Greetings! I've recently got into d&d, and my buddy let me borrow some 4e books. I designed a short campaign for my wife, and two kids (4 and 6 years old). This was my first experience running a game as DM, and all was going smoothly until the very last encounter.
The kids and I swarmed the boss, surrounding him on all adjacent squares but one. My wife lines up in range of her bow, and wants to use the power "twin strike". I asked her to roll for the likely-hood of her hitting the party members that are surrounding the enemy. She's firing arrows into a group of people. There's a chance she could hit one of the PCs, right? She immediately was in an uproar, saying that since she's trained and skilled with bows due to her class, that there is no way she would miss her target. I didn't argue back, because the wife and fire in her eyes, and I feared for my life, lol! I let her continue the attack the way that she wanted.
What I'd like to know is, was I wrong for asking her to roll? She had a clear line of sight to her target, but as I had said, her target was surrounded by PCs. Help?
Actually yes, you were in the wrong. It's an easy mistake to make, but in D&D, especially from 4th ed forward, it's pretty much assumed that your players' characters are cinematically competent. There are no rules for accidentally hitting your allies because it is assumed you are cool enough to not do that sort of thing in a basic combat situation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
I can't speak much about 4th edition, but Metamongoose is right. Since 4th ed hitting other people with ranged attacks has been discouraged (in 3rd this required a Feat).
If you check out the Cover Rules. Having anyone in the way will give the target a bonus to AC either +2 or +5. It's reasonable to give the enemy an AC bonus for cover... this might force the ranged character to move around to get a clear shot, or the melee allies to do the same.
In 5th Edition the Optional Rule in the DMG (p272) for Hitting Cover. The attack has to MISS the targeted creature (remember it should have an AC bonus), but must be able to hit the AC of the creature giving them cover. (Remember, AC is that the attack doesn't to appreciable damage... the attack could thematically strike them, but bounce off armor or what not...)
If you want to be using the DMG Optional Rules, you'll want to make sure your wife/daughters know this ahead of time, so it's not a surprise. That's usually what annoys players, is when something happens they didn't expect especially if they could have easily accounted for it.
In 5th edition, having a creature in the way provides half cover (+2 AC). As stated there are optional rules for hitting the cover.
However, in the heat of the moment, it is always up to the DM to arbitrate how a situation unfolds and to provide entertainment for the group (including the DM). The chaotic fight could include randomly hitting friendlies.
In my games, the DM makes it have potential to hit allies when you fumble I don't know the exact numbers behind it but if you fumble ( you know roll a 1) your attack roll it again and if its too low you roll for damage and the DM rolls percentage to see who it would hit.
It happens to me more than you'd believe I fumble a lot haha.
However, I enjoy playing like this it adds more to the story how the party interacts after the battle, etc. Yes, it hurts the battle a little but it usually turns out okay. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Breeze, the Air Genasi Rogue in G.M.O.A.T.S sunless citadel Guldrum, the Dwarf Barbarian in Ye ol' Yarn Spun Legend Baku, the Tortle Bloodhunter in Coliseum of Conquest
The heart of this seems to be defining what happens on a miss. Does the arrow hit the tsrget with no effect or sail wide? If it misses entirely, then it seems there should be some risk to the nearby. If you are so trained and skilled with a weapon that there is no possible danger to the people near the target, then why are you even rolling to hit instead of just assuming the arrow hits every time (damage variable)?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Characters:
Grishkar Darkmoor, Necromancer of Nerull the Despiser Kelvin Rabbitfoot, Diviner, con artist, always hunting for a good sale Bründir Halfshield, Valor Bard, three-time Sheercleft Drinking Competition Champion, Hometown hero
Being trained just means you know how to use it. You know how to stand , how to keep your arms, and how to use your breathing. It doesn't mean you can hit everything. I think the only auto hit in D&D is Magic Missile. I DM for my wife also and she gets upset when things don't plan out or she assumed wrong but in D&D just like real life if you attack something you run a risk of hitting other people. I always tell my players this isn't a videogame if you fire into combat and you miss you have of hitting your friends
The heart of this seems to be defining what happens on a miss. Does the arrow hit the tsrget with no effect or sail wide? If it misses entirely, then it seems there should be some risk to the nearby. If you are so trained and skilled with a weapon that there is no possible danger to the people near the target, then why are you even rolling to hit instead of just assuming the arrow hits every time (damage variable)?
Being trained just means you know how to use it. You know how to stand , how to keep your arms, and how to use your breathing. It doesn't mean you can hit everything. I think the only auto hit in D&D is Magic Missile. I DM for my wife also and she gets upset when things don't plan out or she assumed wrong but in D&D just like real life if you attack something you run a risk of hitting other people. I always tell my players this isn't a videogame if you fire into combat and you miss you have of hitting your friends
What you are both missing is that rolling under the target's armor class and failing to land a "hit" does not always mean that your attack physically missed the target. in the case of a ranged bow attack, the arrow might have lodged in a bit of armor or bounced harmlessly off a scale or chunk of rough hide and just failed to be an attack that caused damage.
The current game philosophy is such that it is assumed that the characters are at least good enough to not hit their friends with most ranged attacks when firing into combat. This is the same philosophy that holds true in most fantasy/adventure movies or books, unless it is being subverted for comedic effect.
Now, if a DM wants to get a little wacky or creative on a roll of 1, then sure, who could blame them? But for the most part, a miss just means that your attack failed to do damage. It doesn't mean that you did such a bad job that your allies are at risk as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
The heart of this seems to be defining what happens on a miss. Does the arrow hit the tsrget with no effect or sail wide? If it misses entirely, then it seems there should be some risk to the nearby. If you are so trained and skilled with a weapon that there is no possible danger to the people near the target, then why are you even rolling to hit instead of just assuming the arrow hits every time (damage variable)?
Being trained just means you know how to use it. You know how to stand , how to keep your arms, and how to use your breathing. It doesn't mean you can hit everything. I think the only auto hit in D&D is Magic Missile. I DM for my wife also and she gets upset when things don't plan out or she assumed wrong but in D&D just like real life if you attack something you run a risk of hitting other people. I always tell my players this isn't a videogame if you fire into combat and you miss you have of hitting your friends
What you are both missing is that rolling under the target's armor class and failing to land a "hit" does not always mean that your attack physically missed the target. in the case of a ranged bow attack, the arrow might have lodged in a bit of armor or bounced harmlessly off a scale or chunk of rough hide and just failed to be an attack that caused damage.
The current game philosophy is such that it is assumed that the characters are at least good enough to not hit their friends with most ranged attacks when firing into combat. This is the same philosophy that holds true in most fantasy/adventure movies or books, unless it is being subverted for comedic effect.
Now, if a DM wants to get a little wacky or creative on a roll of 1, then sure, who could blame them? But for the most part, a miss just means that your attack failed to do damage. It doesn't mean that you did such a bad job that your allies are at risk as well.
My logic is in real life if you toss or fire something into a fight your going to do one of 3 things. 1 hit the guy you are aiming for, 2 hit one of the other people in the fight , or 3 miss so magnificently that everyone just watches it go flying and then slowly look at you
Here is the real question: "This this a rule you ONLY use to punish players or is this a rule you use for everyone?"
If the player shoots at the goblin wizard behind the goblin bodyguards and on a miss she gets to hit the bodyguards then yes, your ruling is consistent. If the orc bowman misses your fighter and hits his allies then yes, your ruling is consistent
If now, then you're punishing players... especially if they didn't know it ahead.
Unless you follow through with that same logic for all the other rules of D&D besides whether you risk shooting an ally who is "real life" in your line of fire, such as arrows punching right through most types of armor, blood loss, shock, and internal injury making any "I just got hit by a weapon" result of an attack directly potentially fatal (you have to throw HP out entirely if you care about applying "real life" as your logic for how game rules should work), and being hit by a giant's weapon roughly as survivable as being hit by an automobile while walking across the street (oops, nevermind... "real life" logic makes giants not even exist), then you are being not just inconsistent in why you rule how you rule - but your deliberate inconsistency is affecting some characters more than others (unless I'm wrong in my assumption that you don't have melee attacks that miss the intended target potentially hit some other target within the reach and striking arc of the weapon used).
While I like nat 1's having a chance of hitting an obstruction (bet it a PC, NPC, or wall), it's definitely not the rule. Even the variant rule as pointed out by FMB (here) doesn't just automatically deem a nat 1 to hit someone else, the variant rule has the obstruction give cover to the target, what it does is raise the AC of the target, if you miss that, but your hit is high enough to hit the AC of the obstruction, then you hit the obstruction.
Based on that, think of it this way, AC is not only the strength of the armor, but the ability to dodge out of the way. Sometimes if your AC is not hit you deflect the blow, others it misses you entirely. If it's missing you entirely and you're "dodging" out of the way you had to react, by that same logic, the obstruction had the same exact amount of time to react and "dodge" as well, why if it doesn't beat their AC should it hit them instead?
Unless you follow through with that same logic for all the other rules of D&D besides whether you risk shooting an ally who is "real life" in your line of fire, such as arrows punching right through most types of armor, blood loss, shock, and internal injury making any "I just got hit by a weapon" result of an attack directly potentially fatal (you have to throw HP out entirely if you care about applying "real life" as your logic for how game rules should work), and being hit by a giant's weapon roughly as survivable as being hit by an automobile while walking across the street (oops, nevermind... "real life" logic makes giants not even exist), then you are being not just inconsistent in why you rule how you rule - but your deliberate inconsistency is affecting some characters more than others (unless I'm wrong in my assumption that you don't have melee attacks that miss the intended target potentially hit some other target within the reach and striking arc of the weapon used).
Ok, this is my bad because I didn't go into a ton of detail , apologies. when I say real life. I mean i take a look at what should happen. example the Monk in my group leaped off a moving creature to attack a monster , monk rolled under 10 of it's AC so instead of hitting the monster she superhero landed and punched the ground breaking her hand. Paladin runs up to attack doesn't make anywhere near the AC so instead of oh you miss The monster caught his weapon. If your a fighter class you can and should be able to stop yourself from hitting someone who is on your side, But if your 150 feet away ( max distance for a bow) that's half a football field , there is no way in hell you are going to not hit any of the fighters if you don't hit the AC or higher
One important thing (IMHO at least) is if a rule isn't in the PHB (or other source books you might be using) but you want to make it in your game, don't spring it in the middle of a fight. Tell your players at the beginning of a session that you are going to start incorporating the new rule, that way they can plan their strategy around that new rule.
Ok, this is my bad because I didn't go into a ton of detail , apologies. when I say real life. I mean i take a look at what should happen...
But what "should happen" entirely depends on your choice of reference, and choosing "real life" is directly in opposition to the D&D rules themselves and situations they create.
...the Monk in my group leaped off a moving creature to attack a monster , monk rolled under 10 of it's AC so instead of hitting the monster she superhero landed and punched the ground breaking her hand.
There is no reason that "should happen" when you are talking about a character can run twice as fast as any normal human athlete (in-setting), can actually catch an arrow mid-flight, and can -as a matter of self discipline and training- reduce the effect of gravity upon their own body. Similarly no more reason the monster catching a weapon "should happen" than for any other description of a missed attack to happen.
If your a fighter class you can and should be able to stop yourself from hitting someone who is on your side
No reason a fighter "should" be more capable of swinging a 3'+ blade at something, miss that something, and be able to ensure not accidentally hitting something else along the same arc than they are capable of judging when to loose an arrow so that even if their target gets out of the way, their friend they don't intend to shoot isn't at risk of getting arrow-ed.
It comes down to choosing what we are basing are "should happen" on, and applying it consistently. Which you are applying "real life" to ranged attacks and what happens to a monk that punched the ground real hard (which is extra weird, given that the monk class makes them capable of beating an iron golem into submission with their fists), and then apply something more like "fantasy novel" to melee attacks.
I say if you are going to agree that Gimli isn't risking hacking Aragorn in the leg when they are fighting in close quarters, you shouldn't be having Legolas risk sticking an arrow in Gimli's back if manages to miss his intended target. Or go whole-hog and have everybody be at risk that the unintended happens because real combat is chaos.
Unless you follow through with that same logic for all the other rules of D&D besides whether you risk shooting an ally who is "real life" in your line of fire, such as arrows punching right through most types of armor, blood loss, shock, and internal injury making any "I just got hit by a weapon" result of an attack directly potentially fatal (you have to throw HP out entirely if you care about applying "real life" as your logic for how game rules should work), and being hit by a giant's weapon roughly as survivable as being hit by an automobile while walking across the street (oops, nevermind... "real life" logic makes giants not even exist), then you are being not just inconsistent in why you rule how you rule - but your deliberate inconsistency is affecting some characters more than others (unless I'm wrong in my assumption that you don't have melee attacks that miss the intended target potentially hit some other target within the reach and striking arc of the weapon used).
Ok, this is my bad because I didn't go into a ton of detail , apologies. when I say real life. I mean i take a look at what should happen. example the Monk in my group leaped off a moving creature to attack a monster , monk rolled under 10 of it's AC so instead of hitting the monster she superhero landed and punched the ground breaking her hand. Paladin runs up to attack doesn't make anywhere near the AC so instead of oh you miss The monster caught his weapon. If your a fighter class you can and should be able to stop yourself from hitting someone who is on your side, But if your 150 feet away ( max distance for a bow) that's half a football field , there is no way in hell you are going to not hit any of the fighters if you don't hit the AC or higher
Now that's not just wrong, it's mean. You're punishing players for missing regularly. You'll either end up with no players, or with turtles, focused only on defense, with maybe magic missile to attack without risk of punishment.
I shared my opinion, you are all free to disagree with it. My players like it, They haven't said anything to me about it being unfair , or mean. trust me my players are very vocal and call me out on tons of things. Bottom line is they have fun with my game and my rules in the end that's really is all that should matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Greetings! I've recently got into d&d, and my buddy let me borrow some 4e books. I designed a short campaign for my wife, and two kids (4 and 6 years old). This was my first experience running a game as DM, and all was going smoothly until the very last encounter.
The kids and I swarmed the boss, surrounding him on all adjacent squares but one. My wife lines up in range of her bow, and wants to use the power "twin strike". I asked her to roll for the likely-hood of her hitting the party members that are surrounding the enemy. She's firing arrows into a group of people. There's a chance she could hit one of the PCs, right? She immediately was in an uproar, saying that since she's trained and skilled with bows due to her class, that there is no way she would miss her target. I didn't argue back, because the wife and fire in her eyes, and I feared for my life, lol! I let her continue the attack the way that she wanted.
What I'd like to know is, was I wrong for asking her to roll? She had a clear line of sight to her target, but as I had said, her target was surrounded by PCs. Help?
Thanks guys!
Actually yes, you were in the wrong. It's an easy mistake to make, but in D&D, especially from 4th ed forward, it's pretty much assumed that your players' characters are cinematically competent. There are no rules for accidentally hitting your allies because it is assumed you are cool enough to not do that sort of thing in a basic combat situation.
Alrighty. Cool beans! Thank you for the help!
I can't speak much about 4th edition, but Metamongoose is right. Since 4th ed hitting other people with ranged attacks has been discouraged (in 3rd this required a Feat).
If you check out the Cover Rules. Having anyone in the way will give the target a bonus to AC either +2 or +5. It's reasonable to give the enemy an AC bonus for cover... this might force the ranged character to move around to get a clear shot, or the melee allies to do the same.
In 5th Edition the Optional Rule in the DMG (p272) for Hitting Cover. The attack has to MISS the targeted creature (remember it should have an AC bonus), but must be able to hit the AC of the creature giving them cover. (Remember, AC is that the attack doesn't to appreciable damage... the attack could thematically strike them, but bounce off armor or what not...)
If you want to be using the DMG Optional Rules, you'll want to make sure your wife/daughters know this ahead of time, so it's not a surprise. That's usually what annoys players, is when something happens they didn't expect especially if they could have easily accounted for it.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/combat#HalfCover
In 5th edition, having a creature in the way provides half cover (+2 AC). As stated there are optional rules for hitting the cover.
However, in the heat of the moment, it is always up to the DM to arbitrate how a situation unfolds and to provide entertainment for the group (including the DM). The chaotic fight could include randomly hitting friendlies.
In my games, the DM makes it have potential to hit allies when you fumble I don't know the exact numbers behind it but if you fumble ( you know roll a 1) your attack roll it again and if its too low you roll for damage and the DM rolls percentage to see who it would hit.
It happens to me more than you'd believe I fumble a lot haha.
However, I enjoy playing like this it adds more to the story how the party interacts after the battle, etc. Yes, it hurts the battle a little but it usually turns out okay. :)
Breeze, the Air Genasi Rogue in G.M.O.A.T.S sunless citadel
Guldrum, the Dwarf Barbarian in Ye ol' Yarn Spun Legend
Baku, the Tortle Bloodhunter in Coliseum of Conquest
The heart of this seems to be defining what happens on a miss. Does the arrow hit the tsrget with no effect or sail wide? If it misses entirely, then it seems there should be some risk to the nearby. If you are so trained and skilled with a weapon that there is no possible danger to the people near the target, then why are you even rolling to hit instead of just assuming the arrow hits every time (damage variable)?
Characters:
Grishkar Darkmoor, Necromancer of Nerull the Despiser
Kelvin Rabbitfoot, Diviner, con artist, always hunting for a good sale
Bründir Halfshield, Valor Bard, three-time Sheercleft Drinking Competition Champion, Hometown hero
Being trained just means you know how to use it. You know how to stand , how to keep your arms, and how to use your breathing. It doesn't mean you can hit everything. I think the only auto hit in D&D is Magic Missile. I DM for my wife also and she gets upset when things don't plan out or she assumed wrong but in D&D just like real life if you attack something you run a risk of hitting other people. I always tell my players this isn't a videogame if you fire into combat and you miss you have of hitting your friends
Yeah, but if we cared about how things worked in real life, we wouldn't be playing D&D. You should lower your realism bar to movie physics at best.
Here is the real question: "This this a rule you ONLY use to punish players or is this a rule you use for everyone?"
If the player shoots at the goblin wizard behind the goblin bodyguards and on a miss she gets to hit the bodyguards then yes, your ruling is consistent. If the orc bowman misses your fighter and hits his allies then yes, your ruling is consistent
If now, then you're punishing players... especially if they didn't know it ahead.
Unless you follow through with that same logic for all the other rules of D&D besides whether you risk shooting an ally who is "real life" in your line of fire, such as arrows punching right through most types of armor, blood loss, shock, and internal injury making any "I just got hit by a weapon" result of an attack directly potentially fatal (you have to throw HP out entirely if you care about applying "real life" as your logic for how game rules should work), and being hit by a giant's weapon roughly as survivable as being hit by an automobile while walking across the street (oops, nevermind... "real life" logic makes giants not even exist), then you are being not just inconsistent in why you rule how you rule - but your deliberate inconsistency is affecting some characters more than others (unless I'm wrong in my assumption that you don't have melee attacks that miss the intended target potentially hit some other target within the reach and striking arc of the weapon used).
While I like nat 1's having a chance of hitting an obstruction (bet it a PC, NPC, or wall), it's definitely not the rule. Even the variant rule as pointed out by FMB (here) doesn't just automatically deem a nat 1 to hit someone else, the variant rule has the obstruction give cover to the target, what it does is raise the AC of the target, if you miss that, but your hit is high enough to hit the AC of the obstruction, then you hit the obstruction.
Based on that, think of it this way, AC is not only the strength of the armor, but the ability to dodge out of the way. Sometimes if your AC is not hit you deflect the blow, others it misses you entirely. If it's missing you entirely and you're "dodging" out of the way you had to react, by that same logic, the obstruction had the same exact amount of time to react and "dodge" as well, why if it doesn't beat their AC should it hit them instead?
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
One important thing (IMHO at least) is if a rule isn't in the PHB (or other source books you might be using) but you want to make it in your game, don't spring it in the middle of a fight. Tell your players at the beginning of a session that you are going to start incorporating the new rule, that way they can plan their strategy around that new rule.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
But what "should happen" entirely depends on your choice of reference, and choosing "real life" is directly in opposition to the D&D rules themselves and situations they create.
There is no reason that "should happen" when you are talking about a character can run twice as fast as any normal human athlete (in-setting), can actually catch an arrow mid-flight, and can -as a matter of self discipline and training- reduce the effect of gravity upon their own body. Similarly no more reason the monster catching a weapon "should happen" than for any other description of a missed attack to happen.It comes down to choosing what we are basing are "should happen" on, and applying it consistently. Which you are applying "real life" to ranged attacks and what happens to a monk that punched the ground real hard (which is extra weird, given that the monk class makes them capable of beating an iron golem into submission with their fists), and then apply something more like "fantasy novel" to melee attacks.
I say if you are going to agree that Gimli isn't risking hacking Aragorn in the leg when they are fighting in close quarters, you shouldn't be having Legolas risk sticking an arrow in Gimli's back if manages to miss his intended target. Or go whole-hog and have everybody be at risk that the unintended happens because real combat is chaos.
I shared my opinion, you are all free to disagree with it. My players like it, They haven't said anything to me about it being unfair , or mean. trust me my players are very vocal and call me out on tons of things. Bottom line is they have fun with my game and my rules in the end that's really is all that should matter.