Ammo for ranged weapons

[Archaven]

I would love for special ammo TBH. That would make encourage folks to have a range character. If my memory serve me right, Sagani wasn't as great as the other classes.

[GloatingSwine]

I would love for special ammo TBH. That would make encourage folks to have a range character. If my memory serve me right, Sagani wasn't as great as the other classes.

 

You have to remember that a ranger is two characters, and by the end of my playthrough Itumaak was a horrendous murder engine.  If you have the pet present that forms part of the ranger's overall balance so the character themself might not feel as powerful without the pet.

[JerekKruger]

If my memory serve me right, Sagani wasn't as great as the other classes.

 

When did you last play through PoE? In more recent patches Rangers have been pretty damn good, and I almost always take Sagani.

[JerekKruger]

cutting rigging from ships, 

 

Dubious. I imagine some arrow heads could achieve this aim but if your aim is to disable a ship without destroying it you'll find it a lot easier to simply use broadheads against the crew.

 

even blunt force trauma.

 

 

This one is wrong. You can calculate the kinetic energy that an arrow has upon leaving* a heavy warbow or a quarrel has when leaving a very heavy draw weight crossbow and it's simply not enough to do any significant damage through blunt force trauma. The blunt arrows you occasionally seen in books are probably for hunting very small game where using a sharp point would cause too much damage to the meat, or perhaps for training (though this one I doubt). I can pretty much guarantee that no archer has ever evaluated their target and though "I'll be best served with a blunt headed arrow for this one".

 

*Also arrows and quarrels slow down very quickly, so the kinetic energy is going to be even less when hitting the target.

[Aotrs Commander]

 

People get frustrated by managing a stack of projectiles in the inventory?

 

Oh boy...

 

Limits for basic ammo don't add anything to the game, it's not a challenge beyond "remember to spam click the buy button occasionally" it's just busywork that came about as a legacy of (old crufty) pen and paper design but doesn't actually enhance a computer RPG (which tend to have considerably more combat).

 

Even having limited quantities of special ammo was rarely useful, because what tended to happen in Baldur's Gate was that you just hoarded them and never used them because you might need them later, until the point where you didn't need them because you got the quiver of plenty anyway.

 

Having special ammo as a per rest or per encounter equipment would preserve the "when do I use this" nature of special ammo without the annoying busywork part.

 

 

Or, as I found in my last part-playthrough of IWD2, 3/4 of the party's inventory is full of arrows half the time (the other half being because you've used the ammo), even considering infinity-ammo magic items (which, because you need so many of, I "bought" using DaleKeeper). (And on Heart of Winter mode, which I gave up on after trying the first act, there was pretty only one tactic for fights, which was "scren with summons, everyone else shoots," the problem was worse.)

 

So yeah, limited ammunition is a pain the backside when you have to be fiddling around in you inventory pretty much every combat. The stash would make that easier, yes, but at that point, you are just going to put a mountain of ammunition in it anyway. Heck, at that point, you might as well, instead of modelling ammunition, just subtract [x] money every [y] arrows or something.

 

BG (et al) also had the thing where, (I beleve, though could be wrong) you stacked ammunition and weapon bonuses (which was why it was so nasty). Later games only took the best one.

 

Given that and that crafting is quite easy, I don't think there's that much use for elemental ammunition especially.

 

And if you are going for "per rest" ammunition... Wouldn't it be just easier to have a per-rest/encounter ability on the weapon or the character that would do [x] effect...? (And instead of carrying more ammunition, carry more weapons?)

 

(Given that "realism" and "ammunition quantity" in CRPGs are never on speaking terms, and even in table-top RPGs are barely looking at each other... Fantasy characters often carry nearly more ammunition around with them than most modern soldiers do...!)

 

 

cutting rigging from ships,

Dubious. I imagine some arrow heads could achieve this aim but if your aim is to disable a ship without destroying it you'll find it a lot easier to simply use broadheads against the crew.

 

even blunt force trauma.

This one is wrong. You can calculate the kinetic energy that an arrow has upon leaving* a heavy warbow or a quarrel has when leaving a very heavy draw weight crossbow and it's simply not enough to do any significant damage through blunt force trauma. The blunt arrows you occasionally seen in books are probably for hunting very small game where using a sharp point would cause too much damage to the meat, or perhaps for training (though this one I doubt). I can pretty much guarantee that no archer has ever evaluated their target and though "I'll be best served with a blunt headed arrow for this one".

 

*Also arrows and quarrels slow down very quickly, so the kinetic energy is going to be even less when hitting the target.

 

Let me take a moment to recall from one of D&D 3.0 sourcebooks the "tumblng bolt," which preportedly tumbled around with an erratic flight path such that it denied the target its Dexterity bonus or something; an idea so implausibly, stupendously, ingloriously arse-backwards and assinine that even today, I am overcome by the urge to slap the author of that item with a clue-by-four upon which is written "PHYSICS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY."

Edited February 1, 2017 by Aotrs Commander

[JerekKruger]

Let me take a moment to recall from one of D&D 3.0 sourcebooks the "tumblng bolt," which preportedly tumbled around with an erratic flight path such that it denied the target its Dexterity bonus or something; an idea so implausibly, stupendously, ingloriously arse-backwards and assinine that even today, I am overcome by the urge to slap the author of that item with a clue-by-four upon which is written "PHYSICS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY."

 

Hah! Seriously? That's quite the most ridiculous idea I've heard for a special bolt type. Even if physics did work that way you're designing a bolt that deliberately misses in the hope that your target will doge into its path. Hah!

[Bloodshard]

 

cutting rigging from ships, 

 

Dubious. I imagine some arrow heads could achieve this aim but if your aim is to disable a ship without destroying it you'll find it a lot easier to simply use broadheads against the crew.

 

even blunt force trauma.

 

 

This one is wrong. You can calculate the kinetic energy that an arrow has upon leaving* a heavy warbow or a quarrel has when leaving a very heavy draw weight crossbow and it's simply not enough to do any significant damage through blunt force trauma. The blunt arrows you occasionally seen in books are probably for hunting very small game where using a sharp point would cause too much damage to the meat, or perhaps for training (though this one I doubt). I can pretty much guarantee that no archer has ever evaluated their target and though "I'll be best served with a blunt headed arrow for this one".

 

*Also arrows and quarrels slow down very quickly, so the kinetic energy is going to be even less when hitting the target.

 

 

the cutting rigging on ships comes from some of the arrows that where found on the Marry Rose a British Navy ship from the late Renaissance, we are not completely sure of how effective they would be but they where, but i can say that a squad of well trained archers could do some damage to the rigging of a ship if all there fire was concentrated on one block of rigging while the ships are still not quite in range to attack the crew

 

Secondly I personally hunt with longbows ranging from 50# - 75# draw weight, I have used Blunts points on coyotes, and even with no point the last coyotes i shot the arrow passed through the skull and crushed the first 3 vertebrae and this was at a range of about 30m with a 50# longbow which is little more than half that of what a medieval war bow would be at 80#-120#, and honestly i would love to dispatch those wolves quicker.

 

lastly bolts will decelerate quickly because they have far less weight behind them but an arrow has more momentum and will maintain its speed for a much longer distance. the average war bow is calculated to have had an effective killing range of about 300m though this was using the war bow as an aria of effect weapon instead of a direct line of sight weapon, with my experience I will say that the max line of sight range of any bow is about 100m which is just a little past the max range used in field archery competitions.

[JerekKruger]

the cutting rigging on ships comes from some of the arrows that where found on the Marry Rose a British Navy ship from the late Renaissance, we are not completely sure of how effective they would be but they where, but i can say that a squad of well trained archers could do some damage to the rigging of a ship if all there fire was concentrated on one block of rigging while the ships are still not quite in range to attack the crew

 

What would make shooting the rigging possible at longer range than the crew?

 

Secondly I personally hunt with longbows ranging from 50# - 75# draw weight, I have used Blunts points on coyotes, and even with no point the last coyotes i shot the arrow passed through the skull and crushed the first 3 vertebrae and this was at a range of about 30m with a 50# longbow which is little more than half that of what a medieval war bow would be at 80#-120#, and honestly i would love to dispatch those wolves quicker.

 

 

Coyotes aren't humans. I don't know how the thickness of their skulls compares, but I would be surprised if it was as thick or thicker.

 

Also no doubt a well placed blunt arrow will do serious damage or even kill a human, but if we're allowing for well placed shots why not go with something that has a point?

 

As for specifics, I found a site where someone used light gates to measure the speed of an arrow from a lower draw weight bow at around 120 feet per second, and suggested a formula of (100 + draw weight) ft/s for the speed of an arrow leaving the bow. Let's be generous and go with 250 feet per second for a 120lb bow (that's about 75m/s). The weight of the arrow is surprisingly difficult to find but I came across several sources suggesting something around 60g that also mention Mary Rose replicas, so let's go with 60g. That gives a kinetic energy of

 

1/2 * (60/1000) * 75^2 ~ 170J.

 

Not bad, that's about the same amount of kinetic energy that a typical person generates with a punch, though trained boxers will generate significantly more (upwards of 450 for heavyweights). Now a punch can, if it hits the right place and connects well, do serious damage or even kill, but the vast majority of punches thrown by non-trained individuals won't do either. This is why I am dubious of the ability of a blunt arrow to achieve much in anything other than ideal circumstances.

 

Also worth noting is that's the energy of the arrow immediately after it leaves the bow. The arrow will have lost a lot of that energy after travelling even a short distance (air resistance is proportional to velocity squared, and whilst fletching is great for aerodynamics it's not great for reducing air resistance).

 

Of course, a blunt headed arrow has a smaller striking surface than a fist, so it will impart a higher pressure on the target, but if that's the argument in favour of blunt headed arrows being effective then I'll go one further and point out that a sharp headed arrow has even smaller striking surface and so by that argument is even better.

 

Final point, against someone wearing a gambeson or similar padded layer they are going to do very little against the body, and against a helmet I doubt they'll do much to the head either.

 

So I stand by my opinion that blunt headed arrows, whilst certainly useful for killing various animals without overly damaging the meat, are not an effective arrow type for combat.

 

lastly bolts will decelerate quickly because they have far less weight behind them but an arrow has more momentum and will maintain its speed for a much longer distance. the average war bow is calculated to have had an effective killing range of about 300m though this was using the war bow as an aria of effect weapon instead of a direct line of sight weapon, with my experience I will say that the max line of sight range of any bow is about 100m which is just a little past the max range used in field archery competitions.

 

 

 

Effective killing range is an interesting concept here, since it heavily depends on where the arrow strikes. A longbow arrow isn't going to do anything if it strikes the breastplate of a knight for example, even at near point blank range (I know there's debate about this, but the tests I've seen that say otherwise never used actual proper reconstruction armour and the contemporary sources mention a lot of face and limb injuries but almost no body injuries). Similarly at 300m the arrow is going to nothing against most armoured targets unless it hits a weak spot.

 

That said, if the arrow does hit a weak spot then sure, even at 300m it will be able to injure (kill really depends on what the injury is). The thing is, when it comes to sticks with sharp metal points attached to the end, it doesn't take a lot of force to penetrate humans. At that sort of range I suspect much of the energy imparted by the bow has been lost, and the energy of the arrow is mostly that gained from losing gravitational potential energy as the arrow falls. I'm no expert, but if I stood at the top of a 5 story building and simply drop an arrow (point facing down) off it I suspect it would penetrate a passer-by standing on the ground below: no need for extra energy.

[Varana]

Special ammo is IMHO best implemented as a ranger per-encounter ability, lasting x amount of time, can be taken more than once.

Or as a on/off ranger trinket - you put "fire arrows" (no amount, just generic item) into the trinket slot, and as long as they're there, the ranger gets bonus fire damage. Probably harder to balance, though.

No need to fiddle with inventory.

[JerekKruger]

Special ammo is IMHO best implemented as a ranger per-encounter ability, lasting x amount of time, can be taken more than once.

Or as a on/off ranger trinket - you put "fire arrows" (no amount, just generic item) into the trinket slot, and as long as they're there, the ranger gets bonus fire damage. Probably harder to balance, though.

No need to fiddle with inventory.

 

There's been mention that every class is going to have a special item type unique to them, so I could definitely see Rangers getting arrows or quivers as theirs.

[Faerunner]

No.

 

Or rather, I'm okay with it being an option, but not required.

 

If you want to do it, go on ahead. I found it crippling for BG and a stresser for other games. I don't want it here.