Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawken" data-source="post: 3069965" data-attributes="member: 23619">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. 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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification