I don't see anything in the rules about this, I just think it was never thought of. I also don't think this is over-powered.
When you reload a repeating crossbow out of combat, you can have 1 bolt nocked and ready to fire, AND have a full magazine of 5 bolts ready and waiting to be re-loaded with the repeating mechanism.
Anyone see a problem with this?
|
Fairly certain Repeating Crossbows don't have a 'chamber' equivalent: The bottom bolt of the 5-shot feed mechanism just lies right in front of the bowstring.
So, I don't think your idea works. Of course, in reality you could just have a 6 or more round feed mechanism, but game design tends to work better with 'static' weapons as the additional variations probably create more issues than solutions.
I would think the mechanism works something like this:
1) Load a full 5 bolt Magazine. (Full Round Action if in Combat)
2) Pull reload mechanism lever. (Free Action)
Now you are ready to fire a bolt, i.e. one bolt is "in the chamber" or nocked if you prefer.
But if instead of firing now, you detach the magazine (which now has 4 bolts), load another bolt into the magazine to make it a fully loaded 5 bolt magazine(I would consider this a full round action), and then re-engage the mag onto the crossbow (another full round action).
I think you can be ready to shoot 6 total bolts without reloading a fresh magazine.
It makes an under powered (but very cool) weapon a little more powerful, and a little cooler/more bad-ass.
I'm with Taja the Barbarian. I don't think a repeating crossbow can be fired/loaded without a magazine. So in your explanation of how it works, I'd say you either drop the bolt when you detach the magazine or it stays with the magazine: either way, it doesn't stay loaded in the crossbow.
My reasoning: there is NO listed load times for non-magazine use.; just loading a magazine or reloading from magazine. Nothing about load times without a magazine so I wouldn't allow it to be loaded [or stay loaded] without one.
|
|
I would think the mechanism works something like this:
1) Load a full 5 bolt Magazine. (Full Round Action if in Combat)
2) Pull reload mechanism lever. (Free Action)
Now you are ready to fire a bolt, i.e. one bolt is "in the chamber" or nocked if you prefer.
But if instead of firing now, you detach the magazine (which now has 4 bolts), load another bolt into the magazine to make it a fully loaded 5 bolt magazine(I would consider this a full round action), and then re-engage the mag onto the crossbow (another full round action).
I think you can be ready to shoot 6 total bolts without reloading a fresh magazine.
It makes an under powered (but very cool) weapon a little more powerful, and a little cooler/more bad-ass.
Here's a picture of a real-life repeating crossbow: http://mandarinmansion.com/chinese-repeating-crossbow
Unlike many modern firearms, the 'magazine' is not removable: It's an integral part of the weapon. Reloading the 'magazine' is a simple matter of dropping a handful of bolts into it from the top, and gravity then pulls them down toward the bowstring. If the bottom bolt is not 'nocked' it would be resting on the bowstring itself, so nocking it will not free up that much space.But of course, this is using a real repeating crossbow: Fantasy versions may work differently...
ADDENDUM: Figures 173 - 175 on this page http://www.atarn.org/chinese/rept_xbow.htm shows how the feed works a little better.
It does seem to indicate the bowstring is thicker than I would have thought, so maybe you could drop one more bolt into the feed mechanism, but it's just as easy to think the stated capacity assumes the weapon is 'nocked' when loaded.
Taja, Thank you for the research. I believe you are using one example of a real world repeating crossbow that is not actually covered in the Pathfinder rules so it is pretty much comparing apples to oranges. The link you provided depicts a bow where the mag cannot be removed which is a contradiction to the bow presented in the game. But the concept is similar and the figures actually support my understanding of what is presented in the Pathfinder rules and my thinking of the way my "one in the chamber" concept should work. (If you could remove the magazine in figures you linked, you would be able to load an additional bolt into it after one was "nocked".)
Here is the image from 3rd edition which has the same text description as Pathfinder: http://mypetdungeon.tritonius.com/DnDWeapons4.jpg
Does this change your opinion of what the bow can and can't do?
Graystone, Thank you for responding but I have to disagree with your opinion about the bolt falling out if the mag is removed. Why would the bolt fall out of the weapon? It also doesn't make sense that it would remain in the magazine.
Why would the bolt fall out of the weapon? It also doesn't make sense that it would remain in the magazine.
Why, because the magazine IS the chamber IMO?
As to the 3e picture, there isn't any reason to think that picture is still valid and/or if it is that it does what you say it does. 3e wasn't known for accurate weights/measures/designs for equipment.
For me, it mechanically doesn't follow that it should be allowed to load an additional bolt. For me, it logically shouldn't be allowed to do so. For me, it isn't likely going to be ruled by the dev's in a way that would actually improve the crossbow. 3 strike IMO.
|
|
No, it actually makes me think the opposite: Crossbows don't need a 'chamber' so given the choice betweenTaja, Thank you for the research. I believe you are using one example of a real world repeating crossbow that is not actually covered in the Pathfinder rules so it is pretty much comparing apples to oranges. The link you provided depicts a bow where the mag cannot be removed which is a contradiction to the bow presented in the game. But the concept is similar and the figures actually support my understanding of what is presented in the Pathfinder rules and my thinking of the way my "one in the chamber" concept should work. (If you could remove the magazine in figures you linked, you would be able to load an additional bolt into it after one was "nocked".)
Here is the image from 3rd edition which has the same text description as Pathfinder: http://mypetdungeon.tritonius.com/DnDWeapons4.jpg
Does this change your opinion of what the bow can and can't do?
Graystone, Thank you for responding but I have to disagree with your opinion about the bolt falling out if the mag is removed. Why would the bolt fall out of the weapon? It also doesn't make sense that it would remain in the magazine.
- A complicated mechanism to strip a bolt from a clip and place it in position in front of the bowstring, or
- setting it up so the bottom bolt naturally lies in front of the string so the bolt is launched directly from the clip,
Keep in mind, very little thought probably went into these weapons in game: They are just one of those items that were included because they existed in previous editions and that once character in 10,000 might actually use. The '5 Bolt clip' might have been carefully thought out, but more likely they just thought '5 sounds like a nice number' and went with it (note the real world historical example held around a dozen bolts in its feed): If you really want to offer a '6 bolt clip' there is really no reason it can't be done (as I recall, American gangsters in the 1920s would use the BAR light machine guns, but since they found the 20 round magazine lacking, they welded two of them together to get a 40 round magazine for additional firepower).
Finally, historically speaking, repeating crossbows are a bit of an oddity: I don't think they were popular outside of China and I doubt they offered significantly better performance than a short bow (increasing the rate of fire from any bow generally involves putting less energy into each shot, and the awkwardness of the mechanism probably degraded accuracy as they seem to be intended to 'fire from the hip'). I don't really think there is any particular need to make them more attractive to players.
Finally, historically speaking, repeating crossbows are a bit of an oddity: I don't think they were popular outside of China and I doubt they offered significantly better performance than a short bow (increasing the rate of fire from any bow generally involves putting less energy into each shot, and the awkwardness of the mechanism probably degraded accuracy as they seem to be intended to 'fire from the hip'). I don't really think there is any particular need to make them more attractive to players.
I went ahead and did a little reading and:
* Indeed they did have less power. This is because they were made to be fired and reloaded in a single motion, and because it caused a lot of string wear (so they made it less powerful to keep the string working longer.)* The mechanism made them very heavy, so if they weren't mounted on a wall it was likely to be fired from the hip.
I'll say, that I didn't find anything saying it impeded aiming (after all, aiming with a bow or crossbow is vastly different than sights for a rifle) but I could understand if it did.
[Note: I misread your post originally and went gathering information to refute a point you didn't make; in case you're curious why I'm giving random useless information.]