How can I fairly adjudicate the effects of height differences on ranged attacks?How can I create a D&D 4e...

How to get SEEK accessing converted ID via view

How do you center multiple equations that have multiple steps?

Accidentally deleted the "/usr/share" folder

Why are notes ordered like they are on a piano?

I caught several of my students plagiarizing. Could it be my fault as a teacher?

Did we get closer to another plane than we were supposed to, or was the pilot just protecting our delicate sensibilities?

Binary Numbers Magic Trick

Was the ancestor of SCSI, the SASI protocol, nothing more than a draft?

Why is the SNP putting so much emphasis on currency plans?

Disabling Resource Governor in SQL Server

Was Hulk present at this event?

Why debootstrap can only run as root?

Unexpected email from Yorkshire Bank

Applying a function to a nested list

Can fracking help reduce CO2?

How to back up a running Linode server?

Why are there synthetic chemicals in our bodies? Where do they come from?

Can commander tax be proliferated?

Stark VS Thanos

How could a planet have most of its water in the atmosphere?

Can PCs use nonmagical armor and weapons looted from monsters?

Hang 20lb projector screen on Hardieplank

Visa for volunteering in England

How to creep the reader out with what seems like a normal person?



How can I fairly adjudicate the effects of height differences on ranged attacks?


How can I create a D&D 4e Ranger that never misses ranged attacks?How does the feat Ranged Pin work?Improvised Ranged attacks in Melee + Belt of the BrawlerUnderstanding how to perform ranged grapples with barbed arrowsHow do I adjudicate a PC jumping onto another creature from a height?Can blade flourish be used with ranged attacks?Can the College of Swords' Blade Flourish features be used entirely with ranged attacks?Can Sneak Attacks with Rakish Audacity be done with Ranged Attacks?Does the kobold player race feature, Pack Tactics, give ranged attacks advantage?Do ranged attacks with improvised weapons get the bonus from the Archery fighting style?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







8












$begingroup$


My group is starting a sea-based campaign, and the gunslinger character (Matt Mercer's third-party fighter subclass) is asking about how being in the crow's nest will affect his range.



Since he will be targeting creatures significantly below him (about 110 feet down) that are only 25 feet horizontally from his position, he is asking how he should adjudicate weapon range.



How can I fairly adjudicate the effects of such height differences on ranged attacks?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Is this game using a grid?
    $endgroup$
    – goodguy5
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes we are. I even have the boat and masts set at 5' square intervals.
    $endgroup$
    – Adam Goodwine
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @krb That really should go in an answer. It's not a clarification of the question. I've added into my issues list, but if you'd like to submit your own, go for it!
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    7 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Are you using a paper or hand-drawn grid, or an digital grid, such as Roll20?
    $endgroup$
    – Jack
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Are you asking a geometry question related to calculating range at a non-right angle, or are you trying to determine if your player's attack should have longer range when shooting downward?
    $endgroup$
    – Pink Sweetener
    3 hours ago


















8












$begingroup$


My group is starting a sea-based campaign, and the gunslinger character (Matt Mercer's third-party fighter subclass) is asking about how being in the crow's nest will affect his range.



Since he will be targeting creatures significantly below him (about 110 feet down) that are only 25 feet horizontally from his position, he is asking how he should adjudicate weapon range.



How can I fairly adjudicate the effects of such height differences on ranged attacks?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Is this game using a grid?
    $endgroup$
    – goodguy5
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes we are. I even have the boat and masts set at 5' square intervals.
    $endgroup$
    – Adam Goodwine
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @krb That really should go in an answer. It's not a clarification of the question. I've added into my issues list, but if you'd like to submit your own, go for it!
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    7 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Are you using a paper or hand-drawn grid, or an digital grid, such as Roll20?
    $endgroup$
    – Jack
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Are you asking a geometry question related to calculating range at a non-right angle, or are you trying to determine if your player's attack should have longer range when shooting downward?
    $endgroup$
    – Pink Sweetener
    3 hours ago














8












8








8





$begingroup$


My group is starting a sea-based campaign, and the gunslinger character (Matt Mercer's third-party fighter subclass) is asking about how being in the crow's nest will affect his range.



Since he will be targeting creatures significantly below him (about 110 feet down) that are only 25 feet horizontally from his position, he is asking how he should adjudicate weapon range.



How can I fairly adjudicate the effects of such height differences on ranged attacks?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




My group is starting a sea-based campaign, and the gunslinger character (Matt Mercer's third-party fighter subclass) is asking about how being in the crow's nest will affect his range.



Since he will be targeting creatures significantly below him (about 110 feet down) that are only 25 feet horizontally from his position, he is asking how he should adjudicate weapon range.



How can I fairly adjudicate the effects of such height differences on ranged attacks?







dnd-5e ranged-attack






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago









V2Blast

28.1k5101171




28.1k5101171










asked 10 hours ago









Adam GoodwineAdam Goodwine

350215




350215












  • $begingroup$
    Is this game using a grid?
    $endgroup$
    – goodguy5
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes we are. I even have the boat and masts set at 5' square intervals.
    $endgroup$
    – Adam Goodwine
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @krb That really should go in an answer. It's not a clarification of the question. I've added into my issues list, but if you'd like to submit your own, go for it!
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    7 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Are you using a paper or hand-drawn grid, or an digital grid, such as Roll20?
    $endgroup$
    – Jack
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Are you asking a geometry question related to calculating range at a non-right angle, or are you trying to determine if your player's attack should have longer range when shooting downward?
    $endgroup$
    – Pink Sweetener
    3 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Is this game using a grid?
    $endgroup$
    – goodguy5
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes we are. I even have the boat and masts set at 5' square intervals.
    $endgroup$
    – Adam Goodwine
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @krb That really should go in an answer. It's not a clarification of the question. I've added into my issues list, but if you'd like to submit your own, go for it!
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    7 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Are you using a paper or hand-drawn grid, or an digital grid, such as Roll20?
    $endgroup$
    – Jack
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Are you asking a geometry question related to calculating range at a non-right angle, or are you trying to determine if your player's attack should have longer range when shooting downward?
    $endgroup$
    – Pink Sweetener
    3 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Is this game using a grid?
$endgroup$
– goodguy5
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
Is this game using a grid?
$endgroup$
– goodguy5
9 hours ago












$begingroup$
Yes we are. I even have the boat and masts set at 5' square intervals.
$endgroup$
– Adam Goodwine
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
Yes we are. I even have the boat and masts set at 5' square intervals.
$endgroup$
– Adam Goodwine
8 hours ago












$begingroup$
@krb That really should go in an answer. It's not a clarification of the question. I've added into my issues list, but if you'd like to submit your own, go for it!
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago






$begingroup$
@krb That really should go in an answer. It's not a clarification of the question. I've added into my issues list, but if you'd like to submit your own, go for it!
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago














$begingroup$
Are you using a paper or hand-drawn grid, or an digital grid, such as Roll20?
$endgroup$
– Jack
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
Are you using a paper or hand-drawn grid, or an digital grid, such as Roll20?
$endgroup$
– Jack
5 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Are you asking a geometry question related to calculating range at a non-right angle, or are you trying to determine if your player's attack should have longer range when shooting downward?
$endgroup$
– Pink Sweetener
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Are you asking a geometry question related to calculating range at a non-right angle, or are you trying to determine if your player's attack should have longer range when shooting downward?
$endgroup$
– Pink Sweetener
3 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















12












$begingroup$

Either use the simplified PHB rules or do the real math



There isn't necessarily a 'right' way here, but you do have to account for the height as part of their distance because that is how far the target is from the archer.



The quick and dirty



This is done by utilizing the Grid Variant option found in the PHB on page 192:




To determine the range on a grid between two things—whether creatures or objects— start counting squares from a square adjacent to one of them and stop counting in
the space of the other one. Count by the shortest route.




This doesn't make any real world sense, but in the base system, there is no difference between a target 110' directly below and one 30' away as well. They're both considered 110' away.



But it's easy. If you're looking for true distance, then you've got some math to do.



Pythagorean Theorem to find true distance



Or you can call Pythagoras and use his theorem (A2+ B2 = C2) to get a more exact value. In this case A would be the mast height, B the horizontal distance from base of mast, and C is the hypotenuse for true distance.



The true distance would be 112 feet based on the hypotenuse length.
The Theorem system matches that optional grid variant rules in the PHB (pp 192):



DMG Offers an other Variant:Diagonals option (pp252)




When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you’re counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.




Carcer actually has simplified how this would work and is a great suggestion for getting something more realistic and getting it quickly:




The distance according to the variant diagonals rule can be very quickly calculated by taking the longer of the horizontal or vertical distance and adding half of the shorter distance, rounding down to the nearest 5ft multiple - e.g. a target 110 ft. down and 25 ft. away (or 110ft. away and 25ft. down) is 110 + 12.5 ~= 120 ft. distant.




Be aware of other issues - and be consistent with whatever you choose



The DM may also want to consider the use of partial cover as the archer has to shoot through the rigging around the mast - but that's up to the DM.



Motion of the ocean may be another issue to consider. The potential rolling seas as well as the crows having a much stronger motion feeling due to it's height may impose disadvantage on the shot should the DM think it was worth doing so.



Also be aware of any darkvision distance issues if fighting at night.



Whichever method you choose, I do recommend that you use the same methodology in all cases whether PC or NPC. Make the rule known and agreed upon so that the players understand the implications.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 6




    $begingroup$
    The distance according to the variant diagonals rule can be very quickly calculated by taking the longer of the horizontal or vertical distance and adding half of the shorter distance, rounding down to the nearest 5ft multiple - e.g. a target 110 ft. down and 25 ft. away (or 110ft. away and 25ft. down) is 110 + 12.5 ~= 120 ft. distant.
    $endgroup$
    – Carcer
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Carcer Thank you - I added that. I like it!
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    acceptable. updooted ^_^
    $endgroup$
    – goodguy5
    7 hours ago



















9












$begingroup$

Even though it's extremely common to do so, 5th edition assumes you are not playing on a grid, by default. Using a grid is proposed on PHB 192 as a variant rule. In that rule, it says that moving to any adjacent square (including diagonals) counts as 5 feet, period:




Entering a Square. To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left, even if the square is diagonally adjacent to the square you're in. (The rule for diagonal movement sacrifices realism for the sake of smooth play. The Dungeon Master's Guide provides guidance on using a more realistic approach.)




This means, regardless of actual math, that we can measure your distance traveled as two straight lines, distance forward, and to the side. Whichever of this is longest will be the equivalent of how far you've moved.



You would measure other distances the same way, like how far away a flying creature is, or how far we need to shoot downward at a target.



A simple example of this is if I move forward 10 feet and to the side 5 ft (2 squares by 1 square), I've moved 10 feet.



So for your example, if he is 110 feet up, but only 25 feet away horizontally, the distance would be measured as 110 feet.



This is used for simplicity's sake but is not mathematically accurate. Aware of this, the designers proposed an alternate method in DMG 252 (as mentioned above):




Optional Rule: Diagonals



The Player's Handbook presents a simple method for counting movement and measuring range on a grid: count every square as 5 feet, even if you’re moving diagonally. Though this is fast in play, it breaks the laws of geometry and is inaccurate over long distances. This optional rule provides more realism, but it requires more effort during combat.



When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you're counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.




If you aren't using the Grid variant rule, you would just measure the distance from point A to B.



You can also, of course, actually do the math as NautArch suggested in his answer. It comes down to what you and your players can agree on. But either way, whatever rules you set for measuring diagonals should be used for all cases of measuring diagonals. As long as you're consistent within your own game, that's what matters.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The hypotenuse is the longest side of a right triangle. Your answer is inconsistent.
    $endgroup$
    – ValhallaGH
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The 'simple rule' is laid out here, it makes no mention of "The shortest leg" or anything like it. It simply says that moving between squares consumes 1 square of movement, regardless of if it is diagonal movement or not. You can find it here, under the "Entering a Square" point dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#SqueezingintoaSmallerSpace
    $endgroup$
    – guildsbounty
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I'm citing the context, which is the grid. If he isn't using a grid then it doesn't matter and they should just measure the distance or calculate it like you proposed. But with a grid, the rules are spelled out clearly. The spacial relationships DO work out weird in the base Grid rule, and it can be difficult to reconcile in our heads because we know it doesn't actually work that way in real life. BUT, it is a simple rule to use and takes little thought once you get used to it. Using a grid is already an abstraction so imposing further abstractions on top of that skews the results even further
    $endgroup$
    – G. Moylan
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Let us continue this discussion in chat.
    $endgroup$
    – G. Moylan
    9 hours ago



















2












$begingroup$

There is no solid right way to do this, but here are three ways this can be adjudicated.



Pythagoras



Using the Pythagoran theorem of $a^2+b^2=c^2$ you would obtain a distance of 112.8 ft. This is the most accurate method, but is going to necessitate calculations, and your mileage may vary but I prefer not to large squares and roots in my head and having to resort to a calculator all the time might slow your game down.



Simple sum



If you just add the distances together (giving 135 ft) you can very quickly estimate an upper bound for the distance. This can be very useful because if that estimate puts it in range then it is going to be and more accurate calculations need not be performed.



Adapt the Optional Diagonal Rules for playing on a grid



In the optional rules1 presented on page 252 of the Dungeon Master's Guide every other diagonal move in a 5 ft by 5 ft grid costs 5 extra feet of movement where a normal diagonal costs 5 feet. You could then move diagonals counting 5 feet per and add an extra 5 for every other moved. However to make it simpler we can observe that a move 10 ft vertically and 10 ft horizontally would cost 15 feet when moved diagonally. A resultant rule to estimate a angular distance is that for every 10 ft moved both diagonally and vertically, 5 feet is subtracted from the summed distance.



With our specific example the vertical distance is 110 ft and the horizontal is 25 ft. The summed distance is 135 ft, but there is 2 '10-feet' moved by both so 2$times$5 feet is subtracted. The estimated distance is then 125 ft. (The number of '10-feet's would be equal to the smallest of the distances divided by 10 and rounded down.)



This is between the two other estimates and has the advantage of being fairly quick to calculate (much more mental-arithmetic friendly than Pythagoras) and consistent with other movement (if you're playing on a grid).





1: It is an optional rule for the variant rules presented on the sidebar on page 192 of the Player's Handbook.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$

    The shorthand for determining distance is in the PHB 192, "Variant: Playing on a Grid":




    To determine range on a grid between two things - whether creatures or
    objects - start counting squares from a square adjacent to one of them
    and stop counting the the space of the other one. Count by the
    shortest route.




    Because of the 3-dimensional nature of being above them, if you wanted to do the Variant RAW then it would most likely be be the squares of space down the mast (22 squares for 110ft), and then up to 5 squares for the remaining 25', since the first 5' of that would be the adjacent square you begin counting from, making the range anywhere from 115' to 135' in the basic rules.



    Personally, I'd recommend going for NautArch's Pythagorean approach and incur half-cover to both the gunslinger and the targets for realism and to not have your player have a "fish-in-a-barrel" scenario of free shots to anybody not coming to a sea fight with bows.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Tyler Mackey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thank you for your contribution, but answers are not the place for comments. When you earn enough reputation you will unlock the ability to comment.
      $endgroup$
      – Rubiksmoose
      9 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Yeah, that's why I tried to put as much information in as I could to make it more of an answer while addressing issues in previously proposed answers. Sorry if that's incorrect form or violated rules.
      $endgroup$
      – Tyler Mackey
      9 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I see! Well I've removed the comment language to make you intentions clearer! I think making the answer was the right thing to do, but in the future possibly just don't start it with "I can't comment but...". Anyways welcome to RPG.se! And sorry for the rough start, but I actually do think you have the basis for a solid answer here with that edit made.
      $endgroup$
      – Rubiksmoose
      9 hours ago








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Okay, thanks! I'll keep it in mind for the future
      $endgroup$
      – Tyler Mackey
      9 hours ago



















    0












    $begingroup$

    This GM always uses the following houserule:



    Vertical distance doesn't affect the higher shooter, whilst it is added to the horizontal distance for the lower shooter



    Thus your character in the crows nest will be able to shoot at the creatures as if they were 25' away, whilst those on the ship shooting at him have to do so as if they were 135' away.



    This gives the higher combatant an advantage, as shooting up is always harder than shooting down, whilst it avoids any complexity from trigonometry or the diagonal rule.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Doesn't his give a HUGE advantage to ranged flying combatants?
      $endgroup$
      – NautArch
      9 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      I've not had to deal with ranged flying combatants that I've not been controlling myself, so I've not hit any issues. My gut says any vertical distance at or beyond long range would apply disadvantage, but I'd want to playtest it to be sure.
      $endgroup$
      – Kyyshak
      9 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Having the high ground IS a huge advantage but in some cases this can give a lot more advantage than it should. Using your house rule as stated, I have the same chance of hitting no matter how far I am above me targets? 20 feet up is the same as 100 feet up is the same as 10,000 feet up? So long as the horizontal distance is significantly greater than the vertical distance, i.e. if I am 100 feet away and 30 feet higher, then this rule is fast, easy and close enough to accurate. But as the angles get steeper this rule begins to fail IMO.
      $endgroup$
      – krb
      7 hours ago












    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "122"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f147118%2fhow-can-i-fairly-adjudicate-the-effects-of-height-differences-on-ranged-attacks%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    12












    $begingroup$

    Either use the simplified PHB rules or do the real math



    There isn't necessarily a 'right' way here, but you do have to account for the height as part of their distance because that is how far the target is from the archer.



    The quick and dirty



    This is done by utilizing the Grid Variant option found in the PHB on page 192:




    To determine the range on a grid between two things—whether creatures or objects— start counting squares from a square adjacent to one of them and stop counting in
    the space of the other one. Count by the shortest route.




    This doesn't make any real world sense, but in the base system, there is no difference between a target 110' directly below and one 30' away as well. They're both considered 110' away.



    But it's easy. If you're looking for true distance, then you've got some math to do.



    Pythagorean Theorem to find true distance



    Or you can call Pythagoras and use his theorem (A2+ B2 = C2) to get a more exact value. In this case A would be the mast height, B the horizontal distance from base of mast, and C is the hypotenuse for true distance.



    The true distance would be 112 feet based on the hypotenuse length.
    The Theorem system matches that optional grid variant rules in the PHB (pp 192):



    DMG Offers an other Variant:Diagonals option (pp252)




    When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you’re counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.




    Carcer actually has simplified how this would work and is a great suggestion for getting something more realistic and getting it quickly:




    The distance according to the variant diagonals rule can be very quickly calculated by taking the longer of the horizontal or vertical distance and adding half of the shorter distance, rounding down to the nearest 5ft multiple - e.g. a target 110 ft. down and 25 ft. away (or 110ft. away and 25ft. down) is 110 + 12.5 ~= 120 ft. distant.




    Be aware of other issues - and be consistent with whatever you choose



    The DM may also want to consider the use of partial cover as the archer has to shoot through the rigging around the mast - but that's up to the DM.



    Motion of the ocean may be another issue to consider. The potential rolling seas as well as the crows having a much stronger motion feeling due to it's height may impose disadvantage on the shot should the DM think it was worth doing so.



    Also be aware of any darkvision distance issues if fighting at night.



    Whichever method you choose, I do recommend that you use the same methodology in all cases whether PC or NPC. Make the rule known and agreed upon so that the players understand the implications.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 6




      $begingroup$
      The distance according to the variant diagonals rule can be very quickly calculated by taking the longer of the horizontal or vertical distance and adding half of the shorter distance, rounding down to the nearest 5ft multiple - e.g. a target 110 ft. down and 25 ft. away (or 110ft. away and 25ft. down) is 110 + 12.5 ~= 120 ft. distant.
      $endgroup$
      – Carcer
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Carcer Thank you - I added that. I like it!
      $endgroup$
      – NautArch
      7 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      acceptable. updooted ^_^
      $endgroup$
      – goodguy5
      7 hours ago
















    12












    $begingroup$

    Either use the simplified PHB rules or do the real math



    There isn't necessarily a 'right' way here, but you do have to account for the height as part of their distance because that is how far the target is from the archer.



    The quick and dirty



    This is done by utilizing the Grid Variant option found in the PHB on page 192:




    To determine the range on a grid between two things—whether creatures or objects— start counting squares from a square adjacent to one of them and stop counting in
    the space of the other one. Count by the shortest route.




    This doesn't make any real world sense, but in the base system, there is no difference between a target 110' directly below and one 30' away as well. They're both considered 110' away.



    But it's easy. If you're looking for true distance, then you've got some math to do.



    Pythagorean Theorem to find true distance



    Or you can call Pythagoras and use his theorem (A2+ B2 = C2) to get a more exact value. In this case A would be the mast height, B the horizontal distance from base of mast, and C is the hypotenuse for true distance.



    The true distance would be 112 feet based on the hypotenuse length.
    The Theorem system matches that optional grid variant rules in the PHB (pp 192):



    DMG Offers an other Variant:Diagonals option (pp252)




    When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you’re counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.




    Carcer actually has simplified how this would work and is a great suggestion for getting something more realistic and getting it quickly:




    The distance according to the variant diagonals rule can be very quickly calculated by taking the longer of the horizontal or vertical distance and adding half of the shorter distance, rounding down to the nearest 5ft multiple - e.g. a target 110 ft. down and 25 ft. away (or 110ft. away and 25ft. down) is 110 + 12.5 ~= 120 ft. distant.




    Be aware of other issues - and be consistent with whatever you choose



    The DM may also want to consider the use of partial cover as the archer has to shoot through the rigging around the mast - but that's up to the DM.



    Motion of the ocean may be another issue to consider. The potential rolling seas as well as the crows having a much stronger motion feeling due to it's height may impose disadvantage on the shot should the DM think it was worth doing so.



    Also be aware of any darkvision distance issues if fighting at night.



    Whichever method you choose, I do recommend that you use the same methodology in all cases whether PC or NPC. Make the rule known and agreed upon so that the players understand the implications.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 6




      $begingroup$
      The distance according to the variant diagonals rule can be very quickly calculated by taking the longer of the horizontal or vertical distance and adding half of the shorter distance, rounding down to the nearest 5ft multiple - e.g. a target 110 ft. down and 25 ft. away (or 110ft. away and 25ft. down) is 110 + 12.5 ~= 120 ft. distant.
      $endgroup$
      – Carcer
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Carcer Thank you - I added that. I like it!
      $endgroup$
      – NautArch
      7 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      acceptable. updooted ^_^
      $endgroup$
      – goodguy5
      7 hours ago














    12












    12








    12





    $begingroup$

    Either use the simplified PHB rules or do the real math



    There isn't necessarily a 'right' way here, but you do have to account for the height as part of their distance because that is how far the target is from the archer.



    The quick and dirty



    This is done by utilizing the Grid Variant option found in the PHB on page 192:




    To determine the range on a grid between two things—whether creatures or objects— start counting squares from a square adjacent to one of them and stop counting in
    the space of the other one. Count by the shortest route.




    This doesn't make any real world sense, but in the base system, there is no difference between a target 110' directly below and one 30' away as well. They're both considered 110' away.



    But it's easy. If you're looking for true distance, then you've got some math to do.



    Pythagorean Theorem to find true distance



    Or you can call Pythagoras and use his theorem (A2+ B2 = C2) to get a more exact value. In this case A would be the mast height, B the horizontal distance from base of mast, and C is the hypotenuse for true distance.



    The true distance would be 112 feet based on the hypotenuse length.
    The Theorem system matches that optional grid variant rules in the PHB (pp 192):



    DMG Offers an other Variant:Diagonals option (pp252)




    When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you’re counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.




    Carcer actually has simplified how this would work and is a great suggestion for getting something more realistic and getting it quickly:




    The distance according to the variant diagonals rule can be very quickly calculated by taking the longer of the horizontal or vertical distance and adding half of the shorter distance, rounding down to the nearest 5ft multiple - e.g. a target 110 ft. down and 25 ft. away (or 110ft. away and 25ft. down) is 110 + 12.5 ~= 120 ft. distant.




    Be aware of other issues - and be consistent with whatever you choose



    The DM may also want to consider the use of partial cover as the archer has to shoot through the rigging around the mast - but that's up to the DM.



    Motion of the ocean may be another issue to consider. The potential rolling seas as well as the crows having a much stronger motion feeling due to it's height may impose disadvantage on the shot should the DM think it was worth doing so.



    Also be aware of any darkvision distance issues if fighting at night.



    Whichever method you choose, I do recommend that you use the same methodology in all cases whether PC or NPC. Make the rule known and agreed upon so that the players understand the implications.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Either use the simplified PHB rules or do the real math



    There isn't necessarily a 'right' way here, but you do have to account for the height as part of their distance because that is how far the target is from the archer.



    The quick and dirty



    This is done by utilizing the Grid Variant option found in the PHB on page 192:




    To determine the range on a grid between two things—whether creatures or objects— start counting squares from a square adjacent to one of them and stop counting in
    the space of the other one. Count by the shortest route.




    This doesn't make any real world sense, but in the base system, there is no difference between a target 110' directly below and one 30' away as well. They're both considered 110' away.



    But it's easy. If you're looking for true distance, then you've got some math to do.



    Pythagorean Theorem to find true distance



    Or you can call Pythagoras and use his theorem (A2+ B2 = C2) to get a more exact value. In this case A would be the mast height, B the horizontal distance from base of mast, and C is the hypotenuse for true distance.



    The true distance would be 112 feet based on the hypotenuse length.
    The Theorem system matches that optional grid variant rules in the PHB (pp 192):



    DMG Offers an other Variant:Diagonals option (pp252)




    When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you’re counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.




    Carcer actually has simplified how this would work and is a great suggestion for getting something more realistic and getting it quickly:




    The distance according to the variant diagonals rule can be very quickly calculated by taking the longer of the horizontal or vertical distance and adding half of the shorter distance, rounding down to the nearest 5ft multiple - e.g. a target 110 ft. down and 25 ft. away (or 110ft. away and 25ft. down) is 110 + 12.5 ~= 120 ft. distant.




    Be aware of other issues - and be consistent with whatever you choose



    The DM may also want to consider the use of partial cover as the archer has to shoot through the rigging around the mast - but that's up to the DM.



    Motion of the ocean may be another issue to consider. The potential rolling seas as well as the crows having a much stronger motion feeling due to it's height may impose disadvantage on the shot should the DM think it was worth doing so.



    Also be aware of any darkvision distance issues if fighting at night.



    Whichever method you choose, I do recommend that you use the same methodology in all cases whether PC or NPC. Make the rule known and agreed upon so that the players understand the implications.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 4 hours ago

























    answered 10 hours ago









    NautArchNautArch

    63.5k9231422




    63.5k9231422








    • 6




      $begingroup$
      The distance according to the variant diagonals rule can be very quickly calculated by taking the longer of the horizontal or vertical distance and adding half of the shorter distance, rounding down to the nearest 5ft multiple - e.g. a target 110 ft. down and 25 ft. away (or 110ft. away and 25ft. down) is 110 + 12.5 ~= 120 ft. distant.
      $endgroup$
      – Carcer
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Carcer Thank you - I added that. I like it!
      $endgroup$
      – NautArch
      7 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      acceptable. updooted ^_^
      $endgroup$
      – goodguy5
      7 hours ago














    • 6




      $begingroup$
      The distance according to the variant diagonals rule can be very quickly calculated by taking the longer of the horizontal or vertical distance and adding half of the shorter distance, rounding down to the nearest 5ft multiple - e.g. a target 110 ft. down and 25 ft. away (or 110ft. away and 25ft. down) is 110 + 12.5 ~= 120 ft. distant.
      $endgroup$
      – Carcer
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Carcer Thank you - I added that. I like it!
      $endgroup$
      – NautArch
      7 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      acceptable. updooted ^_^
      $endgroup$
      – goodguy5
      7 hours ago








    6




    6




    $begingroup$
    The distance according to the variant diagonals rule can be very quickly calculated by taking the longer of the horizontal or vertical distance and adding half of the shorter distance, rounding down to the nearest 5ft multiple - e.g. a target 110 ft. down and 25 ft. away (or 110ft. away and 25ft. down) is 110 + 12.5 ~= 120 ft. distant.
    $endgroup$
    – Carcer
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    The distance according to the variant diagonals rule can be very quickly calculated by taking the longer of the horizontal or vertical distance and adding half of the shorter distance, rounding down to the nearest 5ft multiple - e.g. a target 110 ft. down and 25 ft. away (or 110ft. away and 25ft. down) is 110 + 12.5 ~= 120 ft. distant.
    $endgroup$
    – Carcer
    7 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @Carcer Thank you - I added that. I like it!
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @Carcer Thank you - I added that. I like it!
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    7 hours ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    acceptable. updooted ^_^
    $endgroup$
    – goodguy5
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    acceptable. updooted ^_^
    $endgroup$
    – goodguy5
    7 hours ago













    9












    $begingroup$

    Even though it's extremely common to do so, 5th edition assumes you are not playing on a grid, by default. Using a grid is proposed on PHB 192 as a variant rule. In that rule, it says that moving to any adjacent square (including diagonals) counts as 5 feet, period:




    Entering a Square. To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left, even if the square is diagonally adjacent to the square you're in. (The rule for diagonal movement sacrifices realism for the sake of smooth play. The Dungeon Master's Guide provides guidance on using a more realistic approach.)




    This means, regardless of actual math, that we can measure your distance traveled as two straight lines, distance forward, and to the side. Whichever of this is longest will be the equivalent of how far you've moved.



    You would measure other distances the same way, like how far away a flying creature is, or how far we need to shoot downward at a target.



    A simple example of this is if I move forward 10 feet and to the side 5 ft (2 squares by 1 square), I've moved 10 feet.



    So for your example, if he is 110 feet up, but only 25 feet away horizontally, the distance would be measured as 110 feet.



    This is used for simplicity's sake but is not mathematically accurate. Aware of this, the designers proposed an alternate method in DMG 252 (as mentioned above):




    Optional Rule: Diagonals



    The Player's Handbook presents a simple method for counting movement and measuring range on a grid: count every square as 5 feet, even if you’re moving diagonally. Though this is fast in play, it breaks the laws of geometry and is inaccurate over long distances. This optional rule provides more realism, but it requires more effort during combat.



    When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you're counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.




    If you aren't using the Grid variant rule, you would just measure the distance from point A to B.



    You can also, of course, actually do the math as NautArch suggested in his answer. It comes down to what you and your players can agree on. But either way, whatever rules you set for measuring diagonals should be used for all cases of measuring diagonals. As long as you're consistent within your own game, that's what matters.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      The hypotenuse is the longest side of a right triangle. Your answer is inconsistent.
      $endgroup$
      – ValhallaGH
      10 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The 'simple rule' is laid out here, it makes no mention of "The shortest leg" or anything like it. It simply says that moving between squares consumes 1 square of movement, regardless of if it is diagonal movement or not. You can find it here, under the "Entering a Square" point dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#SqueezingintoaSmallerSpace
      $endgroup$
      – guildsbounty
      9 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      I'm citing the context, which is the grid. If he isn't using a grid then it doesn't matter and they should just measure the distance or calculate it like you proposed. But with a grid, the rules are spelled out clearly. The spacial relationships DO work out weird in the base Grid rule, and it can be difficult to reconcile in our heads because we know it doesn't actually work that way in real life. BUT, it is a simple rule to use and takes little thought once you get used to it. Using a grid is already an abstraction so imposing further abstractions on top of that skews the results even further
      $endgroup$
      – G. Moylan
      9 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Let us continue this discussion in chat.
      $endgroup$
      – G. Moylan
      9 hours ago
















    9












    $begingroup$

    Even though it's extremely common to do so, 5th edition assumes you are not playing on a grid, by default. Using a grid is proposed on PHB 192 as a variant rule. In that rule, it says that moving to any adjacent square (including diagonals) counts as 5 feet, period:




    Entering a Square. To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left, even if the square is diagonally adjacent to the square you're in. (The rule for diagonal movement sacrifices realism for the sake of smooth play. The Dungeon Master's Guide provides guidance on using a more realistic approach.)




    This means, regardless of actual math, that we can measure your distance traveled as two straight lines, distance forward, and to the side. Whichever of this is longest will be the equivalent of how far you've moved.



    You would measure other distances the same way, like how far away a flying creature is, or how far we need to shoot downward at a target.



    A simple example of this is if I move forward 10 feet and to the side 5 ft (2 squares by 1 square), I've moved 10 feet.



    So for your example, if he is 110 feet up, but only 25 feet away horizontally, the distance would be measured as 110 feet.



    This is used for simplicity's sake but is not mathematically accurate. Aware of this, the designers proposed an alternate method in DMG 252 (as mentioned above):




    Optional Rule: Diagonals



    The Player's Handbook presents a simple method for counting movement and measuring range on a grid: count every square as 5 feet, even if you’re moving diagonally. Though this is fast in play, it breaks the laws of geometry and is inaccurate over long distances. This optional rule provides more realism, but it requires more effort during combat.



    When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you're counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.




    If you aren't using the Grid variant rule, you would just measure the distance from point A to B.



    You can also, of course, actually do the math as NautArch suggested in his answer. It comes down to what you and your players can agree on. But either way, whatever rules you set for measuring diagonals should be used for all cases of measuring diagonals. As long as you're consistent within your own game, that's what matters.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      The hypotenuse is the longest side of a right triangle. Your answer is inconsistent.
      $endgroup$
      – ValhallaGH
      10 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The 'simple rule' is laid out here, it makes no mention of "The shortest leg" or anything like it. It simply says that moving between squares consumes 1 square of movement, regardless of if it is diagonal movement or not. You can find it here, under the "Entering a Square" point dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#SqueezingintoaSmallerSpace
      $endgroup$
      – guildsbounty
      9 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      I'm citing the context, which is the grid. If he isn't using a grid then it doesn't matter and they should just measure the distance or calculate it like you proposed. But with a grid, the rules are spelled out clearly. The spacial relationships DO work out weird in the base Grid rule, and it can be difficult to reconcile in our heads because we know it doesn't actually work that way in real life. BUT, it is a simple rule to use and takes little thought once you get used to it. Using a grid is already an abstraction so imposing further abstractions on top of that skews the results even further
      $endgroup$
      – G. Moylan
      9 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Let us continue this discussion in chat.
      $endgroup$
      – G. Moylan
      9 hours ago














    9












    9








    9





    $begingroup$

    Even though it's extremely common to do so, 5th edition assumes you are not playing on a grid, by default. Using a grid is proposed on PHB 192 as a variant rule. In that rule, it says that moving to any adjacent square (including diagonals) counts as 5 feet, period:




    Entering a Square. To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left, even if the square is diagonally adjacent to the square you're in. (The rule for diagonal movement sacrifices realism for the sake of smooth play. The Dungeon Master's Guide provides guidance on using a more realistic approach.)




    This means, regardless of actual math, that we can measure your distance traveled as two straight lines, distance forward, and to the side. Whichever of this is longest will be the equivalent of how far you've moved.



    You would measure other distances the same way, like how far away a flying creature is, or how far we need to shoot downward at a target.



    A simple example of this is if I move forward 10 feet and to the side 5 ft (2 squares by 1 square), I've moved 10 feet.



    So for your example, if he is 110 feet up, but only 25 feet away horizontally, the distance would be measured as 110 feet.



    This is used for simplicity's sake but is not mathematically accurate. Aware of this, the designers proposed an alternate method in DMG 252 (as mentioned above):




    Optional Rule: Diagonals



    The Player's Handbook presents a simple method for counting movement and measuring range on a grid: count every square as 5 feet, even if you’re moving diagonally. Though this is fast in play, it breaks the laws of geometry and is inaccurate over long distances. This optional rule provides more realism, but it requires more effort during combat.



    When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you're counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.




    If you aren't using the Grid variant rule, you would just measure the distance from point A to B.



    You can also, of course, actually do the math as NautArch suggested in his answer. It comes down to what you and your players can agree on. But either way, whatever rules you set for measuring diagonals should be used for all cases of measuring diagonals. As long as you're consistent within your own game, that's what matters.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Even though it's extremely common to do so, 5th edition assumes you are not playing on a grid, by default. Using a grid is proposed on PHB 192 as a variant rule. In that rule, it says that moving to any adjacent square (including diagonals) counts as 5 feet, period:




    Entering a Square. To enter a square, you must have at least 1 square of movement left, even if the square is diagonally adjacent to the square you're in. (The rule for diagonal movement sacrifices realism for the sake of smooth play. The Dungeon Master's Guide provides guidance on using a more realistic approach.)




    This means, regardless of actual math, that we can measure your distance traveled as two straight lines, distance forward, and to the side. Whichever of this is longest will be the equivalent of how far you've moved.



    You would measure other distances the same way, like how far away a flying creature is, or how far we need to shoot downward at a target.



    A simple example of this is if I move forward 10 feet and to the side 5 ft (2 squares by 1 square), I've moved 10 feet.



    So for your example, if he is 110 feet up, but only 25 feet away horizontally, the distance would be measured as 110 feet.



    This is used for simplicity's sake but is not mathematically accurate. Aware of this, the designers proposed an alternate method in DMG 252 (as mentioned above):




    Optional Rule: Diagonals



    The Player's Handbook presents a simple method for counting movement and measuring range on a grid: count every square as 5 feet, even if you’re moving diagonally. Though this is fast in play, it breaks the laws of geometry and is inaccurate over long distances. This optional rule provides more realism, but it requires more effort during combat.



    When measuring range or moving diagonally on a grid, the first diagonal square counts as 5 feet, but the second diagonal square counts as 10 feet. This pattern of 5 feet and then 10 feet continues whenever you're counting diagonally, even if you move horizontally or vertically between different bits of diagonal movement. For example, a character might move one square diagonally (5 feet), then three squares straight (15 feet), and then another square diagonally (10 feet) for a total movement of 30 feet.




    If you aren't using the Grid variant rule, you would just measure the distance from point A to B.



    You can also, of course, actually do the math as NautArch suggested in his answer. It comes down to what you and your players can agree on. But either way, whatever rules you set for measuring diagonals should be used for all cases of measuring diagonals. As long as you're consistent within your own game, that's what matters.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 4 hours ago









    V2Blast

    28.1k5101171




    28.1k5101171










    answered 10 hours ago









    G. MoylanG. Moylan

    1,305523




    1,305523












    • $begingroup$
      The hypotenuse is the longest side of a right triangle. Your answer is inconsistent.
      $endgroup$
      – ValhallaGH
      10 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The 'simple rule' is laid out here, it makes no mention of "The shortest leg" or anything like it. It simply says that moving between squares consumes 1 square of movement, regardless of if it is diagonal movement or not. You can find it here, under the "Entering a Square" point dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#SqueezingintoaSmallerSpace
      $endgroup$
      – guildsbounty
      9 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      I'm citing the context, which is the grid. If he isn't using a grid then it doesn't matter and they should just measure the distance or calculate it like you proposed. But with a grid, the rules are spelled out clearly. The spacial relationships DO work out weird in the base Grid rule, and it can be difficult to reconcile in our heads because we know it doesn't actually work that way in real life. BUT, it is a simple rule to use and takes little thought once you get used to it. Using a grid is already an abstraction so imposing further abstractions on top of that skews the results even further
      $endgroup$
      – G. Moylan
      9 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Let us continue this discussion in chat.
      $endgroup$
      – G. Moylan
      9 hours ago


















    • $begingroup$
      The hypotenuse is the longest side of a right triangle. Your answer is inconsistent.
      $endgroup$
      – ValhallaGH
      10 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The 'simple rule' is laid out here, it makes no mention of "The shortest leg" or anything like it. It simply says that moving between squares consumes 1 square of movement, regardless of if it is diagonal movement or not. You can find it here, under the "Entering a Square" point dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#SqueezingintoaSmallerSpace
      $endgroup$
      – guildsbounty
      9 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      I'm citing the context, which is the grid. If he isn't using a grid then it doesn't matter and they should just measure the distance or calculate it like you proposed. But with a grid, the rules are spelled out clearly. The spacial relationships DO work out weird in the base Grid rule, and it can be difficult to reconcile in our heads because we know it doesn't actually work that way in real life. BUT, it is a simple rule to use and takes little thought once you get used to it. Using a grid is already an abstraction so imposing further abstractions on top of that skews the results even further
      $endgroup$
      – G. Moylan
      9 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Let us continue this discussion in chat.
      $endgroup$
      – G. Moylan
      9 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    The hypotenuse is the longest side of a right triangle. Your answer is inconsistent.
    $endgroup$
    – ValhallaGH
    10 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    The hypotenuse is the longest side of a right triangle. Your answer is inconsistent.
    $endgroup$
    – ValhallaGH
    10 hours ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    The 'simple rule' is laid out here, it makes no mention of "The shortest leg" or anything like it. It simply says that moving between squares consumes 1 square of movement, regardless of if it is diagonal movement or not. You can find it here, under the "Entering a Square" point dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#SqueezingintoaSmallerSpace
    $endgroup$
    – guildsbounty
    9 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    The 'simple rule' is laid out here, it makes no mention of "The shortest leg" or anything like it. It simply says that moving between squares consumes 1 square of movement, regardless of if it is diagonal movement or not. You can find it here, under the "Entering a Square" point dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#SqueezingintoaSmallerSpace
    $endgroup$
    – guildsbounty
    9 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    I'm citing the context, which is the grid. If he isn't using a grid then it doesn't matter and they should just measure the distance or calculate it like you proposed. But with a grid, the rules are spelled out clearly. The spacial relationships DO work out weird in the base Grid rule, and it can be difficult to reconcile in our heads because we know it doesn't actually work that way in real life. BUT, it is a simple rule to use and takes little thought once you get used to it. Using a grid is already an abstraction so imposing further abstractions on top of that skews the results even further
    $endgroup$
    – G. Moylan
    9 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    I'm citing the context, which is the grid. If he isn't using a grid then it doesn't matter and they should just measure the distance or calculate it like you proposed. But with a grid, the rules are spelled out clearly. The spacial relationships DO work out weird in the base Grid rule, and it can be difficult to reconcile in our heads because we know it doesn't actually work that way in real life. BUT, it is a simple rule to use and takes little thought once you get used to it. Using a grid is already an abstraction so imposing further abstractions on top of that skews the results even further
    $endgroup$
    – G. Moylan
    9 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    Let us continue this discussion in chat.
    $endgroup$
    – G. Moylan
    9 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Let us continue this discussion in chat.
    $endgroup$
    – G. Moylan
    9 hours ago











    2












    $begingroup$

    There is no solid right way to do this, but here are three ways this can be adjudicated.



    Pythagoras



    Using the Pythagoran theorem of $a^2+b^2=c^2$ you would obtain a distance of 112.8 ft. This is the most accurate method, but is going to necessitate calculations, and your mileage may vary but I prefer not to large squares and roots in my head and having to resort to a calculator all the time might slow your game down.



    Simple sum



    If you just add the distances together (giving 135 ft) you can very quickly estimate an upper bound for the distance. This can be very useful because if that estimate puts it in range then it is going to be and more accurate calculations need not be performed.



    Adapt the Optional Diagonal Rules for playing on a grid



    In the optional rules1 presented on page 252 of the Dungeon Master's Guide every other diagonal move in a 5 ft by 5 ft grid costs 5 extra feet of movement where a normal diagonal costs 5 feet. You could then move diagonals counting 5 feet per and add an extra 5 for every other moved. However to make it simpler we can observe that a move 10 ft vertically and 10 ft horizontally would cost 15 feet when moved diagonally. A resultant rule to estimate a angular distance is that for every 10 ft moved both diagonally and vertically, 5 feet is subtracted from the summed distance.



    With our specific example the vertical distance is 110 ft and the horizontal is 25 ft. The summed distance is 135 ft, but there is 2 '10-feet' moved by both so 2$times$5 feet is subtracted. The estimated distance is then 125 ft. (The number of '10-feet's would be equal to the smallest of the distances divided by 10 and rounded down.)



    This is between the two other estimates and has the advantage of being fairly quick to calculate (much more mental-arithmetic friendly than Pythagoras) and consistent with other movement (if you're playing on a grid).





    1: It is an optional rule for the variant rules presented on the sidebar on page 192 of the Player's Handbook.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      2












      $begingroup$

      There is no solid right way to do this, but here are three ways this can be adjudicated.



      Pythagoras



      Using the Pythagoran theorem of $a^2+b^2=c^2$ you would obtain a distance of 112.8 ft. This is the most accurate method, but is going to necessitate calculations, and your mileage may vary but I prefer not to large squares and roots in my head and having to resort to a calculator all the time might slow your game down.



      Simple sum



      If you just add the distances together (giving 135 ft) you can very quickly estimate an upper bound for the distance. This can be very useful because if that estimate puts it in range then it is going to be and more accurate calculations need not be performed.



      Adapt the Optional Diagonal Rules for playing on a grid



      In the optional rules1 presented on page 252 of the Dungeon Master's Guide every other diagonal move in a 5 ft by 5 ft grid costs 5 extra feet of movement where a normal diagonal costs 5 feet. You could then move diagonals counting 5 feet per and add an extra 5 for every other moved. However to make it simpler we can observe that a move 10 ft vertically and 10 ft horizontally would cost 15 feet when moved diagonally. A resultant rule to estimate a angular distance is that for every 10 ft moved both diagonally and vertically, 5 feet is subtracted from the summed distance.



      With our specific example the vertical distance is 110 ft and the horizontal is 25 ft. The summed distance is 135 ft, but there is 2 '10-feet' moved by both so 2$times$5 feet is subtracted. The estimated distance is then 125 ft. (The number of '10-feet's would be equal to the smallest of the distances divided by 10 and rounded down.)



      This is between the two other estimates and has the advantage of being fairly quick to calculate (much more mental-arithmetic friendly than Pythagoras) and consistent with other movement (if you're playing on a grid).





      1: It is an optional rule for the variant rules presented on the sidebar on page 192 of the Player's Handbook.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        There is no solid right way to do this, but here are three ways this can be adjudicated.



        Pythagoras



        Using the Pythagoran theorem of $a^2+b^2=c^2$ you would obtain a distance of 112.8 ft. This is the most accurate method, but is going to necessitate calculations, and your mileage may vary but I prefer not to large squares and roots in my head and having to resort to a calculator all the time might slow your game down.



        Simple sum



        If you just add the distances together (giving 135 ft) you can very quickly estimate an upper bound for the distance. This can be very useful because if that estimate puts it in range then it is going to be and more accurate calculations need not be performed.



        Adapt the Optional Diagonal Rules for playing on a grid



        In the optional rules1 presented on page 252 of the Dungeon Master's Guide every other diagonal move in a 5 ft by 5 ft grid costs 5 extra feet of movement where a normal diagonal costs 5 feet. You could then move diagonals counting 5 feet per and add an extra 5 for every other moved. However to make it simpler we can observe that a move 10 ft vertically and 10 ft horizontally would cost 15 feet when moved diagonally. A resultant rule to estimate a angular distance is that for every 10 ft moved both diagonally and vertically, 5 feet is subtracted from the summed distance.



        With our specific example the vertical distance is 110 ft and the horizontal is 25 ft. The summed distance is 135 ft, but there is 2 '10-feet' moved by both so 2$times$5 feet is subtracted. The estimated distance is then 125 ft. (The number of '10-feet's would be equal to the smallest of the distances divided by 10 and rounded down.)



        This is between the two other estimates and has the advantage of being fairly quick to calculate (much more mental-arithmetic friendly than Pythagoras) and consistent with other movement (if you're playing on a grid).





        1: It is an optional rule for the variant rules presented on the sidebar on page 192 of the Player's Handbook.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        There is no solid right way to do this, but here are three ways this can be adjudicated.



        Pythagoras



        Using the Pythagoran theorem of $a^2+b^2=c^2$ you would obtain a distance of 112.8 ft. This is the most accurate method, but is going to necessitate calculations, and your mileage may vary but I prefer not to large squares and roots in my head and having to resort to a calculator all the time might slow your game down.



        Simple sum



        If you just add the distances together (giving 135 ft) you can very quickly estimate an upper bound for the distance. This can be very useful because if that estimate puts it in range then it is going to be and more accurate calculations need not be performed.



        Adapt the Optional Diagonal Rules for playing on a grid



        In the optional rules1 presented on page 252 of the Dungeon Master's Guide every other diagonal move in a 5 ft by 5 ft grid costs 5 extra feet of movement where a normal diagonal costs 5 feet. You could then move diagonals counting 5 feet per and add an extra 5 for every other moved. However to make it simpler we can observe that a move 10 ft vertically and 10 ft horizontally would cost 15 feet when moved diagonally. A resultant rule to estimate a angular distance is that for every 10 ft moved both diagonally and vertically, 5 feet is subtracted from the summed distance.



        With our specific example the vertical distance is 110 ft and the horizontal is 25 ft. The summed distance is 135 ft, but there is 2 '10-feet' moved by both so 2$times$5 feet is subtracted. The estimated distance is then 125 ft. (The number of '10-feet's would be equal to the smallest of the distances divided by 10 and rounded down.)



        This is between the two other estimates and has the advantage of being fairly quick to calculate (much more mental-arithmetic friendly than Pythagoras) and consistent with other movement (if you're playing on a grid).





        1: It is an optional rule for the variant rules presented on the sidebar on page 192 of the Player's Handbook.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 9 hours ago

























        answered 9 hours ago









        Someone_EvilSomeone_Evil

        3,9891039




        3,9891039























            1












            $begingroup$

            The shorthand for determining distance is in the PHB 192, "Variant: Playing on a Grid":




            To determine range on a grid between two things - whether creatures or
            objects - start counting squares from a square adjacent to one of them
            and stop counting the the space of the other one. Count by the
            shortest route.




            Because of the 3-dimensional nature of being above them, if you wanted to do the Variant RAW then it would most likely be be the squares of space down the mast (22 squares for 110ft), and then up to 5 squares for the remaining 25', since the first 5' of that would be the adjacent square you begin counting from, making the range anywhere from 115' to 135' in the basic rules.



            Personally, I'd recommend going for NautArch's Pythagorean approach and incur half-cover to both the gunslinger and the targets for realism and to not have your player have a "fish-in-a-barrel" scenario of free shots to anybody not coming to a sea fight with bows.






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Tyler Mackey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Thank you for your contribution, but answers are not the place for comments. When you earn enough reputation you will unlock the ability to comment.
              $endgroup$
              – Rubiksmoose
              9 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Yeah, that's why I tried to put as much information in as I could to make it more of an answer while addressing issues in previously proposed answers. Sorry if that's incorrect form or violated rules.
              $endgroup$
              – Tyler Mackey
              9 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              I see! Well I've removed the comment language to make you intentions clearer! I think making the answer was the right thing to do, but in the future possibly just don't start it with "I can't comment but...". Anyways welcome to RPG.se! And sorry for the rough start, but I actually do think you have the basis for a solid answer here with that edit made.
              $endgroup$
              – Rubiksmoose
              9 hours ago








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Okay, thanks! I'll keep it in mind for the future
              $endgroup$
              – Tyler Mackey
              9 hours ago
















            1












            $begingroup$

            The shorthand for determining distance is in the PHB 192, "Variant: Playing on a Grid":




            To determine range on a grid between two things - whether creatures or
            objects - start counting squares from a square adjacent to one of them
            and stop counting the the space of the other one. Count by the
            shortest route.




            Because of the 3-dimensional nature of being above them, if you wanted to do the Variant RAW then it would most likely be be the squares of space down the mast (22 squares for 110ft), and then up to 5 squares for the remaining 25', since the first 5' of that would be the adjacent square you begin counting from, making the range anywhere from 115' to 135' in the basic rules.



            Personally, I'd recommend going for NautArch's Pythagorean approach and incur half-cover to both the gunslinger and the targets for realism and to not have your player have a "fish-in-a-barrel" scenario of free shots to anybody not coming to a sea fight with bows.






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Tyler Mackey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Thank you for your contribution, but answers are not the place for comments. When you earn enough reputation you will unlock the ability to comment.
              $endgroup$
              – Rubiksmoose
              9 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Yeah, that's why I tried to put as much information in as I could to make it more of an answer while addressing issues in previously proposed answers. Sorry if that's incorrect form or violated rules.
              $endgroup$
              – Tyler Mackey
              9 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              I see! Well I've removed the comment language to make you intentions clearer! I think making the answer was the right thing to do, but in the future possibly just don't start it with "I can't comment but...". Anyways welcome to RPG.se! And sorry for the rough start, but I actually do think you have the basis for a solid answer here with that edit made.
              $endgroup$
              – Rubiksmoose
              9 hours ago








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Okay, thanks! I'll keep it in mind for the future
              $endgroup$
              – Tyler Mackey
              9 hours ago














            1












            1








            1





            $begingroup$

            The shorthand for determining distance is in the PHB 192, "Variant: Playing on a Grid":




            To determine range on a grid between two things - whether creatures or
            objects - start counting squares from a square adjacent to one of them
            and stop counting the the space of the other one. Count by the
            shortest route.




            Because of the 3-dimensional nature of being above them, if you wanted to do the Variant RAW then it would most likely be be the squares of space down the mast (22 squares for 110ft), and then up to 5 squares for the remaining 25', since the first 5' of that would be the adjacent square you begin counting from, making the range anywhere from 115' to 135' in the basic rules.



            Personally, I'd recommend going for NautArch's Pythagorean approach and incur half-cover to both the gunslinger and the targets for realism and to not have your player have a "fish-in-a-barrel" scenario of free shots to anybody not coming to a sea fight with bows.






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Tyler Mackey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$



            The shorthand for determining distance is in the PHB 192, "Variant: Playing on a Grid":




            To determine range on a grid between two things - whether creatures or
            objects - start counting squares from a square adjacent to one of them
            and stop counting the the space of the other one. Count by the
            shortest route.




            Because of the 3-dimensional nature of being above them, if you wanted to do the Variant RAW then it would most likely be be the squares of space down the mast (22 squares for 110ft), and then up to 5 squares for the remaining 25', since the first 5' of that would be the adjacent square you begin counting from, making the range anywhere from 115' to 135' in the basic rules.



            Personally, I'd recommend going for NautArch's Pythagorean approach and incur half-cover to both the gunslinger and the targets for realism and to not have your player have a "fish-in-a-barrel" scenario of free shots to anybody not coming to a sea fight with bows.







            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Tyler Mackey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 4 hours ago









            V2Blast

            28.1k5101171




            28.1k5101171






            New contributor




            Tyler Mackey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            answered 9 hours ago









            Tyler MackeyTyler Mackey

            511




            511




            New contributor




            Tyler Mackey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





            New contributor





            Tyler Mackey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            Tyler Mackey is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Thank you for your contribution, but answers are not the place for comments. When you earn enough reputation you will unlock the ability to comment.
              $endgroup$
              – Rubiksmoose
              9 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Yeah, that's why I tried to put as much information in as I could to make it more of an answer while addressing issues in previously proposed answers. Sorry if that's incorrect form or violated rules.
              $endgroup$
              – Tyler Mackey
              9 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              I see! Well I've removed the comment language to make you intentions clearer! I think making the answer was the right thing to do, but in the future possibly just don't start it with "I can't comment but...". Anyways welcome to RPG.se! And sorry for the rough start, but I actually do think you have the basis for a solid answer here with that edit made.
              $endgroup$
              – Rubiksmoose
              9 hours ago








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Okay, thanks! I'll keep it in mind for the future
              $endgroup$
              – Tyler Mackey
              9 hours ago














            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Thank you for your contribution, but answers are not the place for comments. When you earn enough reputation you will unlock the ability to comment.
              $endgroup$
              – Rubiksmoose
              9 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Yeah, that's why I tried to put as much information in as I could to make it more of an answer while addressing issues in previously proposed answers. Sorry if that's incorrect form or violated rules.
              $endgroup$
              – Tyler Mackey
              9 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              I see! Well I've removed the comment language to make you intentions clearer! I think making the answer was the right thing to do, but in the future possibly just don't start it with "I can't comment but...". Anyways welcome to RPG.se! And sorry for the rough start, but I actually do think you have the basis for a solid answer here with that edit made.
              $endgroup$
              – Rubiksmoose
              9 hours ago








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Okay, thanks! I'll keep it in mind for the future
              $endgroup$
              – Tyler Mackey
              9 hours ago








            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Thank you for your contribution, but answers are not the place for comments. When you earn enough reputation you will unlock the ability to comment.
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            9 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Thank you for your contribution, but answers are not the place for comments. When you earn enough reputation you will unlock the ability to comment.
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            9 hours ago




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Yeah, that's why I tried to put as much information in as I could to make it more of an answer while addressing issues in previously proposed answers. Sorry if that's incorrect form or violated rules.
            $endgroup$
            – Tyler Mackey
            9 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Yeah, that's why I tried to put as much information in as I could to make it more of an answer while addressing issues in previously proposed answers. Sorry if that's incorrect form or violated rules.
            $endgroup$
            – Tyler Mackey
            9 hours ago




            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            I see! Well I've removed the comment language to make you intentions clearer! I think making the answer was the right thing to do, but in the future possibly just don't start it with "I can't comment but...". Anyways welcome to RPG.se! And sorry for the rough start, but I actually do think you have the basis for a solid answer here with that edit made.
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            9 hours ago






            $begingroup$
            I see! Well I've removed the comment language to make you intentions clearer! I think making the answer was the right thing to do, but in the future possibly just don't start it with "I can't comment but...". Anyways welcome to RPG.se! And sorry for the rough start, but I actually do think you have the basis for a solid answer here with that edit made.
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            9 hours ago






            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Okay, thanks! I'll keep it in mind for the future
            $endgroup$
            – Tyler Mackey
            9 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Okay, thanks! I'll keep it in mind for the future
            $endgroup$
            – Tyler Mackey
            9 hours ago











            0












            $begingroup$

            This GM always uses the following houserule:



            Vertical distance doesn't affect the higher shooter, whilst it is added to the horizontal distance for the lower shooter



            Thus your character in the crows nest will be able to shoot at the creatures as if they were 25' away, whilst those on the ship shooting at him have to do so as if they were 135' away.



            This gives the higher combatant an advantage, as shooting up is always harder than shooting down, whilst it avoids any complexity from trigonometry or the diagonal rule.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Doesn't his give a HUGE advantage to ranged flying combatants?
              $endgroup$
              – NautArch
              9 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              I've not had to deal with ranged flying combatants that I've not been controlling myself, so I've not hit any issues. My gut says any vertical distance at or beyond long range would apply disadvantage, but I'd want to playtest it to be sure.
              $endgroup$
              – Kyyshak
              9 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Having the high ground IS a huge advantage but in some cases this can give a lot more advantage than it should. Using your house rule as stated, I have the same chance of hitting no matter how far I am above me targets? 20 feet up is the same as 100 feet up is the same as 10,000 feet up? So long as the horizontal distance is significantly greater than the vertical distance, i.e. if I am 100 feet away and 30 feet higher, then this rule is fast, easy and close enough to accurate. But as the angles get steeper this rule begins to fail IMO.
              $endgroup$
              – krb
              7 hours ago
















            0












            $begingroup$

            This GM always uses the following houserule:



            Vertical distance doesn't affect the higher shooter, whilst it is added to the horizontal distance for the lower shooter



            Thus your character in the crows nest will be able to shoot at the creatures as if they were 25' away, whilst those on the ship shooting at him have to do so as if they were 135' away.



            This gives the higher combatant an advantage, as shooting up is always harder than shooting down, whilst it avoids any complexity from trigonometry or the diagonal rule.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Doesn't his give a HUGE advantage to ranged flying combatants?
              $endgroup$
              – NautArch
              9 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              I've not had to deal with ranged flying combatants that I've not been controlling myself, so I've not hit any issues. My gut says any vertical distance at or beyond long range would apply disadvantage, but I'd want to playtest it to be sure.
              $endgroup$
              – Kyyshak
              9 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Having the high ground IS a huge advantage but in some cases this can give a lot more advantage than it should. Using your house rule as stated, I have the same chance of hitting no matter how far I am above me targets? 20 feet up is the same as 100 feet up is the same as 10,000 feet up? So long as the horizontal distance is significantly greater than the vertical distance, i.e. if I am 100 feet away and 30 feet higher, then this rule is fast, easy and close enough to accurate. But as the angles get steeper this rule begins to fail IMO.
              $endgroup$
              – krb
              7 hours ago














            0












            0








            0





            $begingroup$

            This GM always uses the following houserule:



            Vertical distance doesn't affect the higher shooter, whilst it is added to the horizontal distance for the lower shooter



            Thus your character in the crows nest will be able to shoot at the creatures as if they were 25' away, whilst those on the ship shooting at him have to do so as if they were 135' away.



            This gives the higher combatant an advantage, as shooting up is always harder than shooting down, whilst it avoids any complexity from trigonometry or the diagonal rule.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            This GM always uses the following houserule:



            Vertical distance doesn't affect the higher shooter, whilst it is added to the horizontal distance for the lower shooter



            Thus your character in the crows nest will be able to shoot at the creatures as if they were 25' away, whilst those on the ship shooting at him have to do so as if they were 135' away.



            This gives the higher combatant an advantage, as shooting up is always harder than shooting down, whilst it avoids any complexity from trigonometry or the diagonal rule.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 9 hours ago









            KyyshakKyyshak

            1,173511




            1,173511












            • $begingroup$
              Doesn't his give a HUGE advantage to ranged flying combatants?
              $endgroup$
              – NautArch
              9 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              I've not had to deal with ranged flying combatants that I've not been controlling myself, so I've not hit any issues. My gut says any vertical distance at or beyond long range would apply disadvantage, but I'd want to playtest it to be sure.
              $endgroup$
              – Kyyshak
              9 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Having the high ground IS a huge advantage but in some cases this can give a lot more advantage than it should. Using your house rule as stated, I have the same chance of hitting no matter how far I am above me targets? 20 feet up is the same as 100 feet up is the same as 10,000 feet up? So long as the horizontal distance is significantly greater than the vertical distance, i.e. if I am 100 feet away and 30 feet higher, then this rule is fast, easy and close enough to accurate. But as the angles get steeper this rule begins to fail IMO.
              $endgroup$
              – krb
              7 hours ago


















            • $begingroup$
              Doesn't his give a HUGE advantage to ranged flying combatants?
              $endgroup$
              – NautArch
              9 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              I've not had to deal with ranged flying combatants that I've not been controlling myself, so I've not hit any issues. My gut says any vertical distance at or beyond long range would apply disadvantage, but I'd want to playtest it to be sure.
              $endgroup$
              – Kyyshak
              9 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Having the high ground IS a huge advantage but in some cases this can give a lot more advantage than it should. Using your house rule as stated, I have the same chance of hitting no matter how far I am above me targets? 20 feet up is the same as 100 feet up is the same as 10,000 feet up? So long as the horizontal distance is significantly greater than the vertical distance, i.e. if I am 100 feet away and 30 feet higher, then this rule is fast, easy and close enough to accurate. But as the angles get steeper this rule begins to fail IMO.
              $endgroup$
              – krb
              7 hours ago
















            $begingroup$
            Doesn't his give a HUGE advantage to ranged flying combatants?
            $endgroup$
            – NautArch
            9 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Doesn't his give a HUGE advantage to ranged flying combatants?
            $endgroup$
            – NautArch
            9 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            I've not had to deal with ranged flying combatants that I've not been controlling myself, so I've not hit any issues. My gut says any vertical distance at or beyond long range would apply disadvantage, but I'd want to playtest it to be sure.
            $endgroup$
            – Kyyshak
            9 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            I've not had to deal with ranged flying combatants that I've not been controlling myself, so I've not hit any issues. My gut says any vertical distance at or beyond long range would apply disadvantage, but I'd want to playtest it to be sure.
            $endgroup$
            – Kyyshak
            9 hours ago




            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            Having the high ground IS a huge advantage but in some cases this can give a lot more advantage than it should. Using your house rule as stated, I have the same chance of hitting no matter how far I am above me targets? 20 feet up is the same as 100 feet up is the same as 10,000 feet up? So long as the horizontal distance is significantly greater than the vertical distance, i.e. if I am 100 feet away and 30 feet higher, then this rule is fast, easy and close enough to accurate. But as the angles get steeper this rule begins to fail IMO.
            $endgroup$
            – krb
            7 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Having the high ground IS a huge advantage but in some cases this can give a lot more advantage than it should. Using your house rule as stated, I have the same chance of hitting no matter how far I am above me targets? 20 feet up is the same as 100 feet up is the same as 10,000 feet up? So long as the horizontal distance is significantly greater than the vertical distance, i.e. if I am 100 feet away and 30 feet higher, then this rule is fast, easy and close enough to accurate. But as the angles get steeper this rule begins to fail IMO.
            $endgroup$
            – krb
            7 hours ago


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f147118%2fhow-can-i-fairly-adjudicate-the-effects-of-height-differences-on-ranged-attacks%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            El tren de la libertad Índice Antecedentes "Porque yo decido" Desarrollo de la...

            Castillo d'Acher Características Menú de navegación

            Connecting two nodes from the same mother node horizontallyTikZ: What EXACTLY does the the |- notation for...