Hitting invisible creatures with ranged weapons

[KrazyHades]

Would you let a PC have a chance of hitting an invisible guy if the path of their ranged attack passed through his square?

For example, if
I=invisible monster
---=path of arrow
C=character
X=targeted sqaure


C----I---X


Would you let the attack hit? Maybe have a -2 penalty to hit for each square it was away from the targeted square?

Oh mighty collective enworld mind, heed the pleading of thy supplicant and answer.

 

[mvincent]

Would you let a PC have a chance of hitting an invisible guy if the path of their ranged attack passed through his square?

I would give it a 50/50 chance of being stopped by the invisible guy that was in the way (and thus rolling the attack on him instead).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Would you let a PC have a chance of hitting an invisible guy if the path of their ranged attack passed through his square?

In 3E? Yes (due to the 'Striking the cover instead of a missed target' rule).
In 3.5? No (unless you're using the 'Striking the cover instead of a missed target' optional variant rule).

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

In 3E? Yes (due to the 'Striking the cover instead of a missed target' rule).
In 3.5? No

I believe 3.5's no-hitting cover reflects that you are normally aiming around the cover (i.e. being more precise) in order to hit the target. However, accidentally shooting through something that you didn't realize is there isn't actually covered by the rules, leaving it to DM fiat. In my case here, I'm handling it kinda/sorta like shooting into a grapple.

Another example: You are shooting down a 10' wide hallway at someone on the opposite side of an invisible gelatinous cube. I know what my ruling would be, but I'm always interested in hearing other's.

 

[KrazyHades]

I believe 3.5's no-hitting cover reflects that you are normally aiming around the cover (i.e. being more precise) in order to hit the target. However, accidentally shooting through something that you didn't realize is there isn't actually covered by the rules, leaving it to DM fiat. In my case here, I'm handling it kinda/sorta like shooting into a grapple.

Another example: You are shooting down a 10' wide hallway at someone on the opposite side of an invisible gelatinous cube. I know what my ruling would be, but I'm always interested in hearing other's.

But the thing about gelatinous cubes is that they take up almost all of that space. So would one have to rule this based on the size of the creature? For example, a tiny invisible creature might stand almost no chance of being accidentally hit, whereas an invisible human in the path of an arrow could be in danger.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Another example: You are shooting down a 10' wide hallway at someone on the opposite side of an invisible gelatinous cube. I know what my ruling would be, but I'm always interested in hearing other's.

You miss your target, since he has full cover.

If I'm not using the Striking Cover Instead of a Missed Target optional variant rule, that's it. If I am, the attack roll then gets applied to the cube. With, amusingly, a 50% miss chance.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

If I'm not using the Striking Cover Instead of a Missed Target optional variant rule, that's it. If I am, the attack roll then gets applied to the cube. With, amusingly, a 50% miss chance.

Well, I do not use the optional variant rule, yet I would still adjudicate otherwise. Since I am a staunch follower of the rules (and believe in posting any house-rules so my players know them ahead of time)... do you believe I am ruling incorrectly?

Isn't adjudicating unusual circumstances (that are outside the normal rules) an implicit part of DM'ing? Isn't this circumstance outside the normal rules?

 

[mvincent]

But the thing about gelatinous cubes is that they take up almost all of that space. So would one have to rule this based on the size of the creature? For example, a tiny invisible creature might stand almost no chance of being accidentally hit, whereas an invisible human in the path of an arrow could be in danger.

imho: yup (well, the tiny critter theoretically also has less chance to be hit due size bonus to AC, but...)

Similarly: if a large critter is grappling a tiny critter, a DM could adjudicate a higher chance to hit the large critter when firing into the grapple... and this technically isn't even altering the rules (i.e. "Roll randomly to see which grappling combatant you strike.").

Also (if desired), the RotG provides some additional rules for altering the % miss chance when targeting invisible foes (based on size, etc.), which could be adaptable here (not that I would slow down a game to use this, but it can give me a good idea if I desired to adjudicate this).

This scenario is actually very similar to shooting at someone that has cover from someone that you don't mind hitting (like another foe). If you are not particularly concerned about hitting the cover, I would simply have you attack with no cover modifier, but roll randomly to determine the target. This method seems to have support both here and on other boards.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well, I do not use the optional variant rule, yet I would still adjudicate otherwise. Since I am a staunch follower of the rules (and believe in posting any of my house-rules on my campaign website)... do you believe I am ruling incorrectly?

I think that in order to strike an invisible creature, you have to select the correct square, beat the miss chance, and beat the AC.

You're replacing "select the correct square" with "50% chance if the square is anywhere on the path from you to the square you selected", so I believe that your ruling should be posted on your campaign website.

This scenario is actually very similar to shooting at someone that has cover from someone that you don't mind hitting (like another foe). If you are not particularly concerned about hitting the cover, I would simply have you attack with no cover modifier, but roll randomly to determine the target.

I'd expect to see that posted on your campaign website as well, if you're trying to be complete.

-Hyp.

 

[Deset Gled]

I believe 3.5's no-hitting cover reflects that you are normally aiming around the cover (i.e. being more precise) in order to hit the target.

I was under the impression that 3.5's no hitting cover rules was changed from 3.0 to reflect the fact that trying to determine exactly where an arrow landed in 3.0 due to cover caused play to grind to a halt when an archer fired a full attack (with rapid shot, etc) into a melee where some players were granting others cover.

I would also note that there is a 50/50 miss chance when you are actively trying to hit an invisible target, so giving that same miss chance when you're not trying seems a little harsh on the invisible guy to me.