Firing into Melee

[Joker]

Your thinking of "Precise Shot" (Feat p.84 PHB)

You and your details .

 

[melkoriii]

The rogue would suffer the -4 penalty unless he had the Precise Shot feat.

He would have hit the fighter if

a) the fighter was providing some degree of cover to the troll, i.e. was standing at least partly in the rogue's line of fire to the troll; AND

b) the rogue's attack roll was too low to hit the troll with its "fighter-cover" bonus to AC, but would have been high enough to hit the troll if the fighter had not provided cover; AND

c) the attack roll was high enough to beat the fighter's AC.

The rules are on p. 133 of the PHB (under "Striking the Cover Instead of a Missed Target").

Interesting.

So a Fighter with AC of 20 is giving 1/2 cover (directly in the line of fire) to a Foe with AC 16 can not be hit my his allies as his AC is the same as his foe's and so the foe would be hit.

Foe AC 16 +4(cover) =AC 20
Ally Fighter AC 20

Fireing Ally attack roll =19 would miss both.
Fireing ally attack roll =20 would hit the foe.

 

[Vaxalon]

IMC we roll again to hit the character providing cover.

This happened recently; a PC used a "Produce Flame" spell to shoot at a hill giant that was in combat with the two party rangers. He missed by one, and hit one of the rangers in the back. She was not amused.

 

[creepy]

I play in KarinsDad's campaign. He has a house rule that if you do not have precise shot you can 'fire carelessly' into melee. This means that instead of the -4 penalty you have a chance to hit others. If your attack roll is a 1-4 the arrow doesn't hit the original target but has a chance to hit a random target. A second attack roll is made vs this target.
Several characters have been hit in this manner.

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

Cover?

Ok, because of this thread, I started re-reading the PHB section on characters providing cover.

This is what I found on PHB 133 (Striking the Cover...)

If the attack roll falls within a range low enough to miss the target with cover but high enough to strike the taget if there had been no cover, the object used for cover was struck...

If the covering creature has a Dexterity bonus to AC or a dodge bonus, and this bonus keeps the covering creature from being hit, then the original target is hit instead.

This has lead me to a bunch of questions that I'm not sure about:
1) Does this mean that an 18 Dex fighter doesn't offer any effective missle cover?

2) The text mentions dodge bonuses to AC. Do you use the dodge bonuses that the covering character applies against the covered opponent, or against the firing ally?

3) Were the original authors smoking crack when they wrote this? I do believe that this is some of the most confused language I have found in the PHB.

 

[SableWyvern]

Re: Cover?

Ok, because of this thread, I started re-reading the PHB section on characters providing cover.

This is what I found on PHB 133 (Striking the Cover...)


This has lead me to a bunch of questions that I'm not sure about:
1) Does this mean that an 18 Dex fighter doesn't offer any effective missle cover?

2) The text mentions dodge bonuses to AC. Do you use the dodge bonuses that the covering character applies against the covered opponent, or against the firing ally?

3) Were the original authors smoking crack when they wrote this? I do believe that this is some of the most confused language I have found in the PHB.

I'll do my best to try and explain what should happen. ("Target" refers to the firer's intended target. "Ally" refers to an ally providing cover for your target. Target's AC includes +4 cover.)

A. Attack roll exceeds target's AC: target is hit.

B. Total attack roll is 5 or more points below target's AC: both parties missed.

C. Total attack roll is 1 to 4 points below target's AC AND exceeds ally's AC: ally is hit.

D. Total attack roll is 1 to 4 points below target's AC AND equals ally's flat-footed AC BUT is less than ally's total AC: target is hit.

E. Total attack roll is 1 to 4 points below target's AC AND below ally's flat-footed AC: both parties missed.

That probably looks a _little_ more complicated than it actually is. I think it is a correct interpretation of the rules as written.

So:
1 - No
2 - I would assume only dodge bonuses relating to the firer.
3 - Yes

 

[Darklone]

I play in KarinsDad's campaign. He has a house rule that if you do not have precise shot you can 'fire carelessly' into melee. This means that instead of the -4 penalty you have a chance to hit others. If your attack roll is a 1-4 the arrow doesn't hit the original target but has a chance to hit a random target. A second attack roll is made vs this target.
Several characters have been hit in this manner.

This is indeed a houserule. Usually if you fire into melee and you don't take the -4 penalty or don't have Precise Shot, you hit everyone with equal chances.

Means: your fighter friend is in melee with an orc without giving cover to him. You just shoot into melee at no penalty. So you hit your chap 50% of the time. This tactic could be worth it if he has protection from arrows or a very high AC and you wouldn't hit the enemy otherwise.

(I houserule here for different sizes a bit... large versus medium would be 60% hits the large one, 40% hit the medium one)

 

[hong]

This is indeed a houserule. Usually if you fire into melee and you don't take the -4 penalty or don't have Precise Shot, you hit everyone with equal chances.

AFAIK this is a house rule too. You don't have the option of disregarding the -4 penalty if you don't have Precise Shot.

 

[Darklone]

AFAIK this is a house rule too. You don't have the option of disregarding the -4 penalty if you don't have Precise Shot.

Nah, I recall something in the PHB about firing into melee, I am quite sure you can ignore that -4 penalty but endanger everyone in the melee... Sorry don't have no book here but I am rather sure about it.

Now where was that darn SRD adress? Can someone tell me?

 

[Umbran]

Nah, I recall something in the PHB about firing into melee, I am quite sure you can ignore that -4 penalty but endanger everyone in the melee... Sorry don't have no book here but I am rather sure about it.

Well, sure or not, you are incorrect. The PHB has no such provision. Whether or not is should have one has been the subject of much debate on these boards, but is a different issue.