TOPIC: Rule Clarifications – D&D.5

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.

EDIT: Also, how would you guys handle ATTACKING TARGETS WHO ARE GRAPPLING/BEING GRAPPLED?

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.