Spell ranges: Too long?

[Ernir]

Something was brought to my attention recently with respect to spell ranges in 3.5.

They are really long.

Maybe not really long on a modern day blow-up-stuff-with-cruise-missiles battlefield, but on a D&D battlemat, they blow the damn scale.
Comparing a spellcaster using the full extent of his range to someone with a 30' movement speed trying to whack said spellcaster with a pointy stick, we get the following situations:

Anything but a Touch range spell denies full counterattacks.
Before level 4, the spellcaster using Close range spells can be reached with a single move action. After that, however, a charge is required, and a single move action does nothing.
To cover Medium range in a single round, a melee character must spend the turn running.
To cover Long range, the melee character must spend multiple rounds running, which is suicide.
Of course, these are the worst case scenarios, where the spellcaster is raining death from the edge of his range. But I hope you get my point.

So I ask. Should spell ranges be generally shorter?

[PirateLizard]

Rule 0. Technically long range means what YOU say it does.

[Yuki Akuma]

Rule 0. Technically long range means what YOU say it does.

Saying "you can houserule it away" doesn't translate to "there's no problem".

[ericgrau]

Bows are even longer range, letting you snipe someone to death before they can even get close enough for a long range spell. Especially if they have a low enough AC to get around distance penalties. Walls and other cover help too. But since most games are in dungeons range is often irrelevant. How many builds do you see with enlarge spell? Even outdoors DMs tend to start encounters close-up, which is a strategic shame IMO. For bows, long range spells and for sneaking up closer in brush. So many fun options gone in favor of "just hit eachother until one group drops" and "Fool! How dare you wield a ranged weapon or use tricky non-fighty spells or use skills".

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Rule 0. Technically long range means what YOU say it does.That doesn't answer his question at all. Of course the OP can change the meaning of Long, Medium and Close ranges. That's probably what he's considering! He's just wondering if it's worth the effort.

I'd say that at higher levels, competent melees have other ways of achieving extra movement, and competent spellcasters have better defenses than "fire at the edge of close range." In my experience, the benefits of long range are only rarely felt, and even then often in a scenario with other long-range foes. The big problem is that Mister Fighter, or even Mister Warblade, has a hard time pulling out a bow and solving the problem that way. Buff mundane archery and you're set.

[ericgrau]

Well first start fights farther away with terrain so it's actually relevant, then buff or nerf what you will.

[MesiDoomstalker]

The only time I ever saw a spellcaster firing at Long Range was during a seige. The party were defending a fort/castel/city/whatever and the invading army was camped out far enough out that neither could hit each other with their artillery (DM ruled that artillery didn't have range increments, just a max range). Incidentally, from the edge of the outer wall to the camp was only ~100 ft. from the Sorcerer's max Long range. So he gulps down a Fly potion, flies out to about 200 ft. (after casting invisiblity) and starts blasting. By the time the enemy had recovered and had the catapaults and archers firing, he had burned all his 3rd level spots and was heading back behind the wall.

In the end, all he did was kill ~200 1st level warriors netting us (DM was very gracious) some XP. Apperently, that 'bonus' XP pushed us into the next level with the other XP gained that day.

[Jeraa]

A composite longbow can reach out to 1100 feet, 1650 feet with Far Shot, and 2200 feet with the distance property. (I'm not sure about a distance weapon with the Far Shot feat).

At 20th level, a Close ranges spell maxes out at 75 feet, a medium ranged spell at 300 feet, and a long ranged spell at 1200 feet. Extend spell can double those ranges.

So lets see, an archer with the Far Shot feat could (potentially) hit something 1,650 feet away. At first level. A spellcaster would have to be 11th level, have the Extend Spell feat, and use a long-range spell to be able to reach that same distance. Oh, and can only do it a limited number of times per day. Archers can carry more arrows then a spellcaster has spells.

Now yes, a spellcaster is a lot more accurate at his extreme ranges then an archer. But both can reach out almost the exact same distances. If Far Shot and Distance stack, an archer actually has a greater range then spellcasters. So the problem isn't that spells have too long a range. The problem would be that spellcasters are too accurate at those ranges. Its like his spells are laser-guided.

One possible solution is to give spells range increments. Divide the spells maximum range by 10, and that is the increment. You have to roll to hit the appropriate square with area spells (the AC would only be 5 though, so not that hard). If you miss your target with an area spell, use the rules for determining where a splash weapon that misses actually hits (page 158 PHB).

[unosarta]

Bows are even longer range, letting you snipe someone to death before they can even get close enough for a long range spell. Especially if they have a low enough AC to get around distance penalties. Walls and other cover help too. But since most games are in dungeons range is often irrelevant. How many builds do you see with enlarge spell? Even outdoors DMs tend to start encounters close-up, which is a strategic shame IMO. For bows, long range spells and for sneaking up closer in brush. So many fun options gone in favor of "just hit eachother until one group drops" and "Fool! How dare you wield a ranged weapon or use tricky non-fighty spells or use skills".

The largest range increment, barring feats, is that of the Heavy Crossbow/Heavy Repeating Crossbow. That is 120 feet. The shortest distance for a Long ranged spell is 440 feet. That means that, for a ranged character with a Heavy Crossbow, they would have to take a -6 penalty to the attack roll in order to hit the Caster, at first level if they wanted to be able to compete with the caster. As the caster levels up, this distance and penalty only increase. At 3rd level, when the Caster gets their first actual damage dealing spell at Long range (All of the "Image" line of illusion spells are long range; Acid Arrow is a long ranged second level spell, and in the Conjuration school which very, very few people drop). That means that their range is 400 + (40*3) or 520 feet. The archer, if they choose to get the Far Shot feat, has a ranged increment of 180 feet. Now they take a -4 penalty. However, after that feat, there are practically no other ways, barring weird splats and prestige classes for Archers who are really focused on ranged increment, to increase it. So, at 3rd level, with a character who has spent two feats to get good at archery, they still take a -4 penalty to the attack roll, whereas the Caster doesn't take a penalty at all.

Again, this problem only gets worse as they level up. At 5th level, the character gets Fireball, Sleetstorm, and more Illusion spells that now have a range of 600 feet, and all of his other long ranged spells are also 600 feet now. So, if that Heavy Crossbow toting archer wants to hit him, he takes a -6 penalty to the attack roll, and the Caster doesn't even need an attack roll for Fireball or Sleetstorm, nor for the Illusion spells.

At twentieth level, the Caster can fight from a range of 1200 feet. If the archer wants to hit him, he has to take a -12 penalty to the attack roll, something not many archers are going to be able to afford to do.

And the real problem isn't even with the archers, it's the fact that melee characters get even more shafted by these ranges. If an archer who is specifically working towards long distance fighting has a difficult time hitting the caster, how is the melee character who has no such specialization or ability going to deal with it?

And the problem isn't just mobility, because the caster also has spells that allow him to run away, in addition to only using his standard action for spells, allowing him to just run away normally.

And the Caster doesn't even really have to worry about not being able to find the target, because they already have spells that allow them to locate a target, and as long as there is no cover, the Caster is fine to hit them.

Cover is a good point, but fairly minor. If the caster shoots a fireball at a target square, and an opponent is hiding behind a wall, the fireball will still explode on the target square (although I am unsure of how the wall interacts with cover and such), and could still hit them without too much maneuvering.



A composite longbow can reach out to 1100 feet, 1650 feet with Far Shot, and 2200 feet with the distance property. (I'm not sure about a distance weapon with the Far Shot feat).
They would take a -18 penalty, and would never actually be able to hit an opponent unless that opponent's AC was 0.


At 20th level, a Close ranges spell maxes out at 75 feet, a medium ranged spell at 300 feet, and a long ranged spell at 1200 feet. Extend spell can double those ranges.
The Caster doesn't have to worry about range increment penalties, on the other hand.


So lets see, an archer with the Far Shot feat could (potentially) hit something 1,650 feet away. At first level. A spellcaster would have to be 11th level, have the Extend Spell feat, and use a long-range spell to be able to reach that same distance. Oh, and can only do it a limited number of times per day. Archers can carry more arrows then a spellcaster has spells.
They would never actually be able to hit something with a -18 penalty unless they were using magic and had some serious bonuses.

Since someone is going to ask about the -2 penalty per full range increment thingy;

Range Increment
Any attack at less than this distance is not penalized for range. However, each full range increment imposes a cumulative -2 penalty on the attack roll. A thrown weapon has a maximum range of five range increments. A projectile weapon can shoot out to ten range increments.

Found here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponQualities) Under Range Increment.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Saying "you can houserule it away" doesn't translate to "there's no problem".

Is this a specific fallacy? I see this come up so often that if it's not, we should put a snappy name on it so we can just cry "Stormwind!" or whatever.

But yes, spell ranges are too long. Although the borked Spot rules mean you can't use them at those ranges.

Anyway, it's really all about how you fluff it. I think the default D&D fluff can be extrapolated to be "It's all in your mind", so a caster just has to think about where he wants the spell to go. No reason it has to be like that, though. You could say that spellcasters literally have to "shoot" spells from their location, and add in targeting rules similar to the normal ranged rules. You could say it requires some extreme concentration to hit something at longer ranges precisely with a spell, and add in Concentration checks.

[unosarta]

I actually really like the idea of making Long, Medium, and Short function like ranged increments, where Short is 30 feet, Medium is 60 feet, and Long is 90 feet, and there is a cap at like, 10 ranged increments or something. That way your spells will never be able to go any farther than an archer who is really specializing, and it means that you can mess them up if they go too far. I am unsure how to implement the penalty to attack roll with spells that don't have attack rolls, though.

Any ideas?

[sreservoir]

Is this a specific fallacy? I see this come up so often that if it's not, we should put a snappy name on it so we can just cry "Stormwind!" or whatever.

But yes, spell ranges are too long. Although the borked Spot rules mean you can't use them at those ranges.

Anyway, it's really all about how you fluff it. I think the default D&D fluff can be extrapolated to be "It's all in your mind", so a caster just has to think about where he wants the spell to go. No reason it has to be like that, though. You could say that spellcasters literally have to "shoot" spells from their location, and add in targeting rules similar to the normal ranged rules. You could say it requires some extreme concentration to hit something at longer ranges precisely with a spell, and add in Concentration checks.

oberoni. and you're falling into the same trap there.

[Zaq]

Is this a specific fallacy? I see this come up so often that if it's not, we should put a snappy name on it so we can just cry "Stormwind!" or whatever.

But yes, spell ranges are too long. Although the borked Spot rules mean you can't use them at those ranges.

Anyway, it's really all about how you fluff it. I think the default D&D fluff can be extrapolated to be "It's all in your mind", so a caster just has to think about where he wants the spell to go. No reason it has to be like that, though. You could say that spellcasters literally have to "shoot" spells from their location, and add in targeting rules similar to the normal ranged rules. You could say it requires some extreme concentration to hit something at longer ranges precisely with a spell, and add in Concentration checks.

Oberoni Fallacy, I believe.

[Mr.Bookworm]

I actually really like the idea of making Long, Medium, and Short function like ranged increments, where Short is 30 feet, Medium is 60 feet, and Long is 90 feet, and there is a cap at like, 10 ranged increments or something. That way your spells will never be able to go any farther than an archer who is really specializing, and it means that you can mess them up if they go too far. I am unsure how to implement the penalty to attack roll with spells that don't have attack rolls, though.

Any ideas?

Do the Concentration check thing I mentioned? Maybe a base of 10 +3 DC for every range increment. So hitting something 900 ft. away would require you to hit a DC 40 Concentration check, which you aren't getting until higher levels.

The problem with this is, though, that this mostly impacts direct damage, which is already the crappiest of the spellcaster options. I don't know if it's actually necessary to implement something like this for damage or targeted spells when a Swift Hunter can pretty easily keep up with a Warmage.


oberoni. and you're falling into the same trap there.

How did I forget Oberoni?

But how am I falling into the same trap? I'm not excusing the design of the game. I'm saying that it's not good and offering suggestions on how to fix it. If I had said "it's perfectly fine because you can do x" then that would be Oberoni.

[Dalek-K]

Well take an archer versus a wizard (both optimized). Set them on opposite sides of the earth and see which one kills the other one first.

They both get a name and a perfect picture of what the other looks like.

All the wizard has to do is find out where the other guy is (scry)... Teleport when he is someone where the wizard is familiar with (yay range!) and then kill him in his sleep. He could even disguise himself as someone else and the ranger/fighter/rouge archer is boned.

I'm sure range isn't the worst thing about the wizard/sorcerer

Heck flight, invisibility, teleport, and polymorph are worse than range increments.

[ericgrau]

range penalty stuff
Casters and many other ranged things have low AC. Meanwhile the high AC melee are SOL.

If it's a common spell then far shot only costs a feat while enlarge spell costs a feat and raises the spell level. That also means, unless you have a spontaneous caster, it requires special preparation raising the spell level whether you end up needing the extra range or not. It's really expensive.

[unosarta]

Do the Concentration check thing I mentioned? Maybe a base of 10 +3 DC for every range increment. So hitting something 900 ft. away would require you to hit a DC 40 Concentration check, which you aren't getting until higher levels.
That works perfectly, actually, especially since you don't/can't auto-fail or auto-succeed on skill checks. Unfortunately, it kind of forces casters to put their skill points into Concentration, but then again, if they use their spells within the given range increment it isn't a problem at all and they don't have to use Concentration at all. I like it!


The problem with this is, though, that this mostly impacts direct damage, which is already the crappiest of the spellcaster options. I don't know if it's actually necessary to implement something like this for damage or targeted spells when a Swift Hunter can pretty easily keep up with a Warmage.
Actually, you would be surprised, but most of the Long distance spells are Conjuration or Illusion (Illusion actually has the most, by far). And a lot of the Conjuration ones are also utility spells. Indeed, most of the actual damaging spells that Evocation and damage dealers get are Medium, Short, or an actual fixed distance. It's kind of weird in that way.

[Jeraa]

I am unsure how to implement the penalty to attack roll with spells that don't have attack rolls, though.

Any ideas?

I mentioned one way in my other post. A specific square (or intersection) has an AC of 5 - it is medium sized, with a Dexterity of 0 (so a -5 modifier). And spell that that targets a specific square or intersection (like most area spells do) would now require a ranged attack against the squares AC of 5. This would cover (I think) all area spells.

Ry spells usually already require an attack roll. Spells that start at the caster (like cones) still would not require an attack roll. Other spells, I don't know. They would all have to be looked at to figure out what would work.

[ericgrau]

The staple fireball is long range. Most popular combat conjurations are close or medium range.

[unosarta]

Casters and many other ranged things have low AC. Meanwhile the high AC melee are SOL.

If it's a common spell then far shot only costs a feat while enlarge spell costs a feat and raises the spell level. That also means, unless you have a spontaneous caster, it requires special preparation raising the spell level whether you end up needing the extra range or not. It's really expensive.

Casters can easily boost AC via spells (in fact probably easier than most melee characters). Most of the Long ranged spells are in fact low level spells, and can fairly easily be boosted by Enlarge spell.

Two feats (Archery) is more expensive than one feat and some preparation (casting), I will be honest. The Archer is already kind of strapped for feats unless they are a Fighter, and especially if they have access to splatbooks.


The staple fireball is long range. Most popular combat conjurations are close or medium range.

Sleetstorm, Acid Arrow, Dimension Door vs. Fireball, Chain Lightning, Freezing Sphere, Sunburst and Meteor Swarm (not counting Delayed Blast Fireball because it is basically just a Metamagic feat applied to a spell, which is the most hilariously stupid thing I have ever heard of).
Evocation has exactly two spells more than Conjuration does, in terms of Long range. Those spells are considered hilariously weak for their level, generally (I am looking at your Meteor Swarm).

By comparison, Illusion has 10 Long range spells.

The point remains, however, that Long range is pretty damn long.

[ericgrau]

conjuration: acid arrow, ice storm, sleet storm
evocation: fireball, chain lightning, delayed blast fireball, meteor swarm

Most illusions are long range. Transmutation has telekinesis and pyrotechnics.

Sleet storm is awesome, but not very popular here for some odd reason. The rest suck for long range conjuration. What a wizard can do is different from what he usually does do. Much of the reason for this is sanity, as making yourself suck the other 95% of the time is not the answer. Every archer already has point blank shot.

The real answer is to have a little variety in your spells, yet while picking those that are still good generally. There are several more evocations and transmutations I didn't list because they're ultra lousy most of the time. The bad conjurations are only there for illustration purposes; otherwise I would have only listed sleet storm. But basically you make sure to have 1 or 2 of any of the above spells on your list, doesn't matter from which school. Whatever rounds out your variety. Need more control? Make it sleet storm. Don't have a damage spell yet? Try fireball. You know ahead of time you're facing an army? Try pyrotechnics.

[unosarta]

conjuration: acid arrow, ice storm, sleet storm
evocation: fireball, chain lightning, delayed blast fireball, meteor swarm

Most illusions are long range. Transmutation has telekinesis and pyrotechnics.

Sleet storm is awesome, but not very popular here for some odd reason. The rest suck for long range conjuration. What a wizard can do is different from what he usually does do. Much of the reason for this is sanity, as making yourself suck the other 95% of the time is not the answer. The real answer is to have a little variety in your spells, yet while picking those that are still good generally. There are several more evocations and transmutations I didn't list because they're ultra lousy most of the time. The bad conjurations are only there for illustration purposes; otherwise I would have only listed sleet storm. But basically you make sure to have 1 or 2 of any of the above spells on your list, doesn't matter from which school. Whatever rounds out your variety. Need more control? Make it sleet storm. Don't have a damage spell yet? Try fireball. You know ahead of time you're facing an army? Try pyrotechnics.

You forgot Dimension Door, which isn't considered a truly bad spell unless you use it at the beginning of your turn, in which case you deserve the downside, but I digress.

You aren't really refuting my point here. Long range is long, and most casters have some long ranged spells. Okay. So.

Melee are still screwed by distance, Archers are still screwed by distance, everyone but casters are still screwed by distance.

Medium range, which is as I understand it, the most common range, is still far enough that unless the melee character spends their entire round running, they won't be able to get to the caster. Short range spells are long enough that the melee character cannot ever get more than one attack off in a round unless they have pounce or travel devotion or something of that sort. I don't have a problem with Short range, but Medium and Long are still too long in my opinion, if only because they force the opposition to use ranged weaponry, while if the caster faces archers or melee characters, they need not change their fighting style at all. That seems questionable, if outright wrong.

[ericgrau]

Archers have a longer range and are still effective at that range, even after penalties. Many have the stealth skills to use it too, or else they use the handy bonus of up to +110. Caster range doesn't catch up until level 20.

Meteor swarm & co. might not be an all star but it's miles ahead of twinned maximized acid arrow. I focused mainly on spells that are at least practical in long range fights, where often getting close in a visible fashion carries problems of its own. Most optimized spell lists don't even contain a single such long range conjuration. They do tend to contain fireball and illusions and that's usually about as far as it goes. Illusions are great for setting up concealing walls btw.

[unosarta]

Archers have a longer range and are still effective at that range, even after penalties. Many have the stealth skills to use it too, or else they use the handy bonus of up to +110. Caster range doesn't catch up until level 20.

They clearly don't have a longer range. I just pointed this out higher up in the thread. They have a comparable range, but when Long range spells enter the game, they take a penalty just to keep up with the Caster. As the caster levels up, the range they can fight at increases as well, while it doesn't increase at all for Archers. There fore, they are clearly not as effective as they would be. I would argue that they are not effective at all past a certain range.

You have not mentioned melee characters at all, interestingly enough.


Meteor swarm & co. might not be an all star but it's miles ahead of twinned maximized acid arrow. I focused mainly on spells that are at least practical in long range fights, where often getting close in a visible fashion carries problems of its own. Most optimized spell lists don't even contain a single such long range conjuration. They do tend to contain fireball and illusions and that's usually about as far as it goes. Illusions are great for setting up concealing walls btw.

Okay, at Long range, it doesn't matter if it is practical or not, the opposition has no clean way to get to you in order to damage you, there fore any amount of damage is realistically enough to allow you to defeat something.

And why, exactly wouldn't optimized spell lists include them? Evocation is quite easily dropped in favor of much better Schools (for Wizards), and a Sorcerer has no reason to waste high level spells known on damaging spells, which is where most of the good/not a complete waste of time spells are.

This still doesn't matter given the topic of the thread, though, and I am unsure why we are still discussing it.

[Jack_Simth]

So I ask. Should spell ranges be generally shorter?It doesn't matter much. It'll almost never come up. The encounter distance rolls (in the DMG - they're part of each environmental section; look for "Stealth and Detection in" - it's the last section for each terrain type). The farthest possible? Plains Terrain: You don't even get a spot check to note the other team until 6d6x40 feet (max 1440 feet) - and that's the farthest possible open-terrain starting distance. Most terrains on average rolls? You're generally going to be within Charging range. And, of course, the sharply-limited sight lines in dungeons make it particularly difficult to use those long-ranged attacks. Oh yes, and the spot penalites for distance (-1 per 10 feet) mean that the Wizard is effectively blind (can't see something of base DC 0 on a nat-20) past 210 feet (+/- a little based on the Wizard's Wisdom score).

[ericgrau]

I have seen some rather interesting fights set up at range, but even those tend to be about 100 feet. That's already 20 inches of battle mat so ya more tends to be rare.



You have not mentioned melee characters at all, interestingly enough.
In the aforementioned fights the melee tend to take out a bow or sling or such. It's still does something, better than acid arrow at least. It tends to be a low-mid level issue (if long range comes up at all) so the backup weapons aren't much worse than the main.



And why, exactly wouldn't optimized spell lists include them?
I said don't not wouldn't. Look through old threads. Those that dump evocation are stuck with illusions then, b/c usually they don't prepare a single other long range spell. Many lists don't even have a single long range combat spell period.



Okay, at Long range, it doesn't matter if it is practical or not, the opposition has no clean way to get to you in order to damage you, there fore any amount of damage is realistically enough to allow you to defeat something.
Not if all your spells together can't even drop a single foe and then you run out. I mean, seriously, acid arrow? Potions of cure light wounds can keep up.

[unosarta]

It doesn't matter much. It'll almost never come up. The encounter distance rolls (in the DMG - they're part of each environmental section; look for "Stealth and Detection in" - it's the last section for each terrain type). The farthest possible? Plains Terrain: You don't even get a spot check to note the other team until 6d6x40 feet (max 1440 feet) - and that's the farthest possible open-terrain starting distance. Most terrains on average rolls? You're generally going to be within Charging range. And, of course, the sharply-limited sight lines in dungeons make it particularly difficult to use those long-ranged attacks. Oh yes, and the spot penalites for distance (-1 per 10 feet) mean that the Wizard is effectively blind (can't see something of base DC 0 on a nat-20) past 210 feet (+/- a little based on the Wizard's Wisdom score).

Well, if it won't come up much, then why should the spells have an increased distance at all? Also, the spellcaster can easily teleport to the farthest distance possible and then fire off their spells, regardless of the distance of opponents. Yeah, it's not going to be the most efficient use of spell slots, but it's always possible, and means that opponents are going to be basically unable to deal with the casters.

The dungeon sight lines point is entirely valid, if your group adventures only in dungeons. And it still adds up to the fact that longer and longer ranges are just pointless, if no one is going to be able to use them in a common environment anyway.

Divination spells can solve some of the distance problems that the Caster will encounter, and of course Archers do not gain those options at all. Of course, again, it is not the most efficient use of spell slots, but it is possible (at fifth level and on, actually, with Clairvoyance).

If the Caster has almost no situation where he can or should be able to utilize incredibly long ranges, why does he even have them then, especially if they set up situations where blatant shenanigans are possible?


In the aforementioned fights the melee tend to take out a bow or sling or such. It's still does something, better than acid arrow at least. It tends to be a low-mid level issue (if long range comes up at all) so the backup weapons aren't much worse than the main.
A melee character who has no specialization in Ranged weapons is going to fare even worse than an Archer; they won't have access to both Point Blank Shot and Far Shot, especially not if they are at low levels as you have indicated, and that means that the Caster can almost always beat their range making them just about--no, wait, literally useless.


I said don't not wouldn't. Look through old threads. Those that dump evocation are stuck with illusions then, b/c usually they don't prepare a single other long range spell. Many lists don't even have a single long range spell period.
So you are saying that "spell lists in old threads" are literally the only source for optimized spell lists? Really? That is kind of a generalization, when you think about it...

[ericgrau]

For the purpose of discussion, especially surrounding what actually tends to happen. If you want to say you know better than all other posters here, by all means try it.

[Jack_Simth]

Well, if it won't come up much, then why should the spells have an increased distance at all?
Like most things that ended up in D&D: Because it shows up in fiction.

No, seriously: That's the reason. The authors wanted to put stuff they found in books / comics / movies into the game.

Also, the spellcaster can easily teleport to the farthest distance possible and then fire off their spells, regardless of the distance of opponents. Yeah, it's not going to be the most efficient use of spell slots, but it's always possible, and means that opponents are going to be basically unable to deal with the casters.

Oh, the caster can arrange for such distances, but really, this is part of why everyone needs to carry a backup ranged weapon. Caster teleports to Long range and starts blasting at you? Take advantage of the -40 or more the caster just put on his Spot check, break line-of-sight for a moment, then hide and begin sniping. One of the following will happen:
1) He'll close to the point where he can see you again, in which case, he's nearby enough to attack normally.
2) He'll retreat in some manner - he'll begin hiding himself, he'll teleport away, whatever.
3) He'll burn even more spell slots attempting to locate you... and do note that most spells just show you the subject or give you a direction, they don't actually tell you things you need to know to target them (unless you're *very* familiar with the terrain). You don't get the distance + direction that you'll need to target with area spells, and targeted spells require you to be able to see the target.
4) He'll bleed HP for not taking one of the routes above, and slowly perish.



The dungeon sight lines point is entirely valid, if your group adventures only in dungeons. And it still adds up to the fact that longer and longer ranges are just pointless, if no one is going to be able to use them in a common environment anyway.

Oh, you can arrange to use them - Arcane Eye on a particular spot, you know where the spot is, so you can target that with your Fireballs; hit the courtyard where you know that the army will be amassing, and so on - but when someone does a very large setup like that... well... take a look at what Arrow Slits can get you, which a mundane can do.


Divination spells can solve some of the distance problems that the Caster will encounter, and of course Archers do not gain those options at all. Of course, again, it is not the most efficient use of spell slots, but it is possible (at fifth level and on, actually, with Clairvoyance).

Watch out for the casting times. It takes a rather lot of prep work to set that kind of thing up. And when someone gets enough advance intel to set that up, and the time to set that kind of thing up... without the opponents getting similar stuff... then the DM is pretty much letting it happen and pretty much collaborating with the players on the NPC slaughter to give Mr. Caster time to shine.


If the Caster has almost no situation where he can or should be able to utilize incredibly long ranges, why does he even have them then, especially if they set up situations where blatant shenanigans are possible?
Because they show up in fiction.

Edit: Oh yes, and people who specialize really do need to be able to think of backup plans for when someone negates their primary schtick in some manner - do note that this includes casters.

[unosarta]

For the purpose of discussion, especially surrounding what actually tends to happen. If you want to say you know better than all other posters here, by all means try it.
That is not what I am saying at all. However, you are talking about two separate things here. What actually tends to happen, and what "all" of the other posters on GitP know. First of all, it is literally impossible to know what "actually tends to happen" unless one knows literally every single spell list that every single player uses, and a fairly huge majority of those do not include the longer ranged Conjuration spells. Secondly, I can guarantee you that not every poster agrees with each other, or else there wouldn't really be any threads on these boards besides the rules clarifications ones. Truly, even those who have a lot of experience in higher Op don't always agree, and saying that they do would imply that one knows every post that they have posted, and their personal philosophy about D&D spell optimization.

Anywhoo; This discussion doesn't really matter to the OP, so I am going to drop it now. Suffice to say that we both have opposing opinions, and I heartily respect your experience and opinion, but do not necessarily agree. I hope you have a nice day. :smallsmile:


Like most things that ended up in D&D: Because it shows up in fiction.

No, seriously: That's the reason. The authors wanted to put stuff they found in books / comics / movies into the game.
This is probably going to sound kind of rude, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it; I don't think the OP cares, to be honest. I was asking about a mechanical reason for why it would make sense, because that is what the OP is caring about, one would assume. So, I don't think he would really care about what the writers want. I mean, I can totally see that that is why the writers of 3.5 included the long ranges, but that doesn't necessarily matter. Sorry if that sounded harsh, it wasn't intentional.


Oh, the caster can arrange for such distances, but really, this is part of why everyone needs to carry a backup ranged weapon. Caster teleports to Long range and starts blasting at you? Take advantage of the -40 or more the caster just put on his Spot check, break line-of-sight for a moment, then hide and begin sniping. One of the following will happen:
1) He'll close to the point where he can see you again, in which case, he's nearby enough to attack normally.
2) He'll retreat in some manner - he'll begin hiding himself, he'll teleport away, whatever.
3) He'll burn even more spell slots attempting to locate you... and do note that most spells just show you the subject or give you a direction, they don't actually tell you things you need to know to target them (unless you're *very* familiar with the terrain). You don't get the distance + direction that you'll need to target with area spells, and targeted spells require you to be able to see the target.
4) He'll bleed HP for not taking one of the routes above, and slowly perish.
This is an interesting point. Unfortunately, you can't really start "sniping" unless you can also see the caster, at which point you are on even ground unless you have higher spot ranks in which case I suppose you might be able to see them first? If that is the case, you would still probably take penalties from extended range increments, unless you are using a weapon that is specialized for distance. Also something to think about; not every character has Hide ranks, and they probably aren't going to be that good with Hide, especially if they are a melee character. Admittedly, neither Sorcerer nor Wizard gain Spot as a class skill, but it is something to think about.
1) If he is nearby enough for the character to attack him, that means that he is almost certainly within range of being able to attack that character right back, which presents a problem. Indeed, the caster doesn't even take a penalty to the attacks that a ranged character might, especially if that character is only using a ranged weapon because the opponent is at range, and is normally a melee character.
2) Fair point, the non-casting character has at that point essentially "won" the encounter anyway, if they are a player character.
3) Another fine point, although I think Clairvoyance still works in a way that essentially allows the character to locate a target, although the casting time is a problem.
4) Another fair point.

How do you think reducing the range of spells interact with this scenario?


Oh, you can arrange to use them - Arcane Eye on a particular spot, you know where the spot is, so you can target that with your Fireballs; hit the courtyard where you know that the army will be amassing, and so on - but when someone does a very large setup like that... well... take a look at what Arrow Slits can get you, which a mundane can do.
A valid point, but then you can consider the Caster gaining cover from those arrow slits as well, and arrow slits implies that the Caster is in a sort of enclosed area where they cannot move, or else arrow slits are really kind of useless or too expensive to realistically maintain (unless one drops all pretenses of realism to fight the wizard, I suppose). If the Caster is in an enclosed space, they won't be able to utilize the incredibly far distance of their spells anyway, so it doesn't really matter in that sense.


Watch out for the casting times. It takes a rather lot of prep work to set that kind of thing up. And when someone gets enough advance intel to set that up, and the time to set that kind of thing up... without the opponents getting similar stuff... then the DM is pretty much letting it happen and pretty much collaborating with the players on the NPC slaughter to give Mr. Caster time to shine.
This is a quite valid point, and something I honestly hadn't thought of. You would think that some of the Divination spells would have combat level casting times, but most if not all of them are 10 minutes or more, barring high level spells like Greater Scrying.


Oh yes, and people who specialize really do need to be able to think of backup plans for when someone negates their primary schtick in some manner - do note that this includes casters.
Casters do not have to spend as many resources to gain a backup plan; their schtick is basically casting spells, which are so varied that they rarely have to worry about someone immediately ruining all of their schtick. Those characters who can ruin their schtick are usually built for doing just that, and against those people, casters can't really do anything at all, which is a rather stupid paradigm, when you think about it.

[ranagrande]

A Cragtop Archer 4 using a Distance Composite Greatbow can shoot 4875 feet with no penalty for range.

[Jack_Simth]

This is probably going to sound kind of rude, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it; I don't think the OP cares, to be honest. I was asking about a mechanical reason for why it would make sense, because that is what the OP is caring about, one would assume. So, I don't think he would really care about what the writers want. I mean, I can totally see that that is why the writers of 3.5 included the long ranges, but that doesn't necessarily matter. Sorry if that sounded harsh, it wasn't intentional.
And yet, "because it shows up in fiction" is fundamentally the reason for it. The reason isn't what you like? I can't help you there. Do bear in mind, though, that if you're running the gaming table, you can fix it with house-rules.


This is an interesting point. Unfortunately, you can't really start "sniping" unless you can also see the caster, at which point you are on even ground unless you have higher spot ranks in which case I suppose you might be able to see them first? If that is the case, you would still probably take penalties from extended range increments, unless you are using a weapon that is specialized for distance. Also something to think about; not every character has Hide ranks, and they probably aren't going to be that good with Hide, especially if they are a melee character. Admittedly, neither Sorcerer nor Wizard gain Spot as a class skill, but it is something to think about. Hence including the caster hiding as one of the things that the caster needs to respond with. Of course, if the caster is busy hiding, he's not taking down the noncaster right then, now is he?

Ranks aren't necessary, though. Hide (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/hide.htm) is usable untrained. If you're a Fighter in Full Plate (-5 ACP to the hide check [-6, but Full Plate is always made as Masterwork]) with a Dexterity of 12 (+1 to the hide check), Sniping (-20 to the hide check) from 400 feet away (-40 to the spot check), and you roll a 1 on your Hide check (Spot DC: -23 to see you), then the Wizard with no ranks in Spot and a Wisdom score of 10 needs to roll a 17 to see you. If you roll a 5 or higher, he doesn't have any chance at all - he can no longer target you effectively as things stand. He still has to do at least one of the things I listed. And this is very nearly the worst-case scenario for the noncaster.


1) If he is nearby enough for the character to attack him, that means that he is almost certainly within range of being able to attack that character right back, which presents a problem. Indeed, the caster doesn't even take a penalty to the attacks that a ranged character might, especially if that character is only using a ranged weapon because the opponent is at range, and is normally a melee character.
I'm not contesting this. But if the range is the primary beef here, then forcing the Wizard to close negates the advantage under discussion.


2) Fair point, the non-casting character has at that point essentially "won" the encounter anyway, if they are a player character. Correct.


3) Another fine point, although I think Clairvoyance still works in a way that essentially allows the character to locate a target, although the casting time is a problem. Sure. After the caster is done with the ten minute casting time (100 rounds of the caster not shooting back...), the non-caster simply moves (or has been taking five-foot steps in hiding all along). And the *immobile* sensor can't follow.

Oh yes, and Clairvoyance still requires you to pick the correct area to begin with.


4) Another fair point.

How do you think reducing the range of spells interact with this scenario?
They don't. The scenario painted is to point out that a clever noncaster can force the caster



A valid point, but then you can consider the Caster gaining cover from those arrow slits as well, and arrow slits implies that the Caster is in a sort of enclosed area where they cannot move, or else arrow slits are really kind of useless or too expensive to realistically maintain (unless one drops all pretenses of realism to fight the wizard, I suppose). If the Caster is in an enclosed space, they won't be able to utilize the incredibly far distance of their spells anyway, so it doesn't really matter in that sense.
A proper arrow slit blocks Line-of-effect (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#lineofEffect). A two-inch wide gap is fine for shooting an arrow through, but it doesn't give you the full square foot of gap in a five-foot square needed to cast anything at the archer behind it.

Or in other words, wizards *can't* make use of arrow slits (well, there are two Core exceptions to that, but those are rather low-value spells, and in general, this holds true).



This is a quite valid point, and something I honestly hadn't thought of. You would think that some of the Divination spells would have combat level casting times, but most if not all of them are 10 minutes or more, barring high level spells like Greater Scrying.
There are ways (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#spellStoringMinor) around (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/miracle.htm) that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/limitedWish.htm), but they're expensive, higher level, and/or require that you planned to use them that way well in advance, and so don't see much play.



Casters do not have to spend as many resources to gain a backup plan; their schtick is basically casting spells, which are so varied that they rarely have to worry about someone immediately ruining all of their schtick. Those characters who can ruin their schtick are usually built for doing just that, and against those people, casters can't really do anything at all, which is a rather stupid paradigm, when you think about it.
Yeah. Someone what *requires* a very specific counter is a problem in game design. However, most players don't do Batman Wizards.

But the complaint in the OP was that long-range spells neuter noncasters pretty effectively... when they just require slightly more thought on the part of the noncaster.

[Jeraa]

A proper arrow slit blocks Line-of-effect. A two-inch wide gap is fine for shooting an arrow through, but it doesn't give you the full square foot of gap in a five-foot square needed to cast anything at the archer behind it.

Or in other words, wizards *can't* make use of arrow slits (well, there are two Core exceptions to that, but those are rather low-value spells, and in general, this holds true).

That is debatable at best. "1 square foot" does not necessarily mean a 12 inch by 12 inch hole. A 3 inch by 48 inch hole also covers a square foot of space.

There is a difference between "1 square foot" and a "1 foot square".

[unosarta]

And yet, "because it shows up in fiction" is fundamentally the reason for it. The reason isn't what you like? I can't help you there. Do bear in mind, though, that if you're running the gaming table, you can fix it with house-rules.
Yeah, but it isn't a mechanical reason. If there isn't a mechanical reason, then you might as well just say there isn't one, instead of saying that because it shows in fiction as if that is a mechanical reason. *shrug*


Hence including the caster hiding as one of the things that the caster needs to respond with. Of course, if the caster is busy hiding, he's not taking down the noncaster right then, now is he?
A fine point. However, if the non-caster wants to fight/shoot the caster, he/she has to snipe, which is a -20 to the hide check, while the Caster has no such need; the skill description has no mention of casting while hiding, although one would presumably break hiding when they cast a spell with a visible component (one would assume that there were rules text on that specific interaction, but I am at a loss as to its location). Thus, the caster and the non-caster are on almost equal grounds, in terms of hiding, even if the non-caster has spot ranks and such.


Ranks aren't necessary, though. Hide (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/hide.htm) is usable untrained. If you're a Fighter in Full Plate (-5 ACP to the hide check [-6, but Full Plate is always made as Masterwork]) with a Dexterity of 12 (+1 to the hide check), Sniping (-20 to the hide check) from 400 feet away (-40 to the spot check), and you roll a 1 on your Hide check (Spot DC: -23 to see you), then the Wizard with no ranks in Spot and a Wisdom score of 10 needs to roll a 17 to see you. If you roll a 5 or higher, he doesn't have any chance at all - he can no longer target you effectively as things stand. He still has to do at least one of the things I listed. And this is very nearly the worst-case scenario for the noncaster.
Fine and good points.


A proper arrow slit blocks Line-of-effect (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#lineofEffect). A two-inch wide gap is fine for shooting an arrow through, but it doesn't give you the full square foot of gap in a five-foot square needed to cast anything at the archer behind it.

Or in other words, wizards *can't* make use of arrow slits (well, there are two Core exceptions to that, but those are rather low-value spells, and in general, this holds true).
Not what I meant; the Arrow Slits can't move, which means that the Wizard can easily gain cover from them by moving behind something, leading them to an impasse, unless they are in an enclosed location, like a hall, where the Wizard wouldn't be using their Long ranged spells anyway.


Yeah. Someone what *requires* a very specific counter is a problem in game design. However, most players don't do Batman Wizards.
True. However, that doesn't mean that the rules can't/shouldn't be changed to fit (which is what I assume Ernir is doing).


But the complaint in the OP was that long-range spells neuter noncasters pretty effectively... when they just require slightly more thought on the part of the noncaster.
They seem to have the capability to neuter melee pretty well. Ranged characters become on even even time.

[Jack_Simth]

That is debatable at best. "1 square foot" does not necessarily mean a 12 inch by 12 inch hole. A 3 inch by 48 inch hole also covers a square foot of space.
True. However, a 2-inch by X-inch vertical gap doesn't put that 144 square inches of gap into the square that's five-feet per side that RAW requires to pass Line-of-effect (five feet is sixty inches; two inches wide = 120 square inches; one square foot is 144 square inches). So while yes, the Wizard can get Cover from the archer via construction, netting +4 to his AC... the archer can deny the wizard use of 99% of his directly-offensive spells via construction (the wizard has to destroy or bypass the obstruction, first, or use Fireballs and effects that inherit from fireball [as Fireball has a possible "out" for line-of-effect]).

[Jeraa]

True. However, a 2-inch by X-inch vertical gap doesn't put that 144 square inches of gap into the square that's five-feet per side that RAW requires to pass Line-of-effect (five feet is sixty inches; two inches wide = 120 square inches; one square foot is 144 square inches). So while yes, the Wizard can get Cover from the archer via construction, netting +4 to his AC... the archer can deny the wizard use of 99% of his directly-offensive spells via construction (the wizard has to destroy or bypass the obstruction, first, or use Fireballs and effects that inherit from fireball [as Fireball has a possible "out" for line-of-effect]).

I said a 3 inch wide, 48 inch tall hole. That fits just fine in a 5' section of wall. Which works just fine, as the only historical information I could find in a short amount of time was that arrow slits were "palm-wide, and as tall as a man", though I did find information about smaller ones that required you to kneel to use, none gave a dimension. The rules don't give dimensions for arrow slits. They just say a hole of 1 square foot or more doesn't block line of effect. So like I said, arrowslits blocking line of effect is debatable at best.

[Jack_Simth]

I said a 3 inch wide, 48 inch tall hole. That fits just fine in a 5' section of wall. Which works just fine, as the only historical information I could find in a short amount of time was that arrow slits were "palm-wide, and as tall as a man", though I did find information about smaller ones that required you to kneel to use, none gave a dimension. The rules don't give dimensions for arrow slits. They just say a hole of 1 square foot or more doesn't block line of effect. So like I said, arrowslits blocking line of effect is debatable at best.
Sorry, I've been assuming that in a universe where a 2-inch wide arrow slit means that the 1st level Wizard on the other side of the wall can't turn your archers into his best buddies, while a 3-inch wide arrow slit doesn't mean that, then a properly built arrow slit will be 2 inches wide or less (or sufficiently short that you don't get that 144 square inches).


Yeah, but it isn't a mechanical reason. If there isn't a mechanical reason, then you might as well just say there isn't one, instead of saying that because it shows in fiction as if that is a mechanical reason. *shrug*
We have a conflict of fundamental tokens, here. From my perspective, the purpose of the game is "fun". When asked the reason for something in the game, I pointed out where it came from - which is 'fun' based. You're looking for something with a different base. I can't help you there.



A fine point. However, if the non-caster wants to fight/shoot the caster, he/she has to snipe, which is a -20 to the hide check, while the Caster has no such need; the skill description has no mention of casting while hiding, although one would presumably break hiding when they cast a spell with a visible component (one would assume that there were rules text on that specific interaction, but I am at a loss as to its location). Thus, the caster and the non-caster are on almost equal grounds, in terms of hiding, even if the non-caster has spot ranks and such.
Yes... but the caster isn't exactly slaughtering the noncaster at this point - and while the caster might be relatively safe in hiding... he's not doing anything of note, so he's not slaughtering the noncaster thanks primarily to distance - which is all I'm arguing. Is it possible for a caster to slaughter a noncaster? Totally. Range isn't a be-all end-all solution for it, though.


Not what I meant; the Arrow Slits can't move, which means that the Wizard can easily gain cover from them by moving behind something, leading them to an impasse, unless they are in an enclosed location, like a hall, where the Wizard wouldn't be using their Long ranged spells anyway.
At which point, the Wizard still isn't automatically slaughtering the noncaster thanks to range. Which, again, is all I'm really arguing here (although tangents can be fun).



True. However, that doesn't mean that the rules can't/shouldn't be changed to fit (which is what I assume Ernir is doing).
If you have to make a specific 'stop' to every possible exploit, then either the amount of paper needed is going to make it rather difficult to make a profit on the books, or the game is going to be simple enough that it doesn't much matter anyway. In a sufficiently complex game, it's better to simply play for the fun, in which case, a simple chat with the player who's abusing loopholes is the preferable solution.

They seem to have the capability to neuter melee pretty well. Ranged characters become on even even time.
Hence why I mentioned that everyone needs a backup plan. All melee characters should pack a sling and some rocks. They don't even cost anything.

[unosarta]

We have a conflict of fundamental tokens, here. From my perspective, the purpose of the game is "fun". When asked the reason for something in the game, I pointed out where it came from - which is 'fun' based. You're looking for something with a different base. I can't help you there.
I don't think that has anything to do with it. Casters can be cinematic and not attack things from 400+ feet away. In fact, given the conversation we are having right now, 400+ feet away is patently ridiculous, since the caster cannot see that far away anyway.

Part of fun is being able to contribute, and if you are being eclipsed by Wizards, you are probably not going to have as much fun. Therefore, they kind of tie in. However, the OP was not asking about fun. He was asking about mechanics. Therefore, my question probably should have been considered on the basis of mechanics, since I honestly wasn't going to be asking it about fun in a thread about mechanics unless our conversations had lead to that point, and they hadn't. So, I don't know why you would have used "fun" as a reason for it in any case.


Yes... but the caster isn't exactly slaughtering the noncaster at this point - and while the caster might be relatively safe in hiding... he's not doing anything of note, so he's not slaughtering the noncaster thanks primarily to distance - which is all I'm arguing. Is it possible for a caster to slaughter a noncaster? Totally. Range isn't a be-all end-all solution for it, though.
Range can be a factor, however. And the Caster can move while hiding without too much penalty until he comes into range of the non-caster. The Caster is far more likely to survive one round's worth of crappy attacks from the non-Caster than the non-Caster is to survive one round of spells from the Caster.


At which point, the Wizard still isn't automatically slaughtering the noncaster thanks to range. Which, again, is all I'm really arguing here (although tangents can be fun).
The non-Caster has to build up a hell of a lot of preparations for that, though, since they need to have Arrow Slits in place for the Caster.


If you have to make a specific 'stop' to every possible exploit, then either the amount of paper needed is going to make it rather difficult to make a profit on the books, or the game is going to be simple enough that it doesn't much matter anyway. In a sufficiently complex game, it's better to simply play for the fun, in which case, a simple chat with the player who's abusing loopholes is the preferable solution.
It's not a stop to every possible exploit; I didn't think I was going to have to do this, but the OP is currently working on a separate system for Magic, a power point like system. He has the ability to include these fixes into his system without much effort at all. He started the thread because I was asking him if he thought it was something that would be mechanically significant, or something that should be changed; therefore, ease is not an argument you can really use in the context of this conversation.


Hence why I mentioned that everyone needs a backup plan. All melee characters should pack a sling and some rocks. They don't even cost anything.
And how much damage is that melee character going to do with a sling? How often can they hit, with their Dexterity (quite like a bad score for many characters) being pretty low? In addition, a sling has a pretty crappy Ranged Increment; only 50 feet. I'll be honest, that doesn't seem like a very good solution to the problem of Caster range.

[Coidzor]

No, not really. Mostly because of the way Spot checks work by RAW.

Spell ranges are hardly a factor in caster superiority. They mostly pertain to weather control and blasting, with only a very few battlefield control spells being relevant beyond standard engagement ranges. Blasting, of course, sucks unless one builds the character to excel at it.

So, yeah, both a spellslinger and an archer can excel at ranges that are generally not going to come up except in attacking fortified positions if they build for it, but if they're building for it they're paying a HUGE opportunity cost.

[Weezel]

A Cragtop Archer 4 using a Distance Composite Greatbow can shoot 4875 feet with no penalty for range.

I'd love to hear how he can overcome the -487 to his spot roll to see an enemy at that range.

Even at 400ft for a wizard's long range spells he's suffering -40 to spot.

[MesiDoomstalker]

I'd love to hear how he can overcome the -487 to his spot roll to see an enemy at that range.

Even at 400ft for a wizard's long range spells he's suffering -40 to spot.

He doesn't. He simply fires blindly at random squares biting the 50% miss chance.

[faceroll]

I run large battles fairly frequently, and if you're using a battle map & minis, engagement ranges for fireballs and longbows are huge. It's definitely a logistical problem in terms of setting up a game board.


I actually really like the idea of making Long, Medium, and Short function like ranged increments, where Short is 30 feet, Medium is 60 feet, and Long is 90 feet, and there is a cap at like, 10 ranged increments or something. That way your spells will never be able to go any farther than an archer who is really specializing, and it means that you can mess them up if they go too far. I am unsure how to implement the penalty to attack roll with spells that don't have attack rolls, though.

Any ideas?

Misses are rolled like missed greande-weapons, except you miss by half a range increment. So shoot at something 300 feet away with a fireball, and miss, the fireball randomly hits a square 45 feet away.

Or something like that.

[Coidzor]

I run large battles fairly frequently, and if you're using a battle map & minis, engagement ranges for fireballs and longbows are huge. It's definitely a logistical problem in terms of setting up a game board.

You mean just running large battles in terms of both mass numbers of participants and covering a large area are their own brand of logistical problem, especially for D&D.

[faceroll]

You mean just running large battles in terms of both mass numbers of participants and covering a large area are their own brand of logistical problem, especially for D&D.

Lots of participants is easier to run than participants that aren't on the battle map yet. Just the maneuvers of 4 combatants dealing with long range effects requires like 8 feet of actual table space.

[candycorn]

The largest range increment, barring feats, is that of the Heavy Crossbow/Heavy Repeating Crossbow. That is 120 feet. The shortest distance for a Long ranged spell is 440 feet. That means that, for a ranged character with a Heavy Crossbow, they would have to take a -6 penalty to the attack roll in order to hit the Caster, at first level if they wanted to be able to compete with the caster. As the caster levels up, this distance and penalty only increase. At 3rd level, when the Caster gets their first actual damage dealing spell at Long range (All of the "Image" line of illusion spells are long range; Acid Arrow is a long ranged second level spell, and in the Conjuration school which very, very few people drop). That means that their range is 400 + (40*3) or 520 feet. The archer, if they choose to get the Far Shot feat, has a ranged increment of 180 feet. Now they take a -4 penalty. However, after that feat, there are practically no other ways, barring weird splats and prestige classes for Archers who are really focused on ranged increment, to increase it. So, at 3rd level, with a character who has spent two feats to get good at archery, they still take a -4 penalty to the attack roll, whereas the Caster doesn't take a penalty at all.

First: At long range, at level 1, a Goblin Fighter archer, with 20 Dex, Point Blank Shot, and Far Shot, will be able to, with a 120 increment bow, fire at a +3 to hit, deal 1d6 damage at ranges of 360-535 feet.

A caster, at level 1, regardless of stats, will not be able to damage a foe at ranges beyond 120 feet. No matter what. At that range, the archer's +7 to hit.

At level 3, the wizard gets acid arrow. By this time, the archer has a Masterwork composite bow +1 str, weapon focus, and rapid shot. The caster can, a couple times a day, fire a 2d4 acid shot, at about a +6 to hit, assuming high dex and bab, at a range of 520.

The archer is up to +7 to hit for 1d6+1, or +5/+5 to hit with 2d6+2, at comparable ranges.

Yes, casters pull away, but casters are quadratic, and melee is linear growth. We know that.

[Ormur]

If there's a problem it's that casters can cast spells at all without placing themselves in harm's way.

However I don't really remember many examples of range mattering very much in actual battle. Somehow most battles tend to fit within a battlemap because the battlefield is small, one side was surprised or because sight is impaired (dependant on light from torches, darkvision, true sight or because somebody's hiding). There the biggest distinction is between touch and range spells, occasionally with close range mattering.

The only time I've seen long ranges matter were in high level battles involving spellcasters with dimension door and phantom steeds. Some of them only happened because I ignored spot check penalties (although not against hiding opponents). It was rather strange running a battle with phantom steeds engaging at ranges of kilometres, telling the casters they were rounds from hitting the charging enemies with long range spells. By then the long range of spells also didn't matter too much, they only had a round to cast anything, be it close, medium or long range.

[Treblain]

Seriously. This thread is about casters and spell ranges. There is no reason why a Fireball spell in a party-based roleplaying game that primarily deals in close combat needs to have a range of 400' minimum. 3.5 has lots of options, that's why everyone loves it, right? So why didn't they give spells reasonable ranges, and let you take a range penalty, or take a special feat, or use a specific "sniping spell" on the occasions that you need to go long range?

That is what we're talking about. This isn't about how these ranges are abusable and overpowered. It's just that these ranges are unnecessary. The actual mechanics of how casters beat noncasters don't matter; they have a billion ways to do that. Casters could beat the crap out of noncasters even if the fireball had a reasonable range. Whether it ruins the game, or whether it has no effect whatsoever, it's still a question worth asking.

[Coidzor]

Seriously. This thread is about casters and spell ranges. There is no reason why a Fireball spell in a party-based roleplaying game that primarily deals in close combat needs to have a range of 400' minimum. 3.5 has lots of options, that's why everyone loves it, right? So why didn't they give spells reasonable ranges, and let you take a range penalty, or take a special feat, or use a specific "sniping spell" on the occasions that you need to go long range?

That is what we're talking about. This isn't about how these ranges are abusable and overpowered. It's just that these ranges are unnecessary. The actual mechanics of how casters beat noncasters don't matter; they have a billion ways to do that. Casters could beat the crap out of noncasters even if the fireball had a reasonable range. Whether it ruins the game, or whether it has no effect whatsoever, it's still a question worth asking.

And that immediately goes to the relevant comparison to ranged weapons and the rare bit of thematics and then we're right back at where the thread's gone anyway.

[Incanur]

I think boreal wind from Frostburn is the worst offender in this regard. That's one stupidity huge area of effect. :smalleek:

[Yuki Akuma]

Isn't that the spell with an area of effect larger than its range, meaning it can't ever actually affect its entire AoE due to AoEs never extending past the spell's range?

[tyckspoon]

Isn't that the spell with an area of effect larger than its range, meaning it can't ever actually affect its entire AoE due to AoEs never extending past the spell's range?

No, Boreal Wind is just normal Long.. but the area of effect is a 20-ft line going from you all the way over to the extent of that range. For the duration of the spell. It's pretty crazy. There are a few screwed up range/Area spells in Frostburn, tho- check out Blizzard on the same page. Long range and 100 ft/level radius area; the Area overtakes the Range so fast that it's basically impossible to place it such that the entire Area will be used (and even if you place it at the very farthest edge of the Range, the back half of it stretches back to where the caster is standing.)

[sreservoir]

I'd love to hear how he can overcome the -487 to his spot roll to see an enemy at that range.

Even at 400ft for a wizard's long range spells he's suffering -40 to spot.

have help. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19870890/Updated_Nanobots_Conquer_D38;D_(AC,_Attack,_and_Sk ill_Records))