Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9716077" data-attributes="member: 4937">You definitely could, though 3e's more granular "to hit" mechanism and lack of boundness means it's not as much of a problem, since at maximum range you are dealing with like -18 to hit, a bigger realism problem is probably the relatively high number of hits an unskilled archer would get from that distance (since 20 always hits).  You can however of course squint in most cases by treating this as area attacks from volley fire - if arrows are hitting all around, some are likely to find you.  The real reason though that I don't bother applying disadvantage to damage beyond 5 range increments or something (I run 3e) is that IME the random size of damage dice mostly only matters at low level.  The difference between ~2 average damage and about 3.5 average damage is pretty big, but the difference between 7 average damage or 8.5 damage isn't that big.  In the long run D&D weapon attack damage depends on the bonuses more than the size of the die.</blockquote>