soft cover and firing into melee

[Elf Witch]

My roommate came home from her game tonight a little peeved. It seems her DM and another player feel that the the offical rule of firing a ranged weapon into melee is as follows. unless you have precise hot you get a -4 the target has soft cover so has a +4 to ac and if you miss you take a chance of hitting your friends.

Now I agree to the -4 to hit the book clearly states that and to the possibility of a +4 to AC has this is also stated in the players handbook but nowhere can I find where you can hit one of your party.

So just what is the official rule of firing into melee combat?

 

[sukael]

-4 when firing into melee.

Possible +4 to the target's AC, if they can claim soft cover.

No such rule for hitting your friends.

 

[AsEver]

In 3.0 there was a rule about hitting your comrades in melee. It was removed in 3.5.

 

[shilsen]

In 3.0 there was a rule about hitting your comrades in melee. It was removed in 3.5.

It was removed, but is available as a variant rule in the DMG. See the sidebar on pg.24. I assume that's what the DM is using.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

If your line of fire draws through another creatures square the target you're trying to hit would get a +4 cover bonus to AC (which really hurts if the creature you're trying to hit is in melee which as you stated is -4 to attacks). However just because to creatures are in melee does not mean they get a +4 cover bonus to AC versus ranged attacks. As has been stated the PHB has no rules for hitting allies in melee.

 

[the Jester]

One of the few things I strongly dislike about 3e is the loss of 'friendly fire' incidents.

Fireballs are no longer volumetric, chain lightning never zaps your friends... they even removed the 'shooting your pals when they're in the way' 3.0 rule.

Thank god they left it as an option in the dmg...

 

[Corsair]

I have no problem with people hitting cover, whether the cover is soft or hard.

Regardless, even if it's a house rule, getting "peeved" over the possibility of hitting a friendly (or any house rule) seems kinda silly.

 

[FireLance]

Regardless, even if it's a house rule, getting "peeved" over the possibility of hitting a friendly (or any house rule) seems kinda silly.

I wouldn't get peeved at the house rule, but I'd get peeved if it was only mentioned to me after I'd tried to shoot past a friend in melee, and missed. :\

 

[Elf Witch]

I would get peeved if you still have to take a minus 4 to your shot. It states that you take this to avoid hitting a party member so it seems rather unfair to impose that as well as a bonus plus four to the targets ac and then a chance to hit your party member. At that point it feels as if you are just screwing with the player.

If you want to have a more realistic touch then take away the minus 4 and let there be a chance to hit a party member if you miss the target you were aiming at.

 

[Elf Witch]

One of the few things I strongly dislike about 3e is the loss of 'friendly fire' incidents.

Fireballs are no longer volumetric, chain lightning never zaps your friends... they even removed the 'shooting your pals when they're in the way' 3.0 rule.

Thank god they left it as an option in the dmg...

I miss friendly fire as well it made the game rather interesting. But I don't like the idea of taking a -4 to a shot and still hitting a party member unless you roll a 1. My one DM does that if you roll a one on a ranged attack there is a chance you hit a party member. He also allows you to waive the -4 and fire knowing that doing so if you miss you may well hit a party member.