No, sir, you changed what you chose to respond to to suit yourself, rather than addressing what my argument was, you decided I had posted in response to the mythical other argument (the one you had not made) and claimed I had failed to address it, which is dishonest at best.quit changing your argument, if your argument is (as originally stated) crossbows suck because bows are cool, you cannot, when provided with examples of crossbows in pop culture, change the argument to xbows sucking in PF1, so the pop culture xbow would not work, one or the other, please choose.Because only one argument, or even aspect of an argument, can ever be valid? PF1 Bows were both fashionable and the most powerful martial weaponry in the game; I have never changed my stance on this matter, which means I never changed my argument whatsoever. All you did was attack one aspect of my argument at any given time, and even then you opened up holes in your argument that wouldn't hold water if I applied their concepts to PF1 (or PF2 for that matter).
The whole "crossbows were cool and useful" in Walking Dead would be a major misnomer in Pathfinder simply because of Stealth rules and Perception mechanics. The big draw to crossbows in Walking Dead versus simple firearms was the ability to defeat walkers without drawing attention. Can't do that in Pathfinder, and most certainly not with a ranged weapon attack; at least, without some form of outside help (like a Silence spell, with maybe an illusion).
Debating doesn't require upholding some arbitrary code that I must argue only one facet of a topic at any given time, and that I can't move on to another facet until the first is debunked. That's just plain silly.
Your argument originally was an arbitrary amount of weight pull that is mentioned nowhere in relation to the fantasy genre. That's effectively a non-sequitur, which means there was no relevance to the topic of bows versus crossbows (hence why I "dismissed" it).
Then you went on with "pop culture," which was both already overshadowed by more popular characters (Legolas, Green Arrow, Hawkeye, etc.), and also debunked for its feature presentation in PF by existing game mechanics making it impossible.
And now here we are, complaining about changing facets of the argument because...why? It really doesn't matter what the original argument was, because whatever argument that was made so far has been countered.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then you went on with "pop culture," which was both already overshadowed by more popular characters (Legolas, Green Arrow, Hawkeye, etc.), and also debunked for its feature presentation in PF by existing game mechanics making it impossible.
Okay let me just point out: Pretty sure a new player wouldn't care how crossbows interact with stealth rules is in Pathfinder, even if stealth is the primary reason it's used in the source material. The only thing they care about is that the character they like looks cool with a crossbow, and they want to make a character equally cool with a crossbow. Same goes for Van Helsing (who is a classic character, and IME a frequent inspiration for any game that might have any connection with Vampires), Chewbacca, or any of the other crossbow users across the *vast variety* of media out there (there's more than a few in anime and video games for instance). Yes bows are popular, you can even say they're extremely popular, but they are far from the only ranged weapon ever used in pop culture.
Let me say something about repeating crossbows: they were fairly low powered, generally inaccurate, really easy to use, and mostly used by the Chinese.
I never cared for how it required an exotic weapon proficiency in various fantasy RPGs.
If I had my druthers for balance: I'd want crossbows to take one or two actions to load, deal around 1d12 damage, not let you add your str score to damage, and have a minimum strength (10 or 11) to reload in a given period of time (one or two actions).
Then you went on with "pop culture," which was both already overshadowed by more popular characters (Legolas, Green Arrow, Hawkeye, etc.), and also debunked for its feature presentation in PF by existing game mechanics making it impossible.Okay let me just point out: Pretty sure a new player wouldn't care how crossbows interact with stealth rules is in Pathfinder, even if stealth is the primary reason it's used in the source material. The only thing they care about is that the character they like looks cool with a crossbow, and they want to make a character equally cool with a crossbow. Same goes for Van Helsing (who is a classic character, and IME a frequent inspiration for any game that might have any connection with Vampires), Chewbacca, or any of the other crossbow users across the *vast variety* of media out there (there's more than a few in anime and video games for instance). Yes bows are popular, you can even say they're extremely popular, but they are far from the only ranged weapon ever used in pop culture.
New players, no. Players wanting a specific feel (zombie apocalypse survival with meaningful weapon choices), yes. The distinction wasn't made for new players only, but even if it was, this is like saying a new player taking Core Rogue in PF1 doesn't make Core Rogue suck. What makes Core Rogue suck is that it's worse than any other option it can emulate, and even compared to throwing weapons, it makes sense.
Van Helsing's big draw is being an incredible vampire hunter, and Chewbacca is a giant furry spaceman who drives a ship and usually holds a blaster. You can do both and not use inferior crossbows.
Then you went on with "pop culture," which was both already overshadowed by more popular characters (Legolas, Green Arrow, Hawkeye, etc.), and also debunked for its feature presentation in PF by existing game mechanics making it impossible.Okay let me just point out: Pretty sure a new player wouldn't care how crossbows interact with stealth rules is in Pathfinder, even if stealth is the primary reason it's used in the source material. The only thing they care about is that the character they like looks cool with a crossbow, and they want to make a character equally cool with a crossbow. Same goes for Van Helsing (who is a classic character, and IME a frequent inspiration for any game that might have any connection with Vampires), Chewbacca, or any of the other crossbow users across the *vast variety* of media out there (there's more than a few in anime and video games for instance). Yes bows are popular, you can even say they're extremely popular, but they are far from the only ranged weapon ever used in pop culture.New players, no. Players wanting a specific feel (zombie apocalypse survival with meaningful weapon choices), yes. The distinction wasn't made for new players only, but even if it was, this is like saying a new player taking Core Rogue in PF1 doesn't make Core Rogue suck. What makes Core Rogue suck is that it's worse than any other option it can emulate, and even compared to throwing weapons, it makes sense.
Van Helsing's big draw is being an incredible vampire hunter, and Chewbacca is a giant furry spaceman who drives a ship and usually holds a blaster. You can do both and not use inferior crossbows.
Shooting a crossbow is rad as s%@~, though. Mechanically, I do think they should be generally weaker that bows if one is going to be a simple weapon and the other is going to be a martial weapon even if that is not 100% satisfactory for realism/style.
If style is the main issue, there might be some room to have your cake and eat it too if higher levels of weapon proficiency gave you access to mechanical unlocks for crossbow.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen way too many newbie players grab a crossbow at level 1 because they think crossbows are awesome and then flounder for five+ levels trying to make the concept work because crossbows are mechanically awful. Very frequently these are characters that have longbow proficiency but simply like crossbows more.
I would greatly appreciate it if crossbows could be a viable combat style in Pathfinder 2.
If crossbows need an action to load then Id like to see them adding strength to damage from the get go, specially if composite bows are gone
In the old D&D rules, Haste did give an extra attack (and it was a BIG deal since you usually only had one per round), but could not be used to cast a second spell. The reasoning was that you can't just talk and gesiculate faster to cast, it just won't work.
But it also aged you (a year per use I think). So anyone other than elves couldn't use it all that much unless they wanted to be old before they hit high level. 3rd thankfully got rid of that. Of course everyone got multiple attacks in 3rd, not just the fighter like in 2nd (maybe 1st too).
Historically shields and crossbows have been used, though that was more a Pavise for cover and an aiming platform than actually holding the crossbow with one hand.
Yeah, I figure Tower Shield is supposed to represent a pavise with the ability to set it up as cover. Although other times it seems to be treated like just any large shield such as the Roman scutum. But since Tower Shield use is locked behind a feat for anyone who isn't a fighter, they don't get used a whole lot. I would like to see the crossbow/pavise combo get some love in PF2.
I liked the artwork a few pages ago, If you strap a round shield right (or modify it) it could be used in combination with a crossbow
and before anyone says that that might be unrealistic
well, this is a fantasy setting, bucklers were strapped to the forearm in pf1 and if I want a realistic rpg (probably not) I will sure as heck not play pathfinder
I think I might at least playtest that (if crossbows are halfway valid) and propose it when the time comes (if the option is not in the rules already)
I liked the artwork a few pages ago, If you strap a round shield right (or modify it) it could be used in combination with a crossbow
and before anyone says that that might be unrealistic
well, this is a fantasy setting, bucklers were strapped to the forearm in pf1 and if I want a realistic rpg (probably not) I will sure as heck not play pathfinder
I think I might at least playtest that (if crossbows are halfway valid) and propose it when the time comes (if the option is not in the rules already)
I could possibly see some kind of combination shield-crossbow. Basically crossbow with a shield mounted on it with a cutout for the bolt. Kind of like some of those odd combination shield-guns. Not the most practical thing, but cool.
I liked the firearms but those things are kinda stupid, well all a matter of the individual taste
but i am rarely a fan of tacti-cool weapons
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shooting a crossbow is rad as s%#*, though.Don't see how shooting a crossbow is radder than other ranged weapons. To me, they're the guys that show up, forcing Conan and his super hot lady-friend, and his archer/thief buddy to see King Osric.
So in your opinion they're not cool weapons. Clearly, as evidenced in this thread... a number of us do not share that opinion. What makes our opinion about crossbows any less valid than yours?
And RE: the New Players comment in my previous post, frankly, experienced players are going to make what they want, and some can even make the PF1e crossbow viable (not optimal, but viable at least.) New players are the ones that the changes (or lack there of)... well, maybe won't entice them, but could easily be a factor for whether they stay or not. After all, how likely is a new player to stay if the character they tried to make to be a cool character winds up sucking because they tried to use a cool weapon? And every new player turned off because their character concept failed mechanically because their cool weapon is just mechanically horrible is going to be one less player buying product. And possibly convincing others to not buy product. Over time it can easily add up. And frankly, new blood is necessary not only for Paizo to stay strong, but also to keep the game alive and evolving.
Shooting a crossbow is rad as s%#*, though.Don't see how shooting a crossbow is radder than other ranged weapons. To me, they're the guys that show up, forcing Conan and his super hot lady-friend, and his archer/thief buddy to see King Osric.So in your opinion they're not cool weapons. Clearly, as evidenced in this thread... a number of us do not share that opinion. What makes our opinion about crossbows any less valid than yours?
And RE: the New Players comment in my previous post, frankly, experienced players are going to make what they want, and some can even make the PF1e crossbow viable (not optimal, but viable at least.) New players are the ones that the changes (or lack there of)... well, maybe won't entice them, but could easily be a factor for whether they stay or not. After all, how likely is a new player to stay if the character they tried to make to be a cool character winds up sucking because they tried to use a cool weapon? And every new player turned off because their character concept failed mechanically because their cool weapon is just mechanically horrible is going to be one less player buying product. And possibly convincing others to not buy product. Over time it can easily add up. And frankly, new blood is necessary not only for Paizo to stay strong, but also to keep the game alive and evolving.
You're a vocal minority in regards to crossbows being cool to use. That taste is easily changed for others due to bad mechanics. I really only played a crossbow character just because it was different, and something never played at a table before, not because it was cool or anything else like that; I dislike the mainstream. If I could go back and change to using a bow (or even throwing weapons), I would due to the simply horrible mechanics of Crossbows, and how suboptimal they are in the face of high HP, high A.C. enemies, which are practically every boss fight at my table.
On top of that, being linked with a minority means there is an uphill battle for change, not to mention there being other big topics up to bat, like vancian casting, resonance, paladins, and goblins and alchemists being a part of core. The fact of the matter is, compared to those topics, crossbows is very low in priority in regards to being changed or even discussed, meaning any hope for crossbows is drowning in the topical mainstream.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're a vocal minority in regards to crossbows being cool to use.
Oh would you please just shut it already? we know it is your opinion but thats that
You don't have to pump yourself up so much about it.This thread is about how we WANT crossbows.
The answer is VIABLE that people like you can stop annoying everyone who just wants to play and use a crossbow somewhat effective.
I like bows, of course, but I also like crossbows - and guess what? I made efficient crossbow using characters. Besides the not optimized mechanics.
So would you please stop ranting why the thing is in your opinion inferior and let us talk about what we want like the thread was supposed to be.
Edit: censored myself because I was too hot-headed after seeing another "crossbows are inferior and uncool" post
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a thread with multiple people saying that we're interesting in having Crossbows become more viable... The only one who is in the opinion that Crossbows shouldn't get some sort of buff for the most part is you Darksol.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Composite Bows are the master race of ranged weapons, and it has always been this way since the original 1st Edition D&D. There's no reason to change that paradigm now, especially because there's no new fad to make them less appealing.
You're a vocal minority in regards to crossbows being cool to use. That taste is easily changed for others due to bad mechanics. I really only played a crossbow character just because it was different, and something never played at a table before, not because it was cool or anything else like that; I dislike the mainstream. If I could go back and change to using a bow (or even throwing weapons), I would due to the simply horrible mechanics of Crossbows, and how suboptimal they are in the face of high HP, high A.C. enemies, which are practically every boss fight at my table.
On top of that, being linked with a minority means there is an uphill battle for change, not to mention there being other big topics up to bat, like vancian casting, resonance, paladins, and goblins and alchemists being a part of core. The fact of the matter is, compared to those topics, crossbows is very low in priority in regards to being changed or even discussed, meaning any hope for crossbows is drowning in the topical mainstream.
Darksol, let me see if I understand your argument correctly: In Pathfinder 1.0 (as well as in previous versions of D&D) bows are much, much better weapons than crossbows. A character you deliberately designed to use crossbows would still swap to a longbow in hard encounters, since the crossbow couldn't keep up in high HP & high AC fights. You consider this a good thing, because crossbows are unpopular compared to bows and thus crossbows should be an objectively bad option.
Is that accurate?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a circular argument of the worst kind. To wit: Crossbows are unpopular in D&D (and specifically only D&D, not culture at large) because they are mechanically bad. Because they are unpopular due solely to being mechanically bad it means they deserve to remain bad and unpopular and it isn't worth the 1-2 minutes it would take to rewrite them to make them mechanically viable.
*facepalm*
|
Crossbows should be a 2 handed weapon. By that I mean that they should do 1.5 times damage. Many/most crossbows are "drawn" ("cocked") with the use of both hands/arms (or with leg muscles in the case of a "goats-foot" level or "hook and stirrup" as in the picture linked above), and so should do damage as if a 2 handed weapon.
But then I think that when using a 2 handed weapon the welder should use some multiple of their strength... either one and a third, or one and a quarter... so if a Goblin has a strength of 9 he does + strength (which would be -1 for a Strength of 9) with a one handed weapon, but he does + Strength and a third (or a Strength of 12, for a +1) with a two handed weapon.
So a goblin (Strength of 9) with a crossbow would use a crossbow with a Strength rating of 12 (one and a third his strength).
I ran this for a while in a home game (both in 3.0/3.5 and in PFS) and it worked fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If crossbows need an action to load then Id like to see them adding strength to damage from the get go, specially if composite bows are gone
This makes no sense and I would houserule it out if the crossbow simply requires an action to load. Now, I would consider it if the crossbow required a certain strength to load, essentially turning them into the equivalent of a composite bow. Your crossbow takes 16 strength to load? Alright, after your action to load it, I'll accept that the tension on the thing is so great that it deals the commensurate amount of bonus damage for strength. That's reasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If crossbows need an action to load then Id like to see them adding strength to damage from the get go, specially if composite bows are goneThis makes no sense and I would houserule it out if the crossbow simply requires an action to load. Now, I would consider it if the crossbow required a certain strength to load, essentially turning them into the equivalent of a composite bow. Your crossbow takes 16 strength to load? Alright, after your action to load it, I'll accept that the tension on the thing is so great that it deals the commensurate amount of bonus damage for strength. That's reasonable.
This for Heavy Crossbows seems like an easy and effective plan to implement.
I want Crossbows to be the master of the satisfying "thunk." So here is what I'd have.
Each "weight" of Crossbow is a die size larger than the comparable. Crossbows have the Deadly property while Bows don't.
Crossbows have a strength requirement to reload. If you meet this they only take 1 action to reload. If you don't you require a crank and need to take 2 actions.
Using Crossbows as a club isn't terrible.So Crossbows have a stat requirement to use efficiently and even then attack slower than bows. But they hit a little harder usually, and way harder on a Critical Success. In a pinch you can bludgeon someone with them.
I like this approach, although sadly the large number of conditions will be a put-off to those seeking simplicity at the table, compared to melee weapons or the common bow.
This for Heavy Crossbows seems like an easy and effective plan to implement.If crossbows need an action to load then Id like to see them adding strength to damage from the get go, specially if composite bows are goneThis makes no sense and I would houserule it out if the crossbow simply requires an action to load. Now, I would consider it if the crossbow required a certain strength to load, essentially turning them into the equivalent of a composite bow. Your crossbow takes 16 strength to load? Alright, after your action to load it, I'll accept that the tension on the thing is so great that it deals the commensurate amount of bonus damage for strength. That's reasonable.
Indeed. In addition, it could allow for some interesting edge cases where a crossbow is favored over a bow. I'm not fully up to snuff on how weapons are classified in PF2 (martial vs. simple), but in PF1, a crossbow is a simple weapon. You could load one, hand it to someone else, and they could fire it with the strength bonus of the crossbow, even if they themselves couldn't have loaded it. Efficient? Probably not. But I could see somewhere, in some adventure, an assembly line of strongmen desperately loading crossbow after crossbow so that those around them (perhaps weaker but with better aim) can take the shots to try defending their keep...
Indeed. In addition, it could allow for some interesting edge cases where a crossbow is favored over a bow. I'm not fully up to snuff on how weapons are classified in PF2 (martial vs. simple), but in PF1, a crossbow is a simple weapon. You could load one, hand it to someone else, and they could fire it with the strength bonus of the crossbow, even if they themselves couldn't have loaded it. Efficient? Probably not. But I could see somewhere, in some adventure, an assembly line of strongmen desperately loading crossbow after crossbow so that those around them (perhaps weaker but with better aim) can take the shots to try defending their keep...This for Heavy Crossbows seems like an easy and effective plan to implement.If crossbows need an action to load then Id like to see them adding strength to damage from the get go, specially if composite bows are goneThis makes no sense and I would houserule it out if the crossbow simply requires an action to load. Now, I would consider it if the crossbow required a certain strength to load, essentially turning them into the equivalent of a composite bow. Your crossbow takes 16 strength to load? Alright, after your action to load it, I'll accept that the tension on the thing is so great that it deals the commensurate amount of bonus damage for strength. That's reasonable.
Repeater crossbows done differently :P
The picture is actually not a bad one and makes sense to a certain degree
...some people gonna have sore arms the next day for sure ;)
|
Indeed. In addition, it could allow for some interesting edge cases where a crossbow is favored over a bow. I'm not fully up to snuff on how weapons are classified in PF2 (martial vs. simple), but in PF1, a crossbow is a simple weapon. You could load one, hand it to someone else, and they could fire it with the strength bonus of the crossbow, even if they themselves couldn't have loaded it. Efficient? Probably not. But I could see somewhere, in some adventure, an assembly line of strongmen desperately loading crossbow after crossbow so that those around them (perhaps weaker but with better aim) can take the shots to try defending their keep...This for Heavy Crossbows seems like an easy and effective plan to implement.If crossbows need an action to load then Id like to see them adding strength to damage from the get go, specially if composite bows are goneThis makes no sense and I would houserule it out if the crossbow simply requires an action to load. Now, I would consider it if the crossbow required a certain strength to load, essentially turning them into the equivalent of a composite bow. Your crossbow takes 16 strength to load? Alright, after your action to load it, I'll accept that the tension on the thing is so great that it deals the commensurate amount of bonus damage for strength. That's reasonable.
Considering I could see it done in real life, why not? :P
Composite Bows are the master race of ranged weapons, and it has always been this way since the original 1st Edition D&D. There's no reason to change that paradigm now, especially because there's no new fad to make them less appealing.You're a vocal minority in regards to crossbows being cool to use. That taste is easily changed for others due to bad mechanics. I really only played a crossbow character just because it was different, and something never played at a table before, not because it was cool or anything else like that; I dislike the mainstream. If I could go back and change to using a bow (or even throwing weapons), I would due to the simply horrible mechanics of Crossbows, and how suboptimal they are in the face of high HP, high A.C. enemies, which are practically every boss fight at my table.
On top of that, being linked with a minority means there is an uphill battle for change, not to mention there being other big topics up to bat, like vancian casting, resonance, paladins, and goblins and alchemists being a part of core. The fact of the matter is, compared to those topics, crossbows is very low in priority in regards to being changed or even discussed, meaning any hope for crossbows is drowning in the topical mainstream.
Darksol, let me see if I understand your argument correctly: In Pathfinder 1.0 (as well as in previous versions of D&D) bows are much, much better weapons than crossbows. A character you deliberately designed to use crossbows would still swap to a longbow in hard encounters, since the crossbow couldn't keep up in high HP & high AC fights. You consider this a good thing, because crossbows are unpopular compared to bows and thus crossbows should be an objectively bad option.
Is that accurate?
Kind of. The point is that if I was a bow user instead of a crossbow user, I would be much more useful and capable a character simply because crossbow mechanics are bad, and there was far less support for them in comparison. I couldn't get bludgeoning bolts because they didn't exist as an item, but bludgeoning arrows did, making enemies with DR in the low levels very hard to deal with, and that's just one example.
While I don't consider it a good thing, it's a thing I've grown to accept simply because that's the way it's always been, and nobody has bothered or shown desire to change it. This game has had numerous editions and authors come in to work on the mechanics, and not one of them really bothered to make crossbows viable outside of 3rd level. Paizo might have done the most, but it was too little too late, and I'm of the opinion that history will repeat itself once more, as it always has.
And I largely blame that ideal on the fact that Legolas >>>> Any other crossbow user ever conceived, even Van Helsing, because Legolas was the first, the pioneer, the OG of fantasy archery. It's the equivalent of arguing Star Wars v.s. Star Trek, or arguing which sections of the series was the best.
It's a circular argument of the worst kind. To wit: Crossbows are unpopular in D&D (and specifically only D&D, not culture at large) because they are mechanically bad. Because they are unpopular due solely to being mechanically bad it means they deserve to remain bad and unpopular and it isn't worth the 1-2 minutes it would take to rewrite them to make them mechanically viable.
*facepalm*
It's what everyone else in D&D did, there's nothing to suggest that paradigm has changed.
I also think it's funny you believe Crossbows only require a 1-2 minute fix. If that's the case, PF2 would be releasing in August and not simply be a playtest. Except it's not, and Crossbows have been debated before as to how they can be better, many of which have been proposed, and none of which have been majorly agreed upon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I largely blame that ideal on the fact that Legolas >>>> Any other crossbow user ever conceived, even Van Helsing, because Legolas was the first, the pioneer, the OG of fantasy archery. It's the equivalent of arguing Star Wars v.s. Star Trek, or arguing which sections of the series was the best.
Okay I can't argue with this kind of...I dunno what to tell it without ignoring the forum rules
Jeez...legolas is surely not the first fantasy archer and I don't think a single Archer should be the measuring scale for Crossbowmen all around...
I hereby declare the original intention of the post dead and blame Darksol
Seisho out, peace!
And I largely blame that ideal on the fact that Legolas >>>> Any other crossbow user ever conceived, even Van Helsing, because Legolas was the first, the pioneer, the OG of fantasy archery. It's the equivalent of arguing Star Wars v.s. Star Trek, or arguing which sections of the series was the best.
That is where you are wrong, my dude.
https://goo.gl/images/7SA43b
And I largely blame that ideal on the fact that Legolas >>>> Any other crossbow user ever conceived, even Van Helsing, because Legolas was the first, the pioneer, the OG of fantasy archery. It's the equivalent of arguing Star Wars v.s. Star Trek, or arguing which sections of the series was the best.That is where you are wrong, my dude.
https://goo.gl/images/7SA43b
And so the cycle begins.
I wasn't kidding when I said it's like getting Star Wars and Star Trek fans arguing which franchise is better. Even one of my most favorite franchises (which is always portrayed poorly in most other forms of media) will fall short, simply because it's not the original portrayal of iconicism, even if the characters design is based off of a historical figure.
@Seisho: There's Hawkeye and Green Arrow, the latter of which has been shown to defeat and overpower characters who use crossbows, like Huntress. My basis isn't based off of just Legolas, but since he's more iconic (and relevant to the genre) than some other examples, I default to him being the reason Crossbows are portrayed like crap.
And I largely blame that ideal on the fact that Legolas >>>> Any other crossbow user ever conceived, even Van Helsing, because Legolas was the first, the pioneer, the OG of fantasy archery. It's the equivalent of arguing Star Wars v.s. Star Trek, or arguing which sections of the series was the best.That is where you are wrong, my dude.
https://goo.gl/images/7SA43bAnd so the cycle begins.
I wasn't kidding when I said it's like getting Star Wars and Star Trek fans arguing which franchise is better. Even one of my most favorite franchises (which is always portrayed poorly in most other forms of media) will fall short, simply because it's not the original portrayal of iconicism, even if the characters design is based off of a historical figure.
@Seisho: There's Hawkeye and Green Arrow, the latter of which has been shown to defeat and overpower characters who use crossbows, like Huntress. My basis isn't based off of just Legolas, but since he's more iconic (and relevant to the genre) than some other examples, I default to him being the reason Crossbows are portrayed like crap.
I am maybe confused now.
Do you think crossbows should remain a weak option in PF 2E or do you support the inclusion of options that make crossbows a competitive weapon choice?I think it makes sense for them to be simple weapons and thus--for balance reasons--mechanically weaker than bows categorized as martial weapons. However, I do think that crossbow specialization in one form or another (that catches the crossbow up to bow builds with similar class/feat investment) would be a good thing to include in the game for those people who want to explore that archetype. All you would need are feats for crossbows that are gated behind martial weapon proficiency (even if crossbows themselves are simple weapons).
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little unclear...why is the reason crossbows are portrayed as bad relevant?
Making them good makes the game more fun for many people who like them. Does it make it less fun for anyone? And if so, how? Those seem much more relevant questions to the issue at hand.
I'm a little unclear...why is the reason crossbows are portrayed as bad relevant?
Making them good makes the game more fun for many people who like them. Does it make it less fun for anyone? And if so, how? Those seem much more relevant questions to the issue at hand.
That is part of what I was getting at earlier. However, I also wanted everyone to know that they are big nerds if they prefer bows to crossbows [Sarc Mark]
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't consider it a good thing, it's a thing I've grown to accept simply because that's the way it's always been,
That's a fallacy, and an awful reason to keep things as they are, specially those thigns that are not considered a good thing.
and nobody has bothered or shown desire to change it.
That's obviously a false statement, that need no further proof to be dismissed when it's stated in a thread started by the desire to change it
BTW, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned William Tell as a crossbow fictional character, to add to Van helsing or Varric from Dragon Age not to mention Paizo's own Iconic ranger, or several fantasy tropes like dwarven crossbownmen, and multiple other characters like:
Mad Max characters
Alysa from Bloodknights
Diablo 3 iconic demon hunter
Guts from Berserk
Daryl of Walking Dead
Ezio Auditore from Assassin's creed
The Witcher
To me, there is no shortage of fictional examples of cool characters who use a crossbow either as a main or secondary weapon from which players could draw inspiration from. The problem is, the mechanic sucks, so they opt out of their choice, and stick to what works. Assuming most players pick composite bows because Legolas is popular is a complete misconception: falcatas see way more use in game, than they do as part of the armory of fictional characters, just like there is not a huge pool of scimitar-wielding dervish-dancing focused warrior-mages in pop culture, but the dex-based magus concept with scimitar and dervish dance is a very popular concept. Players get inspiration from comics, film, novels and videogames, but if said inspiration face a lackluster mechanic in game, they shrug their shoulders and pick a different one. Give crossbows a decent mechanic, and you'll see a much more balanced number of bow vs crossbow users. Give crossbows something silly like 1d20 damage, and you'll see how popular they become, Legolas be damned. To see a great example of these, see how less popular spiked chains are in PF compared to 3.5 DnD. Did the fictional characters who use chains become less popular? Or is it related to the fact that the spiked chain no longer has the same 3.5 traits like reach?
And I largely blame that ideal on the fact that Legolas >>>> Any other crossbow user ever conceived, even Van Helsing, because Legolas was the first, the pioneer, the OG of fantasy archery. It's the equivalent of arguing Star Wars v.s. Star Trek, or arguing which sections of the series was the best.That is where you are wrong, my dude.
https://goo.gl/images/7SA43bAnd so the cycle begins.
I wasn't kidding when I said it's like getting Star Wars and Star Trek fans arguing which franchise is better. Even one of my most favorite franchises (which is always portrayed poorly in most other forms of media) will fall short, simply because it's not the original portrayal of iconicism, even if the characters design is based off of a historical figure.
@Seisho: There's Hawkeye and Green Arrow, the latter of which has been shown to defeat and overpower characters who use crossbows, like Huntress. My basis isn't based off of just Legolas, but since he's more iconic (and relevant to the genre) than some other examples, I default to him being the reason Crossbows are portrayed like crap.
I am maybe confused now.
Do you think crossbows should remain a weak option in PF 2E or do you support the inclusion of options that make crossbows a competitive weapon choice?I think it makes sense for them to be simple weapons and thus--for balance reasons--mechanically weaker than bows categorized as martial weapons. However, I do think that crossbow specialization in one form or another (that catches the crossbow up to bow builds with similar class/feat investment) would be a good thing to include in the game for those people who want to explore that archetype. All you would need are feats for crossbows that are gated behind martial weapon proficiency (even if crossbows themselves are simple weapons).
Of course I want crossbows to be a viable weapon of choice. In a perfect game, every weapon should be viable one way or another.
But you forget that it does not matter what I think, or what I want. The game will be designed the way it will be designed regardless of whether we want crossbows good or not, and crossbows haven't really been a hot button topic that Paizo will address with the new edition because other hot button topics already exist and are at their forefront.
And this assumes Paizo might want to change crossbows. Many things from PF1 have not changed for PF2, and I'm certain that since weapons like crossbows have been drowned out by the popularity (you know how hard it is to find crossbow character miniatures compared to bow character miniatures?) as well as mechanical advantage over crossbows that people (like myself) are forced to accept them being bad yet again because of negligence, laziness, or even by assumption of legacy (ergo why Legolas beats Guts in PF2).
Of course I want crossbows to be a viable weapon of...And I largely blame that ideal on the fact that Legolas >>>> Any other crossbow user ever conceived, even Van Helsing, because Legolas was the first, the pioneer, the OG of fantasy archery. It's the equivalent of arguing Star Wars v.s. Star Trek, or arguing which sections of the series was the best.That is where you are wrong, my dude.
https://goo.gl/images/7SA43bAnd so the cycle begins.
I wasn't kidding when I said it's like getting Star Wars and Star Trek fans arguing which franchise is better. Even one of my most favorite franchises (which is always portrayed poorly in most other forms of media) will fall short, simply because it's not the original portrayal of iconicism, even if the characters design is based off of a historical figure.
@Seisho: There's Hawkeye and Green Arrow, the latter of which has been shown to defeat and overpower characters who use crossbows, like Huntress. My basis isn't based off of just Legolas, but since he's more iconic (and relevant to the genre) than some other examples, I default to him being the reason Crossbows are portrayed like crap.
I am maybe confused now.
Do you think crossbows should remain a weak option in PF 2E or do you support the inclusion of options that make crossbows a competitive weapon choice?I think it makes sense for them to be simple weapons and thus--for balance reasons--mechanically weaker than bows categorized as martial weapons. However, I do think that crossbow specialization in one form or another (that catches the crossbow up to bow builds with similar class/feat investment) would be a good thing to include in the game for those people who want to explore that archetype. All you would need are feats for crossbows that are gated behind martial weapon proficiency (even if crossbows themselves are simple weapons).
Not to speak ill of the man any more than I have in the past:
I will note that Sean K Reynolds is now no longer with Paizo so maybe crossbows can get some love now (I realize that Reynold's position on this is potentially a little more nuanced but I gave that fool 100 bucks on his kickstarter and he kind of screwed me).Also, PF2 is kind of looking to differentiate weapons and think about the balance of weapons in general so I think it is reasonable that the crossbow was considered carefully as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the putting words/opinions in peoples' mouths/approaches is obnoxious; I just don't think shooting a crossbow is automatically rad.So in your opinion they're not cool weapons.Shooting a crossbow is rad as s%#*, though.Don't see how shooting a crossbow is radder than other ranged weapons. To me, they're the guys that show up, forcing Conan and his super hot lady-friend, and his archer/thief buddy to see King Osric.
In your own words you said "To [you], they're the guys that show up, forcing Conan and his super hot lady-friend, and his archer/thief buddy to see King Osric." right there in the post I quoted. Now if you find the king's flunkies cool then I apologize, but it really sounds like you're saying that in your mind they are not interesting weapons. Which comes back to my point: why is your opinion more valid than ours?
As for claims that they're just ignoring crossbows as a not-frequently-contested topic:
1) Given the mechanics crossbows had don't exactly "work" with the new mechanics, they'd have to revisit how those work anyways.
2) This very thread shows there is interest in the topic and the devs are known to browse this forum.
3) Even if they are basically identical to PF1e's nigh-unusability... this is a Playtest, not a Final Release. We can play around with crossbows and give feed back and maybe, just maybe, we can get a version in the final release we'll be happy with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in 3.0 days, I used a homerule. Crossbows could have a bonus to damage, up to 5 (equivalent of 20 str) and need 1 extra action to recharge per bonus point, but your strength could reduce the number of actions in the same amount, to a minimum of the original action.
So, for example, a heavy crossbow without rapid reload feat is 1 standard action. A heavy crossbow +5 STR would need 6 rounds, but if you have STR 16 (+3) you'd do in 3 rounds, with STR 20 (+5) you do it in 1 round, and with STR 40 you still do it in 1 round (which can be further reduced with feats, as normal).
It's untrue that crossbows don't have a STR bonus in real life. They have it. It's just independent of the user: a crossbow with 80lb pull does as much "strength bonus" as a longbow with 80lb pull. The difference is you can use a cranequin to reload it if you are not able to do the 80lb pull yourself. The power that propels the bolt/arrow is still 80lb.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe give the Paladin the crossbow as their main weapon and that will give it more prominence in the game and the devs will be forced to work on it?
Only half joking here.