Hitting friends in meelee with missle weapons

[irdeggman]

Back to the original question.

Is there a way to mitigate/eliminate the damage a fellow PC takes from an ally's missile fire into melee.

Timeron Malachi probably got it right with the easiest method - simply have the archer step to the side. He doesn't really have to get to the other side since in order to provide cover the "line rule" applies (see the figure notes on pg 151 of the 3.5 PHB. Pretty much if you can't draw a line from square where archer is firing from through the ally then no cover and all of this is mote. No need to even get into the details of the optional striking cover rules if no cover is being applied in the first place.

 

[ZuulMoG]

This came up in our group. The party tanks, a human paladin and a human fighter, were constantly being pelted from behind, sometimes severely, by their supposed allies.

The paladin solved the problem rather elegantly. In front of the party he swore an oath to his god that he would absolutely slay the next being that struck him from behind with a projectile, if he had to hunt them to ends of the earth.

The party thief died two encounters later from suspiciously longsword-looking wounds. By sheerest coincidence, the paladin favored the longsword. Several other characters deviated their feat-paths to include Point-Blank and Precise Shot.

Problem solved. (And no, the paladin didn't fall from grace, GM ruled that ample warning was provided.)

 

[Endur]

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.

I sometimes apply this, but it gets confusing, so I don't always remember to do it this way.

 

[Parlan]

Another approach would be to say:

If you dont have PBS and Precise Shot, the varient rule applies.

If you DO have those feats, then misses will NOT have a chance to hit foes.

This discourages untrained people from firing into melee willy-nilly, but also means that if people are highly trained with a bow (and are presumably firing into melee all the time) you don't have the complexity of figuring out whether an ally was hit, etc.

 

[BadMojo]

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.

I do think it is much easier to use this rule than to actually explain it in writing. I don't know if the wording changed in the 3.5E variant, but originally I had a hard time understanding the rule until I read the first Dragonstar core book. The rule as written in Dragonstar was much easier to understand while still being the same thing.

Anyway, I do really like the rule since it makes shooting in to melee a much bigger deal. The archers tend to think twice when they know they can hit a fellow party member and if they do, well, it makes for interesting roleplaying.

 

[Particle_Man]

The archers tend to think twice when they know they can hit a fellow party member

I wish that were true in my campaign. Right now it is "if you hit cover, it is auto-hit your pal" and the archer just doesn't care.

 

[irdeggman]

I wish that were true in my campaign. Right now it is "if you hit cover, it is auto-hit your pal" and the archer just doesn't care.

It still seems to me that the best plan is for the archer to take a move to get out of line of effect with his ally and then start to shoot. For one the ally no longer provides cover thus it is an easier shot, two - since the ally is no longer providing cover he can't accidentally get hit. Again the picture in the DMG explains the line of effect issue (not in the text) so it doesn't conflict it only enhances the text.

I know a rogue can't sneakattack a creature with concealment - how about cover? An AoO can't be taken against a creature with cover. Could be another plus in the favor column for moving and then shooting.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

So let me get this on element straight - if the person providing cover has a higher AC than who he's providing cover to (+4 in the case of no precise shot), he'll never be hit in combat - becase it has to miss the target to have a chance to hit the character providing cover. Right?

In my own case, I've added a fumble system to combat, and one of the options in the fumbles result is striking the wrong target if firing into combat.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So let me get this on element straight - if the person providing cover has a higher AC than who he's providing cover to (+4 in the case of no precise shot), he'll never be hit in combat - becase it has to miss the target to have a chance to hit the character providing cover. Right?

Almost correct.

I'm in melee with Bob. I have an AC of 20, and Bob has an AC of 18. I provide cover to Bob when you take a shot, so Bob's AC is 22. On your attack roll, you roll a 21. This is not enough to hit Bob+Cover, but it *is* enough to hit me (because no one is providing cover to me).

 

[Particle_Man]

It still seems to me that the best plan is for the archer to take a move to get out of line of effect with his ally and then start to shoot.

Good advice usually, but we are in an old fashioned Dungeon with fairly small rooms and a monster damn near filling one up as we open the doors. There is no room for archer or meelee guys to get in on the side.