3D D&D (So that's 5 D's?)

[Doughnut Master]

I was wondering, is it useful, or even possible to consider the effects of a 3D environment in D&D? For instance, Archer in a 100 foot tower can shoot much further than Archer on the ground. If these two were fighting, the guy on the ground would have a very tough time of hitting the guy in the tower at all, simply due to the height difference. However, the current rules seem to put each of these combatants on an equal playing field.

Am I missing something?

[Emmerask]

Having real 3d environment play into combat is much to complicated to be fun in the end.
What you can (and in my opinion should) do however is give circumstance bonuses depending on battlefield terrain.

For one, the one in the tower gets partial concealment (by the rules) but you can give him also a +10 or so range increment while the other one outside gets a -10...

All in all make these up on the fly

[Cicciograna]

Having real 3d environment play into combat is much to complicated to be fun in the end.

Pretty much this. Once, in one of my games, two PCs decided to jump down a hill to flee from an enemy, and they asked me to calculate their equation of motion to see where they would fall on the hillside, to find the correct starting point from which to calculate the damage output of their fall.

Not really difficult, but all in all a real waste of time.

[Vladislav]

Well, the groundwork sort of already exists - when flying, vertical distance counts as double (so flying 10' straight up eats 20' of your movement).

I see no reason not to apply same for archery. Shooting up a 100' tower should add 200' to your range, for example.

[Treblain]

Doesn't Cragtop Archer take height into account for archery?

[Doughnut Master]

Well, the groundwork sort of already exists - when flying, vertical distance counts as double (so flying 10' straight up eats 20' of your movement).

I see no reason not to apply same for archery. Shooting up a 100' tower should add 200' to your range, for example.

I like this. Very elegant.

The reason I ask is that I expect air combat in an upcoming campaign and I'm looking for a streamlined way to do it.

[Zagaroth]

SO dropping hard and fast would be what speed/distance cost? Half?

[Doughnut Master]

Would make sense.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Well, the groundwork sort of already exists - when flying, vertical distance counts as double (so flying 10' straight up eats 20' of your movement).

I see no reason not to apply same for archery. Shooting up a 100' tower should add 200' to your range, for example.

This is because your working against gravity. Flying up 10 ft over 10 would cost 30 because you have to over come gravity. An archer shooting down is working with gravity. Having higher ground won't neccisaripy make him more accurate just have a longer range. So I'd say either increase the range incremet or the max range increments.

[Tyndmyr]

I was wondering, is it useful, or even possible to consider the effects of a 3D environment in D&D? For instance, Archer in a 100 foot tower can shoot much further than Archer on the ground. If these two were fighting, the guy on the ground would have a very tough time of hitting the guy in the tower at all, simply due to the height difference. However, the current rules seem to put each of these combatants on an equal playing field.

Am I missing something?

Cragtop Archer is pretty much made for this.