These days I prefer more narrative ranges. To me, the need to have a range of 50 feet versus 70 feet or the like is both unnecessary and often ignored in favor of a more generalized range assumption, anyway. "So, my range is 50 feet. He's 57 feet away even after I move. I can't hit him?" And if the GM allows it, why not 60 feet? Why not 65?
To me, something more broad and narrative, like "short range (across a tavern commons room)" versus "medium range (the far side of the courtyard)" versus "long range (across the bridge)" are a lot easier to manage, especially in theater-of-the-mind play. This kind of thing would be simple enough to implement as a rule option, even as a 3PP kind of offering, but I was just curious what the devs thought. It also requires a bit of change to movement, but in the games that use it, I find movement to be generally better, as well. It also better supports the sort of fast, dynamic action that fits a lot of fantasy scenes.
I don't know what they're going to do for PF2, but right now, the spell ranges are usually standardized:
You could take "Close" to mean "in the same room" and "Medium" to be across a courtyard and "Long" for the bridge one.
There are a few that use arbitrary ranges, but most fall in the system above.
Here's the official stuffs for reference:
* Close: The spell reaches as far as 25 feet away from you. The maximum range increases by 5 feet for every two full caster levels.
* Medium: The spell reaches as far as 100 feet + 10 feet per caster level.
* Long: The spell reaches as far as 400 feet + 40 feet per caster level.
I'm hoping they stick to standardized ranges in PF2 as we often use a similar concept in our own group, as we use theater of the mind for minor and social encounters and only go to the battlemap for major fights.
That's exactly why I like range bands as done in FFG's Star Wars or Exalted 3E or (once I had put them in the book) Chronicles of Darkness and so on. I rarely find that exact measurements are necessary, or even desirable. "Range is 25 feet, but he's 30 feet away. There's no chance it'll hit him?" And if you're going to let the character do it, you might as well ignore the hard range limit in favor of a more cinematic-style range system.
I rarely find that exact measurements are necessary, or even desirable. "Range is 25 feet, but he's 30 feet away. There's no chance it'll hit him?" And if you're going to let the character do it, you might as well ignore the hard range limit in favor of a more cinematic-style range system.
Well, PF1's system gives you both. You can use the standardized spell ranges like I recommended, ~or~ use them as exact ranges on the battlemap if you want. We do both. Like, um, if our wizard is up to mischief, trying to charm someone across the room in the tavern. Charm Person is "Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)". So that would be okay for a 'room sized' area.
You could also classify weapons into that system too, although Paizo hasn't done so as of yet. Most ammo-using weapons are like um, Medium range (bows, crossbows), and the thrown ones are like close range (daggers, javelins). They should prolly tag all the weapons with that sort of range tag too.
Having ~only~ cinematic-style ranges would be limiting, though.