D&D 3E/3.5 Do allies block ranged attacks in 3.5?

[Vegepygmy]

In a non combat situation, no, the person on your side would not provide cover, so your shot would be without penalty.

Your statement baffles me. How can it be a noncombat situation if you're shooting? Are you talking about target practice or something? And if so, where do the rules say that cover doesn't apply outside of combat?

 

[Forged Fury]

Firing through allies...

As I read it, the -4 penalty for shooting into melee "stacks" with the +4 AC bonus for the one behind the cover. The first is a penalty to the attacker, the second a bonus for the opponent. The first does not implicitly cancel out the other, as suggested earlier (as I read it) and the first is not even a cover bonus.

The effective modifier of +8 AC (or penalty of 8) that you played with seems within the rules.

I agree with this.

Two combat situations: A is an archer, B is his meatshield companion, X is a bag of XP having taken monster form.

Situation1

X
B


A

Assuming A is firing at X, X would have a +4 AC bonus because of the soft cover provided by B. A would have a -4 to hit due to B being in melee combat with X. This assumes no feats to overcome those circumstances.

Situation2

B
X


A

Assuming A is firing at X, the only modifier would be the -4 for firing into melee. Because B is not providing cover in this situation, X receives no AC bonus.

That's how I've always played it. Nothing in the cover rules seem to indicate they're eliminated simply because of the firing into melee rules. I have noticed that PbP play largely seems to ignore it.

Edit: Also see the Soft Cover rules. While the reading explains how your enemies may provide you with cover from incoming ranged attacks, I wouldn't find it unreasonable to rule this benefit would also apply to enemies you are fighting.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The effective modifier of +8 AC (or penalty of 8) that you played with seems within the rules.

But it's not. That -8 is NOT icluding the -4 for firing into melee, presumably. OP said the DM assigned that penalty from cover alone.

 

[Forged Fury]

But it's not. That -8 is NOT icluding the -4 for firing into melee, presumably. OP said the DM assigned that penalty from cover alone.

Right. If the DM knew what they were doing, total modifiers would be +4 AC to the opponent due to the soft cover being provided by the archer's ally and a -4 to the archer's attack due to firing into melee (resulting in an effective -8 to the archer's attack roll). As long as the DM wasn't then assigning an additional -4 to the attack from firing into melee, the penalties would ultimately be equivalent.

To the OP: The only rule in 3.5 that I can think of that is similar to what you are thinking is that an ally doesn't block your movement (although I believe they do prevent you charging through their square). Your DM is actually somewhat correct, allies do provide your opponents with soft cover from your ranged attacks if they are between you and your opponent, based on the criteria of soft cover. This even applies to reach weapons, per the cover rules. IIRC, the Precise Swing feat in the Eberron Campaign Setting eliminates that penalty for reach weapons.

 

[Gwarthkam]

But it's not. That -8 is NOT icluding the -4 for firing into melee, presumably. OP said the DM assigned that penalty from cover alone.

But the OPs original question was if allies can provide cover for opponents, which is clearly the case.

As for the amount of cover, the ruling in this situation might be harsh. It could be argued however, that several lines of allies is a situation that is most resonably dealt with using the rules for 'varying degrees of cover' which could grant 'improved cover' up to +8 AC. This is a DM call, not breaking the rules or using house rules.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

But the OPs original question was if allies can provide cover for opponents, which is clearly the case.

As for the amount of cover, the ruling in this situation might be harsh. It could be argued however, that several lines of allies is a situation that is most resonably dealt with using the rules for 'varying degrees of cover' which could grant 'improved cover' up to +8 AC. This is a DM call, not breaking the rules or using house rules.

Granted, just as it's a player call to realize, "Holy crap, this crazy bastard thinks I'm somehow going to function with all those penalties, I'm making a freaking Wizard, no one ever nerfs what they can do out of a sense of 'realism' or whatever."

 

[Gwarthkam]

Granted, just as it's a player call to realize, "Holy crap, this crazy bastard thinks I'm somehow going to function with all those penalties, I'm making a freaking Wizard, no one ever nerfs what they can do out of a sense of 'realism' or whatever."

indeed! I've been using point blank shot, precise shot and coordinated shot with my ray using sorcerer for years, because +8 AC is the most common situation (without precise shot and coordinated shot), which even with touch AC is problematic once in a while. I still remember the akward silence when it dawned for us that allies provided cover.

 

[Dandu]

And that is why we should use Magic Missile.

(Especially when we tag it with Violate Spell, Fell Weaken Spell, and Fell Drain Spell).

 

[TanisFrey]

Don't forget your 5-foot adjustment or move action, if used before your bow shot, it could eliminate the cover by letting you shoot from an angle that does not pass through your allies. The rules let you adjust or move before attacking.