Firing bows directly upwards

[Biggus]

Are there rules anywhere for how far you can fire bows (or other ranged weapons for that matter) directly upwards? Presumably the range would be considerably less than if you're firing them horizontally, but I can't find anywhere that specifies how much less.

[Hellpyre]

I'm fairly sure that rules-wise, you can fire them 10 range increments straight up, as odd as that might seem considering you you arc a normal bowshot to hit a distant target.

Abstraction is a funny thing.

[Mike Miller]

This is D&D physics, don't forget. Sure, follow real world stuff when applicable, but are you really going to make those calculations just for an arrow fired from a bow? Just pretend it is going horizontal and you have your max distance.

[tiercel]

Huh. I wanted to say “range increments straight up are halved,” but I’m not seeing that in PHB/SRD, Rules of the Game, or Rules Compendium. I’m probably thinking of vertically-up flying speeds are halved for maneuverability less than perfect.

It might seem a reasonable houserule to say “halve range increments straight up,” but then that leads to the question of what range increments are straight down, or even better, at various angles in three dimensions... which is probably why the range increment is just the range increment (unless you’re shooting underwater).

[Biggus]

Hmm. I suspected that might be the case. The nearest thing I can find to an applicable rule is upward fly speed, which is half horizontal speed for creatures with non-perfect maneuverability. I'm inclined to rule that arrows fired vertically can reach a height of half their normal maximum range.


Huh. I wanted to say “range increments straight up are halved,” but I’m not seeing that in PHB/SRD, Rules of the Game, or Rules Compendium. I’m probably thinking of vertically-up flying speeds are halved for maneuverability less than perfect.

It might seem a reasonable houserule to say “halve range increments straight up,” but then that leads to the question of what range increments are straight down, or even better, at various angles in three dimensions... which is probably why the range increment is just the range increment (unless you’re shooting underwater).

Yeah, it could get complicated. I think I'd just say that past a certain angle (probably 45 degrees) it's halved. When firing downwards at an angle, probably increase the maximum range by 50% but keep the range increment the same (firing directly downwards has potentially infinite range, obviously).

[daremetoidareyo]

Hmm. I suspected that might be the case. The nearest thing I can find to an applicable rule is upward fly speed, which is half horizontal speed for creatures with non-perfect maneuverability. I'm inclined to rule that arrows fired vertically can reach a height of half their normal maximum range.



Yeah, it could get complicated. I think I'd just say that past a certain angle (probably 45 degrees) it's halved. When firing downwards at an angle, probably increase the maximum range by 50% but keep the range increment the same (firing directly downwards has potentially infinite range, obviously).

Must be crazy on the plane of air!

[frogglesmash]

Something to keep in mind is that range increments don't represent the literal maximum range of the weapon, but rather the maximum range at which the weapon can be used accurately.

[Eldonauran]

Something to keep in mind is that range increments don't represent the literal maximum range of the weapon, but rather the maximum range at which the weapon can be used accurately.
That, or that the projectile loses enough momentum going straight up that it can't reliably do any measurable amount of damage. Firing straight down definitely would have issues with accuracy after a certain point.

[Malphegor]

This also begs the opposite question- if you were flying and fired an arrow downwards... do you have a range limit? I can sorta guess that the power of your arrow gets lost beyond a certain range and doesn't damage past a bit, but that's kinda wonky physics imo.

[Crake]

if you follow the same logic as jumping, the arc of a shot will peak at roughly a quarter of the distance of the jump, and a purely vertical shot will only travel a quarter as far.

[Ashtagon]

The RL physics answer:

Assuming the speed when loosed is 225 fps straight up (typical for a recurve bow; modern compound bows can reach 300 fps; longbows tend to be slower due to heavier arrows), and atmospheric resistance is negligible, it will peak at an altitude of 900 feet. However, at that peak altitude (and long before, actually), it will have no penetrative power beyond a light tap.

The RAW answer:

I can't find anything in PHB/DMG/RC regarding firing uphill or downhill, except that presuming the rules for measuring diagonal distances would apply (which paradoxically would make it easier to shoot straight up than diagonally, and harder to shoot downhill than on a level field).

[Biggus]

Something to keep in mind is that range increments don't represent the literal maximum range of the weapon, but rather the maximum range at which the weapon can be used accurately.

Doesn't it? Where does it say that?


if you follow the same logic as jumping, the arc of a shot will peak at roughly a quarter of the distance of the jump, and a purely vertical shot will only travel a quarter as far.

Hmm, good point, thank you.

[Flame of Anor]

Doesn't it? Where does it say that?

The SRD just says, "A projectile weapon can shoot out to ten range increments." It's reasonable, but not confirmed by RAW, to infer that an arrow might ineffectually fly a bit farther than the range where it can be useful.

[frogglesmash]

Doesn't it? Where does it say that?

It's a bit of an inference, but in d20 modern a lot of the pistols have a maximum range between 200, and 400 feet, despite the fact that bullets can obviously travel much farther. Some may view it as a stretch, but considering the rule systems are so similar, and made by the same people, I figured the logic would be the same for both systems.

Either way, it would probably be more accurate if I'd said "range increments don't necessarily represent the maximum travel distance for a projectile, only the maximum distance at which that projectile is effective, though for some, max travel distance and max effective distance may be one and the same."

[ShurikVch]

To the OP: if you're going for such realism, let me remind you - the longest possible shot isn't strictly horizontal (no way you will make 1100' with a bow!); the longest shot is arced, but it makes precise aiming practically impossible (IIRR, such "ballistic" shot counted as "accurate enough" if it hit 100' circle)

[Ashtagon]

To the OP: if you're going for such realism, let me remind you - the longest possible shot isn't strictly horizontal (no way you will make 1100' with a bow!); the longest shot is arced, but it makes precise aiming practically impossible (IIRR, such "ballistic" shot counted as "accurate enough" if it hit 100' circle)

Clout archery is the name of the tournament format that best describes this. For men, the target is a flag at a distance of 180 yards (540 feet). Points are scored depending on how close the arrow lands to the flag; 1 point is scored for a "hit" up to 12 feet from the flag (ie 24-foot diameter; a Huge target in 3e terms). The "bulls eye" is 3 feet in diameter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clout_archery

[farothel]

Often in roleplays the range is the maximum range at which you can still use the weapon accurately, not the maximum range your projectile will fly. especially with guns this is often the case.

While shooting straight down has basically unlimited range, you will not be able to fire accurately beyond a certain point. Atmospheric disturbances, however minute, will affect the arrow, not to mention that no arrow is made 100% perfectly balanced.

The furthest you can shoot is indeed at an angle (45° if I'm not mistaken). You're not accurate that way, which is why they used it in the army in volleys. If you shoot a couple of hundred of arrows on an tightly packed enemy formation, you will Always hit something.

[gomipile]

The furthest you can shoot is indeed at an angle (45° if I'm not mistaken). You're not accurate that way, which is why they used it in the army in volleys. If you shoot a couple of hundred of arrows on an tightly packed enemy formation, you will Always hit something.

It's only 45° if there is no air resistance. When you're going for maximum range, air resistance is always important. So, in our atmosphere the angle for maximum range will always be lower than 45°. For guns and artillery, it's usually closer to 30° in practice.

[ShurikVch]

It's only 45° if there is no air resistance. When you're going for maximum range, air resistance is always important. So, in our atmosphere the angle for maximum range will always be lower than 45°. For guns and artillery, it's usually closer to 30° in practice.Note: Paris Gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun) was 55°
Did they do it wrong?

[MisterKaws]

If you don't consider air or any of that, a shot straight upwards will reach up to half of a 45º shot's horizontal reach. The only difference, here, is that the 45º shot would have almost the same energy as when it left the bow(as long as we're not considering air resistance), while the vertical shot would have literally no kinetic energy at its peak point. If we start taking into account air resistance and all that, it changes a bit, of course, but a realistic guesstimate would be that the vertical shot is pretty much powerless after one third of the arc shot's horizontal reach.


Note: Paris Gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun) was 55°
Did they do it wrong?

They were probably gunning for the higher altitude, so the projectile would lose less kinetic energy.