Upgrading Ranged attacks, how much is too much?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


One thing I've felt ever since 3.0 is that ranged damage is far worse than melee damage. This is probably slid around due to a risk/reward theory on game stuff but it has gotten me thinking.

I am thinking intently on is increasing the die size of all ranged weapons to go up 1 step. Also I am thinking about but pretty sure it would be to crazy is a way to add a feat that let you add your DEX mod to damage.


I have seen no evidence that ranged damage is subpar in Pathfinder, especially since Pathfinder has a Power Attack equivalent for ranged weapons.

Increasing the die size of ranged weapons by one step does nothing significant for increasing viability; weapon damage dice are the smallest contribution to damage past the first few levels.


Zurai wrote:

I have seen no evidence that ranged damage is subpar in Pathfinder, especially since Pathfinder has a Power Attack equivalent for ranged weapons.

Increasing the die size of ranged weapons by one step does nothing significant for increasing viability; weapon damage dice are the smallest contribution to damage past the first few levels.

Oh, doh you're right, it does end up being a bit cosmetic. I guess there's no Vital Strike equivalent for ranged?


Vital Strike works with ranged weapons just fine.


Ok so the die change does work for that, neat.


Or here's a simple way to do it.

All ranged weapons use dexterity for attack bonus, strength for damage bonus, no limits, no strength ratings, simple and clean.

As a feat, a PC can shift either side, using strength for attack or dex for damage.

Messing with the dice tends to be a pain in the end, but it's your call.


Problem there is that solution doesn't logically work for Crossbows or any other mechanized weapon.


CaspianM wrote:
Problem there is that solution doesn't logically work for Crossbows or any other mechanized weapon.

... *ahem* lets assume, for a minute, that masterworked crossbows (feel free to relegate this option to masterworked ones) are made with more potential pull strength than most are capable of.

As a result, the more strength you have, the farther the bows bend, and the more impact your arrow has.

Alternatively, for the dex damage option, the better you hit someone, the more damage it will do. A target perish alot faster if you hit them in the lung (or in a soft spot in armor/hide where you penetrate deeper than you otherwise would) as opposed to a shallow penetration in the leg.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The problem with adding STR to a crossbow is that crossbows don't have a variable pull. Part of what makes a crossbow a crossbow is that it has a mechanism that can hold a drawn bow string, it locks into place. It's also part of why they're so easy to use, once they've locked into place, it's a much more stable platform versus a bow. On that not, that's pretty much the advantage of a bow over a crossbow in D&D, that they can have a STR rating.

But beyond that, what if a character has a sub-par strength score, say a 9. Then they'd have a penalty to their damage, hardly ideal.


The logical way to incorporate strength into crossbows is to add it to the loading process. So you could have a Mighty (+2) Light Crossbow, that does 1d8+2 damage. Loading the weapon depends on your strength. If you have a +2 strength modifier or better, loading is the same action as in the current rules. If you are weaker than that, you have two options.

1. Get help. Other characters can attempt to aid another with a Strength check (DC 10). If they succeed, you gain +2 to strength for reloading the bow. Multiple characters can help within reasonable limits.

2. Try anyway. As an action 1 longer than normal*, you may try a Strength check (DC 10 + mighty bonus). If this succeeds, you load the bow. If you fail, the bow remains unloaded.

* Free action becomes a move action, move becomes a standard, standard becomes a full round, full round becomes 2 full rounds.

Clearly, you should be able to do the strength check out of combat, so the wizard could start the battle with his Might +7 crossbow already cocked. (Good luck if he wants to reload it during the battle.)

This even opens up some interested teamwork options. For example, the orc barbarian (Str 20, Dex 8) reloads one mighty +5 crossbow while the goblin fighter (Str 6, Dex 20) fires a second one. At the end of the round, they swap weapons.

There's also the scene of five goblins, struggling to reload the massive crossbow that's clearly too taut for only one of them to handle.

This does mean that, by taking 20 to load it, a 10 strength character could have a once per encounter weapon that does 1d10+10 damage. If you use the same pricing as a mighty longbow, that weapon would cost at least 1050 gold, so by the time you're willing to invest that much gold in an item with recharge time of 2 minutes, that much damage probably is balanced once per encounter. Although it does make a coup d'grace from the wizard much more deadly.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Upgrading Ranged attacks, how much is too much? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion