Does anyone miss pre3.x rules on firing into melee. It really annoys me how easy it is. We used to get ticked at people who would fire into melee. I don't want someone firing arrows in my direction when I am up close and personal hacking away at someone. Leaves a bad taste in myself. I know the what the rules say. Anyone just not like it besides me.
I don't miss those rules at all. I guess we just have different tastes in this regard.
I can't really say i miss them. ADnD was, although the most complete of all versions, the most rule-heavy.
It wasn't untill the "arms and equipment" guide came that firing into melee became hazerdous for your fellow party members. In the PHB (or DMG, it was a while back) there was no such thing.
In 5th the rules only indicate that the target has cover. But: what happens when you miss due to the cover? If the target has AC 18, 20 with cover and the shooter rolls a 19. Do you hit the person standing in front of the target....?
CFK wrote:
My favorite thing about the OGL is how easy it is to port over rules in their entirety from other d20 systems.
If you want different firing into melee rules, you can just outright use your favorite ones.
I'm personally not a huge fan of firing into melee with no penalties, but my preferred method of dealing with it is to look at lines of sight and use cover. If you're shooting over a friend's shoulder, there's cover; if you've got a clear shot but a friendly is adjacent, you're good.
CFK wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
CFK wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Technically creatures provide half-cover to each other and there are the optional rules for Hitting Cover on page 272 of the DMG, which includes other creatures.
Page 272 of the Dungeon Masters Guide wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
The only time i'd consider such a rule would be if the same penalties were applied to firing magic into melee. And not just magic requiring attack rolls, but area magic and even simple autohitting magic.
CCS wrote:
Illithidbix wrote:
Also don't miss them (never knew the Ad&D version either) and while I do upon occassion throw something similiar in I try to avoid it. (In one case I had a player use an unconcious ally as an arrow shield, so I allowed arrows to hit him. Funnily enogh when that character started dying from the arrows he rolled a nat 20 save and woke back up, which was better than the alternative)
Played a Savage Worlds zombie apocalypse game where the only person one of the other players could reliable shoot was me, by accident, and that didn't even require me being in melee, I just had to be in the line of fire and I'm getting buckshot in my back. Not enjoyable.
Vahnyu wrote:
The only time I allow for friendly fire into melee is when the ranged attacker rolls a 1. Yes, most of the time I assume that PCs are competent enough to aim well enough to not hit a companion, even on a miss.
CFK wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Makes sense. I can see a bad depth perception judgement call by a caster that would accidentally affect a party member.
Ramzour wrote:
Guess it's just me then :-)
Ralif_Redhammer wrote:
I will admit I do not like ranged attackers. I like PC's that go into melee and help and take the risks. I have this dislike for PC's that want to sit away from danger while the Barbarian or Fighter take all the hits. Kind of a pet peeve of mind.
Ralif_Redhammer wrote:
Back in the day (meaning the mid '90s in my case) it made sense to me that there were some added penalties for using ranged attacks against enemies engaged in melee combat with your allies - but that mostly because most ranged weapons were just flat-out better than a good chunck of melee weapon options (bows making 2 attacks each round, for example). I didn't care about emulation of reality, but there being some kind of drawback to offset the benefits in the name of game-play balance was something I found to be good (by which I mean there being two options that each have pros and cons, rather than one with cons and one without - not a specific "now you always have the same DPR" type of balance).
As the editions progressed and the rules changed, I began to dislike the rules - both because there wasn't as much of a benefit to using a ranged weapon by default (only one attack per round without investment in the weapon beyond proficiency), and because the default penalty became absolutely ridiculous when it changed from a chance at a normal-accuracy attack roll at the right target with risk of their being a wrong target to their basically being zero chance that you hit anything not significantly larger than your friends (-4 for firing into a melee, and -4 for the "soft cover" your ally is probably providing your target = hope using a bow wasn't part of your concept because now it is time to switch to melee).
Now, I am entirely satisfied with the lack of complexity, reality emulation, and accuracy-obliterating rules - especially because melee weapons end up having advantages that ranged weapons don't this time around, so the ranged weapons don't actually need penalties to offset the benefit of being able to attack from further away (for the record, the advantages I mean are being able to choose not to kill your target, and the optional cleaving through creatures rule that I use and enjoy greatly).
Vahnyu wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Ralif_Redhammer wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
I would actually like a system where the player is trying to get a clear shot. If he is trying to fire into melee. He would roll percentile for his chance to have a clear shot. If he got the roll he can fire at his target without a chance to hit his friend. I kind of see this as in the movies where the sniper is "I don't have a clear shot". I don't mind such a character staying out of melee at a distance losing his action because he is staying far away and not putting himself in danger.
A Ranged Spell Attack is subject to cover, just like a Ranged Weapon Attack;.
FFSAA wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
I am glad that there is no default penalty for firing into melee. The way I think of a party, they are cooperating: an archer could easily yell out for an ally to duck just before firing. Of course, as has already been mentioned, it's quite easy to reintroduce a penalty if one wants to. Probably the biggest question is "how much do you want to punish the attempt?" Lower the damage dice? Disadvantage? Removal of proficiency bonus? Automatic miss? Random chance of hitting any one of the creatures engaged in melee with the target? More than one of the preceeding items?
MechaPilot wrote:
Between the cover rules provided and the optional rules for striking cover in the DMG I feel 5e has enough rules. The notion of rolling more dice to determine outcomes is already represented in the initial d20 and the cover bonus to target AC. Slowing the story down so you can penalize another players prefered style of combat isn't fun for them, so consider your fellow players (and the DM who has to control all that fodder for slaughter, they have enough details to consider!)
strider13x wrote:
Malzerious wrote:
strider13x wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Malzerious wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
OK so am I understanding this right?
You don't like PC's who stand back and shoot into combat because you are taking all the risks of being up front during the cambat and so you are absorbing all the damage instead of them.
You solution is that when said PC does this, you want a chance to cop the damage each time they shoot instead of their target, thus ensuring they partake in the risk of getting hurt in close combat? (even though you are now taking on extra risk of being hurt in close combat).
Or are you hoping they with think, damn there is a sight chance I might hurt my friend by using the bow I am skilled with and invested feats in, instead I will run up with my dagger and get into cose combat, with which I have very little skill.
What annoyes me far more is someone who gets good with only 1 weapon and has no contingency, back up plan. What do you mean I can't run up and get in close combat I didn't even bring a dagger, because I am a sword fighter. Or the archer who doesn't bring a back up close combat weapon, just in case.
The optional rule in the DMG seems fine to me - an element of risk, but not the lottery that 2e was.
Shasarak wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Wasn't there a character sheet from 2nd Ed with little boxes to track ammo?
Not at all
Cover needs to be judged, there is also a lot more moving in 5e so just move before you fire to ensure you aren't risking your allies
I like 5e because it's rule set isn't burdened and thus easy for players and DMs to apply and keep a healthy pace to the game. I don't miss the old rules, I think there's sufficient drawbacks for archers who fire into melee (and plenty of drawback for an archer who uses a bow when engaged in melee).
Ramzour wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Ive played 5ed twice. I believe that there should be a difficulty check for a magic user who gets hit with a missile while casting. In AD&D, firing arrows at magic users was a given. It was a great strategy for lower level characters who couldnt participate in direct melee with higher level enemies. They were valuable as wizard shooters, which stopped the free use of a magic user to simply blast the whole party dead while standing far enough behind the line of melee battle to be otherwise unhurt.
Players who take the "risk" of melee fighting usually wear heavy armor and often cary shields. A well played cleric or magic user usually focus buff spells on them as well so their risk is mitigated. If a rogue with light armor, no shield, and simple weapons were to go to the line and fight toe to toe in melee comat, he will die, so he should stay back and fire missiles. The melee fighters need support while doing their job which is, in part, to absorb damage.
arnwolf666 wrote:
I was responding to the OPs distaste for a valid tactic and citing rules as presented as a solid basis.
I guess it takes all type, I've seen the polar opposite in 4th ed game, as my friend needed more people for his wife's game, I wished I'd had more warning about that.
I am split if I want the realism of firing into melee. But I get the yearning for it. If I had a choice of static modifiers versus advantage/disadvantage, then I would pick the former. As long as there are stacking rules, it would not get out of hand. But I also miss 4E rules for spells like fireball using an attack roll. It made much more sense when considering a caster should suffer the same environmental, or character effect modifers that a bow user may suffer.
You changed his "chance" into "automatically". That's counterproductive. It's also downright rude. You should change what people say into something that they don't.
Well, the threads a bit odd to begin with - the OP is basically saying "I don't like people doing something that's perfectly safe by the rules, because it feels really dangerous to me"
It'd probably go better if the OP talked about what he actually likes. So as to give some context.
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
That reminds me of the old joke:
"Lets fight!"
"Boy, thats fighting talk!" 
Noon wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Noon wrote:
Diffan wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
While I was never a big fan of 1E/2E rules, because they were way too strict, effectivelly totally removing archer skill and making it a coin flip, the post-AD&D rules are way too lenient on allowing shots in melee combats. Personally I dislike it because it removes a lot of the usage for abilities like small pushing effects and tactical withdrawals. If it's tough to fire into melee, then a "Push 5-10 feet" ability becomes a really nice useful power, instead of the "I hope there's a cliff nearby, otherwise this is pointless" type of ability it becomes. It got especially ridiculous in 4E where your allies didn't even provide cover at all, so it felt like you were playing a video game with friendly fire disabled where you could freely just shoot through your allies and the projectile would phase through them.
As for being "fair" to spellcasters, I think they definitely need more stringent restrictions on tossing AoE spells into a melee as well. It always bothered me that your fighter could be getting mauled by ravenous ghouls and somehow the wizard was able to cast a fireball with pinpoint precision everytime, just hitting the enemy and never hitting friendly targets. You're effectively tossing a live grenade or firing a rocket launcher into a furious melee combat. Yes, I know mechanically the miniatures are frozen in time and fit nicely in their squares, but in the story that's not what it looks like. In storytelling terms, you've got furious back-and-forth action going on, people dodging and leaping about. Tossing a fireball into that chaos? I dont' think so.
The rules I generally run by:
Ranged Attacks:
- Allies provide cover normally.
- A natural 1 on a shot into melee always results in a chance to hit an ally, even if no-one is providing cover.
- When one opponent in a melee is fighting unarmed (or with natural weapons), they always act as though there's cover for purposes of friendly fire. If the ally would also normally provide cover, count it as improved cover.
- Firing into a grapple is equivalent to firing at a target with greater cover and also imposes disadvantage
- A natural roll equal to or less than the cover modifier results in the cover being possibly hit (which is generally an ally)
Area Effects:
- When dropping an AoE into a melee, the spellcaster has two choices. He can be cautious or aggressive. If he's cautious, then there's no chance of hitting friendlies but the foe gains evasion or advantage on non-dexterity based saves. If the caster is being aggressive, then the foe is hit normally but friendly targets engaged with him may also be struck. They recieve evasion or advantage on non-dexitery based saves.
These rules are generally closer to guidelines where in some cases I'll tweak them depending on circumstance, depending on how close range the melee is. If you've got two polearm or greatsword wielders facing off for instance, then it'll be relatively easy to fire into melee or target an area spell. If you're dealing with unarmed attacks, then it becomes substantially more difficult.
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
I play with so many B/X 1E/2E guys that in some of my groups this is no big deal and old school firing into melee rules can be used no problem. Wouldn't dare try it with the new kids. What I plan is to add the option to roll to see if you have a clear shot to avoid the chance of hitting an ally by holding your action, kind of like a sniper in a move trying to get a clear shot. I'm very ruthless with the right groups, even loading a bow to fire one at melee is an AOO.
Terrible idea.
DND shouldn't have risk of being hit by another player.
Imagine if the stray shot put your PC down
Plenty of PvP games out there. ......my beloved fighter PC died in last night dungeonworld game due to other players rolls. It was fine and funny in that game
I think if a GM used this in 5th I would leave the table if the GM couldn't be swayed.....same as the ludicrous PF crit/fumble decks
I never saw Legolas shoot one of his allies. It's cool as an optional rule and easy enough to add and remove as you see fit. It's just not something I'd want in my game.
I'd probably only do it as part of a Crit-1 result.
Samrin wrote:
If I were going to go with a possible hit of allies when firing into melee I would do the following:
If you are firing into melee and roll a one (whether your ally is providing cover or not) there is a chance to hit your ally. Roll an unmodified d20. If it beats your ally's AC or you roll a nat20 it hits him/her for normal damage.
Quick and simple. I think the second roll is necessary to keep your well armored defensive fighter from being hit on a miss as easily as an unarmored wizard.
TheNovaLord wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
For my bastardized version of 5E for my old guys group (not hobby shop group), I am going to do that if there is a miss, there is an equal chance of hitting an adjacent enemy or ally, or someone in line of fire. A person firing into melee with the Sharpshooter feat may roll the chance before firing into melee, if he makes the roll he fires at the enemy, no chance of hitting someone else, if he doesn't make the roll he can wait the next round for a clear shot or he can fire into melee and take a chance with another roll. This will apply to all ranged attacks even with spells. I think this will work for me and my old guy group, we like mixing elements that we liked from earlier editions, and there is alot to like with 5E. I would probaly let this work with the spell sniper feat too.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Strawmen. I simply expounded on a fact with more facts.
I just feel and see ranged attackers as taking alot less risk than the melee fighters. I think the ranged attackers are given too much reward with very low risk. I base this upon my experience with the play of published encounters. It is very easy for a DM to create encounters to nerf ranged attacks if he wants, I would rather just have it built into the system than being a jerk making every encounter tailored to the ranged attackers weaknesses. And I like my solution, I find it to be a more lenient method than used in earlier versions of D&D. Played my first game with it today too. Our 5E version of Against the Giants, redid every module and enjoying the beginning.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Satyrn wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
I am really just looking to tweak the 2E PHB p.99 rules for firing into melee with the 1E DMG p.64 (I think) of firing into melee. Giving ranged people the opportunity to hold their action instead of firing in and accidentally hitting an ally. The early edition design for ranged weapons was it was to be done before melee entered or to hit stragglers leaving melee or other ranged attackers. I still like that design concept for combat and adventures. That's why I like the modularity of 5E, keep what you want, change the rest.
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
I'm just gonna do it like the old PHB and DMG (with my old guy group because we are used to the 1E/2E way of doing it).
If there are 3 people in melee, there is an equal chance of hitting each. Plain and simple. If you have an archery fighting style or spell sniper or similar feat, then you can roll the chance before you fire and choose to hold or take your chance and roll again. But this is just for us old 1E/2E players who are enjoying many aspects of the rules in 5E that still like many features of the earlier editions. We still do group initiative for example, though I think that is an option in the 5E DMG. In fact we do group initiative similar to BECM, Spellcasters go, ranged attackers go, then melee guys go. If both sides have the same initiative it's a clash (should have never removed clash from later editions), and everyone goes at once, you can be killed by the person you kill at the same time.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Once we ignore the particular game balance the designers were aiming for (there are many types of balance you could aim for), the archers being 'out of danger' is really subjective.
From a certain method of balance, actually they are facing risk and facing enough of it to pay for their advantages.
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote: