Shooting or Throwing Into Melee

[Jackinthegreen]

This is for Conan then? I take it we're to assume all your stuff is for Conan pretty much?

Have to ask because you never mentioned Conan in this thread up until that last post. It's kinda difficult to argue rules without the proper context.

 

[RogueInRouge]

And we haven't even started to question why the attacker's full attack bonus applies to a target he isn't trying to hit, and whether it would be more realistic to just roll an unmodified d20 and see if that beats the cover-providing ally's flat-footed AC or something like that.

As I said before, you can have it be realistic, but it probably won't be fair and it certainly won't be simple.

I think RAW is a decent compromise between realism and fast play. The guy firing a missile weapon is trying to aim at a certain area: the unobscured portion of the intended target is the "bullseye." He rolls to see how close his shot comes to the bullseye, so all bonuses should apply.

If he hits the bullseye, great, end of story. If he misses, well let's see how close he came. If his adjusted roll is a 5, he probably coughed or something and the missile went wildly astray. For full realism we could roll to see whether the stray shot entered another square, and if so whether it hit any creatures/structures/objects in that square, but... too much work!

If his adjusted roll is really close -- i.e. he would have hit without the other combatant complicating the shot -- then he's definitely aiming in the right neighborhood. Let's do a little hand-waving to see if maybe he hit the other combatant. (This is where the little DEX/AC dance comes in.)

Although... this is just one of many examples where D&D tries to have its cake and eat it too wrt using a single AC # for both position and protection, and we end up having to turn a blind eye to all the shenanigans. If the attacker "misses" his intended target b/c the intended target is basically stationary but encased in a comfy suit of plate mail, should we really be rolling to see if he hit the other melee combatant instead? I'd argue no, we should only be looking at other targets if the attackers aim is off, i.e. he misses against the intended target's flat-footed AC. But maybe Vegepygmy's right:

the -4 penalty is really there because without it, full attacking at range while your ally pins an opponent down is just too easy. It can perhaps be rationalized by the fact that a target engaged in melee is moving unpredictably and has his defenses up, but really, it's just there to keep ranged attacks from being too good.

[MENTION=40109]Vegepygmy[/MENTION], by "pins down" do you mean getting in a position where the other combatant suffers an attack of opportunity if he tries to close with the ranged attacker?

 

[RogueInRouge]

Have to ask because you never mentioned Conan in this thread up until that last post

Fwiw, the OP did include an example that mentioned a Hyperborean. That was my Conan cue (but I think the topic is still interesting for d20 in general.)

 

[Water Bob]

This is for Conan then? I take it we're to assume all your stuff is for Conan pretty much?

Have to ask because you never mentioned Conan in this thread up until that last post. It's kinda difficult to argue rules without the proper context.

All my stuff is for Conan. I'm not interested in magic stuff. But, it's not necessary that I always discuss just Conan since the RPG is d20 based. Most of the rules are interchangeable.

I typically mark my threads "d20" unless it's specifically Conan.

Consider it from a generic d20 perspective.

 

[Water Bob]

The -4 penalty is to make sure you don't accidentally hit your friend. That's why it's there.

Yes. And, if you miss? If you miss by 1-4 points...you probably hit your friend.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Why would Frank be flat-footed while in melee? Crazy rule.

He's not. It's just (usually) the fastest way to figure out Frank's AC without all the special dodging parts (e.g., Dex bonus, Dodge bonus, etc.).

Again, the decision chain for the 3.0 rule and the 3.5 option rule is:

1. Did you hit your original target? If yes, then you hit him. If no, go to step 2.

2. Did the cover make a difference in you hitting your original target? If yes, then you hit the cover, and go to step 3. If no, the your shot was way the hell off and you miss everything.

3. Did the cover actually want to be providing cover to your target? If yes, then check whether your attack roll hit the cover's AC, and do damage if it does. If not, go to step 4.

4. Does your attack roll beat the cover's AC? If yes, you hit the cover; roll damage! If you missed, go to step 5.

5. Did you miss the cover, but by an amount equal to or less than its Dexterity and Dodge bonuses to AC (e.g., you would have hit the cover's FF AC, but you missed its current AC)? If yes, then the cover dodged out of the way and didn't actually provide cover to your original target, so you hit your original target after all; roll damage! If no, then you completely missed the cover, too.

The reason this was dropped (move into the optional section) in 3.5 is that it offers at best modicum of realism at the expense of being a gigantic pain in the butt to adjudicate in evern the simplest form (a hooter firing at an [O]rc on the other side of his [W]arrior ally):

S . . . . W O

It gets ridiculous when you run into things like a hooter trying to hit an orc s[H]aman in the middle of a melee of [O]rcs and [W]arriors:

. . . . . . . . . .
S . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . O . W W .
. . . . . W . O O O
. . . . . . . W H .

 

[Vegepygmy]

Why would Frank be flat-footed while in melee? Crazy rule.

<check to see if Water Bob is just messing with me, now...>

He's not actually flat-footed. I just used "Frank's flat-footed AC" as shorthand for "Frank's AC (not including any dodge or Dexterity bonuses to AC)." We want to know if the shot failed to damage Frank because it bounced off his armor or because he ducked. If he ducked, then he didn't provide cover to the intended target, remember?

 

[Vegepygmy]

@Vegepygmy , by "pins down" do you mean getting in a position where the other combatant suffers an attack of opportunity if he tries to close with the ranged attacker?

Either that, or the other combatant actually cannot move past his melee opponent to get at the ranged attacker, or the other combatant is otherwise impeded from getting at the ranged attacker.