|
I propose making it harder to fire ranged weapons while wearing armour (apply both the Armour Check Penalty and the Max Dex Bonus restrictions to the ranged to hit roll).
In return, the damage dealt by ranged weapons should be doubled.
This would make ranged weapons attractive, but force people to specialize in them.
Think of Legolas (specializes in light armour and shooting arrows to devastating effect) versus Gimli (standard tank-like fighter who doesn't care for bows. Or arrows)
|
|
I propose making it harder to fire ranged weapons while wearing armour (apply both the Armour Check Penalty and the Max Dex Bonus restrictions to the ranged to hit roll).
In return, the damage dealt by ranged weapons should be doubled.
This would make ranged weapons attractive, but force people to specialize in them.
Think of Legolas (specializes in light armour and shooting arrows to devastating effect) versus Gimli (standard tank-like fighter who doesn't care for bows. Or arrows)
On the converse, think about a fully-armored samurai firing a horsebow at full mounted charge, or a full plate wearing tank shooting a crossbow or arquebus at his enemies. Incorporating an armor-based penalty to ranged attack rolls doesn't make any sense in the abstraction that is armor in d20.
Ranged weapons are already plenty good for letting you deal their damage at a range. They don't need a boost, and restricting them based on armor worn falls into the same category as people who won't let a rogue sneak attack with a greatsword: it sounds good initially, but you need to think about the system abstraction that the ability represents rather than the visual result. And as far as my example goes, I think I'd be pretty surprised by a wiry little dude suddenly breaking out a zweihander and hacking me in the giblets. That's worth a couple of extra d6s just for shock value. XD
Jeremy Puckett
|
|
Think of Legolas (specializes in light armour and shooting arrows to devastating effect) versus Gimli (standard tank-like fighter who doesn't care for bows. Or arrows)
That's because Legolas would be a Ranger up to spellcasting levels and then multiclass to fighter, staying out of heavy armor so he doesn't lose his free archer feats and using fighter to gain his Two Weapon Fighting abilities.
I couldn't help but notice you specifically point out Gimli as a fighter but leave off Legolas as anything. :)
|
|
Think of Legolas (specializes in light armour and shooting arrows to devastating effect) versus Gimli (standard tank-like fighter who doesn't care for bows. Or arrows)That's because Legolas would be a Ranger up to spellcasting levels and then multiclass to fighter, staying out of heavy armor so he doesn't lose his free archer feats and using fighter to gain his Two Weapon Fighting abilities.
I couldn't help but notice you specifically point out Gimli as a fighter but leave off Legolas as anything. :)
I know it is easy to say Legolas is a Ranger (that might be my first guess, if I were to shoe-horn him into a D&D class), but I don't remember him ever casting any spells. Nor does he have an animal companion.
That, of course, does not prove he isn't a Ranger, but I'd say it's not automatic...
|
|
I realize D&D is an abstract combat system, etc, but I also think there is something (possibly) to be gained looking at military history.
European knights in full plate harness did not shoot longbows. Archers wearing almost no armour did.*
I think this snippet of information is enough to at least consider looking at this idea.
*I realize that Samurai and Mongols and others did have rich mounted archery traditions, but the shortbow should cover the Mongols and the Samurai have been relegated to Oriental Adventures or similar.
|
|
I know it is easy to say Legolas is a Ranger (that might be my first guess, if I were to shoe-horn him into a D&D class), but I don't remember him ever casting any spells. Nor does he have an animal companion.
Like I said, ranger up until spellcasting, so he can have 3-5 levels. If he goes to level 5 it just means he doesn't have a companion at the moment. I'd build him to 5 though with Orcs and Goblins as favored enemies.
Remember also, Drizzt doesn't have a ranger's animal companion, he has a magic statue anyone could have.
I propose making it harder to fire ranged weapons while wearing armour (apply both the Armour Check Penalty and the Max Dex Bonus restrictions to the ranged to hit roll).
In return, the damage dealt by ranged weapons should be doubled.
This would make ranged weapons attractive, but force people to specialize in them.
Think of Legolas (specializes in light armour and shooting arrows to devastating effect) versus Gimli (standard tank-like fighter who doesn't care for bows. Or arrows)
Part of the point of Armor Proficienies is that the character trained to wear that sort of armor. It seems a bit of a backhand slap to then impose a penalty for one sort of weapon but not another.
Double ranged weapon damage?! I just dont buy that. A long bow should not be dealing more damage than a great sword or great axe. Sure a longbow could pierce the heart or other organs on a torso hit, but a zweihander could easily shear off a limb or do a fair job of trying to cut a man in half. The only way i would even consider that is if the damage dropped off due to range. But in the end that adds more complexity to D&D than I would like. "Okay, my long bow does 2d8, but he is 5 range increments out so I only do 1d10...oops 6 range increments so I do 1d8."
The Legolas-Gimli scenario is dealt with mainly througn Weapons and Armor Training along with a massive Dexterity difference.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I know it is easy to say Legolas is a Ranger (that might be my first guess, if I were to shoe-horn him into a D&D class), but I don't remember him ever casting any spells. Nor does he have an animal companion.
Legolas would be portrayed best by a ranger build, I think. He uses magic several times, but less obvious than throwing fireballs:
- He walks across snow unhindered during the storm at Caradras.- He doesn't seem to be affected by weather much (same event). => Endure Elements
- Chasing the Isengard Orcs, he can run for days without tiring. => Longstrider
Speaking with animals, stopping the effect of poison (think of Frodo after being injured by the Ring Wraith and Arwen in the movie / that male elf in the books) and other ranger spells would have fitted well for this character.
Funnily, at least in the books (at Helm's Deep), he even melees with two weapons.
Legolas would be portrayed best by a ranger build, I think. He uses magic several times, but less obvious than throwing fireballs:
- He walks across snow unhindered during the storm at Caradras.
- He doesn't seem to be affected by weather much (same event). => Endure Elements
- Chasing the Isengard Orcs, he can run for days without tiring. => LongstriderSpeaking with animals, stopping the effect of poison (think of Frodo after being injured by the Ring Wraith and Arwen in the movie / that male elf in the books) and other ranger spells would have fitted well for this character.
Funnily, at least in the books (at Helm's Deep), he even melees with two weapons.
I wouldnt use those as examples of Legolas being a ranger. The first two are only because he was an elf. Aragorn who is mentioned specifically as a ranger (in the Tolkien sense) does not share those abilities. Those traits are common to all Tolkien elves. The third of his training (feats) not spells. The stopping of the poison while magic doesnt have a very ranger feel to the magic to me. More like an arcane healing spell, especially given the virulence and mystical nature of the poison.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
|
On the converse, think about a fully-armored samurai firing a horsebow at full mounted charge, or a full plate wearing tank shooting a crossbow or arquebus at his enemies. Incorporating an armor-based penalty to ranged attack rolls doesn't make any sense in the abstraction that is armor in d20.
First off, I realize D&D is not a historical game; but it is "historically flavored".
Part of my problem here is that knights in "full plate" did not shoot crossbows, or longbows, or shortbows, etc. The question then is: WHY NOT?
The answer, I'd guess, is either
A. They didn't want to, or they were too valuably trained in close combat to bother.
[ASIDE] I think wartime archery was perhaps closer to the "volley of arrows" model than the "pick out individual targets" model... you can get some poor serf to stand back and pelt your enemies from afar with arrows or bolts
OR
B. They couldn't do it very effectively in their armour. The armour that archers wore was much less restrictive: padded jacks, mail shirts, brigandine vests, etc.
[ASIDE] This may be related to socio-economic factors, however... the (rich) nobles wore the good (and very expensive) plate and got trained in the arts of war while the (poor) men-at-arms wore the crappy padded jacks, and were conscripted into armies to carry pollaxes or shoot crossbows etc. There is a slight difference with the English Longbowman-- he was more or less a trained-from-youth professional archer, not a farmer-turned-conscript.
BTW: As I'm sure you know, the horsebow you mention above is not the longbow in the basic rules. The PHB longbow cannot be fired while mounted. Samurai and their armour are not in the basic rules, either, of course, as the basic rules for weapons and armour tend to be influenced Medieval Western Europe from ~1250 to ~1450 or so.