Simple rule change about range increments. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Simple rule change about range increments. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
robertliguori
08-26-06, 10:33 PM K, short and swift change to the rules: you need a positive attack modifier counting range penalty to target a square in a particular range increment, beyond the first half of the increment.

So, a 1st-level commoner with 13 dex picks up a ranged weapon. He's not proficient with it, bringing his total attack mod to -3. He can only target creatures or objects within the first half of the first range increment of the weapon.

A 1st-level fighter with weapon focus and 15 dex can shoot a shortbow up to 2 range increments; he has an attack bonus of +4, which is reduced to +2 in the second and is insufficently high to enable him to shoot into the third.

Certain effects (most notably True Strike) do not effect into which range increment you can shoot; I may simply make this a function of BAB, weapon focus, and a few other non-temporary bonuses, to make fighters into viable snipers compared to sorceror1s.

Basically, I want to prevent groups of peasants with ranged weapons they're not proficient in making hail-mary shots against trained forces and winning, because they're hitting 1 in 20 shots.

So, any problem areas with this rule?
Fargren
08-26-06, 11:13 PM Ehm, it does nothing for balance, fun or realism, so I don't see the point. It is possible ot hit at the distances bows can hit.
Wayside
08-27-06, 04:49 AM I don't know about you Fargren but trying to fire a bow without training is hard as hell, and realistically there is no way in hell someone with no experience in using a bow is going to be able to hit anything at a half decent distance, even if they are a mere 10 feet away it is still iffy. I like your idea of limiting the number of range increments you can fire, the only problem is deciding how exactly to limit it.
058
08-27-06, 03:30 PM Hm. Well, Fargren is correct in stating that a bow shoots whatever distance it can, no matter who shoots it(unless the one shooting it isn't even strong enough to pull the string back far enough, in which case the bow is useless, anyway), but it is also true that not everyone can easily use a bow. What about replacing the lack of range increment with sticking in negatives to your Ranged Attack based on range increment and profficiency with the weapon and suchwhat? Jerry the commoner can shoot an arrow sixty feet, but the chances of him hitting anything are low; Chibby the half-elven Ranger can shoot an arrow sixty feet with the same bow, but his chances of hitting a target are much higher.
Jerks
08-27-06, 04:00 PM Not a bad rule, but the "lack of realism" perhaps stems more from the auto-hit on a 20 than the range rules.
LordPendragon
08-27-06, 04:15 PM Yeah, simply saying that 20's are no longer automatically a hit will both eliminate the problem, and add realism to your game.
Sinaz
08-28-06, 01:38 PM This rule doesn't make any sense to me at all. To say someone can't aim at or attack a target is very different than saying that he can't hit.

I mean, if a person can see it, they can target it. I can pick up a rifle and aim it at a passing airplane... even if it is six miles overhead. My skill with a rifle doesn't prevent me from pointing it at certain things. Hitting it is a wasted effort... but if I'm determined, I want my die roll.

With that in mind, simply remove the natural 20 hit as people are saying.

I just picture a guy standing 30 feet away from a peasant with a bow, then taking a step backwards, and the peasant giving up hope. It's silly.
058
08-28-06, 09:08 PM Removing natural twenties? Why is this happening? :/ You could take your rifle and shoot at your plane, and if you roll a natural twenty, well, your bullet hits the fuel tank. Isn't that the sort of thing a natural twenty represents? So why remove that fun?
Sinaz
08-28-06, 09:18 PM Removing natural twenties? Why is this happening? :/ You could take your rifle and shoot at your plane, and if you roll a natural twenty, well, your bullet hits the fuel tank. Isn't that the sort of thing a natural twenty represents? So why remove that fun?

Well, the point I was trying to make is that although the shot is impossible (since in my example, a bullet from a high-powered rifle even, would fail to climb even a third of the altitude) one can still physically point a weapon at a visible target. By the odds of a natural 20, you suggest that every twentieth bullet loaded into a rifle spontaneously leaves the barrell at at least three times the velocity of every other bullet.

I was arguing that if he wanted to make it impossible for inexperienced bowmen to hit things at a reasonable range (due to lack of experience with wind, and trajectory) he should simply eliminate the natural 20 being a hit. Whereas his original solution of making it impossible for such a bowman to even point the bow at someone too far away was a less rational solution.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
robertliguori 08-26-06, 10:33 PM	K, short and swift change to the rules: you need a positive attack modifier counting range penalty to target a square in a particular range increment, beyond the first half of the increment. So, a 1st-level commoner with 13 dex picks up a ranged weapon. He's not proficient with it, bringing his total attack mod to -3. He can only target creatures or objects within the first half of the first range increment of the weapon. A 1st-level fighter with weapon focus and 15 dex can shoot a shortbow up to 2 range increments; he has an attack bonus of +4, which is reduced to +2 in the second and is insufficently high to enable him to shoot into the third. Certain effects (most notably True Strike) do not effect into which range increment you can shoot; I may simply make this a function of BAB, weapon focus, and a few other non-temporary bonuses, to make fighters into viable snipers compared to sorceror1s. Basically, I want to prevent groups of peasants with ranged weapons they're not proficient in making hail-mary shots against trained forces and winning, because they're hitting 1 in 20 shots. So, any problem areas with this rule?
Fargren 08-26-06, 11:13 PM	Ehm, it does nothing for balance, fun or realism, so I don't see the point. It is possible ot hit at the distances bows can hit.
Wayside 08-27-06, 04:49 AM	I don't know about you Fargren but trying to fire a bow without training is hard as hell, and realistically there is no way in hell someone with no experience in using a bow is going to be able to hit anything at a half decent distance, even if they are a mere 10 feet away it is still iffy. I like your idea of limiting the number of range increments you can fire, the only problem is deciding how exactly to limit it.
058 08-27-06, 03:30 PM	Hm. Well, Fargren is correct in stating that a bow shoots whatever distance it can, no matter who shoots it(unless the one shooting it isn't even strong enough to pull the string back far enough, in which case the bow is useless, anyway), but it is also true that not everyone can easily use a bow. What about replacing the lack of range increment with sticking in negatives to your Ranged Attack based on range increment and profficiency with the weapon and suchwhat? Jerry the commoner can shoot an arrow sixty feet, but the chances of him hitting anything are low; Chibby the half-elven Ranger can shoot an arrow sixty feet with the same bow, but his chances of hitting a target are much higher.
Jerks 08-27-06, 04:00 PM	Not a bad rule, but the "lack of realism" perhaps stems more from the auto-hit on a 20 than the range rules.
LordPendragon 08-27-06, 04:15 PM	Yeah, simply saying that 20's are no longer automatically a hit will both eliminate the problem, and add realism to your game.
Sinaz 08-28-06, 01:38 PM	This rule doesn't make any sense to me at all. To say someone can't aim at or attack a target is very different than saying that he can't hit. I mean, if a person can see it, they can target it. I can pick up a rifle and aim it at a passing airplane... even if it is six miles overhead. My skill with a rifle doesn't prevent me from pointing it at certain things. Hitting it is a wasted effort... but if I'm determined, I want my die roll. With that in mind, simply remove the natural 20 hit as people are saying. I just picture a guy standing 30 feet away from a peasant with a bow, then taking a step backwards, and the peasant giving up hope. It's silly.
058 08-28-06, 09:08 PM	Removing natural twenties? Why is this happening? :/ You could take your rifle and shoot at your plane, and if you roll a natural twenty, well, your bullet hits the fuel tank. Isn't that the sort of thing a natural twenty represents? So why remove that fun?
Sinaz 08-28-06, 09:18 PM	Removing natural twenties? Why is this happening? :/ You could take your rifle and shoot at your plane, and if you roll a natural twenty, well, your bullet hits the fuel tank. Isn't that the sort of thing a natural twenty represents? So why remove that fun? Well, the point I was trying to make is that although the shot is impossible (since in my example, a bullet from a high-powered rifle even, would fail to climb even a third of the altitude) one can still physically point a weapon at a visible target. By the odds of a natural 20, you suggest that every twentieth bullet loaded into a rifle spontaneously leaves the barrell at at least three times the velocity of every other bullet. I was arguing that if he wanted to make it impossible for inexperienced bowmen to hit things at a reasonable range (due to lack of experience with wind, and trajectory) he should simply eliminate the natural 20 being a hit. Whereas his original solution of making it impossible for such a bowman to even point the bow at someone too far away was a less rational solution.