Crossbow "Fix": Heavy Duty Crossbow

My friend on the internet was complaining to me on skype about how terrible crossbows are in Pathfinder when they were like the noble-killing napalm of the late medieval era. So I made a house rule for him. Here it is:

Simple Ranged Weapon:
Heavy Duty Crossbow: this specially made partially metal crossbow has much more pull strength than a standard crossbow. They are designed with a metal crank that pulls back the bow string.

Damage: 1d8 (small) 1d10(medium)
Crit: 19-20 x2
Range: 120ft
Cost: 100gp
Qualities: Special

Special Qualities: Like composite longbows, the Heavy Duty Crossbow allows the user to add part of the wielder's strength to the damage of the weapon. All particular Heavy Duty Crossbows are made with a particular strength rating. If the user's strength modifier is at least the rating of the crossbow, this weapon takes one full round to reload. If your strength is below the strength rating, the Heavy Duty Crossbow takes one additional full round action to reload for each point wielder's strength modifier is below the strength rating of the Crossbow. The crossbow deals 1.5 additional points of damage for each point of strength rating, the heavy duty crossbow has. Each point of strength rating increases the cost of the heavy duty crossbow by 150gp. Without enchantments, the maximum rating of a steel or iron heavy duty crossbow is 4, the maximum rating of a mythril heavy duty crossbow is 6, and the maximum rating of an adamantium heavy duty crossbow is 8. A heavy duty crossbow may be fired in one hand at a -6 penalty.

New Adaptive Rules:
A crossbow with the adaptive quality (still 1000 gp) adjusts the strength rating of a heavy duty crossbow to the wielder's strength modifier but only up to the crossbow's normal maximum rating plus the weapon's enhancement modifier. If one creature loads a weapon with the adaptive quality for another creature, that second creature must have a strength modifier of at least the strength modifier of the creature that loaded the crossbow or the creature firing the crossbow makes the attack at -4 as the strength of the trigger pull has also adapted to the strength of the creature that loaded the crossbow.

this is actually a really good idea, a friend and i were discussing something like this to add to guns. in all honesty i am a fan of bows, but seriously crossbows need to be better they were designed to replace bows in history.

1.5 additional damage? fractional damage is a bad idea IMO. Other than that we seem to go in the same direction, though I prefer to increase base damage as that makes the crossbow synergize well with vital strike.

What I'm doing for my ranged weapon rework (that has gotten quite far in my mind, but basically nothing on paper yet):
Crossbow
Damage: 2d3 (small), 2d4 (medium)
Crit: 19-20 x2
Range: 120ft
Cost: 35gp
Weight: 4lbs

A crossbow can be fired in one hand, but only if your strength bonus is at least +2 higher than the required bonus. Reloading a crossbow takes two hands, and is a move action, plus one move action for each point of strength you lack to use it. Rapid reload reduces the time it takes to reload by one move action (to a minimum of a free action).
Crossbows are made with certain strength ratings, with increments of +2. For each additional increment, the base damage of the weapon increases by one dice, the weight by 4lbs (in either wood or metal) and the cost by 100 gp. Thus, a Crossbow (+4) deals 4d4 damage, weighs 12 lbs and costs 235 gp.
If your strength bonus is lower than the strength rating of the crossbow, in addition to it taking longer to reload, you take a -2 penalty on all attacks with it unless it can be set up on some kind of support. Setting up the crossbow on support is a move action.

how about adding something that lets it bypass some amount of armor, heavy Crossbows IRL could pierce a suit of well made fullplate .

Armor penetration mechanics are an odd rabbit hole. Longbows also punched holes in plate (Agincourt), while piercing weapons of all kinds generally do well against chain and segmented armors.

Armor penetration mechanics are an odd rabbit hole. Longbows also punched holes in plate (Agincourt), while piercing weapons of all kinds generally do well against chain and segmented armors.

Agreed. In an "armor as DR" system, armor penetration works (though it is a bit too much math for my taste), but in an armor as ac system it becomes very wonky.

However, one thing that might be interesting to add to crossbows is that due to their "point and click" usage, firing on an enemy that your allies flank, allows you to treat that ranged attack as if you too where flanking, since you can easily time your shot to hit a weak spot. Nice for everyone, but really useful for sneak attackers.

@Oenar: I prefer the 1.5 rule just because it conforms with the strength bonus from wielding a weapon in two hands. I like your design Oenar, but I wanted something that conforms a little closer to existing weapon rules and I feel like your design might pretty solidly outclass other simple weapons which would be undesirable to more conservative GMs.

Having said that, ever think about enforcing the strength rating in 3s (so d6s) and making the whole shebang attack at 2d6 with a full round reload? That means small creatures won't have to roll d3 die pools.

If I was going to have this ignore armor then I would pretty much just re-flavor a gun and impose a minimum strength to reload it. I would maybe add a few other rules so the game is not so strongly effected by essentially every single class getting an attack that hits touch AC (like have it not ignore natural armor and not ignore any armor that has an effective caster level or enhancement bonus that is higher than the enchantments on the weapons themselves). Down that road lies madness, however.

1.5 additional damage? fractional damage is a bad idea IMO.

Well, fractional damage rounds down, like everything else in Pathfinder. So +2.5 points is "really" only +2.

People may want to mine this thread for ideas as well.

@Oenar: I prefer the 1.5 rule just because it conforms with the strength bonus from wielding a weapon in two hands.

Ah. That makes sense. Though I don't like that bonus either as a design choice actually - I just don't like fractional numbers in games in general. Don't like fractionals, don't like division.

I like your design Oenar, but I wanted something that conforms a little closer to existing weapon rules and I feel like your design might pretty solidly outclass other simple weapons which would be undesirable to more conservative GMs.

I know the design is a bit different from most other weapons, but that's kind of the point (and something that will be featured heavily in my ranged weapon revamp); I feel that currently, weapons in general are far too similar. For nearly every build, it just becomes a matter of "which will deliver most damage on a full attack", easily calculated in some DPR calculator. I want different weapons to _feel_ different.

Thing is, the simple ranged weapons suck. Basically every ranged weapon except the shortbow and longbows suck. Simple weapons should generally be one feat worse than martial weapons, if even that, since martial weapon proficiency never takes more than a single feat (and it's a feat given to about 80% of classes that would consider it anyway).

Consider this: A crossbow with rapid reload costs a rogue as much as proficience in composite longbows. I don't think this crossbow version will outshine the composite longbow in full attacks; it gains slightly more damage, but can only be reloaded on your own turn (ever). Though now that I think about it, it should probably only be reloaded as a swift action with rapid reload.

Having said that, ever think about enforcing the strength rating in 3s (so d6s) and making the whole shebang attack at 2d6 with a full round reload? That means small creatures won't have to roll d3 die pools.

I did consider that, but:

Though I do agree that d3's are obnoxious, especially if you don't have d3's with actual 1-3 printed on them. It's also kinda weird that the strength bonus is less for a small character than a medium-sized one. Perhaps just make the base damage of a small crossbow 1d6, and let it increase by 1d4 per step as normal?

If I was going to have this ignore armor then I would pretty much just re-flavor a gun and impose a minimum strength to reload it.

Yeah, they'd practically be the same thing. But I don't like the paizo guns anyway, they opened a whole can of worms and made traditionally dangerous enemies far too easy. Touch AC simply doesn't work very well for standard attacks in this game.

Why is 2d6 too much and 3d4 okay? 3d4 is more damage than 2d6.

Why is 2d6 too much and 3d4 okay? 3d4 is more damage than 2d6.

2d6 as base is for requiring only 10 str, 3d4 in my proposition requires 14 str. In my proposition, it'd be like this:

.

Str Dmg(M) Dmg(S) - M avergae
10 - 2d4 - 1d6 ---------- 5
12 - 2d4 - 1d6 ---------- 5
14 - 3d4 - 1d6+1d4 --- 7.5
16 - 3d4 - 1d6+1d4 --- 7.5
18 - 4d4 - 1d6+2d4 --- 10
20 - 4d4 - 1d6+2d4 --- 10
22 - 5d4 - 1d6+3d4 --- 12.5

In the alternative proposition, it'd be like this:
10 - 2d6 - 2d4 ------- 7
12 - 2d6 - 2d4 ------- 7
14 - 2d6 - 2d4 ------- 7
16 - 3d6 - 3d4 ------- 10.5
18 - 3d6 - 3d4 ------- 10.5
20 - 3d6 - 3d4 ------- 10.5
22 - 4d6 - 4d4 ------- 14

I feel 2d6 is a bit too much, and that the shift is a bit too jumpy.

i can't say i've thought about this overly much, but i've always liked the idea of having crossbows be against touch ac. it has always seemed to me that this would be balanced by the lack of iterative attacks since loading would always be at least a standard action (light) if not a full round. and maybe up the damage a bit on heavy or whatever. i like some of the strength rules for reloading a heavy one or some such as well.

Though I do agree that d3's are obnoxious, especially if you don't have d3's with actual 1-3 printed on them. It's also kinda weird that the strength bonus is less for a small character than a medium-sized one. Perhaps just make the base damage of a small crossbow 1d6, and let it increase by 1d4 per step as normal?

I think that is a better mechanic.

And you probably have a point regarding 2d6 being too much damage. It was just the first suggestion that came to mind.

And you probably have a point regarding 2d6 being too much damage. It was just the first suggestion that came to mind.

Meh, crossbows are supposed to hit hard. That's, indeed, the whole point of them.

But I care about mechanical balance. If I wanted realism at all costs then I would play Song of Swords (though there is a balance of sorts there as well).

Well, crossbows were basically the OP weapon of their time, but this was in the "real world" where a crossbow bolt, dagger, axe, sword, mace, whatever would basically drop the target in a single good shot. Compare with the typical HP-based RPG where you can hack away at a person, taking several 6-second rounds to drop them. The major part of the problem is the "don't bring a gun to a knife fight" concept where the crossbow fills in the role of the gun. You'd expect it to be a better weapon, but because of the fantastical, numeric-based, and mechanically balanced nature of the game, it falls far short of where it would be in "the real world".

Another thing to consider is that a single person wielding a crossbow isn't really all that dangerous compared to an archer; it's volume that makes it so good. A single trained archer is more dangerous than a single trained crossbowman, but you can train and equip more crossbowmen than archers in a given period of time. Additionally, nearly anyone, regardless of physical capacity, can handle a crossbow. By contrast, using a Bow requires significant physical training. Its a matter of opportunity cost. It's quite effective for a militia, army, or other large, organized group to have minimally trained squads of crossbowmen. You can even have the women and kids join in the fun. But for an adventuring party, being a single crossbow-user is kind of lack-luster and moreso for the aforementioned fantasy RPG mechanic disparity compared to "real life". A single Fighter or other Martial using a Crossbow over a Bow is the equivalent of a Fighter or other Martial using a single Dagger in lieu of a Greatsword; that doesn't mean that you need a "heavy-duty dagger" to make daggers "more balanced".

On a completely unrelated note, someone needs to develop "heavy-hitting weighted daggers" for the Barbarian that wants to use a more easily concealed weapon but still wants to pack a punch. Get on it Paizo.

I would just re-flavor a katar for that dagger.

Apparently my message got eaten. Whatever.

The other thing to remember is that the crossbow is balanced -- it's a tradeoff between speed and damage. Crossbows essentially don't get iteratives (and it's easy enough to adjust the supercrossbow so that even with Rapid Reload, it still takes time), so a high level archer can turn the target into a hedgehog by the time the crossbowman of any level gets off his second shot.

Again, that's how it's supposed to work. If you don't have three generations to train a longbowman (King Edward III: "If you want to train a longbowman, start with his grandfather"), hand him a crossbow instead.

That is just what I hoped to do with my Heavy Duty Crossbow. I should add extra rules so that Crossbow Mastery only reloads the Crossbow as a swift action, though. Then maybe add yet a third feat to turn it into a free action?

That would be a high feat tax for a full attack, but w/e. It is still a simple weapon.

Another thing to consider is that a single person wielding a crossbow isn't really all that dangerous compared to an archer; it's volume that makes it so good. A single trained archer is more dangerous than a single trained crossbowman, but you can train and equip more crossbowmen than archers in a given period of time.

Volume was also by far the primary threat of arrows. A bow was somewhat less of a threat to one armored man at point blank than a loaded crossbow, but a rain of arrows coming down upon your forces from three hundred yards away was an entirely different story.

The problem in d20 (the problem's existed far longer than pathfinder) is that the weapon's simplicity, rather than being one of its greatest advantages, instead becomes a mechanic by which it must automatically suck dire-donkey-****. "Simple" then gets screamed out as the excuse for everything. Repeaters are exotic because the weapon is simple (somehow). The damage is unrealistically low because realistic penetration and damage would be unbalanced. Firing speed is low because it's simple, so it has to be less good otherwise that's unabalanced. Needing more practice, effort and specialized training to match maybe 2/3 of a bow is okay because it takes time to learn all those 'feats' in reality.

Now we're just waiting for someone to post a little modern composite self-bow getting shot through paper plates at about a shot a second as "evidence" that a 300lb six foot war bow will do the same despite physics at three hundred yards through an iron golem, thus "proving conclusively" that a world with flying fireball-lobbers, machineguns and giant automatons can't possibly be more technologically or magically able to compensate for something like reload times or mechanical strengths of over about 80 pounds of draw than it is right now with antiquity-grade wooden stocks with shortbows strung across them.

There's a serious bloody disconnect there that's annoyed me for years about the system. A Crossbow's "simplicity" should be taking the 'slot' of a weapon ability, just like "reach" or "performance", nothing more, nothing less. You'd think a realistic 10-bolt magazine would at least have been available!

Kazaan wrote:

Another thing to consider is that a single person wielding a crossbow isn't really all that dangerous compared to an archer; it's volume that makes it so good. A single trained archer is more dangerous than a single trained crossbowman, but you can train and equip more crossbowmen than archers in a given period of time.

Volume was also by far the primary threat of arrows. A bow was somewhat less of a threat to one armored man at point blank than a loaded crossbow, but a rain of arrows coming down upon your forces from three hundred yards away was an entirely different story.

The problem in d20 (the problem's existed far longer than pathfinder) is that the weapon's simplicity, rather than being one of its greatest advantages, instead becomes a mechanic by which it must automatically suck dire-donkey-****. "Simple" then gets screamed out as the excuse for everything. Repeaters are exotic because the weapon is simple (somehow). The damage is unrealistically low because realistic penetration and damage would be unbalanced. Firing speed is low because it's simple, so it has to be less good otherwise that's unabalanced. Needing more practice, effort and specialized training to match maybe 2/3 of a bow is okay because it takes time to learn all those 'feats' in reality.

Now we're just waiting for someone to post a little modern composite self-bow getting shot through paper plates at about a shot a second as "evidence" that a 300lb six foot war bow will do the same despite physics at three hundred yards through an iron golem, thus "proving conclusively" that a world with flying fireball-lobbers, machineguns and giant automatons can't possibly be more technologically or magically able to compensate for something like reload times or mechanical strengths of over about 80 pounds of draw than it is right now with antiquity-grade wooden stocks with shortbows strung across them.

There's a serious bloody disconnect there that's annoyed me for years about the system. A Crossbow's...

Psssst. Read my original post.

You seem angry that people like a balanced game, though. I think it is good to want a balanced game. I think it is good that weapons that are easier to get are also weaker than weapons that are harder to get, even when that does not fit reality perfectly. When you impose a model, a certain amount of realism must always be traded for certain amount tractability (or "fun" or "balance").

I think I kept that all in mind at once in my proposed mechanics. I think Oenar's attempt gets at that some too, but goes off the standard mechanical script more than I would like. I consider rules sets like these to be innovations of sorts in that I think they circumvent some of the realism/tractability tradeoff.

If that isn't good enough and you want more realism or even just "more differenter realism" then play a game that will suit those needs better.

Rather, I'm annoyed at the double-standard of balance.
There's wildly differing "amounts of realism" that get applied.

Even something like "Weapons that are easier to get are also weaker than weapons that are harder to get" is demonstratively false. Plenty of "Exotic" weapons are no better, sometimes worse, than Martials. Repeaters are even actually worse in-game than a regular crossbow, having identical stats but being saddled with a significantly longer reload once a single feat has been expended towards their use.

Some weapons just get "more fantasy" applied to them when it suits them, and some weapons get "balance" against the strong parts of their realism, while also retaining their drawbacks "in favor of realism".

I'm all for having a balanced game, as well as having a certain level of realism vs "fun/balance".

The problem is that there's not so much a "line" as there is an irrevocably tangled mess of last year's xmas tree lights. Plug it in and you realize that are burnt out, some are brilliantly illuminating the holidays, and the cat's choking on the rest.

A single Fighter or other Martial using a Crossbow over a Bow is the equivalent of a Fighter or other Martial using a single Dagger in lieu of a Greatsword; that doesn't mean that you need a "heavy-duty dagger" to make daggers "more balanced".

Daggers have large benefits compared to greatswords. They are finessable, easy to hide, only requires one hand to wield, and can be thrown quite efficiently. They have a very valid game niche.

If longbows where exotic weapons that required an additional three feats to wield properly, your argument would be very strong, but right now, the longbow doesn't require noticeably more training than the crossbow, but is enormously more powerful.

The other thing to remember is that the crossbow is balanced -- it's a tradeoff between speed and damage.

I'm not sure whether you're arguing against the house rules or in favor of them, so I don't mean this in a defensive manner. But, currently crossbows are slower and deal less damage for nearly every PC and important NPC that might want to make ranged weapon attacks.

Again, that's how it's supposed to work. If you don't have three generations to train a longbowman (King Edward III: "If you want to train a longbowman, start with his grandfather"), hand him a crossbow instead.

That's not the case in the game though. Every town guard knows how to use a composite longbow. Every foot soldier does.

Rather, I'm annoyed at the double-standard of balance.

There's wildly differing "amounts of realism" that get applied.

Even something like "Weapons that are easier to get are also weaker than weapons that are harder to get" is demonstratively false. Plenty of "Exotic" weapons are no better, sometimes worse, than Martials. Repeaters are even actually worse in-game than a regular crossbow, having identical stats but being saddled with a significantly longer reload once a single feat has been expended towards their use.

Some weapons just get "more fantasy" applied to them when it suits them, and some weapons get "balance" against the strong parts of their realism, while also retaining their drawbacks "in favor of realism".

I'm all for having a balanced game, as well as having a certain level of realism vs "fun/balance".

The problem is that there's not so much a "line" as there is an irrevocably tangled mess of last year's xmas tree lights. Plug it in and you realize that are burnt out, some are brilliantly illuminating the holidays, and the cat's choking on the rest.

Play something else if this is the end of the world for you, homie. There is a lot of legacy at play here.

As it stands now, this is the tradeoff:
Simple<Martial
Martial<Exotic OR Exotic is just weird and more special.

Frankly if I were to redesign the system, I would break Exotic weapons into two parts: lesser exotic weapons and superior exotic weapons.

Superior Exotic Weapons are those that give you the functionality of a martial weapon plus something else.

Lesser Exotic Weapons are the ones whose use is questionable (or great in extremely situational conditions but otherwise worse than a martial weapon) or just a more special snowflake version of an existing martial or simple weapon.

The Superior Exotic Weapons would take a whole feat while the lesser ones could come from backgrounds, would be often granted by classes, and/or be purchase-able in bundles with a feat.

(1) Wanting more realism is a goal, (2) wanting more fun is a goal, and (3) wanting more balance is a goal. I will push back against modifications to things that endanger these goals to some extent (mostly by offering alternate rules when I can). My order of importance is (2), (3), and then (1), though.

Rather, I'm annoyed at the double-standard of balance.

I think a good way to balance things is to do this:

For example, look at the crossbow. Right now it is so much not worth investing in it as the long bow (and shortbow) is just so much better. Investing 4 feats in bows as a level 8 cleric with a 16 strength (say, MWP, point blank shot, rapid shot, manyshot) gets you a weapon that attacks at +6/+1 or +4/+4/-1 for 1d8+3 and 2d8+6 on the first attack. Investing 4 feats into crossbows as a level 8 cleric with 16 strength (say, rapid reload, point blank shot, rapid shot, deadly aim) gets you an attack of +6/+1 for 1d8 or +4/-1 for 1d8+4. Other minor benefits/drawbacks are minor enough to even out pretty much (bow has better range and less weight, crossbow can be fired while lying down, etc).

2. The real world strengths and weaknesses of a crossbow. First of all it's easy to use, which is of course why it's a simple weapon, but simple weapon doesn't really matter that much in pathfinder. Secondly, it's very easy to aim and shoot to hit vulnerable spots, because you can time your shot better than with a bow (since the weapon can be loaded for much longer time without tireing the user). It can also have a much larger poundage for a user with mediocre strength. This should make it an ideal sniper weapon. It is very slow to use, though.

3. The crossbow should clearly not have a speed benefit over the bow, quite the reverse. However, letting it have a damage benefit isn't off the charts; seeing as how aiming affects damage (sneak attack, vital strike, deadly aim) giving it a higher damage than the bow makes sense. Making this synergize with vital strike further empowers the sniping aspect. It should also be possible for a user with mediocre strength to be decently effective with a crossbow with quite high poundage.

Thus, I ended up with the rules you see above. The same can be applied to most balancing when it comes to weapons, and is the method I'm using in my ranged revamp (which I now have a written draft for, but won't link it here so I don't hijack the thread completely; I'll make a new thread for it tomorrow).

Frankly if I were to redesign the system, I would break Exotic weapons into two parts: lesser exotic weapons and superior exotic weapons.

Honestly, I just feel a lot of the exotic weapons should be reclassified (a sickle is a simple weapon, but a kama - which is literally _a sickle_, and has identical stats to the sickle, is exotic? dafuq?). The weapons that I think should stay exotic are the ones that require a _lot_ of specific training to use, but in return they should also be given unique capabilities worthy of a feat.

(1) Wanting more realism is a goal, (2) wanting more fun is a goal, and (3) wanting more balance is a goal.

I don't think realism as a goal is a good idea. This is after all a game where you can take some bat poo and scream at it until it becomes a ball of flame. Verisimillitude, sure, but realism as a goal by itself... I don't like that. I think "fun" is kind of a... limited word, too. I don't think RPG's necessarily have to be fun; some of my most engaging and memorable roleplaying experiences have been frightening or sad, rather than fun. I think extra credits put it well (though they talk about video games) in this video.

I want the game to be engaging. That's the end goal for me. Balance and verisimillitude are methods to reach that goal, or more precisely, a lack of balance or verisimillitude are issues makes the goal harder to reach.

Orfamay Quest wrote:

The other thing to remember is that the crossbow is balanced -- it's a tradeoff between speed and damage.

I'm not sure whether you're arguing against the house rules or in favor of them, so I don't mean this in a defensive manner. But, currently crossbows are slower and deal less damage for nearly every PC and important NPC that might want to make ranged weapon attacks.

I'm arguing against the idea that 2d6 is too much damage for a more powerful but more slowly firing crossbow.

Again, that's how it's supposed to work. If you don't have three generations to train a longbowman (King Edward III: "If you want to train a longbowman, start with his grandfather"), hand him a crossbow instead.

Not really. Unless the town guard has six levels of fighter, he can't really take advantage of the speed advantage of a longbow over a crossbow.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Frankly if I were to redesign the system, I would break Exotic weapons into two parts: lesser exotic weapons and superior exotic weapons.

Honestly, I just feel a lot of the exotic weapons should be reclassified (a sickle is a simple weapon, but a kama - which is literally _a sickle_, and has identical stats to the sickle, is exotic? dafuq?). The weapons that I think should stay exotic are the ones that require a _lot_ of specific training to use, but in return they should also be given unique capabilities worthy of a feat.

Which is also why I think longbows fit perfectly as exotic weapons.

But if a kamas are monk weapons, though. And that means something, I suppose. Also: it makes people who play ninjas feel less special if they can't use their armaments from the far off and exotic orient in particular.

I just think a bunch of these weapons should be picked up in groups of 3 or 4 (but that would require the special classification which I discussed).

I'm arguing against the idea that 2d6 is too much damage for a more powerful but more slowly firing crossbow.

Ah. Well, the difference isn't that huge between 2d4 and 2d6, but to me, the larger issue with 2d6 is that it also encouraged an increment of +3 for every 1d6 increase, which I feel is stifeling. Also consider that 2d6 for a full-round reload vs 3d4 for a two move action reload are basically the same thing; the main difference is that at 8 lbs, the str 7 wizard may be limited to one or two instead of 3 or 4.

Not really. Unless the town guard has six levels of fighter, he can't really take advantage of the speed advantage of a longbow over a crossbow.

Of course she can. She gets an extra move action, which can be a great benefit to an archer in a smaller skirmish.

If the city is rich and the guard has the stats of a foot soldier, they'll also deal about 50% more damage per shot.

Unless the town guard has six levels of fighter, he can't really take advantage of the speed advantage of a longbow over a crossbow.

Unless they take Rapid Shot as their human bonus feat. Or if they want to move and attack in the same turn. Or they have a Strength of 12 or higher and want to add that bonus to damage.

These are all differences that can show up at first level.

One might make longbows exotic weapons, make crossbows martial, and leave the sorcerers and clerics with slings and thrown weapons. That would make bows either require a feat investment or being an elf.

But if a kamas are monk weapons, though. And that means something, I suppose. Also: it makes people who play ninjas feel less special if they can't use their armaments from the far off and exotic orient in particular.

I just think a bunch of these weapons should be picked up in groups of 3 or 4 (but that would require the special classification which I discussed).

And kamas being monk weapons while regular sickles aren't is an additional case of bad design, IMO. Especially as kama is literally a sickle. That is what a kama is.

Honestly, out of the core rulebook exotic weapons, I feel these should be reclassified as simple or martial:
Kama (s), nunchaku (m), sai (s), siangham (s), curve blade (m), bolas (m), all crossbows (s), shuriken (m), sling staff (m).

All the double weapons should have some noticable benefit above what they currently have (such as adding full strength to both attacks, basically equal to double slice for free - a feat's worth for a feat investment).

Whips should be somewhat stronger by themselves but not have a bazillion feats that grant them basic functionality.

Bastard swords and dwarven waraxes are fine where they are, but should be reworded to clarify the vagueness/implement the stealth errata properly.

Nets are fine where they are balancewise, though few find it worth to take proficiency (since they attack touch AC).

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Unless the town guard has six levels of fighter, he can't really take advantage of the speed advantage of a longbow over a crossbow.

Unless they take Rapid Shot as their human bonus feat.

I think feats where explicitly left out because we're talking about baseline proficiency, and how basically everyone gains more from using a bow than a crossbow.

Ross Byers wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Unless the town guard has six levels of fighter, he can't really take advantage of the speed advantage of a longbow over a crossbow.

Unless they take Rapid Shot as their human bonus feat.

I think feats where explicitly left out because we're talking about baseline proficiency, and how basically everyone gains more from using a bow than a crossbow.

I was just trying to illustrate how it doesn't take a level 6 elite archer to get more benefit from a bow than a crossbow. I did give other examples.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

But if a kamas are monk weapons, though. And that means something, I suppose. Also: it makes people who play ninjas feel less special if they can't use their armaments from the far off and exotic orient in particular.

I just think a bunch of these weapons should be picked up in groups of 3 or 4 (but that would require the special classification which I discussed).

And kamas being monk weapons while regular sickles aren't is an additional case of bad design, IMO. Especially as kama is literally a sickle. That is what a kama is.

Honestly, out of the core rulebook exotic weapons, I feel these should be reclassified as simple or martial:
Kama (s), nunchaku (m), sai (s), siangham (s), curve blade (m), bolas (m), all crossbows (s), shuriken (m), sling staff (m).

All the double weapons should have some noticable benefit above what they currently have (such as adding full strength to both attacks, basically equal to double slice for free - a feat's worth for a feat investment).

Whips should be somewhat stronger by themselves but not have a bazillion feats that grant them basic functionality.

Bastard swords and dwarven waraxes are fine where they are, but should be reworded to clarify the vagueness/implement the stealth errata properly.

Nets are fine where they are balancewise, though few find it worth to take proficiency (since they attack touch AC).

Your suggestions might violate "realism", though. In the medieval (mostly) European world of Pathfinder, a normal fighter guy who spent a decent little part of his life learning to fight would simply not receive the training to use nunchucks, elven curve blades, sling staffs, shurikens, etc. They would just be unheard of or super uncommon. This is the realism priority getting in the way of the balance priority. My groupings would do far less to disturb the realism bit, and go towards curbing some of the imbalance coming from the concession to realism.

Also: I think double weapons are totally worth the feat as it stands.

It effectively lets you dual wield long swords or war axes or whatever and ALSO let's you add 1.5 your strength when you are only attacking with one end (as part of a charge or whatever). So that is like 1 extra damage on each off-hand up from short swords and who-knows-how-much extra damage on charges and standard action attacks.

This is allllll getting pretty off topic, though.

How about this for a refocus:
Does my modification to crossbows do enough to fix the problem of crossbows sucking when they probably should not cuz realism and fun (fun cuz firing a crossbow feels cool)?

Maybe we should make a separate thread for a discussion of revamping the simple/martial/exotic system.

things

Does my modification to crossbows do enough to fix the problem of crossbows sucking when they probably should not cuz realism and fun (fun cuz firing a crossbow feels cool)?

Yes, I think so. I'm not in love with the excecution, since it basically means the crossbow becomes a mirror to the longbow, rather than feeling different - but it does make a crossbow archer a viable character, I think.

Maybe we should make a separate thread for a discussion of revamping the simple/martial/exotic system.

That whole system is a holdover from when a fighter might actually be expected to stop using a +1 longsword when he found a +2 battleaxe.

The first explanation means a kama or a nunchuck shouldn't be exotic, while the second raises all kinds of secondary problems. And neither jives well with real life, where archery is a specialty all its own. I'm much more willing to accept that a guy can transfer skills between swording and axing than between bows and crossbows.

haha. More or less true. I am willing to say they probably went to "sword college" just by fighting a few years and having happened to seen a certain swath of weapons in his career as a fighting man. That is how I always read it.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

things

** spoiler omitted **

One thing that I haven't seen mention of is the range modifier. You want crossbows to be more realistic, give them better punch (dmg), a longer reload time, and a shorter effective range. Historically crossbows during the time period that serves as the gestalt for RPGs mostly (medieval)were super easy to use, took time to reload, but were not exactly accurate at longer range

http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_of_longbow_or_crossbow_is_the_more_effectiv e_weapon?#slide=1

So giving someone a reload of 1/round(or 6 seconds)with a crossbow is super generous when pitted against realism, while it's just on par, or a bit behind when applied to a bow.

So I'd be all good at giving a heavy crossbow increased damage. Right now the heavy is 1d8/1d10, with a range increment of 120, better than the longbow. If we want to make that more real, decrease the range increment by about half and boost the damage to the 2d6 metric. This would show the accuracy of why crossbowmen were generally peasant militia, and considered expendable. They didn't get paid anything, if they shot and hit something, they generally dropped it, and if they didn't? What they were firing at was generally on them, and it wasn't considered a loss to the nobility running the war because...well...they were just peasants anyway.

You could simplify the task by making your heavy duty crossbow essentially a "large size heavy crossbow" using core rules for inappropriately sized weapons fluffed as you like (e.g., metal reinforced and harder to crank, as in your initial description). Maybe house rule a strength requirement to negate the -2 attack for using an inappropriately sized weapon? Combine with Gravity Bow for super carnage.

I've spun off the proficency talk over here.

You could simplify the task by making your heavy duty crossbow essentially a "large size heavy crossbow" using core rules for inappropriately sized weapons fluffed as you like (e.g., metal reinforced and harder to crank, as in your initial description). Maybe house rule a strength requirement to negate the -2 attack for using an inappropriately sized weapon? Combine with Gravity Bow for super carnage.

I disagree strongly that this is in any way a fix and would still be strictly worse than doing the same thing with a ton of different weapons. A sling comes to mind.

RE: Fixing Crossbows

Option 1: make crossbows line up with bows.

Step 1: Crossbows can be made with a 'strength bonus' following the same rules as Compound Bows.

Step 2: Martial Weapon Proficiency in a given Crossbow reduces its reload speed by one step (Standard to Move, Move to Free)

Step 3: Rapid Reload reduces reload speed by one step and stacks with Martial Weapon Proficiency.

Option 2: make crossbows distinctly valuable

Step 1: double base damage values

Step 2: remove rapid reload from the game.

Step 3: add a 'Crossbow Mastery' feat which increases the crossbow's base damage by 1 dice (2d4 to 3d4, 2d6 to 3d6, or 2d10 to 3d10)

Step 4: fix Vital Strike to either happen automatically with BAB increases, or be a single scaling feat.

Pure game mechanic fix proposed - directly related to the game mechanic problem

Light crossbow - problem : it needs a move action to reload making it poor, particularly at bab +6 or higher

Solution : the base damage for a light crossbow increases by 1d6 per +6 bab the firer has (ie +1d6 at bab+6, +2d6 at bab +12 etc) ( personally I would use an extra d8 but that might seem too much to some people)
Maybe also that at bab +1 you can reload while moving ( like drawing a weapon )

Heavy crossbow - problem : it needs a full round action to reload, making it poor

Solution : as above but make the extra dice higher ( ie d10)

In addition, and more radically, I note that in other games crossbows tend to be "armour piercing". In pathfinder that would equate to a bonus to hit, and maybe damage so maybe make crossbows have the "point blank shot" feat built into the item. This gives everyone who uses them a bonus to hit and damage and enables them to just take precise shot etc more easily

( disclaimer - I play 3.5 not pathfinder so some rule nuance may be lost on me, I apologise for any associated errors)