Being in the same hex as an ally

[Rhino]

I would rule that sharing a hex with an ally constitutes "bad footing" as referenced in the attack and defense modifier tables and gives a -2 penalty to attacks and a -1 penalty to defenses. It also leaves you both vulnerable to explosion or area effects.

[evileeyore]

DD, this is probably a good question to PM Kromm over.

[martinl]

Originally Posted by Rhino

I would rule that sharing a hex with an ally constitutes "bad footing" as referenced in the attack and defense modifier tables and gives a -2 penalty to attacks and a -1 penalty to defenses. It also leaves you both vulnerable to explosion or area effects.

I think this is fair, but there also needs to either be some sort of training in working together in close quarters combat, or a roll each turn to avoid bumping your ally.

Something along the lines of:
Tight Formations: Phalanx aficionados are well aware of the advantages of concentrating warriors in a close formation. If both fighters have shield wall training or similar formation fighting perks, they can put two fighters in the same hex at a penalty of -2 to attacks, -1 to defenses, and -1 move (min 1). With the right equipment and tactics, this can be devastating - it is a common military tactic.

Fighters without formation experience must roll vs. the lower of PER or DX every round they take any violent action, failure meaning they bump their ally at an inopportune moment, doubling the penalties above. On a crit failure roll 3d: on a 6 or less they hit their ally for full damage (defenses possible, at -2, if a PER roll is made), 9 or less they hit their ally for half damage, otherwise they trip and fall down.

Note that the PCs are often outnumbered in RPGs, so this sort of rule will cut the other way when they're up against the Orcish legion or Badhobbit swiss pikemen (who are small enough to fit four fighty Badhobbits in a hex).

[Bruno]

I just call it "in Close Combat"; my players seem fine with that. Extra rolls seems pretty fiddly to me - particularly when dealing with NPCs as they will outnumber the PCs... and therefore require me (the GM) to make a lot of extra rolls. Blech.

[martinl]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I just call it "in Close Combat"; my players seem fine with that. Extra rolls seems pretty fiddly to me - particularly when dealing with NPCs as they will outnumber the PCs... and therefore require me (the GM) to make a lot of extra rolls. Blech.

I'd just make sure NPCs who use tight formations have the appropriate perks. It IS a little fiddly, but tightly packed close order melee infantry was definitely a thing, and I kinda-sorta want to humble hotshot PCs with weensy little hobbit pikemen hedgehogs.

Or at least make them appreciate area spells properly.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by martinl

I'd just make sure NPCs who use tight formations have the appropriate perks.

This is DFRPG, the appropriate perks do not exist.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

This is DFRPG, the appropriate perks do not exist.

Maybe they can be rephrased as optional rules.

[martinl]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

This is DFRPG, the appropriate perks do not exist.

Shield Wall Training is in the Knight template. Sacrificial Parry as well, which probably makes more sense for pike formations.

In any case, this is a not an official DFRPG rule, so you could add new perks as well, if it was necessary.

[Dragondog]

There we have it.

Originally Posted by Kromm

See Placing Figures (Exploits, p. 28): "Multiple figures can share a hex, but this puts them in close combat (p. 51), limiting their options." In short, if your hex is already occupied, you're in close and have to use the rules for close. The friend/foe distinction mostly determines whether you have to evade or just pay an extra movement point to exit the hex on the enemy's side.