Given that this is a contentious topic, I should be upfront about my reasons for posting the thread:
I think crossbows look badass, and dwarves with crossbows look even cooler. There's a good reason Mr. Reynolds threw that spanner into the iconic works, and a generation of miniature modelers have not hesitated to back his play.
So here's my solution. Hang on tight, this gets complicated.
Make the repeating crossbow a martial weapon.
... okay, that seemed longer in my head. Take a long lunch.
Seriously, I think this squares the circle. The repeating crossbow was made an exotic weapon in order (I assume) to keep them less desirable than the longbow and thus more rare (there's only so much steampunk a fantasy setting can take). But there are already two very good reasons to choose a longbow over a repeater that don't screw up character generation like that feat does:
1) Weight. A repeating crossbow weighs 4 lbs. more than an equivalent crossbow, which is impressive, considering longbows weigh less than 4 lbs. altogether. Characters attempting to sidestep STR penalties will learn the error of their ways without paying a feat penalty.
2) Cost. Good gracious. A heavy repeating crossbow is four times the cost of a composite longbow. Which means, if you think about it, that you could buy a +3 STR bow for the same money and wipe out the damage difference with a stroke.
And now, three reasons I want repeaters as martial weapons:
1) The Rapid Reload feat is stupid. Seriously, it's just ridiculous. "Historically, the crossbow was a slow weapon, but take this feat and you can fire it five times a round!" So it's a feat that applies only to two weapons on the entire list and exists only to keep PCs interested in those weapons after level 10? Give me some of that!
2) A repeating crossbow is not an exotic weapon. "Exotic" in Pathfinderspeak means "More likely to kill the wielder than the enemy". There's no way a repeater takes the same level of training a double weapon or spiked chain requires. Hard to maintain? That I buy, but that still should be within the powers of a well trained (martially trained, hint, hint) soldier.
3) These things should exist. They should be seen holstered on the saddles of rich nobles, waved significantly by the Captain of the city guard, and gripped in the shaking hands of grizzled tunnelfighters inching their way towards ambush. Or, yes, in the hands of PCs. As it is, by the time a crossbow enthusiast finally manages to save the money for a repeater they find they can't bear to pay the feat cost as well. (Yes, I'm probably projecting there.)
That's my arguement. I take full responsibility for any flamewars that break out, but I swear I did it only for the dream.
A dream of a dwarf running, laughing, over a shining green field...
...firing constantly at the panicked goblins before him...
...empting that repeater. Bringing that Dakka.
*SOB*
I'm all for this. I never knew why they made it Exotic in the first place.
I don't like repeating crossbows.
But I think I could control their use by making them expensive and hard to get. That way your level 10 dwarf with the crossbow can acquire a repeating crossbow, but most other characters would use their resources to acquire other stuff.
Do they actually have repeating crossbows in history?
Do they actually have repeating crossbows in history?
Apparently they did.
Weight and cost are only factors at the lowest of low levels, what you should be arguing are the two important reasons people will still choose a bow over a crossbow, damage and actions.
Damage: A heavy repeater does more base damage than a longbow, this is true, but anyone who uses a bow in a serious manner is going to have a strength bonus to give it that extra oomph, for anyone with a 14 Str or above it will be more beneficial to use a composite bow over a heavy repeating crossbow. This alone will cause a composite longbow weilder to choose his baby over a xbow, not even not needing to hear my second point which is...
Actions: Mr bodybuilding, strength bow weilding guy above can shoot arrows with reckless abandon a lot of the time without stopping, except here or there to admire his big muscles and pretty face. Whereas xbow guy over there with his +6 BAB is stopping to use a full round action to reload after every 3rd round, and what special prize does he get when he reaches +11 BAB...thats right, the need to stop and reload after every 2nd round, gee thanks.
I do agree with you that crossbows need more love though and I do like the idea to make the repeaters martial, hell make the hand crossbow simple while your at it.
|
Personally I'd rather just see a +1/2 equivalent enchant that makes any crossbow autoreloading with basic cheap-o bolts created/summoned by magic. These bolts "desummon" after firing (no worries about infinite bolts).
You'd still want a few special bolts (maybe) for particular enemies, but can usually get away without.
|
Both hand and repeating crossbows would probably be well suited to be martial, if you are basing the simple/martial/exotic proficiency differences primarily on balance.
I'm obviously not a fan of the 'exotic just means rare, and has no mechanical relevance' official argument, so I'd be all for bumping them down to Martial, which makes them still 'rarer' or 'harder to master' than the standard crossbows, as Simple weapons.
It's kind of jarring how much more effective crossbows are in GURPS, compared to bows, and how it's kind of the reversed in D&D.
|
I would say my biggest complaint stems from the fact that a mechanical device designed to make shooting the crossbow faster = automatically EXOTIC in the game. A crossbow is a simple weapon, and pretty much EVERY class can use most simple weapons...but put an automatic repeating mechanism on it and apparently you have to dedicate 1 of your 10-12 feats on learning how to use this thing. Hell, Keep it simple, and make it have an INT requirement to use, or a DEX requirement. Or both. Or something, but having to dedicate an entire feat to learning just ONE weapon is kind of lame, IMHO.
I guess, since repeating crossbows were not widely used except for in east asia, something must be wrong with it, but it is something that can be corrected.
Most likely, I would guess it is the difficulty in manufacturing these things. So, keeping things logical, they could be martial, but expensive, not that a 10th level character (or even a 5th level character) would balk at the expense. The other problem would be getting a repeating crossbow in the first place if nobody in the area knows how to make one.
On the other hand, I don't feel like house ruling it. Perhaps the version in the Pathfinder equipment list requires special handling in the rapid reload feature. You need to know which lever to pull in which order to get the bolts to reload properly. Otherwise you could break it and then it would need to be fixed.
Perhaps a more advanced area could make a more reliable, martial, version.
This is the house-rule that I use.
Crossbows - The Repeating Crossbow is considered to be a Martial Weapon, and the Hand Crossbow a Simple Weapon.
In addition you may upgrade non-repeating crossbows to add increased damage, this upgrade functions similarly to that of the Composite upgrade for Bows. The maximum Upgrade number is +4, this gives them a minimum strength requirement in order to load or increases the loading time by one step for each +1 bonus (to a maximum of 2 full rounds) for those who do not meet the strength requirement.
Example: A +2 Composite Heavy Crossbow would require a minimum strength of 14 in order to load properly, but for those with a 13 or lower strength it would require two full rounds of loading time.
Or you could try this solution:
Then again, one could go really far out in a world with all kinds of magic and monsters. Maybe your heavy crossbow has little pixies that live in the stock. After you fire it they come out and c-o-c-k it and reload it for you (their action, not yours, so you can fire once per round). Teach them Rapid Reload and fire lots of times per round. Heck, those little Tinkerbells might even get under the stock and flap their wings to lift it, ever so much, just enough that it doesn't feel so heavy. Now you can use iterative attacks and Rapid Shot with a heavy crossbow with just one hand without even the usual -2 penalty to hit!
So, who needs repeating crossbows when you could have trained crossbow pixies?
Make repeating crossbows a martial or simple weapon, make longbows an exotic weapon, and it now costs a feat to fire more then one arrow per turn.
We gotta keep things realistic, after all ;)
I once gave a player an ammo-less crossbow (ala the bow from D&D the 80's cartoon), and it wasn't game unbalancing in the slightest (no sarcasm even).
I'm okay with leaving hand crossbows exotic, but entirely agree with moving repeating to martial.
On the subject of hand crossbows, the initial gut reaction is "Oooh, a one-handed crossbow? No way, too powerful, gotta restrict it by making it exotic."
But then you dig deeper and realize that it really is a two-handed weapon, because while you can fire it one-handed, you cannot load it one-handed. And it still takes a move action to load it. So, one feat to use the weapon, one feat to Rapid Reload, and it does crap damage and you still need to hands to wield it.
Hardly worth the trouble.
I guess, since repeating crossbows were not widely used except for in east asia, something must be wrong with it, but it is something that can be corrected.
The thing that was wrong with it was they were more expensive. Zhuge Liang was the creator of the repeating crossbow, and he was the only one to know how to make it (aside from his craftsmen). The Chinese were more interested in trading silk and whatnot than trading the world's first automatic weapon. The things were also usually mounted, but that's the least of our worries. The issue my familiarity with bows tells me about is that the limbs would be under a lot of stress and they wouldn't be as good as the other Chinese crossbows/bows, some of which you could classify as personal ballista.
I have some homebrew crossbow rules around here somewhere. The first step was to do what the OP did. The second was to allow them to be made mighty like a bow (Since reloading a higher pull crossbow would require higher strength). I would also suggest reducing all reload times by one step. I had an enhancement that would let the crossbow reload itself 3/day as a free action as well.
I guess, since repeating crossbows were not widely used except for in east asia, something must be wrong with it, but it is something that can be corrected.The thing that was wrong with it was they were more expensive. Zhuge Liang was the creator of the repeating crossbow, and he was the only one to know how to make it (aside from his craftsmen). The Chinese were more interested in trading silk and whatnot than trading the world's first automatic weapon. The things were also usually mounted, but that's the least of our worries. The issue my familiarity with bows tells me about is that the limbs would be under a lot of stress and they wouldn't be as good as the other Chinese crossbows/bows, some of which you could classify as personal ballista.
I have some homebrew crossbow rules around here somewhere. The first step was to do what the OP did. The second was to allow them to be made mighty like a bow (Since reloading a higher pull crossbow would require higher strength). I would also suggest reducing all reload times by one step. I had an enhancement that would let the crossbow reload itself 3/day as a free action as well.
It's important to note that archers in Europe didn't fire this machinegun like rain of arrows we seem to think they did. The average was six arrows a minute. The standard round in D&D is six seconds. Once you fire more then one arrow a round, you've crushed realism and thrown it aside.
Using a bow, especially a longbow, and MOST especially those composite or Mighty longbows we love so much, is incredibly strenuous, and would lead to insane amounts of fatigue even with normal volley fire, much less the bizarro constant stream of arrows D&D characters let loose.
|
|
So, who needs repeating crossbows when you could have trained crossbow pixies?
That link reminds me of an item that I had to ditch from RPG Superstar because it was a weapon instead of a wondrous item.
Abadar has the light crossbow as his favored weapon, and is a god of earth, protection, city walls, etc. so I was thinking that his clergy would have designed a crossbow that is built into a shield. One looks through the slit in the shield while holding it up, and firing the crossbow built into it at targets on the other side, allowing the follower of Abadar to benefit from the shields protection while firing his crossbow. It would be a bulky contraption, but well suited for firing from a stationary position (in city defense) or while moving down narrow corridors (again, something relevant to Abadar's city-based clergy).
I also think repeating crossbows should be a martial weapon but with lower damage. The very mechanics that allow them to fire repeatedly means that the tension the cord is under is less than that of a standard crossbow. Less tension equals less power equals less potential damage.
On the UK show Scrapheap Challenge (Junkyard Wars in the US) there was a demonstration of a repeating crossbow (reproduction of a Chinese one, not the dodgy ones the contestants made!), in which the firer basically pulled back the firing mechanism very quickly as a new bolt dropped out of the magazine. Very rapid fire but inaccurate (it was virtually fired from the waist due to the ergonomics of rapidly firing the weapon) and not very powerful. If used en masse against poorly armoured enemy it would be effective but in DnD terms not that flash.
I think there is - just to complicate the issue - one too few crossbows in DnD/Pathfinder.
Currently there are (leaving aside repeaters) hand crossbows, light crossbows and heavy crossbows.
Hand crossbow are the fantasy equivalent of a pistol (or were they invented to make Drow look cooler?) - can be fired one-handed, quickly loaded, short range, low damage (but good for poison delivery a la the Drow) etc
Light crossbows are what I see as the traditional hunting crossbow (there are lots of historical references to these). A crossbow that is light enough to tension with two hands (one hand hold the stock, one pull the cord back), even on horseback (probably what killed King William Rufus). In DnD terms this could be fired once per round maximum.
Heavy crossbows are the ones that would need a small windlass/winch to tension. Very slow but very powerful. I've seen a video of such a crossbowmen having a 1 minute fire-off against a longbowman. The crossbowman fired twice (once every 5 rounds in DnD talk). The bowman got off 10 shots (once per round). Conceivably if accuracy wasn't as important (ie shooting along with 5000 fellows at several thousand mounted French knights!) you could double that rate. But for the crossbowman it is physically impossible. One shot per five rounds is not very practical in DnD.
Which brings me to where I think there is a gap in the DnD crossbow armoury - the medium (for want of a better term) crossbow. This crossbow is the type that can be tensioned by putting one foot through a stirrup at the end of the crossbow and then heaving the string up with two hands. Its rate of fire is realistically around once per two rounds. The power in the cord would be roughly equivalent to that of a longbowmen at full draw).
At the excellent museum on the site of the Battle of Agincourt there is a exhibit that demonstrates how much strength is needed to draw a longbow. It is a 100 or 150 pound (45-60kg) (been a while since I was there and can't remember the exact details) sack on a pulley. To emulate an archer you had to pull the rope down one-handed. I could barely get it half way - and then to think an archer would do that up to 20 times a minute over an extended period time!
So to wrap up my long-winded historical/DnD discourse, I think the damage should be:
Handcrossbow 1d3 1 shot/rd
Light Crossbow 1d6 1 shot/rd
Medium Crossbow 1d8 1 shot per 2 rds
Heavy Crossbow 2d6 (or more - slow but very damaging) 1 shot per 5 rds
Repeating Crossbow 1d4 3 shots per rd, very short range increment and 4-5 rds to reload 10 bolts
Shortbow 1d6 2 shots per rd
Longbow 1d8 (or 1d10). 2 shots per rd
Sling bullet 1d6 1 shot per round (for comparison and because the sling has been seriously sold short in RPGs)
All the rates of fire are maximums that cannot be sped up except by magic. Rapid Reload is a stupid feat. If you are trained in the weapon you can reload it efficiently and as fast as physically possible. If you can't load it that fast then you aren't trained in the weapon (ie spend a feat on the weapon proficiency to get to that proficiency). Or you could argue that marital types treat it as a martial weapon, non-martial types either have to spend a feat to get proficiency or get Rapid Reload to load it as fast and efficiently as a martial type. Either way it would be a feat to get to the same proficiency as a trained fighter (who gets full proficiency for free).
Another thing to remember regarding proficiency is that, when they find and examine the bodies of english longbow archers, their bodies are deformed from their bow usage.
Composite bows were as specialized as it gets ;p
Handcrossbow 1d3 1 shot/rd
Light Crossbow 1d6 1 shot/rd
Medium Crossbow 1d8 1 shot per 2 rds
Heavy Crossbow 2d6 (or more - slow but very damaging) 1 shot per 5 rds
Repeating Crossbow 1d4 3 shots per rd, very short range increment and 4-5 rds to reload 10 boltsShortbow 1d6 2 shots per rd
Longbow 1d8 (or 1d10). 2 shots per rd
You realize this list, with some minor differences, basically just quotes 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, right down to fixed attacks per round. But then again, Gygax was always more about realism, what with his weapon type vs armor type charts...yikes.
Alright, such things solve the repeating crossbow problem.
What I did for my houserules was move them both down to simple weapons, but made repeaters one damage step less.
1d10 -> 1d8 -> 1d6
However... what do we do about crossbows in general??? Bows are still better are they not? I am tempted to go with the realistic stuff, but that'd be too heavy a change I think.
So question.
Here are some solutions that I found, which is best, which is balanced, can we improve??
Hand crossbow = ignore one point of a target's armor or natural armor
Light crossbow = ignore two points of a target's armor or natural armor
Heavy Crossbow = ignore four points of a target's armor or natural armor
OR
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.
Hand crossbow are the fantasy equivalent of a pistol (or were they invented to make Drow look cooler?) - can be fired one-handed, quickly loaded, short range, low damage (but good for poison delivery a la the Drow) etc
If I'm recalling correctly (and it's possible I'm not) hand crossbows were invented because someone wanted to do a wild west-like setting in Greyhawk. With guys wandering around, cocked hand crossbows holstered at their hips.
At least, that's the first time I remember seeing them.
Honestly, I don't mind realism in the game.
I do mind when we keep every "realism" flaw for crossbows and ignore all their real world benefits, then ignore every "realism" flaw that bows had and give them as many fantasy trope benefits as possible.
If you want things to be realistic, then compound bows are exotic, firing more then one arrow a round is severely tiring, and crossbows get automatic strength damage depending on the crossbow in question.
Except then all you have is a case where all ranged weapons are just not that great.
Honestly, I don't mind realism in the game.
I do mind when we keep every "realism" flaw for crossbows and ignore all their real world benefits, then ignore every "realism" flaw that bows had and give them as many fantasy trope benefits as possible.
If you want things to be realistic, then compound bows are exotic, firing more then one arrow a round is severely tiring, and crossbows get automatic strength damage depending on the crossbow in question.
Except then all you have is a case where all ranged weapons are just not that great.
Hey, my wizard is still excellent artillery if we gimp those bows to hell and back!
You realize this list, with some minor differences, basically just quotes 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, right down to fixed attacks per round. But then again, Gygax was always more about realism, what with his weapon type vs armor type charts...yikes.Handcrossbow 1d3 1 shot/rd
Light Crossbow 1d6 1 shot/rd
Medium Crossbow 1d8 1 shot per 2 rds
Heavy Crossbow 2d6 (or more - slow but very damaging) 1 shot per 5 rds
Repeating Crossbow 1d4 3 shots per rd, very short range increment and 4-5 rds to reload 10 boltsShortbow 1d6 2 shots per rd
Longbow 1d8 (or 1d10). 2 shots per rd
I guess that just shows how old I am getting!
Simulationist realism stuffThat's all well and good from a realistic point of view, but the fact of the matter is that in D&D a weapon that takes actions to reload is a weapon that is never going to see much use.
If you want to make the crossbows work compared to bows, you'll need to make them comperable in terms of power.
Why do we need to make crossbows comparable to bows? Do we make swords comparable to polearms or any other combination of weapons? If a crossbow takes longer to load than a long bow then it should be so in game.
Given the ability for magic in game to do pretty much anything we want (bonuses to hit, various bonus damage types, speed etc), there is no need to fudge the basic stats of weapons to balance them. To adjust the game mechanics of crossbows to make them equal to bows is pointless. If you want a faster firing crossbow use a repeating crossbow (with its disadvantages in terms of damage, price, availability etc) or use some form of magic (ie add the "speed" enhancement).
A crossbow that does similar damage to a long bow is, barring magic, going to take longer to load than a long bow. The plus side is it doesn't take as much training to effectively use the crossbow - hence it is a simple weapon. To use a long bow effectively takes years of training and considerable physical prowess - hence it is a marital weapon. Each has its advantages and disadvantages - and that variation is part of what gives DnD/Pathfinder its appeal.
Why do we need to make crossbows comparable to bows? Do we make swords comparable to polearms or any other combination of weapons? If a crossbow takes longer to load than a long bow then it should be so in game.
If a crossbow more easily pierces through armor, it should be...er...
If a crossbow can vastly more easily be aimed and is significantly better at sharpshooting, it...well...
If repeating crossbows were hilariously simplistic and required the user only to know how to pull back a lever, then this, might I say, simple level of training should be sho...see...
If bows take hyper-specialized training, it should be reflec...uh...
If bows could rarely be used for pinpoint targeting due to volley usage, then their ability to hit single targets shouldn't be...wait...
If firing more then two arrows a minute was unheard of it...um...
If using a bow for long periods of time cause incredible amounts of fatigue and arm stress, it should be in the game!
Wait, it's not. None of those are.
A crossbow that does similar damage to a long bow is, barring magic, going to take longer to load than a long bow. The plus side is it doesn't take as much training to effectively use the crossbow - hence it is a simple weapon. To use a long bow effectively takes years of training and considerable physical prowess - hence it is a marital weapon. Each has its advantages and disadvantages - and that variation is part of what gives DnD/Pathfinder its appeal.
Name an advantage of a crossbow that doesn't involve a level 1 wizard who ran out of spells. Name one.
If a crossbow more easily pierces through armor, it should be...er...
It depended on the pull of the crossbow vs. bow. A longbow definitely penetrated more armour than a typical crossbow. An arbalest (a crossbow with a windlass) typically hit harder than most longbows. Longbows typically pulled 100-120 pounds, but draws of 150-200 pounds were not unknown, so in real life it would vary.
If a crossbow can vastly more easily be aimed and is significantly better at sharpshooting, it...well...
Easier to train with. Not easier for two individuals, one trained with either weapon, to actually use. There is a difference between training time involved in gaining proficiency and ease of use once proficiency is gained. I assure you a trained longbowman would have been insulted, and justly so, if you suggested a crossbowman was more accurate than him.
If repeating crossbows were hilariously simplistic and required the user only to know how to pull back a lever, then this, might I say, simple level of training should be sho...see...
Not as simple as suggested. Screw up and they jam (not sure about this, something I read years ago). The magazine on top tended to interfere with aim -- not a big deal when firing volleys at mass targets. The damn things take a while to load (a round or two -- you could argue it) once you've shot your load. A good, but low powered, missile weapon. Chinese troops tended to be poorly armored by western standards so it didn't matter as much. Not as simple to learn as your basic crossbow.
If bows take hyper-specialized training, it should be reflec...uh...
A longbow did. Shortbows were easier / simpler to use and didn't require the constant practice the longbow did. I wouldn't say no to longbows being "exotic".
If bows could rarely be used for pinpoint targeting due to volley usage, then their ability to hit single targets shouldn't be...wait...
God knows where you got this. Individual archers got off more rounds, more accurately, at individual targets (double the volley arrow rate for a good longbowman). The point of a volley is mass fire at large targets for maximum effect against a formation. An archer in a volley is trying to match his pull / angle to his fellows, to get the arrow to the same point at the same time on command.
If firing more then two arrows a minute was unheard of it...um...
It's not. It just takes a damn good archer. Two per round is something any well trained archer could manage. If they wanted really rapid fire they stuck the arrows (bodkin tipped) in a line in front of them in the ground. Three to four in a round would be "doable" but you had to be damn good.
If using a bow for long periods of time cause incredible amounts of fatigue and arm stress, it should be in the game!
A lot of things in D&D cause incredible fatigue and arm stress. Try whacking away on the pells with a sword for a minute or two. Then talk to me about stress. The game doesn't include fatigue at that level. In battle there were often pauses in volley fire, typically to bring up more arrows. Archers rarely carried more than 20 at a time in any event.
Wait, it's not. None of those are.
Good thing too :)
Name an advantage of a crossbow that doesn't involve a level 1 wizard who ran out of spells.
You can carry the damn thing around cocked and ready. That's pretty strait forward. A bow has to be drawn, arrow fitted and then losed. Bows were often carried unstrung to maintain the tension of the string / bow when strung. I don't believe crossbow strings were as "delicate" in those terms, probably because they were shorter / thicker than bowstrings.
*edited* To add a couple of points to the above.
Hi guys!
I was also thinking about repeating crossbows and cbs in general, lately, when I realized that my Shadow Assassin was proficient with them and they work with the "Exotic Weapon Path".
That's what I came up with (purely game mechanics not historical:
PROBLEM:
To fire a cb several times a round without reloading time you need Rapid Reload.
To fire a rcb several times a round without reloading time you need Exotic Weapon Prof AND Rapid Reload (if this works with rcbs which is unclear).
So rcbs are the same as cbs BUT need 2 feats to use properly and are more expensive.
So far rcbs are only interesting for low level chars with 1 attack per round, hoping that the battle is over when the cartridge is empt"y.
MY SOLUTION:
I divised a magic item "Cartridge of Storing" which holds 200 or so bolts of different types and always loads the type you want. Basically it's like an Efficient Quiver or a Handy Haversack, so pricing should be around 2000GP.
FURTHER THOUGHTS ON RCBS:
Since CBs can be fired one-handed this might be an option for rcbs to shine: An rcb with a "Cartridge of Storing" can be fired one-handed, but you still need the other hand to draw the bow back, so it can't be truly used one-handed. The solution might be a +1 weapon enchantment "qick-loading" (or whatever)that draws the bow back magically, making the rcb truly one-handed. This opens new character ideas like "Crossbow Slingers" who use 2 rcbs and the two-weapon fighting feat tree.
So basically price regulates power, since 2 rcbs with "cartridges of Storing" and "Quick-loading" are pretty expensive and you need the feats to use them effectively, so you probably start with a cb, upgrade to an rcb, upgrade that one and finally buy a second one as you advance on level and acquire feats...
My thoughts on this... what do you think?
I also agree that the cbs need some love feat-wise.
It depended on the pull of the crossbow vs. bow. A longbow definitely penetrated more armour than a typical crossbow. An arbalest (a crossbow with a windlass) typically hit harder than most longbows. Longbows typically pulled 100-120 pounds, but draws of 150-200 pounds were not unknown, so in real life it would vary.
Compound bows in D&D allow strength to damage. Crossbows allow no auto-points to damage. Doesn't exist.
Easier to train with. Not easier for two individuals, one trained with either weapon, to actually use. There is a difference between training time involved in gaining proficiency and ease of use once proficiency is gained. I assure you a trained longbowman would have been insulted, and justly so, if you suggested a crossbowman was more accurate than him.
Nope. Bows could not readily be aimed or held because they're bows - you have to hold it nocked and out, and doing so for more then a few seconds was extremely tiring. Beyond that, bowmen didn't train for accuracy, they trained for distance.
Not as simple as suggested. Screw up and they jam (not sure about this, something I read years ago). The magazine on top tended to interfere with aim -- not a big deal when firing volleys at mass targets. The damn things take a while to load (a round or two -- you could argue it) once you've shot your load. A good, but low powered, missile weapon. Chinese troops tended to be poorly armored by western standards so it didn't matter as much. Not as simple to learn as your basic crossbow.
Yes, as simple as suggested. Nothing you said there had any impact on the fact that repeating crossbows should be a simple weapon - martial at worst - and have no excuse to be in the exotic territory.
A longbow did. Shortbows were easier / simpler to use and didn't require the constant practice the longbow did. I wouldn't say no to longbows being "exotic".
Longbow training - especially the compound longbows we love in D&D - was indeed highly specialized training. Knights didn't learn how to use longbows. and in fact skeletal records of longbowmen shoe them at having disfigured arms from use of the bow. That's an exotic weapon, right there.
God knows where you got this. Individual archers got off more rounds, more accurately, at individual targets (double the volley arrow rate for a good longbowman). The point of a volley is mass fire at large targets for maximum effect against a formation. An archer in a volley is trying to match his pull / angle to his fellows, to get the arrow to the same point at the same time on command.
Again, training. Archers didn't train for accuracy, they trained for draw and distance. They trained for the volley. A pinpoint archer is a waste of time and space in a large scale army. Longbow training wouldn't be to hit a target, it would be to hit a distance.
It's not. It just takes a damn good archer. Two per round is something any well trained archer could manage. If they wanted really rapid fire they stuck the arrows (bodkin tipped) in a line in front of them in the ground. Three to four in a round would be "doable" but you had to be damn good.
No, it's not. It's not about how fast you can actually draw and shoot. Firing a bow is not like pulling back a small rubber band. It is incredibly tiring. Firing more then two arrows a minute would leave you physically fatigued and stressed to the point where you would destroy your arm.
A lot of things in D&D cause incredible fatigue and arm stress. Try whacking away on the pells with a sword for a minute or two. Then talk to me about stress. The game doesn't include fatigue at that level. In battle there were often pauses in volley fire, typically to bring up more arrows. Archers rarely carried more than 20 at a time in any event.
So we're agreeing that fights in D&D preclude realism? I thought your whole argument was based on bows being realistic? What happened to that?
You can carry the damn thing around cocked and ready. That's pretty strait forward. A bow has to be drawn, arrow fitted and then losed. Bows were often carried unstrung to maintain the tension of the string / bow when strung. I don't believe crossbow strings were as "delicate" in those terms, probably because they were shorter / thicker than bowstrings.
You didn't answer my question.
Give me an in game example of where a crossbow is better then a bow.
Biggest problem with bows vs. crossbows since early on in DnD is that apparently the original writers liked bows and disliked crosbows - bows can be mighty and can shoot as many arrows as the archer has attacks, on contrary to crossbows.
The biggest advantage of a crossbow always has been disregarded - the mechanical parts like winches and/or levers are there for a reason - with them you can invest time in order to achieve a greater pull than you could with your bare strength when pulling a bow.
To my knowledge there never have been any DnD rules considering this.
So imho, yes, crossbows - usually utilizing composite techniques - should be able to be mighty, and winches/levers could be customized to a combatant who actually is to weak for the pull - he'd need to invest a partial action (standard or move action) per missing point of strength. There should be a limit to that difference though, but I'm still indecisive how much.
"I waste it with my crossbow"!
Yeah, I wanna make a Knuckles homage character someday. :-D
Hmmm, now I need to make a Bow joke. Ah, I recall the Mad Magazine spoof of Lord of the Rings where Aragorn remarked "Legolas! That's amazing! You just fired 25 arrows in 6 seconds"! .. to which Legolas replied "yeah, sorry... I would have fired more but my bowstring broke in between the 15th and 16th arrows... I had to stop and repair it"!
*L* Good stuff.
Compound bows in D&D allow strength to damage. Crossbows allow no auto-points to damage. Doesn't exist.
The strength "bonus" is built into the crossbow. It's a mechanical weapon. You build one with a greater pull, it does more damage. Longbows (or any other bows) that pull a higher draw could do more damage as well, if you wanted to represent it in game. Up to the DM I'd say.
Nope. Bows could not readily be aimed or held because they're bows - you have to hold it nocked and out, and doing so for more then a few seconds was extremely tiring. Beyond that, bowmen didn't train for accuracy, they trained for distance.
No. They trained to pull the bow, sure. They also trained for accuracy and aim. It only takes a few seconds for a practiced archer to aim and release. Longbowmen didn't suddenly take up the bow when they joined the royal military of England. They were life long archers. Practice was consistent. Archery contests were held, and guess what the point was? Accuracy. To be well trained with a bow is to be able to hold the draw as needed, not instantly release. You say they were "deformed"? Why do you think they were? They trained to use the bow, not plink arrows. Part of military longbow use was volley fire. They trained at that, but they already knew how to use it. The Welsh, who invented the lonbow, used it as a hunting weapon. So did the English. You need to aim to do that.
Yes, as simple as suggested. Nothing you said there had any impact on the fact that repeating crossbows should be a simple weapon - martial at worst - and have no excuse to be in the exotic territory.
Not as simple as the basic crossbow. Dealing with the magazine, reload adds a bit to it. I'd be fine with "martial" myself. The only excuse that I see for the repeating crossbow is cultural, but that's debatable.
Again, training. Archers didn't train for accuracy, they trained for draw and distance. They trained for the volley. A pinpoint archer is a waste of time and space in a large scale army. Longbow training wouldn't be to hit a target, it would be to hit a distance.
Read the above on when / how they learned the bow. By the way, you had to demonstrate your skill, including accuracy, to make it in. They didn't take everybody. They accepted Welsh archers too, not because they loved the Welsh, but because they were good archers. Longbowmen were paid well for their skill as a result, not of "on the job training" but a long term acquisition of skill. It wasn't just the weapon that made "English" longbowmen the best. It was a culture among Yeoman (and the Welsh) that made the longbow central in their lives. Hell, they banned sports that interfered in archery practice. Which was required.
No, it's not. It's not about how fast you can actually draw and shoot. Firing a bow is not like pulling back a small rubber band. It is incredibly tiring. Firing more then two arrows a minute would leave you physically fatigued and stressed to the point where you would destroy your arm.
Speed is only part of it. And yeah, it's tiring. I haven't pulled a bow since rotator cuff surgery, but I used to. I'm not talking modern bows, btw. Part of finding the right weight of bow is being able to hold it. I assume you meant two a round, not minute? One of my points was there were only so many arrows available to the archer and there were pauses while more were brought up.
So we're agreeing that fights in D&D preclude realism? I thought your whole argument was based on bows being realistic? What happened to that?
No. Just my opinion that the existing rules reflect more realism, limited as that is than other ideas. I didn't think you agreed there :) The push towards "realsitic" combat in D&D pretty much ended with 2E... what was the book? Options: Combat Tactics... not sure about the title (and I'm not running out to my garage to unbox my 2E stuff right now) but it was a good book as I recall. In any event, to each their own. The RAW is what it is, anything else is rule 0.
As for an "ingame" example of crossbow advantage, I'd say carrying the crossbow around, ready to fire, is an example. It may not be "RAW" (in a bit on modfying rules, that's funny) but I would (and do) take it into account.
Compound bows in D&D allow strength to damage. Crossbows allow no auto-points to damage. Doesn't exist.
Not to be a nitpick (OK, yes, to be exactly that) but composite bows need an investment of 100 gp per +1 to STR. Using a higher strength bow puts you at a penalty of -4 I believe. So technically neither allow automatic points to damage, since the bow is also MUCH more expensive (+400 gp for +1 to damage!).
One thing I'd like to add is that Bowmen don't have to be military. They can hunt for game, which requires a lot of pinpoint accuracy (Although not from the ranges in D&D). Hell there was a Native American around the early 20th century who hunted using a self bow, which is a single piece of wood made into a bow, he had made himself. And he was damn good.
Compound bows in D&D allow strength to damage. Crossbows allow no auto-points to damage. Doesn't exist.Not to be a nitpick (OK, yes, to be exactly that) but composite bows need an investment of 100 gp per +1 to STR. Using a higher strength bow puts you at a penalty of -4 I believe. So technically neither allow automatic points to damage, since the bow is also MUCH more expensive (+400 gp for +1 to damage!).
Point me in the direction of the composite crossbow that you can buy that does more damage. That goes for you too, Chance. Show me where I can buy a crossbow that takes the mechanical strength into account.
One thing I'd like to add is that Bowmen don't have to be military. They can hunt for game, which requires a lot of pinpoint accuracy (Although not from the ranges in D&D). Hell there was a Native American around the early 20th century who hunted using a self bow, which is a single piece of wood made into a bow, he had made himself. And he was damn good.
In this and all the examples given above, the bows used weren't the composite longbows of D&D.
Yes, shortbows are, relatively speaking, easy to understand, train for, use, and make.
Longbows are not.
Composite bows are very much not.
Oh, and Chance, still waiting for that in game advantage crossbows give. Having one already loaded is meaningless if you can - in game terms - nock an arrow as a free action, and hold it there for hours on end to aim as you please.
Rapid reload shouldn't be a feat. Light crossbows should always be reloaded as a free action and heavy crossbows as a move action.
Crossbow Sniper from 3.5 (add half your dexterity modifier to damage while using a crossbow) should be an available feat.
There, crossbows are a viable alternative to bows.
|
|
As for an "ingame" example of crossbow advantage, I'd say carrying the crossbow around, ready to fire, is an example. It may not be "RAW" (in a bit on modfying rules, that's funny) but I would (and do) take it into account.
Is that the big issue, then?
That most games don't take that into account?
Most players expect to have a bow held taut and readied, 24/7, and be able to spin on the spot to shoot someone creeping up on their blind side.
Not to mention, tumbling through an opponent's legs while holding it, never having to stow it while climbing or crawling through tight spaces, never having to string it, etc., etc.
The X-Bow has no advantage over the Bow in D&D because the bow is a hero weapon (and, guess what, all chars are heroes) while the X-Bow is a peasant weapon.
To be realistic you could say that in order to use a Bow in war 14 STR would be the minimum.
|
Composite longbow is pretty much the best weapon in the game, ranged or melee.
Repeating crossbows only work as a solution for a few levels. With the 5 shot limit if you are hasted with 2 attacks per round you can only get 1 full attack plus 2 shots in the next round before reloading. Unless you get the repeating crossbow for free and use the heavy repeater you are better off with a light crossbow and rapid reload.
Honestly, I don't want bows to be "nerfed" or whatever. I don't want a purely "THIS MUST BE REALISTIC" game, because it's never going to be fully realistic, and making things unfun in an attempt to shoehorn "realism" doesn't end well. It's a fantasy roleplaying game. Allow for the fantastic.
But if we're going to allows bows to be fantasy weapons, then we need to let other ranged weapons do the same.
+1
"Pew...pew..pew"