Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EternalDungeonMaster" data-source="post: 9409121" data-attributes="member: 75401">I run two different D&amp;D 5e games and have been DMing for mumble*mumble years. I remember in 1st edition if you fired a missile weapon into a melee cluster the DM would randomly roll to determine who in the cluster was potentially hit.Today, I don't follow that approach, although I do understand the justification for it. I feel like it unduly burdens players who have chosen to play a ranged character. The percentage of the time that a ranged character will be attacking a target that is in melee with one or more of the character's allies is probably quite high, so by implementing a friendly fire house rule you are basically punishing anyone who chooses to play a ranged character.There are already ways within the existing 5e framework to add a burden to ranged attackers. It would make sense for a monster group to send one or more attackers up into melee against an archer standing back and picking off their guys. That forces the ranged character to either switch to a (presumably lesser) melee attack or accept disadvantage on their attack rolls.Additionally, the rules for line of sight add either half or three-quarters cover (i.e., +2 or +5 to AC and Dex saving throws) to defenders if a ranged character is firing through allies. To me this represents the difficult of firing through allies while trying not to hit them.D&amp;D 5e is not a combat simulator. It's an abstraction. I generally try to approach it with that mindset when I DM.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EternalDungeonMaster, post: 9409121, member: 75401"] I run two different D&D 5e games and have been DMing for [I]mumble*mumble[/I] years. I remember in 1st edition if you fired a missile weapon into a melee cluster the DM would randomly roll to determine who in the cluster was potentially hit. Today, I don't follow that approach, although I do understand the justification for it. I feel like it unduly burdens players who have chosen to play a ranged character. The percentage of the time that a ranged character will be attacking a target that is in melee with one or more of the character's allies is probably quite high, so by implementing a friendly fire house rule you are basically punishing anyone who chooses to play a ranged character. There are already ways within the existing 5e framework to add a burden to ranged attackers. It would make sense for a monster group to send one or more attackers up into melee against an archer standing back and picking off their guys. That forces the ranged character to either switch to a (presumably lesser) melee attack or accept disadvantage on their attack rolls. Additionally, the rules for line of sight add either half or three-quarters cover (i.e., +2 or +5 to AC and Dex saving throws) to defenders if a ranged character is firing through allies. To me this represents the difficult of firing through allies while trying not to hit them. D&D 5e is not a combat simulator. It's an abstraction. I generally try to approach it with that mindset when I DM. [/QUOTE]

Verification