Range Increments -- More Screw Ups in 3.5

[WalkerWhite]

Our DM just introduced a Renaissance firearm into the game, which is why I noticed this annoying inconsistency.

It seems that 3.5 wanted to make D&D consistent with the d20 modern rules. Hence they changed the Tech Level section in the DMG so that the modern firearms are the same as in d20 modern.

This is of course, forgetting that range increments in the two systems are entirely incompatible. A crossbow in d20 modern has a range of 40 ft. In 3.5 the light crossbow has a range of 80 ft, while the heavy crossbow has a range of 120 ft. So a 3.5 heavy crossbow has the same range as a sniper rifle (without scope augmentations) in d20 modern. Similarly a bow in d20 modern has a range of 40 ft while a short bow in 3.5 has a range of 80 ft.

As far as I can tell, range increments between the two systems differ by a factor of 2 or 3. This is really obvious if you look at Renaissance firearms in the DMG on the page before the modern firearms. These still use the old rules. Hence a 3.5 musket has a range of 150 ft, while a sniper rifle has a range of 120 ft.

So, what do people suggest as the solution to this problem? Use 3.5 range increments, or use d20 range increments? Or do you really want muskets outperforming sniper rifles?

-Walker

P.S. The more I read 3.5, the more I realize that this is like a piece of software that is still in alpha. Was any testing or QA applied to this product at all? The amount of house rules necessary to make this game playable for anything other than a dungeon crawl is incredible.

 

[The Little Raven]

Our DM just introduced a Renaissance firearm into the game, which is why I noticed this annoying inconsistency.

It seems that 3.5 wanted to make D&D consistent with the d20 modern rules. Hence they changed the Tech Level section in the DMG so that the modern firearms are the same as in d20 modern.

This is of course, forgetting that range increments in the two systems are entirely incompatible. A crossbow in d20 modern has a range of 40 ft. In 3.5 the light crossbow has a range of 80 ft, while the heavy crossbow has a range of 120 ft. So a 3.5 heavy crossbow has the same range as a sniper rifle (without scope augmentations) in d20 modern. Similarly a bow in d20 modern has a range of 40 ft while a short bow in 3.5 has a range of 80 ft.

As far as I can tell, range increments between the two systems differ by a factor of 2 or 3. This is really obvious if you look at Renaissance firearms in the DMG on the page before the modern firearms. These still use the old rules. Hence a 3.5 musket has a range of 150 ft, while a sniper rifle has a range of 120 ft.

So, what do people suggest as the solution to this problem? Use 3.5 range increments, or use d20 range increments? Or do you really want muskets outperforming sniper rifles?

-Walker

P.S. The more I read 3.5, the more I realize that this is like a piece of software that is still in alpha. Was any testing or QA applied to this product at all? The amount of house rules necessary to make this game playable for anything other than a dungeon crawl is incredible.

It's not an inconsistency. D&D assumes that bows will be the primary ranged weapons in the game, and thus gives them a very respectable range increment. d20 Modern assumes that guns will be the primary ranged weapons in the game, and makes them equally important.

Sniper rifles don't appear in D&D, thus this isn't a problem. If your DM is going to bring sniper rifles in, he'll have to deal with it then.

 

[Dark Jezter]

P.S. The more I read 3.5, the more I realize that this is like a piece of software that is still in alpha. Was any testing or QA applied to this product at all? The amount of house rules necessary to make this game playable for anything other than a dungeon crawl is incredible.

Funny, my group converted to 3.5e when it came out a month and a half ago, and we haven't had to house rule anything to make it playable. We've also been doing a lot more than "dungeon crawling." In some cases, the game actually runs smoother than it did before.

 

[A'koss]

Although this really isn't answering your question, I just wanted to point out that range increments in D&D are "generous" to say the least for medieval weaponry.

IRL, the usuable range of bows and crossbows are about 1/4 of what you see in the books when firing on a target that is aware of you. Arrows travel at a fairly slow 170-270 fps once released, and slow down very quickly after that. High arcing fire though will pick back some of that speed at the end due to gravity, but.. it's high arcing fire. If you catch your target by surprise or cover an area with a lot of arrows (eg. in a war) simultanously you can get some additional range out of it. As it is, firing an arrow to it's maximum range would take about 6 seconds and anything that was mobile could get out of the way of that. Anything more than a second's distance away would be very hard to hit if they saw you. Even people with average reaction time can get out of the way of that (assuming the archer can even put the arrow on target).

Hand-hurled weapons are even worse, I was even reading how vikings would actually *catch* javelins out of the air that were thrown at them, and throw them right back. Again, if you can put a lot of simultaneous missile fire on a target it's a little different.

Just something to think about...

 

[kreynolds]

Was any testing or QA applied to this product at all?

No. The board of directors decided they would trick you—personally—into doing all the playtesting, of course.

 

[Olive]

Funny, my group converted to 3.5e when it came out a month and a half ago, and we haven't had to house rule anything to make it playable. We've also been doing a lot more than "dungeon crawling." In some cases, the game actually runs smoother than it did before.

This is my experience. I don't think optional rules such as muskets are a sign of how terribly badly designed a game is myself.

 

[NPC]

I'll chime and and also say that my gaming groups have made the 3.5 transition pretty smoothly.

The guy that was always complaining about 3.0e rules fuzziness is now always praising 3.5's clarifications.

Other than my players to fork over the $30 for the 3.5 PH, there haven't been any issues in our group. One guy still uses print outs of the SRD.

All in all, this has been the smoothest software upgrade I've even had to deal with.

 

[Kai Lord]

So, what do people suggest as the solution to this problem? Use 3.5 range increments, or use d20 range increments? Or do you really want muskets outperforming sniper rifles?

Great, first 3.5 nerfs the Elven Cloak, and now they do the same to Sniper Rifles. Another D&D sacred cow bites the dust.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Great, first 3.5 nerfs the Elven Cloak, and now they do the same to Sniper Rifles. Another D&D sacred cow bites the dust.

....I may have to steal that quote...

 

[Dark Jezter]

Great, first 3.5 nerfs the Elven Cloak, and now they do the same to Sniper Rifles. Another D&D sacred cow bites the dust.

LOL!

I'm debating whether or not to add that line to my sig.