Firing into Melee

[Birthright]

How about sticking with BFRPG's existing rule, but any attack made against an ally as a result of a missed shot into melee is a straight 1d20 with NO modifiers. Modifiers for DEX, race and class-based to-hit modifiers should only be applied when trying to hit. This means armoured allies are harder to hit than unarmoured ones rather than a straight 50% chance of hitting anyone.

I'd only roll to hit allies that are immediately adjacent to the intended target AND have no significant cover from other melee participants, doors, walls, etc. Picture shooting through a doorway at an Orc that is in melee with an ally who is largely out of your sight. Pretty harsh to say 50% of a miss hitting your ally.

I'd also consider the possibility of allowing careful shots into melee at -4 to hit that only hit allies on a natural 1, or alternatively allowing careful shots a 50% chance of 'no opportunity' (wasting the attack) but otherwise allowing a normal attack roll.

In all cases, firing into melee should only be allowed at short range.

[Hywaywolf]

I fully agree with the idea that a miss when shooting into melee should never benefit a player and should have the potential to actually do harm to allies. Its a metagaming rule rather than reality, but that's alright. On the other hand, a metagaming rule goes to far when its intention is to punish a player for taking an action rather than just providing consequences. If there is no chance to hit any enemies there shouldn't be an almost guaranteed chance of hitting a friendly.

In all cases, firing into melee should only be allowed at short range.

As to this, there should never been any rule, especially a metagaming rule, that prevents a player from taking an action even if it is a stupid one.

[Dimirag]

The possibility of shooting the wrong target should include targeting everybody in the melee except for the original target:
If a warrior is fighting 3 goblins and another character missed to one of the goblins the fighter and the other goblin could be hit, not just the ally. I know this allows to extra probabilities of hitting enemies in a group, but that's what happen when you shoot to a group...

I just have another idea:
If using an hexagonal map up to 6 character/creatures can surround a target. If you miss roll a dice, the number showing correspond to that creature receiving the shoot, roll a d20 vs AC.
The dice could be always the same or depend on the range, the closer you are the greater the chance of hitting the wrong target.
Example:
Engaged: d6
Short: d8
Medium: d10
Large: d12
Reduce visibility could reduce the dice type by 1 or more...

[Solomoriah]

If there is no chance to hit any enemies there shouldn't be an almost guaranteed chance of hitting a friendly.

From a strictly logical standpoint, I disagree with this. Say that our party of heros has surrounded a carnivorous ape and are trying to extract its spleen. Along comes another hero, who pulls out his bow and takes a shot at the ape... being as it's surrounded by PCs, I'd say the odds of hitting one of them are better than the odds of hitting the ape.

The possibility of shooting the wrong target should include targeting everybody in the melee except for the original target.

Logically, this is true. But the standard rule was created as it is in response to actual play experience. In a battle with friends and foes mixed together, the player shooting the bow at an orc (for instance) would argue that the other orcs ought to be targeted when he missed his intended target... and I'd respond "what about your other friends"... and then we'd argue about what order to make the extra rolls in.

So I decided, very simply, that a failed roll to hit should never work out in favor of the attacker.

Now I'll say, do as you like with respect to modifiers. In fact, if you disagree with my rule, feel free to do it your way. But don't for a moment think I didn't consider all this when I wrote it.

[JoeCarr28]

How about sticking with BFRPG's existing rule, but any attack made against an ally as a result of a missed shot into melee is a straight 1d20 with NO modifiers. Modifiers for DEX, race and class-based to-hit modifiers should only be applied when trying to hit. This means armoured allies are harder to hit than unarmoured ones rather than a straight 50% chance of hitting anyone.

Yep, that's a neat solution. I might pinch that as well. Ignore the shooter's modifiers, but presumeably keep the target's modifiers (a high DEX should still allow them to dodge even a stray arrow) and any situational modifiers (cover, etc.).

[Hywaywolf]

From a strictly logical standpoint, I disagree with this. Say that our party of heros has surrounded a carnivorous ape and are trying to extract its spleen. Along comes another hero, who pulls out his bow and takes a shot at the ape... being as it's surrounded by PCs, I'd say the odds of hitting one of them are better than the odds of hitting the ape.

The ape example would be correct if you were only using random chances of hitting something, but not if you consider that the hero is a skilled bowman and is actually aiming at something and not just closing his eyes and firing. The likelihood of hitting the ape as opposed to the PCs is a product of the skill of the archer and the armor class of the ape. The odds of hitting the PCs only comes in when you use the missiles that miss rule. And in this case the missile that miss rule is fine because there is no chance that you could hit another enemy. But we shouldn't be using logic when discussing this rule anyway because it isn't a rule to resolve an outcome, its a rule to punish player behavior.

The problem with the rule as I see it is that its a metagaming rule that says "Thou Shall Not Do This" instead of "if you do this it might go bad for you." Why should a rangers skill in hitting what he aims at be used to hit something he wasn't aiming at? I could understand the strength bonuses being used because a mighty swing or a hard throw will cleave through armor the same for an enemy as an ally and do the same damage. And I also disagree with the three chances to hit a target when you miss when none of those chances are an enemy.

With all that said, I don't have a problem with it being in the book as all rules in the book are open to houseruling. I should be limiting my comments to any GM I am in a game with. And even then I will only discuss it if they ask. I like the notion that the GM decides and we play it out. thats why I play old school. And I am willing to risk shooting a fellow PC in teh back as a protest against the rule lol.

[Solomoriah]

The problem with the rule as I see it is that its a metagaming rule that says "Thou Shall Not Do This" instead of "if you do this it might go bad for you."

Respectfully, no. It is, in fact, an "if you do this, it might go bad for you" rule. I have players in my current game who are beginning to try this more often; as their odds of hitting are getting better, it's less of a penalty.

Your argument about the skilled character plays directly into this. The standard rule punishes the truly skilled far less often than the barely skilled.

EDIT: Reading your post again, I see that you are arguing against using the character's bonuses against his or her friends. In general I agree with this... it's just hard to write a simple, fast-playing rule for it.

[Hywaywolf]

I think a rule that gives you no chance to hit an enemy but 3 chances to hit one of your own lies much closer to trying to stop an action than it does to trying to provide a consequence for the action. It isn't a rule to handle a PCs action. Its a metagaming rule to highlight a GMs opinion of firing into melee. A GM who is totally against it will allow a chance to hit every PC in the area while someone who is more freewheeling might give just a 50/50 chance that a miss might hit one other. I being a more freewheeling type of guy think if you can't hit an enemy with a miss you should only get one chance to hit a friendly.

About the bonuses, the rule specifically says to use all bonuses for misses. It would be easy to leave that part out.

[Joe the Rat]

Man, I've got to get faster at writing.

Looking at this as an implementation of the rules (rather than the rules themselves), one of the issues here is the determination of valid targets. The rule is up to three. This is a cap, not a requisite. In most cases, you probably shouldn't be checking that many. Going to the example, I would argue that unless all three of your splenectomy-performing fighters are on the same side of the ape, only two should be checked.

Why? Geometry. I prefer mechanical models for missing missiles over the Copenhagen interpretation (make waveform ammunition a magic item). Pick your misfire trajectory (yes, pick it randomly), and check on that line only. Look at the squares that are clipped by your line - and see who's there that is attacking or being attacked by the target, as they will be the ones who are likely to be commingling that space with the target. That is why they might get hit - they are close, moving back and forth in the same bit of shared real estate. You start checking bystanders (allies who are not engaged with that target), you need to start checking enemy combatants as well.

EDIT: Reading your post again, I see that you are arguing against using the character's bonuses against his or her friends. In general I agree with this... it's just hard to write a simple, fast-playing rule for it.

"Make the attack roll against allies with an unmodified d20" seems simple enough.

[Solomoriah]

Magic improves the chance to hit. Is this due to enhanced accuracy or greater impact velocity? Should magic bonuses apply?

Otherwise, yeah, I can see your point.

... Copenhagen interpretation... had me busting a gut laughing. Good one.