[3.5] Bow with longest range?

[tuesdayscoming]

Alright, I'm starting to flesh out an idea for my current project (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188364). I need to know, though, what is the bow with the LONGEST FREAKING BASE RANGE ever printed in WotC official material?

It needs to be operated by one person. It would also be wonderful if it could be fired at least once per round.

Whatever it is, I'll be making it out of Dragonbone (Drc 117) for +20ft. and giving it the Distance enchantment to double its base range. Any other ideas for range increasing properties/materials/what have you?

I'm not looking for build advice here, just advice on a bow specifically. Thanks, all!

[RTGoodman]

Don't have my 3.5 books on me, but I THINK there's a greatbow in Races of Stone or some other splatbook. I would imagine it has a greater range than a normal bow. (Especially a composite version if you can get one.)

[tuesdayscoming]

Don't have my 3.5 books on me, but I THINK there's a greatbow in Races of Stone or some other splatbook. I would imagine it has a greater range than a normal bow. (Especially a composite version if you can get one.)

The Dragonbone material automatically makes the weapon count as composite :smallbiggrin:.

Checking RoS...

edit: Looks like there's a Great Crossbow there with a range of 120ft, but it requires a full round action to reload :smalleek:. Anyone know of an equivalent 'normal bow'? Pretty sure I've heard mention of the Great Bow somewhere before...

[thorgrim29]

Greatbow's in complete warrior.

[HunterOfJello]

Composite Greatbow from CWar and CAdv has a range of 130ft.

There's also a 1st level spell called Guided Shot from the SC that allows you to ignore penalties from distance, ignores all cover except total cover and all concealment except for total concealment. It can be cast as a swift action, so would be great on a wand.

Flight Arrows from Dragon Magazine 330 pg 92 have 125% range.

~

Would the range of a ranged weapon change when its size does?

[JaronK]

Note that a Cleric/PrC Ranger can cast Persistent Guided Shot for extreme range, but you still have to see the target. Chain of Eyes makes this work quite nicely, especially if you can fly... your party spots for you and you rain down arrows.

Anyway a Dragonbone Greatbow has the best range, but note that the bigger it is the better the range gets (See Arms and Equipment Guide) so being larger helps. A Half Minotaur with Stronarm Bracers of Archery is proficient with the bow and can use a Huge one for very long ranges indeed.

JaronK

[tuesdayscoming]

Composite Greatbow from CWar and CAdv has a range of 130ft.

Beautiful, thank you sir!

I've got a way to deal with the distance/cover problem in mind already, but that spell is definitely nice :smallbiggrin:. Again, thanks!

[tuesdayscoming]

Anyway a Dragonbone Greatbow has the best range, but note that the bigger it is the better the range gets (See Arms and Equipment Guide) so being larger helps. A Half Minotaur with Stronarm Bracers of Archery is proficient with the bow and can use a Huge one for very long ranges indeed.
JaronK

Yeah, just found the size rule tonight. I got it from Savage Species, though. Hope it has the same ruling. +25% increase/size category is freakin phenomenal.

Half Minotaur? Oooooh! I was thinking Goliath for Powerful Build, but I'll take a look at these guys when I get a chance! Do you know the source?

Now to find a way to get Giant Size cast on me without being a Wu Jen...

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Dragonbone Greatbow, 150 ft. increment. Dragonbone is in the Draconomicon, it causes the bow to be considered composite if it wasn't already and it increases the range increment by 20 ft.

Size doesn't matter. Be any race with an Outsider creature type, and get someone to Polymorph you into an Arrow Demon from MM3. That lets you wield two bows simultaneously without penalty, which can be up to one size larger than normal for you still without penalty, the second bow gets just as many attacks as the primary bow including Rapid Shot and Haste, you don't provoke for firing in melee.

[dgnslyr]

This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166182) may be of interest.

[JaronK]

Yeah, just found the size rule tonight. I got it from Savage Species, though. Hope it has the same ruling. +25% increase/size category is freakin phenomenal.

Sounds right.


Half Minotaur? Oooooh! I was thinking Goliath for Powerful Build, but I'll take a look at these guys when I get a chance! Do you know the source?

Dragon Magazine, but you could also just be Human with Permanent Enlarge Person or something. Note that Goliath doesn't stack with Strongarm Bracers, so that's not a very good choice.


Now to find a way to get Giant Size cast on me without being a Wu Jen...

Cleric. It's in Heroism Domain. Clerics make the best long range archers for very good reason. And Clerics can even cast Righteous Might for a size bump...

JaronK

[Chess435]

On a related note, swiftwing arrows from Races of the Wild halve range increment penalties.

[Tvtyrant]

Can you monkey grip bows?

[JaronK]

Can you monkey grip bows?

No, because Monkey Grip doesn't exist. Strongarm Bracers work perfectly well though and are REALLY cheap.

JaronK

[Tvtyrant]

No, because Monkey Grip doesn't exist. Strongarm Bracers work perfectly well though and are REALLY cheap.

JaronK

Next question; do the bracers stack with enlarging spells? Because Huge arrows would be amazing.

[arguskos]

No, because Monkey Grip doesn't exist. Strongarm Bracers work perfectly well though and are REALLY cheap.

JaronK
Harhar. Good advice though.

Actual answer: no. Monkey Grip specifies melee weapons. Also, sucks.

[Curmudgeon]

Yeah, just found the size rule tonight. I got it from Savage Species, though. Hope it has the same ruling. +25% increase/size category is freakin phenomenal.
Savage Species is also pre-3.5 material; that's a carry-over from the 3.0 Arms and Equipment Guide citation, which is based on the 3.0 weapon size categories. There aren't any 3.5 rules which give different ranges for different sizes of projectile weapons.

Savage Species confuses a lot of people, since it's ~3.25 rules. They've converted the skill names to 3.5 convention, but still use the "partial actions" concept from 3.0 rules where 3.5 drops that (except for a dangling reference in the Glossary reference to surprise rounds). Everything in the book needs to go through the 3.5 "minor adjustments" process stipulated on page 4 of the 3.5 DMG.
This is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition of the game. This revision is compatible with all existing products, and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.

[Daftendirekt]

If you're interested in getting the longest possible range, take a look at the Cragtop Archer in Races of Stone. Has a couple things that lengthen your range and take away increment penalties to hit.

[Acero]

If you like a sniper-y archer, Deepwood sniper could help. I believe you get a range bonus increase every level. Think Robin of Loxly :smallamused:

[big teej]

provided I haven't being ninja'd too hard.

I had a PC in my game who's projected build was going to include cragtop archer and deepwoods sniper

the character's goal was to be 'the best archer ever'

.... he died sunday. :smallfrown:


(the character, not the player)

[JaronK]

Next question; do the bracers stack with enlarging spells? Because Huge arrows would be amazing.

Yup. And note that the range increases due to size would count as "unupdated 3.0" options, which are legal in 3.5.

JaronK

[Curmudgeon]

Yup. And note that the range increases due to size would count as "unupdated 3.0" options, which are legal in 3.5.
They're not "legal in 3.5"; rather, 3.0 material can be used with minor adjustments. One such minor adjustment is to discard the weapon range rules based on 3.0 weapon sizes, since 3.5 discarded all the rest of the 3.0 weapon size stuff.

That's how you get to "legal in 3.5", as per the rules.

[JaronK]

They're not "legal in 3.5"; rather, 3.0 material can be used with minor adjustments. One such minor adjustment is to discard the weapon range rules based on 3.0 weapon sizes, since 3.5 discarded all the rest of the 3.0 weapon size stuff.

Source for this claim? 3.5 still uses weapon sizes, though they're done a bit differently... but not with respect to ranges. I've never seen anything that states you should discard the weapon range rules from 3.0, yet you seem to be stating here that was explicitly stated.

JaronK

[tuesdayscoming]

Source for this claim? 3.5 still uses weapon sizes, though they're done a bit differently... but not with respect to ranges. I've never seen anything that states you should discard the weapon range rules from 3.0, yet you seem to be stating here that was explicitly stated.

JaronK

I would really love to get a solid answer on this. It's definitely going to make a significant difference to the builds I'm working on for this project.

In other news, thanks for all the help, everyone!

[gomipile]

Source for this claim? 3.5 still uses weapon sizes, though they're done a bit differently... but not with respect to ranges. I've never seen anything that states you should discard the weapon range rules from 3.0, yet you seem to be stating here that was explicitly stated.

JaronK


I think he's referring to the statement in the very front of the PHB that says that all 3.0 material should be able to be used in 3.5 with minor adjustments.

[Curmudgeon]

3.5 still uses weapon sizes, though they're done a bit differently...
3.5 doesn't have weapon sizes at all; instead, it has size categories dictated by the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. 3.0 rules had weapons always of fixed sizes, and handled differently by different sized wielders. The range adjustment rules are specific to a weapon sizing system which no longer exists.

I've never seen anything that states you should discard the weapon range rules from 3.0, yet you seem to be stating here that was explicitly stated.
I didn't say that. I said that 3.0 material requires minor adjustments, either in an official WotC update or by each individual DM, before it can be used in a 3.5 game.

Tiny, Small, Medium-Size, and Large Weapons: The size of a weapon compared to your size determines whether for you the weapon is light, one-handed, two-handed, or too large to use.

Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category, such as Small, Medium, or Large. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.
The most minor way of handling rules based on a part of 3.0 D&D that no longer exists is to discard those dependent rules. An intrepid DM could try to cobble together something more complex, but that automatically takes such adjustments out of the "minor" category. But mashing together rules for 3.0 weapon sizes with 3.5 weapon categories defined by creature sizes isn't an "adjustment" so much as a failure to adjust to the 3.5 update of D&D.

[JaronK]

3.5 doesn't have weapon sizes at all; instead, it has size categories dictated by the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.

That's still weapon sizes, just differently done. A Small Dagger is not the same in 3.5 as a Medium Dagger. Clearly, weapon sizes exist. They're just defined by the creature they're made for now.


3.0 rules had weapons always of fixed sizes, and handled differently by different sized wielders. The range adjustment rules are specific to a weapon sizing system which no longer exists.

Actually, those range adjustments are designed to deal with the fact that weapons COULD be of different sizes.... which they are in 3.5 too.


I didn't say that. I said that 3.0 material requires minor adjustments, either in an official WotC update or by each individual DM, before it can be used in a 3.5 game.

That's not actually how it works. A 3.0 book with no 3.5 update is fully legal in 3.5, though it's recommended that the DM make adjustments as needed if new rules might supersede old ones (for example, the skill boost cost changes). Since there are no new range increment rules of this type in 3.5, there's no need to make such a change.


The most minor way of handling rules based on a part of 3.0 D&D that no longer exists is to discard those dependent rules.

But weapon sizes DO still exist. They've just changed a bit... but not in the area we're talking about.


An intrepid DM could try to cobble together something more complex, but that automatically takes such adjustments out of the "minor" category. But mashing together rules for 3.0 weapon sizes with 3.5 weapon categories defined by creature sizes isn't an "adjustment" so much as a failure to adjust to the 3.5 update of D&D.

It's not exactly difficult. A bow for a medium creature has no modification. A large bow, which is to say one designed for a large creature, has a +25% range bump. Weapon sizes still exist, they're just slightly altered... but since there is no new rule set up to change ranges based on size, the old rule still applies. I'm sorry, but there's simply no rule that actually fits what you're saying, and claiming weapon sizes don't exist simply because now they're defined by the creature first is ludicrous.

Otherwise you get such silliness as a sufficiently large creature who is taking range increment penalties long before you even get out of their natural reach. For example, a Cleric with the Heroism domain who casts Giant Size to become Colossal can use a dagger to hit an enemy with a melee attack from 30ft out... but if he throws the dagger, he's already taking a -4 for being two range increments away at the same target. He can't even hit someone 60' away with a thrown dagger... but he can still whack them with a spear.

JaronK

[Thurbane]

I have to agree with Curmudgeon on this - weapon sizes was a 3.0 concept that was dropped from 3.5. Fundamental changes to rules don't fall under the "if it wasn't converted, it's still kosher" argument IMHO.

Weapon Sizes were a core concept in the 3.0 rules, that was dropped from 3.5. It's not like a PrC or monster that didn't get updated, it's a fundamental rules change.

Having said that, if it works better for your game, there is no problem keeping the rule.

[Coidzor]

They're the only rules on the subject that exist and can be adapted with only minor adjustments.

[JaronK]

I have to agree with Curmudgeon on this - weapon sizes was a 3.0 concept that was dropped from 3.5. Fundamental changes to rules don't fall under the "if it wasn't converted, it's still kosher" argument IMHO.

Weapon Sizes were a core concept in the 3.0 rules, that was dropped from 3.5. It's not like a PrC or monster that didn't get updated, it's a fundamental rules change.

If weapon sizes were dropped from 3.5 as you say, then the phrase "small dagger" as opposed to "medium dagger" should be meaningless. Is it?

What about a "small Greatbow" vs a "huge Greatbow"? After all, there are no weapon sizes, right?

JaronK

[Thurbane]

If weapon sizes were dropped from 3.5 as you say, then the phrase "small dagger" as opposed to "medium dagger" should be meaningless. Is it?

What about a "small Greatbow" vs a "huge Greatbow"? After all, there are no weapon sizes, right?

JaronK
To be honest, I never played 3.0, but I do have a 3.0 PHB somewhere.

Yes, there are still weapons of appropriate size to the wielder. Small, Medium and Large weapons still exist. However, the "weapon equivalency" rules (i.e. small greataxe = medium battle axe) were dropped, and (again IMHO), so were the changes to range increment by weapon size.

I look at it this way: assume a group never played 3.0, and only played 3.5. They would have never heard of the concept of range being altered by weapon size as it is not mentioned anywhere in the 3.5 ruleset (this was the case with my group, until I read about it on a forum one time.) If they played at a 3.5 convention, I think there would be a reasonable expectation that the rule didn't exist...

Like I said, I don't have a problem with anyone using the rule in their group. Heck, I've played in groups that preferred the 3.0 cover rules, and still used them in 3.5 games. I just don't consider it 3.5 RAW - I think there is a reasonable expectation the the 3.5 PHB supersedes the 3.0 PHB, and that the "RAW legal unless it was updated" applies more specifically to the non-core 3.0 books which have material that was not directly reprinted in a 3.5 version. My 2 cents.

[Tacitus]

One simple solution. Notice the Fullblade is a Large Greatsword. Notice that a Greatbow is pretty much a Large Longbow (and Great Crossbow is essentially Large Heavy Crossbow, IIRC). All require a EWP feat because they're big. +20ft to range increment per size increment isn't +25%, but its still a boost nonetheless and should be more reasonable to most DMs. No boost whatsoever is silly, as a Tiny Longbow shouldn't shoot as far as a Colossal Longbow, assuming proportional users.

Then again, half of D&D doesn't make logical sense.