therealvaris
Commoner
Posts: 9 
Favorite D&D Class: Wizard
Favorite D&D Race: Half-Orc
|
Post by therealvaris on Jul 25, 2015 20:37:01 GMT
Is there a standard rule for a ranged attack fired at a target that is engaged in melee combat? Example, a wizard fires a firebolt at an Orc, from a ranged distance, that is engaged in melee combat with a fighter. Does the wizard attack at some kind of disadvantage? My most recent DM had the wizard attack with a disadvantage roll, and then after some debate, it was changed to the rules of partial cover (+2 AC, +2 Dex Saving Throws). If the wizard could position himself for a 100% clear shot at the Orc target, the partial cover was negated.
How would some of you interpret this type of combat?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 21:22:35 GMT
This is why I usually play on a grid.
However, for theater of the mind/visual non-grid play, half cover is the appropriate penalty if there is a creature between the attacker and his target. Note, this assumes the target and the interposing creature are the same size. An orc can provide half-cover to another orc, but not an ogre. An ogre may provide 1/2 or 3/4 cover to an orc (DM's call). In certain cases, larger creatures may even provide full cover to smaller targets.
That said, if there are only a few actors in a small area, I generally assume the ranged attacker can move up to his movement in order to find a clear shot. Some common situations where a clear shot may not be possible include your allies completely surrounding a target, or a significant number of minions between you and your target (e.g. you want to hit the necromancer, who just raised 5 skeletons in front of himself). In either case, though, you will still usually only apply the half cover penalty.
The cover mechanics are meant to replace the ambiguity of advantage/disadvantage, but only in terms of interposing obstacles. 3/4 cover is mechanically very close to the averages produced by disadvantage. The sort of situations where you might apply adv/dis to a ranged attack should not take into account cover.
Even on a grid, I like to apply 3/4s cover for firing through multiple occupied spaces, though this is a house rule. RAW states cover does not stack, so you can technically fire through 10 orcs to hit the one in the very back if you wanted, but this is wonky IMO.
|
|
therealvaris
Commoner
Posts: 9
Favorite D&D Class: Wizard
Favorite D&D Race: Half-Orc
|
Post by therealvaris on Jul 25, 2015 22:55:14 GMT
This is why I usually play on a grid. However, for theater of the mind/visual non-grid play, half cover is the appropriate penalty if there is a creature between the attacker and his target. Note, this assumes the target and the interposing creature are the same size. An orc can provide half-cover to another orc, but not an ogre. An ogre may provide 1/2 or 3/4 cover to an orc (DM's call). In certain cases, larger creatures may even provide full cover to smaller targets. That said, if there are only a few actors in a small area, I generally assume the ranged attacker can move up to his movement in order to find a clear shot. Some common situations where a clear shot may not be possible include your allies completely surrounding a target, or a significant number of minions between you and your target (e.g. you want to hit the necromancer, who just raised 5 skeletons in front of himself). In either case, though, you will still usually only apply the half cover penalty. The cover mechanics are meant to replace the ambiguity of advantage/disadvantage, but only in terms of interposing obstacles. 3/4 cover is mechanically very close to the averages produced by disadvantage. The sort of situations where you might apply adv/dis to a ranged attack should not take into account cover. Even on a grid, I like to apply 3/4s cover for firing through multiple occupied spaces, though this is a house rule. RAW states cover does not stack, so you can technically fire through 10 orcs to hit the one in the very back if you wanted, but this is wonky IMO. This makes perfect sense. |
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Jul 26, 2015 0:36:22 GMT
I agree with Nevvur, and think that the most effective way of determining this is if all the minis are on the map. At the end of it all though it will be up to the DM to decide between 1/2, 3/4, or total cover. I would definitely steer clear of the adv/dis house rule, and I'm glad to hear that it moved to +2 AC. The house rule I like using in these instances are if the player making the ranged attack misses their target by less than the cover provided they hit the cover instead. It's just too much fun as a DM to have one of your players shoot another, haha.
|
|
Samuel Wise
Demigod
Ready to Help...
Posts: 989
Favorite D&D Class: Warlock
Favorite D&D Race: Mousefolk
|
Post by Samuel Wise on Jul 26, 2015 4:53:43 GMT
It's just too much fun as a DM to have one of your players shoot another, haha. Unless they do it on purpose  . I had one player's magic hand go out of wack and fly around the room. Since he was a relatively new player he (instead of just canceling the spell) asked the Elven Ranger to, "shoot my hand". Amazingly, the elf did exactly that, at point blank range, rolled a nat20, and the party had a handless gnome sorcerer. |
|
|
|
Post by DMC on Jul 30, 2015 15:16:10 GMT
Even on a grid, I like to apply 3/4s cover for firing through multiple occupied spaces, though this is a house rule. RAW states cover does not stack, so you can technically fire through 10 orcs to hit the one in the very back if you wanted, but this is wonky IMO. Agreed 100%. That falls into the "If you think something's wrong, change it." motif, which is very much 5E. |
|
|
|
Post by Tesla Ranger on Aug 24, 2015 16:52:01 GMT
I've felt rather rankled by 3.5's implementation of this, which essentially results in any ranged character firing into a melee from behind his pals taking a -8 to the attack roll unless they happen to have two feats. The combination of firing into melee and cover granted by allies in 3.5 rendered an otherwise perfectly capable build into an incompetent bundler (though this could have been mitigated if the DM wasn't a stickler for sticking to the books).
When I'm DMing, especially in 5e, I tend to a position that's a bit more liberal. Given that any ally has a 5' square to move around in I assume that party members can coordinate sufficiently to get out of the way of incoming friendly fire. The mechanical effect is that, under normal conditions, characters friendly to the shooter won't confer cover to the shooter's target. If the target is swarmed by bodies or immobile obstacles then I'd figure the appropriate cover for that as an AC bonus. Bodies that aren't friendly to the shooter (bystanders, other enemies, etc) wouldn't be as willing or as capable to get out of the way so they would confer some measure of cover.
The end result is that in most fights the players never really need to worry about it. But in fights that are just a little bit more complicated (either with more enemies, bystanders, or obstacles on the terrain) it can become a pretty prominent issue. It's an approach that seems to work fairly well for our group though, as usual, your mileage may vary. =)
|
|
therealvaris
Commoner
Posts: 9
Favorite D&D Class: Wizard
Favorite D&D Race: Half-Orc
|
Post by therealvaris on Aug 26, 2015 2:52:22 GMT
I've felt rather rankled by 3.5's implementation of this, which essentially results in any ranged character firing into a melee from behind his pals taking a -8 to the attack roll unless they happen to have two feats. The combination of firing into melee and cover granted by allies in 3.5 rendered an otherwise perfectly capable build into an incompetent bundler (though this could have been mitigated if the DM wasn't a stickler for sticking to the books). When I'm DMing, especially in 5e, I tend to a position that's a bit more liberal. Given that any ally has a 5' square to move around in I assume that party members can coordinate sufficiently to get out of the way of incoming friendly fire. The mechanical effect is that, under normal conditions, characters friendly to the shooter won't confer cover to the shooter's target. If the target is swarmed by bodies or immobile obstacles then I'd figure the appropriate cover for that as an AC bonus. Bodies that aren't friendly to the shooter (bystanders, other enemies, etc) wouldn't be as willing or as capable to get out of the way so they would confer some measure of cover. The end result is that in most fights the players never really need to worry about it. But in fights that are just a little bit more complicated (either with more enemies, bystanders, or obstacles on the terrain) it can become a pretty prominent issue. It's an approach that seems to work fairly well for our group though, as usual, your mileage may vary. =) I have to disagree. If a friendly is engaged in combat with the target in question, then it becomes extremely difficult for them to be considerate with respect to the ranged attack. Is he/she just going to stop paying attention and move out of the way so the Ranger can get a better shot? While the Orc is trying to cut his/her head off? If that is the case, realistically the bad guy should get a free attack of opportunity against the melee friendly. If it doesn't resemble some sort of realistic interpretation of combat, then it just isn't much fun. Players can, and should, move themselves around the field of battle to get the shot that they want. Good movement, communication, and planning, can overcome most challenges. Forcing the players to do just that is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by Tesla Ranger on Aug 26, 2015 4:02:15 GMT
I have to disagree. If a friendly is engaged in combat with the target in question, then it becomes extremely difficult for them to be considerate with respect to the ranged attack. Is he/she just going to stop paying attention and move out of the way so the Ranger can get a better shot? While the Orc is trying to cut his/her head off? If that is the case, realistically the bad guy should get a free attack of opportunity against the melee friendly. If it doesn't resemble some sort of realistic interpretation of combat, then it just isn't much fun. Players can, and should, move themselves around the field of battle to get the shot that they want. Good movement, communication, and planning, can overcome most challenges. Forcing the players to do just that is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary. I can see your point, though I still disagree with it somewhat (in so much that any two DMs can have different opinions on any given mechanic). I would say that the there is much about the D&D mechanic (especially in 5e) that does not exactly model "realistic" combat. 5e in particular has shed much of that attempt to facsimile realism to streamline gameplay. In this particular case, the adventurers (at least above level 3 or so) are meant to exemplify abilities beyond those of the "mere mortal". It's pretty well established in the PHB that any given PC has capabilities beyond those of their peers. Given that, it's easy for me to imagine that in a relatively short period of time they would be able to coordinate their actions to the degree necessary to avoid getting in each others way. This could include an agile duck or hasty sidestep to make away for an arrow but it would also explain how they can move past/through each other without bumbling each other up. I don't know know if 5e mentions it, but 3.5 was pretty clear that when a PC isn't acting they're busy deflecting and dodging their opponent (any any disruption in that deflecting and dodging provoked Attacks of Opportunity). In that vein the adventurer is never still; they're in constant motion even when the player isn't actively "controlling" them. Beyond and above that, our group has tried the strict line-of-sight style of combat and we found, for us, it takes away more than it adds to the game. This has been particularly true in environments that limit the PC's movement. If the majority of encounters are happening in or around narrow corridors then it doesn't take much to render a ranged character completely moot. Other groups are going to be different and some players may enjoy the added complexity. |
|
therealvaris
Commoner
Posts: 9
Favorite D&D Class: Wizard
Favorite D&D Race: Half-Orc
|
Post by therealvaris on Aug 26, 2015 12:52:12 GMT
I have to disagree. If a friendly is engaged in combat with the target in question, then it becomes extremely difficult for them to be considerate with respect to the ranged attack. Is he/she just going to stop paying attention and move out of the way so the Ranger can get a better shot? While the Orc is trying to cut his/her head off? If that is the case, realistically the bad guy should get a free attack of opportunity against the melee friendly. If it doesn't resemble some sort of realistic interpretation of combat, then it just isn't much fun. Players can, and should, move themselves around the field of battle to get the shot that they want. Good movement, communication, and planning, can overcome most challenges. Forcing the players to do just that is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary. I can see your point, though I still disagree with it somewhat (in so much that any two DMs can have different opinions on any given mechanic). I would say that the there is much about the D&D mechanic (especially in 5e) that does not exactly model "realistic" combat. 5e in particular has shed much of that attempt to facsimile realism to streamline gameplay. In this particular case, the adventurers (at least above level 3 or so) are meant to exemplify abilities beyond those of the "mere mortal". It's pretty well established in the PHB that any given PC has capabilities beyond those of their peers. Given that, it's easy for me to imagine that in a relatively short period of time they would be able to coordinate their actions to the degree necessary to avoid getting in each others way. This could include an agile duck or hasty sidestep to make away for an arrow but it would also explain how they can move past/through each other without bumbling each other up. I don't know know if 5e mentions it, but 3.5 was pretty clear that when a PC isn't acting they're busy deflecting and dodging their opponent (any any disruption in that deflecting and dodging provoked Attacks of Opportunity). In that vein the adventurer is never still; they're in constant motion even when the player isn't actively "controlling" them. Beyond and above that, our group has tried the strict line-of-sight style of combat and we found, for us, it takes away more than it adds to the game. This has been particularly true in environments that limit the PC's movement. If the majority of encounters are happening in or around narrow corridors then it doesn't take much to render a ranged character completely moot. Other groups are going to be different and some players may enjoy the added complexity. I agree with the idea that certain environments, and certain group personalities as well, do offer an opportunity to relax some rule interpretation for the benefit of game play. I guess the ability to find the right balance is what makes a good DM. I prefer to run with a group that has a more mature interpretation of combat rules, one that players are willing play out in detail via role-play. The ability to immerse oneself in a fantasy world, but still have the brain think in terms of reality, is really what makes D&D such an exceptional game. I am new to the DM thought process, and I'm sure that my opinions will change and grow over time. I enjoy reading a lot of the debates on here because it stimulates my interpretative creativity. I really like the way that 5e plays so far, and I hope to keep challenging myself to grow ideas and learn from the collective works of more experienced DM's. Cheers. |
|
. I had one player's magic hand go out of wack and fly around the room. Since he was a relatively new player he (instead of just canceling the spell) asked the Elven Ranger to, "shoot my hand". Amazingly, the elf did exactly that, at point blank range, rolled a nat20, and the party had a handless gnome sorcerer.
