[3.5] Where is the rule saying if you miss shooting into combat you might hit someone

[Pika...]

I clearly remember a rule stating that if you miss shooting into combat by five or more you might end up hitting an adjacent person (either ally or enemy?).

Can anyone please help me locate it? I can not seem to find it even in d20srd.org.

[Sliver]

I remember reading about such rule only when using other creatures for cover, don't remember the specifics.. For normal shooting into combat, there isn't such rule..

[gibbo88]

According to Precise Shot, there is a -4 for shooting into melee but thats all i can think of.

[Myou]

There are no rules for missing when firing into melee. The missed attack just 'vanishes'.

[Sinfire Titan]

As has been stated, only a -4 applies when shooting into melee. Shooting at a grappling or grappled creature, however, imposes a percentile chance based on the number of creatures involved in the grapple.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Wasn't that changed from 3.0 where you if you failed to hit by so much you hit or buddy.

[PhoenixRivers]

Yes. In 3.0, I believe, this rule existed.

Ranged weapons while grappling and AoO's during a Bull Rush are the only currently existing examples.

[Random832]

3.0 SRD: http://www.dragon.ee/30srd/coverconceal.htm

Striking the Cover Instead of a Missed Target

If it ever becomes important to know whether the cover was actually struck by an incoming attack that misses the intended target, the DM should determine if 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 with cover but high enough to strike the target if there had been no cover, the object used for cover was struck. This can be particularly important to know in cases where a character uses another character as cover. In such a case, if the cover is struck and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering character, the covering character takes the damage intended for the target.

If the covering character has a Dexterity bonus to AC or a dodge bonus, and this bonus keeps the covering character from being hit, then the original target is hit instead. The covering character has dodged out of the way and didn't provide cover after all. A covering character can choose not to apply his Dexterity bonus to AC and/or his dodge bonus, if his intent is to try to take the damage in order to keep the covered character from being hit.

For firing into melee, 3.0 still only has the -4 penalty. There is a digression in this rant that may be what you are thinking of:

(As an example, the playtest version of 3E D&D we had a complex system for handling firing into melee. Every time someone shot into a melee, the game ground to a halt as the DM had to check the size modifiers for all creatures involved, then determine a ratio of probability for each creature based on size, then roll to see if the shot hit the proper creature. It worked, and allowed people to accidentally shoot the wrong people, but it too too long for such a small benefit that we took it out and replaced it with the existing -4 penalty, which means that a person firing into a melee takes up no more game time than a person swinging a sword.)

[Telonius]

I'm afb, but I found a reference to PHB, page 151, Table 8-6, footnote 3, regarding shooting into a Grapple. The target is randomized.

Also, another reference to page 133, shooting past cover.

Taken together, if this is accurate, it sounds like you don't risk shooting somebody just if they're in melee; only if one of them provides cover to the others. If you're X in this situation:

XlalalaaA
lalalala B

And you fire at B, you wouldn't have a chance of hitting A. But if you're in this situation:

X lalalalala A B

And you shoot at B, you risk shooting A.

(EDIT: The thread does state that it's for "3rd edition" so that might explain some of it).

[technophile]

From the d20 SRD:

Attacks

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.)

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.

Precise Shot

If you have the Precise Shot feat you don’t take this penalty.

[Pika...]

OK, I think I got it guys.

Many thanks!

I have no problem using 3.0 material in 3.5. Do it quite often. Now there is just a whole new level of strategy for me and players to work with.

[Human Paragon 3]

In 2e there was a very comprehensive rule about this too which took into account the size of all the creatures engaged in melee.

I would recommend against this rule though, or at least have it negated by precise shot. Archery is a fairly weak option compared to melee, and I don't think it needs to be nerfed any further. Maybe in certain circumstances where somebody is specifically trying to take cover behind somebody else, I would use the rules for hitting cover.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

The house rule I use that sort of emulates the old 3.0 rule is that if you miss your target because of the -4 penalty, and another character is in a square along your line of fire, then you check your attack against the interposing character's AC.

Precise Shot means you can't hit your mate (there's no -4 penalty).
Most misses will also miss your mates.

[FMArthur]

The only way I'd let you hit your teammate is if your target was benefitting from 'soft cover' by being behind your teammate, and you rolled 4 or less, or if you are shooting into melee without Precise Shot and rolled 4 or less (8 or less if both apply; it's relative to the attack roll penalty imposed by these conditions). Hitting a teammate is not actually mentioned anywhere in the rules, though. I'm just houseruling because the players came to a consensus that it should work that way.

[Random832]

The only way I'd let you hit your teammate is if your target was benefitting from 'soft cover' by being behind your teammate, and you rolled 4 or less, or if you are shooting into melee without Precise Shot and rolled 4 or less (8 or less if both apply; it's relative to the attack roll penalty imposed by these conditions). Hitting a teammate is not actually mentioned anywhere in the rules, though. I'm just houseruling because the players came to a consensus that it should work that way.

For the "soft cover" scenario, it's actually in the 3.0 and D20M rules (by which it's if you fail by four or less - but a 20% chance is a 20% chance so it doesn't really matter either way)

[Akal Saris]

In 2e there was a very comprehensive rule about this too which took into account the size of all the creatures engaged in melee.

I would recommend against this rule though, or at least have it negated by precise shot. Archery is a fairly weak option compared to melee, and I don't think it needs to be nerfed any further. Maybe in certain circumstances where somebody is specifically trying to take cover behind somebody else, I would use the rules for hitting cover.

God, I hate the 2E rule for this - my dwarven thrower can hardly ever throw his damned hammer because the ranger always wins initiative and runs up to hit the enemy for 1d6 damage =(