2 house rules for critique

[Thurbane]

1. Firing into melee: Any character firing into a melee (including ranged touch attacks) runs the risk of accidentally hitting the wrong opponent. The to hit roll is made as per normal, including the -4 penalty unless the Precise Shot feat is being used. If the roll misses by enough to also miss the intended targets touch AC, he then makes an attack roll against a diffeent, randomly determined target involved in the same melee, and rolls a normal hit roll against that target. If this second roll hits, resolve damage against the accidental target as normal. If it also misses, the missile has harmlessly shot past the whole melee.

Problems: this means that any ranged touch attack that misses is automatically an acccidental hit chance. Not sure what the best fix for this is.

Reasoning: I do not treat toe-to-toe combat as a static affair as defined by a combat grid. I assume (as did earlier editions) that the two (or more) combatants are constantly moving and shifting poisitons the whole time, even if this is not reflected by the battle grid positioning.

2. Withdraw action: to succesfully use the withdraw option to escape a melee, the opponent must be threatened by at least one allied creature who "covers your escape". If the opponent is not threatened, a withdraw action provokes an AoO as normal. This does not apply to 5 foot step actions in any way, which allow one to move up to 5 feet from a melee without provoking an AoO.

Problems: (?)

Reasoning: I personally feel it is ludicrous that while things like pulling out a potion bottle do provoke an AoO, turning around and jogging away in the middle of a fight does not. The only way to justify it IMHO is to have an ally cover your retreat by either interposing himself bodily, or distracting the opponent with the threat of an attack.

I have been using both of these in my own game for almost a year now, and my group is generally happy with them. What do you think?

 

[Hawken]

#1: Actually, you should clarify your example to firing into melee where an ally is one of the combatants. If you are firing into melee where they are all enemies, its not going to matter who you hit unless you want to target a specific one.

A seemingly sensible solution would be to use the concept of line of effect for targeting spells, except rename it to "line of fire", If you miss your intended target, the missile continues in a straight path until it strikes something of sufficient mass to stop it. If that mass is another combatant, then an attack roll is made against that new target. If you miss your enemy, the only chance you should have of hitting your ally is if he/she is occupying the same square as the enemy.

Certainly, there would be exceptions, like for boomerangs, ammo or weapons enchanted to return, etc. But it feels like this is close to what you were shooting for, pardon the pun. Otherwise, with your missile 'attacking' a randomly determined target, the arrow in question could theoretically be all over the board 'bouncing' from one missed enemy to the next.

#2: Regarding your reasoning, the reason why grabbing and drinking a potion produces an AoO is because you stop threatening your opponent (while rifling through your container, then popping down the drink), and in effect are not paying much attention at all to your own defense. However, for someone backing up and running off, the enemy won't realize they are no longer threatening until they are out of melee range and there's nothing they can do but give chase.

To resolve the issue, I would suggest using a Bluff or Intimidate roll vs. the threatening enemy's Sense Motive. Success means they are able to withdraw with or without cover fire or assistance from allies. Failure means they may withdraw, but suffer an AoO. I think D20 Modern, SW D20 and M&M have rules for cover fire, so checking into those would be a good idea to see how to handle that option (if its not already covered in a D&D supplement somewhere). Instead of making an AoO, you could allow the enemy the option of immediately using their movement for the round (if they have not acted yet) to keep up with the fleeing character (and thus, continue to threaten them), which would either immediately start a chase scene or just spread combat out over a greater area.

Requiring cover fire or assistance to escape a fight is not only unrealistic but puts an incredible burden on your PCs. It also entrenches them in the mode of fighting and never retreating since your rule seems to be tactically overbearing if not downright impossible if all people on one side are engaged. You should be careful though, PCs considering retreat are already at a considerable disadvantage, unless using the tactic to lure their enemies into a trap. While it may be more realistic to try to get them with that last parting shot, their egos are going to be bruised enough from having to retreat. I would suggest the equivalent of a 'slap on the wrist' if an AoO is provoked. Instead of dropping them or causing significant damage, this could herald the start of a potentially interesting chase scene and that kind of drama and excitement could help ease the sting (to their pride) from having to retreat in the first place.

 

[Thurbane]

OK, thanks for the feedback. Let me just address a few points:

#1: Actually, you should clarify your example to firing into melee where an ally is one of the combatants. If you are firing into melee where they are all enemies, its not going to matter who you hit unless you want to target a specific one.

I kind of took this as read, but I can see your point. These rules aren't actually in their "official" form, but I will remember that wording when doing so. Also note that I always require my players to nominate a specific target, even if firing into a horde of enemies...if they truly want to fire randomly into an enemy group, though, I would allow it, maybe with a slight to hit penalty...

A seemingly sensible solution would be to use the concept of line of effect for targeting spells, except rename it to "line of fire", If you miss your intended target, the missile continues in a straight path until it strikes something of sufficient mass to stop it. If that mass is another combatant, then an attack roll is made against that new target. If you miss your enemy, the only chance you should have of hitting your ally is if he/she is occupying the same square as the enemy.

Actually this is almost exactly what I am trying to get away from. In our games, the miniatures on the grid are an abstract, rather than an absolute. In our games it is assumed that the two combatants aren't rooted to the floor as if they'd stepped in sovereign glue - they are constantly lunging at and circling each other. Line of effect doesn't work for my purpose, unfortunately.

Certainly, there would be exceptions, like for boomerangs, ammo or weapons enchanted to return, etc. But it feels like this is close to what you were shooting for, pardon the pun. Otherwise, with your missile 'attacking' a randomly determined target, the arrow in question could theoretically be all over the board 'bouncing' from one missed enemy to the next.

Well, maybe I didnt make it clear, but I meant creatures in the same melee, not every melee on the map i.e. creatures threatening each other's squares. Also, my rule specifically states that after the first "accidental target" miss that the missile is assumed to have missed everyone else, so there won't be any bouncing.

#2: Regarding your reasoning, the reason why grabbing and drinking a potion produces an AoO is because you stop threatening your opponent (while rifling through your container, then popping down the drink), and in effect are not paying much attention at all to your own defense. However, for someone backing up and running off, the enemy won't realize they are no longer threatening until they are out of melee range and there's nothing they can do but give chase.

Yes, and that's EXACTLY what I don't like. Seriously, go out back with a couple of broom handles, spar with someone, and see if you can just turn and jog 60 feet before the other guy can react. Unlikely, I would imagine.

To resolve the issue, I would suggest using a Bluff or Intimidate roll vs. the threatening enemy's Sense Motive. Success means they are able to withdraw with or without cover fire or assistance from allies. Failure means they may withdraw, but suffer an AoO. I think D20 Modern, SW D20 and M&M have rules for cover fire, so checking into those would be a good idea to see how to handle that option (if its not already covered in a D&D supplement somewhere). Instead of making an AoO, you could allow the enemy the option of immediately using their movement for the round (if they have not acted yet) to keep up with the fleeing character (and thus, continue to threaten them), which would either immediately start a chase scene or just spread combat out over a greater area.

Now these are both very good ideas to implement into my system, especially the first one. Basically, a Feint to allow a withdraw action. I like that a lot.

Requiring cover fire or assistance to escape a fight is not only unrealistic but puts an incredible burden on your PCs.

Ah, but this rule also applies to the bad guys. Seriously, I have seen players tear up character sheets in frustration because the guy they are fighting has suddenly bamfed 60 feet away without them being able to do a single thing about it. Anything that works against the PCs in combat also works in their favor when reversed.

It also entrenches them in the mode of fighting and never retreating since your rule seems to be tactically overbearing if not downright impossible if all people on one side are engaged.

Well no, all it means is one AoO, no more than what you'd get for pulling out and chugging a potion in the middle of battle. If people wait until they are on 1 hit point before they decide to withdraw, it is an error in their judgement, so long as I have made the rule abundantly clear from the outset. It really is never good tactics to wait until you are one blow from death before retreating, even without my house rules.

You should be careful though, PCs considering retreat are already at a considerable disadvantage, unless using the tactic to lure their enemies into a trap. While it may be more realistic to try to get them with that last parting shot, their egos are going to be bruised enough from having to retreat. I would suggest the equivalent of a 'slap on the wrist' if an AoO is provoked. Instead of dropping them or causing significant damage, this could herald the start of a potentially interesting chase scene and that kind of drama and excitement could help ease the sting (to their pride) from having to retreat in the first place.

Again, a very good point.

I feel I should clarify, that I really am not a "DM vs. players" type of guy, and both of these rules have been informally enforced for our last 6 months + of gaming. The players basically accept them, and also freely exploit them to their benefit when the tables are turned.

But I welcome all view points, even if I don't neccessarily agree with them.

 

[Hawken]

Actually this is almost exactly what I am trying to get away from. In our games, the miniatures on the grid are an abstract, rather than an absolute. In our games it is assumed that the two combatants aren't rooted to the floor as if they'd stepped in sovereign glue - they are constantly lunging at and circling each other. Line of effect doesn't work for my purpose, unfortunately.

For the targets, that is fine and your reasoning is sound and logical. But for the shooter, and the missile being fired or thrown, line of fire is more accurate a method. While the targets may not be stationary. The missile is going to be going in a straight line. If it misses its intended target, it's going to keep on going to strike something else further along that line from the shooter to the (intended) target. Missile into melee combat is often at 50' or less. That is not enough distance to allow for a trajectory or elevation change drastic enough for the missile to do anything other than travel in a straight line. Well, unless there are some severe environmental effects (high winds), magic spells (Protection from Arrows, etc.), and so forth.

Another possible solution that may cut down on the extra rolls is compare the attack roll for the missile to the target's Touch AC and normal AC. If it is higher than the Touch AC but lower than the target's full AC, it has effectively hit the target but just failed to penetrate the target's armor. If you take this into consideration, it should cut down on rolls to determine extra targets since the missile's flight will have stopped.

Yes, and that's EXACTLY what I don't like. Seriously, go out back with a couple of broom handles, spar with someone, and see if you can just turn and jog 60 feet before the other guy can react. Unlikely, I would imagine.

I hear you on this one. The game mechanics have never translated well to real life. In such a situation, you might be able to get 30' but it is very possible and plausible to withdraw from a fight without getting whacked just for backpedaling and running. Now get caught/cornered and then getting whacked, that's another matter.

Basically, a Feint to allow a withdraw action. I like that a lot.

If you are going to use Bluff instead of Intimidate (specifically mentioned for Fighters), then I would suggest a bonus for Fighters to the Bluff check. They are the masters of combat after all.

Ah, but this rule also applies to the bad guys...Anything that works against the PCs in combat also works in their favor when reversed.

That doesn't necessarily make it a good rule, but if your players are ok with it, that's what's important. Using the Bluff/Intimidate vs. Sense Motive may hopefully negate the need to have cover fire to escape. I just thought of this, in addition to the above, but if a Fighter is on the receiving end of that feint attempt, instead of Sense Motive (hopefully with a bonus if you do), perhaps have them contest the roll with Intimidation. Being familiar with the techniques for intimidating and feinting in combat, their skill would also measure their ability to recognize when those things are being used against them.

Well no, all it means is one AoO, no more than what you'd get for pulling out and chugging a potion in the middle of battle. If people wait until they are on 1 hit point before they decide to withdraw, it is an error in their judgement, so long as I have made the rule abundantly clear from the outset. It really is never good tactics to wait until you are one blow from death before retreating, even without my house rules.

You've got a point there, and a valid one. However, as an experienced DM, you are also aware that at least as often than not, players do not retreat until the situation is blatantly (and typically impossible to escape from) going bad for them. They are often like gamblers throwing out their last $ for a jackpot, thinking that as soon as their turn comes around they can turn the tide and won't need to retreat.

In closing, I didn't think you were a 'dm vs. players' kind of guy. In fact, I was thinking the opposite since you were wanting a more workable solution to these problems which can too often feel like 'dm vs. players'. I hope my suggestions are worth a try and was glad for the opportunity to at least present them to you. If they do work out, please let me know.

 

[Thurbane]

Again, thanks for the feedback, very well thought out.

For the targets, that is fine and your reasoning is sound and logical. But for the shooter, and the missile being fired or thrown, line of fire is more accurate a method. While the targets may not be stationary. The missile is going to be going in a straight line. If it misses its intended target, it's going to keep on going to strike something else further along that line from the shooter to the (intended) target. Missile into melee combat is often at 50' or less. That is not enough distance to allow for a trajectory or elevation change drastic enough for the missile to do anything other than travel in a straight line. Well, unless there are some severe environmental effects (high winds), magic spells (Protection from Arrows, etc.), and so forth.

The logic here is sound, but I really only want to apply this rule to the immediate group being fired at, rather than have the possibility of another combatant 100 feet away but in the line of effect be at risk. While this may refelct realism, I think it would add a bit too much complexity to our combats. Basically, what my rule does is to penalize people for firing "willy nilly" into a melee - another real world analogy I would use is that no matter how good a shot they were, no sane cop would fire at a perp who was toe to toe with his partner, for fear of hitting his partner.

Another possible solution that may cut down on the extra rolls is compare the attack roll for the missile to the target's Touch AC and normal AC. If it is higher than the Touch AC but lower than the target's full AC, it has effectively hit the target but just failed to penetrate the target's armor. If you take this into consideration, it should cut down on rolls to determine extra targets since the missile's flight will have stopped.

I think it worded it badly, but that is the system I use. The accidental hit chance only comes into play if the miss is bad enough to also miss the intended target's touch AC.

I hear you on this one. The game mechanics have never translated well to real life. In such a situation, you might be able to get 30' but it is very possible and plausible to withdraw from a fight without getting whacked just for backpedaling and running. Now get caught/cornered and then getting whacked, that's another matter.

True, trying to get too "realistic" with combat rules often doesn't translate well into game terms. For backpeddling, perhaps some kind of tumble check should be required to see if you get away without provoking an AoO.

If you are going to use Bluff instead of Intimidate (specifically mentioned for Fighters), then I would suggest a bonus for Fighters to the Bluff check. They are the masters of combat after all.

That doesn't necessarily make it a good rule, but if your players are ok with it, that's what's important. Using the Bluff/Intimidate vs. Sense Motive may hopefully negate the need to have cover fire to escape. I just thought of this, in addition to the above, but if a Fighter is on the receiving end of that feint attempt, instead of Sense Motive (hopefully with a bonus if you do), perhaps have them contest the roll with Intimidation. Being familiar with the techniques for intimidating and feinting in combat, their skill would also measure their ability to recognize when those things are being used against them.

Indeed - I believe the Feint rules under the Bluff skill do take this into account, meaning the better your BAB, the harder you are to Feint against. Also, if we are going with a Feint based withdraw action, I would also give bonuses to the roll for each allied creature who threatens the opponent, like a help another roll.

You've got a point there, and a valid one. However, as an experienced DM, you are also aware that at least as often than not, players do not retreat until the situation is blatantly (and typically impossible to escape from) going bad for them. They are often like gamblers throwing out their last $ for a jackpot, thinking that as soon as their turn comes around they can turn the tide and won't need to retreat.

Thats true, of course. If players always played it safe, they wouldn't truly be "adventurers".

In closing, I didn't think you were a 'dm vs. players' kind of guy. In fact, I was thinking the opposite since you were wanting a more workable solution to these problems which can too often feel like 'dm vs. players'. I hope my suggestions are worth a try and was glad for the opportunity to at least present them to you. If they do work out, please let me know.

Thanks - I guess I'm a little defensive. At a certain other forum, I really got torn to shreds for discussing these house rules. And thanks again for your suggestions, they have given me some real food for thought.

 

[Teydyn]

Just no to both of them.
Reason: Game balance, not logic or realism.

1. Firing into melee: Any character firing into a melee (including ranged touch attacks) runs the risk of accidentally hitting the wrong opponent.

RAW makes archery a reasonable way of fighting, NOT overpowered. Your change kills archers as PCs

2. Withdraw action: to succesfully use the withdraw option to escape a melee, the opponent must be threatened by at least one allied creature who "covers your escape".

Makes combat even more static as is. You can move double your move, nothing more, only the 1st square is ignored for movement AoO. Getting an AoO when you need to run is unneeded.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Heres some random thoughts from left field:

#1, firing into melee. How about treating it similar to firing into a grapple...with a random chance of targetting the characters involved. {within 10' and/or within the line of fire to the intended target}

Something like {off the top of my head} # of characters divided by100 = percent chance of being struck.

Skill adjustment is equal to BAB + WIS Mod ... and +4 for Precise Shot

So it would go like this: Firing into melee where 5 characters are in melee:

% chance for each character = 20

Results 1 - 20 hit the character closest to the attacker, 21 - 40 the next ...etc...
The attacker can modify the roll by the skill adjustment

Example: Joe has a Archer build with BAB +5, Wis +2 and Precise shot {total SkAdj +11}. He rolls a 67, indicating that the attack targets the fourth character away from him.
He can chose to adjust this up to 78..which is still the same character..or down to 46, which would be the third character.

#2: I like the idea of using Feint to initiate the withdraw, but that does cripple it to only getting far enough away to get followed...making it not really a 'withdraw'. Perhaps change it a bit so that you can move 5' as part of the feint..not drawing an AoO, then follow up with the normal move action

?

Anywho...

 

[Thurbane]

Just no to both of them.
Reason: Game balance, not logic or realism.

OK...

RAW makes archery a reasonable way of fighting, NOT overpowered. Your change kills archers as PCs

Now that I disagree with. All it means is if they fire into a melee and miss by a relatively large amount there is a chance they will hit an unintended target.

It does not kill archers, IMHO, but does change the tactics they need to employ. It means the tactic of "X the meatshield fights BBEG while Y the archer keeps ploinking into the melee with impunity" becomes less attractive, and the tactic of trying to engage the enemy at greater distances becomes more attractive.

I should probably point out that in my games, there is as much adventuring taking place out of doors than there is indoors or in dungeons. The Ranger in my group is in fact one of the most successful damage dealers in the group. I can see your point in a more dungeon based campaign, though - but as always, players can and do taylor their characters to the prevailing conditions.

Makes combat even more static as is. You can move double your move, nothing more, only the 1st square is ignored for movement AoO. Getting an AoO when you need to run is unneeded.

This is something our opinions are fundamantally different on. I just can't make someone jogging away in the middle of a battle with no skills, feats or rolls required seem fair or balanced in my head.

You do have a point that it makes combat more static, but I don't neccessarily think that in this case that is a bad thing.

All in all, taking one AoO in exchange for suddenly being 60 feet from your foe isn't too bad a trade. If you are fighting a foe with reach, he'll get an AoO anyway. I honestly don't see it as a game breaker.

 

[Thurbane]

Heres some random thoughts from left field:

#1, firing into melee. How about treating it similar to firing into a grapple...with a random chance of targetting the characters involved. {within 10' and/or within the line of fire to the intended target}

Something like {off the top of my head} # of characters divided by100 = percent chance of being struck.

Skill adjustment is equal to BAB + WIS Mod ... and +4 for Precise Shot

So it would go like this: Firing into melee where 5 characters are in melee:

% chance for each character = 20

Results 1 - 20 hit the character closest to the attacker, 21 - 40 the next ...etc...
The attacker can modify the roll by the skill adjustment

Example: Joe has a Archer build with BAB +5, Wis +2 and Precise shot {total SkAdj +11}. He rolls a 67, indicating that the attack targets the fourth character away from him.
He can chose to adjust this up to 78..which is still the same character..or down to 46, which would be the third character.

#2: I like the idea of using Feint to initiate the withdraw, but that does cripple it to only getting far enough away to get followed...making it not really a 'withdraw'. Perhaps change it a bit so that you can move 5' as part of the feint..not drawing an AoO, then follow up with the normal move action

?

Anywho...

Interesting thoughts - that's a little like the 2E system.

The only thing is that it largely removes the factor of how skillful the archer is from determining who gets hit.

I like to have firing into melee a little risky, but not too random, either.

As to point 2, I might allow a Feint as part of a withdraw to count as a free action rather than a move action. It's not a genuine feint as such, so I don't think that would be too unbalanced.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Actually its alot like Top Secret's hit location method

The archer's skill still comes into play with the Skill Adjustment piece... you have the randomness of moving characters shifting in and out of the way, but a good archer can still fire through the mass of people to hit thier intended target.
Also, determining who it targetted first cuts out the sillyness of the 'bouncing' arrow as you determine missed due to cover and all that fun stuff.

Personally I think I would stick with the RAW, but if my players wanted a change to show the potential for striking the wrong target in melee..this would be the way I would do it.

Interesting aside.. firing at a group of mounted characters at a distance could use this rule as well.. I think I would limit it to 8 squares/targets, so the smallest % would be 12.5%. You could have a simple chart printed up of the odds based on number of targets to keep things smooth in game.

#2:
It might be interesting to add to the Feint option the following way:
As a standard action you may move up to your movement. Opponents who threaten the initial square you occupy must win in a contested Sense Motive check vs your Bluff check or be denied the AoO from your movement. Both sides gain a bonus to this skill check equal to thier BAB.

This would mesh with Improved Feint that changes to action type to a Move actoin... allowing a skilled bluffer to Withdraw and then perform a standard action...