+1 Comp Longbow of Seeking [Archive] - Wizards Community

+1 Comp Longbow of Seeking [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Soichiro Arima
03-13-05, 10:21 AM Is a +1 Comp (+4 Str) Longbow of Seeking cost 4775 GP. A Level 6 Ranger or Fighter can easily afford this if not starting with the Mwk Comp (+4 Str) longbow and getting it enchanted later Broken?

If they have Rapid Shot and Far Shot they are garenteed to do 3d8+15 damage to anything with in 1650ft. (I think) With that Quiver of some elf god they can not run out of arrows for a while.

Sure the massive range before most enemies can fight back really isnt a big deal in most campaign but when your campaign takes place in a marine enviroment, out on the open ocean and the PC in question can sit in the crows nest on a sailing ship its a huge atvantage becuase its really cheep for it to always be misty and such.

I think its a pain when they can just pick of all the crew members on enemy ships or just using fire arrows on the hull on hard to reach places over 1/3 of a mile away! For the size of a ship its very easy to see it from that far away (I use that forula that uses hight above sea level to figure out the distance that can be seen on a clear day and the PC in question has +20 to Spot on top of that).
Zherog
03-13-05, 10:43 AM Your weapon is effectively a +2 weapon, so it'd cost 8,000 plus whatever the masterwork bow costs. I'll assume your cost is correct, so this weapon would cost 8,775.
pseudoidiot
03-13-05, 11:24 AM and seeking != automatic hit. it just negates the miss chance % from things like concealment.
GreyGriffin
03-13-05, 12:44 PM and seeking != automatic hit. it just negates the miss chance % from things like concealment.
Which, ironically, makes those "cheap" misty conditions the least of an archer's concerns.
SamualT Barronsword
03-13-05, 11:00 PM Which, ironically, makes those "cheap" misty conditions the least of an archer's concerns.

Well, the user of a "Seeking" ranged weapon still has to hit the right square, so depending on how much vision is compromised it might stop them from using their bow effectively.

Soichiro Arima

Your ranger PC’s Far Shot and Rapid Shot feats should help him out a great deal in the scenario you describe (being on top of a crows nest on the open sea), but I don’t think he should be quite so devastating as you state. The ranger especially should not be "guaranteed" of clearing off the oppositions decks at 1650 feet.

How are you doing your math on the characters attacks? Are you applying the -2 for each range increment past the first? These penalties still apply even for characters with the Far Shot feat, they just don‘t apply quite as soon as they would for someone without the feat.

A 6th level ranger has a BAB of +6/+1. Say he has a 17 Dex (+3 to hit) and add the +1 to hit for the Seeking bow's magic +1. This adjust the attack to +10/+5. There is a -2 to hit for using the Rapid Shot feat. This gives a base full attack with the bow using the Rapid Shot feat of +8/+8/+3.

When shooting at a target within the bows first range increment, which for a composite longbow fired by someone without the Far Shot feat is 110 ft, and when fired by someone with the Far Shot feat is 155 ft., there is no penalty. After that however, there is a -2 penalty for each subsequent range increment. You can shoot up to 10 range increments with a projectile weapon. For someone shooting a composite longbow without Far Shot that would be 1,100 feet, and for someone with Far Shot that would indeed be 1,650 ft., but in either case, that’s 9 range increments past the first.

At -2 to hit per each range increment past the first, we’re talking a -18 penalty for someone with Far Shot to hit at 1650 ft.

At that range the above Rangers Full Attack (with penalties factored in) would be -10/-10/-15. Unless he‘s shooting at someone with a AC of less than 10, he can‘t hit anyone on the other ship without a natural 20. If he has the Far Shot feat and an unlimited supply of arrows he might as well try, as it is always possible he could roll a natural 20, but he's certainly not "guaranteed" a hit.

Note also that, as pseudoidiot has stated, Seeking weapons negate the miss chances for "concealment", however they do not negate AC bonus one receives from "cover" or their regular armor. Any idiot is going to take 100% cover if being shot at by someone whom they can't shoot back at, if they can. The bulwarks of a ship will provide plenty of places to duck for cover, even from someone firing from a crows nest. I would assume most of the opponents of the opposing vessel will stay out of sight (100 % cover) if they have no effective means of returning fire, until they are close enough to start doing so (firing back) effectively. And even for those who for whatever reason can’t stay completely out of sight (because they have to hoist a sail or whatever), I would still add +4 to their AC on the assumption that they will be trying to use as much solid cover as possible to protect themselves from rangers attacks. Unless your ranger has loaded dice or the opposition consist of sailors wearing no armor and to stupid to stand behind cover, I don’t think he should hitting with every attack and dealing out 3d8+15 damage every round. The ranger might be able to pick off some of the other ships crew, but no way he should be able to consistently and completely wipe out everyone on board the other ship before they can do anything in return.

As for fire arrows, well I don’t have any rulebook to point to, so you can play it different if you want, but in my opinion no single person shooting fire arrows could catch a ship on fire. There is no place inside the hull of a ship that the ranger could shoot where a sailor could not quickly get to it with a pale of water, while wood on the hull of a seagoing vessel would be too thick, too wet, to start fire before the arrow burns out. Even shooting dozens of different individual arrows into the ship over time would not do it. Maybe shooting 50 arrows into the more or less the same spot in the same round might do it (I doubt it), but otherwise it would be like trying to start a large wet log on fire with only a few small sticks available at any one time to use as kindling. Not going to do it.

My thoughts anyways.
ravidge
03-13-05, 11:49 PM samual you are correct except that 110+55=165' not 155' but besides that i completely agree with you :D
High Octane
03-14-05, 05:00 AM Far Shot + Distance Enchantment..........

"What the... where the hell are those shots coming from??"
"Greyhawk."
"But....But this is a Forgotten Realms campaign!"
Rafnar
03-14-05, 12:15 PM The cost of a +1 comp. mighty+4 longbow of seeking is 8800gp.
Also you can apply a penalty to his attack. Have you ever tried shooting a bow from a crows nest on a ship. Even if the water was relatively calm there still should be some type of penalty for movement. In rougher waters it could become almost impossible. Also, you must consider that the other ship is moving with the waves also.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Soichiro Arima 03-13-05, 10:21 AM	Is a +1 Comp (+4 Str) Longbow of Seeking cost 4775 GP. A Level 6 Ranger or Fighter can easily afford this if not starting with the Mwk Comp (+4 Str) longbow and getting it enchanted later Broken? If they have Rapid Shot and Far Shot they are garenteed to do 3d8+15 damage to anything with in 1650ft. (I think) With that Quiver of some elf god they can not run out of arrows for a while. Sure the massive range before most enemies can fight back really isnt a big deal in most campaign but when your campaign takes place in a marine enviroment, out on the open ocean and the PC in question can sit in the crows nest on a sailing ship its a huge atvantage becuase its really cheep for it to always be misty and such. I think its a pain when they can just pick of all the crew members on enemy ships or just using fire arrows on the hull on hard to reach places over 1/3 of a mile away! For the size of a ship its very easy to see it from that far away (I use that forula that uses hight above sea level to figure out the distance that can be seen on a clear day and the PC in question has +20 to Spot on top of that).
Zherog 03-13-05, 10:43 AM	Your weapon is effectively a +2 weapon, so it'd cost 8,000 plus whatever the masterwork bow costs. I'll assume your cost is correct, so this weapon would cost 8,775.
pseudoidiot 03-13-05, 11:24 AM	and seeking != automatic hit. it just negates the miss chance % from things like concealment.
GreyGriffin 03-13-05, 12:44 PM	and seeking != automatic hit. it just negates the miss chance % from things like concealment. Which, ironically, makes those "cheap" misty conditions the least of an archer's concerns.
SamualT Barronsword 03-13-05, 11:00 PM	Which, ironically, makes those "cheap" misty conditions the least of an archer's concerns. Well, the user of a "Seeking" ranged weapon still has to hit the right square, so depending on how much vision is compromised it might stop them from using their bow effectively. Soichiro Arima Your ranger PC’s Far Shot and Rapid Shot feats should help him out a great deal in the scenario you describe (being on top of a crows nest on the open sea), but I don’t think he should be quite so devastating as you state. The ranger especially should not be "guaranteed" of clearing off the oppositions decks at 1650 feet. How are you doing your math on the characters attacks? Are you applying the -2 for each range increment past the first? These penalties still apply even for characters with the Far Shot feat, they just don‘t apply quite as soon as they would for someone without the feat. A 6th level ranger has a BAB of +6/+1. Say he has a 17 Dex (+3 to hit) and add the +1 to hit for the Seeking bow's magic +1. This adjust the attack to +10/+5. There is a -2 to hit for using the Rapid Shot feat. This gives a base full attack with the bow using the Rapid Shot feat of +8/+8/+3. When shooting at a target within the bows first range increment, which for a composite longbow fired by someone without the Far Shot feat is 110 ft, and when fired by someone with the Far Shot feat is 155 ft., there is no penalty. After that however, there is a -2 penalty for each subsequent range increment. You can shoot up to 10 range increments with a projectile weapon. For someone shooting a composite longbow without Far Shot that would be 1,100 feet, and for someone with Far Shot that would indeed be 1,650 ft., but in either case, that’s 9 range increments past the first. At -2 to hit per each range increment past the first, we’re talking a -18 penalty for someone with Far Shot to hit at 1650 ft. At that range the above Rangers Full Attack (with penalties factored in) would be -10/-10/-15. Unless he‘s shooting at someone with a AC of less than 10, he can‘t hit anyone on the other ship without a natural 20. If he has the Far Shot feat and an unlimited supply of arrows he might as well try, as it is always possible he could roll a natural 20, but he's certainly not "guaranteed" a hit. Note also that, as pseudoidiot has stated, Seeking weapons negate the miss chances for "concealment", however they do not negate AC bonus one receives from "cover" or their regular armor. Any idiot is going to take 100% cover if being shot at by someone whom they can't shoot back at, if they can. The bulwarks of a ship will provide plenty of places to duck for cover, even from someone firing from a crows nest. I would assume most of the opponents of the opposing vessel will stay out of sight (100 % cover) if they have no effective means of returning fire, until they are close enough to start doing so (firing back) effectively. And even for those who for whatever reason can’t stay completely out of sight (because they have to hoist a sail or whatever), I would still add +4 to their AC on the assumption that they will be trying to use as much solid cover as possible to protect themselves from rangers attacks. Unless your ranger has loaded dice or the opposition consist of sailors wearing no armor and to stupid to stand behind cover, I don’t think he should hitting with every attack and dealing out 3d8+15 damage every round. The ranger might be able to pick off some of the other ships crew, but no way he should be able to consistently and completely wipe out everyone on board the other ship before they can do anything in return. As for fire arrows, well I don’t have any rulebook to point to, so you can play it different if you want, but in my opinion no single person shooting fire arrows could catch a ship on fire. There is no place inside the hull of a ship that the ranger could shoot where a sailor could not quickly get to it with a pale of water, while wood on the hull of a seagoing vessel would be too thick, too wet, to start fire before the arrow burns out. Even shooting dozens of different individual arrows into the ship over time would not do it. Maybe shooting 50 arrows into the more or less the same spot in the same round might do it (I doubt it), but otherwise it would be like trying to start a large wet log on fire with only a few small sticks available at any one time to use as kindling. Not going to do it. My thoughts anyways.
ravidge 03-13-05, 11:49 PM	samual you are correct except that 110+55=165' not 155' but besides that i completely agree with you :D
High Octane 03-14-05, 05:00 AM	Far Shot + Distance Enchantment.......... "What the... where the hell are those shots coming from??" "Greyhawk." "But....But this is a Forgotten Realms campaign!"
Rafnar 03-14-05, 12:15 PM	The cost of a +1 comp. mighty+4 longbow of seeking is 8800gp. Also you can apply a penalty to his attack. Have you ever tried shooting a bow from a crows nest on a ship. Even if the water was relatively calm there still should be some type of penalty for movement. In rougher waters it could become almost impossible. Also, you must consider that the other ship is moving with the waves also.