I have one problem with Descent. Range attack. Can heroes or monsters make range attack when they are standing on adjacent fields to their targeted fields?? When we playing we are using rule that range attack must been made at least 1 empty field between targeted field and shooting figure. For magic attacks we not using this rule. What are you thinking about it?? How you are playing with range attack?? Becouse for us it is a bit wrong that range attack can be made to adjacent field (f.e. in dungeons and dragons u can't use range to close enemies).

It may feel wrong, but I think it is essential to Descent's gameplay that missile attacks may be made from an adjacent space. Missile attacks have enough disadvantage in that they (generally) don't do as much damage as the other magic or melee.

That said, if it works for your group, why not?

Both ranged and Magic attacks can be done against adjacent enemies, but you still need a range of 1 to hit (Unlike Melee Attacks), so if you roll range 0 you will miss.

Yea you are right. Range attacks don't make so much damage. So we will use this rule that you have to 1 range from adjacent field. Thanks for help.

Nehkrimah said:

Pssst... only neither the blue (ranged) nor the white (magic) die have a zero range sides (only the X). So you never roll zero range with a ranged or magic attack .

Uthoroc said:

Pssst....if you are attacking a Master Dark Priest within three spaces, or any other creature standing on a table or sarcophagus or whatever, you definitely can have zero range.

*chuckles* You're right, I wasn't accounting for special cases.

Yeah, you can always make any type of attack to an adjacent space. You're losing some dmg from the Melee, but some characters just don't do melee well at all.

And for the D&D example... you can make ranged attacks (with like a bow or spell) to close enemies, you're just going to get slapped for it... unless you specialize in that way

Yea. You get damage for using bow in close range in D&D (I have D&D 3rd edition books, dunno about newer editions). And if I remember correct in games based on D&D 2nd edition (beloved Baldur's Gate 1 and Icewind Dale 1) heroes were changing weapons automatically (so that's why I was wondering about this diffrence in melee, magic and range attacks - some old D&D habit).

Yea. You get damage for using bow in close range in D&D (I have D&D 3rd edition books, dunno about newer editions). And if I remember correct in games based on D&D 2nd edition (beloved Baldur's Gate 1 and Icewind Dale 1) heroes were changing weapons automatically (so that's why I was wondering about this diffrence in melee, magic and range attacks - some old D&D habit).

As OL for my group I feel its kinda cheap when a ranged hero is allowed to attack from an adjacent space. There has to be some distance. I mean what is stopping the players from being able to throw thier melee weapons from range if they land enough ranged spaces on a roll? (Which actually would be another good discussion come to think about it)

Yet, since in Descent a player who "drops" a weapon (or an item) the weapon is lost forever I doubt you really would want to throw your weapon away anyways. Anyways I play with the house rule if you will that there has to be a least one square between you and the monsters if you are using ranged. Melee is up close (duh!) . And magic is the only one that grants you the ability to use it both up close and ranged.

Thats my 2 copper treasure cards worth.

Here is how I look at Ranged Attacks and please don't limit yourself to D&D rules.

As long as there is enough room in my square to pull up and use a Range Weapon, Gun, Bow, Slingshot, Crossbow, etc... then you may use this weapon.

Now with that said... in Descent you can move, stop to attack, and move again if that may help some of you. Or if they are taking a battle action... they can still use fatigue to move that 1 square away.

All melee weapons have a range of 1 anyway, I even remember reading that somewhere. Using a Ranged Weapon to an adjacent square all you need to do is roll a range of 1. it could even be said that Range Weapons are granted that 1 range also, I am not sure about this.

Also, this could be the reasoning behind why you cannot attack with a friendly or enemy in the same sqaure... there would be no room to move with all that going on in the same square.

I asked a similiar question for DOOM, basically the rules state for both that if the player is in a square adjacent (right next to) their target that distance is still 1 because thats the first square counted. Obviously you dont count the square that your in but you start range by the square in front of you and then on down the line till you reach your target, if your target is standing right in front of you on that first square thats still 1 away (hence rolling a zero still negates it).

Although as others have said its up to your personal preference, it doesnt take much space to draw a bow nor wave your hands about to cast a spell, I see no reason why the Heroes or Monsters cant use their range from an adjacent square.

I understad the thought of counting your own square as one, but really it doesn't make much sense, considering that it would mean melee characters should be standing within the same square as an enemy inorder to attack. Or if they are adjacent to the character they would have to roll at least one range if not the attack would miss ( which would make them range attackers and that defeats the purpose of being melee). It flows more naturally if the ranged character where to stand (with line of sight open) one square away and attack. Again its just my opinion, everyone plays their own styles.

It's of course OK to use your own house rules, but in the Descent rules nothing says you can't make ranged attacks from adjacent squares. Trying to make Descent more realistic has caused a lot of frustration and debate, so I've just chosen to play the rules as they are and have the occasional laugh at strange situations.

Why is it so hard to believe that a person should be able to fire his Crossbow at someone standing 4 feet away. If I have a loaded crossbow or an arrow on the string or a throwing knife, I'm not going to hesitate to use it simply because someone is really, really close. On the contrary, I'm going to be all the more willing to let him have it!

Slings are a little problematic for close range, but it really is rdiculous anyway to have someone train "ranged" weapons and magically acquire all the skills for such different weapons as slings, knive, bows, crossbows, fire bombs, flying discs, etc.

Joram said:

Whoa this seems like an episode of Reno 911... LMAO!

It isn't a problem to see somebody upclose shooting anything be it crossbow, bow, gun, cannon or GIAGANTIC BFG we all wish we could own. I don't usually get technical about boradgames, being that I enjoy the simple quick pace of them compared to role playing games (ala Dungeons ad Dragons) which tend to lead to headaches and technical discussions which take up most of the play time.

Yet, it just doesn't feel right with having a ranged player firing from up close. A ranged character should be one that can do a hefty amount of damage from afar but have weak defenses. A melee character is one that runs in and lands good hits but takes most of the damage but really can't do much against ayone that isn't nearby. While a magic user is a baby with a gun (and I don't mean it literally) just that they are able to do powerful attacks up close and ranged, but one hit tends to flatten them out. Again, its not that there is a problem with ranged being up close, it just doesn't fit well. Perhaps its just me, and for that all i can say is that I am mortal and prone to fault, but for what its worth...

"I have boots of escaping! Boots of escaping!"

Well the best in Descent is that there isn't tons of rules (via D&D where 1 book is bigger than all rule books from all Descent expansions) and this is magic of this game that new person can start playing in experienced group without any problems. So better just stay sticky to range rule and have pleasure from game.

And like someone said adjacent figure for range attack is 1 field range so this sound realistic and not making ranged attacks so weaken.

Don't forget that there is a hero in WoD (I forget the name) who can convert all extra range into damage for a fatigue. In this case, you want to be next to your target.

Hi all,
I feel that making a ranged attack from an adjacent square is not a problem; both technically and if you're thinking about realism.
Ranged characters get the benifit of being able to attack from a distance but usually deal less damage than melee characters. The further away they are the greater the chance to miss... the closer they are the more likely they are to hit. This is good balance.
I feel it works well on all counts.