Range Increments

[Hypersmurf]

I think that you are just being difficult again Hyp

(... hey! What did he mean, "again"?)

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

I believe Hypersmurf is correct that a ranged attack originates for the coner of the attacker's space. I will attempt to explain why based on my understanding of the rules.

The cover rules make reference to having line of effect from the corner of your square to your target when making range attacks. The Line of Effect rules say that your line of effect is from the point of origin of the effect to the target. Thus, I think that this would seem to indicate that your ranged attack's point of origin is at the corner of your space. If the attack's point of origin was in the middle of your space I think the rules would (or should) also use that point for determining line of effect but since they use the corner of your space to determine line of effect I think it resonable to assume that this is also the attack's point of origin.

Here are some relevant rule quotes.

COVER
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It’s like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it’s not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.
A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creatures, or objects to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst’s center point, a cone-shaped burst’s starting point, a cylinder’s circle, or an emanation’s point of origin).

 

[Ranger REG]

You're analyzing too much. Just count the squares between you and the target, including the target's occupying square.

If the distance appears staggered (not exactly straight, not exactly diagonal), take one end of the string (or straightedge) and put it on the center of the attacker's square and the other end of the same string (or straightedge) in the center of the target's occupying square. Pulls string to make it taut and straight, and count the squares the string is occupying (don't count attacker's square but count target's square).

The mention of corner only pertains to whether the target may have cover and/or concealment from the attack. After all, a 5-foot square is pretty large for a medium-sized creature.

If you want to be precise, remove the grids and use measurement rulers.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You're analyzing too much. Just count the squares between you and the target, including the target's occupying square.

If the distance appears staggered (not exactly straight, not exactly diagonal), take one end of the string (or straightedge) and put it on the center of the attacker's square and the other end of the same string (or straightedge) in the center of the target's occupying square.

Why the centre of the attacker's square? That's not the path the weapon is following. It can't be, or the defender would receive a Cover bonus to AC.

If you're going to all the trouble of measuring a piece of string, you may as well measure from the right place...!

-Hyp.

 

[Ranger REG]

It's easier to measure rather than trying to find out the the exact location of the attack's origin, down to the centimeter.

I mean, honestly, do we really need to measure from the tip of the arrowhead or from the nock sitting on the bowstring?

Again, don't think too much. When using squares, the distance will always be in 5-feet increments.

 

[spunky_mutters]

Exactly. You don't need to know it down to the foot, just down to the 5' increment. The 59' example is a red herring, as the last square leading up to 60 will be inclusive of >55' to 60'.

I check from the corner to see if cover is applicable, then measure as if I were moving from the attacker's square into the defender's square. This means that with a 10' constraint, all square 1 or 2 away from the attacker, with the exception of the diagonal corners 2 directly away from the attacker are withing this range increment. You could even use the reach weapon rules as justification rules for making these inclusive, as that is kind of vague. For a 60' range it's clear. If a 60' count can get you into his square, you can attack him at no penalty.

There may be corner cases for this method, but I don't recall running into any.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's easier to measure rather than trying to find out the the exact location of the attack's origin, down to the centimeter.

I mean, honestly, do we really need to measure from the tip of the arrowhead or from the nock sitting on the bowstring?

Again, don't think too much. When using squares, the distance will always be in 5-feet increments.

But the example of the definition of range increments doesn't use a five foot resolution; it uses a one foot resolution.

You don't need to know it down to the foot, just down to the 5' increment. The 59' example is a red herring, as the last square leading up to 60 will be inclusive of >55' to 60'.

No. If you only know the distance in five foot increments, the square is not "55 feet to 60 feet" away; it is 60 feet away, and thus more than 59 feet and into the second increment.

You said yourself - measure as if you were moving to that square. Moving to that square would count as a 60 foot move, not a "somewhere between 55 and 60" foot move.

I maintain - it's not a red herring at all; it makes sense in conjunction with a corner-to-centre reading.

The centre-to-centre reading can result in nonsensical results when cover is taken into account.

-Hyp.

 

[Ranger REG]

But the example of the definition of range increments doesn't use a five foot resolution; it uses a one foot resolution.

It's for those who do not wish to use the 5-foot square battlemaps. Like I said before, if you want to be precise, don't use grids, but use measurement ruler (1/5-inch = 1 feet). Or simply just don't use any map-n-mini at all.

 

[spunky_mutters]

But the example of the definition of range increments doesn't use a five foot resolution; it uses a one foot resolution.




No. If you only know the distance in five foot increments, the square is not "55 feet to 60 feet" away; it is 60 feet away, and thus more than 59 feet and into the second increment.

You said yourself - measure as if you were moving to that square. Moving to that square would count as a 60 foot move, not a "somewhere between 55 and 60" foot move.

I maintain - it's not a red herring at all; it makes sense in conjunction with a corner-to-centre reading.

The centre-to-centre reading can result in nonsensical results when cover is taken into account.

-Hyp.

The square in question requires 60' of movement to enter, but it is the back boundary of the square that is the 60' marker. Any creature within the square will be within range. That is why this method works. You don't need to know which part of the square you are measuring from, and there is no uncertainty.

edit to fix quote tags.

 

[Stormrunner]

Um, guys, the whole idea of "range increments" is an abstract approximation to begin with. That being the case, why can't you accept the abstract approximation of measuring center-to-center? It's quick, easy, and you don't need to engage in long pointless arguments like this one.
During the (abstract, approximate) time unit of a round, a character is assumed to be moving about within his square somewhat, as he attacks, dodges blows, etc. The corner-to-corner ruling for cover/concealment reflects the likelihood that, if you move to the appropriate corner/edge of your square, as your partially-concealed opponent moves about within his square at some point he will move to a part of the square where you have a clear shot at him.
Otherwise, you might as well do away with the grid altogether, measure distances from the position of the weapon on your mini (which will lead to a preference for minis that hold their weapons straight out in front of them rather than, say, overhead), and whip out your programmable calculator to run the physics equations for ballistic flight path and air resistance.

If you want to argue about range increments, how about the discrepancy between weapon increments and Spot/Listen increments? I could whip out my composite longbow and nail a foe 350 feet away with only a -6 to hit - that is, if I could see him due to the -35 on my Spot check.