| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So, one of my player want to do a tiny character, a sort of fairy, with a bow.
My question is, such a small bow have a minor range than the standard? Is the range of the usual acher abilities (9m) reduced as well?
Are there some specific rules on this kind of thing?
Thanks in advice for any help.
As far as I can see, the size does only affect the damage, not the range, as much as that PF-incompatible thing called logic wants to object. Since my search-fu is not flawless, I may have overlooked something, though.
its something not covered in the rules but I cut range by 1/2 for each size increment below medium and raise it by 1/4 for each increment above medium. for simplicity sake this does not effect the 30 foot rule of most feats and abilities.
you may want to deal with these things in your own way but the idea of something the size of a cat being able to shoot a bow just as far as a giant but with way more accuracy is kind of silly.
note: small characters (halflings and gnomes, kobolds and the like) may feel this is too much of a penalty but its up to the GM to decide how to deal with that. A fariy with a tiny longbow having a range increment of 25 feet makes sense to me.
(Someone prob gonna shoot this theory down... See what i did there?! :P )
As the mass of the arrow from a Tiny bow is less, the gravity pull down is maybe less than from a Medium sized arrow.. therefore, it can fly just as far with less force..
The ranges on bows are absurd to begin with.
It seems a questionable assumption that the short bow would provide the same initial velocity. It makes sense that te range increments should be shorter for smaller weapons, but that's not RAW.
If I was going to mess with range increments I would leave large, medium, and small the same for simplicity's sake and only adjust bows sized outside those ranges.
Most creatures smaller than Small are already at a disadvantage with bows because of their lower damage die (for a Tiny creature, a shortbow does 1d3 and a longbow does 1d4). Add to that the fact that most creatures smaller than Small have a low Strength score. Remember, if you have a Strength penalty, you apply that to the damage you do with bows.
With the high probability that any damage most smaller-than-Small creatures will do with a bow will be minimal damage (possibly even invoking the rule where damage is converted to non-lethal damage), why screw with them even further by reducing their range?
I know, common sense dictates...but leave them something!
I recently put a group of pugwampis (Tiny creatures) against my party, most of the monsters using shortbows. Never once did any of them do more damage than 1 point of non-lethal damage.
---
Taffer
|
Most creatures smaller than Small are already at a disadvantage with bows because of their lower damage die (for a Tiny creature, a shortbow does 1d3 and a longbow does 1d4). Add to that the fact that most creatures smaller than Small have a low Strength score. Remember, if you have a Strength penalty, you apply that to the damage you do with bows.
With the high probability that any damage most smaller-than-Small creatures will do with a bow will be minimal damage (possibly even invoking the rule where damage is converted to non-lethal damage), why screw with them even further by reducing their range?
I know, common sense dictates...but leave them something!
I recently put a group of pugwampis (Tiny creatures) against my party, most of the monsters using shortbows. Never once did any of them do more damage than 1 point of non-lethal damage.
---
TafferI wouldn't apply the strength penalty...a tiny bow is made for a tiny creature, who will not average 10 STR, so their bows will not be made w/ a minimum draw weight correlating to 10 STR. This is already modelled in the damage done declining, and is consistent w/ a reduced range that I argued for above. I guess you could go the other way...the tiny bow has the same draw and thus the same range, tinies just can't aim when they are straining that hard to pull it.
I guess if you wanted to get really precise with it, you could figure that the normal STR for a tiny humanoid is 6, so tiny wielders w/ STR below that could still take a partial penalty. Too much work for me, though.
With your interpretation, it's essentially stupid for tiny creatures to even craft or carry bows, which the pugwumpies apparently do. Occam's Razor tells you the interpretation must not be correct.
but taking a look, there is no mention of reduced range for a Grig wielding a tiny longbow, just reduced damage. In this case:
Ranged longbow +6 (1d4–3/×3)
and a Grig has a STR of 5 (which is a -3 modifier).
With the high probability that any damage most smaller-than-Small creatures will do with a bow will be minimal damage (possibly even invoking the rule where damage is converted to non-lethal damage), why screw with them even further by reducing their range?
this may lead to an exploitable situation... it may be what the OPs fairy is trying to exploit.
If I was going to mess with range increments I would leave large, medium, and small the same for simplicity's sake and only adjust bows sized outside those ranges.
I had thought about that. its simpler and also fair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem here it the tiny creature's ability to hide due to the modifiers they get to stealth. They would be very good at sniping, and you might never find them. Not allowing the tiny race might be a better idea.
|
|
That's a fair point. And even crap damage at range beats crap damage in melee, from their perspective. Still, a 2' tall bow shooting 300'? Unless they have magic materials, that is too much for me.Most tiny creatures with bows aren't dependent on damage. Your typical example would be pixies who can seriously screw you up with their bows if you get them angry at you. And it's not from the 1d3-2 damage range.Most creatures smaller than Small are already at a disadvantage with bows because of their lower damage die (for a Tiny creature, a shortbow does 1d3 and a longbow does 1d4). Add to that the fact that most creatures smaller than Small have a low Strength score. Remember, if you have a Strength penalty, you apply that to the damage you do with bows.
With the high probability that any damage most smaller-than-Small creatures will do with a bow will be minimal damage (possibly even invoking the rule where damage is converted to non-lethal damage), why screw with them even further by reducing their range?
Most smaller then small archers are fey, there is a good chance that they have some odd magics involved in pitching tiny arrows that far. :P
Even regular sized bows in PF do things that are not realistic, such as being accurate in combat way past what is normal for us. The arrows also don't continue past the square the target is occupying if the attacker misses.
|
|
Sure. I think that's a miss on the designers' part.
but taking a look, there is no mention of reduced range for a Grig wielding a tiny longbow, just reduced damage. In this case:...
Then it was missed thorough the whole book, as no where in the book does it state that range for ranged weapons is changed based on weapon size. (at least not that I can find).
it doesnt.
thats the point.
the OP is wondering how it should be handled.
remember. the game is built around Medium characters. small characters are just medium characters with minor stat alterations. all other sizes are the realm of monsters with specific rules for how they work.
large and tiny creatures are not truly intended for play. maybe in minor situations of enlarge or reduce person but not as a continual use character. the rules simply dont factor that in. that does not mean that the GM and players cant do it... but dont assume that the standard rules are going to be balanced for those situations without some tweaking.
|
|
Again, that's because the basic assumption is that you're not using anything other than Small or Medium humanoid races. If you're playing what's effectively monster races, you're on your own.Then it was missed thorough the whole book, as no where in the book does it state that range for ranged weapons is changed based on weapon size. (at least not that I can find).Sure. I think that's a miss on the designers' part.
but taking a look, there is no mention of reduced range for a Grig wielding a tiny longbow, just reduced damage. In this case:...
tiny and large characters are quite possible to end up with in game without playing monsters via the spells Enlarge person and Reduce person. And yet they did not even mention reduced or extended ranges in either of those spells.
Also in the equipment section of the core book, they bothered to give weapon damages for tiny and large weapons (as a small character can be reduced via spell, and a medium character can be enlarged):
Dmg: These columns give the damage dealt by the weapon on a successful hit. The column labeled “Dmg (S)” is for Small weapons. The column labeled “Dmg (M)” is for Medium weapons. If two damage ranges are given, then the weapon is a double weapon. Use the second damage figure given for the double weapon's extra attack. Table: Tiny and Large Weapon Damage gives weapon damage values for Tiny and Large weapons.
And yet, in the same section, they chose not to give any other changes for weapons for reduced small characters or enlarged medium characters, other then damage changes. The options where there, as the next sections where critical and range.
To me, this shows the intent that the only thing that changes with weapons outside of the small/medium range is damage.