The fact is, a crossbow should have a stronger blow than any longbow. Crossbow strings can be drawn back farther, as they have a mechanical mechanism. So here's my idea to bring some realism:
EXOTIC WEAPON
Weapon Name Damage (small) Damage (medium) Special Range
Arbalest: 1d10 2d6 touch; see text 150 ft.
The arbalest is a large steel-bowed crossbow of extreme strength. It takes 5 rounds to reload (1 round with Rapid Reload), and its attacks are against touch AC.
Alternatively, it would fire at normal AC, but add +3 to damage for every -1 to attacks with Deadly Aim (as opposes to +2).
I have yet to work out the price and weight. I also have very little skill in weapon designing.
While I realize that composite longbows are still better (thanks to full attack), this weapon would at least establish that crossbows are stronger, but slower. As things should be.
Obviously, I need feedback from people with more knowledge--factual and rulewise. I'm fully aware there are probably some problems with this design.
|
The fact is, a crossbow should have a stronger blow than any longbow. Crossbow strings can be drawn back farther, as they have a mechanical mechanism.
That's something of a fallicy. The 'bow' part of a crossbow (the prongs) has a greater / more powerful draw than that of a normal bow ('cos it's made of metal, not wood), but that just allows it to pack a similar punch at a much reduced size. Generally crossbows packed a punch comparable to a longbow at short ranges, but much less as the range increased. Later crossbows did start to outpace the longbow a little in some areas... but by then guns were all the rage and it was starting to be a moot point...
The statistics for a Ballista (a huge sized heavy crossbow) are on page 435 of the core book, which should help when you're looking to develop something like this. Otherwise rules for scaling weapon sizes and damage are on pages 141 to 145. A large sized heavy crossbow, for example, does 2d8 damage, and you take a -2 penalty to fire it (plus the effort's increased as well, so it's actually a -6 total). There's no reason, rules-wise or reality-wise, to assume a crossbow would ever target a touch AC (they, like a longbow's bodkin arrows, could penetrate early medieval metal armour, but had a hard time against the later full plate, barring a lucky shot).
The arbalest is something I know a fair bit about. They were very large, but made to be wielded by one man (hence the exotic weapon status). They were also capable of puncturing through a knight's armor with ease, which gave them, and all crossbows, the reputation as a coward's weapon.
...and let the gun / crossbow Touch AC arms race begin!!! (it was bound to happen right?)
Meanwhile, the rogues stand by and cry.
While we are at it why not make all weapons have the same stats but with different names.
That way its all balanced and no one can complain.
(Not meant as slight against anyone.)
I have to say that I don't like the guns touch AC mechanic. As an alternative I present my Idea for a stronger crossbow.
Based on the compound bow, have a crossbow with a strength rating to load, that gives a bonus to damage. Or, odd as it may seem, a nonmagical boost to attack can model armor penetration and increased accuracy from a more powerful and faster bolt.
|
Races of stone had an exoyic crossbow:
Crossbow, great 150 gp 2d6 2d8 3d8 18–20/×2 120 ft. 14 lb. Piercing
As for the touch AC, I can't see it in the game mechanic for guns or crossbows... Enough armour could stop most early fire arms, look at ned kelly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Kelly#Glenrowan_Shoot-Out
In 1880 his plate armour was enough to stop the bullets of the fire arms of the day...
|
OK, but I don't think any of this is fair to players that are looking to have a serious shot at making a difference with characters employing blow guns, or even more importantly atlatls. Throw me a bone people :)
BTW, most of Cortez's guys traded in their mail and breatsplates for cotton plated Aztec style armor early in the campaign. The padded armor worked better in tropical climate, and since the Aztec tactics revolved around ritual capture by stunning foes, they had very low firepower next to the forces of San Iago. The crossbow was probably the deadliest weapon employed by the Spanish in the campaign, as they had only a relative handful of arquebests (and limited powder until they found bat guano deposits later in the campaign). Later - Joe
Seems to me the creation of the crossbow was the downfall of the longbowmen...because it took years to train an archer and day to train a crossbowman. Consequently I have a hard time with a crossbow as an exotic weapon proficiency. Really the big game difference between bow and crossbow is the threat/crit ratings...and the fact that in general a bow can be fired faster. With rapid reload though you can use a light crossbow pretty much like a longbow...and then the difference becomes whether you want 20/x3 or 19-20/x2. If you want there to be more reason to use a crossbow...shift up the reload speeds on crossbows in your game...then with rapid reload you could use a heavy crossbow.
I'm always cautious about suggestions to speed up crossbow fire rates (short of magical enhancement as discussed in another thread currently active). Even if you factor in rapid reload, prearing a crossbow to shoot has more steps than a bow. With a bow you take an arrow from your quiver and then the nocking and drawing is in one motion. With a crossbow you need to c**k the bow then take the quarrel/bolt out of its quiver and place it in the groove. So even if you can speed up the c**king process there are other time restrictions in fitting multiple shots per round.
As for speeding up heavy crossbows which take a windlass, that is where I think there is a need for some kind of strength based rate of fire. Ie the stronger you are the faster you can wind the windlass. A weak character can still use a heavy crossbow but it will be slower.
Crossbows that are c**ked by bending over, hooking on to the string and standing up (not sure of the technical term for this type), could be sped up within limits.
Rather than making crossbows faster, perhaps longbows should be changed. Make longbows an exotic weapon proficiency to reflect the difficulty in becoming proficient in fast, effective fire (in game terms iterative attacks for a higher BAB, allowing rapid shot etc). Whereas a longbow as a martial proficiency would not allow iterative attacks, rapid shot.
Essentially any martial type could use a long bow reasonably well, but to be really good at it, and get access to additional feats to increase rate of fire, you would need to to take EWP. (Though I admit the whole issue of the a weapon having different capabilities depending on whether you take a simple, martial or exotic proficiency to use it is a whole different kettle of fish).
I also wonder whether we would be better off not differentiating between normal bows and composite ones. Both have the same function just different materials used in their construction (though admittedly composite long bows are shorter and easier to use on horseback). While composite bows currently allow for strength bonuses, realistically the same can apply to normal bows. A yew longbow can be made with different draw. In game terms, why should a longbow with a 170lb+ draw (as the ones I saw, and tried to draw, at the Agincourt museum in France have) do the same damage as weaker ones.
|
|
I think the current system works OK. You have a simple weapon that does more damage than its martial equivalent, with an increased crit range. However with strength, the right bow and the right training you can out perform the crossbow with a bow.
I don't find the idea of an exotic crossbow outlandish or beyond game mechanics as it may be a strong pull crossbow with an unusual loading device. 2d8 is about the same average damage (9) as the 1d8+4 (8.5) longbow, but the long bow can be fired more often. It does allow for interesting feat combinations. Vital strike with such a crossbow could be quite potent, but we would be talking a 6th level fighter with two feats invested...
As for the pros and cons of crossbows, I found the article below quite useful from someone who had used both. Its not too academic, but does have a short video of a person fireing a crossbow using a goats foot, versus a bow man.
http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/weapons/crossbow.html
Really straying off question, slings are quite an awesome weapon... Look on youtube...
There were whole units of slingers in the ancient world, but again I think it works well enough in game terms.
There have been a few good threads about slings in the last few months. Personally, I think slings have been sold short. A trained slinger using proper bullets rather than stones could out-range and out-damage certain bows (essentially short bow in game terms).
One of the issues with missile weapons (bows, crossbows and slings) in game is that they are largely used at ranges which on a real battlefield would be considered close range and by individuals shooting at individiual, not units firing at other units. This has a whole different dynamic which, by and large, is well covered by the rules. But things like a untrained person picking up a bow, firing it at maximum range against an individual focussing their whole attention on the arrow, and hitting on a 20, is just silly - ok by RAW but silly nonetheless.