rather than a overlying rule Fullround Provoke Required that cases can be held up to.
Does Shooting provoke Ranged AoO?
It does when it takes a Fullround... when that is, is up to the various situations & activities.
Do you not agree that the DeadAim fullround shooter should provoke Ranged as well as Melee AoO?
Yeah, with the fullround provoke limitation it becomes a lot more manageable.
This is what I like about this forum,
We can debate our opinions on a subject without namecalling, resulting in a more indepth discussion of the subject details.
Jerk. :P
Jerk. :P
- not sure I understand that last one. If 2 guys are standing near each other, and I shoot at one, the other can't get an AoO?
Yeah, that one is kinda still being mulled over.
If 2 clubbers are standing next to a shooter that is engaging a swordsman at range, when the swordsman closes the shooter now has 3 guys in his face. The principle is that the shooter could stay focused enough on the guy he is engaging to not melee provoke him (the swordsman) with a shot , but the other guys (the club twins) are not being engaged by the shooter and get to take melee AoO on the shooter.
I think we kinda grew that into the Defensive Shooting Roll. If it was a stand alone rule, it steps on the toes of Gunslinger: Close Combat Shot. As a Roll, it not only leaves Gunslingers with some digity, but closely follows the way Casters are treated (copy of combat casting concentration check), and is a use for the danged useless Knowlege Tactics
The exception was when we were playing an Old West thing. I am a fool for historical weapons and didn't allow AoO with Single-Action revolvers or lever-actions.
The reason is that I considered the act of cocking or working the lever as something you were doing on your turn, while taking your attacks. I assume that in D&D you can't take an AoO with a bow because drawing, nocking and firing takes more time than you have on another character's turn (remember: all actions in a round are occurring more or less simultaneously and you will be doing stuff on your own turn, too). The rule was carried over, but doesn't make sense for semi-autos.
I just felt that it did make sense for something that had to be manually cocked, as like where an arrow must be nocked.
But this is also tempered by the rule that you can't take an AoO against someone with cover. So if you duck behind an engine block, with just your head and weapon visible, you won't provoke AoOs no matter how much you shoot.
I would also say that a full attack action would only provoke AoOs from people NOT being shot at. Your target is most likely too busy trying to get to cover to effectively return fire as an AoO.
I don't know about a specific exemption for full attack actions. If you just stand there in the open, shooting at someone, then someone else can just peg you while you're occupied with your initial target. Think about it. To use a full attack action, you have to move no more than 5 feet. You're almost stationary. That makes you an inviting target of opportunity, especially if someone notices that you're being effective against their comrades.
But this is also tempered by the rule that you can't take an AoO against someone with cover. So if you duck behind an engine block, with just your head and weapon visible, you won't provoke AoOs no matter how much you shoot.
Good point.
I would also say that a full attack action would only provoke AoOs from people NOT being shot at. Your target is most likely too busy trying to get to cover to effectively return fire as an AoO.
Yeah, that one is kinda still being mulled over.
If 2 clubbers are standing next to a shooter that is engaging a swordsman at range, when the swordsman closes the shooter now has 3 guys in his face. The principle is that the shooter could stay focused enough on the guy he is engaging to not melee provoke him (the swordsman) with a shot , but the other guys (the club twins) are not being engaged by the shooter and get to take melee AoO on the shooter.
I think this should work differently for melee and ranged AoO.
For ranged AoO, your target shouldn't get an AoO, but others in threat range and line of sight should (pending full round provoke and all that).
If you're in melee range and going to shoot someone, as long as they're considered armed, I think they should still get the AoO. Otherwise this prevents the majority of weapon disarms so commonly seen in Jackie Chan/Stephen Segal type movies.