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?

 

[Sir Brennen]

I’m in the camp that a friendly-fire rule is more of a balancing rule for ranged attackers than a “realism” adjustment.

At the same time, I’d want to keep it simple. If you have to shoot through a space of a creature between you and the target and you fumble, you hit the other creature. Roll randomly if there is more than one creature, including any possible down range targets.

For target and blocking creature(s) of same size, the attacker has Disadvantage. This is not the same as cover, as the attacker also has to account for target and interposing creature movements. For different size creatures, use cover rules as normal (meaning a smaller target could get Total cover.)

Sharpshooter feat: when attacking with Disadvantage, the shooter needs to fumble on one die and also miss with the other to hit an interposing creature.

Basically, the archer and/or melee fighters have to be a little more strategic in positioning to make sure friendlies aren’t in the line of fire.

The disadvantage is incentive for the archer to move. Removing that disadvantage for an ally and not risk being hit is incentive for the other party members to move.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m in the camp that a friendly-fire rule is more of a balancing rule for ranged attackers than a “realism” adjustment.

I think I agree.

At the same time, I’d want to keep it simple. If you have to shoot through a space of a creature between you and the target and you fumble, you hit the other creature. Roll randomly if there is more than one creature, including any possible down range targets.

I don’t see how this balances anything though. It certainly won’t really change the ranged attackers behavior. It won’t come up often enough to really be a balancing factor of ranged and melee.

It just ends up being an annoyance to the melee character because the ranged guy is going to shoot into melee anyway under this particular implementation.

 

[Koloth]

Friendly Fire is a thing in most game groups I play with. Adds a bit of realism and player decision making. We don't normally track arrows and such that miss the main target/scrum. Same for that ray spell that missed the touch roll. Its not just ranged attacks. Swinging that sword into the rugby type scrum is a good way to damage someone that used to be your ally.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I think I agree.

I don’t see how this balances anything though. It certainly won’t really change the ranged attackers behavior. It won’t come up often enough to really be a balancing factor of ranged and melee.

It just ends up being an annoyance to the melee character because the ranged guy is going to shoot into melee anyway under this particular implementation.

I think it will, as an attacker wouldn’t want to shoot with Disadvantage if they can help it. Note I’m not suggesting it’s Disadvantage simply for shooting into melee, but only if there’s an interposing creature.

If both the archer and melee guy are at the 12 o’clock position of any enemy, one of them moving removes the penalty.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Yes and yes.

And I make the casters roll to aim their area-effect spells as well, and those can also be fumbled (1 on d20 then 1 on d6 means your spell went somewhere random, possibly including on self but never including where you wanted it to go).

For missile fire, shooting into melee brings a -4 to-hit penalty; and if that -4 brings your roll to 1 or lower you've risked a fumble. Fumble is confirmed by rolling 1 on a d6, at which point yeah, you've almost certainly hit an ally or captive or something else you didn't want to hit.

Combat fumble outcomes can include all sorts of things, of which clobbering an ally is but one.

 

[Argyle King]

I've never seen it implemented that way. It's always automatically hitting an ally. But there are other issues as well. If you're firing into a big enough group of monsters, shouldn't it automatically hit, or at least a chance of hitting someone else? You're aiming for the third blood-pact orc on the right, but there's another target on either side, perhaps the one behind or the one behind that. What are the odds of hitting them? Also, why can't it just be a clear miss? Why can't it just be the arrow going over everyone's head?

In any case, for me it simply doesn't add anything to the game for me.

In contrast, most of the non-d20 I games I play in which friendly-fire rules exist do rule it that way (and, yes, firing a volley into a large mass probably hits someone). Missing doesn't mean you automatically hit an ally.

However, as this discussion is in the D&D section, that is likely outside the scope of this discussion.

 

[Oofta]

In contrast, most of the non-d20 I games I play in which friendly-fire rules exist do rule it that way (and, yes, firing a volley into a large mass probably hits someone). Missing doesn't mean you automatically hit an ally.

However, as this discussion is in the D&D section, that is likely outside the scope of this discussion.

Some people were claiming that friendly fire rules somehow add to the balance of a game. To me, an arrow or a bolt effectively not stopping unless it hits a target (friendly or otherwise) is potentially a pretty big increase in combat capability for an archer. Large number of enemies approaching? Just fire in their general direction, you're going to hit something. Which under certain circumstances is what people actually do. Doesn't mean it makes combat more balanced.

Long ago I did try a friendly fire option, but it didn't have anything to do with fumbles. First, because if you're a really good archer you're going to get multiple shots off in a round; it makes no sense that you're more likely to hit an ally when you're 20th level than when you're first. But that's an issue I have with fumbles in general, the better you supposedly are the more likely you are to roll a 1.

Second, if you really fumble, who's to say the projectile went anywhere near your intended target?

So what I did was say that if you miss your target by the amount of the cover penalty, roll again to see if you hit whoever it was providing the cover, going from target closest to the target. That way if the wizard using NPC fighters as a shield, you may hit that NPC standing directly in front of them, but you still have to roll to hit. If you miss by more than the cover penalty other creatures provide, you just miss.

It was something I tried for a little bit but it just wasn't worth the overhead.

 

[Lanefan]

Some people were claiming that friendly fire rules somehow add to the balance of a game. To me, an arrow or a bolt effectively not stopping unless it hits a target (friendly or otherwise) is potentially a pretty big increase in combat capability for an archer. Large number of enemies approaching? Just fire in their general direction, you're going to hit something. Which under certain circumstances is what people actually do. Doesn't mean it makes combat more balanced.

Long ago I did try a friendly fire option, but it didn't have anything to do with fumbles. First, because if you're a really good archer you're going to get multiple shots off in a round; it makes no sense that you're more likely to hit an ally when you're 20th level than when you're first. But that's an issue I have with fumbles in general, the better you supposedly are the more likely you are to roll a 1.

Nope.

You have exactly the same likelihood of rolling a 1.

You're just giving yourself more chances to do so; just like you're giving yourself more chances to crit.

Second, if you really fumble, who's to say the projectile went anywhere near your intended target?

Indeed; a fumble could include anything from a faulty arrow to a snapped bowstring to wrenching your wrist or whatever; but when shooting into melee, by far the most likely option on a fumble is that you hit something you didn't want to hit. Contrast this with a roll of, say, 6; where your shot probably just misses outright or bounces off of something.

So what I did was say that if you miss your target by the amount of the cover penalty, roll again to see if you hit whoever it was providing the cover, going from target closest to the target. That way if the wizard using NPC fighters as a shield, you may hit that NPC standing directly in front of them, but you still have to roll to hit. If you miss by more than the cover penalty other creatures provide, you just miss.

I do it as a straight -4 on the shot, mostly because people engaged in melee are still dodging and moving around thus the amount of cover someone has is constantly changing; the flat penalty just represents a rough overall average.

 

[Oofta]

Nope.

You have exactly the same likelihood of rolling a 1.

You're just giving yourself more chances to do so; just like you're giving yourself more chances to crit.

Indeed; a fumble could include anything from a faulty arrow to a snapped bowstring to wrenching your wrist or whatever; but when shooting into melee, by far the most likely option on a fumble is that you hit something you didn't want to hit. Contrast this with a roll of, say, 6; where your shot probably just misses outright or bounces off of something.

I do it as a straight -4 on the shot, mostly because people engaged in melee are still dodging and moving around thus the amount of cover someone has is constantly changing; the flat penalty just represents a rough overall average.

I've never cared for critical fumbles and I never well. When some commoner that barely knows which end to point at the bad guy picks up a weapon and almost never fumbles over the course of a combat encounter while the apex fighter fighting next to him for the same period of time is five times more likely to fumble, there's something wrong.

If I were to play in a game that used the fumble rules I'd never play a PC that had multiple attacks. Better yet, play a PC that never makes an attack roll at all.

 

[Stormonu]

The fumble rules I use is a two-step. On the roll of nat 1, roll again. If you miss with the 2nd roll, then it is fumble. It really cuts down on the chance of a fumble - at 1st level usually somewhere in the neighborhood of from 1 in 20 to somewhere about 1 in 50 or less. The higher your hit bonus generally the less chance of messing it up because that second roll often abates it. And for the most part that fumble just opens you up to an opportunity attack, so the opponent still has to land a successful hit (and you have no way to mitigate it, which is more likely at high level, frankly).

And because the Wizard player pointed it out, I do have a fumble/crit for saves, with a chance that if the individual makes a nat 20 on the save they could entirely negate (as if they had Evasion) or might reverse the effect back to the caster/attacker (mitigation system similar to above). Had a (PC) fighter once bat an enemy wizard's fireball (while it was still in pea form) back at him...