Hitting friends in meelee with missle weapons

[Christian]

Just to make sure (I don't have my DMG on hand), the pp24 reference from the 3.5 DMG is in the variant rule section, right?

That is correct-it's a variant/optional rule in 3.5, but the rule is pretty much identical to the 3.0 version otherwise.

 

[Viashimo]

While the rules indicate that the covering creature takes the damage instead of the creature being aimed at, I think this should only be the case when the attack role that missed the enemy and hit the covering creature meets or exceeds that creatures armor class. Alternatively another attack role could be made by the archer, with the -4 modifier for attacking on a creature with cover, and if that scores a hit on the covering creature, it scores a hit. Since this really isn't in the SRD/Rules it's more a variant on a variant, but all it adds is another step, and incorporates the fact that your allies arrow doesn't automatically phase through your +1 full plate.

 

[Hypersmurf]

While the rules indicate that the covering creature takes the damage instead of the creature being aimed at, I think this should only be the case when the attack role that missed the enemy and hit the covering creature meets or exceeds that creatures armor class.

Uh, that's exactly what it says.

Read Christian's post above.

-Hyp.

 

[SidusLupus]

Shouldnt you just insist the scout take the -4 for firing into melee so that when he does miss his enemy he cant hurt you with it because he's being careful?

It'll make it hard for the scout to hit, but then it wont be a problem if he misses.

 

[RigaMortus]

Did you also account for Dexterity? If the attack misses the target but only because of the cover BUT the cover is not hit, because of his Dex, then that means the cover actually dodged out of the way, thus providing no cover bonus, and it actually DOES hit the intended target.

 

[Particle_Man]

Shouldnt you just insist the scout take the -4 for firing into melee so that when he does miss his enemy he cant hurt you with it because he's being careful?

It'll make it hard for the scout to hit, but then it wont be a problem if he misses.

That is covered by Precise Shot and is different from Cover.

re: dex bonus. So if someone has a +4 or greater dex bonus that means that they will never accidentally be hit as cover because they can dodge out of the way?

 

[irdeggman]

Did you also account for Dexterity? If the attack misses the target but only because of the cover BUT the cover is not hit, because of his Dex, then that means the cover actually dodged out of the way, thus providing no cover bonus, and it actually DOES hit the intended target.

No, because the archer ahd already missed his intended target - hence the reason for checking to see if he struck the cover in the first place. If you try to back things out and say that if he missed the cover because of Dex then the cover didn't apply to the target in the first place and the AC need to hit needs to be readjusted because of the change int he game situation. . . .my head is hurting just thinking of the magnitude of the assumption and ramifications on all previously determined attack results.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, because the archer ahd already missed his intended target - hence the reason for checking to see if he struck the cover in the first place. If you try to back things out and say that if he missed the cover because of Dex then the cover didn't apply to the target in the first place and the AC need to hit needs to be readjusted because of the change int he game situation. . . .my head is hurting just thinking of the magnitude of the assumption and ramifications on all previously determined attack results.

Actually, that's what the rules say.*

If you missed your target because of the bonus to AC from Cover, you hit the cover. However, if, when you apply your attack roll to the Cover, if you miss that due to Dexterity or Dodge bonuses, then the Cover actually managed to dodge the shot, and you hit your initial target anyway.

* - Yes, there's a reason that this rule was made into a variant in 3.5.

 

[Christian]

re: dex bonus. So if someone has a +4 or greater dex bonus that means that they will never accidentally be hit as cover because they can dodge out of the way?

It depends on the relative Armor Classes of the two characters. In general, the covering character needs to have a better AC than the intended target (prior to the cover bonus) for this to come into play.

For example, an AC 18 character (including his +4 AC bonus for Dexterity) is giving cover to an AC 20 character. With the cover bonus, the intended target has an AC of 24. On a roll of 20-23, the covering AC 18 character is hit. His Dexterity doesn't enter into the equation.

If the intended target was only AC 17, on the other hand, then his AC with cover is 21. On a roll of 18-20, the covering character is hit; but on a roll of 17, the covering character isn't hit (because that doesn't hit his AC 18), and since that would be good enough to hit him but for his Dex bonus, the shot actually hits the intended target after all. (Yes, the archer got a better result from rolling lower.)

Finally, suppose the intended target was only AC 15, and the covering character uses his Dodge feat to get a +1 Dodge bonus to AC against attacks from his archer ally. (Why? Wouldn't you, if your archer ally liked to shoot past you into melee?) Now we get a fun situation! The target has AC 19 with his cover bonus-a roll of 19 or more hits him. A roll of 15-18 would hit the covering character--but he has AC 19, so it doesn't. Furthermore, since that character has only AC 14 without his Dex and Dodge bonuses, those attacks actually do hit the 'covered' character-he doesn't get any effective cover in this situation.

And that, boys and girls, is probably why they made this an optional rule in v. 3.5 ... as Patryn so ably noted.

 

[RigaMortus]

It's strange, when you spell it out on here, I am very confused. But for some reason, when it comes up during game play, my group has no problem implementing this "optional" rule. Works for us anyway.