I don't get firing into melee

[0-hr]

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?

But if my buddy the Paladin is fighting that orc, then I get a -4 to hit because I'm worried about hitting him?

What if I secretly hate the Paladin? What if he has DR10 and I'm throwing shurikens? Are there any official rules that present an option for when you really AREN'T worried about hitting your ally?

I know about the Precise Shot feat, and I understand soft cover (and even vaugely remember the optional rules for striking cover). That's not what I'm talking about here.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Good question. I do not think that the authors of the rules anticipated many true muti-party melee where there was the possibility of more than 2 sides in the fight.

As for not caring if you hit your ally or not, I cannot recall if it is spelled out in the rules, but I think that the general rule is that if your shot misses due to a targets cover bonus (ie, your target has AC 15, 19 with cover, and you roll a 17, than the shot hits the cover instead).

I would say that if you just do not care which you hit and lack the Precise shot feat, that you have a 1 in 5 / 20% chance (based on the -4 penalty on a d20 roll) of your attack hitting the wrong target. Roll this at the same time as the attack roll to see which target it might hit. If the desired target is larger or smaller than the target it is engaged in melee with, adjust the chance accordingly.

Keep in mind that if you have an ally directly in your line of sight to your target, and that target is engaged in melee, your target gets both the 4 point AC bonus for cover, and the benefit of your -4 penalty to hit for firing into melee. Refer to 'Cover against Ranged Attacks', page 151, the comment in the photo example.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Laman Stahros]

In my current campaign, one player has a habit of refusing the -4 to hit because he "doesn't care who he hits". He has yet to miss though. When he does, I will require him to make an attack roll against his friends. We'll see.

 

[Particle_Man]

I would say if you ignore the -4 to hit penalty, then roll randomly to see which opponent might be hit, then make an attack roll vs. that opponent's AC (the two die rolls (well three if you include damage) could all be made at the same time). If you feel ambitious, the size of the various opponents could affect how likely they are to be targets on the initial random roll to see which opponent gets hit.

So in the goblin vs. orc case, orc is medium sized, goblin is small sized, so roll a d6: 1-2 goblin is the target; 3-6 orc is the target. Then roll to hit and damage vs. that target as normal.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I'd use the rules for firing into a grapple in the situation where someone ignores the -4 penalty to hit. In other words, there's an equal chance of targeting each person(including the target itself) within 10 feet of the intended target.

We house rule that larger creatures have an accordingly greater chance of being hit.

 

[KarinsDad]

This question came up in yesterday's game. In our current campaign, we did not include our old house rule for this, but we are considering re-adding it now.

The house rules we used were:

1) If one rolls within the soft cover range, then re-roll the attack against the soft cover target. Example: target has AC of 18 and a creature between him and attacker, so on a total of 18 through 21, the attack has a chance to hit the covering creature instead (but requires a re-roll of the attack roll).

2) If one decides to "aim carelessly" (i.e. ignore the -4 penalty for firing into melee), then on a 1 to 4 on the D20 die (i.e. a really bad shot against the actual target), re-roll randomly against another target in the same general line of fire.

3) Ignore the rule about it being -4 if allies are fighting (as per the OPs question). It is -4 for aiming carefully in all cases unless one wants to use rule #2 here for aiming carelessly.

Worse case scenario is firing into melee and having soft cover where effectively, there is a 40% chance to target an unintended target.


Some people have a problem with the attacker getting his full attack bonus against an ally with these house rules, but I consider this a "risky situation" which can result in really bad things (like doing a critical against an ally). The character firing into melee or firing through soft cover is purposely making that decision and has to face the consequences of potentially damaging or killing an ally by mistake. IMO.


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

 

[UltimaGabe]

The -4 to shooting into Melee isn't, in my opinion, because you're worried about who you're going to hit. That's just dumb, and leads to questions like the OP ("what if I want to ignore the penalty?"). Here's how I see it: When someone's not in melee, they're standing there, trying to dodge stuff, whatever. When you shoot them, you shoot them. When someone's in melee, though, they're concentrating on not getting hit by whoever they're fighting- so they're constantly jumping back and forth, dodging, parrying, and so on, and so they're more of a moving target than if they weren't in melee. Therefore, they're harder to hit.

 

[0-hr]

In my current campaign, one player has a habit of refusing the -4 to hit because he "doesn't care who he hits". He has yet to miss though. When he does, I will require him to make an attack roll against his friends. We'll see.

The problem with that is that then if the player sees two enemies fighting each other, all he has to do is pretend one of them is a friend. That way if he misses his true target, he should the (by your house rule above) get a free attack against the other.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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?

I think you could very easily argue that there's a chance to hit the goblin. I wouldn't do this just to keep the complexity/die rolling down, though. (I'm assuming you're deliberately aiming at the goblin, and aren't just firing an arrow "at the two of 'em".)

But if my buddy the Paladin is fighting that orc, then I get a -4 to hit because I'm worried about hitting him?

Yes.

What if I secretly hate the Paladin? What if he has DR10 and I'm throwing shurikens? Are there any official rules that present an option for when you really AREN'T worried about hitting your ally?

Yeah... you just say "I'm not taking -4 to hit". Maybe strictly by RAW that's not allowed, but then throwing a pebble into the air doesn't have rules for it either I think in such a case, you can let the rule slide, using common sense. Note that this will likely make the paladin player angry. Must not add obvious next sentence...

In my current campaign, one player has a habit of refusing the -4 to hit because he "doesn't care who he hits". He has yet to miss though. When he does, I will require him to make an attack roll against his friends. We'll see.

I had a player do that in a d20 Modern campaign. He had a sniper rifle. He was 1st-level so he didn't always hit. He accidentally shot another PC for ... a lot of damage.

 

[KarinsDad]

The -4 to shooting into Melee isn't, in my opinion, because you're worried about who you're going to hit. That's just dumb, and leads to questions like the OP ("what if I want to ignore the penalty?"). Here's how I see it: When someone's not in melee, they're standing there, trying to dodge stuff, whatever. When you shoot them, you shoot them. When someone's in melee, though, they're concentrating on not getting hit by whoever they're fighting- so they're constantly jumping back and forth, dodging, parrying, and so on, and so they're more of a moving target than if they weren't in melee. Therefore, they're harder to hit.

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?