| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose you'd be happier if the Rapid Reload and Crossbow Mastery feats just didn't exist?
Heh. Realism folk huffy because only one category of feat.
GM use highlighter! "Experienced mastery" color for real life expertise. "Fun fantasy trick" color for unrealistic heroic ability.
Then player can see. "Hey hey, bow archer get superpowers use big draw bow like toy! Crossbowman get real life mastery of medium draw crossbow. Me want superpowers!"
|
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 balloons to be an optimal choice.
throwing weapons to be effective is a silly as wanting throwing water
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.
However you seem to be ignoring SKR and my posts that show the crossbow is not inferior.
It does more damage and has a greater range. The reload is one extra feat, which conveniently is how many more feats you will have when you can use a simple weapon rather than having to take long bow proficiency.
If you have a high strength is a composite bow better? Probably. But if you have a high strength a melee weapon is better for you than it would be for someone with low strength...and if you have low strength, unlike the Bow you aren't penalized.
Crossbows make sense for Rogues, Casters, etc...depending on your build it may allow you higher dex, which leads to higher attack bonus, which leads to better DPR.
So at this point I don't even know for certain they are inferior, except with builds that are designed to be optimized for bow users...which, you know...makes sense.
And if you can make a viable and effective crossbow focused build...what is the problem exactly?
What is the issue?
I suppose we could go back to the ranger and fighter examples, who also happen to get archery styles/archetypes. The weapon is great! if your not proficient in bows/have less than 10 strength and obviously not as a primary weapon, but for some reason fighter and ranger seem to have it presented as such.
Also, its always bothersome when options appear that just aren't the right choices.
|
|
What is the issue?I suppose we could go back to the ranger and fighter examples, who also happen to get archery styles/archetypes.
They also start out with Martial Weapon proficiency.
Should I be equally upset that my club based fighter isn't able to do as much damage as the greatsword fighter?
Because that is a simple weapon as well.
What is the issue?I suppose we could go back to the ranger and fighter examples, who also happen to get archery styles/archetypes.They also start out with Martial Weapon proficiency.
Should I be equally upset that my club based fighter isn't able to do as much damage as the greatsword fighter?
Because that is a simple weapon as well.
Except there isn't a club based archetype and support for clubs, so that's not a fantastic analogy.(though there is an awkward true primitive barbarian.) If for example, we had a waterbaloon archetype and water balloon feats, I would expect water balloons to be viable. I mean obviously they have a purpose right? However that's probably not the case, though I have yet to see water balloon stats to know.
The ranger and fighter happen to be skilled in both archery and crossbows. They happen to have archetypes for both, however the gap between the two choices is wide enough, there's a right choice. I think that's the problem Nicos had. I'm sure there are other examples of this beyond crossbows and archery. There's usually a few lame options in the bunch, and quiet a few that are just there for RP purposes(horse groomer archetype!)
You are equating number of feats taken with mastering. I am not.
Mastering it to me means making it viable, and it takes more effort to make the dagger viable than it does the falchion.
Crossbows have advantages because they can be fired while prone, and the light one is easier to hide. As for the heavy crossbow, I have no idea why it cost more since you get...
Well that's certainly interesting, but that's not what the word means.
mas·ter·y
[mas-tuh-ree, mah-stuh-] Show IPA
noun, plural mas·ter·ies for 1-4.
1. command or grasp, as of a subject: a mastery of Italian.
2. superiority or victory: mastery over one's enemies.
3. the act of mastering.
4. expert skill or knowledge.
5. the state of being master; power of command or control.There's no implication that mastery of one thing means you're someone equal to someone who mastered something else.
Since feats equate to training, crossbow feats equate to training with the crossbow, which is part and parcel of gaining mastery in the crossbow. Since there are more crossbow feats, gaining mastery in the crossbow is more difficult in D20 than mastery in the bow.
I never said it made you anyone's equal. I said "viable". Nice misquote, and so how about you define mastering in PF so we can discuss something without you lying on other posters. I will be waiting.
And more feats does not equal mastery, so your idea fails. You can take all of the feats, and still suck if you don't have a class or the attritbutes that support the weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many times do you think you could load, aim, and fire a real crossbow in six seconds? Once, maybe? Pathfinder goes well beyond real-world weapon mastery for the crossbow.
But, the broader, more general point of the OP is simply, "Option A is better than Option B. Therefore, Option B is unusable."
If you believe that, then there is no point in debate. The problem will never be resolved. Power Gamers desperately hunt for the slightly superior option, and are miserable until they find it. The only way to perfectly balance everything is to remove the options. "Everything is a d6, with the same modifiers. Add your own fluff."
I prefer the variety.
Pretty much. I find it hilarious that the vast majority of this board is of the opinion that if you don't play the most optimal build of your class you're d%+@++*. Most characters my friends and I have played committed the cardinal sin of being flavorful as well as effective and have still been fine.
But as I've said before if you're not playing a party of 4 schrodinger's wizards apparently you are not playing PF 'correctly' for most posters here. (Although I'd love to see how those wizards survive past level 3 in any real game)
He seems to make stuff up as he goes along.
That logic is terrible. Does it really require taking every feat to have expert skill in the crossbow?!? I don't think so. You wouldn't need to know 100% of Italian grammar rules and vocabulary to have a mastery of Italian or be considered to have expert skill in it. Why should it be required for being a master of the crossbow in Pathfinder?
Well that's certainly interesting, but that's not what the word means.mas·ter·y
[mas-tuh-ree, mah-stuh-] Show IPA
noun, plural mas·ter·ies for 1-4.
1. command or grasp, as of a subject: a mastery of Italian.
2. superiority or victory: mastery over one's enemies.
3. the act of mastering.
4. expert skill or knowledge.
5. the state of being master; power of command or control.There's no implication that mastery of one thing means you're someone equal to someone who mastered something else.
Since feats equate to training, crossbow feats equate to training with the crossbow, which is part and parcel of gaining mastery in the crossbow. Since there are more crossbow feats, gaining mastery in the crossbow is more difficult in D20 than mastery in the bow.
All options are not made to be equal. That is why, and it makes sense. If you want to be a better archer choose the better weapon. The same logic applies across the board. If I want to be better in combat I choose a ranger or fighter, not a rogue. In short choices matter, and the flavor you want may make you weaker, but as long as you can be useful it is not really an issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you insist on using a crossbow AND insist on not having to use your five foot step to avoid AoOs, I'm just going to say that you've gone out of your way to create a problem.As you level reach becomes more common on enemies. A 5' step away from something adjacent with reach does not take you out of AoO range.If you are fighting such a thing, AND you think you can take it out in one round with a full attack, then this is an important tactical consideration.
For that matter, is there something unseemly and terrible about playing a crossbow specialist that uses a buckler and longsword as backup?
You're apparently missing the point. There's a feat tax associated with this that Bows don't have. This is part of how, in the game, Crossbows require more training, but deliver less.
And yeah, there is something terrible about a crossbow specialist using a buckler: the -1 penalty to attack rolls.
Yeah because the weapon that just about anyone can use should really be equal to the martial weapon which requires training for most classes.
How about if you want to be good at ranged combat or anything else you take the better option, and not complain when the lesser option well, give you less.
If your complaint is that there are lesser options, then that just makes them lesser options, not traps, or false options.
It really is that simple.
He seems to make stuff up as he goes along.How many times do you think you could load, aim, and fire a real crossbow in six seconds? Once, maybe? Pathfinder goes well beyond real-world weapon mastery for the crossbow.
But, the broader, more general point of the OP is simply, "Option A is better than Option B. Therefore, Option B is unusable."
If you believe that, then there is no point in debate. The problem will never be resolved. Power Gamers desperately hunt for the slightly superior option, and are miserable until they find it. The only way to perfectly balance everything is to remove the options. "Everything is a d6, with the same modifiers. Add your own fluff."
I prefer the variety.
Pretty much. I find it hilarious that the vast majority of this board is of the opinion that if you don't play the most optimal build of your class you're d%+@++*. Most characters my friends and I have played committed the cardinal sin of being flavorful as well as effective and have still been fine.
But as I've said before if you're not playing a party of 4 schrodinger's wizards apparently you are not playing PF 'correctly' for most posters here. (Although I'd love to see how those wizards survive past level 3 in any real game)
Whom?
But the complaint goes beyond that. it is not that a xbow is weaker that a bow is that a crossboman that take two feat tax is still weaker than an archer. I think that is against the whole idea of having feats in the first place.And the dagger fighter can take two extra feats and still deal less damage than a greatsword fighter. Because daggers can't deal as much damage as greatswords. There's a reason why soldiers used swords instead of daggers as their primary weapon.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). The Xbow guy is out of luck.
** spoiler omitted **
and xbows can do decent damage...as had been stated...
They won't do bow damage, but no ranged attack will.
Gah! What he's saying is that weapons (with apologies to the Declaration of Independence) are not created equal! You can't throw a throwing axe as far as you can shoot a longbow, you don't have the reach with a light pick that you do with a glaive, and you can't re-cock and fire a crossbow at the same rate you can slap an arrow to the string. The fact that these weapons aren't mechanically equivalent isn't because the guys at Paizo have some weird psychological quirk that makes them hate throwing axes, light picks, and crossbows - they're just trying to reflect the actual differences between those weapons.Then they failed, because a crossbow is a heck of a lot easier to use than a bow, yet a specialist in the crossbow requires more training (e.g. feats). How's that realistic?
Also, it isn't realistic in that crossbows allowed people who weren't really strong to have immense penetrating power. Yet there's no crossbow rough equivalent to the composite bow; there really should be, especially if PF has guns.
Now add to that options to temp martial players into focusing on the crossbow rather than the bow and you have a real mess, imho. It's one thing to have an option that's inferior due to "realism", but it is another to encourage inexperienced players to think it is a good option. So that's part of the problem.
Crossbows were easier to use, and the but bows were better, as long as you had someone who was trained to use them. Therefore it is realistic.
As I said before even new players know the bow is better, so where is this encouragement you speak of? I asked someone else, but they declined to answer.
It is for the same reason it is in the game: because you can't fire it as often as you can a bow.Well, if we wanna use Real Life as a comparison point, then why are longbows basic marital weapons anyone can use when in Real Life it took a lifetime of dedicated training to be able to use them?
Anyone? They seem to be restricted to certain classes, and it did not take a "life time". It did take considerably longer than a crossbow.
Also it is a bit different in that there aren't the archetype and class options for throwing stuff in the game that there are for crossbows. So the presentation to the player is not at all the same.While I respect your opinion, Nicos, I feel that we have strongly differing impressions of the value of a feat. Let's remove the focus from crossbows and focus on an even more egregious contrast between missile-characters:
Character A ("Flingy") is a 6th-level fighter with Point-Blank Shot, Far Shot, and Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Improved Critical - all for the dagger.
Character B ("Shooty") is a 6th-level fighter with Point-Blank Shot, far Shot, Shot on the Run, and Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Improved Critical - all for the longbow.
If Flingy also had Quick-Draw so he could fling daggers as fast as Shooty can shoot arrows, would you argue that Flingy should be 'mechanically equal' to Shooty because he spent one more feat on a weaker 'build'?
[Admittedly, this isn't a perfect comparison: Flingy has better options than Shooty if he's grappled or somebody can back him into a corner and force melee.]
So the crossbow archetype should be removed?
All i was doing with the build was proving that it was still a viable option. It may not be the strongest, but the power difference isn't truly crippling. Just encourages you to play your charceter well.
Good idea... :)
Always nice to see the Paizo staff is so responsive to the concerns and complaints of their customers. /sarcasm{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.
Most of us don't see the problem, so there is nothing to respond to.
Except the crossbowman will be weaker no matter what.{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.
That is not true. What you mean to say is the crossbow will never match the bow, and I see no problem with that.
If you want all weapons to be equal then just say that, and stop trying to use the xbow as a point of comparison.
Yeah because the weapon that just about anyone can use should really be equal to the martial weapon which requires training for most classes.
DAGGER VS WAR RAZOR VS BUTTERFLY KNIFE!
Explain
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone? They seem to be restricted to certain classes, and it did not take a "life time". It did take considerably longer than a crossbow.It is for the same reason it is in the game: because you can't fire it as often as you can a bow.Well, if we wanna use Real Life as a comparison point, then why are longbows basic marital weapons anyone can use when in Real Life it took a lifetime of dedicated training to be able to use them?
Kinda did. Or did England just institute mandatory lifetime weekly training sessions for their longbow archers for giggles? In fact, most career longbow archers wound up having deformed arms and skeletons thanks a lifetime of practice.
Also, did you really have to spam eight separate posts just to say that you think the status quo is perfect?
Edit: Correction, twelve posts, to account for the ones that went up while writing my post.
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.
Actually even though people vision swords as sharp many were used as bludgeoning against armor, so that is not accurate.
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).
That's not remotely a full draw on a longbow (or even that short bow, I believe). So I'm not sure what's that really supposed to prove.
All the arguments about what is current in the game being realistic fall flat. In Real Life crossbows do equivalent to bonus strength damage, allowing weaker people to draw them back easily using mechanical implements of various designs. They are also much easier to aim and provide more consistent performance. But of course, tons of factors that made crossbows good are ignored in the pro status quo arguments -- despite the fact they've been brought up numerous times in this thread.
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.
The fact is, there's a ton of things the game fails to capture about good crossbows. And I don't think in a setting with GUNS (and other bits of higher-end medieval technology) we should be thinking crossbows should be at the low end of what was historically possible.
Though, for that matter, the repeating crossbow isn't realistically an exotic weapon. It's certainly easier to learn to use well than a bow. There so many ways the weapon designs in the game aren't historically accurate that I don't think that's a sound place to try to stand; the ground so unstable that it's not even there.
I do agree that the repeating crossbow should not be exotic, but I have a gripe with exotic weapons anyway, that is not for this thread.
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.
Some of the people on your side have said they should be as good, and we know the game is not perfectly modeling reality since the designers are not weapon experts. These weapon X was really ____ or should do ___ damage comes up from time to time.
Many times the weapons idealized in fantasy will have as much impact as realism on the rules. Most fantasy movies/books have people with swords, not warhammers or spears, even though spears were good weapons.
-----------------------------
Would I like the crossbow to be better? Sure.
Do I think the OP is exaggerating his case? Hell yes, otherwise I would probably be arguing his point.
There is a big difference between xbows are harder to make viable, and xbows are trap options.
For those that think crossbows should just be flat-out worse, that's fine. If that's the case, the game designers shouldn't be making crossbow-centric options for Fighters and Rangers. Not anymore than they should make a wooden stake and then keep that realistic. Putting crap like that in the books is just plain bad.
The same is true with the ridiculous reload stuff for that matter.
What we have now is just a bizarre mess of equal parts realistic, non-realistic, and disguised horrible options.
So players are too dumb to figure out what the lesser option is? O_o
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.
The guns used in PF were actually inaccurate in real life. They no rifling.
Slings could be loaded quickly in real life, and they are not sling shot based. If the slings in PF are slingshot based that is on the original designers. I do think they should have a faster reload rate though.
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...
Actually they would require more effort to make good, but the base use level would be lower which is represented by it being simple.
Bows not only require feats, but they require you to use two ability scores. You take away the strength, and what advantage does the bow have beyond manyshot.
Rapid shot, Rapid reload, Deadly Aim. <---Crossbow
Rapid shot, Deadly Aim, Manyshot. <---Longbow
The other feats for ignoring cover can go to both weapons.
The strength to be able to use composite bows is one more thing to worry about and should be included in the "mastery" argument, and it is that strength bonus which helps cause the separation between the two. As has been shown already the same draw won't get you an equal output on power.
Well there should be a composite xbow or an equal right?
No. At that point why is a bow a martial weapon if I can buy a simple weapon that is equal to it.
The xbow is not a poor option. It is just not as good as the composite long bow, or maybe even a normal longbow.
Since we have people on both sides of the argument the devs will look at it and see the issue as balanced so I won't expect any changes. Now if everyone agreed that the xbow sucked that would be different.
Now what is the next "trap" option?
|
Bows not only require feats, but they require you to use two ability scores. You take away the strength, and what advantage does the bow have beyond manyshot.
Rapid shot, Rapid reload, Deadly Aim. <---Crossbow
Rapid shot, Deadly Aim, Manyshot. <---Longbow
The other feats for ignoring cover can go to both weapons.
The strength to be able to use composite bows is one more thing to worry about and should be included in the "mastery" argument, and it is that strength bonus which helps cause the separation between the two. As has been shown already the same draw won't get you an equal output on power.
Well there should be a composite xbow or an equal right?
No. At that point why is a bow a martial weapon if I can buy a simple weapon that is equal to it.
The xbow is not a poor option. It is just not as good as the composite long bow, or maybe even a normal longbow.
Since we have people on both sides of the argument the devs will look at it and see the issue as balanced so I won't expect any changes. Now if everyone agreed that the xbow sucked that would be different.
Now what is the next "trap" option?
DAGGER VS WAR RAZOR VS BUTTERFLY KNIFE!
DAGGER VS WAR RAZOR VS BUTTERFLY KNIFE!Bows not only require feats, but they require you to use two ability scores. You take away the strength, and what advantage does the bow have beyond manyshot.
Rapid shot, Rapid reload, Deadly Aim. <---Crossbow
Rapid shot, Deadly Aim, Manyshot. <---Longbow
The other feats for ignoring cover can go to both weapons.
The strength to be able to use composite bows is one more thing to worry about and should be included in the "mastery" argument, and it is that strength bonus which helps cause the separation between the two. As has been shown already the same draw won't get you an equal output on power.
Well there should be a composite xbow or an equal right?
No. At that point why is a bow a martial weapon if I can buy a simple weapon that is equal to it.
The xbow is not a poor option. It is just not as good as the composite long bow, or maybe even a normal longbow.
Since we have people on both sides of the argument the devs will look at it and see the issue as balanced so I won't expect any changes. Now if everyone agreed that the xbow sucked that would be different.
Now what is the next "trap" option?
Need more info..
Yeah I could look it up, but I am not the one making the claim.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose you'd be happier if the Rapid Reload and Crossbow Mastery feats just didn't exist?
No, if you are doing something that you normally couldn't do, it seems reasonable to expend feats to pay for that.
Now, if someone normally couldn't keep a bow strung constantly in anticipation of a combat or ambush without damaging their weapon, maybe an archer should require a line of feats that would enable him or her to string a bow more quickly, so that they could more quickly use their bow for something other than a club once combat begins unexpectedly.
I'd be happiest if the same standard of realism that is applied to crossbows were also applied to bows.
Dagger - Simple weapon - Can be thrown, Does S/P 1d4dmg Hide
War Razor - Martial weapon - does S,1d4dmg hide
Butterfly - Exotic - Does P/S, 1d4 dmg, hideIts the same weapon, but gets progressively worse.
That is not a trap option. That war razor should just be simple weapon or the dagger should be moved to a martial weapon.
The butterfly knife is an example of my issues with exotic weapons. They are often not worth the feat.
I still don't see it as a trap option because even a new player can look at it and see that the dagger is better to get.
Just to be clear a trap option to most of us is something that looks better than it is until you analyze it closely.
Deadly Sneak and Powerful Sneak for the rogue would be trap options.
It is when the disparity is so big, like in the corssbow/Bow issue
If you have a class that doesn't get longbow proficiency...
The crossbow is the go to for the unskilled character who wants a ranger weapon that does 1d10 (19/20 crit) damage at 120 feat as a simple weapon.
What is the issue?
It have been stated multiple times in the thread, but
"the crossbow as a back up weapon for less martial inclided classes is fine and totally reasonable"
Now, how the crossbow is fine for a ranger? the book give you the bow combat style and it give you the crossbow combat style. In no part you read that the bows is supposed to be the sronger choise, in no part of the books is stated that the crossbow will, on purpose, be the inferior option.
Both styles are presented to the ranger on the same footing while he game is purporsely designed to have an inbalance. That seems dishonest to me.
So your complaint is that the book does not give you instructions on lesser options? In that case you should be complaining about TWF'ing. It takes a lot of feats, and does less damage than a two-handed weapon.
For the crossbow, I will never agree with you because even, as I have said, even most new players know the crossbow is the lesser option if you are concerned with damage. They already have to take a feat, just to get iterative attacks with it. If most of us can figure this out on our own then I don't think Paizo needs to say it for us.
If you wanted to pick on deadly and power sneak I would agree. Both of those look good on paper until you do the math.
I think the problem here is that your definition of "trap options" is not matching what the rest of us call trap options.
If you insist on using a crossbow AND insist on not having to use your five foot step to avoid AoOs, I'm just going to say that you've gone out of your way to create a problem.As you level reach becomes more common on enemies. A 5' step away from something adjacent with reach does not take you out of AoO range.If you are fighting such a thing, AND you think you can take it out in one round with a full attack, then this is an important tactical consideration.
For that matter, is there something unseemly and terrible about playing a crossbow specialist that uses a buckler and longsword as backup?
You're apparently missing the point. There's a feat tax associated with this that Bows don't have. This is part of how, in the game, Crossbows require more training, but deliver less.
And yeah, there is something terrible about a crossbow specialist using a buckler: the -1 penalty to attack rolls.
Yeah because the weapon that just about anyone can use should really be equal to the martial weapon which requires training for most classes.
How about if you want to be good at ranged combat or anything else you take the better option, and not complain when the lesser option well, give you less.
If your complaint is that there are lesser options, then that just makes them lesser options, not traps, or false options.
It really is that simple.
We have a fundamentally diferent opinion on the issue and we will not agree. however i will state my points once again.
Everyone can use a Xbow, but not everyone will devote two feats into it. I do not like that Afther a two feat investment i still have a subpar option.
Again, mechanically the Xbow is fine by itself, a martial weapon should better than a simple weapon. But at the moment you devote your entire class to it (an archetype) and take two special crossbow feats you should not be inerior to...
Why should taking an archetype make it better than a bow? If you were to say it can make you better than other crossbow users I would agree, but how good a bow is should not be factor.
If I make a dagger archetype or a club archetype I won't be comparing it to another weapon, and I am sure Paizo does not either. They just look at how good the weapon is before the archetype.
Basically what we have here is a difference of opinion in design philosophy. I understand your point now, but I just don't think it is that big of an issue with the xbow.
So your complaint is that the book does not give you instructions on lesser options? In that case you should be complaining about TWF'ing. It takes a lot of feats, and does less damage than a two-handed weapon.For the crossbow, I will never agree with you because even, as I have said, even most new players know the crossbow is the lesser option if you are concerned with damage. They already have to take a feat, just to get iterative attacks with it. If most of us can figure this out on our own then I don't think Paizo needs to say it for us.
If you wanted to pick on deadly and power sneak I would agree. Both of those look good on paper until you do the math.
I think the problem here is that your definition of "trap options" is not matching what the rest of us call trap options.
No, I am not arguing about trap option. Crossbows are not a trap option, it is just clear than they are inferior.
Come one Wraithstrike, I know you can do it better. Did I have used the words "trap option" in the entire thread?
Maybe I got you mixed up with someone else that did . If not then ignore that post, but I my last post before this one does illustrate my point on why the xbow can be inferior and still be ok.
|
|
It is when the disparity is so big, like in the corssbow/Bow issue
If you have a class that doesn't get longbow proficiency...
The crossbow is the go to for the unskilled character who wants a ranger weapon that does 1d10 (19/20 crit) damage at 120 feat as a simple weapon.
What is the issue?
It have been stated multiple times in the thread, but
"the crossbow as a back up weapon for less martial inclided classes is fine and totally reasonable"
Now, how the crossbow is fine for a ranger? the book give you the bow combat style and it give you the crossbow combat style. In no part you read that the bows is supposed to be the sronger choise, in no part of the books is stated that the crossbow will, on purpose, be the inferior option.
Both styles are presented to the ranger on the same footing while he game is purporsely designed to have an inbalance. That seems dishonest to me.
No they aren't.
Archetypes have never been stated as equal to the core mechanic. Quite the contrary, it is often the goal to not overshadow the primary option.
They are simply alternative options. The Crossbow ranger is a viable alternative option in the same way the natural weapon ranger is a viable alternative option.
Many people would argue the sword and board option is a "trap". It isn't. It is an option, just like the crossbow. An option in the advanced guide, I might add.
Not to mention you get it at 6th level with the ranger...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is not a trap option. That war razor should just be simple weapon or the dagger should be moved to a martial weapon.Dagger - Simple weapon - Can be thrown, Does S/P 1d4dmg Hide
War Razor - Martial weapon - does S,1d4dmg hide
Butterfly - Exotic - Does P/S, 1d4 dmg, hideIts the same weapon, but gets progressively worse.
Wait wait wait. You're seriously saying that a War Razor is not a trap option because it SHOULD BE different?
No, just no.The rules are what they are, and the devs aren't going to change them on a whim. That means that a Simple weapon (dagger) is cheaper, easier to use, and offers more options than it's Martial weapon (war razor) counterpoint.
That is a trap option.
You don't get to argue that it's not a trap option just because in your perfect world, it would be different.