A little (big) mod of ranged attacks

[BlacKnight]

Reading the artificer class made me realize how much I hate the machine gun style of ranged attacks in D&D.
A great archer in D&D isn't a sniper... is a machine gun ! To me archers shouldn't be able to do 3 or 4 attacks per turn, they should make 1 attack that hit hard.

So I made this simple rule: when a character use the Attack Action to make a ranged attack he makes only 1 attack, but the damage is multiplied by the number of extra attacks. So a lv 11 fighter with a longbow and DEX +5 would make 3d8+15 with his ranged attack.

Would this cause some unwanted effect ?
I've already banned Sharpshooter, so that's not a problem. True Strike could have some more use... considering that actually is worthless except for ambushes. Ranger Volley would be more useful, that would be good because the ranger is a little "meh". The Ranger Mark would lose a little, but can be fixed doubling its effect if activated by a "powered" attack.
Thoughts ?

[Addaran]

Reading the artificer class made me realize how much I hate the machine gun style of ranged attacks in D&D.
A great archer in D&D isn't a sniper... is a machine gun ! To me archers shouldn't be able to do 3 or 4 attacks per turn, they should make 1 attack that hit hard.

So I made this simple rule: when a character use the Attack Action to make a ranged attack he makes only 1 attack, but the damage is multiplied by the number of extra attacks. So a lv 11 fighter with a longbow and DEX +5 would make 3d8+15 with his ranged attack.

Would this cause some unwanted effect ?
I've already banned Sharpshooter, so that's not a problem. True Strike could have some more use... considering that actually is worthless except for ambushes. Ranger Volley would be more useful, that would be good because the ranger is a little "meh". The Ranger Mark would lose a little, but can be fixed doubling its effect if activated by a "powered" attack.
Thoughts ?

It does sound a lot more realistic.

An unwanted effect would be that it's all or nothing though. Normally you'd get 2 chances to do 1/2 of the damage or 3 chances for 1/3 each.
It will favor "overkill" since you can't separate your damage like you can now.
It gets less good with all the on hit effects ( hex, hunter's mark, +1d6 fire bow, etc)

Sadly, there's a reason why eldritch blast is so much better then firebolt (and not just cause of the damage type).

[JellyPooga]

It does sound a lot more realistic.

At the height of their prominence, an "English Longbowman" had a rate of fire of about 10-12 per minute...in volleys. A skilled longbowman could expect more like 15-20 per minute shooting individually.

So 1/round for a proficient bowman is about right (level 1-4). 2/round for a skilled bowman ("martial" Class level 5+). 3+/round for a legendary one (Fighter 11+, certain Ranger abilities and/or magical assistance). Seems pretty "realistic" to me, at least as far as bows go. Crossbows, slings and to an extent most throwing weapons shooting at those rates seems a bit daft, yes, but for bows it's about right.

[Vorpalchicken]

Besides, you don't want your fighters dipping warlock just so they can make decent ranged attacks.

[D.U.P.A.]

Eh, I already see very few ranged weapon users. Especially if ammo becomes an issue, but usually either you are in front with melee weapons or slinging spells at the distance. Maybe occasional rogue, which already has the combat style you mentioned.

[TripleD]

Crossbows, slings and to an extent most throwing weapons shooting at those rates seems a bit daft, yes, but for bows it's about right.

Crossbows I'll give you, but slings, by a trained user, aren't any slower than a bow and arrow (they also travel just as far and hit as well, if not better, than arrows, but "slings being maligned in D&D" is another discussion).

Thrown weapons seems like a mixed bag. Javelins require a bit of "wind up", so it's seems unrealistic, but 4 daggers in six seconds doesn't seem that hard to pull off if you have them on hand.

[JellyPooga]

Crossbows I'll give you, but slings, by a trained user, aren't any slower than a bow and arrow (they also travel just as far and hit as well, if not better, than arrows, but "slings being maligned in D&D" is another discussion).

Really? I know the stopping power of a sling is roughly equitable with a bow and the skill to use it is nowhere near as easy as any edition of D&D would have us believe (seriously, it's hard to use a proper sling), but I always thought they're pretty slow; between recovery, loading and the "wind-up", you'd be lucky to get 10 shots a minute by my inexperienced estimation. I'd be glad to be proven wrong.

Sling-shots are a different weapon altogether.

[Addaran]

At the height of their prominence, an "English Longbowman" had a rate of fire of about 10-12 per minute...in volleys. A skilled longbowman could expect more like 15-20 per minute shooting individually.

So 1/round for a proficient bowman is about right (level 1-4). 2/round for a skilled bowman ("martial" Class level 5+). 3+/round for a legendary one (Fighter 11+, certain Ranger abilities and/or magical assistance). Seems pretty "realistic" to me, at least as far as bows go. Crossbows, slings and to an extent most throwing weapons shooting at those rates seems a bit daft, yes, but for bows it's about right.

While they could possibly do 20 per minutes, i doubt they were also able to move around (30fts per 6 seconds) and aim at particular target. From what i understand, that quick rate of fire was only possible because they were shooting at a huge mass of enemies (with friends in volleys). Or maybe unmoving targets when they practiced.

The other part that seems unrealistic is because the other weapons have the same rate of hit. It's far easier to hit a few times during 6 seconds with a melee weapon (those that aren't super heavy, like a club, short sword, etc) then with a bow, even if the meleer doesn't have much experience. Worst then that, with feats, the absolute quickest weapon is the hand crossbow, where you're acting like a cowboy on steroids. =P

[JellyPooga]

While they could possibly do 20 per minutes, i doubt they were also able to move around (30fts per 6 seconds) and aim at particular target. From what i understand, that quick rate of fire was only possible because they were shooting at a huge mass of enemies (with friends in volleys). Or maybe unmoving targets when they practiced.

I won't argue with this. It's totally valid. I will add, though, that we can suspend a little disbelief because, you know, "fantasy" :smallwink:


The other part that seems unrealistic is because the other weapons have the same rate of hit. It's far easier to hit a few times during 6 seconds with a melee weapon (those that aren't super heavy, like a club, short sword, etc) then with a bow, even if the meleer doesn't have much experience. Worst then that, with feats, the absolute quickest weapon is the hand crossbow, where you're acting like a cowboy on steroids. =P

This I will contend, though. I don't think we can or should compare melee combat to ranged in D&D. An "Attack" in melee is not necessarily "one swing".

[Potato_Priest]

Would this cause some unwanted effect ?


How would you run an extra attack granted by the Haste spell or the Crossbow Master Feat?

[Rysto]

Also, it's a nerf for an archer Ranger, who can get a nice damage boost from Hunter's Mark.

[BlacKnight]

Eh, I already see very few ranged weapon users. Especially if ammo becomes an issue, but usually either you are in front with melee weapons or slinging spells at the distance. Maybe occasional rogue, which already has the combat style you mentioned.

In my games ranged attacks are used every time it's possible. The only exception is when the enemy manage to engage in melee, or they are in a closed space. So I don't fear that people would run from ranged characters.
But Warlocks could become better than they already are.


This I will contend, though. I don't think we can or should compare melee combat to ranged in D&D. An "Attack" in melee is not necessarily "one swing".

While it's true that D&D combat system is an abstraction... you have limits about how much you can freely describe the result. A superhuman that can shoot 3-4 arrows in 6 seconds should be a killing machine with a sword. And he is, except for the fact that he can only hit 3-4 enemies. To not say that a lot of effects, from True Strike to Mirror Image, consider melee attacks like 1 attack = 1 swing.
It's the same problem with HP. Yes, in theory you should be able to describe them like a mix of experience, luck and toughness. In practice this lead to no sense situations where people survive fireballs in narrow tunnels... so I find easier to say that yes, D&D characters are absurdly durable.


How would you run an extra attack granted by the Haste spell or the Crossbow Master Feat?

Haste ? I would increase the damage just like it was another attack (your perception of time is quickened, so you can aim better).
Crossbow Master ? I would consider it another attack, with its own roll to hit. You are using another crossbow after all.

[D.U.P.A.]

In my games ranged attacks are used every time it's possible. The only exception is when the enemy manage to engage in melee, or they are in a closed space. So I don't fear that people would run from ranged characters.
But Warlocks could become better than they already are.


Any ranged attacks or weapon ranged attacks? Because for classes like Barbarian or Paladin, use of ranged attack is suboptimal. You should note that 20 level fighters are basically superhumans and should not be compared to real world people, considering there are people who can shoot flames from their hand at will already from level 1. Also I see nothing wrong with machine gun bowman, after all some archery tactics relies more on rate of fire than the precision.

[BlacKnight]

Any ranged attacks or weapon ranged attacks? Because for classes like Barbarian or Paladin, use of ranged attack is suboptimal. You should note that 20 level fighters are basically superhumans and should not be compared to real world people, considering there are people who can shoot flames from their hand at will already from level 1. Also I see nothing wrong with machine gun bowman, after all some archery tactics relies more on rate of fire than the precision.

My problem with machine gun archery isn't lack of realism. I play D&D to have superheroes.
What I don't like is the lack of consistency. You can shoot with a bow so fast ? Ok, why aren't you so incredible also when you swing a sword or do any other activity that require strength and dexterity ?
RAW PCs are much more powerful when they use bows than usual. Note that I don't mean they are more powerful from a rule perspective.
Bows aren't even so problematic. Crossbows are.

[D.U.P.A.]

Melee weapons still deal more damage than ranged. Those with lower damage die allow you to use shield. Try to take in account cover more often. Friendly creatures can provide cover to the enemy you want to target. Indoors you can have pitch dark areas. Outdoors there is a wind. There are many ways to nullify the ranged advantage.

[TripleD]

Really? I know the stopping power of a sling is roughly equitable with a bow and the skill to use it is nowhere near as easy as any edition of D&D would have us believe (seriously, it's hard to use a proper sling), but I always thought they're pretty slow; between recovery, loading and the "wind-up", you'd be lucky to get 10 shots a minute by my inexperienced estimation. I'd be glad to be proven wrong.


The wind up isn't actually necessary; spinning it around doesn't make the bullet travel any faster or straighter. Experienced slingers can just load and fire in one smooth motion like throwing a baseball. A baseball's actually a good analogy. It's the same physics, you're just using the sling to make your "arm" longer and get more torque.

I admit that I had to google the exact rate of fire (I had read about slings being used in volleys, so assumed the firing rate wasn't far from arrows) but according to a paper by Chris Harrison (http://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Research/Sling) "a good slinger could fire more than 12 rounds a minute", which is right in range of the 10-15 arrows usually estimated for archers.

[Rysto]

My problem with machine gun archery isn't lack of realism. I play D&D to have superheroes.
What I don't like is the lack of consistency. You can shoot with a bow so fast ? Ok, why aren't you so incredible also when you swing a sword or do any other activity that require strength and dexterity ?
RAW PCs are much more powerful when they use bows than usual. Note that I don't mean they are more powerful from a rule perspective.
Bows aren't even so problematic. Crossbows are.

So, is your issue just with Crossbow Expert? You could just ban the feat, you know.

[Cybren]

This I will contend, though. I don't think we can or should compare melee combat to ranged in D&D. An "Attack" in melee is not necessarily "one swing".
Overly abstract combat is why i spent a decade playing GURPS. An attack is an attack- what happens in between that isn't real

[djreynolds]

We got rid of crossbow expert.

our table said...

you no longer have disadvantage to use a crosswbow in melee nor when in the prone... everyone else can bite it, everyone else has disadvantage in melee

and you get advantage when you shoot a crossbow

your rate of fire only goes up to twice a round with the extra attack, no volley, no 3rd or 4th attack

[ClearlyTough69]

I'd allow this as an option, in addition to, rather than instead of, normal ranged shooting. It would be useful for overcoming damage reduction.

My general inclination is to nerf ranged weapons slightly by not adding Dex to damage (ranged attacks only, mind), but I haven't tried this out at the table.

[Lombra]

I mean it's a fantasy game so "realism" isn't something that you should care about. BUT! you can fluff all the attacks for one single attack. Just make the charactere use one ammo for the whole attack action, this way you get the same design-intended damage spread and your "precision" feel.

[Potato_Priest]

We got rid of crossbow expert.

our table said...

you no longer have disadvantage to use a crosswbow in melee nor when in the prone... everyone else can bite it, everyone else has disadvantage in melee

and you get advantage when you shoot a crossbow

your rate of fire only goes up to twice a round with the extra attack, no volley, no 3rd or 4th attack

I prefer the OP's fix. I don't think that crossbows should be a valid and good choice of specialization until BAM- you get to level 11 and lose out on your 3rd multi-attack. I guess you just wasted a feat, because you're better off using a longbow now.

[DragonSorcererX]

Reading the artificer class made me realize how much I hate the machine gun style of ranged attacks in D&D.
A great archer in D&D isn't a sniper... is a machine gun ! To me archers shouldn't be able to do 3 or 4 attacks per turn, they should make 1 attack that hit hard.

So I made this simple rule: when a character use the Attack Action to make a ranged attack he makes only 1 attack, but the damage is multiplied by the number of extra attacks. So a lv 11 fighter with a longbow and DEX +5 would make 3d8+15 with his ranged attack.

Would this cause some unwanted effect ?
I've already banned Sharpshooter, so that's not a problem. True Strike could have some more use... considering that actually is worthless except for ambushes. Ranger Volley would be more useful, that would be good because the ranger is a little "meh". The Ranger Mark would lose a little, but can be fixed doubling its effect if activated by a "powered" attack.
Thoughts ?

You want to be an Archer Sniper? It is called VHuman/High Elf/Wood Elf Rogue, it can deal 1d8+5+10d6 or 1d10+5+10d6 at level 20 and it just makes one attack, and if you want to be an Sniper for reals, you go with High Elf/Wood Elf Rogue Assassin with Sharpshooter (just for the Long Range) so that you can surprise your enemies from 600 feet away dealing 2d8+5+20d6 in one shot...

[D.U.P.A.]

Also, what about Ranger's Volley then? You can attack all enemies in range with that feature, which IS a machine gun.

[Grod_The_Giant]

What I don't like is the lack of consistency. You can shoot with a bow so fast ? Ok, why aren't you so incredible also when you swing a sword or do any other activity that require strength and dexterity ?
RAW PCs are much more powerful when they use bows than usual. Note that I don't mean they are more powerful from a rule perspective.
Bows aren't even so problematic. Crossbows are.
But... you... probably are? Pretty much anyone who can use a bow to make multiple attacks can use a rapier the same way; a crossbow user can get an extra shot, but a TWF can do the same thing.

[djreynolds]

I want a difference between bows and crossbows.... a significant difference

I am no historian, but there has to be a difference in crossbows and bows, easy of use, accuracy, range, etc

And there was in 1E, there was a difference between weapons

But in regards to rates of fire... there should be no way a crossbow equals bow.

The changes we made, were to just get rid of the feat.

You can have your extra attack with a crossbow, but never more... never equal to a bowman. So no 3rd attack, no 4th attack, no volley

But we had to give something, why use a crossbow? You can fire it from the hip, it is stable shooting platform, doesn't require as much training ( I can only assume)

So we decide only crossbows can be used in melee without suffering disadvantage (think shotgun)

And then we said, no disadvantage from shooting in the prone.. like a sniper

I don't know how much damage in real life a crossbow does versus any bow, but it has to be easier to shoot than a bow for a novice

A crossbow is more about the weapon than the user, and the bow is more about the user

I know its crazy in a world of magic, but its the little stuff like this that I think drives most players crazy.