I don't give any penalties to firing into melee, but I do have low rolls hit their opponents.  Generally if someone is engaged with one opponent then they are hit on a "1", 2 opponents the "1" hits one and the "2" hits the other, etc.   Easy and gives the players something to think about when they shoot into melee.

In my OSR game: Firing through a friend's space or into a melee is extremely dangerous. If you miss, it means you hit your friend, roll damage. Players are almost never desperate enough to do that.

For a 5e game: Firing through a friend's space or into a melee is less dangerous. A fumble (rolling a 1) means you hit your friend, roll damage. This risk can be avoided by firing cautiously (accepting a voluntary Disadvantage).

Games that allow shooting into melees without penalty feel terribly "gamey" to me. I'm fine with simplifications and abstractions, but that goes well past my limit.

I forgot which game had a mechanic where, when shooting into melee, it was best to aim for your buddy, maybe even going for a called shot, so the extra penalty would increase your chance of missing, and automatically hit one of the bad guys who were ganging up on your buddy...   

A to-hit penalty.  And if the to-hit penalty changes the result from a hit to a miss, then roll an attack on the ally.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 25, 2021, 03:31:54 PM
A to-hit penalty.  And if the to-hit penalty changes the result from a hit to a miss, then roll an attack on the ally.

That sort of rule is exactly what Godfather Punk was talking about.

Depending upon the #s, it can easily be more likely to hit your ally than your target. Which is kinda silly IMO.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on October 25, 2021, 03:36:27 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on October 25, 2021, 03:31:54 PM
A to-hit penalty.  And if the to-hit penalty changes the result from a hit to a miss, then roll an attack on the ally.

That sort of rule is exactly what Godfather Punk was talking about.

Depending upon the #s, it can easily be more likely to hit your ally than your target. Which is kinda silly IMO.

Not silly IMO.  Then near-miss in the initial roll means you were really close, which means the bullet was really close to the ally.  The second roll checks checks armor vs penetration, luck, etc.  I suppose it would be worthwhile to subtract skill from the second roll, but that seems more trouble than it's worth

Quote from: Vidgrip on October 25, 2021, 02:24:56 PM
In my OSR game: Firing through a friend's space or into a melee is extremely dangerous. If you miss, it means you hit your friend, roll damage. Players are almost never desperate enough to do that.

For a 5e game: Firing through a friend's space or into a melee is less dangerous. A fumble (rolling a 1) means you hit your friend, roll damage. This risk can be avoided by firing cautiously (accepting a voluntary Disadvantage).

Games that allow shooting into melees without penalty feel terribly "gamey" to me. I'm fine with simplifications and abstractions, but that goes well past my limit.

The "hit the guy in the line of fire if you miss" is how I used to do it, until the players started lining up shots with 2 enemies in the line of fire on purpose so if they missed one, they hit the other one anyway.

I had a disadvantage to hit or miss hits friendly, shooters choice.

Quote from: Nephil on October 25, 2021, 05:21:34 PM
I had a disadvantage to hit or miss hits friendly, shooters choice. In dnd5, obviously.

Ah, bollocks, effed up the editing

5e has a neat system IIRC... creature A can count as cover to creature B, if you miss creature B because of the cover you hit creature A (depending on AC).

If your AC is much higher you cannot be hit accidentally in this way, but if you want more "realistic" results just roll again if you hit cover.

IN PRACTICE, my PCs rarely do this and if the do I just say "okay, if you roll a natural 1 you make an attack against your ally". Works perfectly: the 5% chance of hitting an ally is equal for everybody, but the better the archer and the lower the AC of the target, the higher the chances to hit him/her (which is "realistic" I guess).

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 25, 2021, 04:33:09 PM
The "hit the guy in the line of fire if you miss" is how I used to do it, until the players started lining up shots with 2 enemies in the line of fire on purpose so if they missed one, they hit the other one anyway.

It makes sense that firing at multiple enemies grouped together increases your chance of hitting something. But if this is true, then it adds a bit of complexity to all of ranged combat.

With d20 and friendlies in melee, I do on a 1 or 2 (maybe 3 if there are lots), you hit your friend for normal damage.

In combat I use miniatures on a grid.  What I do is if you fire a missile you have to roll to miss a figure who is in the line of fire to your target.  It's the same as a to hit roll, except a successful roll  means you missed them and the missile continues to your target.  At that point you roll to hit.  If you miss the missile continues past and you make roll to miss rolls on figures  in the line of fire.

Greetings!

"Friendly Fire" is a very real thing--even on the modern battlefield.

As the English Lord says to King Longshanks in the film Braveheart:

"But Sire, won't our archers hit our own troops in the battle?"

King Longshanks responds:

"Yes, yes, they will. No matter! They're only the Irish!" and then laughs with smug triumph.

So, you see? Even in the case of Adventurers fighting desperately against hordes of monsters...desperate times call for desperate measures! Getting some of that "Friendly Fire" going is just something that comes with the territory.

Any character that *misses* their target, their arrow instead strikes a comrade fighting against the enemy target in melee combat. That's just the breaks. Wizard's "Fire Ball" spells likewise burn the righteous right along with the wicked!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on October 25, 2021, 05:52:22 PM

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 25, 2021, 04:33:09 PM
The "hit the guy in the line of fire if you miss" is how I used to do it, until the players started lining up shots with 2 enemies in the line of fire on purpose so if they missed one, they hit the other one anyway.

It makes sense that firing at multiple enemies grouped together increases your chance of hitting something. But if this is true, then it adds a bit of complexity to all of ranged combat.

The problem is that REMOVED complexity. I wanted them to worry about positioning and it turned into an easy answer again.

I'm considering some other rule like if you miss it targets someone else near your target at complete random or that the friendly fire roll is a raw d20 so you can't count on it as a strategy.