Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="harmyn" data-source="post: 2880904" data-attributes="member: 13511">I myself wouldn't apply an additional -4 penalty to the attack roll because of the opponent. Melee combat is generally very fluid and the initial -4 penalty on shooting into combat represents the &quot;cover&quot; provided by your ally. Otherwise you could take the shot normally but instead have a chance of damaging your ally. This damage to your ally would represent the missile weapon hitting the &quot;cover&quot;, in this case your friend's back most likely. Think of it like this, your opponent gains a +4 bonus from cover because of your ally's charge into melee. In this hypothetical example we are going to say your desired target has a Touch AC of 12 and you have a Total Ranged Touch Attack Bonus of +4. With your ally's charge your enemy's AC is raised to 16 (12+4). You realize that if you attempt to avoid hitting your ally the target's AC will raise to an effective 20 (16+4) for you once you figure in the penalty for avoiding friendly fire. So you decide that you aren't that fond of the foolish fighter who charges. and forgo the penalty to avoid hitting your friend. The AC is back to 16 and with your Attack of +4 your target number on the d20 is a 12 which gives you a 45% chance of success now. Unfortunately you only rolled a 10 meaning that you hit Touch Armor Class 14. This places the attack squarely on the cover provided by your ally. BUT you cannot hit your ally because you missed the attack while shooting into melee. So from this, I deduce that the -4 penalty into melee is the cover bonus your friend provides by your desire to not hurt him. And given the examples I provided the poor wizard at levels 6-9 had typically had a range of 40% to 60% to hit the enemy. The fighter typically had a 35%-55% chance. This is considered a normal and reasonable attack for the fighter, but not the wizard? I have to disagree with you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="harmyn, post: 2880904, member: 13511"] I myself wouldn't apply an additional -4 penalty to the attack roll because of the opponent. Melee combat is generally very fluid and the initial -4 penalty on shooting into combat represents the "cover" provided by your ally. Otherwise you could take the shot normally but instead have a chance of damaging your ally. This damage to your ally would represent the missile weapon hitting the "cover", in this case your friend's back most likely. Think of it like this, your opponent gains a +4 bonus from cover because of your ally's charge into melee. In this hypothetical example we are going to say your desired target has a Touch AC of 12 and you have a Total Ranged Touch Attack Bonus of +4. With your ally's charge your enemy's AC is raised to 16 (12+4). You realize that if you attempt to avoid hitting your ally the target's AC will raise to an effective 20 (16+4) for you once you figure in the penalty for avoiding friendly fire. So you decide that you aren't that fond of the foolish fighter who charges. and forgo the penalty to avoid hitting your friend. The AC is back to 16 and with your Attack of +4 your target number on the d20 is a 12 which gives you a 45% chance of success now. Unfortunately you only rolled a 10 meaning that you hit Touch Armor Class 14. This places the attack squarely on the cover provided by your ally. BUT you cannot hit your ally because you missed the attack while shooting into melee. So from this, I deduce that the -4 penalty into melee is the cover bonus your friend provides by your desire to not hurt him. And given the examples I provided the poor wizard at levels 6-9 had typically had a range of 40% to 60% to hit the enemy. The fighter typically had a 35%-55% chance. This is considered a normal and reasonable attack for the fighter, but not the wizard? I have to disagree with you. [/QUOTE]

Verification