HellHunter's page

So, I forget the name of the feat and I didn't read all the text but the answer is your sure as hell can't do this.

They actually recently released a feat (from Weapon Master's Handbook I believe) that allows you to wield an oversized crossbow or gun by having two people operate it. It's a teamwork feat, and one person reloads and the other person fires.

With the existence of that feat it is impossible to operate an oversized.

Interesting. Obviously the book is pretty new, and I wasn't aware of its existence. Would love to look at it further if you don't mind sharing. That's a shame, though. I was hoping the weapon might finally be usable; seems not at all still.

Isnt a Large Crossbow basically just a Light Ballista? Both are Crossbows with 3d6 base damage. And Ballistas have rules on how to handle these unhandily-sized ranged weapons with medium characters.

So i'd orient myself on these.

Large heavy crossbow would be 2d8. 1d10 -> 2d8 by size progression.

Normal two-handed operation of a heavy crossbow would increase to unusable.

Similarly, loading a heavy crossbow would increase from two-handed to unusable.
The option to FIRE a heavy crossbow one-handed with a -4 penalty would change to an option to fire a large heavy crossbow two-handed with a -6 penalty.

So you could fire it once, but then wouldn't be able to reload it.

Operation and wield are the terms at odds, it seems. Operation requires a second hand to reload, but wield isn't defined as to clarify if reloading is considering wielding or not.

I'm not convinced the penalties stack this way to attack. The weapon's size is forcibly classified as one-handed otherwise one-handed firing would not be possible at all. Sizing to large would make the weapon's size classify as two-handed, allowing for one shot at -2, and if ruled as being "too big" would only make the weapon not able to ever be reloaded.

You're looking at what's basically a faster double crossbow in that case.

While my own tables all agree there should not incur any penalties when a large heavy crossbow is used this way due to the feat costs and obvious disparity between bows and crossbows (and the lack of language explicitly preventing this), what you're basically suggesting as a house-rule is a faster-reloading Double Crossbow (though everyone knows that the double crossbow is objectively bad). Frankly, I'm genuinely surprised that the double crossbow isn't actually a good weapon, seeing as it also requires exotic proficiency, and could have been a very good way to help improve the disparity between bows and crossbows. I understand the hesitance on making a simple ranged weapon a powerful option for mages, but normally they need to stick to light crossbows for the reloading time is substantially faster for marginally less damage; taking a full round to reload is begging for death, and any feats used are better-spent on metamagic or item creation for the most part, definitely not on the crossbow mastery line.

It is interesting to seem some other interpretations. I am trying to find a RAW answer if possible, though. Even though I don't play strictly PFS, my groups have a tendency to abide very closely to RAW with a select list books and available resources that play similarly to PFS. I'm proud to keep my characters legitimate, but building a crossbowman appears nigh pointless when it's so heavily out-classed despite absurd amounts of min-maxing. As such, I'm hoping to see if a consensus could be reached (in either direction) to either be a happy player building something different than the norm with some viability, or end up a bit upset the option is definitively a "no-go" from evidence from others, but happy and understanding I would be playing something not breaking the rules.

You wouldn't take -6 while two-hand-firing a heavy crossbow, as firing a heavy crossbow two-handed doesn't incur any penalties. The -4 is only incurred off of the weapon while firing the medium heavy crossbow one-handed, and obviously one cannot fire the large heavy crossbow one-handed due to the sizing rule. Increasing the size of the weapon and firing it two-handed is legal as the weapon's base size designation is medium and classifies as a one-handed weapon. Increasing to a large size, the weapon gains increases by one step as all medium -> large weapon conversions go, incurring just the -2 penalty when used in two hands.

The crossbow being "wielded" in two hands while reloading contradicts size rules across the entire weapon family, though. All crossbows require two hands to reload. Upping the size for any of them, even when not going over the size limit of the creature, would therefore be impossible, for in all instances the number of hands needed would increase by one. Thus, a large hand crossbow would not be able to be used at all, for this logic would dictate the "two-handedness" to reload would make the weapon size too large. I'm not sure about you, but that interpretation seems not only against the entire weapon-size aspect of the game (giants could not wield large diminutive crossbows because the weapons would be "too big"), but it also makes no logical sense when guided by RAW.

As a side note, I'd also like to ensue discussion then on the use of the Double Crossbow. What is the intended use of this weapon if it meets none of the criteria for reloading speed, does the same damage, and has a greater attack penalty, as well as explicitly stating that it cannot be used in one hand? The weapon is undeniably a mechanically poor one from the action economy, attack penalty, proficiency, and damage POV's. Is there any kind of way to justify this weapon, or should we just acknowledge it as a horrible option for ranged users?

Hey folks.

I understand that many have asked about the legitimacy of using a large crossbow on a medium creature. Of course, the responses seem to be very mixed, and it seems a lot of people who have responded in such threads either are not aware of the rules for crossbows, or simply state their opinion rather than what the rules dictate. I'd like to make this thread the nail in the coffin for this subject by offering what I do believe is a comprehensive RAW approach to this matter, but I'm also asking for any evidence supporting for counter-arguments in regards to the rules themselves.

I'm going to ask about the legitimacy of a medium-sized character using a large heavy crossbow as a primary weapon. I'm operating on the principle that it can be done, because the rules, both RAW and RAI appear to allow this to be doable, and from my understanding there are no clauses which explicitly prevent this, nor are there any balance concerns.

So let's look at what we have for rules for just the heavy crossbow:

Heavy Crossbow:

Loading a heavy crossbow is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity.

Note: You draw a heavy crossbow back by turning a small winch. Normally, operating a heavy crossbow requires two hands. However, you can shoot, but not load, a heavy crossbow with one hand at a –4 penalty on attack rolls. You can shoot a heavy crossbow with each hand, but you take a penalty on attack rolls as if attacking with two one-handed weapons. This penalty is cumulative with the penalty for one-handed firing.

Okay, so we're at being able to shoot a regular crossbow one-handed as though it were a one-handed weapon, and it needs more than one hand to reload RAW - you need one hand to hold it and another to crank the winch and load the bolt as a full-round action. That's fine.

Crossbow Mastery:

The time required for you to reload any type of crossbow is reduced to a free action, regardless of the type of crossbow used. You can fire a crossbow as many times in a full attack action as you could attack if you were using a bow. Reloading a crossbow for the type of crossbow you chose when you took Rapid Reload no longer provokes attacks of opportunity.

Alright, so now we're at explicitly and unquestionably any kind of crossbow being able to be reloaded as a free action.

So our medium crossbow is able to be shot with two hands with no penalty with a free action reload albeit weighted as a one-handed weapon for the sake of TWF. It still requires two hands to reload, though.

So when we bump the size up, per the way weapon sizes work:

Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.

A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

The crossbow would be designated as a one-handed weapon as designation is assigned to all weapons, and its size designation is based upon the mere ability to be wielded in one hand. Thus, a medium creature can absolutely and undeniably shoot a large heavy crossbow. But what of reloading?

Most other posts end here, with the ruling on over-sized crossbows being a matter of DM discretion due to the need of reloading such a large object. I'd like to reference the two-handed weapon rules, however, as well, for the notion of being able to hold the weapon, in this case, a crossbow, with one hand.

Combat (Two-handed FAQ):

What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?

Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).

As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).

So, what we have here, is the ability to hold the large heavy crossbow with no problems in one hand. One hand is required to hold the crossbow as mentioned in the description of the weapon, doing so is not a problem per the FAQ, and actions can still be performed while one-hand-holding the two-handed weapon also in the FAQ, so reloading the crossbow, one hand holding it, and one hand turning the crank, would be acceptable by all rules standards and also be entirely free actions. Crossbow mastery then turns this reloading time into a free action as well, allowing full use of iteratives.

Are there any rules disputes or contradictions that I'm not aware of preventing these kinds of interactions? I understand it is the DM's discretion to limit free actions, but this doesn't really seem exploitative since all crossbows require the same action economy technically speaking, for all of them require two hands to reload and all are affected by crossbow mastery.

As far balance, the damage remains similar to that of the bow due to the lack of composite options for damage, manyshot for enchantment procs/volume, ammunition enchantment procs, etc. All said and done, the heavy crossbow does 2d8 damage base at a -2 penalty to hit, and so does a normal attack + manyshot on a non-composite longbow, except the crossbow requires Rapid Reload and Crossbow Mastery to use. It's "big" damage on a single bolt, and scales nicely with effects like vital strike and Gravity bow, re-gaining competitiveness with a composite enchanted longbow through a feat investment at one attack per turn over volume of arrows gaining damage benefits and enchantment procs. Seems like it RAW gives the crossbow a semi-viable place among a couple of niche builds taking a different approach to ranged than sheer arrow-slinging as normal, and it still ends up a bit weaker in the medium/higher levels.

I'd love to hear thoughts and feedback, and hopefully this thread finally answers all future questions on the matter and can clarify some of the rules debates from the past.

JAMRenaissance wrote:

AwesomenessDog wrote:

HellHunter wrote:

Stuff

I really think your responses are interestingly connected. My statement isn't due to a resistance to my initial idea; it's due to a resistance to ANY nerfing. I recognize that some people play for optimization, so I really don't knock someone for doing so. However, I will label it as such.

No, while I can't speak for HellHunter although I would guess he is in the same boat as me, I don't have a problem with nerfing, I don't have a problem with making house rules to balance stuff, I don't have a problem with people trying to tell me (assuming you were my hypothetical gm in the hypothetical game using the OP HR) what their rules are. But no one would play archer save for the elf caster who wants some weapons for when they aren't casting.

Archery is better than martials; how much so? Hardly at all: their only advantage is range and if they are full attacking all the time its only so long before the fighter closes in and there isn't a single archer "class" that gets flying in any easier of a way than fighter does. So how do we balance this? Well its practically already balanced enough that the only noticeable difference will be while optimized on both sides but as HellHunter stated that's what you have to assume when talking balance, even though most people don't optimize every character they play for DPS, Boosting, Healing, Tankiness, etc. (and really one could argue that even if someone is building an average build by choice, he/she is optimizing his/her fun instead of their DPS). So even if you want to make that little push to hypothetical perfect balance - even though its never possible - it is very little of an adjustment. You however suggested something that not only nerfs almost every aspect of progressing as an archer build, it also makes it so making an actual build is not possible since you can only use feats for one aspect of combat at a time which is not a build for a combat style...

Pretty much took the words from my mouth. As Mike J said (and what I said earlier), starting by removing manyshot or removing enchanted ammunition is pretty much all that is really reasonable. OP is trying to balance archery in line with the other two by nerfs, and we're trying to state that it's not the right approach nor are the proposed changes even remotely beneficial to any ranged character; the alternatives to archery (guns aside due to the gunslinger allowing them to be somewhat viable, which the OP mentioned will be nerfed) are so sub-par that they typically cannot hold up against any style of play, and this is to such an extent that they require the use of multiple feats for stacked benefits to become usable.

I'll put it into some context. Maybe this will help to get the OP to understand just how huge of a loss his ideas would be to ranged players.

Despite having played exclusively ranged characters save one for the past 15 years in all tabletops/RPG's given the chance I've played, and frequenting the local archery range because I actually shoot bows and crossbows and love everything about traditional ranged combat, the rules the OP is suggesting would make me actively not want to play with any ranged style in his campaign.

So for the last time, I'll make a suggestion to fix ranged combat in your campaign: get rid of manyshot, make enchanted ammunition either not exist or be exceedingly rare (usually I make such ammunition for my PC's occur at a rate of around one arrow per level of its appropriate rarity level at acquisition, and prevent the ammunition from being able to be recovered), and buff crossbows slightly.

I'd also toss out that anyone that likes to play for DPS is by definition Playing For Plusses.

You mentioned earlier that some people play for plusses and that you're aiming to nerf archery by debuffing it to have fun.

Sorry to break it to you, but some people have fun playing DPS. What's more is that if a player does not feel like they have an impact on the game in the way they want to, be it lore, mechanics, meta-contributions like humor at the table, etc., then that is distinctly "less fun" as then the game becomes less-interactive and defeats the purpose of tabletop RPG's.

I'd also suggest that you reconsider asking for balance suggestions from now on if you are not interested in getting responses based upon balance which literally can only be devised by optimizing characters or simulating various circumstances and build optimizations. In fact, nerfing DPS for the arbitrary reason of reducing damage output to make it more comparable with melee players is a contradiction if DPS is the only measure taken; rogues supply terrible damage but are a necessary staple in most campaigns for their utility. A paladin will be innately tankier, and so on. Does this justify nerfing the rogue's ability to scout or disable traps? That can be way more advantageous than a sheer numbers game, and depending on the game scenario, could be seen as wildly OP. Likewise, the tank-built paladin sustaining against a large quantity of lower-CR opponents (something anything squishier could not do) could be seen as overpowered depending on the context and design of the encounter space or the game as a whole.

If you are going to be upset with negative responses to your originally-proposed idea, then either do not ask for feedback, or do not state that "you are not our GM" as a means of pushing against the responses. There is resistance because such changes would make players actively pursue other character options entirely because the originally-proposed idea is so punishing... for seemingly no reason other than to make it 'not the best', which is already is, and even then that was never explained in full. Your idea does not cut out one feat; it cuts out a ton of different combinations and build varieties based on the level of the game. If anything, it cuts resources and combinations down to so few that the game becomes much more about "Playing for Plusses" and optimizing around that restriction than just going in a general direction of where the character is desired to go. Yes, there are more "tactical options" available by circumstance, but in the realm of ranged combat, there are definite optimizations based on the nature of the campaign.

Like I said earlier, I can make a bloodrager at level 8 deal 100+ non-crit damage per turn after a 100 foot charge while having a 15 foot melee attack range using no spells, enchanted items, masterwork weapons, buffs, 3rd party abilities, etc. Loaded up on extras it becomes completely absurd. I'm sorry to say that unless you're playing a very strict rule set about class options and builds for every character (allowing for selection of a few pre-assigned options like D&D 5th edition), there's very little reason to believe your original suggestion is going to solve its intended problem, which is putting archery on the levels of post-nerf guns. The why has still also yet to be explained, so justification for why is still lurking and thus people are resistant to it. If enchanted items/ammunition are the fear, cut manyshot. If you're not delving in magic much in the campaign as a whole or/and are banning its use entirely, prevent rangers from using spells (this provides a hefty sum of their utility and damage). Arrow-turreting too strong? See the above quiver solution or enforce something like smaller quiver sizes. Of course, the more restrictions you put on the game, the more apparent it is you're railroading players to pick a base melee fighter... in which case just force them into the class, and if they're still happy you're their DM, play. No debate over balance or "playing for plusses" vs what's "fun" needed here. Personally, I love optimizing characters. I've spent entire weeks of my free time making "best-possible" combinations and/or very contradictory concepts fairly viable. They prove to be great campaign additions given the right amount of lore and distinct/player-enforced virtues and ethics. Ridiculously-high-DPS "batman" that will not kill anything but leave targets unconscious is a great way to get some humor in and make for a great bragging contest of "most kills" between your barbarian and your kill-snagging bard.

A campaign is driven and successful based on how well the players mesh into the world and the quality of the lore and environments they explore. Stats mean nothing when a DM can buff or not buff, sell or not sell, drop loot or not drop loot, and so on targeted to specific players. Whether or not the archer out-DPS's the fighter is irrelevant to the quality of the game and the player perspective.

Recall you're still the DM. You can create custom monsters or mechanics targeted at promoting contribution from all players. I lie about my dice rolls all the time behind the screen because it promotes more interesting play when called for. I give arbitrary bonuses or penalties when they make sense for lore reasons. Your players should have good control over their characters and how they play them, because that's what they see as being fun; it's why they picked the character to begin with, no? Changing the environment or behaviors of things in that environment is fully in your control and not necessarily expected or desired from the players. That's where you really should be aiming to bring in more diversity and balance.

HellHunter wrote:

I would suggest the OP mentioning what level campaign he is running as well. Typically the ones I am in end near levels 10-15, usually beginning (for the PC's) at level 2 or 3 as to allow them to be of enough martial or intellectual prowess to be capable of going on an adventure more than the average human. Super-high-level campaigns typically cause both balancing issues and detract from the progression-embedded balance of the game; optimized max-level builds for level 20 are often absolutely terrible until the very high levels, whereas optimized low-level characters usually peter out in the middle/later levels.

I'm starting at level 10, and ending around level 14.

There seems to be an incredible resistance to the thought of nerfing anything. To that I say... I'm not your GM. The reaction seems personal: "OMG... you're killing DPR and NO ONE WILLZ EVER SHOOT A BOW AGAIN!!!"

Chill. There's nothing that will kill a game by getting rid of Rapid Shot. If that is a big, huge deal then I question if you're playing for fun or playing for plusses.

The resistance is there pretty much because you're asking for feedback from a balance perspective. When you ask for this kind of feedback, you will get responses regarding the actual game balance rather than flavor. It's at your discretion to make the rules for flavor; you can add or remove anything from your campaign if you so please, and none of us are to judge. But because you're asking for feedback about balance, the game now becomes entirely about the mechanics and "playing for plusses" rather than fun. I'd also like to point out that usually these go hand in hand, especially in the case of those who like to play DPS; if the player feels like he is inadequate or are not contributing to a certain level, odds are he isn't going to be having as much fun as he could be.

Simply, the nerfs seem over-aggressive, and may minimize the desire to want to play an archer to begin with based upon low contribution. There's a reason nobody mains crossbows.

I know it's been mentioned, but I don't see you actually confirming whether you are already enforcing all of the rules for concealment, cover, soft cover, melee penalty, etc. Are you? If you are and still find archery way overpowered, I would be very surprised.

Quote:

crossbows

are mainly designed as low skill grunt/backup weapons, like in real life. They aren't supposed to reach a pinnacle of amazing effectiveness, I think this is fine.

Quote:

guns

never played with them, don't like the flavor. From what I hear though, their power level is commensurate with bows after very early levels.

Crossbows add tons of flavor, and are almost viable through a very few select archetypes (Bolt Ace, for one). It doesn't make sense that to be as proficient as a bow-user with the easiest-to-use ranged weapon ever designed, you need to specialize 11+ levels of feats and a single niche archetype so deeply to get there. It's a shame the crossbow requires a "free" hand to load, despite being able to be fired in one hand. Dual-wielding capabilities without such an insane demand for feats would put them on-par fairly well with the bow.

Firearms are still worse than bows, albeit the gunslinger and associated archetypes are quite good to make them very usable. I don't like the flavor, either, but I'd argue their balance is quite fair.

Archery has always been dominant of the ranged combat options, and it's a shame that everything good regarding ranged combat favors the bow exclusively. Is it overpowered and needs nerfing, though? I certainly don't think so.

I can make a bloodrager deal 100+ non-critical damage per turn with full attacks while simultaneously getting 100 ft charges with a 15 foot melee range at level 8 all in the same turn with no third party abilities, with no magic or masterwork gear, yet can't even come close to that with any ranged build near those levels.

From a stats and design perspective, ranged, while late-game proving very strong in the open field, is the least-useful style of combat to use overall, especially when playing properly with concealment rules, and more so if the DM is smart about magical items and ammunition. If it's a problem, the DM should cut down on magical ammunition accessibility, and seriously needs to work on his encounter designs; I know I personally make my dungeons/interiors very difficult for casters and archers, as I make non-room corridors only 5-10 ft wide, and usually force 90 degree or tighter turns every 30 feet or so, set up ganks against targets at the back of the group triggered by traps, noise, or just differences in altitude such as leaping from the ceiling or balconies. Further, I also suggest providing plenty of cover for enemies, giving them concealment-gaining abilities, natural resistance to piercing damage through magic or other effects, or steep ramps or staircases which block line of sight and prevent safe shooting into the fray. Of course, it doesn't settle the issues with the disparity between bows and other forms of ranged combat, but it does hinder them, which I'll get to in a moment.

I would suggest the OP mentioning what level campaign he is running as well. Typically the ones I am in end near levels 10-15, usually beginning (for the PC's) at level 2 or 3 as to allow them to be of enough martial or intellectual prowess to be capable of going on an adventure more than the average human. Super-high-level campaigns typically cause both balancing issues and detract from the progression-embedded balance of the game; optimized max-level builds for level 20 are often absolutely terrible until the very high levels, whereas optimized low-level characters usually peter out in the middle/later levels.

Archery isn't so much powerful as it is the rest of the ranged options are blatantly terrible, notably crossbows. I proposed a Hunter archetype recently that aimed to help improve the flavor and viability of the weapon while allowing it to keep in "skirmishing" range for optimal potency to keep it synergizing with other classes' abilities while being vulnerable to certain opposing styles of combat, all while being competitive with fairly-optimized builds of other classes.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2syi0?SuggestionHunter-ArchetypeCrossbow-Viabil ity

As such, just nerfing archery seems rather unfair as then it puts it on the level of the crossbow, which is rather useless as mentioned above. I'd instead prefer to see buffs across the board exclusive to crossbows and perhaps slightly to guns (depending) or the removal of exclusivity of ranged feats, and then just more general use of counter-playing ranged and magic users at the DM's discretion using existing systems, also as mentioned. At my table, I'm usually the only player who ever deals with ranged, and each of us DM differently when we rotate, but typically I allow Crossbow Mastery as a feat with no prerequisite, do not follow the weapon cord's recent errata for crossbow users/allow rigging of repeating crossbows to not need a free hand, and lastly make enchanted ammunition extremely rare for the sake of Manyshot being only available on the bow, and rather put such effects in swift-action-usable enchantments which apply to the next piece of ammunition used or attack made as to promote more flavorful play options.

Not sure if the silence is from good implementation or terrible implementation :s

It's pretty much a known fact that crossbows are a terrible weapon choice, despite offering tons of flavor. They are feat-intensive, ineffective, and strictly speaking, under-used and under-performing weapons, especially when compared to bows. This mostly comes through the fact that there requires way too much of a feat investment to make them usable, and also comes from a lack of feats and early to mid-game builds which allow for some basic functionality in regards to damage potential.

There are a few options out there, such as the Bolt Ace, but these options are ultimately weaker and much more late-game-oriented. Needing to reach level 11 or hundreds of thousands of gold for enchantments (or a third arm - weird) to get basic character functionality is way too far. For historically the simplest and easiest ranged weapon to use at its inception, it makes no sense for it to be so difficult to use the weapon at all.

The ranger works, and can offset these problems given the benefits of the Crossbow Style and Favored Enemy, but I play with a group that generates the world after player-backstories are written as to create vast lands of diverse cultures and geographies. This creates huge conflicts with this mechanic early on, and the dependency here is too great.

I found that the Hunter offers a lot of flexibility in regards to stats, abilities, and flavor that I felt necessary for a crossbow-based build to work. I really like the idea of a Dual-wielding crossbowman, masterfully adept with his weapons and using magic to reload them. I initially tried a Reloading Hands concept, but it was ultimately too slow on the setup time, less-effective than any archer build I devised, and still struggled on the once-per-turn issues of reloading.

Thus, I created a Hunter Archetype that attempts to strike a balance between the Bolt Ace and the Ranger and Druid while not feeling inherently overpowered. Since the Divine Hunter drops teamwork feat potential, I didn't think this suggestion of using pets to draw aggro or distract things for him would be too far-fetched. It gives crossbow builds an early-game presence that is much-needed without detracting too much from any standard archer, while also giving them a bit of utility through limited and specialized magic at a druid-level progression of higher level spells.

Basically, it enables a TWF-crossbowman Dual-wielder who can build in a variety of specializations - from Sniper to Skirmisher - via feat choices and magic, things which are normally not attainable for crossbow-users.

So here we go:

Hunter Archetype – Imbued Splinterer

The Imbued Splinterer is an aggressive skirmisher which uses the crossbow as his weapon of choice to lead a devastating assault against his foes by funneling his innate magical capabilities into his weapons to create ammunition. With pinpoint accuracy, the Imbued Splinterer takes an opportunistic approach to combat from range, using allies from nature to distract his enemies for him.

Weapon Proficiency
The Imbued Splinterer is proficient with all crossbows and simple weapons and light armor. This modifies Weapon Proficiency.

Predator’s Prowess
The Imbued Splinterer loses access to the following Animal Foci: Bear, Monkey, Owl, Wolf. He instead gains access to the following Animal Aspects instead:
Shark: The creature gains a +4 competence bonus to track fleeing foes it has struck in combat. This bonus increases to +4 at 8th level and +6 at 15th level.
Komodo Dragon: The creature gains a +4 competence bonus against Diplomacy checks made to convince it to go against its orders or convictions of its owner (players control ownership of their characters). This bonus increases to +4 at 8th level and +6 at 15th level.
Leech: The creature gains a +4 competence bonus to fly and ride checks. This bonus increases to +4 at 8th level and +6 at 15th level.
Mongoose: The creature gains a +1 competence bonus to CMD against the bull rush, trip, and grapple combat maneuvers. This bonus increases to +2 at 8th level and +3 at 15th level.
This ability modifies Animal Focus.

Imbued Shots
Imbued Splinterers devote themselves wholly to the crossbow, focusing their magic into manifesting ammunition automatically into their weapons. The Imbued Splinterer gains the ability to manifest magical bolts into his crossbow inheriting from the crossbow’s base damage. The speed of reloading a crossbow is reduced by one step and functions identically to the Bolt Ace’s Inexplicable Reload, except this occurs immediately after each shot. As a cost, the Imbued Splinterer knows four fewer 0th level spells (minimum 0) and cannot learn more spells of higher level than he knows 0th level spells, and does not gain additional spells known for having a high ability score. This penalty applies to all spells the Imbued Splinterer gains access to from any class he selects levels in.
This ability modifies Spell Casting.

Crossbow Style
At 3rd level and every three levels thereafter, an Imbued Splinterer gains a bonus feat from the following list in addition to those gained from normal advancement. He does not need to meet the prerequisites of the selected feat:
Deadly Aim, Rapid Shot, Point-blank Shot, Crossbow Mastery.
At 6th level, the Imbued Splinterer adds the following feats to the list:
Improved Initiative, Point-blank Master, Snap Shot, Far Shot.
At 9th level, the Imbued Splinterer adds the following feats to the list:
Improved Snap Shot, Shot on the Run, Pinpoint Targeting.
This ability replaces Hunter Tactics and Teamwork Feats.

Powerful Insight
At 4th level, an Imbued Splinterer may choose to add his WIS score as damage to attacks made using his Imbued Shots to foes within 30 feet. This may not be used simultaneously with any other effect which adds an ability score to his crossbow attacks.
This replaces Improved Empathic Link.

Blood for Blood
At 11th level, an Imbued Splinterer can channel his lifeblood into his Imbued Shots. He gains the ability to expend up to twice his character level in health per turn to infuse his next Imbued Shot with the ability to heal a single target struck by the bolt for half of the health sacrificed this way, dealing no damage, or deal half of the health expended as extra damage to his next attack made against a single enemy. The healing aspect of this ability cannot critically hit.
This ability replaces Speak with master.

Greater Powerful Insight
At 15th level, an Imbued Splinterer can concentrate his Imbued Shots into one extremely potent assault. As a full-round action, the Imbued Splinterer may choose to take a -5 penalty and make a single attack roll against an enemy at his highest Base Attack Bonus. Include all penalties normally associated with making attacks. If the attack hits, he deals damage as though making a full-round attack as well as an additional attack, and all damage is totaled before applying Damage Reduction.
This ability replaces Greater Empathic Link.

While I don't have very high hopes that this would ever get implemented, I'd like some feedback, and would love to see a bit of a push to get this concept moving. I heard the newly-released DTT bumped up sniping a bit, but I haven't gotten a look at it, so it's possible there may already be some buffs in this department I don't know of yet. I feel like this is a role that's really under-represented and really under-powered in the game, and there seems to be community demand for it every so often based around my google searching for help in trying to make a build like this work out.

Thanks for reading through this, and I'll gladly make alterations if deemed necessary!

Totally forgot about the enhancement bonus bit. That clarifies pretty much everything. I figured it seemed both odd to have that much dex stacking and multiple polymorph effects all at once. Looks like I'll be making some spell-list changes :P

Hello folks. After some quick googling I couldn't find an answer to a question that may or may not define the success of a really cool build I've been trying to make viable for a long time.

My question is simply this: How do the Hunter Animal Foci interact with Aspect spells, and can all (or some) of these stack?

My real question lies in being able to Stack Aspects from the Hunter class + Cat's Grace + Aspect of the Falcon + Aspect of the Wolf. That seems like an awful lot of dex/ranged attack bonuses to be had, but I see no rules stating that more than one Aspect can't be applied at once. I know the spell Animal Aspect can't be, but that's totally different.

Any answers would be much appreciated. I'm looking into a dex-based build that may be taking some huge penalties on attacks, and was curious if these magic effects could be used to compensate for the penalties coming from attack bonuses.

Thanks!