Running targets and archery....

[DarkJester]

If your running, wouldn't it make sense to get a bonus to armor class against missle fire? As far as I can tell, its easier to hit a moving target (loses dex) than a stationary one currently. Am I missing something here?

 

[hammymchamham]

defender loses dex, but ranged has a -2

From SRD

SNIP
Defender surprised or
flat-footed +0*** +0***
Defender running +0*** -2***
Defender grappling
(attacker not) +0*** +0****
SNIP
***The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC.

 

[zorlag]

I agree

This has come up few times when we have played. I'd say target gains dodge bonus to AC if he moves at least some of the distance sideways (zig-zagging or just running non-linear path that is not quite so easy to calculate by skilled archer). This bonus should be higher as the distance grows. I'd give +1 dodge bonus / 2 range increment to AC against ranged attacks if you make at least one move action (move-equivalent). Taking full move with zig-zag pattern should grant +1 dodge bonus / 1 range increment. Taking 5th step is too insignifigant to worry about in terms of AC.

Z.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'd say target gains dodge bonus to AC if he moves at least some of the distance sideways (zig-zagging or just running non-linear path that is not quite so easy to calculate by skilled archer).

You're making at least one mistake in here - the Run action only allows for straight-line movement, and denies Dex bonus. A Double Move (is that what you mean by 'Full Move'), which does allow for a non-linear path, allows you to retain your Dex bonus.

So nobody can zig-zag with the Run action anyway, and with a Double Move, your Dex bonus already accounts for "not quite so easy to calculate".

-Hyp.

 

[zorlag]

Well, I definitely meant double-move with that full-move (run) since... Terms got mixed up. In real life moving targets are harder, and they are harder still when distance grows, even with modern weapons. It's just matter of determining how much realism you can use in D&D without making it too complicated. I'd say moving target definitely should be harder to hit than stationary one, but there isn't whole lot in the rules about this. I'll check Spycraft to see if it has more modifiers for this since it uses ranged combat a lot more than D&D... I don't feel dex bonus alone is sufficient to represent mobile target. How about people in a moving chariot? Or flying with mount? etc...

Z.

 

[Destil]

Re:

Well, I definitely meant double-move with that full-move (run) since... Terms got mixed up. In real life moving targets are harder, and they are harder still when distance grows, even with modern weapons. It's just matter of determining how much realism you can use in D&D without making it too complicated. I'd say moving target definitely should be harder to hit than stationary one, but there isn't whole lot in the rules about this. I'll check Spycraft to see if it has more modifiers for this since it uses ranged combat a lot more than D&D... I don't feel dex bonus alone is sufficient to represent mobile target. How about people in a moving chariot? Or flying with mount? etc...

Z.

All targets are typicaly 'moving' to some degree or other, even if the're not moving across a battle mat at all. If you want to simulate someing zig-zaging across a combat field to dodge arrows they would be moving their speed and fighting defenseivly. As noted above there's a further -2 to hit a target in a flat out run with a ranged weapon. Really, I think this is enugh level of deatil for D&D, myself.

 

[Zad]

If someone wants an AC bonus while they're moving, then they can opt to go defensive, which lets you move and you get +4 to your AC.

And there's the quoted table regarding running. But if you mean just while a guy is moving from place A to place B with his regular movement, then no, there's no AC bonus. I think it's probably for simplicity as much as anything.