I'm not putting this in rules because I know it isn't really a rules question. Anyway, Would you guys allow the penalties on a double crossbow to be halved if made of darkwood? You get that -4 on a DC because of the weight and size, but if the weight isn't really a factor anymore, it's just the size.
What say you?
I'm not putting this in rules because I know it isn't really a rules question. Anyway, Would you guys allow the penalties on a double crossbow to be halved if made of darkwood? You get that -4 on a DC because of the weight and size, but if the weight isn't really a factor anymore, it's just the size.
What say you?
Seems perfectly reasonable to me, specifically because of the wording. Even with the reduction in weight, they suffer a -2 proficiency/-4 non-proficiency penalty.
I don't see this as problematic, however, until applied to game play, you can't be 100% certain, so I'd allow it as long as the player understood and agreed, "If this becomes problematic, as determined by me (the GM), it will be corrected, but you won't be penalized financially/materials-wise in such a case."
Definitely. I was reading a thread and that thought popped into my head. I'm going to run that by a GM of mine next time I want to run a sniper character.
Definitely. I was reading a thread and that thought popped into my head. I'm going to run that by a GM of mine next time I want to run a sniper character.
Creative use of flavor text is both a benefit and burden to GM and player, alike.=)
Hmm... I might be tempted to lower it to -3. Or -2 if all the metal bits are made from Mithral too.
Hmm... I might be tempted to lower it to -3. Or -2 if all the metal bits are made from Mithral too.
I'm not sure that mithril would affect the DC. It's primarily wooden, that's where most of the weight comes from
DC? You mean the penalty?
Personally I would make it half the penalty. It makes more sense. And Mithril is a waste of money and Mithril. Most crossbows have a total of 3-4 metal parts. A double crossbow would have 6-7. Note that 1-2 parts don't need to be doubled up for the crossbow.
DC= Double Crossbow. I guess I should use DX or something. But yeah, I talked to another buddy of mine and he agreed that halving it wouldn't be a problem.
Typically (and this is due in part to my love of keeping things simple) is to determine what the majority of the item is constructed from and use that as the basis for any changes other materials make to an item. If I don't do this, I have to have an intricate understanding of construction, the weights of each piece, and so on and so forth.
Attention to detail is great, but sometimes it is just not practical.
I just realized in Classic Monsters Revisited the double crossbow only has a -2 penalty for a Proficient wielder...
I wonder if that's a typo or errata? I always thought the penalty on the double was a bit steep anyway, but none of my players ever cared to use it save one who was playing a Captain Navarre style fighter (LadyHawke).
Weird...
CMR was a 3.5 product I believe, the Minotaur Double Crossbow was updated to the double crossbow in PFRPG APG
CMR was a 3.5 product I believe, the Minotaur Double Crossbow was updated to the double crossbow in PFRPG APG
From what I understand and if I remember the contents correctly it was meant to update some monsters to the CRB so GMs had more options Pre-Bestiary. Though I could be wrong. I don't have a copy available atm.