Do you ignore penalties for shooting into close combat?

[Talakeal]

Long story short, I am playing my own system (link in the signature) which imposes a -4 penalty for shooting into close combat, as well as a -4 cover penalty for shooting through an opponents square.

Our current group is two ranged combatants, and two tanky melee characters, and is primarily a dungeon crawl with tight spaces. As a result, the parties damage output is very low.

One of the players told me that I need to remove the penalties for shooting into melee, as they are very dumb and annoying and nobody who players the game will ever use them.

I told him they are exactly the same as 3.5, he didn't believe me, we looked it up, and he said "well, that just proves my point. The rules are so dumb that despite playing 3E for 20+ years I have never been in a group that used them."

Looking it up, it appears that 5E and PF have both removed the penalty for shooting into melee, so maybe he is on to something.


Long story short, do you play with penalties for firing into melee or waive them? Do you think they are dumb rules that have no place in an RPG?

[pabelfly]

I've had to deal with the penalties in any group I've been in, and Precise Shot is a feat that nearly all dedicated archers take anyway.

[tyckspoon]

I think the combination of both 'shooting into melee' and 'shooting past somebody else' penalties may be a bit excessive, but certainly wouldn't say 'nobody plays with them' - in 3.5, at least, they may have a memory of that because almost every dedicated ranged character very quickly picks up feats/equipments/class abilities that let them ignore those penalties (which may then transfer into 'I think it's dumb that every single archer is obligated to pick up Precise Shot, we're just going to ignore those penalties' as a houserule.) Or possibly conflating both the 'shoot into melee' and 'shoot past something' penalties as being the same one, and allowing Precise Shot to ignore both of them when it only actually covers 'shoot into melee.'

I'd probably go with only having one or the other effect, just for simplicity's sake, or reduce the penalties associated with them so having both in effect is only pushing the roll to 'this is a hard shot' rather than the 'this is almost impossible' that it is in default 3.5 (and seemingly inherited into your system.)

..but then I would also expect any serious ranged combatant to dedicate some build resources to negating or mitigating these penalties, which apparently is not a thing your players bothered with, or trying to use attacks that reasonably would not have to deal with line of sight/cover issues (in D&D terms, things that would probably be attacking against saves rather than AC by trying to inflict an effect directly on the target, evoking a burst of damaging energy directly at the target point, etc.) Or acquire more mobility effects like flight/levitation/wallclimbing to be able to fire from unobstructed angles. But these are your players, who have learned that Whine At The GM is the only skill they actually need.

[AnonJr]

I'll add my 2cp, we also play with the penalty for firing into melee. The firing past thing never really came into play in our games.

We all either picked up the feat or spent the money on a "Precise" (+1 ability) weapon so we didn't need to worry about it. Or some of us were chaotic enough to not care... :smalltongue:

[Crake]

Or possibly conflating both the 'shoot into melee' and 'shoot past something' penalties as being the same one, and allowing Precise Shot to ignore both of them when it only actually covers 'shoot into melee.'

Well, it is IMPROVED precise shot that does allow you to ignore the cover penalties, so its at least somewhat understandable to make that mistake.

[icefractal]

Does your system have the equivalent of Precise Shot, and how difficult is it to acquire (compared to 3.x, say)?

Also, IIRC creatures are soft cover, only -2. So even with just regular Precise Shot you're at -2 in cramped situations, which is manageable. -8 seems like "why even bother?" although that's assuming modifiers have an effect similar to d20.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

TBH, I like the verisimilitude it adds.

RE cover, I seem to recall a rule that creatures allied to the shooter don't provide cover as long as you can communicate, but that could be a 4E addition.

[Crake]

Does your system have the equivalent of Precise Shot, and how difficult is it to acquire (compared to 3.x, say)?

Also, IIRC creatures are soft cover, only -2. So even with just regular Precise Shot you're at -2 in cramped situations, which is manageable. -8 seems like "why even bother?" although that's assuming modifiers have an effect similar to d20.

Soft cover is still +4, but it gives no reflex save bonus, nor does it allow you to hide.

Also worth noting that some people forget that determining cover for ranged attacks is actually more forgiving than for melee attacks. Instead of needing every point of your square to be clear to every point of their square, you only need one point of your square to be clear of every point of theirs, so you can shoot around corners farily easily without penalty, while still having cover yourself.

[Kitsuneymg]

Pathfinder has the same rules as 3.5 when it comes to shooting into melee.

The -4 to shoot into melee is *stupid* though. A guy fighting an ogre vs a guy standing in a field fully aware and concentrating on dodging the rangers attack. Who should be easier to hit? I don’t think it should the guy whose attention is on the great club coming for his spleen.

But it is (a very stupid) part of the game.

[Thurbane]

My group always plays with the -4 for firing into melee rule, and also any cover penalties that may also apply.

[Biggus]

Looking it up, it appears that 5E and PF have both removed the penalty for shooting into melee, so maybe he is on to something.


Do you mean PF 2E? Precise Shot still existed in 1E.

[Crake]

Pathfinder has the same rules as 3.5 when it comes to shooting into melee.

The -4 to shoot into melee is *stupid* though. A guy fighting an ogre vs a guy standing in a field fully aware and concentrating on dodging the rangers attack. Who should be easier to hit? I don’t think it should the guy whose attention is on the great club coming for his spleen.

But it is (a very stupid) part of the game.

The way I see it is that the penalty derives from you aiming to avoid hitting your allies. Personally, i remove the penalty if youre shooting indiscriminately, but apply the grapple rule of 25% chance to roll vs the other guy

[Darg]

My own house rule is that the soft cover modifier and shooting into melee penalty don't stack. Otherwise I play with them. The more egregious problem is the feat tax. I don't see any reason PBS should be a requirement for precise shot.

[blackwindbears]

I always use the penalties. It forces the players to work together, think about their targets and behave realistically.

"Close with their line so the archers will have to stop shooting at us" is a very real and realistic choice.

All things equal, players prefer their characters to be more powerful. My very generic advice is to play consistently by the book, despite this. Always remember that you're trying to run a game your players are invested in, NOT make them happy. Looking at it this way makes it easier to ignore requests of the "more power, plz" variety.

I would further guess that you don't use very many archers as enemies. Start using them more so that the players feel they benefit from this rule as well. Call out when a monster misses due to the rule:
"Alright, the archer line hits you seven times for 28 damage, oh wait. They're firing into melee, and you're getting soft cover from Alice's character. Looks like you only get hit once, four damage."

[Thurbane]

Hey, at least there's no chance of accidentally hitting an ally, like there was in AD&D 2E!

(My group have occasionally used this as a 3.5 house rule, depending on DM).

[KillianHawkeye]

Yes, all my groups have played with these rules in D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e.

[Khedrac]

I'm another who has always played with these rules.

In addition to what Thurbane put about 2nd Ed, I think it was RuneQuest where shooting into melee gave an equal chance to hit all combatants - the same as 3.5 grapple!

The one house-rule we do use for archery is shooting into a grapple, where if the grapplers are of very different sizes we make the chance of hitting each grappler roughly proportional to their size.

[Logalmier]

I don't implement the -4 for shooting into melee, but do implement the -4 for shooting through cover, and also ban improved precise shot. Feat taxes like precise shot have always irked me, and feats that do nothing but remove tactical considerations like improved precise shot also irk me. I want archers to have to consider movement and positioning as well. Plus, imo ranged combat should have downsides to balance out the advantage inherent to operating at range.

I can understand this being frustrating in a 10x10 corridor dungeon crawl, although this is a problem in many systems that encourage hyperspecialization, as 3.5 and PF do with most martials. "I sank all my feats into being the prettiest one trick pony you've ever seen, but turns out it's a rodeo".

[Mordante]

In my party we normally do use the penalty and we add a chance for friendly fire.

But we never ever do dungeon crawling. No one likes dungeon crawling.

[Talakeal]

Do you mean PF 2E? Precise Shot still existed in 1E.

Yeah, PF 2.

[Darg]

I don't implement the -4 for shooting into melee, but do implement the -4 for shooting through cover, and also ban improved precise shot. Feat taxes like precise shot have always irked me, and feats that do nothing but remove tactical considerations like improved precise shot also irk me. I want archers to have to consider movement and positioning as well. Plus, imo ranged combat should have downsides to balance out the advantage inherent to operating at range.

I can understand this being frustrating in a 10x10 corridor dungeon crawl, although this is a problem in many systems that encourage hyperspecialization, as 3.5 and PF do with most martials. "I sank all my feats into being the prettiest one trick pony you've ever seen, but turns out it's a rodeo".

I don't find precise shot to be a feat tax. The penalty disappears if you position right. If the target or part of the target is just 2 squares away (take a 5ft step) the penalty can be ignored.


If your target (or the part of your target you’re aiming at, if it’s a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the -4 penalty, even if the creature you’re aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.

Our ranged attackers skip the feat for others a good portion of the time.

[El Dorado]

Our group plays with all of these rules. They can be frustrating at low levels. Not using them would be a considerable boost for your ranged PCs.

If you opt to waive the penalties, the ranged PCs also lose the cover their front line has been providing against enemy ranged attacks. Hopefully they have ways to mitigate this exposure.

[Logalmier]

I don't find precise shot to be a feat tax. The penalty disappears if you position right. If the target or part of the target is just 2 squares away (take a 5ft step) the penalty can be ignored.

Our ranged attackers skip the feat for others a good portion of the time.

What do you do if a medium enemy stands next to an ally? I mean, you could technically make it work by having the entire team coordinate delays so that the archer always goes immediately after a threatened ally (giving the ally an opportunity to 5-foot step), but 1) that's crippling your collective initiative count, 2) assuming your allies CAN make a 5-foot step, and 3) assuming that your allies don't have their own positioning needs/things they want to do with their own move action. I'm curious as to how you make this work, because having the entire team coordinate around the archer's lack of precise shot seems extremely impractical to me, or at the very least not worth the opportunity cost of a feat.

[Larbek24]

In all games I played either as a GM or a player we used this rule and I think it is reasonable in what is supposed to represent. But if I GM I give the option to ignore the penalty but with a chance to hit your ally instead (the sociopath bonus).

[False God]

I've had DMs enforce it and others not, I usually take the feats to avoid the penalties anyway.

[Troacctid]

I personally think it's a terrible rule because it's just redundant with the cover rules. Sometimes I use the rule and sometimes I don't, depending on whether I want the campaign to be a more authentic 3.5e RAW experience or a more curated and customized experience.

And then even when the rule is in use, I regularly forget to apply it, as I'm sure many people do.

[loky1109]

I always use it as like as every DM I know.

[Talakeal]

I personally think it's a terrible rule because it's just redundant with the cover rules. Sometimes I use the rule and sometimes I don't, depending on whether I want the campaign to be a more authentic 3.5e RAW experience or a more curated and customized experience.

And then even when the rule is in use, I regularly forget to apply it, as I'm sure many people do.

It can be redundant with cover, but not always.

It can seem weird if you imagine the game world as being "static"; but if the guys are actually fighting they are constantly moving, and are probably spending a lot of time circling one another or even climbing atop on another and wrestling.

IRL, one of the basic rules of gun safety is that every bullet goes somewhere; and to always be mindful of who you will hit if you miss or over penetrate your target.


Of course, if you really don't care about who you hit, well, then yeah, its weird, my system has an alternate system where you can ignore said penalties if you instead fire into the area and hit a random target (as did earlier editions of D&D).

[Jay R]

Yes, of course I enforce the penalties for firing into melee.

But I lettered in archery, and have fought melees with archers in the SCA. I'm aware that it's hard to shoot into a melee. More important, any time you miss, you should have a chance to hit your own teammate. It should be obvious that of you miss the target, your arrow goes next to the target.

I also consider Precise Shot to be an necessary feat for an archer, just as Natural Spell is a necessary feat for a druid.

Yes, I understand that some people think appealing to actual knowledge and experience is a "guy at the gym" fallacy, and that PCs are more than human. But they are more than human by taking superior abilities -- like Precise Shot.

[Darg]

What do you do if a medium enemy stands next to an ally? I mean, you could technically make it work by having the entire team coordinate delays so that the archer always goes immediately after a threatened ally (giving the ally an opportunity to 5-foot step), but 1) that's crippling your collective initiative count, 2) assuming your allies CAN make a 5-foot step, and 3) assuming that your allies don't have their own positioning needs/things they want to do with their own move action. I'm curious as to how you make this work, because having the entire team coordinate around the archer's lack of precise shot seems extremely impractical to me, or at the very least not worth the opportunity cost of a feat.

What's more damaging to your initiative count? Missing your target or delaying once? The feat is a bonus. Yes, it allows you to more easily act in such a situation. But really, how many times are your allies not using their 5 ft steps or the enemy isn't large or larger? Not as often as one thinks. I find soft cover a lot harder to deal with more consistently, hence improved precise shot requiring +11 BAB.

But really, you should be thinking about how much of a bonus being able to full attack at 110+ range is vs those "melee" opponents. A -4 penalty is pretty minor for that advantage and it applies in very specific situations that are really easy to work around. I can see it being more mandatory if all your melee are pouncing barbarians, which is not all that common.

[Amidus Drexel]

I personally think it's a terrible rule because it's just redundant with the cover rules. Sometimes I use the rule and sometimes I don't, depending on whether I want the campaign to be a more authentic 3.5e RAW experience or a more curated and customized experience.

And then even when the rule is in use, I regularly forget to apply it, as I'm sure many people do.

Yeah, this is my experience. The cover rules already cover (ha) the situation where you're intentionally firing past someone, and have identical penalties. No need to double up on it unless people are sticklers for RAW (pretty uncommon in my experience).

[gijoemike]

I personally think it's a terrible rule because it's just redundant with the cover rules. Sometimes I use the rule and sometimes I don't, depending on whether I want the campaign to be a more authentic 3.5e RAW experience or a more curated and customized experience.

And then even when the rule is in use, I regularly forget to apply it, as I'm sure many people do.

It doesn't seem redundant to me. Making sure your line of fire is clear of friendlies is very important. This is based on angles from your current position.

And if there is something or someone still in the way then that is an additional -4 penalty.

[Satinavian]

No, i am not ignoring the penalties if a system has any.

But when system has something similar to precise shot, ranged characters tend to take it.

[Talakeal]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if the penalties for firing into close combat are waived if you cannot hurt your allies? For example they are incorporeal and you are attacking with a non-magical bow?

[SangoProduction]

I've literally never had it come up.
OK. I lie. I think I've had 2 times, since I started playing online, where it came up. And that was immediately followed by "I already have precise shot, because it's required for the next feat, so it doesn't matter."

[Talakeal]

I've literally never had it come up.
OK. I lie. I think I've had 2 times, since I started playing online, where it came up. And that was immediately followed by "I already have precise shot, because it's required for the next feat, so it doesn't matter."

It came up twice for me last night, and I had no answers.

Honestly, an argument about firing into close combat penalties comes up pretty much every encounter of the current game because we are doing a dungeon crawl in tight spaces with a party of two tanky melee and two ranged damage dealer.

Admittedly, we are playing my own system, so the D&D comparisons don't matter too much, but we played D&D for years without any complains and my players don't believe me when I tell them that my system works the exact same as D&D in that regard.

Maybe I should ask in the simple RAW thread?

[Darg]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if the penalties for firing into close combat are waived if you cannot hurt your allies? For example they are incorporeal and you are attacking with a non-magical bow?

The answer is in the combat rules:


Shooting or Throwing into a Melee

If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)

As long as one of them threatens, they are both engaged in melee.

[tyckspoon]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if the penalties for firing into close combat are waived if you cannot hurt your allies? For example they are incorporeal and you are attacking with a non-magical bow?

There is no RAW exemption or allowance for this. That said, as far as the underlying reasoning for the rule I believe the idea is that you are taking extra care to make sure you do not accidentally hit the wrong target, and the penalty represents the extra difficulty in finding and accurately using the opportunities to make those shots.. so I would consider both 'you can ignore the penalty if you are willing to take a risk of hitting the wrong target' and 'you can ignore the penalty if there is no way in which your ally can actually obstruct your shot' as reasonable rulings.

[Talakeal]

There is no RAW exemption or allowance for this. That said, as far as the underlying reasoning for the rule I believe the idea is that you are taking extra care to make sure you do not accidentally hit the wrong target, and the penalty represents the extra difficulty in finding and accurately using the opportunities to make those shots.. so I would consider both 'you can ignore the penalty if you are willing to take a risk of hitting the wrong target' and 'you can ignore the penalty if there is no way in which your ally can actually obstruct your shot' as reasonable rulings.

Thank you for the answer.

[Hrugner]

I use both. I like that shooting into combat and through an occupied square means that, as an archer, you may have to move more often than just full attacking every round. I like that it encourages people to close into melee to get protection from ranged threats, and I like that it makes a flying target the most attractive target for archers.

[rel]

I use both.


Pathfinder has the same rules as 3.5 when it comes to shooting into melee.

The -4 to shoot into melee is *stupid* though. A guy fighting an ogre vs a guy standing in a field fully aware and concentrating on dodging the rangers attack. Who should be easier to hit? I don’t think it should the guy whose attention is on the great club coming for his spleen.

But it is (a very stupid) part of the game.

This is a good in universe rational for removing the penalty should you want to do so.

The cover penalty can make tactical combat more interesting, but the shooting into combat rule rarely results in a more engaging play experience, so I'd be happy to axe it. Although its part of a wider 3.x design philosophy of characters only being good at the thing they specialise in, so changing it in isolation seems odd.

[Kitsuneymg]

I use both.



This is a good in universe rational for removing the penalty should you want to do so.

The cover penalty can make tactical combat more interesting, but the shooting into combat rule rarely results in a more engaging play experience, so I'd be happy to axe it. Although its part of a wider 3.x design philosophy of characters only being good at the thing they specialise in, so changing it in isolation seems odd.

When playing Pathfinder, I always utilize some form of tax removal. Usually both the Elephant in the Room system and spheres of might. I also typically remove the -4 to shoot into melee. Cover (including soft cover) is still applicable.

[Jay R]

The Precise Shot Feat exists. If you want the ability to shoot into melee without a penalty, you can have it.

Take the Feat you want. It's that straightforward. Otherwise, you're asking to have an extra feat.

[Logalmier]

The Precise Shot Feat exists. If you want the ability to shoot into melee without a penalty, you can have it.

Take the Feat you want. It's that straightforward. Otherwise, you're asking to have an extra feat.

Alternatively, it is very reasonable to look at feats that are both mandatory and uninteresting, make a table-wide decision that they don't enhance the play experience, and collectively axe them from your game. The extra feat(s) can then hopefully be used to make characters with a bit more diversity than just "I take point-blank shot -> precise shot -> imp. precise shot default archer build".

[Telonius]

Size difference is the big thing that makes it kind of silly, IMO. The "Gnome standing next to a Dragon" situation shouldn't make it more difficult to hit the dragon. (Though it probably won't be healthy for the Gnome for other reasons). The situation would better be handled just by using the Cover rules.



Hey, at least there's no chance of accidentally hitting an ally, like there was in AD&D 2E!

The rule is still on the books for Grappling (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm). (Improved Precise Shot removes the chance).

[Talakeal]

Size difference is the big thing that makes it kind of silly, IMO. The "Gnome standing next to a Dragon" situation shouldn't make it more difficult to hit the dragon. (Though it probably won't be healthy for the Gnome for other reasons). The situation would better be handled just by using the Cover rules.

I agree.

In my system I reduce the penalty to -2 if the target is larger than the ally and increase it to -6 if it is smaller.

Of course, those -6 penalties are really cheesing my player off, and I can't fall back on the "D&D did it first and you never complained".

[Jay R]

Alternatively, it is very reasonable to look at feats that are both mandatory and uninteresting, make a table-wide decision that they don't enhance the play experience, and collectively axe them from your game. The extra feat(s) can then hopefully be used to make characters with a bit more diversity than just "I take point-blank shot -> precise shot -> imp. precise shot default archer build".

First, I can't imagine that an archer who expected to shoot into a melee wouldn't focus on doing so safely. That's not "uninteresting"; it's just good design.

Also, is this just an excuse to give more feats to archers, or do you do the equivalent across the board, for all builds with an obvious "uninteresting" feat?

Natural Spell for druids,
Power Attack for melee fighters with two-handed weapons,
Spell Focus for all specialist wizards,
etc.

If you only do it for archers, then don't bother justifying it. If you want to give archers more feats, then give archers more feats. That's fine; you don't need an excuse.

If you do it for everyone, you're just giving everyone more feats. Again, you don't need an excuse; just do it.

I won't axe it from my game because that gives an ability to casual archers that I believe ought to be restricted to focused archers.

[And because my players actually enjoy playing D&D. They aren't asking for special rules annulments.]

But feel free to give a freebie archery feat to everyone in your game, just as I feel free not to give one out in my game.

In any event, the original question was whether we enforce those penalties. You saying "no" and me saying "yes" are both parts of the answer.


Long story short, do you play with penalties for firing into melee or waive them? Do you think they are dumb rules that have no place in an RPG?

In my game, there is no point to waiving them. There are two archers in the party. One has Precise Shot, and the other is very good at avoiding the penalty. It's a condition of the game. Playing the game means trying to optimize your actions within a given set of conditions.


Size difference is the big thing that makes it kind of silly, IMO. The "Gnome standing next to a Dragon" situation shouldn't make it more difficult to hit the dragon. (Though it probably won't be healthy for the Gnome for other reasons).

Agreed. That's part of why DMs have the final say. If the target is six feet taller than the ones engaged with it, then I don't enforce a penalty. Just tell me you're aiming over their heads. [See "very good at avoiding the penalty", above.]

[Darg]

If your target (or the part of your target you’re aiming at, if it’s a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the -4 penalty, even if the creature you’re aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.

Large creatures basically automatically never have the shoot into melee penalty applied to them. "I shoot the part of the creature inside of this square that's 10 ft away from my ally." A gnome standing next to a large or larger sized dragon does not make it harder to hit.

[Talakeal]

Large creatures basically automatically never have the shoot into melee penalty applied to them. "I shoot the part of the creature inside of this square that's 10 ft away from my ally." A gnome standing next to a large or larger sized dragon does not make it harder to hit.

Is that from 3.5? I never noticed that rule. Interesting.

I wonder how liberal it is with choosing what part you are aiming at? Do you need to aim at the closest square? Can you shoot through a creature's squares to hit a more distant part of it?

Also, I don't think the rules work for large creatures, they would have to be atleast huge and more likely gargantuan by my reading.

[Darg]

Is that from 3.5? I never noticed that rule. Interesting.

I wonder how liberal it is with choosing what part you are aiming at? Do you need to aim at the closest square? Can you shoot through a creature's squares to hit a more distant part of it?

Also, I don't think the rules work for large creatures, they would have to be atleast huge and more likely gargantuan by my reading.

Yes it's 3.5 in the combat rules under the attack action subheader section named "Shooting or Throwing into a Melee (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack)."

10 ft is just 2 squares away. A large creature occupies the squares 5 and 10 ft away. Mechanically, a creature is considered occupying all squares of the space they take. It's understandable to rule that squares in front provide cover for those in the rear, but creatures aren't stationary and can conceptually move an exposed part into any square from an angle that allows clear Los and LoE to that part. From a gameplay perspective, it's just easier and more fun to simply let shooters not have a penalty if they shoot large or larger creatures with unthreatened squares without penalty. It makes precise shot not a feat tax to get rid of an overbearing penalty that combines with another huge penalty: soft cover.

[Talakeal]

Yes it's 3.5 in the combat rules under the attack action subheader section named "Shooting or Throwing into a Melee (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack)."

10 ft is just 2 squares away. A large creature occupies the squares 5 and 10 ft away. Mechanically, a creature is considered occupying all squares of the space they take. It's understandable to rule that squares in front provide cover for those in the rear, but creatures aren't stationary and can conceptually move an exposed part into any square from an angle that allows clear Los and LoE to that part. From a gameplay perspective, it's just easier and more fun to simply let shooters not have a penalty if they shoot large or larger creatures with unthreatened squares without penalty. It makes precise shot not a feat tax to get rid of an overbearing penalty that combines with another huge penalty: soft cover.

Thank you.

I looked it up last night. Yeah, I didn't recall that rule.

The whole idea of aiming at a section of a creature's space is an odd one that requires some DM interpretation as written, but IMO there is no reasonable reading of it that applies to a creature smaller than huge (unless reach weapons are involved).

[Darg]

Thank you.

I looked it up last night. Yeah, I didn't recall that rule.

The whole idea of aiming at a section of a creature's space is an odd one that requires some DM interpretation as written, but IMO there is no reasonable reading of it that applies to a creature smaller than huge (unless reach weapons are involved).

Targeting part of a creature is simply an explanation of what is happening. Mechanically nothing changes as you simply target the creature as normal.

I don't understand why you think it doesn't apply to large creatures? A large creature takes up 4 squares. Adjacent squares is a range of 5 ft. The square beyond that is a range of 10ft. 1v1 a large creature will always have a minimum of 2 squares 10 ft away from a creature they are adjacent to as you count distance from the center of each square. If you counted distance from the edge of a square, a 30ft speed would allow you to move 7 squares instead of the intended 6 squares. Or a reach weapon on a medium creature can hit creatures 2 and 3 squares away.

[Talakeal]

Targeting part of a creature is simply an explanation of what is happening. Mechanically nothing changes as you simply target the creature as normal.

Right. But I would look pretty weird at a player who wanted to ignore a penalty because they declared they were shooting a giant in the back from the front.


I don't understand why you think it doesn't apply to large creatures? A large creature takes up 4 squares. Adjacent squares is a range of 5 ft. The square beyond that is a range of 10ft. 1v1 a large creature will always have a minimum of 2 squares 10 ft away from a creature they are adjacent to as you count distance from the center of each square. If you counted distance from the edge of a square, a 30ft speed would allow you to move 7 squares instead of the intended 6 squares. Or a reach weapon on a medium creature can hit creatures 2 and 3 squares away.

Man, it has been way too long since I have played 3.5.

Going back and reading the rules, yeah, that's right. It seems much more intuitive to me for creatures to occupy their entire square, but by RAW they do seem to be a 1 dimensional point at the square's center. I forgot how weird 3.5 measuring distances actually were, and people say the 4E cubical fire balls hurt immersion...

Not sure why you say 30' would allow 7 squares movement though. If the front, back, and center of the creature moves exactly 30', they transverse exactly six squares. Are you measuring front to back or something in this example? Because if so I agree that shouldn't be allowed in any case.

[RNightstalker]

I always use the penalties. It forces the players to work together, think about their targets and behave realistically.

I love it when people bring the "R" word into the discussion.


Hey, at least there's no chance of accidentally hitting an ally, like there was in AD&D 2E!
(My group have occasionally used this as a 3.5 house rule, depending on DM).

Of course there is. If you miss your target, you have to roll again to see if you hit a different target


The Precise Shot Feat exists. If you want the ability to shoot into melee without a penalty, you can have it.
Take the Feat you want. It's that straightforward. Otherwise, you're asking to have an extra feat.

Simple is better.


Alternatively, it is very reasonable to look at feats that are both mandatory and uninteresting, make a table-wide decision that they don't enhance the play experience, and collectively axe them from your game. The extra feat(s) can then hopefully be used to make characters with a bit more diversity than just "I take point-blank shot -> precise shot -> imp. precise shot default archer build".

Are we axing them from the game if we're just essentially giving them away as a freebee?



But feel free to give a freebie archery feat to everyone in your game, just as I feel free not to give one out in my game.


We need more of this on the forum.


Size difference is the big thing that makes it kind of silly, IMO. The "Gnome standing next to a Dragon" situation shouldn't make it more difficult to hit the dragon. (Though it probably won't be healthy for the Gnome for other reasons). The situation would better be handled just by using the Cover rules.


People miss what they aim for; sometimes that bad too...natural 1's can make things interesting in this wonderful game.

EDIT: I play with it in my game. I inherited a campaign where the PC's essentially got four extra feats for free, and it cheapens the value of a feat, and stacks the deck against the DM to have meaningful encounters.

[Darg]

Right. But I would look pretty weird at a player who wanted to ignore a penalty because they declared they were shooting a giant in the back from the front.



Man, it has been way too long since I have played 3.5.

Going back and reading the rules, yeah, that's right. It seems much more intuitive to me for creatures to occupy their entire square, but by RAW they do seem to be a 1 dimensional point at the square's center. I forgot how weird 3.5 measuring distances actually were, and people say the 4E cubical fire balls hurt immersion...

Not sure why you say 30' would allow 7 squares movement though. If the front, back, and center of the creature moves exactly 30', they transverse exactly six squares. Are you measuring front to back or something in this example? Because if so I agree that shouldn't be allowed in any case.

I think you're under a misunderstanding of what things represent. You are considered to occupy the entire space because in reality creatures move while in combat. Whether with moving footwork or changing stances or some other reason. The story aspect of what happens to a character is created after the mechanics tell you what actually happens. So you roll, minus the penalty, it's a hit and you tell the story of how the ogre quickly moves its head back out of reach of a sword thrust and the arrow pierces its eye, killing it. The head had moved far enough away that the archer was confident in their ability not to hit their ally.

As for distances, each square is 5 ft. Characters are assumed to be at the center of the square because thinking they are on an edge or corner just doesn't make sense. You were mentioning how it would have to be a huge creature to benefit from the exception to the penalty. 10 ft (large) is 2 squares and 15 ft (huge) is 3 squares. If 10 ft took the 3 squares as would be needed for a huge creature, then why wouldn't 30 ft movement be 7 squares? I was pointing out it just doesn't logically work that way.

[Talakeal]

I think you're under a misunderstanding of what things represent. You are considered to occupy the entire space because in reality creatures move while in combat. Whether with moving footwork or changing stances or some other reason. The story aspect of what happens to a character is created after the mechanics tell you what actually happens. So you roll, minus the penalty, it's a hit and you tell the story of how the ogre quickly moves its head back out of reach of a sword thrust and the arrow pierces its eye, killing it. The head had moved far enough away that the archer was confident in their ability not to hit their ally.

As for distances, each square is 5 ft. Characters are assumed to be at the center of the square because thinking they are on an edge or corner just doesn't make sense. You were mentioning how it would have to be a huge creature to benefit from the exception to the penalty. 10 ft (large) is 2 squares and 15 ft (huge) is 3 squares. If 10 ft took the 3 squares as would be needed for a huge creature, then why wouldn't 30 ft movement be 7 squares? I was pointing out it just doesn't logically work that way.

I don't follow.

I am saying that it is RAW that you only occupy the center point of your square, but this feels counterintuitive. For example, two guys standing on opposite sides of a 5' pit are "10' apart" by RAW even though there is less than 10' between them.

I don't follow your movement example. If every point of the creature moves forward thirty feet, that means that no point can ever be more than six squares from where it started regardless of size or which part of the space you are measuring from (as long as you measure from the same point(s).



As for the shooting description, I am not sure exactly what you are saying. Let's try an example:

My ally is fighting an ogre in melee, they are both in adjacent spaces and face to face.
I am in front of the ogre on the same side as my ally, but not directly behind him.
I fire my bow at the ogre.

Do I:

A: Suffer the -4 penalty for firing into melee.
B: Not suffer the -4 penalty for firing into melee.
C: Suffer the -4 penalty for firing into melee unless I declare that I am firing at the one of the ogre's back squares.

[Darg]

I am saying that it is RAW that you only occupy the center point of your square, but this feels counterintuitive. For example, two guys standing on opposite sides of a 5' pit are "10' apart" by RAW even though there is less than 10' between them.

A 5ft wide pit is only 5 ft of space. 5ft long, 5ft wide, and 5ft tall. If two creatures occupy the same 5 ft square, they are 0 ft from each other. A 10ft radius pit is 4 squares. At any point in time they are at most 5 ft away from each other. You aren't considered to occupy only the center point of your square, you are considered to occupy any part of a square you are in. You only measure distances by using the center point. This keeps everything equidistant.


I don't follow your movement example. If every point of the creature moves forward thirty feet, that means that no point can ever be more than six squares from where it started regardless of size or which part of the space you are measuring from (as long as you measure from the same point(s).

That's fine. You can ignore it at this point. It isn't helping and it's derailing things.


As for the shooting description, I am not sure exactly what you are saying. Let's try an example:

My ally is fighting an ogre in melee, they are both in adjacent spaces and face to face.
I am in front of the ogre on the same side as my ally, but not directly behind him.
I fire my bow at the ogre.

Do I:

A: Suffer the -4 penalty for firing into melee.
B: Not suffer the -4 penalty for firing into melee.
C: Suffer the -4 penalty for firing into melee unless I declare that I am firing at the one of the ogre's back squares.

B is the right answer.

[Talakeal]

A 5ft wide pit is only 5 ft of space. 5ft long, 5ft wide, and 5ft tall. If two creatures occupy the same 5 ft square, they are 0 ft from each other. A 10ft radius pit is 4 squares. At any point in time they are at most 5 ft away from each other. You aren't considered to occupy only the center point of your square, you are considered to occupy any part of a square you are in. You only measure distances by using the center point. This keeps everything equidistant.

Does what part of the square you occupy actually matter though?

And do you not see how the following sentence is both correct by D&D rules but really counter intuitive based on common language? "There is five feet between Bob and Alice. Bob and Alice are ten feet apart."



B is the right answer.

I feel like that is the weirdest answer. If that was actually RAI, I think they would have worded it differently.

Can I deliberately target a closer space and incur the -4 penalty for whatever reason?

Does that mean that a character will never suffer firing into close combat penalties when shooting at a huge or larger creature as the middle square is always more than 10' away from every other character? (Although I guess you could have a situation where a tiny creature is occupying the same square, which is even more counterintuitive).

[Darg]

Does what part of the square you occupy actually matter though?

And do you not see how the following sentence is both correct by D&D rules but really counter intuitive based on common language? "There is five feet between Bob and Alice. Bob and Alice are ten feet apart."

That's the point, it doesn't matter. While those two sentences can be both correct, the one in the rule for shooting into a melee is "at least 10 feet away." Let's compare it to the text for reach weapons: "With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet)." So, either reach weapons and the penalty removal work 2 squares away or they both require 3 squares away; leaving reach weapons with the question of what happens for the square between 1 and 3.



I feel like that is the weirdest answer. If that was actually RAI, I think they would have worded it differently.

Can I deliberately target a closer space and incur the -4 penalty for whatever reason?

Does that mean that a character will never suffer firing into close combat penalties when shooting at a huge or larger creature as the middle square is always more than 10' away from every other character? (Although I guess you could have a situation where a tiny creature is occupying the same square, which is even more counterintuitive).

The default should be that a player would not willingly take a penalty unless they deliberately mention wanting a specific outcome, which is why I said B. Bad feelings happen when the DM imposes negative enforcement after the fact without warning. It's like the target having cover from some corners and not with others. It's just smoother to assume a player is going to not give their enemy an advantage. That said, if they deliberately want to shoot into a square that receives the penalty, there's nothing actually stopping them. At the same time, there's no incentive either.

[Talakeal]

Its been over a decade since we actually played 3.5, but after this discussion I went home and thoroughly reread the measuring rules in the PHB, and they are so much weirder than I remember, to the point where my roommate who used to play with me thought I was making some of them up.

One of the weirdest things is measuring the range of area spells, as you always measure from the center of the caster's space, but target grid intersections. I am not sure if RAW is that you measure from the corner of the casters space or just round down to account for that extra fraction of a space.

I still don't think the RAI is to target the back spaces of a large creature from the front, and the RAW is ambiguously worded enough that it wouldn't fly at my table, but it is certainly a valid reading. Searching online, I could only find a single thread on the subject, in which the DM ruled against it, but no official word or in depth discussion, which is weird for a game so heavily picked apart online.

There is also mention that some creatures completely fill their spaces, the example given is a gelatinous cube, so I imagine the rule also interacts with those creatures in weird ways.

[Jay R]

Any simulation game can be made more and more complicated until it is too complex to ever play. But as long as we're assuming that a PC could have a 60% or 65% chance of hitting his target, but never a 62.367407% probability, then we have already imposed a somewhat inaccurate discrete stepwise simulation for something that is actually continuous. We do the same thing with location. This is not because we believe that in this fantasy world, people actually live on a five-foot grid, but because that slight inaccuracy allows us to play the game at all.


Does what part of the square you occupy actually matter though?

No. The whole point is to come up with a simulation that is close enough to the fantasy situation we imagine to represent it, but simple enough to play. To do this, we often simulate a continuous function with discrete values. The battle grid is part of that, no different from the d20 to-hit mechanism, the number of hit points or a discrete whole number for strength, dexterity, or intelligence.


And do you not see how the following sentence is both correct by D&D rules but really counter intuitive based on common language? "There is five feet between Bob and Alice. Bob and Alice are ten feet apart."

Don't confuse the deliberately simple discrete simulation with the more complicated continuous situation it is simulating. It's more reasonable to say, "Neither Bob nor Alice are motionless, but each mostly stays within 2-3 feet from a given center. Those centers are more-or-less ten feet apart, so there is a roughly five-foot area neither one enters." But even that assumes the grid that we know isn't really there.

So the real situation is this: "Alice just stepped away from Bob, out of range of his club. So Bob and Alice are moving around, out of range of a standard weapon. There's a lot of space between them. To keep the game moving, we will simulate that by treating them as if they were exactly 10 feet apart, and treat a five-foot area between them as if neither of them ever moves into it. That's close enough to decide who can attack what target."


Can I deliberately target a closer space and incur the -4 penalty for whatever reason?

Sure.

Player: There's an ogre standing behind my ally. I target the ogre's belly, trying to get my arrow to go just over my ally's left shoulder.
DM: OK, but that will incur the -4 penalty.


Does that mean that a character will never suffer firing into close combat penalties when shooting at a huge or larger creature as the middle square is always more than 10' away from every other character? (Although I guess you could have a situation where a tiny creature is occupying the same square, which is even more counterintuitive).

This is what DM judgment calls are for. If my player says her PC is targeting the ogre's upper body, then I don't assume a penalty. I lettered in archery in high school, and I don't believe a competent, trained archer will miss the target by six feet in a direction that she's trying to avoid. doesn't mention it, I will. It's the DM's job to point out things the player isn't imagining but that the PC would notice automatically.]

But a normal-sized enemy fighting a normal-sized ally? Shooting at that is taking a risk.

More on DM judgment: If the PC has a good, open line to the target, I have her roll normally. But if she misses the target, then she will roll to see if she hit her ally.

But if the ally is between her and the enemy? -4 penalty. Absolutely. [Except for Steve. His PC has Precise Shot.]

[Crake]

One of the weirdest things is measuring the range of area spells, as you always measure from the center of the caster's space, but target grid intersections. I am not sure if RAW is that you measure from the corner of the casters space or just round down to account for that extra fraction of a space.

Considering, for area spells, any part of the area that is beyond the spell’s maximum range, that area is wasted, you would almost never actually have to worry about losing that half a square, because it would be limited by the spells range afterward anyway. As for aiming lines and cones, those originate from a corner of your square anyway, not from the center. You can in fact, aim a cone or line backwards and have it hit you, if you really wanted

[Talakeal]

More on DM judgment: If the PC has a good, open line to the target, I have her roll normally. But if she misses the target, then she will roll to see if she hit her ally.

But if the ally is between her and the enemy? -4 penalty. Absolutely. [Except for Steve. His PC has Precise Shot.]

Right, but we aren't targeting the ogre's upper body, we are targeting its back (from its front).

You can tell this because the size of the model it is engaged with is irrelevant (you can avoid the penalty by shooting the back square equally well if the ogre's is fighting a 2' tall gnome or a 50' tall titan) and that this strategy it doesn't work at all if the ogre is engaged from the back (even by a little halfling).

IMO the idea that you can target the back squares from the front is not a reasonable reading based on the fiction or the cover and LoS rules. And, by the fact that there would be much simpler and more straightforward ways to phrase it if they intended it to work this way. It is fairly clear to me that they meant you won't suffer firing into close combat penalties if you are on the opposite side of a large creature from what it is engaged to*, but the RAW is ambiguous.



*: Or the unengaged side / corner in the case of a really big creature.





Considering, for area spells, any part of the area that is beyond the spell’s maximum range, that area is wasted, you would almost never actually have to worry about losing that half a square, because it would be limited by the spells range afterward anyway. As for aiming lines and cones, those originate from a corner of your square anyway, not from the center. You can in fact, aim a cone or line backwards and have it hit you, if you really wanted

But isn't the maximum range also calculated from the center of the caster's square?

[Darg]

Right, but we aren't targeting the ogre's upper body, we are targeting its back (from its front).

I think you are getting confused here. In 3.5, there is no "back" mechanically. All that is held in setting when adjudicating the story. When shooting an enemy with an exposed square it's not that you are hitting them from behind, it's shooting them when they are exposed out of the melee. Think of it like cover. Parts that are exposed enable you to bypass their cover.

[Talakeal]

I think you are getting confused here. In 3.5, there is no "back" mechanically. All that is held in setting when adjudicating the story. When shooting an enemy with an exposed square it's not that you are hitting them from behind, it's shooting them when they are exposed out of the melee. Think of it like cover. Parts that are exposed enable you to bypass their cover.

That's not what the rules say though, the rules say you are targeting a "part of the creature" which in this case just so happens to be the part on the opposite side of the creature's body from where you are standing.

It is very much not like cover; if there is cover between the shooter and the target, the shooter will suffer the to hit penalty regardless of whether or not the far side of the creature is wholly exposed.

[Darg]

That's not what the rules say though, the rules say you are targeting a "part of the creature" which in this case just so happens to be the part on the opposite side of the creature's body from where you are standing.

It is very much not like cover; if there is cover between the shooter and the target, the shooter will suffer the to hit penalty regardless of whether or not the far side of the creature is wholly exposed.

That's not how it works. The mechanics simulate reality to some extent. In setting context a creature can fully vacate 3 of the 4 squares if they want to. It's just that mechanically they would still be considered to be occupying all the squares. A single attack roll represents a multitude of attempts and feints. Creatures are not standing stationary, they are moving within the space they occupy. Characters can lunge and retreat within the space they take up. If they back step 5 ft, they don't have to be in melee for the shot.

[Talakeal]

That's not how it works. The mechanics simulate reality to some extent. In setting context a creature can fully vacate 3 of the 4 squares if they want to. It's just that mechanically they would still be considered to be occupying all the squares. A single attack roll represents a multitude of attempts and feints. Creatures are not standing stationary, they are moving within the space they occupy. Characters can lunge and retreat within the space they take up. If they back step 5 ft, they don't have to be in melee for the shot.

I find it hard to believe that there is a period every 6 seconds where a 35' long T-Rex or a six-ton wooly mammoth is entirely confined to the central 5' square of its 15' base.

Likewise, if the game does operate on that logic, why would a 5' pillar still grant them cover 100% of the time? Why can't you simply wait to take your shots at the moment when the target has wholly stepped out from behind it?

[Darg]

I find it hard to believe that there is a period every 6 seconds where a 35' long T-Rex or a six-ton wooly mammoth is entirely confined to the central 5' square of its 15' base.

Likewise, if the game does operate on that logic, why would a 5' pillar still grant them cover 100% of the time? Why can't you simply wait to take your shots at the moment when the target has wholly stepped out from behind it?

You can wait for the moment the target steps out of cover. Readied actions allow you to ready an action for such a scenario.

Maybe you aren't understanding that you still have the soft cover bonus to contend with? There's no reason for large or larger creatures to have to contend with the shoot into melee penalty when cover combines with it to make it basically a -8 penalty. In your scenario with the ogre, you still have to be in a perpendicular or opposite cardinal direction to remove the soft cover bonus. With the way cover works, there's no need to make it more difficult to bypass the shoot into melee penalty just because the target being large makes angling for a shot that much more difficult if it worked like cover.

A 5ft pillar grants them low obstacle cover if 5x5x5 or regular cover if 5x5x10+. It provides cover because the creature can use it to hamper attacks or give them an advantage in angling your attacks that they can exploit. It doesn't make them impossible to hit, just harder.

[Talakeal]

You can wait for the moment the target steps out of cover. Readied actions allow you to ready an action for such a scenario.

Maybe you aren't understanding that you still have the soft cover bonus to contend with? There's no reason for large or larger creatures to have to contend with the shoot into melee penalty when cover combines with it to make it basically a -8 penalty. In your scenario with the ogre, you still have to be in a perpendicular or opposite cardinal direction to remove the soft cover bonus. With the way cover works, there's no need to make it more difficult to bypass the shoot into melee penalty just because the target being large makes angling for a shot that much more difficult if it worked like cover.

A 5ft pillar grants them low obstacle cover if 5x5x5 or regular cover if 5x5x10+. It provides cover because the creature can use it to hamper attacks or give them an advantage in angling your attacks that they can exploit. It doesn't make them impossible to hit, just harder.

I believe I understand how cover works; although again its been a while since I actually played so my knowledge may be rust.

My position is that the idea that you can shoot through a creature's space to hit its read spaces from the front is, while not outright forbidden by the rules, something equally ridiculous to and with even less textual support than something like drown healing or the commoner railgun.

You are saying that you can target the read space of a large creature from the front because it isn't static and you wait until it has withdrawn into the back squares before taking your shot, correct?

I am asking why that applies to shooting into close combat penalties, but not for cover.

For example: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ylcrnm0ucjt3b1s/cover.JPG?dl=0)

In the image above, the left two squares of the ogres base are within 10' of the fighter with the red cloak. Likewise, the front two squares are within 10' of the fighter with the blue hair.

Therefore, the only square that the archer could shoot into without suffering the -4 for shooting into close combat is the back right square.

The archer is also getting soft cover from the fighter with the blue hair, because lines drawn from the corners of her base to the left squares of the ogres base pass through the blue haired fighter's square.

However, if the archer was only targeting the back right square, no lines from the corners of her square to the corners of the ogre's back right square pass through either fighters space.


It seems really bizarre to me that the cover rules apply to the ogres 10' x 10' base as a whole, but the firing into close combat rules only apply to the specific square you are shooting at if the fiction is that the ogre is bouncing around between all four squares and the archer is only taking the shot when he is wholly within in the back right square.


(Stage left and right, not the ogre's left and right).

[Darg]

I believe I understand how cover works; although again its been a while since I actually played so my knowledge may be rust.

My position is that the idea that you can shoot through a creature's space to hit its read spaces from the front is, while not outright forbidden by the rules, something equally ridiculous to and with even less textual support than something like drown healing or the commoner railgun.

You are saying that you can target the read space of a large creature from the front because it isn't static and you wait until it has withdrawn into the back squares before taking your shot, correct?

I am asking why that applies to shooting into close combat penalties, but not for cover.

For example: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ylcrnm0ucjt3b1s/cover.JPG?dl=0)

In the image above, the left two squares of the ogres base are within 10' of the fighter with the red cloak. Likewise, the front two squares are within 10' of the fighter with the blue hair.

Therefore, the only square that the archer could shoot into without suffering the -4 for shooting into close combat is the back right square.

The archer is also getting soft cover from the fighter with the blue hair, because lines drawn from the corners of her base to the left squares of the ogres base pass through the blue haired fighter's square.

However, if the archer was only targeting the back right square, no lines from the corners of her square to the corners of the ogre's back right square pass through either fighters space.


It seems really bizarre to me that the cover rules apply to the ogres 10' x 10' base as a whole, but the firing into close combat rules only apply to the specific square you are shooting at if the fiction is that the ogre is bouncing around between all four squares and the archer is only taking the shot when he is wholly within in the back right square.


(Stage left and right, not the ogre's left and right).

Let me put it to you this way, if the ogre was invisible would you not be able to target that same square and still have a chance to hit the target?

The shooting into melee penalty applies even if you shoot at them from the opposite side of a threatening target unlike cover. It's a penalty to you rather than a bonus to the AC of the target. It represents the need to check your aim to not hit someone else which in turn means your ability to land decisive shots at angles to damage the target are minimized.

[Talakeal]

Let me put it to you this way, if the ogre was invisible would you not be able to target that same square and still have a chance to hit the target?

Huh. I suppose by RAW yes, although it only works if the ogre has total concealment. I would personally rather take the -4 for shooting into melee than the 50% miss chance though.


The shooting into melee penalty applies even if you shoot at them from the opposite side of a threatening target unlike cover. It's a penalty to you rather than a bonus to the AC of the target. It represents the need to check your aim to not hit someone else which in turn means your ability to land decisive shots at angles to damage the target are minimized.

I don't disagree, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

[Darg]

Huh. I suppose by RAW yes, although it only works if the ogre has total concealment. I would personally rather take the -4 for shooting into melee than the 50% miss chance though.



I don't disagree, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Because each of them represent different things and mechanical representations don't have to match with expected reality. One attack roll is not just one "attack" for example:


Attack Rolls: An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it indicates whether, over several attempts in the round, you managed to connect solidly.

In the same way, a creature is simultaneously presenting their back to you and their front to you at all times because it simply doesn't matter mechanically. In the picture you presented, if you were to have turned the miniature 45 degrees counter-clockwise the arm would be fully exposed to the archer even though it is in the back right square. It doesn't need to hit the "backside" because the "frontside" is exposed in a position you don't need to suffer a penalty for.

[Talakeal]

Attacks made against the far section of a creature will always have cover, because the attacks are, by definition, passing through a space occupied by a creature, correct?


Because each of them represent different things and mechanical representations don't have to match with expected reality. One attack roll is not just one "attack" for example:

In the same way, a creature is simultaneously presenting their back to you and their front to you at all times because it simply doesn't matter mechanically. In the picture you presented, if you were to have turned the miniature 45 degrees counter-clockwise the arm would be fully exposed to the archer even though it is in the back right square. It doesn't need to hit the "backside" because the "frontside" is exposed in a position you don't need to suffer a penalty for.

Each attack representing multiple attacks can get pretty weird when we are dealing with tracking ammunition and spell slots. While it might look better in the fiction, the rules still treat every attack as a single attack as far as mechanics are concerned, and it is a lot easier to think of in that manner.

I still don't see what your point is in bringing this up, unless its "Sometimes the rules don't make sense, try not to think to hard about them."