TheRPGSite

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. :D  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?

I don't give any penalties to firing into melee, but I do have low rolls hit their opponents.  Generally if someone is engaged with one opponent then they are hit on a "1", 2 opponents the "1" hits one and the "2" hits the other, etc.   Easy and gives the players something to think about when they shoot into melee.

In my OSR game: Firing through a friend's space or into a melee is extremely dangerous. If you miss, it means you hit your friend, roll damage. Players are almost never desperate enough to do that.

For a 5e game: Firing through a friend's space or into a melee is less dangerous. A fumble (rolling a 1) means you hit your friend, roll damage. This risk can be avoided by firing cautiously (accepting a voluntary Disadvantage).

Games that allow shooting into melees without penalty feel terribly "gamey" to me. I'm fine with simplifications and abstractions, but that goes well past my limit.

I forgot which game had a mechanic where, when shooting into melee, it was best to aim for your buddy, maybe even going for a called shot, so the extra penalty would increase your chance of missing, and automatically hit one of the bad guys who were ganging up on your buddy...   ;D

A to-hit penalty.  And if the to-hit penalty changes the result from a hit to a miss, then roll an attack on the ally.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 25, 2021, 03:31:54 PM
A to-hit penalty.  And if the to-hit penalty changes the result from a hit to a miss, then roll an attack on the ally.

That sort of rule is exactly what Godfather Punk was talking about.

Depending upon the #s, it can easily be more likely to hit your ally than your target. Which is kinda silly IMO.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on October 25, 2021, 03:36:27 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on October 25, 2021, 03:31:54 PM
A to-hit penalty.  And if the to-hit penalty changes the result from a hit to a miss, then roll an attack on the ally.

That sort of rule is exactly what Godfather Punk was talking about.

Depending upon the #s, it can easily be more likely to hit your ally than your target. Which is kinda silly IMO.

Not silly IMO.  Then near-miss in the initial roll means you were really close, which means the bullet was really close to the ally.  The second roll checks checks armor vs penetration, luck, etc.  I suppose it would be worthwhile to subtract skill from the second roll, but that seems more trouble than it's worth

Quote from: Vidgrip on October 25, 2021, 02:24:56 PM
In my OSR game: Firing through a friend's space or into a melee is extremely dangerous. If you miss, it means you hit your friend, roll damage. Players are almost never desperate enough to do that.

For a 5e game: Firing through a friend's space or into a melee is less dangerous. A fumble (rolling a 1) means you hit your friend, roll damage. This risk can be avoided by firing cautiously (accepting a voluntary Disadvantage).

Games that allow shooting into melees without penalty feel terribly "gamey" to me. I'm fine with simplifications and abstractions, but that goes well past my limit.

The "hit the guy in the line of fire if you miss" is how I used to do it, until the players started lining up shots with 2 enemies in the line of fire on purpose so if they missed one, they hit the other one anyway.

I had a disadvantage to hit or miss hits friendly, shooters choice.

Quote from: Nephil on October 25, 2021, 05:21:34 PM
I had a disadvantage to hit or miss hits friendly, shooters choice. In dnd5, obviously.

Ah, bollocks, effed up the editing

5e has a neat system IIRC... creature A can count as cover to creature B, if you miss creature B because of the cover you hit creature A (depending on AC).

If your AC is much higher you cannot be hit accidentally in this way, but if you want more "realistic" results just roll again if you hit cover.

IN PRACTICE, my PCs rarely do this and if the do I just say "okay, if you roll a natural 1 you make an attack against your ally". Works perfectly: the 5% chance of hitting an ally is equal for everybody, but the better the archer and the lower the AC of the target, the higher the chances to hit him/her (which is "realistic" I guess).

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 25, 2021, 04:33:09 PM
The "hit the guy in the line of fire if you miss" is how I used to do it, until the players started lining up shots with 2 enemies in the line of fire on purpose so if they missed one, they hit the other one anyway.

It makes sense that firing at multiple enemies grouped together increases your chance of hitting something. But if this is true, then it adds a bit of complexity to all of ranged combat.

With d20 and friendlies in melee, I do on a 1 or 2 (maybe 3 if there are lots), you hit your friend for normal damage.

In combat I use miniatures on a grid.  What I do is if you fire a missile you have to roll to miss a figure who is in the line of fire to your target.  It's the same as a to hit roll, except a successful roll  means you missed them and the missile continues to your target.  At that point you roll to hit.  If you miss the missile continues past and you make roll to miss rolls on figures  in the line of fire.

Greetings!

"Friendly Fire" is a very real thing--even on the modern battlefield.

As the English Lord says to King Longshanks in the film Braveheart:

"But Sire, won't our archers hit our own troops in the battle?"

King Longshanks responds:

"Yes, yes, they will. No matter! They're only the Irish!" and then laughs with smug triumph.

So, you see? Even in the case of Adventurers fighting desperately against hordes of monsters...desperate times call for desperate measures! Getting some of that "Friendly Fire" going is just something that comes with the territory.

Any character that *misses* their target, their arrow instead strikes a comrade fighting against the enemy target in melee combat. That's just the breaks. Wizard's "Fire Ball" spells likewise burn the righteous right along with the wicked! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on October 25, 2021, 05:52:22 PM

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 25, 2021, 04:33:09 PM
The "hit the guy in the line of fire if you miss" is how I used to do it, until the players started lining up shots with 2 enemies in the line of fire on purpose so if they missed one, they hit the other one anyway.

It makes sense that firing at multiple enemies grouped together increases your chance of hitting something. But if this is true, then it adds a bit of complexity to all of ranged combat.

The problem is that REMOVED complexity. I wanted them to worry about positioning and it turned into an easy answer again.

I'm considering some other rule like if you miss it targets someone else near your target at complete random or that the friendly fire roll is a raw d20 so you can't count on it as a strategy.

The way For Gold & Glory handles it is pretty straightforward:
If your to-hit roll is too low to hit the target and anyone around — you miss.
Otherwise, assign to each possible victim a number (bigger targets have higher chances, obviously), to see whom the missile actually hits. Then see if your roll is enough to hit its AC.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 26, 2021, 05:14:43 AMThe problem is that REMOVED complexity. I wanted them to worry about positioning and it turned into an easy answer again.

I'm considering some other rule like if you miss it targets someone else near your target at complete random or that the friendly fire roll is a raw d20 so you can't count on it as a strategy.

We had something like that once, but it more often than not resulted in goofy results. (It was more fun but did break the immersion somewhat.)

What you have sounds good to me if it is encouraging your players to line up shots. That sounds like a reasonable tactic whether in game or not.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 25, 2021, 04:21:18 PM

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on October 25, 2021, 03:36:27 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on October 25, 2021, 03:31:54 PM
A to-hit penalty.  And if the to-hit penalty changes the result from a hit to a miss, then roll an attack on the ally.

That sort of rule is exactly what Godfather Punk was talking about.

Depending upon the #s, it can easily be more likely to hit your ally than your target. Which is kinda silly IMO.

Not silly IMO.  Then near-miss in the initial roll means you were really close, which means the bullet was really close to the ally.  The second roll checks checks armor vs penetration, luck, etc.  I suppose it would be worthwhile to subtract skill from the second roll, but that seems more trouble than it's worth

It's not silly IN THEORY.

But in practice, there would be points in the math where you are more likely to hit who you're not aiming at. Which is a silly result.

Ex: If you hit a foe on a d20 15+ normally but being in melee is a -4 so you hit on a 19+. Then if you're within that 4 points you hit your ally instead. So 10% of hitting foe and 20% of hitting ally.

You could add on additional rule complexity and rolls to limit that chance (though it's hard to do so for every potential combination) but that starts to slow down gameplay substantially and makes then entire system more complex.

Hence my preference for KISS rules where such results aren't possible even on the edges.

I'm playing mostly off the grid but occasionally on it.  So whatever I do has to work equally well on both.  In the past, that's been what others here have done of "no change" to "small penalty for firing into melee".  For my current game, I specifically wanted to discourage firing into melee but not prohibit it, which meant that I needed some kind of rule to get that outcome.

That said, I will certainly override that with GM adjudication when the situation warrants.  If some warrior is holding a narrow, low tunnel against a group of enemies, you can darn well bet I'll use some kind of cover rules, where if the miss is by the amount of cover it hits the ally in the back.  It's merely that most of the situations I have are more ambiguous, with room for the melee combatants to be in constant motion, making a long-range shot practically impossible.  Short of a sufficient rule, I'd simply not allow the shot at all, with situational exceptions for when someone thought the odds of a hitting a random target in the mix was worth the risk.

This is a situation that is handled better in the two-axis, non-standard dice system of FFG Star Wars/Genesys. Basically a miss (lack of sufficient successes) is a miss, but a miss with sufficient Threat or a Despair result can hit a friendly target if the GM determines that it's possible. I suppose a miss with sufficient Advantage or a Triumph might hit an enemy other than the intended target if the GM feels that's possible. The system gets a lot of shade for being narrative, but it actually has mechanics to guide what are often "just make it up" situations in other more traditional rulesets.

This is one of many reasons why I've always preferred hex-mapped tactical combat with solid rules, as in The Fantasy Trip: Melee (1978), where there are explicit positions for the figures, you trace the line of fire if it's not obvious, and if there are figures other than the target along the line of fire, you roll to hit or miss them along that line. GURPS has a similar but slightly more sophisticated way of handling it, where you roll to hit the intended target at a penalty for any intervening obstacles (including other people), and if you miss, then you roll for an unaimed shot to hit the other figures along the line of fire, again assessing to-hit penalties for what's in the way of each.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on October 26, 2021, 08:03:03 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on October 25, 2021, 04:21:18 PM

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on October 25, 2021, 03:36:27 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on October 25, 2021, 03:31:54 PM
A to-hit penalty.  And if the to-hit penalty changes the result from a hit to a miss, then roll an attack on the ally.

That sort of rule is exactly what Godfather Punk was talking about.

Depending upon the #s, it can easily be more likely to hit your ally than your target. Which is kinda silly IMO.

Not silly IMO.  Then near-miss in the initial roll means you were really close, which means the bullet was really close to the ally.  The second roll checks checks armor vs penetration, luck, etc.  I suppose it would be worthwhile to subtract skill from the second roll, but that seems more trouble than it's worth

It's not silly IN THEORY.

But in practice, there would be points in the math where you are more likely to hit who you're not aiming at. Which is a silly result.

Ex: If you hit a foe on a d20 15+ normally but being in melee is a -4 so you hit on a 19+. Then if you're within that 4 points you hit your ally instead. So 10% of hitting foe and 20% of hitting ally.

You could add on additional rule complexity and rolls to limit that chance (though it's hard to do so for every potential combination) but that starts to slow down gameplay substantially and makes then entire system more complex.

Hence my preference for KISS rules where such results aren't possible even on the edges.

If that person's in front of your target doesn't that make sense? Just because you're aiming past them doesn't make the target easier to hit than them. It's one thing if you're on a firing range where everything is stationary but we're talking the chaos of battle.

In 5e, if your target has cover from another creature, it gets +2 to its AC. I'm therefore considering that if you miss by 1 or 2 on a ranged attack into a melee, then you instead hit one of the other participants randomly chosen by the DM. The DM then rolls an attack against the new target and does normal damage on a hit. Ability modifiers and proficiency modifiers don't apply to these rolls, but magical bonuses / penalties still do.

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".

Critical failure can include accidently hitting your buddy.

Quote from: mightybrain on October 26, 2021, 02:58:08 PM
In 5e, if your target has cover from another creature, it gets +2 to its AC. I'm therefore considering that if you miss by 1 or 2 on a ranged attack into a melee, then you instead hit one of the other participants randomly chosen by the DM. The DM then rolls an attack against the new target and does normal damage on a hit. Ability modifiers and proficiency modifiers don't apply to these rolls, but magical bonuses / penalties still do.

5e already has a rule on this, but I wanted to make mine more dynamic.

Just for reference though, the way it works is: if you miss a target with cover within the range of AC the target had a cover bonus, you compare the attack roll to the guy who gave it cover and see if it hits them instead.

So for example, you have a goblin with 15 AC. Another goblin is in front, giving it +2 AC, so 17 AC.

You attack and roll 16. It misses the 17 AC, but since it's within the +2 band the other goblin gave, it means the cover is what cost you your shot.

So you compare your attack now to the guy giving the goblin cover, and see if it's enough to hit him instead.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 27, 2021, 12:42:35 AM
Just for reference though, the way it works is: if you miss a target with cover within the range of AC the target had a cover bonus, you compare the attack roll to the guy who gave it cover and see if it hits them instead.

The problem I had with that was if the PC in the way had better armour it was impossible to hit him by accident making it a less dangerous rule. And it, predictably, influenced PC behaviour. By making a second roll it's always possible to hit, even critically hit, an ally in melee. And it also doesn't suffer the problem of making it easier to hit someone else by missing the target mentioned earlier.

Quote from: mightybrain on October 27, 2021, 05:59:45 PM

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 27, 2021, 12:42:35 AM
Just for reference though, the way it works is: if you miss a target with cover within the range of AC the target had a cover bonus, you compare the attack roll to the guy who gave it cover and see if it hits them instead.

The problem I had with that was if the PC in the way had better armour it was impossible to hit him by accident making it a less dangerous rule. And it, predictably, influenced PC behaviour. By making a second roll it's always possible to hit, even critically hit, an ally in melee. And it also doesn't suffer the problem of making it easier to hit someone else by missing the target mentioned earlier.

That's what I do now too. Do you apply the attacker's skill bonus to the second roll?

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on October 26, 2021, 08:03:03 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on October 25, 2021, 04:21:18 PM

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on October 25, 2021, 03:36:27 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on October 25, 2021, 03:31:54 PM
A to-hit penalty.  And if the to-hit penalty changes the result from a hit to a miss, then roll an attack on the ally.

That sort of rule is exactly what Godfather Punk was talking about.

Depending upon the #s, it can easily be more likely to hit your ally than your target. Which is kinda silly IMO.

Not silly IMO.  Then near-miss in the initial roll means you were really close, which means the bullet was really close to the ally.  The second roll checks checks armor vs penetration, luck, etc.  I suppose it would be worthwhile to subtract skill from the second roll, but that seems more trouble than it's worth

It's not silly IN THEORY.

But in practice, there would be points in the math where you are more likely to hit who you're not aiming at. Which is a silly result.

Ex: If you hit a foe on a d20 15+ normally but being in melee is a -4 so you hit on a 19+. Then if you're within that 4 points you hit your ally instead. So 10% of hitting foe and 20% of hitting ally.

You could add on additional rule complexity and rolls to limit that chance (though it's hard to do so for every potential combination) but that starts to slow down gameplay substantially and makes then entire system more complex.

Hence my preference for KISS rules where such results aren't possible even on the edges.

There probably are edge cases, there always are, but I don't think that's one of them.  You skipped a step in my method.  There's a 20% chance of a possibility of hitting an ally, but then you make another attack roll to see if it actually happens.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 28, 2021, 03:39:51 AM
There probably are edge cases, there always are, but I don't think that's one of them.  You skipped a step in my method.  There's a 20% chance of a possibility of hitting an ally, but then you make another attack roll to see if it actually happens.

Yes - it's definitely edge cases. But there are even edge cases where even with an additional roll you're still more likely to hit an ally.

Plus, that additional roll gets into my other issue, where it starts to add substantial complexity to the rules and the extra rolling to slow down gameplay somewhat. And I just don't think that it adds any depth to gameplay.

It's not terrible, but my preference is for KISS rules whenever possible unless the additional complexity adds depth to the game.

I see there being circumstances where it's easier to hit your ally than your enemy as a feature, not a bug.

For example, if a group of allies are between the shooter and the target or in the classic example of an enemy holding a hostage in front of them as a shield it makes sense that it may be easier to hit an ally. Similarly, if a single enemy is in melee with several of your allies, it may be easier to hit an ally in that swirling melee.

Rereading this thread, I think a lot of the more convoluted ideas are a result of D&D AC being a combination of mobility and armor. It's a heavy overload for a single number and a lot of other games aren't saddled with it. It would be one of the few big things I would change if I ever write my OSR heartbreaker.

After reading through the comments, I've decided I'm going to try a house rule for my Stars Without Number game. I want to keep it simple above all.

If a shooter misses a target with a natural roll of 1-5 and there is a potential target nearby, they must make an evasion save or be hit. If the new target is facing away from the shot or is surprised, apply a -5 penalty to the save roll.

If the target is in melee, I would require a called shot and possibly grant cover as well if they are grappling.

Just my initial thoughts. I welcome suggestions.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 28, 2021, 11:04:50 AM
Rereading this thread, I think a lot of the more convoluted ideas are a result of D&D AC being a combination of mobility and armor. It's a heavy overload for a single number and a lot of other games aren't saddled with it. It would be one of the few big things I would change if I ever write my OSR heartbreaker.

I do prefer the general vibe of Armor=DR myself, but I don't think that it's a good fit for D&D. Armor=DR tends to work better when the DR is kept to single digits (max of 12 or it will slow play substantially) and the character progression is relatively flat.

Pretty much any version of D&D/OSR involves substantial 'zero-to-hero' progression, which is a bad match for Armor=DR.


But even with armor=DR and a separate defense to be hit, the same issues generally apply. Though you can do things like intentionally hit an area with a grenade where your buddy in a mecha is fighting several bug-aliens in melee since the grenade won't get through his armor.

.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on October 28, 2021, 03:01:10 PM
But even with armor=DR and a separate defense to be hit, the same issues generally apply. Though you can do things like intentionally hit an area with a grenade where your buddy in a mecha is fighting several bug-aliens in melee since the grenade won't get through his armor.

Yes, the calculus of what people are willing to try changes, and the edge cases are somewhat different, but the fundamental tension remains between keeping the game simple versus encouraging game play decisions or the simulation of what is happening.

Depending on the exact goals and tolerances for different edge cases, for a given person Armor as deflection or Armor as damage reduction might be easier or harder to manage.

A bigger influence is total health versus damage of weapons.  If a single bolt from a crossbow and kill or at least seriously hurt a relatively skilled combatant, then risking a shot that might hit an ally is very different than when your buddy has 80 hit point and a crossbow does 1d8 damage, but the shot has a good chance of taking out one of multiple opponents all doing 1d12+3 damage on a successful hit, maybe more on a critical.  Your buddy is going to take less damage overall during the fight even if you hit him once or twice.  If the shot can kill, you want to aim and wait for a really good shot--says immediately after the opponents knock your buddy down and the GM rules that you can make the shot unimpeded.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 29, 2021, 07:22:03 AMDepending on the exact goals and tolerances for different edge cases, for a given person Armor as deflection or Armor as damage reduction might be easier or harder to manage.

A bigger influence is total health versus damage of weapons.  If a single bolt from a crossbow and kill or at least seriously hurt a relatively skilled combatant, then risking a shot that might hit an ally is very different than when your buddy has 80 hit point and a crossbow does 1d8 damage, but the shot has a good chance of taking out one of multiple opponents all doing 1d12+3 damage on a successful hit, maybe more on a critical.  Your buddy is going to take less damage overall during the fight even if you hit him once or twice.  If the shot can kill, you want to aim and wait for a really good shot--says immediately after the opponents knock your buddy down and the GM rules that you can make the shot unimpeded.

Good points. Its odd that one game, D&D 5E that does the inflating hit points also makes it nearly risk free to fire into melee, whereas, Runequest, which has flat (and relatively low) hit points, makes it pretty risky to fire into melee. Although to be fair, sneak attacks, special class abilities, and certain feats can make a single arrow in 5E a lot more dangerous than an arrow hit in earlier versions like OD&D and AD&D.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 27, 2021, 10:54:15 PMThat's what I do now too. Do you apply the attacker's skill bonus to the second roll?

No. My thinking is that this isn't a shot aimed at the target so skill doesn't play a part. But I do still allow magic bonuses. This does have the side effect that a clumsy character with a penalty to Dex is more likely to hit anything except their target.

Then you get the comedy exchange:
"Great shot!"
"I was aiming for the other one."