| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{This is a bad example. A TWF dagger user will eventually do pretty decent damage when full attacks, More than the Greatsowrd user I would say*(Again, once he have the feats).}
TWF dagger wielder can only compete with the greatsword damage if he takes several feats. Thus, my comparison is of a one-dagger-fighter vs. one-greatsword-fighter.
{Well, to nitpick a bit, swords actually weren't that common among soldiers. Historically spears and their kin were used a lot more often by armies.}
Spears were more common in war because they cost less to make than a sword, a point which is irrelevant to adventurers after level 1.
{It seems bad form to trash talk people with legitimate pathfinder complaints.}
I don't consider "real life weapon X can't be fired as often as real life weapon Y, and I don't like that the game models reality" is a legitimate complaint.
Always nice to see the Paizo staff is so responsive to the concerns and complaints of their customers. /sarcasm
thing is what all other things lack compared to a crossbow is something rather important to a rogue... that concealibility thing.Rogues don't rely on getting multiple shots, or even the base damage die of the weapon, they rely on sneak attack for the heavy lifting of damage.Actually, they do like to get more than one attack off. Each shot that hits gives them sneak attack damage. Mind you it may take a while to get iteratives with a ranged weapon, especially if you multiclass and use fractional BAB.
Also, cool factor is awesome. Its best when its also mechanically effective however.
Does crossbow have an invisibility quality I don't know about? If anything I could imagine a bow being easier to carry around. A crossbow is rather large and bulky. Hand crossbows don't even have the bonus to sleight of hand to keep concealed out of combat like a dagger does.
If you add in things that don't exist, anything looks better. Didn't you know my stone sword hits harder because if you have 18 strength it does bludgeoning/piercing/slashing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Always nice to see the Paizo staff is so responsive to the concerns and complaints of their customers. /sarcasmI don't consider "real life weapon X can't be fired as often as real life weapon Y, and I don't like that the game models reality" is a legitimate complaint.
I'm sure for a lot of them some of these complaints get old and some of the arguments seem unreasonable.
For example as soon as people started dragging "in real life" into it. IMO he had a point; realism is only relevant when it's also reasonable.
If you really really want to talk realism with crossbows, they probably shouldn't even fire 1/round.
That said, they prolly shouldn't troll their own boards. They should leave that to people like me.
But, in the grand scheme of the game as a whole, arguing base weapon damage comparisons is small beer when it comes to disparities. So it's asking the designers to get worked up over relative trivia. If you want superior Crossbows in your game, just houserule them a bit. Problem = solved.
("But what about PFS? I can't bring my houseruled X-Bow Master to PFS?" - again, of all the things one might worry about. . .sheesh, just reflavor your composite bow in your mind as some kewl mod hipster Crossbow. Again, problem solved).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
P.S. if you don't like the weapons they published, you could always try something like this, which, btw, has rules for STR XBows.
Its not what the thread is about but there's a 3rd party class/archetype that basically turns a gunslinger into a crossbowslinger but I agree It silly that weapons are THAT gimped just because designers decided that 1 weapon was better than another.
Well I thought the thread was about "False Options" (in general) and a place for us to vent about that. Then it turned out to be "All About Crossbows: Were They Handled Well or Badly?"
Re. the "designers decided," Crossbows are actually better than in the olden days.
Thing is after all this I still dk what sort of fix people think would be reasonable. There just are going to be weapons that are mechanically better than other options, and then people who complain that this or that one wasn't given the spotlight they hoped it would be given (small example: I imported the 3.5E Whip-Dagger - also Paizo-created, but replaced in PF by the inferior Scorpion Whip - for one of my characters. DM is ok with it because it's not that big of a deal, especially [still] compared to some other options).
Shake the interwebs enough and you'll probably *still* find people who complain that in the transition from 2E to 3E the katana got merged with the bastard sword "and now it sucks 'cause it's not as good as we want it to be."
Weapons are just one of those things where whatever decisions the designers make, some people are going to be unhappy (just different ones, depending on the choices implemented), and in the grand scheme of things that are broken-or-breakable in the system - all of which the designers become aware of as soon as people start finding them 2 days after anything is published and notice X new thing works so well with Y that oops, or things like the Caster-Martial-Disparity that exists and designers have done about as much as they probably can about without changing things so much that people complain that "it's no longer recognizable as the same game," that it's just, well, as I said before it's probably possible to do things better (and I'm sure that if they started, AGAIN, with a revision, they would improve things, again, but still displease some people. . .again), but it's impossible to get everything just so to the absolute satisfaction of everyone.
Now for me to get back to poking them about my disagreements with how they've implemented certain examples of alignment in parts of the setting (even though in other aspects I think they did it just fine; i just got done reading Chronicles of Righteousness, and should give it a 4-star review). 'cause, you know, there's just no pleasing some. . .er, sorry. Nevermind. :p *puts away that soapbox and drags it out of this thread*
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Always nice to see the Paizo staff is so responsive to the concerns and complaints of their customers. /sarcasm
I'm taking the time to read the boards and see what people are saying. Would you be better served by everyone ignoring this thread and not responding to complaints at all? I am here listening to you. I just disagree with your premise, or that "crossbows should be as good as longbows" is a legitimate complaint.
I agree It silly that weapons are THAT gimped just because designers decided that 1 weapon was better than another.
The designers didn't decide that, reality decided that.
Game stats for dogs are more powerful than game stats for cats. Why? Because in real life dogs are more dangerous than housecats. Is this "gimping" the "I have a guard cat" character compared to the "I have a guard dog" character? No, because you know that dogs are more dangerous than cats and should have better stats, even if that means the "I have a guard cat" character concept ends up weaker than the dog equivalent.
At some level, the game has to model reality, otherwise you have no idea what your characters can and cannot do. Can I jump cross that 1-foot hole? I don't know. Does a dagger weigh more than a longsword? I don't know. How tall is a human? I don't know. Can I see a door that's 5 feet away? We have the in-game answers to these questions because we know the answers in reality. If you abandon the idea that the (nonmagical aspects of the) game has to be based partially in reality, then you're playing something like TOON where it doesn't have to match reality at all. But you're not playing TOON, you're playing a game that's supposed to be a reasonable simulation of a pseudo-medieval fantasy world where swords are sharp, dwarves are shorter than humans, and falling damage can kill you.
You accept that a dagger deals 1d4 compared to a greatsword that deals 2d6... even though that "hurts dagger builds."
A light crossbow is an easier weapon to learn how to use than a longbow (so easy that most classes get proficiency in it for free). It costs less than a longbow (35 gp vs. 75 gp). You can fire a light crossbow while prone, but you can't do so with a longbow. You don't apply your Strength penalty to your light crossbow damage, but you do to your longbow damage. You can fire a light crossbow one-handed, but there's no way you can do that with a longbow.
The drawback to these advantages is it requires a move action to reload a light crossbow. In real life, can someone fire a light crossbow as fast as a person of equivalent skill fires a longbow? No. We're modeling reality with these rules... just as saying "a crossbow deals piercing damage" is modeling reality.
Does that increased reload time negatively affect the character concept of the "crossbow master" at higher levels? In that he has to take ONE extra feat to get the same rate of fire as the "longbow master," yes. Does that mean the crossbow master is "gimped," as you put it? Hardly.
Should we throw out the realistic concept that "a crossbow takes longer to reload than a longbow" so the "crossbow master" character concept doesn't have to spend an extra feat to keep up with the "longbow master"? I do not think so.
I agree It silly that weapons are THAT gimped just because designers decided that 1 weapon was better than another.The designers didn't decide that, reality decided that.
The designers decided to base the game on reality, and how to represent that, no? I really don't know what goes into the design myself. I would think the designers have some control over how things function and how best to implement and balance, and what the priorities are.
So... wasn't this thread about false(trap?) options? Feels like it got caught on one and didn't move onto others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Game stats for dogs are more powerful than game stats for cats. Why? Because in real life dogs are more dangerous than housecats. Is this "gimping" the "I have a guard cat" character compared to the "I have a guard dog" character? No, because you know that dogs are more dangerous than cats and should have better stats, even if that means the "I have a guard cat" character concept ends up weaker than the dog equivalent.
Except for The Dread Housecat of DOOM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're arguing that crossbows can't be fired that fast in reality, and that's why they're so hard to use in game.
That's fine.
But it stops being fine when you can get as many as 7 arrow shots off (assuming feats + iterative attacks) with a bow in 6 seconds or less in game, but reality just doesn't support that kind of fire-rate. (Assuming we're talking about a realistic pull weight - 80-100lbs.)
It's a double-standard. Crossbows have to be bad to mimic reality, but bows can be awesome because fantasy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm done here. I can't provide you with exactly what you want for your favorite thing.
By the way, ten arrows in five seconds (skip to 1:00).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{This is a bad example. A TWF dagger user will eventually do pretty decent damage when full attacks, More than the Greatsowrd user I would say*(Again, once he have the feats).}
TWF dagger wielder can only compete with the greatsword damage if he takes several feats. Thus, my comparison is of a one-dagger-fighter vs. one-greatsword-fighter.
{Well, to nitpick a bit, swords actually weren't that common among soldiers. Historically spears and their kin were used a lot more often by armies.}
Spears were more common in war because they cost less to make than a sword, a point which is irrelevant to adventurers after level 1.
{It seems bad form to trash talk people with legitimate pathfinder complaints.}
I don't consider "real life weapon X can't be fired as often as real life weapon Y, and I don't like that the game models reality" is a legitimate complaint.
Spears and Polearms were also historically better than swords.
not only were they cheaper to make and easier to train. but swords were nothing more than a sidearm compared to the spear and it's thousand sister weapons.
swords are typically gimped against most armor, but you could at least bludgeon the plate wearer with the butt of your spear and deal some internal damage. in fact, maces and clubs, saw more use on the battlefield than swords as well, do to the bludgeoning impact and it's ability to disregard the protection of armor by still dealing internal damage.
at least daggers could be used to pierce through the gaps in armor
a sword couldn't do that very well
and i'm not just talking plate, i'm talking most armors in general.
so really,
Maces, Clubs, Daggers, and Hammers, should be able to ignore damage reduction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the other hand the crossbow master is not only gimped by having to take one extra feat. there is also the fact that the archer will do more damage thanks to many shot, the archer will benefits more from point blank master and snap shot (unless the crossbo master spend another feat tax), and finally that barcer of archery (for no mechanical or flavor reason that I can think) do no work with corssbows.
This is one of the main things that is a problem with the design; it's not that the crossbow is less effective than a longbow, but it's that even with more resource investment, the crossbow still doesn't match up to the usefulness of a longbow. I still argue that the reality of crossbow vs longbow doesn't matter much in a fantasy game, but even assuming so, a crossbow user who invests significant resources into it should be able to at least match or exceed the effectiveness of a longbow. Maybe not the same way as a longbow, mechanically (i.e, I could see a feat tree that rivals the manyshot, ect tree that focuses on single, standard action attacks). This is good game design, so that it doesn't fall down to a "one weapon to rule them all" thing. There are many 4e decisions that I don't like, but one of the things that I think work is the way weapons fall in different weapon groups, like the fighter weapon groups here, and there are feats that provide different bonuses to fighting with an axe vs a longsword, vs a flail. Sure, some weapons groups may be more effective than others, but at least it feels like it's not a choice between a strictly superior and strictly inferior option.
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..
That depends much upon the era of the crossbow. Early crossbows were weak and easily outdone by the bows. It wasn't until much later that they were more powerful than long or composite bows, but they had a much slower rate of fire.
I've read fantasy where the crossbow is the "ultimate" weapon able to kill heavily armored knights, and other fantasy where the crossbow is a joke barely useful for rabbit hunting. Yes I realize that this is in fantasy, but it shows that opinions on crossbows are widely varied.
I think I'm done here. I can't provide you with exactly what you want for your favorite thing.
By the way, ten arrows in five seconds (skip to 1:00).
You do realize the draw weight on these bows is closer to the 30lb mark, right? Not to mention they're not even getting a full draw.
Long story short? You're not killing anything this way. ;)(Edit - Not trying to trash on this archer, btw. This guy is absolutely amazing - probably one of the best archers in the world if I had to guess. But he's not doing this with the type of bows and pull weight that the game is meant to simulate.)
Or simply equally realistic/unrealistic as bows, which they aren't either. Beyond the simple weapon proficiency, the benefits and strengths of crossbows are ignored or even overturned -- such as by the fact you need more training (e.g. feats) to fully master a crossbow compared to a bow.
I'm taking the time to read the boards and see what people are saying. Would you be better served by everyone ignoring this thread and not responding to complaints at all? I am here listening to you. I just disagree with your premise, or that "crossbows should be as good as longbows" is a legitimate complaint.
You are listening, then trash talking with strawmen arguments.
It isn't that crossbows should be as good as bows, it is that it should be at least in the same realm of effectiveness, instead of completely blown out of the water.
Also, taking a look at the archer Archetype just further blows all arguments of realism out of the water. Trick shot lets you trip or bullrush people with arrows, and even grapple them. At higher levels it's even more ridiculous, letting you shoot a volley hitting at maximum 24 enemies (realistically it will be less, but still, in a crowded area, it could easily be 8 or so, each at full-BAB), and letting you catch arrows and fire them back.
The crossbowman archetype, also gets some ridiculous stuff, but that's mostly the 17th and 19th level boons. The rest are largely very limited damage and utility buffs. So pretty much for most of the game, crossbowmen are largely just above-average snipers, where at third level, Archers can disarm enemies at range, and at 11th level, they can perform the aforementioned ridiculousness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want my water-balloon-throwing fighter to be able to deal the same damage as a longbow-shooting fighter. Why does Pathfinder have trap options for some ranged characters?
Okay.. Why is War Razor and Butterfly knife ultimately worse than a dagger? If the war Razor, I dunno.. had a trait or two, it could be a little better.. plus of course more bonus to hiding it. Same with a butterfly knife. As right now, you have to take a standard to draw a hidden weapon, so opening it as a free action for prof did nothing over having a normal dagger.
Also, Water-balloon-throwing fighter - Alchemist.
Blowgun fighter - Thematically, this should end up being a bit of a poisoner, possibly with the ability to buff allies with various sorts of adamixtures.
Its not so much the whole DPS that is an issue, but more of the.. "And thats why I trained in the use of X"
For a good example..
Greatsword vs a Whip.
GS does VASTLY more damage than the whip.. and is easier to learn. Requires less feats, etc.
However a whip, can disarm, trip, attack with reach. Even if you can't do DPS, you can make the enemies' life a living hell.
What we don't want is..
Chainsaw vs Greatsword.
Chainsaw requires an exotic weapon prof, then, you have to spend a standard action to 'charge' the chainsaw, but that can be dropped down to a move action with a feat, and a free action with an 3 gold item per charge. Despite being a melee weapon, it doesn't use strength for bonus damage, unless you take a particular feat (Powerful Saw) and even then it only adds 1x str. On a 1 or 2, it jams, taking the broken condition until you spend a standard to unjam it... etc etc etc. Sure, it does 2d6.. just like a great sword. But in the end of they day, its a great concept that was WASTED and probably won't be touched again.
Meanwhile, the greatsword doesn't have any of that mess. And since the only thing that either weapon offers really is damage (You didn't even put performance or frightful or anything on the chainsaw) Thats all that there is to compare is damage.
This:
I've been following this thread, and I have to say, I don't know how there could be options if there were no good or bad options. I mean, if I'm trying to figure out which restaurant to eat at, and every one of them has the same menu, prices, and service, do I really have an option? If one of them has clearly better food but is more expensive, perhaps I'll go there for the quality. Maybe another place is cheap but has lousy service. Maybe I just really like greasy food despite the fact that everyone else thinks it's nasty.
My point being, if a feat is lousy, or a certain weapon is inferior, those are things to take into account when choosing between my options. If I really like the flavor of a weapon, I may choose that option regardless of some of the drawbacks. If I don't like the flavor enough, I'll pick something else.
I'm afraid a game where there was no mechanical differences would have much less options than one where there are clear distinctions between the options. Life is full of options and they are rarely equally good. Why would we expect anything else in a game?
@ OP: You haven't proved anything and what you state as facts are not facs.
you don't have to play a invulnerable rager and you don't have to play a wizard ith the Teleprtation subschool.
|
Of course I do not have to play a teleportation wizard.
I stated that the teleportation subschool is just plain better than the standar conjuration school, that seems clear to me , do you disagree?
Nah, Teleportation's really good, better than the base school for most people.
I also stated that a bow user will do more damage and expend lest feats taht a crossbow user do you disagree?
Yeah, that's true.
I also stated than a barbaian with pounce would be just better than a barbarian witouth pounce do you disagree?
Assuming you didn't replace it with anything, sure. But several other Totems (notably Celestial Totem) are also very good, and you can only have the one.
|
|
Can't say I'm sad to see you done with the thread if you aren't even addressing the major issues the other side raises.I think I'm done here. I can't provide you with exactly what you want for your favorite thing.
By the way, ten arrows in five seconds (skip to 1:00).
I truly believe that the moment when you see yourself as being on the other side opposing the Devs is the moment when you lose the battle.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does that increased reload time negatively affect the character concept of the "crossbow master" at higher levels? In that he has to take ONE extra feat to get the same rate of fire as the "longbow master," yes. Does that mean the crossbow master is "gimped," as you put it? Hardly.
But where will I get that extra feat?!?!
A light crossbow is an easier weapon to learn how to use than a longbow (so easy that most classes get proficiency in it for free).
Oh....
On topic, the crossbow's role in history was to have a weapon that was effective without significant training relative to the high skill needed to wield a long bow.
It was a machine to replace skill. Using a longbow wasn't something you could just get a poor peasant to do. Firing a crossbow was.
In game, the crossbow is generally the unskilled option for secondary ranged attack.
Mission accomplished.
If you want to make a master crossbow person, you can. Will it be suboptimal. Maybe. Will it be viable. Absolutely.
The goal is more options, not all possible options being equal.
|
|
I truly believe that the moment when you see yourself as being on the other side opposing the Devs is the moment when you lose the battle.Not me! I happen to be 100% on Sean's side on this one, but I don't accredit him with Magical Development Team Infallibility.
But hey, if you want to believe the Devs are never wrong in anything then that's your call.
Ah. We have a misunderstanding here.
I did not mean to say that the devs are always right. It is more a matter of Might makes right.
Like it or not, the Devs do have the ultimate power on the rules of the game.
You can always try to convince them of the validity of your point of view. But if you stop doing this and declare that you and the Devs will never see eye to eye... Well, in the end, THEY are writing the rules (and erratas, and FAQs) and most of us are NOT.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The primary argument of the OP is that all options should be equally good. If anything is unequal, there will be something better or a class of choices that is better. SKR hasn't ignored that argument, he has discounted it. OP complains that options have variance in effectiveness, yet that is explicitly built into the system.
If you want a system where all choices are equal, the result is that the choice is immaterial.
The game is based on opinions about reality, some of which may be incorrect. The game extrapolates on that perceived reality. It also simplifies the reality because a lot of players are willing, or explicitly want, that simplification. There are other games that are more realistic. There are others that have a greater degree of equity. If you want the game to be different, change it to meet your needs or play another game that more closely matches your desires.
But hey, if you want to believe the Devs are never wrong in anything then that's your call.
In addition to what The black raven said, I have to add this: Heated arguments and finger pointing between players and devs will only harm Pathfinder. Who is "right" and who is "wrong" does not matter at all in this case. It is better to bow out of the discussion rather than continue one that will drive a wedge between the players and devs.
This thread would have been more useful had it been explicitly as well as implicitly about the OP's issues with xbows.
Sounds to me like the easy fix is to remove most of the crossbow feats. That way there will be less feats to acquire "mastery" and then we can enjoy the ease of mastering a sub-par weapon more easily than a character attempting to master the bow. (This is a joke, in case it's not obvious).
Seriously though, if you care this much about crossbows, just make a custom archetype or prestige class or something that makes it an option you like more. Post it on here and maybe someone w/ some power to publish things will get some ideas from it. That will be a lot more productive than arguing w/ the internet. (this is meant to be an honest attempt to be helpful, but I am being a little snippy at the end, mostly for the sake of humor).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Drachasor - The Heavy Crossbow damage is higher than the longbow (1d8 to 1d10 for heavy) with greater range (100 or 110 composite to 120. Being a master of the crossbow means you are very good at using a weapon that is inherently more powerful, and easier to use, as a baseline, but that can't be reloaded as quickly.
Which is what a crossbow was. That is the trade off.
The fact that you can't make the crossbow composite is a function of not being able to add an additional bonus from another ability (str).
On the other hand, I can use that crossbow with an 8 strength and suffer no penalty for doing so.
If I did, I could use the difference to increase Dex and therefore attack bonus, which will impact your DPR and improve your AC.
And in addition, almost every class is proficient with it off the bat, so you don't need that extra feat.
A crossbow is a simple weapon. A mastery of a simple weapon is going to generally be less "optimal" than proficiency of a martial or exotic weapon.
Which is as it should be.
Here are my proposed house rules for all those that find the crossbow lacking:
1) Rapid Reload allows you to reload a Heavy Crossbow as part of a move action. So you could reload while taking your usual movement (typically 30ft).
2) Look at the Fighter Archetype, the Ranger combat focus, etc, and find a way to substitute useless things for Vital Strike feats or something similar.
This would allow the crossbow wielder on focusing on what they (in my opinion) should be focusing on, one really powerful strike. Forget multiple shots per turn. It allows the crossbowman to be a mobile hard hitter. This does have a weakness to monks (as they can snatch the arrow), but all classes ought to have some weakness in my opinion.
This differentiates the bow archer (lots of attacks) w/ the crossbowman (one hard hitting attack). It would also remove a lot of feats needed as the crossbowman wouldn't need to use so many feats for reloading and shooting more bolts. I think it would at least be worth a play test for those who think this is an issue (I don't, but I'm tired of endless arguing and think it would be nice for something useful to come from this thread.)
|
|
Sounds to me like the easy fix is to remove most of the crossbow feats. That way there will be less feats to acquire "mastery" and then we can enjoy the ease of mastering a sub-par weapon more easily than a character attempting to master the bow. (This is a joke, in case it's not obvious).
Seriously though, if you care this much about crossbows, just make a custom archetype or prestige class or something that makes it an option you like more. Post it on here and maybe someone w/ some power to publish things will get some ideas from it. That will be a lot more productive than arguing w/ the internet. (this is meant to be an honest attempt to be helpful, but I am being a little snippy at the end, mostly for the sake of humor).
Easy to use and easy to master are very different things.
It is easy for me to run. I have the basic training required to run. I put in the time as a baby, and now I have running down. However it would be difficult for me to run a marathon, without significant additional training, as although it is the same concept, the application is very different.
It is easier to fire a pre-loaded crossbow than to fire a longbow. That makes it a simple weapon. It is also easier to impart additional damage into a crossbow firing mechanism. That is why it does more damage as a baseline.
But it is much, much harder to load a crossbow than a longbow, if you the basic level of training required to use either. And it requires both skill and above average natural ability (strength) to use a composite longbow.
A Crossbow doesn't require the extra strength. It doesn't require specialized training to use, it is just a machine that requires you to pull a lever to fire.
Reloading it...that is more challenging.
Easy to use and easy to master are very different things.
It is easy for me to run. I have the basic training required to run. I put in the time as a baby, and now I have running down. However it would be difficult for me to run a marathon, without significant additional training, as although it is the same concept, the application is very different.
It is easier to fire a pre-loaded crossbow than to fire a longbow. That makes it a simple weapon. It is also easier to impart additional damage into a crossbow firing mechanism. That is why it does more damage as a baseline.
But it is much, much harder to load a crossbow than a longbow, if you the basic level of training required to use either. And it requires both skill and above average natural ability (strength) to use a composite longbow.
A Crossbow doesn't require the extra strength. It doesn't require specialized training to use, it is just a machine that requires you to pull a lever to fire.
Reloading it...that is more challenging.
I agree w/ you completely.
I was just referring to some earlier posts saying that "mastery" was related to the number of feats required. I figured if you just take away those feats (which would make the crossbow an even less optimized option), that would mean the "mastery" would be easier and perhaps the need for complaint would go away.
It was completely tongue in cheek. :P
Does that increased reload time negatively affect the character concept of the "crossbow master" at higher levels? In that he has to take ONE extra feat to get the same rate of fire as the "longbow master," yes. Does that mean the crossbow master is "gimped," as you put it? Hardly.But where will I get that extra feat?!?!
A light crossbow is an easier weapon to learn how to use than a longbow (so easy that most classes get proficiency in it for free).Oh....
On topic, the crossbow's role in history was to have a weapon that was effective without significant training relative to the high skill needed to wield a long bow.
It was a machine to replace skill. Using a longbow wasn't something you could just get a poor peasant to do. Firing a crossbow was.
In game, the crossbow is generally the unskilled option for secondary ranged attack.
Mission accomplished.
If you want to make a master crossbow person, you can. Will it be suboptimal. Maybe. Will it be viable. Absolutely.
The goal is more options, not all possible options being equal.
ciretose. I love you :-)
I actually had this idea of a bard with str 11 using a crossbow and Bracers of Falcon's Aim. She would have been awesome. Sadly I didn’t get to play her.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the problem might just be that the English-speaking world (and thus a lot of the older fantasy nerds) has massively fetishized the longbow thanks to the Hundred Years War. It would certainly account for the persistent "Longbow is teh uberz" crowd. It's like the katana for anime fans/Japanophiles.