Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kigmatzomat" data-source="post: 8832905" data-attributes="member: 9254">Oh, it is totally situational. Ballistic fire is never ammo-efficient as arcing fire is subject to more wind and flight time but it can be effective when coming from a flank or by surprise. An inability to do it at all is a limit on tactics.&nbsp; Even when line of sight exisited, ballistic fire was often done to&nbsp; attack over shields, especially in concert with another unit of archers firing directly at targets. I believe this is how King Harold was injured at the Battle of Hastings. (Also not really modeled in d&amp;d)That same chapter says &quot;When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.&quot;This means the indirect-fire archer suffers&nbsp; disadvantage but also gains advantage, for a net zero penalty. Note this applies to shooting over a wall as well as shooting into fog/dust. That's not how the statistics likely work out in the real world but as D&amp;D has never modeled &quot;panicked rout&quot; well, i consider it a wash.That is because there are no rules in 5e for peasants. In a world of magic, bandits and monsters, what are their abilities? Its all handwavium of &quot;whatever the GM needs&quot;However basic non-automatic firearms use the same firing skills as crossbows, which are simple weapons. I mean, the point that in real life for more than a thousand years they have proven to be the easiest ranged weapon to learn is the very hallmark of what should be a &quot;simple weapon&quot;.I don't use firearms in my games so its all academic to me. I personally assume all peasants are proficient in simple weapons just so the city militia is actually able to be somewhat effective against a horde of invaders using spears, javelins, slings and crossbows.Note:edited repeatedly as the quote tags &amp; I had a fight.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kigmatzomat, post: 8832905, member: 9254"] Oh, it is totally situational. Ballistic fire is never ammo-efficient as arcing fire is subject to more wind and flight time but it can be effective when coming from a flank or by surprise. An inability to do it at all is a limit on tactics. Even when line of sight exisited, ballistic fire was often done to attack over shields, especially in concert with another unit of archers firing directly at targets. I believe this is how King Harold was injured at the Battle of Hastings. (Also not really modeled in d&d) That same chapter says "When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." This means the indirect-fire archer suffers disadvantage but also gains advantage, for a net zero penalty. Note this applies to shooting over a wall as well as shooting into fog/dust. That's not how the statistics likely work out in the real world but as D&D has never modeled "panicked rout" well, i consider it a wash. That is because there are no rules in 5e for peasants. In a world of magic, bandits and monsters, what are their abilities? Its all handwavium of "whatever the GM needs" However basic non-automatic firearms use the same firing skills as crossbows, which are simple weapons. I mean, the point that in real life for more than a thousand years they have proven to be the easiest ranged weapon to learn is the very hallmark of what should be a "simple weapon". I don't use firearms in my games so its all academic to me. I personally assume all peasants are proficient in simple weapons just so the city militia is actually able to be somewhat effective against a horde of invaders using spears, javelins, slings and crossbows. Note:edited repeatedly as the quote tags & I had a fight. [/QUOTE]

Verification