No Range Increment for Ranged Touch Attacks?

[Ranger REG]

The rules *ignore* the fact that a target which is further away is a smaller target to hit. Greater realism would be achieved by doing something simple like treating a target as one size smaller for every 30ft of range (or one size smaller every doubling of 30ft of range or whatever floats your boat).

Ranged touch attacks would thus still be subject to "target apparent size" penalty... at 2,400ft even a colossal creature appears like a fine target from the point of view of aiming at it! - but wouldn't have any fall off due to energy/speed of attack.

Well, as long as the target is in line-of-sight of the spellcaster, and within the range of the intended spell, the magic pretty much defies all laws of gravity and physics, unless otherwise noted (such as a certain spell's effect on a physical weapon/ammunition like an arrow).

Then there are some spells that don't require LOS of the target.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Well, as long as the target is in line-of-sight of the spellcaster, and within the range of the intended spell, the magic pretty much defies all laws of gravity and physics, unless otherwise noted (such as a certain spell's effect on a physical weapon/ammunition like an arrow).

Then there are some spells that don't require LOS of the target.

I probably haven't explained my point well enough. Perhaps an example.

The wizard fires melfs acid arrow against a diminutive creature which is arms length away from him (looks about the size of his thumb) and gets -4 to hit. The same wizard fires at a Huge storm giant who is standing 800ft away and looks about the same size as his thumb.

Granted that magic defys gravity, physics etc and zaps instantly to the target - but in both cases the "apparent" size is the same, but he takes -4 against one but not against the other.

Do you see my point? An "apparent size" modifier for range should really be applied alongside the range increment. Arrows would suffer from both, magical ranged attacks only get the "apparent size" modifier.

Cheers

 

[Lawmage]

Actually, no, I don't see your point....Consider, the magic is doing the aiming and the target is doing the avoiding...Our diminutive creature is still rather small, regardless of the range. It needs must take considerabley fewer pains to avoid the incoming attack. The attacker's perception of its size is only marginally relative. On the other hand, with the magic guiding the attack, our hypothetical storm giant is still a rather large target. It needs must take considerably greater pains to avoid that incoming attack than would the diminutive target. In any system where you are accepting the reality of magic and magical attacks, we are ill advised to worry too much about the applicability of real world physics. In short...with a ranged touch attack, the magic is doing most of the work. As such, a penalty for range seems unnecessary. The size adjustments still factor in because they are not so much a measure of how hard it is to hit the target but rather how easy it is for the target to avoid the attack. That might seem an overly fine distinction to some but it is a significant distinction nonetheless. It is for this reason that the AC adjustment and the attack adjustments for size cancel one another out when dealing with creatures of equal size...

 

[Hypersmurf]

The wizard fires melfs acid arrow against a diminutive creature which is arms length away from him (looks about the size of his thumb) and gets -4 to hit.

Well, strictly, he takes no penalty, and the creature gains a +4 Size bonus to AC...

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

I've always thought of it this way:

Bows, crossbows, and modern firearms always require an adjustment due to wind, range, distance, etc.

None of the weapons I've listed travel a straight line, they travel in an arc. The farther the distance, the greater the arc.

I've always thought that magic was 'point of aim, point of impact' (straight line path). It's easier to aim when you that if you point at their chest, you'll hit their chest!!

 

[Ranger REG]

Do you see my point? An "apparent size" modifier for range should really be applied alongside the range increment. Arrows would suffer from both, magical ranged attacks only get the "apparent size" modifier.

Wouldn't said "apparant size" modifier also affect the attack roll of physical ranged weapon as well? I mean, you simply cannot substitute one penalty or modifier for the other if one of them is missing when both could be applicable. Even when employing a bow & arrow, your target would be apparently smaller, too. In this case and by your logic, both range penalty and "apparent size" modifier should apply to the ranged attack roll.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wouldn't said "apparant size" modifier also affect the attack roll of physical ranged weapon as well? I mean, you simply cannot substitute one penalty or modifier for the other if one of them is missing when both could be applicable. Even when employing a bow & arrow, your target would be apparently smaller, too. In this case and by your logic, both range penalty and "apparent size" modifier should apply to the ranged attack roll.

So you're saying he needs to include a sentence like 'Arrows would suffer from both, magical ranged attacks only get the "apparent size" modifier.'?

The man has a point, Plane Sailing. I'd have thought you'd have taken that into account. I'm disappointed.

-Hyp.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Wouldn't said "apparant size" modifier also affect the attack roll of physical ranged weapon as well? I mean, you simply cannot substitute one penalty or modifier for the other if one of them is missing when both could be applicable. Even when employing a bow & arrow, your target would be apparently smaller, too. In this case and by your logic, both range penalty and "apparent size" modifier should apply to the ranged attack roll.

An "apparent size" modifier for range should really be applied alongside the range increment. Arrows would suffer from both, magical ranged attacks only get the "apparent size" modifier.

My emphasis.

Of course "apparent size" would apply to both, which is why I already said it!

 

[Ranger REG]

:\ Well. That sucks.

Oh, heck. Your Campaign, Your Rules.