Ranged Attacks vs. Cover

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

While I have no real experience with any missile weapon, I think Dan is right that the SIZ of the visible target is more important than the percentage of cover - a man behind 50% cover should still be easier to hit than a hobbit behind 50% cover.

 

[DamonJynx]

Personally, I don't see a problem with RAW. Let's look at a situation or two.

• 1. The guy on the wall is unaware of the archer taking a bead on him. He is surprised as per the Legend core rules page 138. A successful attack is guaranteed to strike an exposed body part (Choose Location), whatever that may be.
  2. They guy is aware of the attacker but has left himself open by not using his last CA to gain total cover. He's an idiot, unless he has a very good reason for not getting out of harms way, and needs to be shot to learn a lesson, preferably with a Crit to boot!.
  3. As above but the guy has at least one CA left he can use to defend himself with. If he has a shield, he can attempt to parry (that's why shields are so bloody useful!), thereby not forfeiting his potential attack on his next CA. Or he can duck behind appropriate cover on a successful evade. Otherwise he gets shot.

Why is anything more needed?

If you must impose some additional penalties on the Archer, why not use the concealment modifiers on page 141? Just treat the mist, smoke or whatever as the cover offered by the wall. But as I said above, I don't think it's really necessary.

 

[Simulacrum]

There's a whole bunch of viable solutions here now. In fairness, if soemone is trying to pick off a sentry unaware he is about to be attacked, showing his head above the parapet, then a small target, or automatic use of the choose location CM is perfectly adequate. What I was getting at with a 'defence value' for a fortification was derived from considering a general combat between attackers and defenders, where the fortifications are designed to afford protection to some degree at all times, and the defenders can make active use of it without going to the length of making evade rolls. My first use of this was for a pike formation, where individual pikemen are not able (or supposed) to react to individual missiles by deploying CAs to parry, but are protected by the hedge of spears including those held at the slope by rear ranks, and fixed shields (see Pikes of Ashkor in AoT). In this instance the average Lore (Tactics and Drill) of the unit is used to oppose incoming missile fire, in an effort to deny a CM to the attacker. The same could be done with a shield wall. It isn't a parry, and damage would still be applied to someone in the unit inthe event of a hit unless the location is specifically covered. I think this approach allows quick rulings to scale up to a battle situation - in a battle the majority of attacks are more or less anonymous and are not individually countered.

So - as a thought experiment, again a straw man for knocking down:

Arakis is one of the men defending the walls of Fort Severity against a bunch of attacking Soribisi nomads and Khazeri tribesmen using a mix of bows and slings. The fort has a simple battlement, and this is judged to be 60% effective.

One slinger and one archer have targeted him. The slinger has a 40% skill, and the archer a 65% skill. With cheap ammo, the slinger is dumping as many stones at the defeders as he can, while the archer is picking his shots carefully to get best use of his expensive arrows.

The slinger's 40% is automatically countered by the wall's 60% rating. He doesn't get a CM unless he rolls critical. Let's say he scores a regular hit with a 35% roll. Even though Arakis is not specifically defending against that attack (he is busy throwing a brick at someone else), the design of the fort's defences protects him. As no CM is awarded, the slinger rolls location and damage. The GM judges that the location roll of 09 is covered by the parapet, and no harm done as it's not worth checking to see if the sling stone can penetrate. Were he attacking with a siege engine rather than a sling, it is possible the shot would go through the parapet and still strike Arakis.

The archer with his 65% skill has a chance to beat the wall's defence. He maxes that by delaying two combat actions of aiming, increasing his hit chance to 79%. With a roll of 62 he hits and gets a CM because he beats the fort's defence rating of 60% (the same result would occur if the slinger had rolled 3% and gained a critical). If at this point Arakis has a CA left and has spotted that someone if directing their fire at him, he may get a chance to go for an Evade or shield parry, depending on the situation and GM ruling. Assuming he doesn't, with his CM the archer chooses location to ensure a hit rather than striking the wall, and deals 6 damage to Arakis' chest.

You can do other things with this:

An Artificer or Architect could design the battlements cleverly so that their defence rating is increased by his critical skill range.

Attacks against the wall can degrade its defence if it overcomes its Armour Points (needs work but recalls use of Structure Points and Sea Worthiness in the naval rules for RQII).

Apologies for length of post - any thoughts on this?

 

[Dan True]

Stuff

As a means of making large-scale fights more effective, I like it. My objections to it was for trying to use it on a normal RPG scale.
Using your suggestion in formations, battles or skirmishes seems viable.

- Dan

 

[DamonJynx]

Stuff

As a means of making large-scale fights more effective, I like it. My objections to it was for trying to use it on a normal RPG scale.
Using your suggestion in formations, battles or skirmishes seems viable.

- Dan

My sentiments exactly. I also was referring to regular play, not large scale pitched battles.

 

[Mixster]

I find this makes more sense to me, than simply giving a penalty based on size of the cover. By introducing static penalties a guy standing behind a wall covering his legs will gain some sort of defense, in if he does not actively use it (evade). I find the idea of a guy standing behind a 3 foot wall and having 2/7 = 28% cover rather silly. Of what if he only has 1 leg behind a wall, will he then benefit from 14 % cover even though he still presents a nice juice body to target?

Ah but you seem to be misunderstanding what I want to do.
I want to give a cover save that is actually an opposed roll, so say a guy is only hiding his legs behind a wall an thus have around 15% of his body-mass covered. Somebody shoots at him, this roll is then opposed by the cover.
The cover will only be effective in 1 out of 20 situations, much better than what it is now where if you don't choose the choose location CM you'll get 2/7 chance of missing entirely, even if you scored a good hit.

This way, you don't have to think about the presented SIZ, you use the targets SIZ, and he gets cover based on how much cover he has.

I think it works wonderfully especially for a modern game were cover should be an important part of tactics, but perhaps I'll have to tell you what I mean IRL, so I can really convince you. I think presented SIZ, while more RAW, is much more clunky than percentage coverage as evade.

 

[DamonJynx]

stuff...

I realise your comments were mainly directed at Dan, but what about this to simplify:

• target partially (2/7 of hit locations) covered -20% to all ranged attacks
  target significantly (4/7 of hit locations) covered -40% to all ranged attacks
  target completely (7/7 of hit locations) covered all ranged attacks auto fail

That's simple, works for most situations and doesn't require yet another die roll.

I honestly don't see the need for any further complication. It's just more shit to remember at the table.

 

[Dan True]

stuff...

I realise your comments were mainly directed at Dan, but what about this to simplify:

• target partially (2/7 of hit locations) covered -20% to all ranged attacks
  target significantly (4/7 of hit locations) covered -40% to all ranged attacks
  target completely (7/7 of hit locations) covered all ranged attacks auto fail

That's simple, works for most situations and doesn't require yet another die roll.

But that again leads to the situation where a scarecrow behind a low wall covering its legs is harder to hit, than one in the open - which I find rather silly.
In my view, defense is only as good as the person using it.. to a certain degree of course, as nearly covered person of course benefit from the cover to some degree.

- Dan

 

[DamonJynx]

stuff...

I realise your comments were mainly directed at Dan, but what about this to simplify:

• target partially (2/7 of hit locations) covered -20% to all ranged attacks
  target significantly (4/7 of hit locations) covered -40% to all ranged attacks
  target completely (7/7 of hit locations) covered all ranged attacks auto fail

That's simple, works for most situations and doesn't require yet another die roll.

But that again leads to the situation where a scarecrow behind a low wall covering its legs is harder to hit, than one in the open - which I find rather silly.
In my view, defense is only as good as the person using it.. to a certain degree of course, as nearly covered person of course benefit from the cover to some degree.

- Dan

Dan, I don't like the idea either. I'm just putting it out there as a more simplified approach for those that feel it necessary. I fully intend to use the RAW. If you have a bank of Archers firing volley after volley and not aiming at a specific target, then why should an archer gain Choose Location as a combat manoeuvre? At best I would only allow Impale and for a Crit I could be coerced into allowing by-pass armour, but that's it. If it's a random shot, it should be a random location. In any other circumstances it's as per my OP.

 

[Dan True]

Dan, I don't like the idea either. I'm just putting it out there as a more simplified approach for those that feel it necessary. I fully intend to use the RAW. If you have a bank of Archers firing volley after volley and not aiming at a specific target, then why should an archer gain Choose Location as a combat manoeuvre? At best I would only allow Impale and for a Crit I could be coerced into allowing by-pass armour, but that's it. If it's a random shot, it should be a random location. In any other circumstances it's as per my OP.

Ah, okay.
Yeah, this really illustrates the need for varying methods depending on the situation.

- Dan

 

[RangerDan]

Somewhat related question... should a defender in cover get a bonus to his Evade against missile weapons? What I mean is this:

A. I shoot at an unarmed farmer in a field. He tries to dive out of the way. My Archery 70% vs. his Evade 30%. I succeed, he fails. I Choose Location CM and shoot him the head.

B. I shoot at an unarmed farmer in cover behind battlements. Only his head is exposed. He tries to dive out of the way. My Archery 70% vs. his Evade 30%. I succeed, he fails. I Choose Location CM and shoot him the head.

Why do these two scenarios have the same chance of success?
I'm having trouble deciding if it makes sense or not.

 

[Dan True]

B. I shoot at an unarmed farmer in cover behind battlements. Only his head is exposed. He tries to dive out of the way. My Archery 70% vs. his Evade 30%. I succeed, he fails. I Choose Location CM and shoot him the head.

His head is only SIZ 2, so you recieve a -30% penalty to your skill. So your archery of 40% vs his evade of 30%.

But, I see your point. Perhaps there should be a more significant bonus to the evade check when actively defending - as the scenario I just created, was identical to if he had not tried to evade...

- Dan

 

[Lemnoc]

Perhaps there should be a more significant bonus to the evade check when actively defending - as the scenario I just created, was identical to if he had not tried to evade...

This addresses my original angst, which is that Evade (DEXx2, so >20% for your usual mook) is a pretty low countermeasure against even pretty average attacker skills.

I think it is the Choose Location CM on a single level of fail that really creates the imbalance and makes the cover go invisible. Even worse, when the opponent is out of CAs, he's just a pincushion for that maneuver even if he is mostly hidden behind a wall.

I liked the idea that you can only Choose Location if you've burned a CA aiming a ranged attack. It even has a bit of a cinematic feel to it, while not greatly hampering play.

---

Here's another question: What DCM does your sentry get on a critical success of his opposed roll against a ranged attack? If we assume that even unaware sentries get the evade roll (so as to avoid receiving an automatic Choose Location CM to their exposed parts), then what advantage does this unaware character gain if the arrow just goes whizzing by or if he is extra specially, critically unaware?

 

[DamonJynx]

Perhaps there should be a more significant bonus to the evade check when actively defending - as the scenario I just created, was identical to if he had not tried to evade...

This addresses my original angst, which is that Evade (DEXx2, so >20% for your usual mook) is a pretty low countermeasure against even pretty average attacker skills.That's the point, they're meant to be easy to hit.

I think it is the Choose Location CM on a single level of fail that really creates the imbalance and makes the cover go invisible. Even worse, when the opponent is out of CAs, he's just a pincushion for that maneuver even if he is mostly hidden behind a wall.Once again, the RAW are designed so that once you're out of CA's it's pretty much all over. That's the defenders fault for not getting of harms way

I liked the idea that you can only Choose Location if you've burned a CA aiming a ranged attack. It even has a bit of a cinematic feel to it, while not greatly hampering play.

---

Here's another question: What DCM does your sentry get on a critical success of his opposed roll against a ranged attack? None. You can't really use any of the defensive CM's against ranged attackers, just as a ranged attacker can't remove an impaling arrow.If we assume that even unaware sentries get the evade roll (so as to avoid receiving an automatic Choose Location CM to their exposed parts)Why would they? If they're unaware, they're surprised and it's all bad for them. They should be paying attention., then what advantage does this unaware character gain if the arrow just goes whizzing by or if he is extra specially, critically unaware?None. Why should he?

 

[Lemnoc]

Once again, the RAW are designed so that once you're out of CA's it's pretty much all over. That's the defenders fault for not getting of harms way

Sorry, I can just see too many ways this could be gamed by players making coordinated ranged attacks to the point where it would begin to chip away any kind of realism (which I assume is the advantage of crunchy combat rules) not to give it additional thought. What you're basically suggesting is any passive target = amazing kill shots even from average archers.

I suppose I see the whole purpose of cover is to place the burden on the attacker trying to get past it, not on the defender crouching behind it.

If they're unaware, they're surprised and it's all bad for them. They should be paying attention.

Here you seem to be suggesting, then, that the opposed roll for an unaware target would be against Perception. I was being a bit facetious in my second round of questions, but I can certainly see that. A save would = becoming aware.

 

[Lemnoc]

Let me put this another way: I am shooting at an archery target within my bow's range. It has no defense, no CAs, no opposed roll. Do I get to Choose Location (bullseye) with every successful shot?

 

[DamonJynx]

Here you seem to be suggesting, then, that the opposed roll for an unaware target would be against Perception. I was being a bit facetious in my second round of questions, but I can certainly see that. A save would = becoming aware.

Absolutely correct. To avoid the surprised condition your 'guard' must succeed on an opposed perception vs. the attackers stealth.

In regards to the 'target' practice, or tournament situation, that would require the use of the rules regarding inanimate objects and any bonus' (including CM's) and penalties would need to be adjudicated by your GM as this situation is outside the purview of the RAW.

All the other comments I've made are regarding attacking a living being, who if he's getting shot at by archers, should be ducking! I know I would be if someone was trying to use me as a pin-cushion!

I don't 'get' why people can't just use the rules that are already in place to work this stuff out. I suppose it stems from the fact that I'm not trying to be 'realistic', I'm playing a game and I treat it as such and i don't try to over think things. Probably a holdover from my D&D days. :wink:

 

[Mixster]

stuff...

I realise your comments were mainly directed at Dan, but what about this to simplify:

• target partially (2/7 of hit locations) covered -20% to all ranged attacks
  target significantly (4/7 of hit locations) covered -40% to all ranged attacks
  target completely (7/7 of hit locations) covered all ranged attacks auto fail

That's simple, works for most situations and doesn't require yet another die roll.

But that again leads to the situation where a scarecrow behind a low wall covering its legs is harder to hit, than one in the open - which I find rather silly.
In my view, defense is only as good as the person using it.. to a certain degree of course, as nearly covered person of course benefit from the cover to some degree.

- Dan

That's why I didn't want to do it that way.

A scarecrow with half it's body covered is a significantly harder target to hit than a scarecrow without it. A scarecrow with only the legs covered would have a negligible 14% cover, so almost all your shots on it would hit anyway if you hit.

Remember that this would gain the added benefit that if an archer is above 100% he could get good enough to hit often if his target is 95% obscured, which I find quite good.

The problem I find with the represented SIZ is that it is very negligible. If all I see is a head, I'll just get a -30-40% on my shots which is far from realistic. An archer with 80% chance, would just about half his hits if you took the same scare crow in the open as opposed to just the head. Which is silly since the scarecrow would present only 1/15th of the target size.

Sorry, I can just see too many ways this could be gamed by players making coordinated ranged attacks to the point where it would begin to chip away any kind of realism

I think it's highly realistic that anything close to a mortal guy can't defend himself against 10 blows coming at him at once. It would just be a beat-down no matter what weapon you have, if 6 people gang up on you and they aren't on a range disadvantage they will beat you down no matter how good you are.

---
Also I noted that if we wanted RQ modern to work, we need defensive CMs that can be used against ranged attacks, counter-shot (like riposte) and dive for cover are ideas, but we probably need more.

And couldn't you technically try to blind your opponent with your blade?

 

[Lemnoc]

I think it's highly realistic that anything close to a mortal guy can't defend himself against 10 blows coming at him at once. It would just be a beat-down no matter what weapon you have, if 6 people gang up on you and they aren't on a range disadvantage they will beat you down no matter how good you are.

Right. And I don't have a problem with this.

But I can certainly see this poor sentry on a curtain wall, 90% concealed with three CAs, taking two shots to the head from five characters who all delay to the same SR and fire at once. Two get through and both get to call the CM on his poor li'l noggin.

I **think** the solution here would be to declare a single Evade score would oppose against all incoming missiles fired at once: He ducked, now has two CAs. But you have to think this through.

RangerDan's intuition that a concealed person **should** be able to evade better than some schmo in an open field is another scenario to puzzle through.

 

[Lemnoc]

I don't 'get' why people can't just use the rules that are already in place to work this stuff out.

I believe that is what is going on in this thread, but combat is complicated and specific while the RAW are (appropriately) broadly written and open to interpretation.

I suppose it stems from the fact that I'm not trying to be 'realistic', I'm playing a game and I treat it as such and i don't try to over think things. Probably a holdover from my D&D days.

In my experience, house ruling almost always arrives as a means to provide consistent outcomes to ambiguous RAW. They arrive from players announcing they'll swim the moat in plate armor and the rules saying very little about the buoyancy of plate armor. And that's okay. The rules don't have to say anything about that. But having allowed it once in a moment of distraction and now players are swimming around all the time in plate armor, and that seeming off to you, you're probably going to have to house rule they can no longer do that.

'Realism" is less important than some commitment to a physical world in which X works like so, and you can depend on it working like so tomorrow. So you can build some game strategy around it.

Walls work one way in the RQ SRD, and they work that way all the time no matter who or how many are firing at them. Here, the efficacy of walls is based in part on a skill of limited use (CA) that is going to be pretty low for a PC/NPC of even average ability and that can be eroded by sheer numbers. That confers a lot of different kinds of thinking about ranged combat from cover. And that's not a complaint.

I have to say I now understand how all this works a lot more having raised the questions on this thread than by just winging it. So... thanks!