Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Rule Clarifications – D&D.5

Rule Clarifications – D&D.5 5 years 10 months ago #1617

  • mikeawmids
  • mikeawmids's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • I cast phantasmal duck!
  • Posts: 952
I thought it might be useful to have a thread where D&D.5 GM’s can collaboratively discuss various issues that arise during play and work towards potential solutions not covered by the written rules (or that require creative interpretation of the existing rules).

I will start with SHOOTING INTO COMBAT.

In the rules as written, there is no penalty for doing this (unless you are within 5ft of your target). I feel there should be a penalty for shooting into melee and tend to impose disadvantage on these rolls. How do you guys deal with this issue in your own games?
Would you allow the creation of a new feat that negates this penalty? My gut reaction to this request was “no”, as I feel there should be a modifier to discourage archers firing carelessly into their own allies.

If you have any clarifications of your own, please post them here for other people to chip in. :D

EDIT: Also, how would you guys handle ATTACKING TARGETS WHO ARE GRAPPLING/BEING GRAPPLED?
Last Edit: 5 years 10 months ago by mikeawmids.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Rule Clarifications – D&D.5 5 years 10 months ago #1621

  • Sarge
  • Sarge's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 715
I have always advocated keeping things simple. The problem with earlier versions is that they got more bulky and cumbersome, certainly the higher level you got, making it a real bookkeeping exercise which to me massively detracted from what playing the game was all about.

D&D 5e consolidated and simplified the rules, ensuring each class has multiple options without slowing down the game

Do you really need to add another rule? Each combat round is meant to be fluid, characters aren't static and unable to react or move to better their position. Hence I don't see the need to impose a penalty in this way. Remember its not DM vs player, its a collaborative story, and they are heroes after all...

You could make it more difficult for the attacker by saying that the target has the effect of cover, increasing his AC accordingly. Or perhaps for a bit of fun, if the attacker rolls a 1 to hit, you could say that a friend has been hit instead of the intended target.
Last Edit: 5 years 10 months ago by Sarge.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Rule Clarifications – D&D.5 5 years 10 months ago #1623

  • MellyMel
  • MellyMel's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 322
i tend to ignore it too for a simple life, but if I wanted to penalise it i'd say give the target partial cover, +2 AC - then if you miss because of the partial cover i.e. by only one or two, you hit what ever was providing the cover. i.e. your chum most likely.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Rule Clarifications – D&D.5 5 years 10 months ago #1624

  • mikeawmids
  • mikeawmids's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • I cast phantasmal duck!
  • Posts: 952
Thanks for advice, fellas. Maybe I have been too harsh. I think I will roll with this;

"Or perhaps for a bit of fun, if the attacker rolls a 1 to hit, you could say that a friend has been hit instead of the intended target."

We can maybe leave this open in case anyone else wants to discuss this/another rules hiccup in future?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Rule Clarifications – D&D.5 5 years 10 months ago #1625

  • MellyMel
  • MellyMel's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 322
another thought on this, is that the rogue sneak attack (ranged) relies upon this specific setup to work effectively.
Another reason not to penalise it.
...OR penalise more it if you don't like rogues! ;-)
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Rule Clarifications – D&D.5 5 years 10 months ago #1626

  • Andrek
  • Andrek's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Elite Member
  • Posts: 224
I had a little think about this, and I think you should roll disadvantage when shooting at somebody involved in melee. I think that any innocent bystanders, i.e. anybody on adjacent squares, can be targeted by a missed shot, but only when both dice miss, the shot just missing everybody if there is just one failure.

Hitting the innocent bystanders on a miss automatically under these circumstances is wrong, as it makes the outcome dependant upon the original target's AC.

I would suggest that another attack roll be made against the new targets AC, but not including their DEX bonus, to cover the "I wasn't expecting that" factor.
Last Edit: 5 years 10 months ago by Andrek.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Time to create page: 0.094 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
Temrane - Thu 11 Aug - 11:09

round robin dnd should be happening tonight :)

Sarge - Thu 11 Aug - 10:35

What games are on tonight? Adam isn’t running his game and the round robin 5e table didn’t happen last week. Numbers may be a bit slim therefore. I’m running a one shot Cthulhu.

Sarge - Sun 7 Aug - 16:44

Sorry, that should be 11th Aug is final week

Sarge - Sun 7 Aug - 16:43

As a reminder, the next rotation starts on 18th Aug, so this Thursday (8th Aug) is the last week of the current rotation

rhodsey - Sun 7 Aug - 15:25

Might have a spare slot for Coriolis next rotation if anyone interested. See the game proposal thread for more and see the Games discussion thread for background info.

rhodsey - Thu 28 Jul - 12:06

Actually kicks off tonight. Opening ceremony.

mikeawmids - Thu 28 Jul - 11:26

Commonwealth Games in Birmingham 04/08/22 (next Thurdsay), there may be road closures on your route to the club.

mikeawmids - Tue 19 Jul - 09:14

Heads up, DriveThruRPG have kicked off their Christmas in July sale, BIG discounts on THOUSANDS of items!!!

The shoutbox is unavailable to non-members

No events found