Here is something for the think tank:
I've got an alchemist at the top of a 100 foot cliff. There is a bandit camp at the bottom.
At that range, the alchemist suffers a -8 penalty to attack due to being at maximum range. If the bomb misses, you have to figure out where it goes using the splash weapon miss rules.. but since it can't 'fall short' I would just use the d8 to determine a radial direction.
But what if the cliff were 120 feet? Now, the bandit camp is technically farther than the alchemist can throw but the bomb won't stop falling. How would you adjudicate? Would you just continue the -2 penalty per extra range increment? so in this case a -10? Would you say it is impossible due to being beyond the max range and just automatically roll to see where it goes via the miss table?
What if the bandits were instead an army and their camp extended for hundreds of feet? The alchemist wants to hit a target 120 feet down and 30 feet away? Could they just throw the bomb 30 feet straight ahead and let gravity do the rest?
I'm leaning towards figuring out the total distance from alchemist to target and then just adding more range increment penalties even if it goes beyond the normal limit
but I'd like to hear what others think is fair.
I'm leaning towards figuring out the total distance from alchemist to target and then just adding more range increment penalties even if it goes beyond the normal limitbut I'd like to hear what others think is fair.
Sounds like a good way to handle it. Hitting the target will still become harder but there is no max range (the worst thing that could happen would be that it doesn't land 'till next turn.)
What if the bandits were instead an army and their camp extended for hundreds of feet? The alchemist wants to hit a target 120 feet down and 30 feet away? Could they just throw the bomb 30 feet straight ahead and let gravity do the rest?
Well, if you are talking physics, no. It would be a guaranteed miss. Forward momentum of the throw would put the flask well beyond it's intended target.
Personally, when dealing with weapons that are assisted by gravity, I'd apply a non-proficiency penalty ("gravity assisted weapons"), unless they have knowledge engineering. In which case a successful check would negate the penalty.
For your first example, of dropping the bomb straight down a high cliff, it CAN fall short--the vial may knock into the cliff face, either because the facade is uneven and the alchemist didn't aim around projections, or because the vial's shape, or the way it was dropped, or the liquid sloshing around inside of it, or wind, cause the bomb to spin and even move around a bit in the air, possibly getting pushed into the cliff face.
I absolutely would not let the maximum range rules interfere with an action like this, however--the rules are meant to facilitate gaming, not stand in the way of it.
I would allow you to ignore the maximum range issue for dropping the item, but I would enforce and continue the penalties to hit.
Just because it will hit the ground doesn't make it any easier to hit them.
Does an alchemist's bomb become inert after a period of time if it isn't thrown/doesn't hit anything ? If so, this would be the limit on gravity assisted range.
I agree with Claxon that you'd keep accumulating penalties to hit. It should be harder to hit from low earth orbit than from 120' up the cliff.
Does an alchemist's bomb become inert after a period of time if it isn't thrown/doesn't hit anything ? If so, this would be the limit on gravity assisted range.
After a round. A round in which a free-falling object would fall roughly 600 feet (in normal Earth gravity).
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
The old 2e Spelljammer setting had rules for ranged combat in zero gravity, where projectile weapons had no maximum range. It's been a while but I think there was an extreme range category with huge penalties, and after that it was pretty much an auto-miss. Something like that might be adapatable.
I'd probably assess double range penalties for each increment beyond the maximum, up to twice the normal maximum range. After that you're basically only getting a splash - once you're dropping something so far, you have so little control over where it goes that you've pretty much reached the "drop and hope" stage. Maybe allow a hit on a nat 20 only.
My problem with this is the physics, so I'm going to now wildly over-engineer a system for this problem, heh, because this morning is a bit slow.
Assuming the 120 foot height and the attempt to hit a square below.
AC 5 to hit a square and -10 range increment isn't exactly difficult to hit. Assuming a miss, you're looking at 50 feet of scatter in a straight line, randomly determined by the d8. That's a heck of a distance to scatter.
I wonder if it is better to measure height differently. So the x-axis determines range increments to hit a spot on the same plane. Lets assume he's aiming for a spot 30 feet from the edge of the cliff (and 120 feet down), so -2 to hit that square. Roll first to determine if he hits the square (likely will). If he doesn't, roll scatter.
Now for the y-axis. For each 20 feet it falls after the first, it suffers an automatic scatter roll, except it cannot scatter backwards from the direction it went last time. So I'd roll a d6 with this scatter plot:
345
216
XXX
A one means it continues to fall straight down, while a 4 is continuing the direction it took the previous round. This is important because the template will rotate as the item falls, such that 4 is always the way it fell last round (thus making it impossible to move forward and then immediately backwards).
So if you roll a 6 on the first check, then the new plot is rotated to the right 90 degrees. Rolling a 6, then a 6, then 4, 4, 4, would indicate in 100 feet it took two 90 degree turns during the fall and moved five feet to the right and then 20 feet back towards the thrower.
Start (20 feet from thrower and 100 feet from ground):
345
216
XXX
After rolling first 6 (20 feet from thrower, 5 feet to the right, and 80 feet from the ground):
X23
X14
X65
After rolling second 6 (15 feet from the thrower, 5 feet to the right, and 60 feet from the ground):
XXX
612
543
Another three rolls of 4 and the bomb has completely spiraled back to the thrower's initial point. Assuming a sheer cliff that is perfectly flat, the bomb will smash into the cliff face about the same time it hits the ground.
My thought is this: The bomb is moving forward already; it isn't going to "fall short" after the first to-hit roll because you've already thrown it at a target. From here, it is gravity and wind mixing things up, which isn't going to make the thing move backwards and then forwards, at most (half the time), the object's forward momentum is arrested and path twisted, but never immediately reversed.
It behooves the thrower not to aim directly at the spot above his target because it is far more likely to move forward than directly down. If anything, it is a fun bit of randomness!
Of course, you could fiddle with the 20' vertical movement, maybe the distance per roll is based on the strength of the winds? And I'm sure there can be feats invented to make this easier, perhaps letting the player add or subtract one from the number he rolled on the d6 scatter?
I know, the probability that anyone ever needs anything like this ever is rare. But, hey, inventing systems is fun too!
I see a couple of problems with what you are trying to do. First is the fact that alchemical bombs only remain active for a short time. By the time the bomb hits it may have become inert and make the whole matter pointless. The second is at this distance even a slight change in angle will translate into missing the target by a much greater measurement. Environmental conditions like a gust of wind will have greater effect.
The way I would handle this in a game of mine would be to if the distance the bomb fell takes more than a round the bomb is inert and you basically dropped a water balloon on them. If the distance the bomb took to fall was under a round, but past the maximum range I would require a critical hit for it to work.
|
The way I would handle this in a game of mine would be to if the distance the bomb fell takes more than a round the bomb is inert and you basically dropped a water balloon on them. If the distance the bomb took to fall was under a round, but past the maximum range I would require a critical hit for it to work.
After a certain point, throwing baskets of rocks becomes more efficient.
If your aiming for an army, accuracy and scatter are not limiting factors.
Well, if you are talking physics, no. It would be a guaranteed miss. Forward momentum of the throw would put the flask well beyond it's intended target.
I'm sure that is true but, as they say, "physics is a house rule". Technically, a player could expect that hitting a 'square' 30 feet in front of him off the cliff is only AC 5 plus and/or minus modifiers. At which point the bomb would drop 120 feet to the square directly below (onto the target).
I'm not saying it should work like that of course, 120 feet of free fall is certainly not accurate.
For your first example, of dropping the bomb straight down a high cliff, it CAN fall short--the vial may knock into the cliff face, either because the facade is uneven and the alchemist didn't aim around projections, or because the vial's shape, or the way it was dropped, or the liquid sloshing around inside of it, or wind, cause the bomb to spin and even move around a bit in the air, possibly getting pushed into the cliff face.
That is a very good point. I guess what I'm saying is that the rules for missing with a splash weapon don't take into consideration a 3d battle field. Normally you roll a d8 for the directions around the target. In this case, you could make it a d10 in order to add falling short as you suggest. Though, I'm pretty sure you couldn't 'go long' in this case.. as that would be in the ground. Maybe such a result means you miss the target and it only takes splash damage instead? Like targeting a square?
Anyway, I'm glad the consensus seems to be adding up the range penalties.
Thanks!
The way I would handle this in a game of mine would be to if the distance the bomb fell takes more than a round the bomb is inert and you basically dropped a water balloon on them. If the distance the bomb took to fall was under a round, but past the maximum range I would require a critical hit for it to work.
May be worth noting that an object will fall about 578.74 feet in six seconds (0.5 * 9.8m/s^2 * 6s^2 = 176.4 meters).
I'd go simpler than Murphys.
1. Limit the maximum horizontal distance as normal (anything past that is a far miss).
2. Use the total distance (ignore max) to determine the range penalty to hit.
3. Roll attack.
4. If it misses, use only the horizontal range increment to determine the scatter. So if they're 20 ft. or less horizontally from the alchemist, it will only be one square off (pretty close to just dropping it straight down on them).
That is a very good point. I guess what I'm saying is that the rules for missing with a splash weapon don't take into consideration a 3d battle field. Normally you roll a d8 for the directions around the target. In this case, you could make it a d10 in order to add falling short as you suggest. Though, I'm pretty sure you couldn't 'go long' in this case.. as that would be in the ground. Maybe such a result means you miss the target and it only takes splash damage instead? Like targeting a square?
Anyway, I'm glad the consensus seems to be adding up the range penalties.
Thanks!
Gravity is typically an inhibitor when it comes to ranged weapons, establishing a outer range limit. However, in this case gravity is assisting the weapon in reaching it's target...so it stands to reason that the range increment penalties should max out at some point. The 2e "extreme range" spelljammer rules sound like a good solution.
Really what we need to do is design a chart of strength scores to maximum throwing power. We also need to determine the weight of the bomb. Then we can have a cross reference chart that has to do with throwing power (probably modified by whether or not your initial attack failed and over/under scattered).
Then we can determine the x-axis force and properly plot the parabolic curve of descent.
After that, we can also update the wind speed chart with force measurements and build that into the three dimensional calculations to determine final landing point.
I'm going to need some graph paper...
Here is something for the think tank:I've got an alchemist at the top of a 100 foot cliff. There is a bandit camp at the bottom.
At that range, the alchemist suffers a -8 penalty to attack due to being at maximum range. If the bomb misses, you have to figure out where it goes using the splash weapon miss rules.. but since it can't 'fall short' I would just use the d8 to determine a radial direction.
But what if the cliff were 120 feet? Now, the bandit camp is technically farther than the alchemist can throw but the bomb won't stop falling. How would you adjudicate? Would you just continue the -2 penalty per extra range increment? so in this case a -10? Would you say it is impossible due to being beyond the max range and just automatically roll to see where it goes via the miss table?
What if the bandits were instead an army and their camp extended for hundreds of feet? The alchemist wants to hit a target 120 feet down and 30 feet away? Could they just throw the bomb 30 feet straight ahead and let gravity do the rest?
I'm leaning towards figuring out the total distance from alchemist to target and then just adding more range increment penalties even if it goes beyond the normal limit
but I'd like to hear what others think is fair.
If you wish to houserule it, I would say that you get 1.5x the normal range increment - the "down" component of the throw is getting a boost (and you have more time for it to drop for a bigger arc than you do throwing from on the ground to an equal height) but the horizontal component is not so much. So just 1.5x for simplicity.
So a range increment of 20 becomes 30 and the distance of 5 range increments becomes 150 instead of 100.