PDA

View Full Version : Ranged threatening: Crazy?



Orzel
2007-02-19, 01:15 PM
How crazy would a D&D game be if if allowed ranged weapons to threaten squares?

A good while ago, I played a game with ranged AoOs out to 10feet + 5 times your wisdom modifier in feet. It was pretty weird. Defensive casting was a must and moving without Spring Attack was asking for death. Really made archers and Full BAB classes quite annoying or helpful depending on your build and what side they were own. I lost my wizard "running" for line of sight.

What are you thoughts on the idea.

okpokalypse
2007-02-19, 01:24 PM
How crazy would a D&D game be if if allowed ranged weapons to threaten squares?

A good while ago, I played a game with ranged AoOs out to 10feet + 5 times your wisdom modifier in feet. It was pretty weird. Defensive casting was a must and moving without Spring Attack was asking for death. Really made archers and Full BAB classes quite annoying or helpful depending on your build and what side they were own. I lost my wizard "running" for line of sight.

What are you thoughts on the idea.

I honestly don't know how I'd feel about that. Personally, I'd rather D&D move to an event based system and abandon this whole turn based thing. Bring back casting durations for spells and you'd have a hint of a more realistic combat system. Not one where an Archer can fire off all 6 Shots in the split second before the rogue moves in and stabs him, and then they both sit around and do nothing for 5.9 more seconds :).

Diggorian
2007-02-19, 01:28 PM
I tried Ranged AoOs in a Modern game, but was a different system from Melee AoOs. Threatened out to 30ft (seems the magic number of ranged special effects) and only actions that lowered your Defense/AC for ranged attacks provoked (leaving cover, raising from prone or kneeling, charging, etc.).

Made for more realistic gunplay scenes, which you may want with Modern (spare the catgirls). Worked for my Mafia style camp I used it in, but not for every game.

jjpickar
2007-02-19, 01:34 PM
I usually prefer that ranged characters have contingency actions prepared instead of AoO. It keeps the rules the same but makes archers more viable defensive characters.

Orzel
2007-02-19, 01:47 PM
I tried Ranged AoOs in a Modern game, but was a different system from Melee AoOs. Threatened out to 30ft (seems the magic number of ranged special effects) and only actions that lowered your Defense/AC for ranged attacks provoked (leaving cover, raising from prone or kneeling, charging, etc.).



The DM created a feat that changed Ranged AoOs from 10+5xWisMod to 30+5xWisMod. Ranged AoO also required a Dex vs Wis opposed roll if performed without another homebrew feat.




Made for more realistic gunplay scenes, which you may want with Modern (spare the catgirls). Worked for my Mafia style camp I used it in, but not for every game.

The setting was ranged focused. So many magically created boxes hid behind and unsummoned.

MrNexx
2007-02-19, 01:52 PM
I think it could work with some strong facing rules; allow AoO's in a given arc, to a set range (half the first range increment, IMO), and people with no or little cover.

Olethros
2007-02-19, 01:52 PM
The closest I would come to allowing ranged weapons to threaten squares is to allow for the melee weapons that act like ranged weapons (i.e. whips etc) to threaten. Or some kind of feet like defense where the player could specify a target within 30ft. and threaten it specifically. Otherwise an archer with a high dex, combat reflexes, and a selection of archery feats is suddenly capable of pinning down an entire mob.

Matthew
2007-02-19, 01:58 PM
I don't think Ranged Weapons should threaten with regards to Attacks of Opportunity. They already shoot pretty rapidly.

Diggorian
2007-02-19, 02:14 PM
The DM created a feat that changed Ranged AoOs from 10+5xWisMod to 30+5xWisMod. Ranged AoO also required a Dex vs Wis opposed roll if performed without another homebrew feat.

I didnt require a feat, was just a normal part of the modified game mechanic. Was brutal on meleers cause Modern hurts them already relative to D&D.

In D&D my version could work though. D&D's huge massive damage threshhold (if you use it) is key, much less blood thirsty than Modern's. It would give archers a bit of battlefield control like they've historically had. Half the first range increment and arcs like Nexx suggests could be feasible.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-02-19, 03:25 PM
Threatened out to 30ft (seems the magic number of ranged special effects)

That always annoyed me about the sneak attack. You can't snipe within 30 ft., it ain't the way its supposed to work. But what really annoyed me was the Ranged sneak attack ability of some Prcs, its sneak attack that only works with ranged weapons, but still needs 30 ft. Surely a purely flavourful penalty should be balanced by an equally flavourful bonus?

Fax Celestis
2007-02-19, 03:45 PM
I think it could work with some strong facing rules; allow AoO's in a given arc, to a set range (half the first range increment, IMO), and people with no or little cover.

Considering I used facing already, a 30' threatening cone for ranged casters certainly makes sense.

Now, this begs the question: does the Warlock threaten with his eldritch blast in the same cone? Because if he does...well, then a Warlock with Combat Reflexes just got a whole lot better.

Diggorian
2007-02-19, 04:00 PM
Warlocks would still be hosed by the "as a standard action" clause in their power's contract. Ofcourse, you can always make a house feat.

The 30ft to sneak attack always made sense to me cause ya gotta see the little details as the PHB says. If a bow or crossbow had a scope on it that reduced spot penalties to -3 or higher (the spot penalty for 30ft), I'd allow a sneak from farther. Maybe those with a racial Spot bonus could sneak shot from farther, elves' +2 can do it from 50ft?

Fax Celestis
2007-02-19, 04:02 PM
Warlocks would still be hosed by the "as a standard action" clause in their power's contract. Ofcourse, you can always make a house feat.

An Attack of Opportunity is a single swing with a single weapon -- which also translates to a standard action.

cupkeyk
2007-02-19, 04:34 PM
Whisperknives threaten a ten foot area with thrown weapons (the approximate five foot squares require them to stab the person normally).

I think Order of the Bow initiates can make attacks of opportunities to around five feet with five feet.

I think other than these, it gets a bit absurd, unless it's a readied action.

NullAshton
2007-02-19, 04:42 PM
I honestly don't know how I'd feel about that. Personally, I'd rather D&D move to an event based system and abandon this whole turn based thing. Bring back casting durations for spells and you'd have a hint of a more realistic combat system. Not one where an Archer can fire off all 6 Shots in the split second before the rogue moves in and stabs him, and then they both sit around and do nothing for 5.9 more seconds :).

It's an abstraction. Technically, the archer is firing off their shots while the rogue stabs him. It's just that the rogue ended up reacting just a little after the archer, so the archer 'goes first'.

Orzel
2007-02-19, 05:16 PM
In the DM's custom setting, enhanced ammo was cheap due to mass production. Every combatant in the setting either was a ranged weapon master or an expert at defending against ranged attacks. Warriors try to provoke archers, rogues 3shot casters, and caster went from battlefield control into battlefield creation.

In a normal setting; an half increment ranged AoO range, no cover, and low obstacles make more sense.

Diggorian
2007-02-19, 05:41 PM
An Attack of Opportunity is a single swing with a single weapon -- which also translates to a standard action.

A single swing of a single melee weapon can be a standard act, but nowhere does it call an AoO a standard action. If anything, with the new terms, it'll be an Immediate action.

I'm assuming the difference between spell-like abilities and normal ranged attacks (which can be iterative) still exists.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-19, 05:59 PM
A single swing of a single melee weapon can be a standard act, but nowhere does it call an AoO a standard action. If anything, with the new terms, it'll be an Immediate action.

I'm assuming the difference between spell-like abilities and normal ranged attacks (which can be iterative) still exists.

I suppose, but you know: the warlock needs the boost.

Orzel
2007-02-19, 06:07 PM
It really depends on how fast a warlock can create and move her blast. If it were to be greater than 2 seconds real times, it's too slow to take advantage on anything.

Inigo_Carmine
2007-02-19, 06:16 PM
Ranged AoOs don't make sense (outside fully automatic, belt-fed weapons).

The idea of an AoO is that in melee, you're constantly making swings and thrusts, etc to try and pry open your opponent's defenses. An AoO happens when an opponent decides to do something to take their concentration off of the battle (like stop and tie their shoes). One of those swings/probes that previously really had little to no chance of hitting is now given a chance. It's not an "extra" swing in the meaningful sense, it is just an extra dice roll. The same is true of iterative attacks.

Ranged attacks are different. An archer isn't letting off 30 arrows a round, with only two having a chance of hitting. He's actually only loosing two arrows. He can't go faster than that.

If Rusty the Iron Golem Practice Target goes from standing stock still, to bending over and tying his shoelaces (don't ask why he has shoes), I fail to see how this would suddenly enable an archer to start emptying his quiver even faster.

As said before, a fully automatic weapon with a large enough ammo cache would make sense, as the target suddenly becomes much easier to hit, you have a much greater chance of hitting them with more bullets.

Then again, D&D/D20 mechanics and semi/full auto guns never meshed well with me.

AoiRorentsu
2007-02-19, 07:54 PM
I tend to agree with Inigo and a couple other people. With the exception of fully automatic weapons and such, in which case really they should just be getting a boatload of attacks anyway, AoOs don't make sense at range. In particular, crossbows are essentially useless as AoO weapons because they have specified reload times. As for long bows and shortbows, it seems to me that it would require a readied action, like pulling an arrow out of your quiver, stringing it, etc. I just don't see that happening in the space of an AoO.

Moreover, the whole point of readied actions is really to facilitate this kind of tactic. While if you thought really hard (okay, maybe not that hard) i'm sure you could come up with other reasons to use it, the primary reason the rule exists, IMO, is to allow ranged attackers to disrupt enemy actions (eg spellcasting, etc). Imagine the look on PCs faces when they are taken down by archers of much lower level because half of them are just readying actions against spellcasters! Each time the wizard tries to kill everyone, boom- 4 attacks against them. One of those probably stands a decent chance at hitting.

okpokalypse
2007-02-19, 10:41 PM
It's an abstraction. Technically, the archer is firing off their shots while the rogue stabs him. It's just that the rogue ended up reacting just a little after the archer, so the archer 'goes first'.

It's not an abstraction when the 6th and final shot kills the Rogue - thereby nullifying any attacks he might have made during the time it took to get off 6 shots.

This is why I liked the Combat & Tactics phases so much. It kept things like that from happening. It was worth the extra work for a combat to be more realistic, IMO.

Beleriphon
2007-02-20, 03:58 AM
Then again, D&D/D20 mechanics and semi/full auto guns never meshed well with me.

I like D20 Modern automatic fire rules. They work in that you can cover a large area, or a fire a bunch of bullets at one person. Either way you're increasing your total damage.

Zincorium
2007-02-20, 04:32 AM
I dislike the D20 modern rules for gunfire, and a few of the other rules about firearms, despite liking almost everything else. How does firing more bullets mean you're less likely to have even one hit? And how is it even possible that a sufficiently high level fast hero can have eight mounted gatling cannons firing at the area he's in and not a single bullet will hit him? Without him having cover of any sort?

As far as ranged attacks of opportunity, it really comes down to whether you can see it happening as a matter of rate of fire. Nocking and releasing an arrow takes so much more time than simply squeezing a trigger, and from what I've seen of archery and firearms respectively, aiming an arrow accurately takes a bit more time than lining up the sights on a gun.

Orzel
2007-02-20, 04:36 AM
Ranged AoOs don't make sense (outside fully automatic, belt-fed weapons).

The idea of an AoO is that in melee, you're constantly making swings and thrusts, etc to try and pry open your opponent's defenses. An AoO happens when an opponent decides to do something to take their concentration off of the battle (like stop and tie their shoes). One of those swings/probes that previously really had little to no chance of hitting is now given a chance. It's not an "extra" swing in the meaningful sense, it is just an extra dice roll. The same is true of iterative attacks.

Ranged attacks are different. An archer isn't letting off 30 arrows a round, with only two having a chance of hitting. He's actually only loosing two arrows. He can't go faster than that.

If Rusty the Iron Golem Practice Target goes from standing stock still, to bending over and tying his shoelaces (don't ask why he has shoes), I fail to see how this would suddenly enable an archer to start emptying his quiver even faster.

As said before, a fully automatic weapon with a large enough ammo cache would make sense, as the target suddenly becomes much easier to hit, you have a much greater chance of hitting them with more bullets.

Then again, D&D/D20 mechanics and semi/full auto guns never meshed well with me.


That's one of my problems with D20's attack abstraction.

Melee attack = an opening in the defender's defenses allows one or more of your many attacks to have a chance to hit.
Ranged attack = a shot that has a chance to hit the target

Melee attackers swing their swords more times than the number of attacks. Ranged attackers can't.

For Ranged AoO to truly make sense, the shooter must be firing more shots than her number of attacks.


Automatic Fire.
As a swift action, you may choose to shoot at all targets withot total cover. This allows you to make attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon until the beginning of your next turn. You threaten all squares at X range and may make attacks of opportunity at double the ammunition cost. Each round you spend in automatic fire mode, you spend 2 extra ammunition (treat this as two uses of ammunition is fired and missed).

You can only assume automatic fire when weilding any ranged weapon that uses you normal rate of attack (such a bow).

With this method, the shooter can fire more shots than his numbe of attacks. She fires a few more shots a round that can "possibly" hit a distracted or moving enemy. Roleyplaywise, she was shooting at Rusty the Iron Golem before he was bent over to tie his shoes but his bent over state gave that stray arrow a chance to hit him it normally would not have.

Person_Man
2007-02-20, 09:45 AM
It would completely change the game, in a bad way. A Monk with Quickdraw would threaten a huge area. The Cleric archer, already an uber build, would become entirely broken. Plus it doesn't really make much fluff sense.

MrNexx
2007-02-20, 09:53 AM
Considering I used facing already, a 30' threatening cone for ranged casters certainly makes sense.

Personally, I hate the flat 30'. It's 30' for knives, which is about as far as you can throw them. It's 30' for bows, which is 2% of their range.


Now, this begs the question: does the Warlock threaten with his eldritch blast in the same cone? Because if he does...well, then a Warlock with Combat Reflexes just got a whole lot better.

I would say so.

Orzel
2007-02-20, 10:21 AM
It would completely change the game, in a bad way. A Monk with Quickdraw would threaten a huge area. The Cleric archer, already an uber build, would become entirely broken. Plus it doesn't really make much fluff sense.

It depends. If the range is a flat 30', thron weapon would be boosted and make excellent off hand attacks even with the -4 penalty at max range. Projectile AoO wound be nerfed though. At a half increment range, most thorwn weapons would be reached as melee and reach AoOs because of the short range. Projectile would be prefered.

A quick draw monk would miss everything with its 3/4 BAB and range penalties. A buff cleric archer would fear AoO do to many turns of buffing and lose the ability to cast quickened spells. Ranged AoO is a major change that makes positioning more important.

Overlard
2007-02-20, 11:07 AM
I know one player who was convinced that your threat range = the range of your weapon. I remember he kept trying to set up flanks from 30ft away with his rogue, and tried to shoot anyone standing up from prone as long as they were within the 100ft range of his bow.

It didn't matter how many times he was told it didn't work like that, the next week he'd be there trying to flank with a ranged weapon.

Indon
2007-02-20, 11:13 AM
With a gun, I can see it. Jumping out of cover is like screaming "kill me!" in a really loud voice, and firing a gun's a pretty point-and-click affair. Same with a repeating crossbow, for that matter.

Now, with a bow and arrow (or a single-shot firearm) things are different in the ammo department. You have to grab your ammo and 'load' your weapon each time you fire, taking an easy shot in a split second is simply not as viable.

So, personally, I'd rule that multiple-shot-per-reload weapons could ranged AOO. It'd make crossbows a bit better, too.

NullAshton
2007-02-20, 11:44 AM
You could have a variant that allows you to fire off more shots than you normally could with BAB. For exampe, you can fire off one arrow more than BAB at first like regular AoOs, then a combat reflexes type feat that allows you to fire one plus dexterity bonus more arrows.

Those arrows do not hit and are wasted, UNLESS someone provokes an AoO within one range increment. If so, then that arrow is 'used' to make the AoO, with the same dynamics as an AoO attack.

Tada!

PnP Fan
2007-02-20, 03:03 PM
Don't have much to add, but I agree, AoO for ranged attacks of any sort = bad idea.
1. Physically doesn't make much sense. Sword fighting involves constantly poking at your opponent's defense until you manage to get a good attack in. When your opponent opens themselves up, then you get an additional good attack. Ranged attacks occur at a rate that is more dependent upon ready-rate, and how well you can target. This has nothing to do with your opponent's ability to defend themselves. (argument's can be made for gun games in this department in terms of ready-rate)
2. Balance: An archer with high dex, and Combat Reflexes will pretty much threaten everyone on your battlefield. With the right flavor of cheese, this will turn your archers into instant death in your encounters.
3. The standard-action argument: Many spells are standard actions as well. Just think of how the battlefield would change if we allowed Wizards to shoot off Slay Living (or fireball, or whatever) as an attack of opportunity?

NullAshton
2007-02-20, 03:16 PM
There's a feat that lets you use touch range spells as an attack of opportunity.

Fhaolan
2007-02-20, 05:03 PM
I'm going to start a new thread about the sneak attack range of 30', because I want to hear more discussion about it, and I don't want derail this thread too much.

Zincorium
2007-02-20, 05:10 PM
With a gun, I can see it. Jumping out of cover is like screaming "kill me!" in a really loud voice, and firing a gun's a pretty point-and-click affair. Same with a repeating crossbow, for that matter.

Now, with a bow and arrow (or a single-shot firearm) things are different in the ammo department. You have to grab your ammo and 'load' your weapon each time you fire, taking an easy shot in a split second is simply not as viable.

So, personally, I'd rule that multiple-shot-per-reload weapons could ranged AOO. It'd make crossbows a bit better, too.

Um, I don't think repeating crossbows work that way. At all. It says in the description that you have to reload it by pulling back the lever, which loads a bolt from the clip. Pretty much exactly like a pump shotgun or bolt action rifle, except fast enough that you can fire more than one a round. If you've houseruled them to work differently, i.e. draw back once and fire any number of bolts, then it'd be allowable.