Shooting or Throwing Into Melee

[Water Bob]

The rule says that you've got to aim carefully in order not to hit your friend. You take a -4 on your throw. But, what if you miss? Is there no chance to hit your friend?



Barring finding an official explaination that I missed, I'm thinking of using the rule as writting, but giving a natural 1, 2, 3, or 4 on the attack throw as indication that the ally was hit instead of the enemy.

Example: Caelis throws a javelin at a Hyperborean that is in melee with Silaigne. Normally, Caelis would need a 12 to hit the Hyperborean, but since the target in in melee with Caelis' cousin, Caelis will take a -4 penalty on the throw.

If Caelis rolls 16+ (16 - 4 = 12), then Caelis hits the Hyperborean.

If Caelis rolls between 5-15, it's a total miss.

If Caelis throws a natural 1, 2, 3, or 4 on the attack, then Silaigne is hit.



Thoughts?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The -4 penalty is to make sure you don't accidentally hit your friend. That's why it's there.

Your rule is way too penalizing and unnecessary. Also, it becomes utterly silly when A) You're able to hit the enemy's AC on a 2, 3, or 4 anyway and B) You realize how dumb it is to autohit the new target. At worst, you'd break out the scatter rules to see what square the arrow ends up in and then roll to hit whatever's in there.

 

[Water Bob]

The -4 penalty is to make sure you don't accidentally hit your friend. That's why it's there.

Think of the rule as you would a cover rule. In this case, the PC's friend is the cover.

Normally, a 12 is needed to hit the enemy. But because the enemy is locked into melee with your friend, your friend is constantly moving in the way and then clear as he fights.

Your friend is basically cover for the target.

You've got to avoid the cover. That's what the -4 penalty is for. In other words, 4 points of the attack hits the cover.



Normally:

Dice roll of 2-11 is a miss. (Roll of 1 automatically misses.) And if the attack roll is 12+, a hit is indicated.



When Trying to Avoid the Friend (or cover):

Dice roll of 2-11 is a miss. 12-15 means you hit the cover/friend. 16+ means you hit your target.





All I did was make the natural 1,2,3, or 4 an indication of the friend being hit (instead of the 12, 13, 14, or 15) for easy figuring during gameplay. It's the same percentage chance to hit the friend, though.

The rule, as written, leaves no chance to hit your friend. Shouldn't that be possible?

 

[Vegepygmy]

Your friend is basically cover for the target.

That situation is covered by the "soft cover" rules.

You've got to avoid the cover. That's what the -4 penalty is for. In other words, 4 points of the attack hits the cover.

That's not what the -4 penalty is for. If your friend is in position to provide your target with soft cover, you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll due to the soft cover. You also take a -4 penalty for shooting into melee. That's what the -4 penalty is for.

The rule, as written, leaves no chance to hit your friend. Shouldn't that be possible?

Yes, it should. But there is no simple and fair and realistic way to do that. The -4 penalty is simple and fair, but unrealistic. Many people have come up with more realistic rules, but they are rarely fair and never simple.

I wish you the best of luck should you care to try.

 

[Water Bob]

Delete this post.

 

[Jimlock]

On page 28 of the DMG, there is a variant rule called: CRITICAL MISSES (FUMBLE).

It says that on a natural 1 a character fumbles his weapon, and usually loses a turn to regain composure or something like that. It leaves fumbling open to interpretation, still it focuses on the weapon.


With my group, we use a house rule under which we define CRITICAL MISSES differently.
On a natural 1 you get a chance for a critical miss (just like a critical threat).
You have to roll again to confirm the critical miss. If you manage to hit the given AC on that second roll, nothing worse happens and you simply fail your attack as if you had originally rolled any other inadequate number.
If you miss again on that second confirmation roll, you "botch" (borrowed the term from WhiteWolf ).
A botch means that something bad happens, and this "unlucky turn of events" is always adaptable to the circumstances the players are in.

It could mean anything from dropping your weapon... to falling down prone... to breaking the string of your bow (this is harsh, and it has happened ONLY once!)..............
.....AND to hitting your friend while he is in melee with the enemy you were originally aiming for! This can only happen to a PC/shooter who does not have the Precise shot feat.

All in all, our variant Critical Miss, gives an approximate 2% chance for something bad to happen on every attack. (Thats 5% for the 1 on a D20, multiplied by the roughly 50% chance of missing on the second attack).
And believe me... Its enough! I'm not saying that it happens all the time or that our house rule is problematic, but its enough. We like it as it is, and perhaps for some others it's more than enough.

Now to give a 20% chance (1,2,3,4 on the d20) for something like that to happen on EVERY attack is IMO, a bit of a stretch...

 

[Water Bob]

Now to give a 20% chance (1,2,3,4 on the d20) for something like that to happen on EVERY attack is IMO, a bit of a stretch...

I totally disagree with Vegy's viewpoint above. I'm old school and interprete and interpolate the dice.

If it is 20% harder to hit your target for some reason (because he's behind cover or because you don't want to hit your friend that is fighting him), then it's clear that there's a 20% chance to hit the cover or the friend. That's why the -4 is there. You've got to throw 20% more accurately to avoid the friend and hit the target.

Look at what I said above again.

If the target is alone, and he's got AC 12, then you miss on a 1-11 and hit on a 12-20.

Throw in a new factor, like a friend fighting him, and all of a sudden, you still miss on a 1-11, but you hit on a 16-20. This middle 4 points is the chance you'll hit the friend.

If you think about it, this should be a lot higher than your Critical Fumble chance because the Friend is, at moments, completely covering the target. A moment later, maybe just his arm is between you and the target. A moment after that, the target may be clear.

It's the same modifier used as if the target were 50% behind cover. It makes sense that the chance to hit the cover--or the friend--is as high as 20%.

It should be hard to throw into melee. There should be a pretty good risk that you'd hit your friend.





BTW, we use a similar "Fumble" rule, but it centers around "Non-Lethal" attacks.

If you roll a "1" on your attack throw (or on your defense throw--we roll for both, using Active Defense), then your opponent rolls 1d6.

1. Sunder
2. Disarm
3. Unarmed Non-Lethal Attack
4. Trip
5. Grapple
6. Unarmed Non-Lethal Attack

The attacker does not hit normally unless, for some reason, what he rolls on his 1d6 throw does not apply to him.

So, if you roll a 1 on your attack, and your opponent rols a 3 on the Fumble Chart, then he gets a free unarmed attack against you. You do not get the normal Attack of Opportunity, and, basically, your opponent finds an opening to get in a quick elbow jab, a kick, a punch to the face--something like that which does non-lethal damage.

A trip could be something as simple as a strong kick to the gut that may knock you down.

A grapple means there's a momentary opening to attempt to grab you and start wrestling you. This is where light weapons like daggers come into play.

You get the idea. There's a lot of non-lethal damage in a melee combat, and this system brings in those things that can go on but is not normally modeled in D&D.

 

[Jimlock]

If it is 20% harder to hit your target for some reason (because he's behind cover or because you don't want to hit your friend that is fighting him), then it's clear that there's a 20% chance to hit the cover or the friend.

The -4 on an attack does not translate into a 20% chance to hit your friend. NOTHING under RAW suggests something of the like.

How did you come to this conclusion?

That's why the -4 is there. You've got to throw 20% more accurately to avoid the friend and hit the target.

No it's not. 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.)

Your aim is harder (-4) because the enemy is harder to hit with your friend in the way. If you miss you simply miss. End of story. Anything more than that is a house rule.

My personal interpretation of the rule is that, you "intentionally" take your chances and attempt to hit your opponent at a time and at a place of his body that would surely keep your friend out of it. Trying to find this opportune moment and exposed body part is what gives you the -4. IMO, this is one logical explanation since there are no rules for hitting your friend instead.

Look at what I said above again.

I did. And I again I believe that a 20% chance is A LOT
As I said, we play it with 1/10 of those chances (2%), and a botch happens more often than you think!

Three arrows in a round with a 20% chance per attack means that you have a 48,8% chance to hit your friend at least once during that round!!!

Think about it!!!

 

[Vegepygmy]

The -4 on an attack does not translate into a 20% chance to hit your friend. NOTHING under RAW suggests something of the like.

How did you come to this conclusion?

In Water Bob's defense, the 3.5 PHB (page 140) says: "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 because you have to aim carefully to avoid hitting your friend."

The SRD apparently lacks this explanatory text, possibly for good reason: it doesn't actually make any sense. The effect of your friend possibly blocking your shot is already accounted for by your target gaining a +4 soft cover bonus to AC, and it's difficult to see why it gets even harder to hit your target just because he and his soft cover are fighting each other.

No, the -4 penalty is really there because without it, full attacking at range while your ally pins an opponent down is just too easy. It can perhaps be rationalized by the fact that a target engaged in melee is moving unpredictably and has his defenses up, but really, it's just there to keep ranged attacks from being too good.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I totally disagree with Vegy's viewpoint above. I'm old school and interprete and interpolate the dice.

Are you sure you understood my viewpoint? Because I thought I agreed with you.