The only problem I have with Descent 2e is the range rule. I am a D&D, Mage Knight and a Starfleet Battles player so I am used to a set range distance for a given weapon and rolling the bones to see if I hit. I am new to Descent 2e and I never played 1e so this is just something I need to get used to. Does anyone else have a problem with the range rule? Heck it just might be me with the problem.

I think the rolling range is supposed to represent the difficulty of hitting, with it increasing as range increases (more range required on the roll). I makes melee attacks more accurate in exchange for having short range. Seems to work well in play IMO.

Accuracy decreasing with range makes sense to me. It's maybe a little too steep of a dropoff in this game, but you are fighting in relatively close, chaotic conditions. It is rather amusing that given the simplification (or streamlining *chug*) of other mechanics, they decided to implement this one.

I've read once that at scale, the range of a good longbow would exceed most playing surfaces for minis games. Start getting into powder weapons, and it gets even worse. Game designers sacrifice some accuracy for better gameplay.

Descent is no different. If you view the range rule as seeing the arrow/stone/bolt/fireball fall SHORT of the target, I can see the problem. If you look at it, as stated above, more as just missing the target…going wide, short into the dirt, high, etc., then it's more about accuracy and the difficulty of hitting a moving target as you get further away from it.

Another consequence of Descent's range rules is that a hit at longer range often deals less damage than a hit at shorter range. Is that standard in other RPGs?

Monsterberger said:

I wouldn't call is standard, but there are many games that use range increments and depending on weapon type used, adjust damage dealt. I think the new X-Wing has a system for this, and I've seen games, including RPGs, where weapons can both lose or gain damage at longer ranges.