Weapon Size: Scaling Weapon Range Increments

Ristamar · Jan 31, 2002

Has there been any charts or tables released explaining how to scale range increments for thrown/missile weapons in relation to their size? It obviously does change in some regard, judging by the oversized missile weapons certain creatures have in the MM (with improved ranges), but I have not been able to locate any specific details on the matter.

Crothian · Jan 31, 2002

That's a good point. And no, nothing like that has been made. Someone will have to go through the MM and see if there is some patern to the scaling ranges or if WOTC just used whatever sounded good.

dcollins · Jan 31, 2002

Actually, I've tried to do that and there really isn't any reasonable pattern. (Ex.: giant stone-throwing is totally off the map by a factor of x12 to x18, and yet storm giant huge mighty composite longbows only have increased range of x1.6.)

hong · Feb 1, 2002

Instead of changing the range increment, I'd change the _number_ of increments that the weapon can fire to. Big creatures already get a big bonus to their BAB, by virtue of having lots of HD. This has the side-benefit of making them more accurate at range than they would be otherwise. Having longer range increments as well would be effectively double-dipping.

Ristamar · Feb 1, 2002

hong said:
Instead of changing the range increment, I'd change the _number_ of increments that the weapon can fire to. Big creatures already get a big bonus to their BAB, by virtue of having lots of HD. This has the side-benefit of making them more accurate at range than they would be otherwise. Having longer range increments as well would be effectively double-dipping.

They're supposed to have a large BAB, as they naturally hit easier and throw farther. And don't forget that Large+ sized creature already receive a penalty to hit due to their size. On top of that, hitting targets at the these 'extra' incriments due to the range penalty could often become EXTREMELY difficult, making them somewhat useless.

Of course, there's also the fact that I'd like to stick to the way the core books are handling it (even if they're not explaining HOW they're handling it).

hong · Feb 2, 2002

Ristamar said:
They're supposed to have a large BAB, as they naturally hit easier and throw farther. And don't forget that Large+ sized creature already receive a penalty to hit due to their size.

Check out the stone giant: 14 HD, for a BAB of +10. It gets a whole -1 penalty for its size. Or the cloud giant: 17 HD, BAB +12, and -2 size penalty.

On top of that, hitting targets at the these 'extra' incriments due to the range penalty could often become EXTREMELY difficult, making them somewhat useless.

That's a problem for the giant, not necessarily anyone else.

CRGreathouse · Feb 2, 2002

hong said:
Instead of changing the range increment, I'd change the _number_ of increments that the weapon can fire to. Big creatures already get a big bonus to their BAB, by virtue of having lots of HD. This has the side-benefit of making them more accurate at range than they would be otherwise. Having longer range increments as well would be effectively double-dipping.

I think I actually agree with you.

Think of it this way: a giant is already accurate at short range. This is well and good, but what about when they are *more* accurate than others at longer ranges?

To put it another way, it takes a good uman archer to be as good a shot as a giant at 10 feet. However, is it really right that the giant is more accurate at 300 feet? Before you answer, consider that the difference of 2-3 increments is more than the difference between two archers, one with Weapon Focus and the other shooting at a target with cover (1/4 or even 1/2!).

Ristamar · Feb 2, 2002

hong said:
Check out the stone giant: 14 HD, for a BAB of +10. It gets a whole -1 penalty for its size. Or the cloud giant: 17 HD, BAB +12, and -2 size penalty.

Considering the DMG suggests a Hill Giant (let alone a Stone Giant) has an ECL of +12 (pg. 22), I don't see what the big deal is. I'm guessing the Stone Giant's ECL would probably be +14. So a "14th level" monster with some mediocre feats and skills has a +10 BAB. *shrug* I certainly don't think it makes their missile attacks overpowering or uncharacteristically accurate, even with improved ranges. They're good at throwing boulders, so that's what they do. It's just a simple advantage to being big, which is factored into the ECL (or CR).

Ristamar · Feb 2, 2002

Also, let's look at the flip side of the coin. Do you want to take away range increments from small-sized PC's? Would halflings only get 3 or 4 increments for thrown weapons and 8 or 9 increments for missile weapons?

CRGreathouse · Feb 2, 2002

Ristamar said:
Also, let's look at the flip side of the coin. Do you want to take away range increments from small-sized PC's? Would halflings only get 3 or 4 increments for thrown weapons and 8 or 9 increments for missile weapons?

What are you suggesting? Should cloud giants and titans have the same increments as Medium-size PCs?