Interpretation of rules

RIPnogarD · Jul 27, 2005

One rule, two interpretations, which do you use?
Shooting or throwing into melee:
1) You take a -4 to hit (no choice), and can still end up hitting a friendly PC...
2) You have a choice, take the -4 and never hit a friendly or not take the penalty and maybe hit a friendly, if you miss your target...

I'm looking for any response to this, (preferably one from a 3.5 D&D book). Page 140 of the 3.5 PH doesn't really specify...

dcollins · Jul 27, 2005

Neither. The rules as written are
(3) No choice, a -4 penalty, no chance to hit an ally.

From the SRD:

Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)

If your target (or the part of your target you’re aiming at, if it’s a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you’re aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.

Precise Shot: If you have the Precise Shot feat you don’t take this penalty.

That's the entire rule. If you read the boldface part, you'll see there's no choice involved, and likewise, no chance to hit the ally specified either.

Thanee · Jul 27, 2005

Yep, 3) it is.

Bye
Thanee

RIPnogarD · Jul 27, 2005

ok... But I fail to se the part that says "No chance to hit ally." Which is part of the debate I'm having with somebody...

mvincent · Jul 27, 2005

Note: the chance to hit an ally occurs when you shoot into two people grappling.

billd91 · Jul 27, 2005

The other way of hitting an ally in melee was a standard rule in 3.0, an optional one in 3.5. If you are firing so that your friend provides cover for target (is in the direct path between the attacker and the target), if you miss the target by a margin caused by the cover, you might hit that cover.
Under those rules, you could avoid hitting your ally by moving so that you were no longer firing through your ally's square. You'd still face the -4 to hit from firing into melee, but your target would no longer also get a cover bonus to AC.

By the 3.5 rules, you cannot avoid the -4 to hit without the appropriate feat, nor can you hit your ally in normal melee without using the optional cover rule.

Patryn of Elvenshae · Jul 27, 2005

RIPnogarD said:
ok... But I fail to se the part that says "No chance to hit ally." Which is part of the debate I'm having with somebody...

There's nothing that says "No chance to hit ally," because there's never a situation in D&D where that's the default behaviour. The default behaviour of D&D is you roll your attack and compare it to your target's AC; if you beat it, you hit your target; if you don't, you miss your target (and nothing else happens).

SRD said:
ATTACK ROLL
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit.

Any time something else has the potential to happen, it is specifically called out in the rules (like, as was mentioned, in grappling situations).

MeepoTheMighty · Jul 27, 2005

I believe there's an optional rule for accidentally hitting a character who provides cover for the enemy, maybe that's what you're referring to?

dcollins · Jul 27, 2005

RIPnogarD said:
ok... But I fail to se the part that says "No chance to hit ally." Which is part of the debate I'm having with somebody...

Well, what your debating partner needs is a rule that says "And X% chance to hit your ally". Rules can be concise sometimes. Similarly, there fails to be any part that says "No chance to turn into a chocolate cookie", because that too is unneccessary verbiage.

RIPnogarD · Jul 27, 2005

So. Do I have this right?
1) You always get the -4 if shooting into a melee of two or more.
2) You can NOT hit your ally, unless he is in some way between you and your target, =(cover).
3) You always get the -4 and still have a chance of hitting an ally in a grapple.