D&D 5E Firing ranged weapons into melee

[Snoring Rock]

I do not see anything specific about friendlies being threatened if you fire into combat and miss the intended target. How is that handled?

 

[Jester David]

They're not. But unless you have a feat, allies grant cover to enemies against ranged attacks.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

There is a variant DMG rule for shooting cover. (Pretty much if it the attack would have it if not for the Cover bonus it it's the cover. If the Cover is a creature then if he attack role beats the cover creatures AC it hits them.

 

[Gillywonka]

In addition to the variant DMG cover rules mentioned, i also add a Line of Sight factor. In the melee, if the friendly is between you and your target, partially or full, i'll give an appropriate modification... from -1 to full disadvantage. The combat rules make it very easy to fire into combat without consequence, but nothing you can't fix.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Yep - see the optional rule in DMG. Also some DMs rule if you fumble a ranged attack such as this, reroll against your ally. Also shooting in melee typically gives half cover to the target (easy to apply in theatre of the mind, more easily bypassed in grid play by the shooter repositioning)

 

[bgbarcus]

I've been using a house rule that makes ranged attacks into melee roll with disadvantage. If the lower roll misses, the other die roll is used as an attack against an ally.

 

[Winterfell]

I use line of sight and depending on target size the amount of cover granted...crit fumble into melee = dmg to ally.

 

[KarinsDad]

I use a variant of the DMG rule.

Creatures give a +2 cover bonus in melee. If you miss the foe because of the cover bonus (i.e. not having the cover bonus would have hit), reroll to see if you hit a creature in the line of fire. If there are multiple creatures in the line of fire, first determine which equally random creature is the one that might get hit with the second roll.

The main difference between my house rule and the DMG rule is that high AC creatures in the line of fire are not immune to attacks through their areas fired at lower AC targets. The AC of the target should not determine if the covering creature accidentally got hit.

The thing I like about this and similar rules is that it sometimes forces players to either take risks, or not take them. But, not risks with their own PC, risks with someone else's PC.

 

[bgbarcus]

I use a variant of the DMG rule.

The thing I like about this and similar rules is that it sometimes forces players to either take risks, or not take them. But, not risks with their own PC, risks with someone else's PC.

That is a key component of all our house rules on ranged attacks.

I started out not imposing any penalty for firing into melee. Then one of my players took the Great Weapon Master feat and I saw how powerful that -5/+10 modifier can be. After that I realized that without some penalty for firing into melee Sharpshooter would be way overpowered. Even though Sharpshooter negates penalties for range and cover, I still apply my firing into melee penalty. If asked to explain it, the answer is simple. Melee involves everyone moving around quickly so that careful aim is still not enough to avoid a friend stepping into your line of fire.

The rule has worked well. Our Sharpshooter ranger is incredibly deadly when he can position himself at a high point away from battle. He picks of enemies easily while they are not engaged but still has to think carefully about the risks of firing into melee (getting that +10 bonus on a friend strains the friendship). It usually ends up with the at risk player giving permission before the shot is taken. The risk vs. reward balance feels right.

Something my players haven't noticed yet (at least haven't mentioned) is how powerful reach weapons become with a Sharpshooter in the party. I would not apply the same penalty for attacks from reach (ten feet) distance. If the reach weapon question comes up, I may decide to use the +2 AC bonus with no other penalties, or apply no penalties at all. That will partially depend on whether the players are carefully coordinating their combat strategy or just stumble into the question without thinking ahead. (Hmmm, I wonder if any of them are reading this discussion.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't have any issue with there being no penalties for firing into melee. Fixes to add realism just slow down the combat and unfairly impact players (who have to deal with it all the time). I feel the lack of penalties to be balanced as the bad guy don't have them either.

Anything that makes the combat run faster with such a minor effect on suspension of disbelief is a-ok with me. But then, I tend to err on the side of PCs being competent, so that's the bias I bring to the table.