Are you allowed to shoot missiles into an ongoing melee?

[clownboss]

Stupid question, but I need this addressed.

Let's say your character has a bow and arrows. He wants to shoot it into an enemy, but one of your friendly PCs is also swordfighting with this enemy, which makes aiming and shooting at the right target understandably difficult. Is the ranged attacker still allowed to shoot? At what penalty? Is there a risk of friendly fire?

And more importantly, how would this be resolved in CHAINMAIL? Especially in the 1:20 combat rules, where a unit of archers shoots at two armies that have just collided and are about to enter melee.

[Finarvyn]

I used to allow it without restriction but now that I play 5E I think I'm likely to morph my rule a little and give them disadvantage. (Roll 2d20, take the worst of the two rolls.)

The thing is, I always assume that SOMETHING gets hit so if the character misses his target he hits a friendly. That tends to limit its use a little.

[foxroe]

Excellent question.

I'm not a Chainmail expert by any stretch of anyone's twisted imagination, but it does say on pg.16 (3ed) that it can't be done.

Swords & Spells states firing into melee is allowed, but damage is divided proportionally between enemies and allies, and large figures can be fired at with no penalty.

Myself, I just roll 1d6: 1-3 hit your allies; 4-6 hit your enemy. Easy peasy.

[Finarvyn]

Sorry ... answered the first paragraph but not the "more importantly" part.

I was thinking OD&D. In Chainmail you can't shoot into melee. The problem is that you are looking at unit-scale counters and once melee happens both sides are very intertwined and so picking off individuals within the battle becomes impossible.

[clownboss]

Question also pertains to OD&D. I think it is important to know how to resolve this in both games.

Back in CHAINMAIL, when I read the rule "can not shoot into melee" I interpret it as:

"Your unit of archers got charged by some enemy melee warriors? Sorry, you can't shoot your arrows at them for this turn because they've lost their nerve/are drawing melee weapons, so you will have to fight them in melee instead for this turn, as if your archers are LF melee units." They are "entering into a melee", and therefore they can't shoot arrows, or "shoot into a melee".

That's how I always took it, but if that's the wrong way to interpret it, then that means that my archers can shoot arrows at anybody who charges at them, so that's a relief. I didn't know it meant "You can't shoot a volley at a bunch of warriors duking it out, although you physically could, but why would you? You'd kill your own troops!"

[howandwhy99]

I'd argue firing into melee is possible, but may have Alignment consequences. I also believe active defenses against missile attackers are lost when in a melee, but I think OD&D does keep these. I think targeting into a melee is very hard and always has the possibility of hitting someone or something else in the same area. So maybe the loss of active defense vs the broil of melee cancel each other out?

I like the Swords and Spells change to this rule. I think volleys should do proportionate damage and single shots proportionately random. I'd don't think removing this rule when firing on Large creatures in melee is a good idea though, unless the ranged attacker can target a portion of the same creature in a separate square. But then about Large on Large melee? Large creatures don't melee in miniature areas to themselves.

Regardless, I think proportionate to size odds should work for firing at large creatures in a melee.

[scottenkainen]

Someone will surely chime in here with a proper citation if I'm right, but I'm fairly certain that the Holmes edition rules specifically state you cannot fire missiles into melee as well.

[Scott Anderson]

It's a dumb rule. Of course you can fire into melee if you want to. But there should be steep repercussions.

In CHAINMAIL I would require a morale check to obey the order to fire and then a morale check for the unit who is incidentally fired upon. Fragging your buddies is bad news. I don't play it, so I don't know about casualties. I'm not sure how to handle casualties but probably half and half somehow.

In old school D, everyone in a particular instance of melee grants everyone else partial cover. So any hit result hits a random combatant.

Henchmen will not fire into a melee for fear of shooting their bosses, unless a PC is with them and firing as well. But the random target rule still applies.

[scottenkainen]

Sept 2, 2017 10:23:29 GMT -6 Scott Anderson said:

It's a dumb rule. Of course you can fire into melee if you want to. But there should be steep repercussions.

I suspected that's what the rules always meant when it said you cannot do something. It's like the Magic-Users Cannot Wear Armor rule -- of course they don't die the moment they put on armor, or the armor is magically repelled from their bodies, but there's steep repercussions.

[magremore]

Sept 2, 2017 9:57:22 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

Someone will surely chime in here with a proper citation if I'm right, but I'm fairly certain that the Holmes edition rules specifically state you cannot fire missiles into melee as well.

Holmes p. 20: “Once the party is engaged in melee, arrows can not be fired into the fight because of the probability of hitting friendly characters.”

Also Holmes p. 20: “Remember that spells and missiles fired into a melee should be considered to strike members of one's own party as well as the enemy.”

[sixdemonbag]

An idea:

On a miss, allow the PC susceptible to friendly-fire a wands saving throw. They get hit on a failed throw.

[Deleted]

CHAINMAIL missile troops may always fire at troops attacking them.

Other than that you may not fire into a melee.

I let players fire missiles into melee in OD&D... but it's even odds who you hit, heh heh heh...

Actual quote: "You throw one more ****ing dagger into melee and I'll kill you myself!" (3 turns in a row magic user threw a dagger into a melee and ended up hitting his fellow PC)

[hamurai]

Another idea: if the attack die comes up with an even number, you hit the target. If the result is an odd number, you hit an ally.

[talysman]

I have everyone in the target area roll a dice. High roll is who the arrow hits.

[murquhart72]

For me: fire into melee with a ranged weapon: any miss automatically hits an ally!

[magremore]

Holmes also has a –2 for partial cover, so you could take the ally as providing the partial cover in this case. :-)

If you figure the ally is twice as likely to get hit on a "miss," you end up with friendly fire on the four highest numbers of a miss and the two lowest numbers of a hit.

[Porphyre]

I personnaly allow the archer to shoot with a -2 to -4 penalty for partial cover.
If the roll should have been a "hit" but misses because of the penalty, then it's a friendly fire.

If the roll is a total miss, I just assume that the shoot wouldn't have hit the broad side of a barn and so neither friend nor foe would be in danger (the shooter may still pierce his own foot throught ...)

[countingwizard]

I enjoy Austinjimm's rule of thumb: Fire into melee as normal, if you miss roll a d6; on a 1, a nearby friend engaged in melee with the target is hit for full damage by the arrow, on a 2 they are hit for only half damage, on any other result the arrow doesn't hit anything.

I pair this with the +2 to hit at close range, +1 at medium range that the LBBs give ranged fire; and I feel it is fair.

[retrorob]

I allow firing missiles into melee, friendly-fire possible. Some PC died that way.

I used two systems here:

1) like in AD&D, calculate basic chance based on size, roll d% to see who you hit, roll for hit

2) roll for hit normally, if you miss, reroll for the nearby target