| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. Some options should be better than others. Leave crossbow focus to the PCs who don't get martial weapon proficiency and use a bow that makes use of your class-given access to martial weapons. You've earned it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. Some options should be better than others. Leave crossbow focus to the PCs who don't get martial weapon proficiency and use a bow that makes use of your class-given access to martial weapons. You've earned it.
That comes down to a weird philosophical problem, though. You're essentially ranking flavor at that point.
Bows are stronger mechanically, so people who happen to like Bows more than Crossbows aesthetically are at an advantage over those who think Crossbows are cooler.
Imagine if people who chose to play a brunette character got +2 to any attribute, while anyone who wanted to play a blonde had to take a -2 penalty to an attribute. It's a silly flavor choice that has disproportionate mechanical impact.
You're basically saying that having martial weapon proficiency should get you better weapons, mechanically, and I agree, but I don't think it should dictate flavor at the same time.
There should be a martial crossbow (and more relevant to me, a martial sling, since I like them a lot and they are unfairly terrible) and a simple bow. That's the only way to make it a mechanical choice, rather than a flavor choice.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I second the "meh". All you've done is identify some of the strongest options, in some cases against some of the weakest options, and said, "THIS IS BETTER THAN THAT!"
No duh.
It doesn't make another character unplayable. If you can't build a concept because you can identify a single different concept that has a slight mechanical edge... Get over it, man.
|
Superstition and Come And Get Me are not Barbarian must-haves IMO (just very good...though Superstition's downside can really hurt in some parties, and the defense for offense tradeoffs of Come And Get Me are iffy sometimes), and given the limitation on having only a single Totem, some of the others are potentially worth it over Beast Totem.
On a more general note, I tend to agree with the basic premise that crossbows and thrown weapons should be on par with archery and similar things...and have house rules to do precisely that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is really an argument that just cannot be won. At best you can say the reason weapons, abilities, feats, etc. are different is because that is the way it is. That is D&D or Pathfinder or whatever. Otherwise you have a really boring system that looks something like this.
Dagger 1d6
longsword 1d6
spear 1d6
halberd 1d6
long bow 1d6
cross bow 1d6
fireball d6 per level
magic missile d6 per level
cone of cold d6 per level
disintegrate d6 per level
weapon focus +1 something
cleave +1 something
power attack +1 somethig
etc, etc, etc.
If all options are the same then there really are no options. Just different fluff for the same thing. That is why the answer to this post is "that is just the way the game is." Pathfinder is the inheritor of a pseudo realistic system that attempted to model medieval weapons and tactics. Some weapons are better than others that is why they do different amounts of damage...and there are some trade offs that make things like daggers not totally useless. That is the way the game is.
|
This is really an argument that just cannot be won. At best you can say the reason weapons, abilities, feats, etc. are different is because that is the way it is. That is D&D or Pathfinder or whatever. Otherwise you have a really boring system that looks something like this.
Dagger 1d6
longsword 1d6
spear 1d6
halberd 1d6
long bow 1d6
cross bow 1d6fireball d6 per level
magic missile d6 per level
cone of cold d6 per level
disintegrate d6 per levelweapon focus +1 something
cleave +1 something
power attack +1 somethigetc, etc, etc.
If all options are the same then there really are no options. Just different fluff for the same thing. That is why the answer to this post is "that is just the way the game is." Pathfinder is the inheritor of a pseudo realistic system that attempted to model medieval weapons and tactics. Some weapons are better than others that is why they do different amounts of damage...and there are some trade offs that make things like daggers not totally useless. That is the way the game is.
While.. kinda truish.. at the same time, they often don't give /any/ trade off.
Dagger, War Razor and butterfly knife.. are all daggers.
Dagger 2 gp 1d3 1d4 19–20/×2 10 ft. 1 lb. P or S
War razor 8 gp 1d3 1d4 19-20/×2 — 1 lb. S
Knife, butterfly 5 gp 1d3 1d4 19-20/×2 — 1 lb. P or S
It basically gets progressively worse. The weapon Dagger, has far better capabilities than the Razor or Butterfly. And its a Simple weapon. You'd be hard press not to be prof with Dagger. All of them get +2 to conceal it. So.. what is the deal? Where is the give and take? You give a more powerful feat and you get nothing in return.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a philosophical difference in game design between, to borrow some terms, a simulationist and a narrativist approach.
A simulationist approach tries to create a game in which the rules reflect reality, or a fictional reality. The simulationist, when deciding how much damage a particular weapon will deal, first looks at the real world, then decides how to represent that information in the game. They are likely to do something like this:
- Sling 1d4
- Shortbow 1d6
- Longbow 1d8
A narrativist approach tries to create a game in which the rules tell a story, according to the will of the players. The narrativist, when deciding how much damage a weapon will deal, first thinks about the impact of those weapons on the story. They are likely to do something like this:
- One handed ranged weapons 1d4 (examples: javalin, sling, spear)
- Two handed ranged weapons 1d6 (examples: shortbow, crossbow, staff sling)
- Martial, two handed, ranged weapons 1d8 (examples: longbow, foot bow, blunderbus)
D&D has been a simulationist game from its origin. (An interesting and relevant article.) I've played a wide variety of RPGs, and I have a strong urge toward the narrativist approach which D&D/Pathfinder definitely do not serve. Fudge, Tri-Stat, QAGS, older versions of WOD, and a great many other games use a more narrativist approach. Interestingly, D&D 4e backed off somewhat from the simulationist model, and I believe some of the complaints leveled against it were caused by that change in philosophy. Most obviously, complaints that "all 4e characters are the same" stem from that change.
You're not going to get Pathfinder to change, because it's the game for people people who want simulationist fantasy. However, you can easily make house rules to create the kinds of adjustments you want. For example, if one of your players wants to be a crossbowman, let them use the rules for bows and simply re-skin their bow as a crossbow. BOOM! Your crossbowman is now an optimized ranged attacker!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simulation though.. Crossbows historically, had more power than a long bow. There is lots of use of crossbows, but the similation of the game doesn't fully allow that. Its far too stiff and demands that every little thing becomes a feat.
D&D has been a simulationist game from its origin.Only with a rather tight definition of "simulationist", jumping out of 10th floor and stand up and run away is not simulation.
1) Every game is a simplification, so even a game that tries to be a perfect simulation will fail. The more perfect you attempt to make your simulation, the more complex your game becomes, until one day you find yourself playing Advanced Squad Leader crossed with Delta V and you need a physics degree, a retired general, and time on the local university's supercomputer to calculate your moves. D&D/Pathfinder are simulationist, but they're also entry level RPGs, so the simulation will never be too detailed.
2) Every game contains errors, quirks, and the biases of the authors. In the case of Pathfinder, this includes parts of an inherited 40 year history. Pathfinder made some distinct improvements over previous versions, but couldn't jettison every inaccuracy and still maintain the d20 thread.
3) Most games, and games in the fantasy genre in particular, aren't trying to simulate the real world. Instead, they try to model a fantasy world influenced by legend, literature, movies, television, and convention.
4) Game balance in an important concern whether your game is simulationist or narrativist.
A simulationist complaining about a mechanic will say, "Crossbows are better than that." A narrativist, complaining about the same game will say, "Why should I do less damage just because I want to use crossbows?"
The devil is not, as the saying goes, in the details. The difference is in the approach, the philosophy, the way of looking at the game.
The other advantage of the Crossbow, is that, as a torsion driven projectile weapon, it can be fired effectively by someone who has been maimed (a very common occurence in Medieval Warfare), grantedthey'll only get one shot, but at close range that's generally all that was needed. Whereas the loss of as little as 2 fingers will render someone unable to use a long bow effectively.
|
|
Simulation though.. Crossbows historically, had more power than a long bow. There is lots of use of crossbows, but the similation of the game doesn't fully allow that. Its far too stiff and demands that every little thing becomes a feat.D&D has been a simulationist game from its origin.Only with a rather tight definition of "simulationist", jumping out of 10th floor and stand up and run away is not simulation.** spoiler omitted **
A simulationist complaining about a mechanic will say, "Crossbows are better than that." A narrativist, complaining about the same game will say, "Why should I do less damage just because I want to use crossbows?"
The devil is not, as the saying goes, in the details. The difference is in the approach, the...
And number 4 is the big thing here. The game balance.. Its far too easy to get trapped up in something that seemed cool.. and after a few sessions of playing it, realize that mechancially, its not cool.
In 3.5 for example there was the Geomancer... Which I can only guess was a creation of mixing the scraps of a few different PRCs. This thing was like, druidishy.. Shapeshifty, arcanistly.. Kinda like they took Mystic Theuge and try to add on things (Most of which don't do much), while ultimatly failing at the whole spell blending thing. Its a coolish class, where you slowly take on animal aspects and get some sort of empowerment from the ground.. but because of how its handled it falls flat.
Another was the fleshwarper. Which required 10 ranks of heal, and a familiar. And Arcane casting. Needless to say, there is no way to really easily get 10 ranks of heal (So you can get a feat) on a class that doesn't get heal as a class skill back then. Causing a rather cool idea to fall flat again.
|
|
The other advantage of the Crossbow, is that, as a torsion driven projectile weapon, it can be fired effectively by someone who has been maimed (a very common occurence in Medieval Warfare), whereas the loss of as little as 2 fingers will render someone unable to use a long bow effectively.
Crossbows could also have the same power every time. Some heavier designs could should further and harder than long bows. Which mechanically does exist here on that..
Also, imagine the difficulty of wielding a longbow in an actual dungeon?
A small.. cramped dungeon..
The problem I have with the Crossbow isn't that it's less powerful than the Longbow; I'm not going to be the guy trying to eke out every mathematical advantage. But my problem with it is that it's both worse and more resource intensive (and spending those resources doesn't make it any better than the alternative, just closer to parity). Ranged Combat is already very resource intensive, but to even be decent at using a crossbow as a primary option, requires at minimum either rapid reload or the vital strike chain. What I'd be actually ok with is if the system base provided both the Vital strike chain (modified perhaps) and Multiple attacks as standard, and Crossbows had more goodies to reward single attacks, while Bows had more goodies to reward volleys of arrows.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simulation though.. Crossbows historically, had more power than a long bow. There is lots of use of crossbows, but the similation of the game doesn't fully allow that. Its far too stiff and demands that every little thing becomes a feat.
Like in Game of Thrones..
Not according to the latest research. Longbows had about the same penetration as a crossbow. Longbows were also faster (not quite twice as fast, but close) and more accurate (the feathers on an arrow were spiraled to make the arrow spin in flight and give it more stability).
So why did Crossbows ever get used? simple - logistics. A Longbowman needed to start training from a very young age (IIRC about 4) and would continue throughout his lifetime. He needed to take good care of his weapon, keeping it unstringed and stringing only when about to use it (so if ambushed he would be reduced to using it as an impromptu club). he could not wander around with an arrow nocked (unlike in most fantasy settings), but would have to draw and loose when his target is acquired.
The crossbowman, in contrast, required little training to use, meaning that the lowliest peasant could learn to use them (which was why they were feared so much by knights). They could be loaded and carried around ready to shoot, so that in the event of an ambush they could be loosed to devastating effect.
As others have discussed, it becomes a question of narrative vs. simulationist approaches. PF is not pure simulationist (otherwise there would be requirements for Longbows to be kept unstringed and stringing the bow would take a standard action - but this would not be consistent with a fantasy setting), but there is certainly a nod towards this.
There is nothing stopping crossbowmen from achieving a level of competence in rules, and if you want to play William Tell characters there is no reason why you can't. The feat Tax is greater than for archers, and there are some other differences, but I should imagine such a character would still be viable to play, and not everybody seeks to eke out every marginal advantage in game, some people actually like the idea of playing a certain style (e.g. crossbowman) regardless of its supposed sub-optimization. Some people might want to play a crossbowman just to play something different. Others might play crossbowman so as to use STR as a dump stat (Sohei Monk has been mentioned, but any MAD character might want to consider it).
While i understand the frustrastion that your cherished character concept is not as good as other concepts, the answer is not to make them equal, but rather to seek ways to improve them while emphasising their differences.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see why this thread is spending so much time on the historical uses of crossbows vs longbows. Does it really matter, honestly? Personally the bigger concern to me is that you can choose one to fit the concept you want, without feeling like you're gimping the character.
We're talking about a system where you can survive several stabs with a longsword and be perfectly fine, before getting struck with a wooden tree branch and suffering critical existence failure. Simulation should only be a design goal so long as it enhances the experience. However, by having character options that force you to choose between staying true to your concept but being mediocre at it, and ditching the concept for something more feasible doesn't reconcile with anything akin to enhancing the experience.
Even with people who don't try to eke out every marginal advantage, it's still a noticeably inferior option, but the bigger problem, in my opinion, isn't it's mathematical inferiority, but the fact that it requires more resources to even get close to the game's expectations with regards to damage output. To me, if you're going to have a set up where one concept is significantly less mathematically effective, you'd have to at least make it able to perform with a lower resource requirement. This isn't just a Crossbow/Bow thing, but also a Two-handed Weapon/TWF/Sword-and-board thing, as well as an issue with design in general.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weapons and armor that are ideal for use in skirmish combat - i.e., adventures - are not ones that are well suited for use on a battlefield in tight formations that are designed, disciplined and trained to fight in formation. Examples include, but are not limited to, Greek hoplites, Welsh longbowmen and the above mentioned Roman legions.
This is an apples to oranges discussion.
Crossbows are ideal weapons for certain characters - i.e., anyone with a low-to-average Strength score and less-than-full BAB. Light crossbows out-range shortbows.
Slings have a few major advantages of their own:
- magic stone, especially from a wand, is a terrifically cost effective way to have magic projectiles that do as much damage as a shortbow and are devastatingly effective against the undead. Even against incorporeal undead magic stones deal 1d6+1+(other bonuses)
- slings are free and no encumbrance; wear a spare as a headband
- A belt pouch of 10 pebbles (stones) costs 1 gp and weighs/encumbers a total of 3 lbs
- they have better range than all the thrown weapons and almost as good a range as a shortbow
- they add the firer's Strength bonus in for free, unlike composite bows, which cost a small fortune to do so. Only thrown weapons share this benefit, and they simply cannot hit as far as a sling
- The only downside to a sling is that they are comparatively slow. This downside goes away for characters that have the Vital Strike feat chain . Use liberally with magic stone. A 9th level Cleric with Vital Strike firing magic stones deals a minimum of 4d6+2 to undead at a range increment of 50 feet. This damage escalates quickly with decent-to-augmented Strength, divine favor or divine power and especially Deadly Aim (at BAB 4-7, this adds another 4 damage). If the Cleric confirms a critical hit against an undead with the basic combination of Deadly Aim and magic stone, at no STR bonus, that's a wonderful 6d6+4. Add on +3 from divine favor at CL 9 and let's say another +3 from magically enhanced STR, the base damage/shot to undead with Deadly Aim and Vital Strike is 4d6+12 <3 STR +3 luck +2 enhancement +4 deadly aim>, becoming 6d6+24 on a confirmed crit. 2d6+11 to non-undead is hardly shabby either (3d6+22 on a confirmed crit).
This is not the kind of "DPR" that the full BAB and melee guys can dish out ... but they have to get to the slinger first. And one doesn't know what else the slinger has up his/her/its sleeve...
Thrown weapons are "in between" weapons - as in, they are used "in between" projectile weapons range and melee range, especially ones with a 20' or 30' range increment (chakram and javelin are the 'rulers' of thrown weapons, IIRC). Thrown weapons also include alchemical weapons/items, which can be particularly effective in their own way.
RE: Stat Boosters: many of the "cool" belts/headbands can be combined at a slight increase in cost with the ability enhancement items. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, although it is easiest done with party access to Item Creation feats.
Iterative attacks are the real problem with Bows vs XBows. Just looking at the printed stats, they're basically right, with the xbow getting a little more distance and a little more punch. In practice, you require zero training to lose all of your attacks with a bow, but require one (probably more, depending on the xbow, since Rapid Reload only works for a single type of xbow for each time you take it) feat to do the same with a xbow (and unless you're a Fighter, feats are expensive - don't kid yourself into thinking they're not).
Systems without iterative attacks don't have this problem (or have cheaper/easier ways around it at least).
-------
People can argue the semantics to this all day, but at the end? The OP is right.
Take a flip through your bestiaries. Right now, go on. Look at some of the stats you are assumed to be going up against. Now tell me you won't be a total liability to your group's survival if you want to be a thrower (especially in a lower-magic game). Just try and say you'll affect that monster with your spell if you took flavor choices instead of as much DC-increasing as you could. I'll try not to laugh at you if you think those stat bumping items aren't absolutely required (ie: Not really a choice).
This is really an argument that just cannot be won. At best you can say the reason weapons, abilities, feats, etc. are different is because that is the way it is. That is D&D or Pathfinder or whatever. Otherwise you have a really boring system that looks something like this.
Does 1d6 vs 1d8 vs 1d10 on weapon damage dice excite you? You know it's just going to be:
1d10+15
1d8+15
1d6+15
later on, and the average damages will be 18.5, 19.5, 20.5.
Considering how little the weapon damage die matters past early levels, I think the weapon system needs more interesting properties/options for weapon types to not be boring.
Are Weapon Focus and Power Attack exciting?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
its all about having fun not having the best stuff.
Absolute traps
-The pre errata prone shooter (fixed a penalty that doesn't exist)
-Most of the options for
Your natural empathy stretches across the world of nature.
Prerequisites: Knowledge (nature) 5 ranks, wild empathy class feature.
Benefit: You gain a +2 insight bonus on wild empathy checks, and you may use wild empathy to duplicate an Intimidate check rather than a Diplomacy check. In addition, choose one of the following kinds of creatures: elementals, fey, lycanthropes, plants, or vermin. You may influence creatures of that type with wild empathy, if their Intelligence score is 1 or 2, or they do not possess an Intelligence score. Once you choose the type of creature, it cannot be changed.
Special: You may select this feat more than once. Each time, you may choose an additional creature type to influence.
There are ZERO elementals, fey, or lycanthropes dumb enough to be wild empathied.
|
|
Another was the fleshwarper. Which required 10 ranks of heal, and a familiar. And Arcane casting. Needless to say, there is no way to really easily get 10 ranks of heal (So you can get a feat) on a class that doesn't get heal as a class skill back then. Causing a rather cool idea to fall flat again.
A one level dip in Ranger does the job.
I'm not picking this out to demonstrate superior rules foo. It probably would just get into a debate about how this costs a level of spell progression, making it a trap, other ways that are better, etc., anyways. :)
Rather, to point out that it's possible. One looks at the PrC, sees an odd combo of requirements, and it stimulates the question, "How?" This then encourages a chain of developing factual knowledge, conducting analysis and evaluation, weighing trade-offs, etc.
All of that results in a deeper connection with the game. With that investment comes a greater placement if value on further products. It's a design strategy that results in a complex game, heavy involvement, and willingness to spend money.
The overall design of the 3.x family is a quite elegant model.
The crossbow is a simple weapon, and therfore less martial inclined characters get it. A lesser weapon should not be as good as a better weapon. Otherwise why are those martial classes doing all of that training.
Pathfinder does not dictate that you need the best options to survive or that a suboptimal choice here or there will doom you. You are overstating the issue OP.
You can stay true to a concept, and not take the best option. There is also the idea of "reskinning". Use the longbow as you crossbow. The next time I get to play an inquisitor my repeating crossbow will actually be a longbow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The crossbow is a simple weapon, and therfore less martial inclined characters get it. A lesser weapon should not be as good as a better weapon. Otherwise why are those martial classes doing all of that training.
I can understand simple weapons being slightly weaker than martial weapons. However, they should not be *significantly* weaker. All being a simple weapon means is that it is easier to use.
In some settings guns are simple weapons because they are common and easy to use, and I think we can all agree that guns are generally not (or should not be) weak.
I can understand from a game design standpoint that simple weapons should be generally weaker than martial weapons. However, if a character wants to focus on a simple weapon for flavor's sake he should be able to find some way to be effective with it without having to take more than one extra feat. After all: one feat often the only difference between using simple weapons and using martial or exotic weapons.
I sort of disagree about crossbow. They're simple weapons, not martial weapons. No fighter should ever specialize with them. (I don't care about archetypes; there's probably an Ambidextrous Yo-yo Wielder archetype out there somewhere.) I wouldn't expect specializing in standard clubs to be a "fighter thing" either.Then that should be stated. "hey this is a simple weapon do not make false ideas about being a great crossbowman". Instead they give a feats (rapid reload, crossbow mastery) and an archetype that give the illusion of choise.
I am not complaining about crossbow as a back up weapon for non martial classes, in that case I think the crossbow is fine. But at the moment a fighter or ranger start taking feats into that style they should not be so purporsely weaker than an archer.
The feats are to make it better. They never state you will be great with it, and there is no illusion. The crossbow is so inferior to the bow that I don't see many players being fooled. I don't even see new players try to focus on the crossbow.
The crossbow is a simple weapon, and therfore less martial inclined characters get it. A lesser weapon should not be as good as a better weapon. Otherwise why are those martial classes doing all of that training.
I can understand simple weapons being slightly weaker than martial weapons. However, they should not be *significantly* weaker. All being a simple weapon means is that it is easier to use.
In some settings guns are simple weapons because they are common and easy to use, and I think we can all agree that guns are generally not (or should not be) weak.
I can understand from a game design standpoint that simple weapons should be generally weaker than martial weapons. However, if a character wants to focus on a simple weapon for flavor's sake he should be able to find some way to be effective with it without having to take more than one extra feat. After all: one feat often the only difference between using simple weapons and using martial or exotic weapons.
The crossbow can be made to be decent. It will just never match a bow. Manyshot and composite longbows are the reason for that. Speaking of the composite bow, it is a lot better than the regular bow also.