We can change the way the crossbow works by adding mechanical features you just cannot add to the longbow, however, and that is it's strength....what?
In the other crossbow thread there are a lot of suggestions for improving crossbows, like scaling up the damage for more powerful spans and windlasses, adding more grooves for the equivelant of multi-shot, adding extra bows etc.
If you want to make crossbows better, play to their strengths and stop moaning that bows are over-rated.You should begin by listing some of the strengths that they have over the regular bow. Vital Strike isn't one of them. Even though the bow "loses" something when employed with the Vital Strike feat tree, it's still going to deal more damage because you can add ability modifiers to their damage. A bow at a disadvantage is still stronger than a crossbow at its strongest.
That's largely circumstantial, which is why I left it out, but certainly a character specialising in a bow will try and make the most out of it. I've also listed some of the crossbow's advantages in previous posts, and suggested some changes. The advantage to crossbows is they require less expertise to use - let the missile specialists take bows and use them. What we want is to evolve a crossbow that a non-expert can use to greater effect and not feel he has to invest in a bow and archery feats just to have a viable option in missile combat situations. In short, to make the crossbow more usable as a second weapon, leaving the bow as the ideal primary weapon for someone specialising in ranged fighting.
Vital Strike is not a feat-tree most archery specialists will take as primary, but a melee specialist will, and it can be used with no loss if you are using a heavy crossbow.
How about this for a feat suggestion:
Fast Shot
You have hair-trigger reactions you can exploit when carrying a spanned and ready crossbow.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with crossbow, Improved Initiative.
Benefit: When carrying a spanned and loaded crossbow, you have a further +4 bonus to initiative in the opening round of combat, and can aim and shoot a shot from your crossbow as a swift action.
The French lost those battles because they believed in the infallibility of the armoured knight, which turned out to be a fallacy.
That's why these battles are not good examples. They were not competitions between longbows and crossbows, they were battles opposing two armies. With a lot of factors intervening, the terrain, the preparation, the tactics, the morals, the discipline, etc... And the fact that the french kingdom won in the end is actually irrelevant to the comparison between longbows and crossbows, as much as who won the two battles famous for being english victories.
the longbowmen out-ranged them anyway.
By the way, do you have a link for that ? I searched a bit and did not find a confirmation.
|
Here, let me fix crossbows really fast.
1) Magical Pixies that recocks the crossbow after each fire for +1 cost, making reloading one step faster. Hand/light goes from move to free, Heavy goes from full to move. Taken with Rapid Reload, light/hand moves to a immediate action(Still provokes AoA's) and Heavy moves it to a free action.
2) Deadly aim gives a 1 for 3 ratio for 2 handed x-bows like power attack does for 2h melee weapons. In this line
3) Make compound version of them. 2 handed versions apply str and a half.
Voila!
Took me 3 minutes.
The French lost those battles because they believed in the infallibility of the armoured knight, which turned out to be a fallacy.That's why these battles are not good examples. They were not competitions between longbows and crossbows, they were battles opposing two armies. With a lot of factors intervening, the terrain, the preparation, the tactics, the morals, the discipline, etc... And the fact that the french kingdom won in the end is actually irrelevant to the comparison between longbows and crossbows, as much as who won the two battles famous for being english victories.
the longbowmen out-ranged them anyway.By the way, do you have a link for that ? I searched a bit and did not find a confirmation.
I was basing this off a trial I saw on medieval weapons on TV which did a fairly in-depth analysis and tested a period longbow against a period crossbow in the field. Digging around I found a similar reference on a discussion board but other references (notably here and here) gave the crossbow almost as much range as the longbow.
What is interesting to note is that the crossbow (presumably heavy) was given a rate of fire of 2 shots per minute by these same sources - clearly the crossbow gets as much a buff if not more in rate of fire as the longbow in D&D/Pathfinder. Although the draw strength of the crossbow was awesome, this didn't actually translate into much more powerful shot - the velocity of the bolt and the arrow was very similar.
Most sources (such as here) agree that the crossbow was replaced by the longbow where the latter was available (sorry Prof).
Here, let me fix crossbows really fast.
1) Magical Pixies that recocks the crossbow after each fire for +1 cost, making reloading one step faster. Hand/light goes from move to free, Heavy goes from full to move. Taken with Rapid Reload, light/hand moves to a immediate action(Still provokes AoA's) and Heavy moves it to a free action.
2) Deadly aim gives a 1 for 3 ratio for 2 handed x-bows like power attack does for 2h melee weapons. In this line
3) Make compound version of them. 2 handed versions apply str and a half.
Voila!
Took me 3 minutes.
Or you could let them add dexterity as precision based damage and it takes even less time to fix them.
Hm... About the range, that's unconclusive at best. The figures for the longboow ranges go from 200 to 400 yards, and around 350 for crossbows (which make little sense considering that there's varied types of crossbows at any time and that they evolved over the middle ages centuries).
And crossbows were not replaced. Even in england when longbow training was mandatory.
The power of the shot depends on the weight of the projectile in addition to the velocity, too.
Hm... About the range, that's unconclusive at best. The figures for the longboow ranges go from 200 to 400 yards, and around 350 for crossbows (which make little sense considering that there's varied types of crossbows at any time and that they evolved over the middle ages centuries).
And crossbows were not replaced. Even in england when longbow training was mandatory.The power of the shot depends on the weight of the projectile in addition to the velocity, too.
Indeed. The stats listed gave the longbow arrow as the heavier projectile, 2.5 ounces to the crossbow's 1.5 ounces. Crossbows were always useful, because not everyone could use longbows, and they were good weapons to arm your soldiers with in a seige where rate of fire was less important. If you had a choice between longbowmen and crossbowmen for your army, you always took the longbowmen.
In both cases the range of shot depends in part on the type of shot - both could employ lighter shot for greater range, after all, and inflict less damage. Nonetheless 400 yards for the longbow and 350 for the crossbow seem to be about right, but I'm not going to quibble about it.
Or you could let them add dexterity as precision based damage and it takes even less time to fix them.
Or this! Cut out step 3 and just let them apply precision based damage!
See we got this covered!
Or better yet, give them bow stats. You don't even got to write anything.
God I love it when the 100 years war comes up.
ENGLAND.
LOST.
Do you know why Agincourt and Crece always pop up? Because those were the only two major english victories with those DREADED LONGBOWS. And it was only in Crece that the Genoese showed up, and guess what? England one that one because they had literally every tactical advantage imaginable. Weather favored them. Terrain favored them. Tactics favored them. Fatigue favored them. Numbers favored them. Every single thing that could go well for the English did, and every single thing that could go wrong for the French did.
And then once the English lost those advantages, they lost the war. They lost it badly. The 100 years war was a gigantic stunning victory for France, not England. Those longbows sure helped out a lot, didn't they. Wait no, they didn't. England lost. Their dreaded longbows of destruction didn't turn the tide of the war, it ended it, and it ended it in the other side's favor.
Stop using these two battles as examples. They are bad examples.
As for your advantages and disadvantages, everyone and their mom gets martial proficiency. Your advantages are, literally:
Crossbows: Wizards can use them when out of spells
Bows: Everyone else uses them and they're better then crossbows in every way.
I think your argument may require some work.
Given this thread is about crossbows v. bows in the D&D setting - and my reference to crossbow and long bow usage in the 100 Years War was to illustrate the mechanical attributes of those weapons - your comments about who won the 100 Years War are irrelevant. It's like saying that because Germany lost WW2, its revolutionary use of combined arms tactics (Blitzkrieg) in the early years was ineffective. Sure the French won the war, but that was due to a wide range of economic, military, diplomatic and social factors, not that the primary ranged weapon of one military was better than the others. That is not what this thread is about. If you want to have a discussion on that issue, by all means start a thread on it, but don't bother trying to attack my position on the weapons in D&D from an irrelevant angle.
Irrespective of how the D&D/Pathfinder rules are written, the simple mechanical fact is that bows are faster to load and fire than a crossbow. Perhaps a simple "light crossbow" could be loaded and fired in a D&D round at best, but even that doesn't match the capacity of a trained archer to fire two arrows a round (for a short period at least). And when you get on to the type of military-style crossbow (ie D&D "heavy" crossbows) you can't avoid the simple mechanical fact that they take up to 30 seconds to wind and load. Perhaps bows also need to have a maximum rate of fire regardless of the BAB of the firer. But even a light crossbow that can be fired one per round is not going to have the same power (range, penetration etc) as a long bow fired by a trained archer with very high strength - especially if the bow is built exactly to their physical structure (ratio of arrow bow length to archer height etc). Hence my earlier comments about rate of fire and damage.
If people want to make house rules about how bows/crossbows work in their games, good - that is what this thread is all about. Some people here have great suggestions, for example about longbows requiring exotic weapon proficiency and only available in certain areas. But I believe those changes should work from a start point of the physical/mechanical attributes of the weapon, not an attempt to balance one weapon against another.
Or better yet, give them bow stats. You don't even got to write anything.
Or you could let them add dexterity as precision based damage and it takes even less time to fix them.
Or this! Cut out step 3 and just let them apply precision based damage!
See we got this covered!
Ya but I don't really see pulling a trigger adding strength to a damage roll. Although I guess you could just have crossbows that add 1+ damage to damage rolls for an increased price (aka composite crossbows).
We can change the way the crossbow works by adding mechanical features you just cannot add to the longbow, however, and that is it's strength....what?
o_o
-- 2x 3x 4x 5x bolt shooting crossbow
-- scope/telescopic sight
-- springloaded bayonet
-- extra tension system: twice as long to reload, twice the damage
-- automatic reloading A.K.A Repeating Crossbow
-- shuriken launching system (because it's cool)
-- single shot, underslung-mounted tanglefoot bag launcher
etc etc etc
It's a mechanical device, a simple system that can be modded/upgraded etc.
For example, the chinese developed their crossbow *from* the bow - creating a mechanism to hold the bow at full drawn, releasable at the squeeze of a trigger.
Given this thread is about crossbows v. bows in the D&D setting - and my reference to crossbow and long bow usage in the 100 Years War was to illustrate the mechanical attributes of those weapons - your comments about who won the 100 Years War are irrelevant. It's like saying that because Germany lost WW2, its revolutionary use of combined arms tactics (Blitzkrieg) in the early years was ineffective.
No, you're essentially claiming "Look, Blitzkrieg is the best form of warfare known to mankind, because look at these battles in France!"
Wait, it's not even that, because longbows didn't win Crecy. Everything in the world did. The tactics used, the fortifications, the weather, the fatigue, the terrain, the commanders involved, the numbers, etc, etc, etc. Everything in Crecy favored the English. And Agincourt? The only thing the French had there was numbers. It wasn't longbows that won Agincourt, it was terrain.
Know what happened when those massively favorable notices ran out for England? Their longbows didn't do jack crap for them. Well ok, because you couldn't wear heavy armor while using it (don't see anyone claiming for that rule to be added, mind you), and because it so very severely limited their mobility (hey another rule nobody wants to implement) they did do one thing - they died. A lot. And because of the heavy training needed - another rule not in the game - they weren't replacable.
So no, to use your own analogy, you're claiming that Germany had their early defeats against France because German ammunition was so incredibly powerful that it's pointless to even bother comparing or bringing up anything else.
Also, I don't think there's anything in the world I hate more then these stupid, stupid, stupid and buggy forums and how many posts they devour.
Anyone cares to show a consolidated list of the different suggestions aiming to beef up the Xbow for, if nothing else, spice up the games of people who see only longbow wearing people in chain shirts or breastplates and are damn tired of it, without breaking balance and still keeping some slight sense of realism and style when it comes to implementation?
Also, I don't think there's anything in the world I hate more then these stupid, stupid, stupid and buggy forums and how many posts they devour.
For once, you said something I agree with!
There are other examples of how bows beat crossbows in encounters, such as the Turkish janissaries against the Byzantine crossbowmen. In each case, it comes down to rate of fire - damage and penetration were not part of the equation, for two reasons: One, the crossbow may have had far greater draw strength, but it transferred it to the missile far less efficiently so the bolts were never that much more powerful than the arrows; two, neither the crossbowmen nor the archers wore heavy armour anyway.
If you put archers up against crossbowmen, and both are in range with equal cover, the archers win because they can put more missiles on target by a long way. If you have to train raw recruits as missile troops in a short period of time you give them crossbows because they are easier to use by a long way.
Historically, the absolute maximum rate of fire for a very skilled bowman was twenty arrows a minute; for a heavy crossbowman it was two. D&D breaks this for both, for bows it can go up to forty, for heavy crossbows up to ten, and the crossbows are definitely getting the better increase out of the deal.
If people want to make house rules about how bows/crossbows work in their games, good - that is what this thread is all about. Some people here have great suggestions, for example about longbows requiring exotic weapon proficiency and only available in certain areas. But I believe those changes should work from a start point of the physical/mechanical attributes of the weapon, not an attempt to balance one weapon against another.
I agree, and there is a lot that can be done to make crossbows better weapons for adventurers to use.
So absolutely no one digs my bow nerf with a fort save? It might be a bad idea, but I'd like to get at least one opinion on it...
I kind of like it (obviously) because it lets super-tough high-level heroes of legend fire a ton of arrows in a short span of time, but it keeps the low level bowman in his place.
Any attempt to make the crossbow mechanically relevant in Pathfinder involves making it faster. The options in the core already do that, but it is really laughably unrealistic. Plus, I think it is fast enough for what it is, it's that the longbow is too fast.
The only other solution I can see to to scale back the incredible power of the bow (just a bit) and let all ranged weapons be slightly inferior to melee for damage output. This result is appealing to me as a GM, also.
Next up, we'll put the longsword in its place.
ALL contemporary military scholars of the day agreed that the Longbow's advantages were many
Hm... There's the much shorter reload times compared to crossbows, and the greater power and accurate (and total) range compared to regular bows... That's not so much.
To go back to the houserules, I still think that adding a strength stat to crossbows is a good compromise between the simulation of the real-world characteristics and the necessary simplicity of the game rules, to adjust their power and utility.
Repeating crossbows should be simple weapons usable as a move action, but I'm not sure that longbows would have to be exotic weapons. There's already a big feat tax for using them effectively.
Then for the sake of further simulation, one could change the bows so that all add a part of the wielder's strength to damage, add other types of crossbows with longer reload times, and disallow rapid reload. Then write up the appropriate strength of each type to balance it all.
Crossbows would fit other styles than the typical archer's. The treantmonk's switch-hitter build comes to mind, but any character that wishes to dump strength and do damage anyway could use those.
Or one could just allow the crossbow mastery feat, and say it's an abstraction anyway, which would be correct.
So absolutely no one digs my bow nerf with a fort save?
Taking account of fatigue for one weapon only is not a good solution for me. Regular fatigue rules, if introduced, should be consistent for every similar effort.
Also, the movement rules deal with fatigue in a different way, with non-lethal damage. I think that two different systems to simulate similar effects with similar causes would be one too much.There's the problem of the undead, too, which would be favored by that rule, being immune to such effects.
If realism is a factor, that would mean that the english longbowmen of the 100-years war would be equivalent to middle-to-high level fighters. I guess that could be acceptable or not depending on the setting.
But you know what? You're really not going to. Because wars are not fought that way, battles are not decided on a single advantage, and ALL contemporary military scholars of the day agreed that the Longbow's advantages were many, but widespread implementation was impractical. And guess what? They were correct! As armies moved away from highly specilized and trained armies and became more and more conscript-based, the weapons prefered became simpler and, with the advent of gunpowder, more deadly. Economics spelt the end of the Longbow and Armor, Gunpowder the end of the crossbow, and eventually, the REintroduction of highly trained specilized armies with armor!
You're, uhh, making my argument for me.
I agree that battles are not decided on a single advantage, and that longbows had a lot of advantages. The problem is that, when people through around Crecy and Agincourt, what they're saying is "These battles were won only because of longbows," and that's completely false.
I could likewise ask you to find a battle in which the Genoese crossbowmen lost despite having their pavises with them, despite the weather not damaging their weapons, despite not having significant fatigue, despite not having the tactics their side use literally throw them to the wolves, despite being fortified, and despite having the terrain advantage.
But we both know that would be dumb for the very same reasons you listed. Even if you did find one, it wouldn't mean anything.
My second problem is when people try to use history to bludgeon someone to death and proclaim "No, see, crossbows shouldn't be an effective weapon because of history," when D&D openly ignores many of the good points that crossbows had.
Incidentally, to Dabbler regarding "Put a bow and a crossbow behind equal cover..." you can't. Crossbow usage was designed so that you could duck behind cover. You can't with a longbow. That's why the Genoese had their pavises. That is, yet again, one of the crossbow advantages the game doesn't have.
My second problem is when people try to use history to bludgeon someone to death and proclaim "No, see, crossbows shouldn't be an effective weapon because of history," when D&D openly ignores many of the good points that crossbows had.
I don't think it ignores them, I think that the problem is that they very often aren't relevant to adventuring. The largest problem with the crossbow, and the one that makes it unpopular, is the reload time. It's minimised greatly in D&D, the crossbow gets more of a boost than the bow does, but it is still a problem.
Damage? It's been shown that the crossbow bolt, in spite of the spanning power, didn't actually fly significantly faster than the arrow due to the inefficiency of the design, so the damage wasn't hugely better and this is reflected in D&D.
Incidentally, to Dabbler regarding "Put a bow and a crossbow behind equal cover..." you can't. Crossbow usage was designed so that you could duck behind cover. You can't with a longbow. That's why the Genoese had their pavises. That's why the Genoese had their pavises. That is, yet again, one of the crossbow advantages the game doesn't have.
This is true, which is one reason that I suggested having crossbows be able to be fired - once spanned and ready - as a move action, not a standard action. An Archer can shoot from partial cover well enough, even total cover in the case of loopholes. Without a loophole, though, his cover is only partial. The crossbowman doesn't shoot from total cover, he reloads behind it.
The problem with the pavis was that when the Genoese moved forward to set them up, the unsporting archers shot them before they could do so; if the crossbowmen had the opportunity to set up and let the archers come to them, it could have been a more even match I will concede, but it would still have been far from an automatic win for the crossbowmen - at best they would have been able to give as good as they got.
So absolutely no one digs my bow nerf with a fort save? It might be a bad idea, but I'd like to get at least one opinion on it...
I kind of like it (obviously) because it lets super-tough high-level heroes of legend fire a ton of arrows in a short span of time, but it keeps the low level bowman in his place.
Any attempt to make the crossbow mechanically relevant in Pathfinder involves making it faster. The options in the core already do that, but it is really laughably unrealistic. Plus, I think it is fast enough for what it is, it's that the longbow is too fast.
The only other solution I can see to to scale back the incredible power of the bow (just a bit) and let all ranged weapons be slightly inferior to melee for damage output. This result is appealing to me as a GM, also.
Next up, we'll put the longsword in its place.
Sorry EvilLincoln, I just can't get behind this idea. Especially with the DC for the Fort save and all of the negative things that go along with being fatigued or exhausted. Maybe a non-lethal damage mechanic might work better?
So absolutely no one digs my bow nerf with a fort save? It might be a bad idea, but I'd like to get at least one opinion on it...Yeah, I'd be partial to a complete fatigue system for all actions and have this just be one element. Such as factoring for fatigue whenever anyone does:
Run
Strength Check
Accelerated Climbing
Fast Mount
Charges
Concentration Check
Concentrate to maintain an active spell
Move a heavy object
Full Attack
Combat Maneuver
Cast Spell that takes a full round action
Use Acrobatics to move through threatened squares
Use Acrobatics for a running jump
Use Acrobatics for a high jump of 3 feet or higher
Swim at half you land speed as a full-round action
Hold your breathAnd use a system such as non-lethal damage, save that it gets applied to your Con. Once it reaches your Con value then you are fatigued. But after a minute (or five... whatever metric works best) you'd be back in business with a clean slate.
WHoops, didn't see this. I'd be in favor of your rules if overall fatigue played more of a role in Pathfinder. I think Shadowrun got into fatigue a bit with their magic system, and I"m sure other games had a mechanic for that as well, you might want to check it out.
Given this thread is about crossbows v. bows in the D&D setting - and my reference to crossbow and long bow usage in the 100 Years War was to illustrate the mechanical attributes of those weapons - your comments about who won the 100 Years War are irrelevant. It's like saying that because Germany lost WW2, its revolutionary use of combined arms tactics (Blitzkrieg) in the early years was ineffective.No, you're essentially claiming "Look, Blitzkrieg is the best form of warfare known to mankind, because look at these battles in France!"
Wait, it's not even that, because longbows didn't win Crecy. Everything in the world did. The tactics used, the fortifications, the weather, the fatigue, the terrain, the commanders involved, the numbers, etc, etc, etc. Everything in Crecy favored the English. And Agincourt? The only thing the French had there was numbers. It wasn't longbows that won Agincourt, it was terrain.
Know what happened when those massively favorable notices ran out for England? Their longbows didn't do jack crap for them. Well ok, because you couldn't wear heavy armor while using it (don't see anyone claiming for that rule to be added, mind you), and because it so very severely limited their mobility (hey another rule nobody wants to implement) they did do one thing - they died. A lot. And because of the heavy training needed - another rule not in the game - they weren't replacable.
So no, to use your own analogy, you're claiming that Germany had their early defeats against France because German ammunition was so incredibly powerful that it's pointless to even bother comparing or bringing up anything else.
At the risk of encouraging you to further go off on a tangent... (tempting and enjoyable as it is).
Your attempt to undermine my points about crossbows and longbows in D&D by trying to attack my analogy is so flawed from a logical point of view that it is hard to know where to start.
But let's start with the term "analogy". My use of "blitzkrieg" was a simple analogy to say that the use of particular tactics and/or weapons at a certain point in time cannot be extrapolated out to indicate who will win a particular war. That is, the use of the blitzkrieg does not mean Germany won WW2 anymore than the relative advantages of crossbows and longbows was the determining factor in who won the 100 Years War. You are the one apparently trying to link the fact that France won that war with the crossbow being a better weapon. I'm not "essentially saying" anything about blitzkrieg being the best form of warfare as it is completely irrelevant to the discussions on this thread other than as an analogy.
You are taking that analogy as applied to the mechanics of two missile weapons in D&D and making some bizarre and inaccurate leap in logic to try and make a point that a. is irrelevant to the discussion on crossbow v. longbow in D&D, and b. no one else is actually interested in as it applies to said discussion.
Put in simpler English, no one else in this thread really cares who won Crecy, Agincourt or any of the the hundreds of battles, sieges and skirmishes of the 100 Years War. That is a topic for another thread - and you may find people interested to to discuss it there. What we do care about is each other's views and suggestions on certain D&D missile weapons.
But to take some of your comments and apply them to the actual topic of this thread.
Heavy armour, longbows and mobility - long bows can be fired while wearing heavy armour - perhaps just not as quickly or accurately. As you say there is a mobility downside. If you wear heavy armour in D&D your mobility is affected - ie reduced speed and penalites to Dex skills. Whether a real archer would want to wear heavy armour is another matter - could they afford it or find it as loot, would they want their mobility reduced, would their unit commanders let them wear heavy armour, and if the enemy got close enough for them to need heavy armour than the archers probably have failed in their principle task of killing/injuring their enemy before they can get close enough to attack them either at range or in melee. Firing in heavy armour would be harder than firing in no or lighter armour - so keeping with the topic of house rules, perhaps the type of armour should have an impact on rate of fire.
Training - that actually has been covered through suggestions that long bow be an exotic weapon and/or be restricted to certain regions in a campaign world. Whether those suggestiosn work in a particular campaign are for individual DMs to decide - we're just here to offer and discuss suggestions.
I'm not saying crossbows don't have advantages - the very fact that they were the standard missile weapon in many armies over many centuries is proof of that. But, historically, the use of crossbows over other missile weapon options is as much as factor of economics, cultural factors and broader military issues as it is a factor of weapon x is a better weapon in mechanical terms than weapon Y. But in D&D it unfortunately often falls to an issue of which weapon will cause the most damage per round. And, speaking as a DM who hates running combats with high level archers for the very fact that they pump out so many arrows, let alone keeping track of when they simultaneously roll 4 or 5 d20s and a horde of d8s and d6s every round ("wasn't the blue d20 your first attack last round?" probably rings a bell with many DMs!), a house rule that limits them to a realistic rate of fire would be fine with me, provided rules for crossbows were equally realistically applied in terms of rate of fire.
But to get back to misused analogies, as for "Germany had their early defeats against France because German ammunition was so incredibly powerful that it's pointless to even bother comparing or bringing up anything else".... Germany didn't have any early defeats against France, they had early victories over France. And no one had raised the issue of "German ammunition" until you irrelevantly raised it. But if you want to start another thread about the relative strengths and weaknesses of German tanks versus French tanks during the German invasion of France in 1940 safe from the inconvenient actual topic of this thread.....fill your boots.
The point of raising issues like Agincourt and Crecy was to illustrate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the comparable weapons and what they could do when their use was maximised by circumstances.
The heavy crossbow, used with the pavis, was a very good defensive weapon, but lacked mobility. At Crecy, the French tried to use them offensively and on a battlefield with very restricted mobility as it was, with a very predictable outcome. At Agincourt, the English relied very much on their longbowmen, and again chose a battlefield with restricted mobility. What mobility they had they employed to good effect when the Englsih army advanced and showered the forward French units with arrows to provoke a charge.
The major point at both battles to our discussion was not the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two armies, however, but the relative rates of fire, range and penetration of the crossbow vs the longbow. The crossbow had slightly better penetration, the same or less range, better ability to use cover and much longer reload times than the longbow. The longbow allowed slightly better mobility, slightly worse penetration, the same or better range and much faster rate of fire than the crossbow.
More Realistic Weapons
The problem with the existing weapons is that they don't really cover all the bases. The rules don't go into many details, but if we assume the light crossbow is hand-spanned, then the heavy crossbow would be lever-spanned at best. That leaves room for a windlass-spanned crossbow, of the 'arbolest' type. Likewise, if we assume the longbow listed has a draw of 60-75 lbs, there is room for a more powerful bow (bows recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose had draws estimated at around 150lbs - definitely an exotic weapon).
So let's add these in:
Simple Weapon:
Windlass Crossbow/Arbolest: range 120', damage 2d6 Piercing, cost 75gp.
Exotic Weapon:
Heavy longbow/great bow: range 120', damage 1d10 Piercing, cost 200gp.
Applying More Realistic Rates of Fire
If you really want to apply realistic rates of fire, then I suggest the following:
shortbow: free reload.
Longbow: lose next attack to reload, Rapid Shot feat allows the first shot in a round to ignore this but confers no other advantage or penalty.
Heavy longbow/great bow: as longbow, but this is an exotic weapon requiring long and extensive training.
This gives the bowman the same maximum fire rate - 20 per minute - as the records and tests seem to tell us, by forcing a bowman with four attacks per round to lose two of them to reloading. It allows the Heroic rate of fire (using the Rapid Shot feat) of 30 per minute, a 50% increase on this.
Hand Crossbow: 1 move, free with Rapid Reload or repeating crossbow.
Light Crossbow: 1 round, 1 move action with Rapid Reload or free with repeating crossbow.
Heavy Crossbow: 2 rounds, 1 round with Rapid Reload or 1 move action with repeating crossbow.
Windlass Crossbow: 4 rounds, 2 rounds with Rapid Reload, not possible to make repeating.
Repeating crossbows are treated as simple weapons.
This again keeps to the recorded rates of fire crossbows could manage - the medieval crossbow (the windlass bow) managing two shots a minute, or three with the feat (again a 50% increase).
The point of raising issues like Agincourt and Crecy was to illustrate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the comparable weapons and what they could do when their use was maximised by circumstances.
The heavy crossbow, used with the pavis, was a very good defensive weapon, but lacked mobility. At Crecy, the French tried to use them offensively and on a battlefield with very restricted mobility as it was, with a very predictable outcome. At Agincourt, the English relied very much on their longbowmen, and again chose a battlefield with restricted mobility. What mobility they had they employed to good effect when the Englsih army advanced and showered the forward French units with arrows to provoke a charge.
The major point at both battles to our discussion was not the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two armies, however, but the relative rates of fire, range and penetration of the crossbow vs the longbow. The crossbow had slightly better penetration, the same or less range, better ability to use cover and much longer reload times than the longbow. The longbow allowed slightly better mobility, slightly worse penetration, the same or better range and much faster rate of fire than the crossbow.
More Realistic Weapons
The problem with the existing weapons is that they don't really cover all the bases. The rules don't go into many details, but if we assume the light crossbow is hand-spanned, then the heavy crossbow would be lever-spanned at best. That leaves room for a windlass-spanned crossbow, of the 'arbolest' type. Likewise, if we assume the longbow listed has a draw of 60-75 lbs, there is room for a more powerful bow (bows recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose had draws estimated at around 150lbs - definitely an exotic weapon).
So let's add these in:
Simple Weapon:
Windlass Crossbow/Arbolest: range 120', damage 2d6 Piercing, cost 75gp.
Exotic Weapon:
Heavy longbow/great bow: range 120', damage 1d10 Piercing, cost 200gp.Applying More Realistic Rates of Fire
If you...
I honestly like this but I'd probably get some resistance if I tried to implement it lol. I might try it out though, I'm tired of bows and arrows being vastly better than the firearms in my steampunk campaign. The flintlocks (well other than the blunderbuss) in my game can have up to 6 revolving barrels (to make up for a full-round reload) but you still have to wait a round to reload (although I did make it so you could reload 1-3 barrels as a full-round with rapid reload). This would probably help put guns in their proper position amongst the weapons PCs can use and make the crossbow look more appealing.
I honestly like this but I'd probably get some resistance if I tried to implement it lol. I might try it out though, I'm tired of bows and arrows being vastly better than the firearms in my steampunk campaign. The flintlocks (well other than the blunderbuss) in my game can have up to 6 revolving barrels (to make up for a full-round reload) but you still have to wait a round to reload (although I did make it so you could reload 1-3 barrels as a full-round with rapid reload). This would probably help put guns in their proper position amongst the weapons PCs can use and make the crossbow look more appealing.
If I was to rate firearms on this scale, I would give them a two-round reload time (sorry) reduced to one for Rapid Reload. However, early cartridge-less revolvers (ie loaded by powder, ball, wadding, cap) were operated by cocking the hammer to rotate the drum, so should be able to fire on every attack. I would also make them simple weapons (although maybe requiring a rank in Craft (alchemy) to handle the powder correctly).
Truth is, Wellington is on record for wanting bowmen at Waterloo because they would have been devastating to the French infantry, but insufficient numbers could be found. Until you get the cartridge guns of the late 19th century, the bow is still the best weapon in the hands of an expert for rate of fire.
If I was to rate firearms on this scale, I would give them a two-round reload time (sorry) reduced to one for Rapid Reload. However, early cartridge-less revolvers (ie loaded by powder, ball, wadding, cap) were operated by cocking the hammer to rotate the drum, so should be able to fire on every attack. I would also make them simple weapons (although maybe requiring a rank in Craft (alchemy) to handle the powder correctly).
Truth is, Wellington is on record for wanting bowmen at Waterloo because they would have been devastating to the French infantry, but insufficient numbers could be found. Until you get the cartridge guns of the late 19th century, the bow is still the best weapon in the hands of an expert for rate of fire.
I originally did have a 2 full-round reload time but I got a bunch of crap for it so I changed it.
It's the reload time that does it, unfortunately. The D&D system favours rapid attacks, and with black powder muzzle-loaders and crossbows, you just don't get it.
The best way, as stated in the guns thread, is to carry multiple pistols and quick-draw them as needed.
Do you know why Agincourt and Crece always pop up?Shakespeare?
Yes, they had good press! But they are battles where victory was attributed to the longbow, so they get mentioned. In both the English took up positions that played to their strengths, and the French played into their hands. The battles could not be attributed to just the longbow, but neither battle could have been won without the longbow either.
While it is true that at Crecy the crossbowmen lost because of bad positioning and an attempt to use them offensively, at Agincourt it was the English that advanced into range, not the French. It didn't make any difference - although the French had substantial numbers of both archers (with shortbows) and crossbowmen, their contribution was negligible: the longbow's combination of both range and rapid fire rendered both irrelevant.
So why did the French win the 100 years war?
Because the English were fighting on the other side of a sea, and had less resources in both men and material. The longbow was their ace in the hole, and while it helped deliver some stunning victories early on when the French treated it as being as effective as the crossbow, once they got a handle on how dangerous it was - and how to counter it - they were able to make their greater resources and shorter supply lines count.
Reloading a crossbow as a move action..
Was that first suggested in this thread or in the other thread? I'm interested because I'm thinking I may make this legal for my homebrew and I want to give credit where its due.
It's the reload time that does it, unfortunately. The D&D system favours rapid attacks, and with black powder muzzle-loaders and crossbows, you just don't get it.
The best way, as stated in the guns thread, is to carry multiple pistols and quick-draw them as needed.
Ya, I actually have a few NPC's that do that in the game (especially pirates).
What about making reloading a crossbow a swift action? This way one can squeeze off two shots a round at most and thereby it has some utility when you have multiple attacks/round? It also pushes the "Crossbow for show, long/short bow for a pro" attitude that I think is apparent in the rules.
For my homebrew I'm currently thinking reloading a regular crossbow is either a move equivalent or swift action, while reloading a repeating crossbow is either a swift or free action, respectively. What do you think of this?
For my homebrew I'm currently thinking reloading a regular crossbow is either a move equivalent or swift action, while reloading a repeating crossbow is either a swift or free action, respectively. What do you think of this?Honestly, I don't think ROF is the big issue. It's the lack of other options.
I truly thought for a time that Vital Strike would allow all bonuses to be multiplied. To me, this was the ultimate in single-shot performance, and would make builds that could easily compete with multiple attack builds.
Crossbow was one of my first thoughts on this.
I like just adding strength to the crossbow as a bonus. Of course, I take it one step furthur and say it should be double the bonus to damage. I may also be inclined to say that the STR bonus should be multiplied for Vital Strike, but it likely wouldn't come up. I also like the larger Arbalest (2d8) as a martial weapon, reload as heavy crossbow.
I ran for a character who was a Favored Soul with an Arbalest as a secondary weapon. She had a 16 STR, so the Arbalest (built as composite and with a 16 STR rating) did 2d8+6. She didn't even bother with Rapid Reload; she loaded when she thought there may be trouble, fired off a very respectable first shot, then went in with Bastard Sword.
If anything would improve the lot of the crossbow, it's an improvment to the Vital Strike chain.
Maybe the problem here is scope. Like I said, I don't want crossbows to rule battlefield per se, but to fill a very specific niche/role beyond something a spellcaster would go for(and truth be told, I really don't see why they go for this as opposed to a bow re: stereotypes). It would be good for attacking from cover- perhaps even whipping out the D&D/Pathfinder version of the pavise crossbow when you bring the tower shield into the equation; attacking from prone/sniping(the latter is a maybe), and an overall defensive ranged weapon, which is something I think would be rare in a D&D type universe and good to have at hand in an ambush. I'm not saying that I'm not trying to make it a *little* more realistic in a sense, as I am a bit, but I'm definetly not trying to make it a stand alone weapon. It would be showy, with a few tricks up its sleeve(especially considering that I want to use the crossbow add-on ideas from the other thread, re: firing multiple bolts, etc), but it would largely be for show-offs and gnomes. Bows would still be where its at for professional individual adventurers(militias would still use the crossbow en masse, however).
Why not give xbows the ability to deliver precision-based damage (sneak attack, etc.) at full range? Then keep the reload times slow, and you've got an in-game sniper's weapon, which is currently lacking.
Why not give xbows the ability to deliver precision-based damage (sneak attack, etc.) at full range? Then keep the reload times slow, and you've got an in-game sniper's weapon, which is currently lacking.
I thought they already had that ability provided someone is being flanked at that moment?
I thought they already had that ability provided someone is being flanked at that moment?
I thought no weapon delived sneak attack damage past 30 ft. Has that been changed in Pathfinder? The rogue entry still says "Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet." No mention of crossbows being an exception. Then I look up crossbows: "You draw a heavy crossbow back by turning a small winch. Loading a heavy crossbow is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity. Normally, operating a heavy crossbow requires two hands. However, you can shoot, but not load, a heavy crossbow with one hand at a –4 penalty on attack rolls. You can shoot a heavy crossbow with each hand, but you take a penalty on attack rolls as if attacking with two one-handed weapons. This penalty is cumulative with the penalty for one-handed firing." Again, no mention of long range sneak attacks.
With 3.5 material, there's a crossbow sniper feat that push it to 60 and allow 1/2 dexterity to damage, and a one spell that simply removes the limit.
The feat could be given for free, but being precise beyond 60 feet with a ranged weapon is more than extraordinary. A crossbow is not much more precise than a bow, it's just easier to aim for an unexperimented user.
The normal limit for sneak attack is still 30 feet, and the flanking bonuses only benefit the flanking characters.
With 3.5 material, there's a crossbow sniper feat that push it to 60 and allow 1/2 dexterity to damage, and a one spell that simply removes the limit.
The feat could be given for free, but being precise beyond 60 feet with a ranged weapon is more than extraordinary. A crossbow is not much more precise than a bow, it's just easier to aim for an unexperimented user.
...and a bow can't be fired once per second and a half, all day, with the kind of accuracy we're talking about, but this is a fantasty game. Giving one weapon the ability to snipe just makes sense to me. And if a spell can remove the limit, then a feat (or, better yet, a rogue talent) should DEFINITELY be able to, because otherwise we're back into the "noncasters should be NPCs" paradigm.
There's no feat that grant freedom of movement...
A crossbow just isn't precise enough to snipe without magical help, it doesn't depend on the talents of the characters. Using a masterwork crossbow and masterwork bolt with a calibrated scope would be a better way to increase the maximum limit of ranged sneak attacks.
Also, IIRC the spell is an assassin spell. Something lost with pathfinder.
There's no feat that grant freedom of movement...
A crossbow just isn't precise enough to snipe without magical help, it doesn't depend on the talents of the characters. Using a masterwork crossbow and masterwork bolt with a calibrated scope would be a better way to increase the maximum limit of ranged sneak attacks.
Also, IIRC the spell is an assassin spell. Something lost with pathfinder.
Mayhaps this is an enhancement that could be added to the crossbow mechanically? Without a feat, using the rules or ideas mentioned upthread?
I really want the crossbow(gnomebow?!?!) to be completely mechanical, i.e. the only benefits it has are ones you give it by making it masterwork, have the ability to fire two bolts at once, etc. And this is going to be prohibitively expensive, similar to making it magical if not a little more. The only benefit is that it will be able to do things certain magical weapons won't be able to do, be able to fire from prone, and some of the other things we've already mentioned upthread.
[EDIT]Okay here's what I'm thinking...
So far we've got Hand, Light, Heavy and Repeating Crossbows.
Reloading a Heavy crossbow is a Move-Equivalent Action in addition to all the normal stuff(i.e. attacks of opportunity, etc.).
Reloading a Hand or Light crossbow is a Swift Action in addition to all the normal stuff.
A repeating crossbow is a free action to reload with the crank, and a full round action to switch out the bolt casing for(it takes a moment to unlock, drop, load and snap back into place) that provokes an attack of opportunity.
Crossbows have numerous optional parts that can be added to them, among them parts that allow for their maximum range for sneak attack to be increased to the limit of the crossbow, parts that allow for multiple bolts to be fired at once, parts that turn regular crossbows into repeating crossbows(repeating crossbows have already added this feature), and parts that allow for bolts to be poisoned, among others.
Hand crossbows cannot have any of these parts added to them.
Light crossbows can have one part added to them.
Heavy crossbows can have two parts added to them.
What say ye?
Keep in mind this is for my homebrew only at this point.
There's no feat that grant[s] freedom of movement...
There is in my game.
And the argument "a crossbow doesn't have that kind of accuracy" is the same as the one that says "a longbow doesn't have that kind of rate of fire or lack of fatigue." A unarmored person can't really take a dozen hits from heavy crossbows fired at point-blank range and shrug them off with no ill effect, but that's par for the course in-game. In other words, RL arguments don't impact game rules; they never have.
And the argument "a crossbow doesn't have that kind of accuracy" is the same as the one that says "a longbow doesn't have that kind of rate of fire or lack of fatigue." A unarmored person can't really take a dozen hits from heavy crossbows fired at point-blank range and shrug them off with no ill effect, but that's par for the course in-game. In other words, RL arguments don't impact game rules; they never have.
The game takes the real world as a model and a base to add fantasy elements, and use abstractions to make the result playable. That's why fatigue isn't taken into account in the combat rules even though it is in the movement rules, that's why while the rules for bows and crossbows do not replicate their models, they make a difference in the rate of shooting.
The usual basis to move away from the real or fictional model is either flavor, playability or balance. Of course, it's not mandatory, and straying from that is not necessarily a bad idea.
But as a player, I would be annoyed if I couldn't explain why I can be accurate at any distance with a regular crossbow, and and why I can't with a regular bow. That just doesn't make sense to me. Especially when it isn't a characteristic of the weapon itself.
...Giving one weapon the ability to snipe just makes sense to me.
The crossbow has the option of being fired while the user is lieing down (cover bonus?) and can be held at full draw indefinatley..
..so some kinda mechanic that reflected this would go a long way towards helping it into the sniper niche.
Now, not actually being a sniper, I can only guess that having a weapon that frees you from straining your arm as you take a shot, that allows you to wait for just the right moment to fire, would be an advantage.
Now, how to reflect this in game terms... hmmm