I'm considering increasing the damage that crossbows do as a house rule. Composite bows can become strength bows because, presumably, a strong person could draw a bow with more draw weight, thus increasing the velocity and stopping power of an arrow.
Some medieval heavy crossbows had a draw weight of around 300 lbs, while traditional bows topped out around 150 lbs at most. My only practical experience comes from deer hunting with a Barnett Demon Crossbow with a 200 # draw weight that used to put bolts halfway through a tree while the composite bow I had could never accomplish that feat (maybe because I was a girlie man, who knows?)
Why would a crossbow with 300 # draw weight not get a bonus to damage if a composite longbow with a heavy draw weight can give the user strength bonus damage, not to mention multiple shots per round?
So, I'm thinking that heavy crossbows should be eligible for the same strength damage bonuses that composite bows can get, for the same cost. The fact that they are a simple weapon would be balanced out by the fact that they take a full round action to reload.
Thoughts? Disagreement by those of you with more historical knowledge than me?
|
Hi there, long time not seen ;)
Well, I think the problem with applying STR to a crossbow (if I got you right in just want to do this) is, that you just pull the trigger and let the bolt go. So I don't see where to apply the STR; as a small kid would do the same as an experienced fighter would - pull the trigger.
But I also know how devastating crossbow's can be (a friend of mine is a hunter). I wouldn't add STR but instead just make a more than "heavy" kind of crossbow, which takes xtra cost in the making... Also, the kind of bolt might be important (in the case of forcing it through a tree).
|
|
(...)So, I'm thinking that heavy crossbows should be eligible for the same strength damage bonuses that composite bows can get, for the same cost. The fact that they are a simple weapon would be balanced out by the fact that they take a full round action to reload.
(...)
Just bring heavy's with a bonus into your game, because of the way the string and the whole thing is made, but my opinion is that you cannot apply STR to a crossbow. ;)
Well, that's my whole point--if the reason you can apply STR to a bow is because you can draw a harder bow, yet the crossbow's draw weight is harder than even the heaviest bow, why would you not be able to custom build a heavy crossbow to fire at whatever draw weight you want? You'd still have to pay the 300gp or whatever per +1 "damage" bonus, so the average 1st level warrior isn't going to be equipped with one, but it just doesn't make sense that a 300 lb draw weight heavy crossbow only does 1d10 damage while a 150 lb draw weight composite longbow is 1d8+4...the bow still has the advantage because it can potentially be used to fire multiple rounds, but it is a "martial weapon." The crossbow is a simple weapon, but it can only be fired after a full round action is taken to reload it, so it balances out nicely, I think.
Thoughts? Disagreement by those of you with more historical knowledge than me?
As already said, I wouldn't necessarily add a STR bonus, as once the crossbow is cranked/ pulled back, anyone can fire it for the same damage.
I see the damage potential over bows that you talk about as being in the stats already, one die size bigger, and a larger threat range (though smaller crit modifier).
Being able to do a d8 once a round with a pathetic strength score is awesome (once the sorcerer is out of spells) compared to taking a penalty on damage with a bow or sling equal to that low STR bonus.
Not to mention that crossbows have really good range increments.
Just my two coppers,
-c
That does make sense, Clint.
One other potential issue w/using str for crossbows - couldn't the 18 str fighter load the mage's crossbow for him? It's not a major issue (you could say that the mage can't carry the crossbow around loaded), but it's something you might want to consider.
Crossbows don't take a lot of strength to load--the heavy crossbow uses a crank or lever and the modern crossbow I used had a foot stirrup...so my reasoning is that you can get the strength bonus even for not having the strength and that's why the rate of fire is slower than a bow. It's not a "strength" bonus per se', but a damage bonus attributed to the draw weight of the weapon.
Based on what I've seen in SCA combat with crossbows, if I wanted a realistic crossbow rule I would 'house rule' thus:
1. I would allow "strength" modifiers for crossbows to reflect relative pull strength compared to regular bows;
2. Light crossbows take a full round action to reload and can have a bonus of up to +2, only if the operator has a STR modifier to match - if the operator's STR is too low, they may FIRE the crossbow, but MAY NOT reload it.
3. Heavy crossbows (which are winch or lever pulled) can have a bonus of up to +5 and can be used by anyone of any STR; however..
3a. Reloading them takes one full round action plus one full round per plus of the weapon, minus the STR modifier of the person doing the reloading...
(example; STR17 user reloads a Hvy crossbow +5 = 5-3+1 rounds = 3 rounds)
or...
3b. Reloading them takes one full round action and a STR check DC15 + weapon bonus; failure means that the operator has failed to set the weapon(or struggled to crank it) and must try again (or continue), taking another full round to do so and checking again the following round. This process repeats until the operator passes a STR check to set and load the weapon.
4. Anyone can fire a crossbow (which was its main appeal...), but you must meet the above conditions to successfully load it.
It is entirely possible that a party in a defensive struggle could rely on their melee fighter to do nothing more than reload crossbows and hand them to others to fire...
Due to the administrative overhead of such a rule, I doubt that I would ever run it this way with a group my size, but with a small group (4 players or less) I might do it.
M
Disagreement by those of you with more historical knowledge than me?
Ta-daaaaaaaaaaa! :P
I think the idea is just fine, but you have to take some things into account. The crossbow that requires a full round action (i.e., six seconds) to load in the PHB is the sort that would have a stirrup, so it would be cocked by placing your foot in the stirrup and pulling back on the cord until it locked into place, and then loading a bolt. It's not unreasonable to do this in 6 seconds if you're strong and practiced.
HOWEVER, something with a 300+ draw weight (I've seen documentation suggesting as high as 1200!) would have required a hand crank to cock, which is going to take a LOT longer than a mere 6 seconds to manage. I would suggest that an exceptional strength crossbow not actually have anything to do with STR and everything to do with loading time. I'd say that a crossbow of exceptional damage should get a +4 to damage (and a major range increase, maybe 50% or more) and have 2 full round action loading time. That seems like a lot, but it's really fairly realistic. At the range that a lot of D&D encounters take place, a crossbow would be fired, dropped, and a shortsword would be drawn immediately thereafter. Bows and crossbows are really just not for close quarters combat.
Bear in mind also that a crossbow takes much less skill to fire (which is why it was so useful: longbows take a lot of practice; and why it is a simple weapon) so anecdotal evidence regarding the performance of either is suspect at best unless taken from historical accounts of real world battles.
HOWEVER, something with a 300+ draw weight (I've seen documentation suggesting as high as 1200!) would have required a hand crank to c~%#, which is going to take a LOT longer than a mere 6 seconds to manage.
Heh, heh...you said C--K. :-P
Looks like you and I were on the same exact page at the same time on this one!
M
Looks like you and I were on the same exact page at the same time on this one!
M
One SCAdian to another, a crossbow with a mere 600 inch pounds takes a heck of a lot longer than 6 seconds to load and aim. :)
That sounds pretty good...add another category above the heavy crossbow (what might they be called?--arbalests?)
Arbalest--simple weapon, 1d10+5 damage, Range: 150', Critical 19-20 x2, Wt: 15 lbs, requires 2 full round action to load, one full round action with the rapid reload feat.
Consider it adopted for my game!! Thanks for the feedback, everyone.
|
|
One SCAdian to another, a crossbow with a mere 600 inch pounds takes a heck of a lot longer than 6 seconds to load and aim. :)
You allude to something I wanted to mention: While the pull weight of a crossbow is significantly greater than most standard bows, the draw length is much shorter. As a first approximation, multiply the pull weight by the draw length to get a number in foot-pounds (or inch-pounds, or newton-meters, or whatever), then compare these numbers. Using this measure, a 75# bow with a 24" draw has the same energy available as a 300# crossbow with a 6" draw.
(It's pretty clear to me that Azhrei understands this already, but most folks don't.)
Of course there's much more moment in the arms of a standard bow (especially a longbow) than in the arms of most crossbows, which means a higher proportion of the energy stored in a crossbow's arm goes to accelerating the bolt, so the comparison isn't quite that simple. And even that more complex model neglects issues of sectional density and air resistance, which changes the energy-at-distance curve, and other factors. As I said, it is only a first approximation.
Hey, it's Bill Nye the science guy!!! Just kidding, that is good information about how the length of the draw affects the actual hitting power, but I think my arbalest's slow rate of fire means that it's dishing out about 10pts of damage on average every 3 rounds, while a longbow fired once per round for an average of 4 pts of damage per shot does about the same amount of damage. Think I will stick with it--it'll make a good weapon for townguards and castle defenders to keep on the walls to fend off attacking beasties and such. A 15# huge crossbow might not be so handy to take into a tight dungeon.
F2K, there's a feat in the Player's Handbook 2 (called "Crossbow Sniper") which lets you add half your Dex bonus to crossbow damage, and is also useful if you have Sneak Attack. Not quite a Str bonus, but is that any help?
LALALALALALALALALAL :: sticks fingers in ears and closes eyes tightly:: I don't want to hear any more reasons to buy another sourcebook.
Actually, thank you--that sounds like a worthwhile feat to take, particularly for rogues with hand crossbows.
|
|
I'll add that two to three rounds to draw an arbalest with a cranequin is quite short. I'd expect somewhere between 1 and 2 minutes for these. (Historically they were most useful in sieges, where the situation was pretty static.)
As a game-balance thing, though, your reload time is probably reasonable.
I'll add that two to three rounds to draw an arbalest with a cranequin is quite short. I'd expect somewhere between 1 and 2 minutes for these. (Historically they were most useful in sieges, where the situation was pretty static.)
As a game-balance thing, though, your reload time is probably reasonable.
That is certainly true. A really high power arbalest isn't something you'd take adventuring-- it's just not suited for that sort of thing. The timing on a lot of the stuff breaks down when you apply logic or science, but it works pretty well for game balance.
I'm happy with the crossbow as it is. It's a Simple weapon, so it shouldn't really be as good as the composite longbow. The arbalest (heavy crossbow) does have a more significant pull, yes, but it's fixed. I think that's more straightforwardly represented by the higher damage dice.
If you like, as a variant you could allow particularly high-Strength characters to reload a heavy crossbow faster - say, 15 Strength lets you reload it as a standard action, while 19 or higher lets you reload it as a full action. Of course, a martially inclined character will be best to use the longbow instead; the entire point of the crossbow is not to be more powerful, but to be useable by people without martial training.
As a general policy I don't think that the Design teams at WotC like giving +# damage to weapons. They would rather increase the damage dice. The crossbow you are talking about would more likely do 2d6 or 1d12 damage than 1d10+5. You may disagree, but I think that's what would end up happening. The rest of your formula (150 ft. range, etc) sounds fine, but would it still be a simple weapon?
I actually changed it to 2d8 for my homebrew, because I realized you were right, Phil. Yes, it would still be a simple weapon because even though it is heavy, it is still a crossbow and pretty much anyone can shoot it with a few hours of practice.
That's why the pope outlawed them in the middle ages--gave too much power to the rabble to take down armored knights and such. The wikipedia entry on arbalests said that skilled shooters could manage two bolts per minute. I realize my reload time is probably too fast, but it's a game balance issue more to me. I like simulation games, but I don't mind stretching realism a bit for D&D game balance.
I actually changed it to 2d8 for my homebrew, because I realized you were right, Phil. Yes, it would still be a simple weapon because even though it is heavy, it is still a crossbow and pretty much anyone can shoot it with a few hours of practice.
That's why the pope outlawed them in the middle ages--gave too much power to the rabble to take down armored knights and such. The wikipedia entry on arbalests said that skilled shooters could manage two bolts per minute. I realize my reload time is probably too fast, but it's a game balance issue more to me. I like simulation games, but I don't mind stretching realism a bit for D&D game balance.
Fair call. I felt like damage could be 2d8, since that's the damage a large heavy crossbow does, but 2-16 damage sounds like a lot. What are you looking at in terms of price? 100gp or thereabouts?
Fair call. I felt like damage could be 2d8, since that's the damage a large heavy crossbow does, but 2-16 damage sounds like a lot. What are you looking at in terms of price? 100gp or thereabouts?I actually changed it to 2d8 for my homebrew, because I realized you were right, Phil. Yes, it would still be a simple weapon because even though it is heavy, it is still a crossbow and pretty much anyone can shoot it with a few hours of practice.
That's why the pope outlawed them in the middle ages--gave too much power to the rabble to take down armored knights and such. The wikipedia entry on arbalests said that skilled shooters could manage two bolts per minute. I realize my reload time is probably too fast, but it's a game balance issue more to me. I like simulation games, but I don't mind stretching realism a bit for D&D game balance.
I think about 75gp is fine. The cranking mechanism requires some craftsmanship to make, so the price is going to be a bit high. Battlefield use would mean that each arbalester would probably have to have some light infantry or pikemen with them to protect them from cavalry charges. Most use of the arbalest would be during sieges. I figure each fortification strongpoint in a castle or town wall would have 6-10 arbalests in racks, ready for use when needed.
I don't have a problem with a simple weapon doing 2-16 pts of damage. I don't like the fact that lower level creatures and simple men-at-arms simply cease to be a factor at all in higher level play and the arbalest is just a little thing to help ensure the higher level characters don't take a squad of arbalesters lightly.
I do like a "little" realism, after all :)
Just FYI--in my game, ballistas ignore armor bonuses....my players are scared sh*tless of them....as well they should be.
|
|
(...)Just FYI--in my game, ballistas ignore armor bonuses....my players are scared sh*tless of them....as well they should be.
Now, that's a house rule which gives the ballistas the respect it should have, even for higher level pcs!
This makes this weapon awe-inspiring again. I certainly make use if this rule. Thanx!
With an arbalest taking about 30 seconds to reload and fire in the real world, that would be every five rounds in D&D terms. So, two rounds sounds fitting, considering that other rates of fire are off as well - archers could let loose about 6 arrows per minute, or one every other round in D&D terms, and without much aiming, yet in D&D you get up to four per round, and even the lowliest archer has one per round, or ten in a minute. So, cutting real, world rates roughly in half should do fine.
Most LARP rules I know consider arrows to pierce armor up to chainmail, and crossbow bolts to pierce plate armor as well. Especially with crossbows, this is what made them so dangerous. LARP rules say if you are hit by a siege engine missile, you are knocked out and at zero hp, no matter what your armor is.
This can´t be translated into D&D, of course, but heavy siege engines bypassing armor is surely a good idea. And if you take a 50 pound stone directly, you are probably not standing anymore, at least.
Stefan
And if you take a 50 pound stone directly, you are probably not standing anymore, at least.
Perhaps the Ballista Bolt/Catapult Stone gets to make a free Overrun attempt against creatures it hits? (Gaining the benefits of Improved Overrun -- no choice to step aside -- obviously)
And if you take a 50 pound stone directly, you are probably not standing anymore, at least.Perhaps the Ballista Bolt/Catapult Stone gets to make a free Overrun attempt against creatures it hits? (Gaining the benefits of Improved Overrun -- no choice to step aside -- obviously)
That is a good idea to represent the impact rules-wise. The attackers strength could be represented by the actual damage caused by the attack - a full hit is more likely to leave you prone than a glancing hit, and if you really use Improved Overrun, I´d include the +4 also. Size of the attacker is probably the size of the engine in question, not the missile itself.
I´ll consider this ruling for giant´s thrown rocks as well.Stefan
Actually, this site suggests that a trained archer could fire 10 - 12 arrows per minute. That's about as good as a first level D&D character.
A crossbow that takes five rounds to reload is practically in the realm of siege weaponry - a one-man ballista. There are rules given for such weapons in the SRDs: the ballista costs 500 gp, deals 3d8 damage with a 19-20 threat range and a range increment of 120ft. It requires only one person to operate. It also says this:
"A ballista is essentially a Huge heavy crossbow fixed in place. Its size makes it hard for most creatures to aim it. Thus, a Medium creature takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls when using a ballista, and a Small creature takes a -6 penalty. It takes a creature smaller than Large two full-round actions to reload the ballista after firing.
A ballista takes up a space 5 feet across."
One person can reload a ballista in two rounds, wow! Thanks for the reference information, Jonathan...I'll be looking into it. I use the Heroes of Battle siege engine rules, except that direct fire siege weapons ignore armor bonuses. Indirect fire siege weapons require reflex saves to avoid damage, according to Heroes of Battle. The siege engine and arrow volley fire rules from Heroes of Battle are the most useful things from that book.
Actually, this site suggests that a trained archer could fire 10 - 12 arrows per minute. That's about as good as a first level D&D character.
Well, there are obviously different sources on the rate of fire with a longbow. Six arrows per minute comes from the Palladium Book of Weapons and Castles. Another book on historical weapons and armour states that an archer was capable to hit a target at 200 yards (or even more, up to 400) six times a minute, and elite archers could do up to twelve hits. I did some archery myself, and six arrows a minute would be possible with some training, I think. I did not test that, though.
Stefan
I think that the variant crossbow rule to ignore some of a person's armor bonus is better represented by the variant damage reduction/armor rule where armor provides a certain amount of damage reduction, but less of an armor bonus (for instance plate armor gives you +4 to your AC and damage reduction 4/-). Using this variant armor rule crossbows would ignore the damage reuction granted by armor, but not the armor bonus itself. I see it as the difference bewteen a true hit and a glancing shot. Other weapons might also ignore the damage reduction (like heavy picks).
Howdy,
I am a player for Fairwell2kings as well as his DM for 20+ years. We have discussed this topic many times and agree that the crossbow has been sold short in damage.
Then again so has the longbow.
In the early eighties I read a book on medieval warfare (sorry can't list the title) that gave these two examples of the power of the English Longbow;
Could pierce 6 inches of OAK wood
Pierce the thigh plate, chain, padding, meat, bone, meat, padding chain, plate, saddle, saddle blanket and into the horse of a mounted knight.
Those examples impressed me to the point I have never forgot, even though at times I am hard pressed to give my current age!
I will continue this line of thought at a later time, but have to go for now.
Howdy,
I am a player for Fairwell2kings as well as his DM for 20+ years. We have discussed this topic many times and agree that the crossbow has been sold short in damage.Then again so has the longbow.
In the early eighties I read a book on medieval warfare (sorry can't list the title) that gave these two examples of the power of the English Longbow;
Could pierce 6 inches of OAK wood
Pierce the thigh plate, chain, padding, meat, bone, meat, padding chain, plate, saddle, saddle blanket and into the horse of a mounted knight.Those examples impressed me to the point I have never forgot, even though at times I am hard pressed to give my current age!
I will continue this line of thought at a later time, but have to go for now.
Well a normal longbow does do 1d8 damage. If you figure in strength adjustments for compound bows a strong warrior could easily do 1d8+1 to 1d8+4 (or better) damage with a longbow. That's enough to down just about any 1st level commoner, warrior, or expert figuring in average hit points and average damage. We don't want to make missile weapons too good.
From what I've heard from speaking with SCA guys, many early crossbows had such heavy draws that they could not be loaded by hand. The user had to do one of two things. First, he could place the crossbow nose down on the ground, at which point he would use his foot to brace the crossbow while pulling the sting with both hands. Secondly he could use a small detachable winch called a "goat's foot" I belive which would give him extra leverage so that he could draw the sting.
Also, it's suposed by some that expert marksmen would take an aprentice along with them to assist in loading the crossbow. The marksman would fire one, while his aprentice would load a second crossbow so that the expert would always have a bow to fire. Don't know if this tactic was used often or not, but it does sound like a good idea.
Lastly, one particularily horrible account tells the of a knight who was shot in battle by a crossbow. Though the man managed to raise the shield before the shot was fired (a testament to his skill) the bolt pierced the sheild traveled through his arm and embedded itself in his torso pinning all three together like a grissly kabob. Don't know if any of this is helpful, but at least it may prove interesting.
BTW, I tottaly agree that crossbows should have damage bonuses dependant on their construction.
crossbows:
If you wanted a more realistic set of crossbow rules, you need to know several things about crossbows. Many have been said on this list.
Anyone can fire any strength of crossbow...it is the method for reloading that makes the difference.
If light crossbow has a 100Lb pull, and can be set by hand and only take 1 round to reload.
However a heavy crossbow has a stronger (300Lb)pull and requires a tool for a man with a 10 strength to reload and thus takes longer. A person with an 18 str. could load it by hand and not need a tool, thus fire it faster because they can reload it faster.
If you had a crossbow with a 1200Lb pull, and had a 10 strength, they would need a crang and claw method to reload...which takes about a minute to reload. A goats foot could be used if a person had a 20 strength. And it could be loaded by hand by a person with a 28 strength.
The tool used for reloading is what sets the speed of fire.
hand=every round
goats foot=every other round
crank and claw=every 10th round
Only thing I can add is to just use a "heavier" type crossbow (as opposed to "+X" per str bonuses) so that one may use the lonely d12.
Poor d12s.
That's... all.... I got.
*tries to look like he added to this discussion*
d12's? That's crazy talk, Carnivore! Just kidding, not a bad idea, actually. Thanks again for the feedback, everyone.