Archery - Not cover nor engaged penalty

Hypersmurf... total defense doesnt include ongoing melee with someone... the fact is that fighting an archers "ally" shouldnt give you the same bonus and doing nothing but dodging their arrows... !

-4 is the same as cover ! As regards chances to hit enemy... I think someone giving actuall cover should be much more problematic than someone fighting your friends when you dont care about hitting your friends...

Its the Wording of the -4 penalty shooting into melee that make this a problem...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Rashak Mani said:
Its the Wording of the -4 penalty shooting into melee that make this a problem...

No, it is you overanalyzing the situation that is making this a problem. Just apply the -4 penalty for firing into melee and don't get yourself all worked up over the situation. There are plenty of factors having nothing to do with actual "cover" or not wanting to hit an ally that make hitting someone engaged in melee more difficult.
 
Last edited:


You're overreacting...

One feat is the equivalent to a +4 to hit in those circumstances. PRECISE SHOT!!!

Really, there is no reason an archer character shouldn't have that one. (Or a mage who likes ray type spells).

And total defense goes up to +6 I believe with ranks in tumble.
 

Rules???

Ok. If the barbarian charges at someone and is fighting him while the others behind him shoot, they got a -4 cover and a -4 melee penalty to hit the enemy. If they don't care if they hit the barbarian, it's only the cover.

Now your question was without cover. Well I wonder why the monster does not take care to keep the barbarian between him and the archers...

My ruling is similar to the grappling or bullrushing... If you don't take care whom you hit, you got 50% to hit each one. Btw. My houseruling: If a large one grapples a medium one, the chance to hit the large one is 60%. Two sizes different: 70% and so on.

Very easy. And you think twice about aiming carefully if you hit your friend/ally with every 2nd shot. Even evil characters do so since they want to kill the enemy, arrows in an part time ally don't help, they worsen the situation.
 
Last edited:

Personally, I would allow the characters to forgo the -4 penalty (because the rules do state that this penalty is for "aiming carefully to avoid hitting your ally").

In effect, the archers would simply be firing into the area occupied by the two combatants. Thus, I would randomise the target with each shot. If one of the melee combatants is in cover from the other, he would receive normal cover mods whenever a missile targeted him.
 

SableWyvern said:
Personally, I would allow the characters to forgo the -4 penalty (because the rules do state that this penalty is for "aiming carefully to avoid hitting your ally").

In effect, the archers would simply be firing into the area occupied by the two combatants. Thus, I would randomise the target with each shot. If one of the melee combatants is in cover from the other, he would receive normal cover mods whenever a missile targeted him.

I have to agree. The -4 penalty is for being careful not to hit your ally in combat. It's not about "moving erratically". Everyone in combat (who isn't flatfooted) is moving about so as to be as difficult a target as possible. Thus, I would randomly determine with each shot who was the actual target if the archer didn't care.

IceBear
 

I'd also go with the "-4 to hit, or else roll your target randomly" idea. Either you care which one you hit, or you don't. Your choice.
 

That's what we call...

Suppose they don't care, logically, they would get something like 50% chances to hit their "friend" and 50% to hit the target. Good for you, since the probability that they hit will surely be lower than if they take the -4 penality, depending on levels.

If they normally hit with 10+ for example, a -4 penality makes them hit with 14+ Which is one chance out of two reduce to 3 chances out of 10. If they take the 50% chance thingy, it drops from 1 chance out of two to one chance out of four which is less probable than 3 chances out of 10 ;)
 
Last edited:


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top