He basically restated my position on it from near the beginning.
lol
Just in a more detailed way.
>.>
Rezdave: Can you use a halberd, and a warhammer with ease?
Heck, can you use a sling with any accuracy?
D&D simplifies a lot of things.
I still say the best thing to do is Sean's feat point system applied to Pathfinder.
I still gotta hunt him down, then again, he's probably busy.
Sooo to my thread to do it ourselves, lol.
Ok how about this for a possible "feat" solution (or even suggestion):
Modify the Deadly aim Feat so that the penalty/damage is -1/+2 for bows, and -1/+3 for Crossbows. (sort of like how 1 handed and 2 handed weapons get different bonuses with the power attack feat)
That will at least help alleviate the strength mechanic and you could also look up Crossbow Mastery which I think was from one of the Pathfinder chronicles - at least it was mentioned on this board before.
That feat helps with reload times as well.
Nice suggestion!
Also, Crossbow Mastery can be found in the free Curse of the Crimson Throne Player's Guide
For what its worth...
I ended-up modifying the crossbow because I too though it too was a bit weak as written. Mind you, this was in strait 3.5 without feats from splat. My logic went as follow:
D&D weapons' damage dice scale with their size. The prods of a light crossbow are smaller than those of a shortbow. Therefore, lt. crossbows deal less damage than a shortbow. Lets say 1d4.
Unlike a bow (which wholly rely on the user's STR), crossbow rely on mechanical devices to multiply your STR while reloading. Since you don't have to hold it drawn, you can use a crossbow with a high draw weight even if you are not strong. Therefore, crossbows have a STR rating of their own regardless of that of its user. In the case of a Lt. crossbow, a STR of 18 for a +4 bonus to damage.
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. Potentially, a composite shortbow can get more damage out of it, but a lt. crossbow should end-up with a higher average, especially if the user is weaker and relatively untrained.
I had a similar feeling about a fighter (or other full BAB class) who wanted to go for a simple weapon as main weapon choice.
The first thing I thought was to offer a trade of Martial Weapon proficiency for a bonus skill point per level. Less weapon trained so more skillful.
And the other option was to offer the dedication of a weapon feat to a group of simple weapons if one is proficient with all martial weapons. Example of groups: Shooters (blowgun, sling, heavy and light crossbow), Spikes (Darts, javelin, longspear, shortspear and spear). Weapon training of the fighter kind of brought the idea.
I know Rapid Reload isn't offered for slings or blowguns but I think it would be unbalanced if allowed.
Okay, I have to weigh in on this one. As a long time DM, I've always thought crossbows have been given the shaft in comparison to Bows. I'm really not sure why this is.
1) Bow have a faster rate of fire. (This is as it should be)
2) Bows are Martial weapons, Crossbows are simple weapons. (again, good)
3) Bows can be made Mighty Composite. (Many examples of this in legend)
4) Crossbows became popular because levies could be training to use one in about a week. (True, Simple weapon)
5) Crossbow could be used by people with less strength than bow users and allowed people to fire them more accurately. This since they could aim without straining against the draw of a bow. (Not covered in game rules)
Note: I am not going to try and figure out what all the 'lowest draw' strengths of most crossbows are. An English Longbow typically produced about 150-180 lbf. However, bolts (historically) are not as heavy as arrows as well. Bolts/quarrels would lose less velocity over time as the projectile moved, resulting in a greater amount of force being delivered at impact.
6) The Arbalest. This is an entirely different beast altogether. I'm not sure why these have never really been in game statistics or not. An arbalest is essentially a heavy crossbow built with a steel prod (or bow) instead of one made of wood. They were cocked via windlass, much like a thick beamed heavy crossbow. An arbalest would reach around 4500-5000 lbf of force. Compare that to a longbow, or even a light crossbow (which were closer to 500 lbf, I think...).
The big issue with an Arbalest though is that is could only be fired by a skilled user about twice per minute or so...or once/5 rounds...for a skilled user! Bear in mind also that the arbalest was considered inhuman and bad form to use in battle much of the time, because a commoner could use one to kill a fully armored knight with one shot. Arbalests were made to answer the heavier form of armor, but were made obsolete by firearms not long thereafter.
All these things aside brought me to this conclusion in the days of late 1st edition.
House Rule At Point-blank range all Crossbows do twice their normal weapon damage. Do not double magical or any other bonuses, just roll base weapon damage twice.
I've been using this rule in games for about 13-14 years. Its never overpowered my games and it has made the slower loading heavy crossbow have a use other than as a doorstop.
Before moving on though, let me say this! This rule was implemented long before feats like Rapid Reload existed. Rapid Reload in and of itself doesn't preclude using this rule, but the Crossbow Mastery feat likely would be a problem. Since it looks like Crossbow Mastery is not PFRPG core rules (though it is in the Campaign Setting), allowing it in with this mechanic would be the GMs call.
-Fears it-
Allow Crossbow Sniper (PH2) and you give crossbows a very nice distinct advantage.
I like the idea of the pull of the crossbow adding a STR damage, but I'd rework the proposed mechanics slightly. Rather than granting a conditional 'free' feat, just change the reloading time of the crossbow itself. If you don't have the STR to match the pull of the crossbow loading is a full-round action, otherwise it's a move action. The Rapid Reload feat reduces this time by one step (full-round to move, move to free).
I like the idea of the pull of the crossbow adding a STR damage, but I'd rework the proposed mechanics slightly. Rather than granting a conditional 'free' feat, just change the reloading time of the crossbow itself. If you don't have the STR to match the pull of the crossbow loading is a full-round action, otherwise it's a move action. The Rapid Reload feat reduces this time by one step (full-round to move, move to free).
If everyone's set on making adjustments to the existing uses of the weapons, this has a lot of elegance to it.
Question: Assuming crossbows become a base d4 + tension (str) damage, how high do you let the tension modifier go? Do you just let increasing costs keep +25 tension crossbows out of the hands of commoners? Whatever arbitrary limit you choose will be the one that every low-str character buys a crossbow for.
With no limit on it, I can imagine a whole lot of the low-BAB classes taking rapid reload, and then buying +1 enchanted crossbows of mighty tension +50. At composite bow prices, that's only ~40k gp for a 1/round d4+51 damage - i.e. approaching martial ranged specialist DPR.
Instead of fiddling around with damage and feats for crossbows, why not look at the reason the longbow fell out of favor?
If use of a bow requires more training, make it require more training. Make bows exotic weapons.
Commoners, being proficient in a single simple weapon, get crossbows, just like before.
Warriors get crossbows because they're not fully trained longbowmen.
If you want a regiment of longbowmen, ya gotta find 1st level NPCs with a character class. This means that regiment will be rare, valuable, and expensive.
From a crossbow/bow perpective, you've now made them equivalent in so far as feat expenditure goes.
And if you want a horde of pony-riding, bow wielding orcs, then you houserule that pony-riding orcs of the Mingol tribe gain exotic weapon proficiency: shortbow as a racial trait.
So all adult male English commoners in the Middle Ages either did not have longbow proficiency or weren't commoners.
I think his point would be that they'd spent their 1st level feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency (since they've been practicing with it a long time, often years).
.
However, I like approaching from both the crossbow side, and realism side.
The "flipping AoO" thread brought up a good point. Ranged attacks provoke because they require "letting your guard down" normally.
Perhaps a minor tweak to make crossbows a little better would be to change how work with regards to Attack of Opportunity.
Basically, firing a crossbow that has a bolt ready (the action of pulling a trigger or releasing a clamp), wouldn't provoke an attack of opportunity.
Loading (winching, slapping on a new cartridge for a repeating crossbow, etc) would be the only part that would cause the AoO.
This means the crossbow has alternative uses compared to the bow. While the standard crossbow is a feat behind in iteratives (or requires an exotic weapon, which is a feat too), it can be used while prone with no detriment, and remove the provoking AoO from the attack (and move it to loading, which can be done ahead of time, etc).
It's still a good option for low strength ranged focused characters.
So all adult male English commoners in the Middle Ages either did not have longbow proficiency or weren't commoners.
RAW says commoners don't get bow proficiency anyways, so I fail to see the issue.
It's still a (very much lapsed) law in this country that all men practise archery on Sunday afternoons in case of invasion. That would tend to cultivate a lot of trained people, given half a chance.
It's still a (very much lapsed) law in this country that all men practise archery on Sunday afternoons in case of invasion. That would tend to cultivate a lot of trained people, given half a chance.
I suppose that would depend on your definition of "trained." I see lots of people who know vaguely which end is the business end, but not enough to overcome a -4 to attack rolls.
And, according to RAW, commoners don't get martial weapons. So once again, I fail to see the issue.
Okies, fine, here it is.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/communityContent/houseRules/pATHFINDERFEATPOINTSYSTEMPROJECT
Still, you got to give them boys credit ... now go practice ...
Well, it's Sunday on this side of the pond, but it's still dark, so I'll have to decline your kind offer :P
Yeah, amusingly, it's exactly as hard to have commoners use longbows as, say, repeating crossbows: martial proficiency (longbow) or exotic weapon proficiency (repeating crossbow).
Artifact of the rules.
To add on Kyrt's idea, you could change the crossbow definition, instead of giving a free feat, by stating that martial weapon proficiency reduces the time by one increment.
If one also wants to go the STR route for time reduction, one can replace the free action by a swift action. Rapid reload would get you the free action.
Sooo..
Allow Crossbows to be (Enhanced) like that of a composite bow.
Crossbow +1 Str.
= Requires a 12 str to reload >.>
That or a 10 str, and an aid another check >.>
I dunno >.>
So regular crossbow damage +1 >.>
-Imagines a +5 crossbow, +5 str enhanced.
+10 Damage... Woot!
Sooo..
Allow Crossbows to be (Enhanced) like that of a composite bow.
Crossbow +1 Str.
= Requires a 12 str to reload >.>
(snip)
That's my preferred option, but it needs to be further detailed.
Reloading a crossbow often imply using some kind of mechanical device that multiply your STR in some way, be it a windlass, cranequin, a simple lever or even only a foothold or a hook that would allow you to reload using two hands or legs (STR bonus x1.5?)
In other words, it isn't clear what type of crossbow require what type or mechanism vs. what STR rating to keep it 'balanced' within the abstraction of other D&D weapons. Since the concept of feat take a central role in the efficiency of a character to use a weapon, feats should/could be implied in all of that as well.
At any case, my opinion is that IF the weapon has to be redesigned, it should have a STR score of its own (implying an inherent STR bonus to damage) and the reloading mechanism should take more or less time depending on which mechanism has to be used to reload it. Potentially, character with higher STR should be able to use simpler machines and operate the crossbow quicker, and some feat such as 'Rapid Reload' could be re-written to have a more general ruling over reloading time of crossbows.
Crossbows should also have a general 'maximum STR' rating in order to avoid the "It took me two days and five horses to reload it, but my heavy crossbow +50 is ready for its first (and most likely only) shot! Have your true strike ready"