Firing into Melee

[billd91]

Of course not, they do the complete opposite, they make the ranged classes better at shooting monsters who aren't near your allies.

Exactly, what it does is instead of providing a penalty to shooting into melee, it provides the classes which have powerful ranged abilities bonuses for not shooting into melee, meaning even though there are no obvious penalties for doing so, it actually happens a lot less than 3.x (well, not counting Wizards). Awesome, huh?

I does seem ass backward to me that the ranged classes are no better at the "trick" shot, though. Being better at the easier shot, fine. But I don't really appreciate the simplification of everyone being equally good at ranged attacks into melee, whether ranged attacks are their schtick or not.

 

[KarinsDad]

Not as bad as everyone in the universe being equally good- good enough to not be penalized at all- at doing something that is actually quite difficult.

I'm not sure it is as difficult as you claim. Missile fire is extremely fast. One does not aim at the group and fire blindly, one aims at the target and waits for the clear shot.

In 1E, this meant a ratio assignment (or random for equal ratios). For 2E, it meant random. For 3E, it meant a penalty, one could never accidentally hit an ally with core 3E. Each version of the game handled it differently and focused on different aspects of the same general issue.


So, it's not just that they cleaned up the concept of "every ranged attacker takes these two feats", it's that they simplified the game system as well so that people did not need to remember firing into melee rules.

Any time one simplifies a model, it means taking away something that someone else might think is required. From 2E to 3E, it meant taking away the chance to hit an ally by accident. I'm sure that bugged some people back then, but eventually, many people just forgot about it.

In the 4E case of simplifying the game, I think it is win win. The fewer the number of situational specific to hit combat modifiers in the game system, the better. There's enough to remember with conditions, marked, and bloodied. IMO.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not sure it is as difficult as you claim. Missile fire is extremely fast. One does not aim at the group and fire blindly, one aims at the target and waits for the clear shot.

Try firing a safe ranged weapon- nerf, water, whatever- into a group of your friends doing some sparring. Odds are good that unless you're trained somehow, you're going to hit someone you didn't intend to.

Missile fire may be fast, but your windows of opportunity are small.

Any time one simplifies a model, it means taking away something that someone else might think is required. From 2E to 3E, it meant taking away the chance to hit an ally by accident. I'm sure that bugged some people back then, but eventually, many people just forgot about it.

Actually, some of us revel in the firing into melee rules. You can feel the tension when someone who isn't skilled at it is forced by circumstances to attempt it...and it really rocks if he pulls it off despite the odds. Drama and tension!

Its also cool when someone attempts a shot nobody else could do without rolling a Nat 20...because he knows he can do it.

I want my snipers to be snipers.

In the 4E case of simplifying the game, I think it is win win. The fewer the number of situational specific to hit combat modifiers in the game system, the better. There's enough to remember with conditions, marked, and bloodied. IMO.

That is, of course, the opinion to which you are fully entitled. Personally, I'd much rather have rules about firing into melee than worry about "marked" and "bloodied."

 

[small pumpkin man]

I does seem ass backward to me that the ranged classes are no better at the "trick" shot, though. Being better at the easier shot, fine. But I don't really appreciate the simplification of everyone being equally good at ranged attacks into melee, whether ranged attacks are their schtick or not.

Well, they are, because they're just better at ranged attacks.

Not so much. Not to me.

Anyone can seem to be awesome when there's no risk of harming your allies, but it's truly awesome when you can pump your foes full of hurt at range even though they're engaging your allies. Or using someone as a human shield. Etc.

Well, I meant awesome from a "ooh, shiny game mechanics which do what you want them to while seeming to do the opposite, as opposed to 3.x where the mechanic seemed to do what the OP wanted them to (provide a penalty to firing into melee) but in practice didn't, because characters who didn't have those feats just wouldn't shoot bows".

Although, that's, uh, a little bit long. I do honestly like the way that hunters quarry and prime shot are set up, as it gives the archer ranger something to do besides sitting back and pinging (although our archer ranger does that anyway.) Although I understand why the lack of a martial sniper class irritates/disappoints people.

 

[KarinsDad]

Try firing a safe ranged weapon- nerf, water, whatever- into a group of your friends doing some sparring. Odds are good that unless you're trained somehow, you're going to hit someone you didn't intend to.

3E had a lame "if you roll in the cover bonus range, but still roll high enough to hit the AC of the covering creature" (which almost never happened, hence the reason it was lame) rule and 3.5 did not have an "accidentally hit someone else" missile rule, so I don't actually see how 4E is worse in that regard.

Missile fire may be fast, but your windows of opportunity are small.

I suspect that the windows of opportunity that you are talking about are much larger than you claim in real melee.

Real melee is not like a Jackie Chan movie where people are constantly flying all over the place lightning quick. Real melee is small groups of people sparring where their eyes are on their target and although they sometimes switch positions and such quickly (especially in a flurry of blows), there is a LOT of time (seconds at a time) where they are close to stationary, sizing up their opponent, shifting on their feet, looking for an opening.

Watch a boxing match or any martial arts match.


And if we are talking a fantasy Jackie Chan where everyone is zipping around the battlefield combat, then not having a firing into melee rule is preferable because the entire combat is cinematic and not realistic. Firing into melee rules are unneccesary (and can even be considered counter to the desired effect, YMMV) in a cinematic feel combat concept.

Actually, some of us revel in the firing into melee rules. You can feel the tension when someone who isn't skilled at it is forced by circumstances to attempt it...and it really rocks if he pulls it off despite the odds. Drama and tension!

Its also cool when someone attempts a shot nobody else could do without rolling a Nat 20...because he knows he can do it.

I want my snipers to be snipers.

In 4E, sniper = proficient.

There are very few bonus/penalty to hit feats and attack modifiers (9 in the PHB) in 4E. And, the attack modifiers from 3.5 have for the most part, been cut in half. The reason is that limiting the number and potency of these also limits the broken synergies that plagued 3E/3.5. Adding to damage is less unbalancing than adding to "to hit" because to hit changes probabilities.

There are many powers that give a bonus or penalty to hit, but they tend to only last a round.

This was a good design decision. Only keeping the most important of these and halving most of the kept ones is a good thing, both because it limits the number of rules that are needed to be known and because it minimizes the chances of the D20 roll becoming a mere formality in the multi-to hit synergy situations. Firing in Melee is pretty much a minor attack penalty, precisely because all 3E snipers took the feat and 3E non-snipers rarely fired into melee.


I don't see a lot of drama and tension in a -4 to hit rule. The 3.5 "snipers" had the feat, so it did not apply to them and other PCs rarely attempted such a suboptimal option. At most, it is a rare amount of drama and tension. YMMV.


But if it bugs you, add a house rule (I would suggest no more than -2 in the 4E model). I did back in 3E. For most of our 3E/3.5 game years we ran with a "aim carefully at -4 per the book" and "aim carelessly, no penalty, but one could accidentally hit an ally" rules because a "-4 to hit" rule had no drama or tension.

It was a blast for the entire table (usually including the player of the PC that got hit) when a PC got shot by another, regardless of people on the message boards saying how that would "totally suck". It was rare enough that it added to the fun, but often enough to add tension in some circumstances. And it gave an option to the players who did not have the feat to still have a decent chance to hit, but at a risk.

It's much more drama and tension to risk an ally than it is to hit a hard to hit enemy. The -4 rule was just plain lame.

This rule also allowed for one to miss an enemy and hit a different enemy by accident (e.g. the first enemy ducks and the second takes it in the face). It felt great (and cinematic) for players to suddenly have a miss turn into a hit after all.

That is, of course, the opinion to which you are fully entitled. Personally, I'd much rather have rules about firing into melee than worry about "marked" and "bloodied."

Sounds like you prefer 3.5.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Long story short

1. Yes, firing into melee is easy.

2. No, it's not particularly realistic.

3. No, that doesn't matter in the slightest. This is Dungeons & Dragons after all.

 

[Mengu]

Long story short

1. Yes, firing into melee is easy.

2. No, it's not particularly realistic.

3. No, that doesn't matter in the slightest. This is Dungeons & Dragons after all.

Win.

It may be hard to throw nerfballs into melee and hit your intended target, but I sure as ell can't chuck fireballs down the hallway whenever I get mad at someone either.

Once again, 4th edition is all about the game play experience, and not about simulation. It's more enjoyable to spend feats on things that give me options and bonuses, rather than things I have to take to cancel penalties. Desired end result is to not have to take two feats to cancel penalties for firing into melee. The path they took to get there, was to ditch the penalties.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The problem with the old system was the penalty to hit.

Many players like to hit things (within the game). If 4e had come up with a penalty that wasn't a to hit penalty, it could have worked, but then, there probably wasn't any sort of realistic penalty they could apply other than a to hit penalty.

IMO, fun > logic, even though logic is important.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, they are, because they're just better at ranged attacks.

Only in the easiest shooting conditions available in combat.

When you REALLY need a tough shot made, the Ranger or Warlock isn't better than any other PC.

Well, I meant awesome from a "ooh, shiny game mechanics which do what you want them to while seeming to do the opposite,

That's kind of my point- the 4Ed mechanics don't do what I want at all.

I want untrained ranged combatants to have a hard time firing into combat.

I want trained ranged combatants to be able to take shots that seem nearly impossible to make, and regularly make them.

as opposed to 3.x where the mechanic seemed to do what the OP wanted them to (provide a penalty to firing into melee) but in practice didn't, because characters who didn't have those feats just wouldn't shoot bows".

Lack of skill never stopped our PCs from trying firing into combat if they really, really needed to.

Although I understand why the lack of a martial sniper class irritates/disappoints people.

Yes, count me as "irripointed."

The problem with the old system was the penalty to hit.

Your "problem" was my "feature"

If 4e had come up with a penalty that wasn't a to hit penalty, it could have worked, but then, there probably wasn't any sort of realistic penalty they could apply other than a to hit penalty.

Even operating with the base design assumption of 4Ed eliminating most penalties in favor of giving bonuses instead, and thereby making everyone equally good at firing into combat, they still could have made a true sniper out of the Ranger or Warlock by making Prime Shot provide its bonus on difficult shots, like firing into combat or at a creature with cover, as opposed to firing at unengaged targets, when accuracy isn't at a premium.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

3E had a lame "if you roll in the cover bonus range, but still roll high enough to hit the AC of the covering creature" (which almost never happened, hence the reason it was lame) rule and 3.5 did not have an "accidentally hit someone else" missile rule, so I don't actually see how 4E is worse in that regard.

1) 4Ed doesn't differentiate between skilled and unskilled PCs firing into melee at all, hence it is worse.

2) Most DMs of my acquaintence did provide an "accidentally hit someone else" missile rule on top.

And STILL people without the feats attempted such shots if roleplay and/or circumstance demanded it.

I suspect that the windows of opportunity that you are talking about are much larger than you claim in real melee.

No, not really. Consider, your typical ranged combatant, regardless of era, is firing from behind his allies. Thus, his allies typically provide some sort of cover to the sniper's intended target, at least covering the foe's center body mass- the preferred target for a ranged assailant, since its an easier shot.

Instead, he's going to be firing mainly at limbs (small and moving rapidly) or the head (small, and relatively close to your allies' heads)- both targets that most trained shooters are taught are secondary or tertiary targets. Typically, only experienced snipers aim for those parts of the body.

It then takes a certain fraction of a second to recognize the opening- something a sniper will do more quickly than an untrained shooter- then another fraction of a second to make the decision to fire, then another fraction for the impulse to be acted upon, releasing the missile into combat.

Its less of an issue with a missile weapon that travels 1000ft/sec, more of one with an archaic ranged weapon that travels far more slowly.

And if we are talking a fantasy Jackie Chan where everyone is zipping around the battlefield combat, then not having a firing into melee rule is preferable because the entire combat is cinematic and not realistic. Firing into melee rules are unneccesary (and can even be considered counter to the desired effect, YMMV) in a cinematic feel combat concept.

Watch God of Guns 1 & 2 or almost any other later age Asian action flick.

Even though guys are flying around, firing into combat- with penalties for failure- is part of the film, and is no less cinematic.

Arguably, after watching GoG 1 & 2, you might even find it more cinematic for a proficient character to be better at firing into melee...

Especially after seeing the God of Guns throw (a ranged shot) a full pair of automatic clips into the guns of his allies (who are in close combat), thereby reloading their weapons (a truly insanely difficult shot).

This was a good design decision.

To you, perhaps.

Firing in Melee is pretty much a minor attack penalty, precisely because all 3E snipers took the feat and 3E non-snipers rarely fired into melee.

I don't see a lot of drama and tension in a -4 to hit rule.

And when the non-snipers DID fire into melee, there was real tension. IME, that happens relatively often- 1 combat in 3.

Sounds like you prefer 3.5.

Quite definitely.