House rule for firing into melee: please critique [Archive] - Wizards Community

House rule for firing into melee: please critique [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Thurbane
03-08-06, 03:46 AM Most of my group are experienced 1E/2E gamers, from back in the days when firing into a melee combat was a big no-no.

Now, if I understand the current rules correctly, there is no penalty for firing into a melee other than a -4 to hit penalty - i.e. no chance of hitting a friendly character.

This just seems wrong to me, so I have made the following house rule: if your missile attack misses the target by enough to also miss it's touch AC (including the -4 penalty, and always on a roll of a natural 1), a secondary, inadvertant target is chosen at random. The character then makes another attack roll (with -4 penalty) to determine if he has accidentally hit the wrong target. This also applies to ranged touch attacks such as Scorching Ray etc. (and yes, I am aware that these will always miss a touch Ac if the initial attack roll fails).

This has really only become an issue in my group since a new character came along with with Multiple Shot and a composite longbow with a +4 STR damage bonus.

Any comments?
Eidalac
03-08-06, 11:10 AM Now, if I understand the current rules correctly, there is no penalty for firing into a melee other than a -4 to hit penalty - i.e. no chance of hitting a friendly character.

Well, I can't recall the cover changes in 3.5, but in 3.0, an ally could provide cover to an enemy by being in the line of fire, and thus you had a chance to hit an ally if you missed by 1-4 points on your attack.

So, something that may be a bit simpler that what you have is to say that if a ally is between the ranged attacker and target, you can hit the ally on a miss of 1-4, and if the ally is beside the target, you risk hitting them on a miss of 1-2 points.
lostone
03-09-06, 08:37 AM I thought there were rules for "striking cover" or something like that, but can't find them. Maybe that was in Star Wars d20.

Basically it worked like this:
Player A is firing at Badbuy B.
Player C is in melee with Badguy B between Badguy B and Player A.
Player C is blocking enough of Badguy B to provide cover.
Player A fires at Badguy B and misses Badguy B, the roll was high enough that if Player C had not been providing cover to Badguy B, the attack would have succeeded.
Player C has been hit by Player A, if the attack roll would beat Player C's flat-footed AC (assuming that Player C doesn't see the attack coming).

That might not be exactly how it works (it's been at least a year or two since I read the rule, and we don't use it because we prefer a more heroic game where it is assumed the heroes are good enough not to even chance hitting their friends unless they roll a natural 1), but it's close and seems like a reasonable house rule if it is not right.
zaphod7342
03-09-06, 07:26 PM I housed ruled in my game that a nat 1 AND 2 automatically hits an ally. This simplified the whole process(3.5 has enough rules to remember already). I assumed the -4 to hit was because you were trying NOT to hit an ally thus causing most missed shots to sail harmlessly away from ally.
Talon Stormwarden
03-11-06, 11:36 PM The striking cover rule is in the DMG on the bottom of page 24 as an optional rule. It states that if you miss your intended target because of the cover adjustment you have a chance to hit the cover (assuming it's a creature giving cover). If your attack roll was high enough to hit the cover then you do. If however you miss the cover because of dex/dodge bonuses then you hit your original target after all, in other words the cover dodged out of the way of the arrow. The covering creature can choose not to dodge the shot and take the damage instead if his intent is to protect the creature using him for cover.

So let's say you rolled well enough to hit AC 23. Enemy AC is 21, 25 with cover. Friend is providing cover and his AC is 20. You hit your friend. (23 > 20) If however your friend's AC is 24, you didn't hit anything. The 23 was not good enough to hit either 24 (friend) or 25 (enemy with cover bonus). If however your friend has +2 to his AC due to dex or dodge bonuses you missed him and in addition you hit your enemy (since your shot was true not counting the cover and the cover dodged out of the way).

I use this system. I have a very good handle on how it works however, I kind of visualize the 2 different ACs and the dodge/dex component so it doesn't take me long to tell the player what they hit. If you can't do it quickly I wouldn't use it.

This is all about cover rules though. Simply firing into melee doesn't incur any chance to hit an unintended target, only cover does that.
Lord Welkerfan
03-12-06, 09:28 PM Most of my group are experienced 1E/2E gamers, from back in the days when firing into a melee combat was a big no-no.

Now, if I understand the current rules correctly, there is no penalty for firing into a melee other than a -4 to hit penalty - i.e. no chance of hitting a friendly character.

This just seems wrong to me, so I have made the following house rule: if your missile attack misses the target by enough to also miss it's touch AC (including the -4 penalty, and always on a roll of a natural 1), a secondary, inadvertant target is chosen at random. The character then makes another attack roll (with -4 penalty) to determine if he has accidentally hit the wrong target. This also applies to ranged touch attacks such as Scorching Ray etc. (and yes, I am aware that these will always miss a touch Ac if the initial attack roll fails).

This has really only become an issue in my group since a new character came along with with Multiple Shot and a composite longbow with a +4 STR damage bonus.

Any comments?

One question, are you saying that because a character came into the group who is playing an effective archer, the rules are unbalanced?

The rules for ranged attacks in 1E/2E made playing an archer a very stupid choice, as not only did the melee characters completely outmatch the archer in combat, but the rules negated any chance of the archer having any effect at all. If the archer fired into melee, he stood such a high risk of hitting the characters in melee, the melee players would scold him if he attempted to attack an enemy.

In 3rd Edition and 3.5, the rules were changed to make many concepts not only viable, but effective. How is the mentioned archer any different than a fighter who wields two weapons? They both take a -2 penalty to attacks to add an additional attack to their arsenal and add their strength bonus to the damage. Both had to spend a feat to get the benefit of the extra attack. The archer, however, also had to pay several hundred extra gold to get the damage bonus benefit.

If you introduce your proposed rule, you should also apply it to melee attacks that miss.

Without a very involved build, an archer cannot equal the damage or utiliatarian abilities of a melee character. There really is no reason to penalize an archer any more than he already is.
Thurbane
03-14-06, 12:35 AM I discussed it with my group, and we're sticking with my house rule, and no one minded - we played with it in effect last session to try it out. It meant that the bad guys have the same restrictions as the PCs.

Seriosuly though, try firing an arrow into a full on melee brawl between two or more opponents - your chances of hitting the intended target and no one else are quite random, at best. It's the same reason a cop wouldn't fire his gun at a perp who was in a grappling match with his partner...

I prefer not to use the cover rules - they basically assume that melee is totally static, whereas I prefer to think of it as a back and forth exchange where the combatants are constantly shifting position.

Maybe its my 2E background.

Thanks all for your input anyway.
Thelon Fairblade
03-14-06, 10:05 AM IMC, we do this:

First, we use miniatures. This way, it is really obvious whether the target has cover.

Second, any miss (including cover benefits and "into melee") is a miss, period.

Third, a "1" is instantly translated as "pick a random target in the group (not the original); roll a brand new attack against that character".

The second and third items are used together because the party was firing into melee without concern because the full plate-armored, heavy shield-wielding, Shield of Faith enchanted, Fight Defensively tactic-using cleric would always have an AC higher than the target -- any shot that could possibly hit him accidentally would have hit the main target anyway. So therefore the rule as written could never be applied -- either the roll is so good that the intended target would be hit, or so bad that nothing could be hit.

So now, a miss is a miss is a miss, and a fumble is a [new] attack on the wrong target.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Thurbane 03-08-06, 03:46 AM	Most of my group are experienced 1E/2E gamers, from back in the days when firing into a melee combat was a big no-no. Now, if I understand the current rules correctly, there is no penalty for firing into a melee other than a -4 to hit penalty - i.e. no chance of hitting a friendly character. This just seems wrong to me, so I have made the following house rule: if your missile attack misses the target by enough to also miss it's touch AC (including the -4 penalty, and always on a roll of a natural 1), a secondary, inadvertant target is chosen at random. The character then makes another attack roll (with -4 penalty) to determine if he has accidentally hit the wrong target. This also applies to ranged touch attacks such as Scorching Ray etc. (and yes, I am aware that these will always miss a touch Ac if the initial attack roll fails). This has really only become an issue in my group since a new character came along with with Multiple Shot and a composite longbow with a +4 STR damage bonus. Any comments?
Eidalac 03-08-06, 11:10 AM	Now, if I understand the current rules correctly, there is no penalty for firing into a melee other than a -4 to hit penalty - i.e. no chance of hitting a friendly character. Well, I can't recall the cover changes in 3.5, but in 3.0, an ally could provide cover to an enemy by being in the line of fire, and thus you had a chance to hit an ally if you missed by 1-4 points on your attack. So, something that may be a bit simpler that what you have is to say that if a ally is between the ranged attacker and target, you can hit the ally on a miss of 1-4, and if the ally is beside the target, you risk hitting them on a miss of 1-2 points.
lostone 03-09-06, 08:37 AM	I thought there were rules for "striking cover" or something like that, but can't find them. Maybe that was in Star Wars d20. Basically it worked like this: Player A is firing at Badbuy B. Player C is in melee with Badguy B between Badguy B and Player A. Player C is blocking enough of Badguy B to provide cover. Player A fires at Badguy B and misses Badguy B, the roll was high enough that if Player C had not been providing cover to Badguy B, the attack would have succeeded. Player C has been hit by Player A, if the attack roll would beat Player C's flat-footed AC (assuming that Player C doesn't see the attack coming). That might not be exactly how it works (it's been at least a year or two since I read the rule, and we don't use it because we prefer a more heroic game where it is assumed the heroes are good enough not to even chance hitting their friends unless they roll a natural 1), but it's close and seems like a reasonable house rule if it is not right.
zaphod7342 03-09-06, 07:26 PM	I housed ruled in my game that a nat 1 AND 2 automatically hits an ally. This simplified the whole process(3.5 has enough rules to remember already). I assumed the -4 to hit was because you were trying NOT to hit an ally thus causing most missed shots to sail harmlessly away from ally.
Talon Stormwarden 03-11-06, 11:36 PM	The striking cover rule is in the DMG on the bottom of page 24 as an optional rule. It states that if you miss your intended target because of the cover adjustment you have a chance to hit the cover (assuming it's a creature giving cover). If your attack roll was high enough to hit the cover then you do. If however you miss the cover because of dex/dodge bonuses then you hit your original target after all, in other words the cover dodged out of the way of the arrow. The covering creature can choose not to dodge the shot and take the damage instead if his intent is to protect the creature using him for cover. So let's say you rolled well enough to hit AC 23. Enemy AC is 21, 25 with cover. Friend is providing cover and his AC is 20. You hit your friend. (23 > 20) If however your friend's AC is 24, you didn't hit anything. The 23 was not good enough to hit either 24 (friend) or 25 (enemy with cover bonus). If however your friend has +2 to his AC due to dex or dodge bonuses you missed him and in addition you hit your enemy (since your shot was true not counting the cover and the cover dodged out of the way). I use this system. I have a very good handle on how it works however, I kind of visualize the 2 different ACs and the dodge/dex component so it doesn't take me long to tell the player what they hit. If you can't do it quickly I wouldn't use it. This is all about cover rules though. Simply firing into melee doesn't incur any chance to hit an unintended target, only cover does that.
Lord Welkerfan 03-12-06, 09:28 PM	Most of my group are experienced 1E/2E gamers, from back in the days when firing into a melee combat was a big no-no. Now, if I understand the current rules correctly, there is no penalty for firing into a melee other than a -4 to hit penalty - i.e. no chance of hitting a friendly character. This just seems wrong to me, so I have made the following house rule: if your missile attack misses the target by enough to also miss it's touch AC (including the -4 penalty, and always on a roll of a natural 1), a secondary, inadvertant target is chosen at random. The character then makes another attack roll (with -4 penalty) to determine if he has accidentally hit the wrong target. This also applies to ranged touch attacks such as Scorching Ray etc. (and yes, I am aware that these will always miss a touch Ac if the initial attack roll fails). This has really only become an issue in my group since a new character came along with with Multiple Shot and a composite longbow with a +4 STR damage bonus. Any comments? One question, are you saying that because a character came into the group who is playing an effective archer, the rules are unbalanced? The rules for ranged attacks in 1E/2E made playing an archer a very stupid choice, as not only did the melee characters completely outmatch the archer in combat, but the rules negated any chance of the archer having any effect at all. If the archer fired into melee, he stood such a high risk of hitting the characters in melee, the melee players would scold him if he attempted to attack an enemy. In 3rd Edition and 3.5, the rules were changed to make many concepts not only viable, but effective. How is the mentioned archer any different than a fighter who wields two weapons? They both take a -2 penalty to attacks to add an additional attack to their arsenal and add their strength bonus to the damage. Both had to spend a feat to get the benefit of the extra attack. The archer, however, also had to pay several hundred extra gold to get the damage bonus benefit. If you introduce your proposed rule, you should also apply it to melee attacks that miss. Without a very involved build, an archer cannot equal the damage or utiliatarian abilities of a melee character. There really is no reason to penalize an archer any more than he already is.
Thurbane 03-14-06, 12:35 AM	I discussed it with my group, and we're sticking with my house rule, and no one minded - we played with it in effect last session to try it out. It meant that the bad guys have the same restrictions as the PCs. Seriosuly though, try firing an arrow into a full on melee brawl between two or more opponents - your chances of hitting the intended target and no one else are quite random, at best. It's the same reason a cop wouldn't fire his gun at a perp who was in a grappling match with his partner... I prefer not to use the cover rules - they basically assume that melee is totally static, whereas I prefer to think of it as a back and forth exchange where the combatants are constantly shifting position. Maybe its my 2E background. Thanks all for your input anyway.
Thelon Fairblade 03-14-06, 10:05 AM	IMC, we do this: First, we use miniatures. This way, it is really obvious whether the target has cover. Second, any miss (including cover benefits and "into melee") is a miss, period. Third, a "1" is instantly translated as "pick a random target in the group (not the original); roll a brand new attack against that character". The second and third items are used together because the party was firing into melee without concern because the full plate-armored, heavy shield-wielding, Shield of Faith enchanted, Fight Defensively tactic-using cleric would always have an AC higher than the target -- any shot that could possibly hit him accidentally would have hit the main target anyway. So therefore the rule as written could never be applied -- either the roll is so good that the intended target would be hit, or so bad that nothing could be hit. So now, a miss is a miss is a miss, and a fumble is a [new] attack on the wrong target.