• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D (2024) Why is wotc still aiming for PCs with 10 *real word* feet of range? W/o vision range penalty/limit rules for the GM?

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
Credit where it is due. The ruleset of 'right now' does have has some helpful shutdowns present, even if people seem not to use them (usually for perfectly good reasons). Feats are optional*, meaning that sharpshooter is optional. Half and three-quarters cover are a lot easier for the DM to argue covers most situations than full cover. Especially if you include IRL realistic battlefield features such as 'this is wild plains, once you get off the trail the grass is chest high,' or 'you are amongst deciduous trees, anything after a certain distance is likely to have a branch in the way,' and 'there is a gradual incline here I'm not treating as difficult terrain, but it means you will not have a straight shot to your opponent after X feet.' Likewise, being able to attack out to 600' is a lot less devastating when it's at disadvantage from 150' onwards). Another rule in the books that helps is tracking arrows (and encumbrance in general). Too few gold sinks after a certain point and Bags of Holding risk disrupting this limit, but OTOH it's not exactly a huge blatant-you-can't to suggest that it's inadvisable to store massively multiple sharp objects in a vessel that is destroyed (scattering all contents to the Astral Plane) if pierced or torn (else for what is the much-more-constrained Quiver of Ehlonna designed?).
*I know, try telling that to your players. Putting them (and the multiclass rules) in the PHB instead of the DMG may have killed that option for most groups. Also, lots of DMs don't want to get rid of feats in general, because many are fun.

Think that's me (although I think I had it the other way, with the asterisk clarifying that usually the range would be far less than listed). Either way, it's still my preferred solution to the situation. Put an asterisk on the weapon chart, and a big paragraph in the encounter-designing and combat sections about how actual max bowshot or weapon-throw ranges are longer, but the situationals of un-massed skirmishing opponents and most combats not being on perfectly feature- and topography-less locations make effective combat range (for game-normal encounters) being much lower. Otherwise, if you do just reduce range in the books, we'd just end up with the reverse situation (someone wanting to shoot an arrow across a ravine or at a non-moving scarecrow in an empty flat field or such) complaining about how ridiculously short the ranges are.
I think that asterisk is exactly the reason why the range wordings should empower the GM to be in a position of allowing players to be awesome through fiat rather than forcing the GM to justify why a player's range is getting "nerfed" this time. It comes down to design priorities... Should the rules fail safe in a way that allows the GM to use fiat for fun when ensuring everyone has fun is part of GM'ing -OR- Should they be written with some assumption of a high percentage of GM's being adversarial in ways that need restraining so those rules fail secure in ensuring players can trivially challenge even the faintest use of fiat from a gm trying to pursue that fun for everyone goal.

The cover rules do indeed exist, but you are describing leans more into the omitted concealment rules*. With only the cover half of the toolset they provided it's an incomplete toolset on top of having a fairly high bar to meet & that forces the GM to quickly fall back to fiat. Here are the rules for 5e's lowest form of cover
C o v e r
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide
cover during combat, making a target m ore difficult
to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an
attack or other effect originates on the opposite side
of the cover.

There are three degrees of cover. If a target is behind
multiple sources of cover, only the most protective

degree of cover applies; the degrees aren't added
together. For example, if a target is behind a creature
that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives three-
quarters cover, the target has three-quarters cover.
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and
Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an
obstacle blocks at least half of its body.
The obstacle
might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow
tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an
enemy or a friend.

All of those bold bits (especially the non-additive one) add up to setting a fairly high bar rarely seen by chance with wide enough presence to make it difficult to simply step a bit into clear line of sight to avoid the cover entirely. 3.x had fairly similar rules for cover but included the other half the toolset for the GM that had existed snice at least 2e. Cover works alongside the more quantum concealment that had a much lower bar
CONCEALMENT
Besides cover, another way to avoid attacks is to make it hard for
opponents to know where you are. Concealment encompasses all
circumstances where nothing physically blocks a blow or shot but
where something interferes with an attacker’s accuracy.
Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a chance that
the attacker missed because of the concealment.
Typically, concealment is provided by fog, smoke, a shadowy area,
darkness, tall grass, foliage, or magical effects that make it difficult to
pinpoint a target’s location.
To determine whether your target has concealment from your
ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this
corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or
border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your
target has concealment if his space is entirely within an effect that
grants concealment (such as a cloud of smoke). When making a
melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (for instance,
with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining concealment
from ranged attacks.
In addition, some magical effects (such as the blur and displace-
ment spells) provide concealment against all attacks, regardless of
whether any intervening concealment exists.
Concealment Miss Chance: Concealment gives the subject of a
successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of
the concealment. If the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss
chance percentile roll to avoid being struck. (To expedite play, make
both rolls at the same time). Multiple concealment conditions (such
as a defender in a dog and under the effect of a blur spell) do not
stack.
Concealment and Hide Checks: You can use concealment to
make a Hide check. Without concealment, you usually need cover
to make a Hide check.
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not
line of sight (for instance, if he is in total darkness or invisible, or if
you’re blinded), he is considered to have total concealment from
you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment,
though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A
successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total
concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss
chance for an opponent with concealment).
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent
with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the
opponent occupies.
Ignoring Concealment: Concealment isn’t always effective. For
instance, a shadowy area or darkness doesn’t provide any conceal-
ment against an opponent with darkvision. Remember also that
characters with low-light vision can see clearly for a greater distance
with the same light source than other characters. A torch, for
example, lets an elf see clearly for 40 feet in all directions from the
torch, while a human can see clearly for only 20 feet with the same
There are two types of protection a character can have. The
first is concealment, also called soft cover. A character hiding
behind a clump of bushes is concealed. He can be seen, but
only with difficulty, and it’s no easy task to determine exactly
where he is. The bushes cannot stop an arrow, but they do
make it less likely that the character is hit. Other types of con-
cealment include curtains, tapestries, smoke, fog, and brambles.
The other type of protection is cover, sometimes called,
more precisely, hard cover. It is, as its name implies, something
a character can hide behind that will block a missile. Hard cover
includes stone walls, the corner of a building, tables, doors,
earth embankments, tree trunks, and magical walls of force.
Concealment is the missing & sometimes semiquantum terrain/"battlefield features" low bar that doesn't need to obstruct a straight line drawn or clicked between two points like cover that once applied to the examples you had italicized " 'this is wild plains, once you get off the trail the grass is chest high,' or 'you are amongst deciduous trees, anything after a certain distance is likely to have a branch in the way,' and 'there is a gradual incline here I'm not treating as difficult terrain, but it means you will not have a straight shot to your opponent after X feet."

* The word concealment does not appear to be in phb dmg xge or tcoe. It does appear in VRGtR(pg70), but it's a very different use & talking about how tatyna is hiding from strahd.

@Hriston Yea, they used to be in an actual book in the past too (2e dmg139/140 & I hear 3.0 dmg)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think that asterisk is exactly the reason why the range wordings should empower the GM to be in a position of allowing players to be awesome through fiat rather than forcing the GM to justify why a player's range is getting "nerfed" this time. It comes down to design priorities... Should the rules fail safe in a way that allows the GM to use fiat for fun when ensuring everyone has fun is part of GM'ing -OR- Should they be written with some assumption of a high percentage of GM's being adversarial in ways that need restraining so those rules fail secure in ensuring players can trivially challenge even the faintest use of fiat from a gm trying to pursue that fun for everyone goal.

The cover rules do indeed exist, but you are describing leans more into the omitted concealment rules*. With only the cover half of the toolset they provided it's an incomplete toolset on top of having a fairly high bar to meet & that forces the GM to quickly fall back to fiat. Here are the rules for 5e's lowest form of cover
C o v e r
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide
cover during combat, making a target m ore difficult
to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an
attack or other effect originates on the opposite side
of the cover.

There are three degrees of cover. If a target is behind
multiple sources of cover, only the most protective

degree of cover applies; the degrees aren't added
together. For example, if a target is behind a creature
that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives three-
quarters cover, the target has three-quarters cover.
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and
Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an
obstacle blocks at least half of its body.
The obstacle
might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow
tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an
enemy or a friend.

All of those bold bits (especially the non-additive one) add up to setting a fairly high bar rarely seen by chance with wide enough presence to make it difficult to simply step a bit into clear line of sight to avoid the cover entirely. 3.x had fairly similar rules for cover but included the other half the toolset for the GM that had existed snice at least 2e. Cover works alongside the more quantum concealment that had a much lower bar
Only the most protective cover applies. Which means if the body is entirely blocked they can't be shot at.
 

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth (He/him)
@Hriston Yea, they used to be in an actual book in the past too (2e dmg139/140 & I hear 3.0 dmg)
My point in posting that chart is that the "vision range limit rules for the GM" that you seem to be saying are missing have actually been provided. The idea with encounter distance is that there is no awareness of the encountered creature(s) due to intervening terrain, topography, etc. beyond the given rolled distances which average well under the 600' maximum range for a longbow and the maximum of which (in mountainous terrain) is 400'. Chessex does in fact produce a "Mondomat" size battle mat at 54" x 102" which is more than enough space to accommodate the maximum distance in the unlikely event it is rolled.

As for "vision range penalty rules", I'm not sure why disadvantage on the attack roll beyond normal range isn't sufficient, but maybe you have some other kind of penalty in mind.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Here's a good summary of some key numbers:
I'm going to amend the question to fill in some gaps.


This removes things like target arrows and light draw bows which are more accurate but less effective.

You didn't specify a particular society or type of bow leaving a pretty broad swath of bows and styles to consider. Despite the "middle ages" and "ancient-history" tags, I'm going to consider both historical and modern bows. Modern advances like compound bows (developed in the 1960s), counter weights, bow sights and modern materials are helpful and will serve to push the range up.

I will also assume the person isn't wearing more than normal clothing. If you want to get into penetrating armor with an arrow, that's another question. Most soldiers on a medieval battlefield would be wearing padded or leather armor at most.

I've done everything in metric. As a crib for the Imperialists, 1 meter is about 1 yard.



Getting an upper bound

First, because people have been throwing around answers like 350m and 500m (?!) let's go for an upper bound: Olympic archers are the best we'll ever do. They're the best trained, under perfect conditions, and they're using extremely accurate, but combat ineffective, Olympic bows. These have a fairly light draw, 20kg, and very light, very fast, and very narrow arrows. I'm not saying you'd want to get hit by an Olympic archer, it would hurt a lot, but they'd be ineffective in combat. Point is, this is the best we can possibly do.

An Olympic archer can reliably put an arrow into a 12cm ring at 70m. A man sized target is about 3 times as large. Apparent target size is directly proportional to distance. Ignoring the problems of wind and arrow drop we can put our upper bound at about 200m.



Bow Hunting

Now what can a more average shooter do in combat conditions (noise, smoke, wind, exhaustion, moving target, getting shot at...) and firing lethal arrows. For that let's look at people who already do this bow hunters. Bow hunters have their own competitions called Field Archery and from this we can glean a reasonable expectation of accuracy. Wikipedia claims bow hunters will fire at about 15m, with the maximum being about 40m, but it's based on one graph. A bow hunter wants to make sure they hit on the first try, else they're scare their game, and the game will be moving, even if not very fast, so this is probably the most realistic number.



Field Archery Competitions

We can look at the rules of International Field Archery for their expectations. Certain Field Archery competitions are closer to what you'd experience in combat, in particular "IFAA 3-D Hunting" uses animal sized targets placed at unmarked distances. The archer does not know how far away the target is. The maximum distance a target can be placed is 60 meters. This target is 23cm x 37cm wide approximating a man sized target.

Similarly, in the "Hunter Round", the maximum distance is 70m but firing at a 65cm target, twice the width of a man. Man-sized 35cm targets are fired at from ~30m.

The International Field Archery Association has a "Historical Bows" category which defines them as "based on the accepted design and usage during the period preceding the year 1900". They make no change to the targets for historical bow competition.

The effect of historical vs modern bows can be seen in the 2014 Tournament Results. The best scores with historical bows (AFHB and AMHB, Adult Male/Female Historical Bow) are routinely lower than the worst scores with modern bows. This could reflect the inaccuracy of historical bows, or it could reflect the smaller talent pool of historical bowman.



Conclusion

Based on all this, I can draw these conclusions about a human with a bow hitting a man sized target using a modern bow.

  • The absolute maximum range by the best human with the best equipment is about 200m.
  • A skilled, experienced archer can hit a stationary target reliably at 30 to 60m.
  • The same skilled bowman will prefer 10 to 20m for a moving target.
These are numbers for a modern bow. They should be considered upper bounds for a historical archer who would not have access to modern technology to improve their aim.

Summary: Absolute maximum range under the most perfect of conditions is ~650 feet. An experience hunter type archer (that is good enough for big competitions and much closer to actual "combat conditions") can hit ~200 feet for a stationary target, and ~65 feet on a moving target.

As this is modern bows and not "historic bows", using this numbers already adds a "fantasy edge" to give our fantasy warriors a bit of a boost. So yeah I would argue that giving bows a range of 200 feet under normal circumstances, and then adding in a special rule to triple that for "very special perfect sniper circumstances" would not only be very accurate with real numbers, but also would remove a big part of why combat boards can't handle "long combat distances".
I vaguely remember someone proving the common modern wisdom on medieval longbow firing range wrong, but heck if I can think of how to google for it right now lol

Edit: I’m pretty sure the “flight shooting” records blow 200m out of the water, btw. That’s where we should look for max distance, while target shooting is only really a good metric for the short distance.

I also don’t trust the assumption that the modern Olympic archer is the best possible archer.
 
Last edited:


MarkB

Legend
@tetrasodium Concealment isn't absent from 5e, it's simply known by a different term - Obscured.

Basic Rules said:

Vision and Light​

The most fundamental tasks of adventuring--noticing danger, finding hidden objects, hitting an enemy in combat, and targeting a spell, to name just a few--rely heavily on a character's ability to see. Darkness and other effects that obscure vision can prove a significant hindrance.

A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.

A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.

The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness.

Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.

Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.
 

Hussar

Legend
Again, I'm really not sure why this is actually an issue. The only terrains where it would come up are open water and plains. Every other terrain, it doesn't make much sense to have 600 foot sight lines for combat. You're not going to have 300 unobstructed lines in a forest, or hills, or urban environment, typically. And, even in plains, it's less than likely. If every encounter in the plains started at 600 feet, lions would starve to death.

While this is one of those kinda wonky rules (yeah, being able to shoot accurately at 600 feet with a longbow is pretty unrealistic), it just comes up so rarely that I really don't see why we need to worry about it.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Again, I'm really not sure why this is actually an issue. The only terrains where it would come up are open water and plains. Every other terrain, it doesn't make much sense to have 600 foot sight lines for combat. You're not going to have 300 unobstructed lines in a forest, or hills, or urban environment, typically. And, even in plains, it's less than likely. If every encounter in the plains started at 600 feet, lions would starve to death.

While this is one of those kinda wonky rules (yeah, being able to shoot accurately at 600 feet with a longbow is pretty unrealistic), it just comes up so rarely that I really don't see why we need to worry about it.
I think it's because most people think all fantasy settings look like New Zealand.
newzealand-2.jpg
 



Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top