Composite Bows - Too Powerful?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Mynameisjake wrote:
Wait...what? The harder you pull the trigger, the more damage the gun should do?

Makes sense to me. It's like if you light a stick of dynamite EXTRA HARD, it makes a bigger explosion.


Alorha wrote:


But on the topic it's been shifted to, I ran crossbow numbers. They look fine. In fact they look really good.

You might need to show how you got those stats.

Liberty's Edge

I have no problem with crossbows getting +X to damage (where X is determined by the maker, a la composite bows). If your strength is less than the bow's you can still crank it. It just takes forever. Call it the arbalest, if you like. The arbalest does this damage no matter what your strength is.

I *really* like the idea of a magically-enhanced arbalest that has something ridiculous like a +20 to damage and takes two or three full rounds to load.

There's precedent for this. In 2nd Edition, heavy crossbows were the ONLY mundane weapon to grant their ammunition a static bonus to damage (they gave a +1). Pathfinder is a much higher-damage game than 2nd edition (noted by the decreased lethality of fireball and the introduction of the composite longbow), so I see no problem with changing that +1 into a +X.

Also: PLEASE, please, please stop using the word 'fire' with bows and crossbows. There is no fire in a bow. Nor is there any fire in a crossbow. We use that term for firearm discharges because they DO use fire to shoot a projectile.

Good terms to use for bows and crossbows:
loose
shoot
launch
attack
discharge
pretty much anything but 'fire'.


Lyrax wrote:

I have no problem with crossbows getting +X to damage (where X is determined by the maker, a la composite bows). If your strength is less than the bow's you can still crank it. It just takes forever. Call it the arbalest, if you like. The arbalest does this damage no matter what your strength is.

I *really* like the idea of a magically-enhanced arbalest that has something ridiculous like a +20 to damage and takes two or three full rounds to load.

There's precedent for this. In 2nd Edition, heavy crossbows were the ONLY mundane weapon to grant their ammunition a static bonus to damage (they gave a +1). Pathfinder is a much higher-damage game than 2nd edition (noted by the decreased lethality of fireball and the introduction of the composite longbow), so I see no problem with changing that +1 into a +X.

Also: PLEASE, please, please stop using the word 'fire' with bows and crossbows. There is no fire in a bow. Nor is there any fire in a crossbow. We use that term for firearm discharges because they DO use fire to shoot a projectile.

Good terms to use for bows and crossbows:
loose
shoot
launch
attack
discharge
pretty much anything but 'fire'.

I guess that's something that gets you...

*sunglasses*

fired up.


Lyrax wrote:

...

Also: PLEASE, please, please stop using the word 'fire' with bows and crossbows. There is no fire in a bow. Nor is there any fire in a crossbow. We use that term for firearm discharges because they DO use fire to shoot a projectile.

Good terms to use for bows and crossbows:
loose
shoot
launch
attack
discharge
pretty much anything but 'fire'.

Lowers his +3 Flaming burst composite longbow. "Errr... what?" :D


You should try playing GURPS 4ed, or WARHAMMER 2ed, instead of this game. There is a lot of rules, nobody at the table can remember!!!! Try some other games, instead of just playing Pathfinder

The Exchange

Quote:
It's a mechanical wench.

Some sort of robot woman I assume? I gotta get me one of those crossbows... ;)


Here is some real world info on Composite bows vs. Self bows (Aka longbows and short bows)...

"Advantages :The main advantage of composite bows over self bows (made from a single piece of wood) is their combination of smaller size with high power. They are therefore much more useful than self bows when the archer is mobile, as from horseback, or from a chariot. Almost all composite bows are also recurve bows as the shape curves away from the archer; this design gives higher draw-weight in the early stages of the archer's draw, storing somewhat more total energy for a given final draw-weight. It would be possible to make a wooden bow that has the same shape, length and draw-weight as a traditional composite bow, but it could not store the energy, and would break before full draw.

For most practical non-mounted archery purposes, composite construction offers no advantage; "the initial velocity is about the same for all types of bow... within certain limits, the design parameters... appear to be less important than is often claimed." However, they are superior for horsemen and in the specialized art of flight archery: "A combination of many technical factors made the composite flight bow better for flight shooting."
The higher arrow velocity is only for well-designed composite bows of high draw-weight. At the weights more usual for modern amateurs, the greater density of horn and sinew compared to wood usually cancels any advantage.

Disadvantages: Constructing composite bows requires much more time and a greater variety of materials than self bows, and the animal glue traditionally used can lose strength in humid conditions and be quickly ruined by submersion. An authority suggests that crafting a composite bow may take a week's work, excluding drying time (months) and gathering materials, while a self bow can be made in a day and dried in a week. Peoples living in humid or rainy regions historically have favoured self-bows, while those living in dry or arid regions have favoured composite bows."

(This tells me that you should not get your composite bow wet)
Also, since they are harder to make and take longer, fewer bowyers will be making them so they will be much rarer than longbows or shortbows. Some cultures may not have them at all.
They are the bow of choice for mounted archers.

As far as crossbows go, they have a better penetrating power than longbows but a slower fire rate. The real advantage is that they don't require the extensive training that longbows require. For every one longbowman trained, you can train 10 crossbowmen.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bluenose wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:

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...

William Tell, Van Helsing, Buffy.

Whatever the movie Van Helsing used...it was NOT a crossbow.

Buffy may have used a crossbow, but her legendary strike was with an anti-tank rocket against a demon sorely out of date

Judge: Fool! No weapon forged can defeat me!
Buffy: That was then. [takes out the rocket launcher] This is now.
Drusilla and Angel run for cover as the Judge looks blankly.
Judge: What's that do?
[BOOM!]

And Buffy's reaction to killing what it took an army to take down before? "Best present ever."


In Buffy, a longbow is used about five times. In the whole series.
Meanwhile, crossbows are used about five times per season.

Clearly, Joss Whedon has informed us of the superiority of the latter. Who are we to doubt him?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

In Buffy, a longbow is used about five times. In the whole series.

Meanwhile, crossbows are used about five times per season.

Clearly, Joss Whedon has informed us of the superiority of the latter. Who are we to doubt him?

I trust Joss Whedon's expertise in weaponry at about the same level as his demonstrated skill in solar system design.


LazarX wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

In Buffy, a longbow is used about five times. In the whole series.

Meanwhile, crossbows are used about five times per season.

Clearly, Joss Whedon has informed us of the superiority of the latter. Who are we to doubt him?

I trust Joss Whedon's expertise in weaponry at about the same level as his demonstrated skill in solar system design.

Ssshhhh! It's a MAGIC sun. Every orbit is in the goldilocks zone!

Liberty's Edge

Zmar wrote:
Lowers his +3 Flaming burst composite longbow. "Errr... what?" :D

Sorry.

Do you use fire, or do you use arm strength to launch projectiles from that weapon?


Lyrax wrote:
Zmar wrote:
Lowers his +3 Flaming burst composite longbow. "Errr... what?" :D

Sorry.

Do you use fire, or do you use arm strength to launch projectiles from that weapon?

The arrows are surrounded by a nibus of flames that pulls them forward. Think of an inverted rocket with fuel being wrapped around the rocket.

Beat that ;)


LazarX wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

In Buffy, a longbow is used about five times. In the whole series.

Meanwhile, crossbows are used about five times per season.

Clearly, Joss Whedon has informed us of the superiority of the latter. Who are we to doubt him?

I trust Joss Whedon's expertise in weaponry at about the same level as his demonstrated skill in solar system design.

Ah! And since we all know that Firefly is the bestest thing evar and there's never anything wrong with it, I take it you agree with me?


drbuzzard wrote:
Ellington wrote:
drbuzzard wrote:
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.

Totally irrelevant quibble, but unlike something like trip, sunder also requires an attack action, so no go on the AOO in the RAW.


But crossbows can be used while you're prone! There, ha ha!

Yeah...


It's not that composite longbows are too powerful, it's that the design philosophy for ranged combat isn't very expansive. Simply, archery is seen as a type of melee combat specialization like charging, disarming, or tripping. It has its own basic feat progression, and has a small variety of weapons that support it. The longbow is the greatsword, and the shortbow is the longsword of archery, one allowing for a shield the other a mount. A tripper would take the best weapon for his tripping (say guisarme) build, and a charger the best for charging (lance). There isn't really a reason to make another weapon "compete" with the longbow. The longbow supports the idea of ranged, less damaging but faster attacks. Crossbows exist to allow simple weapon users an option at comparative ranges to the archers. Thrown is just adaptability for melee fighter. Slings exist to represent less advanced cultures, like a club, which includes its free status.
The only real purpose to having a weapon which is as good as the composite longbow is if it somehow had a separate mechanic at which it excelled and therefore made it a viable choice. 3.5 tried this with the crossbow sniper feat to give the crossbow a sneak attack ranged niche, but that wasn't really going far enough. The most love was given to the sling with its eventual rock bouncing mechanic from Races of the Wild, but again that wasn't very expansive.
When thinking in terms of a game, there is no reason to make two weapons equally good for the same thing. So, come up for a game reason to have something compete with the longbow for ranged and you would have it.


Buffy AND Firefly invoked on the same thread?

Ugh, please don't bring up the worst shows ever made to give credit to the coolest weapon in history.


why is it that no matter the game system there has to be a thread on how "broken" rule, weapon, power, trait, skill, xyz is?

We can "run" the numbers all we want it will not matter.
Because no matter how "broken" one person can prove something is another can show how "un-broken" it is.

The Exchange

Quote:
Totally irrelevant quibble, but unlike something like trip, sunder also requires an attack action, so no go on the AOO in the RAW.

Sunder can be used in place of a melee attack, like trip and disarm... that's also why Monks can Flurry those three. While the wording '... as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack...' could do with some clearing up, I'm pretty sure you can AoO with Sunder... otherwise, following the 'attack action only' logic, you couldn't Sunder as part of a full-attack action either... which seems weird.

On the other hand, I'm sure there's already scads of threads on that and it is a little off topic... ;)


Benicio Del Espada wrote:


Quote:
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.

I'm not sure if you're talking about in-game or IRL, but in both cases, I disagree. From the gaming point of view, it's a good thing if all weapons are viable under the right circumstances, and have some edge against other weapons. The sling has that it's a simple weapon, yes, but so are all other ranged weapons besides bows. For martial character, only bows are ever worth thinking about.

In the APG, it's been somewhat remedied for the crossbow because of the crossbow specialist fighter which is viable, but it's bad design to have worthless weapons and the times slings are better than bows are so incredibly small that it's not worth thinking about them, and it's only the ranged weapons that get this treatment - if you want to be a fighter with a longspear, you can still be a very viable character since you only lose 1 dpr compared to a glaive.

It's simply bad design, especially since PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT TO PLAY SLINGERS. It doesn't need to be optimal compared to a longbow - that a bow is better than a sling isn't really the issue - the issue is that the difference is so large you can't ignore the bow for stylish purposes. You can't play a viable slinger.

Comparing it to the real world your statement is also far from the truth. Now, I'm not an expert on the subject, but this is what I know (and if I'm somewhere wrong, feel free to point it out): The main benefits of bows vs slings are that bows are easier to use; you can train a bunch of peasants to use a common bow safely in a month, and have them fire to some effect, and the other main benefit is that it's easier to use a bow in formation. Then there are a lot of minor differences; it's easier to dodge incoming arrow fire because arrows are far more visible, armor penetration in short range is of course far better for the bow, range is better for the sling if it's very windy and so on.

Sling were however IRL NOT crappy weapons. In terms of power, they are far superior to crossbows simply because of rate of fire; "reloading" a sling takes less than a second if you're skilled. Slings however, REQUIRES skill. Crossbows don't.

Basically, I think in terms of worth as a weapon when you're skilled, it's like longbows>slings=shortbows>crossbows. In terms of ease of use, it's crossbows>shortbows>longbows=slings. And slings are hard to use in formation, especially without extensive training.

In D&D, in terms of worth as a weapon, it's longbow>shortbow>>>crossbow>sling, and in ease of use it's sling=crossbow>shortbow>longbow (as several classes get proficiency in shortbow but not longbow).

To me, longbows should be exotic, slings should be martial with a boost, and crossbows should be simple.

Actually, this is our rules for ranged weapons:

Ranged Weapons:

Simple
Crossbow, hand - 1d6, 19+, Move to reload
Crossbow, light - 1d8, 19+, Move to reload
Crossbow, heavy - 1d12, 19+, Full to reload
Crossbow, strongman - 1d12+2, 19+, Full to reload, two full unless str 14+
Martial
Shortbow - 1d6, x3, Swift to reload
Comp. Shortbow - 1d6+Str, x3, Swift to reload
Sling - 1d4+Str, x3, Swift to reload
Exotic
Longbow - 1d8, x3, Swift to reload
Comp. Longbow - 1d8+Str, x3, Swift to reload

Rapid Reload lowers reload step by to free for bows, hand and light crossbows, and slings, move for heavy crossbow, and move/full for strongman crossbow.
Slings get a +4 bonus to sleight of hand checks to hide the weapon and can be retrieved or drawn as a free action if having one rank in sleight of hand.

Range, weight, cost and so on are unchanged.

So here, I think it more fairly represents historical usage (though it's of course still abstracted and I don't make any claims to being ACCURATE, just less inaccurate) and also all weapons have noticable benefits even at higher levels.


Kefler wrote:

Personaly i would like to see cross bows not be better than bows in straight DPR , but i would like to see them be better in some situations. I i like the idea they have with the crossbowman variant in the APG , i just don't think it was enough.

IMHO, you should not consider the APG crossbowman as a straight damage dealer. The Archetype has sniping (deadly stroke, expecially with double crossbow) and control role (most enemy spell-likes and spells will fail if used properly).

In the damage department, people should remember that is easier for the crossbowman get the critical hit chance for critical fetas, (and the gain in damage at the 20 level capstone is greater, unless I miss something).


OK, I was just reading through the crossbowman fighter specialty, and was pretty underwhelmed. As I read it, you only get the dex bonus to damage on a readied action. So much for full attacks.

Now as for thrown weapons being competitive, they can only keep up at low level. Once you start hitting levels where you really want/need magic weapons you will fall behind fast. Even the returning property doesn't hell enough since it only guarantees you 1 shot per round with the weapon.

The Exchange

Quote:
OK, I was just reading through the crossbowman fighter specialty, and was pretty underwhelmed. As I read it, you only get the dex bonus to damage on a readied action. So much for full attacks.

Yeah - you really need the Vital Strike feats if you're playing one of those guys.


drbuzzard wrote:
Now as for thrown weapons being competitive, they can only keep up at low level. Once you start hitting levels where you really want/need magic weapons you will fall behind fast. Even the returning property doesn't hell enough since it only guarantees you 1 shot per round with the weapon.

Agreed. I don't have an issue with thrown weapons not being good as a primary attack method - since it's a bit silly to carry around 20 throwing axes anyway (not that nothing else is silly - this just isn't my cup of tea). However, they should be viable as a circumstantial choice of weapon, something to open up combat with. Daggers work decently since they're good melee weapons too, but other than that pretty much all throwable weapons are underwelming (light hammers are decent, i guess).

Grand Lodge

ProfPotts wrote:
Quote:
It's a mechanical wench.
Some sort of robot woman I assume? I gotta get me one of those crossbows... ;)

Those are called gynoids.

Buffy may have used crossbows more often, but Blade: Trinity, which is about on par with Buffy in terms of realism and entertainment value, had the normal woman using a composite longbow when she couldn't use her guns and it at least had a montage showing how much power a bow could generate. So from that alone we can safely say that the Composite recurve longbow is the best, it's just apparently a bit difficult to find in Sunnydale.


stringburka wrote:
drbuzzard wrote:
Now as for thrown weapons being competitive, they can only keep up at low level. Once you start hitting levels where you really want/need magic weapons you will fall behind fast. Even the returning property doesn't hell enough since it only guarantees you 1 shot per round with the weapon.
Agreed. I don't have an issue with thrown weapons not being good as a primary attack method - since it's a bit silly to carry around 20 throwing axes anyway (not that nothing else is silly - this just isn't my cup of tea). However, they should be viable as a circumstantial choice of weapon, something to open up combat with. Daggers work decently since they're good melee weapons too, but other than that pretty much all throwable weapons are underwelming (light hammers are decent, i guess).

Actually I have been playing with a Chakram build and it looks fairly interesting. The only concern I have is whether you can catch and stow a returning weapon as a free action with Quickdraw(stowing is the question, catching is a free action RAW). I suspect not, which will really hose the build.

But the build is an interesting idea based on a chakram and shield build with very high armor and the ability to nail things within fairly short range. The Chakram has nice damage dice (d8) and only minimal penalties for use in melee (-1 to hit once you have heavy armor).


Shifty wrote:

Buffy AND Firefly invoked on the same thread?

Ugh, please don't bring up the worst shows ever made to give credit to the coolest weapon in history.

So we're talking worse than American Idol and Oprah? Because that hurts.

(why do I get the impression this ninja has set off a domino chain?)


drbuzzard wrote:
OK, I was just reading through the crossbowman fighter specialty, and was pretty underwhelmed. As I read it, you only get the dex bonus to damage on a readied action

I suppose there is no need for "yet another archer". You can focus on the sniping (deadly stroke with a double crossbow is a x4 damage + constitution bleed attack, great with ambushes and invisibilities) OR you use a lot of critical feats to take advantage of the high threat.

I agree that more options should be viable, but make everything flat and feel the same is a bad move. The crossbowman supports a different playstyle.

I was wondering... what about the lightining reload line, a TWF sniper rogue, and weapon cords? could be another way.

One could use caster buffs, shadowndancer dips, vanish took with talents, surprise rounds to getreasonable sneak attack damage...


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Shifty wrote:

Buffy AND Firefly invoked on the same thread?

Ugh, please don't bring up the worst shows ever made to give credit to the coolest weapon in history.

So we're talking worse than American Idol and Oprah? Because that hurts.

(why do I get the impression this ninja has set off a domino chain?)

Buffy never did much for me, beyond the hot chicks. Firefly was imaginative, original, and beautifully written; a victim of the times and the network. It was too good to survive Fox under Bush.


Benicio Del Espada wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Shifty wrote:

Buffy AND Firefly invoked on the same thread?

Ugh, please don't bring up the worst shows ever made to give credit to the coolest weapon in history.

So we're talking worse than American Idol and Oprah? Because that hurts.

(why do I get the impression this ninja has set off a domino chain?)
Buffy never did much for me, beyond the hot chicks. Firefly was imaginative, original, and beautifully written; a victim of the times and the network. It was too good to survive Fox under Bush.

Ok now that is a new one. Bush has now been blamed for TV show cancellations.

Did he give you gout as well?


Damian Magecraft wrote:

why is it that no matter the game system there has to be a thread on how "broken" rule, weapon, power, trait, skill, xyz is?

We can "run" the numbers all we want it will not matter.
Because no matter how "broken" one person can prove something is another can show how "un-broken" it is.

This just in, everything I like is good, everything I dont is broken and over powered!

Seriously that's all this ever is...most times I ignore it. If they hate casters its magic, if they hate rogues its sneak attack, flavor of the week is gunslinger because people dont want guns in their games.


drbuzzard wrote:

Ok now that is a new one. Bush has now been blamed for TV show cancellations.

Did he give you gout as well?

I didn't mean that as a slight on Bush. Fox execs were not happy with the "anti-government rebellion" aspect of the show at the time, and wanted to kill it, among other reasons. Sorry to inflame your embarrassment.


Benicio Del Espada wrote:
drbuzzard wrote:

Ok now that is a new one. Bush has now been blamed for TV show cancellations.

Did he give you gout as well?

I didn't mean that as a slight on Bush. Fox execs were not happy with the "anti-government rebellion" aspect of the show at the time, and wanted to kill it, among other reasons. Sorry to inflame your embarrassment.

I'd love to see a cite on that claim. It failed because the ratings sucked. The rating sucked because they played pinball with the slot and showed it out of order.

I think you have too much desire for politics to intrude into mundane things.


drbuzzard wrote:

I'd love to see a cite on that claim. It failed because the ratings sucked. The rating sucked because they played pinball with the slot and showed it out of order.

I think you have too much desire for politics to intrude into mundane things.

Couldn't find what I read long ago, but here's the latest Mal Reynolds:

I thought it was a funny reference!


stringburka wrote:

Comparing it to the real world your statement is also far from the truth. Now, I'm not an expert on the subject, but this is what I know (and if I'm somewhere wrong, feel free to point it out): The main benefits of bows vs slings are that bows are easier to use; you can train a bunch of peasants to use a common bow safely in a month, and have them fire to some effect, and the other main benefit is that it's easier to use a bow in formation. Then there are a lot of minor differences; it's easier to dodge incoming arrow fire because arrows are far more visible, armor penetration in short range is of course far better for the bow, range is better for the sling if it's very windy and so on.

Sling were however IRL NOT crappy weapons. In terms of power, they are far superior to crossbows simply because of rate of fire; "reloading" a sling takes less than a second if you're skilled. Slings however, REQUIRES skill. Crossbows don't.

Basically, I think in terms of worth as a weapon when you're skilled, it's like longbows>slings=shortbows>crossbows. In terms of ease of use, it's crossbows>shortbows>longbows=slings. And slings are hard to use in formation, especially without extensive training.

In D&D, in terms of worth as a weapon, it's longbow>shortbow>>>crossbow>sling, and in ease of use it's sling=crossbow>shortbow>longbow (as several classes get proficiency in shortbow but not longbow).

To me, longbows should be exotic, slings should be martial with a boost, and crossbows should be simple.

The weapons were tinged by Tolkenites. Otherwise, History shows some rather embarrassing facts that disprove much of what the game has on ranged weapons.

Slings were used even up to the Dark Ages, and very common among Greeks, Romans, and Persians (who also used crossbows) The Sling could be trained for use in under a week for lethal results, as long as your opponents didn't wear metal plate armor (everyone but the "knights) and volley fire was very effective as the slingers were spread out more, making return volleys less effective against them. Plus the fact that all it took was a rabbit hide to make a sling, and most every peasant could (and usually did) carry one for opportunity hunting, making training even easier. They could maintain a high rate of fire, point accuracy, use rocks for ammo if desperate, and one could be a passable slinger (good enough for hunting food) within a day.

Crossbows had great power for short to medium range, and were easy to train. But had terrible rate of fire (averaging 2 or 3 bolts per minute due to reload) From the times of Alexander the Great to the French of the 1500s, the crossbow changed little, and this rate of fire didn't improve much. It could produce large volleys by closely filing men together, could punch through most armors at a good distance, was almost as easy to train as the sling. But, the fins on the bolt were too short for point accuracy, and at 50 yards, you might get 2 shots off if you were lucky before things went to melee.

Shortbows were common for hunting, so many were skilled with them. Composite and long bows, with their stronger pull, greater range, and the change in flight pattern that resulted took training to adjust for, and would take months, even for a skilled archer to adjust to. That's why Medieval England used to require Sundays that all free landholders spend several hours practicing archery; to keep the skill prepared for when call-ups went out for service. The bow could maintain the same rate of fire as a sling, much further range by arching the shots, larger volleys since you didnt need room to sling (but this made counter-volleys effect) and it was effective even against plate armor, the main weakness of slings.

However, before the Longbow and the Composite bow could really be developed significantly in the West, Firearms were introduced and became the new ranged weapon of preference.

The Exchange

Vaguely related note: the whole thing about 'the church trying to ban the crossbow' was down to the fact that a crossbowman could target, and kill, specific knights (i.e. the gentry and nobility), whereas bows fired in volleys weren't that specific. Killing people was fine... peasants deliberately killing important people was unthinkable!


ProfPotts wrote:
Vaguely related note: the whole thing about 'the church trying to ban the crossbow' was down to the fact that a crossbowman could target, and kill, specific knights (i.e. the gentry and nobility), whereas bows fired in volleys weren't that specific. Killing people was fine... peasants deliberately killing important people was unthinkable!

Yep. God doesn't mind killing, usually, but that's crossing the line!


ProfPotts wrote:
Quote:
Totally irrelevant quibble, but unlike something like trip, sunder also requires an attack action, so no go on the AOO in the RAW.

Sunder can be used in place of a melee attack, like trip and disarm... that's also why Monks can Flurry those three. While the wording '... as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack...' could do with some clearing up, I'm pretty sure you can AoO with Sunder... otherwise, following the 'attack action only' logic, you couldn't Sunder as part of a full-attack action either... which seems weird.

On the other hand, I'm sure there's already scads of threads on that and it is a little off topic... ;)

Thank you! You just helped me disprove both your own interpretation and the other one that we both disagree with. I had an intuition that "an" attack action and "the" attack action weren't the same thing. It seemed clear to me that "an" attack action would include things like full attack, spring attack, and so on, but I couldn't find corroborating evidence in the RAW (which is important for the Pathfinder Society). Now I have evidence in the Flurry of Blows, which treats the use of sunder in the same breath as disarm and trip, even though it's a full attack action. Thank you!


Quote:
In the APG, it's been somewhat remedied for the crossbow because of the crossbow specialist fighter which is viable,

I don't see how the crossbow fighter is remotely viable. The dex bonus to damage is only on readied actions, which means you get it once per round at best. If you want to hold an action to zap a spell caster you're better off going with a scorching ray tossing sorcerer.

Liberty's Edge

drbuzzard wrote:


Actually I have been playing with a Chakram build and it looks fairly interesting.

Yeah, chakrams are pretty silly in the rules. A freak weapon, never widely used anywhere, yet superior to the javelin, used just about everywhere for thousands of years.

I guess one of the writers is a Zena fan. Whatcha gonna do?
-Kle.


Klebert L. Hall wrote:
drbuzzard wrote:


Actually I have been playing with a Chakram build and it looks fairly interesting.

Yeah, chakrams are pretty silly in the rules. A freak weapon, never widely used anywhere, yet superior to the javelin, used just about everywhere for thousands of years.

I guess one of the writers is a Zena fan. Whatcha gonna do?
-Kle.

Well heck, the falcata is the best melee weapon in the game, and they were pretty much an obsolete curio in actual practice.

I don't bother to get worked up about the game when it has a disconnect from actual weaponry.

Shadow Lodge

Mea Culpa. I missed the Dex to readied actions only part. This is why I should not be allowed near math. My other builds are fine. Crossbow DPR was off. I'll eventually convince my brain to run the numbers again if anyone cares. I'm actually somewhat relieved. Deadeye Dan would have outstripped everyone's DPR by lots once 11 came around, as I was reading the class ability (the wrong way).

Crossbow has to be built differently. Rapid Shot isn't going to help the crossbowman. Vital Strike will. Basically snipe the heck out of people with a double crossbow, Vital Striking flat-footed AC. Make it so no one casts ever unless they have a few levels in monk or uncanny dodge.

Can a flat-footed character use deflect arrows?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
In the APG, it's been somewhat remedied for the crossbow because of the crossbow specialist fighter which is viable,
I don't see how the crossbow fighter is remotely viable. The dex bonus to damage is only on readied actions, which means you get it once per round at best. If you want to hold an action to zap a spell caster you're better off going with a scorching ray tossing sorcerer.

Well, I'm not saying it's OPTIMAL, but it's VIABLE against CR appropriate foes (though most optimizing players make short work of anything CR appropriate). It seems to also work decently multiclassed with rogue, since he can negate dex to AC. Stack unto that a whole bunch of critical feats and he's a decent debuffer.

It's not in any way GOOD, but it's viable.

Shadow Lodge

Here. Fixed

”Deadeye Dan the Crossbow Man, Mark II”:

Once again, Dan has a stat block of 10/26/14/10/12/07. Still with those nice mental stats.
He has heirloom weapon and killer, just like everything else built.
Dan Wields a +3 Double Crossbow. His other combat-pertinent gear is a +4 Belt of Dex (included).
His feats are Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Reload, Precise 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. I did not give him rapid shot; a readied action is more damaging than a full attack.

”Deadeye Dan’s revised damage”:

Damage for Readied Attack: 45.03 / +Attack: 0.00 / +Damage: 1.14 (Reload both bolts as a move action)
Standard DPR: 40.17 / Single Attack: 25.75 / +Attack: 0.93 / +Damage: 1.14 / Extra Attack: 21.47

No good on a full attack, but ready him against a spellcaster and they will never cast. Actually the sniping option is viable. It’s not the greatest DPR, but you have a move action. It also goes up by 12 next level, between the next step of vital strike and full dex to damage.

Again, sorry for the misread earlier.


drbuzzard wrote:


Well heck, the falcata is the best melee weapon in the game, and they were pretty much an obsolete curio in actual practice.

Not so certain that was the reason it fell into disuse.


Abraham spalding wrote:
drbuzzard wrote:


Well heck, the falcata is the best melee weapon in the game, and they were pretty much an obsolete curio in actual practice.
Not so certain that was the reason it fell into disuse.

I have to imagine they fell into disuse because they were unwieldy. A quick weapon is usually more favorable in real practice.

Sovereign Court

Falcatas would have been rubbish for close orders formation fighting.


Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:
Falcatas would have been rubbish for close orders formation fighting.

Part of the problem is the fact that we can't test it -- the method for making actual Falcata's has been lost -- also when originally in use the people using them failed the weapon more than the weapon failed them.

101 to 150 of 173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Composite Bows - Too Powerful? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.