PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder firing into melee question



Bronsonortiz
September 3rd, 2012, 04:59
When using a ranged attack and firing past another creature to your target you suffer a -4 penalty, but if you would have otherwise hit target do you hit creature providing cover instead? i remember there being a rule like this in D&D 3rd ed. but could not find it in PF core rule book. So, do I assume a miss when firing into such a melee is just a miss and no one at all is injured?

Crossfireue
September 3rd, 2012, 15:49
That's correct, AFAIK. You can avoid the -4 penalty if you take the Precise Shot feat.

spacce1889
September 3rd, 2012, 20:16
Not exactly right. Precise shot removes -4 from shooting into melee. You still need a clear shot to him. Improve presise shot to shot past friends. People are consider cover.

spacce1889
September 3rd, 2012, 20:51
I have a distinct memory of a player that saw no problem at all at shooting a crawling hand chocking another player with a bow from across the room. of corse this is the same party that had a monk that thought carrying a loaded crossbow through a town has a normal thing to do.

Silveras
September 3rd, 2012, 22:52
Spacce1889 is correct.

Spelling it out.. there are TWO conditions mentioned.

If you are firing into melee, that's a -4 penalty to your shot (unless you have the Price Shot feat).

If you are firing PAST another creature (friend or enemy), that creature provides a +4 bonus to the AC of the Target. That is NOT the same as firing into melee.

If you fire past one creature at another creature in melee, both apply... you take a -4 penalty to your attack and the target receives a +4 bonus to AC.

The rule about "striking cover" was removed in 3.5.

inuroku842
September 13th, 2012, 21:03
Please explain what is meant by firing past another creature. I'm not following. I've often had ranged combat issues come up and have had to rule on the spot due to inexperience which led to broken systems later on down the line.

Leonal
September 13th, 2012, 23:06
@ inuroku842

A fires at T.

T B --------- A

T: Target
B: Creature blocking the path
A: Ranged attacker

See the cover section in the rulebook/PRD for a full explanation of what gives cover and when it should be used. http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html

Blackfoot
September 13th, 2012, 23:48
The 'normal' penalty without any feats when shooting through your buddy's square while he's in melee is -8. If you can avoid shooting through him.. you can reduce it to -4... if you have precise shot and can avoid shooting through your buddy's square (or any other sort of cover) you take no penalty.
Technically.. the second -4 is an AC bonus.. but it amounts to the same thing.. (most of the time).

inuroku842
September 14th, 2012, 02:29
ahh, ok. well that clears up alot. thanks!

Willot
September 15th, 2012, 02:52
but if you would have otherwise hit target do you hit creature providing cover instead?

No, not necessarily but your DM would made that decision. Remember in the heat of combat unlike your figurines the characters are running, moving, jumping dodging etc.

Its probably more true to say rather than blocking your target It blocking your line of sight....

(of course if the blocking combatant was a ogre or a troll or other suitably large creatureas a GM id probably rule that you have a CHANCE of hitting him/her.)

Silveras
September 15th, 2012, 04:42
@Willot

If the DM ruled that way, that would be a house-rule, not part of actual Pathfinder.

There *was* such a rule in 3.0. It was removed in 3.5, and Pathfinder has not added it back in.

Willot
September 15th, 2012, 06:03
@Willot

If the DM ruled that way, that would be a house-rule, not part of actual Pathfinder.

There *was* such a rule in 3.0. It was removed in 3.5, and Pathfinder has not added it back in.

Oh yes yes that would indeed be a house rule. All Pathfinder is worried about is the -4 If I remember right the size of the creature just affects the -4 Not whether you hit them or not on a miss.
I believe thats up to the house rules of the particular GM as far as Paizo is concerned.