Bows ignoring height

[Chess Pwn]

I know there a post, maybe for pfs, that said to ignore height when figuring out range for attacks. Anyone recognize this?

[Azothath]

In Pathfinder system, rate of vertical movement upwards is half the horizontal movement rate. Vertical downwards movement rate is doubled.

For going up this means double the upward(Z) component using Cartesian coordinates.
So 20 squares forward, 3 left, and 12 up becomes (20,-3,24) or distance(d)=(20^2 +3^2 +24^2)^(0.5)=31.384 or 31, 31*5=155ft worth of movement.
I'd use that distance(d) as the range distance. The Combat Range Finder application on d20pfsrd also uses this formula (for positive values).

In Environmental rules,

High gravity wrote:

... Such characters move at half speed, can only jump half as high or as far, and can only lift half as much. Their projectiles (though not those of creatures residing in the area, or who have occupied it for a significant amount of time) have their ranges cut in half as they fall to earth more rapidly.

The personal effects (modifications to running, jumping, lifting, etc.) can be negated by spells such as freedom of movement, but projectiles remain affected. Characters who remain in a high-gravity environment for long periods often become fatigued.

and later,

No Gravity wrote:

... Projectile weapons have their range categories multiplied by 10. In addition, ranged weapons no longer have a maximum number of range increments—their wielders simply continue to accrue penalties the farther away the target is. Projectiles fired from a null-gravity area into an area with gravity of any kind take a –10 penalty to hit.

Ranges for spell area of effects and such are direct distances without any vertical adjustments.

Could PFS have changed that? hmm, probably not and I'm not aware of any exception. They tend to follow canon as much as possible.

[Scrapper]

Or is that height of user? a small short bow has same range as a medium or large sized short bow...

[Azothath]

Scrapper wrote:

Or is that height of user? a small short bow has same range as a medium or large sized short bow...

lol, first thing I thought of too, but it's best to give a straight out answer rather than have the silly comment mean your post isn't read. I believe weapon sizes change for small creatures otherwise you run into penalties (mismatched weapon to creature size)... both creatures shoot from the same unitized 5ft cube on the ground.

[Chess Pwn]

I'm fairly certain I've seen something official, probably PFS, that says for sake of simplicity you ignore factoring the height of your target when figuring distance.

[Azothath]

nothing in The Guide v8, PFS FAQ, CRB FAQ, or Campaign Clarifications (for "range")... or blogs (for on-topic discussions about range "increment", "distance"@142ref).
search words were in parenthesis

[Chess Pwn]

Does anyone know what I might have thought this? I feel I saw this somewhere, but now I can't find it.

[The Sideromancer]

Azothath wrote:

In Pathfinder system, rate of vertical movement upwards is half the horizontal movement rate. Vertical downwards movement rate is doubled.

For going up this means double the upward(Z) component using Cartesian coordinates.
So 20 squares forward, 3 left, and 12 up becomes (20,-3,24) or distance(d)=(20^2 +3^2 +24^2)^(0.5)=31.384 or 31, 31*5=155ft worth of movement.
I'd use that distance(d) as the range distance. The Combat Range Finder application on d20pfsrd also uses this formula (for positive values).

In Environmental rules,

High gravity wrote:

... Such characters move at half speed, can only jump half as high or as far, and can only lift half as much. Their projectiles (though not those of creatures residing in the area, or who have occupied it for a significant amount of time) have their ranges cut in half as they fall to earth more rapidly.

The personal effects (modifications to running, jumping, lifting, etc.) can be negated by spells such as freedom of movement, but projectiles remain affected. Characters who remain in a high-gravity environment for long periods often become fatigued.

and later,

No Gravity wrote:

... Projectile weapons have their range categories multiplied by 10. In addition, ranged weapons no longer have a maximum number of range increments—their wielders simply continue to accrue penalties the farther away the target is. Projectiles fired from a null-gravity area into an area with gravity of any kind take a –10 penalty to hit.

Ranges for spell area of effects and such are direct distances without any vertical adjustments.

Could PFS have changed that? hmm, probably not and I'm not aware of any exception. They tend to follow canon as much as possible.

What happens when you shoot in subjective gravity?

a:Shooter's decision
b:Target's decision
c:no gravity, would be arrow's decision if it could make it.

For that matter, what happens when an intelligent item and its holder disagree on where the gravity should be?

[wraithstrike]

I don't understand the question. Is it asking should height be ignoring when attacking someone on much higher ground?

[kyrt-ryder]

wraithstrike wrote:

I don't understand the question. Is it asking should height be ignoring when attacking someone on much higher ground?

Pretty sure the question swings both ways Wraithstrike. Somebody 30 feet up on a Fortress Wall would logically have significantly more range than someone at ground level.

[Claxon]

I'm not sure I understand the question exactly, but I've never seen anything about ignoring the elevation difference between characters when determining the distance of an arrow shot.

Now, it is harder to do since you can't count the squares, but you could just use some simple math to estimate what the distance should be, even if it isn't exactly the same as the number of squares that it should be, it's probably close enough that it wont matter.

[Saldiven]

It's not like A^2 + B^2 = C^2 is a hugely difficult thing to calculate, especially since most people have a portable electronic device with a calculator on them at just about every waking moment.

[CBDunkerson]

Saldiven wrote:

It's not like A^2 + B^2 = C^2 is a hugely difficult thing to calculate, especially since most people have a portable electronic device with a calculator on them at just about every waking moment.

Pythagoras doesn't address the issue.

Yes, we know that two archers, one at the top of a 300' cliff and one 400' away from the base of the cliff, are 500' apart.

However, the question is whether that 500' shot is easier for the person at the top of the cliff than it is for the person at the bottom... and/or what rules should be applied to adjust the shot for each. I'm not aware of any 'official' position on this.

A simple rule might be to add the distance components together for someone 'shooting uphill' and subtract them for someone 'shooting downhill'. So, in the example above the archer at the base of the cliff would effectively have a 700' shot, while the archer at the top of the cliff would effectively only have a 100' shot. Not an exact match to the physics, but quick/easy and in the right ballpark most of the time.

[Chess Pwn]

Wow, I guess I'm crazy then.

[wraithstrike]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I don't understand the question. Is it asking should height be ignoring when attacking someone on much higher ground?

Pretty sure the question swings both ways Wraithstrike. Somebody 30 feet up on a Fortress Wall would logically have significantly more range than someone at ground level.

I know in real life the ammo travels farther if it is shot from a higher elevation but the rules don't account for that.

[wraithstrike]

Chess Pawn I for one am still not sure about what you are asking.

If the question is "Does the max range for a bow get affected by elevation" the answer is no.

The rules for diagonals can be used if someone is at an angle. Movement and spells use them so I don't see why ammo shouldn't, but there is no official rule that says to do it that way that I know of.

PS: I think the unspoken rule is to use the diagonal rule for measuring no matter what with regard to squares, but I don't have time to look up any supporting statements.

[Chemlak]

The question is this:

"I could have sworn somewhere I've seen a designer say something like 'when calculating ranges, just ignore differences in elevation between the shooter/caster and the target unless the elevation is the major component of the distance', did I see that somewhere?"

And the answer is that while it's definitely not a rule, it's the sort of thing any sane GM would say to shortcut measuring which needlessly slows the game down, so I can quite easily picture Mark, Jason, Stephen, Sean, or even James Jacobs offering it as a solution.

Edit: I also think I've seen something like this somewhere.

[Chess Pwn]

I feel I saw a post that said if a creature was say 50 away and 30 up that you ignored the height when figuring distance. or basically use the higher of the two? I'm not sure now.

[Riuken]

By game rules use the 1-2-1-2 diagonal rules even when going vertically.

I could see "use twice the vertical height, or the horizontal height, whichever is bigger" as a quick rule.

[Tim Statler]

Usually using the longest distance is easier. The example given is 58 feet distance.

[Kolokotroni]

Chess Pwn wrote:

I feel I saw a post that said if a creature was say 50 away and 30 up that you ignored the height when figuring distance. or basically use the higher of the two? I'm not sure now.

You figure distance to the target using the normal rules, the squares of space are three dimentional. Calculate it the same way you would a target that is 50 feet in front of and 30 feet to the right of a shooter.

Edit:

OP what you might be thinking of is that you ignore the height(how tall it is) of the target itself. IE if cthulu is 30ft away, he is no further away for range purposes then a Halfling 30ft away (you don't need to aim for center of mass, the closest occupied space is sufficient). The fact that a monster might be 100feet tall doesn't factor into how far the range is to shoot at them.

[Azothath]

CBDunkerson wrote:

...

Yes, we know that two archers, one at the top of a 300' cliff and one 400' away from the base of the cliff, are 500' apart.

However, the question is whether that 500' shot is easier for the person at the top of the cliff than it is for the person at the bottom... and/or what rules should be applied to adjust the shot for each. I'm not aware of any 'official' position on this.

A simple rule might be to add the distance components together for someone 'shooting uphill' and subtract them for someone 'shooting downhill'. So, in the example above the archer at the base of the cliff would effectively have a 700' shot, while the archer at the top of the cliff would effectively only have a 100' shot. Not an exact match to the physics, but quick/easy and in the right ballpark most of the time.

to be explicit, in your 3-4-5 triangle example;

actual and spell range distance is 500ft.
Traveling from the ground up it's 721ft =SQRT(600^2 +400^2).
And traveling from the top down it is 427ft =SQRT(150^2 +400^2).
then range increments are consulted. For longbow range (110ft) that's 6.55 (-12 range penalty to hit) and 3.88 (-6 range penalty to hit) increments. A circumstance modifier may exist and is GM dependent.

Using half the shorter distance is a quick estimate making the distance 4+1.5(half of 3) or 550ft between the combatants.

[Lynceus]

I don't know if this helps, but there is an FAQ that states:

"the game is generally assumed to be played in two dimensions, even when representing three dimensional combat"

I've always taken that to mean that ranges for attacks and spells work the same in 3 dimensions as they do in 2.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9o76

[Matt Goodall]

An easy way to calculate a 3D distance in Pathfinder is take the longer dimension then add half the shorter dimension. This works because of the 1-2-1-2 nature of diagonal movement.

For example: A flying enemy 50 foot away and 20 feet up is 60 feet away.

[Cevah]

While movement cost to rise is doubled, that has no bearing on distance calculation.

As to a benefit from firing from the top of the cliff, you do get +1 to hit from above.

The quote you seek was not a rules/faq/eratta, but rather an opinion about making it simple. I recall seeing it also, but not where or when.

I think the rule should be:
longest (x,y,z) + 1/2 next longest.

It is still short of the true value, but better than longest plus half shortest. I once made a spreadsheet that calculated all this just to check, and that was the conclusion I came to.

/cevah

[Khudzlin]

The "longest + 1/2 shortest" calculation uses (x,y) as a single value (calculated using the 1-2 rule for diagonals) and (z), not all 3 separately.