PDA

View Full Version : Helping ranged, a basic discussion of approach



Yitzi
2012-09-14, 02:23 PM
It's been mentioned before how much trouble ranged has, so I figured I might as well do a quick analysis of the problem and see if there might be some relatively easy general approach to fixing it.
By "ranged" I'm referring purely to the use of weapons (not spells) in a strictly martial context; stuff like sneak attacks and sniping don't belong in this particular discussion.

So as I see it, the problem with ranged is threefold:

1. Lack of favorable situations. Nobody should expect a ranged character to be competitive with a melee character when the battle begins with them 20' apart. Melee is stronger than ranged, and that is as it should be, since it's more limited. But because of those limits, ranged will naturally have an advantage when the battle begins at 300', or when the ranged character is in a difficult-to-reach place. Thus, melee has the advantage in the standard 30-by-30 one-level-at-a-time dungeon, but ranged has the advantage on an open plain or on an upper level with a window to where the melee character is (or, conversely, when fighting someone on such an upper level). The problem is that many DMs simply use the 30-by-30 dungeon for everything, which while easy does hurt ranged. So the first element of the fix is for DMs to provide more interesting terrain features and more open terrain (sometimes) so that ranged can have its turn to shine as compared to melee.
Of course, it always helps to remember the fourth law* of DMing: Parties naturally will, and should, tend toward those adventures that play toward their strengths.
2. Competition from wizards. Even in situations where melee isn't as good as ranged, wizards can generally do the job of ranged better than ranged can. This hurts ranged even worse due to the fact that melee has at least a few tricks that can match wizards, while ranged has almost none, so martial characters generally go melee and ranged is left further behind. So the second element of the fix (actually, of pretty much any balance fix) is to nerf wizards hard. Nerf them, nerf them again, and if they're still strong enough to reliably beat a pure-fighting class four levels below them keep nerfing them until they aren't. Wizards have enough noncombat tricks and versatility that it's safe to nerf their combat capability heavily without making them too weak. (Well, as long as you don't use penalties to make it so that they're better off doing nothing.)
3. Incompatibility with melee building. Martial characters in general suffer from having to choose between vertical advancement (more power) and horizontal advancement (more options). They generally choose vertical advancement, becoming one-trick ponies. In particular, that means they have to choose between melee and ranged, and most choose melee. Therefore, making it so fighters can get ranged capability without sacrificing melee capability is the third element of the fix.

Of course, there's still the question of how to nerf wizards and give fighters the ability to boost multiple capabilities without sacrificing one...that discussion may get more complicated.

*The first three are:
1. What happens OOC, stays OOC.
2. They might be rules lawyers, but you're the rules judge.
3. Actions have consequences. This is useful when it's time to punish munchkins.

Tvtyrant
2012-09-14, 03:32 PM
First, you really need to mention what game you are talking about. I am assuming D&D 3.5, but there are at least 1,000 RPGs out there. For instance, ranged works better in fourth addition for those classes with ranged abilities than in 3rd, because you can use your dailies through it.

Second, the biggest issue with ranged in the 3.P continuum IMO is the lack of unique options. Melee can trip, pin, grapple, bullrush, Overrun/trample, sneak attack, power attack, etc. Spells can do all of that +100 other things. Ranged can...Shoot or throw things at people. The most potent ranged builds in the 3.P continuum make ranged act like melee, because then it gets the options that it natively lacks.

So any fix within 3.P should, IMO, start by creating ranged only effects. Have ranged be able to do things that no one else can, and that way they can act in a useful fashion.

Yitzi
2012-09-14, 05:31 PM
First, you really need to mention what game you are talking about. I am assuming D&D 3.5, but there are at least 1,000 RPGs out there. For instance, ranged works better in fourth addition for those classes with ranged abilities than in 3rd, because you can use your dailies through it.

Yes, 3.5. Sorry I forgot to include that; it's generally assumed in absence of other indicators, though, due to being the most common here.


Second, the biggest issue with ranged in the 3.P continuum IMO is the lack of unique options. Melee can trip, pin, grapple, bullrush, Overrun/trample, sneak attack, power attack, etc. Spells can do all of that +100 other things. Ranged can...Shoot or throw things at people. The most potent ranged builds in the 3.P continuum make ranged act like melee, because then it gets the options that it natively lacks.

Well, there are bolas. But yes, ranged doesn't have combat maneuver capabilities; I suspect feel that under the right circumstances the ability to attack effectively at a distance of hundreds of feet will make up for that, at least if spells can't do the same. (There are a few abilities that should go specifically to ranged; perhaps crossbows should be given some degree of armor-penetration capability.)

And of course "shoot the enemy" gets a lot more interesting when positioning plays as big a role as it does in ranged vs. melee battles.


So any fix within 3.P should, IMO, start by creating ranged only effects. Have ranged be able to do things that no one else can, and that way they can act in a useful fashion.

Do you have any suggestions for what (other than "attack at a distance") you might be able to do with an arrow but not with a sword?

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-14, 05:38 PM
The first thing ranged needs is a version of Power Attack, no questions asked: there are tons of ways to increase your attack, but ranged has very few to increase damage, and the ones that do exist revolve around making lots of attacks.

Complete Warrior (I think; afb right now) has feats for ranged pins, disarms, and so on. Making them a more natural part of the game might be a good start, with feats to eliminate the penalties. And if you limit the maneuvers to closer ranges (as, I believe, the feats do) you boost ranged combat without adding disproportionate power at extended ranges.

Tvtyrant
2012-09-14, 06:04 PM
There are a couple ones I can think of.

Halting Shot: Made as an AoO when an enemy enters into an area threatened by an ally. By shooting an arrow just before the enemies face you force them to make a will save or be checked (losing the rest of their movement that turn).

Achilles's Fear: By firing arrows into the opponents Achilles tendon, you can hamstring them from a distance. The enemy must make a reflex save or be slowed, and if a second Achilles's Fear is used the enemy is automatically shaken by the fear of being maimed.

Identical Shot: Fire two arrows as a standard action. Make a to-hit roll only with the first arrow, since the second is immediately behind it and will either hit or miss as it does. If the opponent has DR, only the first arrow's damage is reduced by the DR as the second enters into the original wound.

Relecs
2012-09-15, 02:10 AM
Two things which have been recommended which I believe pathfinder partially addressed through feats.

More damage

Deadly Aim (from the pathfinder core book) operates as power attack but for ranged attacks.

And similar to the feat, Identical Shot, suggested by Tvtyrant

Clustered shot (from pathfinder, ultimate combat) all attacks in the round have there damage added together before applying damage reduction.

That said this still doesn't solve the problem of fighters being forced to choose between melee and ranged.

IW Judicator
2012-09-15, 11:13 AM
You may also wish to consider the fact that it does infact take a great deal of strength to actually draw a bowstring; for a good bow you can easily putting more than 100 pounds of pressure against two of your fingers. For the purposes of gameplay you could imagine a minimum Strength to draw a bow to X point, with another draw increment per Strength Modifier until you hit Y (Wherein your strength would logically break the bow...though you might just as well ignore that since it doesn't seem to matter all that frequently even in characters with obscenely high Strength levels) and add that to your damage as a base.

You may also want to consider the addition of additional arrowheads with different damage types, as well as a damage bonus from the arrows themselves based on materials, shape, draw capacity and so on. In essence, ranged combat has plenty of real world reasons to be just as lethal as melee combat, if not moreso in certain situations (I.E. the glorious fact that it IS ranged and can thus put down targets from across the board).

On a related note, liberal application of poisons or other harmful substances (such as one's afternoon constitutional) can be used to inflict long lasting harm to someone even if you can't put them down with straight up damage.

Naturally, this probably wasn't done in the first place to prevent ranged weapon users from completely dominating a battle, despite the fact that (logically speaking) they should have a very defining presence on a battlefield. But that's just my two cents.

Just to Browse
2012-09-15, 11:00 PM
Ranged is bad because it doesn't get power attack. I mean, ranged is actually really good (cleric archer, multishot abuse) because of the sheer number of attacks you make, and almost every damage-based feat applies to range as well as melee. The thing that ranged has trouble with is that when fighters do it, it sucks. Clerics do it well, arrow demons can do it well, but fighters are fighters.

The solution to ranged is not to put some extra stuff in there, because ranged is not a problem that needs a solution.

Waargh!
2012-09-16, 12:15 AM
You need to give it something different. Here is a quick idea. You can make your attacks you would normally make at your turn at any point of time until the start of your next turn.

Someone tries to cast a spell? Here you go. A monster is left with a few hp? Here you go. Then you can add penalties against certain actions if you hit with given feats or class abilities. So it is a form of cover fire, you just make the enemies action harder. Position is key since you cannot move during enemies turns.

To make a fighter good in melee and ranged combat doesn't serve any purpose, if ranged combat is good players would focus on it rather than only melee.

I do like the idea of aim as this is unique for Archers where melee and spells have no advantage if you have extra time. So this means that if you have an Archer and you get the chance to ambush you can take advantage of it. Where a melee character just wastes this tactical opportunity. But this is on the sniping part of it which was mentioned not to be part of discussion.

Acanous
2012-09-16, 05:35 AM
Ranged actually works decently if you toss feats from CW in with the Pathfinder Ranged PA and Dex-to-Damage.

It's when you seperate 3.5 from PF that ranged can't do anything.

Veklim
2012-09-16, 06:32 AM
With regards to nerfing the mage, just change spell ranges to use increments which suffer penalties, that way the BAB advantage of an archer build actually counts for something when trying to hit distant targets, and mages don't have so much in the way of auto-hit spells.

Regarding fighter utility, flag up a number of melee fighter feats which could apply to ranged attacks given imagination (imp. trip/disarm/sunder/etc are obvious examples) and allow them to apply to ranged attacks. Present Ranged Focus as a feat to allow the use a number of these feats which they possess for a single chosen ranged weapon, as well as whichever melee weapon the feats were originally taken for, allowing a fighter to add ranged aptitude, or go range from the start.

Liking the idea of Tvtyrant's archery abilities though, particularly Achilles' Fear.

Yitzi
2012-09-19, 06:30 AM
I see a lot of people mentioning a power attack equivalent. While some way to boost damage with level is certainly desirable, it is definitely not sufficient by itself (as at best it will make ranged into a slightly-weaker alternative to melee rather than something fundamentally different). I suspect it's also not necessary if the other methods are used well, as even a mere 1d8+2 damage per round at level 20 is quite significant if you can do it for 10 or 20 rounds before anybody else can attack.

Of course, that's based on a design philosophy that different roles should actually be different roles, rather than different flavorings of the same role.


Complete Warrior (I think; afb right now) has feats for ranged pins, disarms, and so on. Making them a more natural part of the game might be a good start, with feats to eliminate the penalties.

But how do they work from an in-character perspective? I suppose at high levels you could have such things, but they'd be a lot more difficult than in melee.


There are a couple ones I can think of.

Halting Shot: Made as an AoO when an enemy enters into an area threatened by an ally. By shooting an arrow just before the enemies face you force them to make a will save or be checked (losing the rest of their movement that turn).

Probably makes more sense to turn that into a "covering fire" concept in general.


Achilles's Fear: By firing arrows into the opponents Achilles tendon, you can hamstring them from a distance. The enemy must make a reflex save or be slowed, and if a second Achilles's Fear is used the enemy is automatically shaken by the fear of being maimed.

That's extremely high-level (most archers can't do it), and it makes sense that it would be easier to do as melee.


Identical Shot: Fire two arrows as a standard action. Make a to-hit roll only with the first arrow, since the second is immediately behind it and will either hit or miss as it does. If the opponent has DR, only the first arrow's damage is reduced by the DR as the second enters into the original wound.

That's pretty high-level as well, and depends on a particular interpretation of DR.


You may also wish to consider the fact that it does infact take a great deal of strength to actually draw a bowstring; for a good bow you can easily putting more than 100 pounds of pressure against two of your fingers. For the purposes of gameplay you could imagine a minimum Strength to draw a bow to X point, with another draw increment per Strength Modifier until you hit Y (Wherein your strength would logically break the bow...though you might just as well ignore that since it doesn't seem to matter all that frequently even in characters with obscenely high Strength levels) and add that to your damage as a base.

That's really just STR-to-damage, which high-powered bows do have. Having them have a range of available STR values rather than just one is worthwhile though.


You may also want to consider the addition of additional arrowheads with different damage types, as well as a damage bonus from the arrows themselves based on materials, shape, draw capacity and so on.

Seems a bit complicated; some might be included, but the rest would just be "masterwork arrows to do bonus damage".


(I.E. the glorious fact that it IS ranged and can thus put down targets from across the board).

This is what I feel should really be its advantage.


On a related note, liberal application of poisons or other harmful substances (such as one's afternoon constitutional) can be used to inflict long lasting harm to someone even if you can't put them down with straight up damage.

Indeed.


Ranged is bad because it doesn't get power attack. I mean, ranged is actually really good (cleric archer, multishot abuse) because of the sheer number of attacks you make, and almost every damage-based feat applies to range as well as melee.

So what you're saying is that ranged is good only when it can do melee's current job (damage per round) better than melee can?


You need to give it something different. Here is a quick idea. You can make your attacks you would normally make at your turn at any point of time until the start of your next turn.

That would probably be better done via a modification of the ready system (and then it'd apply to melee as well, but of course wouldn't be as useful in that capacity). Definitely a worthwhile idea.


Then you can add penalties against certain actions if you hit with given feats or class abilities.

Or just extend the concentration system.


To make a fighter good in melee and ranged combat doesn't serve any purpose, if ranged combat is good players would focus on it rather than only melee.

Unless different ones are good in different situations. (Just like wizards are so powerful in part because different spells are good in different situations.)


I do like the idea of aim as this is unique for Archers where melee and spells have no advantage if you have extra time. So this means that if you have an Archer and you get the chance to ambush you can take advantage of it. Where a melee character just wastes this tactical opportunity. But this is on the sniping part of it which was mentioned not to be part of discussion.

Indeed. Although it would make a very nice ranger class feature...


With regards to nerfing the mage, just change spell ranges to use increments which suffer penalties, that way the BAB advantage of an archer build actually counts for something when trying to hit distant targets, and mages don't have so much in the way of auto-hit spells.

It's an idea. I was thinking of something that will nerf them at close range as well, because we all know they need it.


Regarding fighter utility, flag up a number of melee fighter feats which could apply to ranged attacks given imagination (imp. trip/disarm/sunder/etc are obvious examples) and allow them to apply to ranged attacks.

If it takes a huge amount of imagination to see how they could apply to ranged, then it's going to be at most available to high-level archers, leaving the low-level ones still lacking.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-19, 07:27 AM
I see a lot of people mentioning a power attack equivalent. While some way to boost damage with level is certainly desirable, it is definitely not sufficient by itself (as at best it will make ranged into a slightly-weaker alternative to melee rather than something fundamentally different). I suspect it's also not necessary if the other methods are used well, as even a mere 1d8+2 damage per round at level 20 is quite significant if you can do it for 10 or 20 rounds before anybody else can attack.
Ehn... bad idea, there. I'm not saying that ranged needs to do the exact same things as melee, but d8+2 damage isn't going to cut it at anything above level 4 or 5 or so, and most games will never have a circumstance where one character can take 10-20 turns before any others can contribute. It's not even a question of engagement range, it's that most DMs-- myself included-- would consider it bad form to render so many players so useless in anything but the rarest circumstance.


But how do they work from an in-character perspective? I suppose at high levels you could have such things, but they'd be a lot more difficult than in melee.
I shoot the sword out of his hands. I shoot an arrow through his foot to pin it to the ground. The feats require BAB 5, which is "realistic bad***" range.

yougi
2012-09-19, 08:37 AM
Well one thing that is good about archers/crossbowmen is how the weapon and ammunition bonuses stack: from what I understand, the bow gives its bonus(es) to the arrows, making a +3 bow with +1 flaming shocking arrows a pretty wonderful thing for much cheaper than it would cost to make a +3 flaming shocking weapon.

A buddy of mine created an archer in a one-shot module we ran, and used that kind of thinking: he had a +3 bow and about 10 different types of arrows: seeking + bane, 2 of flaming/frost/shock/thundering, holy, axiomatic, anarchic. He could choose which arrows to shoot (demon? holy!, white dragon? Flaming/thundering!, Half-Dragon Sorcerer casting from behind cover while we're stuck in melee? Seeking Dragonbane!) and get the full +3 bonus added to these abilities. That power is something you cannot get from melee (without greater magic weapon), and the versatility can only be matched by casters.

Seerow
2012-09-19, 08:50 AM
In what world is applying a movement penalty or a -2 a high level ability? Or clustering shots to reduce the effects of damage resistance? (Reminder: A ToB character can ignore dr entirely with a 3rd level, and get bonus damage while doing so).


Anyway, in my combat styles fix, I let Archers use a power attack-esque ability, gaining +2d6 damage per -3 penalty taken to hit. They also get the ability to use combat maneuvers at a range, and the ability to designate one ally and treat that ally's threatened area as an area they're threatening (so archers could do some battlefield control, and synergize with melee in a different way)

Yitzi
2012-09-19, 09:32 AM
Ehn... bad idea, there. I'm not saying that ranged needs to do the exact same things as melee, but d8+2 damage isn't going to cut it at anything above level 4 or 5 or so, and most games will never have a circumstance where one character can take 10-20 turns before any others can contribute. It's not even a question of engagement range, it's that most DMs-- myself included-- would consider it bad form to render so many players so useless in anything but the rarest circumstance.

They wouldn't be useless; if the enemy has around 200-300 hit points, letting the ranged guy soften it up for 10-20 rounds while it approaches will mean the melee guy can still finish it off after it gets there.


I shoot the sword out of his hands.

I could see shooting his hands so he has to save or drop it, but to literally knock it out of his hands with an arrow doesn't really make sense.


I shoot an arrow through his foot to pin it to the ground.

I suppose that makes sense, although if he's tough enough he could just grimace through the pain and pull his foot off the ground anyway.


Well one thing that is good about archers/crossbowmen is how the weapon and ammunition bonuses stack: from what I understand, the bow gives its bonus(es) to the arrows, making a +3 bow with +1 flaming shocking arrows a pretty wonderful thing for much cheaper than it would cost to make a +3 flaming shocking weapon.

True; of course, that gets expensive quickly due to enchanged arrows.


In what world is applying a movement penalty or a -2 a high level ability?

I suppose just a penalty rather than disarm/pin would make sense.


Or clustering shots to reduce the effects of damage resistance?

Whether that makes sense depends on what DR represents and why a high-damage attack can ignore it.


Here's some ideas that I've thought of (modified for 3.5, as the original was for my remake) that might help:

-If armor or natural armor blocks a shot from a crossbow, it still does half damage, and bonus damage (precision, energy, etc) is not affected at all. (If you don't beat the touch AC+shield bonus, it still misses.) If the armor in question is padded armor, it only does 1 damage with a light crossbow or 2 damage with a heavy crossbow, and all bonus damage is halved.
-Whenever you shoot with a longbow as a full-round action or part of an FRA and beat the enemy's AC, the difference is added as bonus damage.
-Shortbows may be used while mounted at no penalty.

Veklim
2012-09-19, 11:22 AM
They wouldn't be useless; if the enemy has around 200-300 hit points, letting the ranged guy soften it up for 10-20 rounds while it approaches will mean the melee guy can still finish it off after it gets there.
...I think you've missed the point. The trouble with 1D8+2 damage is DR, plain and simple, couple this with the fact that you virtually NEVER have 10 (let alone 20) rounds of combat before melee becomes relevant, and even if you did, the range penalties would mean you missed more often than not until they got closer anyhow, and that's ignoring the inevitable cover which would undoubtedly be present in such circumstances. The advantage of range shouldn't be focusing on damage before the enemy closes, it should focus on combat without allowing/having to close in the first place. Point Blank Shot offers a good insight into the distances normally expected for ranged combat, anything past the first increment or two is strictly the domain of large-scale combat, volleys and the occasional pot-shot.



I could see shooting his hands so he has to save or drop it, but to literally knock it out of his hands with an arrow doesn't really make sense.
Would make more sense to hit them in the shoulder of the arm holding the weapon, there is a nerve bundle which comes up between the collarbone and the top of the shoulder and runs across the front of the axilla. This is where Police are taught to aim if they have to fire on a weapon wielding opponent, because the shock/damage of the hit makes the hand spasm open, it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to keep hold of anything if this is done so a save to avoid the effect is honestly the least realistic aspect of using this strike.



I suppose that makes sense, although if he's tough enough he could just grimace through the pain and pull his foot off the ground anyway.
So they are either pinned or make a Str check to escape and take bleeding damage/movement penalties. I see no trouble with this.



True; of course, that gets expensive quickly due to enchanged arrows.
I agree here, but then again, you shouldn't be using the snacky arrows all the time, there is a time and a place for ammo utility, and a time and place for rapid shot masterwork arrows (any archer worth their salt will be a Fletcher as well).



I suppose just a penalty rather than disarm/pin would make sense.
Anything after level 5 shouldn't necessarily make much sense, in a world where magic flies about everywhere and dragons roam the landscape, I don't think worrying about an archer disarming/pinning an opponent at range is even vaguely unreasonable.



Whether that makes sense depends on what DR represents and why a high-damage attack can ignore it.
Why does it have to make that much sense? You need spring attack (a movement feat) for access to whirlwind attack (a static attack), does that makes sense? What matters is that it makes ENOUGH sense, and thematically removes a major problem for archery without changing much at all. If you really wanted, this damage stacking could essentially replace the standard manyshot feat, which always seemed a little underwhelming.



Here's some ideas that I've thought of (modified for 3.5, as the original was for my remake) that might help:

-If armor or natural armor blocks a shot from a crossbow, it still does half damage, and bonus damage (precision, energy, etc) is not affected at all. (If you don't beat the touch AC+shield bonus, it still misses.) If the armor in question is padded armor, it only does 1 damage with a light crossbow or 2 damage with a heavy crossbow, and all bonus damage is halved.
-Whenever you shoot with a longbow as a full-round action or part of an FRA and beat the enemy's AC, the difference is added as bonus damage.
-Shortbows may be used while mounted at no penalty.
I think I'll have to check out the full fix...sounds like a lot more book-keeping, but it could certainly be worth a read! :smallbiggrin:

Yitzi
2012-09-19, 12:46 PM
...I think you've missed the point. The trouble with 1D8+2 damage is DR, plain and simple

Yes, creatures with substantial DR/- will pose a serious problem for ranged then, but they're pretty rare even at high levels.


couple this with the fact that you virtually NEVER have 10 (let alone 20) rounds of combat before melee becomes relevant

With intelligent positioning and good scouting (and DM cooperation), it could definitely happen.


and even if you did, the range penalties would mean you missed more often than not until they got closer anyhow

True if they're taking a long time due to range (as opposed to, say, because you're at the top of a tower), and that would need to be compensated for.


The advantage of range shouldn't be focusing on damage before the enemy closes, it should focus on combat without allowing/having to close in the first place.

That works too; when one side is at the top of a tower or on another level or that sort of thing.


Point Blank Shot offers a good insight into the distances normally expected for ranged combat

And as long as that expectation holds, ranged can't come into its own.


Would make more sense to hit them in the shoulder of the arm holding the weapon, there is a nerve bundle which comes up between the collarbone and the top of the shoulder and runs across the front of the axilla. This is where Police are taught to aim if they have to fire on a weapon wielding opponent, because the shock/damage of the hit makes the hand spasm open, it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to keep hold of anything if this is done so a save to avoid the effect is honestly the least realistic aspect of using this strike.

That nerve bundle would probably require a pretty good attack roll, though; I doubt it's all that large.


So they are either pinned or make a Str check to escape and take bleeding damage/movement penalties. I see no trouble with this.

The STR check would be easy; arrows aren't that strong. It's the Fort save to ignore the pain that would be the tough part.


any archer worth their salt will be a Fletcher as well

Actually, because the bonus for masterwork doesn't stack, the ability to self-craft arrows isn't worth that much (unless you can enchant them as well.)


Anything after level 5 shouldn't necessarily make much sense

Of course it should make sense. It should be quite impressive, but still needs to make sense.


Why does it have to make that much sense? You need spring attack (a movement feat) for access to whirlwind attack (a static attack), does that makes sense?

I suppose the idea there is supposed to be that you're moving around, but yes it does make more sense to remove it.

As for why things have to make sense...to make a long answer short, because it helps with immersion, makes the game more fun, and provides a surprisingly effective method for balance.

I'm not saying that "damage stacking to defeat DR" is wrong, I'm saying that it's a statement about how DR works that some DMs might not want.


I think I'll have to check out the full fix

I'm planning to post it (piece by piece) sometime or other.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-19, 12:56 PM
With intelligent positioning and good scouting (and DM cooperation), it could definitely happen.

True if they're taking a long time due to range (as opposed to, say, because you're at the top of a tower), and that would need to be compensated for.

That works too; when one side is at the top of a tower or on another level or that sort of thing.

And as long as that expectation holds, ranged can't come into its own.

I feel like this is the kind of thinking that left us with the weaker version of ranged combat that we have today. If a class rewards intelligent, tactical play, that's one thing, but d8/round ranged combat rewards "climb a tree and make a basic attack every round," which is neither interesting or fun. Worse, it leaves the rest of the party out of the action, which is capital-b Bad.

But in any case, standing a long way away and making full attacks already works tolerably well. What ranged needs is the boost within, oh, 100ft of its enemy.

Spiryt
2012-09-19, 01:09 PM
That nerve bundle would probably require a pretty good attack roll, though; I doubt it's all that large.



Making any attempts at this to be so simulationist doesn't have any sense, because D&D 3.5 doesn't work like that...

Ranged disarm of some kind makes perfect sense, and how exactly it happens is up to DM discretions, good description always should be 'custom' depending on situation.

Yitzi
2012-09-19, 01:28 PM
I feel like this is the kind of thinking that left us with the weaker version of ranged combat that we have today. If a class rewards intelligent, tactical play, that's one thing, but d8/round ranged combat rewards "climb a tree and make a basic attack every round," which is neither interesting or fun.


I suppose that makes sense.


Worse, it leaves the rest of the party out of the action, which is capital-b Bad.

There are so many encounter types where only some of the party is relevant or some is far more relevant than others (social, traps, survival, puzzles/detective work, even combat) that getting rid of that essentially means a completely different game.


Making any attempts at this to be so simulationist doesn't have any sense, because D&D 3.5 doesn't work like that...

I would argue that's the main reason it's so broken...it's neither gamist enough to get balance that way (a very hard task) nor simulationist enough to get balance that way.

Now, I'm not saying you should go 100% simulationist...that way lies stuff dangerously close to FATAL. But every game-mechanics action should have a direct correspondent to an in-character action, and vice versa (the latter is where a good DM is really needed.)

Deepbluediver
2012-09-19, 01:37 PM
I went through a bunch of this when I was working on my ranged-weapon style fix for the Ranger. You can find the full improved-Feat list in my link if you want. A few general comments can summarize most of it though:

(1) Boost the default level of damage.
Since a bow is a two-handed weapon, let it deal two-handed weapon damage. Depending on exactly how many other fixes you employ, at the very least the longbow should be bumped up to 1d10 to match a heavy crossbow. Tweak Critical Hit stats to taste.

(2) Second, simplify things by scrapping the whole regular-bow/composite-bow/bow-with-strength-score shenanigans; the whole mess just seems like complexity for realism's sake.
Every bow bases it's attack roll on Dex and it's damage rolls on Str, just like melee weapons. So long as you are proficient with it, you can weild a greataxe no matter how weak you are.

(3) Remove some of the penalities for using a bow in conjunction with other tactics, particularly the whole "firing into melee combat" deal, and prohibiting the use of ranged weapons against prone enemies.

(4) Shorten the feat-chain, or give melee classes more feats so that you don't need to focus on ranged combat to the exclusion of everything else.
Also, have some method that allows characters without huge amounts of Dex to take these feats. The method I did was to give an "either/or" option for the prerequisites, such as "Dex 15 OR BAB +5".
You can also make new feats that are similar in function but different in flavor to existing melee feats; take a tricky shot that decreased your attack roll but increased your Crit chance or damage, or vice versa.

(5) More options would be nice, but may be the trickiest. (how do you Bullrush some one with a ranged attack?) Some of it should be doable though, such as attacks to the wrist (Disarm) or the knee (Trip). Other things to do might be to draw inspiration from the world of comic-book super hero archers (Green Arrow, Hawkeye, etc) and make easily available special arrows that can stun enemies (boxing glove), entangle enemies (net), electrocute or freeze enemies, grappling hook arrows, arrows with pepper spray attached, arrows that lay down grease or explode into sticky glue to disable enemies, projectiles that can bend around corners, etc.
(ok, that last one might be approaching cartoon status, but oh well)

(6) With regards to magic, then there are a whole pile of reasons it needs to be nerfed, but as compared to ranged weapons, the biggest issue is how far you can hurl magic. For my magic fix, I reduced the max distance on spells as follows:
Long- 100 ft. +10 ft./level
Medium- 50 ft. +5 ft./level
Short- 25 ft. +5 ft./2 levels


I skimmed most of the replies, but I'm certain I've probably missed details somewhere, so if I've repeating something, sorry. If I think of anything else major I'll update further.

Alabenson
2012-09-19, 02:23 PM
From what I've seen, the main problems with ranged combat are as follows:

1) Lack of damage compared to melee, particularly in a mid-op or higher environment.

2) Ranged damage is too easily nullified by DR.

3) The ability to engage in ranged combat at all is too easily countered by wind effects, particularly those created by magic.


Personally, I think point #3 is one of the most important to address, because as it stands an archer can be rendered completely useless by a level 2 spell.

erikun
2012-09-19, 02:55 PM
Well, the first problem I see with D&D3 ranged is the same problem that melee has. That is: you only get one or two attacks that will meaningfully hit, and for low damage at that. Melee gets around this with power attack or 2WF sneak attack, options which archery (generally) doesn't have. Ironically, archery does have a way around this problem (Manyshot) but is hamstringed by the fact that base damage is so low.

The second problem is, as mentioned, low damage. Longbows can add a (partial) strength bonus to damage, and nothing else does (without feats). The simplest way to fix this is just add the archer's dexterity modifier to damage. A perhaps nicer way is to add strength modifier as well to shortbows, longbows, and slings, with the bows getting the 1.5x for being wielded two-handed. As mentioned before, the problem with Manyshot is that the arrows are only doing 1d8+7 damage each. When they're doing 1d8+5+DEX+1.5xSTR, they are a bit more respectable.

I chose the 1.5x modifier for longbows to give archers a choice: accurate but less powerful, or powerful but less accurate? It also means that your standard high-STR meleer can still pick up a longbow and do some decent damage.

The third problem is, as Alabenson mentioned, how easy it is to neutralize ranged attacks. Even moreso than melee, there are spells which will completely negate ranged attack rolls, regardless of how good they are.

The fourth problem is lack of options for ranged, although you've been discussing that in this thread.

Yitzi
2012-09-19, 04:09 PM
(1) Boost the default level of damage.
Since a bow is a two-handed weapon, let it deal two-handed weapon damage. Depending on exactly how many other fixes you employ, at the very least the longbow should be bumped up to 1d10 to match a heavy crossbow. Tweak Critical Hit stats to taste.

Why should a ranged weapon do damage like an otherwise comparable melee weapon? Unless you weaken it in other ways (e.g. some change to 5' steps so 5'-ing away to shoot isn't a viable strategy), that's essentially saying that the ability to do damage from far away is essentially worthless.


(2) Second, simplify things by scrapping the whole regular-bow/composite-bow/bow-with-strength-score shenanigans; the whole mess just seems like complexity for realism's sake.

Realism can be important, at least up to a point.


(3) Remove some of the penalities for using a bow in conjunction with other tactics, particularly the whole "firing into melee combat" deal, and prohibiting the use of ranged weapons against prone enemies.

So it shouldn't be difficult at all to fire into melee without hitting your ally? (And there's no prohibition against using ranged weapons against prone targets; it's merely a bonus to AC, which does make sense.)


(4) Shorten the feat-chain, or give melee classes more feats so that you don't need to focus on ranged combat to the exclusion of everything else.

Better idea: Certain classes get the ability to take a ranged feat and a melee feat for the price of one feat (or, more generally, any two feats but they can't use them simultaneously). That way, ignoring ranged combat doesn't give you any bonus in melee.


Also, have some method that allows characters without huge amounts of Dex to take these feats. The method I did was to give an "either/or" option for the prerequisites, such as "Dex 15 OR BAB +5".

Makes sense.


You can also make new feats that are similar in function but different in flavor to existing melee feats; take a tricky shot that decreased your attack roll but increased your Crit chance or damage, or vice versa.

Viable and arguably desirable, but probably not necessary if ranged is given effective abilities melee lacks (or the one it already has is made effective).

(5) More options would be nice, but may be the trickiest. (how do you Bullrush some one with a ranged attack?) Some of it should be doable though, such as attacks to the wrist (Disarm) or the knee (Trip). Other things to do might be to draw inspiration from the world of comic-book super hero archers (Green Arrow, Hawkeye, etc) and make easily available special arrows that can stun enemies (boxing glove), entangle enemies (net), electrocute or freeze enemies, grappling hook arrows, arrows with pepper spray attached, arrows that lay down grease or explode into sticky glue to disable enemies, projectiles that can bend around corners, etc.[/quote]

Better idea that includes many of yours: Turn all evocation spells and many conjuration (creation) spells into alchemical items (because why should wizards have all the fun), and make a feat that allows you to affix an alchemical item to an arrow or bolt.

(6) With regards to magic, then there are a whole pile of reasons it needs to be nerfed, but as compared to ranged weapons, the biggest issue is how far you can hurl magic. For my magic fix, I reduced the max distance on spells as follows:
Long- 100 ft. +10 ft./level
Medium- 50 ft. +5 ft./level
Short- 25 ft. +5 ft./2 levels[/quote]

I'd rather cut its power by boosting saves, but that's more a stylistic question.


From what I've seen, the main problems with ranged combat are as follows:

1) Lack of damage compared to melee, particularly in a mid-op or higher environment.

And I feel that rather than trying to play catch-up in that matter, it's better to give ranged advantages that aren't damage per round.


2) Ranged damage is too easily nullified by DR.

The ability to have arrows of various types means that this only applies to DR/-, and that's rare (beyond a couple of points that ranged can deal with.)


3) The ability to engage in ranged combat at all is too easily countered by wind effects, particularly those created by magic.

Yes, this would need significant nerfing. I'd say that a wizard or cleric should need a few levels more than an archer's BAB to cause a significant penalty, and a lot more levels to disable it totally, and even a druid should need to be within a few levels to cause a penalty and have several more levels to disable it totally.


Personally, I think point #3 is one of the most important to address, because as it stands an archer can be rendered completely useless by a level 2 spell.

Of course, it's also the easiest: Ban wind wall, or modify it substantially.


Well, the first problem I see with D&D3 ranged is the same problem that melee has. That is: you only get one or two attacks that will meaningfully hit, and for low damage at that, whereas a wizard puts out full power every round.

Fixed it for you. If everyone only had that level of power, there would be no problem.

erikun
2012-09-19, 04:26 PM
Fixed it for you. If everyone only had that level of power, there would be no problem.
That's easy enough: give all iterative the full BAB, rather than losing 5 points each time.

It doesn't fix the wizard/fighter problem, though. That's because the issue there isn't that the wizard gets their full power each round - it's that the wizard's full power is so much greater than the fighter's full power.

Yitzi
2012-09-19, 06:15 PM
It doesn't fix the wizard/fighter problem, though. That's because the issue there isn't that the wizard gets their full power each round - it's that the wizard's full power is so much greater than the fighter's full power.

Yes; any fighter fix that ends up looking more like D&D than like Exalted must
involve nerfing the wizard.

Deepbluediver
2012-09-20, 08:28 AM
Why should a ranged weapon do damage like an otherwise comparable melee weapon? Unless you weaken it in other ways (e.g. some change to 5' steps so 5'-ing away to shoot isn't a viable strategy), that's essentially saying that the ability to do damage from far away is essentially worthless.
I thought that's what you where saying? You kind of laid out how exactly why that advantages of ranged combat don't come up much in D&D unless the players and/or the DM make a concerted effort to lure or ambush some one at a point where you can shoot them without them being able to retaliate.


Realism can be important, at least up to a point.
Yeah, and here is where I would draw the line. There are probably thousands of versions of the "weapon with a handle and bladed edge (i.e. sword) of every size, weight, balance, etc. from around the world, but D&D doesn't say "you need to find a greatsword that is sized exactly for your height, reach, and strength to use it". For the sake of balance and simplicity, I would make bows work like normal melee weapons. If anyone questions it, say that a Stronger person can pull a bow back farther, putting more power behind their shot.

Crossbows can stay as base damage without an ability modifier because they are mechanically different, and have the benefit of being simple weapons and therefore more easily obtainable.


So it shouldn't be difficult at all to fire into melee without hitting your ally?
Assuming you're not trying to shoot through an occupied square, then no. I can shoot at a charging ogre just fine, but when my fighter buddy is standing NEXT to the ogre, distracting him, it suddenly becomes harder to shoot? How does that make sense?


(And there's no prohibition against using ranged weapons against prone targets; it's merely a bonus to AC, which does make sense.)
My bad, I misread the SRD.


Better idea: Certain classes get the ability to take a ranged feat and a melee feat for the price of one feat (or, more generally, any two feats but they can't use them simultaneously). That way, ignoring ranged combat doesn't give you any bonus in melee.
Hmm...you could do it that way. I like the idea that melee classes need to pick one or more types of combat to focus on, I just don't think it should take the same investment, level-wise to master 8 schools of magic (wizard) as it does to learn to hack some one in half with a broadsword.
For example, my version of the Fighter gets a bonus feat every level, and my Wizard can learn spells from a max of 4 different schools. Just an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about; your free to go with whatever method suites your game best.


Better idea that includes many of yours: Turn all evocation spells and many conjuration (creation) spells into alchemical items (because why should wizards have all the fun), and make a feat that allows you to affix an alchemical item to an arrow or bolt.
However you go about doing it, doesn't matter to me. You'll just need to homebrew a lot of details on exactly what those sorts of items cost in terms of materials and accessability.


(6) With regards to magic....the biggest issue is how far you can hurl magic.

I'd rather cut its power by boosting saves, but that's more a stylistic question.
That does help everyone against magic, but I though you where specifically talking about the idea of a bow and arrow vs. a spell. If you really want balance I'd do both.


And I feel that rather than trying to play catch-up in that matter, it's better to give ranged advantages that aren't damage per round.
Like what? In combat, if it's not damage it's basically SoD, Save or Suck, or battlefield control. Once you know what you're goal is, we can work something out.


[/quote]Of course, it's also the easiest: Ban wind wall, or modify it substantially.[/QUOTE]
Rather than having it stop arrows outright, just make it provide a AC bonus against ranged attacks. Personally, I like the idea that as the caster levels up so does the spell, so that at low levels it's really just a steady breeze, but reaches hurricane strength at you approach the level cap. Theoretically, if the archer is keeping up in skill and/or relative power, then he should still be able to have a shot at penetrating. Ideally.
I realize this might be asking alot but it's what I would aim for.


Yes; any fighter fix that ends up looking more like D&D than like Exalted must involve nerfing the wizard.
It's not the wizard class, but magic in general, and for that you are going to need a LOT more complicated or involved fix, or some houserules limiting what classes you can take.

Yitzi
2012-09-20, 09:20 AM
I thought that's what you where saying? You kind of laid out how exactly why that advantages of ranged combat don't come up much in D&D unless the players and/or the DM make a concerted effort to lure or ambush some one at a point where you can shoot them without them being able to retaliate.

No, you've got it backward. I laid out why the advantages of ranged combat don't come up much unless the players or the enemy (as played by the DM, of course) make an effort to set up a situation where it is equal or even superior, and then concluded that there need to be more such efforts. If the players have a strong ranged advantage, they should have the opportunity to set up that sort of situation to reward their decision. And if they have next to no ranged capability, you can bet that smart monsters who do have ranged capability will take advantage of that fact by setting up ambushes and defensive positions to make ranged combat more important. (Of course, in both cases the side with weaker ranged and more melee focus will be trying to do the opposite, which is where things get fun.)


Yeah, and here is where I would draw the line. There are probably thousands of versions of the "weapon with a handle and bladed edge (i.e. sword) of every size, weight, balance, etc. from around the world, but D&D doesn't say "you need to find a greatsword that is sized exactly for your height, reach, and strength to use it". For the sake of balance and simplicity, I would make bows work like normal melee weapons. If anyone questions it, say that a Stronger person can pull a bow back farther, putting more power behind their shot.

There's still a case to be made for capping STR bonus to damage that can be applied without damaging the weapon (for both melee and ranged), but it would certainly be more flexible than the current system.


Crossbows can stay as base damage without an ability modifier because they are mechanically different, and have the benefit of being simple weapons and therefore more easily obtainable.

Indeed. Also, they can be fired from prone.


Assuming you're not trying to shoot through an occupied square, then no. I can shoot at a charging ogre just fine, but when my fighter buddy is standing NEXT to the ogre, distracting him, it suddenly becomes harder to shoot? How does that make sense?

Because he's not standing next to the ogre; the separate squares are merely an abstraction to fit the grid. In reality, he's swinging at the ogre, and the ogre's trying to smash him.

But yes, I could see subsuming the "engaged in melee" rule into cover (maybe increase the cover bonus from an ally due to the need to avoid hitting him.)


Hmm...you could do it that way. I like the idea that melee classes need to pick one or more types of combat to focus on, I just don't think it should take the same investment, level-wise to master 8 schools of magic (wizard) as it does to learn to hack some one in half with a broadsword.

Definitely; in my planned rebuild, even someone who is an absolute master at a single fighting style is merely a warrior, whereas fighters are masters at multiple styles (an exception is that someone whose primary class is fighter with primary style "berserker style" gets to super-specialize in that style instead of taking other ones; this replaces the barbarian.)


However you go about doing it, doesn't matter to me. You'll just need to homebrew a lot of details on exactly what those sorts of items cost in terms of materials and accessability.

Indeed. It makes it much easier to rewrite the creation subschool, though.


That does help everyone against magic, but I though you where specifically talking about the idea of a bow and arrow vs. a spell.

Spells are magic.


Like what? In combat, if it's not damage it's basically SoD, Save or Suck, or battlefield control. Once you know what you're goal is, we can work something out.

Some ideas of each variety that could work:
-Damage: Even if melee gets much more damage per round (which, as I said before, is probably not such a good idea even though removing it is neither necessary nor sufficient to boost ranged), ranged can do damage in cases where melee is helpless; by allowing players and monsters to at least partially dictate the terms of engagement, such cases will become relevant and add a new level of strategy and tactics to the game.
-SoD: A feat that allows you to turn crits into SoDs (easy ones for X2 weapons, medium for X3, hard for X4), plus feats to boost bows' crit ability, could make a high-level archer a very dangerous opponent.
-Save or Suck: Earlier in the thread were a few good ideas on this matter.
-Battlefield control: Some sort of "cover fire" mechanic.


Rather than having it stop arrows outright, just make it provide a AC bonus against ranged attacks. Personally, I like the idea that as the caster levels up so does the spell, so that at low levels it's really just a steady breeze, but reaches hurricane strength at you approach the level cap. Theoretically, if the archer is keeping up in skill and/or relative power, then he should still be able to have a shot at penetrating. Ideally.

Makes a lot of sense. That's the sort of thing I've been thinking of regarding my remake.


It's not the wizard class, but magic in general

True; wizard is the worst offender, but in general magic should have to sacrifice vertical advancement for the horizontal advancement it's so good at.

Ashtagon
2012-09-20, 12:33 PM
First, my old thread on this topic: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189766

Addressing the specific points in the OP:

1 - This is something that can only be properly addressed by the GM giving tactical situations where ranged weapon widgets are relevant. It's the same issue as with a ranger's favoured enemy widget. The value of the widget depends entirely on the situations provided by the GM.

2 - The most noted issue is that a level 2 spell shuts down archers. I say fight magic with magic. Any missile with a +1 enhancement bonus can get through a wind wall or windstorm; +2 gets through a hurricane-strength wind, and +3 gets through tornado-strength winds.

The deeper issue of wizards having their own magical artillery requires a massive attack on the class as a whole. The suggestion upthread of reducing the ranges generally to 20/50/100 feet plus bonus per level seems solid to me.

3 - There really needs to be a solid set of class features to develop ranged combat styles. In RAW, all you have is a bunch of incremental feats that barely make a difference to ranged combat and suck you dry of feats. There's no solid support for ranged combat.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13879133#post13879133
Something like the Black Rain, Celestial Rain, Diamond Arrow, Falcon Eye, Falling Star, Mystical Rain, Striking Eagle, or Swarming Hornet martial disciplines head in this direction.

The solution shouldn't be to make a character awesome at melee and decent at ranged; you should be able to make a character who is at least as awesome an archer as his brother who chose a melee path. But making one character shine at both removes the character flavour gained from making him a specialist.

Yitzi
2012-09-20, 04:35 PM
1 - This is something that can only be properly addressed by the GM giving tactical situations where ranged weapon widgets are relevant.

Or by the party trying to arrange such situations. It's more difficult, but extremely rewarding (and hence fun) when it succeeds.


2 - The most noted issue is that a level 2 spell shuts down archers. I say fight magic with magic. Any missile with a +1 enhancement bonus can get through a wind wall or windstorm; +2 gets through a hurricane-strength wind, and +3 gets through tornado-strength winds.

Could work unless you're using a low-magic (or otherwise no +x weapons); in such case you'd want to make it available based purely on BAB.


3 - There really needs to be a solid set of class features to develop ranged combat styles. In RAW, all you have is a bunch of incremental feats that barely make a difference to ranged combat and suck you dry of feats. There's no solid support for ranged combat.

Well, Mounted Archery is pretty good if used right (and without any slow allies you have to take care of), but yes they do need stuff beyond incremental feats.


The solution shouldn't be to make a character awesome at melee and decent at ranged; you should be able to make a character who is at least as awesome an archer as his brother who chose a melee path. But making one character shine at both removes the character flavour gained from making him a specialist.

There should be a point in picking one to be best at, true. But I don't really think martial characters should have to specialize more than wizards do.

Veklim
2012-09-20, 05:07 PM
Right then, archery needs nice stuff...

Bow Tactics
Requirements: Combat Reflexes, Point Blank Shot, BAB +5
Benefits: This feat grants you the use of three different tactical abilities which may be used whenever you are wielding a bow for which you are proficient.


Covering Fire. As a full round action, you may forgo any attacks or movement and instead allocate a 60ft cone area which you will cover. Any enemy within this area in less than 50% cover from you provokes an attack of opportunity from your bow upon the start of their turn, regardless of their actions (or lack thereof). You must make these attacks with your bow, but follow all other rules for such, and you may not make more attacks of opportunity than normal in any given round.

Hampering Attack. Whenever you make a full attack against a single opponent and deal them damage they must succeed a Fortitude save (DC = BAB of the archer + weapon damage of the bow) or be reduced to half speed for a number of rounds equal to your Dex modifier. This does not stack with itself, only one instance of this may be active on a target at any given time, but the duration resets if the conditions are met.

Overwatch. As a full round action, you may ready a disarming attack with your bow. Designate an ally within 60ft, any time this ally is attacked in melee you may chose to protect them by firing at the attacker's weapon arm. Make an attack as normal for the weapon, opposed by the attacker's reflex bonus + 10. If you hit, they immediately drop the weapon they are wielding and lose the rest of this round's attacks (including attacks of opportunity). You may only make a number of attacks this way in a single round equal to the number of attacks your BAB allows, and each subsequent attack in a single round receives a cumulative -5 penalty to hit.


Maybe? Perhaps a bit much, but then again, maybe not...

Ziegander
2012-09-20, 07:11 PM
Yes, creatures with substantial DR/- will pose a serious problem for ranged then, but they're pretty rare even at high levels.

Has probably already been said, but, no. Creatures with any amount of DR (the minimum for any monster I know of is 5)/anything (other than DR X/slashing) will pose a serious problem for ranged. 1d8+2 vs DR 5/chaotic is 6.5 damage -5 for a total average of 1.5 per attack. If it hits. That's not good at 1st level. It's worthless at high levels.


That nerve bundle would probably require a pretty good attack roll, though; I doubt it's all that large.

No. I can punch you in the shoulder and administer a hefty penalty to your attacks with that arm. And I'm a Rogue-level fighter. Someone with full BAB is supposed to be better than me at that sort of thing. Someone trained with a bow, with full BAB-level fighting training, that shoots you in the shoulder will ****. You. Up.


The STR check would be easy; arrows aren't that strong. It's the Fort save to ignore the pain that would be the tough part.

The STR check depends entirely on the force put behind the attack. If the attack put the arrow into the ground to the fletching, it becomes significantly harder. The Fort save to ignore the pain is also a factor, but I think you're drastically underestimating the difficulty of the initial STR check to "escape the grapple."


Of course it should make sense. It should be quite impressive, but still needs to make sense.

Impressive is stuff that 2nd level humans are capable of in their areas of expertise. Quite impressive, is, maybe, stuff that 4th level humans are capable of in their areas of expertise. At 5th level and beyond, the stuff that D&D characters are capable of should utterly blow you away, as an average human-being. By the time a human character reaches 10th level in D&D, he or she should be capable of stuff that would be regarded, by real-life standards, as impossible. And that is mid-level.

Waargh!
2012-09-20, 08:51 PM
You can add abilities to by-pass DR with arrows. I don't see a harm on that. In reality people made bows and arrows to pierce full-plates when in medieval times they were facing heavily armored targets. So it is quite realistic anyway. Now why would an arrow bypass DR/chaotic is not clear but then again that whole DR makes little sense anyway. But that is just fluff at the end of the day. Then the caster needs to worry about SR when you don't about DR, somehow gaining the role of a more reliable striker.


Impressive is stuff that 2nd level humans are capable of in their areas of expertise. Quite impressive, is, maybe, stuff that 4th level humans are capable of in their areas of expertise. At 5th level and beyond, the stuff that D&D characters are capable of should utterly blow you away, as an average human-being. By the time a human character reaches 10th level in D&D, he or she should be capable of stuff that would be regarded, by real-life standards, as impossible. And that is mid-level.
That would be the definition for a bad pen and paper RPG the way I see it. For a video game or movie that is fine because you actually visualize it. I cannot imagine something that doesn't make sense, though. Casting an impossible spell is fine, as that is all what magic is about. Killing with one blow a creature, well, that is usually the whole purpose anyway. Punching a colossal dragon and dealing damage, that is just...weird. The colossal dragon hitting you back with two claws that actually pierce your skin to deal rending damage while afterwards you are still one piece, that is just merely... stupid. So even if an action just requires insane skill or impossible luck or anything magical but still obeys and physical and/or supernatural laws the game might have, I don't see a problem with it.

Yitzi
2012-09-20, 09:02 PM
Right then, archery needs nice stuff...

Bow Tactics

I don't really like the idea of the "tactics" feats (I find the idea of cramming three feats into one to be pretty ugly), but that's really more organization of abilities than the abilities themselves.


Covering Fire. As a full round action, you may forgo any attacks or movement and instead allocate a 60ft cone area which you will cover. Any enemy within this area in less than 50% cover

Not really clear; just say that it provokes regardless and let cover have its usual effect.


from you provokes an attack of opportunity from your bow upon the start of their turn

So it lets you attack them if they were already there, but if they move into it then it doesn't do anything? Isn't that the opposite of the whole idea of cover fire? (Admittedly, cover fire doesn't really work without rapid-fire weapons.)


Hampering Attack. Whenever you make a full attack against a single opponent and deal them damage they must succeed a Fortitude save (DC = BAB of the archer + weapon damage of the bow) or be reduced to half speed for a number of rounds equal to your Dex modifier. This does not stack with itself, only one instance of this may be active on a target at any given time, but the duration resets if the conditions are met.

Idea: Make it work the same way as a caltrop wound.


Overwatch. As a full round action, you may ready a disarming attack with your bow. Designate an ally within 60ft, any time this ally is attacked in melee you may chose to protect them by firing at the attacker's weapon arm. Make an attack as normal for the weapon, opposed by the attacker's reflex bonus + 10. If you hit, they immediately drop the weapon they are wielding and lose the rest of this round's attacks (including attacks of opportunity). You may only make a number of attacks this way in a single round equal to the number of attacks your BAB allows, and each subsequent attack in a single round receives a cumulative -5 penalty to hit.

Wouldn't it be simpler just to allow disarms with a bow? Also, it makes more sense for it to be against normal AC, with a Fort save to avoid dropping it.


Has probably already been said, but, no. Creatures with any amount of DR (the minimum for any monster I know of is 5)/anything (other than DR X/slashing) will pose a serious problem for ranged. 1d8+2 vs DR 5/chaotic is 6.5 damage -5 for a total average of 1.5 per attack. If it hits. That's not good at 1st level. It's worthless at high levels.

But if they have DR 5/chaotic, you can use your anarchic arrows (unlike a melee fighter, you don't have to pay a full 18000, you can pay for a smaller group) to bypass it. You're not facing DR/alignment until level 9 or so, by which point you can probably afford the necessary arrows.

Ranged can't power past DR the way a melee character can, but unless it's DR X/- you're expected to bypass it rather than power past it.


No. I can punch you in the shoulder and administer a hefty penalty to your attacks with that arm.

Even if I'm dodging you and maybe have some armor on and so on? Yes, it's doable with enough skill, but it'd be hard unless done as a sneak attack.


The STR check depends entirely on the force put behind the attack. If the attack put the arrow into the ground to the fletching, it becomes significantly harder.

Not really. He's not going to be pulling the arrow out of the ground, he's going to be pulling his foot out of the arrow. (Unless it got caught on a bone or something, but then it's not all the way into the ground.)


Impressive is stuff that 2nd level humans are capable of in their areas of expertise. Quite impressive, is, maybe, stuff that 4th level humans are capable of in their areas of expertise. At 5th level and beyond, the stuff that D&D characters are capable of should utterly blow you away, as an average human-being. By the time a human character reaches 10th level in D&D, he or she should be capable of stuff that would be regarded, by real-life standards, as impossible. And that is mid-level.

He should be capable of stuff that most people would think of as impossible, but not of things that are actually physically impossible.

If there exists a proof, without appealing to the individual's personal limitations, that something is impossible, then no level character should be able to do it without magic.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-20, 09:48 PM
He should be capable of stuff that most people would think of as impossible, but not of things that are actually physically impossible.

If there exists a proof, without appealing to the individual's personal limitations, that something is impossible, then no level character should be able to do it without magic.

I mean, that's partly an individual preference thing, but you'd have to nerf magic immensely to be able to balance high-level spells against awesome normals without resorting to near- or fully superhuman feats at higher levels.

Veklim
2012-09-21, 06:58 AM
He should be capable of stuff that most people would think of as impossible, but not of things that are actually physically impossible.

If there exists a proof, without appealing to the individual's personal limitations, that something is impossible, then no level character should be able to do it without magic.

This illustrates precisely why there's such a huge gulf between magic and mundane classes. Do something impossible and call it magic, everyone goes 'oh, OK then', do the same level of crazy with sheer fantasy skills and everyone goes 'but that's impossible!'.

Look at the climb and jump skills, check the numbers and compare them to Olympic athletes. Anything past level 5 or 6 is superhuman, truly and physically so far beyond world records that it's basically pure fantasy. But then again, that's what D&D is.

I'm all up for gritty, imersive gameplay, but trying for total realism doesn't work in 3.5. Especially when youi utter the words 'no character should be able to do it WITHOUT MAGIC' So you're disliking mundane class abilities for their lack of realism, and stating they must use something far MORE unbelievable for you to imagine it...?!?!

I fail to see any single mote of logic in that, sorry.

TheWombatOfDoom
2012-09-21, 08:04 AM
Instead of nerfing magic, what if magic was added to ranged so that it was up to snuff? Simple enough to say, harder to do, but the way I see it, why can't everyone have magic if it exists, just in different ways? Casters get to use spells, even monks have some super natural abilities. So, why can't rouges, fighters, rangers?

Yitzi
2012-09-21, 09:22 AM
I mean, that's partly an individual preference thing, but you'd have to nerf magic immensely to be able to balance high-level spells against awesome normals without resorting to near- or fully superhuman feats at higher levels.

Oh, I have nothing against near-superhuman or even fully superhuman; it just shouldn't be physically impossible.

Someone who can pick up a perfectly ordinary longbow and shoot an arrow a second at an erratically moving target the size of a dollar bill at the other end of a football field, and succeed with more than 95% of his shots...such an individual isn't doing anything physically impossible, but is quite clearly very much what would be considered superhuman.

And in my planned rebuild that will be doable with an NPC class with the proper specialization (even without extreme SAD-type focus) by level 20.

Not that nerfing magic isn't a worthy goal anyway...

Seerow
2012-09-21, 12:54 PM
Oh, I have nothing against near-superhuman or even fully superhuman; it just shouldn't be physically impossible.

Someone who can pick up a perfectly ordinary longbow and shoot an arrow a second at an erratically moving target the size of a dollar bill at the other end of a football field, and succeed with more than 95% of his shots...such an individual isn't doing anything physically impossible, but is quite clearly very much what would be considered superhuman.

And in my planned rebuild that will be doable with an NPC class with the proper specialization (even without extreme SAD-type focus) by level 20.

Not that nerfing magic isn't a worthy goal anyway...

What you described is probably fine for a level 20 NPC class (assuming you want NPC classes to go that high, which I'm not sure I would), but PC classes are different, and yes level 20 PCs break the laws of physics, regularly. This is something that needs to be increased, not decreased. Trying to keep mundanes within the realm of "this is physically possible" is dooming mundanes to failure.

Deepbluediver
2012-09-21, 02:09 PM
There's still a case to be made for capping STR bonus to damage that can be applied without damaging the weapon (for both melee and ranged), but it would certainly be more flexible than the current system.

And what exactly is that case? I wouldn't have any problem with just letting bows use the character's Strength score like a melee weapon under the blanket rule of "this is how weapons function in our world of make-believe". At the very least this will allow players to employ the various strength-boosting tricks that they would use normally, and should help overcome some of the complaints people have about DR.

Now, I've been pushing Strength because that's the standard melee-attack damage stat, but if it really doesn't jive well with your imagined fantasy world, then let the player just add their Dex-bonus straight up to damage as well, under the "ranged weapons benefit from Dex" heading. Basically just like Strength adds to both attack rolls and damage, Dex would add to attack rolls and damage with bows.
I tend not to like this approach because it makes it hard for a otherwise melee-oriented character to use a bow well, but at the very least it addresses the issue of a focused bow-user being a viable build on it's own.


Because he's not standing next to the ogre; the separate squares are merely an abstraction to fit the grid. In reality, he's swinging at the ogre, and the ogre's trying to smash him.

I still don't get why that would make it harder for you to shoot at the ogre. You can have two melee characters standing right next to each other and neither will get in the others way, and as far as I know it's only homebrew that allows critical misses to damage allies. I don't get why it makes any sense to effectively punish ranged attackers for using what is otherwise a viable tactic (having a meat-shield run interference for you). This is piled on top of a style that already suffers from being more difficult to use (as you pointed out) and is dual-stat reliant (Dex for hit, Str for damage).

Under the RAW, the archer could be standing on one side of an enemy, with your teamate on the other (effectively flanking him) and you would still take the penalty to your attack rolls. Explain to me the "realism" (or "versimilitude" if you prefer) in that logic.

At the very least, if you insist on keeping this penalty as the default option, then it should be eliminated very early on in the archery feat-chain, and the feat which eliminates it should ALSO grant your character something else (for example, combine Precise Shot and Point Blank Shot into one). IMO, a feat should noticably improve your character in some way, not just bring them up to the baseline level everyone else is already operating at.

Yitzi
2012-09-21, 04:26 PM
What you described is probably fine for a level 20 NPC class (assuming you want NPC classes to go that high, which I'm not sure I would), but PC classes are different, and yes level 20 PCs break the laws of physics, regularly. This is something that needs to be increased, not decreased. Trying to keep mundanes within the realm of "this is physically possible" is dooming mundanes to failure.

I don't see why. Other than the clearly broken magic stuff such as Gate and lose-no-save spells, I see nothing that can't be matched in importance within the realm of "this is physically possible".


And what exactly is that case?

If you try to pull the bowstring back too far, it'll break. If you try to swing a normal sword with enough strength to dent adamantine, the sword won't fare very well either.

Now, whether the realism is worth the effect on the game is a judgement call, but it's not an obvious one.


Now, I've been pushing Strength because that's the standard melee-attack damage stat, but if it really doesn't jive well with your imagined fantasy world, then let the player just add their Dex-bonus straight up to damage as well, under the "ranged weapons benefit from Dex" heading. Basically just like Strength adds to both attack rolls and damage, Dex would add to attack rolls and damage with bows.

I'd actually rather have STR add to damage with both, and DEX add to attack rolls with both.


I still don't get why that would make it harder for you to shoot at the ogre. You can have two melee characters standing right next to each other and neither will get in the others way, and as far as I know it's only homebrew that allows critical misses to damage allies.

The reason it's only homebrew is that it's assumed that the archer is taking extra care not to hit his ally; the difficulty of that extra care is represented by a penalty to the attack roll.


I don't get why it makes any sense to effectively punish ranged attackers for using what is otherwise a viable tactic (having a meat-shield run interference for you). This is piled on top of a style that already suffers from being more difficult to use (as you pointed out) and is dual-stat reliant (Dex for hit, Str for damage).

It makes sense because it is realistic (archers are usually not good when there's an ally right in front of the enemy); if that makes archers too weak, they should be strengthened in other ways.

In at least part of the ancient world, archery did suffer from the inability to safely target someone in melee with an ally, and archers were nevertheless downright scary (essentially the elite combatants, at least among foot soldiers). If it could work there, it can work in D&D.


Under the RAW, the archer could be standing on one side of an enemy, with your teamate on the other (effectively flanking him) and you would still take the penalty to your attack rolls. Explain to me the "realism" (or "versimilitude" if you prefer) in that logic.

Unless there's some reason that the archer needs to use a very high arc, I don't see any, and will concede for that case.


At the very least, if you insist on keeping this penalty as the default option, then it should be eliminated very early on in the archery feat-chain, and the feat which eliminates it should ALSO grant your character something else (for example, combine Precise Shot and Point Blank Shot into one).

I don't really see why that's necessary; I'm sure you'll agree that if archery were given a flat +4 bonus to attack rolls that would more than compensate for the "firing into melee" rule, and therefore the same applies to any other abilities of similar power to weapon focusX4.

Deepbluediver
2012-09-21, 07:59 PM
I'd actually rather have STR add to damage with both, and DEX add to attack rolls with both.
That might work, but then you would also need to find some way to make casters more MAD as well. Melee are already more dependent on Constituion, and suffer more when they have to dump Intellect (no skills), Wisdom, and Charmisma (no social interactions), than when casters need to dump Strength or Dexterity.

There are more melee feats that have an Int or Wis prerequisite than there are caster feats with physical stat prerequisites. If you are not going to change very much, then at the very least rework the feats so that melee can acess them easier. Again, this is a place where I like to put an either/or requirement, like "Intellect 13 OR BAB +3". So basically it allows a smart character to take the feat whenever they want, but the warrior can substitute stats with combat experience.


The reason it's only homebrew is that it's assumed that the archer is taking extra care not to hit his ally; the difficulty of that extra care is represented by a penalty to the attack roll.

It makes sense because it is realistic (archers are usually not good when there's an ally right in front of the enemy); if that makes archers too weak, they should be strengthened in other ways.
Ok, I get that, but why is it ONLY archery that get's penalized this way? And why do I not have an option to disregard the penalty? For example, I sneak up on two ogres fighting each other; I wouldn't really care if I hit one or the other.
If you surround an enemy from all (8) sides, you don't have to take extra care to not stab each other as you hack and slash; in fact it gets EASIER to hit! And there's no rule for single-target spells that says you need to avoid nuking your allies, they just work automatically.

I don't object to you having a different vision for your world, but I have a problem when the standard for "realism" is arbitrarily set at different levels. This is what gave us much of the imbalance in the first place; high level magic can do virtually anything, but the mundanes are limited to what we as earth-bound humans perceive as physically possible.


In at least part of the ancient world, archery did suffer from the inability to safely target someone in melee with an ally, and archers were nevertheless downright scary (essentially the elite combatants, at least among foot soldiers). If it could work there, it can work in D&D.
When it comes to armies, archers where effective because you could launch thousands of arrows at massed troops without needing line of sight. D&D isn't really set up to function like that.

What I did for my fix was scrap the "firing into melee" penalty, and say that if you try and shoot an arrow through a square(s) occupied by a creature, friendly or otherwise, then you have a flat 20% chance to hit that creature.
That should help solve the small-group melee range issue, not punish the ambush-type scenario, and (hopefully) represents the idea that no matter how skilled the archer, when fighting in close-quarters combat you can't predict exactly how any living targets in your way are going to move.



I don't really see why that's necessary; I'm sure you'll agree that if archery were given a flat +4 bonus to attack rolls that would more than compensate for the "firing into melee" rule, and therefore the same applies to any other abilities of similar power to weapon focusX4.
I'm confused; where is this bonus coming from?

All I want is for archery to be able to compete on a similar level to the great-axe weilding barbarian, who already has an advantage by being able to pump Strength and nothing else. I think the need to boost two stats instead of one balances out ranged combats range-advantage for the majority of encounters.
If the DM or the players go through the effort of setting up an ambush or an environment that lets them attack without getting hit back, then they should be able to benefit from that. I don't want to see a scenario where a player needs to be hiding behind castle walls for archery to merely be equal to the standard strategy of wading into cleave-range and going toe-to-toe with the goblin horde.

Saying "players and DMs need to play better" is all well and good, but it's not the kind of thing you should rely on mechanically.

Yitzi
2012-09-22, 08:08 PM
That might work, but then you would also need to find some way to make casters more MAD as well.

True. Or weaken them in some other ways...in my fix I'm planning to make divine casters MAD (WIS/CHA) and substantially cut arcane casters' endurance (more to psionics-level), plus boost saves across the board.

A more fundamental fix (which I'm also planning to use) is to increase the efficiency of across-the-board skill boosts as compared to focused skill boosts, which directly helps MAD as compared to SAD.


than when casters need to dump Strength or Dexterity.

Of course, a caster that's dumped STR and DEX has a low touch AC and low grapple score...


Ok, I get that, but why is it ONLY archery that get's penalized this way?

Because you tend not to have the same problem in melee, simply because it's easier to control where your blows don't land.


And why do I not have an option to disregard the penalty?

There's an idea; you can disregard the penalty, but then on a miss you have a 1/3 chance to hit your ally instead.


When it comes to armies, archers where effective because you could launch thousands of arrows at massed troops without needing line of sight. D&D isn't really set up to function like that.

I think even in smaller groups, archers were highly effective.


What I did for my fix was scrap the "firing into melee" penalty, and say that if you try and shoot an arrow through a square(s) occupied by a creature, friendly or otherwise, then you have a flat 20% chance to hit that creature.
That should help solve the small-group melee range issue, not punish the ambush-type scenario, and (hopefully) represents the idea that no matter how skilled the archer, when fighting in close-quarters combat you can't predict exactly how any living targets in your way are going to move.

I think that makes a lot of sense.


I'm confused; where is this bonus coming from?

Nowhere; I was making a point about balance, not proposing an actual rule. A rule doesn't have to make sense in order to be balanced or prove something about balance.


who already has an advantage by being able to pump Strength and nothing else.

Without CON, he's not going to last very long...


If the DM or the players go through the effort of setting up an ambush or an environment that lets them attack without getting hit back, then they should be able to benefit from that.

Definitely. Archery should be more effective than melee in such scenarios by at least as much as melee is more effective than archery in close combat.


Saying "players and DMs need to play better" is all well and good, but it's not the kind of thing you should rely on mechanically.

I'd disagree, for the simple reason that there exist fundamental problems that cannot be fixed unless either the players and DMs play that way, or have gaming goals that could be better fulfilled with a different game (maybe a pen-and-paper version of WoW).