Thrown weapons and size

[kulosle]

So I feel like i'm just being clueless, but i can't seem to find if size affects how far you can throw things. I mean a creature that is 40 by 40 throws a dagger, is it's range increment really only 10ft? i mean he gave the dagger at least 40 feat of momentum.

If there isn't a RAW ruling about this. Does anyone have any house rules?

[Slipperychicken]

I agree with you. It really is silly. A pixie's 6 inch "longbow" will launch arrows exactly as far as that of a 40ft tall giant.


If I were to make a houserule about it, I'd say that range increments are doubled for each size increment higher than medium, or halved for each size increment below medium. If there's anything siege weapons tell us, it's that bigger weapons shoot farther.

[madtinker]

I agree with you. It really is silly. A pixie's 6 inch "longbow" will launch arrows exactly as far as that of a 40ft tall giant.


If I were to make a houserule about it, I'd say that range increments are doubled for each size increment higher than medium, or halved for each size increment below medium. If there's anything siege weapons tell us, it's that bigger weapons shoot farther.

I would second this as a houserule.

[The Insanity]

If I were to make a houserule about it, I'd say that range increments are doubled for each size increment higher than medium, or halved for each size increment below medium. If there's anything siege weapons tell us, it's that bigger weapons shoot farther.
I like this idea, but wouldn't that be too much? How about x2 for Large, x3 for Huge, x4 for Gargantuan and x5 for Colossal? And then /2 for Small, /3 for Tiny, /4 for Diminutive and /5 for Fine?

Dagger (F) - 2 ft. (maximum 10 ft.)
Dagger (D) - 2.5 ft. (maximum 12.5 ft.)
Dagger (T) - 3 ft. (maximum 15 ft.)
Dagger (S) - 5 ft. (maximum 25 ft.)
Dagger (M) - 10 ft. (maximum 50 ft.)
Dagger (L) - 20 ft. (maximum 100 ft.)
Dagger (H) - 30 ft. (maximum 150 ft.)
Dagger (G) - 40 ft. (maximum 200 ft.)
Dagger (C) - 50 ft. (maximum 250 ft.)

[Slipperychicken]

I like this idea, but wouldn't that be too much?

I've been thinking about that myself, and perhaps effective range might not scale perfectly with height. Maybe 3/4 or 1/2 might be a good compromise? It's hard to find real-life statistics for longbows fired by giants, though we could combine real-life ranges and the "ballista = huge heavy crossbow" ruling in D&D to determine how it should scale. I may use excel-fu to post a graph later.


Scaling ranged increments is a serious nerf to small-sized ranged attackers. On the other hand, they really would be at a disadvantage when it comes to range. No matter how nimble one might be, a 3ft tall person would have a great deal of trouble matching the projectile force of his 5ft tall counterpart. After all, increased throwing distance from size was one of the main reasons why tall, strong men were historically chosen to be grenadiers.

[Andion Isurand]

some range increments are given for certain weapons used by larger creatures... like 180 ft. increment for a storm giant's composite longbow... but then I think ranges (and speeds) for bigger creatures and many animals, tend to fall short given how difficult it is to tactically map and place creatures on a stretch of terrain with that kind of scale, in a practical sense for any game using a grid, miniatures, and other props

one route I've been dabbling with is to alternate between giving +50% and +33% adjustments to a weapon's range increment for each size jump above medium, similar to how weapon base damage is often calculated... however, it would make creatures with Powerful Build that much better



Size
Composite Longbow Range Increment


medium
110 ft.


large
165 ft.


huge
220 ft.


gargantuan
330 ft.


colossal
440 ft.



And here's dagger distances at all sizes using this pattern.



Size
Dagger Range Increment


fine
2.5 ft.


diminutive
3.75 ft.


tiny
5 ft.


small
7.5 ft.


medium
10 ft.


large
15 ft.


huge
20 ft.


gargantuan
30 ft.


colossal
40 ft.



Or you could simply measure ranged weapons by a creature's reach, so that a dagger flies at least as far as a reach weapon can reach, before taking penalties.
Look for Tiny Creatures with Reach Weapons (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a)

[kulosle]

It's okay that little people are worse at ranged attacks because they are better mages than the tall folk. I would say that halflings would count as medium for ranged attacks purposes because they are suppose to be good with those things.

And ballista's have the exact same range increment as a heavy cross bow (which makes no sense). So that doesn't help.

What about multiplying it by the number of squares of the creatures reach?

[Andion Isurand]

Yeah, I can agree with that... measuring ranged weapons by a creature's reach, so that a thrown dagger flies at least as far as a reach weapon can reach, before taking penalties.

For completeness: Look for Tiny Creatures with Reach Weapons (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a)