Gallo's page

[I like that you include eel trap farming of Victoria...What very few people know is that Eel farming occured at the source of the Adelaide River in the NT. Indeed in the pools from which bubbles spring water at the top of a rock escarpment is a colony of Eels. I know the local Indigenous farmed them. So there is one interesting Farming Tech that was apparently 'National'.

Setting up an eel trap in a river is not farming. But I doubt you are interested in such technical distinctions.

The Greatest Concentration of Mortar and Pestle technology are in North Australia - centred on regions of Contact. A Granite Mortar and Pestle. What always concerned me is the Black Basalt Stone Axes. I dont recall Black Basalt sources in the NT. We have lots of bluestone used to gravel highways. There are Granite upswells here and there.

Again, irrelevant. Mortar and pestles are a fairly universal technology. Roman soldiers used to carry them to grind their grain rations. So, to follow your train of thought, they must have had contact with Islamic settlers in northern Australia. That will really throw established historical understandings on its head. But, dang, the Roman Empire was over by the time Islam developed. Have to go back to the drawing board with that theory.

I tell you where the Islamic Colony was and the next thing you are making money off it...We have had enough of carpetbaggers showing up in the NT.

um, who's making money? This thread might be rich in humour, but that is a different kind of wealth.

My family converted to islam 500 years ago - we came here in 1526 and there was a settlement with a Mosque. We left and went back to Europe - frankly i would have stayed - considering Europe was a religious cespit. Then America just in time to have our Farm burned by George Washington (for not supporting his terrorist army). There wasnt a community here when we came back to Australia. The Java Trench is so unstable - It was most likely that 250 years of Cyclones and A Tidal Wave erased it from the map.

So yes. There was a Permanent Islamic Settlement and farming and Fishing. Just because it isnt in your history book - means nothing to me.

I'm not going to tell you my secrets...Just hint at them so maybe you will feel obliged to sneak into the NT and study what happened here. Maybe you will learn something.

Good for you. But that doesn't avoid the need for the hypothetical situations in this thread to have a historically sound basis.

Here's one then to get the thread back on track...

1526 The Portuguese fail to establish their first outpost on Timor due to military defeats against the local kingdoms. Regional Islamic kingdoms in the Indonesian archipelago are emboldened to more actively resist further efforts by the Portuguese and later the Dutch to get a solid foothold. Ultimately the Dutch and Portuguese, unable to profit from their efforts in Indonesia, decide to focus on Africa and India. Christianity - in the absence of the Dutch and Portuguese - does not establish itself in Eastern Indonesia and Islam becomes even more dominant throughout Indonesia. Without the threat from European powers, Indonesian traders and explorers spread further east and south. Eventually permanent settlements are established in northern Australia. Indonesian traders and carpetbaggers make a small fortune selling mortars and pestles to the locals, while sate eel becomes the most popular food in the new Indonesian colonies. Some may even have had large white mosques.....

OK, the last few lines might be stretching things, but it is an interesting proposition thought in the history of colonial expansion - what if the early efforts by the western explorers/colonisers were too costly and/or difficult that they give up. Yet a by-product of their efforts is that the peoples they encountered gained technology/knowledge that better equipped them to resist further encroachment.

Kerney wrote:

I'm quite sure the there was no Islamic colony in Australia in 1526.

You would all be very wrong...

:) As I said - My family lived in that Islamic Colony in North Australia. We converted to Islam a long Time Ago. That makes her degree in Aboriginal Studies worth toilet paper.

I assume you are trying to make reference to my wife's degree here which is really quite pathetic on your part. Feel free to display monumental ignorance but don't go around insulting people who aren't directly part of the discussion.

Gallo wrote:

True - there are obvious connections between Australia and lands to the north. I saw show a while back that looked at the dingo issue. iirc it said our dingos are basically the same as the scrawny, half-domesticated dogs in places like Thailand.

My wife also has a degree in aboriginal archaeology and just laughed when I told her of the Islamic colony. One of the areas she studied was rock art, including art that depicts various sailing ships pre-Captain Cook era.

There are some references to the Chinese (both in chinese history and rock art) coming as far south as Northern Australia. There is no evidence to suggest they went further south.

Major evidence for lack contact is that the was insufficient immunity to outside disease - Some put the pre Colonial population at about 4 million - a decade later it was down to 1 million (estimated).

I am interested in the fish traps in northern Victoria, we only touched on them in passing, there was evidence for continual seasonal inhabitation.

Where did your wife do her degree? I went to UNE, I was very lucky to have Mike Morwood as one of my lecturers.

ANU in the 80s, but that is getting us way off the topic of this thread ;)

Now, to add spot to injury, the player of the monk has a tendency to "take up" a good amount of space in-game...he always makes "efficient" characters (I won't use the B-word, but it is borderline), has a problem (at least in my opinion) with social rules, is a cheater (or the luckiest man alive) and the boyfriend of the GM.

I'd be more concerned by these issues than the loot distribution.

A few years ago I was in a group that imploded due to similar issues. The DM and one player were very good friends. The DM didn't like certain classes/abilities/items and, instead of having a discussion about house rules, would just do his best to screw over certain players. His mate would cheat constantly - he had a high level archer who rolled a squillion D20s and D8s every attack. Funnily enough the various coloured dice would change order so that he always hit. Sometimes we'd suggest things along the lines of "wasn't the green D20 the first attack last round?" The DM didn't care and we finally got sick of it and everyone else left. A while later the player joined our new group temporarily - playing an archer again - and wouldn't stop his cheating so we got rid of him.

But essentially the fact that the DM and player were close ultimately destroyed that group. Several of us then formed another group which has been going well for several years now. Perhaps the other players feel the same as you but haven't raised the issue (as actually occurred in my group above). If you are all friends in RL I'd hope you could have a frank discussion of in-game issues, but if not - and if it isn't hard to find another group - I'd leave. DnD is meant to be fun, if it isn't then why play with people who are making it not fun.

As for the loot (assuming you stay), if you aren't comfortable raising the current inequity, just wait until the next loot dividing occurs. If the monk tries to get an unfair share, just point out how they did quite nicely last time, thank you very much, now it is time to balance things up. It doesn't have to be narky, just base it around party balance. And if that doesn't work, then things will just continue to frustrate you.

Gallo wrote:

8th Dwarf - yellowdingo is more than just exaggerating "a little".

And while some Aboriginal languages took on some Indonesian words, to describe it as "polluted with Islamic words" is just plain offensive.

I was trying to be nice.... I thought about flagging the polluted statement.... Ding is a unique individual with some out there ideas I am never 100% if he is being serious or not.

I should have pinned ding on the location of the "Indian/Islamic" settlement - as I do have a minor in Paleo-Anthropology and Australian Historical Archaeology.

There is evidence for outside contact up-to 5000 years ago with the introduction of the Dingo which is not a native species.

True - there are obvious connections between Australia and lands to the north. I saw show a while back that looked at the dingo issue. iirc it said our dingos are basically the same as the scrawny, half-domesticated dogs in places like Thailand.

My wife also has a degree in aboriginal archaeology and just laughed when I told her of the Islamic colony. One of the areas she studied was rock art, including art that depicts various sailing ships pre-Captain Cook era.

Sissyl wrote:

218) Martin Luther decides to recant his heresies. Much of the impetus and the ideas that grew into the french and then the american revolutions never take root.

Luther's Actions originally led to the liberalization of Universities and the acceptability of the questioning of Ideology and Doctrine. Without The Martin Luther movement. There will be no Genetics, no Newtonian Physics, No women in University study.

.... and apparently it meant that punctuation never developed. Curse you Martin Luther!

But seriously, to claim that Martin Luther alone was responsible for all those issues is ludicrous. His work and actions may have had the effect of speeding up change in certain areas, but it is drawing an incredibly long bow - even by the standards of this thread - to suggest that he alone was the reason.

I dont know what version of history you have been spun...but in 1526 there was a permanent islamic community in North Australia. It didnt survive 250 years of cyclones and a tidal wave.

It wasnt a 'seasonal Makassan fishing camp'. It was a proper - full blown permanent port with Big white mosque, and a 'Convert the locals to Islam' policy.

Perhaps you would like to cite some serious references for your claims. And perhaps educate us as to where this colony and "big white mosque" were located.

In 1526 Islam was only making inroad into Eastern Indonesia and still consolidating in Java and other major population centres.

There are not just a few 'indonesian' words in the assorted indigenous languages across the northern Territory, there is a selection of Islamic concepts permeating the culture and actual islamic words - varied slightly after 250 years - but in use.

The presence of Indonesian words (or more likely trade Malay which was the lingua franca of traders in the region) has no bearing on whether there was a colony or not, as it does not indicate when the interaction that led to the loan words appearing started. The words would still appear if the interaction commenced in the 1600s, 1700s or later.

I'm curious, what are the Islamic concepts that permeate the culture? And, again, how do they support the 1526 claim?

The Influence of Islam has absolutly polluted the North Australian indigenous culture- Sufficiently so that had there been no contact with islam - there would have been a very different Indigenous culture on 'European' settlement.

Now you are heading off to fairyland with this statement. What is this "pollution" you speak of and how did it alter aboriginal culture in northern Australia compared to areas where this supposed pollution did not occur? Sure there was interaction - even intermarriage, limited trade etc - but again, this is independent of when the first contacts occured. Some historians suggest that the contact only dates back to around 1750. Which one(s) are you using to support the 1526 claim.

Even 1526 Islam is not the first 'eurasian' contact. There are references to the great churn seen in hindu culture as well as its associated 'laki-laki' reference in Indonesian (Thats the Star Brothers who pull on the rope if you ever look for it in Australia).

That right there implies some sort of Indian Empire (or at least extensive and far reaching trade) with contact at it's height with Northern Australia.

Whether or not certain Indian cultures had contact with Australia is irrelevant. We know the Dutch "discovered" Australia well before Cook, the Spanish were aware of it (after all Torres could not have not noticed Australia as he sailed through the Straits which are now named after him), possible Chinese visits, etc. So what? It has no bearing on the 1526 Islam claim.

Thats why i have real concerns by the false premis perpetuated by historians who want there to be 50,000 years of Aboriginal Isolation right up to Captain Cook's Arrival. Even the presence of Mortar and Pestle technology - something that emerged in the middle east 10,000 years ago is present in Indigenous cultures in North Australia.

I doubt there are any serious historians who suggest complete cultural isolation pre-Captain Cook. But the impact was minimal. And if there were good grounds to eastablish an "Islamic colony" pre-1526, surely there would have been grounds to rebuild it after it was apparently destroyed.

I'm assuming you are suggesting the presence of mortars and pestles in northern Australia somehow suggests a link with other cultures. Simple technologies such as this can emerge independent of contact with other cultures. That would like saying aboriginal communties in Victoria only learnt how to make eel traps because they obtained the technology from another culture. But this is a diversion away from your central claim of a colony (with big white mosque) somewhere in northern Australia in 1526...

Gallo wrote:

yellowdingo wrote:

35. 1526 Tidal Wave does not take out the Islamic Colony in North Australia. Australia becomes an Islamic State as the indigenous population are converted to the one true faith.

Which Islamic colony might that be?

The one where the local indigenous language got polluted with Islamic words thanks to the activities of islamic Clerics...before europeans showed up two hundred and fifty years later and declared that they wer first to get drunk and ride their ship accidentally onto the several thousand mile long reef.

You still haven't answered the question. There was no "one" colony.

Sure there was centuries of seasonal interaction and there would have been some temporary, seasonal fishing/trading camps set up, and some Makassans may have stayed on occasionally in the off-season.

But to describe those as colonies is farcical. 8th Dwarf - yellowdingo is more than just exaggerating "a little".

The idea of this thread is to base the alternate history on a fact. Not make something up and then imagine what would have happened if another imagined event occurred.

And while some Aboriginal languages took on some Indonesian words, to describe it as "polluted with Islamic words" is just plain offensive.

At least he isn't try to work out how to make the most overpowered two-handed fighter or spell-blaster like so many others.

I can imagine the character being a mild-mannered scientist who gets a bit out of hand after a drink or two too many......

as you have said yourself........

The fact that the dmg is doled out one missile at a time is pretty much irrelevant.

Whether you can hit one target or five with a MM is irrelevant. Each missile does 1d4+1 dmg, the number of missiles is level dependent, not the damage of each missile.

IF you really think being able to target an additional 5 people for 2-5 dmg is breaking the feat, then simply 'leave out' the multi-targeting and force the spell down to single target. It's what I'd do.

Then you have a different spell to what MM is. House rule a force spell that creates one missile that does 1d4+1 dmg/2 levels and apply IS to your heart's content....

i.e. the above view on restricting use of Intensify with Magic Missile makes no sense

It makes perfect sense as IS is designed to only be applied to a specific subset of spells like Fireball that do 1dx/level and have a level cap. It simply means a level 15 wizard could cast a 15d6 fireball as a level 4 spell, rather than it never going beyond a level 3 spell that does 10d6.

Sure it only applies to certain spells, but that is no different to how other metamagic feats work.

35. 1526 Tidal Wave does not take out the Islamic Colony in North Australia. Australia becomes an Islamic State as the indigenous population are converted to the one true faith.

Which Islamic colony might that be?

ItoSaithWebb wrote:

Gallo, I feel that you made a better argument or at least said in away that appeals to my sense of logic. Everything else just sounded like the beating of a dead horse to me.

So I am just going to house rule that a duelist can give up a number of attacks although I personally don't like making to many house rules. The reason that I will house rule it is because I still don't agree mainly because of the fact that the ability only to parry and riposte once a round doesn't scream duelist to me. I would rather a duelist fight like Errol Flynn.

With that aside and with the fact of it now being a house rule, perhaps because I didn't phrase my question correctly, would a monk be able to give up one of his flurry attacks in exchange for a parry?

I don't want to make a new house rule and nor will I be resistant as long as any answer I get is logical one.

Monks flurry is simply a special full attack with monk weapons. This should have no problem applying parry. If you house rule more than one parry per turn then monks have a bit of an advantage with the extra free attacks, but no more than a TWF Fighter who doesn't attack but only parries with his offhand weapon to keep his precise strike.

I agree. In fact it could help a character with poor AC not get hit as often, as an alternative to just beefing up your AC (the old arms race between boosting AC versus ever increasing to hit chances of your foes).

Just don't forget to give a circumstance bonus to the parry rolls if the player can artfully quote Wesley or Inigo from The Princess Bride, Court Jester or any of Flynn's movies ;-)

I'd rule no. It's a little too cute don't you think? You want to grab some full plate and snag the armor bonus from it? One in each hand?

Besides, you'd need an extra feat (Improved Shield Bash) to have the shield bonus when you attack with it. And you'd need another feat for proficiency to get that feat.

So, yeah maybe if you sink two feats into it, I'd let you. Your GM may vary.

When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses his AC bonus, as well as his fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.

So you could use the shield - and drop a bunch of feats to gain AC bonus while attacking (and shield proficiency for that matter), but you would give up a lot of good monk abilities to do so.

Quote:

Parry (Ex): At 2nd level, a duelist learns to parry the attacks of other creatures, causing them to miss.

That is plural.

Quote:

At any time before her next turn, she can attempt to parry an attack against her or an adjacent ally as an immediate action.

I don't know the whole at anytime thing makes it sound like you can I don't know do it at anytime.

I agree with Mauril. The reference to "parry attacks" in "Parry (Ex): At 2nd level, a duelist learns to parry the attacks of other creatures, causing them to miss", is simply a general reference to the ability. Perhaps they should have written it as "parry an attack of another creature", but they didn't.

The specific description of parry "...Whenever the duelist takes a full attack action with a light or one-handed piercing weapon, she can elect not to take one of her attacks" is unambiguous. It does not say "give up a number of attacks up to the maximum number she could make that round".

Likewise, "at any time before her next turn, she can attempt to parry an attack against her or an adjacent ally as an immediate action", is clear. If it read "parry as many attacks as attacks she gave up from her full attack action", then your argument would be valid.

As stated in many threads, the specific description take precedence over the brief descriptions.

Personally I would be happy to house rule that a Duellist could give up multiple attacks and just be a parrying machine (aka Danny Kaye in The Court Jester).

BTW you deflect with a shield you don't parry.

Parry, block, deflect, interpose.... regardless of the name they are all the same. Manipulating/positioning your shield or weapon so that the opponent's weapon strikes it rather than you. Parry may be the technical term used in fencing etc, but the effect is the same.

I would be interested in your views on a variant to the Cavalier based around a foot soldier. (Noting that a cavalier without a horse would need a different name!)

By way of background, I am playing Kingmaker and have reached the dizzying heights of Fighter 2. As we will apparently be building a kingdom and taking on leadership roles within it, my character is aiming to be a "general" down the track.

Much of the cavalier appeals to me as it seems to be the closest to a military leader in terms of abilities - tactics, banner etc.

My character is modelled roughly on a 15th century European mercenary (sole survivor of a defeated mercenary company [insert random backstory tale of woe here]), such as a Swiss pikeman/halberdier. He wields a halberd and is a "follow me" kind of guy as he launches into battle.

As such I like much of the Cavalier but the riding around on a noble steed doesn't suit (particularly for RP reasons).

I have been chatting with my DM about some modifications, such as....

Charge ability when charging on foot only.

Replace "mount" with man-at-arms. This is the tricky variant. How to make what could effectively be seen as a cohort work when my character is only level 3 (Ftr2/Cav1)? I was thinking of him being more of a standard-bearer who carries my company's banner for me (even if my company is only me, 5 hirelings who guard Oleg's and one (hopefuly) reformed bandit! The rest of the party wouldn't see themselves as part of "my" company) When I get the banner ability at Cav5 (iirc) he would actually have a role rather than just largely be a RP device.

Or could the man-at-arms be more of a "shield-bearer" who covers my flank (ie participates in combat primarily in a defensive role).

Grateful any thoughts or suggestions.

Gallo (aka Joseph Freiherr von Wolfenbuettel, Freikompanie Reislaufer)

This caused a rise of 2 questions. How does this work with a reach attack (like with the evolution reach)? With RAW, I would imagine it would push the enemy from 10'->15'.

The followup question is a multi-parter (same reach scenario). Would a successful AoO be eligible for a push? If this AoO was generated by movement (say from 20'->5'), would the push occur as the enemy was still in the 10' square (10'->5' causing the AoO) and thus be pushed to 15'? Or would it be pushed to 10'? Either way, this would cancel any potential follow up attack from the enemy. The 15' scenario would be even more overpowered in my mind since it would cause either the enemy's remaining standard action to move into melee (generating another AoO if Combat Reflexes is available). The 10' scenario would still cause a similar behavior if they wanted to close to melee that round since they couldn't 5' step since they had already moved that round (and 5' step is only if you didn't do movement).

I would imagine the easiest "fix" would be to not allow AoOs to "push", but I wanted to know if there was an official ruling (of maybe a rewrite of the evolution). I probably should have just waited until tomorrow to see...

Q.1. The push would put them 5' from whichever square they are in when you hit them. As per your thoughts.

Q.2. An AoO is an attack so the push would apply if you wanted it to (assuming you hit). The push would take effect from whatever square you hit them in during their movement that provoked the AoO. If you have reach you could choose when you take your AoO as your opponent approaches.

iirc the successful AoO (and subsequent push) won't end their movement, so if they have sufficient movement left I guess they could keep moving towards you after you push them back. So it might not be a way of keeping them permanently at reach, merely making it harder, and more dangerous, to close with you.

It brings to mind the picture of a little kid trying to hit a big kid who has his hand on the little one's head. The little one can't get close enough to strike and whenever he tries to move forward the big kid just extends his arm to keep him out of reach. (aka me and my elder brother 30 years ago!)

Gallo wrote:

300 feet per six seconds over two minutes (20 rounds) equals 6000 feet in two minutes.

50 feet per second (15 meters per second), works out at 50% faster than running the 100m at Olympic Gold medal speed.

ie 50% faster than the speed the fastest human can manage for 10 seconds but for 12 times longer.

Whoops, my bad but still that is only 50% faster then a human at best can run and then he would be the most ideal runner ever. Lighting is suppose to be well the speed of light right? OH well guess I was tired when I did the math.

or you could just cast teleport ;-) Though your arrival via lightning would make more of a dramatic statement!

Still in the Sorcerer section.

Quote:

Ride the Lightning (Sp):

This is such a cool ability. You basically could fly for 300 feet in 6 seconds(full round. However, the ability doesn't specify it had to be on the ground. Oh the possibilities!

Quote:

You can use this power once per day for a number of rounds equal

to your sorcerer level.

This, this is kind of silly because a level 20 Sorcerer could travel 3,000 feet in just 2 minutes, but that is only a distance of 5/8 of a mile. There are plenty of athletes I know who can run faster than this.

*sarcastic tone* Does that means that these people whom I know are running running faster than lighting?

I was in the Marine Corps. and I use to know some people who could run three miles in around 10 minutes. Now we use to say that these guys were lighting but I always thought that was a simile or a metaphor.

300 feet per six seconds over two minutes (20 rounds) equals 6000 feet in two minutes.

50 feet per second (15 meters per second), works out at 50% faster than running the 100m at Olympic Gold medal speed.

ie 50% faster than the speed the fastest human can manage for 10 seconds but for 12 times longer.

Huh, looks like my post got eaten. Anyways-

I am of the opinion that prestige classes that combine base classes (arcane trickster, mystic theurge, eldritch knight) shouldn't be allowed in a gestalt campaign because they are redundant and abusive. I'm wondering if I should allow prestige classes at all in the gestalt game I'm about to run, as it seems like it would muck up the works quite a bit

I know in our campaign we had restrictions on use of prestige classes as a gestalt character is arguably already a type of prestige combination (for want of a better term). Especially as it is often easier to meet the pre-requisites for a prestige class. Gestalt characters are already powerful enough without adding another layer on top.

I vaguely remember a house rule that if you took a level of a prestige class that counted as levelling up both "sides" of your character. For example a Wiz10/Rogue10 could become a Wiz10/Rogue10/Arcane Archer1, rather than Wiz10/Rogue11/Arcane Archer 1

It does if you have the 10th level arcane trickster ability:

Quote:

At 10th level, an arcane trickster can add her sneak attack damage to any spell that deals damage, if the targets are flat-footed. This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell. If the spell allows a saving throw to negate or halve the damage, it also negates or halves the sneak attack damage.

Fair enough, but seems a tad over the top given sneak attack is about carefully landing an attack on a vulnerable spot, not a blast of that hits everyone in the AoE.

Perhaps if said character sneakily slipped the delayed blast fireball down the back of the pants of someone......

For a real hell of a sneak attack try this:

Rogue/Sorcerer to 4
Rogue/Arcane Trickster until 14th level
Rogue/Assassin until 20th
This nets you the ability to walk through an area unseen and leave a silent-still delayed blast fireball which (not long later) explodes, hitting everyone in the room for 14d6 + 18d6 sneak attack, forcing those hit to make a fort save versus death and take 18 bleed (fire bleed?). One of those targets may have to make TWO saves against death (death attack).
Meanwhile, you've teleported safely home.
So much for that would-be elite squad.

iirc, I don't think Sneak attack damage works with spells that don't require an attack roll.

We played a Gestalt campaign in the Eberron setting a while ago. I can't remember my exact stats but I had a Druid/Monk with Shifter as race. Combining the various shifter abilities with monk attacks and druid buffing, I could do some pretty horrendous damage without having to use the druid's shapechange ability.

Gallo wrote:

Given this thread is about crossbows v. bows in the D&D setting - and my reference to crossbow and long bow usage in the 100 Years War was to illustrate the mechanical attributes of those weapons - your comments about who won the 100 Years War are irrelevant. It's like saying that because Germany lost WW2, its revolutionary use of combined arms tactics (Blitzkrieg) in the early years was ineffective.

No, you're essentially claiming "Look, Blitzkrieg is the best form of warfare known to mankind, because look at these battles in France!"

Wait, it's not even that, because longbows didn't win Crecy. Everything in the world did. The tactics used, the fortifications, the weather, the fatigue, the terrain, the commanders involved, the numbers, etc, etc, etc. Everything in Crecy favored the English. And Agincourt? The only thing the French had there was numbers. It wasn't longbows that won Agincourt, it was terrain.

Know what happened when those massively favorable notices ran out for England? Their longbows didn't do jack crap for them. Well ok, because you couldn't wear heavy armor while using it (don't see anyone claiming for that rule to be added, mind you), and because it so very severely limited their mobility (hey another rule nobody wants to implement) they did do one thing - they died. A lot. And because of the heavy training needed - another rule not in the game - they weren't replacable.

So no, to use your own analogy, you're claiming that Germany had their early defeats against France because German ammunition was so incredibly powerful that it's pointless to even bother comparing or bringing up anything else.

At the risk of encouraging you to further go off on a tangent... (tempting and enjoyable as it is).

Your attempt to undermine my points about crossbows and longbows in D&D by trying to attack my analogy is so flawed from a logical point of view that it is hard to know where to start.

But let's start with the term "analogy". My use of "blitzkrieg" was a simple analogy to say that the use of particular tactics and/or weapons at a certain point in time cannot be extrapolated out to indicate who will win a particular war. That is, the use of the blitzkrieg does not mean Germany won WW2 anymore than the relative advantages of crossbows and longbows was the determining factor in who won the 100 Years War. You are the one apparently trying to link the fact that France won that war with the crossbow being a better weapon. I'm not "essentially saying" anything about blitzkrieg being the best form of warfare as it is completely irrelevant to the discussions on this thread other than as an analogy.

You are taking that analogy as applied to the mechanics of two missile weapons in D&D and making some bizarre and inaccurate leap in logic to try and make a point that a. is irrelevant to the discussion on crossbow v. longbow in D&D, and b. no one else is actually interested in as it applies to said discussion.

Put in simpler English, no one else in this thread really cares who won Crecy, Agincourt or any of the the hundreds of battles, sieges and skirmishes of the 100 Years War. That is a topic for another thread - and you may find people interested to to discuss it there. What we do care about is each other's views and suggestions on certain D&D missile weapons.

But to take some of your comments and apply them to the actual topic of this thread.

Heavy armour, longbows and mobility - long bows can be fired while wearing heavy armour - perhaps just not as quickly or accurately. As you say there is a mobility downside. If you wear heavy armour in D&D your mobility is affected - ie reduced speed and penalites to Dex skills. Whether a real archer would want to wear heavy armour is another matter - could they afford it or find it as loot, would they want their mobility reduced, would their unit commanders let them wear heavy armour, and if the enemy got close enough for them to need heavy armour than the archers probably have failed in their principle task of killing/injuring their enemy before they can get close enough to attack them either at range or in melee. Firing in heavy armour would be harder than firing in no or lighter armour - so keeping with the topic of house rules, perhaps the type of armour should have an impact on rate of fire.

Training - that actually has been covered through suggestions that long bow be an exotic weapon and/or be restricted to certain regions in a campaign world. Whether those suggestiosn work in a particular campaign are for individual DMs to decide - we're just here to offer and discuss suggestions.

I'm not saying crossbows don't have advantages - the very fact that they were the standard missile weapon in many armies over many centuries is proof of that. But, historically, the use of crossbows over other missile weapon options is as much as factor of economics, cultural factors and broader military issues as it is a factor of weapon x is a better weapon in mechanical terms than weapon Y. But in D&D it unfortunately often falls to an issue of which weapon will cause the most damage per round. And, speaking as a DM who hates running combats with high level archers for the very fact that they pump out so many arrows, let alone keeping track of when they simultaneously roll 4 or 5 d20s and a horde of d8s and d6s every round ("wasn't the blue d20 your first attack last round?" probably rings a bell with many DMs!), a house rule that limits them to a realistic rate of fire would be fine with me, provided rules for crossbows were equally realistically applied in terms of rate of fire.

But to get back to misused analogies, as for "Germany had their early defeats against France because German ammunition was so incredibly powerful that it's pointless to even bother comparing or bringing up anything else".... Germany didn't have any early defeats against France, they had early victories over France. And no one had raised the issue of "German ammunition" until you irrelevantly raised it. But if you want to start another thread about the relative strengths and weaknesses of German tanks versus French tanks during the German invasion of France in 1940 safe from the inconvenient actual topic of this thread.....fill your boots.

God I love it when the 100 years war comes up.

ENGLAND.

LOST.

Do you know why Agincourt and Crece always pop up? Because those were the only two major english victories with those DREADED LONGBOWS. And it was only in Crece that the Genoese showed up, and guess what? England one that one because they had literally every tactical advantage imaginable. Weather favored them. Terrain favored them. Tactics favored them. Fatigue favored them. Numbers favored them. Every single thing that could go well for the English did, and every single thing that could go wrong for the French did.

And then once the English lost those advantages, they lost the war. They lost it badly. The 100 years war was a gigantic stunning victory for France, not England. Those longbows sure helped out a lot, didn't they. Wait no, they didn't. England lost. Their dreaded longbows of destruction didn't turn the tide of the war, it ended it, and it ended it in the other side's favor.

Stop using these two battles as examples. They are bad examples.

As for your advantages and disadvantages, everyone and their mom gets martial proficiency. Your advantages are, literally:

Crossbows: Wizards can use them when out of spells

Bows: Everyone else uses them and they're better then crossbows in every way.

I think your argument may require some work.

Given this thread is about crossbows v. bows in the D&D setting - and my reference to crossbow and long bow usage in the 100 Years War was to illustrate the mechanical attributes of those weapons - your comments about who won the 100 Years War are irrelevant. It's like saying that because Germany lost WW2, its revolutionary use of combined arms tactics (Blitzkrieg) in the early years was ineffective. Sure the French won the war, but that was due to a wide range of economic, military, diplomatic and social factors, not that the primary ranged weapon of one military was better than the others. That is not what this thread is about. If you want to have a discussion on that issue, by all means start a thread on it, but don't bother trying to attack my position on the weapons in D&D from an irrelevant angle.

Irrespective of how the D&D/Pathfinder rules are written, the simple mechanical fact is that bows are faster to load and fire than a crossbow. Perhaps a simple "light crossbow" could be loaded and fired in a D&D round at best, but even that doesn't match the capacity of a trained archer to fire two arrows a round (for a short period at least). And when you get on to the type of military-style crossbow (ie D&D "heavy" crossbows) you can't avoid the simple mechanical fact that they take up to 30 seconds to wind and load. Perhaps bows also need to have a maximum rate of fire regardless of the BAB of the firer. But even a light crossbow that can be fired one per round is not going to have the same power (range, penetration etc) as a long bow fired by a trained archer with very high strength - especially if the bow is built exactly to their physical structure (ratio of arrow bow length to archer height etc). Hence my earlier comments about rate of fire and damage.

If people want to make house rules about how bows/crossbows work in their games, good - that is what this thread is all about. Some people here have great suggestions, for example about longbows requiring exotic weapon proficiency and only available in certain areas. But I believe those changes should work from a start point of the physical/mechanical attributes of the weapon, not an attempt to balance one weapon against another.

Longbows died long before crossbows did. Crossbowmen made armies crap their pants. The crossbow and the pike combined ended the age of knights completely. The weakest crossbow was comparable to some of the stronger draws of bows, with more powerful crossbows being absurdedly more powerful. Crossbows could also be used on horseback, unlike longbows. Crossbows had, at worse, equal accuracy with bows, and most of the time had better, since you can aim a crossbow much easier then a bow.

Everything I just typed out? Doesn't appear in D&D.

I don't think the English armies at Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt and many other battles and skirmishes of the 100 years War, as you put it, "crap their pants", at the thought of facing crossbows any more than any soldier who understands his foes' abilities will respect them to the extent they deserved respect. The issue of poor hygiene and poor diet whilst on campaign in that war, however, did definitely have a pants-crapping effect.

Man for man, a trained longbowman (ie the "traditional" English/Welsh yew bow which in D&D terms is a long bow) was more effective than a crossbowman. The reason that Continental armies didn't use them enmasse was largely a question of how long it took to train them to be effective. Hence the English laws about not playing other sports, compulsary archery training at various periods etc. England (and Wales) had a comparatively small population and was never able to field large armies of archers. The numbers deployed at battles like Agincourt probably represented the maximum number of archers that could be gathered at one time.

Crossbowman like the Genoese mercenaries the French frequently used were also very competent, professional soldiers - and were very effective if used correctly. The correct deployment was something many French commanders seemed to not do well. They just didn't have has high a rate of fire.

But the simple fact is that longbowmen could put out a much higher rate of fire than crossbows. For short bursts, perhaps a minute of two, a longbowman could easily put 15-20 arrows in the air - not aimed at individual targets but a particular impact zone (though as targets got closer then the archers could easily aim at specific targets or even particualr body parts. (Comparisons with modern military marksmanship could be made but I suspect that would open a whole new can of worms). At lower rates of fire, a trained longbowman could fire for long periods of time without a drop in effectiveness. And cocking a crossbow it is not effort-free either, especially if it is not done with a windlass.

A crossbowman firing at the equivalent ranges to a longbow - for example in the intial stages of a battle - would not be aiming at specific targets but rather aiming to put a volume of fire into a certain target zone - exactly as the longbows would be. 15th century crossbows did not have fancy sights (or any sights in some cases - just level and fire - similar to early firearms). So a crossbow is not necessarily easier to aim for a trained user - to fire yes, but aim no. And an untrained longbowman is probably an oxymoron - someone who isn't trained to use the bow would have trouble drawing it, let alone getting to the position of firign it with any kind of accuracy.

Weak crossbows were just that - weak. For example the type you could cock (curse the profanity filter banning a legitmate technical term that ryhmes with rock ;-) ) one-handed while sitting on a horse. Just as what we call in D&D terms a "short bow" would be relatively weak in comparison with a "long bow". But the type you could easily tension on horseback would not be as powerful as the ones that came with winches to cock. Heavier models were very impressive and could do great damage but were slow - the point I and others have been making in this thread.

So in DnD terms....(taking into account the use of bows and crossbows in DnD is quite different to how they were used in warfare - close range individual weapons than long range mass effect))

a crossbow has the advantages of:

i. simple weapon - anyone can pick one up and point it in the direction of the enemy, with minimal training you could learn how to cock and load it reasonably effectively.
- therefor can be used without expending a feat
- at low levels they can be useful even if fired only once or twice in an encounter. At higher levels unless you specialise in them their usefulness (in damage output terms) is relatively less.

ii. can be fired prone or kneeling

disadvantages:

i. low rate of fire

a long bow has the advantage of:

i. higher rate of fire

disadvantages:

i. harder to learn to use effectively, hence a martial feat (though I agree it should probably be an exotic feat or at least have rate of fire limits placed if used as a martial weapon only - though at the risk of complciating the rules)

So each weapon has its relative benefits and there is a valid place for crossbows in the DnD setting without having to make unrealistic changes to their real rate of fire.

Separately, I don't think crossbows should get strength bonuses to damage - but rather a minimum strength should be required just to cock them - as should be the case with bows.

As an aside I have always taken the D&D "longbow" to be made from a single timber, traditionally yew was the most commonly used. Whereas a D&D "composite" longbow is the type used by Mongols, Tartars etc - made from composite layers of wood, sinews, horn etc (and also taking years to cure fully). I don't see them as any more effective than a longbow, but due to the construction technique they were as powerful but shorter so could be used mounted - and therefor fitted in perfectly with the combat techniques of the cultures that used them.

Gallo wrote:

Simulationist realism stuff

That's all well and good from a realistic point of view, but the fact of the matter is that in D&D a weapon that takes actions to reload is a weapon that is never going to see much use.

If you want to make the crossbows work compared to bows, you'll need to make them comperable in terms of power.

Why do we need to make crossbows comparable to bows? Do we make swords comparable to polearms or any other combination of weapons? If a crossbow takes longer to load than a long bow then it should be so in game.

Given the ability for magic in game to do pretty much anything we want (bonuses to hit, various bonus damage types, speed etc), there is no need to fudge the basic stats of weapons to balance them. To adjust the game mechanics of crossbows to make them equal to bows is pointless. If you want a faster firing crossbow use a repeating crossbow (with its disadvantages in terms of damage, price, availability etc) or use some form of magic (ie add the "speed" enhancement).

A crossbow that does similar damage to a long bow is, barring magic, going to take longer to load than a long bow. The plus side is it doesn't take as much training to effectively use the crossbow - hence it is a simple weapon. To use a long bow effectively takes years of training and considerable physical prowess - hence it is a marital weapon. Each has its advantages and disadvantages - and that variation is part of what gives DnD/Pathfinder its appeal.

Gallo wrote:

Handcrossbow 1d3 1 shot/rd

Light Crossbow 1d6 1 shot/rd
Medium Crossbow 1d8 1 shot per 2 rds
Heavy Crossbow 2d6 (or more - slow but very damaging) 1 shot per 5 rds
Repeating Crossbow 1d4 3 shots per rd, very short range increment and 4-5 rds to reload 10 bolts

Shortbow 1d6 2 shots per rd
Longbow 1d8 (or 1d10). 2 shots per rd

You realize this list, with some minor differences, basically just quotes 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, right down to fixed attacks per round. But then again, Gygax was always more about realism, what with his weapon type vs armor type charts...yikes.

I guess that just shows how old I am getting!

I also think repeating crossbows should be a martial weapon but with lower damage. The very mechanics that allow them to fire repeatedly means that the tension the cord is under is less than that of a standard crossbow. Less tension equals less power equals less potential damage.

On the UK show Scrapheap Challenge (Junkyard Wars in the US) there was a demonstration of a repeating crossbow (reproduction of a Chinese one, not the dodgy ones the contestants made!), in which the firer basically pulled back the firing mechanism very quickly as a new bolt dropped out of the magazine. Very rapid fire but inaccurate (it was virtually fired from the waist due to the ergonomics of rapidly firing the weapon) and not very powerful. If used en masse against poorly armoured enemy it would be effective but in DnD terms not that flash.

I think there is - just to complicate the issue - one too few crossbows in DnD/Pathfinder.

Currently there are (leaving aside repeaters) hand crossbows, light crossbows and heavy crossbows.

Hand crossbow are the fantasy equivalent of a pistol (or were they invented to make Drow look cooler?) - can be fired one-handed, quickly loaded, short range, low damage (but good for poison delivery a la the Drow) etc

Light crossbows are what I see as the traditional hunting crossbow (there are lots of historical references to these). A crossbow that is light enough to tension with two hands (one hand hold the stock, one pull the cord back), even on horseback (probably what killed King William Rufus). In DnD terms this could be fired once per round maximum.

Heavy crossbows are the ones that would need a small windlass/winch to tension. Very slow but very powerful. I've seen a video of such a crossbowmen having a 1 minute fire-off against a longbowman. The crossbowman fired twice (once every 5 rounds in DnD talk). The bowman got off 10 shots (once per round). Conceivably if accuracy wasn't as important (ie shooting along with 5000 fellows at several thousand mounted French knights!) you could double that rate. But for the crossbowman it is physically impossible. One shot per five rounds is not very practical in DnD.

Which brings me to where I think there is a gap in the DnD crossbow armoury - the medium (for want of a better term) crossbow. This crossbow is the type that can be tensioned by putting one foot through a stirrup at the end of the crossbow and then heaving the string up with two hands. Its rate of fire is realistically around once per two rounds. The power in the cord would be roughly equivalent to that of a longbowmen at full draw).

At the excellent museum on the site of the Battle of Agincourt there is a exhibit that demonstrates how much strength is needed to draw a longbow. It is a 100 or 150 pound (45-60kg) (been a while since I was there and can't remember the exact details) sack on a pulley. To emulate an archer you had to pull the rope down one-handed. I could barely get it half way - and then to think an archer would do that up to 20 times a minute over an extended period time!

So to wrap up my long-winded historical/DnD discourse, I think the damage should be:

Handcrossbow 1d3 1 shot/rd
Light Crossbow 1d6 1 shot/rd
Medium Crossbow 1d8 1 shot per 2 rds
Heavy Crossbow 2d6 (or more - slow but very damaging) 1 shot per 5 rds
Repeating Crossbow 1d4 3 shots per rd, very short range increment and 4-5 rds to reload 10 bolts

Shortbow 1d6 2 shots per rd
Longbow 1d8 (or 1d10). 2 shots per rd

Sling bullet 1d6 1 shot per round (for comparison and because the sling has been seriously sold short in RPGs)

All the rates of fire are maximums that cannot be sped up except by magic. Rapid Reload is a stupid feat. If you are trained in the weapon you can reload it efficiently and as fast as physically possible. If you can't load it that fast then you aren't trained in the weapon (ie spend a feat on the weapon proficiency to get to that proficiency). Or you could argue that marital types treat it as a martial weapon, non-martial types either have to spend a feat to get proficiency or get Rapid Reload to load it as fast and efficiently as a martial type. Either way it would be a feat to get to the same proficiency as a trained fighter (who gets full proficiency for free).

And what you highlight is that yes, it is too difficult to wield to be used efficiently on the battlefield. Which is why it was eliminated from armies since antiquity.

Well, that's not entirely correct. Alexander the Great had slingers in his army during the battle of Gaugamela, Roman doctors left behind manuscripts on how to remove sling bullets from wounded soldiers (the Carthiginians had mercenaries called Balearic slingers who could outrange Roman archers with lethality), and slingers were even used during the Hundred Years' War (poor match against a longbow, I'm afraid). Slings definitely have their place in ancient/medieval warfare (well, more ancient than medieval, but still).

The lastest reference to use of slings in warfare was the Spanish Civil War (1936-39). Soldiers used staff-slings to lob grenades further than they could throw them by hand. Perhaps it was an enterprising soldier from the Balaeric Islands.

Slings were widely used up until the same time bows went out of use. They just have less of a presence in the records. One of the reasons I suspect there is little reference to them, for example in paintings, is that they were looked down upon as peasant weapons (even more than bows were looked down upon by knights and the like).

The Aztecs used them, so did various Pacific Island cultures and many Native American nations too. One interesting things is that rarely was there an overlap. There are few examples of cultures using both bow and sling as weapons of war.

One of the problems with the sling is that it takes a more room to wield (depending on which style of slinging you use - underhand, overhead or the "throw"). This is illustrated in a battle scene from the recent movie Alexander. The Persian bowmen are lined up virtually shoulder to shoulder firing away. Then you see a Greek slinger race out from between two phalanxes are fire a bullet at a charioteer (iirc). Whirling a sling takes up more room so it is harder to get the density of fire that you could with even realtively untrained bowmen standing close together.

Every herdsman from Iberia to China used them when herding their flocks, herds, etc., which implies that any Tom, Dick, or Harry was proficient, or could be proficient, with no military or official training at all.

The reason herdsmen were - and in some cultures still are - proficient is that they spent every day practicing. If it's a choice between hitting that fox trying to kill one of your lambs or having dad beat you with a stick that night for letting the fox eat the lamb, you will become proficient very quickly.

Just because anyone could be proficient does not mean everyone is proficient. It's all about how much you practice and the average person would not have much time unless they had a compelling reason to do so.

According to some historical sources all Roman legionaries received training with the sling (normal sling or staff-sling). Now their skill levels would vary and at the least would be sufficient to put down a volume of surpressing fire when used enmasse. But to be able to hit an individual target (which is essentially what the D&D combat rules cover), you need to be far more proficient.

A sling bullet - for example one made of lead - is quite pointy and when launched would spin and have considerable penetrative power. Armour wouldn't completely negate the impact of a lead bullet. Damage is not solely reliant on penetrative power - otherwise everyone would use spears and maces would be relegated to cracking walnuts. Short of being clad in full plate much of a soldier's body would be exposed - lower legs, feet, arms, face etc even when wearing armour that by D&D rules has a high protective value. Sling bullets have been shown in historical references to hit a metal helmet and kill the wearer.

The round bullets in some historical references are more likely to be large stones fired from a staff-sling which had a shorter range but higher trajectory and were ideal for lobbing stones, and other items over walls of towns.

I think the rules - both Pathfinder and previous D&D variants - undersell both the damaging power and difficulty of use of the sling.

Historically sling bullets (lead or clay/ceramic) had a greater range and more pentrative power than arrows from simple bows (a short bow in D&D rules). There are various reference for this - try www.slinging.org

Plus the sling is not a "simple" weapon - it takes a lot of practice to be proficient. It should be a martial weapon. At least with a short bow (a martial weapon) you can point in the right direction and hope for the best. With a sling you need to have far more trainig to make sure the bullet heads in the right direction (and not sidewards or backwards!)

So I suggest - as I use in my own "house rules" - that the sling be a martial weapon. Damage using a sling bullet should be 1d4 / 1d6 and range increment 60ft. Damage using a stone should be 1d3/1d4 and range say 40ft.

Then there is the whole damage/range issue of using larger stones - baseball sized - that would have a shorter range if thrown from a hand sling (one with the the appropriately sized "cup") but a longer range if thrown from a staff-sling.