Heavy Crossbows: They still suck?


Advice

101 to 150 of 259 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'm developing a series of feats for my homebrew setting that makes the crossbow a powerful weapon in its own right. I also want to harp here about the historical use of the crossbow. The medieval or Chinese crossbow really wasn't a "peasant" weapon. Yes, it was easier to pick up by peasants, but that doesn't mean there weren't experts in its use. Crossbows were very expensive, being a complicated piece of machinery rather than a slightly more simple blade or polearm. The wielders of a crossbow would have been highly professional mercenaries, and a good number of them, particularly the Genoese and other Italian states, were renowned for their skill in its use. In many ways, a crossbow is much more suited to use by adventurers than the true peasant weapon, the bow. The problem is that many of the crossbow's real wartime advantages, such as its ability to remain cocked at the ready and to be fired while prone, are difficult to replicate in a D20 system.

I propose the crossbow's problems being rectified by a series of feats. The crossbow should be a "sniper" weapon, dealing considerable damage in a single shot, which would give it an alternative niche to the bow's "hail of arrows". This would also replicate both the crossbow's ease of use by the common man, as well as the considerable mastery of its use by trained and skilled professional warriors.

I would like to note that there's a good reason that professional soldiers in Europe and China chose the crossbow over the bow for so long, and it wasn't just its ease of use. I'd also like to note that the dominance of the longbow on the battlefield lasted for only about 100 years, and that England eventually lost the 100 Years War that they get so much credit for. And they lost it pretty spectacularly. Vive Le France!


thefishcometh wrote:

I'm developing a series of feats for my homebrew setting that makes the crossbow a powerful weapon in its own right. I also want to harp here about the historical use of the crossbow. The medieval or Chinese crossbow really wasn't a "peasant" weapon. Yes, it was easier to pick up by peasants, but that doesn't mean there weren't experts in its use. Crossbows were very expensive, being a complicated piece of machinery rather than a slightly more simple blade or polearm. The wielders of a crossbow would have been highly professional mercenaries, and a good number of them, particularly the Genoese and other Italian states, were renowned for their skill in its use. In many ways, a crossbow is much more suited to use by adventurers than the true peasant weapon, the bow. The problem is that many of the crossbow's real wartime advantages, such as its ability to remain cocked at the ready and to be fired while prone, are difficult to replicate in a D20 system.

I propose the crossbow's problems being rectified by a series of feats. The crossbow should be a "sniper" weapon, dealing considerable damage in a single shot, which would give it an alternative niche to the bow's "hail of arrows". This would also replicate both the crossbow's ease of use by the common man, as well as the considerable mastery of its use by trained and skilled professional warriors.

I would like to note that there's a good reason that professional soldiers in Europe and China chose the crossbow over the bow for so long, and it wasn't just its ease of use. I'd also like to note that the dominance of the longbow on the battlefield lasted for only about 100 years, and that England eventually lost the 100 Years War that they get so much credit for. And they lost it pretty spectacularly. Vive Le France!

I'm interested in what you come up with. What are you planning to do with your homebrew? Are you going to post these rules here or somewhere else?


Dabbler wrote:
Design modifiers for the crossbow

I REALLY like these, especially the ones where you can fire a fusillade of bolts at an individual target, even with the -2 to hit. I want to see more. What's the limit on modifications that can be made to a hand crossbow vs. a light or heavy one?


Freehold DM wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Design modifiers for the crossbow
I REALLY like these, especially the ones where you can fire a fusillade of bolts at an individual target, even with the -2 to hit. I want to see more. What's the limit on modifications that can be made to a hand crossbow vs. a light or heavy one?

I didn't envisage any limitations, save for weight and cost. I think more than two bows would be pushing it, though. I rated the weights for a heavy X-bow, say reduce them by 1/4 for a light crossbow and by 1/2 for a hand crossbow?

thefishcometh wrote:
I'm developing a series of feats for my homebrew setting that makes the crossbow a powerful weapon in its own right. I also want to harp here about the historical use of the crossbow. The medieval or Chinese crossbow really wasn't a "peasant" weapon. Yes, it was easier to pick up by peasants, but that doesn't mean there weren't experts in its use. Crossbows were very expensive, being a complicated piece of machinery rather than a slightly more simple blade or polearm. The wielders of a crossbow would have been highly professional mercenaries, and a good number of them, particularly the Genoese and other Italian states, were renowned for their skill in its use. In many ways, a crossbow is much more suited to use by adventurers than the true peasant weapon, the bow. The problem is that many of the crossbow's real wartime advantages, such as its ability to remain cocked at the ready and to be fired while prone, are difficult to replicate in a D20 system.

I agree, the crossbowmen were professional soldiers, well armed, well armoured and well paid.

The English longbowmen were not peasants either, they were also highly trained and very well paid professional soldiers; they were trained from the age of twelve in order to be strong enough to draw the heavy longbows (which had mush stronger draws than modern longbows, more like the 3.5 Greatbow). Their wages were twice what a man-at-arms would earn.

Genoese crossbowmen went up against English longbowmen several times, most notably at Crecy. Every time they did so, they lost. In fact at Crecy, when the Genoese tried to retreat after they got the worst of an exchange of missile fire, their French employers attacked and slaughtered them - not their most auspicious moment.

Crossbowmen were feared - but longbowmen ruled the battlefield.

Liberty's Edge

If I were doing some home brewing, I would raise the price of the heavy crossbow to 75gp and increase the damage to 3d4(19-20x2). I would also make the max armor bonus vs. a heavy crossbow +5.

There would be a Deadly Aim, Crossbow feat that would work the same way as Deadly Aim but would start off at -1,+3.

I would keep Rapid Reload but get rid of Crossbow Mastery and anything else that says you can aim and shoot more than once a round with a crossbow.


I find it hard to envision a person drawing back, loading and firing a crossbow once every 1.2 seconds. It just doesn't seem possible without some kind of magical enhancement. That's why I suggested a magic weapon property that allows this to be done. It is very easy to picture a magic crossbow reload itself quickly after it is fired.

Extra-dimensional spaces are almost commonplace. Bag of holding, handy haversack, efficient quiver, gloves of storing, portable holes, and there are probably others. So an "efficient clip" which holds 50 bolts and snaps onto the top of a crossbow seems pretty obvious. Then just have an extra-strong mage hand that it's only purpose is to draw the string back and you have an automatic crossbow. This is also a lot simpler than trying to craft a mechanical solution.

I was thinking I would also allow Str Crossbows, but I limit them similar to how they did bows in 3.0. So a light crossbow can get up to 14 str (+2) and a heavy crossbow can get up to 18 (+4). I also limit bows to 18 Str (+4) for a composite short bow and 26 Str (+8) for a composite longbow.

The magical property would look like this.

Reloading
Only crossbows can have the reloading property. The wielder of a reloading crossbow may reload their crossbow as a free action.

Faint transmutation; CL 5th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, unseen servant; Price +2,000 gp.

Reloading, Improved
As reloading, except it can reload a crossbow of up to 14 Str.

Moderate transmutation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, unseen servant; Price +10,000 gp.

Reloading, Greater
As reloading, except it can reload a crossbow of up to 18 Str.

Strong transmutation; CL 15th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, unseen servant; Price +30,000 gp.

Efficient Clip
Aura moderate conjuration; CL 9th

Slot —; Price 1,000 gp; Weight .5 lbs.

Description
This small clip appears to be a typical repeating crossbow clip capable of holding about 10 bolts. It is actually an extra-dimensional storage that holds up to 50 bolts. Any time the crossbow is cocked the clip automatically loads another bolt into the firing groove. The efficient clip can be mounted on top of any crossbow

---
I realize that the above enchantments would allow an 8 Str Rogue to fire off a heavy crossbow for 1d10+4 damage (plus feats and other enchantments) up to 5 times a round (+11 bab, rapid shot, haste), but, so what? It's still not as good as a strong character with a bow and he spent +31,000 gp to do it.

Liberty's Edge

Idk about all these fancy over-elaborate ideas you guys are coming up with...

Spoiler:
I was happy with the pixies.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So, here is one of the test feats I've come up with. It's designed to be used partially in conjunction with an altered version of Blackdyrge's Arbalestier class.

In my campaign setting, the shortbow and longbow are eliminated, and replaced with a longbow lookalike just called a "bow". Longbows are an exotic weapon with an increased damage die compared to the bow. Crossbows also have "Mighty" variants, just like bows, except that you can't reload a crossbow which has a strength rating greater than your own. A light crossbow represents a primitive crossbow with a draw strength low enough to be hand spanned. A heavy crossbow represents a much larger crossbow that requires a lever to span. Mighty light crossbows add +1 damage per strength, heavy crossbows add +1.5, like a two handed weapon.

So, here is my first feat:

Crossbow Marksman (Combat)

Spoiler:
You are a crack shot with a crossbow, and can find a gap in any opponents defenses.
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Deadly Aim, Rapid Reload
Benefit: You may make a special attack with a crossbow, adding your Dexterity bonus to the damage dealt. This is an attack action for a light crossbow, and a full-round action for a heavy crossbow. If you use a heavy crossbow, you may add double your Dexterity bonus to the damage dealt.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Utgardloki wrote:

I guess the two questions are these:

1. Who uses crossbows?

2. Can crossbows be fixed with feats and additions to the equipment list?

I just gave a totally viable example of using crossbows, even heavy ones, as a main combat weapon in a character giving out serious damage.

There are others as well. Crossbows are the only ranged weapons you can duel-wield. Yes, you get some penalties, but with the right feat chain, you can really turn your character into an arrow slinger.

Mainly, crossbows are nice if you want to totally dump your strength but still be viable in combat. Then again, you pretty much HAVE to be using 3.5 to have ANY decent damage with them...

Others are already pointing out the other problems with crossbow, but I'd thought I'd step in here: You cannot duel wield crossbows, as you cannot reload them one handed (even a repeating). Each one will fire one shot and...that's that.

Unless you want to get really crazy and use some builds from 3.5 that involved a person carrying 20 crossbows with him to pull out and shoot in a single round.


I'll add to that - using feats to try and 'fix' crossbows runs into the mechanical constraints of the crossbow. We should turn it on it's head and use the mechanical features of the crossbow to make it better, making it good without feats makes it a much more viable 2nd weapon. This leaves the archer as the missile specialist where he is very happy, anyone not a missile specialist can carry a jazzed up crossbow and still be effective (if not AS effective) in missile combat.

I'll add, though, that I don't have a problem with Deadly Aim adding more damage to the crossbow (+3 instead of +2 per -1 to hit). While not strictly 'realistic' it does help represent the better damage output and easier aiming features of the crossbow, and makes the crossbow a more worthwhile 2nd weapon.


Dabbler wrote:

Genoese crossbowmen went up against English longbowmen several times, most notably at Crecy. Every time they did so, they lost. In fact at Crecy, when the Genoese tried to retreat after they got the worst of an exchange of missile fire, their French employers attacked and slaughtered them - not their most auspicious moment.

Crossbowmen were feared - but longbowmen ruled the battlefield.

I KNEW Crecy would come up.

There was a lot more going on in that battle then just longbow vs crossbow. Between weather conditions, fatigue, lacking much of their major equipment, and poor tactics, the English literally had every single advantage imaginable other then numbers. At one point the Genoese realized how bad the battle was going for them and ordered a retreat, and the French chased after them to kill them.

The longbow didn't kill the crossbow in that battle. Terrible French generals did. And the reason we hear about Crece so much is because that was the first time the Genoese crossbowmen had lost. Had France waited a single day, England would've lost because of those crossbowmen. Your example doesn't show the superiority of the longbow, it shows the importance of tactics.

Incidentally? Hundred Years War? France won. Due to their fragile nature, the longbowmen strength decayed fast and hard, and at the same time armor was being improved. Armor a longbow could not penetrate but a crossbow could.

The problem is that crossbows are much better for close ranges with longbows better for long range volleys. The depressing thing is that this would assumably indicate that crossbows would be better for D&D with it's lack of long range fights and dungeon delving. That is sadly not the case.

Edit: Wait scratch the numbers bit, longbowmen vastly outnumbered Genoesians in Crece. So make that "Every single advantage that was in any way possible"

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:


Incidentally? Hundred Years War? France won. Due to their fragile nature, the longbowmen strength decayed fast and hard, and at the same time armor was being improved. Armor a longbow could not penetrate but a crossbow could.

Everyone forgets that about the French. We harp so much about the English performance in The Hundred Years War, and we tend to forget that they lost the war. Badly, I might add. The English never again had any kind of serious claim to territory in their monarchy's ancestral home, on the European continent. At the Battle of Formigny in 1450, a smaller French force of primarily cavalry effectively destroyed a large, entrenched army of English longbowmen, utilizing superior tactics, including stalling, utilizing early cannons, and splitting the English force while waiting for Breton reinforcements to arrive. Wiki doesn't mention the use of crossbows, but I would not be surprised if some of the mounted Frenchmen carried them.


Dabbler wrote:


If you want to make crossbows a viable fantasy weapon then playing with the mechanics of the bow is the way to go - double-bowed multi-grooved windlass-cocking mega-crossbows is the way to go.

Side note: There were actual, genuine homegrown 'double shot' and 'triple shot' repeating crossbows.

Granted the repeating crossbow was only really useful when used en masse..

Spoiler:
The Chinese repeating crossbow (traditional Chinese: pinyin: Wade-Giles: Chu-ke nu; literally "Zhuge crossbow"; sometimes misspelled as Chu-ko-nu) is a device with a simple design. Although their invention is commonly attributed to the Chinese strategist Zhuge Liang (181-234 A.D.) of the Three Kingdoms period, those found in Tomb 47 of Qinjiazui, Hubei province have been dated to the 4th century BC.[1] Zhuge Liang improved the design of the repeating crossbow, and made a version which shot two to three bolts at once and was used in massed formations, and for this reason, it was named after him.

Still, there were also 4,5,6,7 etc (as many as could be rested on the rest) 'normal' crossbows.

Someone mentioned the mechanical advantage of the crossbow and I also think this needs to be represented by your GM to do crossbows 'justice' (JUSTICE!1!) For example, you can rest and shoot looooots of bolts at once on a normal crossbow and the repeatin crossbow could be built to fire 2/3 bolts at a time.

Spoiler:

<Personally I'm all for the 'well they are good - if your equipping an army... ...otherwise pro's use bows. I know that at the archery contests back in the England the crossbows are accepted as being more powerful (compared to even composite bows) but they are also considered to be 'too easy' to use. Obviously the participants/active members are not typically weighing the pros/cons of the crossbow as a 'adventuring' weapon, where the ROF would be crippling...>

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Some additional points:

1E: Xbows got +2 to hit against heavier armor.
Crossbows of SPeed Auto-cocked themselves, you only had to reload.
Xbows took one prof slot to learn, and another to spec. Bows of any kind took TWO slots to learn, and TWO to specialize. It was harder to be a good archer then a good swordsman! People grabbed xbows because they simply weren't willing to spend the points needed to learn bows.

3E: Xbows are simple weapons...peasants can use them.
Heavy Xbows could have a draw strength of 1000 pounds...they did indeed have much greater distance then a longbow, and they did horrible damage when they hit.

Standard stave xbows cannot be used on a moving horse. you might be able to do it with a mounted horse.

Archery requires range of motion and massive upper body strength, neccessitating light armor, usually just leather. Those Genoese carried their crossbows, a half-tower shield, and wore mail. They could easily rest their crossbows on their shields and outrange a longbowman...if their crossbow strings weren't wet.

There's absolutely no reason you can't build a Str Xbow. YOu'd have to put limits on it, esp sans reloading, but it would be one more tip in favor of the crossbow.

The crossbow was replaced by the musket, which took over its role of hideous damage and armor punch. THe bow was used to deal wounds to unarmored men with the higher rate of fire. In close quarters, it was nowhere near as effective as crossbows...and longbowmen were hideously expensive to train and pay. Crossbows, you just told people to point and shoot.

IN a magical world, Str-made Crossbows would be loaded by brawny quiverbearers, and then shot by high-dex snipers in military situations.

==Aelryinth


ProfessorCirno wrote:

I KNEW Crecy would come up.

There was a lot more going on in that battle then just longbow vs crossbow. Between weather conditions, fatigue, lacking much of their major equipment, and poor tactics, the English literally had every single advantage imaginable other then numbers. At one point the Genoese realized how bad the battle was going for them and ordered a retreat, and the French chased after them to kill them.

The longbow didn't kill the crossbow in that battle. Terrible French generals did. And the reason we hear about Crece so much is because that was the first time the Genoese crossbowmen had lost. Had France waited a single day, England would've lost because of those crossbowmen. Your example doesn't show the superiority of the longbow, it shows the importance of tactics.

Sorry, but every test has shown that the longbow had superior rate of fire and superior range over the crossbow. Any time crossbowmen and longbowmen squared off, the crossbow came second. I don't dispute that the crossbow was deadlier at close range, but you only got one shot at a charging foe. The longbow may have been less deadly (although frankly, not by much), but if you could loose three shots to the crossbow's one you are delivering more firepower on target. That's why bows are preferred as missile weapons in D&D - rate of fire.

Obviously, we aren't going to agree on which is the better weapon, and truth is both had their strengths and weaknesses.

What we are looking to do here is come up with systems for making the crossbow a more effective weapon for adventurers to use, and that's cool. I'm still convinced that adding mechanical features to the crossbow is the best way forwards. We cannot make it faster firing without using a repeating crossbow, but making crossbows with double bows, stronger bows and multi-shot bows will certainly make them attractive.


Dabbler wrote:


Sorry, but every test has shown that the longbow had superior rate of fire and superior range over the crossbow.

As has been noted many times, crossbow pull strengths could go above 1000 lbs, the ranges are similar. The crossbow even did more damage which is why it was used against armor.

While they required little training to operate, they are still a weapon of war, costly too, that soldiers could be come extremely efficient in wielding.

Dabbler wrote:
What we are looking to do here is come up with systems for making the crossbow a more effective weapon for adventurers to use

Which is where we agree. I do not have a problem with the slow reload speed of crossbows (perhaps rapid reload only gives marginal advances to the crossbow users). They are slower and they should be treated that way in the game. Bows should have some advantages and they should be maintained. Perhaps a repeating crossbow could overcome this disadvantage (attaks per round) until the "clip" needed to be reloaded. However, crossbows are much, much more potent and that aspect of the weapon should be included.

This could be manifest in any number of ways such as dealing more damage and/or limiting armor bonus (effectiveness).

While the goal is improvement, the ideal is balance.

Kortz wrote:

If I were doing some home brewing, I would raise the price of the heavy crossbow to 75gp and increase the damage to 3d4(19-20x2). I would also make the max armor bonus vs. a heavy crossbow +5.

This is something I could support, there should be some inherent perks of the crossbow, but not too much indulgence for balance's sake. I might even suggest an inherent "masterwork" bonus +1 to attack, since they were easier to aim but cost a considerable amount of skill/resources to create.


Stynkk wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


Sorry, but every test has shown that the longbow had superior rate of fire and superior range over the crossbow.

As has been noted many times, crossbow pull strengths could go above 1000 lbs, the ranges are similar. The crossbow even did more damage which is why it was used against armor.

While they required little training to operate, they are still a weapon of war, costly too, that soldiers could be come extremely efficient in wielding.

The problem was the bolts: a crossbow bolt was lethal but point heavy. Even the best crossbow had about half the range of a longbow as a result. A 1000lb draw looks great, and will drill through plate armour, but crossbows that strong had to be reloaded with a windlass and that took time - more than the current D&D heavy crossbow, which is already crippled by the reload time.

Stynkk wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
What we are looking to do here is come up with systems for making the crossbow a more effective weapon for adventurers to use

Which is where we agree. I do not have a problem with the slow reload speed of crossbows (perhaps rapid reload only gives marginal advances to the crossbow users). They are slower and they should be treated that way in the game. Bows should have some advantages and they should be maintained. Perhaps a repeating crossbow could overcome this disadvantage (attaks per round) until the "clip" needed to be reloaded. However, crossbows are much, much more potent and that aspect of the weapon should be included.

This could be manifest in any number of ways such as dealing more damage and/or limiting armor bonus (effectiveness).

I agree. The damage could be increased and it would not be unbalanced, I included the option on the mechanical enhancements I suggested. I am not so sure about the reduction of armour bonus - you could argue a bodkin point arrow should have such an advantage as well. I'd rather not go there, myself.

The advantage of the crossbow is that it can be carried spanned and loaded ready to shoot. I would allow it to be loosed as a move-action, and I'd also be happy for it to have an initiative bonus on the first round. Shooting multiple bolts is a cool way of making this a devastating first strike, as is using a heavier draw to increase the damage.


Dabbler wrote:


I agree. The damage could be increased and it would not be unbalanced, I included the option on the mechanical enhancements I suggested. I am not so sure about the reduction of armour bonus - you could argue a bodkin point arrow should have such an advantage as well. I'd rather not go there, myself.

While I like your enhancements idea, I am wary of where it can lead.

Will the greatsword user now argue to attach a hand-crossbow to his guard? (Out there, I know). Will the inclusion of ammo types (your bodkin arrow) degrade into various shirukens that explode on impact?

The answer to the above is likely a resounding no, however, it is a question that must be asked when proposing these rule changes.

Practically, what happens if a crossbow has a bodkin bolt? (I know what would happen in real life, but what about D&D)? Will a bodkin arrow overshadow the crossbow's unique feature?

Perhaps the inclusion of reduction to armor would push crossbows towards unbalanced and definitely needs research. Perhaps it is a limit of +5 of each of the armor bonuses (targets can have 5 natural armor, 5 armor class, 5 dodge bonus, etc).

However, I'm searching for something that would make the crossbow feel like a crossbow inherently and still urge a player to pick up this weapon without it feeling like an underwhelming ranged weapon. After all, they were quite effective.

The answer may simply be a repeating heavy crossbow with boosted damage..but I can dream :)


Well, you can argue that adding any such attachments to a melee weapon would completely upset the balance.

As another addition:

Arbolest
This heavy crossbow has a metal bow and has to be cocked via a windlass; the Rapid Reload feat cannot be used with this weapon unless the loader has a strength of at least 20. It does, however, have considerable power.
Weight: 12lbs
Range: 120ft
Damage: 2d8 Piercing, 19-20/x2
Cost: 100gp

This gives you twice the base damage of a bow, and you can still use it as a 'shoot and drop' weapon.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

one of the inherent problems with all this comparison with real life...is real life.

Remember, in real life, people are level 1-2, with elites at 3, and heroes at 4th. Most of us have never met anyone who is 5th level, and 6th is something reserved for legends who have their myths talked up.

With level 1-2 troops, Xbows are ONE SHOT KILLS. Bows probably are not.

Against anything with levels and hit dice, multiple attacks becomes considerably more important then a bigger punch at 1/4 the rate.

That being said, there's no reason why magic can't take care of the slow cocking of the crossbow (like it did in 1E), and thence the only problem was reload rate.

Also, it's notable that light crossbows are acknowledged as being worse then bows. Heavy crossbows, however, have considerably more range and punch when used properly.

Also, note that the standard way to recock a crossbow by a crossbow unit was to use the step at the front of the device, hook the string over a hook strapped to your waist, and then force your foot down and use both weight and leg strength to pull the string back. Experienced crossbowers had a very good rate of fire using this method...and could keep it up for much longer then a longbowman could keep drawing back his bow. At the battle you are all talking about, the crossbows would have outranged the longbows of the English IF their strings had not been wet...and the longbowmen knew it, which is why they engaged as soon after the rain stopped as possible, before the crossbows could dry off.

=Aelryinth

Sovereign Court

Just to help put the outer range in context:

d20pfsrd.com wrote:

Ballista: A ballista is essentially a Huge heavy crossbow fixed in place. Its size makes it hard for most creatures to aim it. Thus, a Medium creature takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls when using a ballista, and a Small creature takes a –6 penalty. It takes a creature smaller than Large two full-round actions to reload the ballista after firing.

A ballista takes up a space 5 feet across.

Cost: 500gp
Damage: 3d8
Crit: 19–20/x2
Range Increment: 120 ft.


That's good to note Mok, so since the damage factor doesn't have much wiggle room, perhaps another mechanic needs to be introduced to the crossbow.


One suggestion I had for crossbows was to allow them, during a full attack action, to roll all the standard attack rolls that a full attack would have and score base damage for each hit, plus all modifiers for a single hit.

To whit a PC entitled to 4 attacks (6BAB, haste & rapid shot) would roll 4 times with a light crossbow. If they hit, say 3 times they would deal 3d8+1xmod damage. If they had only hit twice it would be 1d8 less, etc.

Couple that with allowing deadly aim to be 3:1 with crossbows rather than 2:1 with bows, and I think that they would compete.

-James


*Hnnng*

Player Option: Combat and Tactics.. 2ed

...had crossbows treating armour as x points worse at a certain range..

hmm.

Anyway, I stole these ideas from someplace:

- If the maximum damage is rolled, roll again and add the results. Keep doing this until a lower number is rolled. This method may be used for any missile weapon that does not involve direct muscular effort, i.e. crossbows, ballistae, and atlatls could work this way, but short and long bows, and hurled weapons would not.

- Use the optional armor penetration rule for light and heavy crossbows from the Combat & Tactics book, which worsens the AC of an armored opponent by 2 at medium range and by 5 at short range.

- Make all crossbows +1 to hit, due to ease of use.


Aelryinth wrote:

one of the inherent problems with all this comparison with real life...is real life.

Remember, in real life, people are level 1-2, with elites at 3, and heroes at 4th. Most of us have never met anyone who is 5th level, and 6th is something reserved for legends who have their myths talked up.

With level 1-2 troops, Xbows are ONE SHOT KILLS. Bows probably are not.

Against anything with levels and hit dice, multiple attacks becomes considerably more important then a bigger punch at 1/4 the rate.

That being said, there's no reason why magic can't take care of the slow cocking of the crossbow (like it did in 1E), and thence the only problem was reload rate.

Also, it's notable that light crossbows are acknowledged as being worse then bows. Heavy crossbows, however, have considerably more range and punch when used properly.

Also, note that the standard way to recock a crossbow by a crossbow unit was to use the step at the front of the device, hook the string over a hook strapped to your waist, and then force your foot down and use both weight and leg strength to pull the string back. Experienced crossbowmen had a very good rate of fire using this method...and could keep it up for much longer then a longbowman could keep drawing back his bow. At the battle you are all talking about, the crossbows would have outranged the longbows of the English IF their strings had not been wet...and the longbowmen knew it, which is why they engaged as soon after the rain stopped as possible, before the crossbows could dry off.

=Aelryinth

Actually, all the best tests show that the less aerodynamic crossbow bolt had a shorter range in spite of the greater power: the longbowmen out-ranged the crossbowmen, and they knew it and exploited it at Crecy by shooting into the ranks of crossbowmen before they could approach within range and set up their heavy shields. Another means of cocking the later crossbows was to use a windlass, and these bows had incredible power. However, bowmen had some tricks up their sleeves too - for example, some bowmen to get extra range would lie on their backs and brace the bow with their feet, drawing back with both hands.

You are right in that in less skilled hands (lower level characters) the crossbow is the better weapon. The bow is the weapon of choice for an expert, not an amateur, although groups of mercenaries like the Genoese crossbowmen specialised in that weapon, and were very effective.

A self-cocking crossbow would be worth around a +1 enhancement bonus, I think, allowing a heavy crossbowman with Rapid Reload to reload as a free action. This puts the crossbow up on a par with the bow in terms of rate of fire ... except you still cannot use Rapid Shot or Manyshot with it.

Sovereign Court

Dabbler wrote:
A self-cocking crossbow would be worth around a +1 enhancement bonus, I think, allowing a heavy crossbowman with Rapid Reload to reload as a free action. This puts the crossbow up on a par with the bow in terms of rate of fire ... except you still cannot use Rapid Shot or Manyshot with it.

I can understand Manyshot ("with a bow") not working, but why wouldn't Rapid Shot ("with a ranged weapon") work?


Mok wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
A self-cocking crossbow would be worth around a +1 enhancement bonus, I think, allowing a heavy crossbowman with Rapid Reload to reload as a free action. This puts the crossbow up on a par with the bow in terms of rate of fire ... except you still cannot use Rapid Shot or Manyshot with it.
I can understand Manyshot ("with a bow") not working, but why wouldn't Rapid Shot ("with a ranged weapon") work?

You have a good point. Rapidshot should work with this kind of crossbow, then.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Magic of Faerun (and the Magic Item Compendium) had a quality called "Quickloading". +1 equivalent, lets you store up to 50 bolts in an extradimensional space in the crossbow itself and thus you could reload it as a free action.


I think if you are going to alter rules for weapons, why not start with a realistic rate of fire. No one fires 24 arrows a minute or fires a crossbow 24 times in a minute. And to me the game should be balanced in favor of melee weapons (to me only, feel free to feel different). But I would not mind seeing more damage and SLOWER rate of fire. Firing 10 shots a minute with a longbow is a major feat. Maybe longbows should not be allowed to have more than 1 shot a round and crossbows even less depending on light or heavy.

The Exchange

BenignFacist wrote:


- If the maximum damage is rolled, roll again and add the results. Keep doing this until a lower number is rolled. This method may be used for any missile weapon that does not involve direct muscular effort, i.e. crossbows, ballistae, and atlatls could work this way, but short and long bows, and hurled weapons would not.

Yeah, that is 'exploding dice'. It's a good way to represent the chance of a truly deadly shot, but it has the odd effect of favouring small dice. I'd suggest making Light Crossbow do 2d4 rather than 1d8 if using this and Heavy Crossbow 3d4.

BenignFacist wrote:


- Use the optional armor penetration rule for light and heavy crossbows from the Combat & Tactics book, which worsens the AC of an armored opponent by 2 at medium range and by 5 at short range.

I think that the idea above by someone about a maximum armour bonus is interesting, but what about natural armour? Do crossbows become the weapon of choice against dragons?

BenignFacist wrote:


- Make all crossbows +1 to hit, due to ease of use.

The original point and click interface? ;)


Arnwolf wrote:
I think if you are going to alter rules for weapons, why not start with a realistic rate of fire. No one fires 24 arrows a minute or fires a crossbow 24 times in a minute. And to me the game should be balanced in favor of melee weapons (to me only, feel free to feel different). But I would not mind seeing more damage and SLOWER rate of fire. Firing 10 shots a minute with a longbow is a major feat. Maybe longbows should not be allowed to have more than 1 shot a round and crossbows even less depending on light or heavy.

Ten arrows a minute was average for the English longbowmen. A skilled archer could have four arrows airborn at the same time, which is a considerably faster rate of fire. To be sure, this was not maintained for long periods of time, but then most engagements in Pathfinder very rarely last longer than ten rounds. Twenty-four in a minute? Possible, although a great effort. Firing a light crossbow at that rate would be hard, a heavy crossbow, I suppose, would depend on the nature of it's reloading mechanism, but ten shots a minute could be possible although again it would be a great physical effort.

I can't think of any particular reason missile weapons should be less deadly than melee weapons - both transmit physical power of one sort or another into a means of inflicting damage.


Here's a suggestion of a way to take one thing we know about crossbows and apply it in a manner that's consistent with how similar concepts are applied in the RAW to bows:

Composite Bows have a minimum strength bonus to use, but add that strength bonus to damage. These bows have greater tension and stronger strings, which requires greater strength to pull back, but also do greater damage in return.

One of the advantages of a crossbow is the ability to use a windlass to pull back a string that has the greater tension that a composite bow would have, but without having to have that increased stength -- complex machines are teh awesome, yes?

So, in game terms: give crossbows "Strength ratings" like composite bows, but unlike composite bows, these ratings only count for added damage, not minimum strength to use. Obviously, they should affect the price of the crossbow, just like they do a composite bow. Also, I'd suggest limiting the added bonus: +1 max for hand crossbows, +2 for light, +4 for heavy. You could also rule that higher rated take longer to reload. +0 Crossbows would use the RAW for reload time, including the Rapid Reload feat. Without the Rapid Reload feat, all +1 and +2 crossbows (regardless of size) take a Full-Round to reload. With it, a Move Action. +3 and +4 Heavy Crossbows take 2 Full-Rounds without RR, 1 Full-Round with.


The only problem I see with that is that if you use a windlass to span a crossbow, I don't see how you can do it quickly.


I Don't know if it was mentioned, but there could be a case to use the crossbow in conjunction with called shots, for greater damage. The crossbow user would likely have a better attack bonus for their single attack, than a bow user would have with multiple.


Dabbler wrote:
The only problem I see with that is that if you use a windlass to span a crossbow, I don't see how you can do it quickly.

Who cares. Let it happen anyways.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
The only problem I see with that is that if you use a windlass to span a crossbow, I don't see how you can do it quickly.
Who cares. Let it happen anyways.

This.

OR...

The bonuses provided by the Rapid Reload feat can be explained as having to do more with OTHER parts of the reload process than with the winding.

Either one works for me.

Sovereign Court

Dabbler wrote:
The only problem I see with that is that if you use a windlass to span a crossbow, I don't see how you can do it quickly.

It seems like the designers were being a bit forgiving of crossbows in general. If you look at the descriptions:

d20pfsrd.com wrote:

You draw a light crossbow back by pulling a lever. Normally, operating a light crossbow requires two hands. However, you can shoot, but not load, a light crossbow with one hand...

You draw a heavy crossbow back by turning a small winch. Normally, operating a heavy crossbow requires two hands. However, you can shoot, but not load, a heavy crossbow with one hand...

It sounds as if the light crossbow is using something like the goat's-foot lever to span the crossbow. Meanwhile the heavy crossbow is either using a windlass or cranequine to span.

From my meager understanding, in all of these instances you've got a second device that is separate from the crossbow itself, which evidently needs to be pulled out or laid on the ground between each shot. Imagine if it was played out with normal rules:

Player: I pull out my crossbow.

GM: Move action.

Player: I pull out my goat's-foot lever.

GM: Move action.

NEXT ROUND

Player: I attach the lever and then span the crossbow.

GM: Move action.

Player: I drop the level on the ground, draw and load a bolt, and finally aim and fire!

GM: Free action for the dropping the lever, free action for the bolt, then an Attack action, roll to hit.

And that's just with a light crossbow! There is a lot of handwaving going on with the rules just to get the light crossbow to function.

Sovereign Court

I'd think that with just a bit of engineering you could build a crossbow with a cranequine housed in the main body, with the crank and lever on the underside. That way it wouldn't need to be attached and detached over and over again. As soon as you fired it, just plop the head of the crossbow on the ground and crank away with one hand. With the other just press down on the trigger. Once the sting is in place just depress the trigger. Some mechanism would get hit to lower the cranequine's hook and then just load and fire.

It ain't going to be quick, but faster than what those pictures make it out to be.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
The only problem I see with that is that if you use a windlass to span a crossbow, I don't see how you can do it quickly.
Who cares. Let it happen anyways.

Fair enough.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mok wrote:

Imagine if it was played out with normal rules:

Player: I pull out my crossbow.

GM: Move action.

Player: I pull out my goat's-foot lever.

GM: Move action.

NEXT ROUND

Player: I attach the lever and then span the crossbow.

GM: Move action.

Player: I drop the level on the ground, draw and load a bolt, and finally aim and fire!

GM: Free action for the dropping the lever, free action for the bolt, then an Attack action, roll to hit.

And that's just with a light crossbow! There is a lot of handwaving going on with the rules just to get the light crossbow to function.

Not much more handwaving than for a bow:

Player: I pull out my bow.

GM: Move action.

Player: I pull out an arrow.

GM: Any arrow at random, or a specific arrow?

Player: One of my normal arrows.

GM: That's a move action to select a particular item from a container. (Most GMs don't actually use this rule when it comes to ammunition)

NEXT ROUND

Player: I notch the arrow, draw the bow, aim and fire!

Considering the amount of other stuff that gets handwaved in combat, it's hardly worth mentioning. Also, the RAW allow you to ready two items (two weapons, weapon and shield, etc.) as a single move item (or even while moving). The crossbow example above would be more like:

Player: I ready my crossbow and pull out my goat's-foot lever.

GM: Move action.

Player: I attach the lever and span the crossbow.

GM: Move action.

NEXT ROUND

Player: I drop my goat's-foot lever, pull out a bolt at random (they're all normal bolts, anyway), load, aim, and fire!

Even if the bow user doesn't specify a particular arrow, the only difference is one move action. This example also doesn't take into account that a crossbow user will often have the crossbow spanned and loaded ahead of time, allowing them to fire, drop the crossbow, and move while readying their melee weapon(s) in the first round of combat.

In short, while a crossbow is not as useful as a composite bow as a ranged weapon overall, it does have some advantages. The cost (for adding Str bonus to damage) of a composite bow is higher, a crossbow can be carried spanned and loaded, a crossbow does slightly more damage per shot than an equivalent bow (unless a composite bow built for high Str), etc. I like the suggestions of a "war bolt" with half the range doing more damage (increase by one step as if a medium/large weapon instead of small/medium?) and/or armor penetrating properties (IIRC, Player's Option: Combat & Tactics had light crossbows ignore 2 physical AC, such as armor or natural armor, at short range and heavy crossbows ignore 5 physical AC at short range and 2 physical AC at medium range; it also had pile arrows (ignore 2 physical AC at short range) and sheaf (broadhead) arrows (increase damage, half range) for bows). Considering how pathetic crossbows were in 1st/2nd AD&D, at least in 3.x and Pathfinder they're somewhat viable.

Sovereign Court

Dragonchess Player wrote:


GM: That's a move action to select a particular item from a container. (Most GMs don't actually use this rule when it comes to ammunition)

Technically... the online srd doesn't seem to have it posted, but on page 141 of the core book it says "When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action."


brock wrote:


I think that the idea above by someone about a maximum armour bonus is interesting, but what about natural armour? Do crossbows become the weapon of choice against dragons?

If this were to be considered I'd like to see it for X amount reduced for for Armor Class or Natural Armor bonuses either/or. Benefits would scale up when using a light crossbow vs a hand crossbow and a heavy crossbow vs a light one. Perhaps 1 for Hand, 2 for light and 3 for heavy.

I am liking the +1 to attack roll suggestion (all crossbows are masterworks of engineering) and the incorporation of natural "composite" strength bonuses. Of course, these weapons would be more expensive and harder to come by.

As the composite strength increases, perhaps the effectiveness of Rapid Reload reduces.


I was thinking that a feat to let you auto-threat on a hit with crossbows and guns might be fun. You'd need Improved Critical as a prereq, and you'd only be able to use it on a standard action like Vital Strike, but it would let these weapons fill their fantasy role of slow but deadly. Granted, the earliest you could take it would be 9th level, but it seems like a cool enough effect that people might be willing to tough it out.

I haven't fully thought through the implications of combining this with the various critical feats, but with folks already doing TWF with keen kukris I don't think that 1 crit per round would be unbalancing. Anyhow, you'd still need to hit and confirm, and you'd only get one shot, so it isn't a sure thing. Another control could be ruling that these critical shots can't be used when there's concealment.

It also just struck me that if Pinpoint Targeting and the Vital Strike chain could work together then the heavy crossbow might be a pretty decent weapon (if only for Rangers) even without additional feats and fixes. I don't think this is the case, but I'd like to believe that the iconic Ranger is carrying that crossbow for a good reason.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Devilkiller wrote:

I was thinking that a feat to let you auto-threat on a hit with crossbows and guns might be fun. You'd need Improved Critical as a prereq, and you'd only be able to use it on a standard action like Vital Strike, but it would let these weapons fill their fantasy role of slow but deadly. Granted, the earliest you could take it would be 9th level, but it seems like a cool enough effect that people might be willing to tough it out.

I haven't fully thought through the implications of combining this with the various critical feats, but with folks already doing TWF with keen kukris I don't think that 1 crit per round would be unbalancing. Anyhow, you'd still need to hit and confirm, and you'd only get one shot, so it isn't a sure thing. Another control could be ruling that these critical shots can't be used when there's concealment.

It also just struck me that if Pinpoint Targeting and the Vital Strike chain could work together then the heavy crossbow might be a pretty decent weapon (if only for Rangers) even without additional feats and fixes. I don't think this is the case, but I'd like to believe that the iconic Ranger is carrying that crossbow for a good reason.

It'd be interesting if the Vital Strike chain of feats were intrinsic to crossbows. That way, damage scales by the 'one big hit' as you level, while bows keep the Rate of fire advantage. Crossbows would be more valuable in a siege, where dmg/shot is more important then number of shots, and more valuable when moving, where you basically release and go.

Also note, composite bows aren't any stronger then stave bows...what they are is SHORTER (advantages of double recruve) and so can be used mounted. Longbows are long..typically six foot, smooth staves of wood, and get their power from the length of their draw as well as muscle.

===Aelryinth


Vital Strike doesn't have to be integral to crossbows, given the other limitations of the heavy crossbow that feat tree actually makes up for all of the heavy crossbow's other failings. Instead of 1d10, at 6th level you have improved damage to 2d10, then at +11 to 3d10 .... that's actually pretty impressive and well worth doing.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Dabbler wrote:
Vital Strike doesn't have to be integral to crossbows, given the other limitations of the heavy crossbow that feat tree actually makes up for all of the heavy crossbow's other failings. Instead of 1d10, at 6th level you have improved damage to 2d10, then at +11 to 3d10 .... that's actually pretty impressive and well worth doing.

You're comparing it against other weapons with Rate of Fire, enhancement bonuses and Strength bonuses.

1-10 to 2-20 to 3-30 +a max of +5 + Spec?

Vs. 1-8 + Str + Spec + Enhance x 1, 2, 3, 4?

Compare 3-30 +5 +6 (with 5 feats!) vs 3 arrows each doing, say, 1-8 +5 Str +5 +6, and we wind up with xbow 14-43, one shot, vs 17-24 x3(51-72), seperate targets possible?

It just makes a crossbow a one hit wonder...which is basically all it is.

==Aelryinth


Devilkiller wrote:
It also just struck me that if Pinpoint Targeting and the Vital Strike chain could work together then the heavy crossbow might be a pretty decent weapon (if only for Rangers) even without additional feats and fixes. I don't think this is the case, but I'd like to believe that the iconic Ranger is carrying that crossbow for a good reason.

Use a Large Heavy Crossbow (a.k.a. arbalest to some) and can be a good ranged weapon in a ranged Fighters hands. I made the point early on in terms of pure game mechanics, and not necessarily reality, such a weapon is ideal for a sniper build*. The main point is trying to pack as much damage into a single strike as possible, which I know runs counter to majority of Pathfinder high damage attacks.

Pinpoint Targeting, Vital Strike, Sniping use of Stealth, even Deadly Aim. Anything you can trade base attack for pure damage is also good as you don't need to worry about secondary attacks being reduced to "roll a 20" levels.

* Which doesn't work so well in a typical dungeon crawl, but then again when a corridor is only 100 feet long at best, bows don't get much play either.


Aelryinth wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Vital Strike doesn't have to be integral to crossbows, given the other limitations of the heavy crossbow that feat tree actually makes up for all of the heavy crossbow's other failings. Instead of 1d10, at 6th level you have improved damage to 2d10, then at +11 to 3d10 .... that's actually pretty impressive and well worth doing.

You're comparing it against other weapons with Rate of Fire, enhancement bonuses and Strength bonuses.

1-10 to 2-20 to 3-30 +a max of +5 + Spec?

Vs. 1-8 + Str + Spec + Enhance x 1, 2, 3, 4?

Compare 3-30 +5 +6 (with 5 feats!) vs 3 arrows each doing, say, 1-8 +5 Str +5 +6, and we wind up with xbow 14-43, one shot, vs 17-24 x3(51-72), seperate targets possible?

It just makes a crossbow a one hit wonder...which is basically all it is.

==Aelryinth

If we assume 100% to hit on the base attack, then the subsequent attacks the bow has get 75%, 50% and 25% to hit. That gives us 4-40+5+Spec vs (1d8+5+Spec)x2.5.

Taking averages, 27+Spec vs 23.75+(2.5xSpec)
Assuming 2d6 as Spec and you get 34 vs 41.25

The bow is still ahead of the game, but as the AC of the target rises, the single shot becomes more and more likely to inflict more serious damage as the subsequent shots become less and less effective.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Dabbler wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Vital Strike doesn't have to be integral to crossbows, given the other limitations of the heavy crossbow that feat tree actually makes up for all of the heavy crossbow's other failings. Instead of 1d10, at 6th level you have improved damage to 2d10, then at +11 to 3d10 .... that's actually pretty impressive and well worth doing.

You're comparing it against other weapons with Rate of Fire, enhancement bonuses and Strength bonuses.

1-10 to 2-20 to 3-30 +a max of +5 + Spec?

Vs. 1-8 + Str + Spec + Enhance x 1, 2, 3, 4?

Compare 3-30 +5 +6 (with 5 feats!) vs 3 arrows each doing, say, 1-8 +5 Str +5 +6, and we wind up with xbow 14-43, one shot, vs 17-24 x3(51-72), seperate targets possible?

It just makes a crossbow a one hit wonder...which is basically all it is.

==Aelryinth

If we assume 100% to hit on the base attack, then the subsequent attacks the bow has get 75%, 50% and 25% to hit. That gives us 4-40+5+Spec vs (1d8+5+Spec)x2.5.

Taking averages, 27+Spec vs 23.75+(2.5xSpec)
Assuming 2d6 as Spec and you get 34 vs 41.25

The bow is still ahead of the game, but as the AC of the target rises, the single shot becomes more and more likely to inflict more serious damage as the subsequent shots become less and less effective.

You once again left out the Strength bonus, which is integral to this entire example. I was very conservative and assumed a 20 str for +5 dmg. Crossbows as written don't get Str bonuses.

Spec is for the spec tree...GWS+Missile mastery for +6 dmg, +4 TH (ignoring all other feats).

So, the average arrow dmg is 4.5 +5+5+6 (Magic, Str and Spec), or 20.5 x 2.5 dmg is now 51 pts of dmg, vs 33 for the Xbow. And the damage can be spread over multiple targets, not fire and forget.

As you add other bonuses (dex to dmg, SA, ranger bonuses) the bow only gets stronger and stronger, because the Vital Strike multiplier only takes into account the base weapon. Even the Xbow dex to dmg sniper feat only adds a small fixed bonus that has little to no effect on a RoF comparison. Truly, multiple attacks is wonderful if it comes with no TH penalties.

==Aelryinth

101 to 150 of 259 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Heavy Crossbows: They still suck? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.