Missile ranges

[Professor P]

Where is the missile range table? I could have sworn I saw it in the pre-press version, but can't find it in the post-press version.

[mordrene]

there is a blerb on missle weapons in the reference guide on page 16-17 stats that all misske fire underground is assumed to be at short range at a +2. and, hurled weapons are at medium range at a +1.

[Professor P]

Oct 26, 2012 13:50:19 GMT -6 mordrene said:

there is a blerb on missle weapons in the reference guide on page 16-17 stats that all misske fire underground is assumed to be at short range at a +2. and, hurled weapons are at medium range at a +1.

I saw that, but where is the range of a long bow, crossbow, spear, etc.?

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 26, 2012 14:26:12 GMT -6 Professor P said:

Oct 26, 2012 13:50:19 GMT -6 mordrene said:

there is a blerb on missle weapons in the reference guide on page 16-17 stats that all misske fire underground is assumed to be at short range at a +2. and, hurled weapons are at medium range at a +1.

I saw that, but where is the range of a long bow, crossbow, spear, etc.?

Those are not given in the original or in DD.

This is a least in part because the theoretical maximum range of missiles is irrelevant underground (due to walls and low ceilings), and also irrelevant for accurate individual shooting above ground.

Maximum range is really only meaningful for bodies of missile troops firing in massed battles, which is really beyond the scope of DD. A section at the end of volume 2 recommends several rulesets for massed battles, and these will include maximum missile ranges.

[ravenheart87]

Oct 26, 2012 13:50:19 GMT -6 mordrene said:

there is a blerb on missle weapons in the reference guide on page 16-17 stats that all misske fire underground is assumed to be at short range at a +2. and, hurled weapons are at medium range at a +1.

I found this one, but no guide about what is considered short or long range. Though I never used precise ranges, I'm curious.

[Deleted]

I am out and about at the moment, but when I get home I will post my proposed missile ranges. These are from earlier drafts of the manuscript.

[Zenopus]

If you count Chainmail as part of OD&D, ranges can be found on page 41. These same ranges were then included in the Greyhawk Supplement on page 14, and Holmes on page 20. In each case, the first 1/3 of the range is Short, the second 1/3 is Medium, and the last 1/3 is Long.

Short Bow = 150'
Horse Bow (Short Composite) or Light Crossbow = 180'
Light Crossbow =180'
Longbow = 210'
Composite Bow or Heavy Crossbow = 240'
Holmes adds ranges for thrown weapons.

Here's my draft of a table for Perilous Mazes:



(Holmes notes that these ranges are in feet indoors, yards outdoors)

[Deleted]

Here they are, from an early draft of the Delving Deeper rules set:

Attachments:

[Professor P]

Thanks for the explanation and ideas!

[waysoftheearth]

Chainmail may be considered to be part of OD&D, but one must also remember that Chainmail is not part of the SRD upon which DD is based. Therefore, it could be seen as potentially dubious to include material directly from Chainmail in DD.

The "correct" option would have been to use the missile ranges that appear in the SRD:
see www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons

However, you will note that the SRD treatment of range is quite different to Chainmail (and AD&D), in that weapons are given a "range increment", and a to hit penalty is applied for each range increment the missile must cover.

It seemed best to leave off the SRD version, and leave it open to interpretation -- as did the original.

[waysoftheearth]

FWIW -- I happened upon this discussion about the range at which (modern) hunters can kill deer with (modern) bow and arrow.

The consensus seems to be that 30 to 60 yards is a realistic range for a reliable clean kill shot (whatever that is).

Some veteran archers claim to be able to make 70 yard shots. Some disdain 20 yard shots as unsportsmanlike. Several also observe that distances achieved in the practice range mean nothing in a real hunting scenario.

Not withstanding the difference between their context (reality, modern gear, killing shots, deer) and ours (fantasy, medieval/magical gear, hitting shots, various targets), it seems a reasonable guide as to what might be considered an "effective" missile range (as opposed to the oft quoted maximum missile range).


Note that the modern hunters also discuss arrow speed as being an important factor because as soon as a deer hears the twang of a bowstring it will react and move, making a hit less likely (or less effective). One assumes from this that they are largely concerned with hitting stationary targets.

Hitting moving targets at these same ranges...? That's another thing

[Zenopus]

DD has other OD&D material that doesn't appear in the SRD, for example the Loyalty table on page 5 of Vol 2 is very close to the one on page 14 of Men & Magic. The numbers are tweaked a tiny bit. It seems that the SRD would similarly allow the ranges from Greyhawk, changed a little.

I completely understand not wanting to include the specific ranges because they are not in the LBBs, but it doesn't seem that the SRD itself would preclude using similar numbers. I believe LL uses ranges very similar to these.

[verhaden]

A slight aside:

deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2011/03/basic-d-on-archery.html
deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/08/indoor-missile-ballistics.html

[talysman]

Oct 30, 2012 9:18:57 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

DD has other OD&D material that doesn't appear in the SRD, for example the Loyalty table on page 5 of Vol 2 is very close to the one on page 14 of Men & Magic. The numbers are tweaked a tiny bit. It seems that the SRD would similarly allow the ranges from Greyhawk, changed a little.

I completely understand not wanting to include the specific ranges because they are not in the LBBs, but it doesn't seem that the SRD itself would preclude using similar numbers. I believe LL uses ranges very similar to these.

The SRD table could probably be included, but with the numbers changed to match old-school values. It's all a question of how close the expression of the rules are to the way they are expressed in a non-OGL work that is under copyright. I'm sure waysoftheearth weighed the options and picked what he thought was safer.

When I've been working on my own material, I try to get more or less the same results in a different way, and thus avoid copyright issues. My solution to the problem with bow ranges is to say the range increment is the rough length of the bow in feet, plus 1, x10 feet. I'm here assuming that a longbow is 6 feet tall unstrung and a short bow is 4 feet, and that composite bows are treated as being longer or taller than their actual height and thus longer range than you'd expect. Thrown weapons have an effective "length" of 0, so the formula works for them as well, especially if you assume weapons designed for throwing, like a javelin, get a +1 bonus. For crossbows, multiply weight in pounds by 10 feet to get the short range. This makes a light crossbow a little less effective, if you assume it weighs 4 pounds, but the heavy crossbow will come out right.

[Vile Traveller]

It's very easy to avoid copyright issues where rules are concerned, but if you're not sure, ask some professional advice or delve a little deeper until you're satisfied. Check out how close some non-OGL rules are to each other - RQ, for examples, went through several different publishers and they essentially managed to retain virtually identical systems even without the OGL (MRQ2 vs. RQ6 and RQ3 vs. MRQ1 being prime examples). Certainly the concept of short, medium (or effective) and long range can't be copyrighted, and you could always tweak the numbers - possibly making them more realistic in the process. I'd prefer that approach to using the SRD system with old school numbers, which I think would be further from the spirit of DD.

Agreed it's not really an issue in dungeons (unless you have giant, vaulted Holmesian rooms like me), but range does come into wilderness play.

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 30, 2012 13:48:42 GMT -6 verhaden said:

A slight aside:

deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2011/03/basic-d-on-archery.html
deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/08/indoor-missile-ballistics.html

Great articles!

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 30, 2012 18:41:03 GMT -6 Vile Traveller said:

Check out how close some non-OGL rules are to each other - RQ, for examples, went through several different publishers and they essentially managed to retain virtually identical systems even without the OGL (MRQ2 vs. RQ6 and RQ3 vs. MRQ1 being prime examples).

Somewhat off topic but yes, various editions of RuneQuest were published by Chaosium, Avalon Hill, Issaries, Mongoose Publishing (and others?) over the years. Those publishers would have acquired the rights to publish that product before doing so. That's quite a different thing to publishing an emulation of a product under the OGL.

Had I somehow acquired the rights to OD&D (in my dreams ;D) then I would have substantially more liberties than I do under the OGL.

[Vile Traveller]

Oct 31, 2012 8:16:01 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Somewhat off topic but yes, various editions of RuneQuest were published by Chaosium, Avalon Hill, Issaries, Mongoose Publishing (and others?) over the years. Those publishers would have acquired the rights to publish that product before doing so.

I don't want to drag the thread any further off topic, so just one clarification - they acquired the rights to the RuneQuest name, which is owned by Greg Stafford, but not the rights to the preceding system. Right, I'll let it get back on track!

[Falconer]

If you're playing OD&D and you want missile ranges, you have to resort to Chainmail or Greyhawk.
If you're playing Delving Deeper and you want missile ranges, you have to resort to Chainmail or Greyhawk.

This seems to me 100% consistent with the reasoning behind all other decisions that went into Delving Deeper. When in doubt, emulate the original.

[Deleted]

IMHO, Delta's Book of War is a good stand in for Chainmail, although it's treatment of range is rather terse and more suited for outdoor combat. It's also mentioned in his OED houserule that all weapons have a 30/60/120 feet range indoors, assuming a 10' ceiling. Nice touch I feel.

[Deleted]

(arise from the grave, oh thread ...)

Here is a little something to think upon! In Monsters & Magic, the manticore description gives the range for a crossbow: 18" (Volume II: page 10).

[Deleted]

. . . and the entry for Nixies gives the range for javelins and thrown daggers as 6" (p. 15).

[waysoftheearth]

While it is probably justifiable that missile ranges don't appear explicitly in DD, it is probably also an error of omission that they are not there.

Therefore, it is my aim to add missile ranges to a Reference Rules version 2 (for which there is no timeline as yet, but I'll let you know as soon as I know).

On the off chance that anyone is interested, I'll share an overview of my research/current thinking on the matter...


1. Chainmail brought missile ranges by "troop type" to the war gaming table, which it used to model dense shooting at massed bodies of troops:

(CM p8)

the ground scale is 1":10 yards

Missile Ranges by Troop Type (CM p10)

Heavy Foot 3" (Vikings and Saxons equipped with throwing axes or spears)
Light Foot/Archers/Arquibusiers 15"
Crossbowmen 18"
Longbowmen 21"
Turk Archers 21"
Heavy crossbowmen 24"
Medium horse 15"
Light horse 18" (Javelin armed troops 6", e.g., Spanish c1200)

These ranges are great for massed battles, assuming fair weather and bodies of troops firing at other bodies of troops. I.e., large numbers of missile fired for distance rather than for pin-point accuracy.


2. Chainmail then went on to apply exactly the same missile ranges to individual, man-to-man shooting:

Man-to-Man Missile Fire (CM p25)

Generally speaking, the rules for 1:20 scale apply to man-to-man
missile fire. Ranges for each weapon are divided into thirds for simplicity,
so a 15" range divided into short at 0-5", medium at 5- 10", and long at
10- 15".

Using the massed shooting missile ranges for man-to-man shooting was (IMHO) an unfortunate "error of convenience". These ranges are simply unrealistic for accurate, man-to-man shooting.

However...

3. This issue was conveniently "fixed" in the 3LBBs with the change to the dungeon scale where 1" = 10ft.

U&WA p8

THE MOVE/TURN IN THE UNDERWORLD:
In the underworld all distances are in feet, so wherever distances are given in inches convert them to tens of feet.

(underline added by me for emphasis).

This results in missile ranges that are pretty close to "realistic" for a single man shooting accurately at a man-sized target.

I.e., Olympic archery contests are held at 70m range (70 yards or 210ft), firing at a stationary target 1.2m (4ft) in diameter. This is approximately equivalent to an individual longbow shot at a stationary man sized target.

70m (70 yards) also happens to be roughly the maximum range that experienced modern hunter/archers talk about being about to shoot and kill a deer. Some state they they would only attempt such a shot at ranges up to 50m. Most agree that as soon as a deer hears the bow twang, it's all over, so we can presume they too only fire at stationary targets.

So, man-to-man missile ranges seem to be "about right" according to OD&D's dungeoneering scale.

But what does OD&D say about outdoor missile ranges?


4. The 3LBB's Alternative Combat System is tacit on outdoor missile ranges.

Excepting the invitation to use the Chainmail rules to resolve massed battles (U&WA p25) the 3LBBs don't detail outdoor ranges explicitly.

While it is easy to "assume" that the outdoor missile ranges given in Chainmail (i.e., 1" = 10yards) should apply, the 3LBBs don't state this explicitly.

The only thing that the 3LBBs do say explicitly about outdoor ranges is this:

U&WA p17

Sighting Monsters: Players will see monsters at from 40-240 yards (inches convert to tens of yards for the wilderness) unless the monster has surprised the characters involved.

The parenthetical phrase "(inches convert to tens of yards for the wilderness)" could -- assuming a prior knowledge of Chainmail -- be interpreted as a global statement. But it could equally -- reading the 3LBBs without any knowledge of Chainmail -- be read as applicable specifically to visibility outdoors as compared to in the dungeon.

Of course, we all know that EGG later wrote a passage in AD&D justifying the threefold increase in outdoor missile range rule, so that was presumably what was intended for OD&D, but (rather fortunately IMHO) that is not what was explicitly written in the 3LBBs.

The "omission" of explicit outdoor missile ranges from the 3LBBs is a great boon IMHO. It means that Chainmail's flawed assumption about the range of accurate man-to-man is not carried explicitly into 3LBBs, and therefore (once again, IMHO) that the 3LBBs are better read exactly "as is", without Chainmail's assumption about man-to-man ranges.

The 3LBBs do give us a few examples of missile ranges here and there throughout the text (e.g., throwing axes 3", javelins 6", crossbows 18", and possibly a few others) and also the dungeoneering scale of 1":10ft, which just happens to line up neatly with realistic shooting pin-point shooting ranges.

For my thinking, missile ranges for man-to-man shooting should be as per the underworld scale, indoors and out. This is beautifully simple and as close to "realistic" as any fantasy game need be.

Hence, for man-to-man shooting, a shortbow with 15" range would have up to 50ft (short), 100ft (medium) and 150ft (long) effective range, both indoors and out.

If a referee wanted to allow for theoretical maximum missile ranges outdoors, then he could easily resort to 1" = 10 yards (maximum) range category from Chainmail, GH, and AD&D, or else whatever other maximum range his favoured massed battle rules state.

Whatever the actual range, it should be very difficult to hit a man-sized or moving target at maximum range. Allow, perhaps, only a 1 in 20 chance of hitting.


So, that's where I'm currently at with missile ranges. Your input is welcome of course


edit: fixed typos and grammar

[Vile Traveller]

While I agree that simple conversion to yard would make missiles unrealistically long-ranged, I do like the elegance of the "feet indoors / yards outdoors" system. I think I would work from a realistic outdoor range in yards (for which we have lots of reasonable references now) and then work backwards for indoor range in feet. I think 70' in a dungeon is a pretty respectable range - anyway, unless the place is lit up you won't see them coming until they're almost on op of you.

So I think it's quite easy to live with relatively short indoor ranges, while maintaining that nice feet-in, yards-out system.