|
|
Post by billchamb on Apr 19, 2005 7:44:49 GMT -5
I'm asking for help with clarity. The table on the bottom of p. 38, PHB makes adjustments to AC based on range. If I'm understanding it properly, the adjustment is to my "To Hit" roll vs. AC?
ex. short composite bow vs. AC2 = -3 (short range) Do I adjust my ATK roll by -3 or is the defender's AC adjusted to AC5 because of short range?
Additionally, are -2 medium range and -5 long range in addition to the figure in the table or in place of?
ex. short composite bow vs. AC2
Is the adjustment now -5, -1 or -2 (medium) -8, +3 or -5 (long)?
Am I making it harder than it should be? Sorry if the above is confusing...
I asked this some time ago elsewhere, got one response that even after re-reading it doesn't help me, so I bring it before you folks. Am I just really that dense?
|
|
|
|
Post by PapersAndPaychecks on Apr 19, 2005 7:53:52 GMT -5
I'm always a bit cautious about answering these; the right person to give you a definitive answer is probably Foster. I'm asking for help with clarity. The table on the bottom of p. 38, PHB makes adjustments to AC based on range. If I'm understanding it properly, the adjustment is to my "To Hit" roll vs. AC? ex. short composite bow vs. AC2 = -3 (short range) Do I adjust my ATK roll by -3 or is the defender's AC adjusted to AC5 because of short range? The former, I believe. Additionally, are -2 medium range and -5 long range in addition to the figure in the table or in place of? In addition to, I believe. Am I just really that dense? No, I don't think so; it's pretty complicated stuff!  Personally I follow Gygax in this: I simply ignore weapon -v- AC type, and merely apply the 0/-2/-5 short/medium/long range penalty to the "To Hit" roll. |
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Apr 19, 2005 11:31:11 GMT -5
I actually got out of the "definitive answers" game once people at DF started questioning my motives, but since P&P mentioned me by name I suppose I'll make an exception for this  . The weapon vs. AC adjustment for missile weapons works the same way as it does for melee weapons (add or subtract adjustment from attacker's To Hit roll*), and the range adjustment is cumulative with it, so in your example the total adjustment for a composite short bow vs. AC 2 at medium range would be (-3) (for comp. short bow vs. AC 2) + (-2) (for medium range) = -5; subtract 5 from the attack roll. At long range the total adjustment would be (-3) + (-5) (for long range) = -8 -- good luck scoring a hit with that! ;D *Remember that Dex and magic adjustments to AC are not counted, only the 'armor type' or 'base AC' of the target -- so a thief with leather armor +2 and Dex 17 (-3 AC adj.) is AC 3, but attacks against him are still adjusted using the column for AC 8 (the 'base AC' for leather armor). |
|
|
|
Post by northrundicandus on Apr 19, 2005 11:50:02 GMT -5
I don't have my DMG handy, but isn't there a section on attack adjustments that state that certain bonuses and penalities should adjust an opponent's AC, rather than the d20 roll? Basically trying to leverage the multiple 20's on the attack charts?
|
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Apr 19, 2005 12:12:12 GMT -5
Yeah, I believe the DMG actually suggests applying ALL attack adjustments to the target's AC rather than the attacker's To Hit roll, because of the repeating 20s on the table, but I don't like doing that because it puts more of the calculation burden on the DM, who's got enough other things to worry about -- if the player's adjusting his own attack roll he just tells the DM his final adjusted total, whereas if the DM is adjusting target AC he has to know all of the attacker's adjustments (or at least have the player say: "I rolled a 14 and have a +3 total adjustment," which is still more complicated than: "I rolled a 17").
The only time it's going to make a difference (AFAIK) is when the player rolls a 20 and has a net negative adjustment, and in that situation I suppose it would behoove the player to say "I rolled a 20, and have a net -8" instead of "I rolled a 12," but that's a pretty rare circumstance so I don't mind making it an exception to the general rule...
|
|
|
|
Post by billchamb on Apr 19, 2005 12:14:17 GMT -5
I actually got out of the "definitive answers" game once people at DF started questioning my motives, but since P&P mentioned me by name I suppose I'll make an exception for this . Foster, I appreciate you coming out of retirement for my sake. I'm pretty sure I get it now. I don't know why it seemed so convoluted the last time I looked at it. Thanks for the help. Bill |
|
.