Worlds of Design: Not-So-Friendly Fire

“Friendly fire” is not uncommon in real-world warfare. What are some pros and cons of including friendly fire in RPGs?

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

Oops!​

“Friendly fire” – when your side accidentally hits/kills its own troops/planes/ships – is not uncommon in real-world warfare. In the poor visibility and chaos of battle, it’s not hard to shoot at the wrong target (e.g., many night surface naval battles in World War II involved friendly fire).

Training and command coordination make a difference, but in the end, friendly fire is fairly random. For me, friendly fire is NOT fun. You get just as dead from “friendly” fire as from enemy fire.

In this context, I'm specifically focusing on ranged attacks that have a chance of missing. The fireball spell in many versions of Dungeons & Dragons may inflict friendly fire. I don’t know about you, but I get really annoyed when my character gets blasted by our own spellcasters. Undoubtedly, there are campaigns where this is impossible, either the expansion doesn’t occur, or it magically does not harm allies.

I don't recommend game designers add random occurrences of friendly fire in any game. Nonetheless, you can arrange RPG rules so that players can choose whether to risk friendly fire. If it’s their choice, that’s more of a gamble than a random unfortunate act.

When Friendly Fire Makes Sense​

One of the most blatant examples where friendly fire ought to be likely is shooting arrows into a melee. If you do this, you’re almost as likely to hit your own people as the enemy, especially if you’re shooting from behind your people. It depends on sight lines, on unexpected movements, and on the accuracy of the shot (die roll). Yet in some games, you somehow never hit an ally; in others a bad roll will cause trouble!

For me, games are best when they put the players “on the horns of a dilemma,” having to choose what to do and what not to do. The risk of friendly fire is an example. Shall I shoot into the melee between my guys and the enemy, or should I not? Other missiles, such as thrown daggers, axes, and javelins, can be similarly treated.

If a character is in a second line (fighting in a dungeon), I allow full-size characters to fire missiles over the head of the first liner when that first liner is short, most obviously a dwarf fighter.

Yet it would be odd to just say “you can’t fire missiles into melee." Because a character could TRY it. It might sound better if your rule is, when you fire into melee you hit your own guys, period. If you're trying to tell an interesting story, friendly fire can seriously mess up the narrative with a bad roll.

No Friendly Fire​

On the other hand, a game is simpler with no friendly fire. The online massively multi-player game World of Warships used to adjudicate friendly fire, but so many people got fed up with being hit by torpedoes fired by their teammates that the rules were changed. Now the torpedo quietly disappears without damage.

If you don’t bother with a board to show position and maneuver in combat (“Theater of the Mind”), it becomes harder to calculate whether there’s friendly fire, though you can still rule carte blanche that characters are not allowed to shoot into melee. I do not play Theater of the Mind; to me the game is a wargame some of the time and consequently requires detailed maneuver.

Fumble Fire​

Another option is to have friendly fire be the result of something really gone wrong, a "fumble." This is how characters in melee accidentally strike “friendlies" at random, but presumably at a lower chance than simply missing. This would be reminiscent of the fumble rules of some games, where you may hit yourself if your attack roll is really poor. Yet even in that case, the mechanism is related to what the character is doing, and seems to be less random. I don’t use fumble rules, to me it adds an element of unneeded randomness – though I do marvel that lightsaber users never hit themselves!

Implications of Friendly Fire​

If friendly fire is a real possibility, this changes tactics (and even strategy). If I let an archer or knife-thrower fire over the head of a dwarf just in front of them, but not otherwise, then players may want a dwarf in the party when otherwise they wouldn’t. Players will also have their characters take positions where they have lines of sight clear of their allies.

If you do allow friendly fire, there’s a prospect for new magic items. For example, an item that protects you from friendly fire, “friendly” as defined by people near you when you command the item. Or a more powerful item would ensure the bearer that they never inflict friendly fire on an ally, very useful for an archer or spell-caster.

Does the risk of friendly fire in some situations make everything feel more real? Does it help immersion, in other words? I think so, but your mileage may vary.

Your Turn: Do you allow missile fire into melee at risk of friendly fire? What about combat fumbles?

 

[Arilyn]

I allow missile fire into melee. I make sure players are aware they risk hitting an ally if they miss their target. If they miss, there's a chance a friend is hit instead but it's not automatic The likelihood of friendly fire depends on the chaos of the scene. I like how really skilled archers are more likely to feel confident about firing into melee. And, of course, enemy archers risk shooting their own too, which characters love. It also tells you something about the enemy. Goblins are usually fully prepared to risk harming their own side.

I 100% agree with your "horns of a dilemma" comment. Weighing risk vs. reward is an integral part of an adventuring life and adds spice.

Great magic item idea, by the way!

 

[sevenbastard]

Rpgs have never really modled ranged combat well as most are binary hit or miss systems and don't care where the arrow, bullet, frost ray goes if it misses its intended target.

I don't like it and it makes ranged weapons much diffrent than in the real world where you have to worry about who else is downrange when you fire. The classic scene of trying to take out the bad guy with a gun to the hostages head simply does not model in most games. Like wise you can't just shoot into the rushing horde knowing if you miss the first guy the 30 behind him my take the bolt. In most cases I think it favors ranged fighters making them more powerful as they can keep shooting once melee starts.

But I don't want a game that takes 30 minutes to ajudicate each shot. I dont know if I have a good answer on how to make firing into melee work.

Maybe roll a d6 to fire into melee. on a 3 to 6 make attack roll as normal against intended target on 1 or 2 roll a d20 without your attack modifier against a random target adjacent. This fundamental lowers your chance to hit without regard for skill level. But it's quick and combat is chaotic.

I do marvel that lightsaber users never hit themselves

The Force, this is why random geeks of the street are not running around with lightsabers. Now how folks with the monowhip from Shadowrun don't loop off there own heads? No idea.

 

[payn]

Im more inclined to go with higher difficulty to hit with missiles than friendly fire. It may be more realistic from a sim perspective, but i've long given up on trying to recreate reality. Im not big on fumbles either as the players will roll thousands of times over a campaign and look like an idiot over and over again.

 

[EternalDungeonMaster]

I run two different D&D 5e games and have been DMing for mumble*mumble years. I remember in 1st edition if you fired a missile weapon into a melee cluster the DM would randomly roll to determine who in the cluster was potentially hit.

Today, I don't follow that approach, although I do understand the justification for it. I feel like it unduly burdens players who have chosen to play a ranged character. The percentage of the time that a ranged character will be attacking a target that is in melee with one or more of the character's allies is probably quite high, so by implementing a friendly fire house rule you are basically punishing anyone who chooses to play a ranged character.

There are already ways within the existing 5e framework to add a burden to ranged attackers. It would make sense for a monster group to send one or more attackers up into melee against an archer standing back and picking off their guys. That forces the ranged character to either switch to a (presumably lesser) melee attack or accept disadvantage on their attack rolls.

Additionally, the rules for line of sight add either half or three-quarters cover (i.e., +2 or +5 to AC and Dex saving throws) to defenders if a ranged character is firing through allies. To me this represents the difficult of firing through allies while trying not to hit them.

D&D 5e is not a combat simulator. It's an abstraction. I generally try to approach it with that mindset when I DM.

 

[Mallus]

I use friendly-fire, but sparingly. The goal isn't added 'realism'. It's to give the player an interesting choice. When PCs shoot without a clear line of fire there'a a chance they hit an ally. I smile, remind them of this, and say, "don't roll low".

 

[mellored]

If you roll a 1 on an attack, and there's an ally in the line of fire, then reroll the attack against the ally.

Just make sure it applies to monsters as well.

 

[Stormonu]

Yeah, I keep in rules to punish firing into a melee. It's disadvantage to fire into melee. If a 1 is rolled, check the other die - if it WOULD have been a hit, see who the target is (can't be the original target).

If the attacker does something to negate the disadvantage in the first place (aim, sharpshooter, etc.), I allow that to negate the chance of hitting a friendly as the character is taking extra caution to avoid friendly fire. (I always have in my mind the scene from Raiders fighting on the plane. There's a scene where the pilot physically holds his fire when the muscle mechanic comes up to melee Indiana).


Monsters follow the same rules, and certain creatures will or won't risk friendly fire. Hobgoblins won't risk friendly fire, but orcs - they don't care, and sometimes actually hope they take out a fellow combatant as retaliation for some past slight or hope of "promotion" in their clan.

 

[humble minion]

I run that if your target is benefiting from a cover bonus to AC, and if you miss by an amount less than the cover bonus, then you hit the cover. Often that'll have no effect at all, but if it's one of your allies obscuring your view of your target, or something flammable getting in the way of your Fire Bolt, then it might.

I do warn PCs ahead of making an attack that this rule would apply though, and let them choose a different action if they prefer.

Edit: I also have a fumble rule, but it's a player-optional one. If you roll a natural 1 on an attack, then you can choose to take an inspiration point in exchange for a fumble consequence of my choosing (and you don't know what it is beforehand). I haven't used this to have the attack hit an ally yet, though. It's an option, but generally i prefer to have it result in environmental consequences that make the fight more dynamic or cinematic. I think if i started having fumbles cause friendly fire, PCs would very quickly stop opting in to the fumble rule.

 

[Blue]

One option not discussed is to lean into the genre assumptions of the game. For example, many D&D tables are Heroic Fantasy. In these cases, the heroes won't end up initiating friendly fire unless:

1. It's a comedy moment.
2. It's a big deal and someone who should has consciously put themselves in harm's way - say for a volley of arrows from an army, or a fireball.
3. They are incompetent with the particular object, like a hermit light cleric with a trebuchet or a rogue reading a scroll.

But in Heroic Fantasy, the expected competent heroes won't accidentally cause friendly fire with what they are good at.

Other genres will have other expectations. I think tailoring things like friendly fire to lean into your tables genre expectations will strengthen the feel. Don't do it for verisimilitude, that's shorthand for "I don't understand my genre so I'll substitute real world and point out how realistic it is if anyone gets grumpy", though doing it because your genre demands it, like a gritty world war game is just fine.