I don't see this a lot, but I see it enough that I am confused/lost/etc. What makes people think it is a good idea to not buy a ranged weapon during character creation. I understand that sometimes our brains shut down and we just forget what I call "common sense" items. I am guilty of this. I am asking about the players that intentionally just don't get a ranged weapon. Some have said something about a character concept which I still don't agree with, but it is no my character. Others have said they did not think they would need one, and they have not always been brand new players. I had one player get mad that I had flyers, and he had no ranged weapon despite the fact that he had the gold to buy one, and just chose not too..
This is a question that has been on my mind for a while(within the past 6 months) so it is not a recent event, but I am sure it will happen again.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please of Magnificent Many-Eyed King do not bring attention to these fools. There lack of these things makes it easier to sneak up and destroy your foes and bring new souls upon which to feast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't you agree with character concept?
The idea of being able to close the gap long enough to pick up a couple potions to make up for the difference.
Example: My fighter buys potions of Flight and Expeditious Retreat to give him more mobility on the battlefield.
These are useful things to have. And so is a ranged weapon.
Even when playing a character who uses a ranged weapon as their main form of attack (eg gunslinger or archer) my characters also have eg a sling and a few sling bullets. They don't weigh much, don't cost much (if anything), and can be useful occasionally.
All characters I play will have some method of attacking from range. They will also have some sort of melee weapon. And often backup weapons.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand why a starting character wouldn't have a ranged weapon because, at that level, crossbows are basically a one off and longbows are expensive. But all you have to do is kill a bad guy with a ranged weapon, then you get a ranged weapon for free!!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience? Because there really is no point.
When you don't have any feat support and your money is going towards making your melee weapon better, the actual damage you deal with your "backup ranged weapon" is so pathetic, you might as well just let the players who can do real ranged damage handle it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starting characters are usually the ones who need a (backup) ranged weapon the most*. Slings** and stones are free, so cost is not an issue.
*'Keep away, I only have a few hit points!'
*your GM might make you roll a craft skill, so you might prefer to buy one for a few coppers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience? Because there really is no point.
When you don't have any feat support and your money is going towards making your melee weapon better, the actual damage you deal with your "backup ranged weapon" is so pathetic, you might as well just let the players who can do real ranged damage handle it.
Money is not an issue.
You might be doing pathetic damage. Others might be doing more. So?Do you enjoy standing around and watching more than rolling some dice and 'doing a bit to help'? And if everyone else has the same attitude, or no-one is a primary ranged character, then your pathetic damage might be the best option present.
Sometimes, you might be right. But it is not true to claim that there 'is no point'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know of only one character that could not use a ranged weapon: a battle oracle with a haunted curse so bad that her curse would deflect any arrow she shot. But even she had ranged spells.
A martial character needs a bow for more than flying creatures. The first battle of my gnome ranger (move speed 20ft) was against a goblin making ride-by attacks on a goblin dog (move speed 50ft). My alchemist whose bombs covered short range carried a crossbow: mostly for when he ran out of bombs, but also against opponents smart enough to stay out of range of his bombs.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't you agree with character concept?
In a world with flying harpies luring you off a cliff, flying wizards tossing lightning, and flying dragons raining fire down upon you "I will only face my foes steel to steel!" isn't chivalry its insanity.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do some people not add a ranged weapon at start? Because they've had GMs who don't put out rough terrain, start fight scenes at about 60' or less, and use a lot of bruiser type monsters. Starting without a ranged weapon is fine if you're going to be dungeon hacking a lot.
However if you're GM is planning a varied environment campaign with a mix of enemy types a backup ranged weapon is essential. What happens if your first fight, right out the gate, is a goblin ambush in the woods? Its a pretty typical experience. But now Mr. Melee is standing there with a greatsword or falchion and looking up 20' at a bunch of goblins firing bows/crossbows at him while they stand on tree-stands.
WHOOPS!
If I have melee-focused characters I always try to at least build them with thrown versions of melee weapons. The last dwarf fighter I had was focused on his hammer; I started him with throwing hammers. Then there was my monk/bard dervish dancer type. She started with a sling and curved throwing daggers (like cute little scimitars).
Javelins, daggers and sling bullets cost next to nothing. Even if you only use them occasionally the first few levels it's better (IMO) to have them and have something to contribute every round of the game than to stand around catching flies with your mouth hanging open waiting for something to get in range.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... potions of ... Expeditious Retreat ...
Potions of personal spells are illegal.
... potions of ... Expeditious Retreat ...Potions of personal spells are illegal.
Source please?
Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character taking the potion doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect—the caster who brewed the potion has already done so. The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the effect (though the potion indicates the caster level, the drinker still controls the effect).
and
It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures or objects.
I don't see where it excludes 'personal'? Unless you interpret the 'targets one or more creatures or objects' as meaning that. A person is generally a creature, or more rarely an object. There appear to be no examples of potions with 'range: personal' listed, though, so I am genuinely curious how others see this.
Why don't you agree with character concept?In a world with flying harpies luring you off a cliff, flying wizards tossing lightning, and flying dragons raining fire down upon you "I will only face my foes steel to steel!" isn't chivalry its insanity.
To be fair, not every character is going to be an "adventurer" as their concept.
A duelist, for example, is probably used to city living and the finer things in life (at least as much as they can afford ^_^) and when thrust upon some epic adventure, wouldn't even begin to know "what to pack."
I think it comes from the way folks make there PCs. I have a friend WHO find a picture and then make the guy on a picture. And if the picture guy dosent have a ranged weapon then the PC wont. That sort of thing.
And also what Mark Hoover said. They havnet felt the need. Make them feel that need if you want.
But as you said in the OP it is there PC so let them do it there way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't you agree with character concept?In a world with flying harpies luring you off a cliff, flying wizards tossing lightning, and flying dragons raining fire down upon you "I will only face my foes steel to steel!" isn't chivalry its insanity.To be fair, not every character is going to be an "adventurer" as their concept.
A duelist, for example, is probably used to city living and the finer things in life (at least as much as they can afford ^_^) and when thrust upon some epic adventure, wouldn't even begin to know "what to pack."
He should learn his lesson fairly quickly. Consider it character development.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I don't see where it excludes 'personal'? Unless you interpret the 'targets one or more creatures or objects' as meaning that. A person is generally a creature, or more rarely an object. There appear to be no examples of potions with 'range: personal' listed, though, so I am genuinely curious how others see this.
Exactly the bolded part. Spells that are range: personal have a range entry but not a target entry. The target entry is the salient thing. For instance, mage armor can be made into potions because it is range: touch, target: creature touched.
... potions of ... Expeditious Retreat ...Potions of personal spells are illegal.Source please?
Here, specifically the part "Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.".
I don't see where it excludes 'personal'? Unless you interpret the 'targets one or more creatures or objects' as meaning that. A person is generally a creature, or more rarely an object. There appear to be no examples of potions with 'range: personal' listed, though, so I am genuinely curious how others see this.Exactly the bolded part. Spells that are range: personal have a range entry but not a target entry. The target entry is the salient thing. For instance, mage armor can be made into potions because it is range: touch, target: creature touched.
Thanks, however they do have a target, 'You'. And since the drinker of a potion counts as the caster, I don't see why it wouldn't work.
Even though I often play item crafters, I haven't actually made any potions in Pathfinder, so I haven't considered the matter before. I am open to persuasion - I think ;) - but I am not yet convinced.
What do the rest of you think?
Here, specifically the part "Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.".... potions of ... Expeditious Retreat ...Potions of personal spells are illegal.Source please?
Ah hah! This is more like it.
I wonder why d20pfsrd site omits that line? (for me that site works faster so I use it more).
Anyway, that's convinced me. Thank you, all. My apologies for the thread derail.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't you agree with character concept?In a world with flying harpies luring you off a cliff, flying wizards tossing lightning, and flying dragons raining fire down upon you "I will only face my foes steel to steel!" isn't chivalry its insanity.
If my 1st level character sees a Harpy, Flying Wizard shooting off Lightning Bolts, or Flying Dragons raining fire down, then the last thing he's going to do is draw attention to himself by attacking them with a ranged weapon. :>
Yeah, while I can agree that at low level, you might actually be able to hit something as a STR bruiser (since dice rolls are the biggest contributor), at higher level it becomes absurdly difficult. Which is why I prefer dex-warriors, they can actually use a bow sometimes (though they could never lift a greatsword).
Why don't you agree with character concept?
I understand the idea of a warrior thinking that melee is the only honorable way to do battle is on melee but he should have a way to deal with "cowards". In other words the player should realize the problems that come with certain concepts. If they realize and fully accept it then there is noy much I can say but to actually be surprised that these flyers are giving them so.much trouble is beyond my comprehension.
I don't see where it excludes 'personal'? Unless you interpret the 'targets one or more creatures or objects' as meaning that. A person is generally a creature, or more rarely an object. There appear to be no examples of potions with 'range: personal' listed, though, so I am genuinely curious how others see this.Exactly the bolded part. Spells that are range: personal have a range entry but not a target entry. The target entry is the salient thing. For instance, mage armor can be made into potions because it is range: touch, target: creature touched.Thanks, however they do have a target, 'You'. And since the drinker of a potion counts as the caster, I don't see why it wouldn't work.
Even though I often play item crafters, I haven't actually made any potions in Pathfinder, so I haven't considered the matter before. I am open to persuasion - I think ;) - but I am not yet convinced.
What do the rest of you think?
personal is an actual range so he is correct. Otherwise no spells would be restricted and the rule would be useless
I personally believe it comes with a video game mentality. For most fantasy games and RPGs, each character wields only one weapon.
I personally believe it comes with a video game mentality. For most fantasy games and RPGs, each character wields only one weapon.
What?
Which video games do that?It's the opposite, in video games (especially in RPGs) you have too many weapons on your person. The only type of game i can think of that is like you said are (somewhat) old JRPGs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A novice would go ill equipped. A veteran or experienced PC should dang well know better... I know my players pack extra ranged toys for difficult to maneuver in situations.
Why don't you agree with character concept?I understand the idea of a warrior thinking that melee is the only honorable way to do battle is on melee but he should have a way to deal with "cowards". In other words the player should realize the problems that come with certain concepts. If they realize and fully accept it then there is noy much I can say but to actually be surprised that these flyers are giving them so.much trouble is beyond my comprehension.
Well, I guess it depends. Usually, you don't go out adventuring alone. I've been playing a bard in our Jade Regent campaign for 8 levels now, and he is more or less a pacifist. I started out without any weapon, and while I have picked up a dagger and a shortbow in the meantime, I can count the number of attack rolls I have made with actual weapons during the course of the campaign on one hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why wouldn't a level 1 characte have a backup ranged weapon?
Well...I dunno. I would say probably because they forget about the sling and bows are relatively expensive at level 1. But I agree it's a good idea to have some sort of backup ranged weapon. Just in case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back in 1e/2e I had a sheet written up called the "Adv Pack"; this was the standard adventurer's pack that any starting character could pick up. It had useful things like chalk, marbles and candles alongside standard gear like rope, torches and oil. Included with every Adv Pack was a sling and 10 bullets.
Nowadays, if I updated it for PF, I'd likely trim down some of it (due to cantrips/orisons) but then add in some kind of cheap splash weapons for swarms. Also, the sling would remain.
Not having a ranged option of some kind just seems counter-intuitive to me. Most action movies have the hero with some kind of ranged weapon with a melee for backup. Most video games (that I'VE played anyway) has an inventory where you've got a mix of usable weapons. I'm just not seeing how this wouldn't be an issue unless the GM running non-range-option-having PCs wasn't making this an issue.
In short, I think it boils down to the game style and the GM.
Not everyone wants a ranged weapon. It's really that simple.
So long as they are okay with being weaker against unreachable opponents then there's no issue here. Certainly no BadWrongFun.
I always buy a ranged weapon. A couple daggers to throw for example. I've never used it but the dagger have come in handy from time to time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I shall fight my foe, man to man. A real man uses a greatsword, not this wussy bow!
I always buy a bow of some sort though. I put in the 'boring but practical' category, and I don't like boring. Sometimes it helps to drop hints you'll need a bow of some sort. Then they'll buy their extremely useful potions of fly instead maybe!
For hunting if nothing else. Deer and rabbits tend to run from maniacs with a sword. But yes, some people just don't want to and that is their right. With luck, someone else has one.
My experience with my home game is that players can come up wiht their theme like guy with a great sword, and because 'guy with a greatsword who carries a longbow just in case' apparently isnt as exciting a theme it does not occur to them to buy the bow.
However, they mostly learn quickly and pick up a bow or crossbow from bad guys I have not run into anyone who actually refuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless it really is anathema for my concept (or he is too weak to carry anything else) I always buy the best non-magic backup weapon I can get after the first loot haul. USUALLY EVEN BEFORE MY PRIMARY WEAPON!
If it is a melee character I buy the best bow (ex: mwk composite strength longbow) I can use.
If it is a archer I buy the best 2handed weapon (ex: mwk elven curved blade) I can use.
Why? My melee machine is already going to be at least halfway decent with even a great club. But if I have to shoot at guys on the wall, an extra plus 1 to hit and getting my str bonus on damage can make a world of difference at low levels.
In my experience? Because there really is no point.
When you don't have any feat support and your money is going towards making your melee weapon better, the actual damage you deal with your "backup ranged weapon" is so pathetic, you might as well just let the players who can do real ranged damage handle it.
So you prefer to just stand there and get hit for free and contributing absolutely nothing except soaking up arrows? Really?
What if your group doesn't have a specialized ranged build?
Usually the opponents in most modules/scenarios/AP's that I have seen where you can't close with the opposition (for whatever reason) have fairly limited capability opponents. Low level warriors. Flying creatures with low constitution. Etc...
So if your melee martial will just buy a sling to begin, a long bow at low levels, at masterwork composite strength bow at mid levels, keep a looted +1 bow at high levels - you can contribute to a noticeable level.
Not everyone wants a ranged weapon. It's really that simple.
So long as they are okay with being weaker against unreachable opponents then there's no issue here. Certainly no BadWrongFun.
I would never call it BadWrongFun. But usually they guy who refused to buy a sling and 10 bullets is also the whining that adventure wasn't 'fair' or was too hard for characters of our level or was just made to cancel out my concept or etc...
Why don't you agree with character concept?
I would not say I don't agree with 'character concept.' But I think it usually not really the case.
I have played with people that really do the whole 'only hand to hand combat is honorable' thing. They play it up, plan for it, charge through fire when required, plan for ways around needing it, etc... But those are a tiny fraction of the people that I see never buying a single backup item.Usually the guy with no ranged weapon is completely shocked (and often offended) that the GM might put them in a position where it is needed/useful.
I think it more often the case that they don't want to do anything they are not a specialist in. They won't talk to any NPC because they are not optimized for it. They won't shoot because they are not optimized for it. Etc...
Sorry, didn't meant to come off in my posts that no range = you're doing it wrong. I re-read my stuff and it comes off that way a little, but I certainly didn't intend that. I just figure it helps is all, for situations when you can't melee.
Again, it comes to gaming style. If your GM doesn't present any reasons to use ranged weapons, then don't take one. I don't typically run my game like that so in my game I encourage my players to take and use ranged weapons.
I have a player who's been with me for 3 campaigns now. He always plays dwarves who are notoriously slow. I also as I've said like to switch up terrains, combat distances and environmental hazards. I have sat and watched him get frustrated and beat up because even on a double-move charge he couldn't get into melee with a foe and he only ever takes melee weapons despite my advice.
This time around he's playing a cleric (Saranrae) 1 and he's having a great time. I suspect that's partly because he's had something to do other than move on several occasions. Move 20', fire blast. Move another 20', fire blast. Charge into melee FTW!
It's not for everyone and we need to accept that.
Why wouldn't a level 1 characte have a backup ranged weapon?
Well...I dunno. I would say probably because they forget about the sling and bows are relatively expensive at level 1. But I agree it's a good idea to have some sort of backup ranged weapon. Just in case.
Slings are cheap, but I do understand that bows are costly. I have started games off with slings or crossbows until I could get a str enhanced bow.
Not everyone wants a ranged weapon. It's really that simple.
So long as they are okay with being weaker against unreachable opponents then there's no issue here. Certainly no BadWrongFun.
I agree. I was just wondering if there was more to it than "I don't want one" for most people.
Genre. How many fantasy novel/movie/etc characters carry more than their signature weapon? I can even point at Jedi here, who should all carry blasters because lightsabers don't have a stun setting.
Visualization. I don't like the look of a character with too much stuff. I hate the golf bag of weapons, even if it makes sense to have each damage type and special material handy.
The GM should take party capabilities into account in adventure design. If the party is deficient in some area, then the GM needs to take that into account.
Genre. How many fantasy novel/movie/etc characters carry more than their signature weapon? I can even point at Jedi here, who should all carry blasters because lightsabers don't have a stun setting.
Visualization. I don't like the look of a character with too much stuff. I hate the golf bag of weapons, even if it makes sense to have each damage type and special material handy.
The GM should take party capabilities into account in adventure design. If the party is deficient in some area, then the GM needs to take that into account.
Having a golf bag and having 3 weapons, primary, backup, and melee or ranged primary, ranged secondary, and melee is only 3 weapons.
As for the GM taking deficiencies into account, I think the players should do that also can cover what they can. I know what I am about to say boils down to personal taste, but it kill immersion for me if Team Evil decides not to use ranged weapons because Mcsmashy the Barbarian hates to fight from range. Now if the party is low level and certain things just are not available I am nicer about it. As an example I won't throw shadows at the party knowing that nobody has a magic weapon. They are rather expensive at lower levels.
Being deficient because you just never had the chance to cover something, or it was very difficult is not treated the same as when you can do it without too much trouble, and just choose not to by most GM's I have played under.
One last example. I try to be able to take on invisible creatures, and flyer as soon as I can. I know invis is a level 2 spell so I try to be able to counter it by level 3.
PS: I thought most Jedi carried lightsabers and blasters
In my experience? Because there really is no point.
When you don't have any feat support and your money is going towards making your melee weapon better, the actual damage you deal with your "backup ranged weapon" is so pathetic, you might as well just let the players who can do real ranged damage handle it.
Zero ranged Feats and not DEX focus doesn't preclude the utility of Ranged.
A melee Paladin in a game of mine ended up taking down a Hydra by plinking at it from range, from atop a horse.That kept the Hydra continually out of melee range, it could try to catch up but never could.
If the Paladin entered melee range, he would have gotten Full Attacked.
The Hydra had Regen, but getting plinked by the Paladin and other characters totalled enough to out-do the Regen.
The ability to range attack and full attack while mounted is often overlooked. (a single attack without penalties is also possible)
You can plink at enemies for a round or two while they close with you, backing up to extend the time.
(possibly indefinitely, though intelligent enemies would quickly realize the situation - but them withdrawing still > them winning)
If/when they do reach you, you've depleted their HPs some, and can Full Attack them back.
(you should be able to gage the move distances involved, and draw a melee weapon the round before)
...
The GM should take party capabilities into account in adventure design. If the party is deficient in some area, then the GM needs to take that into account.
Personally I disagree with this, depending upon what you actually by the statement. Most people that make a statement like this seem to mean something like "If no one in the party is very good at handling X, you should not put X in the adventure."
I think you should have the opposition behave as intelligently as possible based on their stats.
Ogres will throw rocks at the party while they charge to pound with clubs.
Bugbears might hide at the top of the hill and throw a stack of javelins at you. Oh by the way - they put a pit, bear trap, whip spike, and a tethered wolverine on the hillside to slow you down.