Stupid Archery Question

[Shadowdweller]

I hope I will be forgiven for asking this, as it is partly a matter of laziness:

When firing a missile weapon into melee (an enemy square which is threatened by an ally) without Precise Shot, one takes the -4 penalty to attack rolls. For a long time, it has been assumed by at least one of my play groups that if one fails to hit by 4 or less one has (potentially) hit the ally. This was challenged last session, and the group for whatever reason could not find a reference for it.

Question is: If this striking of an ally still exists in 3.5 (if it does or ever DID exist for that matter), where is it stated in the rules?

 

[Legildur]

It is now an optional rule. But I don't know which page it is on (IDHBIFOM) or whether it is even identical to the rule from the 3.0 books.

We don't play it in my groups as it slows down an already slow combat.

 

[The Grackle]

Maybe you're thinking of striking cover?

Striking the Cover Instead of a Missed Target

If it ever becomes important to know whether the cover was actually struck by an incoming attack that misses the intended target, the DM should determine if the attack roll would have hit the protected target without the cover. If the attack roll falls within a range low enough to miss the target with cover but high enough to strike the target if there had been no cover, the object used for cover was struck. This can be particularly important to know in cases where a character uses another character as cover. In such a case, if the cover is struck and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering character, the covering character takes the damage intended for the target.

If the covering character has a Dexterity bonus to AC or a dodge bonus, and this bonus keeps the covering character from being hit, then the original target is hit instead. The covering character has dodged out of the way and didn't provide cover after all. A covering character can choose not to apply his Dexterity bonus to AC and/or his dodge bonus, if his intent is to try to take the damage in order to keep the covered character from being hit.

It looks like this was removed from the 3.5 srd

EDIT: also shooting two grapplers you have a 50/50 chance of attacking one or the other.

 

[shilsen]

The rules for striking cover are now optional in 3.5 and can be found in the sidebar on pg.24 of the DMG.

 

[Inigo Carmine]

I hope I will be forgiven for asking this, as it is partly a matter of laziness:

When firing a missile weapon into melee (an enemy square which is threatened by an ally) without Precise Shot, one takes the -4 penalty to attack rolls. For a long time, it has been assumed by at least one of my play groups that if one fails to hit by 4 or less one has (potentially) hit the ally. This was challenged last session, and the group for whatever reason could not find a reference for it.

Question is: If this striking of an ally still exists in 3.5 (if it does or ever DID exist for that matter), where is it stated in the rules?

He's talking about the -4 from being in melee, not related to cover. (Though the 2 situations can frequently stack).

There was never any chance of hitting an ally just because he's engaged in melee. Technically, the -4 to your attack is supposed to represent that you're erring on the side of caution so that you don't hit your ally no matter what (at the cost of possibly missing altogether). I've known many people that allowed you to forgoe the -4 (if you didn't have precise shot) but then levy a chance of hitting your ally, but that is a house rule.

Also, as an aside, the "-4 for firing in melee" is technically if they are within 5 ft of the enemy's square you're firing at. If they are 10 ft away (like someone's using a reach weapon) there is no -4, and if it's a large enemy, you can potentially aim for a square that isn't right next to your ally as well.

 

[Algolei]

Also, as an aside, the "-4 for firing in melee" is technically if they are within 5 ft of the enemy's square you're firing at. If they are 10 ft away (like someone's using a reach weapon) there is no -4, and if it's a large enemy, you can potentially aim for a square that isn't right next to your ally as well.

Really? Is that in the PH or DMG somewhere? (I'll need to show that to my DM and players or they won't believe me.)

 

[Some_call_me_Tim]

EDIT: also shooting two grapplers you have a 50/50 chance of attacking one or the other.

Actually the rules say "determine randomly" that does not necessarily mean 50/50. If a troll and a halfling are grappling it only makes sense the troll will be hit a lot more often than the halfling. Even if the grapplers are the same size it doesn't have to be 50/50. In the example of bullrush the ratio is 75/25.

I really wish they had clarified "determine randomly" as I think a carefully placed shot should be a little more likely to hit the intended target than your friend. Don't get me wrong I don't think that there should be no chance to hit your friend but 50/50 is a bit harsh.

 

[Some_call_me_Tim]

Really? Is that in the PH or DMG somewhere? (I'll need to show that to my DM and players or they won't believe me.)

PHB p. 140 under "Shooting or Throwing into a Melee"

"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. "