Recent Posts
I had thought that 3.5 removed the risk of hitting a friend when firing into melee, replacing it with a -4 penalty, but it appears that 3E was the same.
Anyone remember the previous rules, where there was actually a risk of hitting the friend? Is there a printed source for this that I can check out?
There still is a risk of hitting an ally. If the ally is between the character and the target, the ally provides cover to the target (+4 AC), and if the attack roll misses the target by 4 or less, but high enough to hit the ally's AC, it hits the ally.
Could you state where those rules are at? I have never heard of this rule for 3.5 although I have heard a few people claim that there is such a rule.
i don't know of a rule about a chance to hit your opponent if you fire into melee in 3.x. as far as i know, you just get a -4 penalty and be done with it.
there was a rule about htting your ally if you fire into melee in 2nd edition. it goes like this (quoting from 2nd ed phb):
When missiles are fired into a melee, the DM counts the number of figures in the immediate area of the intended target. Each Medium figure counts as 1. Small (S) figures count as ½, Large as 2, Huge as 4, and Gargantuan as 6. The total value is compared to the value of each character or creature in the target melee. Using this ratio, the DM rolls a die to determine who (or what) will be the target of the shot.
Tarus Bloodheart (man-size, or 1 point) and Rath (also man-size, or 1 point) are fighting a giant (size G, 6 points) while Thule fires a long bow at the giant. The total value of all possible targets is 8 (6+1+1). There's a 1 in 8 chance that Rath is the target; a 1 in 8 chance that Tarus is hit; and a 6 in 8 chance the shot hits the giant. The DM could roll an 8-sided die to determine who gets hit, or he could reduce the ratios to a percentage (75% chance the giant is hit, etc.) and roll percentile dice.
i don't know of a rule about a chance to hit your opponent if you fire into melee in 3.x. as far as i know, you just get a -4 penalty and be done with it.
there was a rule about htting your ally if you fire into melee in 2nd edition. it goes like this (quoting from 2nd ed phb):
When missiles are fired into a melee, the DM counts the number of figures in the immediate area of the intended target. Each Medium figure counts as 1. Small (S) figures count as ½, Large as 2, Huge as 4, and Gargantuan as 6. The total value is compared to the value of each character or creature in the target melee. Using this ratio, the DM rolls a die to determine who (or what) will be the target of the shot.
Tarus Bloodheart (man-size, or 1 point) and Rath (also man-size, or 1 point) are fighting a giant (size G, 6 points) while Thule fires a long bow at the giant. The total value of all possible targets is 8 (6+1+1). There's a 1 in 8 chance that Rath is the target; a 1 in 8 chance that Tarus is hit; and a 6 in 8 chance the shot hits the giant. The DM could roll an 8-sided die to determine who gets hit, or he could reduce the ratios to a percentage (75% chance the giant is hit, etc.) and roll percentile dice.
Thats right, we used it once then just assigned a -4 penalty to hit to save brain drain after playing for 18hrs at a time.
There still is a risk of hitting an ally. If the ally is between the character and the target, the ally provides cover to the target (+4 AC), and if the attack roll misses the target by 4 or less, but high enough to hit the ally's AC, it hits the ally.Could you state where those rules are at? I have never heard of this rule for 3.5 although I have heard a few people claim that there is such a rule.
This rule is in the 3.5 DMG on page 24 under the variant rule section Striking the Cover Instead of a Missed Target.
ghettowedge's rule is part of 3.0's combat rules. In our home campaign, we've retained it.
Do you know what page this is on in the 3E books? I scoured them last night, looking for this, but I may have been zoned in on finding the paragraph that has the -4 penalty, and overlooked what you're referring to.
This rule is in the 3.5 DMG on page 24 under the variant rule section Striking the Cover Instead of a Missed Target.There still is a risk of hitting an ally. If the ally is between the character and the target, the ally provides cover to the target (+4 AC), and if the attack roll misses the target by 4 or less, but high enough to hit the ally's AC, it hits the ally.Could you state where those rules are at? I have never heard of this rule for 3.5 although I have heard a few people claim that there is such a rule.
I'll give this a look, thanks!
Yup, what The Chelish Inquisition said - note that it's a variant rule though, so you're free as DM to apply it or not as you wish (without having to call it a houserule, that is); personally I'd normally only use it if they're taking cover behind something that's not a creature; say, a huge and fragile glass beaker filled with acid/alchemist's fire, or a highly breakable quest item, or what have you. Then the rule is useful for seeing if the surroundings may get damaged in cases where this may make a difference. Not too sure I think it's fair to make them take that -4 (or burn a feat) to fire into melee to represent being very careful not to hit the wrong guy, then have them hit the wrong guy anyhow... Just my 2cp though.
We tried using this rule for firing into melee IMC a couple years ago and gave up on it after just a session or two as it seemed more cumbersome than it was worth.
Kang
This rule is in the 3.5 DMG on page 24 under the variant rule section Striking the Cover Instead of a Missed Target.There still is a risk of hitting an ally. If the ally is between the character and the target, the ally provides cover to the target (+4 AC), and if the attack roll misses the target by 4 or less, but high enough to hit the ally's AC, it hits the ally.Could you state where those rules are at? I have never heard of this rule for 3.5 although I have heard a few people claim that there is such a rule.
Yeah, I had forgotten all about that variant rule. I assumed the OP was talking about core. I have never used the rule myself, although I can see where it makes sense.
Yeah, we're just looking for something that actually represents a risk of hitting a friendly.
A -4 penalty is a -4 penalty. There is no risk of hitting friend over foe.
Ultimately, if you've got an archer laying the smack down, there's really no reason for him or her to NOT fire into melee - simply less of a chance to hit. Woop.
ghettowedge's rule is part of 3.0's combat rules. In our home campaign, we've retained it.Do you know what page this is on in the 3E books? I scoured them last night, looking for this, but I may have been zoned in on finding the paragraph that has the -4 penalty, and overlooked what you're referring to.
If you are looking at the 3e (not 3.5) PHB, see page 133 "Striking the Cover Instead of a Missed Target".
The only time I use that rule for 3.5 is when an invisible character is between the target and the ranged attacker. You can't really avoid hitting your ally if you can't see them.
This rule is in the 3.5 DMG on page 24 under the variant rule section Striking the Cover Instead of a Missed Target.There still is a risk of hitting an ally. If the ally is between the character and the target, the ally provides cover to the target (+4 AC), and if the attack roll misses the target by 4 or less, but high enough to hit the ally's AC, it hits the ally.Could you state where those rules are at? I have never heard of this rule for 3.5 although I have heard a few people claim that there is such a rule.
Something seems odd about this though...
What if you're fighting a monster with AC 35; Normally it would take a natural 20 to hit the thing with your arrows... BUT if you aim for the tree behind it (AC 10), then you now have a 4 in 20 chance to hit the creature. lol
Ultradan
My HR is that you shoot into melee, you have the BtB penalty. If you miss there's a chance the arrow strikes into another player, 10% chance normally, depending on the angle of the shot etc. The shot is rerolled against the other char's AC.
Missing the AC doesn't always mean going wide, it could have bounced off of armor, skimmed the weapon, or just failed to penetrate the thick hide of the beast, etc.
Now on a crit fail... it depends on what the card says lol
What if you're fighting a monster with AC 35; Normally it would take a natural 20 to hit the thing with your arrows... BUT if you aim for the tree behind it (AC 10), then you now have a 4 in 20 chance to hit the creature.
I was thinking... What if after you roll that 4 in 20 chance (to hit the cover) and hit, you would roll a second 'To Hit' agains the cover's AC to see if your arrow actually damages the cover... That way, if it's an AC 35 monster, you would most likely miss and the arrow would simply end up caught in the creatures' scales or armor.
Ultradan
This rule is in the 3.5 DMG on page 24 under the variant rule section Striking the Cover Instead of a Missed Target.There still is a risk of hitting an ally. If the ally is between the character and the target, the ally provides cover to the target (+4 AC), and if the attack roll misses the target by 4 or less, but high enough to hit the ally's AC, it hits the ally.Could you state where those rules are at? I have never heard of this rule for 3.5 although I have heard a few people claim that there is such a rule.Something seems odd about this though...
What if you're fighting a monster with AC 35; Normally it would take a natural 20 to hit the thing with your arrows... BUT if you aim for the tree behind it (AC 10), then you now have a 4 in 20 chance to hit the creature. lol
Ultradan
You still have to roll high enough to hit the cover's AC. If not, the cover gets in the way, causing you to miss the target, but doesn't damage the cover.
