TheRPGSite

One item I have struggled with while developing ZWEIHÄNDER (http://grimandperilous.com) 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 (http://warhammerfantasyroleplay.com), 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 (http://explorebeneathandbeyond.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-archery.html), 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 (http://explorebeneathandbeyond.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-effect-of-low-ceilings-on-missile.html).

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 (http://explorebeneathandbeyond.blogspot.com/2015/08/on-archery-ii-longbows.html) 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 (http://explorebeneathandbeyond.blogspot.com/2015/08/mass-targets.html), 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.

Game ranges are laughable, but designers have to choose something that works to simulate whatever they are trying to achieve in their game. It comes down to this - do you want weapons to hit regularly at long ranges or not?

I remember reading about Ammo to Kill ratios being discussed for Vietnam and other wars and I was shocked to hear how many bullets were fired and bombs dropped to kill a target. Long range combat apparently sucks in real life, even with modern weapons.

But do you want long range attacks to be "roll a 20"???

When you look at ammo:kill ratios, you need to remember suppression. Nobody fires dozens of rounds on full auto because they want to hit a dude dozens of times. You do it so the dude ducks behind cover and stops trying to shoot back (so it's safer for your friends to make a move).

You're right on the suppressive fire.

But the numbers from the Civil War, and even pre-Industrial wars, show that the battlefield saw more wounds than deaths even after flurries of ranged weapons. Most death came from disease and wound complications.

In RPGs, nobody wants to wait a week for the orc to die from sepsis.

Quote from: Spinachcat;853448Game ranges are laughable, but designers have to choose something that works to simulate whatever they are trying to achieve in their game.

The laughable range is the range of an Axe in AD&D - only 30 foot indoors. I don't think Gary thought long and hard about what he was trying to simulate here, he just went with the first rule that seemed OK and then everyone else has kept with it.

Quote from: Spinachcat;853448It comes down to this - do you want weapons to hit regularly at long ranges or not?

My party was attacked by a Roc last night - I liked the fact that it came in so fast they only had one shot at long range (which was never going to hit) and then one at point blank. In contrast someone charging at them they'd get several shots at lessening ranges going from impossible to almost certain.
So it works very well in play and adds to the fiction.

Quote from: Spinachcat;853448But do you want long range attacks to be "roll a 20"???

That's one reason why I use an open dice system, it still makes the shot tricky, but is not roll 20 for every tricky shot.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;853498The laughable range is the range of an Axe in AD&D - only 30 foot indoors.

Is it though? Tomahawk throwing competitions seem to use ranges of 30' or less.
   IKTHOF (http://ikthof.com/rules.html) uses 3m, 4m, 6m, 7m, and 9m.
AKTA (http://www.akta-usa.com/docs/rules.htm) uses 13, 15, 21, or 30 feet.

Looking for longer distances I watched this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQoOg74bnFw) of a long distance tomahawk competition. The throws were in the 60-65 foot range, so about twice as far as the maximum distance in the other competition. It's a little hard to tell from the video, but it looks to me like the top of the throwing arc is above 10' high. And at that range, the throwers seem to hit only about half the time.

Do you have some data on distances from other sources?

I played a LOT of Traveller back in the day, so abstract range bands make perfect sense to me. They are relative to the target not absolute spatial positioning.  Thus it is quite possible for two characters who are standing side by side attacking the same target to be at different range band locations.

My players don't usually care to turn things into a tactical game of measuring ranges and movement, so abstract range bands work for us.

I do play miniature war-games, and for those I measure ranges and expect shooting modifiers to have something to do with actual measured range.

In RPGs in theory weapons etc have distinctly measurable ranges, in practice we play with abstract range bands.

Quote from: Bren;853501Do you have some data on distances from other sources?

This international competition (http://www.knifethrowing.info/thrower-meeting_world_championship_callac_2014_results_ergebnisse.html#results) had the winning axe throw at 89.7ft. If you throw something in a parabolic arc at the speed that gives a range of 90ft but a max height of 10ft, you can throw it 75ft. If you want it thrown from a height of 6ft that reduces the range to 66ft. If you want it to hit at least 3 foot from the floor that'd reduce it to 60ft.
When the ceiling's 20 foot high there'd be no reduction.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;853546This international competition (http://www.knifethrowing.info/thrower-meeting_world_championship_callac_2014_results_ergebnisse.html#results) had the winning axe throw at 89.7ft. If you throw something in a parabolic arc at the speed that gives a range of 90ft but a max height of 10ft, you can throw it 75ft. If you want it thrown from a height of 6ft that reduces the range to 66ft. If you want it to hit at least 3 foot from the floor that'd reduce it to 60ft.
When the ceiling's 20 foot high there'd be no reduction.

How do you know that the thrower can throw hard enough to go 90 feet with only a max height of 10 feet?

That's the question. Watching the video it's not clear that the height is only 10ft. And if people are throwing for distance I would expect the angle of incidence to be close to 45-degrees which gives a height considerably more than 10'.

Quote from: Bren;853582How do you know that the thrower can throw hard enough to go 90 feet with only a max height of 10 feet?

Do you mean 60 feet as that's the range I was suggesting?

Quote from: Bren;853582Watching the video it's not clear that the height is only 10ft. And if people are throwing for distance I would expect the angle of incidence to be close to 45-degrees which gives a height considerably more than 10'.

You're correct that although it's hard to tell, they do appear to be throwing high into the air. So why is this?

If you threw at 45 degrees to get max range and threw it hard enough to get it 90 feet, it'd go 27 foot in the air (21 foot higher then when you threw it).

But if you can throw hard enough to throw it 90 feet, but you're aiming lower to only throw 60 feet, then it will be quite a lot below 45 degrees - in fact only 18 degrees, and it wouldn't go over 10 foot above the ground.

If you can only throw an axe 60 foot, then it would also go high into the air (21ft), but with a 10 foot ceiling restriction you could still throw it at 21 degrees and get it 50 foot.

So it's that last small bit of extra range that requires it to be lobbed high into the air.

Interestingly note that most of the times they miss they're actually throwing over the top of the target!

My combat almost always features detailed maps and counters, so abstract rules that don't take into account the detailed physical situation are incomplete to me.

I like the detailed ranges in GURPS. If anything, it demonstrates how high skill + good equipment counter the effects of ranges. IRL - you need training, a solid scope, and a good rifle to hit something 1000 yards away. GURPS does a good job of emulating that IMHO.

There are supplements in GURPS however (Action and Monster Hunters) that suggest using simplified range bands to facilitate faster, cinematic play. There are advantages like Gun Slinger that allow for more cinematic shots by shooters. So even within this one system, there are several ways you can pick and choose to customize how you want ranged attacks to work. Based on preferences of course.

With that, I think it depends more on what you are trying to emulate. It is the game you are writing. Often, designer/author preferences make their way into their games. It only makes sense. You're not creating "the blah blah blah game to end all games", you're creating the "game I would play and I think you'll like it too" game. You're looking for like-minded gamers.

GURPS tried to be a generic system that could be tailored to any play-style, genre, settings, etc. It hardly is thought of that way these days. Instead I believe people look at it like "damn, this is the way I would run an RPG" or "holy formulas Bat Man! This is NOT how I would run an RPG" and then gravitate towards whatever rule-set tickles their fancy. In the beginning I believed there was this unicorn game system that "did it right". I now realize that unicorns are best invoked in the world-of-make-believe and left out of any real-life pursuit of "perfection". :-)

How detailed vs. abstract are the rest of the game's mechanics?

I think you should model combat with that same approach. Make the game you want to play and those who appreciate your enthusiasm and approach will join you.

Quote from: trechriron;855080With that, I think it depends more on what you are trying to emulate. It is the game you are writing. Often, designer/author preferences make their way into their games. It only makes sense. You're not creating "the blah blah blah game to end all games", you're creating the "game I would play and I think you'll like it too" game. You're looking for like-minded gamers.

Make the game you want to play and those who appreciate your enthusiasm and approach will join you.

100% agree. Far too many games have been written with "other people" in mind.

Quote from: trechriron;855080I like the detailed ranges in GURPS. If anything, it demonstrates how high skill + good equipment counter the effects of ranges. IRL - you need training, a solid scope, and a good rifle to hit something 1000 yards away. GURPS does a good job of emulating that IMHO.

I've just been working on how elevation affects range, how does GURPS model that? (Or any other games for that matter, but I've not seen any games mention it).

My rule is to add the height difference onto the range, it also affects the damage (see link below for proper explanation).

Quote from: JoeNuttall;855356...

I've just been working on how elevation affects range, how does GURPS model that? (Or any other games for that matter, but I've not seen any games mention it).

My rule is to add the height difference onto the range, it also affects the damage (see link below for proper explanation).

In GURPS range is king. Movement is also factored in (you add range to speed or relative speed to determine range).

When firing downward you subtract one from the distance for every 2 yards of elevation. When firing upwards you add one yard for every yard of elevation of the target.

GURPS also has "1/2D" damage which shows the range that the weapon does 1/2 damage (loss of velocity, air resistance, gravity). It's not precise but is close enough to factor in without requiring formulas in combat. :-)

Most of the lighter games I have played don't take these things into account. It's a matter of how you want to handle these things. I find now that I'm playing GURPS that I'm memorizing this stuff pretty quickly, so it doesn't bog me down.

Quote from: trechriron;855358In GURPS range is king. Movement is also factored in (you add range to speed or relative speed to determine range)

Yes, in some genres speeds would be large enough that that would be relevant.
 

Quote from: trechriron;855358When firing downward you subtract one from the distance for every 2 yards of elevation. When firing upwards you add one yard for every yard of elevation of the target. .

Thanks Trechirion. That's a reasonable approximation. It works for zero elevation, and for something directly overhead, but is a little over restrictive for things in between.
It should be just one yard added/subtracted either way, but that's the range to the target, not the horizontal distance. For example if you have range 110 yards and are aiming at something 50 yards away, 40 yards up then you should have the range reduced by 40 yards to 70 yards, but the distance to the target is approx 70 yards (actually 64) so it is just in range. In GURPS you would have had your horizontal range reduced to 30 yards so it would be out of range.
 

Quote from: trechriron;855358Most of the lighter games I have played don't take these things into account. It's a matter of how you want to handle these things. I find now that I'm playing GURPS that I'm memorizing this stuff pretty quickly, so it doesn't bog me down.

I find that rules that ignore these things make your game a bit too vanilla. If I'm shooting off the battlements I want my range increased, and the reverse for the people shooting up at me, else the battlement becomes irrelevant.

If the game uses maps and minis, I want precise ranges. If the game doesn't use maps and minis, I prefer abstract measurements. In my homebrew modern game, I use "close" (for room to room urban fighting or close quarter ambushes in dense wood/jungle), "medium" (for standard engagements) and "far" (for long range sniping, tanks, heavy MGs and the like).

Quote from: JoeNuttall;855374...
 Thanks Trechirion. That's a reasonable approximation. It works for zero elevation, and for something directly overhead, but is a little over restrictive for things in between.
It should be just one yard added/subtracted either way, but that's the range to the target, not the horizontal distance. For example if you have range 110 yards and are aiming at something 50 yards away, 40 yards up then you should have the range reduced by 40 yards to 70 yards, but the distance to the target is approx 70 yards (actually 64) so it is just in range. In GURPS you would have had your horizontal range reduced to 30 yards so it would be out of range.
...

I don't understand what you wrote in your example. "You have range 110 yards" means that's your max range? "aiming at something 50 yards away, 40 yards up" I would think means it's 40 yards higher elevation than you, and 50 yards horizontally away, but from what you write later, it sounds like you mean the aimer is higher than the target, and I can't make sense of the numbers you later mention, either way.

In GURPS if you're 50 yds horizontal and 40 above your target, effective range is 50-(40/2) = 30 yds. If instead you were below your target, your effective range would be 50+(40/2) = 70 yds.

Quote from: Skarg;856806I don't understand what you wrote in your example. "You have range 110 yards" means that's your max range? "aiming at something 50 yards away, 40 yards up" I would think means it's 40 yards higher elevation than you, and 50 yards horizontally away, but from what you write later, it sounds like you mean the aimer is higher than the target, and I can't make sense of the numbers you later mention, either way.

Sorry for not being clearer. Yes, the example was max range 110 yards, aiming at something 50 yards away, 40 yards higher elevation than you. This reduces your max range by 40 yards, to 70 yards. But you have to measure the actual distance (by Pythagoras) not the horizontal distance, so the target is not actually 50 yards away but 64 yards away, which is just in range.
That bit's all just standard projectile equations.
 

Quote from: Skarg;856806In GURPS if you're 50 yds horizontal and 40 above your target, effective range is 50-(40/2) = 30 yds. If instead you were below your target, your effective range would be 50+(40/2) = 70 yds.

Looking at it again – the second part (my interpretation of GURPS) was wrong, but isn't yours as well? According to Trechriron (if I read it correctly) wouldn't GURPS make the range to the target 50+40=90 yards?

Oh whoops, yes the GURPS rule is subtract half the vertical distance when the firer is above the target, but add the full vertical distance when the firer is below the target.

However, GURPS never invokes the Pythagoerean theorem to determine the actual distance for max range purposes. You just use the effective range given by the add dV or subtract 1/2 dV, for max range purposes too. Of course it's a quick/easy rule that gives fairly good results but is designed to be mainly easy and give the right kinds of results without being to complicated.

Quote from: Skarg;856991However, GURPS never invokes the Pythagoerean theorem to determine the actual distance for max range purposes.

No-one would use pythagoras at the gaming table, but you can get a reasonable approximation of the distance to the target as long + half short. So 50 yards along, 40 yards up is approx 50+20=70 yards away.
It's useful primarily as that gives you the range penalty.

Quote from: Skarg;856991You just use the effective range given by the add dV or subtract 1/2 dV, for max range purposes too. Of course it's a quick/easy rule that gives fairly good results but is designed to be mainly easy and give the right kinds of results without being to complicated.

If your max range is 100 yards, then in reality you cannot hit anything higher than 50 yards up, and then only if it's directly above you. In GURPS you can hit stuff twice as high as that.

I'd say it's worthwhile making the rule *slightly* more complicated as the result is out by a factor of two, but not much more complicated.

I only asked as I was wondering how GURPS did it in case it had a way of doing it that I preferred to the one I've been using.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857000No-one would use pythagoras at the gaming table, but you can get a reasonable approximation of the distance to the target as long + half short.

I use Pythagoras at the gaming table, even when there's no map.

Eric Solomon's Games Programming has a discussion of linear approximations to square root in two dimensions; some have slightly lower errors but aren't usable for manual computation. Long + half short is certainly much better than D&D's long.

Quote from: rawma;857073I use Pythagoras at the gaming table, even when there's no map.

That should be your signature ;-)

Quote from: rawma;857073Eric Solomon's Games Programming has a discussion of linear approximations to square root in two dimensions; some have slightly lower errors but aren't usable for manual computation. Long + half short is certainly much better than D&D's long.

I meant no-one would be actually calculating square roots. Long + half short is a good approximation and quick enough to be used, but I don't think Pythagoras had 3, 4, 4.5 triangles! Or do you whip the calculator out?

Note that if you'r measuring distance on a grid, Long + Half short is just the good old "diagonals are 1.5" rule. 3 along, 4 up is 3 diagonals and 1 straight, so 3*1.5+1 = 4.5. OR 4 (long) + 1.5 (half short) = 5.5. But I find it easier.

If I was writing a game system, to be frank, I'd include both specific ranges in yards and abstracted. To suit different play-styles. It might be as easy as including a small table next to the Ranged Weapons list that explains the different range "bands".

Good point about max range for projectiles being half vertical. The GURPS approximation is trying to provide a simple mechanic that gives modifiers in the right direction, while doing several things at once, so it won't be a match for every situation. More commonly it's not the max range that's the issue as much as having a range to use for the to-hit modifier, and in that case, one might not want to use double the vertical (or would one?). Also, some weapon's max range isn't limited by gravity (e.g. lasers) so would want an adjusted formula.

Actually, the case which stood out to me as wanting house rules was firing at targets with greater downward vertical distance than horizontal. In that case, while the max range can be zero or even negative, surely the effective range for to-hit purposes would go up with vertical distance down to target.

I'll go unearth my house rules and any advanced/optional public rules too - I need to refresh on this anyway.

As for horizontal grid ranges, I use a measuring tape or ruler to directly read the range, when there's any question (usually the range is small enough that the hex grid is accurate or close enough).

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857123That should be your signature ;-)

I prefer to unleash math with no warning. :D

QuoteI meant no-one would be actually calculating square roots. Long + half short is a good approximation and quick enough to be used, but I don't think Pythagoras had 3, 4, 4.5 triangles! Or do you whip the calculator out?

The numbers are small enough, and you only need the nearest integers, so why would you spoil things with a calculator?

QuoteNote that if you'r measuring distance on a grid, Long + Half short is just the good old "diagonals are 1.5" rule. 3 along, 4 up is 3 diagonals and 1 straight, so 3*1.5+1 = 4.5. OR 4 (long) + 1.5 (half short) = 5.5. But I find it easier.

Apparently D&D designers believed that enough players wouldn't be able to count if they had to include halves, so they used long + 0*short. (Given the painful amount of time for some players to add up three dice of damage, I suppose they might be right.)

But long + 40% of short would be slightly closer still (although lower than the correct value sometimes) and fifths aren't much worse than halves, are they?

Also note that long + half short on a square grid is more accurate in the worst case than counting on a hex grid in its worst case.

Quote from: Skarg;857174Good point about max range for projectiles being half vertical. The GURPS approximation is trying to provide a simple mechanic that gives modifiers in the right direction, while doing several things at once, so it won't be a match for every situation.

Yes, it's doing double duty - the max range and the to-hit penalty. As you then point out, for targets a long way below this fails as it reduces the to-hit penalty (when it should also increase).

The good news is you can just steal my solution (link in my sig) and drop it into GURPS ;-)

Quote from: Skarg;857174Also, some weapon's max range isn't limited by gravity (e.g. lasers) so would want an adjusted formula.

Yes, lasers would have no max range change. Then there's the effect of gun-sights, and then how good they would be against moving targets...

Quote from: Skarg;857174As for horizontal grid ranges, I use a measuring tape or ruler to directly read the range, when there's any question (usually the range is small enough that the hex grid is accurate or close enough).

Actually thinking about it, I always use a ruler, since I don't use grid based movement!

Quote from: rawma;857244I prefer to unleash math with no warning. :D

Your players will be quaking in their boots!

Quote from: JoeNuttall;853498The laughable range is the range of an Axe in AD&D - only 30 foot indoors. I don't think Gary thought long and hard about what he was trying to simulate here, he just went with the first rule that seemed OK and then everyone else has kept with it.

I've seen the whole thread on this, as well as watched that video and a couple others.  Could I point out a couple of things?

Quite aside from Bren's comment about them missing that rather large target half the time, this is about as far from a sound combat simulation as it gets.  These guys are toeing the line, taking their time about throwing -- often several seconds between shots.  No one's "opposing" them.  No one's hacking at them or shooting things back at them, and they're not having to dodge or juke while aiming.  The targets are stationary, and making no defensive moves.  It's pretty quiet all around, and there's no din of battle.  Their footing is about as good as it gets short of a rubberized floor.

And did anyone notice the force of the throws?  Those hits are just BARELY penetrating a soft target, to the depth of just a little more than half an inch.  A fit man could stand there bare chested and not take incapacitating damage, and I figure that any armor stouter than a biker jacket would repel the edge completely.  

These are not remotely valid guides to how an axe-thrower will fare in melee combat.

30' for a hard throw, one that will reliably damage the foe, one that will reliably hit, that's not so bad a WAG.

For my own part, I prefer the original GURPS missile rules, the ones that were superseded in BSIII for the current version.  Missiles have point blank range (where you get +4 to hit), an increment in yards for which every increment is a cumulative -1 to hit, and a "half-damage" range that tends to be (increment x 5).  Failure to take at least a round to aim (called a "snap shot") gives a -4 penalty.

Nice, clean, simple, playable, no math required.

Even if I almost every time I prefer abstract positioning I prefer distances in meters. I find saying "it's about 6 meters from you" or "about 30 meters from you" any more troublesome than saying "it's near" or "it's medium range". On the contrary, I think it helps in having everyone on the same page.

I slightly dislike feets and yards, though.

Quote from: Ravenswing;857435Quite aside from Bren's comment about them missing that rather large target half the time, this is about as far from a sound combat simulation as it gets.  These guys are toeing the line, taking their time about throwing -- often several seconds between shots.  No one's "opposing" them.  No one's hacking at them or shooting things back at them, and they're not having to dodge or juke while aiming.  The targets are stationary, and making no defensive moves.  It's pretty quiet all around, and there's no din of battle.  Their footing is about as good as it gets short of a rubberized floor.

These are not remotely valid guides to how an axe-thrower will fare in melee combat.

I think that's all true but that doesn't affect the range thrown.

Quote from: Ravenswing;85743530' for a hard throw, one that will reliably damage the foe, one that will reliably hit, that's not so bad a WAG.

The max range in AD&D for an axe is 90' outdoors, 30' indoors. For clarity, we were arguing about whether that reduction due to ceiling height is realistic, whereas you're arguing that it should always be 30 feet.
 

Quote from: Ravenswing;857435And did anyone notice the force of the throws?  Those hits are just BARELY penetrating a soft target, to the depth of just a little more than half an inch.  A fit man could stand there bare chested and not take incapacitating damage, and I figure that any armor stouter than a biker jacket would repel the edge completely.

I doubt it! Axes are sufficiently weighty that they won't be slowed down that much by air resistance and they're being thrown pretty hard to go that distance.
I think exactly the same arguments would imply you can't throw javelins very far and they're not very dangerous.
 

Quote from: Ravenswing;857435
For my own part, I prefer the original GURPS missile rules

Nice, clean, simple, playable, no math required.

The maths in the thread is for a different situation (shooting at something with a different elevation).
There was also discussion of working out the range to your opponent – using a ruler or counting squares (with diagonals being 1.5) – which applies to the rules you cite as much as any others.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857456The max range in AD&D for an axe is 90’ outdoors, 30’ indoors. For clarity, we were arguing about whether that reduction due to ceiling height is realistic, whereas you’re arguing that it should always be 30 feet.

I am "arguing" nothing of the sort -- I hope you'll forgive me for insisting that I'm capable of stating what I mean without anyone putting words into my mouth.  What I stated was that a 30' max effective range as a WAG wasn't out of line.  

I did NOT go from there to deconstruct what I think the range realistically ought to be, nor did I address reductions due to ceiling height ... and I'm as capable as anyone else of reading the posts, thanks.  I'd want to actually research it first, rather than give folks whatever number fits my amour propre.
 

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857456I doubt it! Axes are sufficiently weighty that they won’t be slowed down that much by air resistance and they’re being thrown pretty hard to go that distance. I think exactly the same arguments would imply you can’t throw javelins very far and they’re not very dangerous.

Did you watch any of those videos?  Those show actual results, rather than any What-I-Believe-Based-On-No-Real-Evidence malarkey.  I really don't give a good goddamn how hard those axes are being putatively thrown, they are penetrating only very shallowly, and plainly the force very quickly dissipates in the course of throws at such extreme range.  Air resistance obviously matters quite a bit with such an unbalanced, unwieldy weapon, and I expect effective combat range is quite a bit shorter.

A javelin, by contrast, is a well-balanced, perfectly symmetrical airfoil which presents a surface of just a hair more than an inch wide.  You don't have to worry about revolution rate (i.e., how you manage to hit the target with the blade rather than the handle of a thrown hatchet or knife, something that's a good bit harder with variable targets than you might think).  Serious injuries do happen in javelin competitions, which is why most states now ban javelin throws from high school track competitions.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857456The maths in the thread is for a different situation (shooting at something with a different elevation).

Erm.  Something else is what you might prefer to argue about, but the OP didn't say anything about aiming at different elevations.  If you'd like a separate thread devoted to nothing but elevation differences, feel free to start one.

Quote from: Ravenswing;857721Erm.  Something else is what you might prefer to argue about, but the OP didn't say anything about aiming at different elevations.  If you'd like a separate thread devoted to nothing but elevation differences, feel free to start one.

I think at every point we're talking at complete cross purposes here.

So I decided to go look for some videos myself, and found a few interesting ones.

This one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1GQFR0_OFQ), for instance.  Starting at 0:54, it shows bits from two different competitions.  The guy throwing at three targets, and then the folks throwing at five (clips from this one recurs throughout), they're tossing with a fair bit of force, and I'd hate to be on the business end of those tomahawks.  The range throughout doesn't get more than about 20', except at the very end of the video, where a guy's scoring hits at around 25'.

This one  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOfi5etacwI)is an extended (12m) clip of the European Championships.  The first half shows a bunch of people throwing hard and fast (3 hatchets per man), with no arc, and getting good penetration ... at a distance of about 15'.  The second pushes them about 12' further back, and they're getting fair penetration, with needing to line up individual shots a good bit more slowly.  You can see a bit of an arc in the shots, but certainly not enough to make even a low ceiling an issue.

Quote from: Pyromancer;855381If the game uses maps and minis, I want precise ranges. If the game doesn't use maps and minis, I prefer abstract measurements.

My opinion as well.

Quote from: Ravenswing;857726This one  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOfi5etacwI)is an extended (12m) clip of the European Championships.  The first half shows a bunch of people throwing hard and fast (3 hatchets per man), with no arc, and getting good penetration ... at a distance of about 15'.  The second pushes them about 12' further back, and they're getting fair penetration, with needing to line up individual shots a good bit more slowly.  You can see a bit of an arc in the shots, but certainly not enough to make even a low ceiling an issue.

The guy smoking a pipe while throwing....
Hard and fast, too funny:rolleyes:

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857456I doubt it! Axes are sufficiently weighty that they won't be slowed down that much by air resistance and they're being thrown pretty hard to go that distance.

You'd be wrong.  Air resistance is pretty strong, and it DOES slow down even an axe.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;857823You'd be wrong.  Air resistance is pretty strong, and it DOES slow down even an axe.

Can you cite a reference?

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857859Can you cite a reference?

Science.  Namely physics.  There's a reason that bullets have a range, and the average .9mm bullet fires out at 35,000 pounds per square inch of force, which also fires at multiple MACH speeds, but even the best range is about a hundred yards out.  And it's not just gravity that stops a round from keep going.

A throwing axe simply doesn't have the power to keep pushing it through the air.

And if you still can't believe that, I can't help you.  Because this would require a lot of science to explain.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;857861And if you still can't believe that, I can't help you.  Because this would require a lot of science to explain.

I understand the maths of air resistance and have done a lot of simulations of the effect of air resistance on projectiles. Yes, air resistance does have a big effect on bullets and arrows.

Sure.  However air resistance compared to gravity and force used to throw the axe is so minor as to be nil.

Quote from: Sommerjon;857900Sure.  However air resistance compared to gravity and force used to throw the axe is so minor as to be nil.

No it's not. Even at the speed of a thrown weapon, it's quite significant. Air resistance is proportional to speed. Try sticking your hand out the window of a car moving at 50-60 mph, to get a feel.

Quote from: Skarg;857994No it's not. Even at the speed of a thrown weapon, it's quite significant. Air resistance is proportional to speed. Try sticking your hand out the window of a car moving at 50-60 mph, to get a feel.

No it's not.

Quote from: Skarg;857994Air resistance is proportional to speed.

Point of order:  Drag is proportional to velocity squared.  Double the speed and you get quadruple the air resistance.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857862I understand the maths of air resistance and have done a lot of simulations of the effect of air resistance on projectiles. Yes, air resistance does have a big effect on bullets and arrows.

... but you imply that you don't think it does on AXES?

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857456Axes are sufficiently weighty that they won't be slowed down that much by air.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;857823You'd be wrong.  Air resistance is pretty strong, and it DOES slow down even an axe.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857859Can you cite a reference?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;857861Science.  Namely physics.  There's a reason that bullets have a range, and the average .9mm bullet fires out at 35,000 pounds per square inch of force, which also fires at multiple MACH speeds, but even the best range is about a hundred yards out.  And it's not just gravity that stops a round from keep going.
A throwing axe simply doesn't have the power to keep pushing it through the air.
And if you still can't believe that, I can't help you.  Because this would require a lot of science to explain.

Using the formulas for drag we consider a 9mm bullet with Drag Coefficient (Cd) = 0.295, mass 7.5g, mass density air (Rho) = 1.2, initial velocity 1250fps = 381m/s. The initial drag is thus Fd = Rho*u*u*A*Cd/2 = 1.2*381*381*0.0045*0.0045*PI*0.295/2 = 1.634N. Thus initial deceleration is 1.634/0.0075 = 218 m/s/s, which is extremely large compared to the velocity.

In contrast a Francisca axe weighs approx 600g, is thrown at 15.5m/s (for max range about 80ft). The drag coefficient has to be estimated: when it's vertical is like a cylinder so Cd=1, the shaft about 45cm long, 2cm wide, so its area = 0.02m*0.45m, this would give initial drag Fd = 1.2*15.5*15.5*0.02*0.45*1/2 = 1.30 N. When it is end on the drag coefficient would be as a flat surface so 2, the area a triangle 3cm wide and 15cm long so approx 0.03*0.15/2. So Fd = 1.3*15.5*15.5*0.03*0.15/2*2/2=0.70N. So the average when spinning in flight would initially be approx 1.00N. Thus initial deceleration is only approx 1.00/0.6 = 1.66m/s/s, much smaller proportionally than with the bullet – about 20% as much.

You can't easily calculate how much velocity is lost over 80ft, but a projectile simulation shows it to be around 10%.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE mathematics for calculating distances. However, one factor these discussions rarely take under account is how distances and accuracy work while under duress of combat.

Keep the discussion ongoing! This is very helpful for development of ZWEIHÄNDER Grim & Perilous RPG (http://warhammerfantasyroleplay.com).

Relevant article:
http://www.knifethrowing.info/physics_of_knife_throwing.html

1.66 m/s/s
---------------    !=    nil
9.8 m/s/s

This is why I love GURPS. Solid enough to FEEL right, but without the complexity to make in unplayable. IHMO.

All this reality debate however is one of the reasons I don't have much to add on the GURPS forums...  :-)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;857861Science.  Namely physics.  There's a reason that bullets have a range, and the average .9mm bullet fires out at 35,000 pounds per square inch of force, which also fires at multiple MACH speeds, but even the best range is about a hundred yards out.  And it's not just gravity that stops a round from keep going.

A throwing axe simply doesn't have the power to keep pushing it through the air.

And if you still can't believe that, I can't help you.  Because this would require a lot of science to explain.

A 9mm chamber pressure is 35,000psi.  Standard 115 pill is going to go about 1200 feet per second, or almost 820 mph and have about 400 pounds of energy at the muzzle.

Quote from: RunningLaser;858073A 9mm chamber pressure is 35,000psi.  Standard 115 pill is going to go about 1200 feet per second, or almost 820 mph and have about 400 pounds of energy at the muzzle.

I knew a bit of my info was off.  Thanks.

Oh as per the title, I've done some thinking and I realized that if I'm using a battle mat, I want abstract, how many inches/cm, squares, hexes can I hit, whereas in a RPG without a map, I want exact ranges.

Not entirely sure why.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;858246Oh as per the title, I've done some thinking and I realized that if I'm using a battle mat, I want abstract, how many inches/cm, squares, hexes can I hit, whereas in a RPG without a map, I want exact ranges.

I would call both of those exact, concrete ranges, assuming that an inch/cm/square/hex on the map represents a consistent distance.  The battlemap ranges may be measured in real-world distance units rather than in-game distance units, but they're still specific numbers/distances and are probably equivalent to specific in-game numbers/distances.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;858246Not entirely sure why.

You want the measurements to be presented in the form which is most readily usable in the context where you'll be applying the measurement.  Makes perfect sense.

For me, distinct distances are important.  Entire campaigns can hinge on factors like range penalties, and having a hard and fast rule in place can preempt SOOO many arguments at the game table.

precise ranges for me.

the interesting issue to me is the actual statistics and how they get assigned.  for example, i've noticed that slings routinely get lousy ranges, whereas according to everything i understand about them, they are superior to archaic bow technology.  the reason bows were used was that slings required much more training and you could pack archers together in a much smaller area.  all kinds of examples of weapons that i think are usually misrepresented in terms of range stats.

also, the definition of a range depends on what you're talking about.  "extreme" range...do you means how far a projectile can travel or do you mean the farthest distance that a character can effectively hit someone at because they are two different things and this type of thing applies at all range categories with all weapons.  the stats often do not take this into consideration.  short range really is pretty short if you're talking about practical ability to use a weapon reliably when adrenaline hits the blood.

Yeah, I'm on the page with Torque and Ghost. Also for realism and detail in general, I like them because they allow actually gaming the situation we are saying exists in the game world. If the game system doesn't interact with the detail of the game in a consistent way, then I find the game system to be letting down the game world.

If supposedly we're at a castle with towers and battlements and there's a map and we know their size and height and layout, and it's at night during a storm, but then in play we're just all at "moderate range" and there are no adjustments for where we're standing, who can see whom, for cover, for height advantage, for lighting or wind or differences between weapons in different circumstances, and so we just have to roll dice against the same numbers we would have if we'd met in an open field at "moderate range", then effectively none of the description has any effect unless the GM tries to make up effects, which a GM playing that sort of system often won't, or will do so inconsistently, or in ways they players either can't interact with, or that require them to interact with the GM in metagaming or social ways, say by convincing the GM or getting his attention before other players or before he makes a choice, etc. As a wargamer and RPG player, I'm disappointed by anything that I'm asked to believe exists in a fictional setting, yet that seems to have no effect, especially when I know it would have some effect, from having played detailed game systems.

My ranges for thrown melee weapons are 10/20/30, because I said so.

Quote from: RPGPundit;859479My ranges for thrown melee weapons are 10/20/30, because I said so.

My throwing axe hits the right horn* of your GM Viking hat, knocking the hat from your head. :p


* Unusually for faux Viking head gear, your Viking hat only has one horn, the left horn having been lost in some earlier battle.

I prefer distinct. As someone else pointed out, you can always ignore distinct distances and go abstract easily. In my experience there will always be a situation where a distinct distance is required during play. best to have that at hand than have to write the rules on the fly. But than I am of the mind that it is better to have a rule and not need it than need a rule and not have it.