Shooting or Throwing Into Melee

[airwalkrr]

There used to be a rule before 3.5 that if a creature was providing cover to the target creature then any attack roll that missed only because of cover was compared to the AC of the cover-granting creature. If the attack roll would hit the cover-granting creature, then the cover-granting creature was hit instead. This rule persists as an optional rule in the DMG under the 3.5 rules set.

I agree with StreamOfTheSky. Your rule is unnecessary and doesn't make much sense. If you really want to add some possibility of allies getting hit by ranged weapons accidentally, use the variant for hitting cover.

 

[Water Bob]

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?

Let's change the scenario a bit.

You have a javelin and you're throwing at an Orc that is standing behind a 4' fence. The fence gives the Orc 50% cover. So, that's a -4 on your throw. The Orc is AC 13.

Without the cover, you miss on a 1-12, and you hit on a 13-20.

With the cover, you miss on a 1-16, and you hit on a 17-20.



Now, imagine that you stay in the same spot, and the Orc stands in the same spot. The only thing that changes is a big hand comes out of the sky and either picks up the fense, removing it from the battlefield, or leaves the fence untouched.

Doesn't it stand to reason that, on the second "with cover" attack above that you are missing entirely on the 1-12 (because you miss on those numbers with or without the fence being there), and you are hitting on a 17-20 (with or without the fence being there). So, the fence is blocking the attacks that results in 13-16, right?

One can assume that the javelin hits the fence on those numbers because otherwise the javelin would hit the character if the fence wasn't in the way.

That's dice result interpertation.

Now, apply the same logic to firing into melee, taking the exact same modifier but for a different reason, and you'll see where I'm coming from.

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

I thing you're right! Obviously, I read something wrong!

There used to be a rule before 3.5 that if a creature was providing cover to the target creature then any attack roll that missed only because of cover was compared to the AC of the cover-granting creature. If the attack roll would hit the cover-granting creature, then the cover-granting creature was hit instead. This rule persists as an optional rule in the DMG under the 3.5 rules set.

Exactly.

And...where is that optional rule?

I agree with StreamOfTheSky. Your rule is unnecessary and doesn't make much sense. If you really want to add some possibility of allies getting hit by ranged weapons accidentally, use the variant for hitting cover.

I'll read it. Page number?

 

[airwalkrr]

i'll read it. Page number?

dmg 54

 

[Water Bob]

dmg 54

What I see on pg. 54 in the 3.5 DMG is stuff about Treasure.

 

[airwalkrr]

Sorry that was a typo. I meant DMG 24.

 

[Water Bob]

Sorry that was a typo. I meant DMG 24.

Got it. Yes, thanks, I just found it.

And, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

"...if the roll would hit the protected target without cover..."



Back to my original example of throwing into melee...

If you have a javelin, and you want to throw it at the Hyperborean that is fighting your buddy, you take a -4 on your throw.

If you need a 12+ normally to hit, then you need a 16+ to hit now.

If you roll in the 12-15 range, then you hit the "cover", or, in this case, your buddy, instead of the Hyperborean.

For all of you who said my thinking on this didn't make sense, there it is in B&W on pg. 24 of the DMG.

Thanks airwalkrr!



The only thing I changed was the numbers that indicated the hit of the friend in the OP. Instead of 12, 13, 14, or 15, I made it 1, 2 ,3 , or 4 to keep it easy to remember during the game. This way, no math is involved in trying to figure out which numbers hit the friend.

 

[Vegepygmy]

The only thing I changed was the numbers that indicated the hit of the friend in the OP. Instead of 12, 13, 14, or 15, I made it 1, 2 ,3 , or 4 to keep it easy to remember during the game. This way, no math is involved in trying to figure out which numbers hit the friend.

That change, however, is crucial...because the rule goes on to say: "If a creature is providing cover for another character and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature takes the damage intended for the target."

So by making it a 1, 2, 3, or 4, you are making it so that the attack hits (i.e., is blocked by) the ally providing cover, but deals no damage (because the attack roll is never [very rarely, at best] going to be good enough to beat the ally's AC). So what's the point?

See, you really have to keep the "would have hit but for the ally providing cover" range at the top end of the attack roll, unless you are prepared to rule that the ally's AC is irrelevant and he always takes damage -- but of course, that's unrealistic, too.

And we haven't even started to question why the attacker's full attack bonus applies to a target he isn't trying to hit, and whether it would be more realistic to just roll an unmodified d20 and see if that beats the cover-providing ally's flat-footed AC or something like that.

As I said before, you can have it be realistic, but it probably won't be fair and it certainly won't be simple.

 

[Water Bob]

That change, however, is crucial...because the rule goes on to say: "If a creature is providing cover for another character and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature takes the damage intended for the target."

That's interesting. So, if you are throwing a javelin into melee where your buddy Frank (AC 16) is fighting an Orc (AC 12), and you roll a total of 21 on your attack throw, the rule is saying, even though you've got a perfectly good hit there, that you will hit Frank and not the Orc.

Hm...

That makes it much harder to hit in melee than my original rule (if you figure the PCs are usually going to have better AC's than the bad guys).

In the example above, the Orc is hit on throw of 16+. Frank is hit on a throw of 20+.

This means that very high attack throws will hit Frank. That's counterintuitive. Higher attack throws should be more accurate. The Orc is only hit on a roll of 16-19. Frank is hit on any roll 20+.

If I'm reading that right.





EDIT: And, if I am reading that rule correctly, it's not a very well thought out rule (that second part about the covering creature).

What if Frank (AC 15) is fighting an Orc that is AC 14?

The attack misses on a 1-17. Hits the Orc on roll of 18 only. Hits Frank on a roll of 19+.

That's only a 5% chance of hitting the Orc.

There's something screwy there....





2nd EDIT: The rule basically says that, if throwing a javelin into melee, you take the AC of each creature in the melee and have the javelin hit the highest AC that the attack roll can.

So, if Frank (AC 15), an Orc (AC 14) and an evil Cleric (AC 12) are all in a fight together, the Cleric and the Orc fighting your buddy Frank. Then, you throw your javelin and roll a 22 total, you hit Frank.

You will miss all three on a roll of 1-15. You will hit the Cleric on a roll of 16-17. You will hit the Orc on a roll of 18. And, you will hit your buddy Frank on a roll of 19+.

That's not real fair to Frank, is it. And, the more skilled you are (the more bonuses you have), the more likely it is that you'll hit Frank--which is completely backwards.

 

[Trance-Zg]

Never went with if miss by 4 you hit the target.

It complicates the game too much if you go for too much realism.

What if the "cover"-your ally has higher AC than the attack roll you scored?
Is that a hit or miss? or new attack roll is made?

Is he flat-footed against attack?
If he is and your are a rogue, do you sneak attack him?

What if he has uncanny dodge? Does he move outside of projectiles path and thus completely negates the -4 penalty for you?

 

[Tovec]

I hate crit-fumbles unless they're funny.

If he misses (1-4) the enemy in melee (or grapple??) I'd say he still needs to roll an incidental roll against his cousin to hit. Just because you miss one person doesn't mean another is automatically going to get hit. Especially with a -4 on the roll.

Ie. I throw a dagger at a bull's eye on my wall. On let's say 16 or higher I hit (dead centre). On a 1-15 I miss. On a 1-4 it may also end up accidentally slipping from my hand and end up somewhere behind me. I'd still say I have to roll another check (d20? d8? d10? d12?) for the dagger to end up in my own head (couldn't resist - *headshot*). This is basically a skewed analogy of what is happening to firing into melee.