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".

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 24, 2021, 06:22:22 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".

For me it entirely depends on the length/abstraction-level of the combat round.

For Theater of the Mind one-minute style rounds (my own preference), it's just a regular attack.

For 6 or 10-second rounds, I'd generally go with a simple to-hit penalty, since I value alacrity over realism (and hey, it might be that a simple to-hit penalty is most realistic, but I don't bother to ask myself that).

Multiple attacks also figure in: if a character is allowed multiple shots per round with a bow, I would typically drop the to-hit penalty for characters who forego more than a single attack. Even for characters allowed only one attack, I'd be inclined to drop the penalty if the character did nothing other than attack for the whole of that round.

Generally I don't give any modifiers, but if someone tries to shoot through someone else (read: there is a straight line with their target behind someone else) I'm going to make them shoot the person between them. I don't have overpenetration as a mechanic, though if I did I'd rule that if someone is dealt lethal damage by a projectile, it hits whatever is behind it with reduced damage.

Another suggestion is that you make a penalty to roll (-4) and possibly a chance to hit your buddy. Of course, if you're shooting wild and trying to pepper an area full of bullets (something I also don't really have rules for because I found it too complicated; didn't fit with my system), you're most likely going to hit your buddies.

If you're playing D&D or any other system with alignments, I'd say that Good aligned people won't shoot into melee unless there's extenuating circumstances, like the price of not doing so meaning more people would be hurt. Or if your buddy is immune to arrows or something.

If I am using a d20 system,  I will let the player know there is a chance they could hit an ally. Usually, I tell them it is about a 1 in 3.

I count up from the bottom of the die. A 1 in 3 chance would be a 1-7 on the d20 when the brave archer rolls.

It's always a good question to ask the DM before you roll up an archery-based character. "Do you do friendly-fire rules for firing arrows at targets that have melee combatants near? Same question, but single-target ranged spells? Two allied melee combatants attacking the same enemy?"

Given that some classes in some games (Like 5e Rogues) have bonuses for attacking enemies that are distracted by your allies engaging them in melee, it matters.

 

Roll to hit your target, perhaps at a malus.

If you hit, all good.

If you miss, do a second roll to hit - against the person they're in melee with.

Presumably a character firing into melee is trying hard to avoid hitting their friends - a penalty to attack roll best represents that in my opinion.  Missing usually shouldn't mean hitting your target.

I think that firing into a grapple is different - I would treat it as shooting into cover (so a miss by the cover bonus means resolving the attack against the cover).

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on October 24, 2021, 09:25:52 PM
Roll to hit your target, perhaps at a malus.

If you hit, all good.

If you miss, do a second roll to hit - against the person they're in melee with.

Reasonable, but don't add skill bonuses on the second roll to hit. You're not MORE likely to hit an ally because of being MORE skilled.

Roll to hit as normal with the Target Moving penalty. If the shot misses, there's a 10% chance it hits someone else within six feet of the target. If the target is grappling, there's a 50% chance the shot hits the unintended target.

If the shot overpenetrates, use the same odds to see if the shot hits someone behind the target that was hit.

I've recently moved to a more game play way of handling it, with only a faint nod to a rationale:  Weapons have a normal range (relatively short compared to most games) and a max range.  Within half your normal range of a melee you fire into, you roll to attack as normal.  Only if you fumble do you risk hitting someone else.  Between half normal and normal range, you've got disadvantage (ala D&D 5E) to shoot into melee.  If that lower roll hits (meaning in effect that both rolls hit), you hit your target.  If only one roll hits, you hit a random target in the melee.  If you already had disadvantage from something else (such as shots between normal and max) and try the shot anyway, then only both rolls hitting counts, and it is automatically a random target in the melee.

Reasons:  A big advantage of having that ranged weapon is being able to stand off. If you move up into "skirmish" distance, you are close enough to pick a target, but also a lot closer to someone peeling out of the melee and coming after you.  It gives those players another meaningful decision to make, with real consequences either way.  I also like that shooting into melee becomes a numbers game.  Your buddy is surrounded by 8 orcs way over there, maybe you go ahead and take a risk.  It's not like his chances were all that good to begin with.   Finally, I prefer a game system that gives reasons to not "focus fire".  Having people out of melee you can target with no risks is one more way to do that.

I don't think I've ever given ranged folks penalties for firing into melee.

I don't see a need for it. Sure, it probably isn't realistic. Don't care. While it might make things tactically mildly more interesting, I don't think the complexity spent on such mechanics are worth what dubious benefits it buys, and they punish martial characters more than casters.

Quote from: GnomeWorks on October 24, 2021, 11:53:30 PM
I don't think I've ever given ranged folks penalties for firing into melee.

I don't see a need for it. Sure, it probably isn't realistic. Don't care. While it might make things tactically mildly more interesting, I don't think the complexity spent on such mechanics are worth what dubious benefits it buys, and they punish martial characters more than casters.

Being ranged is a huge huge advantage over melee without those penalties. Hell it still is.

I generally prefer the KISS solution of just having a penalty to hit. At least as the base. Maybe with the option to ignore the penalty but then have a 25-50% chance to hit your buddy instead of the foe. (I especially like this option for some NPCs who think life is cheap. Reminds me of the skaven.)

I could definitely see character abilities which play off that, such as giving foes shooting at you a chance to hit their buddies in melee with you etc. But they would be exceptions to the rule.

In systems where armor is damage reduction, a shot into melee that misses the foe is going to hit the friend. Any archer with enough skill to carry a bow around is not going to miss by much. And in these systems, since armor is a separate consideration, then a miss is a miss as opposed to a hit that is stopped by armor. The neat thing is, if your friend is heavily armored up he won't mind if you hit him by mistake.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 25, 2021, 05:39:09 AM

Quote from: GnomeWorks on October 24, 2021, 11:53:30 PM
I don't think I've ever given ranged folks penalties for firing into melee.

I don't see a need for it. Sure, it probably isn't realistic. Don't care. While it might make things tactically mildly more interesting, I don't think the complexity spent on such mechanics are worth what dubious benefits it buys, and they punish martial characters more than casters.

Being ranged is a huge huge advantage over melee without those penalties. Hell it still is.

I agree with GnomeWorks here, that any perceived advantages of rule minutia are of dubious value and unbalanced.

I also don't see that "huge" advantage ranged attacks provide, unless the DM is letting those archers (along with all the casters, who would presumably enjoy the same advantage) just sit there and fire away unmolested.

If goblins are firing arrows at the PCs, do your PCs just let it happen while they melee with a few others? Why would monsters just sit there and get gleefully peppered with missiles while slapping at the one swordfighter?

If ranged attacks are so advantageous, wouldn't any combatant with a lick of sense move to take those attackers out first?