|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Damn you, Legolas ...... *j/k*
Okay, in regards to the Crossbow, Pros in comparison to bows are: greater range, bigger damage dice, cheaper than Bows, simple weapons, 'easier' critical chance than bows.
Greater range, only as regards a typical bow. Longbows fired by trained marksmen could fire further than a crossbow.
I agree Marcus. The thing most people post is also true its not historical after all the real advantage the longbow had was range, in a fantasy game who has ever had to use the range? Historicaly the english army of the time period was great at taking things from other peoples and using them along with there own things. This is what fetched about the fall of plate you have longbows, crossbows and gunpowder these things quickly lead to 'knights' leaving the cumbersome armour behind.
Yes bodkin arrows were designed to pierce plate but then plate was developed to stop them piercing, what did happen was shock. After testing the longbows form the 'maryrose' they calculated that the force transfered to the plate from a longbow was the same force that would drive a 6 foot post into the ground with a sledge hammer. People would die to internal injuries more than piercing wounds. Its also the number of arrows fired if the laws thrown around are accurate then a longbowman was required to loose 12 arrows a minute when your talking thousands of archers as we would field, thats a lot of arrows.
|
|
I agree Marcus. The thing most people post is also true its not historical after all the real advantage the longbow had was range, in a fantasy game who has ever had to use the range? Historicaly the english army of the time period was great at taking things from other peoples and using them along with there own things. This is what fetched about the fall of plate you have longbows, crossbows and gunpowder these things quickly lead to 'knights' leaving the cumbersome armour behind.
Yes bodkin arrows were designed to pierce plate but then plate was developed to stop them piercing, what did happen was shock. After testing the longbows form the 'maryrose' they calculated that the force transfered to the plate from a longbow was the same force that would drive a 6 foot post into the ground with a sledge hammer. People would die to internal injuries more than piercing wounds. Its also the number of arrows fired if the laws thrown around are accurate then a longbowman was required to loose 12 arrows a minute when your talking thousands of archers as we would field, thats a lot of arrows.
You mean like an arms race. Bodkin arrows could certainly pierce plate steel if they stuck straight on. Plate adaptations were mainly to increase deflection chance. Plate thick enough to stop a head on bodkin would have been too heavy to wear. But you are correct that internal injuries resulting even from a glancing hit could be terminal. With thousands of arrows, it's kind of overkill anyway. Either way plate armor would become obsolete.
Yeah thats the point it was the end in the end longbows won out and with us then taking up the crossbow plate had its fate sealed. Just as plate wearing horse riding knights had there day, except france still insisted in using them.
But were sort of going of the topic I could do this all day and post links to many historical sites talking about the same thing that would have you reading for weeks.
After all in this context crossbows do lose out to bows but its hard to do a fantasy ruling to show the subtle benefits, thats why in this matter I would let the guy use a shield. I always try give a little leway with this sort of stuff for crossbows as they do lose out, the only PC's I have ever had that use them are low level casters. Yes you have stuff like repeaters but no-body is willing to give em a chance or the time to get good when you can just take a bow.
Yeah thats the point it was the end in the end longbows won out and with us then taking up the crossbow plate had its fate sealed. Just as plate wearing horse riding knights had there day, except france still insisted in using them.
France and others. Plate armor is in the company of the staff sling in that it too remained militarily useful well after longbows and crossbows were both obsolete.
Also, and I'm sure it's been said, but by RAW, a Crossbow can be fired one-handed, so by those rules a PC with the right proficiency feats could fire a Light (or Repeating), Heavy (or Repeating), Hand or Double crossbow with one hand, taking -2 to their attack rolls for a Light Crossbow, -4 for a Heavy, and you've still got to deal with the Shield taking up that hand slot when you go to reload, which takes 2 hands and a fair chunk of time.
If the PC truly gets hung up on this, the Shield Gauntlet from .... Races of Stone? .... could help with this, as you cannot be disarmed of your shield and your hand is left free, but it takes a toll in the use of a Feat and a massive slug to Armor Check Penalty.
Bah, accidental post... Move along, nothing new to see here...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do these forums always eat my longest posts?!
ANYWAYS. Crossbows.
Here's the thing. Crossbows had a lot of positives that ensured they lasted well until the age of firearms, while longbows died out almost immidiately after Agincourt. They had significantly more powerful kinetic energy then bows. They could be held and aimed while drawn. They could provide both accuracy and distance - though the distance wasn't as great as the longbow, it could do both at the same time, which the bow could not. The bodkin eventually failed to better increases in armor, the crossbow bolt did not. The longbow was limited in technological advancement, the crossbow was steadily updated and improved as time went on. The crossbow combined with the pike effectively ended the entire tactic of charging.
Likewise, the bow had a lot of negatives. Longbow training was very, very specialised - Of all the weapons in Pathfinder, composite longbows would've required the most specialized training. They were not used for accuracy, but for distance - you didn't aim at a knight, you got with the rest of your squad and fired a bazillion arrows into the air. Bowmen were very, very fragile and defenseless - charging into them more or less ended their threat immidiately. You could not aim a bow - holding it drawn for even a more-then-brief amount of time isn't really doable. Firing a bow caused fatigue to settle in very, very quickly - archers would typically fire 6 arrows a minute, compared to the 6 arrows per round that D&D allows.
The problem?
All of that is ignored.
Every single positive crossbow and negative bow thing mentioned there is either ignored or flat out inverted (6 shots in a 6 second round? Yeah, that's going to kill your arm). Crossbows, feared for their ability to puncture through plate that not even bodkin arrows could penetrate, are given a measly 2 damage more on average.
The funny thing is, I don't mind bows being given a lot of cool positives they didn't normally have. Seriously, if someone wants to use a bow, it should be awesome and fun. My thing is, if someone wants to use a crossbow, it should also be awesome and fun. Right now, it's not.
Here are my houserules for crossbows.
1) You can buy Mighty for Crossbows. The cost is 3/4 the cost of Mighty for a bow. If you are using a crossbow that's for a higher Strength than you have, there is no penalty to hit - but for every 2 points of strength the crossbow can use that you cannot use, it adds 1 full round to the reloading time.
2) Base damage changes from 1d8 and 1d10 to 3d4 and 2d8.
3) A light crossbow gives a +3 bonus to confirming criticals made within 30'. A heavy crossbow gives a +6 bonus to confirming criticals made within 30' This bonus stacks with Critical Focus. (Yes, someone with Critical Focus using a heavy crossbow has a +10 on their confirmation check for criticals.) Threat range and multiplier are as they exist in the Core rulebook.
4) When braced, crossbows have a +2 to hit.
Up through 3rd level, a light crossbow is a credible threat - a person pointing a crossbow at you has about a 1 in 10 chance of messing your day up right there. :)
Rogues can't make good use out of crossbows because it's neigh impossible to sneak attack at range.That's why when you're a rogue you use a HAND crossbow. It's small and light and you're relying on your sneak attack to give you the bulk of the damage you're going to use with it. I've had quite a few occasions to use it. that way. The reloading isn't an issue because in most circumstances you're only getting one shot before you're either going as melee or hightailing it out of the scene.
...But how does that solve any of the problems?
Yes, you could attack once with a hand crossbow for 1d4+sneak attack. Once. In the entire fight. Or you could attack three times with your melee weapons as much as you want. Or just use spring attack to stay out of harms way and still do sneak attack as many times as you want.
Saying "use a HAND crossbow" doesn't solve anything, and I honestly have no idea why you'd bring it up. Congrats, at, um, doing a little less damage on your one attack for that combat.
There is one interesting mechanical difference in RAW between bows and crossbows... crossbows can be fired while prone.
• This doesn't seem like a big deal until you look at the benefits to being prone at range. From a purely mechanical point you get a +4 to your AC against return fire. That's better then most shields.
• A less clear cut point is that it makes hiding much easier. A brush that only comes up to a characters knees down offer much concealment... until the character lays down in it.
• Laying down at the top of a hill or outcropping *could* provide additional cover bonuses to AC with less of the character exposed.
By mechanics it is an okay ambush weapon. Provided the user has good stealth and perception skills (or some means of seeing out to better ranges). Remember it's a +1 to the DC for every 10 feet between you and the thing you're trying to spot, 200 feet (3 range increments for light, 2 for heavy) and you've offset the sniper option for hiding. Considering you only get one attack while using that option, sniping with a heavy crossbow isn't that bad.
=====
An odd question, what would a Large Heavy Crossbow be considered? Could a Medium creature use one at a -2 penalty?
Or would it be at a -6 as normal use requires two hands, and extrapolating would basically only be used in "one hand" by a medium creature (half the effort required). Under two-weapon fighting it could be counted as a one-handed weapon, and thus bump up to a two-handed weapon if it was Large.
Here, I solve your crossbow problems, and a little something extra for slings.
But back on topic. Wouldn't a Large Heavy Crossbow, essentially just be the equivalent of a medium sized Arbalist?
Crossbows - All Crossbows have their damage steps reduced by one.
1d10 -> 1d8 -> 1d6 -> 1d4 -> 1d3.
To make up for this the following crossbows have an inherent +1 to damage in addition to their damage dice; Hand, Light, and Heavy.
Repeating and Hand crossbows count as Simple Weapons.
In addition you may upgrade crossbows to add increased damage, this upgrade functions like that of the Mighty upgrade for Bows except that it's only 75 gp per upgrade instead of 100 gp. This gives a minimum strength modifier requirement in order to reload a Mighty Crossbow properly for each +1 Mighty modifier it has.
However, you are still capable of reloading a Mighty Crossbow that you do not have the proper Strength score for. Reloading a Mighty Crossbow in this way increases the loading time by one step for each +1 modifier that you lack. You may only load a Mighty Crossbow up to +2 higher than your Strength Modifier.
Example: A +3 Mighty Crossbow, Heavy, would require a minimum Strength of 16 in order to properly load. However, you could still load such a crossbow if you had a Strength score of at least 12, though it would take 3 Full Round to do so.
Free Action -> Swift Action -> Move Action -> Standard Action -> Full Round.
2 Full Rounds -> etc...
Slings - The sling now has a +2 bonus to Sleight of Hand checks made for concealing it on your person. In addition the critical modifier for a sling is now x3, and x4 for a Halfling Sling Staff.
IMHO Longbows and Composite Longbows should require the exotic weapon proficiency feat. Peasants had to train longn hours with the longbow to become proficient and the government tried to ban other pastimes (football/soccer in US) because it felt that any distraction from practicing the longbow was a national security risk.
This would also give elves some extra impact as a player race. They would get longbow training for free. Very similiar to how dwarves and gnomes get weapon traiing as martial weapons with their racial weapons.
I think making longbow an exotic weapon is fair, elves can keep them.. they are like D&D's/pathfinder's.. brits.
To be fair, Agincourt ended a lot of things... the mounted knight, plate armor, and brought the ascendency of the pikeman and I think the canon and musket as well.Why do these forums always eat my longest posts?!
ANYWAYS. Crossbows.
Here's the thing. Crossbows had a lot of positives that ensured they lasted well until the age of firearms, while longbows died out almost immidiately after Agincourt.
well cavalry lasted at least into WWI...
|
They're not that particularly common either. As two handed weapons go they're fairly expensive compared to say an axe. Swords in general tend to be on the pricey side.
That's an understatement. Most weapons we see fictionalized popularly were rarely seen in the hands of foot soldiers and even cavalry. A good sword and set of armor back then cost about as much as a new car would today.
Those were shooting cavalry as opposed to lance and sword knights.. a "slight" difference. :)
well cavalry lasted at least into WWI...
just saying, I'm sure there were some "Knights" on horseback in WWI but cavalry just lost it's heavy armor when it became "useless" in a certain perspective the knights were there just in a different form. There were still officers riding around with sabers, so in short WE'RE BOTH RIGHT YAY!!! :P
IMHO Longbows and Composite Longbows should require the exotic weapon proficiency feat. Peasants had to train longn hours with the longbow to become proficient and the government tried to ban other pastimes (football/soccer in US) because it felt that any distraction from practicing the longbow was a national security risk.
This would also give elves some extra impact as a player race. They would get longbow training for free. Very similiar to how dwarves and gnomes get weapon traiing as martial weapons with their racial weapons.
Actually, historically it wasn't the peasants who were required to practice with the longbow, if we mean by that the traditional British longbow. It was the yeoman freemen class who were required to practice with it.
I'm not sure whether the longbow should be classed as an exotic weapon, unless you are using a non-traditional medieval; say eastern or oriental campaign. The longbow was common in the Middle Ages in Britain and would not have been thought of as exotic.
What classifies an exotic weapon? Bastard swords weren't uncommon, but they're "exotic." Compound longbows took years of specialized training - that seems to hint at it being exotic. On the other hand, repeating crossbows are literally the easiest weapon in all of D&D to use, and they're exotic.
The problem is that exotic weapons are ill defined and an overall terrible idea.
I learned in 4-H. I think I was 10.
just as an aside, the super genius armiger has a number of options in it that allow you to very effectively wield crossbows with sheilds including the heavy variety.
|
One other benefit of the crossbow is that it's much faster on the first shot, as you can hold it ready all day long. This is a big deal in real-world hunting (where crossbows are often illegal or restricted), and it also lets you fire without the motion required to draw a conventional bow.
Not sure how you'd reflect this in-game (with a 6-second abstracted combat round), but maybe allow a readied crossbow to be fired as an immediate action? Not many times where you'd use it, but it would provide a neat tactical option for good guys and bad guys alike.
One other benefit of the crossbow is that it's much faster on the first shot, as you can hold it ready all day long. This is a big deal in real-world hunting (where crossbows are often illegal or restricted), and it also lets you fire without the motion required to draw a conventional bow.
Not sure how you'd reflect this in-game (with a 6-second abstracted combat round), but maybe allow a readied crossbow to be fired as an immediate action? Not many times where you'd use it, but it would provide a neat tactical option for good guys and bad guys alike.
That also brings in the other advantage of the crossbow...space needed to fire it is far less than a bow. Cant fire even a short bow usually in a crawlspace that is 2 feet wide. You can fire a crossbow in that space. And with a cocking lever you can even reload in it.
Ufortunatrely space need to wield weapons is not factored in either. So no mechanical represntation of that will be forth comming. There are days I miss apsects like that..."You are in a 4 foot wide and 6 foot high corridor...good luck using that great sword. The guy with two knives is about to slice you like a christmas ham."
-Weylin
One other benefit of the crossbow is that it's much faster on the first shot, as you can hold it ready all day long. This is a big deal in real-world hunting (where crossbows are often illegal or restricted), and it also lets you fire without the motion required to draw a conventional bow.
Not sure how you'd reflect this in-game (with a 6-second abstracted combat round), but maybe allow a readied crossbow to be fired as an immediate action? Not many times where you'd use it, but it would provide a neat tactical option for good guys and bad guys alike.
That also brings in the other advantage of the crossbow...space needed to fire it is far less than a bow. Cant fire even a short bow usually in a crawlspace that is 2 feet wide. You can fire a crossbow in that space. And with a cocking lever you can even reload in it.
Ufortunatrely space need to wield weapons is not factored in either. So no mechanical represntation of that will be forth comming. There are days I miss apsects like that..."You are in a 4 foot wide and 6 foot high corridor...good luck using that great sword. The guy with two knives is about to slice you like a christmas ham."
-Weylin
By that same token though, the guy with the 2 knives would be a christmas ham everywhere else when facing mr greatsword. There are so many potential details with hand to hand combat, trying to represent them all would make for a nightmarish mishmash of rules and counter rules that would make combat take days of actual time.
By that same token though, the guy with the 2 knives would be a christmas ham everywhere else when facing mr greatsword. There are so many potential details with hand to hand combat, trying to represent them all would make for a nightmarish mishmash of rules and counter rules that would make combat take days of actual time.
Fully agree....barring adding in-fighting rules to the game. Which I dont see happening anytime soon. Darkurthe Legends was one of the few games I recall having rules for that sort of thing and did it well.
That is why a great deal of the debate about crossbows is purely hypotehetical to me. The system cant handle it really. I think the problem is weapon design trying to be both general and specific at the same time. We have schitzophrenic sub-system from that. I personally wish it was as clean as the armor sub-system.
-Weylin