This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Firing ranged into melee  (Read 4519 times)

Vladar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Firing ranged into melee
« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2021, 06:53:59 AM »
The way For Gold & Glory handles it is pretty straightforward:
If your to-hit roll is too low to hit the target and anyone around — you miss.
Otherwise, assign to each possible victim a number (bigger targets have higher chances, obviously), to see whom the missile actually hits. Then see if your roll is enough to hit its AC.
Into the Dungeon: Revived — a lightweight fantasy-themed role-playing ruleset designed for a streamlined gameplay.
My blog

mightybrain

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 454
Re: Firing ranged into melee
« Reply #31 on: October 26, 2021, 07:12:31 AM »
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.

We had something like that once, but it more often than not resulted in goofy results. (It was more fun but did break the immersion somewhat.)

What you have sounds good to me if it is encouraging your players to line up shots. That sounds like a reasonable tactic whether in game or not.

Charon's Little Helper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
Re: Firing ranged into melee
« Reply #32 on: October 26, 2021, 08:03:03 AM »
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

It's not silly IN THEORY.

But in practice, there would be points in the math where you are more likely to hit who you're not aiming at. Which is a silly result.

Ex: If you hit a foe on a d20 15+ normally but being in melee is a -4 so you hit on a 19+. Then if you're within that 4 points you hit your ally instead. So 10% of hitting foe and 20% of hitting ally.

You could add on additional rule complexity and rolls to limit that chance (though it's hard to do so for every potential combination) but that starts to slow down gameplay substantially and makes then entire system more complex.

Hence my preference for KISS rules where such results aren't possible even on the edges.

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3770
Re: Firing ranged into melee
« Reply #33 on: October 26, 2021, 08:57:45 AM »
I'm playing mostly off the grid but occasionally on it.  So whatever I do has to work equally well on both.  In the past, that's been what others here have done of "no change" to "small penalty for firing into melee".  For my current game, I specifically wanted to discourage firing into melee but not prohibit it, which meant that I needed some kind of rule to get that outcome.

That said, I will certainly override that with GM adjudication when the situation warrants.  If some warrior is holding a narrow, low tunnel against a group of enemies, you can darn well bet I'll use some kind of cover rules, where if the miss is by the amount of cover it hits the ally in the back.  It's merely that most of the situations I have are more ambiguous, with room for the melee combatants to be in constant motion, making a long-range shot practically impossible.  Short of a sufficient rule, I'd simply not allow the shot at all, with situational exceptions for when someone thought the odds of a hitting a random target in the mix was worth the risk.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Re: Firing ranged into melee
« Reply #34 on: October 26, 2021, 09:03:50 AM »
This is a situation that is handled better in the two-axis, non-standard dice system of FFG Star Wars/Genesys. Basically a miss (lack of sufficient successes) is a miss, but a miss with sufficient Threat or a Despair result can hit a friendly target if the GM determines that it's possible. I suppose a miss with sufficient Advantage or a Triumph might hit an enemy other than the intended target if the GM feels that's possible. The system gets a lot of shade for being narrative, but it actually has mechanics to guide what are often "just make it up" situations in other more traditional rulesets.

Skarg

  • Venerable Gamer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2380
Re: Firing ranged into melee
« Reply #35 on: October 26, 2021, 01:51:31 PM »
This is one of many reasons why I've always preferred hex-mapped tactical combat with solid rules, as in The Fantasy Trip: Melee (1978), where there are explicit positions for the figures, you trace the line of fire if it's not obvious, and if there are figures other than the target along the line of fire, you roll to hit or miss them along that line. GURPS has a similar but slightly more sophisticated way of handling it, where you roll to hit the intended target at a penalty for any intervening obstacles (including other people), and if you miss, then you roll for an unaimed shot to hit the other figures along the line of fire, again assessing to-hit penalties for what's in the way of each.

mAcular Chaotic

  • All Evils of this World
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
Re: Firing ranged into melee
« Reply #36 on: October 26, 2021, 02:17:50 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

It's not silly IN THEORY.

But in practice, there would be points in the math where you are more likely to hit who you're not aiming at. Which is a silly result.

Ex: If you hit a foe on a d20 15+ normally but being in melee is a -4 so you hit on a 19+. Then if you're within that 4 points you hit your ally instead. So 10% of hitting foe and 20% of hitting ally.

You could add on additional rule complexity and rolls to limit that chance (though it's hard to do so for every potential combination) but that starts to slow down gameplay substantially and makes then entire system more complex.

Hence my preference for KISS rules where such results aren't possible even on the edges.

If that person’s in front of your target doesn’t that make sense? Just because you’re aiming past them doesn’t make the target easier to hit than them. It’s one thing if you’re on a firing range where everything is stationary but we’re talking the chaos of battle.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.

mightybrain

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 454
Re: Firing ranged into melee
« Reply #37 on: October 26, 2021, 02:58:08 PM »
In 5e, if your target has cover from another creature, it gets +2 to its AC. I'm therefore considering that if you miss by 1 or 2 on a ranged attack into a melee, then you instead hit one of the other participants randomly chosen by the DM. The DM then rolls an attack against the new target and does normal damage on a hit. Ability modifiers and proficiency modifiers don't apply to these rolls, but magical bonuses / penalties still do.

Shawn Driscoll

  • Role-Play Purist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2928
Re: Firing ranged into melee
« Reply #38 on: October 26, 2021, 05:26:30 PM »
How do you handle it? I haven't encountered a system that I really latched onto. I mostly just play it by the book for whatever rules system I'm using.

The idea is that shooting into a melee risks hitting your buddies. Sometimes it's a set penalty to hit, sometimes they do put in a chance to hit a friendly target. Other times, the target counts as "in cover".
Critical failure can include accidently hitting your buddy.

mAcular Chaotic

  • All Evils of this World
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
Re: Firing ranged into melee
« Reply #39 on: October 27, 2021, 12:42:35 AM »
In 5e, if your target has cover from another creature, it gets +2 to its AC. I'm therefore considering that if you miss by 1 or 2 on a ranged attack into a melee, then you instead hit one of the other participants randomly chosen by the DM. The DM then rolls an attack against the new target and does normal damage on a hit. Ability modifiers and proficiency modifiers don't apply to these rolls, but magical bonuses / penalties still do.

5e already has a rule on this, but I wanted to make mine more dynamic.

Just for reference though, the way it works is: if you miss a target with cover within the range of AC the target had a cover bonus, you compare the attack roll to the guy who gave it cover and see if it hits them instead.

So for example, you have a goblin with 15 AC. Another goblin is in front, giving it +2 AC, so 17 AC.

You attack and roll 16. It misses the 17 AC, but since it's within the +2 band the other goblin gave, it means the cover is what cost you your shot.

So you compare your attack now to the guy giving the goblin cover, and see if it's enough to hit him instead.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.

mightybrain

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 454
Re: Firing ranged into melee
« Reply #40 on: October 27, 2021, 05:59:45 PM »
Just for reference though, the way it works is: if you miss a target with cover within the range of AC the target had a cover bonus, you compare the attack roll to the guy who gave it cover and see if it hits them instead.

The problem I had with that was if the PC in the way had better armour it was impossible to hit him by accident making it a less dangerous rule. And it, predictably, influenced PC behaviour. By making a second roll it's always possible to hit, even critically hit, an ally in melee. And it also doesn't suffer the problem of making it easier to hit someone else by missing the target mentioned earlier.

mAcular Chaotic

  • All Evils of this World
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
Re: Firing ranged into melee
« Reply #41 on: October 27, 2021, 10:54:15 PM »
Just for reference though, the way it works is: if you miss a target with cover within the range of AC the target had a cover bonus, you compare the attack roll to the guy who gave it cover and see if it hits them instead.

The problem I had with that was if the PC in the way had better armour it was impossible to hit him by accident making it a less dangerous rule. And it, predictably, influenced PC behaviour. By making a second roll it's always possible to hit, even critically hit, an ally in melee. And it also doesn't suffer the problem of making it easier to hit someone else by missing the target mentioned earlier.
That's what I do now too. Do you apply the attacker's skill bonus to the second roll?
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.

Mishihari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • M
  • Posts: 989
Re: Firing ranged into melee
« Reply #42 on: October 28, 2021, 03:39:51 AM »
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

It's not silly IN THEORY.

But in practice, there would be points in the math where you are more likely to hit who you're not aiming at. Which is a silly result.

Ex: If you hit a foe on a d20 15+ normally but being in melee is a -4 so you hit on a 19+. Then if you're within that 4 points you hit your ally instead. So 10% of hitting foe and 20% of hitting ally.

You could add on additional rule complexity and rolls to limit that chance (though it's hard to do so for every potential combination) but that starts to slow down gameplay substantially and makes then entire system more complex.

Hence my preference for KISS rules where such results aren't possible even on the edges.

There probably are edge cases, there always are, but I don't think that's one of them.  You skipped a step in my method.  There's a 20% chance of a possibility of hitting an ally, but then you make another attack roll to see if it actually happens.

Charon's Little Helper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
Re: Firing ranged into melee
« Reply #43 on: October 28, 2021, 08:37:26 AM »
There probably are edge cases, there always are, but I don't think that's one of them.  You skipped a step in my method.  There's a 20% chance of a possibility of hitting an ally, but then you make another attack roll to see if it actually happens.

Yes - it's definitely edge cases. But there are even edge cases where even with an additional roll you're still more likely to hit an ally.

Plus, that additional roll gets into my other issue, where it starts to add substantial complexity to the rules and the extra rolling to slow down gameplay somewhat. And I just don't think that it adds any depth to gameplay.

It's not terrible, but my preference is for KISS rules whenever possible unless the additional complexity adds depth to the game.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2021, 08:39:13 AM by Charon's Little Helper »

Bren

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
    • http://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/
Re: Firing ranged into melee
« Reply #44 on: October 28, 2021, 10:47:20 AM »
I see there being circumstances where it's easier to hit your ally than your enemy as a feature, not a bug.

For example, if a group of allies are between the shooter and the target or in the classic example of an enemy holding a hostage in front of them as a shield it makes sense that it may be easier to hit an ally. Similarly, if a single enemy is in melee with several of your allies, it may be easier to hit an ally in that swirling melee.
Currently running: Runequest in Glorantha + Call of Cthulhu   Currently playing: D&D 5E + RQ
My Blog: For Honor...and Intrigue
I have a gold medal from Ravenswing and Gronan owes me bee