D&D 4E 4e playtest report...my effort to convert our group

[Torchlyte]

...because I would say it applies to almost every spell.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Sorry, think we may have misunderstood each other.

My other post was meant to read "IN regards.." Meaning, yes, I do apply rules for cover to spells. You are supposed to. Always were bonuses for saves b/c of that. Now anything that is an attack cover should apply.

It is the new 'idea' of what cover is and the lack of penalties that go with it that I dispute.
C

 

[Dragonblade]

Now ALL missile attackers are considered to have each of these feats)???

Yes. One of the things about 4e that I like is they dispensed with all the "required" feats that were needed to make a character effective. I have never played in a game where an archer did not have Precise Shot. It was essentially a feat 'tax' you had to pay to play an effective archer. Its stupid so they got rid of it.

As explicitly laid out in the Weapons excerpt today, the 4e philosophy is that feats should give you bonus, not be required to overcome a penalty.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have a problem:

Does "allies don´t provide cover" mean that your allies or your enemie`s allies don´t provide cover?

i think more logical, that your enemies allies don´t provide cover, because you don´t care if you accidently hit them...

 

[Torchlyte]

I have a problem:

Does "allies don´t provide cover" mean that your allies or your enemie`s allies don´t provide cover?

i think more logical, that your enemies allies don´t provide cover, because you don´t care if you accidently hit them...

Sure you do. You want to hit the Wizard before he completes his spell, not the random mook dancing around between the two of you.

 

[dougmander]

You know, archery is named that because the firer can make the arrow go in an arc... over people's heads... to hit targets further away. Why is there this perception among many gamers that they have to fire "through" people to hit someone behind them?

Two comments:

1. Actually, "archery" comes from the French word for bowmaker, archier, which is in turn related to the Latin word for bow, arcus. The root arcus here describes the shape of the bow itself, not the arrow's trajectory. The idea that missiles travel in an arc was not universally accepted until the 1500s -- earlier theories described missiles as traveling up in a straight line, tipping, and coming down in another straight line, like the apex of a triangle!

2. Indoors, where most D&D combats happen, the roof or ceiling would prevent you from shooting an arrow any appreciable distance. Unless you're outdoors or in a very high-ceilinged room, or have a height advantage, you really do have to have line-of-sight to hit anyone with an arrow.

 

[Surgoshan]

I'm gonna call shenanigans on people not knowing arrows traveled in an arc. Ancient people weren't stupid (in fact, anthropologists contend that they were smarter than we), and all they would have to do is watch any free falling body to see that it moves in an arc. Now, they may have described the arc as circular rather than parabolic, I don't know, but they would have described it as an arc. Aristotle (4th century BC) had a theory of impetus, refined by later thinkers (Hipparchus et al., 2nd century BC), specifically to deal with projectile motion.

You may be thinking of the research of Galileo (late 16th century) or the Merton College at Oxford (14th century), but those were empirical and mathematical refinements, respectively, of earlier knowledge.

 

[drjones]

Not to mention any hunter knows his bullet/arrow falls over range. That or they starve.
turning that into accurate indirect fire is another question of course but the real answer to this discussion is: it is this way because it makes fights go faster and be more fun.

 

[DM_Blake]

I'm gonna call shenanigans on people not knowing arrows traveled in an arc. Ancient people weren't stupid (in fact, anthropologists contend that they were smarter than we), and all they would have to do is watch any free falling body to see that it moves in an arc. Now, they may have described the arc as circular rather than parabolic, I don't know, but they would have described it as an arc. Aristotle (4th century BC) had a theory of impetus, refined by later thinkers (Hipparchus et al., 2nd century BC), specifically to deal with projectile motion.

You may be thinking of the research of Galileo (late 16th century) or the Merton College at Oxford (14th century), but those were empirical and mathematical refinements, respectively, of earlier knowledge.

All fine and well, but you cannot arch over your friends head to hit someone 20' away.

For meaningful archery, you need significant distance for gravity to influence the projectile.

So, if you are the ranger with your bow in hand, standing behind your cleric who is behind your fighter, all in a 5' corridor, and the fighter engages an orc, there is no way you can target that orc by firing over your friends' heads - you will have to get your friends to duck, or get them to both dodge left against the wall for a moment, or something similar, or otherwise you just have to time your shot and hope your friends don't step into your line of fire.

Arching requires some distance, or you have to weaken your draw (as in, don't pull the string all the way back - only pull it halfway back). But if you do that, your arrow will not hit the orc very hard. Probably just bounce off, actually.

It really is simple physics. If you don't believe me, feel free to get a bow and try it yourself.

 

[DM_Blake]

Question for you guys:

Do you make casters deal with the same penalties for firing into melee?

...because I would say it applies to almost every spell.

If we're talking about 3e here, then yes, the PHB is very specific about line of sight, line of effect, and targetting.

Any spell that automatically hits the target is unaffected by any level of cover except total cover.

Any spell that requires a roll to hit the target (pretty much always a ranged touch attack, though a few are ranged attacks) is affected by all the rules of cover.