Topic: Missiles into melee

[Ginger McMurray]

Is there a rule for this? Some systems give penalties. Some give a percentage chance of hitting the wrong person.

[Spectre771]

This is probably a house rule of ours, but there is always a percentage chance to hit the wrong target because combat is fluid and the two combatants are ducking and moving, changing stances, etc.  Even with the best of archery skill, there's no way of knowing if the targets will shift while the arrow is in flight as one target goes to duck under an attack or slides to get better positioning. 

Depending on the number of combatants, usually two, there's 50% chance to hit your target. Three people = 33%, etc.

If there is a crit that reads "...passes through target..." then another percentage chance it passes into the other combatant.  I mean... why not?

[Ginger McMurray]

I hope that isn't the official rule. If it is, we'll definitely house rule it. That's way too punitive IMO.

[Spectre771]

I hope that isn't the official rule. If it is, we'll definitely house rule it. That's way too punitive IMO.

Don't shoot arrows at your friends! 

[Grinnen Baeritt]

It's all down to personal judgement here, but it's a complex issue, for the most part down to the player making the attack.

However, it's always been a personal bugbear of mine. Players, specifically in 5th D&D (but equally relevant here in RM, which hopefully players are a little more "real-life friendly"), always seem to think that a target can be hit or not, and that misses simply miss. It's never as simple as that, right?

1. Use your common sense as GM. If a character, with a bow (or whatever missile weapon you have).. and they are firing at a TARGET who is already actively in melee with the characters allies, then automatically give that target a minor bonus to it's defense for each ally it's in melee with.. regardless of whether the allies in melee are actually interposing themselves between the target or not. This reflects not only the characters reduced difficulty of hitting the target but also the character's intention of NOT hitting an ally!  I'd suggest a +10 DB if equal sized, or +5 DB if the target is larger...PER ALLY.

2. A target that is already actively in combat with Allies will already blocking, dodging or avoiding the blows of your allies. However, if it's also aware of the shooter, i.e. Is roughly facing the shooter and knows their location, may also additionally be able to deliberately use your ally as an unwitting shield (remember it's actually more difficult, as an ally, to know where NOT to be, when an ally fires from behind at the same target. It gets an additional bonus as 1. (but only one)

3. Treat as a "Miss" might also be simply a "Missed Opportunity to safely fire, rather than a chance to hit an ally".

Basically, if the "Miss" would have hit without the inclusion of any of the additional defense bonus (given in 1. and 2. ) then the player has simply missed. However, if the player would have hit if the DB bonuses not being applied, then they may be given to option not to shoot at all (simply wasting an action) or run the risk of hitting an ally but potentially still hitting the Target... the chance being the defense bonus given in 1 & 2.   If the character hits regardless of the bonuses applied then they have still hit the target as normal.

Example.   Three characters are fighting an Orc. Two characters are in Melee with the Orc (one in front one behind) the third an archer tries to take a shot. 

Give the Orc, already has a DB of 20, an additional +30 to it's DB (only +10 for each ally in melee with it, but an additional +10, because the orc is capable of deliberately using the character in front of it as cover.)

If the Archer rolls so badly they would miss regardless of the additional DB it got for being in melee, it simply misses.

If he "misses" because of the additional +30 DB applied, then he has the option to "Not Shoot" or "Shoot and still hope to hit"... in this case the chance of hitting an ally is 01-30%, but he still hits the Orc on 31-00% doing the relevant damage for that attack roll.

If he does hit an ally, then re-roll the attack on an ally (randomly determined), but with the DB applied to the original shot as a bonus to the OB.     

[Majyk]

Spectre and I, again, agree: long live crunchy combats!

I added a huge post long, long ago on here somewhere(many topics are rehashes so don’t miss out on looking up even more replies in full!) about a great way to lock this down, including if there are Larger or Smaller foes in the melee.

All that said, I used to allow one to reduce the penalty by their AGility Total Bonus.
If more than 2 opposing forces are in that melee they’re firing in, pre-calc reductions of the AG mod that helps reduce hitting their ally.

So as per the previous example of 2 opposing combatants locked in battle, the firer’s AG of say +15 for Total Bonus is taken off of 50%, now meaning there is less of a chance(35%) to hit their friend.
AG of +25 = 25% chance to hit a buddy, etc.

It is an anxious override for the shooter wanting to loose the shot upon the enemy vs a friend, not much but something.
If not wanting to add more rolls, just delay the %activity to take a shot(by weapon type) into melee by the % chances above minus AG showing this harder to shoot time taken to be absolutely sure one won’t hit their buddy.

[Ecthelion]

Is there a rule for this? Some systems give penalties. Some give a percentage chance of hitting the wrong person.

I don't think there is an official rule. In our group we grant a penalty for shooting with someone else giving cover. Typically that's -40 for someone being in the way.

[Ginger McMurray]

Thanks everyone! Soft cover (-20) makes sense if there's a direct line between your ally and the target. Since there doesn't seem to be an official rule on it, and Rolemaster is all about bonuses / penalties, I'll just let it happen without worrying the rest of the time. If it turns out to be a problem, we'll investigate house rules.

[Majyk]

Have a laugh at these house rules from a 15yr old playing RM long ago - apologies for the ‘s denoting plurality back then! 
I was young and English-dumb, haha!   


https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/427003307727519744/647553099787141130/RMHouseRules.pdf


Yet another way to handle firing into melee.

[Spectre771]

Have a laugh at these house rules from a 15yr old playing RM long ago - apologies for the ‘s denoting plurality back then! 
I was young and English-dumb, haha!   


https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/427003307727519744/647553099787141130/RMHouseRules.pdf


Yet another way to handle firing into melee.

I like it!  That is detailed and really well written.  Excellent work, my friend.  I love the part for shooting a coin from a sling.  The detail and mathematical information added to it really should prevent issues from arising.  You've covered a lot of the bases for different eventualities.

[Dunadan]

Late to the conversation, but...

I have GM'ed a house rule of giving soft cover (-20) to the enemy. I considered the whole "might accidentally hit an ally" thing, but considered it would add too much complexity to the combat. RM combats can be unwieldy already and I wanted a quick, easily used and understood rule.

But at the end of the day it is whatever works for you and your group.

[Spectre771]

RM combats can be unwieldy already and I wanted a quick, easily used and understood rule.

Think how much faster combat would be if you were to shoot your friends too! 

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I have GM'ed a house rule of giving soft cover (-20) to the enemy. I considered the whole "might accidentally hit an ally" thing, but considered it would add too much complexity to the combat. RM combats can be unwieldy already and I wanted a quick, easily used and understood rule.

Indeed. But given that the rules already have systems in place for criticals (and more importantly fumbles) it's a little too easy to say that firing into a melee is a "risk free activity". It simply just be easier to expand the fumble range for the shot in a similar manner, then when rolling the fumble, if the unmodified roll is within that expanded range then modify the fumble roll by subtracting the weapon skill (only) of the firer, then applying the result to the ally. That way, skilled shooters will most often "stall" their shot, and lesser trained shooters wont' 

[Ecthelion]

But given that the rules already have systems in place for criticals (and more importantly fumbles) it's a little too easy to say that firing into a melee is a "risk free activity".

Why should it be too easy to rule it that way??? I'd say it depends on how much realism you want in your game and how simple you want the mechanics on the other hand. It looks like, in this case, you prefer realism and don't want firing into melee a risk-free activity. That's just fine for you game. But if Dunadan is more on the simplicity side then that's also fine. We've been using this simplified way of firing into melee for years in our group. And it works nicely - at least for us.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

But given that the rules already have systems in place for criticals (and more importantly fumbles) it's a little too easy to say that firing into a melee is a "risk free activity".

Why should it be too easy to rule it that way??? I'd say it depends on how much realism you want in your game and how simple you want the mechanics on the other hand. It looks like, in this case, you prefer realism and don't want firing into melee a risk-free activity. That's just fine for you game. But if Dunadan is more on the simplicity side then that's also fine. We've been using this simplified way of firing into melee for years in our group. And it works nicely - at least for us.

I've no problem with people doing things differently, it's their choice to do so and Yes, I do prefer realism. I'm sorry if it seems if I'm shouting anyone down anyone for having chosen to take a more comfortable/easier option, that wasn't my intention. Just stating that where the RAW are perceived to have a hole, the interpretations of a solution can be as easy as simplistic as D&D (just apply a modifier, but nothing bad happens i.e. no risk of an accident) or as complicated as RM (which have fumble tables because accidents happen). And since we are playing RM...    
 

[Hurin]

Have a laugh at these house rules from a 15yr old playing RM long ago - apologies for the ‘s denoting plurality back then! 
I was young and English-dumb, haha!   

Making up crunchy house rules to add more realism to combat? I guess you could say you knew you were a Rolemaster player by the age of 15

[Cory Magel]

I use RMSS, but I think it all applies the same.

I'm really late to this, but food for thought... I use 'Awareness: Alertness' (or 'Situational Awareness: Combat' if you have it) in combats a lot.  It ensures there are less disagreements about what a character does or does not notice and allowing Combat Awareness to be used instead also provides a little more reason to be a Pure Arms user (who tend to suffer in terms of versatility down the road).

One house rule I should mention to start; I allow a target to potentially use their shield against all forward arc attackers. We use hexes, so the hex directly in front of you and the two to either side of it.

A) I'd start by giving the target soft/partial cover.

B) If the target has more than two attackers (including ranged) the target needs to roll Awareness to fully apply all their allowed defensive abilities to ranged attackers. I always still allow full normal base DB as that simulates the normal movement of combat well enough and I don't want to get too complicated.

C) If the target has abilities that allow for the deflection/redirection of attacks there's a chance they could direct the attack towards one of their foes if the situation is right. Think Spell Mastery in 'Deflections' or certain talents, etc.

D) If a ranged attacker misses, the target has made a successful Awareness check, and other melee combatants (hand to hand range) failed their Awareness check I might apply the amount missed by as an OB and let the original target roll an attack on the weapons attack table. Whoever failed their awareness check by the most is who would be targeted. Using this can be more of a judgement call though.

[Ginger McMurray]

I'm really late to this, but food for thought... I use 'Awareness: Alertness' (or 'Situational Awareness: Combat' if you have it) in combats a lot.

I'll be doing the same, though with basic perception unless that turns out to not work well, in which case I'll switch to something more combat oriented. I like to keep skills to a minimum. At least for a first campaign. My players are new to RM and it can look daunting when you see RMC II and it's 412 pages of skill charts.

One house rule I should mention to start; I allow a target to potentially use their shield against all forward arc attackers.

Same, but with squares so it'll be anything in the cone created by your front 3 squares.

A) I'd start by giving the target soft/partial cover.

B) If the target has more than two attackers (including ranged) the target needs to roll Awareness to fully apply all their allowed defensive abilities to ranged attackers. I always still allow full normal base DB as that simulates the normal movement of combat well enough and I don't want to get too complicated.

C) If the target has abilities that allow for the deflection/redirection of attacks there's a chance they could direct the attack towards one of their foes if the situation is right. Think Spell Mastery in 'Deflections' or certain talents, etc.

I like that!

D) If a ranged attacker misses, the target has made a successful Awareness check, and other melee combatants (hand to hand range) failed their Awareness check I might apply the amount missed by as an OB and let the original target roll an attack on the weapons attack table. Whoever failed their awareness check by the most is who would be targeted. Using this can be more of a judgement call though.

Thankfully there's plenty of time to figure that out since our 1st level characters won't have a lot of missile deflection. I will be using Yado, though. Some of the characters in the intro adventure have it so the players can see the usefulness.

[Majyk]

Ah yes, Yado was huge for anyone that didn’t have strength enough to have a shield(or didn’t jive with character concept) without putting them into high Encumbrance penalties.

RMCII looks daunting but it was awesome to have pointed skill resolution results vs, “you do it” or “you fail”.

Enjoy!

[Cory Magel]

I'm really late to this, but food for thought... I use 'Awareness: Alertness' (or 'Situational Awareness: Combat' if you have it) in combats a lot.

I'll be doing the same, though with basic perception unless that turns out to not work well, in which case I'll switch to something more combat oriented. I like to keep skills to a minimum. At least for a first campaign. My players are new to RM and it can look daunting when you see RMC II and it's 412 pages of skill charts.

Ah! This is one of the RM2 & RMSS differences in how skills work (combined vs catagory+specific skill).  In RMSS 'Awareness: Alertness' develops more slowly than 'Situational Awareness: (Whatever)' and 'Situational Awareness: Combat' in particular is an Everyman skill for Pure Arms Users. Thus it increases much more quickly in general and even more so for Pure Arms users.