LINE OF SIGHT
When firing any missile weapon, all combatants must be able to trace a direct line of sight between themselves and the target hex. This means that the target may not be completely blocked by obstacles or elevation, and is at least partly visible when fired upon.
Missiles may be fired between combatants during hand-to-hand melee, targeting past the front line into the second line or even into the third line. However, it must be shown that a straight line of sight exists to the target, where it is not blocked by another person. Otherwise, the target positioned in the rear, during a general melee, cannot be hit.
If the combatant has elevation, however, then line of sight should take that into account when picking targets.
Cover
In firing or hurling a missile, the combatant aims at a target area that is, for game purposes, considered to be a circle that is about one foot in diameter. Because of this, a target that was covered only as high as the waist would not receive any benefit against an arrow or a thrown axe. “Cover,” therefore, describes any situation that plainly reduces the size of the circle being aimed at.
As the target shrinks in size, it’s armor class improves.
Missiles may be fired between combatants during hand-to-hand melee, targeting past the front line into the second line or even into the third line. However, it must be shown that a straight line of sight exists to the target, where it is not blocked by another person. Otherwise, the target positioned in the rear, during a general melee, cannot be hit. If the combatant has elevation, however, then line of sight should take that into account when picking targets.
Cover
In firing or hurling a missile, the combatant aims at a target area that is, for game purposes, considered to be a circle that is about one foot in diameter. Because of this, a target that was covered only as high as the waist would not receive any benefit against an arrow or a thrown axe. “Cover,” therefore, describes any situation that plainly reduces the size of the circle being aimed at.
As the target shrinks in size, it’s armor class improves.
Concealment
Objects are considered to be concealed when a soft, usually permeable substance screens them from plain view. Shrubbery; a waterfall; thin cloth not dense enough to stop an arrow or a thrown axe; or a target under water; are all examples of concealment. Because concealment will partially deflect missiles, or reduce the velocity of missiles, though figures may be plainly visible within a bush or under the water surface, there is yet an armor class bonus that is received.
Thus, if a person were nearly 3 feet under the surface of the water, their armor class would be improved by +7.
This seems very sensible and straight-forward.
ReplyDeleteI can see your point that having the important ~60% of your body targetable voids any cover. However, if you have to cover all of your body except that covered by a large dinner plate or serving dish, why would I ever try to hide behind a wall? I can stand behind a wall up to my armpits and receive no benefit for cover?
ReplyDeleteAre you familiar with the Rule of 9s for judging surface area of burned skin? That might be a useful metric. Each arm and head is 9% each. Each leg, upper torso, and lower torso is 18% each. The groin is 1%. Each 9% covered grants +1 to AC? Might be a bit much to grant +4 AC for not being able to hit your legs, but an arrow to the femoral artery is fatal in about 6 seconds.
I think I'm good with the concealment rules.
Baron,
ReplyDeleteYou have to cover every part of your body because you don't know which foot wide circle on your body they're going to aim at.
Yes, but if they aim at my head and miss by two feet downwards a low stone wall is the difference between mockery and a gut wound. Unless a successful hit is always within the chosen foot wide circle? Can I trip someone if I choose the leg?
ReplyDeleteA foot wide circle is 0.75 square feet. I have a body surface area of about 24 square feet. An archer can only target my front and humans are roughly cylindrical, let's say conservatively he can see about a quarter of my surface area at a time. That's 6 square feet. Shooting at a target 8 times the size of a dinner plate is exactly as difficult as shooting at the plate itself? In the chaos of a battle?
Now, if this is a sniping situation then that could be different. Like, say, in an archery competition.
For comparison, an Olympic archery target is 122cm across, about 12 square feet. (For a 70m range) The gold rings are about 2 square feet. Is it just as easy to hit the gold center of an archery target as the target itself? Especially if the target will eat you if you don't hit the gold area?
I don't think so.
Baron,
ReplyDeleteThere is an old saying among duck hunters that if you shoot at the wings, you're gonna miss.
You're perfectly able to interpret the rules as you like. I've constructed the rule in the way that I have because I've fired a bow and I've fired a shotgun, and if your chest is two feet above a brick wall, any shot I make as a trained archer (the meaning of "proficiency" in D&D to my mind) isn't going to come anywhere near that brick wall. If I miss, it is because you moved, the arrow did not hit your armor clean, you blocked with your shield, the arrow didn't fly true or I misjudged the target and put the arrow just over your shoulder or between your arm and your chest. The wall just isn't a factor.
My grandfather was a sniper in WW1. He taught snipers in WW2. He taught my father to shoot and my father taught me. If you put your head above a parapet in Belgium, your face was a great big target that I could have hit easily with a shotgun when I was but 17 (though I haven't fired a bow since I was a teen and haven't fired a shotgun since I was 30 ~ lord knows what my aim is now!).
For someone truly proficient with a rifle or a bow, your face might as well be as big as the moon. A shooter just doesn't shoot at a person's whole body. Aim small, miss small. Aim for the whole duck, you're going to hit empty feathers.
An Olympic archer doesn't shoot at the whole target, no matter how big it is. Most of the target is there to stop arrows from flying past and being a danger. EVERYONE shooting aims for the gold center. I'll wager that when they're shooting, they see nothing BUT the gold center. The gold ring is 12.2 cm in diameter; that makes it 4.8 inches. I'd judge it at AC 10, with a +4 bonus to hit for not being alive and not moving. The range, by D&D rules, makes it -5 to hit; so that is AC 9. YOU think it's hard, but that is huge for a professional archer. My system makes it AC 2. The archers are at least 13th level, giving them a THACO of 8 in my game. That makes the archer's chance of hitting the gold circle about 3 in 4.
I tried looking around to find percentages of archers hitting the gold circle. No luck.
As I said, feel free to interpret the rules as you like. No one EVER agrees on weapon use on the internet.
Alexis,
ReplyDeleteI will grant that you have equivalent experience with firearms and bows that I have. I too grew up in a rural area. I haven't thought hitting the gold circle was hard for some time. Stop making assumptions about my level of experience.
Your rules make hitting a target the size of the black rings just as hard as a target the size of the gold rings. If you're good with that, fine. But then there is no reason to have low walls or shallow ditches. There is no reason to run crouched to reduce the size of your profile while under fire. And no one gets hit in the arms or legs; it's chest / head or a clean miss.
You asked for comment, here are mine.
Baron,
ReplyDeleteUntil you state your level of experience with anything, I'm going to think horses, not zebras.
You say that my rules make hitting a target the size of the black rings just as hard as a target the size of the gold rings. I do nothing of the kind. Your chance to hit a character standing above a low wall is exactly the same as hitting a character standing without a wall ~ by aiming at what you can see and hitting it.
You say, "But then there is no reason ... etc." I can think of many reasons. For one, it gives you something to duck and hide behind, so I can't see you at all. Then you can sight me, showing only the smallest part of your head. Then you can stand up, win initiative with me, and shoot me before I shoot at all.
Yes, run crouched. Run crouched so that only four inches of you shows up above the wall as you make your way along. Enjoy the +7 AC adjustment as you do so. Just don't run along the wall as though because it is protecting your thighs, you're as safe as houses.
As regards arms and legs, vs. chest; there is no hit location in D&D. No matter what I hit, you take the same damage. There is no targeting of specific body parts in D&D. There is no tripping by shooting at someone's legs.
These things may not be "realistic," but they are spectacularly playable and effective in making a good game. I've played with hit location. It is problematic, clumsy, creates all sorts of problems of its own and by gawd, no, I'm not incorporating it again, ever. I've learned that lesson.
I did ask for comment. And I'm not offended or angry at yours. I'm essaying to make you see that the challenge for me is to come up with a targeting rule that doesn't suppose I'm throwing my axe vaguely at your general person, since I'm imagining a specific incidence where I'm able to hit the four-inch slope of your back as you crouch along behind a wall. With great difficulty! And without the inconvenience of trying to figure out what percentage of your body is covered (which is a headache of its own).
Is there a way we can get on the same page here?
I don't think so, because the examples you cite are mainly firearm based. Archaic weapons are messier. I've thrown a number of hatchets at Rendezvous in my youth, I could reliably hit a 3" target at 10 ft. But, that's a flat target where the rotation of the handle wasn't going to impinge on a branch. And, I couldn't do that when I started; it took time and practice.
ReplyDeleteAnd I get that you don't want hit location tables (been there, done that, not doing it again), but sometimes when you aim at the stag's heart you end up hitting the liver or its ass. And then you have to run after it for five miles to finish it. You missed but still hit. When you are proficient, it is easier to hit big things than small things. When you are a marksman, it is easier to hit things overall and you are more like to hit the smaller area that you were aiming for initially. "Can't hit the broad side of a barn" is an expression too.
I didn't want to mention personal experiences, because how do you know that I'm not making it up? One of things about internet discussions is that I have to actively remember that we have chatted amicably face to face and to keep that tone of voice in mind when I read your comments. The internet doesn't help my innate misanthropy.
In real life, you missed but you hit. In D&D, the condition that you're positing doesn't exist. You threw and you hit.
ReplyDeleteAs many hatchets as you've thrown, you weren't raised to do it in exclusion of all else, from the age of six, in an historical period lacking many other distractions. I rate proficiency as something higher - but ... okay, let's drop it.
I expect we're both pretty misanthropic. In Frankenstein, I identify with the monster. For me, your entire rhetoric, the construction of your sentences, the ordering of your thoughts, the focus, the manner of your withdrawing to present a nuanced position ... it all says "intelligent, thoughtful, reasonable" to me. I may argue hard, but that's both my nature and my respect.
I get all sorts who comment here; there are about a hundred I see regularly and semi-regularly who are ALWAYS consistent in their address, always a pleasure to hear from and always what I wait for earnestly when I put up a post. You, JB, Oz, Vlad, ViP, Tardigrade, James, Sterling, Maliloki, G.B. Veras, Zilifant, Drain, Lance, Pandred, Agravain, Charles A, Dani, Homer, Jomo, Oddbit, Discord, Mic B, Behold, Tyler, Dusk, Silberman, Jon Gazda, Sebastian, Marcelo P, Fuzzy, kimbo, Samuel K, Tedankhamen .. that's who I can remember right off.
And hey, if anyone's out there that I didn't mention, leave a message and remind me again that you're still here. Some aren't. There's a fellow named Matt that I quite miss and another named Imon who has dropped off the face of the earth.
Alexis, have you seen Delta's posts on archery stats? They're mostly concerned with modern performance and competition but I think they provide the data you're looking for.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first saw the table in the little Blogger thumbnail, I assumed that it would mostly be used for target-shooting (i.e., non-moving circles), but the way you've presented it here makes a lot of sense. If I ever get to run again, I might use this instead of the percentages presented in the AD&D 2e books.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm glad to hear that you enjoy my comments - and that there's another person who identifies with Frankenstein's monster. :D