Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 8168668" data-attributes="member: 6802951">Let's put it this way: Bow hunters using modern compound bows, which are way more accurate than mediaeval weapons generally won't try to take a shot at over 40 yards. And that is against an unarmoured, unaware, and generally stationary target.Yeah. 5e (and pretty much all editions of D&amp;D) don't really model how effective shields are.&nbsp;Yep. I was thinking that he was just managing to hit despite disadvantage on the few occasions he needed to.I'm suggesting that the motions required to cast and target a Shocking Grasp and other melee spells do not expose you quite so much as those required to cast and target a ranged spell. Thus they do not suffer disadvantage to land compared to the ranged spells.. . . I don't think you could have missed the context. It was in the paragraph directly above the one you actually quoted.Uh. There is a distinction in ease of use between &quot;opponent is within the effective range of your weapon&quot; and &quot;weapon is within the effective reach of your opponent.&quot;&nbsp; <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Animals generally go with overbearing and batting or biting at you. They're not attacking your bow like an intelligent opponent would, but think about trying to load and draw a shot while a large dog is yanking you around as it worries at your leg. Stabbing it with an arrow is likely easier despite the issues with attempting that.It is very much harder to shoot a bow in a situation like that than it is to use a spear or sword on them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cap'n Kobold, post: 8168668, member: 6802951"] Let's put it this way: Bow hunters using modern compound bows, which are way more accurate than mediaeval weapons generally won't try to take a shot at over 40 yards. And that is against an unarmoured, unaware, and generally stationary target. Yeah. 5e (and pretty much all editions of D&D) don't really model how effective shields are. Yep. I was thinking that he was just managing to hit despite disadvantage on the few occasions he needed to. I'm suggesting that the motions required to cast and target a Shocking Grasp and other melee spells do not expose you quite so much as those required to cast and target a ranged spell. Thus they do not suffer disadvantage to land compared to the ranged spells. . . . I don't think you could have missed the context. It was in the paragraph directly above the one you actually quoted. Uh. There is a distinction in ease of use between "opponent is within the effective range of your weapon" and "weapon is within the effective reach of your opponent." :) Animals generally go with overbearing and batting or biting at you. They're not attacking your bow like an intelligent opponent would, but think about trying to load and draw a shot while a large dog is yanking you around as it worries at your leg. Stabbing it with an arrow is likely easier despite the issues with attempting that. It is [I]very [/I]much harder to shoot a bow in a situation like that than it is to use a spear or sword on them. [/QUOTE]

Verification