Crossbows got you cross?

[Helaman]

BYC wrote:

Crossbows need a buff of some sort. It's a pure low level weapon right now, and usually gets discarded after a few levels.

The simplest buff is that crossbows gets +DEX to damage right off the bat. It's useful later on, viable as a build for fighting classes, and dangerous enough for average low level NPCs.

It's always about the static bonuses, more dice doesn't help unless it's 3 or 4 times more.

Paizo will not buff it though.

Lots of those who do tend to crossbows - Inquisitors, Wizards to be particular don't tend to have high dex. Its not a bad idea though - aiming ability and all that.

Make it a static bonus.

[gnomersy]

LazarX wrote:

Silent Saturn wrote:

Are they really that bad? Are there circumstances under which you'd prefer a crossbow to a bow? Am I just not seeing the gaping flaws?

They're fine for what they are...SIMPLE WEAPONS. Weapons so easy even a book wizard can fire one.

My Rouge who eventually became my Arcane Trickster, favored the hand crossbow exclusively for his ranged combat which was almost always a sneak attack shot. He took point blank and precise, which also came handy for his weapon attack spells as well.

Just because it's a simple weapon doesn't mean it has to suck in comparison. For example look at one handed weapons, the Heavy Mace is a simple one handed weapons does 1d8 damage and crits on 20 x2 the longsword on the other hand is a martial one handed weapon it does 1d8 damage and crits on a 19-20 x2 better but not in multiple huge ways.

[Diabhol]

Silent Saturn wrote:

Are they really that bad? Are there circumstances under which you'd prefer a crossbow to a bow? Am I just not seeing the gaping flaws?

I use a crossbow with my Switch-Hitter Ranger because I wasn't feeling the whole longbow thing and my GM likes crossbows. Because of this, he allows a) a special material that adds +4 damage (equivalent of 18 Str) and b) the ability to use Manyshot with a Repeating Crossbow. It's not RAW, but it's fun effectively machine-gunning enemies. :)

[Reis]

the problem would seem to be that only relatively primitive medieval crossbows are represented in the rules. Crossbows are a weapon that benefit a great deal from superior engineering, design, and craftsmanship, and a simple +1 to hit from being masterwork doesn't reflect this.

It's worth noting that actually, composite bows were not a medieval european weapon either, in fact, europeans never developed composite bows, although the Chinese and mongols were using them possibly as early as -300 BCE. By this time they were also making composite crossbows which were a pretty advanced design and gained many of the same advantages from being made of a laminate of wood, horn, and sinew. So it seems like the problem is that the game designers have represented a society that can make pretty advanced bows but not applied the same logic to crossbows.

The obvious solution to me would be to create composite crossbows which would be much more expensive and also more effective than a regular crossbow. A common criticism of pathfinder these days is that it allows firearms which represent a relatively high level of technology. In such a society it would be pretty reasonable to assume they could make crossbows that are more advanced as well.

here's the house ruls i'm running in my current game

Quote:

Hand Crossbows now do a base 1d4(small) or 1d6 (medium) points of damage

Light Crossbows do a base 1d10 points (small) or 1d12 (medium)

Heavy Crossbows now do a base 2d6 points of damage (small) or 2d8 (medium)

The Double crossbow no longer causes a penalty to hit with it if you are proficient, its base damage is as a light crossbow of it size.

The Rapid Reload feat now allows you to load a new case of bolts into a repeating crossbow as a move action.

The Crossbow Mastery feat now allows you to load a new case of bolts into a repeating crossbow as a free action. If you have multiple attacks, this means you may make your full number of attacks with a full attack when using this weapon.

Quote:

Double repeating crossbow: This crossbow is a marvel of engineering and is masterwork by default, no lesser design could possibly fire properly. Two arms of precision forged steel cross each other on it's fore section while the back incorporates two clips of bolts and two triggers, the whole of which is encased in a heavy plate of steel guarding the hands and often bearing stylized artwork or heraldry as best suits the individual wielder. Each double repeater is custom made to fit a specific wielder and other creatures take a -2 penalty to hit with one that is not fitted to them (stacking with the nonproficiency penalty). A skilled crafter might be able to resize a double repeater for a new wielder (DM's discretion)

Cost: 1000gp

Base damage: 2d4 (small) or 2d6 (medium)

Benefit:You may make one attack roll as a standard action. If the attack hits, the target takes damage from both bolts. Critical hits, sneak attack damage, and other precision-based damage only apply to the first bolt. Alternatively, you may fire both arms independently as a full round action and make multiple attacks if you normally could. You may choose which case to fire each bolt from as part of a full attack, for example in case you have loaded the bolt cases with different types of ammunition. You can't make full attacks with this weapon that deal damage for 2 bolts as part of a full attack unless you have the manyshot feat, and in that case you can still only fire a single extra bolt as part of a full attack.

Drawback: Due to its size and weight, you take a –8 on attack rolls if you’re not proficient with it.

Load: Each case of bolts holds 10 bolts. Loading one case of bolts is a full round action that provokes attacks of opportunity; the Rapid Reload feat allows you to reload both cases of bolts as a move action. Crossbow Mastery allows you to reload both cases of bolts as a free action.

it's not RAW and possibly the loading isn't realistic but it seems to be fun so far so, hey, who cares what the game designers intended?

[Skerek]

IIRC, historically, crossbows were originally banned because a peasant shouldn't be able to kill a knight.

As it has been pointed out, crossbows were simple weapons, anyone can use them, but i am fine with them as they are now, just imagine if crossbows were realistic in their damage and to-hit, an entire party could be taken out within a surprise round. Armor piercing? that sounds like a touch attack, we'll be fair (sort), make it within 30ft it's a touch, just enough for sneak attacks anyway, the damage that should do? well just remember that crossbows were if not killing outright, defiantly taking knights down to below 0 (even without sneak). So at the very least, a knight would be warrior 1, 14 con right? yeah that doesn't sound to bad, so that's 12 hp at first level, so a crossbow should be able to do at least 13 damage on average, and hey give it high threat maybe 18-20 because it would regularly kill people (crit). and this is probably a freaking light crossbow.

hell just using some of the stats Atarlost posted:

2d8 for light crossbow

4d8 or 3d12 for heavy crossbow
these don't seem to far off for 'realistic' to me, just give these to some of tucker's kobolds and you'll have a dead party in no time.

But you know what? I prefer the 'balanced' crossbow over the 'realistic' crossbow, because the 'realistic' crossbow would be just too good, why would anyone use any other weapon?

[Nicos]

Skerek wrote:

But you know what? I prefer the 'balanced' crossbow over the 'realistic' crossbow, because the 'realistic' crossbow would be just too good, why would anyone use any other weapon?

It is not balanced, is weak that is the problem.

[mplindustries]

The easiest fix, by far, is to create an exotic Crossbow with a Strength rating, just like a Composite Longbow, except that you wouldn't need the Strength to actually use it--you could use tools and whatnot to cock the Crossbow after all.

For what it's worth, Crossbows are used quite frequently in D&D4e, since the best Crossbow has +3 to hit vs. +2 for the best Bow (even though the bow does more damage).

[LazarX]

gnomersy wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Silent Saturn wrote:

Are they really that bad? Are there circumstances under which you'd prefer a crossbow to a bow? Am I just not seeing the gaping flaws?

They're fine for what they are...SIMPLE WEAPONS. Weapons so easy even a book wizard can fire one.

My Rouge who eventually became my Arcane Trickster, favored the hand crossbow exclusively for his ranged combat which was almost always a sneak attack shot. He took point blank and precise, which also came handy for his weapon attack spells as well.

Just because it's a simple weapon doesn't mean it has to suck in comparison. For example look at one handed weapons, the Heavy Mace is a simple one handed weapons does 1d8 damage and crits on 20 x2 the longsword on the other hand is a martial one handed weapon it does 1d8 damage and crits on a 19-20 x2 better but not in multiple huge ways.

You really can't improve on the weapon itself without making it equal to the longbow which IS martial and should be superior. The Crossbow got a lot of love in ultimate combat in the form of class options. That's where you should be looking.

[Skerek]

Nicos wrote:

Skerek wrote:

But you know what? I prefer the 'balanced' crossbow over the 'realistic' crossbow, because the 'realistic' crossbow would be just too good, why would anyone use any other weapon?

It is not balanced, is weak that is the problem.

so should we make threads about how the punching dagger is weak? that the morningstar is to strong for a simple weapon? I'm just going through the classes that might want to use a crossbow, all full bab classes can use bows, so moving on, low bab classes, well if you're using a crossbow at higher levels as a caster, you're doing it wrong. Wizards and Sorcerers do get unlimited use of prepare/known cantrips, using touch attacks so much better, even with the lower damage die, because damage doesn't mean anything if you don't hit your target. The witch is the only one here that might but hey, why aren't you using evil eye or something? there really should be better things for a witch to do. So now we are at the medium bab classes that would want use one.

Alchemist - yeah....
Bards that dump their strength - well look if you dump a stat making your short bow option useless, you can't really complain.
Cleric - can get bow use from deity, so we won't count it - 1
Druid - 2, but at 4th level just wild shape into something that can fly
Inquisitor - oh wow, ranged options out the arse
Magus - All martial weapons
Monk - well at first you think he has nothing, but the monk can flurry with stars
Oracle - some mysteries will allow it, so once again, we won't count it - 3
Rouge - Shortbow, see bard
Summoner - well these guys actually get acid splash, but with a medium bab using a ranged weapon is kinda viable i guess, and they only have simple weapons, so why not i'll count it - 4

4 classes out of 19 that might want to use a crossbow as a support/back up weapon. It's probably weak because barely anyone actually needs to use it, and that's assuming that you don't have anything else better to do in a round. a Cleric, Druid, Oracle or Summoner should be able to do SOMETHING in a round of combat where they can't attack, aid another, heal throw some buffs up SOMETHING.

Making the crossbow more useful than it already is is only going to give the first few levels of the mentioned classes more to do in something that is very situational. How often do you come up in ranged only combat? personally in the past year i can think of 2 combats that were entirely ranged

[Reis]

Quote:

IIRC, historically, crossbows were originally banned because a peasant shouldn't be able to kill a knight.

As it has been pointed out, crossbows were simple weapons, anyone can use them, but i am fine with them as they are now, just imagine if crossbows were realistic in their damage and to-hit, an entire party could be taken out within a surprise round. Armor piercing? that sounds like a touch attack, we'll be fair (sort), make it within 30ft it's a touch, just enough for sneak attacks anyway, the damage that should do? well just remember that crossbows were if not killing outright, defiantly taking knights down to below 0 (even without sneak).

The problem is the crossbows you're talking about were weapons of professional soldiers in the 15th century in Europe. Also, there would be no need to ban them because a peasant couldn't afford such a weapon.

Gotta read up on the history if that's the argument you're going to make. Plate armor and crossbows that could punch through parts of it weren't used in large scale on the battlefield until well into the renaissance. Also the idea that a longbow could punch through full plate has been proven wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow wrote:

However, even heavy draw longbows have trouble penetrating well made steel plate armour, which was used increasingly after 1350. A 2006 test was made by Matheus Bane using a 75 lbf (330 N) draw (at 28") bow, shooting at 10 yards; according to Bane's calculations, this would be approximately equivalent to a 110 lbf (490 N) bow at 250 yards.[28] Measured against a replica of the thinnest contemporary "Jack coat" armour, a 905 grain needle bodkin and a 935 grain curved broadhead penetrated over 3.5 inches (89 mm). ("Jack coat" armour could be up to twice as thick as the coat tested; in Bane's opinion such a thick coat would have stopped bodkin arrows but not the cutting force of broadhead arrows.)

Against "high quality riveted maille", the needle bodkin and curved broadhead penetrated 2.8". Against a coat of plates, the needle bodkin achieved 0.3" penetration. The curved broadhead did not penetrate but caused 0.3" of deformation of the metal. Results against plate armour of "minimum thickness" (1.2mm) were similar to the coat of plates, in that the needle bodkin penetrated a small amount, the other arrows did not penetrate. In Bane's view, the plate armour would have kept out all the arrows if thicker or worn with more padding.

[Nicos]

Skerek wrote:

4 classes out of 19 that might want to use a crossbow as a support/back up weapon. It's probably weak because barely anyone actually needs to use it, and that's assuming that you don't have anything else better to do in a round. a Cleric, Druid, Oracle or Summoner should be able to do SOMETHING in a round of combat where they can't attack, aid another, heal throw some buffs up SOMETHING.

Making the crossbow more useful than it already is is only going to give the first few levels of the mentioned classes more to do in something that is very situational. How often do you come up in ranged only combat? personally in the past year i can think of 2 combats that were entirely ranged

So, nobody want to use it,why it was printed in the CRB? why botter printing crossbow feats?

[spalding]

Nicos wrote:

Skerek wrote:

4 classes out of 19 that might want to use a crossbow as a support/back up weapon. It's probably weak because barely anyone actually needs to use it, and that's assuming that you don't have anything else better to do in a round. a Cleric, Druid, Oracle or Summoner should be able to do SOMETHING in a round of combat where they can't attack, aid another, heal throw some buffs up SOMETHING.

Making the crossbow more useful than it already is is only going to give the first few levels of the mentioned classes more to do in something that is very situational. How often do you come up in ranged only combat? personally in the past year i can think of 2 combats that were entirely ranged

So, nobody want to use it,why it was printed in the CRB? why botter printing crossbow feats?

Just because it isn't optimal and most people would be better off not using it doesn't mean people won't use it at all for other reasons and want mechanical help in doing so.

We see all the time that people make 'sub-optimal' choices for aesthetic reasons and in order to not be a drain want to spend resources making it less of a sub-optimal choice.

Developers want to sell their product so they include material for these choices as well as more optimal ones, since more content can help with more sells.

[Reis]

Quote:

It's probably weak because barely anyone actually needs to use it, and that's assuming that you don't have anything else better to do in a round

but that just illustrates the point

It seems pretty clear that actually many people would like there to be more parity between ranged weapons across the board so that there would be more stylistic as well as tactical choice between ranged weapon rather than the current situation where everything except a composite longbow is bad.

[Nicos]

Abraham spalding wrote:

Just because it isn't optimal and most people would be better off not using it doesn't mean people won't use it at all for other reasons and want mechanical help in doing so.

Exactly, crossbow need mechanical helps, and the feats and figther archetype barely do that

[Skerek]

Reis wrote:

Quote:

IIRC, historically, crossbows were originally banned because a peasant shouldn't be able to kill a knight.

As it has been pointed out, crossbows were simple weapons, anyone can use them, but i am fine with them as they are now, just imagine if crossbows were realistic in their damage and to-hit, an entire party could be taken out within a surprise round. Armor piercing? that sounds like a touch attack, we'll be fair (sort), make it within 30ft it's a touch, just enough for sneak attacks anyway, the damage that should do? well just remember that crossbows were if not killing outright, defiantly taking knights down to below 0 (even without sneak).

The problem is the crossbows you're talking about were weapons of professional soldiers in the 15th century in Europe. Also, there would be no need to ban them because a peasant couldn't afford such a weapon.

Gotta read up on the history if that's the argument you're going to make. Plate armor and crossbows that could punch through parts of it weren't used in large scale on the battlefield until well into the renaissance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow wrote:

The crossbow is portrayed as a hunting weapon on four Pictish stones from early medieval Scotland (6th to 9th centuries): St. Vigeans no. 1, Glenferness, Shandwick, and Meigle.[42] The use of crossbows in European warfare is again evident from the Battle of Hastings until about the year 1500. They almost completely superseded hand bows in many European armies in the twelfth century for a number of reasons. Although a longbow achieves comparable accuracy and faster shooting rate than an average crossbow, crossbows release more kinetic energy and can be used effectively after a week of training, while a comparable single-shot skill with a longbow takes years of strength training to overcome the draw strength of the longbow, as well as years of practice needed to use it with skill.

these seem like pretty dangerous weapons still and it seems that they were used well before the 15th century

Reis wrote:

Also the idea that a longbow could punch through full plate has been proven wrong

hey, i never said a longbow could do that

[Helaman]

Skerek wrote:

Stuff

Dude - you've gone totally the other way. Balance the weapons - not go nuts in making an uber weapon.

A 1st level warrior (NPC) with 14 con would have 7-8 hit points. A light crossbow is capable of killing such, a heavy one more so. Throw in a plus to damage at short or point blank range and its deadly.

Mind you I tend to think in E6 terms where most NPCs never make it beyond 2nd level or outside the NPC classes.

[Bryan Stiltz]

If you're going to quote history, please get all the facts in place:

Reis wrote:

Quote:

IIRC, historically, crossbows were originally banned because a peasant shouldn't be able to kill a knight.

The problem is the crossbows you're talking about were weapons of professional soldiers in the 15th century in Europe.

Crossbows in the western world aren't "weapons of 15th century professional soldiers". They date as far back as ancient Greece, were used in Rome, and were in regular use by 6th century Scots for HUNTING (which isn't AFAIK, professional soldiery), Yes, by the 1500's they dominated the battlefield, but were available and common* for just over two thousand years before then.

*Common enough for Scottish farmers - not regarded as the wealthy elite, in fact, these would be the same peasant's that "couldn't afford such a weapon".

Reis wrote:

Also, there would be no need to ban them because a peasant couldn't afford such a weapon.

no need to ban them? Tell that to Pope Innocent II and the Second Lateran Council back in 1139. They were in fact banned, despite there being no need to do so, (although to be fair, the pope merely made it a sin to use one against a Christian, which in 1139 most of Europe's armies were Christian nations, made of Christian soldiers led by Christian officers, so yeah, a BAN)

Reis wrote:

Gotta read up on the history if that's the argument you're going to make.

I agree compeltely.

And yes, it means Medieval Europe had crossbows prior to the crusades - and the crusades were where medieval Europe was exposed to the composite longbow - from the Saracens. When the composite longbow was developed in Europe, Composite versions of Crossbows were developed alongside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow

EDIT: Ninja'ed while composing. *sigh*

[Tiny Coffee Golem]

Perhaps a simple fix would be to give crossbows a special feature, such as "armor piercing." Ignore the first X points of armor on targets...

Or something.

[Reis]

Helaman wrote:

Skerek wrote:

Stuff

Dude - you've gone totally the other way. Balance the weapons - not go nuts in making an uber weapon.

A 1st level warrior (NPC) with 14 con would have 7-8 hit points. A light crossbow is capable of killing such, a heavy one more so. Throw in a plus to damage at short or point blank range and its deadly.

Mind you I tend to think in E6 terms where most NPCs never make it beyond 2nd level or outside the NPC classes.

First off, a crossbow should be capable of killing a 1st level warrior with one shot. Second, balance isn't based on e6 or by ability to kill 1st level warriors, a 1st level sorc/wiz can stun (effectively kill) many 1st level warriors with a color spray but you wouldn't consider that broken.

Quote:

The crossbow is portrayed as a hunting weapon on four Pictish stones from early medieval Scotland (6th to 9th centuries): St. Vigeans no. 1, Glenferness, Shandwick, and Meigle.[42] The use of crossbows in European warfare is again evident from the Battle of Hastings until about the year 1500. They almost completely superseded hand bows in many European armies in the twelfth century for a number of reasons. Although a longbow achieves comparable accuracy and faster shooting rate than an average crossbow, crossbows release more kinetic energy and can be used effectively after a week of training, while a comparable single-shot skill with a longbow takes years of strength training to overcome the draw strength of the longbow, as well as years of practice needed to use it with skill.

I completely agree, by the 14th century they had almost completely replaced longbows. The point is that d&d crossbows are not an accurate representation of a 14th century crossbow at all. Rather, d&d characters almost exclusively use composite bows which were never in use in europe, they were only made by asian societies. Unfortunately these societies only built composite shortbows, mostly for horse archery, to be honest the composite longbow is mostly a fantasy weapon.

Now you might say "but reis, the chinese were building composite bows in the 3rd century bc, so surely it's appropriate for a medieval technology pathfinder campaign. But consider that the chinese and many Asian societies developed technologies like this far ahead of european counterparts. The Chinese were also building composite crossbows from fairly advanced materials as early as the 3rd century BC.

Now, what's the point? It's that if you're going to assume Pathfinder Golarion cultures are using composite longbows widely, let alone guns, it's just common sense that artisans capable of producing weapons like this should also be easily capable of producing crossbows whose quality easily exceeds those presented in the CRB.

[Skerek]

Helaman wrote:

Skerek wrote:

Stuff

Dude - you've gone totally the other way. Balance the weapons - not go nuts in making an uber weapon.

A 1st level warrior (NPC) with 14 con would have 7-8 hit points. A light crossbow is capable of killing such, a heavy one more so. Throw in a plus to damage at short or point blank range and its deadly.

Mind you I tend to think in E6 terms where most NPCs never make it beyond 2nd level or outside the NPC classes.

you realize those over the top stats were for 'realism' and not balance.... right? and i was trying to point out how ridiculous the argument of "but in real life..." is/was

the way i see it is the crossbow fits in fine how it is, you're not ment to use them all the time unless you really want to build into it (crossbow fighter archetype helps), but come on, are you going suggest there are any good simple ranged weapons? thrown weapons (bar shuriken) just don't work in pathfinder and slings take a lot of work too.

[Jeraa]

Quote:

Well, yeah -- what's your point?

Making junk better is why we take feats. With Rapid Reload, the weakling non-martial character gains +6 damage on a full-attack using a crossbow in the example instead of a shortbow. If he spends his feat on Deadly Aim, he gets +8 off a shortbow full-attack, but is -2 to hit relative (so it's worse).

My point was that your example failed in what you were trying to do.

Gnomersy said:

Quote:

3) The other flaw is that crossbows need more feats earlier in order to be effective weapons.

To which you replied with:

Quote:

No, they don't -- everyone simply assumes they do because they're looking at it from the wrong perspective.

And proceeded to make an example. Except that example you used required a feat to make it better then a shortbow. A feat a shortbow user would not have had to spend.

Yes, feats make things better. But the entire thing is that crossbows need to have more feats to make them better then bows. Your example trying to prove otherwise failed.

[Silent Saturn]

Honestly, I'm not even convinced that crossbows need more feats than bows. They need Rapid Reload, yes, but they can't use Manyshot, so that's a wash unless you spring for Crossbow Mastery. So, one more feat?

And yes, that means you don't get to fire two bolts in one shot, but you still get Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, and everything else you need just as you would with a bow.

Also, wouldn't a repeating crossbow allow you to full-attack with it as long as it has enough bolts in it? It says that if there's bolts left in the current case, reloading it is a free action. A case holds five bolts, and most (non-monk) players won't get more than five ranged attacks per round anyway without extra help. BAB 20 gets you four attacks, and Rapid Shot gets you the fifth. Or you could attack four times, then next round fire your last bolt and reload, ready to full attack again next round.

As for adding a Strength rating to crossbows, I don't think it would make them better. I think it would make them worse by taking away the one advantage this thread has agreed crossbows have over bows (no strength penalty). Adding DEX to damage would be nice (wouldn't it always?) but the devs probably don't want to do that because DEX is already a pretty overvalued stat.

My suggestion for improving crossbows is, to reflect their increased deadliness, have their base damage dice be 1D8+2 instead of 1D8, or something like that. Yes, they'd be the only (nonmagic) weapons with a flat damage bonus, but I don't think it'd be too OP.

[Laurefindel]

Silent Saturn wrote:

As for adding a Strength rating to crossbows, I don't think it would make them better. I think it would make them worse by taking away the one advantage this thread has agreed crossbows have over bows (no strength penalty).

(...)

My suggestion for improving crossbows is, to reflect their increased deadliness, have their base damage dice be 1D8+2

By doing '1d8+2' you basically gave the crossbow an inherent strength of 14 (or 15). This is possible considering that the crossbow is a mechanical device independent of the Strength of the user. By the use of levers, stirrups, cranequins and windlasses, the user can multiply its own strength in order to reload the device even if its STR rating is inferior to that of the device. Actually, that's the whole point of using a crossbow. Not a lot of people are able to pull a 200 lbs bow; therefore, you built a mechanical device (the crossbow) that will pull it and keep it knocked for you until you release the trigger.

That's why my solution is to make the (heavy) crossbow a mechanical mighty +6 shortbow. Unless you've got a Strength of 22 ( STR bonus of +6) to manually releaod it, you need to rely on the crank-and-pinion device that takes a full round to use.

'findel

[Jeraa]

Silent Saturn wrote:

Also, wouldn't a repeating crossbow allow you to full-attack with it as long as it has enough bolts in it? It says that if there's bolts left in the current case, reloading it is a free action. A case holds five bolts, and most (non-monk) players won't get more than five ranged attacks per round anyway without extra help. BAB 20 gets you four attacks, and Rapid Shot gets you the fifth. Or you could attack four times, then next round fire your last bolt and reload, ready to full attack again next round.

Reloading a repeating crossbow with a new box of bolts is a full round action. You can't fire once, and reload in the same round. So at BAB 20, with 4 attacks, you get 4 attacks on round 1, 1 attack on round 2 (and a move action to do something), reload on round 3. Thats 5 attacks over 3 rounds. If using a bow, you get 12 attacks in that same time.

(A repeating crossbow with rapid shot gets 5 attacks in the first round, and the second round is spent reloading. A bow user gets 8 attacks in that time without rapid shot, or 10 attacks with the feat.)

Over the course of one minute(10 rounds), BAB 20:
repeating crossbow, no rapid shot: 19 attacks
repeating crossbow, rapid shot: 25 attacks
bow, no rapid shot: 40 attacks
bow, rapid shot: 50 attacks

They are better at low levels though. 1 attack per round, over 6 rounds, a heavy repeating crossbow gets 5 attacks at 1d10, for an average of 27.5, while a bow gets 6 attacks of 1d8, an average of 27. Thats assuming the bow user doesn't have a composite bow with a strength rating. If the archer gets to add even a +1 from his strength to the bow, the bow pulls ahead again. So again, the crossbow is only better with a low (or average) strength.

[Mort the Cleverly Named]

Silent Saturn wrote:

Honestly, I'm not even convinced that crossbows need more feats than bows. They need Rapid Reload, yes, but they can't use Manyshot, so that's a wash unless you spring for Crossbow Mastery. So, one more feat?

This isn't something that requires "convincing." It is a simple choice: a character that has simple weapon proficiency and wants to make multiple attacks has two choices: Martial Weapon Proficiency (Longbow) or Rapid Reload. Both will let you full attacks with a weapon that does 1d8 damage. Most people choose the bow, since you can add strength to it. That you have the option of taking Manyshot and getting the equivalent of an extra attack doesn't make it a "wash," it is another point in the bow's favor.

Silent Saturn wrote:

And yes, that means you don't get to fire two bolts in one shot, but you still get Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, and everything else you need just as you would with a bow.

Well, ya. This is what makes crossbows a "less good" choice most of the time, instead of an "incredibly awful" one.

Silent Saturn wrote:

Also, wouldn't a repeating crossbow allow you to full-attack with it as long as it has enough bolts in it? It says that if there's bolts left in the current case, reloading it is a free action. A case holds five bolts, and most (non-monk) players won't get more than five ranged attacks per round anyway without extra help. BAB 20 gets you four attacks, and Rapid Shot gets you the fifth. Or you could attack four times, then next round fire your last bolt and reload, ready to full attack again next round.

The problem is that most characters will have to take EWP(Repeating Crossbow), putting you a feat behind and once again raising the question "Why not use a bow?" Also, switching between full attacks and full-round reloads cuts your average damage per round by close to 50%. That is... not a good choice.

Silent Saturn wrote:

As for adding a Strength rating to crossbows, I don't think it would make them better. I think it would make them worse by taking away the one advantage this thread has agreed crossbows have over bows (no strength penalty). Adding DEX to damage would be nice (wouldn't it always?) but the devs probably don't want to do that because DEX is already a pretty overvalued stat.

Totally agree. This is the one niche where crossbows excel: weapons for those who dump strength. Although I like Laurefindel's idea of a minimum strength rating allowing you to reload without the mechanism. Although that is probably a bit too complicated for anything but a houserule.

Silent Saturn wrote:

My suggestion for improving crossbows is, to reflect their increased deadliness, have their base damage dice be 1D8+2 instead of 1D8, or something like that. Yes, they'd be the only (nonmagic) weapons with a flat damage bonus, but I don't think it'd be too OP.

It wouldn't be overpowered, but it would scale weirdly. The size charts would get screwy and all that. Plus, it is approximately equivalent to just switching the damage to a d12, without making a unique rule about it.

Frankly, I think crossbows are fine where they are. A simple weapon for those that consider mundane ranged attacks a pastime not worthy of feats, those with very low strength that still want to do some damage, and high level critical hit builds that want a ranged option. It isn't the best most of the time, but it certainly has its place.

[OberonViking]

Someone mentioned a lack of ranged-only encounters. That is why the crossbow seems like such a poor choice. That is why people don't see the attraction of lying prone to shoot.

GMs need to include ranged-only encounters in their mix. I am curious to hear if ranged-only encounters feature in PFS.

[Merkatz]

My biggest problem with the crossbow/longbow debate is on the issue of what makes a better backup weapon. I've played a bunch of melee characters who always carry a ranged weapon for backup. Thematically, a character who doesn't specialize or put much effort into ranged attacks should probably choose a crossbow. But the thing is, with no feats a bow is always better than a crossbow. And since so many classes get martial weapon or bow proficiencies (or have a simple way to get it- multiclass, favored weapon, elves, etc...), there just doesn't seem to be a reason to take a crossbow as a backup weapon.

And that just seems weird in my eyes.

In my opinion, a crossbow should be superior to a longbow at every level (by default). However once feats get thrown into the mix, I think bows should out pace crossbows (so a specialized archer > specialized crossbowman). That would be balanced and fitting, I think.

[Pipedreamer]

I think we are all forgetting the fact that the crossbow is the bender of the 15th century.

[Shah Jahan the King of Kings]

I see it this way- A crossbow takes no strength to fire. You load it (which DOES take strength, if you're not using one of those cranks) and pull the trigger. It should get no modifier to damage whatsoever, but should simply have a higher hit die. Like, D10-12. This represents an item that hits very hard, but that isn't dependent on skill.

Or, maybe the crossbow's reload time, and therefore shots per round, could be determined by the strength score.

[Aelryinth]

Crossbows by professionals were loaded by a hook on the belt and possibly stepping on the stirrup. High Strength wasn't necessary because you were using your leg instead of your hand.

==Aelryinth

[Kvantum]

Maybe up crossbows to 19-20/x3 critical. That crit range is high enough to make anyone sit up and take notice.

Not x4, though, leave that for firearms. Though their inadequacies is another rant for another time...

[Cheapy]

Ok, taking into consideration the idea that bows need a long time to master, but being proficient does not require such period of times... How about this idea?

Rapid Shot and Manyshot both require Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bow).

Crossbow mastery requires Precise Shot instead of Rapid Shot.

This is akin to a bastard sword's dual nature depending on if you have it as EWP or not.

[Laurefindel]

Shah Jahan the King of Kings wrote:

I see it this way- A crossbow takes no strength to fire. You load it (which DOES take strength, if you're not using one of those cranks) and pull the trigger. It should get no modifier to damage whatsoever, but should simply have a higher hit die. Like, D10-12. This represents an item that hits very hard, but that isn't dependent on skill.

Yet weapons in D&D have damage dice mainly according to their size. A crossbow is basically a shortbow on a stick, with a mechanical trigger and possibly a mechanical loading device. We know that shortbows deal 1d6. We also know that shortbows with a high tension are called composite shortbows, and they deal a certain amount of additional points of damage based upon the STR rating they have been crafted for. It then takes a character with a matching STR bonus to use it efficiently, but the mighty composite shortbow is just that: a shortbow dealing additional damage due to high tension.

Why should a crossbow, which is basically a shortbow with super-high tension, be treated differently?

The concept of a crossbow with a inherent STR modifier isn't even without precedent: The Arrow Trap (CR 1) indicated in the PRD has the following effect:

Atk +15 ranged (1d8+1/×3)

This trap is a mechanical device with an inherent STR of 12 (+1 bonus to damage). This isn't very far from what a crossbow is IMO.

[HappyDaze]

Axebeard wrote:

HappyDaze wrote:

Axebeard wrote:

Pathfinder already recognizes why crossbows were so popular:

They're simple weapons. Anybody can use them.

I seem to remember crossbows being so widely-used once they were developed because you could recruit a bunch of peasants, give them crossbows, and have a pretty effective military unit. They don't have to be mechanically equal to a bow, because bows are martial weapons, which SHOULD be better than simple weapons for the sake of game balance.

If this is the argument then it's a failing one. If those peasants are just commoners (barely trained), then they have one simple weapon proficiency. It's far more likely that they'll have dagger or club, or possibly spear. OTOH, if they have enough training to have even one level of warrior, then they can use all martial weapons so the simple weapon argument is moot.

No it's not. The crossbow was/is much easier to use than the longbow, both in terms of training and strength required to wield; so it's simple and the longbow is martial. That's the realism side of things. Then, translate that into game terms: A weapon that has higher prerequisites to use effectively (martial weapon proficiency) should be better, represented by free action reload and potential strength modifier to damage, than a weapon that has fewer. In fact, this plays into realism as well: The longbow supplanted the crossbow because a longbowman could fire arrows at a much faster rate than a crossbowman AND could put their strength to better use by drawing stronger bows.

Your argument, however, that a weapon should not be considered a simple weapon because a subset of people proficient with a subset of simple weapons might not be proficient with it is too complex and just bad logic.

My argument was never that the crossbow shouldn't be a simple weapon, rather that it isn't the choice weapon for militias considering that they likely either have only one weapon proficiency (as a commoner, and most likely to be club or dagger) or they have martial weapons through a level of warrior. My argument is that the use of crossbows by the 'untrained masses' isn't itself a strong argument. If the non-proficient penalty for a crossbow was only -2 rather than the standard -4, it might be a better weapon. Really, it might not be a bad houserule to make all simple weapons were only a -2 for non-proficient use.

[Nicos]

I Like the way icewindale II ruled the issue, with a crossbow you can not fire more than once in a round*, but the weapon have a inerent bonus to attack and damage.

couple that with a higer crit range (18-20/x2 or 19-20/X3) and the hability to bypass a couple of point of nautral armor, and you have a weapon overall weaker than a bow but better in certain situations.

*the game have not rapid reload, still I think that a crossbow should not be allowed to fire more than two times per round but every bolt should be much deadlier than an arrow..

[FuelDrop]

Skerek wrote:

IIRC, historically, crossbows were originally banned because a peasant shouldn't be able to kill a knight.

As it has been pointed out, crossbows were simple weapons, anyone can use them, but i am fine with them as they are now, just imagine if crossbows were realistic in their damage and to-hit, an entire party could be taken out within a surprise round. Armor piercing? that sounds like a touch attack, we'll be fair (sort), make it within 30ft it's a touch, just enough for sneak attacks anyway, the damage that should do? well just remember that crossbows were if not killing outright, defiantly taking knights down to below 0 (even without sneak). So at the very least, a knight would be warrior 1, 14 con right? yeah that doesn't sound to bad, so that's 12 hp at first level, so a crossbow should be able to do at least 13 damage on average, and hey give it high threat maybe 18-20 because it would regularly kill people (crit). and this is probably a freaking light crossbow.

hell just using some of the stats Atarlost posted:

2d8 for light crossbow

4d8 or 3d12 for heavy crossbow
these don't seem to far off for 'realistic' to me, just give these to some of tucker's kobolds and you'll have a dead party in no time.

But you know what? I prefer the 'balanced' crossbow over the 'realistic' crossbow, because the 'realistic' crossbow would be just too good, why would anyone use any other weapon?

two words: reload time.

a realistic heavy crossbow would require several full round actions to reload, as the string required a mechanical winch known as a cranequin to pull it back into place. personally, if a 'realistic' crossbow were introduced into the game, along with (likely inferior, at least the early versions) 'realistic' firearms, all adventurers would carry one as a first strike weapon, then drop it for the real fight as reloading in combat would be tantamount to suicide.
as for a simple weapon, that's all about ease of use. the fact that for balance reasons a heavy mace is inferior to a sword against an armoured foe is nothing to do with history and everything to do with maths.

also, as a side note low poundage crossbows can be pulled back by hand, making a move action to reload them comparatively realistic (i'd go with a full round or so as an action, but that's nitpicking).

[LazarX]

Nicos wrote:

I Like the way icewindale II ruled the issue, with a crossbow you can not fire more than once in a round*, but the weapon have a inerent bonus to attack and damage.

couple that with a higer crit range (18-20/x2 or 19-20/X3) and the hability to bypass a couple of point of nautral armor, and you have a weapon overall weaker than a bow but better in certain situations.

*the game have not rapid reload, still I think that a crossbow should not be allowed to fire more than two times per round but every bolt should be much deadlier than an arrow..

I think it's an incredibly unbalancing rule. Essentially at low levels, the crossbow becomes a more deadly weapon than one that's technically superior.

[3.5 Loyalist]

Silent Saturn wrote:

I've seen almost nobody use crossbows, and I've seen at least one class guide that dismissed them outright as an option. I'll admit, needing Rapid Reload is a hassle, but they do more base damage than bows and have a wider crit range, making them better with critical feats. I would think they'd at least be worth considering.

Are they really that bad? Are there circumstances under which you'd prefer a crossbow to a bow? Am I just not seeing the gaping flaws?

Our group was not happy with crossbows so we made some modifications. They turned out to be more deadly, having a better punch in the right hands, and as a consequence are taken more often, but do not completely overshadow bows, which are faster and still after the rule can be better on damage.

With light or heavy crossbows (or up to great, arbalests, etc), the user adds their dex mod to damage. This was done as a way to represent the superior crossbow punch, but also that they are easier to aim, learn and use than bows. Everyone was happy. No feat required, just proficiency. Same loading times.

As a result, the crossbow became respected, and I could as a dm, create tense scenes involving pointed crossbows.

(The hand crossbow keeps its place as a concealed little ranged tool, useful for poisons)

[Skerek]

OberonViking wrote:

Someone mentioned a lack of ranged-only encounters. That is why the crossbow seems like such a poor choice. That is why people don't see the attraction of lying prone to shoot.

GMs need to include ranged-only encounters in their mix. I am curious to hear if ranged-only encounters feature in PFS.

I mentioned the lack of ranged only encounters, one was in the beginners box bash and another was in a mod

details:

I won't give you the name of the mod, but the basics of the encounter were, Alchemist + Spider Climb + GM who seems to like earning TPKs

Alchemist won initiative used the extract of spider climb then made a run for the wall, then the roof, we were lower level, around 3 or so i think, so no one had fly or spider climb themselves, that was a nasty nasty fight

Kvantum wrote:

Maybe up crossbows to 19-20/x3 critical. That crit range is high enough to make anyone sit up and take notice.

Not x4, though, leave that for firearms. Though their inadequacies is another rant for another time...

just remember that on average, 19-20/x3 is actually better than x4

wooo math:

average crit = 1 + chance of crit * ( multiplier - 1)
20/x2 = 1 + .05*1 = 1.05
19-20/x2 = 1 + .1*1 = 1.1
20/x3 = 1 + .05*2 = 1.1
18-20/x2 = 1 + .15*1 = 1.15
20/x4 = 1 + .05*3 = 1.15
17-20/x2 = 1 + .2*1 = 1.2
19-20/x3 = 1 + .1*2 = 1.2
15-20/x2 = 1 + .3*1 = 1.3
19-20/x4 = 1 + .1*3 = 1.3
17-20/x3 = 1 + .2*2 = 1.4

[Nicos]

LazarX wrote:

Nicos wrote:

I Like the way icewindale II ruled the issue, with a crossbow you can not fire more than once in a round*, but the weapon have a inerent bonus to attack and damage.

couple that with a higer crit range (18-20/x2 or 19-20/X3) and the hability to bypass a couple of point of nautral armor, and you have a weapon overall weaker than a bow but better in certain situations.

*the game have not rapid reload, still I think that a crossbow should not be allowed to fire more than two times per round but every bolt should be much deadlier than an arrow..

I think it's an incredibly unbalancing rule. Essentially at low levels, the crossbow becomes a more deadly weapon than one that's technically superior.

Well, in the hands of inexperienced people the crossbow is a better option than a bow, but yes you are right is unbalancing.

Maybe diferent crossbows with diferent bonus, like the composite bows, and with the increase in quality they become more expensives.

[rpgsavant]

After reading through this thread, it seems like almost everyone agrees it needs to be changed but not all for the same reasons. One group says it's not realistic enough. The other group says it's not effective even within the game rules compared to the bow. Both parties are correct. I think the problem we're seeing is just HOW real it needs to be. Here's a possible change:

Light Crossbow
1d10 90ft 19-20/x2

Heavy Crossbow
1d12 100ft 19-20/x3

Composite Light Crossbow
1d10+STR Bonus 100ft 19-20/x2

Composite Heavy Crossbow
1d12+STR Bonus 120ft 19-20/x3

Composite Crossbows have a preset strength bonus needed to load and fire them effectively, meaning Rapid Reload will not work with a Composite Crossbow if the user does not meet the strength bonus requirement. However just like composite bows the user adds this bonus to damage.

That ought to give martial characters something to consider, plus make them viable to simple weapon characters. Obviously after you reach a certain point, no full caster should be firing a crossbow, but this wasn't designed for them. It'd be a good weapon for any of the medium BAB classes though. You'd still need Rapid Reload to explain the long reload times (which I think is pretty accurate) but that improved damage die and improved crit bonus on heavy crossbows would make them pretty good. The improved crit bonus and damage would explain how crossbows punched through plate armor so effectively too. Thoughts?

[Skerek]

rpgsavant wrote:

After reading through this thread, it seems like almost everyone agrees it needs to be changed but not all for the same reasons. One group says it's not realistic enough. The other group says it's not effective even within the game rules compared to the bow. Both parties are correct. I think the problem we're seeing is just HOW real it needs to be. Here's a possible change:

Light Crossbow
1d10 90ft 19-20/x2

Heavy Crossbow
1d12 100ft 19-20/x3

Composite Light Crossbow
1d10+STR Bonus 100ft 19-20/x2

Composite Heavy Crossbow
1d12+STR Bonus 120ft 19-20/x3

Composite Crossbows have a preset strength bonus needed to load and fire them effectively, meaning Rapid Reload will not work with a Composite Crossbow if the user does not meet the strength bonus requirement. However just like composite bows the user adds this bonus to damage.

That ought to give martial characters something to consider, plus make them viable to simple weapon characters. Obviously after you reach a certain point, no full caster should be firing a crossbow, but this wasn't designed for them. It'd be a good weapon for any of the medium BAB classes though. You'd still need Rapid Reload to explain the long reload times (which I think is pretty accurate) but that improved damage die and improved crit bonus on heavy crossbows would make them pretty good. The improved crit bonus and damage would explain how crossbows punched through plate armor so effectively too. Thoughts?

I like the idea of composite light crossbows and how you can't reload them without the correct strength, but for the cost of a feat, the light crossbow will now out perform a longbow, ok so one point of damage, yeah what ever, but the light crossbow does a a higher critical threat range which a lot of people seem to like, the only way bows out perform crossbows in this is with manyshot, so i guess it's not all bad

[rpgsavant]

Skerek wrote:

I like the idea of composite light crossbows and how you can't reload them without the correct strength, but for the cost of a feat, the light crossbow will now out perform a longbow, ok so one point of damage, yeah what ever, but the light crossbow does a a higher critical threat range which a lot of people seem to like, the only way bows out perform crossbows in this is with manyshot, so i guess it's not all bad

Plus the cost of the weapon at 1st level is also factor. If a composite bow is pretty damn expensive for a 1st level character, a composite crossbow should be too. Also, bows have access to more feats with Rapid Shot and Many Shot. I've never gone through the DPR calculations so I would defer to someone with that experience.

[Skerek]

rpgsavant wrote:

Plus the cost of the weapon at 1st level is also factor. If a composite bow is pretty damn expensive for a 1st level character, a composite crossbow should be too.

well yes, but i wasn't meaning to imply that composite crossbows would be any cheaper, but as it stands you have a better damage die and threat range that offers more consistent damage

rpgsavant wrote:

Also, bows have access to more feats with Rapid Shot and Many Shot.

Baring Manyshot, crossbows have the same feats as bows (well actually they have two more feats than bows by my count, but these are for reloading faster)

rpgsavant wrote:

I've never gone through the DPR calculations so I would defer to someone with that experience.

crossbow is slightly better than a bow, but once you factor in manyshot the bow takes over

[BYC]

I'm not as worried about realism since there's plenty of things that are not realistic.

I just think there should be a 2nd option in ranged. As it is, composite bows are by far the strongest option with almost no way for crossbows to get close. It's a combination of factors that make crossbows not even up to par. Other melee weapons have various options that are useful. Crossbows don't really have that option.

Various pole-arms do different things, like trip, disarm, dismount a rider, brace, reach, etc. And there are options even in the simple weapons category. Other melee weapons are just different focuses. Greataxe is focused on huge damage on a crit. Scimitar is focused on getting more crits. Lots of the 1H weapons are a mix of damage types, crit range, crit multiplier, damage dice, and misc attribute, usually associated with a CM.

But ranged doesn't really have those options. For truly long range, it's bows vs. crossbows. Even guns don't operate as well for truly long range. For short ranges, action economy is the major issue for damage output or usability. Bows exceeds crossbows. The 2nd issue is lack of static damage bonuses from attributes like STR bows.

I think as long as crossbows have a DEX bonus to damage, they'll be useful and scale enough for people to go with them. Or if that's too strong, give crossbows a DEX rating like composite bows have STR rating.

[A. Malcolm]

rpgsavant wrote:

After reading through this thread, it seems like almost everyone agrees it needs to be changed but not all for the same reasons. One group says it's not realistic enough. The other group says it's not effective even within the game rules compared to the bow. Both parties are correct. I think the problem we're seeing is just HOW real it needs to be. Here's a possible change:

Light Crossbow
1d10 90ft 19-20/x2

Heavy Crossbow
1d12 100ft 19-20/x3

Composite Light Crossbow
1d10+STR Bonus 100ft 19-20/x2

Composite Heavy Crossbow
1d12+STR Bonus 120ft 19-20/x3

Composite Crossbows have a preset strength bonus needed to load and fire them effectively, meaning Rapid Reload will not work with a Composite Crossbow if the user does not meet the strength bonus requirement. However just like composite bows the user adds this bonus to damage.

That ought to give martial characters something to consider, plus make them viable to simple weapon characters. Obviously after you reach a certain point, no full caster should be firing a crossbow, but this wasn't designed for them. It'd be a good weapon for any of the medium BAB classes though. You'd still need Rapid Reload to explain the long reload times (which I think is pretty accurate) but that improved damage die and improved crit bonus on heavy crossbows would make them pretty good. The improved crit bonus and damage would explain how crossbows punched through plate armor so effectively too. Thoughts?

I really like this idea. I'm going to see if the DM in my upcoming campaign will try this out. We happen to have someone playing a fighter with the crossbowman archetype, so it'll interesting to see how it does.

[Cheapy]

Skerek wrote:

rpgsavant wrote:

I've never gone through the DPR calculations so I would defer to someone with that experience.

crossbow is slightly better than a bow, but once you factor in manyshot the bow takes over

Do you have the numbers for that?

[BYC]

What numbers do we really need?

A bow will do more damage than a crossbow just from having more attacks (assuming static bonuses are given to crossbows).

More attacks = more damage.
More attacks + static bonuses vs. less attacks + only die damage? No brainer.

I prefer changing crossbows because more feats is generally not the answer.

[Cheapy]

BYC wrote:

What numbers do we really need?

A bow will do more damage than a crossbow just from having more attacks (assuming static bonuses are given to crossbows).

More attacks = more damage.
More attacks + static bonuses vs. less attacks + only die damage? No brainer.

I prefer changing crossbows because more feats is generally not the answer.

I meant the numbers for "crossbow is slightly better than a bow".

[Skerek]

Cheapy wrote:

Skerek wrote:

rpgsavant wrote:

I've never gone through the DPR calculations so I would defer to someone with that experience.

crossbow is slightly better than a bow, but once you factor in manyshot the bow takes over

Do you have the numbers for that?

right now? no, but i am tired but i think i get your point, low levels(like 1-3 for a fighter), a crossbow build will be a little feat starved archery builds will already be wanting PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot and Weapon Focus. with careful feat selection, it's looking like the bow has 1 more to hit and the crossbow has 1 more damage, and i am far to tired to work that out right now

EDIT:

Cheapy wrote:

BYC wrote:

What numbers do we really need?

A bow will do more damage than a crossbow just from having more attacks (assuming static bonuses are given to crossbows).

More attacks = more damage.
More attacks + static bonuses vs. less attacks + only die damage? No brainer.

I prefer changing crossbows because more feats is generally not the answer.

I meant the numbers for "crossbow is slightly better than a bow".

well assuming the exact same to hit, the only different between the two is the crossbow has 1 more damage, then manyshot kicks in and the free extra attack is going to be better because bows do more than 1 damage average per hit