Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kaffis" data-source="post: 2077725" data-attributes="member: 10305">Which is a valid argument, but I find it to be somewhat narrow. The argument is, essentially, that the range itself affords greater damage potential if you use it properly by initiating combat at a good range, while archery suffers in more closed environments.The shortcoming I find in that argument is this: most parties don't operate on a shoot first, ask questions later basis except in dungeons. I know my neutral good character sure as heck shouldn't be opening combat at 200 feet on our random non-animal encounters while travelling along the road. Perhaps this is just indicitive of DM preferences in their random encounters -- we tend to get a lot where our party isn't justified in just opening up on first sight -- my DMs tend to give us stuff where we ought to sidle up cautiously and engage in some roleplay to determine their business (or get jumped on the way). The "range grants extra rounds of damage" argument is probably a lot more useful if your characters tend to be very knowledgeable about monsters, and the bulk of their outdoor encounters fall into the "this race/monster is always x evil" category. That seems like a narrow style of play to base balance decisions on, to me, though.</blockquote>