D&D 5E Feelings on Ranged Damage

[Gonat]

Just an idea.
When a ranged character attack in his turn, simply put all the damage of all attacks and talents, skills, etc.. together and count (and roleplay) the total as if it's the result of a single shot.
Some saved ammunitions do not change the game but you can have a better feeling for the narrative.

Edit: I, too, hate the 'porcupine' effect when trying to kill enemies with ranged weapons.

 

[Warbringer]

But you can't implement instakills from arrows and not from swords, or you won't have any swordsmen left.

Yeah, how unrealworld would that be!

 

[Greg Benage]

Edit: I, too, hate the 'porcupine' effect when trying to kill enemies with ranged weapons.

Boromir approves.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I've always assumed since 1980 that (most) magical armor resizes for the wearer. If it doesn't, wow, that nerfs nonhuman races far worse than the ambiguous rules on magical ammunition nerfs Crossbow Expert in campaigns using random loot drops.

Magic armor resizing wasn't a rule until third edition, and even that was limited by size category. Prior to that, you had the normal rules for getting your armor re-sized, as far as I'm aware.

Yeah, I think it's an easy call. I wouldn't expect a DM to make the call with the objective of denying magical ammunition to the Crossbow Expert in his group, but I accept that your experience may differ. I'd likely play a human with as little equipment dependency as possible in such a game, if I played at all. As a DM, I'd reassess my table rules if I suspected players were limiting their character choices based on the way I handed out loot.

The DM isn't supposed to adjudicate the placement of magical ammo based on who is in the party. The DM is supposed to make a judgement call, based on their honest determination of what makes sense for how the world works. You're not going to find bolts for a hand crossbow on an elven archer, anymore than you would find a magical greataxe on a halfling who can't wield it.

The players should absolutely take into consideration how the world works, when they determine what weapons they want to use! That's the definition of role-playing! If magical hand crossbows are practically unheard of, then that's information that the characters would probably know about. If a player expresses a strong out-of-game preference to play a character with a magic hand crossbow, then the DM has the option to create a setting where that makes sense. Otherwise, in ninety percent of cases - if you're playing in the Forgotten Realms, for example - not easily finding a magical weapon is the price you pay for specializing in something bizarre.

 

[schnee]

I've come to the conclusion that characters that are built around ranged weapons are boring. Being at range will lead to less attacks targeting the character and therefore less suspense. Magic users have a resource management mini-game to balance when choosing which spell. But a bow character doesn't really worry about which arrow to use.

Well, they do though. Here are the rules that create that mini-game.

Half of arrows shot get recovered per combat.
Magic ammunition becomes non-magical after a successful hit.
Consumable items should be tracked.
Encumbrance should be tracked.

Keep those all going, and archers get a lot more careful when and where they use their bows.

The problem is, tracking all that gets tedious, so mechanics like this eventually get hand-waved away. I think it feels a tad to 'groggy' for most of today's players. And, honestly, even back 'in the day', when we hit our 3rd or 4th campaign, we hand-waved it away too.

 

[DaveDash]

We have a level 15 Rogue(Assassin)/Fighter with archery style, sharpshooter, and a +2 Longbow he found in Hoard of the Dragon Queen.

He has about +14 to hit and uses sharpshooter -5 +10 and assassinate to open combat, and does around 60-70 damage on his opening strike. he then follows up with a secondary strike doing around 15-25 damage, for almost a total of 100DPR on the first round.

I've personally houseruled Sharpshooter so that it does not negative cover, as to force ranged characters who utilize it to think a little bit at least before employing the -5+10, and position accordingly.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

Well, they do though. Here are the rules that create that mini-game.

Half of arrows shot get recovered per combat.
Magic ammunition becomes non-magical after a successful hit.
Consumable items should be tracked.
Encumbrance should be tracked.

Keep those all going, and archers get a lot more careful when and where they use their bows.

The problem is, tracking all that gets tedious, so mechanics like this eventually get hand-waved away. I think it feels a tad to 'groggy' for most of today's players. And, honestly, even back 'in the day', when we hit our 3rd or 4th campaign, we hand-waved it away too.

That is indeed tedious. Which is is why I don't consider it a mini-game like spell casters.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Interesting. Is that a house rule? The DMG doesn't appear to differentiate between bolts and arrows, let alone bolts sized for different weapons. As such, there is no method offered for determining whether magical ammunition would be arrows, bolts, or particular-sized bolts. Rarity is determined entirely by the magic bonus of the ammunition.

Looks to me as though magic ammunition shows up in tables B (+1), C (+2), and D (+3). The arrow of slaying shows up on Table E. The description states that it can also be a bolt of slaying, "though arrows are most common." Again, no method suggested to determine this randomly, but the distinction between ammunition types makes the lack of one for "ammunition" conspicuous.

Magical weapons make their first appearance on Table F.

Does the DMG differentiate between armor sized for a halfling and armor sized for a half-orc? The rules shouldn't need to tell us something, for us to know that it's the case. I know that if the elf archer ran out of arrows, and I offered some bolts from my hand crossbow, that probably wouldn't go over too well with anyone at the table.

As for rolling randomly, I guess they just expect the DMG to make a decision at some point. This edition doesn't really go in for sub-tables. If a DM can reasonably be expected to make a judgment call on what type of weapon +1 shows up, after rolling that, then it's equally reasonable for them to make a judgment call for ammunition +1.

Well, they do though. Here are the rules that create that mini-game.

Half of arrows shot get recovered per combat.
Magic ammunition becomes non-magical after a successful hit.
Consumable items should be tracked.
Encumbrance should be tracked.

Keep those all going, and archers get a lot more careful when and where they use their bows.

The problem is, tracking all that gets tedious, so mechanics like this eventually get hand-waved away. I think it feels a tad to 'groggy' for most of today's players. And, honestly, even back 'in the day', when we hit our 3rd or 4th campaign, we hand-waved it away too.

As far as I'm aware there are no rules or tables in the DMG to randomize the exact type of weapon, armor or ammunition. Previous editions has such tables, but not 5th edition.

The most likely reason is not negligence, but to encourage DMs to select the weapons (armor, ammo) that the heroes can and will actually use. If you have a longbow archer, don't hand out +1 crossbow bolts. If you have a greatsword wielder, don't hand out +1 hand axes. And so on.

As for magic ammo on tables B (+1), C (+2), and D (+3) - remember that's for a single piece of ammo. That's one arrow.

Since that's more of a hassle than anything really useful, many DMs hand out ammunition (and magic ammunition) in bundles of 10, 12 or 20. But if you do this with magic ammunition, you should probably move it to "higher" tables. That is, if your heroes find ammo by the dozen or score - you might have magic ammo bundles on tables C and F (+1), G (+2), and H (+3).

At the end of the day, the rules need to work for the campaign where you never track non-magical ammo, and where all arrows are interchangable, all bolts are too, and every hero from small to medium-sized can use any particular magic armor.

If YOU make heavy crossbow bolts somehow different from hand crossbow bolts, that's your call. But it can't be an assumption to base a general discussion on like this one. The game certainly doesn't differentiate between different kinds of bolts - only between bolts and arrows (and sling stones etc).

If cantrip users don't need to track the number of Firebolts they use, and sword users don't need to count their swings, why should archers be forced to count their arrows? This is not a gritty low-fantasy game, this is D&D!

But more importantly, it's such a lousy restriction - it doesn't work on the player who realizes it's just accounting work meant to dissuade him from using the best tactics and builds of the game. Just do what the DM says until he or she realizes the bean-counting doesn't work in preventing you from abusing 5E's very lax stance on ranged combat; until he or she finally realizes rules changes is what is needed to make melee viable again.

 

[Yunru]

And the hand crossbow fighter with Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert deals massive damage with no drawbacks, damage second to none, often more than 80 damage each round, at higher level.

Your nose'll grow and your pants alight. Tut tut.