Shooting into melee

[Pickaxe]

Just a quick clarification needed:

Making a ranged attack against an opponent engaged in melee incurs a -4 penalty to attack, which of course can be avoided with the Precise Shot feat.

Another creature providing "soft" cover also incurs a -4 penalty for a ranged attack against the covered creature.

So:

If an archer is firing at an opponent from directly behind his ally who is engaged in melee with his target, does he incur both penalties (-4 for shooting into melee, -4 for cover) for a cumulative penalty of -8? Or does the penalty for shooting into melee subsume the cover penalty?

--Axe

 

[Hypersmurf]

There is no cover penalty; cover provides a +4 bonus to the target's AC.

So you take a -4 to your attack roll, since you're shooting into melee, and he gains +4 to his AC, since he has cover.

Both apply.

-Hyp.

 

[Pickaxe]

There is no cover penalty; cover provides a +4 bonus to the target's AC.

So you take a -4 to your attack roll, since you're shooting into melee, and he gains +4 to his AC, since he has cover.

Both apply.

-Hyp.

Thanks! I see my error in incorrectly designating the cover bonus to AC as a penalty to attack, which does make it clear that the two are different. But, just out of curiosity, is it otherwise only a semantic difference between calling something a penalty to attack rather than a bonus to AC? I seem to recall that 3.0 had a tendency to interchange bonuses and penalties in such a way.

--Axe

 

[Hypersmurf]

But, just out of curiosity, is it otherwise only a semantic difference between calling something a penalty to attack rather than a bonus to AC? I seem to recall that 3.0 had a tendency to interchange bonuses and penalties in such a way.

3.5 tried to make them more logical - a lot of attack penalties from 3E became AC bonuses in 3.5.

It doesn't usually matter. But it can make a difference if your attack roll ends up being applied to a different target.

For example, in 3E, the rules for Striking Cover instead of a Missed Target (which exist only as a variant rule in 3.5) have you apply your attack roll to the creature providing cover. If you've applied the cover modifier as a penalty to the attack roll, the creature providing cover actually gets the benefit of having cover, even though he doesn't have cover. If you apply it as a bonus to AC, that's not an issue.

The same argument might apply to some ability that makes an attack rebound on the attacker - penalties to the attack roll would affect the rebound attack, but bonuses to AC would not, for example.

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

I seem to recall that 3.0 had a tendency to interchange bonuses and penalties in such a way.

On this particular issue, 3.0 and 3.5 are exactly the same. There's a big picture on 3.0 PHB p. 123 detailing exactly what you're talking about (might still be in 3.5?), with the right-hand example saying "Lidda suffers a -4 penalty because this orc in in melee with Jozan. Jozan also provides it with a +4 cover bonus to AC...".

I personally do just pitch them together and call it -8 total to hit when I DM for clarity's sake to my players.

 

[Hypersmurf]

On this particular issue, 3.0 and 3.5 are exactly the same.

There were others, though.

Blinded, Stunned, Cowering, Kneeling, Prone, Pinned were all attack bonuses in 3E, and are AC penalties in 3.5.

-Hyp.

 

[billd91]

The penalties and bonuses have been reworked a little to clarify what effect applies to whom. The -4 to hit by firing into melee is something that affects the shooter. But the target, in the situation described, also has cover and so that's a bonus that affects HIS AC even if the net effect of being -8 to hit relative to firing at the target without the melee and cover is the same.
And so now, being blind inflicts an AC penalty on the blinded character (keeping the effect with the character affected) rather than cedes a bonus to his attackers. Conceptually, it's a little clearer.

 

[werk]

There were others, though.

Blinded, Stunned, Cowering, Kneeling, Prone, Pinned were all attack bonuses in 3E, and are AC penalties in 3.5.

-Hyp.

Maybe they are trying to apply the bonus/penalty to the state-affected individual, i.e. easier to say prone target has lower AC -than- attacker has a bonus to hit prone target.
Bonus applies once to the affected instead of numerous times to everyone in range that is attacking the state affected person.
Prone doesn't affect attackers, it affects the prone person.
Math is done once and counts for everyone instead of everyone does math.

<edit> or see billd91's post above...

 

[Jdvn1]

Making a ranged attack against an opponent engaged in melee incurs a -4 penalty to attack, which of course can be avoided with the Precise Shot feat.

IIRC, the penalty is because you're trying to avoid hitting other people. What if you don't care? I had a GM once that said you could forgo the -4 penalty and instead have a 50/50 chance to hit your buddy. Is there an actual way to handle this?

 

[cmanos]

no one brought this one up either.

If you are shooting into melee between two parties you are not allied with...say an orc and a goblin fighting over something...

I assume in that case you forgo the penalty and have a 50/50 chance of hitting either combatant.