Should spells/prayers/etc. have short+long ranges?

[Prestidigitalis]

One of the big problems a lot of people seem to have with the recent update to the Magic Missile spell is that the range has been reduced from 20 to 10, removing one if its few unique characteristics.

So it occurred to me -- should ranged, non-weapon attacks (spells, prayers, etc.) have a short and a long range the same way that weapon attacks do? If so, would the -2 attack penalty for long range be appropriate, and should the various existing feats, items, etc. that reduce the penalty for ranged weapons apply to such non-weapon attacks as well?

If the above is not clear, I'm asking if a ranged attack like Cloud of Daggers should be Range 10, but usable to Range 20 with a -2 attack penalty. Obviously, the power that made me think about this in the first place -- Magic Missile -- can no longer be balanced in this way because it has no attack roll.

 

[Kelvor Ravenstar]

I think this is a good idea, and it would put implement users a bit closer to weapon users in terms of ranged attacks.
However, the update to Magic Missile does NOT reduce the range to 10 squares, though I have seen a few people suggest that it should. (I've only checked in the Rules Update pdf, so it might be different in the Character Builder.)

 

[Prestidigitalis]

However, the update to Magic Missile does NOT reduce the range to 10 squares, though I have seen a few people suggest that it should.

Oh, you are right. Teach me to depend on my memory, which is like one of those things with holes in it -- what's that called?

-- Re XP comment: Only as serious as a 48-year-old with memory problems can be.

 

[eamon]

One of the big problems a lot of people seem to have with the recent update to the Magic Missile spell is that the range has been reduced from 20 to 10, removing one if its few unique characteristics.

So it occurred to me -- should ranged, non-weapon attacks (spells, prayers, etc.) have a short and a long range the same way that weapon attacks do? If so, would the -2 attack penalty for long range be appropriate, and should the various existing feats, items, etc. that reduce the penalty for ranged weapons apply to such non-weapon attacks as well?

If the above is not clear, I'm asking if a ranged attack like Cloud of Daggers should be Range 10, but usable to Range 20 with a -2 attack penalty. Obviously, the power that made me think about this in the first place -- Magic Missile -- can no longer be balanced in this way because it has no attack roll.

If you're ever going to deal with long-range combats, you'll need to just house rule some stuff. Adding range increments to spells (even attack-roll-less MM) is almost certainly not problematic - ranged weapons still have a longer range. Heck, compared to 3.5, the ranges are tiny: there, fireball's range started at 120 squares and rose with level. That kind of stuff just doesn't happen very often - though it can be fun for the occasional set-piece.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm glad they don't. It helps keep some measure of differentiation between the two different styles of attacks, and I wouldn't want to see it change.

 

[eamon]

I'm glad they don't. It helps keep some measure of differentiation between the two different styles of attacks, and I wouldn't want to see it change.

I don't think the availability of one range increment is really a meaningful source of differentiation - particularly since it's generally weapons that have longer ranges than spells (not all weapons, obviously, but the common bows&crossbows do).

I do find it odd that the reach of magic extends to just around 50 feet. That's not very far at all; and even "long range" spells such as MM have a range of just 100 feet - again, not particularly much.

Combats at that range tend not to be a great idea. However, the current limited range makes them even less fun; an archer can drop a few arrows, and from 10 squares on the rest can join in.

 

[Zaran]

I think spells should have had longer ranges to begin with. Why should the longbow have so much greater range than a wizard? I would have no issue with spells having a long range increment.

 

[bganon]

Does this come up a lot for people? I realize I probably lean quite a bit toward "dungeon crawl" style of play, but even in my outdoor fights there's usually enough "scenery" that I can count on one hand the number of times an implement caster couldn't get within range 10 during their turn.

Range 5 is a much tighter constraint, but I like having a hard limit for those spells; it adds to the sense that they're risky "close combat" spells. But for me, 90% of the time (and probably 99% of the time after the first round of combat) range 10 effectively means "everything in sight", so a range increment wouldn't really make any difference.

 

[webrunner]

The idea of Prayers and Warlord powers having a long range conjures some weird images:

Cleric: "Oh holy light, pierce my wicked foe!"

Monster: "WHAT!?"

Cleric: "I SAID OH HOLY LIGHT PEIRCE MY WICKED FOE"

Monster: "What did you say? Something about Holly and Wicker?"

Cleric: "Oh for the love of.."

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't think the availability of one range increment is really a meaningful source of differentiation - particularly since it's generally weapons that have longer ranges than spells (not all weapons, obviously, but the common bows&crossbows do).

Not all that meaningful, no. But since I feel that the various types of power sources could use some extra differentiation as it is, in terms of overall effect/play style, I find that even minor differences are better than none.