Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Birkovic Jul 28, 2015 0:50:52	Hi   I am a new DM and me and my group are running our first campaign. So two sessions in we cannot really figure out (using the PHB and the DMG) if there are any penalties for firing ranged weapons into ongoing melee combat. I cannot find any specific rules in the books and I suppose its not meant to be a penalty, yet something in me (and my players) feel like this is too unrealistic. So how are you guys handling this? Is there a rule that Iam missing?   Best   Birkovic   Ps. I suppose the cover rule applies, and adding the DMG rule for hitting cover may make it better, yet that feels overly complex in a way.
#2 Rya.Reisender Jul 28, 2015 2:44:23	In 5E there is no longer a penalty for firing into melee. Just like flanking no longer gives a bonus. This has all been simplified in 5E.   Something very similar in 5E is when you knock a target prone. Then your melee attacks will get advantage on attack rolls and ranged attacks will get disadvantage on attack rolls.   It's also possible for a DM to reason that the target has half cover because an ally stands between you and the target. That would give the target AC+2.
#3 Yunru Jul 28, 2015 4:21:11	They have partial cover from creatures between the two of you. But there's no specific penalties just because they're engaged in melee.
#4 sim-h Jul 28, 2015 7:27:14	I'd also houserule that a 'fumbled' roll of 1 hits an ally. Simple but adds some danger/colour.
#5 Kangodo Jul 28, 2015 8:00:14	I guess you could use the cover rules, that gives the enemy +2 on his AC and Saving Throws. sim-h wrote:
#6 Rya.Reisender Jul 28, 2015 8:30:01	Yeah strongly negative effects that affect other party members are a bad idea. Hitting the ally in sense of the put arrow the wrong way around into the bow so the feather end hits the ally's nose causing him to sneeze is fine though.
#7 Quad_Hund Jul 28, 2015 8:59:09	DMG has suggestions for hitting "cover" when using ranged attacks in combat.  Works both ways for monsters and PCs.
#8 strider13x Jul 28, 2015 9:27:47	Cover should be applied. Also as DM feel free to apply Disadvantage to attack rolls when appropriate. As to the critical fumble I would at least make a second attack roll to see if you roll over the allies AC.
(Reply to #8) OoftaMeg	strider13x wrote:
(Reply to #9) LordTwig	OoftaMeg wrote:
#11 Rya.Reisender Jul 28, 2015 13:05:24	Well Cover only should be applied when there is cover. Someone can be in melee with an enemy and still not cover any sight from an ally towards the enemy.
(Reply to #11) LordTwig	Rya.Reisender wrote:
#13 Illithidbix Jul 28, 2015 16:03:26	Short answer, creatures grant half cover so you get +2 AC most of the time when in melee with an opponent, but depends upon the line of the shot.
#14 OoftaMeg Jul 28, 2015 16:22:17	In a previous campaign (and edition) if an archer was firing into a group and rolled a 1 I randomly determined their actual target (including the original target) and had them roll again.   It was fun in some ways - including the times the arrow "bounced off of" a friendly PC and still took out the bad guy - but ultimately I just decided it wasn't worth the extra overhead.   Think about what happens if you rule that you only hit an ally if you hit the cover, it's only if you miss your target because of the cover.  So basically a 10% chance. If you only apply it in case of a nat 1, it's a 5% chance. From a sense of fairness, it doesn't seem like you should automatically hit the cover - you should have to roll again to see if you hit the creature providing cover. But you aren't trying to actually hit the creature providing cover, so you shouldn't be adding your proficiency or dex bonus.  So maybe a 5-20% chance to hit the creature providing cover. So ... less than 2% chance of actually hitting the creature providing cover.   If you "auto hit" a creature providing cover, that causes several issues. In many cases you would be better off targeting the ant on the other side of a creature.  The creature providing cover may be granting a +5 to AC, and if they have a high enough AC you may hit them more often than targetting them directly.  Yes, it's an extreme ... but a logical extreme. I used to have a DM who would enforce something like this.  It never made any sense that my character with a maxed out AC took more damage from friendly fire than the enemy.   If multiple PCs are in battle, it makes no sense that the tank with a 20 AC has exactly the same chance to be damaged by friendly fire as the Barbarian with the 14 AC. Any way you do it, having a hit on a miss is a house rule.  Try it, see if it adds to the enjoyment of your game (ask your players!) and go from there.
#15 strider13x Jul 28, 2015 18:23:53	OoftaMeg wrote:
#16 Rya.Reisender Jul 29, 2015 0:15:13	Huh? If you ask me cover almost never applies in actual games. That's because you can move before shooting, so you can always get yourself into a position where your ally isn't in the way. At least if you are fighting in a room.   The only case where cover from allies applies is when you are fighting in a hallway or when you have dumb less-strategic players that just say "I attack X" all the time without moving or anything.
#17 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 29, 2015 0:40:47	Illithidbix wrote:
#18 Primarchx Jul 29, 2015 7:24:55	I impose cover penalties based on the shooter's position.
#19 Danny_Montanny Jul 31, 2015 5:55:48	Depending on how gritty you want your game, I'd apply disadvantage as well. There's countless scenes where a ranged combatant won't even consider shooting at a target engaged in melee with an ally for fear of potentially missing and hitting their buddy. For your typical fantasy game it's not a problem whatsoever. Use cover if you're using a grid, if not, then don't worry about it.
#20 Primarchx Jul 31, 2015 11:06:19	Danny_Montanny wrote: