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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 3339560" data-attributes="member: 12460">While I empathize with a desire for realism in your games, the PCs will rarely be using crossbows at such long ranges unless you run a wilderness campaign, so it probably will not come up often enough to be worthwhile. The range increment penalties already increase your average damage by reducing your attack modifier so I would say that is enough of a simulation of the effect. You might want to consider reducing the range increment on crossbows and bows though. They always struck me as a little high.That seems fine, but just be aware that it adds a lot more calculation to the DM's work since you would have to give away the monster's AC for the players to calculate it themselves. Assuming you are fine with almost doubling the amount of math you have to do on the fly as a DM, go with it.Like the first, I think this is an unnecessary complication. I appreciate the desire to bring back weapon speeds into the game, but most people agree it is really not necessary. A minor initiative penalty like you are suggesting will probably not have a significant impact on gameplay or make anyone change their weapon style (which I imagine is your reason for wanting the rule, unless realism is your only goal).In all, I doubt your fixes would drastically alter the game in any way. So you would be fine using them without any other adjustment. They are not anywhere near as drastic as my house rules (see sig). <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I just think some of them are hard on the DM, and these days I'm finding that I prefer to KISS.</blockquote>

Verification