ranges a bit large?

[Shard O'Glase]

I was looking at the guns in the dmg yesterday just for the heck of it and I noticed the pistol range category was like 100'. Having shot pistols, I was thinking I'd be lucky to hit a barn at 100'(an exageration probably since I never had the desire to shoot at a barn) and I'd certainly be more than -2 to hit. Anyway the same is true for bows, I can shoot fairly well at 30-50 ft, but you put me at the end of the 1st range category of a long bow and I'm happy to hit the hay bail. Ok maybe I'm not proficient in bows etc. but really is it only 10% harder to hit something 100 feet away.

I know this is a silly beef about a simplified game mechanic, but I was bored.

 

[MJEggertson]

I think the range increments are very generous as well. I found shooting a bow quite a bit easier than a pistol. I wouldn't mind seeing all the range increments go down a bit, but pistols should have smaller ranges than bows. Not sure about rifles though, never used one.

In the end though, it doesn't really bother me. I don't play D&D to model reality.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It only really bothers me in things like the following example:

--Big cult leader guy is summoning a god to the world from atop is 5-story tower.

--PC's run up from outside: "How far away is he?"

--Me: Atop a 5-story tower.

--Them: That's only about 50 ft. I take out my bow an peg him.

...it's kinda annoying when it happens, but not much more than that.

 

[kenjib]

I think that you need those long ranges when you consider that an average person can close 120' in a single round.

 

[Henry]

KM - Actually, isn't a story like anywhere from 10 to 15' in length?

However, most of us think of 5 stories as being quite far, but in fact it's not.

Think about this:

- did your priest have partial cover from the building itself?
- did you add a penalty for possible winds?
- A priest on top of a tower may not even be visible to bround level people, unless they are far away. and the farther they are away to catch a glimpse of him, they are farther away from bow-shot range - remember all that basic trigonometry from high school!

 

[Henry]

Having shot pistols, I was thinking I'd be lucky to hit a barn at 100'(an exageration probably since I never had the desire to shoot at a barn) and I'd certainly be more than -2 to hit.

I don't mean this in an insulting way, but are you experienced at it? Could you hit a moving target at, say 50 feet? The level of proficiency may be somewhat different. However, I agree that 100' may be too generous for a pistol - say 60 or 70 feet?

A rifle on the other hand would be about right. Aren't military grade rifles accurate out to about 600 feet?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Re: Re: ranges a bit large?

I don't mean this in an insulting way, but are you experienced at it? Could you hit a moving target at, say 50 feet? The level of proficiency may be somewhat different. However, I agree that 100' may be too generous for a pistol - say 60 or 70 feet?

A rifle on the other hand would be about right. Aren't military grade rifles accurate out to about 600 feet?

Well I'm not an expert, but I've shot pistols a lot. Could I shoot a moving target at 50' depending on the speed it was moving yes I probably could hit a target. But that's a slow aiming process, you put me in any combat situation I'd be lucky to hit a moving target at 20'. And there probably aren't many poeple on the planet who can hit a moving target with any reliability in combat at 50' with a pistol.

And yes rifles are accurate out to very large ranges. But accurate means they pretty much hit where they are pointed, the bullet haven't dropped much so you don't have to compensate very much for the range. But still at 600' without a scope my target is going to be a speck if I'm lining it up with just the normal sights. I'm good with rifles so I could still probably do it consistently.(I mean hit a target, not bullseye things or hit a quiter or whatever things snipers do) But I'd be unfathonably better at 20-50' than at 600 feet, and signifigantly better at 20-50 feet than I would be at even just 100'. At shorter ranges than about 20' I think it fairly tough to track moving targets with a rifle, I have no idea if bows suffer from a similar problem.

 

[buzzard]

pistol ranges

Actually to describe the range increment on a pistol as 100' is probably a bit long. However there is a heck of a lot of variation between pistols. My compact 45 ACP has one heck of a shorter range increment than my .44 magnum. Though I suspect for the purpose of shooting a person, a 50' range increment would be suitable for a (generic)pistol. A decent person with a pistol should be able to hit a paper target at 50'. I mean the whole piece of paper, not the target rings. Once you're good, you can actually get groups at 50'.

Rifles, OTOH, should have a very long range increment. You can easily shoot 6" groups at 100 yards on iron sights with a rifle. I used to plink clay pigeons with an iron sighted rifle at 100 yards (with a rest though).

Buzzard

 

[SableWyvern]

Firing stance has a lot to do with accuracy when using rifles as well.

Note that I'm neither a particularly brilliant nor bad shot.

At 300m lying, with a Steyr AUG I can easily group 300mm on a bad day. At 100m standing, I'll occasionally miss a human sized target.

 

[mythusmage]

I was looking at the guns in the dmg yesterday just for the heck of it and I noticed the pistol range category was like 100'. Having shot pistols, I was thinking I'd be lucky to hit a barn at 100'(an exageration probably since I never had the desire to shoot at a barn) and I'd certainly be more than -2 to hit. Anyway the same is true for bows, I can shoot fairly well at 30-50 ft, but you put me at the end of the 1st range category of a long bow and I'm happy to hit the hay bail. Ok maybe I'm not proficient in bows etc. but really is it only 10% harder to hit something 100 feet away.

I know this is a silly beef about a simplified game mechanic, but I was bored.

When I took archery in college we were started at 40 yards range, or 120 feet. What kept me from getting the bullseye every time was my lack of confidence. Given daily practice that could've been overcome. So 100 feet is resonable for bows.

Pistols are notoriously inaccurate. They're intended for close in work. You want to hit somebody far away, use a rifle. So for pistols and revolvers I suggest a range increment of 40 feet.

As to shooting a guy on top of a 5 story building. Two questions: 1. How tall was the building? 2. How far away from the building was the shooter? Now, consider it as an acute triangle; the building is one side, the ground between shooter and building is the second side, and the distance between shooter and target is the third side. I think the formula is, the square of the hypotenouse (the longest side) is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. So if the building is 50 feet tall, and it's 50 feet from the shooter to the building, then the range from shooter to EHP (evil high priest) is the square root of 5,000. I can't find my calculator, so somebody else will have to figure out what the range is. With a range increment of 40 feet, I suspect the shooter would have a -2 on the shot. At an RI of 100 feet then there would be no penalty.