I Hit It With a Rock

EGG back in the day decided he was going to nerf bows and crossbows. He wanted adventurers to be front-and-middle, in the thick of things, not standing back, hitting enemies with arrows and bolts. So, obviously, ranged weapons needed to be powered down.

Being a fan of long-ranged weapons - especially bows and sniper rifles, I can feel the hate, because it's carried on into almost every other RPG to come out. The sword is the 'go to' weapon, and ranged weapons are left to the side.

In 2nd edition D&D, the best you could hope for with a bow, not including using magic or other special tricks, was 3/1.  Or, '3 per minute'. The argument for combat was that in 60 seconds, you're moving around, trying to avoid getting hit, and giving off a bunch of attacks that are deflected or simply miss.  Right.  So, if you're using the bow and you're not engaged with the enemy, you're firing into combat over the course of 60 seconds, and only get three 'to hit' rolls.  And you only use 3 arrows. Are you ... running around and picking up shots during this time?  What if you're on a battlement and aren't needing to run around and it's open season?

If I'm not mistaken, the current record for fastest shooting is 11 shots in 10 seconds. It might even be 12 shots. You might try to argue 'well, the shots wouldn't be that powerful', and my response is 'they don't have to be'. A half-drawn bow is still scary and its arrows will still go through human flesh.  (And if you look at Tod's Workshop on YouTube, you'll see just how terrifying bows are)

Having shifted a 'round' from 1 minute to 6 to 10 seconds (depending on the game) has fixed some of the issues with combat speed. In D&D 3.5, you could get 5 shots off in a round without the use of Feats, and with enough Feats you could get up to 7 or so shots per round.  7 per 10 seconds isn't too bad.

But let's talk damage.  Mauls should be horrific when it comes to damage. Bows and crossbows, definitely. A mace should casually kill people if you get a solid hit off, you get the picture.  And of course, guns.  1d6-1d8 damage for a revolver? Really?

"But people only have 1 to 6 hit points, if that."

Sure. You can still kill a moose with a rifle in one hit, however. And a moose does not have 1 to 6 hit points. In 5e a moose has 30 hit points. 34 in Pathfinder. So, if you want to drop a moose... let's see.  You're at distance, you spend the time to aim for any bonus you can get.  Crit is x 3 damage.  So, 3-18 or 3-30 damage on a crit, which requires a natural 20. And you can't tell me a hunter's scoring nat 20s all the time, either.

So, how do we fix this? Presuming you want to fix it.

Well, back in 2e AD&D days, I used exploding dice.  When you rolled damage, all dice that came out maximum 'exploded'.  You got to roll an additional die.  And you continued to do so as long as any die exploded.  So, a dagger exploded if you rolled a 4, and as long as you could continue to roll 4s, the damage stacked up.  A fireball, doing 6d6 damage, would give you roll-again for every 6 that came up.

If we did this in 3.5 or 5th edition, a natural 20 would be sick.

This is somewhat how the Roll & Keep system (1st Edition 7th Sea and 1st-4th Edition Legend of the Five Rings) worked.  You used d10s for everything, and if you rolled a '10' you got another d10 and rolled to add on. My record for L5R was to clear 100 points of damage with a single arrow. You can, with the proper work, take down demons with a well-placed shot.

(Scorpion Clan:  Call Raises after you roll (rather than before), Advantage: You get unlimited Raises (rather than limited by your Void), Scorpion Clan: Opponent's TNtbH is reduced to 5 if they've missed you with an attack.  Jade Bow for +3k3 damage).  In other words, someone takes a swipe at you, misses, you let an arrow off, you need a 5 or better to hit, and then for every 5 you rolled past that on your attack, you do an extra die of damage.  Get to 10 dice (which isn't too hard), and you start keeping extra dice to count for damage.  Have 10 kept dice, and you get bonus damage for every two kept dice past that 10.  It all stacked up pretty quickly.

Not too long ago, I came across 13th Age, and I think it perhaps has the best way to deal with damage as far as d20-style games are concerned.  You gain an extra die of damage each time you level, and the damage modifier from your attributes are doubled at 5th level, and tripled at 8th level. So, a 1d8 broadsword and a +3 Strength modifier is 1d8+3 at 1st level, 5d8+6 at 5th level, and 8d8+9 at 8th level. If you get a critical, then double the dice and modifiers.

I think it's a lot more consistent than exploding dice, and as the characters gain levels they can feel that weight from picking up multiple dice to roll for damage. It has a very satisfying feeling.

So, how might I weigh weaponry?

1d4: Unarmed
1d6: Tiny Melee Weapon
2d6: Tiny Ranged Weapon
1d8: Small Melee Weapon
2d8: Small Ranged Weapon
1d10: Medium Melee Weapon
2d10: Medium Ranged Weapon
1d12: Heavy Melee Weapon
2d12: Heavy Ranged Weapon


Then I'd put armour into three types: Good vs Slash, Good vs Pierce, Good vs Bludgeon, then, Bad vs Slash, Bad vs Pierce, Bad vs Bludgeon.

(You could throw armour's AC adjustment out the window possibly.)

So.  If armour is good vs the attack, the enemy loses one die on the damage. If they're only rolling one die, they degrade the die (1d8 to 1d6).  If the armour is bad against the attack, the attack gains a die (1d8 to 2d8).

Or if you're using 13th age and rolling multiple dice for damage:  Good vs the attack? -1 shift down (1d8 to 1d6).  Bad vs the attack? +1 shift up (1d8 to 1d10).

Armour on a character sheet would be something like this: GvP, BvS.  Then all you need to know is what the opponent is hitting you with.  (And some special types of armour might even have 'GvF' (Good vs Fire) or 'BvC' (Bad vs Cold). Makes for interesting decision making on the player's part about what armour to get.

"Hmm. This hide armour is GvS, BvP, and GvC. Do I want that, or do I want the leather, which is GvP, BvB, and GvF? Decisions, Decisions."

Oh, why is ranged weaponry so deadly in my books?

Well, the thing about ranged weaponry is that they're putting a brutal amount of force into a very tiny point.  Sure, you can maul someone with a hammer, but the thing with crossbows, bows, guns, and spears, is that an obnoxious amount of kinetic energy is focussed on the tip of the attack, and the haft for things like bows and crossbows, added an extra push to the tip (which, funny enough, bullets don't get). This is why bullets can blow through people, but will get stopped cold by sandbags, and arrows can get stopped by metal plate, but will blow right through sandbags like they're nothing. Now, swing a sword at a plate cuirass or a sandbag and see how much it cuts through.  Answer: not as much as one might hope.

Really, you only pulled out the sword, axe, or mace when you had little choice and had to engage in close-quarter. The optimal system would be to hit the person from far away, and if they make it close, then you draw your sword and fight for your life. You also started the fight with the enemy way over there if you could help it.

It's why I sort-of mock the pictures of the 'PC Party Fights the Dragon'.  You'll usually notice said PC party is within about 10 to 15 feet of the dragon.  If the vast majority of your party's that close you're Doing It Wrong.

The elfin archer should be 90+ feet away.  The mage, too.  The rogue should not be standing by the Fighter and Cleric.  The Fighter should perhaps be 60 ft away with the crossbow, the Cleric back with the buffing spells and the Rogue over there to one side, trying to get out of the dragon's line of sight.

Doesn't look as exciting, probably.  But when I see those pictures one of the things I think is 'damn, you're doomed, peeps'.

Anyway, enough on this.  Looking forward to thoughts on the subject matter.

Pax.