js3's page

This makes crossbows a 1d4+4/19-20 weapon, which is different enough mechanically speaking to worth the lack of feats dedicated to the use of a crossbow.

I like this idea, too. It might even have more "realism" than giving the Rapid Reload feat to all characters who can use martial weapons (for whatever realism is worth).

Yes. Regardless of what he does or does not do in his next round, he's still flatfooted to you until the end of your next turn.

I understand that's the RAW. But as the GM, how am I supposed to narrate that? It seems kind of hard to justify... you feint, I stab you, and now I'm flatfooted to you afterward?

Maybe there's a thread about this already, that I couldn't find; please refer me to it if there is:

1. If I successfully (non-improved) feint somebody, and then on his turn he hits me... my next attack on him still gets the bonus, because he's still faked out?

2. If I successfully (non-improved) feint somebody, and then on his turn he withdraws... on my next turn I can close the distance with him and attack him, getting the bonus, because he's still faked out?

These don't make a lot of sense to me. Do they make any sense to you all?

All right, lots of very good points.

But now... can anybody explain why a crossbow is _cheaper_ than a longbow, in the equipment list? :-)

Anyways, one really simple fix would be to add a special clause to the Rapid Reload feat (or change this special clause's wording and put it under the crossbows)

Special: Characters proficient in all martial weapons gain this feat for free.

Boom, done.

Ah, that might actually be the best solution of all. I like it!

A friend did point out crossbows do one thing longbows cannot: be fired from prone.

Whoa, good point. I'm not sure how big an impact it is, but I definitely had not considered it.

If he had chosen to be a TWF dagger-wielder instead of using twin-shortswords would you be searching for a "fix" for the dagger? (this is a legitimate question, not a snarky comment, BTW, as it parallels the Simple/Martial situation with the bows).

I appreciate the lack of snark, and I completely understand the logical structure of the argument that you are making. However, the attempted analogy with dagger vs. shortsword is not appropriate.

I can understand why a shortsword is more damaging than a dagger. It's larger. It's heavier. It has a longer cutting edge. It makes perfect sense to me that a shortsword does more damage than a dagger, and I would not attempt to "fix" the rules so that a dagger-wielding character could do as much damage as a shortsword-wielding one.

However, I cannot understand why a crossbow is strictly less effective than a longbow. Historically, crossbows obsoleted longbows by being both easier to use, and better able to punch through armor. So it doesn't make sense than a crossbow-wielding archer should be strictly less effective than a longbow-wielding one. I'm not even asking that a crossbow wielder be _more_ effective than a longbow-wielder; a case for which a reasonable argument might be made. I'm just saying that they should be at least comparable.

I was not motivated to tweak this because I think that every player's role-playing decision should be rewarded with rules that cushion their poor outcomes. I would not feel compelled to cushion a dagger-wielding fighter from the reality that he will not do as much damage as a fighter with a bastard sword. But this particular case --- to wit, the fact that the light crossbow sucks compared to the longbow --- makes no sense to me AND it happened to be screwing my player.

Now, maybe my +1 to hit isn't the best mechanical way to achieve the crossbow/longbow parity I'm after, and I'd be happy if the discussion would focus on that particular issue. But maybe for the duration of this thread, those who feel that the crossbow needs no tweaking at all could kindly refrain from commenting? :-)

Yep ... the easy and obvious answer is to just give 'em all the same stats and be done with it.

This thread exemplifies everything that I love about RPG messageboards.

I post to share something that my group has decided is a nice fix for crossbow-wielding archers.

Then something like half of the remaining 36 posts are people arguing about whether or not I'm a munchkin.

Oh, and all of the points are cogently argued without using any hyperbole! That's also something I love about RPG messageboards!

</sarcasm>

Simply rule that rangers in general, if they have selected the archery combat path, get the rapid reload feat for free if they have a BaB of +4 or +6

This is an interesting solution, and I like it. The only thing I don't like about it is that it would take a while before it kicked in, so a ranger would have to go through a few levels of being a bit gimpy with his crossbow before he got the bonus feat.

I guess another thing I like about my +1 is that it applies to anybody with a longbow proficiency (although maybe that's not a feature).

I agree that recategorizing crossbows as non-"simple" is not a useful direction to go.

Uhm... From what I can see.... the crossbows are far better than the longbows..

So not really sure what ya mean.

I'm comparing the light crossbow with the longbow. The rate of fire, limited by the reload speed, is a huge issue in actual combat. Try it in a few extended combats and see. It's not a small disadvantage, it's a really big one.

And to overcome it, you need to spend a feat on Rapid Reload. So with RAW, light crossbow + Rapid Reload is just about equal to a longbow. The need to spend a feat just to keep pace with a weapon that supposedly you're making obsolete is why I think there's something sucky about crossbow-wielding rangers in the RAW. :-)

Or, the player decided to role-play the character instead of making character decisions based solely on number-crunching. Crazy thought, I know, but there are actually players who aren't munchkin-ing their way through adventures.

The player is definitely role-playing, and decided to stick with the crossbow even after finding out that, surprisingly, in PFRPG the crossbow sucks compared with the longbow.

But I think "munchkin" is a bit harsh in this case. Expecting that a crossbow is at least as good as a longbow in the hands of a trained archer isn't one of the worst munchkinesque infractions I can think of. It's not even in the top ten. :-)

And for what it's worth, the player wasn't complaining about this. It just annoyed me that the rules penalized him by forcing him to burn a feat just to not suck with a crossbow. So maybe I'm the munchkin? :-)

It replaced the Bow in real life for a reason, seriously.

OK, without arguing about what "simple" should mean, or does mean, let me just respond to the point I quoted.

Yes, the crossbow replaced the bow in real life. But that would never happen in Pathfinder, because mechanically, the (light) crossbow is strictly worse than the longbow.

I don't have a problem with a clumsy, untrained commoner being less effective with a crossbow than a trained archer is with a longbow. So Pathfinder mechanics work for this point: untrained commoners can use crossbows, because they're "simple", and they suck with them compared to trained archers, because crossbows suck in PFRPG. So far so good.

But I do have a problem with a trained archer using a crossbow being strictly less effective than a trained archer using a longbow. I'm not even asking that the crossbow be better, as you pointed out it is in real life. I'm just asking that the mechanics allow a trained archer to be at least equally good with either weapon. And here, some kind of fix is needed to the mechanic; hence my tweak.

One way of interpreting my +1 tweak is by saying that the crossbow isn't really "simple", in that it's a different tool in the hands of an archer than it is in the hands of a commoner. But I understand that this idea is logically problematic --- in particular, it probably applies to every simple weapon --- and I'm willing to back off of calling a crossbow "not simple". Whatever the logical and elegant terminology is, I'm sure that the correct result is: trained archers should get a +1 to hit when using crossbows. :-)

I'd say this change, or something similiar, could be done for all simple weapons.

Sure, it could. But the idea here was to address the fact that, uniquely, the crossbow is currently miscategorized as a "simple" weapon, when in fact there is nothing about it that is simple.

What a crossbow is, in my opinion, is a martial weapon that can still be used reasonably effectively by somebody weak or inept. Of course, we don't have a category for weapons like that, so it gets classified as "simple", to reflect the fact that everybody can use it.

I have no problem with letting sorcerers, etc., use crossbows. But I do think that a ranger should be able to kick as much butt with a crossbow as he would with a longbow. (If it's wrong for me to think that, then perhaps the iconic ranger is a bit misleading.) And as far as allowing equal butt kicking, I think the +1 tweak serves exactly that purpose.

What other simple weapon would you think is essentially a martial weapon that is easy enough for a weak or inept character to use, at least somewhat effectively?

The crossbow actually has some of its own advantages.

There is no penalty to wielding a crossbow when your Strength is less than 10. Most rangers are going to have a Strength higher than 10 anyway but if effected by poison, disease, or some other Strength draining or damageing effect you'll wish you had waisted a feat on rapid reload.
Also you can dual wield light crossbows.

I don't know if this makes them equal but pretty close?

Good points, but I don't think that that really compensates for the difference between the two weapons. If anything, your observations just demonstrate that the crossbow is sort of intended for inept or weak combatants. And the whole idea of my tweak is to give the crossbow a little something extra when it's used by somebody who isn't necessarily inept.

You're right, though, that the ability to use a crossbow when weakened is a benefit over a longbow. On the other hand, I'm not sure that this balances out a longbow's ability to fire multiple arrows simultaneously later on, much less balances out the better feat-less rate of fire that the longbow gets.

I have a guy playing a ranger, who really likes the flavor of using a crossbow instead of a longbow. However, as we all know, with RAW a ranger is basically crippling himself by choosing to use a light crossbow instead of a longbow: he has to spend a feat on Rapid Reload, just to get on equal footing with somebody using a longbow.

I think that having to burn a feat just for flavor is not a good thing. So here's what we do in my PFRPG game:

TWEAK: If a crossbow is used by any character who is proficient with martial weapons, that character gets a +1 to hit with the crossbow.

This way, light crossbow + Rapid Reload is roughly the same as longbow + Weapon Focus, and nobody is screwed for wanting to use a crossbow instead of a longbow.

And of course, characters who are inept with martial weapons still get to use the crossbow as a "point and shoot" ranged weapon, without the +1 bonus.

Anyway, thought I'd share that. So far, it's the only house rule we've come up with that seems worth telling people about. :-)

Drinking...

Simple version : -1 penalty per drink to all Attribute, Skill and Initiative chicks, counteracted by Con bonus. Penalty reduces at 1 pnt per 3 hours, or per 1 hour rest.

<snip>

This makes no sense. Drinking alcohol is supposed to give all kinds of numerical penalties to characters, but absolutely no benefits of any kind? Why would anybody drink at all, then?

It's not accurate to treat alcohol purely as a poison. It has potentially beneficial effects: maybe bonuses to Diplomacy checks, or resistance to fear, or maybe even some temporary HP... there are lots of possibilities.

js3 wrote:

The Order of the Dragon idea basically allows characters to have all the benefits of being a cavalier without actually having to belong to an organization.

It's been pretty well established by now that the Orders aren't (required to be) actual organizations. They're philosophies more than anything. There IS no requirement to be a member of an organization inherent in being a Cavalier.

Maybe that's a design mistake, and maybe that's a basic reason why the cavalier class has been having a bit of an identity crisis.

If the cavalier class is broad enough to include chaotic, greedy individualists who belong to no organization, then what exactly does it mean to be a cavalier anyway? The definition from the playtest material is:

These warriors, known as cavaliers, swear themselves to a purpose, serving it above all else.

I think that's a great starting concept. However, I also think that when the purpose in question is allowed to be "greed" or "self-interest" the concept gets diluted to the point of being meaningless.

Maybe I'm the only one bothered by this identity crisis, though. I'll drop the subject if everybody here thinks I'm crazy. :-)

js3 wrote:

Strongly agree. Not just because taking an oath is an orderly, "lawful" action; but because cavalier Orders and Banners indicate a respect for tradition and ritual, and a higher regard for an organization and its history than for individuality. This idea in particular, of the whole being greater than the individuals that comprise it, seems very orderly and non-chaotic.

Someone hasn't read the Order of the Dragon, I see.

I've read it. I just think it's a poor idea, and should be removed.

At best, Order of the Dragon is inconsistent with the very notion of "Order". At worst, it was tacked on to justify a last-minute design decision that cavaliers need not be non-chaotic.

Either way it's a bad idea, and it undermines the image of what a cavalier character is (to wit: a member of an order of noble warriors; a knight). The Order of the Dragon idea basically allows characters to have all the benefits of being a cavalier without actually having to belong to an organization. "I'm acting in my own self-interest! I'm role-playing my character so well! I just took an oath to make sure I get at least my fair share of the loot!"

Surely I'm not alone in thinking this?

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I had deeply considered a "non-chaotic" alignment restriction for the cavalier, but left it out to keep things flexible. I could easily see an order of the dragon cavalier not being particularly lawful, the question is whether or not he is chaotic.

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Jason, I have to agree that non-Chaotic is the way to go. Taking a Oath in and of itself is a voluntary construction of and/or adherance to Order.

Cliff

Strongly agree. Not just because taking an oath is an orderly, "lawful" action; but because cavalier Orders and Banners indicate a respect for tradition and ritual, and a higher regard for an organization and its history than for individuality. This idea in particular, of the whole being greater than the individuals that comprise it, seems very orderly and non-chaotic.

The example of the barbarian who vows to kill all orcs is not the same kind of thing, in my mind, since it's not based on tradition and ritual; it's based on personal impulse, which is consistent with a chaotic barbarian.

+1 for non-chaotic cavaliers only.

So I've read through this thread, and it's interesting stuff... but I feel like I need to ask the following question:

Has there been any indication of any kind from people at Paizo that they're interested in a rebuild of the cavalier class? Is there any precedent, from the PFRPG playtest for example, of Paizo using somebody's rebuild instead of just tweaking their own work?

I ask, because Jason seemed pretty clear that what he wanted out of this forum was feedback based on playtests using the published cavalier and oracle classes. It seems like that's been about 1% of what has been posted in the forum so far.

No offense intended, just wondering if there's any reason to hope that this interesting rebuild will even be looked at by the powers that be.

The second printing incorporates the errata found in the "Errata for First Printing v1.0" file linked from here. (The PDF and PRD have both reflected the second printing since the day they were released.)

If I order copies of the Core Rulebook from paizo.com, am I guaranteed to receive the second printing, rather than the first?

I live in Canada and Amazon here hasn't received a shipment and doesn't even know for sure if they are getting one though they do have orders in for it. They are just as in the dark on it as I am. I suspect the UK is probably the same.

"Regular" old amazon.com doesn't have it yet either... I'm waiting to pull the trigger on an order for three copies as soon as it shows up. :-)

Hi Blake,

I get what you're saying, but I have a few counter-thoughts:

1. Your scenario with Fred the Fighter accidentally hitting Carl the Cleric sounds like it's more in the realm of a critical fumble, which is a common optional house rule.

2. I don't think it's terribly unrealistic for an archer not to do as much damage as a melee fighter. Archers are most effective in large numbers from a distance (historically, anyway). In my game, I'm not worried about dissuading people from making archer builds; those players aren't expecting to be on the front lines next to the sword-swingers anyway.

3. I would have no problem with a rule that allows for hitting the wrong target when you attack a creature that is grappling. This applies for ranged or melee attacks against the grappled creature.

I don't want to make the game 100% realistic (or even 50% realistic), but I would like to help my players suspend disbelief. Not being able to accidentally hit your buddy when you're firing into a combat, or swinging at a grappled foe, is the kind of thing that makes the _players_ stop and say, "Hey, are you sure we can do this?"

-PM3

Thanks for the responses. I guess I can keep my fingers crossed that a decent rule for this situation might appear in the Gamemastery book, or in the Advanced book. (Hint to Paizo...) :-)

-JS3

Are there any rules in Pathfinder that allow for striking the cover, or hitting the wrong combatant, when firing a ranged weapon into a melee?

I think there was something like this in 3.5, and it's definitely one of those things that I feel adds something to the realism of the combat system.

Thanks,
-JS3