Firing into Melee

[Felon]

If you have a problem with 4e fine but stop complaining play 3.x and forget about 4e all together

So you made an account just to state the most unimaginative and empty point of view there is. All-or-nothing, love it or leave it, with no margin for discussion in-between. That's not the way it works, sorry.

 

[Noinarap]

Something many posters in this thread seem to ignore completely is that D&D is not populated exclusively by PC's. Now any incompetent with a ranged weapon can weave his shots through any number of bodies to hit the low AC target. That's not credible, and it's not a very good game design element.

Again (why did everyone ignore my earlier post? ) it only matters as often as it happens. The overwhelming majority of ranged attacks come from characters/monsters who are good at them. The rare moments that feature a melee focused character using a ranged weapon simply don't merit an extra page or two of rules. Everyone knows the real world is far more complex and varied than the game world, but that doesn't mean we need rules that reflect every wrinkle. A rule to penalize actions that don't often succeed is pointless.

To illustrate this, let's say my 4e character is a 9th level fighter with an 18 Strength, a 12 Dexterity, One-handed weapon talent, a +2 warhammer, and a +1 longbow. When he swings his sword, he has an extra +5 to hit level-appropriate foes that he doesn't get with his bow. This generally gives him a 60% to 40% chance of hitting. With the bow, he drops to a 35% to 15% chance of hitting. Do we really need to chip away at that and guarantee his failure? He's already doing marginal damage (1d10+2) if he even hits. And he had to use a few actions to stow or drop his weapon and shield. It's not like he'll be pulling that bow out all the time, since it basically sucks already.

If he uses a +1 javelin instead of the bow (best case), he loses the bow's superior range and damage to get back up to a 55% to 35% chance to do 1d6+5 damage. This is still poor. Again, any additional penalty will make us feel more like we're in the real world, but its only game function will be to make ranged attacks totally worthless for this fighter.

 

[Felon]

Again (why did everyone ignore my earlier post? ) it only matters as often as it happens. The overwhelming majority of ranged attacks come from characters/monsters who are good at them. The rare moments that feature a melee focused character using a ranged weapon simply don't merit an extra page or two of rules.

Sounds like your premise supposes that the only people who shouldn't be capable of threading a ranged attack through interposing bodies is someone who has no business picking up a ranged weapon whatsoever. Personally, the notion that every opponent whose primary attack is ranged is automatically a crack shot capable of targeting someone's soft little wizard despite his efforts to put some meat between the two of them does not pass my smell test for crediblity or gameplay. Not every gnoll who uses a bow is a master archer.

 

[Noinarap]

Sounds like your premise supposes that the only people who shouldn't be capable of threading a ranged attack through interposing bodies is someone who has no business picking up a ranged weapon whatsoever. Personally, the notion that every opponent whose primary attack is ranged is automatically a crack shot capable of targeting someone's soft little wizard despite his efforts to put some meat between the two of them does not pass my smell test for crediblity or gameplay. Not every gnoll who uses a bow is a master archer.

Note that you can use friendly targets as cover. The 4e wizard is harder to hit if he hides behind the cleric or the fighter. And this actually makes sense, since it's a reasonable tactic. If the wizard is hiding behind other gnolls that he is fighting in melee, well, he has bigger problems.

I do agree that enemies are now more dangerous, but what's the point in having rules that make it trivially easy to negate the attacks of ranged monsters? If you want your gnolls to be mediocre archers who need a wide open shot to hit anything, just subtract whatever number you like from their attack rolls. It's not like the PCs would have any difficulty imposing a penalty every single round if we had an extra rule.

 

[theNater]

Fair enough- Rangers get a bonus.

And if I want to play a non-Ranger sniper, I'm still screwed in 4Ed.

In 3.X, OTOH, I have many options.

How many options? To specialize in archery, the first six feats need to be Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Far Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, and Weapon Focus. Fighters and rangers have those by level 6, and no other class gets them before level 15(12 if human). Accuracy is lost upon multiclassing into anything other than paladin or barbarian. In any case, archery in combat tends to be "I fire a number of arrows, then I do it again next round".

In fourth edition, rangers have at least two options for ranged powers every time they pick up an attack power, with the exception of the level 29 daily, so they can choose whether they want more damage, more attacks, tactical options(mobility/pushes/conditions), or attack bonuses. They can use multiclassing feats to add a little extra variety to their abilities without losing accuracy. They'll also be mixing up their attacks as the situation calls for it, and as they use up their encounter and daily powers.

3rd edition snipers tend to look fairly similar while sniping, regardless of class, especially at low levels. 4th edition snipers are all named "ranger", but have ways to distinguish themselves immediately.

 

[Grabuto138]

People simply didn’t go out into groups of five or so to fight as a tactical element until the 20th century. And a fire squad doesn’t use a bow.

Aboriginal hunting groups were using a different kind of bows in totally different circumstances. The kind of bows we are talking about, at the ranges these bows are capable of, makes this discussion moot. (Yes, D&D range rules are unrealistic, but still pretty far). There is no sense trying to draw an approximation to D&D and history in this case. On the other hand, we can draw on fantasy film and literature and see that an ally can be in the way and have no effect unless it is relevant to the story.​

Honestly, the idea of trying to make a rule for firing a longbow into melee is no more realistic than a rule for firing a mortar into melee.

If you really, really need to make your players pay then:
Punch the player in the face when they show up to play.
Deny them pizza.
Then let them use their weak basic ranged attack, or good attack if they are a rogue or a ranger, without having to waste two feats.

 

[Ginnel]

On terms of firing into combat I can see that shooting into a constantly clashing combat could be tricky but I also feel the 5ft squares demonstrate breaking away of combat to make shots easier as well.

Overall I think there should not be penalties as there is incentive enough for characters to use melee over non specialised melee attacks, this include melee powers/marking/positioning for encounters/dailies, and when a melee character wants to take a pot shot he should have a reasonable chance of suceeding.
The specialist sniper arguement well to me thats why they have ranged powers not just [W]1 damage +str/dex (or 2[W] come 21st level)

 

[ThirdWizard]

Everybody's thinking in terms of martial attacks. What about Lance of Faith, Magic Missile, Flames of Phlegethos, and all the magic Ranged abilities? Heck, Cause Fear. We don't have Touch ACs to protect casters from firing into melee penalties anymore.

 

[Obryn]

I absolutely hate it when anyone tries to claim that LARP combat is anything like real combat.

Despite that, I'll note that I picked up the tricks of firing into melee very, very quickly. Within maybe 4 hours of practice, I was competent enough to reliably hit people fighting with my allies.

In point of fact, it was easier to hit people in melee with my allies, because (1) they had something else to worry about; and (2) they had to actually move their shield around to block melee attacks, leaving me more openings.

I'm perfectly fine with the way 4e does it. Your ally may kind of block your shot, but they can also help set you up for better shots. Call it a wash, and we're done.

Firing-into-melee penalties in 3e and earlier were much more a game balance issue than a realism one. This particular balancing factor is no longer necessary in 4e.

-O

 

[Shabe]

I absolutely hate it when anyone tries to claim that LARP combat is anything like real combat.
<snip>
-O

Yup