| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why?
It's been repeatedly pointed out in this thread that all weapons are not equal. Why should crossbows specifically be different?
Because that sucks?
Sometimes when you sit down and you realize everyone has the same things because it optimal, you just want a bit of varience. Other times your the player and you'd really like to pull this cool idea off, but the game is working against you. Its a very different image to use a crossbow than a bow. Similarly a sword and an axe. Its why I allow reskinning a Nodachi as a Greataxe or bow as a Crossbow. Those are valid reasons right? It sucks for someone.
Now that things seem to have calmed down a bit, I guess I'll add my thoughts.
After doing some research I partly agree with what Sean said about longbows vs crossbows in pathfinder and reality. At high skill levels, longbows were generally much better than crossbows. If the game is modeling reality, then it got this right. Well, in respect to total damage, not firing rate ;)
There is one thing that should be taken into account however: magic. Surely many people in a world with magic would notice the crossbow's potential. That it would be an easy to use weapon with effectiveness on par with a longbow if only it could be reloaded faster. Solution? Use magic to have it reload faster. Maybe even have it magically cock itself and replace the bolts as fast as you could pull the trigger (Diablo 3 style). Sure, it would be expensive, but in theory this would produce a weapon almost as easy to use and dangerous as a modern handgun.
Basically, I'm saying that in a game with magic, 'reality' shouldn't prevent you from finding ways to make the various playstyles in the game viable ;)
Sometimes when you sit down and you realize everyone has the same things because it optimal, you just want a bit of varience. Other times your the player and you'd really like to pull this cool idea off, but the game is working against you. Its a very different image to use a crossbow than a bow. Similarly a sword and an axe. Its why I allow reskinning a Nodachi as a Greataxe or bow as a Crossbow. Those are valid reasons right? It sucks for someone.
If you want variance - take the sub-optimal weapon. Make the sub-optimal choice and have fun with it. If there is no difference in effect, just how meaningful is the choice?
the chainsaw post from the last page highlights this
Greatsword, 2hand Martial melee Weapon, 2d6, 19/20x2, usable at will, x1.5 STR bonus to damage
Chainsaw 2hand Exotic melee weapon 2d6 20x2, standard action to activate. no STR bonus to damage.
Chainsaw Taxes
Rapid Rev feat; Rev Chainsaw as a move action
Powerful Saw feat; STR bonus to Chainsaw damage
Quickrev battery, consumable 3GP item that allows the chainsaw to activate the chainsaw as a free action once. must be changed after 5 rounds. changing requires a full round action that provokes attacks of opportunity
the chainsaw, is inferior to the greatsword, requiring 3 feats and a 3GP consumable item that is used every encounter, and still inferior to the greatsword.
what we want, is the chainsaw to actually be a competitive option to the greatsword, even if it had it's own Purpose
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point of the thread is taht the choise should not be between an optimal choise and a sub-otimal one. at least not at the level of the bow - crossbow disparity.Sometimes when you sit down and you realize everyone has the same things because it optimal, you just want a bit of varience. Other times your the player and you'd really like to pull this cool idea off, but the game is working against you. Its a very different image to use a crossbow than a bow. Similarly a sword and an axe. Its why I allow reskinning a Nodachi as a Greataxe or bow as a Crossbow. Those are valid reasons right? It sucks for someone.If you want variance - take the sub-optimal weapon. Make the sub-optimal choice and have fun with it. If there is no difference in effect, just how meaningful is the choice?
You got it. I hate the idea of punishing people for flavor. Not a big fan of the idea to of being given dozens of choices but some of them are just poor. Crossbows lack static modifiers and are difficult to reload without dumping a few feats into them, which is a pretty big difference imo.
That said, I hate when someone says "Take the suboptimal and have fun with it!" Its like saying "bring a commoner, its cool!" I don't think its a great excuse for poor balance. I've met people who have fun with commoner. The commoner is not great for adventuring in most of the campaigns I'm in unless its built for a commoner...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why bother having any individual weapons at all? You should just eliminate them, and replace them with:
Light weapon 1d6
Medium weapon 1d8
Heavy weapon 1d12
Light ranged weapon 1d6
Heavy ranged weapon 1d8
Make any weapon special properties a skill purchase of some kind. Then flavor them however you want. That's the only way weapons are ever going to be universally equitable
I disagree; nor do I feel that you support your argument well by attempting to reduce the opposing position to an absurdity. If you are incapable of 'taking the suboptimal and having fun with it', I regret your inability to do so: but Pathfinder is bulging with options that are not equally good. Some have ups and downs over others; some are weaker even in the big picture. That's the shape of things.
I swear I'm not being dismissive or facetious when I suggest this: have a look at other RPGs where somebody's innate awesomeness has more impact than the shape of the object they're using to show off their awesomeness - I know of several such RP systems. Find one you like and suggest importing whichever parts you like into Pathfinder for your table. If the PF rules as they stand aren't making you happy, change them 'til you're happy. I'm happy as things stand.
But in games like Parhfinder, it's not just a mechanic-neutral flavor choice. It entails differences meant to model a common understanding of reality. Bows and crossbows have different characteristics that don't favor the crossbow for certain types of characters (ones with martial proficiencies and multiple attack). That's part of Pathfinder's way of modeling reality. There are LOTS of other games like this too. In Traveller, an Advanced Combat Rifle is better than a body pistol but does less damage than a Plasma Gun, Man-Portable. And that's the way it should be because any heavy energy weapon that you need battledress to tote and fire without being incinerated should pack more punch than a slug thrower.
If a player wants to be immunized from their flavor choices leading to mechanical differences, they should consider another game like a generic game or some game in which all characteristics of a weapon are purchased with points and thus all differences in mechanics are driven by the player.
the chainsaw post from the last page highlights this
Greatsword, 2hand Martial melee Weapon, 2d6, 19/20x2, usable at will, x1.5 STR bonus to damage
Chainsaw 2hand Exotic melee weapon 2d6 20x2, standard action to activate. no STR bonus to damage.
Chainsaw Taxes
Rapid Rev feat; Rev Chainsaw as a move action
Powerful Saw feat; STR bonus to Chainsaw damage
Quickrev battery, consumable 3GP item that allows the chainsaw to activate the chainsaw as a free action once. must be changed after 5 rounds. changing requires a full round action that provokes attacks of opportunity
the chainsaw, is inferior to the greatsword, requiring 3 feats and a 3GP consumable item that is used every encounter, and still inferior to the greatsword.
what we want, is the chainsaw to actually be a competitive option to the greatsword, even if it had it's own Purpose
Ah good, it didn't go to complete waste.
In addition lets look at what a 'martial' weapon is.
Did you know that Fighters are prof with EVERY martial weapon? Do tell me how a War Razor requires the same amount of training as a flail? Or longbow? Or Chakram, Cat o Nine Tails, or A kobold tail ring. That is right. A human fighter is PROFICIENT in the use of a kobold tail ring.
As if that wasn't a kick in the pants right there.
Not to mention the whole Exotic > Martial > Simple. Dagger is a simple weapon, but is still better than War Razor/Butterfly knife. Stating "Martial weapons are just better than simple".. yeah. Not quite true there is it?
What we are looking for is not weapon X and weapon Y to be equal in damage. But more of there is a reason why you use weapon X and a reason why you use weapon Y beyond "Oh this is simple weapon, that is martial weapon."
Sadly certian artifacts exist from 3.5 days, like Handcrossbows being exotic, even if its the exact same thing as a light/heavy crossbow. Repeating.. I could see it being a martial weapon.. but to use proficiently, still is the same. Now something like a great crossbow, you might need a little more training there for winding and winching, getting through its mechanics, counterbalancing the weight and recoil.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem with different options not being equally effective... I do however have a problem with a) the sheer amount of useless options (really, I dare say we use maybe 30% of the existent feats/spells in the game. The rest is just page filler) and b) When an option is so much better that it completely obsoletes another one (I don't mind bows being better than crossbows, I do mind that crossbows are extremely weak and cannot even dare to imagine a world where they can compete with longbows).
In the case of crossbows and thrown weapons (and firearms, unless you're a Gunslinger), it's even more of a problem because these are classic character archetypes, so they should be able to compete.
Is the Falchion better than an Greataxe? I think so, but it's not such a huge difference that it makes Greataxes useless. Longbows and crossbows, on the other hand...
I understand the "realism" factor, but even if we give magic a free pass, realism still shouldn't be that much of a crippling factor for characters in a game where gargantuan creatures can fly without any sort of magic, where a low-level character can completely negate the damage of a nuclear explosion 5% of the time, angry people can become stronger than a tyrannosaur and lead bullets shot by early firearms completely ignore armor of any kind...
"Realism" shouldn't cripple character concepts. Make them a bit stronger or weaker is okay, making them borderline useless is not.
I also understand the "options should be different. Otherwise, choices are meaningless" argument. But if an option in completely and overwhelmingly superior to another similar option, then it's not a real choice either.
Again, option A being superior to option B is acceptable.
Option A being so completely superior to option B that option B can't even hope to compete is bad design.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So first off, this thread has never been about, "less-optimal options are no good." It has always been about, "some options are SO bad that they're always bad, no matter how hard you invest in them (such as crossbows) and some options are SO good that you cannot efficiently adventure without them ('the big six')."
That said, here's the real issue with 'realism' and crossbows and why it all falls apart:
Composite bows allow you to add your Str because they simulate very heavy draw-weight bows. For a "Composite +3-5" you're looking at 150-200 lb draws (which is unrealistically high, but allows for magic).
On the other hand, that heavy crossbow that requires a winch to reload (the type described in this game) would realistically have a 1000-1200 lb draw. Yet, it is totally out-done by the composite bow.
TLDR:
150-200lb draw weight = 1d8+(3-5) damage
1000-1200lb draw weight = d10+0 damage
...Wut?
Make any weapon special properties a skill purchase of some kind. Then flavor them however you want.
While I disagree with homogenizing, would that be something rogues would love? I liked the idea of skill tricks myself, and that seems pretty cool to me. Provided the weapons aren't automatically assigned the properties and it didn't lock a bunch of people out of getting weapon qualities ever.
I don't really understand why so many people (or maybe it's one person over and over again? I wasn't paying attention to names) think that parity between two options inherently means that the two options are the same and thus are not really options; two things can be different and equally effective.
I think the easiest solution in most situations is to just ignore the flavour associated with the offender, so long as the DM is fine with it and I don't think there's any good reason they shouldn't be. Pay for a longbow, use longbow stats, say it's a crossbow. I'm not really sure how that would fly in PFS.
Of course, that doesn't address the existence of dead-end feats, spells, items, etc. I don't believe they should exist in a perfectly designed game, but in a system with so many parts I also don't think it's possible to avoid them altogether. Also, there's always the possibility of dead-end feats becoming useful for some obscure build that will exist in the future due to new material.
If I were designing a system all on my own I would probably design it such that options that are weaker by default have a relatively cheap entry requirement in order to make it reach parity. Using the crossbow versus longbow as an example:
Give the crossbow a feat that's the equivalent of rapid shot and rapid reload. This overcomes one of the crossbow's inherent limitation and feat equality between the crossbow user and the longbow user still exists. Of course, that doesn't address the lack of strength bonus to crossbows or the still poor action economy of heavy crossbows, but that could be overcome with similar two-in-one feats.
Further, balancing could be achieved by making a poor choice (the crossbow) that requires high investment have each investment have greater dividend even past parity so that the investment pays off in the long run but the early game will still be tougher.
From a simulation standpoint, the roles of the crossbow and longbow should be reversed if a person were to develop a solution using my overly complicated method, since historically it was the longbow that was the superior weapon but only if one trained with it extensively.
Another thought: the feats that exist for the crossbow probably should have aimed to match the flavour of the crossbow rather than trying to overcome its limitations. Feats that add an abnormal amount of damage to the crossbow's; the vital strike of ranged weapons.
|
One strength of Pathfinder is it encourages at least a little bit of system mastery.This is actually terrible and a barrier of entry for new players. There are so many feats it is overwhelming, when actually you only want a small subset of them
Hmm maybe someone should make a list of the options that are actually 'functional'
...in theory this would produce a weapon almost as easy to use and dangerous as a modern handgun.
Not as dangerous, but much more. Handguns lots wimpier than in movies.
Much rather be shot once with handgun than heavy crossbow. Heavy crossbow hit almost like rifle.
Shot six times...probably not matter. Good thing me troll and regenerate.
Look a distraction! The Box O' Truth many fun tests of penetration and damage.
I have no problem with 2 handed sword A is the best two handed sword.
I have a problem with 1 handed sword B being the best two handed sword (i'm lookin at you falcatta!)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This whole "Punishment" concept needs to die.
If you make a choice, it is not the job of the developers to make that choice equal to all other possible choices in the game.
If I want to play an character that headbutts everyone, the game doesn't need to make my headbutting concept equal in power to a greatsword in all ways.
You aren't "Punished". You made a choice that was "sub-optimal"
Heaven forbid...
@Drachasor - Currently the crossbow does give a "composite" advantage over the bow.
It does more damage than the equivalent bow. It is equivalent to a 12 strength composite bow, only with longer range and you don't actually need to have a 12 strength to use it.
Let's assume two builds.
One has 10 Str, 18 dex
That is gong to be 10 points and the +2 racial to dex.
The equivalent is going to be
12 Str 17 Dex, for 9 points and a +2 racial. Why 9? Because you had to spend 2 points to get that strength bonus.
The crossbow would do the same damage, but hit more often.
Hell, I can take an 7 in Str and make that dex a 19 and I would still do the same average damage with the crossbow as you would with a Composite longbow.
Moving on to reloading a crossbow, you are just wrong..
And that is a hand crossbow with much less draw weight than the longbow (and so much less range).
|
|
So first off, this thread has never been about, "less-optimal options are no good." It has always been about, "some options are SO bad that they're always bad, no matter how hard you invest in them (such as crossbows) and some options are SO good that you cannot efficiently adventure without them ('the big six')."
That said, here's the real issue with 'realism' and crossbows and why it all falls apart:
Composite bows allow you to add your Str because they simulate very heavy draw-weight bows. For a "Composite +3-5" you're looking at 150-200 lb draws (which is unrealistically high, but allows for magic).
On the other hand, that heavy crossbow that requires a winch to reload (the type described in this game) would realistically have a 1000-1200 lb draw. Yet, it is totally out-done by the composite bow.TLDR:
150-200lb draw weight = 1d8+(3-5) damage
1000-1200lb draw weight = d10+0 damage...Wut?
Uh...no.
First, math. 1d8 + 1 composite requires a 12 strength and the extra cost of a composite bow. It does an average of 5.5 damage.
Which is the exact same as a 1d10 weapon, not requiring a strength bonus.
Bow crits X3
Crossbow crits 19/20X 2
Watch and learn. The draw weight you are describing is absurd for a personal weapon. Those draw weights are for Ballistas, not anything you are carrying Crossbows have a much smaller draw length than bows. This means that for the same energy to be imparted to the arrow (or bolt), the crossbow has to have a much higher draw weight..
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
The way I see things, crossbows work great for low skill level characters who just want a backup ranged option. They clearly fail to remain competitive when considering the highly trained master of archery, but they do just fine as a weapon of choice for less skilled shooters.
Here's an example. Some lordling is at war with his neighbors and he has just conscripted a bunch of his citizens to fight. He has a mess of a few thousand 1st-2nd level commoners and experts to make an army with. What is he going to equip them with? Probably spears and crossbows.
Heck even for a melee martial character a crossbow is not a bad choice at 1st level as a backup ranged option. Cheaper than a longbow, no iterative attacks or feats spent on archery, no possibility to afford a composite bow means the crossbow is a relevant choice at least for a couple levels. (And while even a melee-oriented martial should eventually invest in a composite longbow, that is often a purchase that can be put off a few levels after magic main weapon and magic armor)
Is the crossbowman archetype a "trap"? Probably. I'm pretty certain I could make one that was fun and effective enough(not optimized, but pulls his weight) But I'm fairly certain an inexperienced player would find it frustrating. Then again, I usually don't recommend most APG material for new players anyway - the game is overwhelming enough just with the core rules until you get used to it.
So first off, this thread has never been about, "less-optimal options are no good." It has always been about, "some options are SO bad that they're always bad, no matter how hard you invest in them (such as crossbows) and some options are SO good that you cannot efficiently adventure without them ('the big six')."
That said, here's the real issue with 'realism' and crossbows and why it all falls apart:
Composite bows allow you to add your Str because they simulate very heavy draw-weight bows. For a "Composite +3-5" you're looking at 150-200 lb draws (which is unrealistically high, but allows for magic).
On the other hand, that heavy crossbow that requires a winch to reload (the type described in this game) would realistically have a 1000-1200 lb draw. Yet, it is totally out-done by the composite bow.TLDR:
150-200lb draw weight = 1d8+(3-5) damage
1000-1200lb draw weight = d10+0 damage...Wut?
Uh...no.
First, math. 1d8 + 1 composite requires a 12 strength and the extra cost of a composite bow. It does an average of 5.5 damage.
Which is the exact same as a 1d10 weapon, not requiring a strength bonus.
Bow crits X3
Crossbow crits 19/20X 2Watch and learn. The draw weight you are describing is absurd for a personal weapon. Those draw weights are for Ballistas, not anything you are carrying Crossbows have a much smaller draw length than bows. This means that for the same energy to be imparted to the arrow (or bolt), the crossbow has to have a much higher draw weight..
So, uh, absolutely nothing you've linked to contradicts anything I've said.
As for my numbers being absurd, take a look at the arbalest. Essentially a really big, hand-held, crossbow that was known to get up to as much as 5000 lbf. 5000! A "heavy crossbow" could easily reach 1200. (Keeping in mind that a crossbow would typically need about 3x the draw-weight of a bow to be "equal" to that bow. ie: A 300lbf crossbow would be about equal to a 100lbf longbow.)The only absurd numbers I posted are related to the composite bow, because no bow had a draw weight anywhere near 200 lbs (English Longbows typically had 100-130lb draw-weights. Mongol bows were said to have somewhere near 150 and their recurve design allowed for shorter draws to be more effective). The reason I included such ridiculous bow draw-weights is because this is Pathfinder. You can easily get a higher strength score than actually physically possible with magic items. But I was already clear about that. :P
Here is an example of a "light crossbow" (left) and a "heavy crossbow" (right). The one on the left has a draw-weight of almost 290lbs, and the one on the right has a draw-weight of nearly 620lbs.
Here is another example of a "heavy crossbow." It will have a significantly larger draw-weight than the above examples.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This whole "Punishment" concept needs to die.
If you make a choice, it is not the job of the developers to make that choice equal to all other possible choices in the game.
If I want to play an character that headbutts everyone, the game doesn't need to make my headbutting concept equal in power to a greatsword in all ways.
You aren't "Punished". You made a choice that was "sub-optimal"
Heaven forbid...
"It doesn't matter if the game is unbalanced, it's not the devs' fault you make suboptimal choices!"
The game should be reasonably balanced. Similar options should be similarly effective. They don't need to be equal, but they should be close enough.
I know you tend to ignore a lot of posts, but, please, read these quotes:
Again, option A being superior to option B is acceptable.
Option A being so completely superior to option B that option B can't even hope to compete is bad design.
So first off, this thread has never been about, "less-optimal options are no good." It has always been about, "some options are SO bad that they're always bad, no matter how hard you invest in them (such as crossbows) and some options are SO good that you cannot efficiently adventure without them ('the big six')."
Read it again, just to be safe...
This thread is not about longbows x crossbows. That was just an example.
It's disappointing that SKR chooses to ignore valid criticism saying that players wanting classic combat styles such as crossbows and throwing weapons to be effective is a silly as wanting throwing water balloons to be an optimal choice.
Don't misunderstand me I have a great deal of respect for SKR and his work, as well as for all of Paizo staff in general. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they decide, say or do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can think of innumerable situations where if you were carrying around a longbow and quiver, or a heavy crossbow, someone would have something to say about it. Like, if you were walking into your bank, for instance.
In fantasy games, like Pathfinder, we tend to handwave away the fact that our intrepid heroes are walking around town armed to the teeth. But, in truth, there are a lot of towns that simply would not stand for it. Depending on your setting, and the level of verisimilitude you are seeking, things like slings and throwing weapons can become a very optimal choice.
If you are equipping a peasant army, crossbows can become a very optimal choice.
E6, low-wealth/low-magic, modern, primitive, etc., etc., etc... There are many, many different circumstances where "Sub-optimal choices" achieve something very close to parity with their "Optimal" cousins.
Just because you play in the standard "High Fantasy Adventurers are the Most Significant Part of the Game World" type of games, doesn't mean the game is broken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
E6, low-wealth/low-magic, modern, primitive, etc., etc., etc... There are many, many different circumstances where "Sub-optimal choices" achieve something very close to parity with their "Optimal" cousins.
Just because you play in the standard "High Fantasy Adventurers are the Most Significant Part of the Game World" type of games, doesn't mean the game is broken.
+1
Some things tend to be situational, but when said situations arise..
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.
Guns are simple to use, but are exotic.
By your reasoning, longbows should not be better weapons that guns because they are lesser weapons.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?
Sean you are moving goal posts:
Throwing weapons can only be compared to other throwing weapons.Next you'll compare greatswords with longbows when the enemy is flying: yeah it is harder to hit flying in melee.
And slings were nerfed because they were based on sling shots: no other reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some options are worse than others because the game actually tries to model that some options in life are worse than others. And by "worse" I mean "does less damage per round."
Me note that Sean say game should have some worse choices.
Why everyone instead rant as if he said game worse choices should match real worse choices? That not what Sean say.
Any dev ever say realism a goal? Me not hear it. Fun yes. Compatibility yes. Choices yes.
Only Golarian trolls like me get real-life with grit points, ki pool, spell slots, and pixie sundering. You earth folk want realism: put down dice and go do archery or build crossbow! Not hard.
"My fantasy world has herbs less strong than cure spell, yay yay, but crossbows less strong than bows, kvetch kvetch." Weep weep. GM must have some talent for me to have most fun with herbalist crossbowman PC. Is this not a game? Are not games allowed to need some talent for most fun?
I go now. Must change rules to chess I play so hard-working fit muscular common soldier can outrun clergy and fat queen like real life.
I would say that It is fine if the game have some optimal and some subotimal ones. I do not always use falchion in my two hander characters, I could use a greataxe just fine.
It is when the disparity is so big, like in the corssbow/Bow issue, or the standard conjuration vs teleportation that the issue becomes very annoying.
I should probably note the difference between a nodachi and a greataxe actually becomes greater the higher your level gets because of static modifiers and the critical focus feats that become available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the crossbow has its own advantages, ones that have been previously stated: a militia of commoners will perform better with crossbows than with bows. For low STR characters whose main focus is not ranged attacking, the crossbow is fine.
|
|
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.
Since crossbows are so much simpler to use than bows, and require so much less training to use effectively, you'd almost expect crossbow builds would also be less feat-intensive than archer builds, to reflect that...
In no part the book says "hey take into account that this options are PURPORSELY designed to be inferior, take it at your won risk", heck look at the crossbowman.
Huh... Wouldn't it be weird if it did?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wayne Gretzke perfected the use of the hockey stick. Hank Aaron perfected the use of the baseball bat. Arnold Palmer perfected the use of the golf club (not to mention the mixing of iced tea and lemonade!).
But, I'll bet Palmer never tried to use his club to hit a baseball.
Mastering something does not make you the equal of everyone else who have mastered another thing. Otherwise the greatest fencers in the world would also be the world's most reknowned surgeons.
The master crossbowman can use a crossbow as well as it can possibly be used. That doesn't make him the exact same as a master longbow archer.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Since crossbows are so much simpler to use than bows, and require so much less training to use effectively, you'd almost expect crossbow builds would also be less feat-intensive than archer builds, to reflect that...
Your logic doesn't follow. What you're saying is like claiming that since children can easily learn to ride a cheap bike from a toy store, that it should be easier for a professional cyclist to use said cheap toy bike in world class races than a true racing bike. The easier to learn tool is not necessarily easier to reach master skill with. The child wouldn't know what to do with the gear shifts and such on the racing bike(at least at first). A pro cyclist who put in the effort could probably compete in a race and do okay with the toy bike, but it would take a lot more training than for using the better tool.
So..."easy to learn, difficult to master."