I THINK this is because WOTC has all the ranges a bit screwy
Eh, if anything they're overstating range. Yes, an arrow can go quite a long ways, but it's not going to hit anything but a stationary target except by pure accident because time of flight is going to be multiple seconds.
My point was that beyond 600 feet it’s not going to hit even a single stationary target except by sheer luck. After that the angle of aim becomes so small that you can’t hold steady/release perfectly to hit even a stationary target so your in to the realm of massed volleys at massed targets not real aimed fire.
Can anyone come up with a reason it could not be implemented?
Is it to complex, hard to work or just down right stupid?
How could it be abused?
I would need to see the exact proposal and sometime to think on it to provide good feedback. In the past I have seen some rules that if added to the basic rules of a game seem to provide some advantage out of step with others the game has and if you provide detail in one area why do you not provide more detail in other areas? ie expand missile combat but not thrown or melee combat.
Having said the above, different groups like more detail in different areas and little to no detail in other areas. Like no potion drinking in combat without bad things happening but bards can play instruments in combat without bad things happening.
The easiest way to do this is to create a home brew bow with fixed extra damage equal to the strength bonus of the required strength and a required strength stat to wield. That avoids needing general rules for all missile weapons etc. if you don’t have the required minimum strength you can’t pull the bow ( ala Odeseuss’s bow). If you do have the minimum strength then you can wield the bow and you automatically get the extra damage (the strength bonus of the required strength) from the bow.
The more general solution is a homebrew “option rule” allowing characters to substitute their strength bonus for their dexterity bonus on missile weapons if the strength bonus is greater than the dexterity bonus. This would cover daggers, darts, spears, javelins, hand axes, sling stones, thrown stones etc. since it only applies where the strength bonus is greater than than the Dex bonus it would primarily apply to 2 groups - strength based melee fighters using a non primary weapon, and thrown weapon style fighters, rangers and paladins and barbarians.
personally I would use a combination of the two: if your normal missile weapon is a bow or light crossbow you need to purchase a specially crafted bow in order to substitute your strength for your Dex bonus on damage. For all other situations you need to have a strength greater than your Dex to substitute.
To account for strength bonus with ranged weapons.
A special Bow and matching arrows can be constructed that takes into account the strength bonus and adds it to the damage cause by the special weapon.
Thus a character with a strength bonus of +1 could have a bow and arrows made to add the damage to the successful hit.
The strength bonus could also be added to the long rang of the weapon. Thus a +1 bonus could give an extra 10% to the range, a +2 bonus 20% and so on.
This would separate the dexterity bonus and the strength bonus for archery. Dexterity for the attack, strength for the damage.
Thanks for the direct text:
I have seen this proposed in the past in various forms in various games (AD&D, 2e,3e, pathfinder, Rolemaster, Runequest, Shadowrun, etc) and how it is done makes a big difference. I think there was an or some articles back in the early days of the Dragon mag, maybe before #60 (if I had to guess) or reprinted in one of the best of the Dragon mags.
Also do the rules have a good system for firing into combat or through combat? And last but not least does it shift the game dramatically and do monsters use it as well as PC's? Note: I have also seen in the past people say they are just looking for something to publish also.
Also just because a weapon is +1 to hit does not mean it should get +10% to range or even +1 to damage. This is the problem to me in 5e where rules are kept simple by design and the focus is on simplicity.
In general I do not have issues with providing more detail to weapons in fact I like detail and find my rpg experience is often better for it as I am not a fan generally of a sword is any single or double edged blade from 1' to 4' in length and they all do 1d4 damage and a 2H weapon does 1d6 (ie they try and keep the numbers down so there is very little to no room to provide differences). But again some people love this type of game.
The problem with adding complexity is that it effectively gatekeeps the hobby. Even 5e as it is, is very complex for a game with a steep learning curve. It's this kind of detail (add 10% if...) that really ramps up the complexity very quickly. It's fine for us who've already learned the basics and are fairly comfortable with the rules (for the most part), we can deal with a bit of added complexity. For those still learning, the cognitive load of trying to absorb all the rules is often just too high already. Especially for those who have to jump into the DM seat straight away. Adding things like this will push that needle even further.
I wouldn't mind these rules for me personally, but I think it works quite potently against the ethos of 5e (and probably 1D&D) of being open to anyone to play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's not a bit of simple maths. It's loads of it, throughout the game. This adds even more maths and complexity in to an area of the game that already suffers a lot from being slow and bogged down. Most "complex" board games take like 10-15 minutes to learn . D&D (and other TTRPGs takes several sessions. Maths is the worst part of it, because people play games to get away from things like that, not add it by the shovel load.
And I don't know what you mean by "reached". Humanity has never been keen on maths in general. It's one of the reasons why D&D was a nerd and geek thing until recently. YOU might have always enjoyed it, and even your social group, but most people just don't like it and don't want to bother with it if they can. It's remembering all the rules (and there are pages and pages of them) that makes it hard to do - there's a good reason why they got rid of THAC0 tables.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I do not think the math is complex at all or too much it is simple addition and subtraction.
Confusion, I can see this when someone is trying to learn the game and having help doing so helps a lot. Also if a group is doing so it applies to the GM also.
What I do agree can be hard is the GM has to generally have a good idea (to complete idea) of the rules for a game to generally run smoothly...if the GM is having to look up rules all of the time some groups can lose focus.
Note: I think my position (on bows and simple math) is the same as it was a couple of years ago when this came up around the time of the 1D&D playtest and the new beginner website.
I'd be on board for that. I feel like there does need to be a two tier system as it were. Now that I have a reasonable command of the rules, more ways to interact would be appreciated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'd be on board for that. I feel like there does need to be a two tier system as it were. Now that I have a reasonable command of the rules, more ways to interact would be appreciated.
Yes advanced rules could be an option but the issue it if it is based on 5e how would you do it? The game try's to stay away from neg mods in most all forms and IMHO you would have to have them to make a game with more complete rules.
Having said that I do think a more advanced version of 5e and one that is the same would possibly grow the game. Yes I agree the whole advanced vs basic did not work well in the 80's but is the environment the same now as then and other questions could be asked to find out if it is viable.
On that note I think an advanced version of 5e would look drastically different to what is in books now simply because to provide expansion you would need to move away from the -3 to +3 mod idea to have meaningful change (as well as other basic 5e game foundations).
I seriously doubt WOTC is EVER going to do a two tiered rule set. The best you can hope for is some homebrew or optional rules to accommodate those of us that like more realistic games. Could 1DND have optional rules similar to those I described earlier? Possibly but I would be surprised to see it in the initial offerings. It might show up in a latter supplement if they do it but until then I think we are stuck with homebrew.
My belief is that the closest we are going to get to a 2tiered system like the basic and advanced system of 40+ years ago i some version of what we have now - the “basic” game ie RAW no optional rules and/or homebrew; and the “advanced” game ie RAW + some combination of optional rules and homebrew. For me the homebrew of a specialized bow requiringexceptional strength >exceptional Dex is the best/easiest way to go. Along with a homebrew rule allowing melee specialists with similar stats to exchange their strength and Dex bonuses for damage
I am not proposing this idea to replace any stat with any other but as a way to finally use both strength and dex in combat. You can simply apply this idea across all weapons.
It would make dumping one or the other stat much harder for any class that wants to be a fighter type.
My belief is that the closest we are going to get to a 2tiered system like the basic and advanced system of 40+ years ago i some version of what we have now - the “basic” game ie RAW no optional rules and/or homebrew; and the “advanced” game ie RAW + some combination of optional rules and homebrew. For me the homebrew of a specialized bow requiringexceptional strength >exceptional Dex is the best/easiest way to go. Along with a homebrew rule allowing melee specialists with similar stats to exchange their strength and Dex bonuses for damage
The Basic system did have homebrew too. Without homebrew, you are stuck with the pre-written modules. Running anything else requires the DM to write the adventure, i.e. homebrew.
The main strength of the entire game from day 1 was homebrew. The game itself was originally homebrew by a bunch of miniatures gamers.
I know - I layer back then and started DMing shortly afterward. Yes, as Gygax et Al played before publishing it was all homebrew, when they created TSR and published their stuff stopped being homebrew and became official rules.
I am not proposing this idea to replace any stat with any other but as a way to finally use both strength and dex in combat. You can simply apply this idea across all weapons.
It would make dumping one or the other stat much harder for any class that wants to be a fighter type.
So you want to take SAD classes/characters and force them to be MAD? Unless you are rolling and either get lucky or have a DM that sets the minimum stat as a 10 then dumping is required to get higher stats for characters. An option to switch the damage stat for characters with strength greater than Dex when using either specially built bows or thrown weapons allows those lucky enough to have the stats to fully se e but force folks to go MAD trying tofnda way to eke out a bit more damage ( realistically we are talking about 1 or 2 more HP damage an attack).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Eh, if anything they're overstating range. Yes, an arrow can go quite a long ways, but it's not going to hit anything but a stationary target except by pure accident because time of flight is going to be multiple seconds.
My point was that beyond 600 feet it’s not going to hit even a single stationary target except by sheer luck. After that the angle of aim becomes so small that you can’t hold steady/release perfectly to hit even a stationary target so your in to the realm of massed volleys at massed targets not real aimed fire.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Nice discussion we have going here.
Can anyone come up with a reason it could not be implemented?
Is it to complex, hard to work or just down right stupid?
How could it be abused?
I would need to see the exact proposal and sometime to think on it to provide good feedback. In the past I have seen some rules that if added to the basic rules of a game seem to provide some advantage out of step with others the game has and if you provide detail in one area why do you not provide more detail in other areas? ie expand missile combat but not thrown or melee combat.
Having said the above, different groups like more detail in different areas and little to no detail in other areas. Like no potion drinking in combat without bad things happening but bards can play instruments in combat without bad things happening.
To account for strength bonus with ranged weapons.
A special Bow and matching arrows can be constructed that takes into account the strength bonus and adds it to the damage cause by the special weapon.
Thus a character with a strength bonus of +1 could have a bow and arrows made to add the damage to the successful hit.
The strength bonus could also be added to the long rang of the weapon. Thus a +1 bonus could give an extra 10% to the range, a +2 bonus 20% and so on.
This would separate the dexterity bonus and the strength bonus for archery. Dexterity for the attack, strength for the damage.
The easiest way to do this is to create a home brew bow with fixed extra damage equal to the strength bonus of the required strength and a required strength stat to wield. That avoids needing general rules for all missile weapons etc. if you don’t have the required minimum strength you can’t pull the bow ( ala Odeseuss’s bow). If you do have the minimum strength then you can wield the bow and you automatically get the extra damage (the strength bonus of the required strength) from the bow.
The more general solution is a homebrew “option rule” allowing characters to substitute their strength bonus for their dexterity bonus on missile weapons if the strength bonus is greater than the dexterity bonus. This would cover daggers, darts, spears, javelins, hand axes, sling stones, thrown stones etc. since it only applies where the strength bonus is greater than than the Dex bonus it would primarily apply to 2 groups - strength based melee fighters using a non primary weapon, and thrown weapon style fighters, rangers and paladins and barbarians.
personally I would use a combination of the two: if your normal missile weapon is a bow or light crossbow you need to purchase a specially crafted bow in order to substitute your strength for your Dex bonus on damage. For all other situations you need to have a strength greater than your Dex to substitute.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Thanks for the direct text:
I have seen this proposed in the past in various forms in various games (AD&D, 2e,3e, pathfinder, Rolemaster, Runequest, Shadowrun, etc) and how it is done makes a big difference. I think there was an or some articles back in the early days of the Dragon mag, maybe before #60 (if I had to guess) or reprinted in one of the best of the Dragon mags.
Also do the rules have a good system for firing into combat or through combat? And last but not least does it shift the game dramatically and do monsters use it as well as PC's? Note: I have also seen in the past people say they are just looking for something to publish also.
Also just because a weapon is +1 to hit does not mean it should get +10% to range or even +1 to damage. This is the problem to me in 5e where rules are kept simple by design and the focus is on simplicity.
In general I do not have issues with providing more detail to weapons in fact I like detail and find my rpg experience is often better for it as I am not a fan generally of a sword is any single or double edged blade from 1' to 4' in length and they all do 1d4 damage and a 2H weapon does 1d6 (ie they try and keep the numbers down so there is very little to no room to provide differences). But again some people love this type of game.
The problem with adding complexity is that it effectively gatekeeps the hobby. Even 5e as it is, is very complex for a game with a steep learning curve. It's this kind of detail (add 10% if...) that really ramps up the complexity very quickly. It's fine for us who've already learned the basics and are fairly comfortable with the rules (for the most part), we can deal with a bit of added complexity. For those still learning, the cognitive load of trying to absorb all the rules is often just too high already. Especially for those who have to jump into the DM seat straight away. Adding things like this will push that needle even further.
I wouldn't mind these rules for me personally, but I think it works quite potently against the ethos of 5e (and probably 1D&D) of being open to anyone to play.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's not a bit of simple maths. It's loads of it, throughout the game. This adds even more maths and complexity in to an area of the game that already suffers a lot from being slow and bogged down. Most "complex" board games take like 10-15 minutes to learn . D&D (and other TTRPGs takes several sessions. Maths is the worst part of it, because people play games to get away from things like that, not add it by the shovel load.
And I don't know what you mean by "reached". Humanity has never been keen on maths in general. It's one of the reasons why D&D was a nerd and geek thing until recently. YOU might have always enjoyed it, and even your social group, but most people just don't like it and don't want to bother with it if they can. It's remembering all the rules (and there are pages and pages of them) that makes it hard to do - there's a good reason why they got rid of THAC0 tables.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I do not think the math is complex at all or too much it is simple addition and subtraction.
Confusion, I can see this when someone is trying to learn the game and having help doing so helps a lot. Also if a group is doing so it applies to the GM also.
What I do agree can be hard is the GM has to generally have a good idea (to complete idea) of the rules for a game to generally run smoothly...if the GM is having to look up rules all of the time some groups can lose focus.
Note: I think my position (on bows and simple math) is the same as it was a couple of years ago when this came up around the time of the 1D&D playtest and the new beginner website.
I'd be on board for that. I feel like there does need to be a two tier system as it were. Now that I have a reasonable command of the rules, more ways to interact would be appreciated.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Welcome to the homebrew world 😁
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
15 minutes to learn a board game at most?
I haven't played a board game that simple in 30 years. Unless it was with the girlfriend and her friends.
Yes advanced rules could be an option but the issue it if it is based on 5e how would you do it? The game try's to stay away from neg mods in most all forms and IMHO you would have to have them to make a game with more complete rules.
Having said that I do think a more advanced version of 5e and one that is the same would possibly grow the game. Yes I agree the whole advanced vs basic did not work well in the 80's but is the environment the same now as then and other questions could be asked to find out if it is viable.
On that note I think an advanced version of 5e would look drastically different to what is in books now simply because to provide expansion you would need to move away from the -3 to +3 mod idea to have meaningful change (as well as other basic 5e game foundations).
I seriously doubt WOTC is EVER going to do a two tiered rule set. The best you can hope for is some homebrew or optional rules to accommodate those of us that like more realistic games. Could 1DND have optional rules similar to those I described earlier? Possibly but I would be surprised to see it in the initial offerings. It might show up in a latter supplement if they do it but until then I think we are stuck with homebrew.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
You could look at as they already have a two tiered system.
You do not need anything but the base three books to play. In fact a lot of tables limit the game to just that. PHB, DMG, and TMM.
You do not need any of the expansion(advanced) books at all.
Todays game is way way way past what basic D&D was back in the day.
My belief is that the closest we are going to get to a 2tiered system like the basic and advanced system of 40+ years ago i some version of what we have now - the “basic” game ie RAW no optional rules and/or homebrew; and the “advanced” game ie RAW + some combination of optional rules and homebrew. For me the homebrew of a specialized bow requiringexceptional strength >exceptional Dex is the best/easiest way to go. Along with a homebrew rule allowing melee specialists with similar stats to exchange their strength and Dex bonuses for damage
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I am not proposing this idea to replace any stat with any other but as a way to finally use both strength and dex in combat. You can simply apply this idea across all weapons.
It would make dumping one or the other stat much harder for any class that wants to be a fighter type.
I know - I layer back then and started DMing shortly afterward. Yes, as Gygax et Al played before publishing it was all homebrew, when they created TSR and published their stuff stopped being homebrew and became official rules.
So you want to take SAD classes/characters and force them to be MAD? Unless you are rolling and either get lucky or have a DM that sets the minimum stat as a 10 then dumping is required to get higher stats for characters. An option to switch the damage stat for characters with strength greater than Dex when using either specially built bows or thrown weapons allows those lucky enough to have the stats to fully se e but force folks to go MAD trying tofnda way to eke out a bit more damage ( realistically we are talking about 1 or 2 more HP damage an attack).
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.