Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!

[Stubbazubba]

You don't have to make every class able to do anything. But there's a middle ground between "everyone can do anything" and "every class must be shoehorned into one of four roles no matter what".

See Seerow's reply above. A character, in literature or in an RPG, is defined by what he or she can't do as much as what they can.

I can see both angles of this issue; I want roles to be protected so you have to rely on the team functioning, but I also don't want my fluff choices to shoe-horn what mechanical role I fill. Fortunately, that's not too hard of a fix.

If I want a Ranger captain-type who excels in battlefield control (designate an area for suppressive fire which gives me a ranged AoO, for instance) or setting stuff up with my allies, I should be able to play that in the same party with some other Ranger who excels in direct damage (two-weapon fighting, multi-shot, etc.). Each class should specialize in one of several roles open to it, to the exclusion of the others. It allows for more diversity within each class, and more flexibility for each player as far as the fluff to crunch connection is concerned.

Unfortunately, that's a lot more work that has to be put in for each class, which is no longer really a class. I would rename classes 'archetypes' or something, and then rename roles as 'classes.' And that much nitty gritty work for each class is a tall order for any developer, especially because you then not only have to ensure that Wizards are relatively balanced against Rangers, but also that Wizard blasters are balanced against Ranger archers, and every other combination of Archetype/Class.

[Seerow]

See Seerow's reply above. A character, in literature or in an RPG, is defined by what he or she [i]can't[i] do as much as what they can.

I can see both angles of this issue; I want roles to be protected so you have to rely on the team functioning, but I also don't want my fluff choices to shoe-horn what mechanical role I fill. Fortunately, that's not too hard of a fix.

If I want a Ranger captain-type who excels in battlefield control (designate an area for suppressive fire which gives me a ranged AoO, for instance) or setting stuff up with my allies, I should be able to play that in the same party with some other Ranger who excels in direct damage (two-weapon fighting, multi-shot, etc.). Each class should specialize in one of several roles open to it, to the exclusion of the others. It allows for more diversity within each class, and more flexibility for each player as far as the fluff to crunch connection is concerned.

I actually do agree with this. I personally feel that's what feats should be used for, specializing characters into a given role.

But Saph's position seems to be that roles existing in any form, whether it comes from class or feats, is bad because it is too restrictive.

[Kurald Galain]

It is handled with attack penalties at range. You're assuming that the ranges in the book are absolute ranges. They are not. They are effective ranges beyond which you could probably send an arrow, but it would be a case of diminishing returns.

That may be true for 3E, but 4E explicitly forbids ranged attacks beyond the stated range. PHB page 219.

The point is, it's disappointing. If I'm an epic character, I expect to be able to hit a goblin's eye from a mile away. That is a feat from fairy tale and legend; characters like William Tell, Agilaz, or Odysseus simply are that good with a bow. Yet in 4E I can only shoot a measly 60 meters.

[Tyndmyr]

To be fair, there's a difference between hitting a target past 60 meters in a controlled situation, and hitting a target at all under combat conditions where the "target" is shooting right back at you.

I do archery in larp conditions as well as target practice. Increased range makes people attacking you less of a concern, not more of one. I've scored many a hit at max range with larp bows and arrows, and could perform far, far better with more realistic equipment(larp bows and arrows are particularly handicapped in order to make people not die).

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I actually do agree with this. I personally feel that's what feats should be used for, specializing characters into a given role.

But Saph's position seems to be that roles existing in any form, whether it comes from class or feats, is bad because it is too restrictive.

Rather than seeing feats specializing characters into certain roles, I'd prefer to see that remain the domain of class features; I like feats as more minor tweaks to a character's schtick, particularly since from the look of things 5e's feats will be less combat style-focused and more schtick-focused, and having combat capability (or lack thereof) based on certain feat choices is too much to leave to chance. I don't think having classes that can do anything within their own particular idiom is a problem, as long as individual characters fill a certain niche.

In 3e parlance, I don't want to see something like a Ranger class (less generic theme, few unique options, etc.) who dips Scout and takes the Improved Skirmish and Swift Hunter feat to be more striker-y or dips Knight and takes the Combat Expertise and Allied Defense feats to be more defender-y (both very narrow mechanics to reinforce a role without too many options attached), with class features being generic improvements to any sort of ranger. Rather, I'd like to see a class that is a Wizard in build (tons of options, broad thematic base, etc.) but must be specialized into a Dread Necromancer or Beguiler in play (tight thematic focus, narrower options, supporting class features), and feats determine whether your Wizard [Dread Necromancer] fills the blaster or minionmaster or whatever combat niche within the broader necromancer thematic niche.

[Reverent-One]

That may be true for 3E, but 4E explicitly forbids ranged attacks beyond the stated range. PHB page 219.

The point is, it's disappointing. If I'm an epic character, I expect to be able to hit a goblin's eye from a mile away. That is a feat from fairy tale and legend; characters like William Tell, Agilaz, or Odysseus simply are that good with a bow. Yet in 4E I can only shoot a measly 60 meters.

When has D&D ever allowed shots like that? 3.X didn't, and to my understanding it has the longest set of ranges for bows.

[Tyndmyr]

When has D&D ever allowed shots like that? 3.X didn't, and to my understanding it has the longest set of ranges for bows.

I built an NPC once for a game that could routinely do half mile shots. At level 10. Notably further is definitely possible, and I could certainly get mile long shots with rather a lot of optimization. Or being epic. In epic, it's a single feat.

It's possible in 3.5, but it's not particularly easy. You definitely have to be in the sort of game that has embraced that sort of power level of play.

[Reverent-One]

I built an NPC once for a game that could routinely do half mile shots. At level 10. Notably further is definitely possible, and I could certainly get mile long shots with rather a lot of optimization. Or being epic. In epic, it's a single feat.

It's possible in 3.5, but it's not particularly easy. You definitely have to be in the sort of game that has embraced that sort of power level of play.

Ah, so it is. Fair enough. I do still wonder the range you can get in earlier editions (perhaps there are similar abilties to the Distance Shot feat in them).

[Saph]

But Saph's position seems to be that roles existing in any form, whether it comes from class or feats, is bad because it is too restrictive.

Where on earth did you get that from? I said I wanted a middle ground. There's nothing wrong with roles, as in "this class is better at X, that class is better at Y". But if roles become too restrictive then you get ridiculous situations such as an entire adventure grinding to a halt because the correct character isn't there.

[Tyndmyr]

Ah, so it is. Fair enough. I do still wonder the range you can get in earlier editions (perhaps there are similar abilties to the Distance Shot feat in them).

Honestly not certain. I played 2e, and own a good bit of 1e, but I never developed the system mastery I did with 3.5. That said, I'd assume that you're correct on 3.5 having the highest upper limit.

I don't need 5e to have AS high of a limit as 3.5...just a good bit further than I can reasonably do. If I'm playing a ranger who spends his career shooting a bow, I expect him to be better at it than me, as I am merely a skilled hobbyist. If it also supports the image of the guy who uses a scrying ball sovereign glued to his bow to spot his target...awesome. But that's rather less necessary, being a small subset of the former.

[Seerow]

I built an NPC once for a game that could routinely do half mile shots. At level 10. Notably further is definitely possible, and I could certainly get mile long shots with rather a lot of optimization. Or being epic. In epic, it's a single feat.

It's possible in 3.5, but it's not particularly easy. You definitely have to be in the sort of game that has embraced that sort of power level of play.

Yeah in 3.5 even with no special things at all, you can easily have 1100ft range, just by picking up a composite longbow. That's about 1/5th of a mile. Just taking Far Shot gives you 1600ft, which is about 490 meters, which is a fairly impressive. And that's before looking at magical properties (ie distance), or prestige classes.



Honestly though, I think the real reason is that such long ranges typically aren't practical. Especially at low levels. I mean, when you're restricted to moving 30ft (up to 120ft) per round, someone who can shoot from that kind of distance is hitting you 10 times before you're even close to them, assuming they're not moving as well. Most DMs don't want to deal with an encounter like that, and in my experience 9 times out of 10 a fight won't start more than a few hundred feet away until you're at a level where distance is meaningless anyway.

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, that's normal...in this case, it was kind of a specialized encounter, utilizing a low level caster with Invisibility and heightened scrolls of Message(crystal ball and scrying ability would have meant a much higher CR encounter). Designate square relative to a landmark, sniper fires at it. Took the PCs a couple of rounds to figure out what was going on and blow away the spotter, and even with the 50% miss chance, a PC got plastered before they got did so.

You're probably not going to see encounters like that outside of a relatively high-op campaign. Most encounters tend to be no larger than the DM's map.

[Reverent-One]

Yeah in 3.5 even with no special things at all, you can easily have 1100ft range, just by picking up a composite longbow.

*Thinks "isn't a max of 5 range increments?"*

*Checks srd*

*facepalms*

Apparently I can't do math or remember rules today. So I'm just going to agree with the second part of Seerow's post and bow out before I make some other stupid mistake.

[hamlet]

That may be true for 3E, but 4E explicitly forbids ranged attacks beyond the stated range. PHB page 219.

The point is, it's disappointing. If I'm an epic character, I expect to be able to hit a goblin's eye from a mile away. That is a feat from fairy tale and legend; characters like William Tell, Agilaz, or Odysseus simply are that good with a bow. Yet in 4E I can only shoot a measly 60 meters.

Well, that's because (and all will forgive me when I say this because it's more than 50% a joke and not very serious) 4E kind of sucks in some ways. It doesn't really like people going outside pre-set parameters and fails when they try.

And, to answer the question further down, there were no real hard mechanics for getting mile long shots. It would have been something left up to the DM. You'd have to, basically, explain yourself and ask him to adjudicate how it would work, which, I'm told, is just something that D20 players loathe.


And, to anwer the LARP issue . . . yeah. LARP is to actual Combat as Laser Tag is as well. Not even within the same reality folks.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, that's because (and all will forgive me when I say this because it's more than 50% a joke and not very serious) 4E kind of sucks in some ways. It doesn't really like people going outside pre-set parameters and fails when they try.

And, to answer the question further down, there were no real hard mechanics for getting mile long shots. It would have been something left up to the DM. You'd have to, basically, explain yourself and ask him to adjudicate how it would work, which, I'm told, is just something that D20 players loathe.

I've already stated mechanics. Several people have cited many of them.

Cragtop archer can do 15 range increments, for example. A bog standard comp longbow has a range increment of 110 feet. Far shot boosts that by 50%. So, an entirely mundane archer of moderate level can, with minimal investment, fire shots at 2475 feet. If he grabs a dragonbone comp longbow, he's looking at 130 feet base increments, or a total of 2925 feet.

With a simple distance enchantment, that's 5850 feet by RAW, or well over a mile. And you can do MUCH better than this. There were hard rules in 3.5.

And, to anwer the LARP issue . . . yeah. LARP is to actual Combat as Laser Tag is as well. Not even within the same reality folks.

The point is that incoming is less an issue with range. The further away you are, the safer you are from your targets, as an archer. This is true historically, this is true in larp...if you demand a currently experienced person in mass combat with live medieval weapons...that person doesn't exist. But every bit of evidence we have points to bows being effective beyond 60m in real life.

[hamlet]

I've already stated mechanics. Several people have cited many of them.

Cragtop archer can do 15 range increments, for example. A bog standard comp longbow has a range increment of 110 feet. Far shot boosts that by 50%. So, an entirely mundane archer of moderate level can, with minimal investment, fire shots at 2475 feet. If he grabs a dragonbone comp longbow, he's looking at 130 feet base increments, or a total of 2925 feet.

With a simple distance enchantment, that's 5850 feet by RAW, or well over a mile. And you can do MUCH better than this. There were hard rules in 3.5.

And I was speaking of AD&D, not 3.x.

Is this some kind of new mentality? People seem to entirely forget that AD&D or the three little books ever existed.

The point is that incoming is less an issue with range. The further away you are, the safer you are from your targets, as an archer. This is true historically, this is true in larp...if you demand a currently experienced person in mass combat with live medieval weapons...that person doesn't exist. But every bit of evidence we have points to bows being effective beyond 60m in real life.

Yes, the further away you are, the less likely you are to be under threat of death and the more likely you are to be able to line up a shot. However, real life physics do get in the way here and your accuracy will decline over distance. Add to that the stress of a life or death battle, and it works out to, under those conditions, after a certain range, and for the sake of game balance, your bow just isn't effective unless under very specific conditions (i.e., sniping from a blind or inaccessible location).

[Tyndmyr]

And I was speaking of AD&D, not 3.x.

Is this some kind of new mentality? People seem to entirely forget that AD&D or the three little books ever existed.

Different versions have been mentioned, but you didn't cite what version you were talking about. If you don't mention a version, AD&D will not be assumed to be the default.

Yes, the further away you are, the less likely you are to be under threat of death and the more likely you are to be able to line up a shot. However, real life physics do get in the way here and your accuracy will decline over distance. Add to that the stress of a life or death battle, and it works out to, under those conditions, after a certain range, and for the sake of game balance, your bow just isn't effective unless under very specific conditions (i.e., sniping from a blind or inaccessible location).

Accuracy declining is entirely different from "no, you can't do that shot". 3.5 had accuracy normally decreasing over range.

Nobody was ever arguing that range has no relationship to accuracy...only that shots >60 meters are obviously possible.

[hamlet]

Different versions have been mentioned, but you didn't cite what version you were talking about. If you don't mention a version, AD&D will not be assumed to be the default.

You default to a different system than I do. When I'm talking, it's generally safe to assume that I'm speaking of AD&D.

Accuracy declining is entirely different from "no, you can't do that shot". 3.5 had accuracy normally decreasing over range.

Nobody was ever arguing that range has no relationship to accuracy...only that shots >60 meters are obviously possible.

Again, that's a specific mistake created by and perpetuated by fourth edition. It's a major problem with the game, but it is hardly representative of the rest of D&D and is, in fact, a major outlier in that regard.

[Tyndmyr]

You default to a different system than I do. When I'm talking, it's generally safe to assume that I'm speaking of AD&D.

Yes, everyone will now proceed to memorize what system you prefer, and thus, when you jump into a conversation focusing primarily on 3.5 and 4e, will immediately understand what you mean, regardless of lack of context.

AD&D is not among the more popular versions. If you want to be understood, you need to be specific, not expect everyone on the remarkably large, well populated forum, to know you and your personal preferences.

Again, that's a specific mistake created by and perpetuated by fourth edition. It's a major problem with the game, but it is hardly representative of the rest of D&D and is, in fact, a major outlier in that regard.

I'll just leave this here: http://advancedgaming-theory.blogspo...they-have.html

[Kaiyanwang]

At epic 3.5 you can go further.

Originally posted by SRD
Distant Shot [Epic]
Prerequisites

Dex 25, Far Shot, Point Blank Shot, Spot 20 ranks.
Benefit

You may throw or fire a ranged weapon at any target within line of sight, with no penalty for range.

For my homebrew, I just started to add this stuff before level 20, sometimes way before. PH2 and Pathfinder already did, with highly debatable coherency.

I just hope the designers realize that if a game breaks in half not because of simulacrum or gate, but because mongols can beat virtually any monster, should not be considered an "improvement".

Should not be considered "different but interesting" too, but whatever.

[Oracle_Hunter]

You default to a different system than I do. When I'm talking, it's generally safe to assume that I'm speaking of AD&D.

For the sake of clarity, you might want to say what system you're talking about just the same

[hamlet]

{Scrubbed}

[hamlet]

Double Post.

[Tyndmyr]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

The last explicit version reference you made was to 3e, in a comment about 2e. Plenty of other folks discussed 3 and 4e. Specify what you're talking about if you want to be clear.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

It's a comparison of the changes in missile ranges, citing the books directly. This is somewhat helpful to those who don't have all the different books handy at a given point in time.

And as the range change between 2e printings is pretty notable, your statement is not sufficient explanation. The assumption that they were in 10s of yards is not one that everyone can be expected to make. Still, looking backward, we can determine what they meant, and thus, look at the history of weapon ranges in D&D with some accuracy.

60 meters is a short limit even historically speaking, but older version contain some questionable ranges as well. A sling bullet performing nearly as well as a composite longbow(2e, 1995 print) does seem a bit odd, for instance.

[hamlet]

It's a comparison of the changes in missile ranges, citing the books directly. This is somewhat helpful to those who don't have all the different books handy at a given point in time.

And as the range change between 2e printings is pretty notable, your statement is not sufficient explanation. The assumption that they were in 10s of yards is not one that everyone can be expected to make. Still, looking backward, we can determine what they meant, and thus, look at the history of weapon ranges in D&D with some accuracy.

60 meters is a short limit even historically speaking, but older version contain some questionable ranges as well. A sling bullet performing nearly as well as a composite longbow(2e, 1995 print) does seem a bit odd, for instance.

Yes, the ranges over the course of the various TSR editions changed. However, the thing is, those ranges were created not with an eye to historicity, but with an eye to balance. Yes, AD&D had balance, and quite good balance when it came down to it.

A sling had a long range in game, and that was done to balance it out against it's relatively low damage. It makes it a viable choice for somebody who's restricted from a long bow (a thief or a mage or a cleric) and still wants to get some good range in. It brings it on to some sort of parity with the long bow. Decent range, but sucktastic damage (though sling bullets could do frightening things).

Of course, there were also just flat out silly things from time to time, but they really didn't impact the game overly. As a group, you had to decide when this issue popped up which set of ranges to agree to and just settle down on it. I.e., not be massive jerks and just agree to compromise. That's what the DM's job is in prior editions. To impose some modicum of consistency of rules calls.

Are the more hard codified ranges of 3.x "better"? I don't know. I've never played that game to any great length (I think maybe 4 sessions en toto), so I can't speak educatedly about them. I will say, though, that they obviously have some benefits and some drawbacks. I will say that I look very down upon what 4th edition did in some regards. Objectively so. And missile weapon ranges is one of those things.

That, and measuring distance in squares. That particular fetish needs to die now.

[DrBurr]

Why is bow range even being discussed? I thought this was a thread on 5th edition not 4e sucks cause I can't shoot a bow 1 mile, and why would you even need to shoot that far to begin with?

[Rogue Shadows]

Why is bow range even being discussed? I thought this was a thread on 5th edition not 4e sucks cause I can't shoot a bow 1 mile, and why would you even need to shoot that far to begin with?

...okay, I'll bite.

Because the thing you're trying to hit is 1 mile away?

[DrBurr]

...okay, I'll bite.

Because the thing you're trying to hit is 1 mile away?

Why would something in combat be 1 mile away? if your in combat they should at least be close enough for your fighter to charge the nearest enemy in a couple of turns

This is all irrelevant anyways what does this have to do with 5th ed beyond Gee I hope their aren't range caps in 5th edition, why can't we leave it at that and not derail the thread

[Scots Dragon]

This is all irrelevant anyways what does this have to do with 5th ed beyond Gee I hope their aren't range caps in 5th edition, why can't we leave it at that and not derail the thread

Because we're nerds on the internet. Everyone knows that nerds on the internet actually derive sustenance from taking part in arguments. It's kind of like with vampires, only with less blood and more accusations of grognardism.

[Doran]

Just split off a thread for it