Ranged Attack Hitting Your Buddy

[Menexenus]

I want to make sure that my understanding of these rules is correct. (So please correct me if I'm wrong/you disagree.)

There is a -4 penalty for firing into a melee that involves a friendly character. But this has nothing to do with cover. The -4 is there just because you are (presumably) being "extra careful" as you take the shot (and you are foregoing certain target zones on your opponent that could endanger your friend). However, the opponent would get an *additional* +4 to AC if it turned out that the friendly character (or any other character, for that matter) was positioned in such a way that the friendly character disrupts the shooter's line of sight with the target, i.e., provides cover.

So just because a friendly character is in melee with an opponent, that does not necessarily mean that a shot will have a chance of hitting the friendly character. The friendly character only has a chance of being hit if that friendly character is also providing cover for the target.

This is the way I've always understood the rules to work. Is this correct?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Correct, Menexenus.

Except that, in base 3.5, there's never any chance at all to hit the friendly character providing cover.

There's a variant rule which allows such situations to occur, but it is, by its nature, not standard.

 

[irdeggman]

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.

Thanks, I found it when I checked my books (I didn't have a copy of the DMG at my fingertips when I posted my previous).

 

[green slime]

Correct, Menexenus.

Except that, in base 3.5, there's never any chance at all to hit the friendly character providing cover.

There's a variant rule which allows such situations to occur, but it is, by its nature, not standard.

Could I have a page number for this variant rule? There is a similar situation come up in a PBMB, and I need to have things clarified.

 

[glass]

I want to make sure that my understanding of these rules is correct. (So please correct me if I'm wrong/you disagree.)

There is a -4 penalty for firing into a melee that involves a friendly character. But this has nothing to do with cover. The -4 is there just because you are (presumably) being "extra careful" as you take the shot (and you are foregoing certain target zones on your opponent that could endanger your friend). However, the opponent would get an *additional* +4 to AC if it turned out that the friendly character (or any other character, for that matter) was positioned in such a way that the friendly character disrupts the shooter's line of sight with the target, i.e., provides cover.

So just because a friendly character is in melee with an opponent, that does not necessarily mean that a shot will have a chance of hitting the friendly character. The friendly character only has a chance of being hit if that friendly character is also providing cover for the target.

This is the way I've always understood the rules to work. Is this correct?

Mostly. The only thing is, the -4 penalty is for firing into melee, not for firing into melee that includes a friendly character. As I understand it, the penalty exists because people in melee are moving around a lot and erratically, not because of any fears of hitting an ally.


glass.

 

[ARandomGod]

Mostly. The only thing is, the -4 penalty is for firing into melee, not for firing into melee that includes a friendly character. As I understand it, the penalty exists because people in melee are moving around a lot and erratically, not because of any fears of hitting an ally.


glass.

It's true. Whereas, obviously, people NOT in melee who are being shot at just stand there, not moving at all. Arrows, slings and rocks be dammed!

Er.. Umm... OK, so that's probably not it.

(Actually, I agree that something like that was probably the thought behind it. I just also believe that a lot of those people didn't put a lot of real thought into these things.)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Could I have a page number for this variant rule? There is a similar situation come up in a PBMB, and I need to have things clarified.

Sorry; I don't own a 3.5 DMG, and the SRD doesn't include variant rules. Perhaps someone else can help you out.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Mostly. The only thing is, the -4 penalty is for firing into melee, not for firing into melee that includes a friendly character. As I understand it, the penalty exists because people in melee are moving around a lot and erratically, not because of any fears of hitting an ally.

Actually, glass, that's not true. It has everything to do with avoiding shooting an ally, as evidenced by:

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. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)

If your target (or the part of your target you’re aiming at, if it’s a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you’re aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.

Precise Shot: If you have the Precise Shot feat you don’t take this penalty.

In other words, you can shoot at a dragon's tail all day long and not get a -4 penalty, so long as your fighter friend is standing near it's head.

 

[ARandomGod]

Actually, glass, that's not true. It has everything to do with avoiding shooting an ally, as evidenced by:



In other words, you can shoot at a dragon's tail all day long and not get a -4 penalty, so long as your fighter friend is standing near it's head.

Interesting.

You'll also note that you only get the penalty if you're shooting at an enemy engaged in melee with a "friendly" character. This gives an extra bonus to the Chaotic Evil alignments, who can legitimately say "What? HE's not my friend! Hell, I'll prove it, this one's aimed at HIM!", as they can ignore that penalty at the whim of who's friendly and who's not.

OK, sure, that's rules lawyer munchkinism. But still, it's right there in the rules!

 

[Sir Draconion]

ok what if your in a grapple with a larger creature
and your friend tries to hit it with a ranged shot
where are the rules of percentages to hit him
my friend says 50%, shouldn't it be more like 75%/25% large/medium