Firing into a crowd

[Jarec]

Can someone explain this in a bit more detail as the rules as I read them are a little confusing.

As I understand it you roll to attack, then roll hit location to see who you hit, then they get a chance to parry.

Problem I see if that on your initial roll if you hit and there is nobody parrying then you get a offensive manoeuvre which you can use to choose location, thus ensuring that you always hit your intended target.

So I'm maybe guessing that you don't get a offensive manoeuvre on this roll (not stated in the rules) but then what happens if you hit your intended target and gain an offensive manoeuvre and again choose to choose location to a location that was deemed to be covered.

Maybe I'm being dense here but I'm just not seeing how this is intended to work.

 

[Antalon]

This has always been a bit tricky - crowds or melee combatants don't stand still, so simulating these types of attacks using a 'covered' location is a bit 'surgical'!

I would follow these steps:

1) Attacker declares attack, GM determine covered hit locations.
2) Defender declares whether they will parry or evade - if they do not, then presumably a succesful attacker can choose the hit location, avoiding allies and landing a blow - but only on 'exposed' locations.
3) Attacker rolls to hit -
3a) On a failure, he may hit the accidental target - determine the hit location of the accidental target randomly, if a covering location is hit, the target may parry / evade. If a location that it not 'covering' the original target is 'hit', then the attack misses (whether the GM wants to follow the flight path of the missile is up to them, I'd call it a miss!)
3b) On a success, the orginal target may defend - if the attacker does not earn a manoeuvre then roll hit location randomly, which either hits the target or return to step 3a. If the attacker earns a manoeuvre, then they can just hit a 'visible' location, without risking bystanders.

That's the process as I read it - in play I don't think its as convoluted as it reads above!

Alternatively, I'd be tempted to impose an equal chance that the 'real' target can include anyone adjacent to the intended target. Perhaps changing the odds if the character spends CA aiming. E.g. two allies stand next to the target: a 33% chance to hit the enemy, if 60% missile attack skill, then two rounds aiming could raise the chance to hit the right target to 33 + 12 = 45% - GM rolls %ile, if scoring 45 or less simply resolve the attack against the intended target (without any 'aiming' benefit to the actual attack skill - its been 'used' to hit the right target), otherwise an ally is hit. Firing missiles into melee does seem quite stupid and dangerous!

Antalon.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I would follow these steps:...

That pretty much covers it.

If you hit the target and get a CM then of course you can use it to select an exposed location. If you miss or don't get a CM, then roll for cover.

 

[Jarec]

The only thing that confuses me is if the attacker hits and the defender doesn't parry then the attacker will get CM and so can choose a location guaranteeing a hit on the target. If the defender parries then the location is rolled randomly and may cause another non target to be hit. So if the defender doesn't parry and the attackers hit roll is a success then the attacker is guaranteed to hit the defender, the other characters in the crowd are effectively ignored.

So options seems to be

Attacker miss = arrow misses crowd altogether
Attacker hits - defender doesn't parry = defender hit in chosen exposed location
Attacker hits - defender parries = defender or other crowd member may be hit, random locations apply

Just doesn't feel right to me.

 

[Deleriad]

Attacker hits - defender parries = defender or other crowd member may be hit, random locations apply

Just doesn't feel right to me.

You could gloss it like this.

Attacker gets a bead on target.
Target notices, shoves shield in the way
Attacker tries to change aim while firing to avoid shield
Attacker ends up hitting someone else by mistake.

It is a bit quirky. One odd little wrinkle is that the more people there are surrounding the target and attacking it, the easier it is to hit it (due to target running out of CAs more quickly to defend with.) I suppose it's one of those cases that needs a little creative interpretation.

 

[Jarec]

Which means if a target is surrounded by 6 attackers and has no CA's left you are guaranteed to either miss the combat altogether or hit the target in a chosen location. i.e the larger the combat the less likely you are to hit a secondary target. That's just wrong.

 

[Deleriad]

I've been mulling over different options for this. So far the most likely contender I've come up with is.

When firing into a crowd such as a combat roll your attack twice.

If both attacks fail or at least one attack fumbles then you have missed everyone (and must roll on the fumble table if one roll is a fumble).

If one attack misses and one fails (but doesn't fumble) then you have hit someone but not the intended target. Select who you hit randomly.

If both attacks hit, then you have potentially hit the target with the worst of the two rolls - though it may attempt parry or evade as normal. If the attack is evaded successfully then the attack hits the ground, a nearby wall or some such and no one else is at risk. (Which is the worst roll? A normal success is worse than a critical success. If both attacks are the same type - e.g. 2 normal successes - then the lowest roll is a success.)

It is a bit off-beat but some of the other possible ones are quirky because opposed rolls are used to resist pain and evade. E.g. "Halve your attack chance. If you miss because of this halved chance but would have hit normally then you hit someone else instead." This means that any hits of unintended targets are going by definition to be very hard to evade because they will be high numbers.

Mind you, I really don't want anyone using multimissile firing into crowds. Probably still be rolling the day after...

 

[Deleriad]

Actually I ave just realised that there's a far easier way to handle this.

When firing into a crowd or similar circumstances the "choose location" combat manoeuvre becomes a critical-only manoeuvre.

 

[Jarec]

I really like that. Simple and elegant - top marks

Beats the 22 step flow chart I was insanely envisaging

 

[Ssendam]

One could deal with the issue in general by applying a modifier to the to hit roll dependant on the number of combatants. This would be on the premise that a) you might not hit your intended target, (yes I know obvious, that's what has just been discussed), and b) that the joint target is bigger and easier to hit.

If you score a hit with a down modifier applied then you hit the target. If you score between your modified attack score and your normal hit roll modified up then you hit someone else at random. A miss is a miss and a fumble a fumble.

How you treat the adjustment depends on how complex you want to be. For example if you assume that you stand a better than average chance of hitting your target then you could elect for a -20%(10% up and 10% down) adjustment per extra combatant down to a minimum or your critical roll, (a critical is always a hit). At very low skills it might be that you are more likely to hit the wrong person but if you are that bad you have no business holding a bow yet alone firing into melee!

so ... Skill 57% 2 combatants ...

0-5% - Critical
5-47% - Hit Target
48-67% - Hit other combatant
68-98% - Miss altogether
99-100% - Fumble

so ... Skill 57% 3 combatants ... (harder to hit your target now)

0-4% Critical
5-37% Hit target
38-77% Hit another combatant
78-98% - Miss altogether
99-100% - Fumble

and ... if you were poor with a bow, skill say 25% and 2 combatants ...

0-2% Critical
3-15% Hit target
16-35% Hit other combatant
36-98% - Miss altogether
99-100% - Fumble

then ... at the maxed out rolls, HUGE melee 57% skill but 6 combatants ...

0-1% Critical (always a 1% is a Critical)
2-6% Hit target (lowest chance to hit always your original Critical chance)
7-95% Hit other combatant (95% just to give a a chance for a complete miss)
96-98% - Miss altogether
99-100% - Fumble

Sounds complex but it's just a 10% * no.of other combatants deduction to your chance to hit your target. If you miss check to see if it's less than the modifier added to your original chance to hit and if it is you hit someone else, random person, random location).

Skills over 100% can be used to reduce the chance of error somehow? GM's discretion?

Well that's my 2p

 

[Deleriad]

If you score a hit with a down modifier applied then you hit the target. If you score between your modified attack score and your normal hit roll modified up then you hit someone else at random. A miss is a miss and a fumble a fumble.

The problem with that is this.
If you hit a random person due to the modified up bonus then your attack is harder to evade than if you hit the correct person.

E.g. 5-47% - Hit Target
48-67% - Hit other combatant

So if the person is trying to evade (which is a pure opposed) then the roll which hit the wrong person is between 48-67 compared to 5-47. If your skill at Evade is 45% then you have a chance to successfully evade if the person was actually aiming at you but, if they hit you by mistake then they have rolled between 48-67 and that will be impossible to evade unless you roll a critical.

 

[Simulacrum]

Why not just treat the crowd/melee as the (non parrying) target? A hit comes with CM, "choose location" = choose individual target within the crowd, location then rolled normally -- unless you have an additional CM you want to use.

Of course if the "crowd" is a unit of enemy soldiers with shields up advancing towards you, they are indeed parrying.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

If you score a hit with a down modifier applied then you hit the target. If you score between your modified attack score and your normal hit roll modified up then you hit someone else at random. A miss is a miss and a fumble a fumble.

The problem with that is this.
If you hit a random person due to the modified up bonus then your attack is harder to evade than if you hit the correct person.

Is this totally unreasonable? It depends a lot on the nature of the fight, and the positioning of the particpants, but "friendly fire" is likely to be coming from behind you, so you are less likely to be in a position to avoid it!

My gut feeling is that
1) A critical Hit should always hit the original target
2) You should determine who the effective target is before anyone gets to roll their parry/dodge
3) The attacker should only need to make a single attack roll
4) If you are firing into a melee between 6 participants you are more likely to hit someone than if you are firing at a single target - but less likely to hit the person you were aiming for

so
a) Attacker declares a missile attack into melee and determines the original target.
b) GM determines who else in the melee is a potential target, and allocates the chance of each being hit*. Each potential target above the original target adds 5% to the attack chance. Thet relay this information to the attacker who may then chose to abort the attack (The Combat action has still been used)
c) The attacker rolls their attack, including any modifiers. If they miss, no further action is required. If they fumble, roll on the fumble table as normal. If they Critical, the original target can chose to spend a CA to attempt to parry/dodge as normal**, or take the hit and 2 Combat Manouvers for a Crit vs (automatic) failure. On a normal hit, the GM rolls to determine the actual target as defined in step b. This target then gets to chose to spend a CA to parry/dodge**

* This will obviously vary from situation to situation, and may be defined in terms of a percentage (for a d100 roll) or any other dice roll determined by the GM. The original target is always included as a potential target.
eg1. Adam and Bill are wrestling on the floor of the tavern. Charlie grabs a bottle from the table and throws it at Adam. The GM rules as they are rolling around there is a 50/50 chance of hitting either contestant. Charlie's normal chance of success (after any modifiers) would be 65% , but he geta an addtitonal 5% for firing into a melee of 2 people. if he rolls 1-7% he will hit Adam, if he rolls 71%+ he will miss both combatants, if he rolls 8% to 70% the GM rolls to see who he has hit.
eg2. Adam and Bill are fighting a Dark Troll. Charlie sneaks around behind it and decided to fire at it with his bow. If the Troll were not in melee he would have an 80% chance of success, so firing into a melee of 3 people raises this to 90%. The GM decides that the Troll is providing quite a lot of cover to Adam and Bill, so allocates an 70% chance of hitting it, and 15% each of hitting Adam or Bill
** Subject to the normal rules obviously.

I do wonder if the GM should assign any Combat Manouvers for attacks which hit "friendly" participants, or at least have a "Power of Veto" to prevent any possible abuse...

 

[Ssendam]

If you score a hit with a down modifier applied then you hit the target. If you score between your modified attack score and your normal hit roll modified up then you hit someone else at random. A miss is a miss and a fumble a fumble.

The problem with that is this.
If you hit a random person due to the modified up bonus then your attack is harder to evade than if you hit the correct person.

E.g. 5-47% - Hit Target
48-67% - Hit other combatant

So if the person is trying to evade (which is a pure opposed) then the roll which hit the wrong person is between 48-67 compared to 5-47. If your skill at Evade is 45% then you have a chance to successfully evade if the person was actually aiming at you but, if they hit you by mistake then they have rolled between 48-67 and that will be impossible to evade unless you roll a critical.

It's a fair point but on p93 ... (sorry I must apologise before I go on, I hate quoting rules as every GM sould/can disregard rules if it they feel they should), ... it talks about evading as "Defenders lacking a shield have the option to dive for cover using Evade". Now I'm not sure that I would allow an evade if you are locked in melee based on that description and i did make the error of simply assuming that it would be an unopposed roll. Of course, if you have a shield; should you be allowed to Parry?

Personally I like Duncan's twist on it ... increase the to hit chance dependant on number of targets, roll to hit and then IF you hit, work out who has been hit. Just need to work out a quick and simple way of finding out who was hit. Maybe a random roll of the no. of combatants +1 with 2 results being the intended target?

I need to think on this further ...