Firing into a melee

[velm]

Maybe there has already been a thread like this, but what are the effects of shooting an arrow into a melee? I am away from my books over here, and am rather curious as to see the 'official' statement, and what some other people have to say.
Such as, If 'A' is shooting at 'C' and 'B' is in the way:
C
B



A

I read where it gives 'c' cover to a degree, that makes sense, but 'B' should have a chance to get hit.

 

[dvvega]

You are correct, B does have a chance to get hit ... that chance is worked out as follows:

A is -4 to hit for firing into a melee involving a friendly (no precise shot) or has no penalty for this.

A is -4 to hit since B (assumed to be Medium) is providing cover for C

If A misses C, but only by 1 to 4 points he has hit the cover (in this case B). If the attack roll would normally hit B then B has been hit and taking damage.

 

[velm]

AAAAH, ok, thank you for that. I knew it was something along those lines but could not remember.

 

[scholz]

Of course it is slightly more complicated.

If that attack (on the cover) would not land a ranged touch attack on B (in otherwords, B has a decent dex or dodge bonus) then the attack doesn't hit B (the cover) and in fact hits C.

 

[Laurel]

This is why one should take precise shot to negate the -4. Then greater precise shot which negates anything but total cover, this includes character's involved in a grapple.

 

[ARandomGod]

Maybe there has already been a thread like this, but what are the effects of shooting an arrow into a melee? I am away from my books over here, and am rather curious as to see the 'official' statement, and what some other people have to say.
Such as, If 'A' is shooting at 'C' and 'B' is in the way:
C
B



A

I read where it gives 'c' cover to a degree, that makes sense, but 'B' should have a chance to get hit.

Rules Lawyer note:
(Meantioned for hilarity purposes only)

You only take a -4 penalty for firing into melee when the melee involves one of your allies, as it represents you trying not to hit a friend. If they're just combatants, fire away! No penalty, AND you're still garunteed to only hit the one you wanted to hit, for simplicity sake. This is the way the Rule is Written. Now, if you're chaotic, or perhaps just neutral, there's nothing saying that those guys you were traveling with have to be your allies anymore. You can stand back 90 feet, think "I renounce these loosers, they're now my enemy too!" Now you have a clear shot at whoever you feel should die. And all without wasting a feat!

 

[dvvega]

Of course it is slightly more complicated.

If that attack (on the cover) would not land a ranged touch attack on B (in otherwords, B has a decent dex or dodge bonus) then the attack doesn't hit B (the cover) and in fact hits C.

This statement is confusing more than it helps. You cannot hit C, your attack roll was not high enough. You don't suddenly hit C because you missed B on a touch attack.

You can stand back 90 feet, think "I renounce these loosers, they're now my enemy too!" Now you have a clear shot at whoever you feel should die. And all without wasting a feat!

I'm not even going to comment on this ... it doesn't help the question in the first place.

 

[ARandomGod]

This statement is confusing more than it helps. You cannot hit C, your attack roll was not high enough. You don't suddenly hit C because you missed B on a touch attack.

BUT, if you miss because of cover, but the covering person has enough dex to move out of the way, then you did not miss because of cover, and so the cover does not count. If you would then have hit ignoring the cover, you would hit.

I'm not even going to comment on this ... it doesn't help the question in the first place.

I'm not sure it was supposed to. The original had already been discussed what I thought was pretty thoroughly. On the other hand, it DOES meantion a totally absurd way to get around the fireing into melee aspect. Although you should only try it in an arguement to prove that Rules As Written are stupid.

 

[scholz]

BUT, if you miss because of cover, but the covering person has enough dex to move out of the way, then you did not miss because of cover, and so the cover does not count. If you would then have hit ignoring the cover, you would hit.

That is basically what I meant. I interpret the dex issue to mean any AC bonus that actually involves the attack failing to touch the target (rather than being stopped by a barrier, armor, shield, or deflected).

For simplicity's sake I often just rule that cover is cover, end of story. But if you do that you might want to rule that the cover provided by an interposing body is reall concealment. That would avoid the issue entirely. You would never hit someone because they provided cover.

That might make more sense for the high dex person providing cover, since it would still be hard to target on the other side of a high dex peson, but it would be unlikley to hit that person (the cover)

Does anyone know where this example is discussed in the RAW of FAQs?

 

[velm]

Thanks for the clarification on that for firing into a melee. I would have to call it more of cover vice concealment, however. As concealment would imply something like a bush or something where that person was hidden and could still be hurt.
I just find it interesting on how if it is a large battle with adrenaline flowing, dust, dirt flying, bodies in motion, the archer can take a penalty, and most likely score a hit. I just think it is kinda odd, maybe something reserved for an 'epic' game setting. I would think the chances for scoring a hit would be a bit more severe than what they are, after all, that 'cover' could move infront of the target at any moments notice.