One item I have struggled with while developing ZWEIHÄNDER was the use of abstract or distinct distances. Whereas one set would be easy to handle on the fly (engaged, close, medium, long) the other relies on a Gamemaster to keep track of precise distances in-game. Although we do make use of combat movement as a factor for chase scenes, I otherwise abstract movement to the point where GM fiat enters play.

Although this isn't necessarily directed towards ZWEIHÄNDER, which do you prefer for your tabletop game?

Precise ranges, abstractions have never worked for me.

With an exact range the GM can declare how many rounds away in running speed the target is, and make an estimate of range on that. Abstractions is a good concept, to make it easier for everyone, but for me personally it's just confusing. I don't know what would reasonably be short/long ranges for a medieval crossbow. Just give me some numbers to lean on.

I hate to be wishy-washy with this, but it entirely depends on what the game is trying to achieve. Precise measurement makes more sense for a tactical game where measurements are overall more important, and abstract measurement makes more sense of a more abstracted game system. Just because they're mutually exclusive does not mean one should be championed, I think.

All that said, I do like abstract range more often than not because my idiot players always stumble over the simple maths of precise distances.

//Panjumanju

I prefer more or less precise ranges. They are much easier for me to conceptualize. A big problem I have with abstract ranges is that one the following problems occurs.

1. For a given weapon close, medium, and long ranges will vary. So a target may be at close range for a crossbow, medium range for a javelin, and long range for a dagger (maybe even out of range). How does our abstract system manage that.

2. If we instead say that daggers only cover close range, javelins close or medium, and crossbows all three ranges that solves the range problem but it introduces the problem that we don't know how far close, medium, and long ranges are. So how do we map a courtyard or building? I don't know how to easily draw using abstract measurements. So why not use the measures I do use directly instead of first translating them into abstracts.

As an added bonus, using actual ranges makes it easier for GMs to add new weapons to the game. Maybe some crafty inventor will discover how to rifle barrels or make smokeless gunpowder. Having ranges in meters means I can more easily adapt existing statistics for known weapons to the setting.

Now in practice, at the table, I tend to eyeball most of the measurements (which looks and feels a lot like abstract ranges) unless the exact range is really important. But it is easier for me to do the former if I can do the latter on occasion and for that I need precise measures.

Distinct distances. Groups wanting to go with a more relaxed method can always ignore them if desired. Other way around the GM would have to pilfer the ranges from another system.

My vote goes for absolute distance, I like to know things in real world terms, even if the actual numbers are very simplified. Anyone who's read my recent blog posts on ranged weapons will know that not only am I quite interested in this, I'm also a tad over analytical on the subject!

I tend to use range bands on a weapon by weapon basis, in actual feet or metres.  A modifier is then assessed based on the range band.  It's an old wargaming approach and it still works.  In some games the modifier might be penalty to a d20 or a change in percentage in a d100 based game or whatever fits the resolution mechanics the referee is using.

Quote from: NathanIW;853225I tend to use range bands on a weapon by weapon basis, in actual feet or metres.  A modifier is then assessed based on the range band.  It's an old wargaming approach and it still works.  In some games the modifier might be penalty to a d20 or a change in percentage in a d100 based game or whatever fits the resolution mechanics the referee is using.

If you mean something like the following:

Short self bow: 25/50/150
Heavy crossbow: 50/100/200

Where each weapon has the same categories: short/medium/long
And where each category is a different number based on type of weapon,
then that is the most common system I've seen and one that seems to work really well.

Distance tied to something other than a descriptive asspull based on narrative importance, please.

Quote from: Bren;853237If you mean something like the following:

Short self bow: 25/50/150
Heavy crossbow: 50/100/200

Where each weapon has the same categories: short/medium/long
And where each category is a different number based on type of weapon,
then that is the most common system I've seen and one that seems to work really well.

Usually it's like that.  I tend to have a point blank and an extreme range as well.

A variant I use every now and again is to have a range and modifier number for each weapon and for each multiple of that number you get a minus whatever to your attack.  Like a flintlock pitol being 20ft/-4 and a musket being 25ft/-2. So if you shoot at someone with a flintlock pistol at over 100ft you'll pretty much need a natural 20 to hit if you don't have any bonus to hit from training or talent.  I don't think those numbers are quite right, but they're just an example.

Quote from: NathanIW;853250Usually it's like that.  I tend to have a point blank and an extreme range as well.

But of course. I was keeping it simple just for the example. I also used CRKrueger's second favorite method for determining the numbers instead of looking up some numbers from an existing rule set.

QuoteA variant I use every now and again is to have a range and modifier number for each weapon and for each multiple of that number you get a minus whatever to your attack.

Honor+Intrigue uses that. With point blank being half the range increment, so in your example, 10' for a flintlock pistol. (Though in H+I the base range increment for a pistol is 10' not 20'.)

It works OK. But I prefer range bands by weapon with the various bands measured in meters/yards/feet. So I just did the calculation for the weapons and wrote that down in a table.

The table is probably faster in play, so I cas totally see why you went that way.

Quote from: Bren;853237If you mean something like the following:

Short self bow: 25/50/150
Heavy crossbow: 50/100/200

Where each weapon has the same categories: short/medium/long
And where each category is a different number based on type of weapon,
then that is the most common system I've seen and one that seems to work really well.

I'm certain it's the most common system purely because it's the one D&D had. It doesn't have much basis in reality though ;-)
Penalties for range should be much much larger than they typically are, and should depend upon the range but not the type of bow.
The simplest vaguely realistic option would be to simply have a max range for each missile weapon and common penalties for range for all weapons on a logarithmic scale (e.g. -1 at 20/40/80ft etc).

On a similar note if we're taking rules from AD&D, then avoid AD&D's weird "ranges are one third when indoors" rule which doesn't hold water.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;853287I'm certain it's the most common system purely because it's the one D&D had. It doesn't have much basis in reality though ;-)

Joe,

Great post. I had a quick look at the blog post and linked post Basic D&D: On Archery. Very interesting. :cool: Looking at reduction of target size is an interesting way of modeling change in accuracy vs. change in distance.

I don't see an argument for why there should not be an accuracy difference for weapon type though. Different weapons have different maximum ranges and different ballistic properties. So a low pull bow will have a shorter max range than a higher pull bow (all else being equal). This will mean that as distance increases the archer with the lighter pull bow will need to choose an angle of flight with a steeper and steeper angle. And the further you have to angle the shot the more difficult the shot would seem to be, regardless of the straight line distance, for several reasons.

• One, the you are not aiming directly at the target, but above, possibly quite a bit above, the target. That would seem to be more difficult, even for the best archers, than a straight shot.

• Two, the area of the target is actually a projection in the plane perpendicular to the angle of incidence which means at say a 30° angle the target is ~ 85% of the target size for a straight shot and a maximum range, a 45° angle, the target is only ~ 70% of the target for a straight shot.

• Three, the distance in flight (and time of flight) increases with increasing angle of incidence which means that external factors like random gusts of wind have longer to affect the flight, which means a higher probability of affecting the flight. This too should add to the difficulty.

For blackpowder weapons (or guns in general) it conventional wisdom (which I believe is supported by results at the range) says that rifled weapons are more accurate than smooth bore at range. While this is probably irrelevant for bows, it would seem like it might make a difference for certain darts or javelins (I know some used tails for stability) and it should certainly matter for muskets.

Thoughts?

I realize you may have discussed these issues elsewhere and I missed it. If so, apologies. I do think the concept is interesting and it makes me a bit more sanguine about the way Honor+Intrigue handles distance penalties in general, but it means I need to rethink the penalties to make them less varied by weapon type and more varied by distance.

Quote from: Bren;853405Joe,
Great post. I had a quick look at the blog post and linked post Basic D&D: On Archery. Very interesting. :cool: Looking at reduction of target size is an interesting way of modeling change in accuracy vs. change in distance.

Thanks Bren :-)
 

Quote from: Bren;853405I don't see an argument for why there should not be an accuracy difference for weapon type though. Different weapons have different maximum ranges and different ballistic properties.

The next post after that is about those issues for longbows - how does the range vary with the size and strength of the archer and bow, and what is the damage reduction due to wind resistance.

Quote from: Bren;853405So a low pull bow will have a shorter max range than a higher pull bow (all else being equal). This will mean that as distance increases the archer with the lighter pull bow will need to choose an angle of flight with a steeper and steeper angle. And the further you have to angle the shot the more difficult the shot would seem to be, regardless of the straight line distance, for several reasons.
One, the you are not aiming directly at the target, but above, possibly quite a bit above, the target. That would seem to be more difficult, even for the best archers, than a straight shot.
 

I considered giving an extra penalty when you're near the max range, especially for bows with estimating the distance and the effects of wind, but for bows the penalty at max range is so bad already it seemed overkill (at max range you can hit an army quite easily, just not individuals). On the other hand for Axes and other short range weapons it's worthwhile reconsidering.
You've made a strong case for an extra -1 penalty for the furthest shots for each weapon.
For example, an Axe with max range 80 would get -1 at ranges between 60 and 80 feet.

Quote from: Bren;853405For blackpowder weapons (or guns in general) it conventional wisdom (which I believe is supported by results at the range) says that rifled weapons are more accurate than smooth bore at range. While this is probably irrelevant for bows, it would seem like it might make a difference for certain darts or javelins (I know some used tails for stability) and it should certainly matter for muskets.

The feathers keep an arrow accurate, but without rifling muskets would definitely need some extra distance penalties, whereas you should  also get an accuracy bonus for being able to sight along a rifle.

Quote from: Bren;853405Thoughts?
I realize you may have discussed these issues elsewhere and I missed it. If so, apologies. I do think the concept is interesting and it makes me a bit more sanguine about the way Honor+Intrigue handles distance penalties in general, but it means I need to rethink the penalties to make them less varied by weapon type and more varied by distance.

I find it fascinating to think through these issues and then derive simple usable rules from them. Thanks for the suggestions.