Need help with the rules for throwing weapons

[pasko77]

Hi everybody.
I just started a campaign with a new DM. I'm relatively new to the rules of 3.5 (i never really care about the rules, so i never remember them).

This time i decided to play a bard, specialized in throwing knives (since he's a juggler), BUT the DM says that:

1) i have -4 penality to shoot every time a monster is next to an ally (easy rule to find, it is in the combat section). I don't have precise shot, so no complaint.

2) every opponent has a 100% cover from my allies. I think it's wrong, he's mixing rules from combat and from cover. I think this rule applies when you have a hostage or something.

3) every time i miss this 50% to hit given by the cover, i HIT MY ALLIES!!! I couldn't even find this one on the rules.

So my character (which, being a bard, is already the top of cream of uselessness) is inusable in combat.

So, please, can somebody point to me the EXACT pages and paragraphs of every rule i should apply in a NORMAL fighting sequence which involves 1 thrower (me) and X melee fighters against Y melee fighters. Assume we only use core books, no strange exceptions needed.

Thank you very much.

[Zincorium]

You're right, he isn't playing by the published rules. But it is the DM's prerogative to change the rules to help the game. It's only bad DMing if it hurts the game or the DM is not aware of the actual rules (the DM is the referee, and referees need to be able to adjudicate things accurately and fairly).

However, if he thinks that's what the rules actually are and is willing to be proven wrong, show him the pretty pictures on page 151, it shows an example of how cover works.

Also note the text on that page, regarding soft cover (creatures in the line of sight): "Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against melee attacks, giving you a +4 to AC."

Soft cover, by the rules, does not help against ranged attacks.

Total cover requires that the line of sight is blocked completely, so as long as you can still see any part of a creature, it only has a penalty to AC, you can still attack it.

Furthermore, the rules assume that your characters aren't stupid enough to let arrows fly when you'd hit one of your allies. That's why there's such a big penalty: You are being overly careful to avoid injuring your comrades. Thus, there are no rules for when you might strike friends.

Edit:

And as far as bards being useless: Bards are not jacks of all trades. Not anymore, anyway. They are spellcasters focusing on mind affecting spells and party buffs, with a good list of skills and minor ability to fight to make up for slower progression. If you don't want to focus on helping the party out and messing with thing's minds, bard may be a bad class for you. Multiclass or prestige into something else.

Throwing knives is generally a very weak tactic unless you have some sort of bonus damage like sneak attack or high strength, crossbows may well be a more effective form of attack.

[Jack Zander]

You're right, he isn't playing by the published rules. But it is the DM's prerogative to change the rules to help the game. It's only bad DMing if it hurts the game or the DM is not aware of the actual rules (the DM is the referee, and referees need to be able to adjudicate things accurately and fairly).

However, if he thinks that's what the rules actually are and is willing to be proven wrong, show him the pretty pictures on page 151, it shows an example of how cover works.

Also note the text on that page, regarding soft cover (creatures in the line of sight): "Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against melee attacks, giving you a +4 to AC."

Soft cover, by the rules, does not help against ranged attacks.

Total cover requires that the line of sight is blocked completely, so as long as you can still see any part of a creature, it only has a penalty to AC, you can still attack it.

Furthermore, the rules assume that your characters aren't stupid enough to let arrows fly when you'd hit one of your allies. That's why there's such a big penalty: You are being overly careful to avoid injuring your comrades. Thus, there are no rules for when you might strike friends.

Edit:

And as far as bards being useless: Bards are not jacks of all trades. Not anymore, anyway. They are spellcasters focusing on mind affecting spells and party buffs, with a good list of skills and minor ability to fight to make up for slower progression. If you don't want to focus on helping the party out and messing with thing's minds, bard may be a bad class for you. Multiclass or prestige into something else.

Throwing knives is generally a very weak tactic unless you have some sort of bonus damage like sneak attack or high strength, crossbows may well be a more effective form of attack.

Holy Crap! No lie? True story? I must be playing with 3.0 rules in my group then. Gonna have to tell the archer that she is free to fire at those monsters even with someone in the way now.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

The relevant rules can be found in the combat chapter. I have provided the 3.5 rules here. If you are playing 3.0 the rules are different and you can hit your over. (That is only a variant rule in 3.5)

Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check.

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.

So throwing into melee will give you a -4 penalty. (Or rather, it will grant the opponent a +4 bonus to AC)

Throwing at an opponent while a creature blocking will give you another -4 penalty.

There is no chance of striking your ally, that can only happen if you are shooting/throwing into a grapple.

[pasko77]

Edit:

And as far as bards being useless: Bards are not jacks of all trades. Not anymore, anyway. They are spellcasters focusing on mind affecting spells and party buffs, with a good list of skills and minor ability to fight to make up for slower progression. If you don't want to focus on helping the party out and messing with thing's minds, bard may be a bad class for you. Multiclass or prestige into something else.

Throwing knives is generally a very weak tactic unless you have some sort of bonus damage like sneak attack or high strength, crossbows may well be a more effective form of attack.

eh :)
The "juggler throwing knives" thing is really the worst chioce, but it is an informed choice.
I like it (since i myself am learning to throw knives), the thing that pisses me is that I CAN'T DO IT. The DM is not overruling anything, he says he goes with the rules. I think it simply is a misunderstanding of such rules.
I know that my spells and diplomacy are my focus, i'll wait till level 8 and then prestige into something, or multiclass rogue.

[Zincorium]

Ah, sorry about the soft cover thing.

It's in the errata.

[Talic]

Note, that by RAW, without precise shot, you have a -4 penalty to hit any two creatures in melee combat, regardless of whether either are your ally or not.

Thus, if you are sneaking along, and you see a small camp of ogres, and two of them are arguing over which of them gets to eat Gerta McTasty, the halfling, and they start trading punches over it, then any attack you make against either of them is at a -4 penalty... Even though neither is an ally.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Note, that by RAW, without precise shot, you have a -4 penalty to hit any two creatures in melee combat, regardless of whether either are your ally or not.

Thus, if you are sneaking along, and you see a small camp of ogres, and two of them are arguing over which of them gets to eat Gerta McTasty, the halfling, and they start trading punches over it, then any attack you make against either of them is at a -4 penalty... Even though neither is an ally.

No, firing into a melee without any friendlies carries no penalties.

Have a look at my SRD quote above.

[its_all_ogre]

in old editions you did risk hitting your friends 2nd ed i believe, this may be where this idea is from.

[pasko77]

I think i got the point.

We discussed it right now. It looks like my gamemates confused fighting (generic condition) with grappling (not their fault, italian translation sucks, and the words used, if used in another context, are synonyms. I am the only one with access to english resources).
So they thought a rule meant for GRAPPLING as meant for FIGHTING.

I didn't check the rules for grappling. Would it be correct in this case to have a 50% to hit my teammate?

Thanks everybody.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I didn't check the rules for grappling. Would it be correct in this case to have a 50% to hit my teammate?

Yes, with ranged attacks, not melee.

[Fhaolan]

I wonder if it might be a good suggestion for everyone asking rules questions based on non-English rulebooks to preface the question with 'I am working with the X translation.' with X replaced with whatever language.

Only because I've noticed several cases where rule issues turned out to be translation errors. I know a couple of people who work for translation agencies, and they admit that sometimes things get a little confused due to idiom. Which makes things difficult when you are dealing with rules that need precise translation.

For example, a book my mother is reading right now has a translation of a Romanian proverb in it: "When an ass climbs a ladder, we may find wisdom in a woman." I'm sure that makes sense in Romanian. In English however, it takes a bit of effort to sort out.