Proposed rule for firing into melee

[billhooks]

This is an attempt to make a quick and simple rule for firing missiles into a melee that takes into account the idea that, to quote Mr. Gygax (DMG p. 63), "the results might not be too incompatible with the desires of the discharging party":

If a missile is fired into melee and misses, when there is a reasonable chance of hitting a friendly, roll a d10. The missile strikes the nearest friendly whose AC is worse than the result rolled.

EDIT to add: I would suggest a "reasonable chance" exists in most cases; exceptions would include 1.) a more than 10:1 ratio of foes to friends (or whatever ratio sounds best to you) and 2.) fighting against giant- or dragon-sized foes.

[fitz]

What if there's more than one enemy in the melee? If you miss your target and accidentally hit somebody else, does it always have to be a friendly?

[billhooks]

Well, my rationale is that if you miss, then something good shouldn't happen, regardless of other considerations. I think if you wanted to add the possibility of hitting a non-targeted enemy you'd just add another roll based on the ratio of foes to friends.

[billhooks]

It occurs to me that it may be confusing that I used that particular Gygax quote in support of my rule. I should specify that my personal starting assumption was that a missed shot into melee would by default hit a friendly, but if they're well-armored the risk may be sufficiently diminished that it's worth it. So my rule is only beneficial from that point of view; if you start from the assumption that a missed shot into melee isn't particularly more likely to hit a friend than a foe than obviously with my rule you're worse off.

Am I making any sense at all? If not, my apologies!

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 24, 2009 16:18:57 GMT -6 fitz said:

What if there's more than one enemy in the melee? If you miss your target and accidentally hit somebody else, does it always have to be a friendly?

I had this come up in my game last week. I can't recall exactly what I came up with on the spot, but when I thought about it later, I came up with:

When firing into melee, an odd numbered attack roll means someone else gets in the way.

The referee simply picks the nearest or most obvious alternate target in line with the flight of the missile, or dices among possible targets if he can't decide. Friends, foes and even the original target are all in the mix, in whatever ratio the referee deems reasonable.

The original attack roll stands, and determines whether or not the wayward missile hits the new target.

[thegreyelf]

How about: Firing into melee imparts a -4 penalty; if the attack roll misses by less than 4, the attack hits another randomly chosen target. Re-calculate the attack using the same roll without the -4 to determine if the attack actually damages the target.

[snorri]

Another method : roll your normal attack roll. If it's a failure and the number is odd, you fired at the nearest friend. If it's even, the arrow is just lost.

[Drohem]

This was with 1e/2e AD&D, but I still think it will work. Basically, if you fired into a melee and missed, then the DM would randomly roll to see who near the target took it, either friend or foe. Once the target of the errant missile was determined, then the attacker would roll a secondary attack with the same bonuses/penalties to roll as the initial attack roll. If successful, the secondary target is hit and takes damage.

This usually worked out well enough in practice because it was usually only the characters with a low AC that were mixed up in the melee anyway. So it was usually difficult to damage a player character that was hit by an errant missile, and usually easier to hit an enemy engaged with the player characters. Also, it added a certain flair to the combat because the you could envision the arrows bouncing off, or deflected away from, the armored fighter engaged with multiple foes.

Although, we did have our share of critical errant missiles that hit player characters. This usually made for some cool role-playing moments and long-lasting running gags about certain wussy row characters that had a proclivity to hitting friends with errant missiles.

[kenmeister]

Oct 27, 2009 8:42:29 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

How about: Firing into melee imparts a -4 penalty; if the attack roll misses by less than 4, the attack hits another randomly chosen target. Re-calculate the attack using the same roll without the -4 to determine if the attack actually damages the target.

I do this, but once it has a chance of hitting an unintended target, I don't like to use attack rolls. For instance, a dextrous character with a +1 bonus to hit would then be more likely to hit a friend once the foe is missed. I use a saving throw instead, modified by the random target's armor class.

For instance, Joe was intending to hit the orc, but missed by more than 4. Fred, Joe's ally, was the randomly determined target. Fred has armor class 4. So it is a save vs wands at +5 (9 - 4 = 5) to avoid friendly fire hit.

[Deleted]

I keep it real stupid-simple: A roll of 1-5 strikes friendly engaged in melee. If more than two combatants? Hasn't come up, but I suppose one could dice off between friendlies.