D&D 5E How do you handle ranged attacks into melee?

Li Shenron

Legend

• Jun 28, 2019

• #21

I've always just use the "creature between you and target = half cover" rule of the PHB, but now that I checked the DMG it seems the rule with a grid (which I do not use) is different, and it can easily result in three-quarter cover...

In 3e I used the "if you miss because of the cover bonus (but would have hit otherwise), then you hit the cover" rule, but I haven't used it yet in 5e.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Fanaelialae

Legend

• Jun 28, 2019

• #22

Personally, I feel like the case for hitting the cover is too corner case. If the number falls in this narrow range and hits the covers AC, then roll damage against the cover. It's an additional operation to bog down gameplay. Additionally, you can end up with weird scenarios such as a high AC monk being the cover, where the projectile does but does not hit the monk (because it's within the cover bonus but not high enough to hit the monk's AC).

As for rerolling the attack roll, I've never liked it when the player has to add their attack bonus. They're trying not to hit their ally, so why would the attack roll be treated as if they were doing everything in their power to hit their ally? But if you have the player roll without the bonus, they're almost never going to hit so why waste time resolving it?

As always, do whatever works for your game. I'm just expressing the reasons I don't use either of the above methods in my own games.

 

CapnZapp

Legend

• Jun 28, 2019

• #23

Satyrn said:

[the last clause of] the "Hitting Cover" bit from page 272 of the DMG reads: "If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit."

Click to expand...

This means a covering creature, say your Fighter ally, is safe provided his AC is equal to or higher than the targeted monster's AC.

I've simplified this and instead say "enemies can only hide behind other enemies, not your allies"

The case when a high AC monster wants to use a low AC hero for cover is so uncommon I don't have any qualms about not supporting it (mechanically that is; with a friendly fire risk)

 

cmad1977

Hero

• Jun 28, 2019

• #24

+2 AC for the target.

 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle

• Jun 28, 2019

• #25

S'mon said:

That's the 4e rule.

Click to expand...

Okay

 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)

• Jun 28, 2019

• #26

Interesting that I've noted at least one responder who has said ranged attacking is overpowered in the past who also house ruled ranged attacking to make it much easier on the ranged attacker due to not having to deal with cover provided by an ally.

 

Last edited: Jun 28, 2019

Satyrn

First Post

• Jun 28, 2019

• #27

CapnZapp said:

This means a covering creature, say your Fighter ally, is safe provided his AC is equal to or higher than the targeted monster's AC.

I've simplified this and instead say "enemies can only hide behind other enemies, not your allies"

The case when a high AC monster wants to use a low AC hero for cover is so uncommon I don't have any qualms about not supporting it (mechanically that is; with a friendly fire risk)

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I dropped that bit and say the fighter is hit . . . although I don't have that happen if another monster is providing the cover.

So my rule is essentially "If you miss your target because of the cover, if it's another monster providing cover, or something else you actually want to hit, you don't hit the cover. If it's your ally providing cover, you hit your ally regardless of their AC."

Guns are fairly common in my campaign, so a small friendly fire risk feels appropriate, but I also commonly use large groups of monsters, so there's generally several targets available that won't incur friendly fire. It really becomes the player's choice to take that risk.

 

CapnZapp

Legend

• Jun 28, 2019

• #28

Interesting that I've noted at least one responder who has made smug remarks insinuating inconsistency while entirely missing the point here: a restriction on ranged fire that has close to zero impact can clearly be done away with to simplify the game without in any way shape or form making ranged fire more overpowered.

 

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth

• Jul 1, 2019

• #29

This thread, https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?400897-How-do-you-adjudicate-firing-through-combatants, also has some good suggestions for adjudication of missile fire into melee, including some suggestions for what to do if there is more than one intervening creature.