D&D 5E Firing Into A Melee

[MJS]

You might think so, but it's notable that this is actually one area where it doesn't apply. Cover to creatures increases their Armour Class. (Other creatures typically provide a +2 AC).

Looking back through the public playtest documents, it seems that this has been the case for a very long time. I thought cover was handled by disadvantage at one point, but I may be mistaken.

Cheers!

I imagine , since missiles in melee is so common, and central to most non-frontline characters, it might be tedious rolling disadvantage that much. I'm all for streamlining the advantage mechanic frequency, so this simple AC adjustment is fine by me. It also probably stacks (or works in concert as a minus to hit) with other factors such as fog, heavy winds, and the like.
It also maintains an at-range penalty when, for instance firing at a blurred target, which will induce disadvantage in addition to the AC adjustment.


cheers to you as well,
Michael

 

[jadrax]

I tend to remember cover by equating it to having a shield. +2 in both cases.

 

[questing gm]

My group is in the heat of this discussion as well.

I ruled that a universal 1/2 cover (+2 AC) bonus should be applied to all characters and monsters engaged in melee regardless of the LOS or positioning of the firing character/monster (which by the the graph in OP, it doesn't matter where the archer is standing), but a player of mine challenged that (not that I don't want my players to do so).

By the book, there seems to be no clear rule mentioning the mechanics involved for firing into combat (there was no mention under the Ranged Attack section at least, unless I missed it in another section). But under the Cover rules (page 74) for 1/2 cover, it says:

A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.

So while it is in the book that creatures do provide 1/2 cover, I think it's fair to say that that should be taken into consideration in melee combat. I think the undermining question, however, is if creatures are a constantly moving cover in engaged melee, or the melee combatants are static and standing in place, allowing the firing character to move around for a clearer shot.

That might depend if you want to reward tactical movement in combat (and most likely requiring some form of visual aid for keeping track of every character's place) or you want to keep combat fast and furious (with player's agreement to comply with your ruling, of course).

Until there's an official ruling on this, I believe each DM will treat this situation differently on every table.

EDIT: Adding in some further thoughts.

 

[Tzarevitch]

I wouldn't bother with firing into melee rules at all. The logic that an archer has difficulty firing at a target on the far side of a chaotic melee doesn't make any sense when you can plant a fireball precisely and hit that same target with zero chance of hitting allies. It unnecessarily penalizes the archer.

 

[Murkmoldiev]

I think its hilarious when the players shoot each other as they are usually only firing into combat due to desperation. In PF I had the - 4 to hit rule and if you miss you have to roll to hit your buddy ( his armor may still save him ) .

In 5th ed Im going to do the +2 AC for cover thing WITH disadvantage and if you miss you have to roll to hit your buddy. Unless you are a super tweaked archer type.

I feel that the Firing into Combat , is right up there with Splitting the Party , and Not searching for Traps, in levels of foolishness and needs to be handled as such. - With an appropriate level of DM fiendishness as they used to say.

 

[drjones]

I would count that as both have cover. The reason for this is that a benefit of Basic is not keeping really exact track of positions. If I reward super precise tactical play and using minis and carefully thinking out each square moved I have signed up for significantly longer combats and individuals waiting longer for their turn.

I plan on running some big fights on a map with minis but I will keep the rules the same just to try to keep the pace up.

 

[Juriel]

Rules say a creature can act as cover, but then you have to consider exact positioning and lines of fire, which requires minis.

It's easier to decide based on what you want to encourage happening in actual gameplay:

NO PENALTY - ranged characters have an easier time, but this also applies to enemy archers, who there may be multiples of. It can lead to a more skirmishing nature for games, as sometimes even mainly melee PCs will want to keep their distance while someone else tanks/distracts an opponent.

PENALTY - a universal +2 cover penalty for firing into any melee from any direction, makes melee people's life a lot easier once they have closed in on someone (if facing enemies with ranged attacks, as is often the case). Encourages ranged PCs to drop people at the periphery, rather than contributing to the alpha strike at one target.

 

[Psikerlord#]

My group is in the heat of this discussion as well.

I ruled that a universal 1/2 cover (+2 AC) bonus should be applied to all characters and monsters engaged in melee regardless of the LOS or positioning of the firing character/monster (which by the the graph in OP, it doesn't matter where the archer is standing), but a player of mine challenged that (not that I don't want my players to do so).

By the book, there seems to be no clear rule mentioning the mechanics involved for firing into combat (there was no mention under the Ranged Attack section at least, unless I missed it in another section). But under the Cover rules (page 74) for 1/2 cover, it says:


So while it is in the book that creatures do provide 1/2 cover, I think it's fair to say that that should be taken into consideration in melee combat. I think the undermining question, however, is if creatures are a constantly moving cover in engaged melee, or the melee combatants are static and standing in place, allowing the firing character to move around for a clearer shot.

That might depend if you want to reward tactical movement in combat (and most likely requiring some form of visual aid for keeping track of every character's place) or you want to keep combat fast and furious (with player's agreement to comply with your ruling, of course).

Until there's an official ruling on this, I believe each DM will treat this situation differently on every table.

EDIT: Adding in some further thoughts.

I agree. This works well with TotM but not so well with grids. Happily I wont be using grids.

 

[Gargoyle]

Rules say a creature can act as cover, but then you have to consider exact positioning and lines of fire, which requires minis.

Except that it doesn't. The DM can determine this in theater of the mind play. Minis help reduce confusion and misunderstandings, but you don't need them.

It's easier to decide based on what you want to encourage happening in actual gameplay:

NO PENALTY - ranged characters have an easier time, but this also applies to enemy archers, who there may be multiples of. It can lead to a more skirmishing nature for games, as sometimes even mainly melee PCs will want to keep their distance while someone else tanks/distracts an opponent.

PENALTY - a universal +2 cover penalty for firing into any melee from any direction, makes melee people's life a lot easier once they have closed in on someone (if facing enemies with ranged attacks, as is often the case). Encourages ranged PCs to drop people at the periphery, rather than contributing to the alpha strike at one target.

I like this way of thinking about it.

 

[AstroCat]

We use minis when we play so we go with the diagram as is, which I think is how the rules are written. If the enemy has LOS cover from allies or enemies it's +2AC (-2 to hit), if not then it doesn't, just like the diagram. Doesn't seem to slow things down and works for us.

BR74:

A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.