Topic: Shooting into combat

[tolcreator]

In a lot of systems, shooting into a melee combat is either forbidden, subject to penalties, or the shot is randomised and may hit a friendly combattant. I cannot find a similar rule in Rolemaster. How do you handle shooting into the swirl of melee?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I keep it simple...

Targets in melee automatically get Half Hard Cover (+50 to DB) because they are moving and maneuvering and dodging and ducking and so forth.

If the attack roll is within 50 points of doing damage to the foe, then you hit his opponent.  The original attack roll is used against the opponent, but the opponent does not get the +50 to DB for the cover. However, I also don't apply positional mods or surprise or anything like that, and the opponent gets full DB against the attack.

If you missed by more than 50, then I figure out what/who else may have been hit (if there are other foes in the way), or if it was a clean miss (i.e. left or right, short or long, high or low -- basically a couple of odd/even rolls to find out where it went).

[Dax]

In a lot of systems, shooting into a melee combat is either forbidden, ...

Forbidden ?
This means the designers were out off inspiration or just too lazy to make up some rules.

Targets in melee automatically get Half Hard Cover (+50 to DB) because they are moving and maneuvering and dodging and ducking and so forth.

Yes, the GM may simply state the other combatant as cover.
But it may change if you are in the rear of the target (no one in the way):
Give the target just a small DB, no damage = make a +0 Attack Roll against the opponent.*

An other solution you may find in Spell Law. Hmm ? OK, not really,
but the GM can do it like the Displacement spell:
Give a chance that the target moves out of the arrow path. If this happens,
make an attack roll (+0 OB) against an other person (randomly choosen).

Another solution: The combatants fight just tasmanian devils:
An even Attack Roll (AR) hits PC#1, uneven PC#2.
OK, if you believe the archer could aim a little bit better, you can make each
multiple of 3 (or 5 or...) hit the wrong target.

How I would handle it: One of the above (or a different way I don't imagine now),
one time this way, next time another ...

*And one last thing: If the arrow only archieves some hits (or a low crit),
it may go farther and hit another person ...
And of course instead of a +0 OB Attack Roll, the GM may call for +20, +30 etc.

[Marc R]

I've known a few GMs who used "Wrap the table" for missiles to indicate the missile passed through the target. . .applying the original attack roll -150 to the next combatant in the line of fire. usually that made for a miss or a few hits, but a high enough result could be a trifle nasty.

[Hawkwind]

I've known a few GMs who used "Wrap the table" for missiles to indicate the missile passed through the target. . .applying the original attack roll -150 to the next combatant in the line of fire. usually that made for a miss or a few hits, but a high enough result could be a trifle nasty.

I like that. Its wickedly evil. I suspect the players will think its a great idea - until it happens to one of them 

Hawk

[Marc R]

Yeah, nobody happy if the GM rolls that whacky multi open ended attack to an already high OB and gets a 652 result with a heavy crossbow or lightning bolt. . . .

"Hmm, Joe, Jim, and Jerry all take 26E Punctures, wait no, jerry is in different armor, he takes a 20E puncture."

You really need like a 225+ to actually damage the 2nd target, so it rarely has much effect, but a super lucky/skilled shot into a crowd. . .  .

[David Johansen]

I'm a solid 50% to hit your friend ref.  Yeah it's brutal I know but it's funny.  Especially when it happens repeatedly in the same session.

I do like Tim's suggestion.  I may have to go that route in the future.  Fewer PC vs PC death matches that way.

[Balhirath]

I use that rule and it's actually described in Arms Companion
However I normally only apply it for something that hits really hard, like Heavy Crossbows and missile artillery (Ballista).

[Hawkwind]

In my HARP campaign I give the opponent 50% soft cover if the player is shooting from behind one of his companions. Then if the shooter misses his target by the amount of DB provided by the cover, I get them to roll again to see what result they get. The unfortunate party member doesn't get most of the DB that they would get from a frontal attack, but I don't give the shooter any bonus for shooting from behind.

The party's ranger has been very close to killing the party's rogue after being shot in the back for the 3rd time cause the rogue keeps shooting into melee. The rogue has shot the party's fighter in the back as well, but it usually just bounces off his armour. Thinking about it, the party's fighter actually receives an awful lot of friendly fire from missile weapons and area effect spells, but very rarely receives any major damage.

Hawk

[markc]

 A house rle I use is -0 to -30 per figure with in a 5' of the shot that can interfear. I use this since combat is fluid and can move in any direction, the penalty is generally -30 per figure but I have ruled sometimes that thier is no penalty do to some reason. ie a tall person shooting over the head of a short person.

MDC

edit:
 If they missbecause of the penalties but would have hit without them I make them roll vs each target in the way.

MDC

[PiXeL01]

We also use procentages to see if the friend or the foe is hit, each depending on the direction of the attack and so on. Depending on GM the procentages various alot though (we are trying a rotating position at the moment since everyone felt we have been moving too much into the realm of Statemaster instead of fantazy Rolemaster).

Maybe we are a bit soft on issues of where bolts and arrows go when they miss. We tend to ignore these accumilating little details

[Dark Schneider]

RMFRP section 18.13.

But I'd like to modify that rule by allowing in one case: attacking in second place, so you wait for melee attack and if you evade it (see that you can't parry), you can attack, and halving the missile OB (for not good conditions), but see that this can be reduced more if you used a skill (maneuver) to evade the attack and not only using your QU.

Example: you have +100 OB to missile, you receive a melee attack, you evade it with your QU and AD (40% activity), you have +100 OB to attack (60% activity and you had the weapon ready), but as are not good conditions (you have moved much for melee attack) your attack is done with +50 OB (but remember you add bonus for weapon range).
If you had not the weapon ready (charged) is much more dificult as it takes activity to recharge, and then maybe you could not use AD or any maneuver to evade the melee attacks.

----------------

Or, you can use simply the action 'unlock melee', that takes 25% activity and allows you to move 10'. So it simply:

1. Unlock melee (RMFRP table T-3.2).
2. Move out of melee lock (10', RMFRP 18.13).
3. Missile attack if you have enough activity (at least 30%).

I think this is easier.

[pastaav]

If the character fire past comrades that are moving I would require him to do an attack towards his comrade first. Only if that one misses will the real roll against the target be performed. If that one miss also I would continue with the next in line.

Finally the  character can take an extra penalty to be certain to miss his comrades (ignoring fumbles of course)

IMO it does not make sense to consider how well the character aimed at the final target to resolve if he accidently hit anyone in front of the target.

[Dark Schneider]

If the character fire past comrades that are moving I would require him to do an attack towards his comrade first. Only if that one misses will the real roll against the target be performed. If that one hit also I would continue with the next in line.

I really think is in the other way, first you make the attack to original target (the one you are aiming), but with coverage modifiers, and if it fails, you make the attack against those 'coverages' corps.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I really think is in the other way, first you make the attack to original target (the one you are aiming), but with coverage modifiers, and if it fails, you make the attack against those 'coverages' corps.

Which is basically what I said up above...   

[pastaav]

If the character fire past comrades that are moving I would require him to do an attack towards his comrade first. Only if that one misses will the real roll against the target be performed. If that one hit also I would continue with the next in line.

I really think is in the other way, first you make the attack to original target (the one you are aiming), but with coverage modifiers, and if it fails, you make the attack against those 'coverages' corps.

Ummm...I know the official rules says so, but I really don't get why. The comrade in the way give cover for the target, yet why would the armor of the opponent affect if I hit my friend or not? Why should the DB of the target effect if I hit my comrade or not? Why should spells protecting the target effect if I hit my comrade or not?

Even more important suppose it is not your comrade, but instead a body guard in front of your target. My reasoning is based on that situation. I would still only give the target same cover as if it had been a comrade in the way because he has the same size as body guard. Yet the likelihood that the arrow reaches the target is much lower since the body guard will try to intercept the arrow with shield or body. There is no way to make the resolution consistent in these cases if we use the official ruling.

With my version the archer must make a +0 attack against any comrades in front of him before the arrow is resolved against the target. If he want to protect his comrade he can sacrifice OB to give his comrade extra DB. This mean taking extra care to protect your friend, I find it pretty consistent with how melee OB and DB play out. The official way on the other hand seem like a big rule by exception.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Ummm...I know the official rules says so, but I really don't get why. The comrade in the way give cover for the target, yet why would the armor of the opponent affect if I hit my friend or not? Why should the DB of the target effect if I hit my comrade or not? Why should spells protecting the target effect if I hit my comrade or not?

It will be a given that your character will NOT be trying to hit his friend, but hit the foe. The way you are doing it, you are saying that your character is AIMING FOR his friend.

The way I described it, the friend being in melee means that you CAN hit him, not that you are aiming for him (thus if you do hit him, it will be totally accidental).

Additionally,  melee combat presumes there there will be some movement, going back and forth, circling one another with sudden moves, and so forth. So, while you can aim for foe, it is not guaranteed that foe will still be in the clear when the shot gets there. Your comrade isn't trying to block your shot here.

Your bodyguard reasoning ONLY applies to such a situation, where the person between you and target is attempting to block the shot, perhaps with their own body.

[pastaav]

It will be a given that your character will NOT be trying to hit his friend, but hit the foe. The way you are doing it, you are saying that your character is AIMING FOR his friend.

It is given that the arrow can not magically pass through your comrade just because you aimed well on the target. Can we agree about that before you review my rule alternative?

To begin with we can note that the RM rules is very weak in this area, basically arbitrary deciding that you can't use a missile weapon in a melee situation instead of providing realistic rules for firing past moving obstructions. The standard rule you quote does nothing to adress this concern.

I am most certainly not saying that you are aiming for your friend, but instead that in the real world bad luck may cause you to hit your friend even if you didn't intend to due to him doing unexpected movement.  I have seen this happen myself during LARP battles. This can logically be resolved as an extra +0 attack towards your comrade.

If your character are not comfortable with this you can do two things...
1) Choose another target that don't require you to fire past any comrade.
2) Sacrifice some of your OB to give you comrade extra DB. Example +100 OB bowmen does make a -50 attack against his comrade and a +50 attack towards the real target.

Additionally your comrade can also sacrifice some of his OB to give you a clear shot. The +100 bowmen could then attack the final target with more of his OB if he knows that the comrade will add DB to keep himself safe.

If the person in the way really is a bodyguard the bowman can move OB from the final target to DB for the bodyguard to increase the chances that he really hits his true target.

Likewise the bodyguard has the option to try to use his shield to block the arrow without any harm for himself, or by moving to take the hit to save the one he protects. Firing past a body guard that does the later would require exterme skill from the bowman or very good luck.

All in all I am pretty convinced that these rules work out well and that the standard rules only makes sense in a very limited set of situations.

[Bazooka Bob]

Shooting into melee in a game can be fun, but I try to emphasize make sure you have a clear shot to take.  If you don't have a clear shot, let the thrill begins on who gets hit if anyone.

[Skaran]

In my games you can fire into melee with modifiers similar to Rasyr but use the Soft Cover modifiers, full soft if there are a lot of other potential targets (and this can include other PCs) partial if there are less of them.

If the attack succeeds well and good, if it fails everyone between the intended target and the shooter makes a luck roll, loser gets the attack rerolled against them. (They don't get cover as they were essentially part of the originals targets defence bonus)

In our games the luck roll is a straight 1d100 roll, low is bad, high is good