I'd say this change, or something similiar, could be done for all simple weapons.
Uhm...
The crossbow became so popular for one reason.
It was easy enough to make, and the training to use one was significantly less than that of a bow.
In fact, you could put the crossbow into the hands of a commoner, give him an hour or two with it, and he's pretty much got the damned thing down pat.
Trust me, the Crossbow is a simple weapon.
In fact, I'm not certain, but I have been told something about some sort of Asian battle where they gave a whole bunch of normal commoners / citizens repeating crossbows, and then they beat a trained army as opposed to untrained commoners.
Anyway, Crossbow = Simple Weapon.
It replaced the Bow in real life for a reason, seriously.
Well, okay there are other factors too.
Check out this link
http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html
But yeah, you get the point.
It's a simple weapon.
Load, Aim, Fire like a gun.
As opposed to, Pull, Hold, Aim, Fire like a bow.
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
No, I've not fired any guns, or done any archery with anything.
But I've played games, read things, been told by people, and use common sense.
Plus a little googling always helps.
lol
All I know is, Xbow = Simple.
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.
Thread Steal & Response
I want to roleplay tooo
But... the current system doesn't hold with my story >.>
So I needed to make a fair, balanced Druid alternative that people would want to play, that would allow my own character to have his story... not to mention still be awesome.
Does that count as half and half??
Just a question, wasn't it stated in that link I posted that lighter xbows were less effective than a bow?
I can't recall with accuracy, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.
Is a Heavy XBow better than a bow? If so, then I can understand.
Light Crossbow
35 gp 1d6 1d8 19–20/×2 80 ft. 4 lbs. P
Heavy Crossbow
50 gp 1d8 1d10 19–20/×2 120 ft. 8 lbs. P
==================================================
Longbow
75 gp 1d6 1d8 ×3 100 ft. 3 lbs. P
Shortbow
30 gp 1d4 1d6 ×3 60 ft. 2 lbs. P
=============================================
Uhm... From what I can see.... the crossbows are far better than the longbows..
So not really sure what ya mean.
Seems to me the only real bonus that they have over the Xbow is the composite feature, and the fact of move/free action load/firing.
The quicker reload is the major advantage bows have over crossbows. It's quite a significant difference.
I think that I have a better option then for you instead of giving the +1's
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
Something like that.
It solves your problems. Saves the feat point.
Keeps the game mechanics intact, and doesn't call for further alterations of "simple weapons" or anything like that.
Aside from that, once again, you could help me with my feat point system which then Rapid Reload wouldn't cost a whole feat, lol.
At least, probably not.
I REALLY do need to track down Sean.
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.
//
But I do have a problem with a trained archer using a crossbow being strictly less effective than a trained archer using a longbow.
This is the same case as a club versus a greataxe. An untrained commoner is more effective with a club than a greataxe. A trained warrior is more effective with a greataxe than a club.
If someone wanted to make a club-wielding fighter, I'd probably grant him some boon for it (probably making it count as a warhammer in his hands), but there's a good reason that the club is worse in trained hands than a greataxe is. The reason beig that that's just the way it is in real life. The same thing goes with crossbows - they were, strictly speaking, far worse than a bow in the hands of someone skilled with them. This was for the same reason as in PFRPG: Crossbows were slow.A crossbow had no huge benefit except easiness to use and a slightly higher amount of kinetic energy beside the longbow, while it had the large drawback of being far slower.
I have a suggestion on how to make it's advantage more unique: Since a loaded crossbow is very easy to fire and you only need one hand, you could make a loaded crossbow count as a melee weapon in respect to threats? It'd have a 5 ft. threat range, and also, fireing it in melee against an adjacent opponent would not trigger AoO.
Something to keep in mind with the crossbow vs. longbow issue is that crossbows *aren't* strictly worse than longbows. Consider a battleaxe vs. a longsword: they deal the same damage, and while battleaxes deal more damage on a crit, the longsword crits twice as often. In the long run, the longsword nets more damage from this fact.
Obviously taking a feat to match fire rate is an inconvenience, but there are so many feats flying around in pathfinder anyhow, it's not a huge trouble to just suck it up and take the feat. As a player, I'd honestly be a lot more concerned about the loss of composite bonus damage.
If you're happy with your houseruling, more power to you, but in the end, all weapons simply aren't created equal. Players are just going to have to decide how far they're invested in their character concepts.
Something to keep in mind with the crossbow vs. longbow issue is that crossbows *aren't* strictly worse than longbows.
Well, they are, for anyone with martial weapon proficiency. Dualwielding is completely worthless for more than a single round (since reload speed is doubled too) and there's no other benefit.
They aren't Longswords vs Battleaxes. They're Longswords vs Clubs.
Something to keep in mind with the crossbow vs. longbow issue is that crossbows *aren't* strictly worse than longbows.Well, they are, for anyone with martial weapon proficiency. Dualwielding is completely worthless for more than a single round (since reload speed is doubled too) and there's no other benefit.
They aren't Longswords vs Battleaxes. They're Longswords vs Clubs.
Except they *are* longswords vs. battleaxes as far as damage and crits go.
Both do 1d8 damage; light crossbow crit is 19-20/x2 while longbow is x3. They net the same damage (between rolls of 19 and 20, both total 4d8 damage) but any effect that likes critical hits likes crossbows better.Composite bows overshadow that value for the most part, but a ranged fighter invested in the critical tree could make a good argument for using a crossbow over a longbow.
NOBODY is a muchkin for wanting characters that are effective and contribute in combat.
Why is it people are so quick to jump on people and attack them for trying to have characters that matter?
The player didn't have a problem with the situation. The GM did, and wanted a rule that, in his mind, made a x-bow equivalent to a bow. The GM wanted a munchkin-esqe player.
As for "optimizers," you can have your opinion. But I've seen too many "optimizers" who deride others who want to play a non-traditional character (dagger-wielding fighter, or a divination-focused wizard). When an individual starts carping about others' play choices, it's munchkin behavior.
Cheers.
Doug's Workshop:
Why should I be penalized for playing an interesting character?
That's what I've never understood about people who deride 'optimizers.' Some of us look for solutions BECAUSE we don't want to just take the optimal path, we just don't think we should be suffering for wanting cool flavor.
I mean, I'd love to be a ranger with a sling, but I'd be at a serious handicap, which would really cut down on my whole theme of 'dangerous guy with sling stones.' (Since it'd be 'laughably weak guy the enemies can ignore')
I like the idea of having some special bonus to simple weapons in the hands of someone with martial proficiency. There are many weapons that were fantastically useful in the ancient world (spears, javelins, slings, for example) that are at a significant disadvantage in D&D due to the simple/martial thing.
|
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.
The biggest problem I have seen with crossbows though is that they do not reflect the bonuses to hit that they had back in 1st and 2nd ed. Bows fired faster but crossbows punched through armor like it wasn't there.
Crossbows would be fine even as they are with slow firing rates but really they had what would be about an effective +3 on the to hit rolls, which they removed in 3rd ed. (but kept the craptacular firing rate)
Why should I be penalized for playing an interesting character?That's what I've never understood about people who deride 'optimizers.' Some of us look for solutions BECAUSE we don't want to just take the optimal path, we just don't think we should be suffering for wanting cool flavor.
I mean, I'd love to be a ranger with a sling, but I'd be at a serious handicap, which would really cut down on my whole theme of 'dangerous guy with sling stones.' (Since it'd be 'laughably weak guy the enemies can ignore')
I like the idea of having some special bonus to simple weapons in the hands of someone with martial proficiency. There are many weapons that were fantastically useful in the ancient world (spears, javelins, slings, for example) that are at a significant disadvantage in D&D due to the simple/martial thing.
If you want to optimize, you are free to do so. If you wish to ask for help in your optimization, you are free to do so. And in either case, I won't say a thing.
But the GM said, in effect, "The player made a lousy choice so I'm gonna make a new rule." Notice that the OP didn't say the player asked for "help."
Cheers.
Interesting. The way I read it was 'the player made a cool choice that the system penalizes, so I'd like to change the system.'
NOBODY is a muchkin for wanting characters that are effective and contribute in combat.
Why is it people are so quick to jump on people and attack them for trying to have characters that matter?
The player didn't have a problem with the situation. The GM did, and wanted a rule that, in his mind, made a x-bow equivalent to a bow. The GM wanted a munchkin-esqe player.
As for "optimizers," you can have your opinion. But I've seen too many "optimizers" who deride others who want to play a non-traditional character (dagger-wielding fighter, or a divination-focused wizard). When an individual starts carping about others' play choices, it's munchkin behavior.
Cheers.
Are you seriously calling someone who thinks the crossbow is a poor choice a munchkin? Its like saying someone is a munchkin for using a sword in place of a bow when their strength is 18 and their dex if 6. That isnt munchkining that is just plain sense.
And the OP is looking to make it so the player is not penalyzed by making their role play choice. It may not matter to the player, or it may, that we dont know, but just from a DM's standpoint it makes sense to try to address the issue. Because the DM still has to create challenges for that party. And he probably would like the ranger in the party to be as competant as a ranger weilding a bow.
Not to mention, the DM isnt trying to deride the player's choice, he is trying to make it better. He is rewarding the player for trying something different/atypical. It is something I do in my games, and has nothing to do with being a munchkin. Rewarding choices that are for roleplay purposes encourages more of them at your table. And you end up with more interesting characters.
For instance in my game I have a player doing something similar, he wanted to use black powder weapons as a ranger. They exist in my world, but typically they are inferior to bows (mechanically). So i did a little work, and while they still arent as good, they are close, and the player can enjoy his gunslinger without concern for his ability to contribute. And I dont have to worry if encounters are too hard because he has difficulty contributing. Am I an optimizer? Yes, and most of my group is. As a DM there is good reason to try to keep players in line power wise. I want to give every player time to shine. I will work with characters in character creation and during the game to ensure that happens. Part of that can include changing rules that unnecessarily penalyze a specific in game choice.
Is this an 'optimizer's' behavior? Yes. But it is not a munchkin. The two are not the same thing (one is a more extreme version of the other though ofcourse).
Are you seriously calling someone who thinks the crossbow is a poor choice a munchkin? Its like saying someone is a munchkin for using a sword in place of a bow when their strength is 18 and their dex if 6. That isnt munchkining that is just plain sense.
No, I didn't say that. It's pretty obvious what I typed, and nowhere did I say "if you don't choose a crossbow you're a munchkin."
If you want to do the statistical probability studies to determine which is the "best weapon" to take, yeah, that's munchkin.
"My warrior takes a crossbow because his father made it," is a good roleplaying choice. A GM should say "Cool, I'm gonna reward you with plot points, or xp, whatever." A GM should not say "That's nice that you love your father and all, but a crossbow sux, so I'm going to make a new rule."
Ultimately, play how you want. But please comprehend what is written before heading off into strawman territory.
Cheers.
Why shouldn't a GM say 'crossbows are suboptimal, so I'm going to change them to be a little better'?
And since when is the GM improving things for his player 'munchkin'?
In short, ... whaaaa?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I've been pondering a similar house rule with another simple weapon: the venerable spear. It's pretty hard to simulate the Spartan or Zulu warrior, wielding spear and shield, in D&D/PFRPG without using a sucky shortspear instead of a real spear. So I propose, for your consideration, a house rule I call: "bastard spears." It puts spears mechanically on par with longswords or axes for martial characters:
Spears are two-handed weapons when wielded by anyone proficient in simple weapons. They are one-handed weapons when wielded by anyone proficient in martial weapons (but can still be wielded with both hands).
Are you seriously calling someone who thinks the crossbow is a poor choice a munchkin? Its like saying someone is a munchkin for using a sword in place of a bow when their strength is 18 and their dex if 6. That isnt munchkining that is just plain sense.
No, I didn't say that. It's pretty obvious what I typed, and nowhere did I say "if you don't choose a crossbow you're a munchkin."
If you want to do the statistical probability studies to determine which is the "best weapon" to take, yeah, that's munchkin.
"My warrior takes a crossbow because his father made it," is a good roleplaying choice. A GM should say "Cool, I'm gonna reward you with plot points, or xp, whatever." A GM should not say "That's nice that you love your father and all, but a crossbow sux, so I'm going to make a new rule."
Ultimately, play how you want. But please comprehend what is written before heading off into strawman territory.
Cheers.
Your definition of muchkin is very different then mine. It takes no statistical analysis to realize that choosing a crossbow is problematic. It is plain as day. And just because you feel that only story rewards are appropriate rewards to give a player doesnt mean it works for other people. I comprehend what you are saying just fine. I am however requesting you take a quick step off your high horse and speak to the actual topic instead of applying an inappropriate label to someone who see's things differently then you.
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...
Are you interested in accuracy to historical significance or is elegance and fitting within existing rules more important.
In terms of 'real world' comparison, crossbows should be better at hitting targets with armor (or natural armor). Maybe a +2 to hit vs targets. Or just your +1 to hit is pretty effective and makes the crossbows a choice for characters with martial profficiency.
If all you are looking for is to make it a reasonable choice in terms of game mechanics I would probably create a martial version of both heavy and light crossbows in which their weapon damage die is moved up 1 step (d8 for light, d10 for heavy). This at least gives some reason to choose the crossbows, and I think is the simplest fit into the ruleset (no special rules).
Rezdave: Or maybe you can stop being sarcastic and notice that the system is filled with 'does different things but are balanced' elements, like axes vs. swords or whatnot.
A friend did point out crossbows do one thing longbows cannot: be fired from prone.
Now, personally, I can't recall anyone bothering to fire anything from prone, but that's something.
Kyrt, did you fire composite or compound bows?
Wait a second.... *goes to look up heavy crossbows at the PRD* ... Yeah, Heavy Crossbows already deal 1d10 Kolotroni.
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.
Now, the composite damage is a problem (and I seem to remember a massive 'fix crossbows' thread during the beta wherein everybody (James included) agreed there was nothing wrong with 'composite crossbows' aka crossbows that had a strength modifier.
From a realistic perspective, it's because you can always build stronger bow arms from a stronger material, but many people couldn't bend them far enough to fire.
Ergo, houserule in strength rated crossbows, and there you go, it is done.
(Ironically, I've done a fair amount of archery myself, and the composite bows actually tend to have...
Totally blanked on that you are right, heavy crossbows are already d10, so d12 then for them (you will never have multiple shots a round with this even with rapid reload so i am ok with it being a d12).
And also like was asked, was it a composite bow, or a compound bow? Modern compound bows use a pully system to alleviate strain on the shooters arms. I have fired a composite bow, and I cant imagine any bow being more difficult to fire. It was like trying to bend a tree and hold it steady. (a small tree, a sapling but you get the idea).
I too dont have a personal problem with strength rated crossbows, I would probably just extend the action to reload them by 1 step if you dont have the proper strength rating.
Once you have the basic technology infrastructure, crossbows are a lot easier to churn out and have function 'well enough' than a longbow.
Longbows traditionally required special wood. If I remember right, there were stands of trees in England and/or Wales that were highly valued (IE: cut one of these trees and you die horribly) because yew trees were vital for making bows.
Composite bows are even harder to make, requiring laborious process of wood, glue, horn, wood, glue, trying and setting over weeks or months.
So, while at a game mechanical level I'd like things to be balanced but different, a lot of these details actually make sense on a RL level.
(I think D&D emulates RL to a degree that would surprise most people. AC works well. There, I said it)
I still like the 'martial prof, get rapid reload free' idea.