Casting into melee [Archive] - Wizards Community

Casting into melee [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Hapycamper
03-29-07, 04:55 PM Can anyone tell me where in the rulebooks it says casting at something in melee combat suffers from the -4 to hit found for ranged weapons.

It is talked about here in the forums quite a bit, but the PHB doesn't seem to indicate that, having the -4 to hit with ranged weapons under the ranged weapon section and absolutely no mention of it in the magic combat section that follows...

Thanks...
Seeker95
03-29-07, 05:37 PM Spells that require a to-hit roll in the first place either require a touch attack, a ranged touch attack, or a ranged attack. Those that are not a standard touch attack are ranged attacks. Ranged attacks are affected as follows:

Cover
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

It is not that you have a -4 to hit. It is that your target gets a +4 to AC. This has nothing to do with whether you are throwing a rock, firing an arrow, or casting a spell. It simply affects your opponent's armor class.
Nom
03-29-07, 07:01 PM Wrong rules section, Seeker (Your answer started well, but got distracted into talking about cover, which the OP should note also applies). Instead, the relevant rule is on PH pg 175 under "rays": "you aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon". Thus, since a ranged weapon suffers a penalty for firing into melee, a ray suffers the same penalty.

Note that if you're not using a ranged touch attack (ie a "target" spell or an area spell) then you don't suffer from cover or miss chances. However, total concealment will prevent a target spell, while total cover will block any spell (teleportation is a sort-of exception).
Seeker95
03-29-07, 07:12 PM Nom,

I do not believe the two:
1. firing into melee, and
2. firing through an occupied square
are separate rules. If they are, then this implies that nearly *every* attempt to fire into melee would incur an effective -8 penalty: +4 to AC for the target (because you are firing through an occupied square) and -4 to hit (because you are firing into melee).

Nowhere have I seen such a double whammy applied.
Nom
03-29-07, 09:53 PM Yep. If you fire into melee through an ally you suffer a net -8 penalty (actually, you suffer -4 and they gain +4 AC, but it works out the same). Precise Shot negates the -4 "firing into melee" penalty, and Improved Precise Shot negates the cover penalty. You can also negate the cover penalty by just moving to have a clear line of fire.

The rules for the "firing into melee" (PH pg 140) and cover (PH pg 150-152) are completely distinct, and nowhere is it even hinted that they enjoy special interaction.
Dunamin
03-30-07, 03:34 AM I do not believe the two:
1. firing into melee, and
2. firing through an occupied square
are separate rules. If they are, then this implies that nearly *every* attempt to fire into melee would incur an effective -8 penalty: +4 to AC for the target (because you are firing through an occupied square) and -4 to hit (because you are firing into melee).

Nowhere have I seen such a double whammy applied.
That's the case, Seeker, I'm afraid you're wrong.
Check the bottom left illustration on page 151 of the PHB for quick proof.
Seeker95
03-30-07, 10:46 AM Thank you, Nom. I learn something new every day. :tiphat:

(I must confess I much prefer Nom's approach over Dunamin's. Saying "You are wrong" is aggressive and judgmental, and tends to put people on the defensive. Nom simply pointed out what is right, leaving out any evaluation or judgment of me in the process.)
Dunamin
03-30-07, 11:46 AM (I must confess I much prefer Nom's approach over Dunamin's. Saying "You are wrong" is aggressive and judgmental, and tends to put people on the defensive. Nom simply pointed out what is right, leaving out any evaluation or judgment of me in the process.)
My humble apologies.

I did not mean to come off in the way you describe, Seeker, but it seems I should choose my words more wisely. I had not considered that my reply would be taken that way, and did not attempt to evaluate or judge you. I had only a moment to spare in replying, before I had to leave my computer, so I did not consider it further.
So too have I learned something, this day. I will try to be more mindful in the future about posting, and try to consider if such statements could be taken offensively.

Again, sincere apologies.
symphonic_tempest
03-30-07, 12:34 PM The comparison between this thread and ANYTHING on the World of Warcraft forums makes me want to hug you all.
Seeker95
03-30-07, 01:17 PM Dunamin,

I did not take any offense, and have long since learned that "you are wrong" is (usually) more an instinctive reply than a purposefully confrontational one. But as with all instinctive replies, it takes a very conscious effort to eliminate them. And I confess, this effort is not one I make consistently enough. :tiphat:

symphonic_tempest,

:ayyyy!:

That's the closest smiley I could find to a hug

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hapycamper 03-29-07, 04:55 PM	Can anyone tell me where in the rulebooks it says casting at something in melee combat suffers from the -4 to hit found for ranged weapons. It is talked about here in the forums quite a bit, but the PHB doesn't seem to indicate that, having the -4 to hit with ranged weapons under the ranged weapon section and absolutely no mention of it in the magic combat section that follows... Thanks...
Seeker95 03-29-07, 05:37 PM	Spells that require a to-hit roll in the first place either require a touch attack, a ranged touch attack, or a ranged attack. Those that are not a standard touch attack are ranged attacks. Ranged attacks are affected as follows: Cover To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC). It is not that you have a -4 to hit. It is that your target gets a +4 to AC. This has nothing to do with whether you are throwing a rock, firing an arrow, or casting a spell. It simply affects your opponent's armor class.
Nom 03-29-07, 07:01 PM	Wrong rules section, Seeker (Your answer started well, but got distracted into talking about cover, which the OP should note also applies). Instead, the relevant rule is on PH pg 175 under "rays": "you aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon". Thus, since a ranged weapon suffers a penalty for firing into melee, a ray suffers the same penalty. Note that if you're not using a ranged touch attack (ie a "target" spell or an area spell) then you don't suffer from cover or miss chances. However, total concealment will prevent a target spell, while total cover will block any spell (teleportation is a sort-of exception).
Seeker95 03-29-07, 07:12 PM	Nom, I do not believe the two: 1. firing into melee, and 2. firing through an occupied square are separate rules. If they are, then this implies that nearly every attempt to fire into melee would incur an effective -8 penalty: +4 to AC for the target (because you are firing through an occupied square) and -4 to hit (because you are firing into melee). Nowhere have I seen such a double whammy applied.
Nom 03-29-07, 09:53 PM	Yep. If you fire into melee through an ally you suffer a net -8 penalty (actually, you suffer -4 and they gain +4 AC, but it works out the same). Precise Shot negates the -4 "firing into melee" penalty, and Improved Precise Shot negates the cover penalty. You can also negate the cover penalty by just moving to have a clear line of fire. The rules for the "firing into melee" (PH pg 140) and cover (PH pg 150-152) are completely distinct, and nowhere is it even hinted that they enjoy special interaction.
Dunamin 03-30-07, 03:34 AM	I do not believe the two: 1. firing into melee, and 2. firing through an occupied square are separate rules. If they are, then this implies that nearly every attempt to fire into melee would incur an effective -8 penalty: +4 to AC for the target (because you are firing through an occupied square) and -4 to hit (because you are firing into melee). Nowhere have I seen such a double whammy applied. That's the case, Seeker, I'm afraid you're wrong. Check the bottom left illustration on page 151 of the PHB for quick proof.
Seeker95 03-30-07, 10:46 AM	Thank you, Nom. I learn something new every day. :tiphat: (I must confess I much prefer Nom's approach over Dunamin's. Saying "You are wrong" is aggressive and judgmental, and tends to put people on the defensive. Nom simply pointed out what is right, leaving out any evaluation or judgment of me in the process.)
Dunamin 03-30-07, 11:46 AM	(I must confess I much prefer Nom's approach over Dunamin's. Saying "You are wrong" is aggressive and judgmental, and tends to put people on the defensive. Nom simply pointed out what is right, leaving out any evaluation or judgment of me in the process.) My humble apologies. I did not mean to come off in the way you describe, Seeker, but it seems I should choose my words more wisely. I had not considered that my reply would be taken that way, and did not attempt to evaluate or judge you. I had only a moment to spare in replying, before I had to leave my computer, so I did not consider it further. So too have I learned something, this day. I will try to be more mindful in the future about posting, and try to consider if such statements could be taken offensively. Again, sincere apologies.
symphonic_tempest 03-30-07, 12:34 PM	The comparison between this thread and ANYTHING on the World of Warcraft forums makes me want to hug you all.
Seeker95 03-30-07, 01:17 PM	Dunamin, I did not take any offense, and have long since learned that "you are wrong" is (usually) more an instinctive reply than a purposefully confrontational one. But as with all instinctive replies, it takes a very conscious effort to eliminate them. And I confess, this effort is not one I make consistently enough. :tiphat: symphonic_tempest, :ayyyy!: That's the closest smiley I could find to a hug