Ranged touch - why no range increment?

[Ridley's Cohort]

I suspect the mechanical difference between rays and arrows is because a magical ray has a hard maximum range and the arrow does not.

For reasons of simplicity and consistency it is undesirable to give an attack mode both a range increment AND a maximum range.

The downside of taking away the max range is some high BAB creatures like, say, dragons can be hitting with rays from over 2 miles away.

Obviously one could have both a range increment and a hard max for ray spells, but that is very fussy compared to how other spells work. The rational for no range increment would be that rays, just like Fireballs and Lightning Bolts, are easy to get into a particular 5' square while still not necessary hitting a particular target therein.

BTW, it also makes perfect sense to require ranged touch and melee touch rolls for all the spells. It would just not be fun to play.

 

[IceBear]

Hmmm, I always thought there was a hard limit to range increments, but it varied on the weapon. If there was a hard limit to the range increments for spells (I was using 5) then you would end up with the same maximum range on melf's acid arrow as with the current spell, but it would be harder to hit someone far away.

Again, I just use it as is, but I could see issues with it.

IceBear

 

[Plane Sailing]

I suspect the mechanical difference between rays and arrows is because a magical ray has a hard maximum range and the arrow does not.

Actually an arrow has a hard maximum range of 10 increments and thrown weapons have a hard maximum range of 5 increments...

I think if I was going to use a house rule I'd just go for something really simple to calculate, like a 100ft increment for all ranged touch spells.

I do like Pielorinho's point about the difference between attacking a small creature near you and an ordinary target a long way away. I'm reminded of a brilliant scene from a UK sitcom called "Father Ted". At one point Ted is explaining something to the idiotic Father Dougal. He is holding up a tiny toy cow. "Now Dougal" he says, "This cow is very small... that cow is far away"

Cheers

 

[Petrosian]

For the same amount of space and complexity it took to say "magic spells that require range touch attacks have no range increment" they could have said "magic spells that require range touch attacks have a range increment of 100'" or any other number you want to have.Their individual spell max range is already defined.

its not more complex to remember the answer to "what is the range increment for range touch spells" when the answer is 100' as opposed to none.

Why did they make the choice for no range increment? Beats me.

It is however a very simple house rule to fix for your campaign.

 

[Steverooo]

Range limits

For reasons of simplicity and consistency it is undesirable to give an attack mode both a range increment AND a maximum range.

Aren't all ranged weapons absolutely limited to 10x their base range (thus, daggers 100', composite longbows 2,100', both at -20 to hit)?

 

[Zhure]

Thrown weapons are 5x range mod.
Greg

 

[Murrdox]

I don't think you'd want to have a flat 100 foot range increment for ranged touch attack spells.

What about spells whose range are only 25' + 10' per level? Weapons don't have one "universal" range increment, they each have their own individually.

So, you'd have to do range increments individually by spell, or do something like divide the maximum range of the spell by 10 to obtain YOUR range increment (this would mean that for all your spells, just like you can cast them farther the more powerful you get, you are also more accurate with them)

For example, take a spell with the range "25' +10' per level", and assume it's being cast by a 10th level wizard. You have a maximum range of 125 feet then, by normal PHB rules. Go ahead and divide that by 10... you end up with a range increment of 12.5 feet? This wouldn't be doable by wizards. You could never hit anything farther than 40 feet or so away from you.

If you did something like give spells a maximum of 3 or 5 range increments, that would seem doable.


However, as I've said before... the rule DOESN'T make sense... it's there for simplicity's sake... I think I'll leave it that way.

 

[Darklone]

Imagine a laser rifle with a continuous shot. You simply have to move the beam over your enemy. The farer away he is, the easier for you to hit since he can't move around you that fast.

I think they thought about rays like this when they said, NO range increment for ranged touch attacks. IMHO it doesn't make sense for shots like flame arrow or melfs acid arrow... but well.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Good points, Murrdox.

I think they purposely did not follow the mechanics for arrows because ranged touch attacks are supposed to usually hit.

A 10th level wizard is likely to have a ranged attack bonus of +7. That is hardly at autohit against even a dumb mook in heavy armor at close range. Start throwing in negative mods for range on top of the already common mods for cover, good Dex bonuses, and protective spells and rays become markedly less valuable.

The ray spells generally have no save on the positive side, but require an attack roll and have a more focussed effect. Compare Otiluke's Freezing Sphere to Cone of Cold.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't think you'd want to have a flat 100 foot range increment for ranged touch attack spells.

What about spells whose range are only 25' + 10' per level? Weapons don't have one "universal" range increment, they each have their own individually.

What about them? They would simply always be within the first range increment. There would be no sense in breaking up spells into range increments based on individual spells - either theoretically or practically. Spell could easily be considered merely another type of "weapon", thus having its own range increment alongside longbow, crossbow and rock. The only distinction worth making would be between rays and energy missiles, and one might argue better range for rays.