Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6697562" data-attributes="member: 6787650">Visual range vs. weapon rangeI misremembered. Engagement range in Afghanistan averages 300m, not 1 km. Ehrhart recommends changes to weaponry to bring effective range for infantry up to 500m, which he wouldn't do unless there were a good chance of spotting enemies at 500m.Paper: <a href="http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA512331" target="_blank">http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA512331</a>The point I have argued and will continue to advocate is that a 600' range on a longbow really isn't that far, compared to visual range, and that a monster with no capability to engage at long range is critically hampered unless it has stealth or mobility to compensate. E.g. a bulette or purple worm can close to melee range even in open terrain--but a Balor as written cannot, and therefore is restricted w/rt under what conditions it can operate against the PCs. It has to fight defensively, which isn't really how I want Balors to be.Edit: hmmm, come to think of it, one way to deal with this would be realistic or semi-realistic rules for how elevation affects weapon range. E.g. if each foot of elevation change cost 2 feet of weapon range, then a longbow could only shoot a maximum of 200 feet straight up, which seems reasonable. Then Balors could simply dive-bomb you out of the sky, taking only one round of fire in the process. However, it's not clear whether or that same range limit should apply to spells like Eldritch Spear. The idea needs more work.</blockquote>

Verification