Alternatives to bows

[Benben]

And if you have trouble letting 4 attack rolls represent 1 attack, think of a high-level fighter with a greatsword. Is he really swinging that thing four times in six seconds? Actually, probably yes. But now think about the high-level fighter who uses a shortsword. Are you telling me he's only swinging that sword at the speed of a greatsword? I'd expect more out of such a legendary warrior.

Yoink. This aligns missile fire with D&D's abstract combat system. One bolt/arrow per target per round also makes better economical sense for enchanted ammunition too.

I assume special effect arrows (fireball, dispelling, disintegrating) can be fired either way?

 

[LokiDR]

This would make crossbows the weapon of choice vs DR, completely change the economics of magic amunition, and go against the abstraction chosen in the rules: one hit per roll. Can you find any other mechanic in D&D that uses multiple to-hit rolls with 1 unified damage roll?

 

[Benben]

I would assume that for purposes of DR you would still handle them as different hits.

And the one hit per roll abstraction doesn't apply to melee weapons at all.

 

[Ferox4]

Alternatives to bows?

How about ribbons?

(Sorry, but I've been holding off for days on this one. Tonight it got the better of me.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

And the one hit per roll abstraction doesn't apply to melee weapons at all.

Yes, it does.

It's not one swing per roll. Any attack roll implies a number of thrusts, parries, lunges, and wild swings. But only one is considered to have a chance to deal damage, represented by the attack roll.

AoOs made more sense in 3E, before they introduced the "no AoOs against an opponent with total concealment" rule in 3.5.

-Hyp.

 

[Staffan]

I thought darts count as ammunition? Hmm... not in the SRD...

Darts in D&D are not the same thing you use in a pub (unless your local pint-distributer is of a weirder kind than most). They're basically smaller javelins, a foot or two long.

 

[RangerWickett]

1. Death by massive damage is a stupid rule, and it takes a bad route to try to make certain things realistically lethal. The massive damage rule is there so that being crushed by a 2-ton weight or falling 200 ft. will kill you, but for situations like suffering a critical hit from a scythe and taking 52 damage, the rule sucks. Instant death effects that ignore characters' hit points disrupt the proper flow of the game. Hit points determine how much longer you'll stay up, so all instant-kill effects should be struck from the game. If you want to make things like falling and crushing lethal, rule that they deal Constitution damage. You can't really dodge a fall.

2. There is a precedent for a single roll representing multiple attacks, with the multishot feat, or with autofire weapons in D20 Modern. In one of those instances, the two arrows have to penetrate DR separately. In the other, the three bullets count as one hit. I admit, my solution isn't factored into the rules as smoothly as I'd like, but the fix is simple. A single shot has multiple rolls for attack and damage, true, but when that arrow hits, the DR slows it down, so every one of the damage rolls is lessened. I don't know. It sounds fine to me.

 

[Johnny Angel]

Why not firearms, as per DMG 3.5 p. 145? Throw on an extra lock and barrel on the pistols for, say, 100 gp extra. Buy a bunch of them, then buy the Firearms feat to shoot them, and the Leadership feat to supply you with a host of lackeys to keep handing you freshly loaded pistols or rifles.

If you have Two Weapon Fighting, you can fire dual pistols as per the rule for hand crossbows in PHB 3.5 p. 115. If you have advanced to the point where you have extra attacks, you can also take the Improved Two Weapon Fighting (PBH 3.5 p. 96) to get the extra attack with the other hand. So, with pistols you're doing four shots per round for 1d10 damage.

 

[LokiDR]

And the one hit per roll abstraction doesn't apply to melee weapons at all.

Really? So what other time do you roll more times than you can possibly hit?

 

[LokiDR]

Yes, it does.

It's not one swing per roll. Any attack roll implies a number of thrusts, parries, lunges, and wild swings. But only one is considered to have a chance to deal damage, represented by the attack roll.

Ah, the voice of reason.

AoOs made more sense in 3E, before they introduced the "no AoOs against an opponent with total concealment" rule in 3.5.

-Hyp.

I remember several conversations we had on that issue before 3.5 came out. As I recall, I supported no AoO vs fully concealed foes. Now, I almost want 3.0 back, since I got used to it.