I've often thought the penalty for firing a ranged attack into a melee was superfluous. If the positioning of the two opponents merits a penalty, shouldn't it be a basic application of the Cover rules? I do believe it's an important balancing factor in some situations, but I think the mechanic is unelegant.
Most superfluous rule?
- Thread starter der_kluge
- Start date
TwoSix said:
Ditto that for just about anything that requires a +1 BAB, like the prerequisite for Weapon Finesse. The rules need to either make the cutoff significant (like +3 or +5), or just drop it.
Henry
Autoexreginated
Henry said:Yeah, someone in my group pointed out that a 1st level swordsage, which is a pretty melee-oriented class, CAN'T draw a weapon while moving.
Deset Gled said:
That one I'm OK with; it's representative of the idea that in combat, no one is perfectly rigidly in their "square"; when I attack you, I'm in your square temporarily, when you attack me, you're in my square temporarily, etc. and the -4 to shoot into melee is representative of the hesitation and bad timing of waiting until you get a clean shot. Precise shot means you've practiced enough to where you are used it it, and can better "lead" the target of your shot.
In a couple of games I've house ruled that you can ignore the penalty voluntarily, but if you miss the opponent by 4 or less, you hit your ally instead.
I've even had takers on that trick! Henry said:
I understand this explanation, but it doesn't work out all the time. For example, when reach weapons are involved, there would be no moving into an opponents square. To be "in melee", the opponents aren't even required to attack each other (just threaten). Also, when the opponents are of different sizes, it should be significantly easier to hit the larger one. That's why I think you should just be able to use the Cover rules instead. Look at where you are in relation the those in melee. If they're positioned so one gives cover to the other, apply the appropriate AC bonus (which, coincidentally, is +4). Precise Shot, then, can simply give a bonus to attacking enemies with cover. Its simpler, and completely removes the need for the "-4 when firing into melee" rule.
This kind of reminds me of Cleave; the concept of following through on an attack to make an extra hit makes sense , but only until you realize you can make attack 10 feet in front of you with a spear and "follow through" to attack an opponent 10 feet behind you. In the end, it's a mechanic, not a fighting manouver.
werk
First Post
TwoSix said:
Agreed. I think that all the drawing, sheathing, prepping rules are superfluous.
"I step 5 feet, cast a scroll, and drink a potion."
"Nope, that's like 2 and a half rounds worth of actions...do you drop your staff before or after the 5' step?"
"?!?"
I understand why we NEED this rule, but I think a DM can regulate that problem better than move-equivalent actions.
lukelightning
First Post
werk said:
I disagree. I think that the rules for taking out and using items need to be explicit and specific. I've seen far to many arguments about this sort of thing.
Similar Threads
