I just realized something. There's been some discussion on the forums on crossbows vs. bows, and that crossbows are simply TOO bad, since they have more or less nothing over the bow except for being simple weapons, and that they are just so much worse weapons.
However, would you be able to use a crossbow with a light shield? "Normally, operating a light crossbow requires two hands. However, you can shoot, but not load, a light crossbow with one hand at a –2 penalty on attack rolls. You can shoot a light crossbow with each hand, but you take a penalty on attack rolls as if attacking with two light weapons. This penalty is cumulative with the penalty for one-handed firing."
"You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it."
What's the definition of "using" a weapon? It might be any kind of using the weapon, but that seems unlikely. Being able to lift a heavy mace, but unable to use it to push open a door sounds weird. Another interpretation would be that you can't wield a weapon in that hand, and that seems more appropriate. A third one is that you can't "use" weapons as in doing anything related to combat with the weapon. That seems quite reasonable too.
So, how do you people think it should be interpreted? If you just can't wield a weapon in the shield hand, you would be able to use the shield with a crossbow - you shoot with one hand, and then just pull the lever with the shield hand. You would take the -2 to attack rolls for using it single-handed, but that seems like a fair price.
Also, you are able to bash with a light shield - and as such, you would threaten the area around you.
If this interpretation is used, the crossbow might see increased use. Not by dedicated archers, but maybe among melee characters that like to open up with a bolt or arrow and then wait for the charge, so to speak, and maybe among characters that are only occasional weapon users, such as some clerics or bards.
|
Look at bucklers- they specifically mention that you can use a bow or crossbow with a buckler at no penalty. I honestly don't know why people keep looking at light shields over bucklers; Light shields allow you to make a shield bash attack, while bucklers give you an open hand. Not shield bashing? Then use a buckler.
|
These days, like you say, it's not worth devoting yourself too; not enough damage bonuses for crossbows, nothing to compensate for not getting str to damage, so it hurts to use the smallest damage die on top of that. But yea, totally, a melee fighter with a light shield-though I'm not sure why that would happen-
3rd Ed Rules also forget the fact that it requires less skill to use a crossbow than a normal bow. Just about anyone who knows their ass from their elbow can fire and load a crossbow. It takes a lot of training to become a good normal bowman OTOH.
3rd Ed Rules also forget the fact that it requires less skill to use a crossbow than a normal bow. Just about anyone who knows their ass from their elbow can fire and load a crossbow. It takes a lot of training to become a good normal bowman OTOH.
Isn't that why crossbows are simple weapons while bows are martial ones?
Creative Director
|
Isn't that why crossbows are simple weapons while bows are martial ones?
3rd Ed Rules also forget the fact that it requires less skill to use a crossbow than a normal bow. Just about anyone who knows their ass from their elbow can fire and load a crossbow. It takes a lot of training to become a good normal bowman OTOH.
Bingo.
Hey, I was wondering, why is a crossbow a simple weapon and a bow is a martial weapon?
:)
Seriously though, light crossbows could usually be loaded by anyone who wasn't a wimpy girly-man simply by putting your toe in the toe-loop and setting the "string" (yes, it was called a string even when it wasn't made of string) in the nock. No reason that can't be done with a shield strapped to your arm.
Heavier crossbows had a winch mechanism that usually required two hands. Operating that with one arm impeded by a shield might be troublesome.
There were other methods instead of a winch. One was a lever attached to the stock. Again this required a toe loop, one hand to steady the stock, and one to haul back on the lever (or two hands to haul on the lever with the stock wedged against one's thighs, girly-man style). This type of mechanism seems reasonable while wearing a shield.
Other less-common devices were employed with crossbows too stout to be simply hauled back by hand, but those with which I am familiar seem a bit too awkward for shield-impeded use.
Ultimately, one might suggest that many kinds of heavy crossbows would be too awkward to load while wearing a shield, and the one fairly common lever system might be a bit more expensive, or rare to find - maybe raise the price a bit for such an exotic (no, I don't mean the game term "exotic") weapon.
Then again, one could go really far out in a world with all kinds of magic and monsters. Maybe your heavy crossbow has little pixies that live in the stock. After you fire it they come out and cock it and reload it for you (their action, not yours, so you can fire once per round). Heck, those little tikerbells might even get under the stock and flap their wings to lift it, ever so much, just enough that it doesn't feel so heavy. No -2 penalty to hit for you!
Yeah, I've always wondered that, too.
Gives me an idea for a new (non-magical) item, or rather a pair of matched items: The first is a tower shield with a firing slit in it, as well as a pair of hinged metal legs so that it can be set up unheld. The second item is a crossbow (light, repeating or heavy, haven't decided yet), with a pintle built into the foregrip that matches a hole at the base of the shield's firing slit.
When wielded as normal, the shield is a normal tower shield. When applying the alternate use of a tower shield, it only provides Improved Cover instead of Total cover for the hex side selected. However, it gains these benefits:
When the crossbows pintle is inserted into the hole, and the wielder grips the handle built into the shield directly below it, the character may fire the crossbow two-handed and still gain the cover from the shield, so long as the character does not move. Furthermore, if the legs are employed, the shield provides the cover without the character having to hold the shield (such as while reloading the crossbow), but ONLY from ranged attacks -- a melee attacker could easily kick the shield aside.
It's worth noting that crossbows have a superior crit range for characters looking to head into critical feats higher up. Not being able to get your strength bonus to damage sucks for many archers, but characters who dump strength (rogues, low point buy archery builds) won't ever miss it. This is especially true of characters who can consistently gain bonus damage from other sources, like bards (arcane strike), rogues (sneak attack), and paladins (smite evil). It's also worth noting that classes with high feat allowances (figther, ranger) can manage very effective 2-weapon fighting builds with a pair of hand crossbows.
Truly, without playing to the crossbow's advantage of a higher critical range you're simply working with an inferior weapon that requires an extra feat to use (rapid reload) and can't take advantage of the best archery feat (manyshot).
A few things to note.
1) You cannot reload a crossbow one handed. You can't TWF with handcrossbows unless you've got, like, thirty of them on you.
2) Crossbows as a simple weapon isn't the problem. Bows as a martial weapon are. If you want to go by "historical accuracy," composite bows would be exotic weapons.
3) The problem with crossbows isn't defense, it's offense. Having the buckler doesn't help you. The issue with crossbows isn't just that you can't add your strength to attack, though that's a big one. There's also the problem of reloading needing a feat. Rogues can't make good use out of crossbows because it's neigh impossible to sneak attack at range. There are no archer builds that don't have high strength. As for other classes, why wouldn't they just use a bow?
No, the issue is that bows get all the good stuff. Manyshot? Check. More magic weapons? There aren't any magic crossbows. More magic ammo? Check. When you hit 3.5 materials, it gets even worse. There are spells that only work for bows, and for no reason. Ironically, you're better off adding that 3.5 material, regardless of how much it favors bows, because at least then you can get Crossbow Sniper.
It's depressing and sad, but crossbows have a niche only as "what the wizard does when he's out of spells" and "what the low level mooks you're about to kill wield." Oh wait, it's not even that first one. Sorry, crossbows have a niche as an NPC weapon. Yes, you could eventually make a crossbow user who, after a few other feats or items, might be able to sorta equal a bow user, but then the question comes up: why not just use a bow if crossbows are so terrible?
It's a question that still hasn't been answered.
|
|
There was the Great Crossbow in CW that was pretty bad@$$... 2d8 damage with a 18-20/x2 crit, Crossbow Mastery allows you to reload it as a free action, and Telling Blow lets you add your sneak attack damage any time you land a crit... Sure, it takes a lot of feats and stuff that's almost completely 3.5 splat, but in my group we still play with all of the 3.5 splat.
Otherwise, I completely agree that crossbows suck and you would be better off keeping a supply of Darts if you're limited to simple weapons... That, or take a level of a class that grants all martial so that you can get your hands on a sweet bow.
|
|
Gives me an idea for a new (non-magical) item, or rather a pair of matched items: The first is a tower shield with a firing slit in it, as well as a pair of hinged metal legs so that it can be set up unheld. The second item is a crossbow (light, repeating or heavy, haven't decided yet), with a pintle built into the foregrip that matches a hole at the base of the shield's firing slit.
The medieval Milanese and Venetian xbowmen had a tower shield (pavise) attached to their backs so they could remain shielded whilst reloading. The problem with this in game is that unless you're on a battlefield you won't have a clue who's sneaking up on you while your at it.
On a side note the vulgarity checker on these forums is a bit ridiculous if you can't use a perfectly acceptable word like c*ck without getting cock!! A rooster is a c*ck, and so was the earlier DM_Blake's usage correct for performaing an action to reload a crossbow! I'm surprised I can still write ass and dick. Ooops d*ck! :)
Gives me an idea for a new (non-magical) item, or rather a pair of matched items: The first is a tower shield with a firing slit in it, as well as a pair of hinged metal legs so that it can be set up unheld. The second item is a crossbow (light, repeating or heavy, haven't decided yet), with a pintle built into the foregrip that matches a hole at the base of the shield's firing slit.
The medieval Milanese and Venetian xbowmen had a tower shield (pavise) attached to their backs so they could remain shielded whilst reloading. The problem with this in game is that unless you're on a battlefield you won't have a clue who's sneaking up on you while your at it.
On a side note the vulgarity checker on these forums is a bit ridiculous if you can't use a perfectly acceptable word like c*ck without getting c~*!!! A rooster is a c*ck, and so was the earlier DM_Blake's usage correct for performaing an action to reload a crossbow! I'm surprised I can still write ass and dick. Ooops d*ck! :)
Yeah, I realize that my idea, and the real life example you give, are specialized for specific types of combat. But somebody must occasionally run a game where that sort of combat occurs....
|
|
Yeah, I realize that my idea, and the real life example you give, are specialized for specific types of combat. But somebody must occasionally run a game where that sort of combat occurs....Gives me an idea for a new (non-magical) item, or rather a pair of matched items: The first is a tower shield with a firing slit in it, as well as a pair of hinged metal legs so that it can be set up unheld. The second item is a crossbow (light, repeating or heavy, haven't decided yet), with a pintle built into the foregrip that matches a hole at the base of the shield's firing slit.
The medieval Milanese and Venetian xbowmen had a tower shield (pavise) attached to their backs so they could remain shielded whilst reloading. The problem with this in game is that unless you're on a battlefield you won't have a clue who's sneaking up on you while your at it.
On a side note the vulgarity checker on these forums is a bit ridiculous if you can't use a perfectly acceptable word like c*ck without getting c~*!!! A rooster is a c*ck, and so was the earlier DM_Blake's usage correct for performaing an action to reload a crossbow! I'm surprised I can still write ass and dick. Ooops d*ck! :)
Not in mine anyways. My players usually start the surprise round in philosophical discussions on the rights of orcs ;)
Not in mine anyways. My players usually start the surprise round in philosophical discussions on the rights of orcs ;)
Yeah, I realize that my idea, and the real life example you give, are specialized for specific types of combat. But somebody must occasionally run a game where that sort of combat occurs....
Niiice
Well cock-a-doodle-doo
One benefit of the xbow is that you can use it while prone, taking advantage of the +4 AC against ranged attacks for being prone. You can't use a bow while prone.
|
|
Niiice
Not in mine anyways. My players usually start the surprise round in philosophical discussions on the rights of orcs ;)
Yeah, I realize that my idea, and the real life example you give, are specialized for specific types of combat. But somebody must occasionally run a game where that sort of combat occurs....
If only. Sheesh!
"I say you there! Orc old boy. Would one mind awfully waiting while I discuss this battle with my colleagues? There's a good fellow!"
Well it's not "quite" that bad - but close ;)
Niiice
Not in mine anyways. My players usually start the surprise round in philosophical discussions on the rights of orcs ;)
Yeah, I realize that my idea, and the real life example you give, are specialized for specific types of combat. But somebody must occasionally run a game where that sort of combat occurs....If only. Sheesh!
"I say you there! Orc old boy. Would one mind awfully waiting while I discuss this battle with my colleagues? There's a good fellow!"
Well it's not "quite" that bad - but close ;)
Most DM's I know employ a "You snooze, you lose" policy that limits OOC discussion before it starts affecting characters in play.
|
|
Most DM's I know employ a "You snooze, you lose" policy that limits OOC discussion before it starts affecting characters in play.Niiice
Not in mine anyways. My players usually start the surprise round in philosophical discussions on the rights of orcs ;)
Yeah, I realize that my idea, and the real life example you give, are specialized for specific types of combat. But somebody must occasionally run a game where that sort of combat occurs....If only. Sheesh!
"I say you there! Orc old boy. Would one mind awfully waiting while I discuss this battle with my colleagues? There's a good fellow!"
Well it's not "quite" that bad - but close ;)
Except their not snoozing during play they're role playing.
Except their not snoozing during play they're role playing.Most DM's I know employ a "You snooze, you lose" policy that limits OOC discussion before it starts affecting characters in play.Niiice
Not in mine anyways. My players usually start the surprise round in philosophical discussions on the rights of orcs ;)
Yeah, I realize that my idea, and the real life example you give, are specialized for specific types of combat. But somebody must occasionally run a game where that sort of combat occurs....If only. Sheesh!
"I say you there! Orc old boy. Would one mind awfully waiting while I discuss this battle with my colleagues? There's a good fellow!"
Well it's not "quite" that bad - but close ;)
Either way, he who hesitates is lost.
|
|
Either way, he who hesitates is lost.Except their not snoozing during play they're role playing.Most DM's I know employ a "You snooze, you lose" policy that limits OOC discussion before it starts affecting characters in play.Niiice
Not in mine anyways. My players usually start the surprise round in philosophical discussions on the rights of orcs ;)
Yeah, I realize that my idea, and the real life example you give, are specialized for specific types of combat. But somebody must occasionally run a game where that sort of combat occurs....If only. Sheesh!
"I say you there! Orc old boy. Would one mind awfully waiting while I discuss this battle with my colleagues? There's a good fellow!"
Well it's not "quite" that bad - but close ;)
Nah they're just making fun of my British accent. They never hesitate when it counts, more's the pity.
Nah they're just making fun of my British accent. They never hesitate when it counts, more's the pity.
Oh, in that case, I'd probably join right in, eh what!
Gives me an idea for a new (non-magical) item, or rather a pair of matched items: The first is a tower shield with a firing slit in it, as well as a pair of hinged metal legs so that it can be set up unheld. The second item is a crossbow (light, repeating or heavy, haven't decided yet), with a pintle built into the foregrip that matches a hole at the base of the shield's firing slit.
When wielded as normal, the shield is a normal tower shield. When applying the alternate use of a tower shield, it only provides Improved Cover instead of Total cover for the hex side selected. However, it gains these benefits:
When the crossbows pintle is inserted into the hole, and the wielder grips the handle built into the shield directly below it, the character may fire the crossbow two-handed and still gain the cover from the shield, so long as the character does not move. Furthermore, if the legs are employed, the shield provides the cover without the character having to hold the shield (such as while reloading the crossbow), but ONLY from ranged attacks -- a melee attacker could easily kick the shield aside.
Oh, you mean something like this?
Historically you also had a device called a 'crow foot' which was on a harness which allowed the 'foot' which was a 2 pronged hook to hang down from your waist. Using this you would place your foot in the stirup as normal but hook the 'crows foot' over the string and straighten, this would allow you a hand free to load. So you could say if you use your shield hand to steady the bow which wouldnt be too hard to do, you could load with your other hand. Also of not is that alot of xbows hand a sort of string/bar at the back that pressed down on the quarrel to hold it in place (incase you where shooting down from battlements). So the quarrel wouldnt fall out loading in this way.
The main reason for using 2 hands to load is the string takes 2 hands to pull back after all you use your stomach to support the bow.
Hope this helps any questions just ask me :) I can post links to sites where you can see what I mean and the differance between historical crossbows and modern.
Oh, you mean something like this?Gives me an idea for a new (non-magical) item, or rather a pair of matched items: The first is a tower shield with a firing slit in it, as well as a pair of hinged metal legs so that it can be set up unheld. The second item is a crossbow (light, repeating or heavy, haven't decided yet), with a pintle built into the foregrip that matches a hole at the base of the shield's firing slit.
When wielded as normal, the shield is a normal tower shield. When applying the alternate use of a tower shield, it only provides Improved Cover instead of Total cover for the hex side selected. However, it gains these benefits:
When the crossbows pintle is inserted into the hole, and the wielder grips the handle built into the shield directly below it, the character may fire the crossbow two-handed and still gain the cover from the shield, so long as the character does not move. Furthermore, if the legs are employed, the shield provides the cover without the character having to hold the shield (such as while reloading the crossbow), but ONLY from ranged attacks -- a melee attacker could easily kick the shield aside.
Along those lines, just not quite that munchkin. ;-)
|
|
IMHO Longbows and Composite Longbows should require the exotic weapon proficiency feat. Peasants had to train longn hours with the longbow to become proficient and the government tried to ban other pastimes (football/soccer in US) because it felt that any distraction from practicing the longbow was a national security risk.
This would also give elves some extra impact as a player race. They would get longbow training for free. Very similiar to how dwarves and gnomes get weapon traiing as martial weapons with their racial weapons.
|
|
IMHO Longbows and Composite Longbows should require the exotic weapon proficiency feat. Peasants had to train longn hours with the longbow to become proficient and the government tried to ban other pastimes (football/soccer in US) because it felt that any distraction from practicing the longbow was a national security risk.
This would also give elves some extra impact as a player race. They would get longbow training for free. Very similiar to how dwarves and gnomes get weapon traiing as martial weapons with their racial weapons.
Actually, historically it wasn't the peasants who were required to practice with the longbow, if we mean by that the traditional British longbow. It was the yeoman freemen class who were required to practice with it.
I'm not sure whether the longbow should be classed as an exotic weapon, unless you are using a non-traditional medieval; say eastern or oriental campaign. The longbow was common in the Middle Ages in Britain and would not have been thought of as exotic.
IMHO Longbows and Composite Longbows should require the exotic weapon proficiency feat. Peasants had to train longn hours with the longbow to become proficient and the government tried to ban other pastimes (football/soccer in US) because it felt that any distraction from practicing the longbow was a national security risk.
This would also give elves some extra impact as a player race. They would get longbow training for free. Very similiar to how dwarves and gnomes get weapon traiing as martial weapons with their racial weapons.
Actually, historically it wasn't the peasants who were required to practice with the longbow, if we mean by that the traditional British longbow. It was the yeoman freemen class who were required to practice with it.
I'm not sure whether the longbow should be classed as an exotic weapon, unless you are using a non-traditional medieval; say eastern or oriental campaign. The longbow was common in the Middle Ages in Britain and would not have been thought of as exotic.
What classifies an exotic weapon? Bastard swords weren't uncommon, but they're "exotic." Compound longbows took years of specialized training - that seems to hint at it being exotic. On the other hand, repeating crossbows are literally the easiest weapon in all of D&D to use, and they're exotic.
The problem is that exotic weapons are ill defined and an overall terrible idea.
It's a badly named category for weapons that are superior to martial weapons, and thus which they think fighters etc. should have to pay an extra feat to use. It's just a balance issue. It's not supposed to be realistic.
Correction: it was a badly named category for weapons that are superior to martial weapons...
Now it's just a badly named category for weapons that are feat traps.
|
|
I'm not sure whether the longbow should be classed as an exotic weapon, unless you are using a non-traditional medieval; say eastern or oriental campaign. The longbow was common in the Middle Ages in Britain and would not have been thought of as exotic.
IIRcC, it wasn't too common in France, who had more like short bows, and especially, had lots of crossbowmen.
That is until the pope got it banned as a "devil's weapon" ... as it was way too deadly and caused grievous wounds that shocked people of the time.
I'm not sure whether the longbow should be classed as an exotic weapon, unless you are using a non-traditional medieval; say eastern or oriental campaign. The longbow was common in the Middle Ages in Britain and would not have been thought of as exotic.IIRcC, it wasn't too common in France, who had more like short bows, and especially, had lots of crossbowmen.
That is until the pope got it banned as a "devil's weapon" ... as it was way too deadly and caused grievous wounds that shocked people of the time.
And now in D&D it's nothing more then a weapon wizards use when they don't have spells.
YOU WIN THIS TIME, POPE :shakes fist:
|
|
I'm not sure whether the longbow should be classed as an exotic weapon, unless you are using a non-traditional medieval; say eastern or oriental campaign. The longbow was common in the Middle Ages in Britain and would not have been thought of as exotic.IIRcC, it wasn't too common in France, who had more like short bows, and especially, had lots of crossbowmen.
That is until the pope got it banned as a "devil's weapon" ... as it was way too deadly and caused grievous wounds that shocked people of the time.
You are indeed correct about the crossbow and I actually can't think of any continental European countries who used the English longbow. The longbow decimated French Knights at Agincourt, as the bodkin arrows fired could easily shear through full plate armor. Couple that with the fact that the French Knights were slowed down by boggy ground it ended up more of a massacre.
You are indeed correct about the crossbow and I actually can't think of any continental European countries who used the English longbow. The longbow decimated French Knights at Agincourt, as the bodkin arrows fired could easily shear through full plate armor. Couple that with the fact that the French Knights were slowed down by boggy ground it ended up more of a massacre.
I'm not sure whether the longbow should be classed as an exotic weapon, unless you are using a non-traditional medieval; say eastern or oriental campaign. The longbow was common in the Middle Ages in Britain and would not have been thought of as exotic.IIRcC, it wasn't too common in France, who had more like short bows, and especially, had lots of crossbowmen.
That is until the pope got it banned as a "devil's weapon" ... as it was way too deadly and caused grievous wounds that shocked people of the time.
So if you wanted to HR a pseudo-historical campaign, you could have the Longbow be an exotic weapon, but add familiarity with it as a bonus feat for first-level characters of specific classes from "Britain".
|
|
Not sure why you would want to make the longbow an exotic weapon. The fact that it is a martial weapon implies that you need a certain amount of training to use it, just like all martial weapons. Commoners would have to train for a long time to use it since they don't start with martial weapon proficiencies... Whereas classes like fighter, paladins, barbarians, and rangers all train for a long time with various weapons because pretty much all they do is fight. I wouldn't take away one of the only good ranged weapons from them and then tell them that they need a feat if they want it back...
Not sure why you would want to make the longbow an exotic weapon. The fact that it is a martial weapon implies that you need a certain amount of training to use it, just like all martial weapons. Commoners would have to train for a long time to use it since they don't start with martial weapon proficiencies... Whereas classes like fighter, paladins, barbarians, and rangers all train for a long time with various weapons because pretty much all they do is fight. I wouldn't take away one of the only good ranged weapons from them and then tell them that they need a feat if they want it back...
Because the longbow was specialized training.
Archers weren't knights. They could handle a longbow and maybe sort of a short sword kinda.
Knights on the other hand were proficient with a whole lot of weapons...which did not include the longbow.
Even going beyond Not-Europe, once you hit the east, you see the same thing. Mongolians and samurai both were trained with multiple weapons, including - and especially - horseback archery. But those were with what D&D would classify as shortbows, not longbows.
Edit: As for not wanting to take away their one good weapon, I'd say the much better option is to make slings and crossbows - both of which were incredibly deadly weapons - up to par. Hell, slings in D&D resemble slingshots more then the actual historical weapon. Or they could take throwing weapons! The romans were rather happy with their javelins, and what says "raging barbarian" better then throwing axes?
Not sure why you would want to make the longbow an exotic weapon. The fact that it is a martial weapon implies that you need a certain amount of training to use it, just like all martial weapons. Commoners would have to train for a long time to use it since they don't start with martial weapon proficiencies... Whereas classes like fighter, paladins, barbarians, and rangers all train for a long time with various weapons because pretty much all they do is fight. I wouldn't take away one of the only good ranged weapons from them and then tell them that they need a feat if they want it back...Because the longbow was specialized training.
Archers weren't knights. They could handle a longbow and maybe sort of a short sword kinda.
Knights on the other hand were proficient with a whole lot of weapons...which did not include the longbow.
Even going beyond Not-Europe, once you hit the east, you see the same thing. Mongolians and samurai both were trained with multiple weapons, including - and especially - horseback archery. But those were with what D&D would classify as shortbows, not longbows.
Edit: As for not wanting to take away their one good weapon, I'd say the much better option is to make slings and crossbows - both of which were incredibly deadly weapons - up to par. Hell, slings in D&D resemble slingshots more then the actual historical weapon. Or they could take throwing weapons! The romans were rather happy with their javelins, and what says "raging barbarian" better then throwing axes?
+1
I hate such a cliche response, but really, ProfessorCirno outdid me at expressing my own thoughts.
|
|
Regardless, for the longbow to be an exotic weapon it would have to be getting something in return like better damage or something. I can never advocate a change to the rules "because it's more realistic" and no other reason. Maybe the simulationists can, but I can't.
*holds onto his longbow with a deathgrip*
EDIT: Also, I see specialized training more as taking feats like Precise Shot and Deadly Aim, because that's where it starts to matter more. Just like your example of a knight not being able to use a longbow, a melee-specialized fighter is generally bad at archery mainly because he lacks these feats, not knowledge of that particular weapon. I don't think it was the weapon that they needed familiarizing with, it was general accuracy which is gained through training with any ranged weapon... And it could take commoners years to gain the levels to get all of those feats. Keeping in mind that commoners would still need to burn a feat for the longbow, regardless...
Regardless, for the longbow to be an exotic weapon it would have to be getting something in return like better damage or something. I can never advocate a change to the rules "because it's more realistic" and no other reason. Maybe the simulationists can, but I can't.
*holds onto his longbow with a deathgrip*
That's why I suggested such as a HR for a specific setting.
Regardless, for the longbow to be an exotic weapon it would have to be getting something in return like better damage or something. I can never advocate a change to the rules "because it's more realistic" and no other reason. Maybe the simulationists can, but I can't.
Longbows get to make iteritive attacks while also adding their strength to damage.
That makes them better then any other ranged exotic weapon.
|
|
Regardless, for the longbow to be an exotic weapon it would have to be getting something in return like better damage or something. I can never advocate a change to the rules "because it's more realistic" and no other reason. Maybe the simulationists can, but I can't.
Longbows get to make iteritive attacks while also adding their strength to damage.
That makes them better then any other ranged exotic weapon.
+100
This is so true. No martial class considers a crossbow over a longbow or even a shortbow because of the mighty aspect of bows adding strength damage. Is this accurate? Maybe. Crossbows need to have their damaged increased substantialy to compare with longbows. Longbows became obsolete with the invention of heavy plate armor where as crossbows were still in use during the early stages of gunpowder. The English victories at Agincourt and Crecy had more to do with weather, good terrain for the English and poor French leadership as it had to do with the sheer awesomeness of the longbow. Continental armies in Europe favored the crossbow over the longbow overwhelmingly. The longbow was only favored in English armies and the majortiy of longbowmen were Welsh mercenaries.
Hell even staff slings had longer military usage than longbows.
Of course this is a Dnd game and things get abilities based on cool, not reality. Bows being unrealistically effective is one of those balance things as well (though it seriously wouldn't hurt to let other ranged weapons occasionally have nice things, Paizo, if you're reading this).
Damn you, Legolas ...... *j/k*
Okay, in regards to the Crossbow, Pros in comparison to bows are: greater range, bigger damage dice, cheaper than Bows, simple weapons, 'easier' critical chance than bows.
Cons are no Strength damage increase, only one shot per round without feat help, and that's just for the Light Crossbows, takes an exotic feat to get a Crossbow with the ability to make multiple attacks-per-round, has a lower critical damage ability ie !?/x2 rather than x3 as the Bows do, ammo is double the price of a bow and are often twice the weight of a bow.
A Fighter with Strength 10 and high Dexterity would actually benefit at lower levels from using a Repeating Heavy Crossbow, but at mid-to-higher levels, would be better served getting a belt that increases his strength and grabbing a Composite Longbow. Rogues could use a feat in the PHB II that allowed them to sneak-attack with any Crossbow at a range of 60 feet, which led to all sorts of shenanigans, but ultimately the Crossbow is relegated to the poor-man's version of the Bow via RAW.
And yes, Sling should get full BAB progression. It's not a Slingshot, it's a Sling, g$%%~#it!
|
|
So if you wanted to HR a pseudo-historical campaign, you could have the Longbow be an exotic weapon, but add familiarity with it as a bonus feat for first-level characters of specific classes from "Britain".You are indeed correct about the crossbow and I actually can't think of any continental European countries who used the English longbow. The longbow decimated French Knights at Agincourt, as the bodkin arrows fired could easily shear through full plate armor. Couple that with the fact that the French Knights were slowed down by boggy ground it ended up more of a massacre.
I'm not sure whether the longbow should be classed as an exotic weapon, unless you are using a non-traditional medieval; say eastern or oriental campaign. The longbow was common in the Middle Ages in Britain and would not have been thought of as exotic.IIRcC, it wasn't too common in France, who had more like short bows, and especially, had lots of crossbowmen.
That is until the pope got it banned as a "devil's weapon" ... as it was way too deadly and caused grievous wounds that shocked people of the time.
Don't see any reason why not ;)
|
|
This is so true. No martial class considers a crossbow over a longbow or even a shortbow because of the mighty aspect of bows adding strength damage. Is this accurate? Maybe. Crossbows need to have their damaged increased substantialy to compare with longbows. Longbows became obsolete with the invention of heavy plate armor where as crossbows were still in use during the early stages of gunpowder. The English victories at Agincourt and Crecy had more to do with weather, good terrain for the English and poor French leadership as it had to do with the sheer awesomeness of the longbow. Continental armies in Europe favored the crossbow over the longbow overwhelmingly. The longbow was only favored in English armies and the majortiy of longbowmen were Welsh mercenaries.
True to a degree. The weather and terrain were a big contributory factor to the French loss at Agincourt, i.e. they had great difficulty closing. Having said that if longbows had been standard issue to every marksmen instead of being a specialized, trained martial weapon used by one particular ethnic group, then heavy plate armor would have gone out much sooner. The bodkin arrow as I mentioned was specifically designed to punch through heavy plate armor and did so more effectively than the crossbow. This is why British longbowmen were feared by knights on the battlefield.
Once crossbows came into general use, the end of plate armor was sealed, simply because just about anyone could use a crossbow with minimal training. The crossbow was not as powerful as the longbow, but its increased deployment and ease of use spelled the end for plate, and not as it would seem from your post, that it was better.