Firing into Melee

[zarathustra]

I last played B/X decades ago but plan to switch my current campaign over LL soon.

I do not have my B/X stuff anymore so I was wondering if firing into melee was ever covered in those?

My current draft houserule for the situation is this-

Firing into melee: roll d6 along with attack die. On a roll of 1-2 the attack roll is directed at an ally. Situation may vary or waive penalties (eg a lone halfling fighting a huge dragon).

but if there is a generally accepted method in OD&D or if it is just a case of "fire away" then I'd probably like to go with the canon version (or a better houserule!).

Although I plan to play LL, I believe the question is relevant to this forum as I am requesting clarification from the original source material.

[Alex]

B/X does not have any rules about firing into melee, just saying it can't be done. Of course that's hogwash, but sure it is dangerous.

AD&D's rule: determine the size ratios of the combatants and roll a die to determine which foe is the target
BD&D's rule: can't shoot into melee
d20's rule: take a penalty to hit to avoid mistargetting

When I had a B/X campaign I tried a very generous rule: any ranged attack into melee strikes the intended target unless the attack roll is a natural 1 which indicates an ally hit. It's akin to the 20-always-hits and 1-always-misses...1-always-sucks rule of firing into melee.

[bargle]

Canon 0d&d is no firing into active melee. Would you trust yourself to fire a gun over your friends shoulder to hit an assailant?

Let me ask a question, what benefit is there to firing into melee rather than drawing a sword and standing next to a friend? None.

[havard]

Canon 0d&d is no firing into active melee. Would you trust yourself to fire a gun over your friends shoulder to hit an assailant?

Let me ask a question, what benefit is there to firing into melee rather than drawing a sword and standing next to a friend? None.

What if you are a Thief with a high dex and only 2 HP left?

-Havard

[Rath Denacht]

My rule is that if you make a successful "to hit" roll, you hit your intended target. If you miss, a 1-3 on d6 means you hit a random ally. I've used this in both my B/X and OD&D games. Can't remember what I did back in my AD&D days. Probably similar though.

[Urieal]

My rule is that if you make a successful "to hit" roll, you hit your intended target. If you miss, a 1-3 on d6 means you hit a random ally. I've used this in both my B/X and OD&D games. Can't remember what I did back in my AD&D days. Probably similar though.

I originally thought this was hard when reading it...but visualizing it in my head...I think it's a pretty good house rule.

Obviously, if you hit...you hit...but if you miss...which way do you miss? This gives a 50/50 chance, on a miss, of hitting an ally. That's harsh, but melee combat is close quarters...and it's a risk you take. If you think it's too harsh, you could just rule that it happens on a 1-2 (33%) on a d6.

[Rath Denacht]

My rule is that if you make a successful "to hit" roll, you hit your intended target. If you miss, a 1-3 on d6 means you hit a random ally. I've used this in both my B/X and OD&D games. Can't remember what I did back in my AD&D days. Probably similar though.

I originally thought this was hard when reading it...but visualizing it in my head...I think it's a pretty good house rule.

Obviously, if you hit...you hit...but if you miss...which way do you miss? This gives a 50/50 chance, on a miss, of hitting an ally. That's harsh, but melee combat is close quarters...and it's a risk you take. If you think it's too harsh, you could just rule that it happens on a 1-2 (33%) on a d6.

It's intentionally harsh. It's kind of meant to discourage firing into melee.

The beauty of the single d6 is that its easy to adjust to any given circumstance. So 1-3 is just the default. If your adversary is a single troll, surrounded by 5 PCs, I'd up the chance to at least 1-4. Likewise, if only 1 or 2 allies are engaged with a swarm of 12 goblins, I'd probably reduce it to 1 in 6.

[havard]

I like Rath's rule.

-Havard

[Urieal]

The beauty of the single d6 is that its easy to adjust to any given circumstance. So 1-3 is just the default. If your adversary is a single troll, surrounded by 5 PCs, I'd up the chance to at least 1-4. Likewise, if only 1 or 2 allies are engaged with a swarm of 12 goblins, I'd probably reduce it to 1 in 6.

You're speakin my language brother!

[bighara]

My "archery" house rules from my LL NDT game:

ARROWS: When firing a bow (short or long, not a crossbow), you can fire two arrows per round if you do nothing but fire. (No movement, etc.). You cannot use ranged attacks if youʼre engaged in melee combat. You cannot use long bows from horseback. Short bows and crossbows are at -1 to hit. Shooting into a melee (any ranged weapon) gives the target a +2 cover bonus, and a natural 1 automatically hits a random friendly adjacent target (if any).

AIMING: If a character does not move or take damage before their attack roll that round, they may take an aiming bonus of +1 to hit with any ranged weapon. Bows cannot fire twice per round and get the aiming bonus.

[Talmor]

My rule is that if you make a successful "to hit" roll, you hit your intended target. If you miss, a 1-3 on d6 means you hit a random ally. I've used this in both my B/X and OD&D games. Can't remember what I did back in my AD&D days. Probably similar though.

That's a great one! Putting it into my house rule file now!

[zarathustra]

My rule is that if you make a successful "to hit" roll, you hit your intended target. If you miss, a 1-3 on d6 means you hit a random ally. I've used this in both my B/X and OD&D games. Can't remember what I did back in my AD&D days. Probably similar though.

That's a great one! Putting it into my house rule file now!

Yeah I think this is the winner so far. Thanks guys.

[havard]

What about firing out of melee?

-Havard

[zarathustra]

What about firing out of melee?

-Havard

I allow it if the PC has the metal pack of Ejec'Tor Seet , then he can fire himself right out of melee.

[Barrataria]

My rule is that if you make a successful "to hit" roll, you hit your intended target. If you miss, a 1-3 on d6 means you hit a random ally. I've used this in both my B/X and OD&D games. Can't remember what I did back in my AD&D days. Probably similar though.

More or less the same, except that I use the d6 to indicate whether the miss was short or long. Imagining the intended target on a hexagon, 1 or 2 mean short in front, 3 means wide right, 4-5 means long, and 6 means wide left.

Easy peasy. Maybe it's from AD&D ? Or Dragonquest? I forget.

[Wilowisp]

NEW SPELL: "Firing Into A Melee"
Type: Magic User/Elf
Level: 3
Range: 1 Melee, but no larger than 20' x 20'

DESCRIPTION: This spell can only be cast on a group of individuals engaged in hand to hand combat. All affected targets must Save Vs. Spells, or immidiately be taken with a deep sense that whatever agency, kingdom, creed, deity, Etc. that directed them to engage in this combat no longer requires their services. This will cause them to cease fighting, and return to whatever they call home, to sit on their equivalant of a couch, and complain to their women-folk that "no-one is hiring sell-swords anymore". Victims will naturally return to their right mind one day later.

[Justisaur]

issue with that... suppose a singular dwarf fighter is fighting a large group of... gnolls. The fighter is decked out and has a very low AC. If someone firing into melee hits the fighter half the time they miss a gnoll they'd be better off aiming for the fighter since they'll probably only hit him on very high numbers, then they'll hit a gnoll half the time they miss.

I prefer the 1e solution of random target in a melee based on size and numbers, it's relatively quick and usually gives enough disincentive to not do it unless they are outnumbered and/or fighting larger creatures. So if we count 4 gnolls each as large and a human fighter it would be 2x as likely to attack a particular gnoll as the human so we end up with 9 possibilities - roll a d10 - 1 targets the fighter, 2-9 targets one of the gnolls, and 0 reroll.

The only problem I have with this is that a good fighter is more likely to hit his friend than a bad one. Of course he's also more likely to hit a gnoll as well. It's not a perfect solution, but I haven't seen one that doesn't have some problem.

I remember I used to allow firing at significantly larger creatures not have any chance of hitting the PCs. For instance a dwarf fighting a hill giant, another PC firing at the giant wouldn't have any chance of hitting the dwarf (well perhaps on a 1), with the 1e method there's not much chance anyway at 1 to 4.

[Phinagle]

My rules are based on the rules for Cover and apply a to-hit penalty for every ally/innocent/defender in melee range of the target. -1 per a/i/d smaller than the target, -2 per a/i/d the target is the same size as, and -4 per a/i/d larger than the target. What's more should the attack roll miss by an amount less than or equal to the total penalty an a/i/d will be hit, starting with the target closest to the shooter and determined by the penalty that a/i/d applied.

Best way is to explain is with an example: A fighter and a dwarf are in melee with a hobgoblin that a thief want to take a shot at. The penalty for the thief's shot would be -2 for the fighter and -1 for the dwarf for a total of -3 to-hit. If then, after penalties, the thief needs to roll a 17 to hit the hobgoblin a miss with a roll of 14-16 will instead hit either the fighter or dwarf. If the fighter is closest to the thief then the fighter will be hit on a roll of 15 or 16 and the dwarf will be hit on a roll of 14. If the dwarf is closest to the thief then the dwarf will be hit on a 16 and the fighter on a roll of 14 or 15.


In the same vein, sprouting from this rule came a rule for firing into a crowd of monsters, based on the idea that if a near miss can hit an ally then a near miss should also be able to hit an enemy next to the intended target. The rule is when firing into a group/formation of enemies the shooter picks an intended target and makes an attack roll against that target with the shooter's normal bonus's to-hit...however in addition the shooter gets a bonus to hit each enemy adjacent to the intended target. The to-hit bonus is +1 starting with the enemy furthest away from the shooter and increases by +1 for each additional enemy.

Another example (with diagram ):
A
B-T<-----------shooter
C-D

A shooter firing at target T gets a normal chance to hit T but gets a +1 bonus to hit A, a +2 bonus to hit B, a +3 bonus to hit C, and a +4 bonus to hit D. So if the shooter will hit T on a roll of 13, A will get hit on a roll of 12, B on an 11, C on a 10, and D on a 9.


Instances occur where these rules happen at the same time but to make things a bit quicker it was also conditioned that you can't shoot at an intended target that's behind another enemy. Without that condition enemies in front of the intended target would have to use the Cover rules while those behind used the bystander rules.

[zarathustra]

issue with that... suppose a singular dwarf fighter is fighting a large group of... gnolls. The fighter is decked out and has a very low AC. If someone firing into melee hits the fighter half the time they miss a gnoll they'd be better off aiming for the fighter since they'll probably only hit him on very high numbers, then they'll hit a gnoll half the time they miss.

I prefer the 1e solution of random target in a melee based on size and numbers, it's relatively quick and usually gives enough disincentive to not do it unless they are outnumbered and/or fighting larger creatures. So if we count 4 gnolls each as large and a human fighter it would be 2x as likely to attack a particular gnoll as the human so we end up with 9 possibilities - roll a d10 - 1 targets the fighter, 2-9 targets one of the gnolls, and 0 reroll.

The only problem I have with this is that a good fighter is more likely to hit his friend than a bad one. Of course he's also more likely to hit a gnoll as well. It's not a perfect solution, but I haven't seen one that doesn't have some problem.

I remember I used to allow firing at significantly larger creatures not have any chance of hitting the PCs. For instance a dwarf fighting a hill giant, another PC firing at the giant wouldn't have any chance of hitting the dwarf (well perhaps on a 1), with the 1e method there's not much chance anyway at 1 to 4.

I tried that way once, too much counting. I'd rather just announce that Borg the dwarf was surrounded and you'd be really unlucky to hit him (down to 1 in 6 chance after a miss) or if he was fighting so many they were forming second ranks & so on- no chance to hit him.

[Rath Denacht]

issue with that... suppose a singular dwarf fighter is fighting a large group of... gnolls. The fighter is decked out and has a very low AC. If someone firing into melee hits the fighter half the time they miss a gnoll they'd be better off aiming for the fighter since they'll probably only hit him on very high numbers, then they'll hit a gnoll half the time they miss.

From my earlier post in this thread:

The beauty of the single d6 is that its easy to adjust to any given circumstance. So 1-3 is just the default. If your adversary is a single troll, surrounded by 5 PCs, I'd up the chance to at least 1-4. Likewise, if only 1 or 2 allies are engaged with a swarm of 12 goblins, I'd probably reduce it to 1 in 6.

EDIT: No rule is going to encompass every possible set of variables for every possible situation. My goal is to keep the rules as simple as possible, with an eye toward rapid play (especially in combat), while resolving *most* situations fairly. If there are extenuating circumstances the DM can always make an on-the-spot ruling to cover it.

[Barrataria]

issue with that... suppose a singular dwarf fighter is fighting a large group of... gnolls. The fighter is decked out and has a very low AC. If someone firing into melee hits the fighter half the time they miss a gnoll they'd be better off aiming for the fighter since they'll probably only hit him on very high numbers, then they'll hit a gnoll half the time they miss.

If there are extenuating circumstances the DM can always make an on-the-spot ruling to cover it.

I cannot imagine one of my players telling me they are going to intentionally target a comrade to take advantage of a scatter rule. Imagine their surprise when they mysteriously strike with every arrow loosed!

[froglegg]

-4 To hit and if a nat 1 is rolled you hit a friend.


John

[Amazan]

What annoys me with this kind of house rule is that you shouldn't have more chance to hit a friend if the ennemy has a Plate Armor (because you will miss more often, and then the DM will roll to see if you hit an ally; just because the arrow couldn't go through the armor shouldn't change your chance to hit an ally by mistake).
Why not simply say that if your archer is missing AC 9, then the arrow is sent in the back of a near ally?

[Rath Denacht]

What annoys me with this kind of house rule is that you shouldn't have more chance to hit a friend if the ennemy has a Plate Armor (because you will miss more often, and then the DM will roll to see if you hit an ally; just because the arrow couldn't go through the armor shouldn't change your chance to hit an ally by mistake).
Why not simply say that if your archer is missing AC 9, then the arrow is sent in the back of a near ally?

Because combat in classic D&D is *abstract.* We don't know *why* the intended target is missed. But it *is* missed. The BTB rules do not allow for firing missiles into melee. In fact, they prohibit it. However, as Alex pointed out, that is ridiculous, as players will attempt to do it anyway. A house-rule which allows such action, but also includes a relatively high probability of striking an ally, accomplishes two things: 1.) It discourages firing into melee. 2.) It allows a player who insists on doing so a reasonable chance of success with possible severe consequences for failure.

[Urieal]

I believe that someone suggested something akin to this, but here's a way of handling it so the chances aren't drastically high for hitting an ally...and yet they are still there

Firing into melee
If the missile firing into melee misses by 4 or more on the roll, then the following occurs:
- DM randomly chooses an ally that is relatively near to the path of the missile
- Shooter/Thrower rolls another attack roll, this time against the ally's AC. If he/she hits, then the ally is hit with the missile.


The chance is still there, but it's not quite as high as other methods, and it still discourages missile fire into melee.
You can play with the variance, perhaps missing by 6 or more, until you feel it's just right.

[Korto]

My problem with a method like that, is that the better armoured your target is, the more likely it is you'll hit the wrong target, instead of hit but be stopped by the armour. It's like plate armour radiates a displacer beast field or something. Still, if it works for you, and it's simple, cool.

Just thought I'd share a recent anecdote.
The PCs are in a narrow corridor, with two carrion crawler scuttling towards them. The fighter gets a "Freedom" spell cast on him, which completely protects him from paralysis for a short while (8 rounds, in this case), and engages. The thief decides to help out, and gets out his crossbow. The fighter was unhurt on 21hp.
After the second time the thief hits the fighter in the back, the last a critical for double damage, leaving the fighter on 4hp, the thief wisely decided to put the crossbow away before the fighter turned around and shoved it down his throat.
And it was absolutely hilarious. As we repeatedly pointed out, the fighter was completely safe from the crawlers, it was his own teammate who was killing him.

[Rath Denacht]

My problem with a method like that, is that the better armoured your target is, the more likely it is you'll hit the wrong target, instead of hit but be stopped by the armour. It's like plate armour radiates a displacer beast field or something. Still, if it works for you, and it's simple, cool.

Again, I think you're looking at the situation too literally, considering the type of armor that such-n-such character is wearing. In classic D&D combat is abstract. This is reiterated many times in the various version of the rules (at least the ones I'm familiar with). You are right however in going with whatever works for you and your players.

Just thought I'd share a recent anecdote.
The PCs are in a narrow corridor, with two carrion crawler scuttling towards them. The fighter gets a "Freedom" spell cast on him, which completely protects him from paralysis for a short while (8 rounds, in this case), and engages. The thief decides to help out, and gets out his crossbow. The fighter was unhurt on 21hp.
After the second time the thief hits the fighter in the back, the last a critical for double damage, leaving the fighter on 4hp, the thief wisely decided to put the crossbow away before the fighter turned around and shoved it down his throat.
And it was absolutely hilarious. As we repeatedly pointed out, the fighter was completely safe from the crawlers, it was his own teammate who was killing him.

Hilarious! That <expletive deleted> happens, although in my game there are no "crits" for thieves. Only fighting-men do double damage on a natural 20.

EDIT: Funny. That "expletive" was pretty mild.

[Alex]

Jimm, you can go to your User Control Panel and disable censoring.

I had a case like that in my campaign a few years ago. I thought I was being totally generous when saying you'll only hit an ally on a natural 1 (way more generous than AD&D). The first time the party muscle was hit from behind by a thrown hand axe the players all decried how ridiculous that rule was and they never again tried to use ranged weapons past an ally from 2nd or 3rd rank.

[ken-do-nim]

My system is pretty straightforward. Calculate how much cover the target has from the shooter due to the other pcs getting in the way. If the attack misses only due to the cover then the DM determines randomly which pc ally may be hit, and the shooter rolls to hit again against his ally.

[Mr. Reaper]

Again, I think you're looking at the situation too literally, considering the type of armor that such-n-such character is wearing. In classic D&D combat is abstract. This is reiterated many times in the various version of the rules (at least the ones I'm familiar with).

Nowhere in Classic D&D is combat ever referred to as being "abstract."

(if I'm wrong, anyone feel free to correct me.... I'm not intimately familiar with Moldvay, so who knows if it's in there.... It's certainly not in Mentzer or the RC).

Of course there are abstractions going on (not nearly as much as in AD&D's 1 minute melee round), but not to the point you're suggesting. We're not even allowed to consider the type of armor worn? Why? Because the armor bonus only adds to a nebulous, abstract ability for your character to avoid being hit?

No. Wearing a heavy set of metal plate armor does not make you better at dodging, for example. Nor does a shield. They both provide a barrier in front of your soft flesh that blocks incoming attacks. There's nothing very abstract about that concept, and armor gives a specific bonus in that regard.

Because combat in classic D&D is *abstract.* We don't know *why* the intended target is missed. But it *is* missed.

Yes, we can know why an attack missed, and pretty accurately too, if we wish to think about it (though most of the time it doesn't matter).


We know that armor and shield acts as a physical barrier, and a Dexterity bonus helps you dodge....

So if you have a Fighter with AC 1 as a result of Platemail, Shield, and a +1 Dexterity bonus, we can extrapolate exactly what all the modifiers to his AC mean....

We know that a normal, unarmored human-sized target is AC 9.

Platemail armor gives a base AC of 3, so it's basically providing a bonus of 6 points to the AC as a physical barrier. The Shield does the same thing by an additional 1 point. Then his Dexterity allows him to move out of the way of an attack, giving him another 1 point bonus.....


So, if you shoot at this guy and miss your Hit Roll by 1 point, you were basically right on target, but it most likely bounced off his armor... since that's the biggest source of protection for him, and his "last line of defense" for an incoming attack. In fact, if you miss him by 1-6 points, that's the most likely result: it bounced off his Platemail armor.

If your Hit Roll misses him by 7 points, then you didn't even get to his armor, because his Shield got in the way... so the attack bounces off his shield (his next-to-last layer of defense).

If you miss him by 8 points, then you didn't even get to his shield, because his Dexterity let him dodge out of the path of the attack... That's going to be his first line of defense....

And if you miss by 9 points or more, your arrow completely missed its mark, and you wouldn't even have hit an unarmored human (of average dexterity) of AC 9.....

And the more points your Hit Roll missed by, the farther off the mark you were.... If you miss by 15 points, your arrow was way, way off target.....


All the numbers in combat do have specific meanings, and more specific results can be interpolated from them if necessary.




So, as to firing into melee....

Assuming you have a clear shot (otherwise a Cover modifier comes into play) at the target who is surrounded by other combatants, and assuming no Dex modifier for the moment (to keep it simple, and since most NPC targets aren't going to have a set Dex score):

If the Hit Roll misses, but would have hit a target of AC 9, then the arrow bounced off the target's armor or shield, and is no danger to anyone else -- its momentum has been stopped. The same can apply to most monsters with natural armor -- AC 9 is usually considered the "touch" AC.

If the attack misses by more than that (it would even have missed a target of AC 9 or worse), then the arrow completely missed, and is still traveling at full velocity, and someone near the target could be hit.


How to determine if they are hit? NOT with a Hit Roll made by the attacker!

Why not? Because when the attacker is firing an arrow at a target, he is using all his skill, all his training, all his experience, and all of his dexterity to aim that arrow specifically at his target.... All that is factored into a standard Hit Roll.

When he misses that target, the arrow is just flying wild, and that should not in any way be "guided" by that character's skill at shooting a bow! A 10th level Fighter's misfired arrow has a much higher chance to hit than a 1st level Fighter's misfired arrow?

I think not. At that point, the Arrow has basically become "an environmental hazard" much like it would be if it were an arrow trap that shoots out of the wall.... It seems like a Saving Throw by the randomly chosen (no way should a misfired arrow have a higher chance to hit an ally than an opponent) nearby combatant would be a better mechanic....

Or, perhaps a Hit Roll made by the DM on the "Normal Human" attack table, with only the magical bonus of the weapon applying to the roll (magic will make the arrow hit more often, whether or not it's being specifically aimed at the target...).

Of course, if the arrow misses that random target, then it might hit another random target behind him.... Until the DM decides nobody else will be in the path of the arrow.


In a previous topic, I came up with some options to determine by how much, and in what direction a missed arrow will fly.... That could be useful in these situations.