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.
No reason to be insulting, after all I did say "its a fantasy game with characters that have stats far beyond human norm so I don't really have a problem with it"
Besides, its a trade off, you want things having at least some bases in reality or your framework looses all context. If people can routinely lift dinosaurs, jump hundreds of feet without the aid of magic and run faster then a cheetah, it becomes a super hero game not a fantasy game
I love these boards. We see arguments like: "taking a -2 to an ability isn't all that bad" and "taking a -2 to an ability is crippling."
Bows aren't overpowered. They have their advantages and disadvantages. The archer in my games is often having to gather more ammo. He has found that it is easier to have his bow enchanted with abilities he wants as constants but have a variety of arrows for other additional purposes. This has proven to be an advantage and disadvantage at the same time. Yes, he has more options. But it comes at a price, and he has to get more as these run out. Even with durable arrows, he is finding that you can't recover an arrow that has managed to get lost.
The long range of bows doesn't come into play in some games. Most of the games I have been in don't have many combats taking place at hundreds of feet away. So it may seem like an advantage but most archers I have seen try to be within 30 feet to get those bonuses. They want that +1 to hit and damage and the rogue wants to be able to sneak attack if he can.
I have no problems with bows being really powerful and ignoring real life!
The problem with bows are the only ranged weapon allowed to do such.
The issue is that bows have a big list of advantages and nobody else gets them.
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...
Eh, I wasn't talking about the weapon ingame, but rather about the superiority IRL and the reasons why the crossbow didn't replace the bow.
Ingame reality is a bit trickier thing ;)
I have no problems with bows being really powerful and ignoring real life!
The problem with bows are the only ranged weapon allowed to do such.
The issue is that bows have a big list of advantages and nobody else gets them.
+1 Cirno.
The mechanical awesomeness of the bow combined with its complete lack of realism makes it very tempting to nerf. It drives me nuts that the bow is unrealistic, so to make crossbows viable we have to make them even more unrealistic. I would rather bring both bow and crossbow down a notch, and force ranged weapons to rely on their inherent advantages (range!)
BUT! I am lazy. And the game is already _about_ ridiculous superpowers. What matter if there's one more? That is the game I came to play.
I have no problems with bows being really powerful and ignoring real life!
The problem with bows are the only ranged weapon allowed to do such.
The issue is that bows have a big list of advantages and nobody else gets them.
I agree Cirno. I play a zen archer monk with a composite longbow even though stylistically I'd prefer a crossbow, but there's no reason to pay a feat tax to be LESS effective (range and damage).
Real life stuff aside, it is a game, and a game should be balanced. What I mean is a composite longbow and a crossbow should be equally viable, but good at different things. Right now, there is nothing the crossbow can do that the composite bow can't do better. The difference between simple and martial proficiency is too minor to justify this. Fighters, rangers, zen archers, etc. all get these proficiencies for free; any class designed to be good at archery gets the bow for free so it is not a true drawback.
|
I will state the obvious even though I know it will be ignored amidst a furious barage of number crunching goodness.
We play a fantasy game based on myth and legend as much as history. We have many great myths of the bow that required a great hero to string and fire ala Odysseus. As far as I know there are no legends of the amazing crossbow that only one man could crank.
Does this distort reality a bit yes but...fantasy game here.
If we are going to argue reality, why don't characters have to take the first round of any combat to string their bow? You know you can't just leave it strung all of the time without ruining it!
Bows are not overpowered. Instead of comparing them to crossbows (which have their own advantages, like being well-suited to low str characters because they suffer no str penalty on damage), let's compare them to melee weapons. The OP makes it sound like only composite bows get to add Str to damage, when really, crossbows and regular bows are the only ranged weapons that don't.
Melee weapons get your full Str bonus on damage, without limit. You don't have to pay extra or buy a special weapon to take advantage of a high Str score. The built-in Str of a bow becomes particularly annoying when buff spells come into play, since you can't use the increased Str.
Melee weapons use only one ability score for attack and damage. Bows need Dex AND Str.
Melee weapons can use the ultimate feat in the game - Power Attack. Bows can't. Rapid Shot is good, but it's not as good as Pathfinder's insanely overbuffed Power Attack feat, especially with a 2h weapon.
Sure, melee weapons can't be used at range, but they also don't provoke AoO, don't require ammunition, can make attacks of opportunity, can be made out of powerful metals like adamantine so that they can't be easily sundered, etc. It is easier to make a full attack with a bow, granted, but really, that's the only reasons bows are even competitive in DPR at all.
Melee weapons can use the ultimate feat in the game - Power Attack. Bows can't. Rapid Shot is good, but it's not as good as Pathfinder's insanely overbuffed Power Attack feat, especially with a 2h weapon.
I will see your Power Attack with Deadly Aim and raise you rapid shot.
I think I win the pot.
While I certainly grant that melee can had it's edge at times (no AOOs, no ammo, single stat), but deadly aim ties power attack, and rapid shot is a huge, huge advantage.
Rapid shot is why archers win the DPR sweepstakes a lot of the time.
Melee weapons use only one ability score for attack and damage. Bows need Dex AND Str.Melee weapons can use the ultimate feat in the game - Power Attack. Bows can't. Rapid Shot is good, but it's not as good as Pathfinder's insanely overbuffed Power Attack feat, especially with a 2h weapon.
Sure, melee weapons can't be used at range, but they also don't provoke AoO, don't require ammunition, can make attacks of opportunity, can be made out of powerful metals like adamantine so that they can't be easily sundered, etc. It is easier to make a full attack with a bow, granted, but really, that's the only reasons bows are even competitive in DPR at all.
Don't forget that while a melee fighter might only have to focus on STR for hitting and damage, he is also in a position to get hit in return so CON tends to be fairly important too. Ranged = DEX + STR. Melee = STR + CON.
Developer
|
This thread needs empirical evidence. DPR incoming when I run the calculations. I'll compare a Falcata Two Handed Figher (Best melee, I believe) to a Greatsword Two Handed Fighter (Best Martial) to a Longbow Archer (The Point) to a Composite Longbow Archer (The Other Point).
I'm not going to run Crossbow DPR. That's like suggesting Kukris be Balanced with Daggers. Kukris are better. Martial Weapons are better.
Back with math
|
Developer
|
Okay. Here are the numbers (vs. AC 24, level 10), these characters are dumb as bricks, but playable:
They have Heirloom Weapon and Killer for Traits
They have Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Initiative, Manyshot, Dodge, Greater Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, Critical Focus
Carry the Composite Bow Archer:
DPR: 86.74 / Single Attack: 23.70 / +Attack: 1.13 / +Damage: 2.09 / Extra Attack: 23.70
Larry the Longbow Archer:
DPR: 71.42 / Single Attack: 19.52 / +Attack: 0.93 / +Damage: 2.09 / Extra Attack: 19.52
The Composite is worth roughly 15 damage in a round. nearly 20 hasted.
Let's see how this compares to the two-handers.
Backswing has been factored into DPR. Overhead Chop has been factored into the single attack damage.
Both also use Heirloom Weapon and Killer.
I've given the falcata wielder exotic proficiency, though. I'm still not clear that heirloom qualifies you for feats... but that's a discussion for another time.
Feats for Captain Falcata: Exotic Proficiency, Power Attack, Furious Focus, Weapon Focus, Step Up, Weapon Specialization, Following Step, Combat Reflexes, Step Up and Strike, Improved Critical, Greater Weapon Focus, Critical Focus
Feats for Greatsword Greg: Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Furious Focus, Step Up, Combat Reflexes, Weapon Specialization, Following Step, Step Up and Strike, Lunge, Improved Critical, Greater Weapon Focus, Critical Focus
Captain Falcata:
DPR: 77.76 / Single Attack: 45.13 / +Attack: 1.68 / +Damage: 1.33 / Extra Attack: 45.13
Greatsword Greg:
DPR: 70.04 / Single Attack: 41.42 / +Attack: 1.8 / +Damage: 1.14 / Extra Attack: 41.42
So the composite bow is better damage-wise. I don't think that surprises anyone.
Is it broken? No. Let's see where the Two-Handers shine. Both melee weapons nearly double archer damage on a single attack. Both melee weapons can make attacks of opportunity, each AoO adding over 40 damage on average.
If you restrict an archer to that 70DPR they will fall behind, often significantly. Single attacks and AoO are the balance here. Composite Longbows are a good thing. They make a ranged damage build competitive in-game, though they will win in a simple DPR calculation.
Let me know if you have any questions on these builds. they're not for everyone, but you optimize and min/max if you want to try and see if a rule is broken
Bows are not overpowered. Instead of comparing them to crossbows (which have their own advantages, like being well-suited to low str characters because they suffer no str penalty on damage), let's compare them to melee weapons.
No, let's continue to compare bows to their other competative weapons.
Literally all you did just now is prove bows are either too powerful or other weapons too weak. "Bows are fine because they can hold up against melee! I mean no other ranged weapon can, but...BOWS!!!"
Also that "advantage" is nonexistent. Name a low strength character that would use a ranged weapon who does not also get iteritive attacks.
|
Developer
|
Also that "advantage" is nonexistent. Name a low strength character that would use a ranged weapon who does not also get iteritive attacks.
Gunslinger? *Ducks*
Bows make the best ranged damage fighters. Falcatas seems to make the best two-handed fighters. Kukris make the best two-weapon fighters. Better is not broken. Bows have drawbacks. All ranged weapons do, but why are we putting them up against crossbows. There are exactly 3 other Martial Ranged Weapons in the Core and APG... not a lot to compare to.
Again, if we are going to complain that a weapon is better than other options then we have to throw out all weapons. they're better than a non-monk unarmed strike.
Better doesn't mean broken. And game-wise, they're balanced.
Ok, lets compare the long bow to all the other ranged MARTIAL weapons.
Oh.. wait.. we can't. its the only one.
|
Developer
|
Oh.. wait.. we can't. its the only one.
Yep... well except the APG, and those aren't going to beat the bow (though you can make AoOs with a Chakram at -1), and is is good. Just not too good. If you've got martial proficiency, it's your go-to ranged weapon in general. Still, losing the composite aspect would put an Archer too far behind in a real game.
Bows are not overpowered. Instead of comparing them to crossbows (which have their own advantages, like being well-suited to low str characters because they suffer no str penalty on damage), let's compare them to melee weapons.No, let's continue to compare bows to their other competative weapons.
Literally all you did just now is prove bows are either too powerful or other weapons too weak. "Bows are fine because they can hold up against melee! I mean no other ranged weapon can, but...BOWS!!!"
Also that "advantage" is nonexistent. Name a low strength character that would use a ranged weapon who does not also get iteritive attacks.
Actualy for a rogue I like hand crossbows and or daggers as they are concealable. That is a big advantage for me atleast. I even take the feat to allow me multple attacks based on my iteritive attack.
I mean sure a bow is the 'best' ranged weapon in the game till you go someplace where weapons are not allowed...
Also crossbows are a far superior choice for people who don't have access to MWP. It is just so you have a ranged attack in case you need it. Why waste the feats...and money a weapon that is just a back up.
Also crossbows are a far superior choice for people who don't have access to MWP. It is just so you have a ranged attack in case you need it. Why waste the feats...and money a weapon that is just a back up.
What people is that? What people don't have access to MWP or shortbows at all?
In fact, let's go down the list!
First, the only non-spellcaster without bows are non-Zen monks, who can flurry with shurikens, so they don't qualify.
Then, many full spellcasters don't have MWP or shortbows, but they do have unlimited cantrips and/or at-will attacks! So they'll never use a crossbow. They were also the only ones that did so in 3e.
Now for partial spellcasters. Alchemists? Bombs. Inquisitors? They have short bows. Bards? Short bows. Summoner?
...Why, Summoner doesn't have short bow or at-will cantrips!
There, we found the one single class that would ever use a crosssbow. It's the class that can summon it's own eidolon or monsters to fight for it, thus ensuring it will never need to use a crossbow.
Of the ranged weapons... Bow's are the best. i can accept that. Why SHOULDN'T they be?
Between Robin hood, Legolas, Green Arrow, Hawkeye, The very Elven Archer stereotype...
Archers are a fantasy lynchpin. Are then any ancient legendary Crossbow heroes? honestly i can't think of any off the top of my head...
Slings... Will never stack up. They at least have David backing them up... but it's still a cheap piece of leather and a rock...
in a GAME format, the idea that 'if you want range, you HAVE to go Bow...' seems about right to me. In these kind of games that's where I'd have gravitated towards ANYWAY...
In fantasy games I like the idea of emulating the classics, and that's what Bow's give you. But no group of weapons are completly balanced. there will ALWAYS be one or two that outshine the competition.
And they SHOULD. All weapons are NOT created equal
With ranged weapons it's the bow. How many MORE people would have been upset if for some reason the Crossbow was head and shoulders above the classic standard bow? Elves getting outshot by dwarves...
Crossbows are simple weapons... because they're Easy to use.
Bow's require training, they are Martial weapons..
Honestly, some weapons SHOULD be considered Deadly. If there's a warrior across the room with two handed sword, and an archer already drawn on him... the warrior should drop his sword and yeild the fight. One arrow will kill. it's something that RPGs tend to trivialize... Bow's rarely do enough damage to TRULY frighten a character with a few levels worth of HPs under his belt.
|
composite bows are powerful, but they have drawback as well:
look at your mighty composite (Str +5) bow, now you're fatigued or drained or poisoned of two point of Str, going from 20 to 18...
you have now an additional penalty of -2 to hit, because you're not strong enough to handle your bow...
you could consider a composite bow as a thrown weapon with huge range, but no melee capability :)
Also crossbows are a far superior choice for people who don't have access to MWP. It is just so you have a ranged attack in case you need it. Why waste the feats...and money a weapon that is just a back up.
What people is that? What people don't have access to MWP or shortbows at all?
In fact, let's go down the list!
First, the only non-spellcaster without bows are non-Zen monks, who can flurry with shurikens, so they don't qualify.
Then, many full spellcasters don't have MWP or shortbows, but they do have unlimited cantrips and/or at-will attacks! So they'll never use a crossbow. They were also the only ones that did so in 3e.
Now for partial spellcasters. Alchemists? Bombs. Inquisitors? They have short bows. Bards? Short bows. Summoner?
...Why, Summoner doesn't have short bow or at-will cantrips!
There, we found the one single class that would ever use a crosssbow. It's the class that can summon it's own eidolon or monsters to fight for it, thus ensuring it will never need to use a crossbow.
I hate cherry pickers of quotes....what about what I said before that.
Actualy lets see here...
Ok monks use a ranged weapin that is not a bow( that sorta proves my point...as in people do use ranged weapons besides bow)
Alchemist: Don't have unlimited bombs...and if put against a fire resistant creature...I would use the crossbow...I did say back up weapon. You do know the defination of back up weapon is right?
Inquistors...I can see them using a short bow...I'll give you that...though again at low levels I would rather use a light crossbow.
Bards...see above.
Wizards + Sorcerers...mmm...it makes a good back up weapon...as Acid Splash, Ray of Frost are close range spells...and every single low level Sorcerer bloodline abilities and wizard's school abilities have a range of 30'.
Clerics: Don't gain any at will cantrips that deal damage...most domain powers don't deal damage...so actualy yeah I would have to say light crossbow for a cleric is a superior choice to spending a feat to use a bow.
Ok monks use a ranged weapin that is not a bow( that sorta proves my point...as in people do use ranged weapons besides bow)
Monks are specifically designed to use shurikens. No point.
Alchemist: Don't have unlimited bombs...and if put against a fire resistant creature...I would use the crossbow...I did say back up weapon. You do know the defination of back up weapon is right?
You play with some utterly terrible alchemists if they are built to bomb and don't spend a discovery to get non-fire bombs. For backup they have mutations and potions. No point.
Inquistors...I can see them using a short bow...I'll give you that...though again at low levels I would rather use a light crossbow.
Bards...see above.
Why would you use one even at level 1? No point.
Wizards + Sorcerers...mmm...it makes a good back up weapon...as Acid Splash, Ray of Frost are close range spells...and every single low level Sorcerer bloodline abilities and wizard's school abilities have a range of 30'.
Wizards and sorcerers more or less never run out of spells past level 4, and have no reason to use a crossbow rather then Acid Splash or Ray of Frost considering their BAB. No point.
Clerics: Don't gain any at will cantrips that deal damage...most domain powers don't deal damage...so actualy yeah I would have to say light crossbow for a cleric is a superior choice to spending a feat to use a bow.
Ok, I can see under some conditions a cleric at early levels when he can't otherwise charge the bad guy will use a crossbow. That's about half a point.
Aren't you supposed to be convincing us that crossbows are fine? Half a point ain't gonna cut it.
It's pretty hilarious that the only defense for bows inevitably comes down to "Well I like bows ergo nobody else can have fun, only me!"
Bows don't really need to be nerfed, the other ranged weapons need to be improved. But the second something might step on Bow Superiority, people freak the hell out.
|
|
All I'm going to say is that the bow should be the best ranged weapon until we get the gun, then gun should take the #1 spot, the crossbow has it's uses, but you won't see huge numbers of them because they can't fire in arcs. Guns are the logical "next step" in ranged weapons, because they have better stopping power and more range, admittedly they can't be fired in arcs, and it takes less water to foul up a gun, until cartridges are made.
This is basically how it happened in human history, the bow saw use longer than any other ranged weapon mankind has ever produced, almost longer use than every other weapon combined, because it was such a great weapon. This trend should continue in Pathfinder as well.
The composite bow has it's weaknesses, most specifically the price, unless your GM allows you to upgrade your bow every time you have the funds for it, you have to buy a all new bow more often than you have to buy any other weapon.
I'm not sure why I am even replying. I always look at these threads and chuckle.
A friend of mone his a blacksmith. He took a piece of scrap steel, not quite a quarter inch thick, banged it into the rough shape of a breastplate and set it up on a tree stump. He then took his own composite bow...which granted is a modern composite bow, and proceeded to fire an arrow through the steel
Overpowered? ban them in your game in favor of rocks and sticks.
Realistic? this is a FANTASY game.
All I'm going to say is that the bow should be the best ranged weapon until we get the gun, then gun should take the #1 spot, the crossbow has it's uses, but you won't see huge numbers of them because they can't fire in arcs. Guns are the logical "next step" in ranged weapons, because they have better stopping power and more range, admittedly they can't be fired in arcs, and it takes less water to foul up a gun, until cartridges are made.
Actually the limitation on firearms with respect to range is not about arcing (you do arc when shooting rifles, not as visible since the velocity is much greater), it's about the fact that loading an early rifle was so slow that it was useless in combat. Hence smooth bores were used, and those were lucky if you could hit something at 50 yards. It wasn't until the Minie ball that rapidly loadable rifles became practical and firearms got the proper ability to reach out and touch someone (which finally exceeded bows).
...Why, Summoner doesn't have short bow or at-will cantrips!There, we found the one single class that would ever use a crosssbow. It's the class that can summon it's own eidolon or monsters to fight for it, thus ensuring it will never need to use a crossbow.
Yes, and the summoner has so few spells per day that they can sic their Eidolon on the target and sit around with their thumb up their butt while they watch. Alternatively, like my summoner, you can drop a couple feats into crossbow useage and add in a bit of extra damage.
You have set such a ridiculously high mark for something to be 'worthwhile' that a crossbow could never meet your criteria. I suspect that in actual play, things don't work the way you predict.
Well, this is pretty clearly an opinion thread, so there's not much to get worked up about.
Ok monks use a ranged weapin that is not a bow( that sorta proves my point...as in people do use ranged weapons besides bow)Monks are specifically designed to use shurikens. No point.
Alchemist: Don't have unlimited bombs...and if put against a fire resistant creature...I would use the crossbow...I did say back up weapon. You do know the defination of back up weapon is right?You play with some utterly terrible alchemists if they are built to bomb and don't spend a discovery to get non-fire bombs. For backup they have mutations and potions. No point.
Inquistors...I can see them using a short bow...I'll give you that...though again at low levels I would rather use a light crossbow.
Bards...see above.
Why would you use one even at level 1? No point.
Wizards + Sorcerers...mmm...it makes a good back up weapon...as Acid Splash, Ray of Frost are close range spells...and every single low level Sorcerer bloodline abilities and wizard's school abilities have a range of 30'.Wizards and sorcerers more or less never run out of spells past level 4, and have no reason to use a crossbow rather then Acid Splash or Ray of Frost considering their BAB. No point.
Clerics: Don't gain any at will cantrips that deal damage...most domain powers don't deal damage...so actualy yeah I would have to say light crossbow for a cleric is a superior choice to spending a feat to use a bow.Ok, I can see under some conditions a cleric at early levels when he can't otherwise charge the bad guy will use a crossbow. That's about half a point.
Aren't you supposed to be convincing us that crossbows are fine? Half a point ain't gonna cut it.
Not trying to convince you of anything....since you are not open minded and seem to play the game to 'win'...I doubt I could.
I already proven one class not using a bow...which you ignored...but once more upon the breech.
Wiz. and Sors...a range of close means anybody beyond 25+5 per level is out of range...so it really just pointless to even try. Also you must play with some sucky wizs and sors if they can't hit low level ACs.
Alchemist: Shrug nothing is wrong with the Alchemist I play with...some have higher priorties than changing it to fire damage...though it is also limited in numbers of times per day...so most save them since we play in a game that is not 1 encounter per day...
Also if you can't see the advantage of a cross bow at low levels over a short bow...I don't know how to talk to you...so I spell it out. At low levels Till 8th level...or 12th level(for wizs and sors it does not matter that you will only get one shot with the crossbow....because you will only get one shot with short bow(or any bow for that matter) anyway. A crossbow is superior to a short bow to such character...not only is there a higher chance to crit...it does more damage on average.
Sure eventualy all these class will need the crossbow less and less...but than again you could argue they need any weapon less and less as they level that is just how they are designed for. But the crossbow serves it's function. Which is ranged option for classes who are not weapon focused.
And that is mostly my point...everything has a function. A bow is a superior weapon in reality...is it improved though lense of fantasy...yes but every weapon is about equaly so. Personaly I like some reality in my fantasy...so you know the actual fantasy part...is actualy fantastic.
But try to get a bow in at the evil king's ball you are inflitrating...see how far you get with that.
|
A composite (long)bow IS a superior weapon to the other weapons available in the game. If you're going to alter weapons to try to make them all balanced, then you might as well just scrap the weapons list as it currently exists and replace it with just the following list of six weapons:
Thrown Weapon
Light Melee Weapon
One-Handed Melee Weapon
Two-Handed Melee Weapon
One-Handed Ranged Weapon
Two-Handed Ranged Weapon
|
|
Actually the limitation on firearms with respect to range is not about arcing (you do arc when shooting rifles, not as visible since the velocity is much greater), it's about the fact that loading an early rifle was so slow that it was useless in combat. Hence smooth bores were used, and those were lucky if you could hit something at 50 yards. It wasn't until the Minie ball that rapidly loadable rifles became practical and firearms got the proper ability to reach out and touch someone (which finally exceeded bows).
Real arcs, like over walls with some semblance of accuracy while still classifying as a gun, instead of being a mortar. I kind of figured the loading issue was a given, that's why I left it out. The shell is what truly gave guns the edge, it allowed for repeaters (who came first, by ~200 years, perplexing enough) to be reloaded at a pace that made them even more overpowered against every other form of weapon. Not that repeaters hadn't basically replaced every other weapon by then anyhow, including melee weapons for the most part, though swords were still in use, and the bayonet is used to this very day. The knife still has it's place on the battlefield, only used in "combat" when trying to be sneaky. I say "combat" because it's not really combat when your enemy doesn't really get the chance to fight back.
Real arcs, like over walls with some semblance of accuracy while still classifying as a gun, instead of being a mortar.
An arc is an arc. As for over a wall, then we are talking indirect fire, and that's not really an issue of accuracy (at least with a bow, yes with a mortar).
I kind of figured the loading issue was a given, that's why I left it out. The shell is what truly gave guns the edge, it allowed for repeaters (who came first, by ~200 years, perplexing enough) to be reloaded at a pace that made them even more overpowered against every other form of weapon. Not that repeaters hadn't basically replaced every other weapon by then anyhow, including melee weapons for the most part, though swords were still in use, and the bayonet is used to this very day.
Repeaters were not universal until after the U.S. Civil war, and even took a while as countries adopted them (the U.S. military didn't really adopt a standard repeating weapon as a long arm until the Krag-Jorgenson which was a POS, we continued to use a single shot Springfield cartridge loading weapon until that point. ). The transition of smooth bore to Minie ball firing rifles was pretty rapid and had a drastic effect. Going from a smooth bore musket with about 50 yards of effective range to a rifle with 500 yards of effective range turned the U.S. Civil War into a slaughter because the tactics didn't adapt fast enough.
One really should not minimize the impact of the Minie ball on war. It was a really huge effect. People just overshadow it because of the development shortly afterward of the metallic cartridge.
It's pretty hilarious that the only defense for bows inevitably comes down to "Well I like bows ergo nobody else can have fun, only me!"
Bows don't really need to be nerfed, the other ranged weapons need to be improved. But the second something might step on Bow Superiority, people freak the hell out.
This doesn't sound like a balance issue. It sounds like you dislike Composite Bows and the way they function.
Balance is not merely A=B therefore balanced. Its something much more intangible and broad that covers all aspects of the the two(or more) things being compared. Composite bows have their positives and negatives. Crossbows have their positives and negatives. A variety of melee weapons have positive and negatives. Not all weapons are created equal and none of them were necessarily intended to be. As Alorha already showed, the numbers are fine. There was no gross disparity between damage in the comparisons made.
If you have such a problem with these bows, don't allow them in your games (And watch ranged fighters become more and more useless as the game progresses), but don't try scream that they're unbalanced. Absolutely nothing you've shown or said demonstrates that.
Actually the Crossbowman fighter Arch-type seems like it can be quite good once it reaches 11th lvl. Dex bonus to damage means you don't need a high strength and can still dish out the damage so you get to use the same stat for to hit and damage which the bow user can't and does not cap at +5. It also has some other really nice abilities like getting to deny an opponent their dex bonus when using a readied action.
|
Developer
|
Actually the Crossbowman fighter Arch-type seems like it can be quite good once it reaches 11th lvl.
Actually I think it can be good even at 10th. Let's compare it to my builds above. Same deal, 10th level character vs AC 24.
Dan has a stat block of 10/26/14/10/12/07. Note how much better Dan's mental stats look now that he can ignore strength completely.
He has heirloom weapon and killer, just like the other builds. Violent yet traditional bunch, these ones.
Dan Wields a +3 Heavy Crossbow. His other combat-pertinent gear is a +4 Belt of Dex (included).
His feats are Point Blank Shot, Rapid Reload, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Crossbow Mastery, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Deadly Aim, Vital Strike, Greater Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, and Critical Focus
I gave him vital strike since he gets a benefit from readying an action.
Let's bring back those other blocks:
DPR: 86.74 / Single Attack: 23.70 / +Attack: 1.13 / +Damage: 2.09 / Extra Attack: 23.70
DPR: 71.42 / Single Attack: 19.52 / +Attack: 0.93 / +Damage: 2.09 / Extra Attack: 19.52
DPR: 77.76 / Single Attack: 45.13 / +Attack: 1.68 / +Damage: 1.33 / Extra Attack: 45.13
DPR: 70.04 / Single Attack: 41.42 / +Attack: 1.8 / +Damage: 1.14 / Extra Attack: 41.42
So now that everyone's here, let's look at Dan.
DPR: 75.38 / Single Attack: 32.4 / +Attack: 1.18 / +Damage: 2.28 / Extra Attack: 27.17
Dan isn't the best in damage. He also isn't the worst. This is actually pretty surprising, as Dan is the only one using a simple weapon.
Dan can also ready an action and hit flat-footed, dealing over 32 damage on average. Spellcasters beware. Further, he can just pick up any old Heavy Crossbow and be at his full potential. Carrie has to find a bow with just the right pull.
Also, while next level everyone, including Dan, gets another attack and +1 BAB, Dan suddenly doubles what he's adding from DEX to damage. No one else will be getting that DPR boost.
I'm not seeing the glaring weakness of the crossbow here.
Yea I totally agree and he just keeps getting better as his Dex improves
Bows are better but they are martial. I don't think that means the other ranged weapons could not have been better though.
The main advantages are its reload time, and manyshot along with the strength modifier that can be added on of course.
Allowing rapid reload to apply to slings would be a good idea. If deadly aim does not apply it would work.
The heavy crossbow's reload time is not worth the extra 1 point of damage it has over the light one. The hand crossbow could have been the light one, and the light one could have been they heavy one. They also could have been made with built-in strength limitation like bows.
The better stats you have, the better the bow is. A crossbow-dude can get away with having ONE high stat, and cruise comfortably on the rest. That is why it is a favorite among casters, rogues and other characters that rarely have a modifier in strength. Better threat range, better range and no penalty for being a weakling. Sounds good to me.
Bows have a better potential for those who master it, sure. But as a martial vs a simple weapon, that sounds about right.
Martial vs simple would matter if bows were exotic weapons (since "realism" is the reason crossbows are set at simple) or if repeating crossbows were not (Wait where did realism go?) or if rogues, bards, and inquisitors didn't get shortbows.
Except all of those are true.
Also, I think it's hilarious people read "let's make crossbows better" as "DESTROY LONGBOWS!"
No.
Bows are fine. The other weapons are not. If you think "let's improve other weapons" reads as "longbows will no longer be ~*~extra special~*~ then congrats I guess on being a fanboy for a weapon?
Martial vs simple would matter if bows were exotic weapons (since "realism" is the reason crossbows are set at simple) or if repeating crossbows were not (Wait where did realism go?) or if rogues, bards, and inquisitors didn't get shortbows.
Except all of those are true.
Also, I think it's hilarious people read "let's make crossbows better" as "DESTROY LONGBOWS!"
No.
Bows are fine. The other weapons are not. If you think "let's improve other weapons" reads as "longbows will no longer be ~*~extra special~*~ then congrats I guess on being a fanboy for a weapon?
So um...how would you improve crossbows...for all your complaining how would you fix this 'problem'?
|
Developer
|
Martial vs simple would matter if bows were exotic weapons (since "realism" is the reason crossbows are set at simple) or if repeating crossbows were not (Wait where did realism go?) or if rogues, bards, and inquisitors didn't get shortbows.
Except all of those are true.
Also, I think it's hilarious people read "let's make crossbows better" as "DESTROY LONGBOWS!"
To be fair, you could assume they're responding to the title of the thread, and not the discussion it's been shifted to.
The initial question was whether composite longbows were overpowered.
But on the topic it's been shifted to, I ran crossbow numbers. They look fine. In fact they look really good. If there's a problem, show me. I say there isn't, and the numbers seem to be on my side.
Slings are awful, though. That's true. I'm not sure it requires fixing, though.
Crossbows could be given 'composite' levers that add strength modifier to damage.
guns could be given a similar thing with thier triggers.
thrown weapons could be given more range.
slings could be given the bow treatment in terms of rate of fire
Crossbows have one huge advantage over composite longbows. The same thing you say is a drawback: No need for strength. You can completely dump Strength, and get an insanely high Dex and Con. I once had a crossbowman fighter. He got to be clever, charismatic, extremely tough and an amazing shot.
Crossbows could be given 'composite' levers that add strength modifier to damage.
It's a mechanical wench. A child could crank it, given time.
guns could be given a similar thing with thier triggers.
Same comment. Guns rely on powder, not the strength of the spark.
thrown weapons could be given more range.
Not realistically. Ranges assume melee or the round before melee, usually. I am bothered, though, by thrown weapons that have to be individually enchanted. A dagger or star-knife throwing fighter can't afford to be truly bad with it. As a person who's (casually) studied knife combat, throwing your magic weapons at your enemy may result in your enemy taking your weapon, meaning you no longer have it and he does. You just lost 2000+ gold if it's +1 and you can't get it back. Only an arcane caster with the Arcane Strike feat can toss magic daggers all day and not feel bad about losing a few.
slings could be given the bow treatment in terms of rate of fire
Slings are what you make from what you have when you have no bows. They are, and should be, inferior to other ranged weapons. If a player wanted to have a sling-expert halfling, I'd work with them to to help make it not suck. But, it sucks, and it should. That same halfling with any kind of bow would be more effective, if he's not fighting skeletons.
Other than new applicable feats in PF, ranged weapons are the same as they've been since 3.0.
In 3.5, I liked to play elven wizards or sorcerers. I got a longbow or shortbow ASAP, usually from dead foes. There were times when I even used it. The longsword or rapier also came from dead enemies, so I had a slightly better weapon than most wiz/sors had. After 4th level, it didn't matter. I never used a weapon after 3rd, except to hand it to a more effective fighter who lost his, somehow.
YMMV, but weapons have a heirarchy, based to a degree on their effectiveness and the training required to use them in a real fight in the real world.
The very idea that a person could get gut-shot by an arrow and still fight is a bit of a stretch, but this is fantasy, anyway. Ranged weapons aren't broken, and any character wanting to be a great bowfighter should use the best ranged weapons available.
I say "combat" because it's not really combat when your enemy doesn't really get the chance to fight back.
That's the best kind of combat.
guns could be given a similar thing with thier triggers.
Wait...what? The harder you pull the trigger, the more damage the gun should do?