You keep mentioning a better threat range. Bows have more critical damage. It evens out.10% threat range of double damage vs 5% chance of triple damage is not even, you have doubled the odds on one side to only a 50% increase in damage on the other, that means a better chance of more damage for the crossbow, quite apart from it's greater damage in the first place.
The higher threat range is better.
Actually, they are the same.
Let
h = fraction of time you hit = fraction of time you confirm a crit threat
c = fraction of all rolls that threaten a crit
d = average damage on non-critical hit
N = crit multiplier
I am looking at the base case, where you do not have any bonuses to confirm a critical and a critical threat is not a miss.
The average damage is
(h-c)d + c(1-h)d + chNd = hd -cd + cd - chd + chNd = hd + chd(N-1) = hd(1+(N-1)c)
That is the damage on a hit that is not a critical threat plus the damage on a critical threat that is not confirmed plus the damage on a confirmed critical threat.
For a bow, N=3 and c=0.05. For a crossbow, N=2 and c=0.10. Plugging in the numbers, we have
average damage (bow) = hd(1+(3-1)*0.05) = 1.1 hd
average damage (crossbow) = hd(1+(2-1)*0.10) = 1.1 hd
The bow gives you twice the extra damage half the time. The crossbow gives you half the extra damage twice as often. Either way, 2 * 1/2 = 1.
Looking purely at the crit ranges, bows and crossbows are equal.
The average number of well aimed arrows launched per minute was 8-10. An exceptionally trained archer could do upwards of 20.
At level one you can fire two arrows a round. Each round is six seconds. At level one, you've already hit what the greatest of archers could do. At level one. Once you fire another arrow per round, you've hit the supernatural.
But guys, if we buff crossbows, it wouldn't be realistic!
And you keep saying higher damage. Where? Heavy crossbows do one damage more then a longbow on average. If you have twelve strength, guess what? Bows do equal damage. This is without adding in any of the other insane bonuses bows have.
Hell, crossbows don't even have feat support. Where's the crossbow manyshot?
But guys, crossbows already have a bonus! They go ten feet longer then bows! That ten feet could make a huge diffno it won't, it will never make a difference.
Interesting debate... I too think that Crossbows are getting the short end of the stick. Historically, there are many important things to consider about the bow and crossbow.
Benefits of the Bow: Long Range, Easy to make, Good Damage vs medium to lightly armored opponents and great reload rate. Some training required, but if you were a conscripted bowman this paled in comparison with knights or various other infantry.
Looks good right? So why was the crossbow employed at all?
Benefits of the Crossbow: It wasn't only the fact that less training was required and that the crossbow had improved accuracy. Their ranges were similar, though certain bows had an edge which disappeared as technology advanced. They were slow to reload, but used in a formation they were incredibly deadly.
The largest draw was that they could punch through heavy armor that became increasingly prevalent due to missile presence in warfare. Heavily armored troops vs bows would suffer low casualties and few injuries. Yet, in the game standard bows are at no disadvantage vs armor. Many different arrow heads were designed to help overcome some of the disadvantages of the bow (to help punch through armor, etc).
Crossbowmen could mow down knights because of the crossbow's incredible release velocities and it soon became the weapon of choice vs armor. That is, until the advent of firearms which operated on much the same principles as the crossbow. In fact, widespread use of the crossbow and the gun made armor obsolete all together.
I would like there to be something that represents the crossbow's force separate from strength based loading requirements. The improved critical range is not enough, crossbows had a consistently more powerful damage output. Obviously, this is after some refinement to the technology.
If these characteristics were taken into account, this would make them desirable to play with in the game as it would accurately reflect the differences between the two.
In my next campaign, i'm strongly leaning towards re-introducing the weapon type vs armour rules and including this as an exception to the plate vs piercing/slashing.
Not sure yet how it will pan out but thinking of tying it with 'Armour as DR' optional rule.
There needs to be some tactics in weapon choice and hopefully it will add another dimension to combat and not slow it down too much.
Damage-wise, 19-20 x2 is equivalent to 20 x3, and 18-20 x2 is equivalent to 20 x4. Having an increased crit range is only an inherent advantage when dealing with special abilities that trigger on crits and don't scale based on crit multiplier (such as the new Critical feats).
I've seen this tossed around a lot on this forum and I think it fails to take overkill into consideration. I don't care enough to do the math either way, but IMO weapons should be considered "good" based on practical stopping power, not an abstract average. As a low-level neophyte I really prefer hitting 2 16 hp bugbears for 18 damage each, rather than one for 27 and one for 9. As a higher-level character I may find that a keen x3 weapon is preferable to put a big hurt on dragons and such, but then as you say, there're crit feats to help with that. YMMV.
Also I think a player should choose his character's weapon based on a concept rather than its stats.
Zo
Also I think a player should choose his character's weapon based on a concept rather than its stats.
I like your point in the rest of your post, but I disagree here.
To me, the character is supposed to be "real". Yes, I know, FRPG begins with "Fantasy" so let's call it "fantasy real". By that I mean he exists in a fantasy world with fantasy physics and fantasy bad guys. He knows how his world works because he grew up in it.
He has also chosen the deadliest occupation in this fantasy world: adventurer. Not content to work a farm, tilling a field until the goblins come, one day maybe years from now, and attack him; no, he goes out looking for the goblins to make sure he has to fight them very soon. Today. Immediately. Then he looks for more trouble, and more trouble. Ad infinitum.
Very dangerous.
So why should he say "Hey, that puny little worthless weapon is cool; I shall use it because it's my concept - even if it means I am adding unneccessary risk to my life and putting my companions into undue danger!"
Instead, he should say "Hey, that puny little worthless weapon seems cool, but it would be stupid of me to trust my life to it, given my dangerous occupation, when I could trust my life to a much more powerful and deadly weapon. Further, it would be irresponsible to my companions, too. So I shall forgo the cool concept weapon and do the smart and responsible thing and arm myself with a real weapon that might keep me alive."
Or so I see it.
Also I think a player should choose his character's weapon based on a concept rather than its stats.I like your point in the rest of your post, but I disagree here.
To me, the character is supposed to be "real". Yes, I know, FRPG begins with "Fantasy" so let's call it "fantasy real". By that I mean he exists in a fantasy world with fantasy physics and fantasy bad guys. He knows how his world works because he grew up in it.
He has also chosen the deadliest occupation in this fantasy world: adventurer. Not content to work a farm, tilling a field until the goblins come, one day maybe years from now, and attack him; no, he goes out looking for the goblins to make sure he has to fight them very soon. Today. Immediately. Then he looks for more trouble, and more trouble. Ad infinitum.
Very dangerous.
So why should he say "Hey, that puny little worthless weapon is cool; I shall use it because it's my concept - even if it means I am adding unneccessary risk to my life and putting my companions into undue danger!"
Instead, he should say "Hey, that puny little worthless weapon seems cool, but it would be stupid of me to trust my life to it, given my dangerous occupation, when I could trust my life to a much more powerful and deadly weapon. Further, it would be irresponsible to my companions, too. So I shall forgo the cool concept weapon and do the smart and responsible thing and arm myself with a real weapon that might keep me alive."
Or so I see it.
I don't disagree, but I think the correct step that needs to be taken there is for the mechanics or the DM to say "How can I make this weapon that seems cool into something that isn't mechanically worthless?"
Also I think a player should choose his character's weapon based on a concept rather than its stats.I like your point in the rest of your post, but I disagree here.
Fair enough. Chalk it up to a difference of opinions/play styles. I'm not saying that one shouldn't ever use the "classic" mechanically advantageous weapons, but it's nice to see PCs using something other than a greatsword or twin scimitars or kukri or what-have-you now and then.
Zo
Twin scimitars sucks. There are only two things that makes it work: Dervish PrC and R.A.Salvatore.
Some weapons just are not as effective as others.
Yeh, but it's more complicated than that. There's a whole development of technologies that should be represented.
Certain armour's are developed to protect against certain weapons. New weapons are made to overcome these new defences.
Some weapons just are not as effective as others.
I agree... crossbows are much more effective against armor than bows...
|
But seriously, designing from a realistic simulationist standpoint, the x-bow is advantageous over a normal bow in almost EVERY situation. They could not in good measure have done it "right" without antiquating the longbow.
I've fired both and was able to get a higher rate of fire and better accuracy at range with the longbow.
The average number of well aimed arrows launched per minute was 8-10. An exceptionally trained archer could do upwards of 20.
At level one you can fire two arrows a round. Each round is six seconds. At level one, you've already hit what the greatest of archers could do. At level one. Once you fire another arrow per round, you've hit the supernatural.
But guys, if we buff crossbows, it wouldn't be realistic!
But they are buffed. The rate of fire of a heavy crossbow with Rapid Reload (as you are assuming Rapid Shot above) is 10 shots a minute, a lot more than they were able to achieve historically. At Agincourt and Crecy, for example, the crossbowmen managed only one shot for every twelve arrows loosed. When you look at it like that, you realise crossbows are getting the buff treatment in rate of fire as much as bows are.
And you keep saying higher damage. Where? Heavy crossbows do one damage more then a longbow on average. If you have twelve strength, guess what? Bows do equal damage. This is without adding in any of the other insane bonuses bows have.
I have already suggested a mechanism for crossbows to inflict greater damage: historically they used heavier bolts which inflicted more grevous wounds but had less range; introducing these would give you the bonus damage you want. I suggest halving the range for an increase of one step (1d8 to 1d10, 1d10 to 2d6).
Hell, crossbows don't even have feat support. Where's the crossbow manyshot?
A crossbow has a single groove into which a single bolt can be fitted. if you want crossbow manyshot, you need to design and build a new crossbow with more grooves which can then do this without the feat. This is an advantage that the crossbow has: that the design of the weapon can trump the skills of the bowman.
This is probably why the repeating crossbow was made an exotic weapon, so you could take a heavy crossbow, and so with one feat you have a heavy crossbow that can match the fire rate of a bow. That looks pretty good to me!
But guys, crossbows already have a bonus! They go ten feet longer then bows! That ten feet could make a huge diff no it won't, it will never make a difference.
The point that you have missed significantly is that crossbows get advantages in D&D they didn't have IRL. Their ranges should be half of what is presented.
Crossbows are getting the fantasy buff as much as bows are.
I've fired both and was able to get a higher rate of fire and better accuracy at range with the longbow.But seriously, designing from a realistic simulationist standpoint, the x-bow is advantageous over a normal bow in almost EVERY situation. They could not in good measure have done it "right" without antiquating the longbow.
A friend of mine does medieval re-enactment, and he took part in an experiment once to determine if the bow really was the better weapon. They took two companies of twenty, one with crossbows and one with longbows. They were armed with blunt-headed arrows and bolts, and had heavy padding armour so they didn't get hurt and then ranged up against one another. The rules were that the longbowmen had to lie down if they were hit once, the crossbowmen if they were hit twice (because crossbowmen wore heavier armour and longbows were not as lethal). On the mark, each side started shooting.
Only three crossbowmen even managed a second volley, and the archers won the engagement decisively.
The rate of fire and accuracy of a longbow was not a myth.
Wrong on bows being a better weapon.
Historically, the bow died long before the crossbow did.
Crossbows have a lot of benefits that the game doesn't show. Bows have a lot of negatives the game doesn't show.
The main reason the bow died out in Europe was because it took less time to train someone on the crossbow. This was true for early firearms too. Being able to quickly raise a militia is a major plus. Not having to spend and much time and money on the individual soldier is another plus. England was an exception to this, but even they made use of the crossbow in militia units. The Turks also continued to use the bow long after the crossbow replaced the bow in Europe (typically as mounted archers).
The main advantage the crossbow has is its ability to pierce plate armor. This is due to the higer amount of kinetic energy, and not easily replicated in game. This is why I sugeested a strength rating system and basing the reload time off of it, as others have.
|
|
The main reason the bow died out in Europe was because it took less time to train someone on the crossbow.... England was an exception to this...
That's because we practiced a lot. Technically, we are still supposed to assemble, by law, on the village green for archery practice after church on a Sunday.
The main reason the bow died out in Europe was because it took less time to train someone on the crossbow.... England was an exception to this...That's because we practiced a lot. Technically, we are still supposed to assemble, by law, on the village green for archery practice after church on a Sunday.
Yes, in England and Wales, the crossbow was replaced by the longbow as a weapon of war rather than the other way around. The longbow could penetrate armour almost as well as a crossbow at close range, too.
|
That's because we practiced a lot. Technically, we are still supposed to assemble, by law, on the village green for archery practice after church on a Sunday.
My favorite thing about that story is that they were celebrating the construction of a new bathroom.
Part of the issue is that the weapons are at odds with the armor system and the combat system itself.
Weapons grant extras beyond damage. Criticals (threat range and multiplier), bonuses to maneuvers, reach, some specific ones (like the meteor hammer's AC bonus or Double Weapon choice...think it should still have reach myself). Complex weapon mechanics comparatively.
Armor meanwhile gets...well, it gets AC Bonus (and a bunch of penalties). That is all armor does for you. Very simple mechanics more in line with an abstract combat system.
Tht leaves two options:
1) a more complex armor sub-system. Including shields (which I always feel have been misclassed and neglected even now in PFRPG).
2) a simplified weapon system. Very Light = 1d4. Light = 1d6. Medium = 1d8. Heavy = 1d10. Very heavy = 2d6. Everything is Crit of 20/x2. Just about every other bonus (trip, disarm, etc) would get stripped out.
As a side note: I have long foud it strange to have Bastard Sword as an exotic weapon if weilded one handed. The long sword/bastard sword/langschwert/spadone was one of the more prevalent weapons of its time and wielding it one handed would have been learned alongside learning to half-sword (something Germans and Italians loved to do) it and thus be covered as a martial proficiency. Of course the Italians and Germans also loved to use it to grapple...someday I would love to see a feat that granted a +2 CMB for using a bastard sword to grapple.
-Weylin
Another issue is that part of the design goal of 3.0 was "system mastery" which was coming from Magic the Gatherings design.
With system mastery, there are a wide variety of game elements that are intentionally designed to be sub-optimal, with the idea that players would enjoy and get satisfaction from analyzing the system and teasing out the good stuff from the detritus. With a roleplaying game you can cloak a lot of the detritus within the rationale of "realism" so that it doesn't stand out much.
While system mastery works well in a CCG format, it ends up being a problem with RPGs because it can aggravate the divide between different play styles such as gamist and simulationist. Further, while with CCGs it is easy to overhaul the entire system's ecosystem by putting out a new edition of cards, to do that with an RPG means putting out a whole new edition that would radically change the modeling of the shared world.
So you have a situation where on the one hand they built into the system a design element that is meant to be worn out with repeated play, requiring a massive reset of everything, but marrying that to an overall design architecture (OGL) that is mean to be passed along and expanded upon.
The end result is that we have stale mechanics that were published 10 years ago and through just sheer momentum we are still using today for legacy reasons. Thus we have lots of things that keep getting published which are quickly overlooked, save for people who don't care about the underlying math at all and just pick whatever works. That can be fine in just the right campaign and GM who's willing to work with that, but the underlying math of the game is still tugging towards optimization.
Excellent insight, Mok. Unfortunately not something that can be fixed without a massive overhaul of the system which would destroy backwards compatibility for the most part. I see why Steve Kenson is doing such a massive overhaul of M&M for 3rd Edition/DCA and trimming out a lot of the OGL material. It means Green Ronin can jettison some of those issues wholecloth.
-Weylin
To put it out once again:
Crossbows could probably use a buff. Not a big one, but a buff of some sort. I feel the issue is with the composite strength bow. Because, face it, if there WAS no strength bow, the crossbow would be VERY viable.
So I propose to allow crossbows to have a str rating, and have the damage bonus be twice the rating. Therefore, a light crossbow rated for a 14 str would deal +4 damage.
That's double what any other weapon gets. Can I suggest that you make it a normal strength rating, and apply a penalty if a person does not have that strength? such as an extended load time?
Blah blah blah
Nope.
YOu don't get it.
Stop trying to claim "Well realistically speaking..." because it doesn't apply here.
Monks can punch through people. Your realism does not apply here.
Are crossbows undeniable terrible? Yes. That's something that needs to be changed. When a weapon is nothing more then a sidearm to a level 1 wizard, it's not a fantasy weapon like everything else is. That's the thing. At level 20 you can still use any melee weapon, because the differences between their damage dice pales in comparison to modifiers. At level 2, a crossbow has become utterly useless. Crossbows and throwing weapons are literally the only weapons to which there is no point.
When a weapon is nothing more then a sidearm to a level 1 wizard, it's not a fantasy weapon like everything else is.
Everything else? Really?
The only simple weapons I ever see get used at all are crossbows, daggers, and spears. Light maces? Never. Clubs? Never. Punching daggers? Hah. Blowguns? Nope. Darts? Not since 2nd edition when that was the best mages could use. Sickles? Not even by druids.
I'm sorry, there are a lot of weapons that suck. The crossbow actually sucks less than quite a lot of them.
When a weapon is nothing more then a sidearm to a level 1 wizard, it's not a fantasy weapon like everything else is.Everything else? Really?
The only simple weapons I ever see get used at all are crossbows, daggers, and spears. Light maces? Never. Clubs? Never. Punching daggers? Hah. Blowguns? Nope. Darts? Not since 2nd edition when that was the best mages could use. Sickles? Not even by druids.
I'm sorry, there are a lot of weapons that suck. The crossbow actually sucks less than quite a lot of them.
For non-exotic weapons? Quite frankly, yes.
Clubs and greatclubs aren't bad weapons. They aren't especially GOOD weapons, but you can make a fighter that uses a greatclub instead of a greatsword no problem. A rogue that uses punching daggers is fine. Clerics that use light maces or clubs works just fine too. In all of those cases, the difference between them and other weapons is 1, maybe two points of damage on average.
The reason people don't take those weapons is that everyone wants to use a sword or a greataxe. It has nothing to do with mechanics and everything to do with style.
Blowguns and darts? Funny enough, they have the same flaws that crossbows have. They're literally in the same boat.
When a weapon is nothing more then a sidearm to a level 1 wizard, it's not a fantasy weapon like everything else is.
I've been pondering about this and I would like to see Crossbows negate X amount of AC. In a realistic setting armor is related to DR, but since not everyone has DR in D&D, the only way to combat armor is to lower AC scores. Something along the lines of a touch attack's ruleset, maybe not dropping every bit of Armor Bonus, but a good amount. Perhaps a percentage? This would vary if using a Hand Crossbow, Light Crossbow or Heavy Crossbow.
I would like to see crossbows get the same thematic treatment as other weapons. Weapons with reach have their own sets of benefits, etc. This idea makes a low level crossbow wielder more deadly, but still make the bow better at higher levels due to the bow feats.
The goal is to make weapons competitive. There is no reason to pick up a crossbow now. Melee weapons are similar, but crossbows get left in the dust. Especially with composite bows. And when the sling becomes more handy than a crossbow, its not good.
Stop trying to claim "Well realistically speaking..." because it doesn't apply here.
You were the one who started off saying that it wasn't realistic that bows were better than crossbows.
Are crossbows undeniable terrible? Yes.
No. A lot of people are denying that crossbows are terrible. Your problem is not that they are terrible, it's that they come second to a better weapon.
That's something that needs to be changed.
Why? there are lots of terrible weapons. Do they all have to be improved?
When a weapon is nothing more then a sidearm to a level 1 wizard, it's not a fantasy weapon like everything else is. That's the thing. At level 20 you can still use any melee weapon, because the differences between their damage dice pales in comparison to modifiers. At level 2, a crossbow has become utterly useless. Crossbows and throwing weapons are literally the only weapons to which there is no point.
I disagree completely that a crossbow is useless by level 2; I have characters that carried them at very high level. Usually they paid an artisan to add an extra bow and trigger, or cut extra grooves, or used a repeating crossbow, or combinations of all of these. The great thing was, this made it a great 2nd weapon because I didn't have to expend feats on it to get better with it, just pay somebody to improve the design.
Here's some ideas for improving crossbows that play to their strengths rather than trying to be bows:
Design modifiers for the crossbow
When 'building' a crossbow design, take the cost of the base bow (light or heavy) and then factor in the additional features you want. All such specialist bows also have to be made masterwork, incurring an extra 300gp cost.
Extra bow: +50gp, +2lb weight. Your crossbow has an extra bow, groove and trigger mechanism. Each bow has to be loaded separately, but each can then be loosed as a separate attack, or both can be discharged as a single attack at a single target. Each bow can have additional features, costed seperately, but only one can be repeating.
Multi-shot: +20gp per groove, +1/2lb per groove. You can add up to two additional grooves to the bow, each groove can carry an additional bolt. When the crossbow is discharged all the bolts are loosed at the same target, although all have a -2 to hit penalty. Reloading a multi-shot bow takes no longer than reloading a normal crossbow of the type, but it cannot be made repeating.
Massive: +100 gp, +3 lb weight. The bow can carry much more tensile strength than a normal crossbow of it's size, increasing it's damage as if it was a size category larger. Such bows typically have a windlass (heavy) or stirrup (light) to aid in reloading and cannot be Repeating.
Repeating: +300gp, +4lbs weight. This converts a crossbow into a repeating crossbow, to use properly it requires the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.
This is the kind of advantage you can give a crossbow if you want it to be an 'awesome fantasy weapon' and more than just a side-arm for low-level casters. Using these, I can arm my character with a second weapon that can loose six bolts in one round each inflicting 2d8 damage for 680 gp. Who cares if it takes two full rounds to reload it?
Clubs and greatclubs aren't bad weapons. They aren't especially GOOD weapons, but you can make a fighter that uses a greatclub instead of a greatsword no problem.
Neither are light crossbows. I could have made Fighterman with a light crossbow no problem, and in fact in certain ways it would have been better (17-20 x3 crit with a bunch of critical feats). The loss of 6 damage per attack would not have caused him to fail the challenge.
The reason people don't take those weapons is that everyone wants to use a sword or a greataxe. It has nothing to do with mechanics and everything to do with style.
Oh, so it has nothing to do with the fact that, mechanically, greatswords are the best weapon in the (core) game? Or that longswords/rapiers are the best one-handed weapons? The favorable mechanics have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that no one uses clubs, light maces, or other simple weapons if they have any other option?
Sorry, I'm not buying it. Light maces are as much a cleric's sidearm as light crossbows are a wizard's, and just as useful.
Funny enough, they have the same flaws that crossbows have. They're literally in the same boat.
Not entirely true; darts get Strength to damage, as they're thrown weapons. Same with the sling, which I have seen used occasionally (for exactly that reason; a character with a reasonable Strength will actually do more damage with a sling than a non-composite longbow).
---
By the way, the simplest, most straightforward, easiest to implement fix for crossbows? Make Deadly Aim deal 3 damage per attack penalty with crossbows. Done.
I've seen people here talk about making a wizard with ten int. Guess what? That doesn't make it a good character.
We're talking math here, not personal opinion.
Zurai - as I said, while greatswords might be better then greatclubs, it doesn't mean greatclubs are bad. The difference between a greatclub fighter and a greatsword fighter are not in the extremes. The difference between a bow fighter and a fighter who uses any other ranged weapon are huge.
The difference between a bow and a crossbow is more then six damage per attack. Manyshot? You're now one attack less (which is huge). Rapid reload? You're a feat down. And then you add all the damage you're missing.
Dabbler - you're agreeing with me. You're stating "Well crossbows aren't bad in my game because we've houseruled enhancements to it." If you have to houserule something, it pretty obviously wasn't working.
I maintain that still being able to kill a Balor in two rounds, regardless of whether he uses a bow or a crossbow, means crossbows aren't nearly as bad as you claim.
Also, Manyshot is not an extra attack.
I maintain that still being able to kill a Balor in two rounds, regardless of whether he uses a bow or a crossbow, means crossbows aren't nearly as bad as you claim.
Also, Manyshot is not an extra attack.
...Uh, what?
Manyshot is an extra attack that only works with bows.
And you aren't really defending crossbows. You're saying that a light crossbow does indeed lose an extra attack and requires an extra feat and does less damage, but in return you're...still a fighter, I guess? Not quite sure where you're going with that.
Now do heavy crossbow :3
...Uh, what?
Manyshot is an extra attack that only works with bows.
False. It is closer to Vital Strike than Rapid Fire; it deals (to borrow 4E terminology) 1[W] extra damage, but you don't get precision damage or critical damage for it, and its success is entirely dependent on the success of the attack roll for the first attack. It also double-dips on DR (unlike Vital Strike). It's not really anything like an extra attack. Yes, it is damage that crossbows can't replicate. However, crossbows have other advantages over longbows (and they already get a overwhelmingly -- dare I say, fantastically -- unrealistic rate of fire anyway).
And you aren't really defending crossbows. You're saying that a light crossbow does indeed lose an extra attack and requires an extra feat and does less damage, but in return you're...still a fighter, I guess? Not quite sure where you're going with that.
You havn't been reading. Light crossbows actually have a major advantage over longbows, especially for Fighters: higher crit range. Normally that wouldn't matter, but the Critical feats (and especially Critical Mastery) change that, in dramatic fashion. Having twice the chance to stun, stagger, blind, exhaust, etc with each hit is a seriously huge advantage.
Your premise all along has been that other weapons have been "fantasy-ized" but crossbows haven't. That's bull, frankly. A completely untrained commoner can fire 10 shots a minute with a light crossbow, while historical rates of fire for crossbows were on the order of 1 (one) shot per minute. A warrior with Rapid Reload can do the same with a heavy crossbow, or walk while maintaining that unrealistic rate of fire with a light crossbow, which is patently absurd.
You havn't been reading. Light crossbows actually have a major advantage over longbows, especially for Fighters: higher crit range. Normally that wouldn't matter, but the Critical feats (and especially Critical Mastery) change that, in dramatic fashion. Having twice the chance to stun, stagger, blind, exhaust, etc with each hit is a seriously huge advantage.Your premise all along has been that other weapons have been "fantasy-ized" but crossbows haven't. That's bull, frankly. A completely untrained commoner can fire 10 shots a minute with a light crossbow, while historical rates of fire for crossbows were on the order of 1 (one) shot per minute. A warrior with Rapid Reload can do the same with a heavy crossbow, or walk while maintaining that unrealistic rate of fire with a light crossbow, which is patently absurd.
So.. if I gather what you are saying it is that crossbows have been sped up in the game to make them a somewhat viable weapon. Without this concession, the crossbow would never-ever be used. Now, it is a rare sight.
I believe what many of the pro-crossbow supporters are saying is that: that improved speed isn't enough. A commoner can fire a sling at the same rate of fire as a light crossbow and still move.. the currently constituted crossbows ask for many concessions on their behalf and yet do not give back without feat investment.
While you get a 10% chance to crit instead of 5%, you also lose out on any extra strength damage (composite bows) which means that the bow still comes out ahead on sustained damage over time. Also, to gain any of the critical benefits you speak of your character has to be at least level 11, a long time without seeing any benefit of the crossbow.
Crossbow Mastery is in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. It lets you reload a heavy crossbow as a free action.
If you incorporate 3.5, there was a feat in the Player's Handbook 2, I think called Crossbow Sniper (I may be wrong) let you use sneak attacks from 60ft instead of 30ft with a crossbow, and it let you add 1/2 your dex bonus to damage with a crossbow. Also in 3.5, in Races of the Wild, there was a feat that let you hide as a free action with very little penalty after firing a ranged weapon. I think it was called Able Sniper.
Those three feats, although rather heavy in the prerequisite department (Crossbow Mastery requires PBShot, Rapid Reload and Rapid Shot, Crossbow Sniper requires Weapon Focus in a crossbow, and I think Able Sniper required ranks of hide) allow you to design a very effective rogue-based sniper who completely dumps strength and still does some nasty damage, all it really takes is a single dip into Shadowdancer for Hide in Plain Sight. Or you can just go Assassin and forget Shadowdancer and get some sick killing action going on. 60ft range on death attacks? Now you're talking!
If you go Rogue straight into Assassin with those, you could effectively dump Strength, Charisma, and have max Dex with good Con and Wisdom, and average intelligence (now that assassins don't get spells anymore).
Also, to gain any of the critical benefits you speak of your character has to be at least level 11, a long time without seeing any benefit of the crossbow.
Conveniently ignoring the fact that you're also not going to have a big bonus from strength on the longbow until around then, I see. Until your character has a seriously high strength, the only thing separating longbows from light crossbows are Manyshot and Rapid Reload. Also, it's much, much harder to find perfectly-suited composite longbows with up-to-date enchantments, meaning if you actually want a "perfect" longbow someone in your party is going to have to make it for you -- and re-make it from scratch every time your Strength increases.
I guess the two questions are these:
1. Who uses crossbows?
As mentioned above, wizards, sorcerers, and commoners use crossbows because they are easier to use than longbows. Granted, most PCs will be using longbows, but Granny is going to bring out her heavy crossbow when things start getting rough at the saloon, because she's had more important things to do during her long life than devote hours to archery practice.
2. Can crossbows be fixed with feats and additions to the equipment list?
The easiest way to fix something is probably by adding feats and equipment, because they don't require house rules or changing the game. Another option for the serious crossbow enthusiast would be a Prestige Class that focuses on crossbow usage.
To distill this argument down to its points, it seems that both in history and in the game, crossbows are used by those with little martial training, because it is easier to pick up a crossbow and become a threat, but with more advanced training the serious combatant will want a longbow.
A similar argument can be made for any of the simple weapons. My PC uses a longspear, because she is not proficient in most martial weapons. (As a Bard, she can use a rapier, but she likes the reach of a longspear.) I had a cleric who made extensive use of a quarterstaff. Commoners in my homebrew had maces carved with runes, passed down from parent to child. Simple weapons: pick up and smash and don't worry about it. The more serious melee combatants would learn to use swords and axes.
I guess the two questions are these:
1. Who uses crossbows?
2. Can crossbows be fixed with feats and additions to the equipment list?
I just gave a totally viable example of using crossbows, even heavy ones, as a main combat weapon in a character giving out serious damage.
There are others as well. Crossbows are the only ranged weapons you can duel-wield. Yes, you get some penalties, but with the right feat chain, you can really turn your character into an arrow slinger.
Mainly, crossbows are nice if you want to totally dump your strength but still be viable in combat. Then again, you pretty much HAVE to be using 3.5 to have ANY decent damage with them...
Dabbler - you're agreeing with me. You're stating "Well crossbows aren't bad in my game because we've houseruled enhancements to it." If you have to houserule something, it pretty obviously wasn't working.
Not quite - crossbows are not useless as is, they just are not a good adventurer's weapon at high level save for an opening shot. I never opposed the idea of enhancing the crossbow, but you seemed to be suggesting that crossbows were in some way superior to bows, which they aren't.
If you want to make crossbows a viable fantasy weapon then playing with the mechanics of the bow is the way to go - double-bowed multi-grooved windlass-cocking mega-crossbows is the way to go. I have no problem with that - the bow remains the better weapon over time because of that rate of fire. But a crossbow gets cool and funky if you have a multi-firing bow for an opening volley and then a repeating bow above it for sustained fire. It then becomes a good alternative to the bow for those that don't want to invest masses of feats in a missile weapon.
So, do you like my suggestions for the crossbow modifications? Are they something we could run with as viable?
Random thought of the day: what about exploding damage dice for crossbows? Roll again on max and sum.
Kind of like 3.X Forgotten Realms rules for firearms?