Ranged Attack Hitting Your Buddy

[Henry]

In 2nd edition, there was a rule that anyone in melee had an equal chance of getting hit when anyone was shooting into melee:

Firing into a Melee
Missile weapons are intended mainly as long-range weapons. Ideally, they are used before the opponents reach your line. However, ideal situations are all too rare, and characters often discover that the only effective way to attack is to shoot arrows (or whatever) at an enemy already in melee combat with their companions. While possible, and certainly allowed, this is a risky proposition.
When missiles are fired into a melee, the DM counts the number of figures in the immediate area of the intended target. Each Medium figure counts as 1. Small (S) figures count as ½, Large as 2, Huge as 4, and Gargantuan as 6. The total value is compared to the value of each character or creature in the target melee. Using this ratio, the DM rolls a die to determine who (or what) will be the target of the shot.

Tarus Bloodheart (man-size, or 1 point) and Rath (also man-size, or 1 point) are fighting a giant (size G, 6 points) while Thule fires a long bow at the giant. The total value of all possible targets is 8 (6+1+1). There's a 1 in 8 chance that Rath is the target; a 1 in 8 chance that Tarus is hit; and a 6 in 8 chance the shot hits the giant. The DM could roll an 8-sided die to determine who gets hit, or he could reduce the ratios to a percentage (75% chance the giant is hit, etc.) and roll percentile dice.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

That's probably where some of the house rules originated from. Personally, I think there should be an option to ignore the -4, as long as the penalty is significant: a 25% to 50% chance to hit the friendly combatant is sufficient.

As for "Why", anyone shooting at a friend & foe in the middle of a scuffle has a DARN good chance to hit the friend if you're just snapping off that shot. You are not taking careful aim with a standard D&D attack roll; you are presumed to be snap-shotting more than anything.

 

[smetzger]

As for "Why", anyone shooting at a friend & foe in the middle of a scuffle has a DARN good chance to hit the friend if you're just snapping off that shot. You are not taking careful aim with a standard D&D attack roll; you are presumed to be snap-shotting more than anything.

I hated that rule in 2e and I hate that it has propagated over to the shooting at someone in a grapple. With this rule in place a good archer has the same chance of rolling his attack against his friend as the enemy, and if he rolls against his friend then he has a better chance of actually hitting his friend. Thus the better archer is more deadly to his friends than the novice archer.

 

[Alchemist]

Of course, variant rules don't count as 'important bits'

-Hyp.

Undoubtedly. He mentioned he didn't have the DMG, so I pointed him to the cost-free alternative. More of a public service announcement than a "look here for every rule you'll ever concieve."

 

[sdt]

If you don’t like how this works, our group uses the unmodified dice roll to determine if the shot hit an ally in combat. A roll of 1-4 on the dice will potentially hit an ally; this makes the resolution of firing into combat much simpler and combat faster.

 

[ARandomGod]

Actually, it's not listed as optional... and neither is there any mention of a chance of hitting the wrong creature.

"Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: 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. "

If you shoot a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with an unfriendly character, there's no penalty... but neither is there a chance to hit the wrong one.

Whether or not you can declare someone from your own party "not a friendly character" just before shooting gets into the whole "What is an enemy/ally?" mess.

-Hyp.

You're right, it's not. It's pretty obviously there to insure that you don't hit an ally... after all, you really DON't take that penalty when attacking enemies, even if they are engaged in melee (Actually, by the strictest interpretation of the rules it's possible you would... but seems SO stupid to me.)

Then again, the fact that it's there but not optional is just another example of the poor writing and rules railroading of this particular game. Why SHOULDN'T there be options?

 

[MerricB]

I've discovered that missing when firing into melee with a ranged touch attack (a spell), is bad. You hit the cover and their AC won't protect them...

Cheers!

 

[RigaMortus]

Funny little story...

I'm playing a range-based Ranger in a campaign. Something that has sort of become my "signature" shot is firing at an enemy who is grappling an ally of mine. The first time I tried this shot, I knew there was a chance of hitting my ally. As per the Core 3.5 rules, you have to randomly roll to see who you hit during a grapple. Since only 2 people were involed in the grapple at the time, I had a 50% chance to hit my ally. Being that I am Chaotic Neutral, I felt the odds were in my favor Besides, even if I hit my ally, they can take a measily 8 points of damage, right? So I make my attack roll, and wouldn't ya know it? It's a crit!!! So now I am a little bit worried as I just trippled my damage (using a +2 Composite Longbow). Fortunately I rolled well in the percentages, and I hit and killed the enemy I was intending to target...

Later in the campaign, I came into the same situation again. An enemy was grappling my ally. Well, I pulled off this shot once in the past, I can surely do it again, right? Besides, he can take the 8 points of damage if I hit him, and it's not like I'm going to crit again. What are the chances of that happening? Well, apparently very low... Because I did crit again, and I had to randomly roll (50%) to see who I hit in the grapple. The bad news, I hit my ally... The good news, the DM allowed him to use his "luck" ability from the Luck Domain and let me reroll the percentages... This time it faired in our favor and on my second attempt I hit the enemy.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I've discovered that missing when firing into melee with a ranged touch attack (a spell), is bad. You hit the cover and their AC won't protect them...

Not in Core 3.5, you don't, unless you're using a variant rule.

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

An ally does (or can) provide cover for a foe when the attacker is using a ranged attack.

Pg 151 of the PHB has a picture clearly showing an ally providing cover (with a note giving the +4 AC/cover bonus to the foe). Pg 306 of the PHB defines cover ". . .can be anobject, a creature, or a magical force. . ."

There was a 3.0 FAQ on this issue with the question pertaining to a ray attack into melee. The answer said that there was the standard -4 for shooting into melee and the ally may additionally provide a cover bonus and could be hit as per the striking cofer rules from pg 133 of the PHB.

The striking cover rules from pg 133 of the 3.0 PHB were not optional rules.

I haven't found a 3.5 FAQ on this subject nor found any specifics on it or striking cover, yet.

 

[Hypersmurf]

An ally does (or can) provide cover for a foe when the attacker is using a ranged attack.

That's right.

There was a 3.0 FAQ on this issue with the question pertaining to a ray attack into melee. The answer said that there was the standard -4 for shooting into melee and the ally may additionally provide a cover bonus and could be hit as per the striking cofer rules from pg 133 of the PHB.

The striking cover rules from pg 133 of the 3.0 PHB were not optional rules.

That's right.

I haven't found a 3.5 FAQ on this subject nor found any specifics on it or striking cover, yet.

That's because it's not the rule in 3.5. It appears in the DMG, in the optional variants section.

Which is why I said "Not in Core 3.5, unless you're using a variant rule".

-Hyp.