The composite longbow is arguably the most powerful weapon in Pathfinder, followed only by its smaller brother, the composite shortbow. I wanted to touch down on a few problems I have with them, even if it's been done to death before.
1. Scaling: No other ranged weapon can have its base damage increased by increasing ability scores, aside from the sling and thrown weapons. This is huge. While the crossbow and regular bow remain at their 1d6-1d10 damage range + weapon enchantments and stuff such as deadly aim and weapon specialization, the composite longbow becomes more and more powerful as the user gains strength.
2. No Real Disadvantages: The composite longbow has a range of 110 ft., only 10 ft. less than the heavy crossbow. However, while the heavy crossbow requires two feats to load as a free action, the composite longbow can be reloaded freely from the start. In addition, they have access to very powerful feats straight off the bat. Rapid shot gives them an iterative attack as soon as level 1 at the cost of a -2 to attack rolls. I don't think you'd have to ask the average melee fighter if that's a tradeoff he'd be happy with. To top it all off, in the various DPR competitions we had, the characters using composite longbows were usually ahead of their melee counterparts. More damage, more range at no real cost. This is a no-brainer, really.
3. Hindering Character Creation: If you want to be the best ranged character around, you're going to have to put a significant amount of points into strength, and you're going to have to use a composite bow. If you don't, you'll be vastly outclassed. A character with amazing dexterity and weak strength will be VASTLY outclassed by someone with good dexterity and good strength. And you'd best not get any ideas about using a crossbow, bub.
4. Silly Bookkeeping: Why are composite bows the only weapons with an ability requirement? A character with 6 strength can wield a greatsword just fine, and a character with 3 dexterity can shoot a bow, even though the two will never do so effectively. The composite bow is the only weapon that has such a clause, and it becomes pretty annoying later on when you have to re-buy your weapon every time your ability scores increase if you want to stay at your optimal capacity.
I think these are all points that have been driven into the ground already, so I wouldn't be adding much to the discussion unless I had some ideas of my own. Which I do! I've got a couple of rule changes I'd love to see implemented:
1. Every ranged weapon gets half the wielder's dexterity modifier as a bonus to damage.
Now we can see ranged characters that don't have a shred of strength, yet manage to deal more damage as they get more dexterity. Getting only half the modifier sounds reasonable enough, meaning a character with 26 dexterity and a regular bow is getting the same amount of bonus damage as a character with 18 strength and a composite bow under the rules as they are. Doesn't sound gamebreaking, does it?
2. When using a composite bow, you may use your half your strength modifier instead of your dexterity modifier when determining bonus damage, if it is higher.
The composite bow remains a viable weapon for those characters with high strength who want a ranged weapon to fall back on. There are no longer +3 strength composite bows or +5 strength composite bows, simply composite bows that remain usable for everyone. The drop in damage from full strength modifier to half is not something I'm too worried about, as it is a bit too strong as currently ruled.
Thoughts?
|
Spears, ranged weapons, that have a degree of versatility you can't find in a bow. They scale with strength, though their range isn't very good, they make up for it by allowing you to threaten the squares around you, and you don't have to drop them and switch to another weapon when someone is up on your face about things. When you throw a spear all you have to do to reload is draw another one, yes they are heavy, but anyone specializing in spears probably has a strength higher than or equal to their dex, which should still be pretty high.
I respectfully disagree based on this alone, though the humble spear is awesome, and some variant of it was the primary weapon used throughout all of history. Even now the bayonet is merely an add-on for the modern bow. I could go into how you contradict yourself (no drawbacks, while suffering from not being able to draw the string back, interesting no?) or how the weapon makes perfect sense, especially in that bows actually require a great deal of strength to use, so on and so forth, but I am sleepy, and don't feel like doing it now.
The composite longbow is arguably the most powerful weapon in Pathfinder, followed only by its smaller brother, the composite shortbow. I wanted to touch down on a few problems I have with them, even if it's been done to death before.
1. Scaling: No other ranged weapon can have its base damage increased by increasing ability scores, aside from the sling and thrown weapons. This is huge. While the crossbow and regular bow remain at their 1d6-1d10 damage range + weapon enchantments and stuff such as deadly aim and weapon specialization, the composite longbow becomes more and more powerful as the user gains strength.
Personally, I thought this comment was fairly funny- 'no other ranged weapons, except for a whole of of different ones'. The exceptions are larger in number(or roughly comparable) than the 'no other' that you cite.
2. No Real Disadvantages: The composite longbow has a range of 110 ft., only 10 ft. less than the heavy crossbow. However, while the heavy crossbow requires two feats to load as a free action, the composite longbow can be reloaded freely from the start. In addition, they have access to very powerful feats straight off the bat. Rapid shot gives them an iterative attack as soon as level 1 at the cost of a -2 to attack rolls. I don't think you'd have to ask the average melee fighter if that's a tradeoff he'd be happy with. To top it all off, in the various DPR competitions we had, the characters using composite longbows were usually ahead of their melee counterparts. More damage, more range at no real cost. This is a no-brainer, really.
The crossbows are simple weapons. The bows are martial weapons. Your real complaint should be targeted on why longbows and shortbows are weak comparatively, but you didn't bother to go there. Anyway, since they are pretty easy to skip nobody really worries about that.
There are two reasons composite bow users win DPR competitions:
A) rapid shot- a freebie attack for the cost of a general -2 is a no-brainer.
B) You don't have to move.
In straight up DPR a two handed weapon fighter probably can do comparable numbers if the target just stands adjacent (though I admit I would have to do the math, and may be wrong).
3. Hindering Character Creation: If you want to be the best ranged character around, you're going to have to put a significant amount of points into strength, and you're going to have to use a composite bow. If you don't, you'll be vastly outclassed. A character with amazing dexterity and weak strength will be VASTLY outclassed by someone with good dexterity and good strength. And you'd best not get any ideas about using a crossbow, bub.
Here is where your argument just fell apart. You just claimed no disadvantages, and then you say it hinders character creation. You can't have it both ways.
Your dex based damage suggestion is a really bad idea. To be quite honest it almost looks like you are trying to get away with only having to twink a single stat for maximum performance, and you are using a whole lot of smoke and mirrors to cover for it. Part of character design is making trade-offs. You want a pass on that. I wouldn't even consider such a suggestion (yes, let's give even more attractiveness to a stat that grants: initiative, AC, reflex saves, and to hit bonuses).
4. Silly Bookkeeping: Why are composite bows the only weapons with an ability requirement? A character with 6 strength can wield a greatsword just fine, and a character with 3 dexterity can shoot a...
Again we see a case of self contradiction of the 'no disadvantages'.
Composite bows are fine by me. They're fearsome weapons in the real world, and faster to use than crossbows. I don't see any problem with a strong character getting more damage from a bow most people couldn't pull. You put that high stat in strength for a reason.
Personally, I thought this comment was fairly funny- 'no other ranged weapons, except for a whole of of different ones'. The exceptions are larger in number(or roughly comparable) than the 'no other' that you cite.
The sling is a pretty damn bad weapon that can't be reloaded more than once per round. Thrown weapons have a very short range to be used, so they're not really comparable to bows. I listed them as exceptions because they do scale, however.
The crossbows are simple weapons. The bows are martial weapons. Your real complaint should be targeted on why longbows and shortbows are weak comparatively, but you didn't bother to go there. Anyway, since they are pretty easy to skip nobody really worries about that.
There are two reasons composite bow users win DPR competitions:
A) rapid shot- a freebie attack for the cost of a general -2 is a no-brainer.
B) You don't have to move.In straight up DPR a two handed weapon fighter probably can do comparable numbers if the target just stands adjacent (though I admit I would have to do the math, and may be wrong).
You do have a point about crossbows being simple weapons. I guess it would be alright if they were weaker than bows, if they weren't so abysmal in comparison. And I touched down on regular bows in my next post.
The two reasons you post for composite bows beating DPR competitions are just further strengthening the case of why these weapons are overpowered. And yeah, no matter if it was a fighter, a ranger or a paladin, the composite longbow was always the strongest option. No real incentive to go in close, as far as I can tell.
Here is where your argument just fell apart. You just claimed no disadvantages, and then you say it hinders character creation. You can't have it both ways.
Hindering character creation isn't a disadvantage to the character wielding the composite bow; it's a disadvantage to everyone who doesn't want to wield one.
Your dex based damage suggestion is a really bad idea. To be quite honest it almost looks like you are trying to get away with only having to twink a single stat for maximum performance, and you are using a whole lot of smoke and mirrors to cover for it. Part of character design is making trade-offs. You want a pass on that. I wouldn't even consider such a suggestion (yes, let's give even more attractiveness to a stat that grants: initiative, AC, reflex saves, and to hit bonuses).
A melee fighter usually pumps all of his points into strength. How is this any different? I used half your modifier exactly because if it was full. It might still be too powerful, I guess.
Again we see a case of self contradiction of the 'no disadvantages'.
And you have another good point here, well pointed out. This isn't so much of a disadvantage as a nuisance, though.
Composite bows are fine by me. They're fearsome weapons in the real world, and faster to use than crossbows. I don't see any problem with a strong character getting more damage from a bow most people couldn't pull. You put that high stat in strength for a reason.
Crossbows in the real world rendered longbows obsolete. Longbows also took a bit longer to reload than a free action. You'll never see anyone load a bow and fire it within six seconds in the real word, but that isn't the point. If we were to base the game on how things work in the real world it would fall apart pretty quickly.
Personally, I thought this comment was fairly funny- 'no other ranged weapons, except for a whole of of different ones'. The exceptions are larger in number(or roughly comparable) than the 'no other' that you cite.The sling is a pretty damn bad weapon that can't be reloaded more than once per round. Thrown weapons have a very short range to be used, so they're not really comparable to bows. I listed them as exceptions because they do scale, however.
Again, a sling is a simple weapon, and meant to be mediocre. Personally I have to wonder why they didn't make rapid reload work for them though. They actually go to some specific lengths to chop out slings from the lots of shots game.
Thrown weapons are short range, yes, but they also work in melee instead of provoking AOOs, which isn't a horrible trade off. Next time someone sunders your bow on that AOO, you might consider this.
The crossbows are simple weapons. The bows are martial weapons. Your real complaint should be targeted on why longbows and shortbows are weak comparatively, but you didn't bother to go there. Anyway, since they are pretty easy to skip nobody really worries about that.
There are two reasons composite bow users win DPR competitions:
A) rapid shot- a freebie attack for the cost of a general -2 is a no-brainer.
B) You don't have to move.In straight up DPR a two handed weapon fighter probably can do comparable numbers if the target just stands adjacent (though I admit I would have to do the math, and may be wrong).
You do have a point about crossbows being simple weapons. I guess it would be alright if they were weaker than bows, if they weren't so abysmal in comparison. And I touched down on regular bows in my next post.
The two reasons you post for composite bows beating DPR competitions are just further strengthening the case of why these weapons are overpowered. And yeah, no matter if it was a fighter, a ranger or a paladin, the composite longbow was always the strongest option. No real incentive to go in close, as far as I can tell.
However one of my points is generic to all ranged attacks, so using it is a justification as to why composite bows in particular are overpowered doesn't really work. Were we to accede to your dex based damage request, you would just make it so that all ranged attacks become overpowered.
Here is where your argument just fell apart. You just claimed no disadvantages, and then you say it hinders character creation. You can't have it both ways.Hindering character creation isn't a disadvantage to the character wielding the composite bow; it's a disadvantage to everyone who doesn't want to wield one.
I don't think you get the idea of trade offs.
If solution A is the optimal solution, but requires that you compromise in a certain area (say, having both good strength and dex), then that compromise is a disadvantage to solution A.
The fact that path B (normal longbow vs. composite longbow) is inferior but does not require that trade off is only relevant by virtue of making path B easier to take for the cost of reduced performance.
Crossbows in the real world rendered longbows obsolete. Longbows also took a bit longer to reload than a free action. You'll never see anyone load a bow and fire it within six seconds in the real word, but that isn't the point. If we were to base the game on how things work in the real world it would fall apart pretty quickly.
Not true, I know people who can get off 12 arrows in 30 seconds using a Longbow and put them all in the bulls-eye, that's about an arrow every 2.5 seconds. Still no one can get 4 arrows of in 6 seconds in real life that I have ever seen, but then again, I don't know anyone with 26 dexterity or a 26 Strength either.
Crossbows in the real world rendered longbows obsolete. Longbows also took a bit longer to reload than a free action. You'll never see anyone load a bow and fire it within six seconds in the real word, but that isn't the point. If we were to base the game on how things work in the real world it would fall apart pretty quickly.
This is utterly false. By no means did crossbows render longbows obsolete. They did have some advantages over bows, but they had severe shortcomings. Their reload time was preposterously slow (much slower for the heavy ones than the game provides for). They were expensive to manufacture, and were pretty darned heavy as well.
Longbows were actually superior weapons in most regards with much more rapid fire, and I believe greater range (because they were used for arced trajectories rather than line of sight). The penetration power was also comparable. The only real downside to the longbow is that it required a massive amount of training from an early age and a degree of physical fitness not found in Joe Peasant. Longbow practice was mandatory for English citizens for quite a long time, and the utility of this edict was shown clearly at Crecy and Agincourt.
The only reason muskets (arquebus) managed to supplant the longbow was that the training and fitness required of the individual user was so much lower.
I will say one thing in regards to the issue of composite bows vs. long/short bows- all bows should have a strength rating, not just composite bows (as all bows do have a draw weight). Maybe composite bows should cap out higher, but they should all have a possible rating.
Crossbows in the real world rendered longbows obsolete. Longbows also took a bit longer to reload than a free action. You'll never see anyone load a bow and fire it within six seconds in the real word, but that isn't the point. If we were to base the game on how things work in the real world it would fall apart pretty quickly.This is utterly false. By no means did crossbows render longbows obsolete. They did have some advantages over bows, but they had severe shortcomings. Their reload time was preposterously slow (much slower for the heavy ones than the game provides for). They were expensive to manufacture, and were pretty darned heavy as well.
Longbows were actually superior weapons in most regards with much more rapid fire, and I believe greater range (because they were used for arced trajectories rather than line of sight). The penetration power was also comparable. The only real downside to the longbow is that it required a massive amount of training from an early age and a degree of physical fitness not found in Joe Peasant. Longbow practice was mandatory for English citizens for quite a long time, and the utility of this edict was shown clearly at Crecy and Agincourt.
The only reason muskets (arquebus) managed to supplant the longbow was that the training and fitness required of the individual user was so much lower.
I will say one thing in regards to the issue of composite bows vs. long/short bows- all bows should have a strength rating, not just composite bows (as all bows do have a draw weight). Maybe composite bows should cap out higher, but they should all have a possible rating.
Crossbows do have comparable punching power to longbows and for that reason, I have been considering house ruling that crossbows can have a Strength rating that applies to damage, but the use requirement is to load it, not to shoot it. So yes a mage could have the big strong fighter load a Str rated crossbow for him, but he would only get the one shot and not be able to reload it. This would make crossbows far more viable while still not quite as good as Longbows. This assumes manually loaded crossbows, for crossbows with cranks or levers, I would likely allow a Str rating with no use requirement, but it would be a full round action to reload and rapid reload would only reduce it to a move action.
I find that the composite longbows in the game are really powerful
I also find that composite longbows in real life are really powerful
Off topic:
I would like to see something equivalent to a Native American something like this.
American Indian bows were a huge advantage was during times of war, and in many ways the native bow and arrows had many advantages even over guns when they were developed, mainly because the American Indian bows were very quiet and so were the masterfully skilled Native American hunters and warriors. There were many wars among many different tribes of American Indians and other Native tribes and when the settlers began to arrive there were even more problems as the Indians were slowly forced off of their tribal lands. During some of these wars many people were silently killed by the expert Native American marksmen and their bows, and most of the time they did not even know that there were American Indian warriors watching them or tracking them. The expert hunting skills of the natives with their bows is something that the native boys were raised learning how to do, and hunting brought many of the main staples of their foods, due to this they were also expert warriors. The Native Americans made all of their own bows as well and these were handcrafted from wood and animal sinew was used for the string that would fire the perfectly balanced arrows.
I see there is a Ranger/Rouge mix going on here and i like that
The guy with the greatsword doesn't have to buy a new sword everytime his strength changes. This is *huge*. When he kills the Orc Badguy who has a better greatsword he just picks it up and keeps walking.
Hey- you with the 18 strength using a longbow.. *good luck* finding one on a critter. Seriously. Your longbow using self is going to be *buying* every one of your weapons, specially crafted, if you want it to both have a good enchantment and take advantage of your strength.
This may not sound by much but using the WBL system (and given how long it takes to actually craft/enchant such weapons) it is actually a fairly heavy detriment. Unless of course your DM is throwing "perfect weapons" at your party.. Which is his problem: not the game systems.
"Oh goodie, another longbow that does -2 damage compared to the one I have. Per shot."
Melee folks just don't have that issue. They get their full ability bonus on any melee weapon they touch.
To me- it is the balance, and it is balanced. And this isn't even getting into the issue of melee classes not needing two stats high where the archers do..
-S
Crossbows do have comparable punching power to longbows and for that reason, I have been considering house ruling that crossbows can have a Strength rating that applies to damage, but the use requirement is to load it, not to shoot it. So yes a mage could have the big strong fighter load a Str rated crossbow for him, but he would only get the one...
Certainly crossbows to have equal or greater punch than normal bows, depending as always on the draw weight. The game has always dissed crossbows since the dawn of D&D, but then the game also tends to dismiss the weakness of crossbows as well (reload really should be slow, so maybe it is a wash).
Your idea is a pretty good one really, though a system of figuring out reload time based on strength vs. the draw weight of the crossbow might be the way to go. Of course that also might merely be unnecessary complication.
The scaling of composite bows does not compare to the scaling of thrown weapons. In this respect, thrown weapons are vastly superior.
A composite longbow with a str rating of +4 will not out perform a magical spear with a +10 bonus even with rapid shot. The bow, of course, has to be magical to compare.
So, in the next dungeon, you kick over a +10 bow. Awsome! But it only has a rating of +2 (your str is 18). The spear weilder can just pick up his new spear and get his full str to damage. You must either suffer only partial str to damage, or sell this bow for half price and buy a bow with a +4 rating (unlike adding enhancements, you can't improve a rating on a bow)
So, you sell it, scrape your pennies together and buy a +10 bow with a +4 rating. In the next dungeon, you find a belt of strength +6. The spear wielder can don the belt and immeadiately gain the benefit of enhanced str. To the bow weilder it's rather worthless. Unless he again sells his bow for half and buys a bow with a better rating.
So, you sacrifice more gp to you cash guzzling bow, and get a +10 bow with a +7 rating this time. In the next dungeon, a wizard hits you with a ray of enfeeblement. You save, but still take 2 str damage. The spear thrower takes -1 damage, and -1 to hit in melee, but his to hit with ranged remains unchanged. You take the same -1 to damage, but now you're not strong enough to use your bow, so you take a -4 non-profieciency penalty to hit. Oh, yeah, and your weapon focus and specialization turn off. Because you no longer meet the pre-requitites for them. (i.e. proficency with the weapon).
So composite bows scale with str, true, but they scale very, very, poorly.
I always like the fact that you could use some crossbows in one hand. :)
I do think it makes bookkeeping sense to just assume that all bows are composite bows and can deal damage equal to your strength bonus. Maybe not the most accurate, but I'm all for simplification.
+1. May have to add this to my house rules.
Nothing wrong with composite bows imo, just fine as they are.
|
Again, a sling is a simple weapon, and meant to be mediocre. Personally I have to wonder why they didn't make rapid reload work for them though. They actually go to some specific lengths to chop out slings from the lots of shots game.
Not core material, but in Halflings of Golarion there is a couple feats that together basically act like rapid reload + no-provoke for slings.
Ammo Drop (Combat)
Your coordination is so perfect that you can simply drop ammunition from your hand at the exact moment required for it to fall into an open sling as your twirl it around.
Prerequisites: Sleight of Hand 1 rank, proficient with sling.
Benefit: You can load a sling or one end of a double sling with one hand as a swift action or move action. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Juggle Load (Combat)
Your fingers are so nimble that reloading your sling is almost effortless for you.Prerequisites: Ammo Drop, Sleight of Hand 1 rank, proficient with sling.
Benefit: You can load a sling or double sling as a free action. This does not provoke attacks of opportunity. This feat allows you to fire your sling as many times in a full-attack action as you could attack if you were using a bow.
Two-feat tax, but at least it gives the slinger some options.
Two-feat tax, but at least it gives the slinger some options.
That is pretty steep for as crappy as slings are, but as you say, at least it is an option.
I can't really imagine anyone using it unless they really have a sling fixation.
Crossbows in the real world rendered longbows obsolete. Longbows also took a bit longer to reload than a free action. You'll never see anyone load a bow and fire it within six seconds in the real word, but that isn't the point. If we were to base the game on how things work in the real world it would fall apart pretty quickly.This is utterly false. By no means did crossbows render longbows obsolete. They did have some advantages over bows, but they had severe shortcomings. Their reload time was preposterously slow (much slower for the heavy ones than the game provides for). They were expensive to manufacture, and were pretty darned heavy as well.
Longbows were actually superior weapons in most regards with much more rapid fire, and I believe greater range (because they were used for arced trajectories rather than line of sight). The penetration power was also comparable. The only real downside to the longbow is that it required a massive amount of training from an early age and a degree of physical fitness not found in Joe Peasant. Longbow practice was mandatory for English citizens for quite a long time, and the utility of this edict was shown clearly at Crecy and Agincourt.
The only reason muskets (arquebus) managed to supplant the longbow was that the training and fitness required of the individual user was so much lower.
I will say one thing in regards to the issue of composite bows vs. long/short bows- all bows should have a strength rating, not just composite bows (as all bows do have a draw weight). Maybe composite bows should cap out higher, but they should all have a possible rating.
The evolution of weapons had very little to do with the 'quality' of weapons. it had to do with training the inept peasants and milita quickly.
Longbows were Amazing weapons. In a skilled users hands they were fast and accurate. VERY deadly.... but the key was SKILLED...
Crossbows are easier to use. You crank, point and click. Easier to teach a dozen raw recruits to do that then to gain a true archers eye.
Muskets are quicker and easier to use than even crossbows...
It was all about who could load and fire faster and field the bigger army with the least amount of training time.
Rifles are better then muskets. They are more accurate and have greater range. That's the way they were in the Revolutionary war...
However, the fact that you could load a musket three times for every single shot of a rifle made the musket the weapon of choice for both armies. Whoever had the most bullets in the air wins.
Come the civil war, the rifle finally evolved a new kind of bullet that didn't require ramrodding and made it faster...
Sooooo the idea that crossbows were better weapons and made the longbow obsolete is quite wrong. One decent archer is as good if not better than a crossbowman any day of the week.
Hindering Character Creation: If you want to be the best ranged character around, you're going to have to put a significant amount of points into strength, and you're going to have to use a composite bow. If you don't, you'll be vastly outclassed. A character with amazing dexterity and weak strength will be VASTLY outclassed by someone with good dexterity and good strength. And you'd best not get any ideas about using a crossbow, bub.
THIS confuses me... Granted, as always... I'm still new to the rules of pathfinder (10+ years of 2nd edition...) But don't you need TWO stats high to be effective in the composite bow?
YES, if you pump up your strength as high as you can... you hit harder. But isn't DEX required to actually HIT anything? So for such an overpowered weapon you have to have TWO stats really high, it doesn't seem too overpowered to me....
So composite bows scale with str, true, but they scale very, very, poorly.
Huh... I guess the rule my group has been using is a house rule, as I can't find anything about it on the 3.5 or PF SRDs. My friend lets us have our composite bows 'restrung' with the proper craft skill to make one in the first place. If it were originally at a +2 (a 200 gp cost) and we wanted it at a +4 (400 gp) we'd pay the full 400 gp to have it reworked, since it's a precise composition as if from scratch, not just 'adding more magic'. Still quite worth it.
|
|
So composite bows scale with str, true, but they scale very, very, poorly.Huh... I guess the rule my group has been using is a house rule, as I can't find anything about it on the 3.5 or PF SRDs. My friend lets us have our composite bows 'restrung' with the proper craft skill to make one in the first place. If it were originally at a +2 (a 200 gp cost) and we wanted it at a +4 (400 gp) we'd pay the full 400 gp to have it reworked, since it's a precise composition as if from scratch, not just 'adding more magic'. Still quite worth it.
In the real world they have to be built from the ground up to have a higher pull, but it's not unheard of to modify bows, by adding extra material, better strings, and going through the process of re-molding the weapon. At a point (somewhere around +6 probably) they should just start adding strips of metal. Doing that all of that kind of damages the bow, shortens it's life span, though most bows don't have an awesome lifespan to begin with.
Now in a setting with magic and whatnot you should be able to very easily create a bow, then rebuild it when your strength gets higher, while only paying a few hundred gold pieces on it.
There is nothing wrong with composite bows. They have advantages and disadvantages. I frequently play bow-wielding ranged characters and have been effective with bows whether my str is 10 or 22. The need for two high ability scores in and of itself is a serious limitation, especially in any game with a point buy system. But even if you start with great scores in str AND dex, you have to invest in advancing BOTH of them to remain awesome, and that will eventually leave your character behind the melee fighter who only advances str.
The difference between a 10th level ranger with a str of 18 and a 10th level ranger with a str of 22 is a difference of 2 damage per successful attack with the bow. That's not remotely game-breaking, and the extra effort and expense put into buying new bows as str increases just provides additional downsides to using the weapon.
My house rule on compound bows used with less than the "required" str is the -2 in RAW, but the character receives whatever str bonus he qualifies for. That way if you get enfeebled you take an attack and damage penalty that is consistent with the game designer's intention for the enfeeble spell.
I had one character who had a 10 str and used a bow who carried two bows around, one normal one and one +2 compound bow. In critical fights he'd buff up his strength to gain the additional damage.
Again, there's nothing wrong with the compound bow. It's fine the way it is.
The game has always dissed crossbows since the dawn of D&D, but then the game also tends to dismiss the weakness of crossbows as well (reload really should be slow, so maybe it is a wash).
Nah AD&D used to give them good modifiers to punch through armour, so they were ONCE respected :P
That said, Crossbows got jibbed since.
And here I am making Longbows and Composite Longbows Exotic Weapons...
Simple vs Martial is meaningless when every g$!@*%n class that would want to use a simple weapon gets to use a shortbow anyways.
Also I will never stop finding it hilarious(ly dumb) that repeating crossbows, possibly the most simplistic weapon in the universe, requires specialized training! The compound bows that took years of actual specialized training? Naw it's cool we'll just hand those out like they're going out of style.
Edit: The problem isn't "Hey compound bows are good," the problem is "Hey everything else is absolutely terrible and has no upsides whatsoever, you literally have zero reason to every use something that isn't a compound bow."
Crossbows in the real world rendered longbows obsolete. Longbows also took a bit longer to reload than a free action. You'll never see anyone load a bow and fire it within six seconds in the real word, but that isn't the point. If we were to base the game on how things work in the real world it would fall apart pretty quickly.
I'd add to what was said already. Longbows are about as powerful as the crossbows when it comes to mpunching power, but longbow can keep it for much greater range. The reason for that is that the crossbow has to shoot directly, much like a gun, while the bow can be shot upat much greater angle and use gravity to add punching power even at greater range. The real advantage for the crossbows though was that they are easy to use in cramped castle fortification (where it didn't matter much that you had another guy at hand if you needed to reload) and require little training to use. For demonstration of mass bow vs. mass crossbow use effectivity I recommed reading something about battles like battle of Crécy, where English bowmen faced (aside from armoured cavalry) a large contingent of Genovese crossbowmen.
For crossbows I'd take similar approach as with the composite bows. The cost of the masterwork crossbow would be increased for every +1 it would allow to be added, but I'd set up a limit at +2 for light and +4 for heavy crossbows probably. The I'd allow the crossbows to be reloaded using a crane or other such thing, taking one reloading action for every +1 you're adding to the shot, or reloading the crossbow as a single reloading action for people who have the strength needed to pull the string all the way.
On simple vs martial, the usual power difference between a decent simple and a decent martial is one point of average damage or one point of threat range or one point of crit multiplier. Compare heavy mace/warhammer, sickle/shortsword, and dagger/kukri. In the last case the difference is even less since the dagger has the boon of being throwable. The difference martial - exotic is usually as large.
So slings and crossbows being simple weapons isn't really a reason to make them THAT much worse than bows.
The game has always dissed crossbows since the dawn of D&D, but then the game also tends to dismiss the weakness of crossbows as well (reload really should be slow, so maybe it is a wash).
Nah AD&D used to give them good modifiers to punch through armour, so they were ONCE respected :P
That said, Crossbows got jibbed since.
True enough. However did you actually know anyone who used the weapon vs. armor type table?
I sure didn't.
True enough. However did you actually know anyone who used the weapon vs. armor type table?I sure didn't.
Our DM graduated with a PhD in Maths at UCLA and went to work for NASA. Reckon he used those tables?
Our DM graduated with a PhD in Maths at UCLA and went to work for NASA. Reckon he used those tables?
True enough. However did you actually know anyone who used the weapon vs. armor type table?I sure didn't.
You didn't need to be a rocket scientist to use a table. You just had to like tedium.
Of course back in the days of 1st ed when I was playing that was Junior High to High school, so I can't really stack up academic credentials for the people.
I got a PhD later myself in engineering, but that doesn't mean I was inclined to use the tables.
You didn't, but the group was kinda full of the mathematically gifted and they really liked that aspect of play. Personally I just found the tables convoluted and painful, but then I wasn't one of the Genius Squad :P
These were great guys, they could tell you exactly how much peanut butter was in a given jar down to the micron, but couldn't actually open it.
Two-feat tax, but at least it gives the slinger some options.That is pretty steep for as crappy as slings are, but as you say, at least it is an option.
I can't really imagine anyone using it unless they really have a sling fixation.
There have been a number of recent threads about slings and how poorly serviced they are by the game designers.
But back on topic, I agree that composite bows being able to get a Str bonus while normal bows can't is wrong. Bow length, the length of your draw etc is more important than what your bow is made out of. Ideally you would use a bow that is matched to your capacity to draw it to its maximum effective draw. In game terms that should be higher strength means you can have a bow with higher draw and therefore it shoots with greater power which equals greater damage potential and greater potential range.
I'd add to what was said already. Longbows are about as powerful as the crossbows when it comes to mpunching power, but longbow can keep it for much greater range. The reason for that is that the crossbow has to shoot directly, much like a gun, while the bow can be shot upat much greater angle and use gravity to add punching power even at greater range.
Bolts fired from quarrels are subject to the same laws of ballistics as any other projectile. A crossbow does not have to be fired "directly". A bolt, arrow, or bullet fired at close range follows a flatter ballistic path than the same projectile fired at longer ranges.
Even guns don't have to fire directly. Fire an M60 on its bipod over a few hundred meters and the bullet will follow path where the apex of its flight is a few meters above line-of-sight (it's been 20 years since I taught marksmanship so I can't remember the exact figures). Put the same M60 on a tripod and you can fire it indirectly out to a few kilometers with an apex much, much higher.
A crossbow is no different in having different trajectories at different ranges and gravity will affect a bolt in the same manner as an arrow.
Yep, 7.62mm rounds make for great indirect support weapons, and can put down a decent beaten zone at the other end.
well looking at game mechanics you can go prone with a crossbow(which is good vs ranged attackers bad against melee attackers) and fire at your enemy. but with a bow you dont have that option.
True enough. However did you actually know anyone who used the weapon vs. armor type table?
I sure didn't.
One of my DMs not only used them, he liked them so much that he insisted on continuing to use them for 2E.
True enough. However did you actually know anyone who used the weapon vs. armor type table?
I sure didn't.
I did.
I'd add to what was said already. Longbows are about as powerful as the crossbows when it comes to mpunching power, but longbow can keep it for much greater range. The reason for that is that the crossbow has to shoot directly, much like a gun, while the bow can be shot upat much greater angle and use gravity to add punching power even at greater range.Bolts fired from quarrels are subject to the same laws of ballistics as any other projectile. A crossbow does not have to be fired "directly". A bolt, arrow, or bullet fired at close range follows a flatter ballistic path than the same projectile fired at longer ranges.
Even guns don't have to fire directly. Fire an M60 on its bipod over a few hundred meters and the bullet will follow path where the apex of its flight is a few meters above line-of-sight (it's been 20 years since I taught marksmanship so I can't remember the exact figures). Put the same M60 on a tripod and you can fire it indirectly out to a few kilometers with an apex much, much higher.
A crossbow is no different in having different trajectories at different ranges and gravity will affect a bolt in the same manner as an arrow.
Form what I've read about it the crossbow bolts lost accuracy and punching power a lot while doing that and weren't used this way. I'm talking about bows being fired up in the sky and arrows then striking the target from above in while fired en-masse. I've never seen crossbows used this way except perhaps Chinese wu-xia movies. Of course that direct fire from a bow would have similar parameters to the crossbow while firing throgh the lower angles, but for long range higher angles were the preferred method of attack.
Form what I've read about it the crossbow bolts lost accuracy and punching power a lot while doing that and weren't used this way. I'm talking about bows being fired up in the sky and arrows then striking the target from above in while fired en-masse. I've never seen crossbows used this way except perhaps Chinese wu-xia movies. Of course that direct fire from a bow would have similar parameters to the crossbow while firing throgh the lower angles, but for long range higher angles were the preferred method of attack.
That is correct.
However on a similiar note... I don't think the PF Bows are designed with that kind of stuff in mind either...
Or at least SHOULDN"T be! One guy shooting up in the sky never hits his target. It's not even about aiming at that point. All your intrerested in is distance.
That kind of firing requires 200 archers peppering an entire field and hoping SOME of the 200 footman died...
I'd add to what was said already. Longbows are about as powerful as the crossbows when it comes to mpunching power, but longbow can keep it for much greater range. The reason for that is that the crossbow has to shoot directly, much like a gun, while the bow can be shot upat much greater angle and use gravity to add punching power even at greater range.Bolts fired from quarrels are subject to the same laws of ballistics as any other projectile. A crossbow does not have to be fired "directly". A bolt, arrow, or bullet fired at close range follows a flatter ballistic path than the same projectile fired at longer ranges.
Even guns don't have to fire directly. Fire an M60 on its bipod over a few hundred meters and the bullet will follow path where the apex of its flight is a few meters above line-of-sight (it's been 20 years since I taught marksmanship so I can't remember the exact figures). Put the same M60 on a tripod and you can fire it indirectly out to a few kilometers with an apex much, much higher.
A crossbow is no different in having different trajectories at different ranges and gravity will affect a bolt in the same manner as an arrow.
Of course this is true, but it is also true that crossbows didn't have any sights which supported ballistic fire, nor were the users trained to do such things. Longbowmen were.
Longbows also took a bit longer to reload than a free action. You'll never see anyone load a bow and fire it within six seconds in the real word, but that isn't the point.
You've apparently never watched a competent archer on a speed trial. This isn't surprising since archery is an obsolete skill, but take my word for it - a good archer can shoot a lot of arrows pretty dang fast, with decent accuracy.
There are plenty of things an archer can do in Pathfinder that are silly, but rapid fire is not one of them.
-Kle.P.S.
Meh. I don't really care about the inequality of the Composite Longbow.
Yes and no, as I said earlier, 12 arrows in 30 seconds is possible, I have seen it done accurately, that's an arrow every 2.5 seconds. Pathfinder has as us shooting 5 times in six seconds that's an arrow every 1.2 seconds, that is not humanly possible, but then again its a fantasy game with characters that have stats far beyond human norm so I don't really have a problem with it
Form what I've read about it the crossbow bolts lost accuracy and punching power a lot while doing that and weren't used this way. I'm talking about bows being fired up in the sky and arrows then striking the target from above in while fired en-masse. I've never seen crossbows used this way except perhaps Chinese wu-xia movies. Of course that direct fire from a bow would have similar parameters to the crossbow while firing throgh the lower angles, but for long range higher angles were the preferred method of attack.That is correct.
However on a similiar note... I don't think the PF Bows are designed with that kind of stuff in mind either...
Or at least SHOULDN"T be! One guy shooting up in the sky never hits his target. It's not even about aiming at that point. All your intrerested in is distance.
That kind of firing requires 200 archers peppering an entire field and hoping SOME of the 200 footman died...
This is just not true, I once hit a 2 " wide rattan flag pole I was aiming at that was 140 yards away on my first shot with a 45 lb long bow. To do that I had to aim and then change the trajectory to 45 degrees. My second shot was 3 inches to the right and in the ground just behind the pole and I know many archers that are better then I was at the time, I was good, but not fantastic
What a bunch of trollcrap this discussion is. In a fanatasy world where demons and devils, dinosaurs and dragons, zombies and dracoliches are opposed by magic wielding heros capable of re-writing the laws of physics...you're wasting your time wondering about how many arrows an archer can fire in real life in six seconds? Hell, Ill just have my level 10 arcace archer level / level 10 wizard imbue an arrow with maximized fireball fired from a +5 holy burst seeking composite longbow of speed, then use his cape of the mountbank to "blink" 600 feet away before casting greater invisibility on him and his griffon mount.
Please try not to get so real, this game is fantasy afterall.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
This is just not true, I once hit a 2 " wide rattan flag pole I was aiming at that was 140 yards away on my first shot with a 45 lb long bow. To do that I had to aim and then change the trajectory to 45 degrees. My second shot was 3 inches to the right and in the ground just behind the pole and I know many archers that are better then I was at the time, I was good, but not fantastic
Form what I've read about it the crossbow bolts lost accuracy and punching power a lot while doing that and weren't used this way. I'm talking about bows being fired up in the sky and arrows then striking the target from above in while fired en-masse. I've never seen crossbows used this way except perhaps Chinese wu-xia movies. Of course that direct fire from a bow would have similar parameters to the crossbow while firing throgh the lower angles, but for long range higher angles were the preferred method of attack.That is correct.
However on a similiar note... I don't think the PF Bows are designed with that kind of stuff in mind either...
Or at least SHOULDN"T be! One guy shooting up in the sky never hits his target. It's not even about aiming at that point. All your intrerested in is distance.
That kind of firing requires 200 archers peppering an entire field and hoping SOME of the 200 footman died...
"It's not impossible. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters. "
sorry, had to go there. :-)