|
A normal bow assume a strength modifier of +0 to use it, If you have a lesser strength you are penalized.
Shortbow: If you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when you use a shortbow.
Shortbow, Composite: If your Strength bonus is lower than the strength rating of the composite bow, you can't effectively use it, so you take a –2 penalty on attacks with it. The default composite shortbow requires a Strength modifier of +0 or higher to use with proficiency.
In RL your strength isn't relevant when firing a crossbow but it is relevant when reloading it. The wink or lever used to reload it work as a strength multiplier but generally they are made to be used by people with a normal (+0) strength, so people with lower strength should have a problem reloading the crossbows.
There is any rule about this in any of the books?
It's not just convenient, it's intentional design. For the most part the crossbow is a terrible weapon. The ONLY thing it has going for the fact that low str don't have a penalty when using it.
|
So it is the only ranged manufactured weapon that isn't affected by a low strength?
It seem a bit too convenient.
Firearms, Blowgun, Net, Lasso all have nothing to with strength.
Also, other than the lack of additional damage, strength effects thrown weapons in no negative fashion.
Bows and Slings only.
|
|
There is no caveat for adding a strength penalty to damage rolls with thrown weapons. All I see is Bows and Slings.
If there is a hidden rules quote that states otherwise, then point me to it.
Hidden?
Thrown Weapons: Daggers, clubs, shortspears, spears, darts, javelins, throwing axes, light hammers, tridents, shuriken, and nets are thrown weapons. The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons).
It say "applies his strength modifier", nothing say that you apply only a positive modifier.
|
|
Crossbows are essentially peasant weapons. If you're going to give your conscript troops ranged weapons, crossbows are generally what's going to be handed out.
You should add "in D&D".
A crossbow was easy to use but costly and crossbowman troop were good quality professional, not conscripts.In the fist edition AD&D the crossbow had the saving grace of a great penetration bonus against heavy armor, something that was lost in the later editions.
I see the game balance reasons to have a good range, simple, missile weapon with limited efficiency but I think that the crossbow has been nefed too much against reality, and that things like not considering the need for a minimum strength to load it are a questionable way to balance the nerfs.
|
|
Because that is closer to reality. of course then we would have to figure size/str into the gun's kickI suppose.
Anyways, you seem to want to have every ranged weapon(other than firearms) to effected negatively by a low strength.
May I ask why?
More or less. Probably I would like 3 tiers of crossbows (beside the hand crossbow). A simple crossbow* with the same damage of the current light crossbow and probably a lower range and a light and a heavy crossbow with improved damage when compared to current versions.
At the same time people with less than 10 strength would suffer from slower reload time unless they were using loading aids above what was normally needed for that tier of crossbows.Put it another way, I don't like the idea that the strength 7 wizard will be as fast as the strength 18 cleric in loading his crossbow unless it was appositely made for his strength.
* similar to the Roman version that was loaded by hand, without aids like levers or winks.
|
Could save some balancing headaches and just give Rapid Reload a minimum STR when applied to crossbows. "Good quality professional" seems to imply specialized training more than "stronger than the nerds."
Or give everyone Rapid Reload (for all crossbows) for free, but only if they meet the minimum strength for the type used. If you do this, I recommend including making light and heavy crossbows target Touch AC for targets within some arbitrary distance you make up (say 15'). Then you have innate penetration values (which drop with distance) and increased reload times for stronger characters, and no one loses anything and everyone gains something.
The net result still favors higher strength characters, but considering higher strength characters will usually have more efficient options than a crossbow it may work itself out to a fair balance.
|
|
Should we count the PC's weight against their carrying capacity?
I mean, if you have a low enough strength, you might not even be able to lift your own body up.
Also, Quick Draw should have a dexterity prerequisite, right?
What about speed penalties for low dexterity, unless they make an Acrobatics check to move faster than half speed? Maybe a -5 feet for each -1 Dexterity modifier? Makes sense right?
Totally balanced, right?
By the nature of realism, why should a crossbow be penalized for low strength? It's point and shoot. The lack of damage bonus or penalty is perfectly fine.
As for reloading, I don't feel like the strength is gonna make a very big difference, nor that any special mechanisms need to be in place. They already are, to an extent.
"You draw a heavy crossbow back by turning a small winch."
"You draw a light crossbow back by pulling a lever."
Neither one seems like it would require a whole lot of extra muscle to make it work. I see the action required as being needed for grabbing the bolt, setting it into place, and drawing it back. So, instead of saying 7 strength is too weak to draw it back quickly, it's more like 18 strength is more than what's necessary. It ends up being the same type of action because there's more to it than just pulling back.
Even between 7 and 18 strength score, I don't see it taking the wizard more than an extra second, and probably less than that, to pull it back compared to the cleric. Not enough of a difference to change the required action.
I dunno, that's just my thoughts on it though. Either way seems like making things more complicated than it needs to be.
Edit: Actually, if anything, I'd kind of think they'd be made with low strength people in mind to begin with. Isn't that why they'd be used rather than the bows that do let you add your strength? (Proficiencies notwithstanding, I understand).
It's already bad enough to be a low-level wizard who's out of spells. Don't make it even less likely for them to have something to contribute to an encounter. :P
There are so many unrealistic things about the PF combat system, it doesn't bother me that low-STR PCs can reload crossbows. You can apply a lot of leverage when loading a crossbow that you cannot when drawing a bow. The easiest way to is to step through the hook on the front (google 'medieval crossbow') and use your whole body (legs, arms, back) to pull up on the string. I can easily see a 7 strength puny-armed wizard pulling this off.
I would think the bigger "RL problem" is that even simple crossbows cannot be loaded in 6 seconds, and that using a crank to load a crossbow would be the slowest method possible, but that's a totally different discussion. :) The faster load speed is somewhat compensated by the lowered damage (vs. older D&D versions).
|
Crossbows are already a slower weapon than normal bows. They do roughly the same amount of damage. To overcome the slowness of crossbows versus ordinary bows costs a couple of feats. Honestly, I think people who select the crossbow paid for the privilege of not using Strength.
I think it's good that not every weapon damage is dependent on strength one way or the other. As it stands, there's only a handful of pathetic ways* to play a Fighter without investing fully in Strength; so if you're the fighter with less strength than the other fighter in the party, you're almost guaranteed to be lackluster.
So I think the crossbow doesn't need any nerfs, rather it could use a bit more love.
* The only way I know of that doesn't suck is the scimitar-dervish route.
Not all weapons need to be "equal" in terms of their utility. I see what you are saying by "paying for the privilege of not using strength" and I agree, but it doesn't make any sense to me to attempt to treat a crossbow like a regular bow in terms of trying to get the same number of shots off per round. It's not really possible given the design of the weapon. I'd personally be up for way longer reload time and higher damage. Maybe giving it the ability to ignore some armor class.
|
|
LeDM: crossbows per RAW are already slower than ordinary bows; it costs at least an additional move action to load. So with one move and one standard action, you can fire a crossbow once.
A normal bow on the other hand, doesn't take any separate action to load.
It takes two feats (Rapid Reload and Crossbow Mastery) before you can fire a heavy crossbow as fast as an ordinary bow. Surely that's enough?
Especially given that a Trained Arbalester(Armoured Crossbowman) can fire 5 bolts in around 7-8 Seconds with a Heavy Crossbow. Albeit not a crank drawn one.
Especially given that a Trained Arbalester(Armoured Crossbowman) can fire 5 bolts in around 7-8 Seconds with a Heavy Crossbow. Albeit not a crank drawn one.
What?! In D&D or in the real world? That doesn't sound even remotely possible unless you are using some sort of repeating crossbow (did those ever even exist?)
Ascalaphus- I'm not trying to make it harder for the crossbow-wielding player. I haven't changed it in my own game, I'm just ruminating on the fact that the game doesn't model crossbow reload time very well (like so many things, of course accurately modeling combat is not the point of the game at all and this doesn't bother me!). Not medieval-style crossbows anyway, which IIRC are something like 10 seconds to reload for the average person.
Repeating Crossbows were used in Eastern Nations.
And Arbelesters wore Breast Plates and used a specialized Heavy Crossbow that was designed to use a specialized Lever based Block and Tackle mechanism. But after a while it proved to costly to manufacture the Crossbows in major numbers so they modified the Block and Tackle and increased the size and power behind the bolt.
|
|
The game doesn't model bows all that well either.. I recall some TV show that did a test; a highly skilled archer got off one arrow even 9 seconds. That's a lot less than a Full Attack.
One crucial difference between PF and reality is that real armies often just fired whole volleys of arrows in the general direction of the enemy army. RPGs generally don't do so, ranged attacks tend to be directed at one specific designated enemy. That should be slower, taking more time to aim.
|
|
light crossbows do reasonable damage, and are one of the best weapons for fighting underwater. If you are a half-elf with the right trait, you can pick up the heavy repeating crossbow and really dish out some damage, needing no more than the standard archery featsRL crossbows were easier to train, and didn't require quite so much strength to use as bows. So the PF design is fairly faithful (Simple weapon, no Str).
It's also really not unbalanced; crossbows require too many feats to work well, and don't do all that much damage when they work.
Perhaps, but isn't that a bit of a niche case?
@Ascalaphus: Check This And Weep.
And remember that a Humanoid body has horrid weaknesses.
|
|
@Ascalaphus: Check This And Weep.
And remember that a Humanoid body has horrid weaknesses.
That's very impressive. Although the presenter has a REALLY annoying voice :P
That's very impressive. Although the presenter has a REALLY annoying voice :P@Ascalaphus: Check This And Weep.
And remember that a Humanoid body has horrid weaknesses.
Understatement...
It sounds like a TelSell guy trying to get you to marry Lars Andersen :P
Or Wall-E having private time with a Speak-&-Spell.
The thing is today's archers go for an accurate as possible shot for things like competition vs just accurate enough for battle.
This is a result of Archery becoming a Sport and Hunting instead of for War and Hunting.
Einstein vs Stephen Hawking -Epic Rap Battles of History #7It sounds like a TelSell guy trying to get you to marry Lars Andersen :POr Wall-E having private time with a Speak-&-Spell.
Nice work. +10!
I dunno, I've read that crossbows could shoot farther and pierce knight's armor at close range, unlike bows. I would think that crossbows should have better damage dice and greater range than bows.
|
|
There's a great deal of discussion and research about just how powerful bows and crossbows really were, vis-a-vis armor.
One problem with that is that there exist dozens of bow designs and dozens of armor types. Add to that many different archery and defensive techniques/formations.
But PF doesn't have all of those bows as separate rules. But people try to argue about "how bows realistically function" based on one particular historical bow. And the same for other weapons and armor.
In the end you have to decide how far you'll go with accuracy, and when practical game considerations kick in. In the end, you want a nice selection of differently flavored weapons that are somewhat balanced with each other.
That's why I did something a little unusual for me, and altered the game rules.
I noticed that crossbows consistently got less damage than bows, because one couldn't add one's Strength bonus into crossbows. Therefore, I upped all crossbows damage dice by one step. That's right, a heavy crossbow does a d12 of damage, which averages to 6.5.
It preserved a bit of the flavor of the original weapons, since you couldn't reload as fast with a crossbow, but you did about the same amount of damage (perhaps slightly greater) as a regular bow, but the crossbow demanded less skill and strength.
In the game, that would equate to a crossbow needing less feats to function compared to a bow, and less strength. Been debating how to balance that out, perhaps with a free crossbow related feat.
@Piccolo: What?
I agree Crossbows should either get a Bump to damage.
@Piccolo: What?
I agree Crossbows should either get a Bump to damage.
I don't understand. Please rephrase this.
In the game, that would equate to a crossbow needing less feats to function compared to a bow, and less strength. Been debating how to balance that out, perhaps with a free crossbow related feat.
I was asking what you meant by this.
Well, in real life, crossbows were a LOT easier to use than regular bows, plus you got armor piercing capability at short range and longer ranges overall. The only problem was that you couldn't fire anywhere near as fast as a dude with a bow, because of the reload time.
So, since crossbows were easier to fire than bows, one would think that in the game you'd need fewer feats (to simulate that relative ease). Maybe a free Point Blank Shot feat for crossbows only?
Meh. Rangers already are the best Crossbowmen. At least Next to maybe the Crossbowman Fighter...
I haven't encountered a player actually choosing crossbows over bows, except perhaps the spellcaster types that have a crappy Strength and a high Dexterity. So really, having never seen one in action, I can't write to that. I do know that most rangers I know of usually go for bows, because of the crappy armor they get access to.
Most players end up taking melee weapons, even Rogues, because of the limited space when dungeon crawling, and flanking bonuses. Even so, it's important that at least ONE is good with a missile weapon, and usually that ends up being either the wizard (damage dealing spells) or the rogue with thrown items.
Gotta say though, it's a real b!!$! to find a rogue variant that doesn't give up trapfinding! The ability to disarm magic traps is kinda useful when dungeon crawling. Right now, we have a goblin rogue who loves tossing fire related items, and since he has no bonus to strength, I was considering having him go to the Scout variant (but would have to give up keeping Dex AC at all times) but I dunno.
Magic Traps can be handled via Detect Magic and Dispel Magic.
Standard Traps just need Disable Device.
Trapfinding isn't that big of a need.
Rangers can get Crossbow Feats easily. Crossbowmen are excellent for Ambush or Reactionary Firing as they get DEX to damage on Readied Crossbow Shots. One of the reasons why I am changing it to be more like the Gunslinger.