Question on Realism of Martial Classes.

[sandmote]

There was a discussion here a while ago where I saw the "realism" of the RAW martial classes in 3.5e d&d being mentioned.

So, I was wondering at what approximate level it would make sense to stop worrying about realism when looking at the features of a martial class with no spellcasting or other explicitly magical or supernatural features.

So, I have a set of assumptions to be applied when looking at the subject:


The Character would be a single class fighter.
The Character has 13 Str, 19 Dex, 10 Con, 13 Int, 13 Wis, and 10 Cha. (if the SRD has feats with higher requirements, assume those instead).
Skill points can be allocated however.
Feats are SRD only, and feats gained from character levels are wasted so as to have no combat benefit. Fighter Bonus feats function as normal.
The Character has no racial features, including +0 LA.
The character fights only one round for the duration of the exercise and was at fully health/has no debilitating conditions or non-inherent penalties at the start of said round, in whatever conditions would be most effective for the build.
Items are limited to being non-magic and not made of special materials, but otherwise whatever the character can carry.


When would it be that such a character ceases to count as "realistic" when such assumptions are made? I'm mainly looking at what you can do to your enemies in combat, given AC is effectively capped around 19 and fighters have virtually no presence outside combat. Please note that this is in comparison to an IRL weapon user, and the harm such a person would be able to deal in combat using similar weapons and time constraints but with maximum training and skill possible.


Also, I'm 100% certain this sort of thing has been discussed to death, but don't seem able to dig up relevant threads on the topic in the playground or find a description of such an analysis anywhere else. What I have been able to find mostly mentions "it isn't realistic" to give martial classes any benefits that might lessen the martial/caster divide.

[Kalkra]

Well, as Harry Potter and the Natural 20 taught us, DnD characters are extremely different than people in real life, but that doesn't seem to be what you're asking. Within the very limited situation you've set up, the main lack of realism would probably come from raw strength. At high enough levels, a fighter (particularly with the right feats) could level a building with a sword. He could also punch an elephant unconscious, jump 8 feet in the air, etc. Also, inhuman levels of accuracy with ranged weapons.

[Luccan]

Well, as Harry Potter and the Natural 20 taught us, DnD characters are extremely different than people in real life, but that doesn't seem to be what you're asking. Within the very limited situation you've set up, the main lack of realism would probably come from raw strength. At high enough levels, a fighter (particularly with the right feats) could level a building with a sword. He could also punch an elephant unconscious, jump 8 feet in the air, etc. Also, inhuman levels of accuracy with ranged weapons.

As far as combat via feats only found in the SRD, the most impossible thing a fighter could do is all the improbable things they could do consistently. Like hit everyone around them every 6 seconds or consistently punch an opponent, in armor, so they can't move and keep dropping their stuff. Not impossible, but certainly not likely to be replicable all the time. But a fighter could do it.

[sandmote]

Well, as Harry Potter and the Natural 20 taught us, DnD characters are extremely different than people in real life, but that doesn't seem to be what you're asking. Within the very limited situation you've set up, the main lack of realism would probably come from raw strength. At high enough levels, a fighter (particularly with the right feats) could level a building with a sword. He could also punch an elephant unconscious, jump 8 feet in the air, etc. Also, inhuman levels of accuracy with ranged weapons. I think this does describe the question well. I wasn't sure what examples to use. I'm assuming there's a clarification somewhere that killing a creature with an attack roll granted by Great Cleave doesn't qualify to allow another cleave. Otherwise, the rate you can cut through people with that was one of the examples I was thinking of.

Accuracy with ranges weapons didn't actually occur to me. With a high BAB, Rapid Shot, and Manyshot, you would not only be loosing 6 arrows in 6 seconds, but aiming them at targets as well, which to my knowledge isn't possible IRL. Add separate targets in different directions if necessary here.


As far as combat via feats only found in the SRD, the most impossible thing a fighter could do is all the improbable things they could do consistently. Like hit everyone around them every 6 seconds or consistently punch an opponent, in armor, so they can't move and keep dropping their stuff. Not impossible, but certainly not likely to be replicable all the time. But a fighter could do it. The SRD limit is mostly to avoid this descending into complains that fighters/martials should be barred from performing the feats/abilities in Tome of Battle.

Again mentioning Great Cleave, I'm unsure if it is equally improbable to have someone killing everyone around them every 6 seconds, or if that would cross the border past doing something improbable consistently.

And of course there's going to be a general level where this starts to become an issue, given the fighter starts with Weapon Focus/Power Attack/Point Blank Shot and works their way up to this. Not pretending this'll be consistent across Melee/Ranged builds or levels of optimization though.

[Seto]

The Bride and Groom have good synergy, but not worth playing if you have only one of them in a given party. Better to plan with a fellow player.
The Bridesmaid's (Ex) Flowercatch ability has little use in-combat, but can be interpreted to be devastating against Plant creatures if your GM is permissive.
The... what?
Oh?
Martial classes?
Sorry, my bad.

Well, I can't reliably evaluate what a real-world swordsman is capable of in combat, but a D&D fighter will always hit at least 5% of the time, and always miss at least 5% of the time. That's not necessary unrealistic, but it reflects more on the core mechanics than on the Fighter anyway. At lvl-1, they're probably a bit squishier than an irl fighter, but that reflects more on the HP mechanic than on the fighter.
I think the fighter is definitely unrealistic at the point where they can be expected to reliably solo a Grizzly bear, which is around level 6, earlier if well-built (the bear is CR4). That would be an incredible feat from a real life human. I mean, it happens once in a blue moon, but it should never be a safe bet.
Beyond that, it's hard to say. It's kinda weird estimating the Fighter's realism by combat prowess, when it's usually measured with Skills. I guess CR is the way to go - what can they defeat at what level, and is it conceivable for a real life human to do that.

[Asmotherion]

I'm prety sure you don't need a specific class or prc in D&D to marry. :smallamused:

Jokes aside though, if you account for ToB, Martial classes are great, it's just Core Martial classes without ToB enhancment that suck. The Core idea was that a good bab was as much valuable as spellcasting, forgeting that most spells resolve as touch attacks or save-or-sucks and that a spellcaster can actually use a variety of spells to out-tank and out-melee the fighter.

ToB is more or less a balancing factor.

As for realism, realism starts fading gradually as soon as 4th level spells and maneuvers kick in.

[ShurikVch]

At high enough levels, a fighter (particularly with the right feats) could level a building with a sword.
Depending on the kind of building, can be done IRL too (at the very least, presuming sufficient number of replacement swords)
Other kinds of building could take impractically long time - even for Dungeon Crasher...


He could also punch an elephant unconscious
Are you sure?
Elephants are overpowered in D&D, and can survive to be shot with cannon!
Or do you mean - Stunning Fist?


jump 8 feet in the air
Javier Sotomayor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javier_Sotomayor) says "¡Hola!" :smallsmile:


Also, inhuman levels of accuracy with ranged weapons.
Canadian sniper made a kill shot (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-elite-special-forces-sniper-sets-record-breaking-kill-shot-in-iraq/article35415651/) at 3540 meters
For D&D character, such distance is straight impossible (pre-Epic)

[Edea]

What I have been able to find mostly mentions "it isn't realistic" to give martial classes any benefits that might lessen the martial/caster divide.

I'm the exact opposite: the whole game's not realistic, but martials should be able to do just as much crazy stuff as casters. If I wanted to play a mundane that's not a peasant, I'd roll up a warrior, expert or aristocrat. PC classes should 100% be fantastical right from the start, and that means ALL of them: ToB was absolutely a step in the right direction, it actually got me to play a martial character (wouldn't catch me dead rolling up a 3.5 core martial unless it's gished to the nines, literally) and I loved it.

[Psyren]

The Bride and Groom have good synergy, but not worth playing if you have only one of them in a given party. Better to plan with a fellow player.
The Bridesmaid's (Ex) Flowercatch ability has little use in-combat, but can be interpreted to be devastating against Plant creatures if your GM is permissive.
The... what?
Oh?
Martial classes?
Sorry, my bad.


I'm prety sure you don't need a specific class or prc in D&D to marry. :smallamused:

I love you both.

@OP - I can't really understand the rationale behind the very narrow parameters you used in the opening post. There's a lot of room to give Fighter nice things long before you get to ToB and other "casty" mechanics, and the Pathfinder Fighter got a bunch of them - see Combat Stamina, AWT/AAT, Master Craftsman, Item Mastery etc. If the goal is to give Fighter nice things that avoid breaking immersion, that's honestly where I would start.

[King of Nowhere]

Accuracy with ranges weapons didn't actually occur to me. With a high BAB, Rapid Shot, and Manyshot, you would not only be loosing 6 arrows in 6 seconds, but aiming them at targets as well, which to my knowledge isn't possible IRL. Add separate targets in different directions if necessary here.


speed record for loosing arrows (one at a time, no manyshot tricks here) in real life is 10 in 6 seconds. something that i don't think can be done without magic.
then again, i have no idea how accurate those 10 arrows were, but i don't think much. and the archer did this because he started with all the arrows in his hand. he could not do it again without grabbing another handful first.

[Quertus]

Ignoring whether marriage is realistic… conventional wisdom says we're living in an e7 world.

[Kalkra]

I think this does describe the question well. I wasn't sure what examples to use. I'm assuming there's a clarification somewhere that killing a creature with an attack roll granted by Great Cleave doesn't qualify to allow another cleave. Otherwise, the rate you can cut through people with that was one of the examples I was thinking of.

Pretty sure there is no such clarification, although it isn't that much better than Whirlwind Attack.


Depending on the kind of building, can be done IRL too (at the very least, presuming sufficient number of replacement swords)
Other kinds of building could take impractically long time - even for Dungeon Crasher...

Are you sure?
Elephants are overpowered in D&D, and can survive to be shot with cannon!
Or do you mean - Stunning Fist?


Javier Sotomayor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javier_Sotomayor) says "¡Hola!" :smallsmile:


Canadian sniper made a kill shot (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-elite-special-forces-sniper-sets-record-breaking-kill-shot-in-iraq/article35415651/) at 3540 meters
For D&D character, such distance is straight impossible (pre-Epic)

I wrote a lengthy response to all of these points, and then lost it all when I tried to submit, so here's the short version:

You can destroy a 1 ft. thick stone wall in a single round with a Bastard Sword and Power Attack at level 20. Iajutsu Focus and other weapons make things easier.

I couldn't find the damage for a cannon, but with the DMG rules for firearms, guns are either underpowered, or everything else is overpowered. A 20th-level fighter could just barely knock out an elephant with Power Attack if all of his attacks hit, assuming a +5 Strength bonus.

I just chose 8 feet because that's as high as the table in the SRD went, but with a +5 Strength bonus you can get to 9 feet with a natural 20 and 11 ranks in Jump at level 8.

Sniper Rifles aren't statted, and the DMG range increment for guns is a joke. The effective range of a longbow in real life more or less matches the maximum range of 1,000 feet in DnD, but the DMG gives a hunting rifle a max range of 800 feet, whereas in real life it's closer to 1,800 feet. Also, with Far Shot you can shoot a longbow 1,500 feet, and I don't know how realistic that is, particularly if you want to be shooting multiple times and actually hitting your target.

[Psyren]

Pretty sure that sniper had equipment too (scope, stabilizer etc). He wasn't firing from the hip with a naked rifle. That opens the door for things like Distance weapons and PF's Sniper Goggles.

[Willie the Duck]

So, I was wondering at what approximate level it would make sense to stop worrying about realism when looking at the features of a martial class with no spellcasting or other explicitly magical or supernatural features.

When would it be that such a character ceases to count as "realistic" when such assumptions are made? I'm mainly looking at what you can do to your enemies in combat, given AC is effectively capped around 19 and fighters have virtually no presence outside combat. Please note that this is in comparison to an IRL weapon user, and the harm such a person would be able to deal in combat using similar weapons and time constraints but with maximum training and skill possible.

If you include probability in the situation, it's pretty early. One person is extremely unlikely to survive two falls of 50+ feet, but by the time your fighter has 31 HP, it is guaranteed. I say two falls because yes we've all heard (probably repeatedly) one or more of the different situations where someone has suffered a terminal velocity fall and either 1) just survived, or 2) even walked away with nominal injury. I bet they didn't try for a second time.

After that, I bet it is going to be opponent based stuff that is the next level line. 'Can survive a _____' attack from a creature where the attack is something clearly lethal. Survive being swallowed by a creature (Remorhaz) whose magma-like insides are so hot that their outsides could kill a normal person at a mere touch.


speed record for loosing arrows (one at a time, no manyshot tricks here) in real life is 10 in 6 seconds. something that i don't think can be done without magic.
Here I am going to bleat for D&D a bit here -- D&D cannot have you make 10 attacks in 6 seconds, it doesn't have rules for the maximum number of arrows you can loose in 6 seconds (because it's niche enough that even 3e doesn't cover such a scenario).


Sniper Rifles aren't statted, and the DMG range increment for guns is a joke. The effective range of a longbow in real life more or less matches the maximum range of 1,000 feet in DnD, but the DMG gives a hunting rifle a max range of 800 feet, whereas in real life it's closer to 1,800 feet. Also, with Far Shot you can shoot a longbow 1,500 feet, and I don't know how realistic that is, particularly if you want to be shooting multiple times and actually hitting your target.
Here's a place were real life and D&D diverge quickly. IRL, it doesn't take that big a distance before firing an arrow at someone becomes problematic because you can be completely on-target, but by the time the arrow gets to them, they will have likely heard/seen it and moved. D&D, with its 'everyone freezes while the next person acts' initiative rules makes distance archery somewhat more effective than it really is (also, not many DMs calculate crosswinds, etc.).

[Dr_Dinosaur]

If anything, a low-level Fighter is actually less competent than an equivalent real world soldier or knight. ACP is a bad joke, even before getting into D&D archery. Later on the Fighter can reach baseline skill with one weapon, maybe

[sandmote]

Okay, typo fixed.

Beyond that, it's hard to say. It's kinda weird estimating the Fighter's realism by combat prowess, when it's usually measured with Skills. I guess CR is the way to go - what can they defeat at what level, and is it conceivable for a real life human to do that. I went with combat because I expect it to be harder to abstract away as something plausible.


ToB is more or less a balancing factor.

As for realism, realism starts fading gradually as soon as 4th level spells and maneuvers kick in. ToB reminds me of the (admittedly few) things I've seen in old medieval training manuals. Even some of the higher level maneuvers are effectively a mundane injury, mostly limited IRL by armor and people not holding still so you hit them.

7th seems close to the commentary I've seen for overall 3.5e games.


I'm the exact opposite: the whole game's not realistic, but martials should be able to do just as much crazy stuff as casters. If I wanted to play a mundane that's not a peasant, I'd roll up a warrior, expert or aristocrat. PC classes should 100% be fantastical right from the start, and that means ALL of them: ToB was absolutely a step in the right direction, it actually got me to play a martial character (wouldn't catch me dead rolling up a 3.5 core martial unless it's gished to the nines, literally) and I loved it. Oh, I 100% agree with the PC classes being fantastical. There's a reason I'm assuming the fighter will still get there even with the limited SRD restrictions I've listed. But I'd like to check myself on the crunch before explicitly claiming "martials can do a lot of crazy stuff comparable to the casters no matter what material you allow."


@OP - I can't really understand the rationale behind the very narrow parameters you used in the opening post. There's a lot of room to give Fighter nice things long before you get to ToB and other "casty" mechanics, and the Pathfinder Fighter got a bunch of them - see Combat Stamina, AWT/AAT, Master Craftsman, Item Mastery etc. If the goal is to give Fighter nice things that avoid breaking immersion, that's honestly where I would start. The parameters are me trying to give a bunch of concessions to people whose reaction is that it is "too unrealistic," to give fighters nice things, even prior to any specifics of what would be added.

If I give the concessions I don't find childish (ex: restrictions on BAB), how many levels until the complaint falls apart? Overall you're probably looking 6th/7th (as based on E6 & E7) but there seems to be a general assumption this applies to fighters even at higher levels. I suppose Guy at the Gym touches on this, although I'm looking more at Guy Winning World Records.


speed record for loosing arrows (one at a time, no manyshot tricks here) in real life is 10 in 6 seconds. something that i don't think can be done without magic.
then again, i have no idea how accurate those 10 arrows were, but i don't think much. and the archer did this because he started with all the arrows in his hand. he could not do it again without grabbing another handful first. Meh, I could see it being flavored as a PC reaching for however many arrows they're loosing for the round. But yeah, the RAW rules (As far as I can tell) appear to be for when you are aiming at something to hit it, usually defaulting to something of medium size.

Eidt: please hold, I write slowly. Added:


Pretty sure there is no such clarification, although it isn't that much better than Whirlwind Attack. Reach weapon on a 4th level fighter (pushed back a level by the restrictions) allows some pretty ridiculous stuff then. I know a glaive can be swung in a wide loop in under 6 seconds. Through 16 people, not so much.


If you include probability in the situation, it's pretty early. One person is extremely unlikely to survive two falls of 50+ feet, but by the time your fighter has 31 HP, it is guaranteed. I say two falls because yes we've all heard (probably repeatedly) one or more of the different situations where someone has suffered a terminal velocity fall and either 1) just survived, or 2) even walked away with nominal injury. I bet they didn't try for a second time. Still puts it at around 7th on average, hmm.


If anything, a low-level Fighter is actually less competent than an equivalent real world soldier or knight. ACP is a bad joke, even before getting into D&D archery. Later on the Fighter can reach baseline skill with one weapon, maybe What I've been able to find puts aiming an loosing an arrow typically takes around 10 second for a trained soldier (at least for time periods they were used). Can you go into more detail getting into D&D archery?

[ShurikVch]

You can destroy a 1 ft. thick stone wall in a single round with a Bastard Sword and Power Attack at level 20. Iajutsu Focus and other weapons make things easier.
Correction: you can destroy 10'x10' section of a wall; how detrimental it would be to the structural integrity of the building is completely depends on the building in question...


I couldn't find the damage for a cannon, but with the DMG rules for firearms, guns are either underpowered, or everything else is overpowered.
Titan GG Swivel Gun ("Firearms in Freeport", Dragon Annual #6): 2d8 damage (X2 crit.)
Bombard ("The Way of the Gun", Dragon #321): 10d6 damage (no crit.)
M1A2 Abrams tank cannon (d20 Modern): 10d12 damage (X2 crit.)
Elephant (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elephant.htm): 11d8+55 hp (aver. 104) - can be only wounded by Titan GG, may be killed by Bombard only in case of bad roll from Massive Damage, and even Abrams tank cannon (excluding crit., or bad roll from Massive Damage) able to kill it only on 11+ roll of d12


Sniper Rifles aren't statted, and the DMG range increment for guns is a joke. The effective range of a longbow in real life more or less matches the maximum range of 1,000 feet in DnD, but the DMG gives a hunting rifle a max range of 800 feet, whereas in real life it's closer to 1,800 feet.
In the Call of Cthulhu d20 - which was published by WotC, and was designed as 3E-compatible - most rifles have 200' range (and a few which not are 175'; AK-47 - 150')
Thus, max. range (in D&D rules - Call of Cthulhu missed the part about the maximum of increments) is 2000'(/1750'/1500')


Also, with Far Shot you can shoot a longbow 1,500 feet, and I don't know how realistic that is, particularly if you want to be shooting multiple times and actually hitting your target.No, it isn't realistic at all: it has been suggested that a flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400 yd (thus 1200'), but nobody nowadays is able to produce such result with equivalent weaponry - even on the practice range
Overall, longbow wasn't a record range weapon among the medieval bows - especially because of very heavy arrow: weight of "regular" arrows for english longbow was pretty close to the weight of "heavy" arrows for eastern bows

[Kalkra]

Titan GG Swivel Gun ("Firearms in Freeport", Dragon Annual #6): 2d8 damage (X2 crit.)
Bombard ("The Way of the Gun", Dragon #321): 10d6 damage (no crit.)
M1A2 Abrams tank cannon (d20 Modern): 10d12 damage (X2 crit.)
Elephant (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elephant.htm): 11d8+55 hp (aver. 104) - can be only wounded by Titan GG, may be killed by Bombard only in case of bad roll from Massive Damage, and even Abrams tank cannon (excluding crit., or bad roll from Massive Damage) able to kill it only on 11+ roll of d12

My guess would be that an in-depth analysis would show that pretty much nothing is right. I mean, killing an elephant should probably be easier than destroying a stone wall, and a tank should be able to do both easily.


In the Call of Cthulhu d20 - which was published by WotC, and was designed as 3E-compatible - most rifles have 200' range (and a few which not are 175'; AK-47 - 150')
Thus, max. range (in D&D rules - Call of Cthulhu missed the part about the maximum of increments) is 2000'(/1750'/1500')

a) Sniper rifles are more accurate than normal rifles
b) Scopes might change things

As such, I still don't think it's fair to compare DnD to that sniper, but at least those number look closer to an ordinary hunting rifle.

[NigelWalmsley]

My guess would be that an in-depth analysis would show that pretty much nothing is right. I mean, killing an elephant should probably be easier than destroying a stone wall, and a tank should be able to do both easily.

Those numbers seem more plausible if you're talking about single-shot damage. I'm an expert on neither tanks nor elephants, but I wouldn't necessarily expect a single tank shell to always instantly kill an elephant.

[Lagtime]

I think the answer is going to be as soon as someone takes a single level in fighter.

Is not the simple weapon and armor proficiency unrealistic? The simple idea that the fighter has, somehow, become proficient in "all" simple and martial weapons and "all" types of armor.

Plus most feats are unrealistic. Cleave lets the fighter make another attack, automatically every time, they drop a few and another foe is close enough to hit. In reality you could never do that automatically every time.

The same way Power Attack lets you automatically every time make a "reckless attack" to somehow do more damage...again, automatically every time.

[zlefin]

Those numbers seem more plausible if you're talking about single-shot damage. I'm an expert on neither tanks nor elephants, but I wouldn't necessarily expect a single tank shell to always instantly kill an elephant.

From my limited knowledge base, quite a lot of tank shells should be able to kill an elephant pretty reliably. It'd depend a fair bit on the exact tank, as there's a lot of variety in tank sizes; shell type also matters a fair deal, as many tank shell types aren't optimized for hitting something like an elephant. High explosive shells should work very well, some of the others might not (though they'd do a lot of damage, it just might not be immediately fatal).

[Darg]

Canadian sniper made a kill shot (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-elite-special-forces-sniper-sets-record-breaking-kill-shot-in-iraq/article35415651/) at 3540 meters
For D&D character, such distance is straight impossible (pre-Epic)

Let's try?

Dragonbone Greatbow - 150ft
Ranged Weapon Mastery - +20ft
Cragtop Archer - 15 increments instead of 10
Deepwood Sniper - +10ft/level after all multipliers = 100ft
Far Shot - 1.5x
Distance enhancement - 2x
Size rule using a large base creature enlarged with a double oversized weapon - 2x

((150 + 20) * 1.5 * 2 * 2 +100) * 15 = 16800ft or ~5120m

Cragtop Archer let's you take a full round action to remove range penalties for one attack.

[AvatarVecna]

Attacking Objects is not very difficult in D&D compared to IRL. Hardness for most materials is pathetically low, and while theoretically some weapons are "ineffective" and can't ever destroy the object in question, not only are there literally no examples to go off of in the SRD, but also it kinda goes against the entire idea of hardness as a form of damage reduction. To use examples given in the PF section of the same mechanic, rope might be highly resistant to bludgeoning damage, but it's not immune. IRL, there is a certain point where if you hit taut rope with a sledgehammer, the force involved will snap it. There is a certain point where if you hit a pile of ropes lying on the ground, the force involved will melt them due to how momentum and energy and states of matter interact.

If you have a small clawhammer, and don't mind potentially damaging your stuff, grab it and hit something really solid and metal in the same place for about a minute. Once you're done, feel the spot you hit on the object (and on the hammer). Warm right? That's physics. That's realism. And if you hit hard enough, you would've melted the thing you were hitting...and the thing you were hitting it with. But the Attacking Objects rules don't have anything on how Attacking Objects affects the object you're attacking with.

Representing this mechanically would maybe be DR/bludgeoning for rope, or DR/slashing for paper, or what have you. But that's not how hardness works, so instead they arbitrarily says that some objects have infinite hardness against some damage types, and provide literally no guidance on that beyond "just do what's realistic". And "X is immune to being hurt by Y" is inherently unrealistic. If it's going fast enough, you can totally be knocked over with a feather. (https://what-if.xkcd.com/73/)

So assuming that ineffective weaponry can't invalidate your damage, and it's just a matter of getting enough damage to overcome the hardness, how much do you need? Not much. Assuming the OP's rules, let's have a Fighter 6 who has Improved Unarmed Strike, Weapon Focus (unarmed), Weapon Specialization (Unarmed), and Power Attack for their feats. The Fighter has +8 to-hit and deals 1d3+3 lethal damage by default, but since the object can't dodge, let's take a full -6/+6 PA tradeoff to make that +2 to-hit and 1d3+9. A Small-Sized object will have AC 4, and that has us hitting on anything but a 1 for objects Small or Larger. This Fighter walks up to an unhewn stone wall - just a slab of stone 5 ft by 10 ft by 10 ft out in the open, and starts wailing on it with two attacks per round. 16 minutes later, that wall is a pile of useless rubble and the Fighter is fine.

This gets dumber if we give the Fighter a real weapon. Let's make it a Fighter 4 with Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Weapon Specialization (Greatsword), and Power Attack. Now he's looking at +6 to-hit and 2d6+3 damage, or +2 to-hit and 2d6+9 damage. This Fighter walks up to the same wall and makes one greatsword attack per round. 12 minutes later, the wall is a pile of useless rubble once more.

But honestly all that isn't really necessary to become "unrealistic" - a Fighter 1 with no relevant feats and any weapon with base 1d8/2d4 damage could get through eventually. A longsword would break down the wall after 12 hours of attacking, and a scythe would break down the wall after 24 hours.

Endurance swimming is not, in fact, a Constitution check to see how long you can keep up the effort, but is in fact a Swim check, which is much easier to max out. For every hour you swim, it's a DC 20 Swim check or face 1d6 nonlethal damage. With OP's rules, Human Fighter 1 could have Skill Focus (Swim) and Endurance feat, for +12 to that check. Fighter 6 could get 5 more ranks, pick up Athletic feat, and now they have a +19 - just enough that they could endurance-swim forever. Or, for example, participate in a week-long swimming contest (although if you're gonna do it in armor, you'll need a bigger bonus).

Olympic jumping records are 2.45 meters high (a hair over 8 ft) and 8.9 meters long (a bit over 29 ft). If you can hit a DC 36 Jump check for height, or a DC 30 Jump check for length, you can beat Olympic records. If you pick up Skill Focus (Jump), Acrobatic, and Run feats for a Fighter 6, you're looking at +19 on a running jump. That gives you a 50-50 chance of beating the Olympic Long Jump Record, and a not-insignificant chance of beating the Olympic High Jump Record. And you're not even a monk!

[ShurikVch]

Let's try?

Dragonbone Greatbow - 150ft
Ranged Weapon Mastery - +20ft
Cragtop Archer - 15 increments instead of 10
Deepwood Sniper - +10ft/level after all multipliers = 100ft
Far Shot - 1.5x
Distance enhancement - 2x
Size rule using a large base creature enlarged with a double oversized weapon - 2x

((150 + 20) * 1.5 * 2 * 2 +100) * 15 = 16800ft or ~5120m

Cragtop Archer let's you take a full round action to remove range penalties for one attack.
Well, firstly - Dragonbone Greatbow doesn't exist
Also, your calculation is a mess: (16800/15-100)/170=6; but by D&D math, 1.5 x 2 x 2 is 3.5, not 6
And finally:

Size rule using a large base creature enlarged with a double oversized weapon - 2x
No such rule

[AvatarVecna]

If you're going to correct people, it would help to be correct.


Well, firstly - Dragonbone Greatbow doesn't exist.


Dragonbone Bow: A bow carved from a single bone of a dragon (a thigh bone or similarly large bone) displays superior tensile strength and power. Such a bow is considered a composite bow (short or long) with a strength rating set by the crafter. In addition, the bow’s range increment is 20 feet longer than normal for the bow’s type (90 feet for a composite shortbow or 130 feet for a composite longbow).

Dragoncraft Price: as composite bow +100 gp; Dragon Part: dragon bone; Skill: Craft (bowyer); Weight: 3 lb.




Exotic Weapon
Cost
Dmg (S)
Dmg (M)
Critical
Range Increment
Weight1
Type


Greatbow
150 gp
1d8
1d10
x3
120 ft
6 lb.
Piercing


Greatbow, Composite
200 gp
1d8
1d10
x3
130 ft
6 lb.
Piercing




Greatbow: You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A greatbow sized for a Medium character is 6 feet or more in length when strung. A greatbow is too un wieldy to use while mounted. Like other bows, if you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when using a greatbow. If you have a bonus for high Strength, you can apply it to damage rolls when you use a composite greatbow (see below) but not a regular greatbow.

Greatbow, Composite: You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A composite greatbow is too unwieldy to use while mounted. A composite greatbow sized for a Medium character is 6 feet or more in length when strung. Composite greatbows follow all of the normal rules for composite bows, including strength ratings. Each point of Strength bonus granted by the bow adds 200 gp to the cost.

A "Dragonbone Greatbow" is 100% a real thing, and would have a base range increment of 150 ft.




Also, your calculation is a mess: (16800/15-100)/170=6; but by D&D math, 1.5 x 2 x 2 is 3.5, not 6

A common misunderstanding.


Sometimes a special rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. As long as you’re applying a single multiplier, multiply the number normally. When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value (such as a modifier or a die roll), however, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. Thus, a double (×2) and a double (×2) applied to the same number results in a triple (×3, because 2 + 1 = 3). For example, Tordek, a high-level dwarven fighter, deals 1d8+6 points of damage with a warhammer. On a critical hit, a warhammer deals triple damage, so that’s 3d8+18 damage for Tordek. A magic dwarven thrower warhammer deals double damage (2d8+12 for Tordek) when thrown. If Tordek scores a critical hit while throwing the dwarven thrower, his player rolls quadruple damage (4d8+24) because 3 + 1 = 4.

Another way to think of it is to convert the multiples into additions. Tordek’s critical hit increase his damage by 2d8+12, and the dwarven thrower’s doubling of damage increases his damage by 1d8+6, so both of them together increase his damage by 3d8+18 for a grand total of 4d8+24.

When applying multipliers to real-world values (such as weight or distance), normal rules of math apply instead. A creature whose size doubles (thus multiplying its weight by 8) and then is turned to stone (which would multiply its weight by a factor of roughly 3) now weighs about 24 times normal, not 10 times normal. Similarly, a blinded creature attempting to negotiate difficult terrain would count each square as 4 squares (doubling the cost twice, for a total multiplier of ×4), rather than as 3 squares (adding 100% twice).

Bolded and underlined for emphasis. Distance is explicitly a real-world value, so it uses normal multiplication rather than the additive multiplication D&D has for damage and the like.




And finally:

No such rule


Size and Range: Larger and smaller versions of ranged weapons have correspondingly longer or shorter range increments. Each time you increase a weapon’s size, lengthen its range increment by 25%.

There are three issues with how they've applied this rule, though:

1) These are 3.0 rules, an edition where weapons and sizes related in a different way than in 3.5 - so while these rules were never updated to 3.5 (and thus are still valid), using them is still a little sketchier than usual. It's legal, but it's less likely to be approved just for being cross-edition and a little weird with how things are done in the updated edition.

2) Keeping in line with the above correction about how multipliers apply to distance, a Large character wielding a bow two sizes too big would be three sizes above medium, and thus x1.253. This is x1.953125, not x2 - close enough that it probably rounds the same in most cases, but we're dealing with large enough ranges at this point that the difference might matter.

3) ...I can understand how they're getting a Large character, but not how said character is wielding a gargantuan bow.

[ShurikVch]

A "Dragonbone Greatbow" is 100% a real thing, and would have a base range increment of 150 ft.
I disagreeing:

Dragonbone Bow: A bow carved from a single bone of a dragon (a thigh bone or similarly large bone) displays superior tensile strength and power. Such a bow is considered a composite bow (short or long) with a strength rating set by the crafter. In addition, the bow’s range increment is 20 feet longer than normal for the bow’s type (90 feet for a composite shortbow or 130 feet for a composite longbow).

Dragoncraft Price: as composite bow +100 gp; Dragon Part: dragon bone; Skill: Craft (bowyer); Weight: 3 lb.
Emphasis: shortbow or longbow - not, for example, double bow (or, presumably, any other possible kind of bow)

Moreover, there are already Bone Bow:

Bone Bow: This powerful and oversized bow is designed to fire exceptionally large arrows specially made for it. Made of the bones and sinews of huge animals such as woolly mammoths and dire rhinoceroses, these bows were designed by primitive cultures expressly for the hunting of huge creatures that require a lot of damage to take down. A bone bow functions as a composite longbow with regard to applying the user’s Strength bonus to damage done with arrows shot from it. The bow has a long, thick spike protruding from both ends; this spike is used to brace against a solid object (either the ground or an overhanging protrusion or ceiling) to aid in pulling the bow’s string. A character may use a bone bow as a martial weapon, but doing so imparts a –4 penalty on attack rolls, and firing an arrow from the bow requires a full round action.
For purposes of feats such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, a bone bow is treated as if it were a longbow; thus if you have Weapon Focus (longbow), that feat applies to bone bows as well.
Note: the same length as greatbow, the same range as greatbow... (and made of bones - like dragonbone bow)

So, ranges are: Bone Bow - 120' and 1d10 damage, Greatbow - 120' (130' - if Composite) and 1d10 damage, Dragonbone Longbow - 130' and 1d8 damage

So, looks like Dragonbone is a way to get the range without taking EWP, than to buff already good weapon even more



A common misunderstanding.

Bolded and underlined for emphasis. Distance is explicitly a real-world value, so it uses normal multiplication rather than the additive multiplication D&D has for damage and the like.
OK, my mistake.




Size and Range: Larger and smaller versions of ranged weapons have correspondingly longer or shorter range increments. Each time you increase a weapon’s size, lengthen its range increment by 25%.
There are three issues with how they've applied this rule, though:

1) These are 3.0 rules, an edition where weapons and sizes related in a different way than in 3.5 - so while these rules were never updated to 3.5 (and thus are still valid), using them is still a little sketchier than usual. It's legal, but it's less likely to be approved just for being cross-edition and a little weird with how things are done in the updated edition.

2) Keeping in line with the above correction about how multipliers apply to distance, a Large character wielding a bow two sizes too big would be three sizes above medium, and thus x1.253. This is x1.953125, not x2 - close enough that it probably rounds the same in most cases, but we're dealing with large enough ranges at this point that the difference might matter.

3) ...I can understand how they're getting a Large character, but not how said character is wielding a gargantuan bow.
a) This rule clearly gone out of the window, since Ballista (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#siegeEngines) have the same range increment as Medium-sized Heavy Crossbow (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponDescriptions)
b) If this rule would be in use, it would mean Fine-sized ranged weapon doesn't exist: -100% range

[ngilop]

Read this, yo! (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?276366-The-Fighter-Problem-amp-How-to-Fix-It)

For me a fighter starts being fantastical at 6th level -They are doing thing that while not impossible very improbable- then around 13th goes into the mythical -the baseline is improbably and regularly do things that are clearly impossible for normal humans to do-.

So wrestling a dire bear at like level 8, and then wrestling a tornado at 15th.

The biggest issue that i think most people have with the mundane classes is the following (but also what most everyone disagrees with me about): It is a world of fantasy, magic, and myth. The wizard, cleric, and other spell using classes are allowed to operate within that understood idea of reality and the laws of the universe as it pertains to such. While the mundane classes are beholden to real world universal laws. While a mundane should not be able to summon an outsider to do their bidding, or create something out of air and a wiggle and waggle of the fingers, why can't they sunder a mountain to enter the underworld, or move so fast that they can run across water or are agile enough to balance on a cloud?

[AvatarVecna]

For additional range increment shenanigans, we can pick up Flight Arrows from AEG (+25 ft to range increment pre-multipliers) and maybe the Hawkeye spell (range increments x1.5). Altho another interesting thing about that range increment post: it involves taking Deepwood Sniper 10 and Cragtop Archer 4...that's at least a lvl 19 build. If we take it a couple levels further, we could just take Distant Shot and call it a wrap.

(Technically we could maybe cheat our way into picking it up pre-epic using some...kobold...martial monk...RAW bull**** method. But kobolds taking epic feats at lvl 1 through various shenanigans probably shouldn't be used to determine the level at which we can toss realism out the window.)

EDIT: (I guess technically you could locate a "Distant Shot" weapon pre-epic and steal it rather than buy it, but not only is that going far outside of WBL, it's also kinda like saying "the bar for realism should be here, because it's entirely possible that any D&D character could stumble across a high-end sniper rifle".)


I disagreeing:

Emphasis: shortbow or longbow - not, for example, double bow (or, presumably, any other possible kind of bow)

Moreover, there are already Bone Bow:

Note: the same length as greatbow, the same range as greatbow... (and made of bones - like dragonbone bow)

So, ranges are: Bone Bow - 120' and 1d10 damage, Greatbow - 120' (130' - if Composite) and 1d10 damage, Dragonbone Longbow - 130' and 1d8 damage

So, looks like Dragonbone is a way to get the range without taking EWP, than to buff already good weapon even more.

While I don't think anybody would disallow it at the table that you could turn any composite wooden bow better by making it dragonbone, it does appear to be RAW that greatbow isn't a viable target, you are correct.


a) This rule clearly gone out of the window, since Ballista (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#siegeEngines) have the same range increment as Medium-sized Heavy Crossbow (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponDescriptions)

"A ballista is essentially a Huge heavy crossbow fixed in place" does not mean "is mechanically identical to a Huge heavy crossbow". A Huge crossbow can't be operated by Medium creatures in any capacity by RAW, and would be a lot more mobile than described just because carrying capacity can get utterly ridiculous in this game. Also, however you wish to calculate the cost of a Huge heavy crossbow, it would end up wildly different from what a Ballista costs. It's not identical to a Huge heavy crossbow in some respects, so you can't point to its range and say "this is the range a Huge heavy crossbow should have per RAW as well". That's a reasonable ruling, perhaps, but it's not RAW.

On its own, that's all fine and dandy, but when it's presented alongside the earlier argument about "well technically the statblock says only short and long in an aside, therefore it's RAW illegal", it comes across less that you're being consistent and more that you're looking for any excuse to shut down the post that points out a way to do the thing you said couldn't be done.


b) If this rule would be in use, it would mean Fine-sized ranged weapon doesn't exist: -100% range

Once again, you're misunderstanding how multipliers stack because you're still thinking it works the other way - it's still a multiplier, and it's still applying to distance, so it still abides by normal math rules. Four sizes down isn't "-25% four times" it's "x0.75 four times", which winds up being "x0.31640625".

[ShurikVch]

"A ballista is essentially a Huge heavy crossbow fixed in place" does not mean "is mechanically identical to a Huge heavy crossbow". A Huge crossbow can't be operated by Medium creatures in any capacity by RAW, and would be a lot more mobile than described just because carrying capacity can get utterly ridiculous in this game. Also, however you wish to calculate the cost of a Huge heavy crossbow, it would end up wildly different from what a Ballista costs. It's not identical to a Huge heavy crossbow in some respects, so you can't point to its range and say "this is the range a Huge heavy crossbow should have per RAW as well". That's a reasonable ruling, perhaps, but it's not RAW.

On its own, that's all fine and dandy, but when it's presented alongside the earlier argument about "well technically the statblock says only short and long in an aside, therefore it's RAW illegal", it comes across less that you're being consistent and more that you're looking for any excuse to shut down the post that points out a way to do the thing you said couldn't be done.
Believe me, I was completely honest
If you're rejecting the "ballista is a Huge crossbow", then we're in a bit of conundrum: AFAIK, all monsters armed with manufactured ranged weapons are don't list their range increments
The only thing we, realistically, can do - to look into the Chapter 2 of Dungeon Master's Guide, notice the "Effect of Weapon Size", "Big and Little Creatures in Combat", see there is nothing about the Range Increment change, and conclude this rule didn't survived 3.5 transition



Once again, you're misunderstanding how multipliers stack because you're still thinking it works the other way - it's still a multiplier, and it's still applying to distance, so it still abides by normal math rules. Four sizes down isn't "-25% four times" it's "x0.75 four times", which winds up being "x0.31640625".
Nope!
I don't misunderstand it.
Medium-sized Club have range increment 10'
10x0.31640625=3.1640625
But game operates ranges at 5' increment; anything less than 5 means - no range at all...

[AvatarVecna]

Believe me, I was completely honest
If you're rejecting the "ballista is a Huge crossbow", then we're in a bit of conundrum: AFAIK, all monsters armed with manufactured ranged weapons are don't list their range increments
The only thing we, realistically, can do - to look into the Chapter 2 of Dungeon Master's Guide, notice the "Effect of Weapon Size", "Big and Little Creatures in Combat", see there is nothing about the Range Increment change, and conclude this rule didn't survived 3.5 transition

As I said, that's all well and good as a ruling. I don't think that's invalid if you say that's how it works at your table. But you don't get to arbitrarily declare which rules are real or not - it wasn't replaced, and it wasn't errata'd out, so it's still in the game, even if you personally don't think it should be.


Nope!
I don't misunderstand it.
Medium-sized Club have range increment 10'
10x0.31640625=3.1640625
But game operates ranges at 5' increment; anything less than 5 means - no range at all...

How unfortunate that the rules have absolutely no basis for weapons with 0 ft range. [ignores all the stuff about 0 ft range melee weapons for really small creatures] Yep, noooooo basis at all. Whatsoever.

[ShurikVch]

How unfortunate that the rules have absolutely no basis for weapons with 0 ft range. [ignores all the stuff about 0 ft range melee weapons for really small creatures] Yep, noooooo basis at all. Whatsoever.
Please, excuse me, but I don't understanding what's you're trying to say there: is there actually a ranged weapon with 0' range, or not?
If no - then you was too roundabout there, next time, please, say clearer
If yes - then show me such rules: I legitimately interested to see non-improvised weapon which gives -5 penalty for attempt to throw it (or -10 penalty, if it shoots projectiles)

[AvatarVecna]

Please, excuse me, but I don't understanding what's you're trying to say there: is there actually a ranged weapon with 0' range, or not?
If no - then you was too roundabout there, next time, please, say clearer
If yes - then show me such rules: I legitimately interested to see non-improvised weapon which gives -5 penalty for attempt to throw it (or -10 penalty, if it shoots projectiles)

Your argument, as I understood it, was that the idea of a Fine ranged weapon that cannot be used to make attacks is silly, because the system doesn't have rules for weapons that can't be used to make attacks from one square away. But such weapons do, in fact, exist - Tiny creatures using melee weapons (and smaller creatures using melee weapons) have 0 ft reach, and thus have to be in the same square as their target to make the attack. There is precedent for weapons with insufficient range to affect an adjacent square, therefore the existence of such weapons is not as silly as you've made it out to be. Going in the other direction, we could just as easily say that the large end gets mechanically silly if this rule doesn't exist - an Elder Titan or similar Colossal creature can make melee attacks with a halberd from 60 ft away, but can't use it to make thrown weapon attacks that are further than 50 ft? That's silliness, but if this rule doesn't exist, then that's the RAW of the situation.

If you want to talk about whether that's realistic or not - that is to say, whether this is representative of how such weapons would actually work in reality - that's a very different argument to make. Under such circumstances, I would indeed say that not even just a Fine melee weapon lacks the range to be thrown, but in fact I would wager that a longbow or crossbow sized for a 4 inch tall person probably wouldn't be able to shoot as far as a longbow sized for a 6 ft person. Despite depictions in certain media, I don't think a fairy could actually throw a dagger any meaningful distance, let alone with anything resembling accuracy. Looking at bigger IRL weapons, we can use the ballista again as a good comparison point: IRL, a ballista weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 lbs, with ammunition weighing ~57 lbs, shooting to a max range of ~500 yards. This is approximately 62 times as heavy as the in-game heavy crossbow (so about two sizes larger - similar weight to what a Huge Crossbow might weigh, albeit not identical), with ammunition weighing ~570 times as heavy as the in-game ammunition (so about three sizes larger), with a range about 125% that of a Medium Heavy Crossbow (so equivalent to about one size larger).

One could make the argument that if the weight ratio between the ballista and its ammunition were the same as the Heavy Crossbow, instead of 8 times more weighted towards the ammunition, the ammo would be able to fly further, but I'm going to assume that siege weapon designers considered that possibility and went with these designs for good reason. Gut feeling is that while there's waaaaaaay more power behind the ammunition, the ammunition is also waaaaaaaay heavier, and these changes are mostly balancing out as far as how they affect the overall range, with the ballista just objectively outranging the crossbow...at least IRL. I don't think a super-ballista (equivalent to a Colossal crossbow) has ever been made, which would be helpful for seeing if the range continues to creep up, or if the square-cube law starts causing real issues.

[AvatarVecna]

Admittedly, it's all kinda a weird hill to die on. Comparing real-world sniper rifles with fantastic scopes to magic bows probably isn't going to be one-to-one anyway? Like magic is probably better than scopes, but guns are better than bows...seems like if we're trying to figure out what kind of longbow shot shoots so far that it becomes unrealistic, we'd be better off comparing to IRL bow feats instead?

[ShurikVch]

Your argument, as I understood it, was that the idea of a Fine ranged weapon that cannot be used to make attacks is silly, because the system doesn't have rules for weapons that can't be used to make attacks from one square away. But such weapons do, in fact, exist - Tiny creatures using melee weapons (and smaller creatures using melee weapons) have 0 ft reach, and thus have to be in the same square as their target to make the attack. There is precedent for weapons with insufficient range to affect an adjacent square, therefore the existence of such weapons is not as silly as you've made it out to be.
Believe me, I was well aware of it.
Or do you think I bolded the word "ranged" on sheer accident?
0' melee reach isn't the same thing as 0' range increment
If Fine-sized club from my previous example can be, at the very least, used for melee attack, then what we would do with Fine-sized blowgun?


Going in the other direction, we could just as easily say that the large end gets mechanically silly if this rule doesn't exist - an Elder Titan or similar Colossal creature can make melee attacks with a halberd from 60 ft away, but can't use it to make thrown weapon attacks that are further than 50 ft? That's silliness, but if this rule doesn't exist, then that's the RAW of the situation.
Well, there are thrown weapons with range increment more than 10', but otherwise - yes, it's exactly how it works
(IIRR, was listed somewhere in the "Dysfunctional Rules" threads)
On a similar note: aforementioned Elder Titan is completely incapable to jump over a waist-high fence (DC 150, and no ranks in Jump), but trivially hops on a waist-high table (DC 10, +17 Str bonus)

[AvatarVecna]

Believe me, I was well aware of it.
Or do you think I bolded the word "ranged" on sheer accident?
0' melee reach isn't the same thing as 0' range increment
If Fine-sized club from my previous example can be, at the very least, used for melee attack, then what we would do with Fine-sized blowgun?

I'm aware that melee and ranged aren't the same thing. I'm just saying there's precedent for weapons that don't really have range in the traditional sense, and pretending "well that's only for melee, of course the two inch longbow can shoot an arrow 1200 ft" is at least as ridiculous as saying that it only shoots 0 ft. Your argument was "that's just what makes sense" but...no. No it doesn't. And you're pretending otherwise because you just weren't aware of these things until they were pointed out to you and they undermined your point.


Well, there are thrown weapons with range increment more than 10', but otherwise - yes, it's exactly how it works
(IIRR, was listed somewhere in the "Dysfunctional Rules" threads)
On a similar note: aforementioned Elder Titan is completely incapable to jump over a waist-high fence (DC 150, and no ranks in Jump), but trivially hops on a waist-high table (DC 10, +17 Str bonus)

I'm not saying otherwise. RAW is frequently silly. And because this is a rule that is 100% in the game, even if you personally don't like it, even if none of the statblocks reflect it (because developers forgetting it was applicable isn't the same thing as overriding it), one of those RAW weirdnesses is that Fine weapons have 0 ft range increment.

Unless you can actually provide a source that strikes that rule from the record, it's RAW whether you like it or not.

[JNAProductions]

I'm with AV here. The rules be silly and dumb, and you're absolutely free to rule otherwise at your table (and probably should!). But RAW is what it is.

[Darg]

3) ...I can understand how they're getting a Large character, but not how said character is wielding a gargantuan bow.

The large creature was enlarged which means the weapon gets enlarged too. I also assumed the maximum oversized weapon category a character could wield which is +2 (strongarm bracers + monkey grip). So Large > Huge > Gargantuan > Colossal. I guess it doesn't matter if the size rule is 1.25 * 1.25 * 1.25 * 1.25.



Either way, the goal post is 11,615 feet pre-epic.

Some ranged weapon with 130ft increments
RWM feat - +20ft
Far Shot - 1.5x
Distance - 2x
Hawkeye - 1.5x
Deepwood - +100ft
Cragtop - 15x

((130 + 20) * 1.5 * 2 * 1.5 + 100) * 15 = 11625ft

As was said, there are still Flight arrows to consider.

[Remuko]

For the fine sized range weapon with a range increment of 3 feet, i'd just mandate that it has forced increment usage.

max range for a bow is 10 increments right? so max range for the fine bow is 30ft and would take the penalties for 10 range increments. shooting at something 1 increment away is either impossible, or like fine melee requires you to be in the same space as it, but by taking the penalty of one range increment away, we get 6 feet, rounded down to 5ft. So you can shoot something 5 feet away with a fine bow by taking the normal penalty for shooting beyond 1 range increment (imo). This seems to be valid by RAW.

[Darg]

Well, if you are fine sized, you are half a foot tall or less and weigh 2 ounces or less. I just can't see how a longbow the size of a pencil shooting toothpicks can shoot the same distance as a medium sized creature with a medium sized bow with appriately sized arrows.

That said, a longbow would have a 31.6 ft increment to a maximum of 316 ft. Not that bad and just fine for sneak attacks. Not to mention the +8 to ab size bonus. You get 4 increments for fasically free.

[Melcar]

Canadian sniper made a kill shot (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-elite-special-forces-sniper-sets-record-breaking-kill-shot-in-iraq/article35415651/) at 3540 meters
For D&D character, such distance is straight impossible (pre-Epic)

A long range, distance, Great crossbow, with far shot and ranged weapon mastery has a range increment of 510... considering Then The spell hawkeye you reach 755 ft. There’s a spell or item that further doubles range increment in out case 1510 = 15100 which is 4.6 km...

[ben-zayb]

Well, I can't reliably evaluate what a real-world swordsman is capable of in combat, but a D&D fighter will always hit at least 5% of the time, and always miss at least 5% of the time. That's not necessary unrealistic, but it reflects more on the core mechanics than on the Fighter anyway. At lvl-1, they're probably a bit squishier than an irl fighter, but that reflects more on the HP mechanic than on the fighter.This post was criminally overlooked (probably because of Seto's more humorous take on the question)

It doesn't matter what backstory, strength score, base attack bonus, level, proficiency, encumbrance, age, attack bonus or attack penalty you have. Barring "fate-manipulation" like Luck Feats, your chance of missing can't possibly be reduced to below 5%.

[Darg]

Great crossbow was updated in RoS to 120ft, not that it means much. Didn't know about the long range masterwork quality from dragon.

[Willie the Duck]

This post was criminally overlooked (probably because of Seto's more humorous take on the question)

It doesn't matter what backstory, strength score, base attack bonus, level, proficiency, encumbrance, age, attack bonus or attack penalty you have. Barring "fate-manipulation" like Luck Feats, your chance of missing can't possibly be reduced to below 5%.

I would say it is because everyone agrees on the "it reflects more on the core mechanics than on the Fighter anyway" part. Just about everything in the game has success rates between 5% and 95%. That's clearly not realistic, but when everything in the game follows the same model, you just chalk it up to them choosing d20 rather than dSomethingBigger. Certainly when addressing the OP's goal of ammunition ('The parameters are me trying to give a bunch of concessions to people whose reaction is that it is "too unrealistic," to give fighters nice things, even prior to any specifics of what would be added.') at doesn't seem to help much, since everything else in the game works the same way.

[Kalkra]

I'd been assuming that the thing about sniper rifles was within the constraints of the OP. If you allow other stuff, you can take Ranged Weapon Mastery, and if magic is allowed, you can have a Distance weapon, and cast Accuracy, Hawkeye, and Wind Tunnel for x12 range, plus anything else I couldn't find in five minutes of searching.

[ShurikVch]

A long range, distance, Great crossbow, with far shot and ranged weapon mastery has a range increment of 510... considering Then The spell hawkeye you reach 755 ft. There’s a spell or item that further doubles range increment in out case 1510 = 15100 which is 4.6 km...
I, personally, think it's wrong to bring magic into the equation: OP says "single class fighter" - any magical additions are saying more about magic than Fighter
If we would allow magic, then it would be possible to just use the Ring Gates (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#ringGates) and shoot somebody 100 miles away
(But then, again, IRL soldier can launch a TBM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_ballistic_missile) and be ahead in the range competition once again...)



Cragtop Archer - 15 increments instead of 10
Deepwood Sniper - +10ft/level after all multipliers = 100ft
As I said above, OP asked about a "single class fighter" - is inclusion of PrC really appropriate there?



Unless you can actually provide a source that strikes that rule from the record, it's RAW whether you like it or not.
Well, firstly - it never was a Core rule: it appeared only in two splats (Savage Species and Arms and Equipment Guide), which were released mere months before the 3.5 transition

Also, the "Size and Range" rule was printed along with several other rules
But did any of them survived 3.5 transition?
Size and Damage? - OK, it's still there (But, unlike other rules from the list, it wasn't introduced in the Savage Species - see Deities and Demigods)
Light and Heavy Crossbows? Nope, it's gone for good (unless you would insist to refer the somewhat obscure 3.0 book for every 3.5 player who choose to use crossbow)
Size, Weight, and Price? Nope again - it all calculated differently now
Size and Reach? And - once again - nope. Rules for reach weapon don't work like that in the 3.5

Also, because I tried to find if rules actually supposed to work like that or not, I checked some non-Medium monsters:
Storm Giant (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/giant.htm#stormGiant): "Their composite longbows have a range increment of 180 feet." (And it was that way even in 3.0) While may be considered as a proof for "Size and Range", it didn't adhere to its calculation rules - huge composite longbow should be 171.875' (which is almost 2 squares less than 180')
Balor: whips were ranged weapon in 3.0; range increment for Balor's whip was 10'; for standard Whip from Player's Handbook - 15' (so much for "Size and Range"...)
Desmodu: range increment of frostfire flask is 10' - exactly as for standard flasks; Desmodu is Large
Yuan-Ti Anathema: same as above for their Venomous Fire flasks; Anathema is Huge (Although you may argue the range is for cultists rather than for Anathema themselves)
Stone Spitter graft have fixed range of 50' for creature of any size - from Fine to Colossal (and no - don't try the "they're all the same size" angle: damage scales with size just fine, so they're clearly different)



of course the two inch longbow can shoot an arrow 1200 ft"
Laser pistol?
Lightning gun?
Slivershot?

[Biggus]

I think the fighter is definitely unrealistic at the point where they can be expected to reliably solo a Grizzly bear, which is around level 6, earlier if well-built (the bear is CR4). That would be an incredible feat from a real life human. I mean, it happens once in a blue moon, but it should never be a safe bet.
Beyond that, it's hard to say. It's kinda weird estimating the Fighter's realism by combat prowess, when it's usually measured with Skills. I guess CR is the way to go - what can they defeat at what level, and is it conceivable for a real life human to do that.

CR is one of the main ways I judge these things. A brown bear is CR4, a t-rex is CR8. So an 8th-level fighter is an even match for 4 brown bears or 1 t-rex. That suggests to me a real-world maximum of about level 6 or 7.

Obviously CRs assume characters have magic items though, so a fighter with just masterwork weapons and armour wouldn't be able to fight those opponents with such ease.



7th seems close to the commentary I've seen for overall 3.5e games.


Depending on what you choose to focus on to to make the comparison, the highest-level humans come out somewhere between level 5 and 8; as you say, "about 7" seems to be the most common answer.

The developers estimated that a 7th-level ranger could equal an top olympic archer: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a Presumably a 7th-level fighter who focussed on archery could do the same.

A 9th-level monk with the right feats can absolutely smash world running records, so it's pretty clear real people don't reach that level.

[Darg]

As I said above, OP asked about a "single class fighter" - is inclusion of PrC really appropriate there?

Well, I was responding to to your statement that the feat was impossible in D&D. You never limited it to just plain fighter. I thought it was a fun exercise as I didn't know the answer when I read your statement myself.

[Yahzi Coyote]

I wouldn't necessarily expect a single tank shell to always instantly kill an elephant.
Um. A single round from a 120 mm cannon will instantly kill an elpehant. And probably several more standing behind it.

Loot at this way: if modern tank rounds were only seven times faster, they would be able to escape Earth's gravity and hit the moon. That is a tremendous amount of energy. No being made of flesh, including T-Rex and Godzilla, can withstand that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Um. A single round from a 120 mm cannon will instantly kill an elpehant. And probably several more standing behind it.

Depends on the shell. HEATs will definitely make it rain pachyderm but they won't get much past the first target. Kinetic penetrators will definitely punch right though a few of 'em but they're soft enough that I suspect the cavitation is gonna scale pretty comparably to a human target and a mid-calibre rifle round. Center mass? Probably a dead elephant but I wouldn't expect it to be 100%.


Look at this way: if modern tank rounds were only seven times faster, they would be able to escape Earth's gravity and hit the moon. That is a tremendous amount of energy. No being made of flesh, including T-Rex and Godzilla, can withstand that.

Seven times.. So if they were vastly more powerful than they are. You'd probably be right if that was a penetrator going that fast. Kinda the idea behind the various rail-gun projects.

[Toliudar]

I think that the fighter described in the OP starts acting fantastical and unrealistic when their melee ability is unaffected when they strap on a 150 pound backpack. As long as they don't wear it as armour, they're fine.