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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Texicles" data-source="post: 6228549" data-attributes="member: 6694608">Agree that the elves in question should have had more space. The reason for this is that the archer's sight picture must travel many more degrees of arc to maintain the same point of aim on a target 5' away, moving around in a 5' square, than that archer's sight picture would have to travel to maintain the same point of aim on a target of increasing distances away, moving around in a 5' square. Because geometry.Pedantically, I disagree about acceleration. Once an arrow exits the the bow, the only acceleration it experiences is gravity. Though it is worth noting the colloquial "archer's paradox," which refers to a properly spined arrow wobbling in flight to become more stable, and therefor accurate, as opposed to an arrow that remains rigid in flight, which has poor accuracy. Thus, some distance for stabilizing the wobbly flight of a properly tuned arrow benefits accuracy.As far as melee weapons, I can tell you for a fact that facing a blade-wielding attacker is more dangerous at the end of their reach than well within it. Combatives doctrine bears out the fact that you're better off grappling with a guy who has a knife than you are at the end of his arm. Another example is your buddy trying to snap a wet towel on you in the locker room. Move away, get popped, but charge him and he's lost weapon efficacy. A 10' spear is really no different in principle.As for the rules, I got the biggest AoO gripe I had covered when they applied it to moving out of reach only. I abhorred AoOs for moving but staying within reach. Beyond that, I wouldn't be opposed to some mechanical means to help simulate weapons that are "unwieldy" up close, as (hopefully some of my above explanations describe) they are a thing, and not some construct of imagined reality.</blockquote>

Verification