Post/Author/DateTime	Post
poopmouth187 09-18-07, 08:12 PM	me and my friends r in a campaign where the DM made the rule to use dex bonus added to damage for ranged weapons and not str bonus on composites only. we have a halfling rougue who is a little to rediculous in combat bc all she does is ranged attks. th other campaign im DMin the same players r complaining that im not using it. im wondering, what r ur thoughts on this?
Archangel_James 09-18-07, 08:17 PM	It doesn't make any sense and there's no reason to do it.
Ebonarc 09-18-07, 08:17 PM	Rogues using ranged attacks only is pretty common. As for the fact that they want you to use the houserule too, it's your prerogative. Just because they are used to or enjoy a certain houserule doesn't mean it's always going to be in play. Edit: Ninja'd! Proper English is your friend.
mearrin69 09-18-07, 08:17 PM	Well the simplest defense for this (assuming you don't want to use it) is that this is a house rule and you don't want to use it in your campaign. You're the DM so you have every right to choose which rules you will play by. That said, you might ask them to justify adding dex to damage. How does a character's dexterity possibly add to the strength of the blow from a melee weapon? One possible answer is that a dexterous character is a better shot and is able to hit the areas that will cause the most damage. If you don't like their answers and want to stick with the rules as written then tell them you won't be using that rule - end of discussion. M
Sunblast 09-18-07, 08:30 PM	One possible answer is that a dexterous character is a better shot and is able to hit the areas that will cause the most damage. The only problem is that sneak attack is pretty much built around that idea. Really, the downside to even using ranged attacks is that you don't add a ton to damage. Why should someone be able to deal as much damage at range as a fighter with a greataxe up close? You're already reaping a mighty benefit, and that is that you don't need to be within melee attack range to hit. If it were me, I would say no. Just shell out some cash to buy a bow that can actually deal damage. There's a reason composite bows are so expensive.
poopmouth187 09-18-07, 08:43 PM	yea i really dont like the idea but my friends always complain, especialy my friends sister (shes always rougues with just ranged attks bc shes a noob).
Goon_for_Hire 09-18-07, 10:12 PM	If you are really thinking of integrating something like this, consider making it a character option of some kind, like a feat. Heck there already is one that lets you do extra dex-based damage with ranged: crossbow sniper from PHBII. Maybe you could offer her a variant thereof?
albinomonkeyking 09-18-07, 10:48 PM	People will always want things that make them stronger. If your DM said 'Lets add dex to melee dmg' and they all went 'ooo' at their dmg they would probably want you to do it. Ranged characters are balanced, they don't need a buff. Trust me. Just explain you dislike it because of aforementioned reasons.
Utumno 09-19-07, 12:12 AM	Seriously? Your campaign, your rules. Let your players know that you respectfully disagree with the fromer DMs house rule and then apply your best judgement.
Disciple_of_Salsa 09-19-07, 02:09 AM	I don't like the rule. How would dex affect damage? Anyway, compromise. She can add her dex to damage, but only on sneak attacks. That makes a little more sense.
goawayugh 09-19-07, 11:59 AM	<snip> 2) Absolutly not. Honestly, if I had a DM that did allow that, I would want him to change it back. In melee, you get to add the same modifier to your attacks and damage (Str), but you are right up close with your enemy, and it is easy for him to swing at you. Ranged combat puts you out of harms way. This advantage greatly outweighs the dissadvatage of not doing as much damage. The closest you could come to something like that would be a modification of the Crowwbow Sniper feat (PHBII), as Goon already mentioned.
poopmouth187 09-19-07, 06:27 PM	, I would want him to change it back The closest you could come to something like that would be a modification of the Crowwbow Sniper feat (PHBII), as Goon already mentioned. yea i complained to him and he said thats how he wants it but what ever. i think i might make it a feat or something. thats a good idea. and sorry about the spelling I was posting this in school and didnt want to get caught.
wizarddog 09-20-07, 12:59 AM	If that is the case, then I want an Dodge Bonus for my strength. After all, being stronger I can move much easier in armor than an average person. ;)
Ecalsneerg 09-20-07, 06:22 PM	<snip> Also: Dex is your agility, accuracy, etc etc. It makes no sense. It might help us if you tell us your group's reasoning here. Otherwsie we have nothing to pick at.
Mock26 09-20-07, 06:56 PM	You are the DM in your game, not the other players. Tell them you do not like the rule as it is (insert reason(s) here) and as such you are not going to use it. It's that simple.
Kaligrad 09-20-07, 09:45 PM	Anything can be justified. Add Str to damage because a higher Str means that you can by strings with a higher tensile strength. Add Dex to damage because you can aim the arrow/bolt better in the fast pace of combat. (Side note: Sneak attack isn't the only ability that allows your attacks to hit critical areas. Critical hits, Sudden Strike, the extra damage given to Order of the Bow Initiates, etc.) Add Con to damage because you can ignore physical distractions while aiming the shot. Add Int to damage because you know where the sensitive areas on your opponent are. Add Wis to damage because you can sense the best timing for your shots. Add Cha to damage because you can distract your opponents with a well timed insult. The real question here is whether you want to appease your players or not. I'd do it, since not only would your players stop complaining, but you must remember that their enemies would get this benefit too...
Akirakun 09-20-07, 10:54 PM	The real question here is whether you want to appease your players or not. I'd do it, since not only would your players stop complaining, but you must remember that their enemies would get this benefit too... I agree with you on that matter. If the players want to get that wonderful bonus, then let them. Also, let the know that the enemies will get the same benefit. However, being a new DM I would not allow this rule for simple reasons already stated, "It's the rules of the game." I'm certain that the makers of D&D already came across this rule already. So, if they opt not to do it, most certainly there's a good reason to.
Anathema 09-21-07, 01:50 AM	My game is always completely toned down when my players understand the idea of "Anything you can get, the enemies can get too". Once they realize that the DM can do anything the players can do, only better, they will almost always stop asking for stuff they know they shouldn't have. DEX bonus to ranged damage is one of those things. Any kind of bonus-changing thing like this (such as DEX bonus to attack bonus) is covered in the game where it requires players to spend character resources for it. A feat, class level, or some other limited item would be the bare minimum for allowing such a thing; it would never, and should never, be given away for free. Especially because the DM can simply choose to have a cavalry of 20 DEX elven archers at his leisure, whereas the players are limited in their specialty. Your players need to be clear on that fact .. asking for boosts in effectiveness will almost always turn against them. This is why things such as critical effects from confirmed threats or critical misses (where the players could randomly hack off limbs or randomly strike their friends) were removed from the game entirely; because players are subject to them far more than an enemy that they happen to mow through on the way to the treasure horde. Anything that will make the players stronger will invariably make their enemies that much more stronger in the long run. Your rogue will suffer far more critical hits than she will inflict upon a specific enemy, as an example (though critical hits aren't always debilitating as I describe above). Good luck.
Madfox11 09-21-07, 08:31 AM	The real question here is whether you want to appease your players or not. I'd do it, since not only would your players stop complaining, but you must remember that their enemies would get this benefit too... Just hope your players don't smart up. First of all, a player is in a position to use a particular rule more often than a DM, or in this case are you planning to use archers in every single combat? Secondly, a DM doesn't achieve anything by killing PCs left and right except that his players leave and his campaign crashes. The only reason this trick works on occassion is because you force the players to look at the ruling from a more neutral objective position. In this particular ruling the rule makes archers much stronger, which is no real big problem if the archer at the table is a tactical weak player who has build a rather weak character with the rest of the group being very strong. If all characters are equal on the other hand, the archer now is going to dominate the table - not only does the archer remain out of melee, he also already deals more damage to Rapid Shot. Personally I a particular character is weaker, I prefer to look at it with the player, see how we can improve the odds and add a few encounters that make the PC shines. It works much better than changing a rule, and to later deal with players that abuse it to its heart's content... PS I am not a native English speaker, spelling I don't care much about as long as I can understand what is being written. Interpunction though is very important. Ultimately it is up to you whether to use it or not, and argueing about is not particular useful, the fact is that less people will read your post. I certainly would have ignored it if it had been longer than a few lines...
WizO_Brak 09-21-07, 03:50 PM	Question answered, and thread closed. ~Brak