D&D 5E noob questions: sneak attack, firing into melee and opportunity attacks

[Croesus]

Actually since the AC of the target is increased by 2, a 'covering' character needs 2 higher base AC than the target to avoid ever being hit...I guess in this case the shot hits the covering character but bounces off armour, shield, tough hide, etc.

Rather than use the optional rule in the DMG, which requires a couple on-the-fly calculations (How much did the attack miss by? What's the cover's AC?), my group uses this simple rule: If you roll a natural "1" when firing into melee, you hit and damage the cover. It's simple, easy to remember, and very rarely happens. But when it does, someone gets really irritated at the mage or rogue who fired.

 

[sim-h]

Rather than use the optional rule in the DMG, which requires a couple on-the-fly calculations (How much did the attack miss by? What's the cover's AC?), my group uses this simple rule: If you roll a natural "1" when firing into melee, you hit and damage the cover. It's simple, easy to remember, and very rarely happens. But when it does, someone gets really irritated at the mage or rogue who fired.

I used to do that too, before I was aware of the DMG rule. I use the latter now just because it's canon (-ish).

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Hello

I thought I would bundle these questions in a single thread for efficiency.

So I used to play 3.X a fair bit and I'm still learning the 5e rules. I've been finding some rather startling differences, so much so I'm wondering if I didn't misunderstand. I'm not saying the new rules are bad (reserving judgement really) but I want to be sure I got it right.

1: Sneak attacks.

So a rogue can do a sneak attack vs an opponent on which he has advantage. Sounds good to me. But based on my reading of the rule, this isn't necessary. All I need is for my opponent to be in a melee fight with someone else - say my buddy Tordek the dwarf is fighting with an orc, all I need to do is walk up to the orc and hit it - no need for a flank etc? I can see this would results in sneak attacks being *extremely* frequent, am I wrong? I can see why they limited it to once a turn!

2: Firing into melee.

This isn't about trying to fire a bow when the angry orc is next to you. Rather, my buddy Tordek is fighting the orc but I'm not feeling very brave today, and I just want to fire an arrow at the orc instead of engaging into melee myself. In the old days, there would be a substantial penalty to this attack, basically making sure you shot just at the right moment make certain you wouldn't hit you ally. I assumed this would be a disadvantage... but I'm not seeing it in the book. Did I miss it? This matters a lot because it influences how well ranged characters can support a meleeist but also to see if sneak attacks can be applied at range.

3: Opportunity attacks
Two sub questions here.

A: can an opportunity attack be a sneak attack? What about a shove (that would make fighters a lot stickier...)? A smite?

B: In 3.X leaving a threatened square triggered an attack of opportunity. But now it's leaving's someone's *reach* Say Tordek is standing directly in front of an orc warrior, but he doesn't want to attack this orc. Rather he want so attack the orc shaman standing directly behind the orc. In 3.x if he started walking around the orc bodyguard he would take an attack of opportunity. But if it's the warrior orc's *reach*... then all he has to do is move but stay *close* to the warrior orc, staying in its reach the entire time, until the orc shaman (who remember was just behind the orc warrior) is in Tordek's reach...

1. The new sneak attack (and several monster abilities) are essentially the new flanking. The number of combatants that can take advantage of that (like rogues) is smaller, but it still allows you to be tactical to ensure that your rogue has the opportunity to use it. Just slightly different tactics.

2. I use a simple method. Firing into melee is difficult and potentially deadly. I don't have half and 3/4 cover, just partial cover which gives you disadvantage. It's simpler. All creatures in melee have partial cover. You attack with disadvantage, and if you miss, you use the higher of the die rolls to determine if you hit the other creature. This can be eliminated with the Sharpshooter feat. Yes, that means you have a better chance of hitting the person that's the cover. Which is exactly why people will grab an innocent bystander and position them in front of them to prevent somebody from firing on them.

3A. Yes to sneak attack, yes to shove (but not a shove sneak attack), yes to a smite.

3B. Yes, you just need to stay within its reach. Think of the reach as one "threatened area" and until you leave that area you don't trigger the opportunity attack.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ancalagon]

I should mention that my preference for firing into melee rule system is not a chance to hit your ally, but a penalty to hit to ensure that this doesn't occur - assuming that not hitting your ally is a high priority of course.

 

[Croesus]

I should mention that my preference for firing into melee rule system is not a chance to hit your ally, but a penalty to hit to ensure that this doesn't occur - assuming that not hitting your ally is a high priority of course.

I use both. Shooting into melee adds a +2 cover bonus to the target's AC. And if the attacker rolls a natural "1", they hit their ally providing that cover. Note: I do this whether it affects the PCs or their opponents - the players love it when the bad guys hit their own.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I should mention that my preference for firing into melee rule system is not a chance to hit your ally, but a penalty to hit to ensure that this doesn't occur - assuming that not hitting your ally is a high priority of course.

Yep if you prefer to nerf ranged PCs then just rule that fighting in melee gives targets cover. A perfectly valid ruling, and 5e is rulings as much as rules. The point is the base line rules (apart from some things like spell components) in 5e are more simple than previous editions*, basic line excepted, in many ways. If you want to add complexity/ granularity go right ahead. Much of it is offered up as optional in the DMG anyway.


* PCs certainly aren't with much more abilities than TSR versions but the rules themselves are quite simple at the core.

 

[Croesus]

Yep if you prefer to nerf ranged PCs then just rule that fighting in melee gives targets cover. A perfectly valid ruling, and 5e is rulings as much as rules. The point is the base line rules (apart from some things like spell components) in 5e are more simple than previous editions*, basic line excepted, in many ways. If you want to add complexity/ granularity go right ahead. Much of it is offered up as optional in the DMG anyway.


* PCs certainly aren't with much more abilities than TSR versions but the rules themselves are quite simple at the core.

Um, nerf? Seriously?

First off, a +2 AC to the target is minimal. I've been using this rule since the game came out and it has limited impact, IME.

Second, it's not a "ruling", it's the actual rules. See the section on cover, which was quoted earlier in this thread:

A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Well any reduction in power is a nerf, even a minus .0005%!

But the OP is asking whether, carte blanche, ranged attacks get a penalty against someone engaged in melee. IMO they don't, my ruling. For example, a halfling engaged with a Titan, does the halfling count as cover? No, and not even for a Ogre or even a Hobgoblin IMO. Either way your ruling that an a creature in melee is always blocking a target is just that, a ruling. If, for example, the enemy has the archer on one side, at a distance, and the archers ally on the other side, in melee is that ally providing cover? IF you envisage a swirling melee, it's a perfectly valid ruling to say yes or a more static fight it's perfectly valid to say no.

What I am saying is a ruling that if you're in melee, no matter what enemies count as cover, is a ruling not the actual rules IMO. But it is certainly a valid ruling if that is how you invisage your fights going. And it reduces the effectiveness of a ranged PC, thus a nerf.

 

[Croesus]

Ah, gotcha. In fact, I rule it much like you suggest - the cover only applies if it's in the line of fire and is significant enough to matter.

That said, I wouldn't argue if a GM ruled the cover rules always apply when firing into melee, given that the combat and movement rules are an abstraction. If the GM ruled firing into melee always gave disadvantage (which affects things like sneak attacks and such), I'd be more concerned.

 

[ninjayeti]

There is no specific rule on firing into melee, but the DM can use the cover rules to represent this if they deem appropriate.

I generally give targets in melee the benefit of half cover, even if the shot does not pass through an ally's space, to represent the difficulty of avoiding shooting your allies in the back. (Note that the word "melee" literally means "confusion, turmoil, jumble" - just because the figures on the battlemat are standing still does not mean that the characters they represent would be). If multiple allies are attacking a single medium target, I would give the target 3/4 cover. However, if when shooting at a particularly large target (giant, dragon, etc.) I would allow the shot without any penalty.