D&D 5E Shooting at someone above you

[Soul Stigma]

D&D is notoriously 'unrealistic' in how it handles ranged combat in general, e.g. moving and shooting vs taking time to line up a good shot, shooting up or down vs 'flat', 'point blank' shots, etc. But the whole combat system is very abstract.

So keep it simple - you measure distance exactly the same way you do for everything else. Just be sure to account for any Cover e.g. in 3D a ledge is the same as a corner.

This is what I was getting at, but you put it better, lol.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Soul Stigma]

@Soul Stigma,
I don't see cover and range being the same. i.e. I wouldn't add cover to adjust for some sort of "range" thing. Agreed that if the bluff, wall, or something else occludes the target, then apply cover as normal, irregardless of range.

Range, to me, accommodates two things; the distance off target based upon aiming error (i.e. 1 degree aiming error is not a big deal at 10 feet, but it is at 500 feet), and target deviation due to wind, drag, and imperfect aerodynamics, etc.

Does hitting a target high up (higher potential energy/higher in the gravity well) affected by range? Hmm.... thinking about it, I don't think it would affect accuracy, but it definitely would affect maximum range (since max range is dependent upon energy).

So, I guess (since I have now put more thought into this than I ever would while playing), I would use the simplest method for calculating if the target is in normal or long range (though hypotenuse would be most accurate). But, I would probably add horizontal distance plus positive vertical distance for max range. Meaning, a bow with a range of 150/600 feet would be at normal range for anything in 150 feet (true distance) in any direction. But, could only shoot 400 feet horizontal if the target was 200ft above the shooter. Or could shoot 800 feet horizontal if the target was 200ft below the shooter.

Conservation of energy or calculation of a ballistic trajectory I'm sure would prove those guideline wrong. But hey, that's too much worry for realistic physics!

I wouldn't bring any of that into consideration, tbh. I have zero desire to bring action to a halt while I try to apply realistic physics to a fantasy world. My comment on cover has nothing to do with altering difficulty or otherwise penalizing an upward shot - just a reminder that cover may apply, depending on angle.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Harzel]

I try to use at least a rough estimate of actual distance for ranges. But for high angle shots, I would probably reduce weapon ranges - maybe 1/3 reduced above 45 degrees and 1/2 reduced above 60 degrees. Easy enough to calculate, but still probably too fiddly for some folks taste (which is a perfectly reasonable stance).

 

[Rya.Reisender]

If a creature is flying, I just strongly abstract it and just declare "If you are on the ground, assume the creature is x feet away from you, no matter where you stand", everything else is just a lot of work for little benefit.

(Hint: If the creature only has melee attacks, x is usually half its flying speed. If it uses ranged attacks, x is attack range plus half its flying speed.)

If it's an enemy on a cliff, I usually just add cliff height to the range. (Often I'd give disadvantage on attack rolls anyway in these cases.)

 

[S'mon]

It's the diagonal.

If the vertical distance is a lot & you're shooting upwards (long range) I might conceivably impose a reduction in maximum range. Only 3e really had this as a problem though; I may not be keen on PCs shooting arrows 2000' straight up but 200' isn't likely to bother me.

Edit: One thing I do commonly do though is give fast flyers a decent ad hoc AC reflecting the difficulty of
shooting them. Shooting a bat from the sky might be AC 18 or even AC 20, not AC 12. A wyvern is
bigger but has tough hide, maybe AC 16.

 

[Azzy]

This is not true. If you're measuring diagonally on a grid, every other square counts as two, so it would effectively be ~120 feet. Even that is just an approximation, though.

Actually, the default rules (page 192, PHB) count diagonals as 5 ft.

 

[Eltab]

I use 'each diagonal square is 1.5 normal squares'. It's close enough.

I haven't had anybody shooting steeply up, so I never thought about it. When something similar has happened, it's been within Short range anyways, so no escape that way.

Counter-tactic: my 4e Druid had an at-will with a Pull component. I used to drag snipers out of trees and let them fall to the ground.
One time I did it while fighting next to a cliff like the Grand Canyon. The DM was not happy that his big toughie was Removed From Play ... permanently.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

How do you measure range to an elevated target? Do you add the height to the horizontal distance or take the diagonal? As an example, my longbow has an accurate range of 150 feet. Suppose my enemy is 80 feet away and 80 feet above me. If you add the two ranges together, he's outside my accurate range, but he's "really" (for some value of really) about 113 feet away. Or, if the target was 80 feet north and 80 feet west, the rules would let you call the diagonal distance 80 feet.
So there are three perfectly reasonable answers here.

When this situation comes up, I actually add twice the distance up to the horizontal distance--with a longbow, you can shoot a target 600' away from you on flat ground, or 300' straight up.

When firing down, I give you extra range. I forget exactly how much but I think it is equal to twice the distance down, up to a maximum of your normal range. So if you're 300' up, you can fire 1200' out and 300' down with a longbow. (Because you can use a flatter arc.)

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Distance is diagonal with the Pythagorean formula of course, but range is dependent on gravity, too. Shooting up greatly reduces or your range because energy normally used to make the arrow go further has to be used to get the arrow higher. Aiming is a pain too, unless you practice for different elevations, which I can't imagine is common. Conversely arrows shot downward go further and faster, but aiming can still be an issue.

Given all this, I use the same rule as Hemlock, above, except I don't limit altered range to the maximum of normal range. It's not precise, but I feel it's a good estimation of all of the factors operating.

 

[ccs]

I'm just lazy. I'm not going to apply real life math & physics, 3x's diagonal rules, etc to the problem. I could, but it won't add anything to the game. And most often it won't change the result anyways.
So if I tell you a target is x' away from you? Then that's the answer. I don't care if you're shooting horizontally, at some degree, or straight up.