Missiles in melee combat

Melkor

Explorer
Hi folks,

Couple of quick questions.

• In 4E, is there any penalty for firing into melee combat with ranged weapons?

• Is there anything in 4E which prevents a character/monster from firing a ranged weapon while engaged in melee combat (other than an Attack of Opportunity)?

Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Mort_Q

First Post
• In 4E, is there any penalty for firing into melee combat with ranged weapons?

No.

• Is there anything in 4E which prevents a character/monster from firing a melee weapon while engaged in melee combat (other than an Attack of Opportunity)?

I don't understand your question? Did you mean to say ranged weapon while in melee? If so, then yes, the only penalty is the OAs that you provoke.
 

Melkor

Explorer
Yes, I meant firing a ranged weapon while being engaged in melee combat.
Original post edited.

Thanks for the response!
 
Last edited:

IanArgent

First Post
No and no; and good thing too.

The first one meant any archer had to blow 2 feats to offset penalties or be useless once the melee started. Be anything other than a fighter or a human, and spend your first level sucking; and play catchup across your entire career because you're down 2 feats.

As for the second, 3E had no particular reason not to use a ranged weapon in melee combat either, other than the opportunity attack; why should 4th?
 

frankthedm

First Post
No and no; and good thing too.

The first one meant any archer had to blow 2 feats to offset penalties or be useless once the melee started.
Shooting into a melee is dangerous to one's allies and the ruleset representing that is a good thing. To me that is one of the things that seperates roleplaying games from board games. In my experiences the feats were worth taking. The real problem was the archer's allies IGNORING the option to make ranged attacks and instead rushing into melee.
 

Mort_Q

First Post
The real problem was the archer's allies IGNORING the option to make ranged attacks and instead rushing into melee.

Sure, but what are you going to do to change that?

No penalty for firing into melee, but give players a chance to hit allies?

Any attempt at realism is going to cause one player to screw over another, and that's just not fun in my books.
 

Gloombunny

First Post
When everyone and their brother takes the ability to negate a certain penalty, to me it just seems like good game design to assume that all characters have the ability. The only real difference is that now archers have more choice about which feats to take, and that's a good thing.
 

IanArgent

First Post
When everyone and their brother takes the ability to negate a certain penalty, to me it just seems like good game design to assume that all characters have the ability. The only real difference is that now archers have more choice about which feats to take, and that's a good thing.

QFT. Making rules that mean an archer is 2 feats behind everyone else screws the archer. If you don't take those to feats, you screw the party becaue you are less effective in combat.

There's a saying in the Puzzle Pirates forums (among others) Fun > Realism. That's at play here
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Allies give cover to their allies. So if you fire into a group, and you are trying to hit a target that is behind another enemy, your target has cover. So yes, there is sometimes a penalty.
 

avjax

First Post
Used to agree but changed my mind

I used to think this was lacking in 4e but as the others said it did hinder a particular character concept and though it tried to simulate reality it really didn't.

I have seen more complex rules where there is a chance to hit any member of the combat but these just slow things down.

Also when you think about it two character in a melee against an enemy swinging Longswords and battle axes would also have a high chance of hitting or disrupting thier allies attack. That's why Romans just used short swords and the barbarians quite often killed their own men.

so I think forget realism and enjoy the heroic fun.


Shooting into a melee is dangerous to one's allies and the ruleset representing that is a good thing. To me that is one of the things that seperates roleplaying games from board games. In my experiences the feats were worth taking. The real problem was the archer's allies IGNORING the option to make ranged attacks and instead rushing into melee.
 

ShinRyuuBR

First Post
I think the reason why rangers and warlocks get Prime Shot is exactly as an inverted Precise Shot: if you are closest to the target than any ally, you get a +1 to hit, instead of getting a penalty if there is a closer ally.
 

Zetesofos

First Post
I think the reason why rangers and warlocks get Prime Shot is exactly as an inverted Precise Shot: if you are closest to the target than any ally, you get a +1 to hit, instead of getting a penalty if there is a closer ally.

That's a really good point, I never really thought of that feature in that matter, but it makes perfect sense now. And it fits with 4th editions motto of giving players MORE options, not penalties.
 

Verdande

First Post
Allies give cover to their allies. So if you fire into a group, and you are trying to hit a target that is behind another enemy, your target has cover. So yes, there is sometimes a penalty.

Now this seems entirely reasonable, especially since it works both ways. You can't shoot past the paladin in plate to massacre the wizard, and you can't shoot past the orc to kill the orc shaman.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top