|
Also remember that the French did not deploy their archers in a useful fashion in that battle...Thanks for the info on the sling! My medaeval history is a bit stronger than my ancient history, to be honest.
I must respectfully disagree about the generalization about crossbowmen, at least in Agincourt. The French employed Genoese crossbowmen for much of that campaign, and they were definitely elite troops. The longbow just proved superior at the time. I will concede that modern crossbows rock, but in the 1400's, maybe not so much.
Well, considering that the French are the military equivalent of, oh, the New Orleans Saints, it isn't suprising that they made many tactical errors in the 100 Years War. (Would that be irony, that the most futile franchise in a sport that heavily relies on military style metaphors is located in a city with a "French Quarter"?)
Keep in mind, this is a nation that cannot win unless a non-male (Jean D' Arc) or non-frenchman (Napoleon) is leading them.
Just sayin'...
...Actually, the strength of the person cranking the quarrel back has alot to do with it. However, it quickly becomes a matter of mechanics as I believe the typical crossbow is only designed to be cranked back *so* far before the string/wire snaps....
This is where I believe it would end up being like the mightybow, as Krome suggested....
The amount of flex in the limbs (called prods) is the limiting factor. To get more flex requires longer prods, and unless you want a giant crossbow that is a sideways longbow you won't get it.
By using mechanics and different materials Mighty would be easily done.
You need some strength yes, but gears add a lot to making it easier to crank. Modify the materials in the string so it can be stretched more and deliver a stronger launch.
This is all easy things to do. *Note- I am temping in an Engineering College and popped over and grabbed a professor for an idea- he went into a long winded lecture that made my eyes gloss over and I lost five minutes of my life- but in essence he said it would be easy*
Sorry, the Prof was wrong. They weren't engineering dummies back then, ya know.
Renaissance/late medieval "armor piercing" crossbows already had quality steel prods and took 600lb+ to span. They had detachable, geared, winch-and-pulley systems to provide the mechanical multiplier. At your Engineering Prof should tell you, it comes at the expense of time. It took many cranks of the handle to make one circuit of the winch, and many circuits of the winch draw the pulley. Over a minute if you're in good condition, longer if you're tired.
Lesser models could be spanned with a rack-and-pinion-like cranequin. On the stock of the crossbow is a toothed rack. The handle/gear assembly is hooked to the string and placed on the rack. Again, many cranks of the handle moved the cranequin up the rack. About 2 shots per minute.
"Light" crossbows could be spanned using a "goat's foot" lever, or belt hooks (crossbow held in place with a foot-bar, crossbowman squats down, uses hooks to hold the string, and stands up to span). Four shots per minute, but it isn't horribly tiring using the legs with belt hooks.
"Sport" crossbows can be spanned by hand. Well, two hands to pull with the crossbow again held steady with a stirrup-like foot-bar. Practiced users can get 6 shots/minute (maybe one or two extra in the first minute when you're fresh).
The "sport" type could take up to 120lb to span, but since the travel is so short (about 1/4th the draw length of the longbow) they have limited range, penetration, and damage. These are the ones that did only 1d4 in 1e, and should do the same in d20/PF. You can double the span force with a lever or belt-hook, but that still doesn't have the power of a longbow, (only 1d6).
The hefty, slow-cranked ones reach parity or exceed the longbow's performance.
Nice discussion of crossbow loading technique and why it's rate of fire is (and should be) slow. That's why Rapid Reload and Crossbow Mastery drive me nuts. I don't have the imagination to suspend my disbelief. Attempts to "improve" crossbow performance should probably be based on improved to hit modifiers as noted previously.
Someone brought up the repeating crossbow. Please remove this abomination from the game, or make it magical. There are several very good reasons there's not a historical model. The main one being the sheer weight of mechanism needed to store the energy to recock it.
|
Well, considering that the French are the military equivalent of, oh, the New Orleans Saints, it isn't suprising that they made many tactical errors in the 100 Years War. (Would that be irony, that the most futile franchise in a sport that heavily relies on military style metaphors is located in a city with a "French Quarter"?)
Keep in mind, this is a nation that cannot win unless a non-male (Jean D' Arc) or non-frenchman (Napoleon) is leading them.
Just sayin'...
I always find myself being the French apologist, but whenever I hear French-military bashing I wince a little. That and I'm probably French if you go back far enough.
Anyways, I just want to remind you that nearly all modern militaries today are modeled after the French. Even our terminology is French (lieutenant, regiment, and even the word army). Not to mention, the French military record is not nearly as bad as it is made out to be. They WON the 100 years war. Napoleon, while he lost spectacularly in the end, came about as close to conquering Europe as anyone else and had an entire era named after him. French assistance in our own Revolutionary war was pivotal in its success. Every modern tank is based off of a design pioneered by the French (The Renault FT-17) and the Chauchat machine gun, while a sub-par weapon with many faults, is the granddaddy of the modern LMG and assault rifle.
For most of history, the French were a large country surrounded by hostile and incredibly powerful nations (Spain, Germany, England, Italy if you count it). The fact that they were able to maintain their sovereignty for so long (basically since Charlemagne, who was a French badass by the way) is pretty incredible.
Of course, I'm probably just taking this all a little personally, but I just get in a huff about this kind of thing.
Vive la France!
(Don't shoot me!)
|
|
Someone brought up the repeating crossbow. Please remove this abomination from the game, or make it magical. There are several very good reasons there's not a historical model.On this page,
The repeating crossbow saw its last serious action in the China-Japan war of 1894-1895, where photographs show repeating crossbows as common weapons among Manchurian troops.Although, based on that article, repeating crossbows should deal much smaller amounts of damage.
I had an idea for the Chu-ko-nu, where it only deals 1d4 damage and has a range increment of 50 feet. However, for every attack you have, you can make 2 attacks with a Chu-ko-nu. So a Level 6 Fighter would have 4 attacks, +6/+6/+1/+1 1d4.
|
|
I always find myself being the French apologist, but whenever I hear French-military bashing I wince a little. That and I'm probably French if you go back far enough.
Anyways, I just want to remind you that nearly all modern militaries today are modeled after the French. Even our terminology is French (lieutenant, regiment, and even the word army). Not to mention, the French military record is not nearly as bad as it is made out to be. They WON the 100 years war. Napoleon, while he lost spectacularly in the end, came about as close to conquering Europe as anyone else and had an entire era named after him. French assistance in our own Revolutionary war was pivotal in its success. Every modern tank is based off of a design pioneered by the French (The Renault FT-17) and the Chauchat machine gun, while a sub-par weapon with many faults, is the granddaddy of the modern LMG and assault rifle.
For most of history, the French were a large country surrounded by hostile and incredibly powerful nations (Spain, Germany, England, Italy if you count it). The fact that they were able to maintain their sovereignty for so long (basically since Charlemagne, who was a French badass by the way) is pretty incredible.
Of course, I'm probably just taking this all a little personally, but I just get in a huff about this kind of thing.
Vive la France!
(Don't shoot me!)
Sorry, I can't help taking a pot shot or two. My ancestry is Italian, so it isn't like I can brag much. What are the Italians, like, oh-for since the Roman Empire?
Plus, Nice is an Italian city, we want it back!
Actually, in theory couldn't a simple, well made spring-based design store and return the energy from the shot to allow a pump-action assist all that is needed to recock it?
You're missing the point. All the energy that's put into the projectile has to come from the cocking action, and all the wasted energy, too. In order to have a spring return all the energy except a "smooth, strong yank" only the energy of the "smooth, strong yank" (less waste from mechanical loss, etc) is going into the projectile. You've just made a really big, heavy pea-shooter.
No reason why magic couldn't do it, though. :)
|
|
Sorry, I can't help taking a pot shot or two. My ancestry is Italian, so it isn't like I can brag much. What are the Italians, like, oh-for since the Roman Empire?
Plus, Nice is an Italian city, we want it back!
No worries, I just get crotchety. And Italy was OK, Venice was pretty cool. And Italian mercenaries managed to get their fingers in nearly every conflict for a few hundred years.
As for Nice, NEVER!!! IT'S FRANCE NOW, JUST LIKE ALSACE, LORRAINE, CORSICA AND VIETN- oh no we lost that one...
yeah but:
The Odessey.
That's my argument against physics in this case: Good ole fashion mythlore.
(REF: Slings) Well... What about David and Goliath? Either that was a 'Point Blank Sneak Attack' or he hit him straight in the junk! Yea, in the junk, they still had "called shots" back then, LMAO!
Speaking of called shots... what is the purpose of a wooden stake actually having weapon stats? Why would you shoot them from a crossbow at a vampire, his DR is better than the stake can actually deal damage and you can't declare a "called shot"? Since the removal of called shots, the wooden stake is mere utility after the vampire is down,than a weapon. (What? I mentioned the crossbow in there once!)
As for crossbows, I personally think they are more effective than longbows, on the whole. However, longbowmen were more effective than your average crossbowmen. Longbowmen, though they may have been peasants, were professional soldiers with years of practice and training, whereas most crossbowmen were simple levies of poorly trained troops.
I must respectfully disagree about the generalization about crossbowmen, at least in Agincourt. The French employed Genoese crossbowmen for much of that campaign, and they were definitely elite troops. The longbow just proved superior at the time. I will concede that modern crossbows rock, but in the 1400's, maybe not so much.
Also remember that the French did not deploy their archers in a useful fashion in that battle...
It is widely known that the Yeomen were the key to Henry V's victory at Agincourt and his father's less well known victory at Crecy. Most assume it was the withering rain of arrows from their longbows.
The horse is far more vulnerable than the armored knight, and almost all the French knights fought this battle on foot because of the narrow field. The longbows forced them into a column in the midst of the field to avoid more dangerous aimed direct fire from flanking archers.
The first assault of French knights, though thinned by the archers and tired by advancing through knee-deep mud, outnumbered the English knights 3-1 and were poised to break their lines by sheer numbers.
In most Continental armies the archers scattered when engaged, having little armor and less training in combat. Even the well-armored Genoese mercenaries weren't prepared to fight with hand weapons except to save their own skins. The Yeomen were schooled in combat and many wore mail shirts. They carried "swords and axes and mallets," wading in to battle with great energy. Therefore, the English forces of 900 knights and 5000 archers turned into 5900 men-at-arms to face the French knights.
Most scholars don't think that the Yeomen would be effective against armored foot-knights. For example one website says: "The heavily armed [French] men-at-arms would not have been overwhelmed by this onslaught; it is much more likely that the archers in groups of two or three would have singled out those men-at-arms shaken by the initial charge." Another speculates that the archers merely killed or captured those already fallen or completely bogged in mud.
No doubt they would have taken every advantage, but that was not the sole cause of their effectiveness in battle. Armchair sources really don't understand how effective a well-trained man can be against an armored opponent. They also routinely dismiss the 10-12 stone draw of the longbow despite both contemporary records and the wonderfully preserved examples found on the wreck of the Mary Rose.
So many French men at arms were captured from the first two attacks that they outnumbered the English. The third French line started forming to attack, and a number of knights cut through the woods to attack the English flank. The prospect of the captives seizing weapons from the field and turning on their rear prompted Henry to order them slain. The job was given to a mere 200 archers while the rest prepared to fend off a third attack. These few slew about 3000 prisoners in a short period of time.
If the power of their bows were exaggerated and their skill at arms discounted what would have prevented THOUSANDS of unarmed but still armored knights from mobbing the handful of feeble Yeomen? A rabble of peasants lead by three knights overwhelmed Henry's rearguard and looted the baggage, so surely thousands of knights could only be threatened by 200 Yeomen if they were truly fearsome with the bow and in close combat.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I've got nothing to add about historical comparisons of bows, crossbows, or slings.
However, one tiny house rule I use is that rapid reload can apply to slings as well as crossbows. This at least lets a slinger have the same options as the other slow loading weapons, and allows for a full attack with a sling.
Re: Crossbows Fix
As food for thought, the original Warhammer RPG used a system for crossbows very similar to what has been proposed here by several posters.
Crossbows were assigned “mechanical strength scores” or effective strength. Back in the day one of my groups used to import this as a house rule.
Your standard PHB crossbow has a strength of 10. But, if you have the cash or luck to find one, you might get your hands on a crossbow with a strength of 14, for example. It does +2 damage regardless of whether your own strength is higher or lower.
I accept there is a debate as to whether a PC with a strength of 10 could properly load such a crossbow in a reasonable amount of time, but the in-game assumption is that a crank or other mechanic enables this to happen.
I would say a crossbow with a mechanical strength of 18 (+4) or higher would need to be a heavy X-bow as you just need that longer loading time and heavier weight.
This makes high-end crossbows very popular with rogues, sorcerers and perhaps even dex-based fighters. They can usually get off a single decent punch. Anyone who is well-trained (i.e. who can invest feats) or has a decent strength score would still prefers their bow which is probably how it should be.
I suspect that armor punching was the real advantage to the x-bow, but once we risk going down that road we might need to evaluate all the various weaponry as against the different armor types. Anyone remember those old 1E charts?
|
[threadjack]
BTW this is an interesting side to another thread and one which has me wondering. Bows vs slings. From what I have read the sling had a longer range than a bow, could use a ballistic arc to overcome obstacles and could deliver devastatingly damage. So why then did the sling give way to the bow? A sling with a dart could achieve penetration of armor, but it seems they stopped developing ammunition for the sling... So what happened?[/threadjack]This is pure speculation, but here goes:
Perhaps the sling wasn't as well suited to dealing with fighting formations that included heavy shield use. As far as I can tell, regular sling use in organized warfare (at least in Western history) dropped off dramatically after the introduction of the Greek phalanx. Shield walls were tighter, allowing less room for sling stones to find a random opening (I assume) and, as sling bullets and stones weren't well suited to penetrating the contemporary shield, the bow gained promenence since, at the very least, there was a chance of penetrating the shield and hitting the shield arm. As that would be quite painful, I can only assume that this one added benefit over the sling volley may have a lot to do with the sling's demise.
Again, pure speculation. I have nothing to back that up.
Actually a sling bullet can penetrate a sheet of 3/4" thick plywood, leaving a 6" diameter hole. Realistically a sling is a much more devastating weapon than a bow damage-wise. The current world record for distance with a sling bullet is almost the same as the english longbow record, although the english longbow record was achieved using non-combat light-weight arrows and any records using actual combat arrows are much shorter than sling records. Slings also have the advantage of cost. Making clay or lead sling bullets costs much less than creating arrows and the cost of a sling compared to a longbow in medieval times was much low. The rate of fire difference between the 2 was negligible also between people trained in each weapon. The only disadvantage of a sling to a longbow is that you needed to have a good amount more of practice with a sling to achieve the level of accuracy possible with a longbow. Traditionally farmers and peasants had plenty of practice and got quite good with aiming a sling but recruiting, outfitting and fielding a company of good slingers was difficult if you didn't have the time to train them.
Some of the reports of injuries from slings in ancient battles showed that they did nasty, horrible types of damage leaving most people dead from internal torso injuries and headshots. Heavy armor became a detriment to the damage but they still had similar effectiveness to a longbow against them.
Here is a site where I glean most of my info and where I learned to make my own sling several years back and the possible ways of tossing bullets with it. My accuracy is getting better and I personally have driven a plain stone through a 3/4" sheet of plywood at about 60ish feet(I use an overhand vertical swing). I have no doubt that that same shot would have penetrated a chest cavity and lodged itself in vital organs, and even with a light armor I would bet that the concussion of the impact would leave ribs broken and possibly some internal damage. A shot to the head I would rather not think about.
Sling range estimates and related info.
The sling is one of the least understood weapons in D&D and it is sad to see such a wonderful weapon get nerfed edition after edition. It is a very elegant and beautiful weapon in action with a brutal result afterwards.
Sorry, I am a big sling fan in real life and it translates into my D&D. In my games I usually double the range and allow "rapid reload" to work for slings also.
|
Re: Crossbows Fix
As food for thought, the original Warhammer RPG used a system for crossbows very similar to what has been proposed here by several posters.
Crossbows were assigned “mechanical strength scores” or effective strength. Back in the day one of my groups used to import this as a house rule.
Your standard PHB crossbow has a strength of 10. But, if you have the cash or luck to find one, you might get your hands on a crossbow with a strength of 14, for example. It does +2 damage regardless of whether your own strength is higher or lower.
I accept there is a debate as to whether a PC with a strength of 10 could properly load such a crossbow in a reasonable amount of time, but the in-game assumption is that a crank or other mechanic enables this to happen.
I would say a crossbow with a mechanical strength of 18 (+4) or higher would need to be a heavy X-bow as you just need that longer loading time and heavier weight.
This makes high-end crossbows very popular with rogues, sorcerers and perhaps even dex-based fighters. They can usually get off a single decent punch. Anyone who is well-trained (i.e. who can invest feats) or has a decent strength score would still prefers their bow which is probably how it should be.
Hmmm... I think this would be a great "fix", if the crossbow needs one. I think it would be best if only Heavy X-Bows could have higher than +2 or +3 STR bonus. And, it would be mechanically internally consistent. :)
|
Yes; I never understood why x-bows didn't have the option to be Str-adjusted, like bows.
It actually makes more sense for the x-bow than for the bow, since the ratchet and crank allow the user to apply more leverage, and stop for a breather, half-way through winding, while the bow requires the user to pull back the string in one motion, and hold it in place, using only the power of his own muscle.
|
|
Re Agincourt;
So many French men at arms were captured from the first two attacks that they outnumbered the English. The third French line started forming to attack, and a number of knights cut through the woods to attack the English flank. The prospect of the captives seizing weapons from the field and turning on their rear prompted Henry to order them slain. The job was given to a mere 200 archers while the rest prepared to fend off a third attack. These few slew about 3000 prisoners in a short period of time.
If the power of their bows were exaggerated and their skill at arms discounted what would have prevented THOUSANDS of unarmed but still armored knights from mobbing the handful of feeble Yeomen? A rabble of peasants lead by three knights overwhelmed Henry's rearguard and looted the baggage, so surely thousands of knights could only be threatened by 200 Yeomen if they were truly fearsome with the bow and in close combat.
Or if the captives were stripped of their armour, and tied up?
That's the first thing I'd do with a prisoner, and there would have been enough camp-followers with the baggage train to carry it out (someone correct me if I'm wrong..).
Even if I intended to ransom the guy back, as per the custom.
"There's your boy back, thanks for the sack of gold... What's that?... His armour?...No idea, Your Grace, that's how we found him...".
Hmm, not to derail the Crossbow discussion (I agree they need work, but I don't know about a bonus to hit), but this thread is also about slings, and I would like to share what I have done with slings:
Slings remains as is, but are described as basically improvised, just a strip of cloth used to hurl a stone. Real slings, called battle slings or war slings, are slings specifically crafted for battle. They are martial weapons and have the follow stats:
1d8 damage (medium) | x2 critical | Bludgeoning Damage | 100 foot range increment
Load a war sling is a free action as long as you have stones in hand. Retrieving stones (up to 3) is a move action (provokes AoO), and you can hold up to 3 at a time.
It works as a normal sling other wise (two hands to load, one to attack; add strength modifier)
My goal is to put it on-par with a long bow.
Any critiquing would be great :D
That looks amazingly similar to something I saw in races of wild for the halflings. Might be worth a peek, don't know if you knew about that.
I find myself in a position on the sling like I am on the dagger. Those two I don't think need adjusting.
The crossbow however could use a little more humpf. The idea of the crossbow itself having a strength bonus isn't a bad one in my mind, and the idea that the light can't have as high a bonus as the heavy isn't bad either.
That looks amazingly similar to something I saw in races of wild for the halflings. Might be worth a peek, don't know if you knew about that.
Heh, don't own races of wild and never read it. Plagiarism only counts if you know you are doing it...right?
Heh, don't own races of wild and never read it. Plagiarism only counts if you know you are doing it...right?That looks amazingly similar to something I saw in races of wild for the halflings. Might be worth a peek, don't know if you knew about that.
I wouldn't even mention the word right now myself. You didn't know something and I understood there was a large possibility of that so I mention it to let you know.
Somethings just get thought up by multiple people around the same time. Happens regularly in science.
Somethings just get thought up by multiple people around the same time. Happens regularly in science.
I have been working on something extremely similar...
:D
------
And back to crossbows:
Perhaps instead of tweaking how crossbows themselves work with strength, maybe we should think about the cranks. Assuming all crossbows use cranks/levels to draw the cord, maybe the cranks themselves should have strength ratings which could work like a composite bows. You could also have "Strength bonus equivalent" bonuses, like lower reload time but sacrificing the Str bonus to damage.
[At Agincourt]...The job was given to a mere 200 archers while the rest prepared to fend off a third attack. These few slew about 3000 prisoners in a short period of time.
If the power of their bows were exaggerated and their skill at arms discounted what would have prevented THOUSANDS of unarmed but still armored knights from mobbing the handful of feeble Yeomen?
Or if the captives were stripped of their armour, and tied up?
That's the first thing I'd do with a prisoner, and there would have been enough camp-followers with the baggage train to carry it out (someone correct me if I'm wrong..).
After the battle prisoners would be stripped of armor, but at the time of capture they would be stripped only of weapons, shields, gauntlets, and helmets (quickly doffed and tossed aside). The camp followers aren't close enough, if the prisoners were few enough for the camp followers to handle. The sheer number of prisoners made that impossible.
You are trying to corral many prisoners with as few guards as possible. They cooperate knowing that they will likely be ransomed by their lords or families... unless their commanders foolishly provoke their slaughter.
IIt actually makes more sense for the x-bow than for the bow, since the ratchet and crank allow the user to apply more leverage, and stop for a breather, half-way through winding, while the bow requires the user to pull back the string in one motion, and hold it in place, using only the power of his own muscle.
Except the crossbow needs 500-600 lbs just to reach parity with longbow at 140lbs. You trade lengthy (6-8 years) training for mechanical advantage and a few weeks of training (at a cost). You trade on-the-spot execution requiring great strength and skill for stored mechanical energy requiring little.
More powerful crossbows become seige weapons, not hand-held Str-bonus crossbows. They still take ages (many d20/PF 6-second combat rounds) to span. Unless you want magic involved, then you can trade in muscle-derived energy for some other source (at a cost).
This thread is very interesting.
These are the changes suggested by many that I would include in a game I'm running:
-Mighty crossbows at double the price, without need for the actual strength;
-Repeating crossbow as a martial weapon (let's the fighter type have a few attack without the need for a feet), but with a shorter range;
-Mighty repeating crossbows (those clever gnomes!)but at triple the price;
-Warslings as martial weapons, with increased range and damage (though not necessarily on par with the longbow as was suggested);
-Three sling bullets could be held in the hand and used to load a sling as a free action;
-Slings reloadable as a free action with quickdraw.
DW
The first part is correct. The second part is irrelevant. The French crossed the field at Agincourt with minimal casualties. It was the crossing of a muddy, broken field while wearing 50-60 lbs of armor, with the non-penetrating impacts of the arrows, that left them exhausted and overwhelmed in the melee that followed.Fact: The longbow was better at penetrating the heaviest armors of the time. Ask the French cavalry at the time.
No, it was not. The longbow simply could not penetrate the best full body steel armor of the time. Of course not everyone had the best full body steel armor of the time, or maintained it in perfect condition. Likewise the horses of the French cavalry were not fully armored, so they were very easily killed, or at least injured. English longbowmen would carry swords or hammers to deal with the dismounted heavily armed riders.
That's how I recall it as well, and that was also my impression on crossbows: poor range (due to the shorter haft and lack of spin of the quarrel) but high penetration (partially due to the same shorter, heavier bolt).
If a change is to be made about the crossbow, I think it should be in its ability to penetrate armour. I have a house rule were I give maces, picks and other weapons designed against the use of armors (including the crossbow) a +2 circumstantial bonus to hit an armoured humanoid opponents.
Someone brought up the repeating crossbow. Please remove this abomination from the game, or make it magical. There are several very good reasons there's not a historical model.On this page,
The repeating crossbow saw its last serious action in the China-Japan war of 1894-1895, where photographs show repeating crossbows as common weapons among Manchurian troops.Although, based on that article, repeating crossbows should deal much smaller amounts of damage.
Wow. Forgive my Eurocentric world view. Very interesting. Thanks, Eric.
I suspect that armor punching was the real advantage to the x-bow, but once we risk going down that road we might need to evaluate all the various weaponry as against the different armor types. Anyone remember those old 1E charts?
O yes I do. Made choosing your armour and weapon for a duel interesting.
You're missing the point. All the energy that's put into the projectile has to come from the cocking action, and all the wasted energy, too. In order to have a spring return all the energy except a "smooth, strong yank" only the energy of the "smooth, strong yank" (less waste from mechanical loss, etc) is going into the projectile. You've just made a really big, heavy pea-shooter.
No reason why magic couldn't do it, though. :)
And
Except the crossbow needs 500-600 lbs just to reach parity with longbow at 140lbs. You trade lengthy (6-8 years) training for mechanical advantage and a few weeks of training (at a cost). You trade on-the-spot execution requiring great strength and skill for stored mechanical energy requiring little.
More powerful crossbows become seige weapons, not hand-held Str-bonus crossbows. They still take ages (many d20/PF 6-second combat rounds) to span. Unless you want magic...
Very good points, and the heart of my argument against giving too much to the crossbow.
I'll try to look at the repeating crossbow plans found on the site Meepo posted.
|
|
They aren't firing homing arrows with explosive warheads.
Right, those only appear in certain movies. (Rambo, Hot Shots! Part Deux, and Robin Hood: Men in Tights primarily. :-P)
Or with the appropriate magical enhancements.Also, I am not trying to say the longbow is useless, or useless compared to the crossbow, I am just noting that as with all weapons there are a lot of myths about it.
As well, it should be noted that a lot of weapons are great in large masses but relatively lousy for individuals, which is what most D&D combat winds up being. (With a converse that many weapons are great for duels or street brawls but lousy for heavier, small team combat.)
|
|
I just thought I would post this video to demonstrate how medieval armor stood up to longbows. It doesn't show a comparison with crossbows, but it is well known that crossbows routinely shot through armor, but their range was not as great.
...the average soldier equipped with a crossbow could fell a fully armored knight with one shot. Also once loaded the soldier could hold his weapon, ready to discharge, until his target appeared.
The penetration power is somewhat exaggerated. Before plate became the norm for knights their mail was sufficient to stop a normal arrow, but not the longbow or crossbow. Both were feared, but only the crossbow could be used with minimal training.
Good quality plate was made proof of all but the most powerful (and expensive) crossbows, and even then penetration was only likely at close range and nearly perpendicular impact. The limbs were covered with lighter plate that could be penetrated, but again the curved surface tended to deflect even powerful shots. Munitions armor supplied to foot soldiers starting in the 16th century was not as good as the armor a knight would have, and could be penetrated by crossbow or longbow.
Felling a knight (ie, with the good armor) with one shot is only possible with very good aim, and that requires more training than the average crossbowman had. "Felling" generally means hitting at a joint or gap, not necessarily a mortal blow for either longbow or crossbow.
So feared was the crossbow that the papacy of Europe went so far as to outlaw the things as unholy... Once fired that bolt will penetrate iron or steel plate at ranges as great as 30 paces or more.
Again, those proclamations predate plate armor, and penetrating iron or mild steel is not so difficult, and 30 paces is very close range for a military engagement.
Miniature crossbow: 1d6
Light crossbow: d4
Heavy hunting crossbow: 2d6
Military crossbow: 2d8
Heavy Military crossbow: 4d4
Hard to claim that crossbows did more damage than swords and axes. Miniature crossbow does more than a thrust to the hilt with a military dagger? Hunting crossbow more than a thrown spear? Military crossbow more than a two-handed sword? Perhaps you're talking about critical hits, as those damages are double what they should be compared to other weapons. Note that crossbows do get extended critical threat range (19-20).
-Mighty crossbows at double the price, without need for the actual strength;
Cool. I've been thinking about the pricing. As an example:
Introducing "Big Bertha"
Big Bertha is a masterwork heavy x-box with 20 mechanical Strength (+5 damage)
Bertha's an awesome find for a low strength PC who has better options than loading after he pulls her trigger. Big Bertha's cost would be:
Base: 50 gp
Masterwork: +300 gp
+5 Mechanical Strength: +500 (were it a bow) x2 = 1,000
TOTAL COST FOR BIG BERTHA: 1,350 gp
Bertha is in some aspects equal as well as superior to a +1 x-bow, though she cannot handle DR. If we were to make it quadruple, instead of double it would be 2,350 which would be exactly the price of a +1 x-bow and might better reflect her value.
I could see a case for the cost being much more. Really it should scale so that each extra +1 costs more than double the previous +1.
12 Mechanical Strength (+1): +100 gp
14 Mechanical Strength (+2): +400 gp
16 Mechanical Strength (+3): +800 gp
18 mechanical Strength (+4): +1,600 gp
20 mechanical Strength (+5): +3,200 gp
22 Mechanical Strength (+6): +6,400 gp
Under this, Big Bertha would cost 3,550 gp. She would represent a real find and a very rare weapon.
So... 3,550 for a "big bertha" that is + 1 to hit (masterwork) does d10+5 damage and crits on 19-20/x2 for anyone that picks it up...
Of course then you could get it enchanted to say + 1 keen for 8k... putting you up to + 2 to hit d10+6 17-20/x2... again that anyone could use.
Are light "bertha"'s going to have a damage cap at + 3?
That would be 1,135 for + 1 to hit, dealing d8+3 damage in anyone's hands.
I like. I think those prices are fine.
Crossbows could hypothetically coopt trap creation rules from the 3.5 DMG, for missile traps. Although I don't have pricing for missile trap additional strength bonus handy, it seems like the logical subsystem to figure out prices from, since essentially crossbows are hand portable mechanical traps with manual reset mechanisms.
nice idea tree lynx
crossbows could be easily used by anyone. Longbows took years of training (hence in the game why crossbows are simple weapons)
Slings and bows need ARCH to get their ranges. Crossbows typically don't unless you are talking extreme range, in which case the longbow was better at doing that anyway.
In the 3.5 book races of the dragon, there is a spell called ghostly reload.
With the rapid relaod feat, theoretically a spellcaster could two weapon fire light corssbows.
I do think the crossbows should do more damage.
d6 for hand
d10 for light
2d6 for heavy (which still probably would get used because of all the cranking)