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.
Admittedly I did miss the point of shooting and coaching. I noticed he, too indicated that 70 yards was quite long range and even then, under "ideal" (or as close to it as they can get) circumstances. I intended to try and offer some of the physics related to WHY range makes such a huge difference in archery. In both cases, I believe we are supporting that D&D in fact, gives a bonus to expected archery ability, rather than nerfing it from RL situations. Quite the opposite of what the OP was claiming.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Admittedly I did miss the point of shooting and coaching. I noticed he, too indicated that 70 yards was quite long range and even then, under "ideal" (or as close to it as they can get) circumstances. I intended to try and offer some of the physics related to WHY range makes such a huge difference in archery. In both cases, I believe we are supporting that D&D in fact, gives a bonus to expected archery ability, rather than nerfing it from RL situations. Quite the opposite of what the OP was claiming.
Right, pretty much everyone who commented about archery mechanics is in agreement and got there from one or several directions. No disagreement with the meat of your comment.
Arrow form/weight, max range, arrow speed, atmospheric conditions, target size, etc... all influence the "effective" range of a weapon. And, "effective" is with respect to dynamic combat, as opposed to long-range sniping against unsuspecting, stationary targets.
Bow hunting range is generally considered between 15m and 40m. The effective range that real people hunt and kill animals in actual terrain is a minuscule fraction of what you believe. Additionally, medieval archery was not a single person shooting another single person with their bow and arrow; it was a mass formation of archers launching hundreds of arrows at another mass formation of people at great range. Archers do not snipe the way you imagine. Archery simply does not operate the way you imagine.
I especially like to answers where people explain the mechanics of the reason for the shortened range without condemnation. One reason I hate posting on-line is that many people see a question asked as nothing more than an opportunity to argue; merely responding with a "you're stupid, here is why you are wrong, and I am right" attitude and then proceed to mansplan with weak arguments to selected sections of text. Seriously, arguing about units and then arguing about who's arguing does not help anyone. People get fixated on being right instead of understanding. It is weird to me. I have objectives in mind in asking for this information and I am gathering it without stating the objectives so as to get unbiased opinions. So moving on...
I truly believe that a weapon's accuracy and range is going to depend on the type of target it is aimed at. It is one reason I picked a bow and ballista. Why? Because weapons are built items and are designed with specifications in mind; the bow for hunting, the ballista for weakening/destroying objects that people happen to be in. Their ranges, rate of fire, and accuracy is going to depend on the technology available and the objectives desired.
I have two objectives in mind. One is to rebuild the Ranger for my campaign. My group has been playing a Ranger as a PC but its weaknesses always push it to retire as a support NPC. (I roll my eyes to anyone who says I am playing it wrong.) I am going to discard the shortcomings of the Ranger, like Hunter's Mark, and go with “Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome” with a backstory of a hunter forced into a war. I want this Ranger to be based on the fur-trapper archetype during the American colonial/revolutionary time. Fur trappers are the quintessential ranger. I want him ("him" because in my mind he looks like the Irish man from Braveheart) to lean into the hunter aspect of the class and thus be good at shooting targets at distance and have equipment that matches that activity. That means I have to design new weapons, one such is the Pennsylvania Rifle. This weapon is different than existing short-range firearms on-line such as the generic musket of dndbeyond. (Gunpowder to be replaced by tbd magic.) I was inspired by the sharp shooters of the Battle of Boston where they snipped off British officers. This type of Ranger is not for close combat against barbarians; he is in the back taking pot shots like that scene from The Last of the Mohicans where the hero knocks out enemy troops to allow the messenger to escape. Due to the riffling and long length, these muskets have a loooong load time of 30 seconds or 5 rounds (four to load and one to aim and fire). I am going to shorten that to three to load and, one to aim and shoot. I do this as I want to have two modes of fire: quick shot where the accuracy and range is shortened; and two, long aim where it takes two rounds to aim but has high accuracy at long range. I want to know the RL to D&D conversion of range to help in the game mechanics.
The other idea I had is ship-to-ship fighting. I come from other RPGs and theater writing/improving so I have come up with satisfying, theatrical, rules to handle large combat without the Warhammer approach and the players enjoy always just being at the center of the scene. I am debating myself about weather to use harpoon ballistae or brass cannons for the ships. I want firearms to be rare McGuffins (stolen from the Drow) but I also like the tactical side of cannon combat. Regardless of the type of weapon, these bigger varieties suffer greatly if their range is reduced. It is ridiculous to have a weapon that can't shoot from one end of a ship to the other. I am thinking of just leaving the ranges similar to RL.
P.S. Thanks for your answer Stormknight. Just don't tell my daughter about dragons not being real; she has a bearded one in her room named Sherlock. It might upset her. ;-)
On a tangent I want to answer hollowtpm's question about "which unit beats a Demon Prince; Archers, Infantry, or Calvary [sic]?" Not to prove him wrong but to show how to think outside narrow definitions and think, instead, in concepts. I will use the five man band as reference: the Leader and Lance are the cavalry as they jump in and out of range with quick attacks; the Big Guy (known as the "tank" by RPGs for a reason) is the infantry, there to hold ground; and the Smart Guy is the archery as they usually have ranged weapons. The Heart can be in any category as their purpose is not really about combat but team motivation.
You are confusing range with accuracy at range. An arrow can fly a loooong way, but it can only fly accurately far less than its 'max'. Even a bullet for a handgun is only really accurate so far (sorry shooter games shooting snipers with a handgun a mile away).
So as someone who has done archery for sport in a 'medieval' setting like the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) they have archery contests based of of the actual time period. They have clout shoot (max distance), standard target distances, and the timed shoot. The timed shoot was 10s intervals counting down from 60 where you have to shoot at 60ft, then 50ft, 40ft, etc to simulate a rushing line. In all of these things range and accuracy are quite noticeable different. And even at an extreme range of 600ft for the clout shoot you are you are aiming at spots on the ground 10' to 30' wide... and that considered 'accurate'.
And none of these targets are moving. And no one is trying to kill you.
So long story short any game tries to factor in things like realistic ranges based on weapon type, game mechanics, shooting while a dragon is breathing on you, and orcs shooting back, all whist a Wizard is casting fireball, and... you get the idea. Its a game. It only takes one's 'perceived realism' into account so much. And of course... its a game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
Thank you Memnosyne, much more helpful. It is still funny thinking of a 100ft Warship with a Ballista that can only shoot 120ft; I think I have to stretch that as it has to make sense to the players. The Mayflower is about 80ft and the Constitution is about 300ft. I once visited a fort from the 16th or 17th century with brass cannons that had split open due to bad casting and I have seen old wooden ships that can take a lot more comparable damage than a heavier-than-water ship as it is not dependent on only displacement, but also buoyancy. I have read some interesting stories about the US vs Canadian lake combat in 1814 where ships just pounded each other on one side then turned around to pound each other again. The ships didn't sink, the battle was lost when one side or the other ran out of working cannons. Oh by the way, what a dumb war (I can almost hear the theme song from Curb Your Enthusiasm whenever I read about it.)
A lot of people have told me that it is a game and... that it has rules.. repeatedly. I am well aware of that so I think people are confused. Although I have read several of the D&D books they don't really explain the rational or mechanics behind the creation of rules (for obvious reasons). Some people had long discussions before deciding on that 120ft limit though.
I think I have enough to more forward once it is my turn to DM the story. There is going to be some Brookstoning coming up and it's gonna be fun to watch the surprise wash over the unsuspecting PC faces. "What, an NPC can be both good AND bad at the same time!? Oh the moral dilemma." The seeds have been sowed and soon it will be time to reap. He he he.
Knowing your objectives makes everything much less complicated. Though, I'm still not certain where you're getting the "ballista can only shoot 120ft" bit. They're listed as 120/480, so they can shoot 4 times the distance they're being credited with, just with disadvantage. As mentioned in the article I linked, ship-mounted ballista were anti-infantry, not anti-ship, so beyond a certain range, using them wouldn't have been practical.
hollowtpm, forget topology, the doughnut gets dipped into the coffee.
I just had a better idea than ballistae or cannons for my ships: magic multipliers. Imagine a rotating wooden platform with a crew of three: an aimer, and ammo loader, and a spell user. The aimer...well aims the weapon, the ammo loader, loads the multipliers, and the spell caster supplies the initial magic spell. They shoot it through a ye olde techy looking device and is amplified to reach the destructive power and range that is relevant for ship to ship combat. Done.
Anyway, I will not be checking this thread anymore as it has outlived its usefulness so consider it closed. Goodbye.
If you want a way to get the maximum range of a longbow out to at least 930 feet to match the world record holder mentioned in this thread, I might recommend this homebrew feat:
Horizon Shot
When making a ranged attack with a javelin or non-thrown ranged weapon, and you are proficient with it, you can spend a bonus action and a number of feet of movement equal to your speed. If you do so, roll an Athletics check and a Perception check. Add them together, and multiply the result by 5. Add this final result to the maximum range of the weapon.
Lots of material out there talking about medieval warbows and these weapons appear to have been used at closer ranges and not in a huge shower of nearly spent arrows at long range. It actually may be that showers of arrows is more of a creation of Hollywood.
I think its important to consider how heavy a longbow's arrow would be. Maybe an Olympian could shoot a modern arrow 900+ feet but that is no sort of equivalent for the types of weapons in D&D. Sure D&D is not simulating real life but it is a game rooted in the romantic idea of late medieval/early renaissance culture and technology so increasing the longbow's range seems unnecessary and unneeded.
If I were to do anything with D&D ranged weapons it would be to stage down the damage at each range step. So a longbow would do 1d8 at short and 1d6 at long range. If you must have a longer range then for sure I would reduce that damage further.
Sure you can hand wave what you want. Ultimately D&D is just a game. But IMO, if a DM is running a game he wants players to be immersed in then there needs to be some logic as to how things work. Any good book or movie will have plenty of examples of that.
There are as many diverse opinions on what is immersive as there are players of games. I see no difference in thinking that bows should have mechanics closer to real life as thinking that bows are fantasy wood that shoots thousands of feet at full power. It's all opinion. The OP posed a statement based on certain assumptions and has gotten several responses regarding it. Why even have a forum for debate if the default answer is always 'its fantasy, you can do whatever'?
Yeah, this is just a bunch of noncery on your part lol. I also note how you didn't cite a single one of your sources... despite trying to give the OP shit about the same thing lol (btw he clearly Google searched it like any normal human being would surmise). But then again, now could you when all of your information about real world weapons is completely wrong (again all refuted by a simple Google search).
To the OP, the fact is they balanced ranged weapons the way they did, because otherwise ranged weapons would be completely dominant (just like they are in real life). That's all there is to it, inconsistency with the real-world equivalent because otherwise it would be too overpowered.
Why would melee weapons even exist? Because if you are fighting indoors or in any enclosed space with a bow/crossbow against someone with a melee weapon, you are dead. Obviously......... are you dumb lol? The again, the ACTUAL reason for the minimal range on ranged weapons is because they would be too overpowered otherwise. That is it, that is all there is too it, nothing more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've fired a wooden bow before. Just amateur practice shots from 20-30 feet away.
Admittedly I did miss the point of shooting and coaching. I noticed he, too indicated that 70 yards was quite long range and even then, under "ideal" (or as close to it as they can get) circumstances. I intended to try and offer some of the physics related to WHY range makes such a huge difference in archery. In both cases, I believe we are supporting that D&D in fact, gives a bonus to expected archery ability, rather than nerfing it from RL situations. Quite the opposite of what the OP was claiming.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Right, pretty much everyone who commented about archery mechanics is in agreement and got there from one or several directions. No disagreement with the meat of your comment.
Arrow form/weight, max range, arrow speed, atmospheric conditions, target size, etc... all influence the "effective" range of a weapon. And, "effective" is with respect to dynamic combat, as opposed to long-range sniping against unsuspecting, stationary targets.
Bow hunting range is generally considered between 15m and 40m. The effective range that real people hunt and kill animals in actual terrain is a minuscule fraction of what you believe. Additionally, medieval archery was not a single person shooting another single person with their bow and arrow; it was a mass formation of archers launching hundreds of arrows at another mass formation of people at great range. Archers do not snipe the way you imagine. Archery simply does not operate the way you imagine.
Thanks everyone for your replies.
I especially like to answers where people explain the mechanics of the reason for the shortened range without condemnation. One reason I hate posting on-line is that many people see a question asked as nothing more than an opportunity to argue; merely responding with a "you're stupid, here is why you are wrong, and I am right" attitude and then proceed to mansplan with weak arguments to selected sections of text. Seriously, arguing about units and then arguing about who's arguing does not help anyone. People get fixated on being right instead of understanding. It is weird to me. I have objectives in mind in asking for this information and I am gathering it without stating the objectives so as to get unbiased opinions. So moving on...
I truly believe that a weapon's accuracy and range is going to depend on the type of target it is aimed at. It is one reason I picked a bow and ballista. Why? Because weapons are built items and are designed with specifications in mind; the bow for hunting, the ballista for weakening/destroying objects that people happen to be in. Their ranges, rate of fire, and accuracy is going to depend on the technology available and the objectives desired.
I have two objectives in mind. One is to rebuild the Ranger for my campaign. My group has been playing a Ranger as a PC but its weaknesses always push it to retire as a support NPC. (I roll my eyes to anyone who says I am playing it wrong.) I am going to discard the shortcomings of the Ranger, like Hunter's Mark, and go with “Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome” with a backstory of a hunter forced into a war. I want this Ranger to be based on the fur-trapper archetype during the American colonial/revolutionary time. Fur trappers are the quintessential ranger. I want him ("him" because in my mind he looks like the Irish man from Braveheart) to lean into the hunter aspect of the class and thus be good at shooting targets at distance and have equipment that matches that activity. That means I have to design new weapons, one such is the Pennsylvania Rifle. This weapon is different than existing short-range firearms on-line such as the generic musket of dndbeyond. (Gunpowder to be replaced by tbd magic.) I was inspired by the sharp shooters of the Battle of Boston where they snipped off British officers. This type of Ranger is not for close combat against barbarians; he is in the back taking pot shots like that scene from The Last of the Mohicans where the hero knocks out enemy troops to allow the messenger to escape. Due to the riffling and long length, these muskets have a loooong load time of 30 seconds or 5 rounds (four to load and one to aim and fire). I am going to shorten that to three to load and, one to aim and shoot. I do this as I want to have two modes of fire: quick shot where the accuracy and range is shortened; and two, long aim where it takes two rounds to aim but has high accuracy at long range. I want to know the RL to D&D conversion of range to help in the game mechanics.
The other idea I had is ship-to-ship fighting. I come from other RPGs and theater writing/improving so I have come up with satisfying, theatrical, rules to handle large combat without the Warhammer approach and the players enjoy always just being at the center of the scene. I am debating myself about weather to use harpoon ballistae or brass cannons for the ships. I want firearms to be rare McGuffins (stolen from the Drow) but I also like the tactical side of cannon combat. Regardless of the type of weapon, these bigger varieties suffer greatly if their range is reduced. It is ridiculous to have a weapon that can't shoot from one end of a ship to the other. I am thinking of just leaving the ranges similar to RL.
P.S. Thanks for your answer Stormknight. Just don't tell my daughter about dragons not being real; she has a bearded one in her room named Sherlock. It might upset her. ;-)
On a tangent I want to answer hollowtpm's question about "which unit beats a Demon Prince; Archers, Infantry, or Calvary [sic]?" Not to prove him wrong but to show how to think outside narrow definitions and think, instead, in concepts. I will use the five man band as reference: the Leader and Lance are the cavalry as they jump in and out of range with quick attacks; the Big Guy (known as the "tank" by RPGs for a reason) is the infantry, there to hold ground; and the Smart Guy is the archery as they usually have ranged weapons. The Heart can be in any category as their purpose is not really about combat but team motivation.
You piqued my Interest about bows, and google did not fail me.
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/mens-archery-farthest-accurate-distance
pretty crazy...
but yea, maybe it has to do with gameplay?
I know it’s optional but My table plays on a grid, we already find it difficult to use the “short” ranges the game already put in effect.
Re: Ship-to-Ship
If you haven't read the Unearthed Arcana: Of Ships and the Sea, it may come in handy.
As might this pre-cannon naval tactics article.
(Note: In the DMG, Cannons have a range of 600/2400ft, and Trebuchet have a range of 300/1200ft)
You are confusing range with accuracy at range. An arrow can fly a loooong way, but it can only fly accurately far less than its 'max'. Even a bullet for a handgun is only really accurate so far (sorry shooter games shooting snipers with a handgun a mile away).
So as someone who has done archery for sport in a 'medieval' setting like the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) they have archery contests based of of the actual time period. They have clout shoot (max distance), standard target distances, and the timed shoot. The timed shoot was 10s intervals counting down from 60 where you have to shoot at 60ft, then 50ft, 40ft, etc to simulate a rushing line. In all of these things range and accuracy are quite noticeable different. And even at an extreme range of 600ft for the clout shoot you are you are aiming at spots on the ground 10' to 30' wide... and that considered 'accurate'.
And none of these targets are moving. And no one is trying to kill you.
So long story short any game tries to factor in things like realistic ranges based on weapon type, game mechanics, shooting while a dragon is breathing on you, and orcs shooting back, all whist a Wizard is casting fireball, and... you get the idea. Its a game. It only takes one's 'perceived realism' into account so much. And of course... its a game.
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
Thank you Memnosyne, much more helpful. It is still funny thinking of a 100ft Warship with a Ballista that can only shoot 120ft; I think I have to stretch that as it has to make sense to the players. The Mayflower is about 80ft and the Constitution is about 300ft. I once visited a fort from the 16th or 17th century with brass cannons that had split open due to bad casting and I have seen old wooden ships that can take a lot more comparable damage than a heavier-than-water ship as it is not dependent on only displacement, but also buoyancy. I have read some interesting stories about the US vs Canadian lake combat in 1814 where ships just pounded each other on one side then turned around to pound each other again. The ships didn't sink, the battle was lost when one side or the other ran out of working cannons. Oh by the way, what a dumb war (I can almost hear the theme song from Curb Your Enthusiasm whenever I read about it.)
A lot of people have told me that it is a game and... that it has rules.. repeatedly. I am well aware of that so I think people are confused. Although I have read several of the D&D books they don't really explain the rational or mechanics behind the creation of rules (for obvious reasons). Some people had long discussions before deciding on that 120ft limit though.
I think I have enough to more forward once it is my turn to DM the story. There is going to be some Brookstoning coming up and it's gonna be fun to watch the surprise wash over the unsuspecting PC faces. "What, an NPC can be both good AND bad at the same time!? Oh the moral dilemma." The seeds have been sowed and soon it will be time to reap. He he he.
Thanks again everyone.
Knowing your objectives makes everything much less complicated. Though, I'm still not certain where you're getting the "ballista can only shoot 120ft" bit. They're listed as 120/480, so they can shoot 4 times the distance they're being credited with, just with disadvantage. As mentioned in the article I linked, ship-mounted ballista were anti-infantry, not anti-ship, so beyond a certain range, using them wouldn't have been practical.
I can't help it as it is too much fun. One last thought in honor of Pi day; a measured response to "it's a game":
Two engineers are lost in a balloon. They shout out to a person below:
"Pardon us, but where are we?"
"You're in a balloon." was the reply.
Sez one engineer to the other: "They must be a mathematician".
"How can you tell?"
"Well, what they say is correct but utterly useless."
Happy Pi Day everyone! And may the pie be always in your flavor!
Wow.... called out 😂😂😂
man o man trying to explain upper level math and just being like “We spent one week explain how a doughnut and a coffee mug are the same thing.”
Thanks everyone for your responses.
hollowtpm, forget topology, the doughnut gets dipped into the coffee.
I just had a better idea than ballistae or cannons for my ships: magic multipliers. Imagine a rotating wooden platform with a crew of three: an aimer, and ammo loader, and a spell user. The aimer...well aims the weapon, the ammo loader, loads the multipliers, and the spell caster supplies the initial magic spell. They shoot it through a ye olde techy looking device and is amplified to reach the destructive power and range that is relevant for ship to ship combat. Done.
Anyway, I will not be checking this thread anymore as it has outlived its usefulness so consider it closed. Goodbye.
If you want a way to get the maximum range of a longbow out to at least 930 feet to match the world record holder mentioned in this thread, I might recommend this homebrew feat:
Horizon Shot
When making a ranged attack with a javelin or non-thrown ranged weapon, and you are proficient with it, you can spend a bonus action and a number of feet of movement equal to your speed. If you do so, roll an Athletics check and a Perception check. Add them together, and multiply the result by 5. Add this final result to the maximum range of the weapon.
Lots of material out there talking about medieval warbows and these weapons appear to have been used at closer ranges and not in a huge shower of nearly spent arrows at long range. It actually may be that showers of arrows is more of a creation of Hollywood.
https://youtu.be/DBxdTkddHaE
I think its important to consider how heavy a longbow's arrow would be. Maybe an Olympian could shoot a modern arrow 900+ feet but that is no sort of equivalent for the types of weapons in D&D. Sure D&D is not simulating real life but it is a game rooted in the romantic idea of late medieval/early renaissance culture and technology so increasing the longbow's range seems unnecessary and unneeded.
If I were to do anything with D&D ranged weapons it would be to stage down the damage at each range step. So a longbow would do 1d8 at short and 1d6 at long range. If you must have a longer range then for sure I would reduce that damage further.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
Sure you can hand wave what you want. Ultimately D&D is just a game. But IMO, if a DM is running a game he wants players to be immersed in then there needs to be some logic as to how things work. Any good book or movie will have plenty of examples of that.
There are as many diverse opinions on what is immersive as there are players of games. I see no difference in thinking that bows should have mechanics closer to real life as thinking that bows are fantasy wood that shoots thousands of feet at full power. It's all opinion. The OP posed a statement based on certain assumptions and has gotten several responses regarding it. Why even have a forum for debate if the default answer is always 'its fantasy, you can do whatever'?
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
Yeah, this is just a bunch of noncery on your part lol. I also note how you didn't cite a single one of your sources... despite trying to give the OP shit about the same thing lol (btw he clearly Google searched it like any normal human being would surmise). But then again, now could you when all of your information about real world weapons is completely wrong (again all refuted by a simple Google search).
To the OP, the fact is they balanced ranged weapons the way they did, because otherwise ranged weapons would be completely dominant (just like they are in real life). That's all there is to it, inconsistency with the real-world equivalent because otherwise it would be too overpowered.
Why would melee weapons even exist? Because if you are fighting indoors or in any enclosed space with a bow/crossbow against someone with a melee weapon, you are dead. Obviously......... are you dumb lol? The again, the ACTUAL reason for the minimal range on ranged weapons is because they would be too overpowered otherwise. That is it, that is all there is too it, nothing more.