Why do D&D ranged weapons have such short range?

I was look at the stats for various ranged weapons and wondering why they are so short. For instance a longbow in D&D has a 150/600ft range. A longbow in the 16 century has a range of 660ft just for layman's practice with an expert having nearly twice that range. Generally, in the real world, the range of weapons is measured in yards not feet. In addition, Hunter's mark is good for only 90ft. Why so short? For D&D it really should be 660ft/1100ft with Hunter's Mark at 660ft.

Here is another example: a ballista has a D&D range of 120ft. One type of Ancient Roman ballista has a range of 1500ft, over ten time the D&D range!

I am assuming there is a rules-balancing issue as the reason, but it leads to some weird anomalies: an 18th century clipper ship is about 235ft long. If a D&D ballista was at one end of the ship it could not hit the other end. Whaaaat?

So what quirk in the rules led to the short range?

It is helpful to site your sources.

It's also worth noting the difference between practice range, and combat range.

Modern longbows have a useful range of up to 200 yards (600ft), while the efficacy of historic bows aren't well tracked. Henry VIII had a minimum requirement of 220yards for practice ranges, and professional archers could reach up to 400yards, but neither of those represent what could be counted upon in a combat scenario. At those ranges, volleys against large numbers of targets were going to be more practical as both visibility and atmospheric effects were going to be a problem.

As for the range of Hunter's Mark, that only applies to tagging a target. Once marked, the target can leave the area and still take the extra damage.

WRT Ballistas: Siege weapons ranged from hand held to small buildings. The 120/480 range for D&D ballista refers to roughly horse-sized weapons. The type you are referring to were likely 4~8 times as large and not appropriate for where they tend to be used in D&D settings. And, as siege weapons, they weren't particularly accurate. They could hit the side of a ship, or mow through a line of infantry, but you wouldn't usually expect to hit a singular target at long range. The 120/480 range increments doesn't represent the maximum range than a munition can fly, but rather how likely you are to hit a target within those ranges. If you want to try to shoot something further away, your DM is empowered to let you try, it will simply not be handled according to traditional combat rules.

Range also depends on the weight and form of the ammunition. Most ballista were designed to throw heavy bolts and boulders. If they wanted increased range, they could choose to throw something lighter, but it would pack less of a punch upon arrival.

If it's an issue for your game, you should ask your DM about creating custom bolts/arrows for increased range. Say, "Arrows of Flight", which double your effective range, but decrease the damage by 2.

Note that there is also the Sharpshooter feat, which, while it doesn't extend your range, allows you to shoot at the maximum range increment without penalty to represent superior skill, and it allows you to ignore partial cover.

The average battlemap is only going to be 150ft across, so a range of 600ft is already in a purely imaginary space. Scenarios where those kinds of ranges would be tested are going to be uncommon enough that it doesn't really matter.

Why do D&D ranged weapons have such short range?

I was look at the stats for various ranged weapons and wondering why they are so short. For instance a longbow in D&D has a 150/600ft range. A longbow in the 16 century has a range of 660ft just for layman's practice with an expert having nearly twice that range. 

Because why would any person be even remotely in melee range or have sword if weapon ranges started at things like 660ft.  That is about 11 rounds of dashing to get TO the archer.  making combat basically all range no melee making half the classes useless.  Also D&D is a simulation so let us forget about what real life is.

Generally, in the real world, the range of weapons is measured in yards not feet. In addition, Hunter's mark is good for only 90ft. Why so short? For D&D it really should be 660ft/1100ft with Hunter's Mark at 660ft.

First off no most ranges are actually in meters - I not only shoot archery but also coach it, all targeting done by the globe and recurve shooting run by the NAA is measured in meters.  Only the NFA still measures things in yards. So USA bow hunters are the people still using yards.  Not to mention most competitions are done at 70 meters max and that is with sights and all the bells and whistles.

See above.  Why would a barbarian class even exist if bows were 660ft away.  the barbarian would have to spend all of combat running to the enemy, while his ranger sits back and shoot.  But again are you telling me a single archer will hit accurately and consistently all the time in the old days? Layman archers were not aiming at people, they were shooting at clusters of enemies. Lets no pretend that medieval warfare in the real world even closely resembles what D&D is doing.

Here is another example: a ballista has a D&D range of 120ft. One type of Ancient Roman ballista has a range of 1500ft, over ten time the D&D range!

I am assuming there is a rules-balancing issue as the reason, but it leads to some weird anomalies: an 18th century clipper ship is about 235ft long. If a D&D ballista was at one end of the ship it could not hit the other end. Whaaaat?

So what quirk in the rules led to the short range?

Again being able to go that far doesn't mean it is accurate enough to hit.  In your ship example, first off Ballista shoot 120/480 meaning that the farthest the shot can go is 480. anything out side that range is not needing an attack roll, so yes it would hit the other end of the ship........

I mean it doesn't take much parsing of the rules to figure out that 5 PCs in a fight either ALL need to be ranged and all the monsters they fight need to be ranged, OR that the ranges need to be shortened so people aren't spending over 5 rounds of combat just running when there is someone with a bow.

D&D combat is an abstraction, not a simulation, and ranges are often based on feasibility with grid/hex play.  600 feet is 120 grid spaces, much larger than most battlemaps.  150 feet is 30 grid spaces, a much more common grid size.  Having the game be built (mostly) around ranges less than 150-200 feet allows for most combat scenarios to be replicated on standard battlemaps.

The other thing is player speed.  if the average player moves 30 feet per round (60 if dashing), then that's 10 shots on a longbow prior to them catching up to the shooter, at (current) max range.  That could be devastating mechanically if all those shots were made with normal accuracy.  shortening the "accurate" range means that 7-8 of those shots are made with disadvantage, and are much more survivable.  Increasing the accurate and max range would create a situation the game is not really meant to handle balance wise

Thank you for the replies. I appreciate them.

Come on fellows, the units of length are immaterial, there is an order of magnitude difference between measuring something in tens of feet vs hundreds of yards. That magnitude is so great that the difference between yards and meters is negligible. Who cares; fine, I'll use feet vs meters if that makes people happy. No? Maybe furlongs then? Chains? That hang-up, and the type of ballista doesn't answer the question. I can also just pick another type of ballista if there is an issue with whatever type I happen to pick. Also, ships with ballistae are totally fair-use in D&D. They should be scaled accordingly. I am are not trying to hit a single person with it, I am trying to hit another ship. This is true in real life too where the accuracy of a ranged weapon is scaled to the thing it is trying to hit.

I don't buy the practice-vs-combat argument, seems arbitrary. That difference should be handled by a different rule mechanic (like disadvantages or something else) during combat or is the argument that someone who is shooting an arrow in a tournament should have a short range ONLY because that same character could potentially be in combat at a later time? That. does. not. make. sense.

I kind'a got that it is a game when an eight hour sleep heals all manner of injuries, especially blood loss. Moving on.

I don't buy that short range is just to give the melee people a fair shot (pun intended). If it was really the case that archers had such an advantage over infantry you would see that in real life too. You don't. There is the trifecta of cavalry vs archers vs infantry and that has been so effective that all three of those have stuck around even into the age of drones and cruse missiles. The tech and names have changed but not the function. In real life it is the objectives and the environment that impacts which type of force has an advantage.

In game it would be the same. Is the Barbarian really going to hoof it through a well-cut meadow if he knew he was within range of a guy with a bow and arrow? Forgetaboutit. He has to use his brains. Or Nerf the Ranger so the Barbarian can use their rage!

Hunter's Mark should extend the range at higher levels, not the time, or is the Ranger going to stare at a target for 24 hours? "Sorry, I can't long-rest as I am staring at this here orc." lol

I think the short range came about from the fact that D&D started as, and remains, a dungeon crawl. Realistic ranges have little value when the rooms are so small that an extra 50 yards, oops sorry, meters is irrelevant. The thing is D&D has expanded beyond the dungeon so I think it is time to update those ranges.

The average battlemap is only going to be 150ft across, so a range of 600ft is already in a purely imaginary space. Scenarios where those kinds of ranges would be tested are going to be uncommon enough that it doesn't really matter.

This right here is the answer that matters most. That, or maybe:

Because why would any person be even remotely in melee range or have sword if weapon ranges started at things like 660ft.  That is about 11 rounds of dashing to get TO the archer.  making combat basically all range no melee making half the classes useless.  Also D&D is a simulation so let us forget about what real life is.

Quote from mtbrocket >>

Thank you for the replies. I appreciate them.

Come on fellows, the units of length are immaterial, there is an order of magnitude difference between measuring something in tens of feet vs hundreds of yards. That magnitude is so great that the difference between yards and meters is negligible. Who cares; fine, I'll use feet vs meters if that makes people happy. No? Maybe furlongs then? Chains? That hang-up, and the type of ballista doesn't answer the question. I can also just pick another type of ballista if there is an issue with whatever type I happen to pick. Also, ships with ballistae are totally fair-use in D&D. They should be scaled accordingly. I am are not trying to hit a single person with it, I am trying to hit another ship. This is true in real life too where the accuracy of a ranged weapon is scaled to the thing it is trying to hit.

I don't buy the practice-vs-combat argument, seems arbitrary. That difference should be handled by a different rule mechanic (like disadvantages or something else) during combat or is the argument that someone who is shooting an arrow in a tournament should have a short range ONLY because that same character could potentially be in combat at a later time? That. does. not. make. sense.

I kind'a got that it is a game when an eight hour sleep heals all manner of injuries, especially blood loss. Moving on.

I don't buy that short range is just to give the melee people a fair shot (pun intended). If it was really the case that archers had such an advantage over infantry you would see that in real life too. You don't. There is the trifecta of cavalry vs archers vs infantry and that has been so effective that all three of those have stuck around even into the age of drones and cruse missiles. The tech and names have changed but not the function. In real life it is the objectives and the environment that impacts which type of force has an advantage.

In game it would be the same. Is the Barbarian really going to hoof it through a well-cut meadow if he knew he was within range of a guy with a bow and arrow? Forgetaboutit. He has to use his brains. Or Nerf the Ranger so the Barbarian can use their rage!

Hunter's Mark should extend the range at higher levels, not the time, or is the Ranger going to stare at a target for 24 hours? "Sorry, I can't long-rest as I am staring at this here orc." lol

I think the short range came about from the fact that D&D started as, and remains, a dungeon crawl. Realistic ranges have little value when the rooms are so small that an extra 50 yards, oops sorry, meters is irrelevant. The thing is D&D has expanded beyond the dungeon so I think it is time to update those ranges.

 

(1) As previously stated, sources are important. If you want to argue particular ranges for realism, provide sources that support them.

(2) Have you ever played a character with Hunter's Mark? The reason why it extends with time and not range is that you are going to be switching to new targets each time you kill the previous one. By extending it to multiple hours, you can use it across multiple combats, and to track a target long distance. (It's basically a "Blood Hound" spell with a damage bonus. It's not a "Sniper" spell.)

(3) The difference between combat and practice IS handled by different mechanics. The listed figures are the combat values. For all other things, you can use skill checks.

(4) The world of D&D is simplified. The weapon/armor/item statistics represent "standard" versions of those items. It is assumed that the world is much larger and more complicated, but it is up to the DM to navigate those differences when they come into play.

Thanks CC,

Don't know why you are getting all "ignore the units" when YOU are the one who made this about units:

Generally, in the real world, the range of weapons is measured in yards not feet.

So sorry that I chose to frankly correct this silly error as someone who constantly in the USA has to remind my archers their distances are measured in meters.

Also sure the Barb IS going to use their brain.... they are going to be stuck over 10 rounds of movement away from their foe while their friend gets to constantly ping arrows at the orc 600ft away.  If you make the first increment these longer distances, you make that the start of the battle.  So while one person gets to act every turn, the Barn gets to "use their brain" and hide behind a tree hoping that the other monsters will eventually take 10 rounds to get near him.... yeah seems like a really fun combat that the, cleric, paladin, barb, and all spell casters would really enjoy.  But glad the ranger gets "realistic" ranges right?

For someone who "wanted to know why" you seem so gung-ho on knowing the answer.  Was the the reason back in the 70-80, sure.  But now, it is because the combat balance would be absolutely out of whack if all range weapons had an extra 0 added to them for their standard range. END OF STORY.

Also sorry our "real world" examples aren't good enough for you, but I can absolutely tell you that those distances you hear about in the past. quick refrence seem to dictate us as being correct:

How accurate were medieval archers?

Ans) The medieval archers were quite accurate, considering that they were able to kill their enemies at incredible ranges. According to examination records and military manuals, Asian archers consistently struck their man-sized targets with both their right and left hands from a range of up to 70 meters from the saddle – and twice that on foot. 

So that puts their shots just inside that 600ft range that D&D made right?  And again this simply means they can accurately hit those shots.  Well a PC with a high dex, high prof, and the sharpshooter feat will absolutely reflect this very realistic answer that has been research.... seems like medieval archers were highly trained (high level PC and sharpshooter) which allowed them to accurately reach those 600ft distances. Source

Also last point - again D&D is a game of 4-5 people playing PCs taking on groups of monsters from 1-15 (generously and depending on DMs mood). D&D IS NOT a simulation of ancient medieval war times where there were the "three pillars of units." D&D is not about 100 archers standing on a hill shooting down in to infantry while they are flanked by 50 Calvary on the side.  So arguing from how real world these units where a game of rock paper scissors doesn't do anything when the game is about smaller forces taking on greater threats.  Which unit beats a Demon Prince; Archers, Infantry, or Calvary? 

Quote from mtbrocket >>

I don't buy the practice-vs-combat argument, seems arbitrary. That difference should be handled by a different rule mechanic (like disadvantages or something else) during combat or is the argument that someone who is shooting an arrow in a tournament should have a short range ONLY because that same character could potentially be in combat at a later time? That. does. not. make. sense

Seems to me that you have somewhat unrealistic expectations. Competitive archers with modern bow rarely competes at longer than 100m/~300ft. And you expect to double that as a minimum range in combat with medieval bows, I mean really? IMO the ranges we have now are on the generous side tbh.

Quote from mtbrocket >>

Hunter's Mark should extend the range at higher levels, not the time, or is the Ranger going to stare at a target for 24 hours? "Sorry, I can't long-rest as I am staring at this here orc." lol

I don't think you understand the rules very well here. You need to be within 90ft and have LoS only when you cast the spell, after that it stays up for the specified time regardless of distance (concentration and death still applies ofc). I mean one of the ways that the spell helps you is to give advantage for tracking your target, not really something that would be much of an issue if you had to stay within 90ft the whole time.

I don't buy that short range is just to give the melee people a fair shot (pun intended). If it was really the case that archers had such an advantage over infantry you would see that in real life too. You don't.

Well yeah, you don't because they have no accuracy at such great distances.

You need to consider the simplification of penalties in 5e. You have regular range and long range where you have disadvantage to hit. It may very well be that you can shoot far beyond that, but your accuracy penalty is so great that it's just simplified to "you miss." No one wants to spend 10 rounds rolling for a 5% chance to hit as the party approaches the goblin watchpost.

Ah, here's a more obvious issue:

Arrows travel at a speed of between 200~300 feet per second. At ranges beyond 600ft, that means that the target has 2~3 seconds, minimum, to step out of the way. Don't need to be a monk to dodge that.

Being able to hit a stationary target is a very different beast than hitting a moving target. D&D combat feels like everyone is stationary due to the turn-by-turn design, but it is meant to simulate simultaneous movement. Even if the target weren't aware of the shooter, they'd probably still have a pretty good chance of shifting out of the way simply due to changing their gait to avoid a rock on the road, or bending over to pick lint off of their pants.

Sorry Memnosyne, I did not think I was doing a collage level thesis that required a bibliography. I asked a question about game mechanics, not to argue about particular ranges of specific weapons. Seriously dude, I am sure you can find others who want to haggle over the minutiae of an Mongolian compound bow vs an English longbow. Have at it. I don't really care.

Hunter's Mark is a rule mess. The fact that Hunter's mark does extra damage, requires concentration, can jump from target to target, and has a specified range to activate it shows its use as a sniper spell, but its long time limit and the Wisdom advantages does make it somewhat useful for tracking. (For up to a whole day! Wow! Then you have to do it again, but oh wait, the "Mark" is out of range. Dang.) If it really was a blood-hound spell you could sniff a sock and follow the sent up the ol' crik over extend periods of time. Dump the extra damage, the target switching, and the range requirements, and boost the time to days and give it the ability to be recast without the having to see the target, then it would be a great tracking spell. All of this doesn't explain the range limit of the spell being soooooooo short which is what I asked about and not its use. Again, I don't really care what it is used for, only its limited range.

If something can be simplified one way, it can be simplified another way; after all I have been told that it is a game. If so, why are particular ranges of specific weapons relevant? Why are you so focused on that? Are you planning on arguing that the ranges in the game match up with the real world? Or that I went to the wrong Wiki page (you know there are other resources out there)? What would be the point? I ask all this rhetorically. I don't really care what the specific ranges are, just the differences between RL and in-game. Like the ballista, I can just pick any ranged weapon at random; I am just using it as comparison sake between real world ranges and their in-game analogs.

I like the battle map answer by iconarising, as well as my own dungeon crawl hangover hypothesis as they are internally consistent and makes sense. The other answers don't, sorry.

Anyway, the short ranges make the game harder for us narrative people.

Thank you all for your responses.

End of line.

Handwaving some of the silliness in your post, D&D has its roots in a few friends standing in a field hitting each other with swords and translating that into game mechanics.

You are more than welcome to rationalize mechanics with respect to a battle map or a dungeon crawl legacy, but generally the mundane stuff is based on real world considerations. Understanding those explanations is worthwhile. Ignorance often leads inexperienced players and DMs to create rules that "feel right", but are fundamentally flawed and cause problems, such as "Exponential Fall Damage" progressions.

The reason that the "other" explanations don't make sense to you is because you are unwilling to bother understanding them. Easy answers are often satisfying, but rarely correct.

Let me put it this way: When in Dungeons and Dragons are you going to have to shoot something that's over 1000 feet away? It's literally called Dungeons and Dragons, which suggests enclosed dungeons, buildings, and caverns. There are very few situations in which you have to be a sniper and make the impossible shots.

Because it’s a game, and they need to change the game rules from real physics to make it fun and for ease of play.

I mean, everyone knows that, irl, fireballs have more like a 23 foot radius, but no one complains about that. 

Quote from mtbrocket >>

 

I like the battle map answer by iconarising, as well as my own dungeon crawl hangover hypothesis as they are internally consistent and makes sense. The other answers don't, sorry.

 

 Enjoy your fantasy of ancient Rome where people no-scoped headshots at 1500 feet with their ballista, I guess?

Seriously, there's max range and there's the distance where you could reliably hit an individual creature. It's the difference between chucking a basketball across the court and actually making a full-court shot. Many people can do the former on the first try but can't do the latter if they tried all day.

Game mechanics and balancing.

Should be a good enough answer.

Might be I am the only one on here who's fired a bow, but 100 yards with today's compound bows is a LONG shot to have any sense of accuracy on.  Arrows are a very large projectile, affected heavily by any and all outside forces, and more dramatically so by side forces, even a light breeze.  The wobble of the shaft, coupled with the fletching catching more side breeze than the shaft, all contribute to making slight effects have large impacts on the end result.  That's a sense of realism, IMO, with the archery aspect at least.  D&D Archery allows a lot more accuracy than RL, at longer ranges, for sure.

Your siege machines bit...I can't really say why they would have any kind of super short range, or, for that matter, any kind of tight accuracy, really.  I've seen a number of documentaries where they analyze different stuff, trebuchet, catapult and so on, and they seem to focus on hitting within a 10-15 foot circle at a few hundred yards as accurate.  Makes sense, given the variety of things they used to fling with such war machines.

Quote from Falwith >>

Might be I am the only one on here who's fired a bow...

Seems like you didn't read the previous posts? Hollowtpm shoots and coaches.

I've also shot and made my own with both fiberglass and sinew, though I didn't bother to mention it. I've also made small ballistae.