Range Increment for Rays?
Fitz
The book says it's a ranged touch attack, but I can't find an official
range increment for any ranged touch attacks anywhere. I guess it
could be worked out from the maximum range of the ray, but would it be
max range/5 (like hurled weapons) or range/10 (for bows and the like)?
I have no problem with Rule-0ing the matter, but I'd like to know if
there's an official ruling I'm missing before I adjudicate it myself.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fitz
http://mojobob.netnet.net.nz
http://fitz.jsr.com
http://usa.spis.co.nz/fitz
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Geoff Watson
Fitz <pj_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:el1m7uk9dsk44lj7i...@4ax.com...
> What is the range increment for a ray?
>
> The book says it's a ranged touch attack, but I can't find an official
> range increment for any ranged touch attacks anywhere. I guess it
> could be worked out from the maximum range of the ray, but would it be
> max range/5 (like hurled weapons) or range/10 (for bows and the like)?
>
> I have no problem with Rule-0ing the matter, but I'd like to know if
> there's an official ruling I'm missing before I adjudicate it myself.
>
Geoff.
Hunter
>What is the range increment for a ray?
>
>The book says it's a ranged touch attack, but I can't find an official
>range increment for any ranged touch attacks anywhere. I guess it
>could be worked out from the maximum range of the ray, but would it be
>max range/5 (like hurled weapons) or range/10 (for bows and the like)?
>
>I have no problem with Rule-0ing the matter, but I'd like to know if
>there's an official ruling I'm missing before I adjudicate it myself.
>
No range increments. But you do need to worry about firing into melee
and cover.
NeoSadist
Uh, read Player's Handbook for that. It lists it in the back under all the
spells.
Aardy R. DeVarque
>What is the range increment for a ray?
Rays have an absolute range, and the bonus to hit is the exactly same
anywhere within that range. (In effect, they have a range increment of the
spell's range, and the maximum number of increments is 1.) This is because
the oomph for the spell effect's travel across the range is provided
completely by the magic of the spell, which isn't subject to either caster's
Str/Dex or gravity & the physics of ballistics, as all normal missle weapons
are.
--
"Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
--P.B. Shelley, _Ozymandius_
Aardy R. DeVarque
Feudalism: Serf & Turf
rgfd FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/faq/rgfdfaq.html
RPG page: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/rpg/index.html
E. Pluribus Unum
NeoSadist wrote:
> > What is the range increment for a ray?
> Uh, read Player's Handbook for that. It lists it in the back under all the
> spells.
Not that I doubt you, but...what page?
Stephenls
> Uh, read Player's Handbook for that. It lists it in the back under
> all the spells.
Look, everyone! Another completely unhelpful reply from NeoSadist!
--
Stephenls
Geek and High Celebrant of the Primordial Autochthon
And miles to go before I sleep. -Robert Frost
Fitz
<aa...@enteract.NOJUNK.com> wrote:
>Fitz <pj_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>What is the range increment for a ray?
>
>Rays have an absolute range, and the bonus to hit is the exactly same
>anywhere within that range. (In effect, they have a range increment of the
>spell's range, and the maximum number of increments is 1.) This is because
>the oomph for the spell effect's travel across the range is provided
>completely by the magic of the spell, which isn't subject to either caster's
>Str/Dex or gravity & the physics of ballistics, as all normal missle weapons
>are.
OK, so that answers that.
I was under the impression that, being a ranged attack, the caster had
to actually aim it - hence the chance of missing - and that it would
be more difficult to hit a distant target than a near one.
I'm not entirely satisfied with the idea that it should be just as
easy for a wizard to hit someone with a ray at 1000 yards as it would
be at 10 yards. If the effect were self-guided, like magic missile,
that would be one thing. But the fact that it requires an attack roll
at all suggests to me that range penalties should be a factor.
I think I might just have to Change The Rules(tm) again.
Loren Davis
"Fitz" wrote:
> What is the range increment for a ray?
"Rays have varying ranges, which are simple maximums. A ray's attack
roll never suffers a range penalty." (DMG, 80)
JDJarvis
I don' think you have to change the rules. There is not increment
because a Ray has a fixed range, if the spell says it is a 30' ray it
is a 30'ray it doesn't go any further.
Michael Scott Brown
> to actually aim it - hence the chance of missing - and that it would
> be more difficult to hit a distant target than a near one.
When the zapperfoo gets there ~instantly, you don't have to futz with
ballistics and leading (and hell, you could probably sweep the thing while
it's energized) - so even were one to use a range increment, it would be
ludicrously large - much better than that of the best ballistic missile
weapon . . . which essentially takes range penalties out of the running
for practical purposes, as there aren't (IIRC) any Long range rays . .
-Michael
Fitz
wrote:
>Fitz <pj_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<scfm7uoeleoe1c6e9...@4ax.com>...
>> I think I might just have to Change The Rules(tm) again.
>I don' think you have to change the rules. There is not increment
>because a Ray has a fixed range, if the spell says it is a 30' ray it
>is a 30'ray it doesn't go any further.
That's not the issue. The issue is that a far target is harder to hit
than a near target, unless the attack is self-guiding. It's a matter
of perspective effects - things which are far away look smaller than
things which are close up, so at the very least, the target should get
a size-reduction AC bonus.
And besides, a longbow (according to the rules) also has a fixed range
- 10 times its range increment, or 1100 feet.
Brandon Blackmoor
>
> That's not the issue. The issue is that a far target is harder to hit
> than a near target, unless the attack is self-guiding.
What you're missing is that a ray is a ranged TOUCH attack. It has the same
range penalty as any other "touch" attack -- none.
"Ranged touch" may seem to be a contradiction, but hey, it's magic.
--
bblackmoor en blackgate.net
http://www.rpglibrary.org - free games & gaming aids & no banner ads, ever
Fitz
Ballistics isn't the only issue in making a far target harder to hit.
Take a real-world example of a ray attack - a laser. It's not a
ballistic attack, it's (effectively) instantaneous, but it's still
subject to the following factors:
First, the far-away target looks smaller; there's less of it
to aim at, so it's harder to hit.
Second, the teensy hand twitches and vibrations which cause
the point of aim to jump around on the target are magnified enormously
at long range.
My argument is that
IF the attacker has to make an attack roll at all,
THEN the attacker's skill is the predominant factor in whether
or not the attack succeeds,
AND that skill can be circumstantially modified.
Size modifiers (for *actual* size) are already taken into account as
an AC bonus, but modifiers for *perceived* target size appear to have
been ignored. In my opinion, this is a fairly important hole in the
combat system, even considering the amount of glossing-over which is
taken for granted in D&D combat.
Michael Scott Brown
> than a near target, unless the attack is self-guiding. It's a matter
> of perspective effects - things which are far away look smaller than
> things which are close up, so at the very least, the target should get
> a size-reduction AC bonus.
No, Bah, making a hash of what the systems are for, shame on you.
-MIchael
Michael Scott Brown
> First, the far-away target looks smaller; there's less of it
> to aim at, so it's harder to hit.
We're not shooting at kilometer distances with rays. At point blank,
you might hit a body *part* with your aim (IRL), at distance, center of mass
will do.
> Second, the teensy hand twitches and vibrations which cause
> the point of aim to jump around on the target are magnified enormously
> at long range.
We're not aiming a weightless laser pointer with nervous hands.
> IF the attacker has to make an attack roll at all,
> THEN the attacker's skill is the predominant factor in whether
> or not the attack succeeds,
> AND that skill can be circumstantially modified.
But there's no need to for an attack that is *sufficiently easy to
make*, such as a ray that crosses right on over to where it was aimed in but
a moment and thus isn't going to miss save by virtue of its target's
dodging.
> Size modifiers (for *actual* size) are already taken into account as
> an AC bonus, but modifiers for *perceived* target size appear to have
> been ignored.
We're not sniping with a barret from 4 miles back at a 1" diameter
target here. Short ranges, slow projectiles, moving targets. What's the
longest-ranged Ray out there? Given that you know it is better than a
longbow in terms of targeting mojo, how big might the penalty be? I contend
that it won't turn out to be a relevant scale.
-Michael
Fitz
:)
OK then, a range-based attack penalty, which would be
indistinguishable from a corresponding size-based AC bonus EXCEPT that
it would apply to the attacker, not the defender.
Fitz
<mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Fitz" <pj_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> First, the far-away target looks smaller; there's less of it
>> to aim at, so it's harder to hit.
>
> We're not shooting at kilometer distances with rays. At point blank,
>you might hit a body *part* with your aim (IRL), at distance, center of mass
>will do.
Range doesn't have to be extreme for this effect to come into play. I
don't recall the exact ratio, but as far as I can recall perspective
effects cause something like a 50% reduction in target size per 20
metres (maybe even 10 metres; I remember the figure was startlingly
low).
>> Second, the teensy hand twitches and vibrations which cause
>> the point of aim to jump around on the target are magnified enormously
>> at long range.
>
> We're not aiming a weightless laser pointer with nervous hands.
What are we aiming then? If it's a ray zipping out of a mage's finger,
it might as well be a weightless laser pointer. If it's a wand, then
the length of the stick is, if anything, going to amplify the effect.
And who says the mage isn't nervous? I sure as hell would be if I had
a 600 lb monster anywhere near enough to make a ray attack at it :)
>> IF the attacker has to make an attack roll at all,
>> THEN the attacker's skill is the predominant factor in whether
>> or not the attack succeeds,
>> AND that skill can be circumstantially modified.
>
> But there's no need to for an attack that is *sufficiently easy to
>make*, such as a ray that crosses right on over to where it was aimed in but
>a moment and thus isn't going to miss save by virtue of its target's
>dodging.
>
>> Size modifiers (for *actual* size) are already taken into account as
>> an AC bonus, but modifiers for *perceived* target size appear to have
>> been ignored.
>
> We're not sniping with a barret from 4 miles back at a 1" diameter
>target here. Short ranges, slow projectiles, moving targets. What's the
>longest-ranged Ray out there? Given that you know it is better than a
>longbow in terms of targeting mojo, how big might the penalty be? I contend
>that it won't turn out to be a relevant scale.
Michael Scott Brown
> don't recall the exact ratio, but as far as I can recall perspective
> effects cause something like a 50% reduction in target size per 20
> metres (maybe even 10 metres; I remember the figure was startlingly
> low).
But apparent-square-inches of target doesn't conveniently lead to a
greater likelihood of missing in direct proportion; as 3d binocular predator
monster people we're used to the games perspective plays. "Looking" small
because you're far or looking small because you're small but close is
equivalent on one mathematical level, but shooting a bullseye at short range
is a different matter from shooting a very-far-away target that happens to
be the same (apparent) linear dimension as that bullseye. An archer has
reliable techniques to deal with either.
Thus, it seems that the existing range-penalty scheme which
(purportedly) captures the reality of what it's like to shoot long distances
with a given weapon system is well treated by being separate from the
size-based to-hit modifiers or their projected equivalents.
Now, your instinct about rays is an admirable quest for consistency, but
I think you'll find that, presuming one postulates that they've got to be at
least twice as easy as archery (no ballistics!) - at the minimum - then the
possible believable range increments for rays become so absurdly large that
there's no point to 'em in most practice.
> > We're not aiming a weightless laser pointer with nervous hands.
>
> What are we aiming then? If it's a ray zipping out of a mage's finger,
> it might as well be a weightless laser pointer. If it's a wand, then
> the length of the stick is, if anything, going to amplify the effect.
Tsk. The nervous graduate student lecturer's quivers are damped by the
addition of mass (old trick: add roll of quarters!); long stick is also
heavy stick.
Further, I think it's shaky to presume any or all of the following:
(a) the ray is a pinpoint's diameter
(b) "weightless" light or
(c) aimed *physically*.
I'm pretty happy with a gesture, a "go that way" (ie; towards target),
and a "pouring" sensation, for instance.
> And who says the mage isn't nervous? I sure as hell would be if I had
> a 600 lb monster anywhere near enough to make a ray attack at it :)
If he's hanging out with 600 pound monsters, he's a grizzled veteran. :)
-Michael
dvv
Fitz,
I respect your work in your games (love your site), however I think
you're barking up the wrong tree with the ranged touch attack issue.
Most magic is self guided - evil necromancer points at his victim and
says DIE! kind of thing.
The maximum range any spell attack can go to is 400 feet + 40/level I
believe (Long range) unless it has an unlimited range (<-- ignoring
this one). That would make the maximum range 1200 feet ... just like a
longbow, but only at 20th level.
Now, the only "bonuses" a mage will get for his range touch attack are
DEX modifier for ranged attack, and possibly a weapon focus with rays
or energy missiles or what ever is needed.
A mage's BAB is negligible (+3 at 6th level for example). So you're
looking at possibly around a +8 on averge for a Wizard who has
"tanked" on ranged touch attack. Granted the target number for most
creatures is around 10+DEX modifier.
You then factor in cover, friends in melee, and so forth. Not many
mages go and choose precise shot, point blank shot, or any other feats
that an archer would choose. You can also add a size factor for the
extreme distance ... since the object is Tiny at 1200 feet as opposed
to Medium at 30 feet. Size is a factor that affects ranged touch
attacks, just like any other. This kind of factor is subsumed in the
missile weapon incremental -2.
NOTE TO READERS: This is not a RANGE penalty but a SIZE penalty so
don't go arguing "a ray attack doesn't suffer range penalties".
So if the guy is out in the open, the mage has a good chance of
hitting, since magic is self-guiding to an extent. If the guy is in
melee with a friend, that's when things get tricky. The mage points,
the ray shoots off at the melee ... the mage hits ... ooops should
have point 2 inches to the left on that one.
Michael Scott Brown
> extreme distance ... since the object is Tiny at 1200 feet as opposed
> to Medium at 30 feet.
Strange, most kids figure out that an object stays the same size even
though it's far away and looks teensie. The stars must really confuse you!
> Size is a factor that affects ranged touch
> attacks, just like any other. This kind of factor is subsumed in the
> missile weapon incremental -2.
> NOTE TO READERS: This is not a RANGE penalty but a SIZE penalty so
> don't go arguing "a ray attack doesn't suffer range penalties".
A far away gargantuan creature is still gargantuan.
A far away Tiny creature what, counts this penalty twice?
-Michael
Fitz
I think, on reflection, that you're probably right, as far as
playability goes.
And that really burns me up; if there's one thing I can't stand, it's
someone else being right :)
dvv
Hehehehehe ... joking aside, what I meant was that yes it's
gargantuan, but at 1200 feet it may present a "smaller target". Like
shooting with an air rifle. The tin can is harder to hit at a long
distance, it was just a suggestion to put Fitz's ideas into practive
without having to rewrite huge chunks of the rules.
Personally I don't modify anything at all ... I just play it how it
lies.
David
Michael Scott Brown
but
> >I think you'll find that, presuming one postulates that they've got to be
at
> >least twice as easy as archery (no ballistics!) - at the minimum - then
the
> >possible believable range increments for rays become so absurdly large
that
> >there's no point to 'em in most practice.
>
> I think, on reflection, that you're probably right, as far as
> playability goes.
>
> And that really burns me up; if there's one thing I can't stand, it's
> someone else being right :)
A famous curmudgeon once noted: "It is not enough to succeed; others
must fail."
-Michael
Ubiquitous
pj_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>What is the range increment for a ray?
>
>The book says it's a ranged touch attack, but I can't find an official
>range increment for any ranged touch attacks anywhere.
That's because there are none.
*************************************************************************
* Political Correctness strives to impose innocuous mediocrity as the *
* standard to which we must all aspire. *
*************************************************************************