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 workable?
At first I thought this was silly. Then I re-read it. If you are saying what I think you are saying, then I think I like it. But I would only let it work for heavy crossbows.
You would want to limit it, otherwise a player could get a crossbow sized for someone with a +20 strength modifier, and just load it before going out adventuring, and have the first shot of their combat be 1d10 + 20. (or +1000, if the character had 6000 seconds to load it beforehand)
I would agree with Marus. The whole point of a "light crossbow" is that it's a simple weapon that is quick and easy to use. Adding huge springs which would be required to make it that hard to reload would probably require reinforcing the whole thing to the point of being a heavy crossbow.
Of course, there's no reason in a fantasy world to have it conform to any real world limitations, but still, I'd think this would make sense for heavy, but not light, crossbows. I think for heavy crossbows it totally makes sense.
You would want to limit it, otherwise a player could get a crossbow sized for someone with a +20 strength modifier, and just load it before going out adventuring, and have the first shot of their combat be 1d10 + 20. (or +1000, if the character had 6000 seconds to load it beforehand)
What's wrong with carrying a ballista on every adventure? You never know when you will need to knock down a wall! :)
You would want to limit it, otherwise a player could get a crossbow sized for someone with a +20 strength modifier, and just load it before going out adventuring, and have the first shot of their combat be 1d10 + 20. (or +1000, if the character had 6000 seconds to load it beforehand)
I'd let them get away with it. It may be +20 to the first shot, but it would take a full minute to reload, assuming a 10 Str. That's a very low damage potential unless you ditch the weapon, in which case you've put about 2,000 gold in something you'll use, at most, once per encounter. I don't see it as a gamebreaking option. +1000 is a bit more extreme, but I'd say no on the basis that it just plain sounds ridiculous.
I would agree with Marus. The whole point of a "light crossbow" is that it's a simple weapon that is quick and easy to use. Adding huge springs which would be required to make it that hard to reload would probably require reinforcing the whole thing to the point of being a heavy crossbow.
Of course, there's no reason in a fantasy world to have it conform to any real world limitations, but still, I'd think this would make sense for heavy, but not light, crossbows. I think for heavy crossbows it totally makes sense.
I don't see a high Str light crossbow as any different than a high Str composite shortbow, which is something that you, by RAW, can have. In fact, the idea of this rule is for someone with a light crossbow and the rapid reload feat to be about as good as someone with a longbow. This houserule doesn't make crossbows better weapons than bows, but it makes them worth taking if you are someone like me who would rather play a crossbow archer than a longbow archer.
I don't see a high Str light crossbow as any different than a high Str composite shortbow, which is something that you, by RAW, can have. In fact, the idea of this rule is for someone with a light crossbow and the rapid reload feat to be about as good as someone with a longbow. This houserule doesn't make crossbows better weapons than bows, but it makes them worth taking if you are someone like me who would rather play a crossbow archer than a longbow archer.I would agree with Marus. The whole point of a "light crossbow" is that it's a simple weapon that is quick and easy to use. Adding huge springs which would be required to make it that hard to reload would probably require reinforcing the whole thing to the point of being a heavy crossbow.
Of course, there's no reason in a fantasy world to have it conform to any real world limitations, but still, I'd think this would make sense for heavy, but not light, crossbows. I think for heavy crossbows it totally makes sense.
Hmm.... as someone who constantly chafes under the draconian limitations of a ranged thrown weapon build, I can definitely see why a crossbow archer would want to bridge the gap with longbows...
How about it's a special kind of crossbow that requires proficiency? (I know you'll say compound bows don't require additional proficiency.....)
Hmm.... how much do I want to defend the concept that light crossbows shouldn't be able to do this....
.... apparently not enough. If you let me have a magic bandolier that gives daggers a +1 when drawn from it, just like a bow grants a +1 to arrows, then I'm good with the light crossbow of strength adjustment.
That bandoleer is actually a pretty good idea. Does pricing them at the same price as a weapon of the enhancement bonus they spawn +500 GP and allowing them to be crafted for any weapon with a thrown range, but making it so that the weapons they spawn disintegrate one round after being thrown (so that you can't pull a bunch of weapons off the bandoleer and then sell them for infinite money) seem reasonable?
What spells and caster level should you need to craft one?
What spells and caster level should you need to craft one?
I think the weapons pulled from the bandoleer should be considered ammunition.
I think the weapons pulled from the bandoleer should be considered ammunition.
Glad to hear it! That was my argument.
Yea. In this case, it makes sense. I also think it should be available in both a chest slot version and a belt slot version. Both make sense, though I'd personally rather have the chest slot so I could have a stat enhancing belt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I propose the following: a crossbow can be sized for a strength bonus.
By sized do you mean crafted? Sized would seem to indicate making the thing bigger and I don't thinnk that is what your talking about.
We have always allowed crossbows of any kind to be improved just like composite bows. Most combat crossbows were metal bows with wood stocks. Increasing the tensile strength of the metal bow section would be simple enough for a skilled crafter in most fantasy games, thereby requiring a larger strength to use.
But we do crossbows with the same rules at composite bows. Being able to load any str bow with just time make it EASILY abused with True Shot and Vital Strike. While the extra Str damage does not get multiplied it is pretty much a guarenteed hit and if you allow silly levels of strength then what is to stop someone from getting a 100 Str bow and keeping it loaded for a one shot 'Alpha Stike'?
Just use the Composite bow rules with Crossbows. They work and are pretty balanced already.
I propose the following: a crossbow can be sized for a strength bonus.By sized do you mean crafted? Sized would seem to indicate making the thing bigger and I don't thinnk that is what your talking about.
We have always allowed crossbows of any kind to be improved just like composite bows. Most combat crossbows were metal bows with wood stocks. Increasing the tensile strength of the metal bow section would be simple enough for a skilled crafter in most fantasy games, thereby requiring a larger strength to use.
But we do crossbows with the same rules at composite bows. Being able to load any str bow with just time make it EASILY abused with True Shot and Vital Strike. While the extra Str damage does not get multiplied it is pretty much a guarenteed hit and if you allow silly levels of strength then what is to stop someone from getting a 100 Str bow and keeping it loaded for a one shot 'Alpha Stike'?
Just use the Composite bow rules with Crossbows. They work and are pretty balanced already.
That's what I'm doing, except I use a load time penalty instead of an attack roll penalty.
Perhaps I shouldn't let players buy crossbows more than a few points about their Str modifier?
Yea. In this case, it makes sense. I also think it should be available in both a chest slot version and a belt slot version. Both make sense, though I'd personally rather have the chest slot so I could have a stat enhancing belt.
Should be available in back slot, too. Spear and javelin love, yo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps I shouldn't let players buy crossbows more than a few points about their Str modifier?
I would suggest putting a cap on it of 4 Str points higher than their str bonus at max. It prevents the 'nova cannon one shot' and still gives an option for greater damage at the cost of time with full accuracy. If that seems balanced once in play you can always open the gap futher later if you want it to be better.
Best to err on the side of caution until you see it used at table.
Of course if your also allowing self loading crossbows with magic then this could get quickly abused unless you stipulate that the extra load rounds cannot be skipped even by magic.
|
That bandoleer is actually a pretty good idea. Does pricing them at the same price as a weapon of the enhancement bonus they spawn +500 GP and allowing them to be crafted for any weapon with a thrown range, but making it so that the weapons they spawn disintegrate one round after being thrown (so that you can't pull a bunch of weapons off the bandoleer and then sell them for infinite money) seem reasonable?
Only if we're assuming that the bandoleer actually creates throwing daggers instead of just being loaded with them. I imagined it working just like a magic bow-- you still have to buy the throwing weapons you load into it, it just makes them magic when you use it to holster them.
As for the strength crossbow, I'm not sure I like it. Mainly, the people who use crossbows now are casters who need a backup weapon-- people more likely to have a strength penalty than bonus. I think if we're improving the crossbow, we should play to its current strengths instead of shelling out a ton of gold just to make it the same as a bow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That bandoleer is actually a pretty good idea. Does pricing them at the same price as a weapon of the enhancement bonus they spawn +500 GP and allowing them to be crafted for any weapon with a thrown range, but making it so that the weapons they spawn disintegrate one round after being thrown (so that you can't pull a bunch of weapons off the bandoleer and then sell them for infinite money) seem reasonable?Only if we're assuming that the bandoleer actually creates throwing daggers instead of just being loaded with them. I imagined it working just like a magic bow-- you still have to buy the throwing weapons you load into it, it just makes them magic when you use it to holster them.
As for the strength crossbow, I'm not sure I like it. Mainly, the people who use crossbows now are casters who need a backup weapon-- people more likely to have a strength penalty than bonus. I think if we're improving the crossbow, we should play to its current strengths instead of shelling out a ton of gold just to make it the same as a bow.
Yes, the idea is that the daggers are "enchanted" in exactly the same way an arrow is "enchanted" by a magic bow. Once the throw is complete and the attack is resolved, the dagger loses all magical enhancements.
I'm wary of attempts to do that. It'll end up overpowered or subpar, most likely. Just look at guns. It's easier and more balanced to just let it be a lot like a bow, especially since the idea is to make full BAB crossbow archers feasible.
I'd suggest they can only count as +1 or whatever for the purposes of throwing them. They'd stop becoming ammunition if you used them in melee, and they'd lose the bonus. That's the fairest way to price it the same as a bow.
I'd suggest they can only count as +1 or whatever for the purposes of throwing them. They'd stop becoming ammunition if you used them in melee, and they'd lose the bonus. That's the fairest way to price it the same as a bow.
Yeah, I would buy that. It is enchanted only for throwing. For melee if you want a magic dagger, then buy one and have it at your belt, just like a bow user would have to do. Although for the purposes of flavor I'd be fine with putting the magic dagger in the bandoleer too. And if thrown from the bandoleer, I'd use the "greater enchantment" rule just like with a magic arrow and a bow. (For example, a +1 dagger put in a +2 bandoleer would be a +1 dagger in melee, but could be thrown as a +2, but would revert to a +1 as soon as the attack is through.)
|
|
I think the best way to make a full BAB crossbow archer feasible is to make a full BAB class that's proficient with crossbows but not bows.
A fighter, barbarian, or paladin could easily dump strength, put all his points in dex, and grab the crossbow. The problem is that crossbows need the Rapid Reload feat on top of all the other archery feats just to stay on par with bows. If bows needed an extra feat for proficiency, then the playing field would be even and the choice between them would be a lot harder. Take the bow and put points in strength to do bonus damage at the cost of potential attack bonus, or take the crossbow and minmax dex, knowing you don't get to add a damage bonus for strength?
I too would love to see the crossbow get some respect as a main weapon instead of the caster's last resort, but it needs an extra feat to use effectively AND it denies you a strength bonus. Any attempt to bring a crossbow into the limelight would need to address BOTH of those issues.
I addressed the strength bonus issue. How is the feat issue addressed without nerfing bows?
I addressed the strength bonus issue. How is the feat issue addressed without nerfing bows?
Make reloading the light crossbow (or heavy crossbow with Rapid Reload) a move action or attack action.
Edit: Or just a swift action.
|
I don't see a high Str light crossbow as any different than a high Str composite shortbow, which is something that you, by RAW, can have. In fact, the idea of this rule is for someone with a light crossbow and the rapid reload feat to be about as good as someone with a longbow. This houserule doesn't make crossbows better weapons than bows, but it makes them worth taking if you are someone like me who would rather play a crossbow archer than a longbow archer.I would agree with Marus. The whole point of a "light crossbow" is that it's a simple weapon that is quick and easy to use. Adding huge springs which would be required to make it that hard to reload would probably require reinforcing the whole thing to the point of being a heavy crossbow.
Of course, there's no reason in a fantasy world to have it conform to any real world limitations, but still, I'd think this would make sense for heavy, but not light, crossbows. I think for heavy crossbows it totally makes sense.
I gotta admit, I don't see it with a light crossbow-- or maybe, in so far as I can see it, only up to the user's strength, and if you don't have that level of strength, you can't use it (same as you shouldn't be able to draw a normal bow that's over-strength for you, whatever the rules say about it). Reason is, the light crossbow is still allegedly loaded by hand, no special cranequin or lever required. Heavy Crossbows-- yes, I'd go for this rule. Basically, if you're using a heavy crossbow above your strength, a simple lever isn't enough-- you have to use a cranequin to load it, and that's what takes time... but lets you draw back a crossbow that you'd have no chance of drawing the string back any other way due to how high the tension on it is. Doesn't take a literally 'larger' crossbow-- just one with a lot stronger steel in the bow part, and a stock and trigger mechanism strong enough to hold the string back without snapping. And for someone's comment on here-- yes, you can make a heavy crossbow to about the draw-weight of an arbalest or a small ballista. Not that hard to do, with a little bit of magic improvement to metallurgy.
Regarding composite bows-- yes, short composite bows should still be able to be made to a higher "draw weight" (what gives you the strength bonus). In fact, the ridiculous thing (to me) about the rules is that the range and damage your bow is capable of is based strictly on whether it's "long" or "short" and onlycomposite bows can be made as "strength bows"-- when range and damage should be entirely based on draw weight and springiness/reaction time of the bow snapping back from being drawn in releasing an arrow... which really isn't related to length in composite bows, and is related to length in "self bows", because it's really hard to get a high draw weight out of just wood without lengthening the bow stave (but you can get a really high draw-weight out of wood alone on a traditional longbow).
|
|
I addressed the strength bonus issue. How is the feat issue addressed without nerfing bows?
Giving crossbows a strength bonus and reducing the feat tax would make bows and crossbows equal. You could choose either one you wanted and be perfectly justified.
Addressing one issue but not the other means that crossbows are still straight-up worse than bows. Nobody who's proficient in bows would ever choose crossbows if it means taking an extra feat just to make the weapon exactly as useful as a bow.
I too want to avoid a repeat of the firearms fiasco, but crossbows don't need to be made more like bows. They need some sort of advantage over bows to make them worth choosing despite their drawbacks. Right now, the lack of strength penalty and designation as simple weapons makes them worth choosing for casters as a backup weapon, but none of the full BAB classes would make that choice unless they dumped Strength.
Actually, a crossbow would be a great weapon for a Gnome Paladin...
I think that you should not add str bonus but increase the weapon damage. Recharge time should be calculated from character str and the base damage (es a 18 str should recharge faster a weak crossbow).
Less hit, more damage, and go for vital strike.
Now I don't like ranged weapons rules...
Where have you new people been? We had this discussion a year or two ago.
Crossbows - Repeating and Hand crossbows count as Simple Weapons.
Crossbows may be upgraded in the Composite fashion, such crossbows are referred to as Mighty Crossbows.
The cost is 100 gp for each +1 base damage added to the crossbow. You must have a strength bonus equivalent to the Mighty Crossbows bonus damage or you will not be able to reload it as normal.
If you do not possess the strength bonus needed to reload a Might Crossbow normally you may still load one up to a +2 bonus higher than your Strength Bonus. Loading in such a manner takes additional time equal to one step increases for each point of Bonus you do not meet.
Example: A +3 Mighty Crossbow, Heavy, would require a minimum Strength of 16 in order to properly load. However, you could still load such a crossbow if you had a Strength score of at least 12, though it would take 3 Full Rounds to do so.
Free Action -> Swift Action -> Move Action -> Standard Action -> Full Round -> 2 Rounds
-> 3 Rounds.
Where have you new people been? We had this discussion a year or two ago.
Crossbows - Repeating and Hand crossbows count as Simple Weapons.
Crossbows may be upgraded in the Composite fashion, such crossbows are referred to as Mighty Crossbows.
The cost is 100 gp for each +1 base damage added to the crossbow. You must have a strength bonus equivalent to the Mighty Crossbows bonus damage or you will not be able to reload it as normal.
If you do not possess the strength bonus needed to reload a Might Crossbow normally you may still load one up to a +2 bonus higher than your Strength Bonus. Loading in such a manner takes additional time equal to one step increases for each point of Bonus you do not meet.
Example: A +3 Mighty Crossbow, Heavy, would require a minimum Strength of 16 in order to properly load. However, you could still load such a crossbow if you had a Strength score of at least 12, though it would take 3 Full Rounds to do so.
Free Action -> Swift Action -> Move Action -> Standard Action -> Full Round -> 2 Rounds
-> 3 Rounds.
So is this actually PF legal or is it homebrew/wishful thinking?
Where have you new people been? We had this discussion a year or two ago. <snipped>
This rule set works fine for me, although I would also reduce crossbow ranges if I was going to go all-out customizing them. It's close to the way the weapons work IRL.
Crossbows are simple weapons, easy to use. They are the everyman missile weapon. To compare them to bows is like trying to compare a double-barrelled shotgun to a semi-automatic assault rifle: they are different weapons, used for different purposes, and they do not function in the same way.
From an adventurer's point of view, a mighty crossbow's advantage is that it can be preloaded and used for a one-shot hit of awesomeness (preferably in a surprise round before you drop it and engage the enemy), without having to invest in weapon-specific feats. A longbow's advantage is that with the right feats you can churn out a lot of shots over the short duration of an encounter.
Single shot of awesomeness without having to invest in tons of weapon-specific feats: Use a mighty heavy crossbow.
Sustained missile fire from a specialist missile attacker: Use a composite bow.