"Move aside so I can shoot past you!" [Archive] - Wizards Community

"Move aside so I can shoot past you!" [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Callista
10-29-04, 12:51 AM This is what one of my players told another, who was in front of her in a 5-foot hallway. She was a halfling bard; the other player was an elf fighter. Both are level 3.

I told her she could do it, but she took a -4 penalty for shooting into melee, and the chance of hitting the elf in front of her; and the elf, having to move aside while defending herself from the enemy in front of her, lost her DEX to AC that round. The bard of course had to delay her action until the fighter's initiative came around and she could respond to what the bard said.

There's nothing like that in the books, of course. I pretty much made that up on the fly, because it really seemed odd to me that an archer couldn't at least attempt to shoot past a fighter in front of her, since that person doesn't take up the entire 5-foot width of the hall, especially when said archer is a halfling and needs only to shoot past the fighter's legs.

I made it clear to the players that I made this up on the spot; it isn't in the rules... I'm sure I'm missing something, though, because there's got to be some rule that covers this sort of situation. Asking someone to move to one side of a five-foot square so you can shoot past them seems sensible enough; but what do the rules say about it?

I'm confused... help?
hiryuu
10-29-04, 01:00 AM -4 for shooting into melee, -4 for shooting someone behind cover. If you miss within 4, you've hit the "cover," in this case, make a separate attack roll to see if you hit the AC of the cover.
Duvanok
10-29-04, 01:29 AM Sounds like you were pretty much right on with everything except the Elf losing his dex and halfling having to hold her action.

hiryuu (above post) is right on.
Callista
10-29-04, 01:58 AM Cover... *sigh* I did not even think about cover rules. No wonder.

Thanks guys!
Cyan Wisp
10-29-04, 02:15 AM -4 for shooting into melee, -4 for shooting someone behind cover. If you miss within 4, you've hit the "cover," in this case, make a separate attack roll to see if you hit the AC of the cover.

The bold sentence here is a Variant Rule (3.5e DMG, sidebar pg 24) and the italic bit following is a little off. Sorry, hiryuu. :)

The Variant Rule is this: (Note, only one attack roll is made.)

If the attack roll is low enough to miss the intended target with the +4 cover bonus to AC included, but high enough to hit if the target didn't have the cover, the cover may have been struck... but only if the same attack roll managed to penetrate the AC of the covering creature. In this case, the covering creature takes the damage.

If the covering creature was not hit in this case and it was due to a dex or dodge bonus to AC, then the original target is instead hit (if the attack roll is still high enough)

AND... the covering creature can voluntarily deny themselves the dex or dodge bonus if they want to "take the bullet".

So, some examples to clear it up a bit, I hope:
(A=archer, C=covering creature, T=target) Like this: A...C...T

EXAMPLE 1
Archer fires arrow past AC 14 friend (no dex or dodge) at AC 14 foe (AC 18 with cover)

Attack Roll 18+: Intended target (foe) is hit.
Attack Roll 14-17:This misses the foe because of the cover, but would have hit the foe without cover... and attack roll beats the covering creatures AC, so covering creature is hit with the attack! (and may no longer be a friend...)
Attack Roll 13 or lower: no one is hit

EXAMPLE 2
Archer fires arrow past AC 15 friend (dex+1) at AC 14 foe (AC 18 with cover)

Attack Roll 18+: Intended target (foe) is hit.
Attack Roll 15-17:This misses the target because of the cover, but would have hit the target without cover... and attack roll beats the covering creatures AC, so covering creature is hit with the attack
Attack Roll 14: The covering creature was not hit due to a dex bonus, and the attack roll still hits the target's AC, therefore the target is struck!
Attack Roll 13 or lower: no one is hit

EXAMPLE 3
Archer fires arrow past AC 14 friend (no dex or dodge) at AC 15 foe (AC 19 with cover).

Attack Roll 19+: Intended target is hit.
Attack Roll 15-18:This misses the target because of the cover, but would have hit the target without cover... and attack roll beats the covering creatures AC, so covering creature is hit with the attack.
Attack Roll 14: no one is hit (as the cover never came into play)
Attack Roll 13 or lower: no one is hit

EXAMPLE 4
Archer fires arrow past AC 15 foe (dex+1) at AC 14 foe (AC 18 with cover). The covering creature in this case chooses to "take the bullet" to save his ally.

Attack Roll 18+: Intended target is hit.
Attack Roll 15-17:This misses the target because of the cover, but would have hit the target without cover... and attack roll beats the covering creatures AC, so covering creature is hit with the attack!
Attack Roll 14: As the covering creature foregoes his dex bonus, this attack also hits the covering creature instead of the target.
Attack Roll 13 or lower: no one is hit

I guess one thing that looks a bit odd about it is in Example 2, where a 14 or 18 hits the original target, but a 15, 16 or 17 doesn't! :eek:
Someone
10-29-04, 02:45 AM Actually, I think you came up with something rather clever, really. The one being shot past basicly was "squeezing through" (hence losing Dex to AC), even though they didn't have to. And in so doing, they opened up a lane for the shot to go through without having to worry about cover. And you were right about the -4 "into melee".
Stefanjames
10-29-04, 12:10 PM To shoot into melee, you have -4 to hit on your target unless you have the "precise shot " feat p.98 PHB 3.5 which negates all penalties.
Period...

If there are three people involved, there are no special rules for people blocking someone's path... Usually, there will always be room unless it's really narrow. In this case simply have the archer fire on the initiative of the person that has to "move" out of the way and apply the "fire into melee" penalty when the archer has to help the third person already engaged into the fight.
Damien_Hiro
10-29-04, 12:20 PM Does the Target get a +1 bonus for having a creature in between it and the shooter? So would it be +1 to AC for target and the -4 to attack to the attacker or have they changed that rule in 3.5?
Zherog
10-29-04, 12:47 PM Was the elf in melee, or just in the bard's way? If the elf was not in melee with the target the bard was trying to shoot, you would only apply the +4 cover bonus to AC.
Ilium
10-29-04, 12:56 PM I agree with Someone (funny screen name by the way). The elf squeezed into half the square, losing Dex bonus, but negating cover for the target. Still get -4 for firing into melee (unless you have precise shot). Good call, I say.
Stefanjames
10-29-04, 02:51 PM Does the Target get a +1 bonus for having a creature in between it and the shooter? So would it be +1 to AC for target and the -4 to attack to the attacker or have they changed that rule in 3.5?

No bonus of AC...
Zherog
10-29-04, 04:10 PM I agree with Someone (funny screen name by the way). The elf squeezed into half the square, losing Dex bonus, but negating cover for the target. Still get -4 for firing into melee (unless you have precise shot). Good call, I say.

Why is everybody applying the penalty for firing into melee, when the original poster never once said the elf was in melee when the bard fired?

Also, the elf didn't need to squeeze, so the penalty is meaningless and shouldn't be applied.
Callista
10-29-04, 08:43 PM Actually, she was in melee, with the enemy the bard was attempting to shoot. They were in three adjacent five-foot squares, with the fighter in the hall just outside the door, the bard behind her, and the enemy (a modified badger that could spit fire) just in front of the fighter.

Just trying to clear that up.

And I never said my ruling was correct... that's why I asked about it here, to see what the correct ruling was, next time it came up.

I think she asked the fighter to move aside so that she would have less of a chance of hitting her ally. That, and the fact that the bard's player has been playing in a group with a house-rule that states that if you don't have a clear line of sight to an enemy, you can't shoot at them with missile weapons (I think it was either an unspoken rule, or the group just decided never to risk shooting each other in the back--something like that).
hiryuu
10-29-04, 09:25 PM The bold sentence here is a Variant Rule (3.5e DMG, sidebar pg 24) and the italic bit following is a little off. Sorry, hiryuu. :)

Ah, that's cool.

Close enough. Been playing it that way so long it's like second nature. Seeems to work around here.
Ilium
10-30-04, 07:56 PM Why is everybody applying the penalty for firing into melee, when the original poster never once said the elf was in melee when the bard fired?

Also, the elf didn't need to squeeze, so the penalty is meaningless and shouldn't be applied.

If I understaned the RAW, the elf normallyh provides cover to the target in this situation. Callista ruled that the elf could avoid providing cover by moving aside (basically squeezing aginst a wall). So although the corridor was five feet wide, the elf voluntarily squeezed so that the halfling could take a shot without cover. And by squeezing, the elf gave up her dex bonus to AC.

However, the elf is still in melee with her opponent, hence the -4 (barring precise shot). As I said, the RAW don't allow this, but I think it's a good call and intend to rule the same should it come up in my game.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Callista 10-29-04, 12:51 AM	This is what one of my players told another, who was in front of her in a 5-foot hallway. She was a halfling bard; the other player was an elf fighter. Both are level 3. I told her she could do it, but she took a -4 penalty for shooting into melee, and the chance of hitting the elf in front of her; and the elf, having to move aside while defending herself from the enemy in front of her, lost her DEX to AC that round. The bard of course had to delay her action until the fighter's initiative came around and she could respond to what the bard said. There's nothing like that in the books, of course. I pretty much made that up on the fly, because it really seemed odd to me that an archer couldn't at least attempt to shoot past a fighter in front of her, since that person doesn't take up the entire 5-foot width of the hall, especially when said archer is a halfling and needs only to shoot past the fighter's legs. I made it clear to the players that I made this up on the spot; it isn't in the rules... I'm sure I'm missing something, though, because there's got to be some rule that covers this sort of situation. Asking someone to move to one side of a five-foot square so you can shoot past them seems sensible enough; but what do the rules say about it? I'm confused... help?
hiryuu 10-29-04, 01:00 AM	-4 for shooting into melee, -4 for shooting someone behind cover. If you miss within 4, you've hit the "cover," in this case, make a separate attack roll to see if you hit the AC of the cover.
Duvanok 10-29-04, 01:29 AM	Sounds like you were pretty much right on with everything except the Elf losing his dex and halfling having to hold her action. hiryuu (above post) is right on.
Callista 10-29-04, 01:58 AM	Cover... sigh I did not even think about cover rules. No wonder. Thanks guys!
Cyan Wisp 10-29-04, 02:15 AM	-4 for shooting into melee, -4 for shooting someone behind cover. If you miss within 4, you've hit the "cover," in this case, make a separate attack roll to see if you hit the AC of the cover. The bold sentence here is a Variant Rule (3.5e DMG, sidebar pg 24) and the italic bit following is a little off. Sorry, hiryuu. :) The Variant Rule is this: (Note, only one attack roll is made.) If the attack roll is low enough to miss the intended target with the +4 cover bonus to AC included, but high enough to hit if the target didn't have the cover, the cover may have been struck... but only if the same attack roll managed to penetrate the AC of the covering creature. In this case, the covering creature takes the damage. If the covering creature was not hit in this case and it was due to a dex or dodge bonus to AC, then the original target is instead hit (if the attack roll is still high enough) AND... the covering creature can voluntarily deny themselves the dex or dodge bonus if they want to "take the bullet". So, some examples to clear it up a bit, I hope: (A=archer, C=covering creature, T=target) Like this: A...C...T EXAMPLE 1 Archer fires arrow past AC 14 friend (no dex or dodge) at AC 14 foe (AC 18 with cover) Attack Roll 18+: Intended target (foe) is hit. Attack Roll 14-17:This misses the foe because of the cover, but would have hit the foe without cover... and attack roll beats the covering creatures AC, so covering creature is hit with the attack! (and may no longer be a friend...) Attack Roll 13 or lower: no one is hit EXAMPLE 2 Archer fires arrow past AC 15 friend (dex+1) at AC 14 foe (AC 18 with cover) Attack Roll 18+: Intended target (foe) is hit. Attack Roll 15-17:This misses the target because of the cover, but would have hit the target without cover... and attack roll beats the covering creatures AC, so covering creature is hit with the attack Attack Roll 14: The covering creature was not hit due to a dex bonus, and the attack roll still hits the target's AC, therefore the target is struck! Attack Roll 13 or lower: no one is hit EXAMPLE 3 Archer fires arrow past AC 14 friend (no dex or dodge) at AC 15 foe (AC 19 with cover). Attack Roll 19+: Intended target is hit. Attack Roll 15-18:This misses the target because of the cover, but would have hit the target without cover... and attack roll beats the covering creatures AC, so covering creature is hit with the attack. Attack Roll 14: no one is hit (as the cover never came into play) Attack Roll 13 or lower: no one is hit EXAMPLE 4 Archer fires arrow past AC 15 foe (dex+1) at AC 14 foe (AC 18 with cover). The covering creature in this case chooses to "take the bullet" to save his ally. Attack Roll 18+: Intended target is hit. Attack Roll 15-17:This misses the target because of the cover, but would have hit the target without cover... and attack roll beats the covering creatures AC, so covering creature is hit with the attack! Attack Roll 14: As the covering creature foregoes his dex bonus, this attack also hits the covering creature instead of the target. Attack Roll 13 or lower: no one is hit I guess one thing that looks a bit odd about it is in Example 2, where a 14 or 18 hits the original target, but a 15, 16 or 17 doesn't! :eek:
Someone 10-29-04, 02:45 AM	Actually, I think you came up with something rather clever, really. The one being shot past basicly was "squeezing through" (hence losing Dex to AC), even though they didn't have to. And in so doing, they opened up a lane for the shot to go through without having to worry about cover. And you were right about the -4 "into melee".
Stefanjames 10-29-04, 12:10 PM	To shoot into melee, you have -4 to hit on your target unless you have the "precise shot " feat p.98 PHB 3.5 which negates all penalties. Period... If there are three people involved, there are no special rules for people blocking someone's path... Usually, there will always be room unless it's really narrow. In this case simply have the archer fire on the initiative of the person that has to "move" out of the way and apply the "fire into melee" penalty when the archer has to help the third person already engaged into the fight.
Damien_Hiro 10-29-04, 12:20 PM	Does the Target get a +1 bonus for having a creature in between it and the shooter? So would it be +1 to AC for target and the -4 to attack to the attacker or have they changed that rule in 3.5?
Zherog 10-29-04, 12:47 PM	Was the elf in melee, or just in the bard's way? If the elf was not in melee with the target the bard was trying to shoot, you would only apply the +4 cover bonus to AC.
Ilium 10-29-04, 12:56 PM	I agree with Someone (funny screen name by the way). The elf squeezed into half the square, losing Dex bonus, but negating cover for the target. Still get -4 for firing into melee (unless you have precise shot). Good call, I say.
Stefanjames 10-29-04, 02:51 PM	Does the Target get a +1 bonus for having a creature in between it and the shooter? So would it be +1 to AC for target and the -4 to attack to the attacker or have they changed that rule in 3.5? No bonus of AC...
Zherog 10-29-04, 04:10 PM	I agree with Someone (funny screen name by the way). The elf squeezed into half the square, losing Dex bonus, but negating cover for the target. Still get -4 for firing into melee (unless you have precise shot). Good call, I say. Why is everybody applying the penalty for firing into melee, when the original poster never once said the elf was in melee when the bard fired? Also, the elf didn't need to squeeze, so the penalty is meaningless and shouldn't be applied.
Callista 10-29-04, 08:43 PM	Actually, she was in melee, with the enemy the bard was attempting to shoot. They were in three adjacent five-foot squares, with the fighter in the hall just outside the door, the bard behind her, and the enemy (a modified badger that could spit fire) just in front of the fighter. Just trying to clear that up. And I never said my ruling was correct... that's why I asked about it here, to see what the correct ruling was, next time it came up. I think she asked the fighter to move aside so that she would have less of a chance of hitting her ally. That, and the fact that the bard's player has been playing in a group with a house-rule that states that if you don't have a clear line of sight to an enemy, you can't shoot at them with missile weapons (I think it was either an unspoken rule, or the group just decided never to risk shooting each other in the back--something like that).
hiryuu 10-29-04, 09:25 PM	The bold sentence here is a Variant Rule (3.5e DMG, sidebar pg 24) and the italic bit following is a little off. Sorry, hiryuu. :) Ah, that's cool. Close enough. Been playing it that way so long it's like second nature. Seeems to work around here.
Ilium 10-30-04, 07:56 PM	Why is everybody applying the penalty for firing into melee, when the original poster never once said the elf was in melee when the bard fired? Also, the elf didn't need to squeeze, so the penalty is meaningless and shouldn't be applied. If I understaned the RAW, the elf normallyh provides cover to the target in this situation. Callista ruled that the elf could avoid providing cover by moving aside (basically squeezing aginst a wall). So although the corridor was five feet wide, the elf voluntarily squeezed so that the halfling could take a shot without cover. And by squeezing, the elf gave up her dex bonus to AC. However, the elf is still in melee with her opponent, hence the -4 (barring precise shot). As I said, the RAW don't allow this, but I think it's a good call and intend to rule the same should it come up in my game.