Article vs. category Edit

Here is an example of what I was talking about. Obviously there is a definition for the term Ranged Weapon, but because we also have a categorization for ranged weapons which comes from the toolset (ie Bows, Crossbows, Slings, Thrown etc) there is a need to have a Category: Ranged Weapons as well. So to merge both concepts, the article is created which immediately redirects them to the category. Thus people can enter links to the article and it will all be handled correctly by taking them to the category instead. Is this acceptable? I dont really want to delve too much deeper into this until I am sure people are happy with it. Enigmatic 19:28, 3 Oct 2005 (PDT)

  • I think, if we need this category in the first place, it might be best to put the definition at the top, and then have the list of weapons. That would be preferable, to my mind, than having two pages; first of all there would be the problem of unambiguously naming both, and second the definition is so short that I don't think it needs a whole article to itself. In passing, I think it would be best to stick to the singular for the title rather than plural, but either way, it should be one or the other; info should not be split up between them (i.e., click on the "article" link at the top of this "Ranged Weapon" talk page, it redirects you to the "Ranged Weapons" category, but if you click on the "discussion" link at the top of that page, you're told none exists... this can be confusing). --Llandru 19:41, 3 Oct 2005 (PDT)
  • The section still needs a bit of "meat". I only put in a brief description here, and when I can get my hands on the toolset again I will flesh out the sub-categories. I am not sure what you mean though. The term "Ranged Weapon" is precice, you wouldn't use plural here as people can then use [[Ranged Weapon]]s to locate it. Once we are at the category though, we are in fact talking about "Ranged Weapons", and thus the definition at the top describes what one is. Can you give an example of how you see it hanging together? Enigmatic 19:47, 3 Oct 2005 (PDT)
  • Is that a bug? The fact that when you navigate through a re-direct it "thinks" that it is an article and not a category. Its like the redirect worked to locate the body, but it didn't realise it switched between an article and a category in the process. Enigmatic 19:48, 3 Oct 2005 (PDT)
  • Have done some digging and this appears to be a bug (issue #710) which is waiting to be fixed. Enigmatic 20:06, 3 Oct 2005 (PDT)
  • This discussion appears to be spread everywhere; but, to repeat, please don't redirect articles to categories. It has implications beyond the mentioned bug (mainly searching). Thanks! -- Austicke 23:21, 6 Oct 2005 (PDT)

Question concerning ranged attacks in general Edit

Does the engine take the distance to the target into account? Other than the 30ft-check for PBS and Sneak Attack I mean. What penalties are there for long distance shots? -- Nightwind

  • There is however a -2 (afaik it's -2) penalty if the enemy is moving. So if you start shooting arrows at an enemy far away you will see a lot of different AB bonuses/penalties (enemy isn't aware of you, moves towards you, is within PBS range, is in melee range).--Kamiryn 03:36, 10 February 2006 (PST)

Unlimited ammo Edit

I've had this issue for some time, when a ranged weapon is given the unlimited ammo property it seems I can't use alternative ammunition since the game refuses to load the alternative ammo in the appropriate weapon slot. Is this a bug on my part only? For example: Longbow with unlimited ammo +5 will not allow me to load fire arrows --Harleyquin 21 March 2006

  • Correct. Unlimited ammo precludes the use of alternative ammo. --The Krit 15:29, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Flat-footed? Edit

Does anyone know if you are flat-footed while attacking in melee range using a ranged weapon? Kaldair 16:39, 24 January 2007 (PST)

Vague vernacular and illogical statements Edit

In the following statements,
"If the target is running, the attacker suffers a -2 penalty to attack roll."
"If the target is prone, the attacker suffers a -4 penalty to attack roll."
Is the "attacker", the ranged shooter or the attacking enemy? In any case, if it is the PC (for example), imposing a penalty to an attacking archer against a prone target is simply not logical, so NWN dropped the ball in this instance. I hope this is easy to understand: a running target SHOULD be harder to hit, a prone (i.e. indefensible, unmoving) target almost impossible to miss unless a random miss. The archer should GAIN an advantage against a prone target rather than be penalized. Someone please clarify what information these statements were supposed to confer since they are inconsistent.--Iconclast 14:32, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

  • The attacker, the ranged shooter, and the attacking enemy are all one and the same. The article is discussing ranged attacks, for which there are two characters involved -- the one attacking (the attacker, enemy of the target, and user of a ranged weapon) and the one being attacked (the target). It is not the PC imposing a penalty on anyone, as there need not be a PC involved in this at all -- for example, when a PC's henchman attacks a monster with a ranged weapon (and even if a PC were to be involved, there's no way to tell which role the PC is supposed to fill -- attacker or target). I find the penalty for attacking a prone individual with a ranged weapon quite logical -- while the target is immobile, the target is also now effectively much smaller, e.g. the top of the target's head instead of the front of the target's body. (Isn't that a reason for dropping prone in real life if gunfire breaks out -- reduce the target area, making it less likely to be hit?) --The Krit 15:49, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see -- "PC" is used in the article in that vague way. Guess I should fix that. --The Krit 15:55, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
  • Ahh. I see where you are going with this, TK. Yes, a prospective target would indeed provide a smaller effective target in a prone position. However, to use an analogy with which I am familiar, the worse possible strategy in paintball is to place yourself in any immobile position. You become an easy target even though the effective target is smaller. It's similar to adjusting range with a static weapon like artillery. Any static target is easily located regardless of size if it doesn't move. The longer the target remains "prone" the easier it is to hit. I accept your reasoning of how the respective penalty in NWN was achieved. All I am stating is that in actual field maneuvers, it is NOT logical to impose a penalty on the range attacker of prone target regardless of size. At worst, the reduced target size would be offset by the immobilized target attitude, in which case it would be a "wash" and neither attacker nor defender would receive an advantage. Now, if the prone target had taken advantage of the terrain, like in high grass for example, yes, in that one case, concealment would come into play since the prone target has effectively disappeared from view. I don't see that situation ever used in NWN. With all this stated, I appreciate the confirmation that the penalty against prone was indeed what NWN design intended using the relative size of target factor (and probably D&D, in general, for that matter) and not just a slip-up in the description. --Iconclast 14:29, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.