PDA

View Full Version : halflings and bows



herrhauptmann
2009-06-07, 11:52 PM
Hey all,
I've got a small sized ranger in my party who uses a bow. This isn't a problem normally, but I've noticed something. He has taken the regular longbow and shrunk it down on damage appropriately, but range hasn't changed. So now's he's wielding a shortbow with almost double the range of a regular shortbow. Is this right?
When I noticed, I told him it might be an issue, and that when I found the answer, I'd let him change weapons and feats for free.

Also, can he wear a buckler on his off hand (arm that holds bow) and not take a penalty when shooting?
It's a little annoying, but I don't quite have the ranged combat rules down as well as I should since I'm DMing.

Gaiyamato
2009-06-08, 12:01 AM
Buckler

This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a -1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you donít get the bucklerís AC bonus for the rest of the round.

You canít bash someone with a buckler.

And yes, he is correct with the longbow.
Seems odd but is true. :)

Longbow 75 gp 1d6 1d8 ◊3 100 ft. 3 lb. Piercing

Gorbash
2009-06-08, 12:04 AM
There's a difference between a Shortbow and a Small Longbow. Small Longbow is not a Shortbow, it's a Small Longbow.

If he's using a Shortbow intended for his size, it deals 1d4 damage and range is 60 ft.

If he's using a Longbow intended for his size, it deals 1d6 damage and range is 100 ft.

Since rangers are proficient with both shortbows and longbows, there's no reason why he shouldn't wield a longbow and have the greater range.

He can wear a buckler and gain shield bonus to AC, but he takes a -1 penalty on attack rolls.

JellyPooga
2009-06-08, 01:45 AM
The difference between a Longbow and a Shortbow is more than just its size...admittedly a Small Longbow should probably have a shorter range than a Medium Longbow, but the rules to factor such reduction would be overly complicated; if you wanted to get really technical, the whole range increment thing should be changed completely. For example, a thrown weapon should probably have a range increment based on a)the weapon b)the wielders Strength score c)the wielders skill with that weapon and d)the size of the weapon, but it's not; it's just a flat number. Similarly with projectile weapons; a composite longbows range increment should probably increase with the allowed Strength bonus (so a C.Longbow with a +0 Strength bonus should have a lower range increment than one with +3), for example.

In 3.0 the rules were probably closer to what you're thinking; each weapon was of a particular size and you could wield weapons based on how big you were; for example, a Halfling wielded a Longsword two-handed because it was a Medium weapon and couldn't wield a Greatsword at all as it was Large. This is a workable system but a falacious one; there's absolutely no reason why you could not create a Small Greatsword and further, if a Medium creature tried to wield it as a Longsword, they'd have difficulty as it's not designed to be wielded that way. Similarly with bows; a small Longbow cannot be used mounted because of the shape and design of it. A Medium Shortbow, however, can because that is part of what it is designed to do. Having said that, a Halfling trying to wield a Medium Shortbow would struggle because the dimensions are all wrong (so takes the penalty to hit for using an incorrectly sized weapon), even though functionally it is approximately similar in 'power' to a Longbow sized for him.

bosssmiley
2009-06-08, 04:28 AM
The difference between a Longbow and a Shortbow is more than just its size...admittedly a Small Longbow should probably have a shorter range than a Medium Longbow, but the rules to factor such reduction would be overly complicated; if you wanted to get really technical, the whole range increment thing should be changed completely.

A house-rule that each change in weapon size class below medium reduces range increment by 30% is hard? 'kay. :smallconfused:

M 100%
S 70%
T 40%
D 10%
F --

"Small-sized longbow". Truly have the neckbeards taken over the asylum. :smallamused:

For years (even as late as 3.0) the rule was simply that weapons were scaled to humans and shorties simply couldn't get the leverage to use longbows or 2H swords. That was part of the cost of being a small-sized character. Come 3.5 and it all goes to pot...

JellyPooga
2009-06-08, 04:38 AM
A house-rule that each change in weapon size class below medium reduces range increment by 30% is hard?

For me? No

For Joe Public? ummm, let's put it this way; I wouldn't trust them to add 2 to 3 and get 5, let alone start playing with fractions and percentages. Without a table right there in the PHB listing the various range increments and how they change with size (like there is for weapon damage), you can bet that there'd be a whole slew of people just ignoring that particular rule because it's 'needlessly complicated' (hell, most people I've spoken to think that keeping track of rations, ammo and the weight of all that gold they're carrying around is 'needless book-keeping'...I find it astonishing how willing most people are to just let things slide for the sake of convenience).

Talic
2009-06-08, 04:39 AM
A house-rule that each change in weapon size class below medium reduces range increment by 30% is hard? 'kay. :smallconfused:

M 100%
S 70%
T 40%
D 10%
F --

"Small-sized longbow". Truly have the neckbeards taken over the asylum. :smallamused:

For years (even as late as 3.0) the rule was simply that weapons were scaled to humans and shorties simply couldn't get the leverage to use longbows or 2H swords. That was part of the cost of being a small-sized character. Come 3.5 and it all goes to pot...

Technically, it'd be:
M: 100%
S: 70%
T: 49%
D: 34.3%
F: 24.01%

Lowering a weapon from S to T reduces its size by 1, so should reduce the range by 30% of the range of a small weapon of its type.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-08, 05:00 AM
Technically, it'd be:

I think he meant percentile reductions from the original, not percentage reductions from the previous.

Gaiyamato
2009-06-08, 05:51 AM
Technically, it'd be:
M: 100%
S: 70%
T: 49%
D: 34.3%
F: 24.01%

Lowering a weapon from S to T reduces its size by 1, so should reduce the range by 30% of the range of a small weapon of its type.

Problem with such a rule is that it infers the inverse.

Look at repeating Heavy crossbows, then ajust damage for size and adjust range for size. But this time make them huge.

Then look at some nifty magical enhancements... ooh ooh.. idea... spellwarped, giantised flying half dragons ranger wights with giant repeating crossbows!!

herrhauptmann
2009-06-08, 10:19 AM
How well does a ballista compare if you call it a heavy crossbow that has been scaled up? Both in size and range.

I think I'll do 70% of previous size, then round to nearest 5 ft increment.

Fhaolan
2009-06-08, 10:52 AM
According to the Arms & Equipment Guide for 3.0, page 4, the Range increases or decreases by 25% each step in size.

However, that's 3.0. I don't know if that appeared in any 3.5 book.