Boosting ranged weapons...

[Zephyros]

Prologue: (skip is bored)

During christmass break I ve been enjoying a Warhammer novel (the Darkblade Chronicles in particular) and I really liked the realistic way he handled ranged weapons while describing combat. Most of the time the side that opened combat with a volley won. If things got into melee they got ugly really fast (being chopped to pieces or turned to black corrupted mold). Then an idea occured to me.

How to emulate a weapon that with a precise blow (shot in our case) can KO most opponents. Well here is a simple fixl: Double their threat range and increase their critical modifier by 1 (or even 2)

What does the almighty Playground think of this?

Will it be unballancing? (hardly I believe)

Will it make weapon selection matter for non casters? (hell yeah I hope)

[Spiryt]

I'm not sure what you mean.

All weapons get their threat range dubled and increased critical modifier, do make combat overally more deadly?

Only ranged weapons get this, to make them more lethal?

[Malacode]

Isn't the whole benefit of ranged weapons that, they're, you know... Ranged?
If you make them deal more damage than melee wepons, why the hell would any ranger bother with TWF? Or the Fighter/Barbarian be a Fighter/Barbarian? I don't understand why you think this would work. In the context of real life and books, hell yeah guns are better than swords. So are bows and arrows in a number of situations. In a game however, that simply doesn't work

[celtois]

Well I think range weapons need a boost this might not be the way to do it.
After all all range weapons even if they don't hit are far more deadly then people seem to think. A shot from an arrow will often send someone sprawling. So here is what I'm suggesting..

A make all bows crit range. 20*4..

B. Make it so the damage dealt or attack roll... (Not sure which makes sense.) by a range weapon is all treated as the roll on a bull rush attempt..

C. Make them deal more damage..by one dice..
So a longbow would deal 1d12. instead of 1d10 etc.
This makes up for how much more powerful melee weapons are


What do you guys think


@^ I've never seen a bow character in all the games I've played it. This is because they simply can't compete with melee characters at higher levels..
Nor are they as interesting to play.


The other thing that would be cool to add is a pin feat..

Pin.
Whenever you hit a opponent with a bow or crossbow.
You may forgo doing damage and in exchange make them make a reflex save. Against your attack roll. If they fail they are considered pinned until they can get free. With a successful Escape artist or grapple check. Dc = 10+1/2 of your level.

[Ryuuk]

A long as you stay a low numbers, is already true. Two armies of warriors 1, the side that fires a volley has a very good chance of leaving the opposition crippled.

[koldstare]

I think this is a little unbalancing. The point of the low damage of ranged weapons is that you are taking little if no risk while still making full attacks. A composite Longbow has a range increment of 110ft. You can fire on someone 200ft away for a mere -2 to attacks(and there are ways of boosting the range increment). Higher damage would unbalance this I believe.

Still using the Composite Longbow as an example, you plan to make them 19-20x4 or 19-20x5. This can be boosted. I am sure that there is a way to increase the threat range of piercing weapons some how. So thats 18-20x4 or 16-20x4. Str 20 is very easy to obtain so a Composite(+5) Longbow isn't out of the question so at mid level you can do 1d8+5(Str)+2(Bracers of Archery) or 1d8+25+10 at long distance. This is by no way optimized. I'm sure someone could make a supercritical build for this that does 1000's of damage on a critical hit all before level 12 or so.

Edit: For some reason, when I wrote this I thought that keen only effected slashing weapons, my bad.

[Talya]

In historical pre-gunpowder warfare, ranged attackers had a huge advantage against infantry, while cavalry would rout ranged attackers. Infantry could hold aganist cavalry if they had polearms. Generally, an army would put its spearmen in front of its longbowmen to protect them from the cavalry charge, while an army with cavalry would do its best to flank the enemy to get behind their defense line.

Thing is, D&D isn't generally a game of warfare, but small unit battles. On a one-on-one basis, none of the above holds true.

[Hawriel]

Yesterday in my game the crit range and multiplier of the crossbow came into question. I was sure that they had a x3 crit. Logic being they have a slow rate of fire. Never mind the higher die. A potential of rolling 2 more points of damage on a larger die doesnt balance this out for me at first glance. So I looked it up 19/x2 crit. doesnt seem right. I would think that the slow rate of fire would justify a x3. After all even with rapid reload a crossbow user is still only firing one bolt per round. A composite longbow user still gets their full attack, and strength bonus to damage.

Ranged weapons are balanced with melee weapons because they do pritty much the same amount of damage. The only difference is a longbow can do it at great range. Longsword d8 19/x2 Longbow d8 20/x3. Damage wise its the same difference as an axe. If you want to change the arrow to be more realisticly damaging then you should change the axe as well. One good hit from an axe and a person is done for. The real advantage to the bow is that its at ranged. when an apponent gets with in melee the bow is usless.

Changing the crit threat and multiplier isnt needed. The game already has feats and magical enchaments for that. Imp crit, keen, mighty and others. You can also use magical arrows and magical bows together. Having a +2 bow and +2 arrows make things very leathal. If you did change the crit and multipliers it would make ranged weapons overly damaging.

Having arrows and bolts do a bullrush doesnt make any sence. There is no ware neer enough mass in an arrow or bolt to push some one down. Bullets fired from guns dont do this. Cannon round blow through as well. A person hit by an arrow would fall over from a lethal blow not be pushed. If a person was running their momentem would continue to carry them forward. If you want an arrown to bullrush there is an enchantmen some whare that would let you do it.

The way I see it if you wanted a ranged weapon to do a one shot kill give it to a class that is mechanicly desined to do so. The rogue. Let the rogue made a sneack attack with a bow over 30 away. Eather add to one of the ranged feats to allow them to do this or made a new feat that doubles the range for sneak attack. Using a ranger variant that has sneack attack would be fitting too.

[koldstare]

Changing the crit threat and multiplier isnt needed. The game already has feats and magical enchaments for that. Imp crit, keen, mighty and others. You can also use magical arrows and magical bows together. Having a +2 bow and +2 arrows make things very leathal. If you did change the crit and multipliers it would make ranged weapons overly damaging.


I don't believe they stack, as it is 2 +2 enhancement bonuses and bonuses of the same type to the same thing never stack. the +2 arrows are needed to overcome DR but in the long run you are better off the enhancements to your bow than your arrows. Well, I guess a +1 keen frost longbow of distance firing +3 arrows would be handy

[Zephyros]

To all who said about unballancing:

I don't think it's by any means overpowered because there is no power attack, leap attack, shock trooper, battle jump blah blah blah blah stuff to make you strike for 1d12+234235.

What this will do to gamestyle is just make people carry bows and crossbows at least at low levels (even then there is windwall et al) and try to connect some shots before wading into melee.

By increasing critical threat range and multiplier I just wanted to emulate the fact that once you strike an opponent he is most likely sorely hurt or even dead.
You always have to make the confirmation check. And last time I checked it was melee and not ranged weapons that held the upper hand in terms of threat range and multipliers (scythe or rapier anyone?)

What I am trying to say is that the lethality of melee combat is already backed up by so much crunch whereas ranged combat crunch is trying to emulate what? Machine gunners? or Legolas from LotR?(and even then he oneshot'd most of his targets.)

Cheers

[celtois]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnnoyingArrows

I'd like to draw your attention to this. There is in fact a knock back. Thus the bullrush attempt.

2. Range weapons are quite a bit weaker then melee. Here is why in everygame I've been in the people with melee weapon are quickly able to do insane amount of damage. There are people who are rolling 1d10 then adding +14 this is a 8th level. No house rules. With bows you just can't get that kind of damage.

[Heliomance]

Actually, you can. You just have to build it properly. Archery is a very viable way of fighting - see here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=642.0) for more details.

[celtois]

I've seen that before..All I'm saying is it doesn't seem as viable as melee. I've never seen anybody play a viable archery build. Nor the fact that a well made melee character will surpass a archer in d&d

[Heliomance]

Hmm. Feel like running a few arena tests? I'll build an archer, you build a meleer, ban TO cheese, as I agree it is easier to break melee into tiny pieces, and see what happens. What level do you want to try?

[Attilargh]

There is in fact a knock back. Thus the bullrush attempt.
I'm willing to bet that in Real Life™, a mace on the face knocks a man a fair bit farther than getting shafted with an arrow.

[kme]

Well, you can say that everyone who shoots with some ranged weapons gets 3d6 sneak attack(that stacks with rogue SA) for free. This will make bows/crossbows superior then melee weapons when you have some kind of surprise but it still wont give you much boost when no one is flat footed. It also makes some sense, how can one who is not aware of being shot at evade the arrow anyway?

[Heliomance]

The inability to dodge is represented by losing your Dex bonus to AC.

[Tsotha-lanti]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnnoyingArrows

I'd like to draw your attention to this. There is in fact a knock back. Thus the bullrush attempt.

That's a great way to undermine your own argument, considering this is straight from that article:
"not because of the kinetic energy, but because the shock of being wounded disrupts muscular coordination"

That's called "stopping power", and is a highly contentious subject among gunfondlers and ballistics experts, with all sorts of crazy theories about hydrostatic shock and the like.

In D&D, it's ridiculous to try to model that only for arrows, because it's not limited to small projectiles. Having an axe-blade sunk into your shoulder will also knock you off your feet, and not just because of shock, but because melee weapons actually deliver enough force to a large enough area to unbalance people. Projectiles focus their force in a tiny area in order to penetrate. You'd have to add a knock-back/down effect for all weapons. (Also, you realize bull-rushing pushes you back? That's got nothing to do with being knocked back, which would be a trip, since you tend to end up off your feet.)

[hamishspence]

the Knockback weapon property in Complete Warrior initiates bull rushes rather than trips. it was updated (and weakened) in Magic Item Compendium-

Fort save DC 19 or be pushed back 1 square, usable 3 times per day, expanded from ranged weapon only to all weapons.

So it is understandable that when people speak of "Knockback" they tend to mean some sort of bull-rush effect.

[Darrin]

By increasing critical threat range and multiplier I just wanted to emulate the fact that once you strike an opponent he is most likely sorely hurt or even dead.


Arrow damage in D&D is a bit underpowered. Historically, footsoldiers and cavalry that aren't behind a shield wall should be *terriffied* of massed archer volleys. Getting hit with an arrow should be a life-threatening injury rather than the "meh" event it typically is in D&D. So, increasing the damage, crit range, and/or multiplier might be a good idea. And while it shouldn't unbalance the game (as you point out, the number of methods to increase ranged damage is limited), there's one other factor you want to consider:

Most combat in D&D starts with the combatants closer than 100'. Part of this is due to the mechanics (spot DCs, lighting/vision rules) and part of this is DM habits/impracticalities. Is it really worth the time and effort to map out a 300' x 300' battlefield just so the archers can get in a few attacks while everyone else sits on their thumbs? Very few DMs start combat at ranges where archery would be useful, and even if they did, waiting for the two forces to get within melee range can be very time-consuming and extremely boring.

I was going to say that flight being so readily available would be another concern, since flying archer + ground-bound target usually means a lopsided slaughter or an extremely tedious combat, but on second thought increasing ranged damage is just as effective to a ground-bound target as it would be to a flying archer... every non-flying creature would quickly learn to pick up a crossbow, shortbow, or sling, and while a flying creature generally has to keep moving to maintain a fly speed, the targets on the ground can stand their ground and full-attack.