firing into melee

[huginn]

if you fired into melee In 1st and 2nd it was basically random who would get hit and it was changed to a -4 penalty.
I was curious why it was changed and which way people feel its more realistic

[JadedDM]

I don't know for sure, but were I to guess...back in AD&D the idea was that archery was something used at the very start of a battle, before the combatants moved into melee range. So you saw the enemy in the distance, fired arrows at them, then once they reached you, you switched to melee weapons and continued the fight. Archery was not supposed to be used in melee at all, hence the penalties.

I don't think many people actually played that way, though. For one, you didn't always encounter enemies from a far distance. Especially in a dungeon (the party wasn't always in wide open fields). Plus, people really wanted to be able to play Legolas (or similar archetypes) so over time, they changed that rule and allowed archery in melee.

Basically, I think this rule was a throwback to AD&D's roots as a war game. That rule is better suited for two armies clashing than a small party being attacked by a monster or a squad of goblins or whatever.

[Potatomade]

To me the AD&D way is more realistic, but I can understand the change. My 2e group has had to houserule it as a called shot (so, the -4 thing) or have it hit a random bystander, just because everyone absolutely refuses to switch to melee weapons when the enemy gets close. In my experience characters are generally specialized to one weapon or weapon group (Roy from OotS, for example), and don't budge from there, even when the circumstances change. So the -4 thing avoids a lot of basically guaranteed friendly fire.

[MeeposFire]

if you fired into melee In 1st and 2nd it was basically random who would get hit and it was changed to a -4 penalty.
I was curious why it was changed and which way people feel its more realistic

Well by and large 3e changed a number of rules that provided significant drawbacks to very basic things. For example haste used to age you a year which could bring you closer to death or even could kill you due to being aged from a failed system shock roll. Shooting into melee was one of those rules that really affected ranged characters in such a way that it could hurt your own party. So it is no surprise to me that they removed it.

As for realism the older was probably more realistic in more situations but I am not sure you would find it more fun. I have had people use the -4 but you could opt to not take it to take a chance of hitting the wrong target.

[Khedrac]

I don't recall for AD&D, but if you look at archery in BECM D&D and compare it to 3.X archery took a major nerf, so presumably they felt it had to throw archers a few bones for people to both with it...

BECMI archery:
goes first in initiative - by roll, but before spell casting or melee
3.X:
goes in initiative order with everything else.

BECMI:
automatically disrupts spells on a successful hit
3.X:
causes a concentration check based on damage dealt to disrupt a spell.

BECMI:
can be used out of melee withut issue
3.X
provokes attacks of opportunity.

[huginn]

Well by and large 3e changed a number of rules that provided significant drawbacks to very basic things. For example haste used to age you a year which could bring you closer to death or even could kill you due to being aged from a failed system shock roll. Shooting into melee was one of those rules that really affected ranged characters in such a way that it could hurt your own party. So it is no surprise to me that they removed it.

As for realism the older was probably more realistic in more situations but I am not sure you would find it more fun. I have had people use the -4 but you could opt to not take it to take a chance of hitting the wrong target.

I am so use to the idea of if you fire into melee you might hit someone in the party I was shocked that it was removed in 3.x and they put in -4 to hit. It wasn't just 1st or 2nd but other games where there is a chance you hit someone in the party

[Jay R]

In my experience characters are generally specialized to one weapon or weapon group (Roy from OotS, for example), and don't budge from there, even when the circumstances change.

This is the problem. People want their martials to act like no martial ever acted. An archer always had a weapon for when the fighting got close. From Michael Drayton's poem "Agincourt" (bilbos are swords):

When down their bows they threw,
And forth their bilbos drew,
And on the French they flew,
Not one was tardy;
Arms were from shoulders sent,
Scalps to the teeth were rent,
Down the French peasants went—
Our men were hardy.


This is what an archer is. Every archer I've played or seen in my games had a melee weapon.

[FreddyNoNose]

if you fired into melee In 1st and 2nd it was basically random who would get hit and it was changed to a -4 penalty.
I was curious why it was changed and which way people feel its more realistic

1st edition for me.

[CharonsHelper]

I'm not sure that a total 50/50 chance of hitting your buddy fits either. After all, you're trying NOT to hit him. 25% chance?

As to 3.x version - one thing to remember is that practically it often ends up being a -8 penalty due to soft cover stacking with firing into a melee. (though all focused archers pick up Precise Shot by level 5 at the absolute latest - and in Pathfinder they eventually aim for Improved Precise Shot)

Why do you guys think that archery was nerfed in 3.x? Sure, you have to dedicate your build for it, but it's really good if you know what you're doing, and it doesn't have all of the major disadvantages of melee martials (trouble with flyers, not full-attacking much of the time, trouble with various DRs which archers use different arrows for, etc.) While it got a couple boosts in Pathfinder (mostly multi-shot getting better) on the Paizo boards it's pretty much considered in the most powerful martial build.

[MeeposFire]

I'm not sure that a total 50/50 chance of hitting your buddy fits either. After all, you're trying NOT to hit him. 25% chance?

As to 3.x version - one thing to remember is that practically it often ends up being a -8 penalty due to soft cover stacking with firing into a melee. (though all focused archers pick up Precise Shot by level 5 at the absolute latest - and in Pathfinder they eventually aim for Improved Precise Shot)

Why do you guys think that archery was nerfed in 3.x? Sure, you have to dedicate your build for it, but it's really good if you know what you're doing, and it doesn't have all of the major disadvantages of melee martials (trouble with flyers, not full-attacking much of the time, trouble with various DRs which archers use different arrows for, etc.) While it got a couple boosts in Pathfinder (mostly multi-shot getting better) on the Paizo boards it's pretty much considered in the most powerful martial build.

I am not a fan of PF many shot. Archery already had plenty of ways to get extra attacks on a full attack action it did not need another. The original version had a niche that you hoped to not need but it at least served a purpose (a way to make a standard action be decent). In PF it is just "rapid shot part 2" which is kind of lame.

Anyway the one poster already mentioned some reasons. Just in broad strokes 3e made a bunch of changes in the basic way the game works that essentially removed key aspects that made weapon attacks effective in earlier games but did little to make weapon attacks better to compensate. Yea you can build a 3e archer that can shoot a bunch of arrows but in AD&D you would be just as deadly (relative to the threats in the game of course) and would not require really much of what you call a build at all (essentially play a warrior class, buy a composite bow, take weapon specialization or expertise if you can preferably with a good dex score).

Just as an example if you were to play the old computer game Baldurs Gate and you want to play it on easy mode pay a warrior with a composite bow. Build a party of archers and wreck most of the game (in the sequel they took steps to reduce the power of archery but even there it is still decent).

HP was just so much lower in AD&D and you would for a long time get as many attacks as you do in 3e but you would get them at full accuracy. A 3e fighter spends a feat and can make a second attack with all attacks at -2. An AD&D fighter will get 2 attacks just for being proficient and each attack means more because the enemy HP is lower so the same damage goes farther in AD&D.

[Knaight]

Basically, I think this rule was a throwback to AD&D's roots as a war game. That rule is better suited for two armies clashing than a small party being attacked by a monster or a squad of goblins or whatever.

As someone who does armed sparring involving archers (although I'm generally not one of them) I can verify this. At long ranges when you've got a lot of people clout shooting into a crowded melee it's pretty much a gamble who gets hit. That doesn't mean it's never worth doing so - if you're outnumbered severely, or your troops are better armored, or there's any other reason the friendly fire is likely to be much less severe than the arrows hitting their intended targets go ahead and loose arrows - but aiming at particular targets is pretty much out. It's also worth noting that even if people aren't trying to avoid arrows the most common target is going to be the ground unless there's a really tight press.

At closer ranges that changes. A reasonably competent archer can pick off individual targets, and can often do so quickly enough to do things like go for a side the moment a shield is moved to deal with a melee attack. A lot of this has to do with flight time of the arrow more than anything else (it doesn't matter how well you can place your shot when you hit three seconds later), although there's also a pretty dramatic decrease in accuracy with range increases, particularly as you transition from more or less direct fire to needing a significant arc.

[huginn]

As someone who does armed sparring involving archers (although I'm generally not one of them) I can verify this. At long ranges when you've got a lot of people clout shooting into a crowded melee it's pretty much a gamble who gets hit. That doesn't mean it's never worth doing so - if you're outnumbered severely, or your troops are better armored, or there's any other reason the friendly fire is likely to be much less severe than the arrows hitting their intended targets go ahead and loose arrows - but aiming at particular targets is pretty much out. It's also worth noting that even if people aren't trying to avoid arrows the most common target is going to be the ground unless there's a really tight press.

At closer ranges that changes. A reasonably competent archer can pick off individual targets, and can often do so quickly enough to do things like go for a side the moment a shield is moved to deal with a melee attack. A lot of this has to do with flight time of the arrow more than anything else (it doesn't matter how well you can place your shot when you hit three seconds later), although there's also a pretty dramatic decrease in accuracy with range increases, particularly as you transition from more or less direct fire to needing a significant arc.

In your opinion how close does an archer have to be in order to pick off individual targets and what is your view on the -4 to hit in 3.x?

[jk7275]

To me the AD&D way is more realistic, but I can understand the change. My 2e group has had to houserule it as a called shot (so, the -4 thing) or have it hit a random bystander, just because everyone absolutely refuses to switch to melee weapons when the enemy gets close. In my experience characters are generally specialized to one weapon or weapon group (Roy from OotS, for example), and don't budge from there, even when the circumstances change. So the -4 thing avoids a lot of basically guaranteed friendly fire.

One of the first DMs I played under broke people of that. We had underwater fights, he was strict about encumbrance, if your arrow hits target it gets destroyed, having to make saving throws for gear etc etc having kobolds throw clay pots full of green slime, try getting that off you arrows in time

As this was 1e we couldn't make arrows

[Knaight]

In your opinion how close does an archer have to be in order to pick off individual targets and what is your view on the -4 to hit in 3.x?

It depends a bit on how powerful the bow is and how heavy the arrows being used are, but 40 yards isn't terrible as an approximation for a general case. As for the -4 to hit, it's broadly functional, although the part where you are more likely to hit an ally because your enemy has heavy armor or a thick hide is just bizarre.

[JadedDM]

It's worth noting that not every old school rule was designed for realism, but sometimes to encourage (or discourage) specific behavior. Level limits, for instance, make no sense at all if you think about them. But they were designed to keep adventuring parties mostly human-centric.

Likewise, the penalties to using projectiles in melee were probably put in place more to stop players from 'doing it wrong' (in the eyes of the games' creators) than anything else.

[jk7275]

Likewise, the penalties to using projectiles in melee were probably put in place more to stop players from 'doing it wrong' (in the eyes of the games' creators) than anything else.

It might also be due to game balance. Take away the penalties and the long bow may be too powerful or leads to conflicts where everyone wants to be the archer in the back

[SimperingToad]

Others have mentioned some good points, but what has not been considered is time scale. In AD&D1E, a combat round is considered approximately a minute long, while in 3E, it is but 6 seconds. A lot is presumed to happen during the round in AD&D; feints, parries and moving back and forth making a mass melee a hazardous situation in which to shoot arrows or cast spells. The attack rolls were the times a character might get in a telling blow when a good opportunity presented itself. The 6 second rounds of 3E likely came about in an attempt to 'make every strike count' so nothing about combat is assumed. As such, while combat is still somewhat chaotic, picking out a target and keeping them in sight becomes easier. So, a straight –4 penalty makes more sense in that venue.

I'd still be keeping an eye out for where a miss goes, personally. :smallamused:

[Knaight]

Others have mentioned some good points, but what has not been considered is time scale. In AD&D1E, a combat round is considered approximately a minute long, while in 3E, it is but 6 seconds. A lot is presumed to happen during the round in AD&D; feints, parries and moving back and forth making a mass melee a hazardous situation in which to shoot arrows or cast spells. The attack rolls were the times a character might get in a telling blow when a good opportunity presented itself. The 6 second rounds of 3E likely came about in an attempt to 'make every strike count' so nothing about combat is assumed. As such, while combat is still somewhat chaotic, picking out a target and keeping them in sight becomes easier. So, a straight –4 penalty makes more sense in that venue.

I'd still be keeping an eye out for where a miss goes, personally. :smallamused:

The time scale in 1e is extremely long - one minute is enough for an entire skirmish for a good 40 or so people, and even the 6 second round that results in a decent hit once per 12 seconds on average (for relatively grounded fighters) is pretty low.

[FreddyNoNose]

It's worth noting that not every old school rule was designed for realism, but sometimes to encourage (or discourage) specific behavior. Level limits, for instance, make no sense at all if you think about them. But they were designed to keep adventuring parties mostly human-centric.

Likewise, the penalties to using projectiles in melee were probably put in place more to stop players from 'doing it wrong' (in the eyes of the games' creators) than anything else.

Spells, elves, dragons don't make sense either if you are going to pull that crap. Firing into a crowd is seriously stupid if you think you can simply miss your team members. And that, btw, is very realistic. It is sad you don't think so.

[JadedDM]

I never said it wasn't realistic, just that was likely not the only reason for the rule being put into place.

[Knaight]

Spells, elves, dragons don't make sense either if you are going to pull that crap. Firing into a crowd is seriously stupid if you think you can simply miss your team members. And that, btw, is very realistic. It is sad you don't think so.

The other three people on your side and a half dozen foes doesn't constitute a crowd, and it's not that hard to avoid friendly fire.

[Slipperychicken]

I'm not sure that a total 50/50 chance of hitting your buddy fits either. After all, you're trying NOT to hit him. 25% chance?

It ought to be something more like "fire with penalty, then if you miss, 50% chance to re-target to a random adjacent target, reroll attack against that target".

[FreddyNoNose]

It ought to be something more like "fire with penalty, then if you miss, 50% chance to re-target to a random adjacent target, reroll attack against that target".

gamers are so weak these days.

[Thrudd]

Realistic missile fire would use something like a bullseye hit chart, divided into four sectors for convenience. Call your shot (in D&D scale games not more specific than a single target creature), and roll to hit. A success means the target is hit - a failure means you missed in some direction, roll a d4 to determine the direction of the miss, and roll another d4 to determine how many feet in that direction you missed by. Other creatures to the left or right could be hit if you miss in their direction. You could also miss over the target's head or hit the ground in front of them. If you need more granularity, divide the hit chart into eight sectors and roll a d8 instead.

Shooting into melee thus has a definite risk of hitting any nearby combatant, but determined in a fair and more precise way rather than always randomly determining the target.

The difficulty to hit a target should be based on size and distance, and perhaps modifiers depending on whether the target and/or shooter are moving that round. Armor and shields in this case do not make a target harder to hit with missile fire, they provide cover or resistance. So an armored target gets a save roll of some kind to determine if their armor has deflected the missile.
If they are aware of the missile attack and are not otherwise occupied in combat, there could perhaps be an active defense roll to take cover with a shield.

[Mordar]

Spells, elves, dragons don't make sense either if you are going to pull that crap. Firing into a crowd is seriously stupid if you think you can simply miss your team members. And that, btw, is very realistic. It is sad you don't think so.

I know, right? We have no modern evidence of people throwing or kicking projectiles into specific places among people from multiple "sides" without the disposition being completely random. People can't just use accuracy and timing to project an object through multiple people to the person they want to receive the object. Particularly when the other people are actively trying to get in the way of the projected object. If they can't do that, a skilled archer certainly couldn't fire an arrow into a similar group and not expect purely random results, right? What with the arrow being faster and having a much smaller cross-sectional area.

Also, just randomly, verisimilitude is a great word of the day.

[Psikerlord]

It ought to be something more like "fire with penalty, then if you miss, 50% chance to re-target to a random adjacent target, reroll attack against that target".

Yeah I like this approach - have a shot, but if you miss, you might have to reroll against your mate in the same melee

[Slipperychicken]

Yeah I like this approach - have a shot, but if you miss, you might have to reroll against your mate in the same melee

Thanks, I just wanted to make sure allies' armor and such would be taken into account so the attacking character doesn't wind up autohitting allies.

[KorvinStarmast]

My 1e DM had a ruling on archery into melee that we liked well enough:

If you hit the enemy with the hit roll, good for you, hit.
If you missed, but you still hit AC 10 (basically naked) your miss was due to the armor.
If you missed, and your roll missed AC 10, he'd assign a random number to each other target adjacent to your target, friend and foe alike, and the DM would roll the to hit.
You, the player, would roll the damage if someone else was hit, be it friend of foe.

He had this down so well that it resolved quickly and didn't slow the game down. (And I got hit in the back a few times, I did. :( )

[Knaight]

My 1e DM had a ruling on archery into melee that we liked well enough:

If you hit the enemy with the hit roll, good for you, hit.
If you missed, but you still hit AC 10 (basically naked) your miss was due to the armor.
If you missed, and your roll missed AC 10, he'd assign a random number to each other target adjacent to your target, friend and foe alike, and the DM would roll the to hit.
You, the player, would roll the damage if someone else was hit, be it friend of foe.

He had this down so well that it resolved quickly and didn't slow the game down. (And I got hit in the back a few times, I did. :( )

This isn't a bad option, although I'd be inclined to include dex modifiers, which put someone directly behind at risk. This leaves competent archers generally able to put the arrow where they want it, while leaving a risk to any allies in the uninterrupted flight path. If you hit AC 10 but miss due to dex, then that particular target is the only one likely to get hit. This also incentivizes taking potshots at foes that are lined up, which is absolutely a thing*.

*Ask me about shield users who dodge instead of blocking when you're behind them.