I don't get firing into melee

[Hypersmurf]

PS. I could not find the accidentally hitting the cover rules in 3.5, only in 3E. Were they removed in 3.5?

It was a rule in 3E, and found in the PHB. It's an optional variant rule in 3.5, and found in the DMG.

-Hyp.

 

[TheGogmagog]

I agree with UltimaGabe. The -4 for firing into melee isn't because of not wanting to hit allies, it's because the person involved with melee will be reacting irregularly because of said melee.

If a goblin and an orc (whom I both hate) are fighting in melee and I shoot at the orc, there is no penalty, no chance to hit the goblin or anything right?

No, I don't think this is right. In this case if both the goblin and orc are in melee (with each other or with your paladin) you still suffer the -4 for firing into melee.

Also, the optional miss chance rules revolve around the -4 penalty for cover, not for the penalty for firing into melee. Again this has nothing to do with voluntary/subjective 'I don't want to hit the cover' thinking.

 

[TheGogmagog]

This is even more dumb.

If they are attempting to dodge an attacker in melee, they are jumping around MORE than if they are merely attempting to dodge an attacker with a ranged attack???

Why wouldn't everyone just jump around as if in melee when faced with an opponent with a bow so that the attacker would get the -4 to hit every time?

COC aside, you can't choose to act like you are in melee any more than you can choose to act like your target is not in melee. I don't see anything dumb about it.

 

[wedgeski]

This is even more dumb. If they are attempting to dodge an attacker in melee, they are jumping around MORE than if they are merely attempting to dodge an attacker with a ranged attack???

Shields and weapons throwing up random cover, the clash of swords, sparks flying off armour, dirt kicked up from the floor... call it whatever you want. That rule has always seemed logical to us.

 

[KarinsDad]

Shields and weapons throwing up random cover, the clash of swords, sparks flying off armour, dirt kicked up from the floor... call it whatever you want. That rule has always seemed logical to us.

Except that what you, TheGogmagog, and UltimateGabe are claiming disagrees with what is explicitly written in the PHB.

The -4 is only if your target is in melee with a friendly character, not if your target is in melee with anyone else.

In fact, the PHB page 140 states the reason for it:

If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll because you have to aim carefully to avoid your friend.

Your alternative reason is just fine for your game, but it is not what is written in the PHB.

 

[Henry]

Except that what you, TheGogmagog, and UltimateGabe are claiming disagrees with what is explicitly written in the PHB.

The -4 is only if your target is in melee with a friendly character, not if your target is in melee with anyone else.

In fact, the PHB page 140 states the reason for it:



Your alternative reason is just fine for your game, but it is not what is written in the PHB.

Not that this is a resolution for anyone else, but I put it down to the same rules as "muscular action closes the hole." One of those things to make the game run smoother, not necessarily to simulate reality. I have played in the past with rules like, "you can ignore it, but you have a 50/50 chance to hit your ally" and such, but it always bogged down combat to the point where we just went back to the default rule.

 

[wedgeski]

Your alternative reason is just fine for your game, but it is not what is written in the PHB.

You're right. I retract my comment in favour of "'Cos it keeps things simple.'"

 

[UltimaGabe]

Except that what you, TheGogmagog, and UltimateGabe are claiming disagrees with what is explicitly written in the PHB.

The -4 is only if your target is in melee with a friendly character, not if your target is in melee with anyone else.

Your alternative reason is just fine for your game, but it is not what is written in the PHB.

I'm aware of that. The original flavor is dumb, as has been pointed out, and so I flavor it differently. I also cause the -4 to apply even when two enemies are attacking each other. It gets past the silly questions like "Well, what if I don't care who I hit?"

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm aware of that. The original flavor is dumb, as has been pointed out, and so I flavor it differently. I also cause the -4 to apply even when two enemies are attacking each other. It gets past the silly questions like "Well, what if I don't care who I hit?"

It's not dumb. It's the designers rational for why they put that rule in the game. No different than the designers rational for a cover bonus. The problem with what the designers did is that they did not put in a rule for what happens if one does not want to be careful around allies. That doesn't make that rule dumb. It makes that rule incomplete.


Your "house rule" is fine. It removes the incompleteness. It doesn't make it "less dumb". You seem to bandy that word around quite a bit, but it is not the right word.

 

[ThePublic]

The -4 in our game has been replaced by the rule "If you miss, but are within 6 of hitting the target, you are hitting the PC that is currently engaging the target" which has worked well.

If you know that you buddy can take the lovin' and don't care what they think if they take that sneak attack arrow to the back of the noggin they fire away! If you think that you are a superpimp and can will your shot into the right spot every time, they step up and try, the only thing you do by wacking another PC is weaken yourself and the supplies of your party.

Worked for us, maybe it'll work for you