Archers in Towers [Archive] - Wizards Community

Archers in Towers [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Dhalgren
10-22-03, 10:42 PM If I have Archers firing from a 100' high tower, does this affect range and damage? Can this info be found in the core books?
Thanks.
Inigo Carmine
10-22-03, 10:55 PM Range/altitude have no effect on damage in the core rules.

I don't think it makes any adjustments for range based on height (if someone is 200 ft north of you and 50 ft below your altitude, he is still just 200 ft north of you...though you do need line of sight).

If you wanted to a simple change the latter part*, you could apply pythagorian's theroum (sp?) to it. I don't recomend it though. Anything that grinds the game to a halt for 3 minutes to do a calculation is a bad thing.
krichaiushii
10-22-03, 10:57 PM Just give them the standard high ground bonus of +1 to hit, and keep the ranges accessible the same.

Maybe not real physics, but functional game physics.
Dhalgren
10-22-03, 11:01 PM 3 minutes? nah. Height will add range to a bow. If you can fire 60' on level ground, you can fire 60' straight out from a height and the arrow will not then drop straight to the ground. Also, the increased height will add velocity to the arrow, isn't this similar to the concept behind a composite bow? If there are no rules, I may have to fudge some, I can't ignore physics. I also think the archers should have half cover.
Grizelda
10-22-03, 11:06 PM Originally posted by Dhalgren
3 minutes? nah. Height will add range to a bow. If you can fire 60' on level ground, you can fire 60' straight out from a height and the arrow will not then drop straight to the ground. Also, the increased height will add velocity to the arrow, isn't this similar to the concept behind a composite bow? If there are no rules, I may have to fudge some, I can't ignore physics. I also think the archers should have half cover.

well if you have a calc handy and you know they are all gonna be on a 60' wall then do this..

a> the all have cover.

b> 60^2 + R^2 = A^2 where r is range from tower and A is actual range.. the real effect of being higher up will be to add more range increments.. its not any easier to hit a target just becuase you are higher up in the air then it would be if they were an equal disatnce on level ground but by arcing the arrow you could fire an arrow FARTHER.. so instead of the normal max of 10 range increments for a missile weapon, just say they can fire 15 range increments (for a total penalty of -30) they CAN lob an arrow farther but it would certainly be quite a challenge to have any kind of accuracy at that range. follow my logic?
Dhalgren
10-22-03, 11:10 PM Originally posted by Grizelda
well if you have a calc handy and you know they are all gonna be on a 60' wall then do this..

a> the all have cover.

b> 60^2 + R^2 = A^2 where r is range from tower and A is actual range.. the real effect of being higher up will be to add more range increments.. its not any easier to hit a target just becuase you are higher up in the air then it would be if they were an equal disatnce on level ground but by arcing the arrow you could fire an arrow FARTHER.. so instead of the normal max of 10 range increments for a missile weapon, just say they can fire 15 range increments (for a total penalty of -30) they CAN lob an arrow farther but it would certainly be quite a challenge to have any kind of accuracy at that range. follow my logic?

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing (about accuracy loss). The thing is, I think the archers should be able to start firing before the PCs...

BTW, I wouldn't want to use Pythagorean's Theorum, because that would be assuming that the arrow is being shot straight at the PC instead of lobbing.
Grizelda
10-22-03, 11:13 PM Originally posted by Dhalgren
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing (about accuracy loss). The thing is, I think the archers should be able to start firing before the PCs...

BTW, I wouldn't want to use Pythagorean's Theorum, because that would be assuming that the arrow is being shot straight at the PC instead of lobbing.

nono the pythagorems theorum is simply to establish the actual distance between the two points, you really dont want to make it any more complicated than that, its a good reference point. and yes if the archers are the ones in the tower that the PCs are approaching they will be able to pepper the PCs with arrow LONG before they reach the tower.. thats why people build towers.. they had best find a way to sneak up, even if its just everyone carrys a huge tower shield in front of them to catch arrows as they approach... oh wait.. what if they built a large wooden rabbit?
Dhalgren
10-22-03, 11:16 PM Originally posted by Grizelda
nono the pythagorems theorum is simply to establish the actual distance between the two points, you really dont want to make it any more complicated than that, its a good reference point. and yes if the archers are the ones in the tower that the PCs are approaching they will be able to pepper the PCs with arrow LONG before they reach the tower.. thats why people build towers.. they had best find a way to sneak up, even if its just everyone carrys a huge tower shield in front of them to catch arrows as they approach... oh wait.. what if they built a large wooden rabbit?

No, a badger! Or they could hide behind a shrubbery.
Grizelda
10-22-03, 11:20 PM Originally posted by Dhalgren
No, a badger! Or they could hide behind a shrubbery.

no thats no good, the shrubbery would only provide concealment not cover... say wait a tic.. these blokes wouldn't be french would they? if they are then the whole archer thing is a moot point since they'd be using catapults anyway. :D
AlteredEgo
10-23-03, 03:56 AM Mind the cows...

On a serious note, if you're going to sneak up on a tower, do so at night, preferably with a mild breeze, and do so slowly with "ghillie" tower shields.
Dhalgren
10-23-03, 07:09 AM I'm not going to be doing the sneaking. I'll leave the tactics up to the PCs. I am just trying to determine what kind of modifiers the archers in the towers should have. Right now I'm thinking they should be able to shoot about half again their range, and give them a +2 to damage.
pokli
10-23-03, 02:53 PM Pulling out my old 1st edition Dungeon Masters Guide.
It looks like you get a 50% increse to range modifer firing down.
When firing upwards you count the range as double.
Depending how your tower is deisghned your archers get cover too.
Dhalgren
10-23-03, 05:20 PM Originally posted by pokli
Pulling out my old 1st edition Dungeon Masters Guide.
It looks like you get a 50% increse to range modifer firing down.
When firing upwards you count the range as double.
Depending how your tower is deisghned your archers get cover too.

See, this is such an easy and common sense rule. Why couldn't they have something like this in the 3ED? I don't think it really adds complexity...
Teron Gorefiend
10-23-03, 07:59 PM I'd say increase the maximum range by one range increment per X* feet of height.

*I don't know exactly, I'm canadian. We use the metric system.
Grizelda
10-23-03, 08:11 PM Originally posted by Teron Gorefiend
I'd say increase the maximum range by one range increment per X* feet of height.

*I don't know exactly, I'm canadian. We use the metric system.

down with the metric system! we don't want no foreign rulers! :D
lbaron
10-23-03, 09:23 PM I would just use pathagerous, in your example using a long bow you get SQRT(100ft^2 + 100ft^2) wich is about 141 feet

using a short bow SQRT(100ft^2 + 60ft^2) you get 116 ft.

so the new range increment for the longbow is 141 feet and the new range increment for the shortbow is 116 feet.
Sid_Patterson
10-23-03, 09:36 PM How about just making a + or - 1 for every 10 or so feet elevation change? Since the penalty of firing past the initial range of a weapon is -2, then each 20 feet up would almost negate the range penalty. Of course, I'd also put a + or - 5 cap on that.

Any more math than that is just bogging it down to me. d20 is pretty simple by design, it's only us mad scientist GMs that will botch it up.

Edited the elevation change

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dhalgren 10-22-03, 10:42 PM	If I have Archers firing from a 100' high tower, does this affect range and damage? Can this info be found in the core books? Thanks.
Inigo Carmine 10-22-03, 10:55 PM	Range/altitude have no effect on damage in the core rules. I don't think it makes any adjustments for range based on height (if someone is 200 ft north of you and 50 ft below your altitude, he is still just 200 ft north of you...though you do need line of sight). If you wanted to a simple change the latter part*, you could apply pythagorian's theroum (sp?) to it. I don't recomend it though. Anything that grinds the game to a halt for 3 minutes to do a calculation is a bad thing.
krichaiushii 10-22-03, 10:57 PM	Just give them the standard high ground bonus of +1 to hit, and keep the ranges accessible the same. Maybe not real physics, but functional game physics.
Dhalgren 10-22-03, 11:01 PM	3 minutes? nah. Height will add range to a bow. If you can fire 60' on level ground, you can fire 60' straight out from a height and the arrow will not then drop straight to the ground. Also, the increased height will add velocity to the arrow, isn't this similar to the concept behind a composite bow? If there are no rules, I may have to fudge some, I can't ignore physics. I also think the archers should have half cover.
Grizelda 10-22-03, 11:06 PM	Originally posted by Dhalgren 3 minutes? nah. Height will add range to a bow. If you can fire 60' on level ground, you can fire 60' straight out from a height and the arrow will not then drop straight to the ground. Also, the increased height will add velocity to the arrow, isn't this similar to the concept behind a composite bow? If there are no rules, I may have to fudge some, I can't ignore physics. I also think the archers should have half cover. well if you have a calc handy and you know they are all gonna be on a 60' wall then do this.. a> the all have cover. b> 60^2 + R^2 = A^2 where r is range from tower and A is actual range.. the real effect of being higher up will be to add more range increments.. its not any easier to hit a target just becuase you are higher up in the air then it would be if they were an equal disatnce on level ground but by arcing the arrow you could fire an arrow FARTHER.. so instead of the normal max of 10 range increments for a missile weapon, just say they can fire 15 range increments (for a total penalty of -30) they CAN lob an arrow farther but it would certainly be quite a challenge to have any kind of accuracy at that range. follow my logic?
Dhalgren 10-22-03, 11:10 PM	Originally posted by Grizelda well if you have a calc handy and you know they are all gonna be on a 60' wall then do this.. a> the all have cover. b> 60^2 + R^2 = A^2 where r is range from tower and A is actual range.. the real effect of being higher up will be to add more range increments.. its not any easier to hit a target just becuase you are higher up in the air then it would be if they were an equal disatnce on level ground but by arcing the arrow you could fire an arrow FARTHER.. so instead of the normal max of 10 range increments for a missile weapon, just say they can fire 15 range increments (for a total penalty of -30) they CAN lob an arrow farther but it would certainly be quite a challenge to have any kind of accuracy at that range. follow my logic? Yeah, I was thinking the same thing (about accuracy loss). The thing is, I think the archers should be able to start firing before the PCs... BTW, I wouldn't want to use Pythagorean's Theorum, because that would be assuming that the arrow is being shot straight at the PC instead of lobbing.
Grizelda 10-22-03, 11:13 PM	Originally posted by Dhalgren Yeah, I was thinking the same thing (about accuracy loss). The thing is, I think the archers should be able to start firing before the PCs... BTW, I wouldn't want to use Pythagorean's Theorum, because that would be assuming that the arrow is being shot straight at the PC instead of lobbing. nono the pythagorems theorum is simply to establish the actual distance between the two points, you really dont want to make it any more complicated than that, its a good reference point. and yes if the archers are the ones in the tower that the PCs are approaching they will be able to pepper the PCs with arrow LONG before they reach the tower.. thats why people build towers.. they had best find a way to sneak up, even if its just everyone carrys a huge tower shield in front of them to catch arrows as they approach... oh wait.. what if they built a large wooden rabbit?
Dhalgren 10-22-03, 11:16 PM	Originally posted by Grizelda nono the pythagorems theorum is simply to establish the actual distance between the two points, you really dont want to make it any more complicated than that, its a good reference point. and yes if the archers are the ones in the tower that the PCs are approaching they will be able to pepper the PCs with arrow LONG before they reach the tower.. thats why people build towers.. they had best find a way to sneak up, even if its just everyone carrys a huge tower shield in front of them to catch arrows as they approach... oh wait.. what if they built a large wooden rabbit? No, a badger! Or they could hide behind a shrubbery.
Grizelda 10-22-03, 11:20 PM	Originally posted by Dhalgren No, a badger! Or they could hide behind a shrubbery. no thats no good, the shrubbery would only provide concealment not cover... say wait a tic.. these blokes wouldn't be french would they? if they are then the whole archer thing is a moot point since they'd be using catapults anyway. :D
AlteredEgo 10-23-03, 03:56 AM	Mind the cows... On a serious note, if you're going to sneak up on a tower, do so at night, preferably with a mild breeze, and do so slowly with "ghillie" tower shields.
Dhalgren 10-23-03, 07:09 AM	I'm not going to be doing the sneaking. I'll leave the tactics up to the PCs. I am just trying to determine what kind of modifiers the archers in the towers should have. Right now I'm thinking they should be able to shoot about half again their range, and give them a +2 to damage.
pokli 10-23-03, 02:53 PM	Pulling out my old 1st edition Dungeon Masters Guide. It looks like you get a 50% increse to range modifer firing down. When firing upwards you count the range as double. Depending how your tower is deisghned your archers get cover too.
Dhalgren 10-23-03, 05:20 PM	Originally posted by pokli Pulling out my old 1st edition Dungeon Masters Guide. It looks like you get a 50% increse to range modifer firing down. When firing upwards you count the range as double. Depending how your tower is deisghned your archers get cover too. See, this is such an easy and common sense rule. Why couldn't they have something like this in the 3ED? I don't think it really adds complexity...
Teron Gorefiend 10-23-03, 07:59 PM	I'd say increase the maximum range by one range increment per X* feet of height. *I don't know exactly, I'm canadian. We use the metric system.
Grizelda 10-23-03, 08:11 PM	Originally posted by Teron Gorefiend I'd say increase the maximum range by one range increment per X* feet of height. *I don't know exactly, I'm canadian. We use the metric system. down with the metric system! we don't want no foreign rulers! :D
lbaron 10-23-03, 09:23 PM	I would just use pathagerous, in your example using a long bow you get SQRT(100ft^2 + 100ft^2) wich is about 141 feet using a short bow SQRT(100ft^2 + 60ft^2) you get 116 ft. so the new range increment for the longbow is 141 feet and the new range increment for the shortbow is 116 feet.
Sid_Patterson 10-23-03, 09:36 PM	How about just making a + or - 1 for every 10 or so feet elevation change? Since the penalty of firing past the initial range of a weapon is -2, then each 20 feet up would almost negate the range penalty. Of course, I'd also put a + or - 5 cap on that. Any more math than that is just bogging it down to me. d20 is pretty simple by design, it's only us mad scientist GMs that will botch it up. Edited the elevation change