Been playing 5th less than a year now, and we’ve been using the rule that firing a ranged attack into a melee with party members is done at disadvantage. I’ve never thought much of it since 3E had a penalty for firing into melee, but I was looking and actually can’t find a rule for it. Is it a rule or is this something else my group should unlearn from 3E?
Two things to keep in mind, when shooting in combat:
1) Player's Handbook, Chapter 9: If you're using a ranged attack (Ranged Weapon like a bow, throwing a Melee Weapon with the Thrown ability, using a spell that makes a Ranged Spell Attack), if there is an enemy next to you, you have disadvantage on that attack. Certain feats or class features might negate that penalty, but by default, you the attacker are distracted and suffer disadvantage when there's an enemy next to you while making a ranged attack, whether or not that attack is targeting that close-up enemy.
2) Player's Handbook, Chapter 9: If you are making an attack, especially a ranged attack or one with a Reach weapon, and you're shooting/reaching past a creature/object/foliage/whatever, your target may have half, 3/4, or total cover against your attack. Half Cover will give them +2 AC, 3/4 Cover will give them +5 AC, and Total Cover will mean you can't even make an attack against them. Ultimately, the DM makes the decision of whether a creature has no cover, half, 3/4, or total... but you should generally expect that shooting through combat might give them at least Half Cover, if your DM remembers to apply the rule.
That's it, that's the two "shooting into combat" rules you have to keep in mind.
There is also an optional rule in the Dungeon Master's Guide (chapter 9) for "Hitting Cover" where if your attack misses your target but would have hit without cover, it hits the cover instead. If the cover is a creature (friendly or otherwise), it hits that figure if the attack roll would hit their AC.
Firing into a melee requiring disadvantage is a house rule. Chicken covered the two cases that DO apply in the rules.
Making a ranged attack with an opponent adjacent is made at disadvantage unless you have the cross bow expert feat. This includes whether you are attacking the adjacent target or anyone else on the field. Having an opponent adjacent when you make a ranged attack imposed disadvantage on the attack roll. Misinterpreting this rule could be the source of your house rule.
However, more generally, making a ranged attack at a target that is behind cover or in a crowd where the creatures may be providing cover may result in the defender receiving a cover modifier to AC. I've seen lots of DMs pretty much ignore this but I usually give partial cover to the target (+2 AC) if you are trying to make a ranged attack against a creature with another creature in the way. It could be 3/4 cover (+5 AC) or even total cover (no attack possible) if there is a larger creature between you and your target. For example, trying to attack a creature who is on the other side of a gelatinous cube would likely have total cover against most attacks.
This is what we use as a house rule to try and keep things fair, impartial, and constant
-----
Ranged attack standardization.
*If* you are in melee combat, *OR* your target is in melee combat, *THEN* you have disadvantage on your attack roll
*IF* you shoot a ranged attack *AND* there is one character between you and your target, *THEN* your target benefits from half cover (+2 AC)
*IF* you shoot a ranged attack *AND* there are two characters between you and your target, *THEN* your target benefits from 3/4 cover (+5 AC)
*IF* you shoot a ranged attack *AND* there are three characters between you and your target, *THEN* your target benefits from full cover (can't be observed or targeted
*IF* you shoot past 1 or 2 characters *AND* the attack fails *BECAUSE OF* the increase in AC due to another character, *THEN* the attack strikes the first character in front.
*IF* the attack strikes the first character, *AND* the original roll to hit defeats the first characters AC, *THEN* the first character takes damage from the attack
Examples......
The Ranger spots the BBEG in the second rank of the shield wall. The Barbarian is fighting against the 1st rank. The Ranger shoots past Barbarian, past first rank, and tries to hit BBEG. BBEG gains +5 AC, but roll is not at disadvantage because BBEG is not in melee combat.
BBEG has AC 10+5. (15). Ranger rolls 8, complete miss Ranger rolls 13, hits Barbarian (AC 18), no damage
BBEG has AC 15+5 (20) Ranger rolls 13, complete miss Ranger rolls 19, his Barbarian (AC 18), roll damage and assess on Barbarian.
-------
Ranger spots the BBEG in the first rank of the shield wall. Barbarian is fighting him, Druid is behind Barbarian, not in contact. Ranger shoots past Druid, Past Barbarian, and tries to hit BBEG. BBEG gains +5 AC, and rollis at disadvantage because BBEG is in melee combat.
BBEG has AC 10+5. (15). Ranger rolls 8 with disadvantage, complete miss Ranger rolls 13 with disadvantage, hits Druid (AC 15), no damage
BBEG has AC 15+5 (20) Ranger rolls 13 with disadvantage, complete miss Ranger rolls 19 with disadvantage, hits Druid (AC 15), roll damage and assess on Druid.
Disadvantage doesn't make sense when the cover rules already exist.
The optional rule for accidentally hitting cover is a pain to use in the heat of the moment, but if you are using it, I could see voluntarily taking disadvantage to negate even the possibility of hitting whichever melee ally is providing cover to the target, but if you're not using the cover-hitting rules, normal cover rules are the way to simulate the difficulty of firing into melee.
If you are not using cover rules then a person who takes spell sniper or sharpshooter are getting cheated, because both of those feats let you ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover.
If you use the house rule about your TARGET being in melee then it gives you disadvantage on the shot, then you just negated the rogues sneak attack almost always. I don't think the rules are designed to completely nerf a major ability of the Rogue class. Think long and hard before applying that one.
*OR* your target is in melee combat, *THEN* you have disadvantage on your attack roll
I know it's an old comment, but this one is wild to me. Your target is actively distracted and engaged with someone else, why on earth would they be harder to hit than someone looking right at you and anticipating the shot?
I'm picturing a fighter grappling a goblin and the whole party just clustered around it for free Dodges as they make their way towards the goblin archers...
The disadvantage stems from the difficulty in hitting the target without instead hitting the creature which they are engaged in combat with. Re-reading this thread now, makes me like the RAW on this all the more. Disadvantage and advantage are quite big modifiers to apply and should not be done lightly. However, the rules for hitting cover are in most cases quite silly. For example: I shoot at the creature which the paladin is engaged with and don't have the sharpshooter feat. Anyone who has played an archer with a companion in Skyrim will tell you how often your friend steps in the way at the exact wrong moment. So, I miss the target by 2 and hit the paladin. In 5e, monsters tend to have low AC and paladins tend to have a high AC. So I struck the cover but in most cases their AC is higher and they won't actually get hit, even though they had their back to me and would actually make a very easy target, and weren't expecting to get shot in the back.
The disadvantage stems from the difficulty in hitting the target without instead hitting the creature which they are engaged in combat with. Re-reading this thread now, makes me like the RAW on this all the more. Disadvantage and advantage are quite big modifiers to apply and should not be done lightly. However, the rules for hitting cover are in most cases quite silly. For example: I shoot at the creature which the paladin is engaged with and don't have the sharpshooter feat. Anyone who has played an archer with a companion in Skyrim will tell you how often your friend steps in the way at the exact wrong moment. So, I miss the target by 2 and hit the paladin. In 5e, monsters tend to have low AC and paladins tend to have a high AC. So I struck the cover but in most cases their AC is higher and they won't actually get hit, even though they had their back to me and would actually make a very easy target, and weren't expecting to get shot in the back.
The Skyrim comparison isn't valid; armor in Skyrim doesn't reduce the chance of being hit, it reduces the damage you take from a hit. Your paladin example makes complete sense. The arrow hits the paladin but doesn't penetrate their big armor, which is exactly what would have happened if you'd actually aimed at the paladin and rolled the same number on the die.
The disadvantage stems from the difficulty in hitting the target without instead hitting the creature which they are engaged in combat with.
I still don't get it. You don't hit anything other than your target - including something it is engaged with - unless you miss your target in the first place.
There are two mechanics the player is using that create a double penalty. If you're making a shot at disadvantage because you're being extremely careful not to hit your ally, it would follow that a miss would not hit your ally. That's the whole reason you took a non-ideal shot. To then STACK that with "if you miss you might hit your ally" just feels like someone wants ranged attacks to be entirely ineffective in their game. You might as well just run into the fray and start swinging your longbow like a club.
Either you take a penalty to be extremely careful to avoid friendly fire, or you don't take penalty and friendly fire could happen. You should only pick one of those, if any.
Born in 1968. Married, no kids, one cat (pictured). I'm a veteran 1e and 2e DM, always open for help with 5e. I'm a middle school math teacher and I run a DnD club at my school.
The DMG has rules for shooting into cover. You could use them to indicate hitting others in melee.
When a ranged attack misses a target that has cover, you can use this optional rule to determine whether the cover was struck by the attack.
First, determine whether the attack roll would have hit the protected target without the cover. If the attack roll falls within a range low enough to miss the target but high enough to strike the target if there had been no cover, the object used for cover is struck. If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.
What about rolling a 1 meaning friendly fire when shooting into a melee?
Murphy's Laws of Combat Operations #Something-or-other - "The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire, is incoming friendly fire."
That would fall under house rule, if your DM is using critical fumble rules/tables. The few times I have had a player shoot at an enemy adjacent to another character and miss, I just described the miss as a very near hit of the other character, getting both their attention as to how close a shave it was. As noted prior, there is nothing RAW to cover this, and as far as I can tell, there is nothing that is RAI.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Been playing 5th less than a year now, and we’ve been using the rule that firing a ranged attack into a melee with party members is done at disadvantage. I’ve never thought much of it since 3E had a penalty for firing into melee, but I was looking and actually can’t find a rule for it. Is it a rule or is this something else my group should unlearn from 3E?
Two things to keep in mind, when shooting in combat:
1) Player's Handbook, Chapter 9: If you're using a ranged attack (Ranged Weapon like a bow, throwing a Melee Weapon with the Thrown ability, using a spell that makes a Ranged Spell Attack), if there is an enemy next to you, you have disadvantage on that attack. Certain feats or class features might negate that penalty, but by default, you the attacker are distracted and suffer disadvantage when there's an enemy next to you while making a ranged attack, whether or not that attack is targeting that close-up enemy.
2) Player's Handbook, Chapter 9: If you are making an attack, especially a ranged attack or one with a Reach weapon, and you're shooting/reaching past a creature/object/foliage/whatever, your target may have half, 3/4, or total cover against your attack. Half Cover will give them +2 AC, 3/4 Cover will give them +5 AC, and Total Cover will mean you can't even make an attack against them. Ultimately, the DM makes the decision of whether a creature has no cover, half, 3/4, or total... but you should generally expect that shooting through combat might give them at least Half Cover, if your DM remembers to apply the rule.
That's it, that's the two "shooting into combat" rules you have to keep in mind.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There is also an optional rule in the Dungeon Master's Guide (chapter 9) for "Hitting Cover" where if your attack misses your target but would have hit without cover, it hits the cover instead. If the cover is a creature (friendly or otherwise), it hits that figure if the attack roll would hit their AC.
Firing into a melee requiring disadvantage is a house rule. Chicken covered the two cases that DO apply in the rules.
Making a ranged attack with an opponent adjacent is made at disadvantage unless you have the cross bow expert feat. This includes whether you are attacking the adjacent target or anyone else on the field. Having an opponent adjacent when you make a ranged attack imposed disadvantage on the attack roll. Misinterpreting this rule could be the source of your house rule.
However, more generally, making a ranged attack at a target that is behind cover or in a crowd where the creatures may be providing cover may result in the defender receiving a cover modifier to AC. I've seen lots of DMs pretty much ignore this but I usually give partial cover to the target (+2 AC) if you are trying to make a ranged attack against a creature with another creature in the way. It could be 3/4 cover (+5 AC) or even total cover (no attack possible) if there is a larger creature between you and your target. For example, trying to attack a creature who is on the other side of a gelatinous cube would likely have total cover against most attacks.
This is what we use as a house rule to try and keep things fair, impartial, and constant
-----
Ranged attack standardization.
*If* you are in melee combat, *OR* your target is in melee combat, *THEN* you have disadvantage on your attack roll
*IF* you shoot a ranged attack *AND* there is one character between you and your target, *THEN* your target benefits from half cover (+2 AC)
*IF* you shoot a ranged attack *AND* there are two characters between you and your target, *THEN* your target benefits from 3/4 cover (+5 AC)
*IF* you shoot a ranged attack *AND* there are three characters between you and your target, *THEN* your target benefits from full cover (can't be observed or targeted
*IF* you shoot past 1 or 2 characters *AND* the attack fails *BECAUSE OF* the increase in AC due to another character, *THEN* the attack strikes the first character in front.
*IF* the attack strikes the first character, *AND* the original roll to hit defeats the first characters AC, *THEN* the first character takes damage from the attack
Examples......
The Ranger spots the BBEG in the second rank of the shield wall. The Barbarian is fighting against the 1st rank. The Ranger shoots past Barbarian, past first rank, and tries to hit BBEG. BBEG gains +5 AC, but roll is not at disadvantage because BBEG is not in melee combat.
BBEG has AC 10+5. (15).
Ranger rolls 8, complete miss
Ranger rolls 13, hits Barbarian (AC 18), no damage
BBEG has AC 15+5 (20)
Ranger rolls 13, complete miss
Ranger rolls 19, his Barbarian (AC 18), roll damage and assess on Barbarian.
-------
Ranger spots the BBEG in the first rank of the shield wall. Barbarian is fighting him, Druid is behind Barbarian, not in contact. Ranger shoots past Druid, Past Barbarian, and tries to hit BBEG. BBEG gains +5 AC, and rollis at disadvantage because BBEG is in melee combat.
BBEG has AC 10+5. (15).
Ranger rolls 8 with disadvantage, complete miss
Ranger rolls 13 with disadvantage, hits Druid (AC 15), no damage
BBEG has AC 15+5 (20)
Ranger rolls 13 with disadvantage, complete miss
Ranger rolls 19 with disadvantage, hits Druid (AC 15), roll damage and assess on Druid.
Disadvantage doesn't make sense when the cover rules already exist.
The optional rule for accidentally hitting cover is a pain to use in the heat of the moment, but if you are using it, I could see voluntarily taking disadvantage to negate even the possibility of hitting whichever melee ally is providing cover to the target, but if you're not using the cover-hitting rules, normal cover rules are the way to simulate the difficulty of firing into melee.
If you are not using cover rules then a person who takes spell sniper or sharpshooter are getting cheated, because both of those feats let you ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover.
If you use the house rule about your TARGET being in melee then it gives you disadvantage on the shot, then you just negated the rogues sneak attack almost always. I don't think the rules are designed to completely nerf a major ability of the Rogue class. Think long and hard before applying that one.
I know it's an old comment, but this one is wild to me. Your target is actively distracted and engaged with someone else, why on earth would they be harder to hit than someone looking right at you and anticipating the shot?
I'm picturing a fighter grappling a goblin and the whole party just clustered around it for free Dodges as they make their way towards the goblin archers...
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The disadvantage stems from the difficulty in hitting the target without instead hitting the creature which they are engaged in combat with. Re-reading this thread now, makes me like the RAW on this all the more. Disadvantage and advantage are quite big modifiers to apply and should not be done lightly. However, the rules for hitting cover are in most cases quite silly. For example: I shoot at the creature which the paladin is engaged with and don't have the sharpshooter feat. Anyone who has played an archer with a companion in Skyrim will tell you how often your friend steps in the way at the exact wrong moment. So, I miss the target by 2 and hit the paladin. In 5e, monsters tend to have low AC and paladins tend to have a high AC. So I struck the cover but in most cases their AC is higher and they won't actually get hit, even though they had their back to me and would actually make a very easy target, and weren't expecting to get shot in the back.
The Skyrim comparison isn't valid; armor in Skyrim doesn't reduce the chance of being hit, it reduces the damage you take from a hit. Your paladin example makes complete sense. The arrow hits the paladin but doesn't penetrate their big armor, which is exactly what would have happened if you'd actually aimed at the paladin and rolled the same number on the die.
I still don't get it. You don't hit anything other than your target - including something it is engaged with - unless you miss your target in the first place.
There are two mechanics the player is using that create a double penalty. If you're making a shot at disadvantage because you're being extremely careful not to hit your ally, it would follow that a miss would not hit your ally. That's the whole reason you took a non-ideal shot. To then STACK that with "if you miss you might hit your ally" just feels like someone wants ranged attacks to be entirely ineffective in their game. You might as well just run into the fray and start swinging your longbow like a club.
Either you take a penalty to be extremely careful to avoid friendly fire, or you don't take penalty and friendly fire could happen. You should only pick one of those, if any.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
What about rolling a 1 meaning friendly fire when shooting into a melee?
Born in 1968. Married, no kids, one cat (pictured). I'm a veteran 1e and 2e DM, always open for help with 5e. I'm a middle school math teacher and I run a DnD club at my school.
The DMG has rules for shooting into cover. You could use them to indicate hitting others in melee.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Murphy's Laws of Combat Operations #Something-or-other - "The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire, is incoming friendly fire."
That would fall under house rule, if your DM is using critical fumble rules/tables. The few times I have had a player shoot at an enemy adjacent to another character and miss, I just described the miss as a very near hit of the other character, getting both their attention as to how close a shave it was. As noted prior, there is nothing RAW to cover this, and as far as I can tell, there is nothing that is RAI.