4e Verisimilitude

[Bigode]

Lodoss is D&D, Drizzt is D&D. I don't think inheriting D&D's retardations should be a goal. The 3 musketeers and Zorro didn't fight manticores. Gimli mostly didn't either, and carried spare axes IIRC (if not, he should). As for myth, they all pulled very fancy stuff when they needed to, and I think that was established enough.

[Maxus]

Drizzt used a bow pretty regularly early on, I recall. Then it got lost or some crap and after that he just grabbed that magic bow off'f Catti-brie on the rare occasions he needs to shoot something. He *can* do it, and he seems to have Rapid Shot.

The rest of Team Drizzt (Bruenor, Wulfgar, Catti-brie, Regis) use ranged stuff, too. Wulfgar's famously able to throw his hammer. Bruenor's thrown his axe a couple of times, and I think he mentioned he's going to have to get some small throwing hammers. Catti-brie has a magic bow with ever-replenishing arrows and is the group's primary ranged fighter. The hobbit's the only one who doesn't use ranged weapons, that I can recall.

[virgil]

Dude, Elric is the lord of the dragon riders, leaving the captain to do the menial work when he's supposed to be doing his S&M thing (or his brooding). He's the world's greatest sorcerer and literally calls down the god of insects on people. And yet, he fights flying creatures even less often than he uses his ranged abilities.

It's been very logically discussed that the world of LotR is a world of 5th level characters, and the only things that flew were the Nazgul and the giant eagles. The eagles weren't fought, and the Nazgul didn't even have ranged capability aside from what seemed like a fearsome presence. Oh, and the one thing with ranged capability AND flight was a dragon, that was taken down by a bow.

Do you know what Gimli did during the scenes where people exchanged bow attacks from a distance? He waited until the enemy got close and started chopping, because their melee was better than their ranged.

Melee based swordsman are a very common archetype, correct. But they're an archetype in settings where few opponents bother with ranged weapons, very few things can fly, and singular situations exist where the two abilities are actually combined; in which case the hero either used ranged attacks or hid underneath a rock until they came to him. You better be willing to admit that this is the setting you're wanting, because that's what needs to be done to have your little archetype.

And, at the same time, empowering this single archetype involves depowering or flat-out removing several others.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Elric didn't have any ranged attacks. Except that time he summoned a bunch of Stormbringer copies and had em act as dancing swords. But that was mostly just to take on an army of gods and not to deal wtih flying stuff.

Elric is a summoner. When he needs to kill a flying creature in The Vanishing Tower, he phones up the Queen of Birds and has her sic a flock on it. When he wants to be a flying badass, he rides a winged dragon to war. He calls air elementals at need. He has sidekicks who carry bows. So, yeah, read a book.

Only in video games? I think not. Melee only ground based swordsmen is a concept that we see all the damn time in fantasy stories.

I think it's a concept that you see all the time. The rest of us see warriors who might prefer melee but will use whatever they need to to do the damn job.

While you may be able to point to some edge case where some of these characters happened to ride a flying creature or happened to pick up a bow like once in twenty adventures. But the base concept is melee only and ground based. None of these characters has a magic item of flight that they walk around with, nor do they carry ranged weapons.

The 'edge cases' where they use counter-flying techniques tend to be exactly the same 'edge cases' where they encounter flying opposition. Fuck, though, Conan uses his bow against pirates and wolves. Even Zorro uses a gun, and he doesn't ever have to deal with aerial opposition. Basically, you're full of it.

[RandomCasualty]

1204736494[/unixtime]]Dude, Elric is the lord of the dragon riders, leaving the captain to do the menial work when he's supposed to be doing his S&M thing (or his brooding). He's the world's greatest sorcerer and literally calls down the god of insects on people. And yet, he fights flying creatures even less often than he uses his ranged abilities.

True, but I don't care about his backstory. I care about what he actually does in the books. He doesn't go riding around a dragon all the time and casting ranged attack spells. I mean, that's not what he does. The dragons are always sleeping or something and he doesn't want to wake them, so he fights on board ships and stuff, in armor and with a sword.

Do you know what Gimli did during the scenes where people exchanged bow attacks from a distance? He waited until the enemy got close and started chopping, because their melee was better than their ranged.

Yeah, well what do you expect a melee only character to do?

Melee based swordsman are a very common archetype, correct. But they're an archetype in settings where few opponents bother with ranged weapons, very few things can fly, and singular situations exist where the two abilities are actually combined; in which case the hero either used ranged attacks or hid underneath a rock until they came to him. You better be willing to admit that this is the setting you're wanting, because that's what needs to be done to have your little archetype.

And, at the same time, empowering this single archetype involves depowering or flat-out removing several others.

Honestly the only case you're worried about is flight + ranged. That's the only true case that renders the melee hero useless. So it's a competition between the melee only character and the guy who cheese kills stuff with a bow while flying overhead in a completely non-heroic fashion.

I think it's safe to say that the melee character should win out there.

So if we get rid of mobile flight + casting and flight + archery until high levels, then we're left with dragons and manticores. Why not just say that swordsmen are weak against ranged fliers when you fight them outdoors.

Just go the route of most novels and make ranged + flying really rare. The fighter can deal when a griffon, wyvern or a Nazgul swoops down on him. He can ready an attack and slash it as it passes.

[Orion]

melee-only characters have problems with

ranged+flying

or

ranged+starting at really long distance

or

ranged+ faster than you

or

ranged+ inaccessible

or countless other ways of being screwed over.

[Talisman]

1204739424[/unixtime]]
ranged+flying

True

ranged+starting at really long distance

That's what full run is for. You shoot at me, I close and smash the hell out of you.

ranged+ faster than you

You shoot and move. I charge and smash. You move (I get an AoO) and shoot. I move and smash. You lie there and bleed.

ranged+ inaccessible

EVERYONE has a problem when the enemy gets "inaccessible."

or countless other ways of being screwed over.

Those are called "challenges." If they were easy, they wouldn't be worth XP.

[Crissa]

I just don't get why we have to coddle this one concept - melee specialist - by nixing all forms of ranged and flight from the system.

-Crissa

[virgil]

He doesn't go riding around a dragon all the time and casting ranged attack spells.

Because, as I said before, he doesn't attack or get attacked by many things that fly. And yet, for when those situations do occur, he actually has the intelligence to be able to handle them; which you have been arguing against.

Do you know what Gimli did during the scenes where people exchanged bow attacks from a distance? He waited until the enemy got close and started chopping, because their melee was better than their ranged.

Yeah, well what do you expect a melee only character to do?

To not be a moron and keep a bow or even throwing axes around so he'll have something to do before they get to him?

Honestly the only case you're worried about is flight + ranged. That's the only true case that renders the melee hero useless.

This has been stated before by me and others that this is not the case, and it most certainly doesn't mean flying archers are somehow unheroic.

That's what full run is for. You shoot at me, I close and smash the hell out of you.

Except that in many a game, ranged attackers can do their job from more than one or two rounds of full running, giving them a huge advantage by the time the melee moron closes in with his pincushioned body.

You shoot and move. I charge and smash. You move (I get an AoO) and shoot. I move and smash. You lie there and bleed.

What kind of idiot are you giving this bow to? Have you ever kited a monster in any number of video games?
Round 1: Ranged runs away, Melee runs after
Round 2: Ranged shoots and moves, Melee runs after
Round 3: Go to Round 1, repeat until Melee lies and bleeds

If it's not a significant speed difference, then you'll have to throw in extra rounds of moving to make the gap more than a round of the melee running.

And yet Boolean didn't even cover all of the ways our melee moron can get screwed here. The ranged attacker can be a climber, a stealther (shoot + hide, then relocate), or even a swimmer (when both are below water, it's ranged+speed).

Just go the route of most novels and make ranged + flying really rare.

You mean go the route of most novels you read, and with an horrific bias. And let me emphasize that if you can move faster than the melee moron, then we're going to have to get rid of the option for mongols, possibly even horses themselves.

[Leress]

If don't get it, why can't meleer pull out another weapon. A ranged specialist without a backup melee weapon isn't smart either. Wizards and other spell casters don't just spells that go boom, they also have utilitarian spells too.

[Talisman]

1204756148[/unixtime]]I just don't get why we have to coddle this one concept - melee specialist - by nixing all forms of ranged and flight from the system.

No one is saying that we do. I don't see why we have to coddle the fliers at the expense of the melee guys.

Melee specialist should be a valid (but not overpowered) character concept. Archer should as well. Et cetera, ad nauseum. The concept that shouldn't be valid, at least until high levels (IMO) is ranged flyer, since it's the one option that utterly neutralizes the melee specialist.

That's hardly nixing all forms of ranged and flight.

In 3.x D&D, flight is such a superior option, and so easy to acquire, that the melee smashers are unfairly penalized. I like the fact that, in 4e, flight is apparently a hard-to-come-by high-level power. It frikkin' should be!

Edit: Bah, I grow weary of this debate. Y'all have heard my thoughts, and I think it's clear that no one's about to alter their opinion.

[RandomCasualty]

1204758225[/unixtime]]
To not be a moron and keep a bow or even throwing axes around so he'll have something to do before they get to him?

Thrown weapons are mostly a waste of time. By the time you're in range to throw something, most of the time you could have just charged. And while sure, a melee character can carry a bow, most fantasy characters in stories didn't have back up weapons. Aragorn is about the only one I can think of.

And I don't have a problem with meleers using a bow too, it's just that most monsters can't do this. A bear can't use a bow, and a giant has a sack of boulders that only go short distances (and suck compared to its melee attack). So it makes ranged + flying PCs overpowered.

This has been stated before by me and others that this is not the case, and it most certainly doesn't mean flying archers are somehow unheroic.

Flying archers are pretty unheroic when they're shooting at stuff that can't attack them. Staying out of range and firing ranged attacks on your foe may be damned effective, but it's not heroic by any means.

What kind of idiot are you giving this bow to? Have you ever kited a monster in any number of video games?

Just takes one attack to sunder the bow. Only chance he has is if his speed is twice what the meleer's is. Even expeditious retreat won't give him that (unless the meleer is in full plate).

Since basically how it works is this.

Round 1: Full run from meleer to get into threatened area. Archer uses a move action to tumble back, standard to fire.
Round 2: meeler charges archer. Sunders bow.

Now the archer can choose to double move, but then the melee guy does a run action. There's no attacks on either side then, so it's just a stalemate.

The archer can choose to run, but that draws an AoO.

If the archer stops to fire, then he's vulnerable to a charge + sunder.

Also simply getting near something that grants total cover, like a big tree or a rock is sufficient to force the archer to close, because you can just circle the cover with a readied action all day long and the archer can't hit you.

Also, there's always the tower shield. The thing that just says "Go ahead fucktard, waste all your arrows, I can hold this here all day."

Also things like stealth can work against the archer. Fighter jumps into the tall grass or the bushes, Now the archer can't shoot him anymore. Does he just leave? Does he wait him out? Or does he get in closer to investigate? One thing I've noticed is that almost all fantasy warriors seem to have some innate stealth abilities.

On a side note, the nerf to running in 4E is really going to screw over meleers. It seems like kiting will be the optimal strategy there, given how prevalent slow effects happen to be. Just casting sleep auto-slows your target, even if you miss. 4E seems like it's totally going to hate melee.

[Crissa]

1204758887[/unixtime]]...The concept that shouldn't be valid...

You just nixed the concept.

That's contradicting yourself.

-Crissa

[angelfromanotherpin]

The concept that shouldn't be valid, at least until high levels (IMO) is ranged flyer, since it's the one option that utterly neutralizes the melee specialist.

That and horse archer. Or standing on top of a castle wall with a basket of rocks.

And the melee specialist is only utterly neutralized if he's glued a chainsaw/katana to the stump of each wrist and can't pick up a rock to throw.

I like the fact that, in 4e, flight is apparently a hard-to-come-by high-level power. It frikkin' should be!

Yeah, those sparrows in my bird feeder are really high-threat creatures.

[CatharzGodfoot]

1204759007[/unixtime]]
Thrown weapons are mostly a waste of time. By the time you're in range to throw something, most of the time you could have just charged.

Then what the fuck is up with these:

???

1204759007[/unixtime]]

What kind of idiot are you giving this bow to? Have you ever kited a monster in any number of video games?

Just takes one attack to sunder the bow. Only chance he has is if his speed is twice what the meleer's is. Even expeditious retreat won't give him that (unless the meleer is in full plate).

Since basically how it works is this.

Round 1: Full run from meleer to get into threatened area. Archer uses a move action to tumble back, standard to fire.
Round 2: meeler charges archer. Sunders bow.

Now the archer can choose to double move, but then the melee guy does a run action. There's no attacks on either side then, so it's just a stalemate.

The archer can choose to run, but that draws an AoO.

If the archer stops to fire, then he's vulnerable to a charge + sunder.

RC, are you saying that melee specialists should always win against characters using ranged attacks?

[virgil]

Thrown weapons are mostly a waste of time. By the time you're in range to throw something, most of the time you could have just charged.

Unless the opponent is across a chasm, up a wall, down a wall, behind a wall that has holes in it...

...most fantasy characters in stories didn't have back up weapons.

There's this bias again, despite many of the counterexamples of your supposedly melee-only heroes actually having ranged around as an option.

Flying archers are pretty unheroic when they're shooting at stuff that can't attack them.

Remember that whole part about hiding under cover or being in confined areas such that the ranged attacker has to get in melee? Melee only monsters can do that too. And, like the melee archetype, you throw encounters that provide a challenge.

As for that whole sundering trick, did I even give an option for the meleer to catch up to make that attack? The important part is for the ranged attacker to move sufficiently far for a Shoot+Move combo to leave him farther than the melee's ability to move and attack in the same round, running to expand the distance even more when this isn't the case. It's a slow process if the speed difference is small, but doable.

Also simply getting near something that grants total cover, like a big tree or a rock is sufficient to force the archer to close, because you can just circle the cover with a readied action all day long and the archer can't hit you.

Also, there's always the tower shield. The thing that just says "Go ahead fucktard, waste all your arrows, I can hold this here all day."

That is the very damn thing I've been telling you for several posts, "hide under a rock until they get close", but you've been repeatedly ignoring this facet. HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT THAN AGAINST AN ARCHER THAT CAN FLY?!

It truly requires that the entire system caters to your archetype to work, which I consider a contradictory goal when attempting to have a general fantasy world that can accomodate a range of archetypes, because it's quite literally nixing a gamut of choices to allow one to not svck.

[Manxome]

1204723794[/unixtime]]-Brute Mount (high offense, medium defense, low movement)
-Speedy Mount (low offense, medium defense, high/unique movement)
-Guardian Mount (low offense, high defense, low movement)

I feel like I should point out that you didn't use "low" as a defense amount for any of those. And you didn't use "medium" for either offense or movement. So you've actually only got 2 levels of each stat.

And if you rewrite that list with only 2 levels in each stat, it becomes apparent that each type has 1 high and everything else low.

Which means you could have just written "offensive mount, defensive mount, or mobility mount" and cut your word count by about a factor of 4.

[RandomCasualty]

1204760583[/unixtime]]
As for that whole sundering trick, did I even give an option for the meleer to catch up to make that attack? The important part is for the ranged attacker to move sufficiently far for a Shoot+Move combo to leave him farther than the melee's ability to move and attack in the same round, running to expand the distance even more when this isn't the case. It's a slow process if the speed difference is small, but doable.

How? unless your double move is greater than his run (meaning he has to be in either heavy armor or you have a huge speed), there's really no way you're going to get this. Simply because if you back up on a double move, he runs after you. If you want to run away from him after he gets in close, you draw an AoO.

That is the very damn thing I've been telling you for several posts, "hide under a rock until they get close", but you've been repeatedly ignoring this facet. HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT THAN AGAINST AN ARCHER THAT CAN FLY?!

It's not particularly different with a tower shield, but as for finding cover, it's pretty easy to find cover against horizontal attacks. Vertical cover is very rare, unless there happens to be a cave nearby, you're SoL.

It truly requires that the entire system caters to your archetype to work, which I consider a contradictory goal when attempting to have a general fantasy world that can accomodate a range of archetypes, because it's quite literally nixing a gamut of choices to allow one to not svck.

Honestly, I'm not sure what archetype is being eliminated, beyond the cowardly kite based archer. And seriously, fuck him. He's not a heroic character anyway,

RC, are you saying that melee specialists should always win against characters using ranged attacks?

No, not at all, but they should generally get a chance to hit them, unless the ranged guys are sitting atop a tower or have some kind of other high ground. The advantage to being ranged is that you're going to get some free shots, but once the melee guy closes with you, dancing around with a bow shouldn't really work too well.

I'm not adverse to the melee guy requiring a bow sometimes, like shooting an archer on top of a tower, or one with a ridiculously fast speed, like a mount with expeditious retreat on or something. But I also think archers should have to melee sometimes too. Even Legolas had two daggers.

I mean, you guys basically want to hose meleers. They have to carry bows, but as an archer you can jolly well just bow dance around your foe and never use a melee weapon. It's just catering to the kiting pussy tactic, and as I said before, kiting may be effective and powerful, but it's just not heroic. In a game of heroic fantasy, the kiting pussy archetype can go fuck itself as far as I'm concerned.

[Talisman]

1204759170[/unixtime]]

1204758887[/unixtime]]...The concept that shouldn't be valid...

You just nixed the concept.

That's contradicting yourself.

-Crissa

What the hell are you talking about?

I said a single, specific, un-heroic, cheesed-out concept, that's not supported by any myths, movies or fantasy stories I know of, should be damn hard to implement. Coincidentally, it's the single concept that arbitrarily nixes 90% of ground-bound opposition, and the one concept that utterly neutralizes the melee specialist. And I said it was my damn opinion.

How the hell is that contradicting myself?

_______________
In other news, I've decided to use a new acronym: IMDO (In My Damn Opinion).

[angelfromanotherpin]

I mean, you guys basically want to hose meleers.

Not all combat problems can be solved with a sword. It's true in history, and it is truer in myth and legend where the number of flying threats multiplies. And unless we're willing to nerf gravity, every flying creature has a ranged attack.

The archetype you present, which uses a sword fetishistically and nothing else does not exist in the source material, except where it is faced only with threats that can be solved with a sword. I've yet to hear a single valid counter-example. My feeling is that if Gimli had to, he'd pick up a bow. All of Thorin's company could use bows, after all.

At the same time, some problems which do not seem like they can be solved with a sword, can in fact be solved with a sword and cover, or a sword and stealth, or a sword and cunning, or what have you; and such solutions have been presented. Whining that the fetish swordsman must also be impatinet and noisy and stupid to fit the imaginary archetype does not make it more endearing.

Now, I don't think a normal bowman on foot should be able to successfully kite a normal swordsman on open ground. That does not really happen in history or literature, to my knowledge. But horse archers do kite melee troops. Flying beasts do kite swordsman heroes, and those heroes deploy alternate plans to counter the beast's advantages.

Melee is risky and limited, which is why Frank advocated giving it significant advantages in TNE (and I agree); but there's no way to make it not risky and not limited without making it not melee.

[Harlune]

trying to design the game around the god damn fighter is why 3/3.5 ed was so bloody screwed up in the first place.

I'm going to be honest here... I just realized this the other day, while reading some damned 'how to balance fighters' thread and finding myself becoming quite annoyed, I actually don't want fighters to be balanced with mages/clerics/et al No, seriously... in my mind they're pretty much should just a npc grunt class at this point.

There's just no way you can possibly balance a non-powered melee fighter with guys who rewrite reality and commune with the gods, that doesn't involve ether castrating the casters or giving the fighter Batman like levels of plot armor.

I thought, maybe I just have a dislike for melee types in general and my preferences are the result of favortism... but no, the idea of Warblades, Pallies, Assassins, Duskblades, Monk/Swordsages and even the god forsaken Hexblade being balanced with pure casters seems just fine and dandy to me. It's just the fighter (and the barbarian) that causes such levels of loathing in me.

And this 'We need to rebalance everything so that this one type of guy can excel' stuff doesn't seem to exist for any class but Fighters. No one says 'oh we shouldn't have magic immune creatures, that would be unfair to the wizard', 'Having undead that can't be turned makes the cleric completly useless', or 'Rogues suck because they can't sneak attack everything in the game'

[JonSetanta]

Good point, Catharz. Ranged weapons are universally optimal compared to melee in both 1v1 hunting AND war conditions.
It's common sense to hit the enemy before they reach you, and even before they see you. Focus in melee puts the attacker at both disadvantages.

[CatharzGodfoot]

1204764386[/unixtime]]

RC, are you saying that melee specialists should always win against characters using ranged attacks?

No, not at all, but they should generally get a chance to hit them, unless the ranged guys are sitting atop a tower or have some kind of other high ground. The advantage to being ranged is that you're going to get some free shots, but once the melee guy closes with you, dancing around with a bow shouldn't really work too well.

I'm not adverse to the melee guy requiring a bow sometimes, like shooting an archer on top of a tower, or one with a ridiculously fast speed, like a mount with expeditious retreat on or something. But I also think archers should have to melee sometimes too. Even Legolas had two daggers.

I mean, you guys basically want to hose meleers. They have to carry bows, but as an archer you can jolly well just bow dance around your foe and never use a melee weapon. It's just catering to the kiting [EDITED] tactic, and as I said before, kiting may be effective and powerful, but it's just not heroic. In a game of heroic fantasy, the kiting [EDITED] archetype can go fuck itself as far as I'm concerned.

Actually RC, I want weapons to be most effective at their appropriate ranges. Melee weapons should be vastily superior to ranged weapons at melee range. Bows should be vastly superior to melee weapons at long range. Thrown weapons should be better than either at close range.

Smart heroes should understand and accept that. You may be Musashi Miyamoto, and your standard gimmick is to get people into melee range and them dice them, but you're an idiot if you don't plan for the possibility of ranged attackers that are difficult to close with. Maybe you're absurdly good at throwing your backup sword. Maybe you can sneak really well. Maybe you're skilled with a bow like every warrior samurai ever. Similarly, Legolass should suffer if he tries to keep using his bow in melee.

If you're unable to catch up with a guy with a bow, and he's able to hit you, and you can't hit him...that shouldn't happen, because characters should be versatile, so I don't care. You're worthy only of being a monster for smart heroes to slaughter.

[RandomCasualty]

1204767777[/unixtime]]

Not all combat problems can be solved with a sword. It's true in history, and it is truer in myth and legend where the number of flying threats multiplies. And unless we're willing to nerf gravity, every flying creature has a ranged attack.

I'm going to call bullshiot on this one. Dropping stuff shouldn't constitute a credible threat against a hero. Sure it can bust up civilians and put holes in keeps and stuff, but the hero just steps the hell out of the way. If you see what they're dropping it's pretty easy to get out of the way and your accuracy at dropping stuff pretty much sucks.

It's easy to nerf dropping objects, just say that they can't hit a target unless it's stationary or taken by surprise. Period. Problem solved.

The archetype you present, which uses a sword fetishistically and nothing else does not exist in the source material, except where it is faced only with threats that can be solved with a sword. I've yet to hear a single valid counter-example.

Maybe because the statement you just made isn't particularly logical. The heroes are going to win and the heroes in question carry only swords, therefore any problem they happen to run into is one that can be solved with a sword. By definition I can't give you a counterexample. What kind of counter example do you even want there?

But seriously I can point at times when dragons get killed by swords. Lodoss War for instance involves dragons being slain by weapons.

At the same time, some problems which do not seem like they can be solved with a sword, can in fact be solved with a sword and cover, or a sword and stealth, or a sword and cunning, or what have you; and such solutions have been presented. Whining that the fetish swordsman must also be impatinet and noisy and stupid to fit the imaginary archetype does not make it more endearing.

Actually I specifically mentioned that almost all heroes have some degree of stealth earlier.

Melee is risky and limited, which is why Frank advocated giving it significant advantages in TNE (and I agree); but there's no way to make it not risky and not limited without making it not melee.

It's a difficult problem, but I think the swordsman is a staple of fantasy and needs to be a viable archetype in one form or another.

[Voss]

1204767948[/unixtime]]
And this 'We need to rebalance everything so that this one type of guy can excel' stuff doesn't seem to exist for any class but Fighters. No one says 'oh we shouldn't have magic immune creatures, that would be unfair to the wizard', 'Having undead that can't be turned makes the cleric completly useless', or 'Rogues suck because they can't sneak attack everything in the game'

I think you just failed the internet. Granted I haven't seen the undead one since the divine metamagic feats were spawned, but people talk about rogues and wizards that way at length and often. Especially rogues.

As for tossing the fighter and barbarian out, eh, no thanks. I'd rather not ditch the main archetypes of heroic fantasy just because the 3e designers were morons.

Of course, the 4e morons went another way with their 'solution': ranged attacks are ruined forever. Most ranged attacks are capping at 10 to 20 squares, and longbows are 'long ranged weapons' at 20 for normal attacks, and 40 for the long range attack penalty. Yeah. 200'. In D&D land, the god of archery has apparently decreed that a football field is an impossible distance. And in the dungeon, you will never have a space that back, and naturally, no one will ever fight in an open field or from atop a hill. Ever.