D&D 4E 4e playtest report...my effort to convert our group
- Thread starter skipdog172
- Start date
Jack Colby
First Post
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?
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
I know what you mean. I had a DM once who decided that the rules weren't strict enough on cover and got annoyed when I tried to shoot from the back of the party in a 5ft wide hallway and gave me a 90% chance to hit someone in my party. This was because "There was no possible way to shoot down the hallway without hitting someone. After all, they took up all of the 5ft squares."Jack Colby said:
Hammerhead
Explorer
Jack Colby said:
Probably because the vast majority of combats take place at short ranges where such "mortar" style shots are impossible?
Suspension of Disbelief
Well I can say one thing. The 3.5 need for precise shot sucked. I recently had an elf rogue who took a thematic feat at first level instead of gung-ho going for precise shot. Every time the fighter or barbarian gets in the way, I might as well just put away my bow. (My Dm seems to like high AC foes)
In terms of realism, it was sensible to require alot of training to hit a melee combatant. However, in terms of a cooperative game.. it caused players to get in each others' way. This was no fun. We are supposed ot work together, not have someone's only effective tactic be to screw up mine. And the 2 feat shoehorn to get Precise Shot... ugh. Hell
No penalty might not have as much realism, but it does allow archer builds to play easily alongside the melee builds without the two stumbling (and even possibly arguing) over whether or not the fighter should close to melee range.
And archers that can pick 2 fun feats instead of the ubiquetous Point Blank and Precise Shot.. I approve
Well I can say one thing. The 3.5 need for precise shot sucked. I recently had an elf rogue who took a thematic feat at first level instead of gung-ho going for precise shot. Every time the fighter or barbarian gets in the way, I might as well just put away my bow. (My Dm seems to like high AC foes)
In terms of realism, it was sensible to require alot of training to hit a melee combatant. However, in terms of a cooperative game.. it caused players to get in each others' way. This was no fun. We are supposed ot work together, not have someone's only effective tactic be to screw up mine. And the 2 feat shoehorn to get Precise Shot... ugh. Hell
No penalty might not have as much realism, but it does allow archer builds to play easily alongside the melee builds without the two stumbling (and even possibly arguing) over whether or not the fighter should close to melee range.
And archers that can pick 2 fun feats instead of the ubiquetous Point Blank and Precise Shot.. I approve
Connorsrpg
Adventurer
Sorry for rail-roading thread.
Just to be clear (please read ALL of post). I am fully for the removal of need for precise shot. I explained that.
It is cover I have a problem with. Sure 'we train together' may explain some of it, but the simple fact is the shot is harder b/c people are in the road. (Maybe a feat for the above). In narrow passages and in most close fights it still doesn not make a lot of sense. And, no, arched shots don't either. Furthremore.... 'all allies', so that includes anyone considered an all, not just those you train with. All NPCs are now 'not there'. What about all 'monster' groups? Are they all so well trained? That certainly is unsatisfactory in its explanatio I am sorry. (3e had Co-ordinated shot feat to deal with this,,,and even then we roleplayed it as stated above. Now ALL missile attackers are considered to have each of these feats).???
As I said. Putting party orders together has always been something we thought a lot about - even to the point of having short guys in front so second rowers can fire over them (before the hard and fast rules of 3e). Now, what is the point. The guy with the bow, wand, whatever, can be at the back and fire straight through all his allies at NO penalty. Even in a narrow passage???
Of course, as a DM I can say 'there is no way this is possible', but it is there for all players to read and refute. I mean, targets like this would hardly be seen and yet there is NOTHING stating there is someone in the road... Don't get me started on a Perception check etc. If they spot the target they can shoot them, as if no-one was in the way? Just seems crazy to me.
I certainly do not want to hear 'this rule was removed b/c it was not fun for archers at the back, etc', What a crock! It removes completely a whole lot of tactics from the game. Not only marching orders as mentioned. But maneuvering, so that enemy archers have to shoot through their own troops. Now all archers can sit back and freely fire into AND THROUGH the combat!
Picture a giant and your PC fighter in middle of fight with skirmisher back-ups. The giants can lob straight through the back of their ally up fron t and hit the fighter. But if they wish to target the wizard 1sq behind fighter, the fighter grants cover??? But the giant doesn't??? Man, many fight scenarios in my head make this even worse than when I hadn't put too much worry into it.
Just to be clear (please read ALL of post). I am fully for the removal of need for precise shot. I explained that.
It is cover I have a problem with. Sure 'we train together' may explain some of it, but the simple fact is the shot is harder b/c people are in the road. (Maybe a feat for the above). In narrow passages and in most close fights it still doesn not make a lot of sense. And, no, arched shots don't either. Furthremore.... 'all allies', so that includes anyone considered an all, not just those you train with. All NPCs are now 'not there'. What about all 'monster' groups? Are they all so well trained? That certainly is unsatisfactory in its explanatio I am sorry. (3e had Co-ordinated shot feat to deal with this,,,and even then we roleplayed it as stated above. Now ALL missile attackers are considered to have each of these feats).???
As I said. Putting party orders together has always been something we thought a lot about - even to the point of having short guys in front so second rowers can fire over them (before the hard and fast rules of 3e). Now, what is the point. The guy with the bow, wand, whatever, can be at the back and fire straight through all his allies at NO penalty. Even in a narrow passage???
Of course, as a DM I can say 'there is no way this is possible', but it is there for all players to read and refute. I mean, targets like this would hardly be seen and yet there is NOTHING stating there is someone in the road... Don't get me started on a Perception check etc. If they spot the target they can shoot them, as if no-one was in the way? Just seems crazy to me.
I certainly do not want to hear 'this rule was removed b/c it was not fun for archers at the back, etc', What a crock! It removes completely a whole lot of tactics from the game. Not only marching orders as mentioned. But maneuvering, so that enemy archers have to shoot through their own troops. Now all archers can sit back and freely fire into AND THROUGH the combat!
Picture a giant and your PC fighter in middle of fight with skirmisher back-ups. The giants can lob straight through the back of their ally up fron t and hit the fighter. But if they wish to target the wizard 1sq behind fighter, the fighter grants cover??? But the giant doesn't??? Man, many fight scenarios in my head make this even worse than when I hadn't put too much worry into it.
Seule
Explorer
I suggest some time actually marking out 5' squares in a big room, and see just how much extra space there really is in a 5' corridor. It's enlightening. 5' is a lot of space to move around in, and if you coordinate I have no problem with the 4e cover rules (although I also have no problem with the 3e rules, different assumptions - one is cinematic, the other simulationist).
--Penn
--Penn
Connorsrpg
Adventurer
'All that space' still does not have any effect on lots of moving around in that space AND the determination of ally/enemy. (How does that 'space' explain the giant eg above?)
Connorsrpg
Adventurer
I regards to cover from missile, a burst (from its point of origin), etc = YES.
