Firing into Melee

[TK Lafours]

I have no problem justifying the lack of a 'fire into melee' rule in my head.

Put simply,

If my enemy is in Melee and....

A) I miss: It's because my allies were in the way.

B) I hit: It's because my allies provided a good opening and distracted my opponent. Seriously, how hard is it for an ally who knows you are waiting for an opening to feint and step to one side or something obvious like that?

The boxing match analogy was a good one, I can't imagine standing behind Mike Tyson and shooting past him to hit Evander Holyfield while they're boxing. But if Mike knew I was there and wanted to shoot, his tactics would change. He'd have no problem moving to one side every so often or otherwise maneuvering to try and give me the opening I'm waiting for. Any disadvantage I suffer from firing into melee is counterbalanced by the advantage I get for firing at someone who is distracted by a more immediate threat.

I think it's reasonable to disagree on this point and see it either way. But if either way of looking at it is reasonable, the rules can't accomodate both of us. In this instance, I'm glad they came down on the side that makes more sense and more fun for me.

 

[billd91]

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

This is probably the most pointless argument when it comes to most of these discussions. We get it. Fantastic things exist and happen. The real point is the level of fantasy and what that means to different characters.

 

[billd91]

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

If some other character has a similar Dex and is profiecient with the weapon (gonna see a lot of elves like that, quite frankly) this isn't particularly true. I suppose the ranger (or other ranged enthusiast) might be able to exert "schtick protection" to claim the best ranged attacking gear so their bonuses keep up but it's not a very strong point.

 

[KarinsDad]

Any firearm packing enough punch to knock Iron Man around would have so much recoil that the shooter would be hurled back into last week.

I was actually thinking about bullets from the gun emplacement, not the hand held ones. The ones from the jet and Iron Monger didn't do much either.

 

[renau1g]

Fair enough- Rangers get a bonus.

And if I want to play a non-Ranger sniper, I'm still screwed in 4Ed.

In 3.X, OTOH, I have many options.

Welcome to 4e

You play your role & you like it. Multiclassing is no longer an option IMO (unless you consider taking feats to be multiclassing) and you play the way we tell you to:

Me: Fighters can't fight effectively from range
WOTC: Play a ranger
Me: But I don't want to play a ranger, I don't like the fluff...
WOTC: too bad. fighters are defenders, defenders stand up front and charge into melee range, despite the fact that sometimes ranged options are better.

Become a focused specialist...

 

[TK Lafours]

I don't want to play a ranger, I don't like the fluff...

This complaint always confuses me. Isn't the whole point of "fluff" that it isn't really important, it's just there to help those whose imagination needs a little boost?

So your dislike of the 'ranger' class is based on the three paragraphs of fluff. Classes in 4e are fundamentally different than they were in earlier games. The ranger no longer has to be a woodsy guy who knows horses, can track and avoids big cities. And that makes me very happy. Take a magic marker to your phb and black out the fluff text and replace every instance of the word 'ranger' with the words 'generic ranged or two-weapon fighter class' and you should be fine.

 

[Felon]

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.

Pretty lame response. You are not the arbiter of what matters. Obviously, this thread proves it matters to some folks.

How is "this is D&D" an exemption from credibility? We're not talking about some magical effect, we're talking about throwing a javelin or shooting an arrow--an arrow that might not come from a ranger's bow, but that of a half-competent orc.

 

[renau1g]

My apologies to the OP for diverting the thread with my own issues with the narrow roles of the 4th edition, but as has been pointed out there aren't any penalties per RAW.

 

[Felon]

It's a principle of good game design that if almost every player chooses a certain option, something should be changed.

Almost every player chooses to wear the best armor they can find. Should that be changed? Dealing in absolutes is a dead end, particularly when they stem from some set of imaginary, uncodified principles.

My personal thoughts on game design are that they should be intuitive. In this case, they're not, and people are flipping through the books looking for rules that common sense insists should exist, but don't.

In 3.5, almost every PC who made a lot of ranged attacks took Precise Shot. They could've changed it by severely nerfing whatever ability in 4e improves one's ability to shoot into melee, but instead they decided to just give Precise Shot to everyone for free, which is in my opinion a much better choice.

Something many posters in this thread seem to ignore completely is that D&D is not populated exclusively by PC's. Now any incompetent with a ranged weapon can weave his shots through any number of bodies to hit the low AC target. That's not credible, and it's not a very good game design element.

Indeed, if we put a pin in the issue of verisimilitude, we would still find that upon looking at mnay long-standing miniature skirmish games out there that they seem to think that being able to use other minis as cover from ranged attacks is pretty essential. If folks are going to argue that D&D is wisely taking cues from MMO's, then they certainly should be taking cues from mini skirmish games, which D&D has a lot more in common with.

 

[Leofwine1]

If you have a problem with 4e fine but stop complaining play 3.x and forget about 4e all together