need help on integrating size AC modifier into ranged accuracy

[epicbob]

Basically, Instead of using the weapon's range increment to determine hit chance, I wanted to use a fixed distance and implement the size modifiers instead.

However, if I trust my improvised calculation, A Medium target would be Small at 10 ft, Tiny at 20 ft, Diminutive at 40 ft and Fine at 80 ft.

Is this really how the perceived size at range would turn out in real life? Because you'd need a lot of Hit bonuses + Dex bonuses to even out the -8 to hit from a 100 ft shot.

Heck, you'd have to land a natural 20 just to hurt a guy in Full Plate.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Yes, in real life if you move an object twice as far away, it appears to be half as big across/tall/long.

I think the problem you're seeing is that the range increment modifier isn't attempting to model "apparent size change"-- that's already accounted for in the target's size modifier on the attack roll.

Instead, the range increment penalty is trying to account for some vague notion of "reduced accuracy" (the farther a projectile goes, the more it wobbles or veers off course); and/or "reduced oomph" (a longbow compared to a shortbow is more likely to punch through defenses at a particular range because its arrows are moving faster).

Honestly, I'm not sure how to rig up the sort of system you want. Hopefully someone else has devised something similar to help you!

 

[epicbob]

I was looking for a different accuracy penalty system because I wanted to use the weapon's range increment for a damage penalty. Since, imo, a single arrow will be less dangerous out to 300 meters than at 50 meters even if it does hit.

Of course, a new system should exist to replace the hit penalties. You're confirming that the penalty scaling works.

Now what I'm wondering is how far a target could still be reasonably considered medium. THAT is the key.

Or, the other thing I had in mind was basing it off your wisdom bonus modifier because that stat seems to affect senses-related function and someone with good eyes would definitely have an easier time hitting targets.

 

[Dandu]

This is great news for cleric archers, less good news for melee archers.

 

[Herzog]

If you really want something like this, I suggest taking a look at the size/distance/speed modifiers GURPS uses. It may need some converting, but you could use the size modifiers for that. (since they do have a D&D equivalent)

 

[epicbob]

Do you have a source to recommend for those GURPS rules?

I wouldn't mind checking it out if it's as good as you say.

 

[Greenfield]

Standard archery targets are about as tall as a man's torso, and just as wide (being circular). I'd call them man-sized, for game purposes.

The bull's eye area is slightly larger than your palm.

Since D&D doesn't score accuracy beyond "miss, hit, critical", any score outside the bull's eye but still on the target is counted as a hit.

The range increment is supposed to reflect the idea that a targeting error, in terms of degrees of shift, reflects a larger and larger variance over longer distances. Additionally, since the arrow has more flight time on the longer shot, the target has more time to move.

So if the bull's eye is a critical hit, then it remains a critical hit at just about any range. No shot error for the distance to magnify.

Other stuff starts falling off the edges.

So it isn't the apparent size that adds to the difficulty. It's the actual distance involved.

 

[epicbob]

Then would it make more sense if the target got a different size modifier based on the weapon's range increment instead of a fixed distance scale?

Taking the longbow as an example, past 100 feet is like shooting a small target, past 300 feet is like shooting a tiny target, past 700 is like shooting a diminutive target, etc.

The way I see it, the further you shoot, the more variables you need to take into account. With the current penalty system, it feels (at least to me) like the projectile moves like a curved laser and things like velocity loss and wind don't really exist. It also doesn't really reflect how, after loosing enough energy, a projectile might behave unexpectedly.

I figure the exponential nature of size modifiers applied to a weapon's range increment would better reflect the actual behavior of a projectile.

 

[Greenfield]

So instead of saying that distance equals size, you want to say that size equals distance?

No, the two are separate things, and asking the same question backwards doesn't really change that.

Now remember that I'm talking real world, at the archery range kind of stuff. Realism has very little standing when designing a fantasy game. Believability is far more important, and playability holds the crown, when it comes to importance.

Don't get me wrong, realism is great, when you can afford it, but game rules need to be playable, as a 1st priority, plausible enough to pass muster as priority #2, with realism as an also-ran someplace behind internal consistency.

<edit> <tangent> My regular archery range is closed through the weekend, not just because of the holiday, but because they're filming part of a Dexter episode on location there. </tangent> </edit>

 

[epicbob]

What do you suggest as an alternate penalty system, then?

I understand you're correcting what you perceive as faulty logic but do you have anything to contribute in return?