It should be done, as not being able to do it makes the crossbow unattractive to anyone who can wield a composite bow properly.
I propose the following: a crossbow can be sized for a strength bonus. It gains this bonus to damage, just like a composite bow, and sizing it for a strength bonus costs the same as sizing a composite bow for a strength bonus. Using a crossbow sized for a strength bonus you do not possess does not give you a penalty to attack rolls. However, it does make it difficult to reload, as you must put a lot more effort into it. Add a full round action to the reload time for each point of strength bonus the crossbow is sized for that you do not possess.
Sound good?
Crossbows are not supposed to compete with regular bows. A crossbow is not a bad weapon. It just is not as good as a bow. The only change I would make is not making heavy crossbows take forever to load. The extra 1d2 is not worth it.
For those that wish to keep the extra load time giving them a strength bonus would help.
Maybe if crossbows were moved up to martial weapons I would agree, but since they are simple pick up, point, and shoot weapons I can't see them being martial.
Well, this will allow crossbows to deal a bit more damage than longbows. With a light crossbow sized for your strength and rapid reload you could outdamage a composite longbow sized for your strength. However, this requires a feat (rapid reload, which is necessary to full attack) for a damage die increase of 1 step, which is in line with the increase from longsword to bastard sword or battleaxe to waraxe. Yet, the longsword and battleaxe still get used. I don't see the crossbow as any different. If the longsword is still attractive with the bastard sword around, so will the crossbow, as bastard swords and crossbows would both require a feat to use effectively (using a crossbow without rapid reload nixes iterative attacks).
Um, crossbows are already sized for a high strength. That's why it requires a winch to reload them (part of the move/full round action). If a character could just grab the string and pull it back, reloading would be much quicker.
I don't know the actual pull poundage that a light and heavy crossbow uses, but the high damage die already takes the crossbow high pseudo-strength into account.
Um, crossbows are already sized for a high strength. That's why it requires a winch to reload them (part of the move/full round action). If a character could just grab the string and pull it back, reloading would be much quicker.
I don't know the actual pull poundage that a light and heavy crossbow uses, but the high damage die already takes the crossbow high pseudo-strength into account.
I know that. I want more strength. This is actually somewhat realistic, as some IRL crossbows were pretty powerful. Ever heard of an arbalest? It is a steel crossbow. I'd easily equate one to a high str crossbow.
I love crossbows, and I want to let them compete with bows.
I've already done this in my games, and it works out quite nicely.
I love crossbows, and I want to let them compete with bows.
I understand that, but the game keeps simple and martial weapons in different categories due to how hard they are supposed to be to use, and how good they are.
As to the longsword and bastard sword comparison people choose longsword because they are good as one handed and two handed weapons. Bastard Swords cost a feat, but the difference is not worth a feat. If bastard sword were that much better more people would take the feat to use them. People have however taken certain classes and races(elves) just to get a bow. I would allow the bastard sword to be 1-handed as a trait instead of paying a feat for flavor.
It should be done, as not being able to do it makes the crossbow unattractive to anyone who can wield a composite bow properly.
I propose the following: a crossbow can be sized for a strength bonus. It gains this bonus to damage, just like a composite bow, and sizing it for a strength bonus costs the same as sizing a composite bow for a strength bonus. Using a crossbow sized for a strength bonus you do not possess does not give you a penalty to attack rolls. However, it does make it difficult to reload, as you must put a lot more effort into it. Add a full round action to the reload time for each point of strength bonus the crossbow is sized for that you do not possess.
Sound good?
I think most people with high STR characters would rather go for the bow, since they could make multiple attacks per round and get their damage bonus added to their attacks. A rogue with a 12 Str taking three full rounds for an extra 4 points of damage on their attack just doesn't seem like something anyone would bother with.
Perhaps you should just up the base damage for crossbows. Make a light crossbow do 1d10, a heavy crossbow do 2d6, and for the big guns, design an arbalest that does 2d8.
It should be done, as not being able to do it makes the crossbow unattractive to anyone who can wield a composite bow properly.
I propose the following: a crossbow can be sized for a strength bonus. It gains this bonus to damage, just like a composite bow, and sizing it for a strength bonus costs the same as sizing a composite bow for a strength bonus. Using a crossbow sized for a strength bonus you do not possess does not give you a penalty to attack rolls. However, it does make it difficult to reload, as you must put a lot more effort into it. Add a full round action to the reload time for each point of strength bonus the crossbow is sized for that you do not possess.
Sound good?
I think most people with high STR characters would rather go for the bow, since they could make multiple attacks per round and get their damage bonus added to their attacks. A rogue with a 12 Str taking three full rounds for an extra 4 points of damage on their attack just doesn't seem like something anyone would bother with.
Perhaps you should just up the base damage for crossbows. Make a light crossbow do 1d10, a heavy crossbow do 2d6, and for the big guns, design an arbalest that does 2d8.
Well, a 12 str rogue would take a penalty using a +4 str bow.
The idea of this is to allow the crossbow to compete favorably with the bow while keeping the bow attractive, so if a lot of people will still take bows, that's good. I just want the crossbow to be as attractive, so that some will take bows and some crossbows instead of everyone taking bows unless they can't use them proficiently.
This doesn't help them compete.1 or 2 points more of damage isn't wroth the cost and much lower rate of fire.
I like it!
I’d consider making it cost more than for regular bows (+25% ?) and up the crafting difficulty a bit maybe (+5 ?). But maybe not, the reload issues balance out the increased damage die pretty well… it is a hard call.
I get they are a simple weapon and all, but would it really be that overpowered considering a character without martial weapon prof from their class that has a high strength and uses ranged weapons is, let’s say, less than optimized – unless I’m missing something.
This doesn't help them compete.1 or 2 points more of damage isn't wroth the cost and much lower rate of fire.
With rapid reload and a light crossbow the rate of fire is the same as someone with a longbow. Reload rate is only changed if your strength is lower than what the crossbow is sized for.
Not with the increased reload time you posted.
Also, I think letting light crossbows do 1d0 damage and heavies 1d12 would balance things out.
Not with the increased reload time you posted.
Again, that only applies if the crossbow has a strength bonus higher than your strength bonus. If your strength bonus is equal to or greater than the crossbow's the reload time is not increased.
Ah missed that part.
In my home setting Crossbows are all repeating weapons that are still simple. I then included several D20 modern fire arm feats that are for crossbows such as double tap, Burst fire, and the auto fire rules.
Crossbows aren't so bad when you can target a 10ft area for a reflex half on your 1d12 damage.
I like the idea of higher strength X-bows taking longer to reload if the user's strength is insufficient. It has a certain realism to it. The x-bow takes longer to crank or something. Should x-bows do as much damage as longbows?
Historically, I believe so. A X-bow, especially a heavy one, hit a lot harder than longbow- but a lot slower.
Of course, the game makes the longbow a martial weapon (and therefore better)and the x-bow a simple weapon (and therefore inferior), which is why I prefer something like Kirth's houserules for weapon proficiencies.
I just noticed this was in the house rules section instead of the general or advice area. In that case I would give them a faster load time.
They already have a higher base damage than bow, and a higher crit range. Maybe adding needing a +4 strength mod for a crossbow that gives +2 on damage will keep it even.
According to the PRD - the only cranked crossbow is the heavy. The light is lever cocked and the hand is cocked by surprisingly... hand.
I see crossbow strength as more about the materials the crossbow is made of more than the strength of the firer. Maybe make it an item specific upgrade through either magical or non-magical means.
For simplicity, make it fire as though it were a size larger and then have a minimum strength figure to cock it?
Would you consider options for crossbows from technological advancements?
Scopes that increase range by one half.
Personalized sights that grant a minor (+1-2) bonus to attack rolls.
Pistol Grips that allow you to wield large crossbows with one-hand, or quickens the speed at which you can draw them.
Under-slung weapon attachments, like baronet’s or even a smaller single-shot crossbow (or firearm).
Does it have to be damage that is necessary to improve the crossbow?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I have been using them and they are not overbalanced. Just don't forget the normal penalties for using the composites. I ruled since a higher strength was needed to reload, the player must be have at least the same Str modifier. Or take a Str check vs DC 10 + (2 x Str Mod) of the crossbow.
It is a question of size and materials. You could always take a composite short bow built for lets say +5 str,, modify it to be attached to a loading/aiming device. There you have your proof of concept, from an engineering standpoint. From there you would have to make all the modifications that give you the same firing characteristica as a crossbow.
But this is not about engineering, it is about game balance. If you change the die, you change the balance, I would advice against that.
If you want the crosbow flavour, you could use bow stats and bow feats, but rename them in crosbow flavour. That way you do not break the game.
I would simply make the diference be that a +Str crosspow requires that strength to load, no to fire. So while, yes, realisticly a crank can translate that into a longer load time, I do not think that would be a fun mechanic.
Under my proposed rule, you could fire a crossbow with a strength bonus above your own, ONCE. If you want to spend gold on a bunch of crossbows to preload, your funeral. But they are fundamentally different from a bow now.