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.
Sword users tried their hardest not to hit armor with their sword. That made swords break.
Just because they fight a certain way in movies does not mean that's how actual fighting was done.
@Neo2151-
Then I will use what you linked.
"A skilled arbalestier (arblaster) could shoot two bolts per minute."
But you're not going to comment on how it was accurate up to 300m? That's a lot more than 120ft. :P
And the accepted difference of rate-of-fire between a longbow and a crossbow was 10:6 in favor of the bow.That's a LOOONG way off from the >1 shot/1 second RoF that the in-game longbow can offer.
Look, I'm in the camp that thinks "Rapid Reload" and "Crossbow Mastery" either shouldn't exist or should work differently. Crossbows are not meant to be fast weapons, and it's disingenuous of the game to try and make them into fast weapons, while still claiming they're trying to mimic reality.
In reality, crossbows shot significantly further with accuracy, and hit significantly harder (crossbowmen punched through plate, archers didn't). You can argue till you're blue in the face, but simply put, 1d10 is nowhere near significantly more than 1d8+x.
Bottom line? A crossbow should work more like a spell: Once per round for a bunch. The moment you try and make a crossbow work like a bow, you're falling into a trap where you have to spend more feats in order to do less damage (which is why so many are arguing that it is, indeed, a trap option).
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.
Two answers to this question:
1 - It's a disingenuous argument. Greatclub vs Greatsword is the argument you want to make.2 - There's an argument for it. A maul is significantly more effective against armored opponents than any sword will ever be, ever. Unfortunately, that will never be true in PF terms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We all know the weapon damage system is fubar anyway, because katana does a measly 1d8 damage while in reality it slices Abrams tanks in half.
True story, bro.
It's been tested scientifically by a team of Samurai-Ninjas.
I have the data right here on my old computer but someone accidentally spilled coffee into the hard drive but I'll upload it on the tubes as a 108 page PDF as soon as I can get it fixed.
Two answers to this question:
1 - It's a disingenuous argument. Greatclub vs Greatsword is the argument you want to make.
2 - There's an argument for it. A maul is significantly more effective against armored opponents than any sword will ever be, ever. Unfortunately, that will never be true in PF terms.
Let's not lay all the blame for this on Pathfinder. 2e demoted the weapons vs armor table to a poorly explained optional rule. 3e dispensed with it entirely. Why? Because hardly anyone ever used the tables anyway. If they restored some aspect of the rules, I expect most people would continue to ignore it.
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.
Some other poster have debunked this argument before, but lets see.
- Crossbow were so deadly that the pope Inoccent II baned the use of that weapon against crhistians.
- The crossbow just have much more poer of penetration but the game do not reflect that fact (cuase come 1d10 against 1d8 is not enough)
- The archer wielder is not hapered by reality. Fore xample manshots.
So the crossbow is hampered by reality but the bow is snhaced by fantasy.
There was also talk of banning the mace. So I wouldn't necessarily assume this Pope was arguing with any scientific rigor.
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.
Depends, doesn't it? If the ranger likes to snipe and move, using his stealth, the crossbow's still pretty good. Same if he wants to fire lying down concealed in low bushes.
Depends, doesn't it? If the ranger likes to snipe and move, using his stealth, the crossbow's still pretty good. Same if he wants to fire lying down concealed in low bushes.
That would require stealth rules. What could go wrong?
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.
Exactly!
A dagger is a simple weapon. Through and through. MUCH more so than a cross bow. You don't see serial killers running around with war razors do you? The closest you have is Sweeny Todd on that, but depending on versions and such. (I didn't watch the old version.) He lulled his prey into a false sense of security, and then slit their throat. He trained with the razor a fairly good deal too. After all, he was a able to give a damn good shave with it.
A dagger? Whats the first thing the woman in the house grabs when she feels threated? A knife. (As per movies. Hell, I'd grab one too.) Men in movies tend to pick up bats. Though, that guy from Psycho - Knife. Michel Mires - Knife. little china dolls. Knives. Knives for everyone.
So how is a MARTIAL weapon weaker than a knife?
Because all of the "Cross bows are fine weapons because they are simple therefor they should suck to martial. Historically they were easy to train a bunch of people with and cheap too." Who doesn't have a knife in their house? Very few people. You'd be hard pressed to find one. In fact knives were the very first 'silverware' a person would have. They would eat with their knife and their hands. No forks or spoons. The butter knife came around so people could still cut food but not stab people.
Lets look at the movie Expendables now. Guess what Jason Stathem's character has? Knives. Whole bucket loads of them. He's made fun of in the movie about having knives. Why use those knives when you can use a gun. Well, you don't gotta reload a knife. And he's shown to be deadly accurate with them. If there was a Knife Guy Archetype for fighter, it would have his face on it. Cause in a /fantasy/ world where everyone else has guns, He could stay pretty well up there on the kill count.
In fact, lets really look at that movie.
We got Jet Li with a machine gun,Terry Crews with the shot gun, and Silvester Stallone with a revolver.
Often each of them ended up with their favored weapon. Some even talked about why its their favorite weapon.
Terry said something along the lines of his gun makes loud noises and people are afraid of loud noises. And when you see him using his shot gun... Well the noise wasn't the only thing they were afraid of.
Jet's machine gun, fires much smaller bullets, but in rapid succession. Its range is futher and such, and the gun at least looks lighter and has less recoil. Fast and speedy bursts
Jason's knives, don't need to be reloaded, they don't jam, they are quieter. In the sequel we see their concealibility at use. Silent and Deadly
Sylvester's revolver may not be quite or as loud as the shot gun, it may not be able to fire bullets at rapid speeds. But its reliable. Its bullets may not spread, but its more powerful than the machine gun. In fact in ghost in the shell, revolver's are talked about being nearly impossible to jam, even if you do have fewer bullets and without a speed loader, take a while to load.
As a special bonus we've got the new kid's rifle. Able to pick off enemies off at a distance quickly and efficiently. However, its not so effective in close ranges.
Each of these weapons ends up having its place in the battlefield, due to the variances between them all. Now, Here comes pathfinder to dumb them down to more simple, game mechanics.
Unfortunately doing that, probably makes them all about how much damage they can do, rather than the things they do have.
Between a Crossbow and Longbow... Longbows should do higher sustained damage, sure. But a Crossbow ultimately should do a higher burst damage.
Focused shot This really should have been at any range.
Oh and I want to point out one thing..
A HUMAN fighter is PROFICIENT with Kobold TAIL rings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh and I want to point out one thing..
A HUMAN fighter is PROFICIENT with Kobold TAIL rings.
"My master taught me to use kobold tail rings. Just in case I grew a tail..." - An unknown fighter.
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?
Are you really saying a crossbow is not worse than composite longbows? Really? Even SKR said longbows are much better. His argument was not "crossbows and longbows are equally effective", his argument was "longbows are much better because realism".
Crossbows are weak. Their minor advantage in range and damage die doesn't even get close to being able to add Str to damage and reload as a free action without the need of a feat.
"But you can use crossbows while prone". How often does that matter?
Crossbows are weaker than bows. That's not a problem. Crossbows being extremely weaker than bows is. So is the fact that crossbows are likely to not be a good weapon choice no matter how much you invest in it.
And again, crossbows are not the issue. They are an example.
If someone was complaining about, let's say, Cestus x Gauntlet (Cestus is obviously better, and they're both simple weapons) it'd be silly, because the difference is minimal.
That's not the problem we're discussing here.
Oh and I want to point out one thing..
A HUMAN fighter is PROFICIENT with Kobold TAIL rings.
Shake what your momma... erm.. that whacko alchemist gave you!
|
But you're not going to comment on how it was accurate up to 300m? That's a lot more than 120ft. :P@Neo2151-
Then I will use what you linked.
"A skilled arbalestier (arblaster) could shoot two bolts per minute."
And a Ballista and sniper rifle can do even more.
If you cite a specific item that a skilled user can only fire twice in a minute, it isn't really relevant in comparison to a bow, now is it?
If you want to add a weapon that you can only reload 2 times in a minute if you use all your actions, and make that weapon do more damage at greater range, that seems reasonable.
But when you cite an example that can only be reloaded twice in a minute in a discussion complaining about reload disparity...
|
|
Are you really saying a crossbow is not worse than composite longbows? Really? Even SKR said longbows are much better. His argument was not "crossbows and longbows are equally effective", his argument was "longbows are much better because realism".
If you have a strength of 12 or less, the heavy crossbow does either the same or more damage with an arguably better crit. And it can be fired prone or with a shield.
If you have one of the many classes that aren't trained in longbows, the feat cost is the same.
Crossbows and Bows serve different purposes in the same way Rapiers and Falcions serve different purposes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, come on, you're being dense on purpose now...
Yeah, if you have Str 12 or less, the difference is not relevant... you deal more damage, but take longer to reload...
I don't have a problem with this... Nor does Nicos. Or anyone who agrees with us, I believe.
The problem is when a guy who made a point of specializing crossbows still can't be nearly as effective as a guy who invested half the amount of feats in longbows...
Should longbows be more effective? Maybe. They're martial weapons after all. Should they be so superior that using any other ranged weapon is the same as heavily nerfing yourself (unless you're a Gunslinger)? I don't think so.
I believe the bow is superior to the crossbow for martial classes.
Capable of firing multiple shots in a round without needing a feat for fast reload (Rapid Reload makes it Free/Move/Standard instead of Move/Standard/Full round
The damage is only a base 1d8 for a longbow, but it becomes very effective for doing things like preventing a spellcaster from casting if they get exposed and can be a source of steady damage
But you're not going to comment on how it was accurate up to 300m? That's a lot more than 120ft. :P@Neo2151-
Then I will use what you linked.
"A skilled arbalestier (arblaster) could shoot two bolts per minute."
And a Ballista and sniper rifle can do even more.
If you cite a specific item that a skilled user can only fire twice in a minute, it isn't really relevant in comparison to a bow, now is it?
If you want to add a weapon that you can only reload 2 times in a minute if you use all your actions, and make that weapon do more damage at greater range, that seems reasonable.
But when you cite an example that can only be reloaded twice in a minute in a discussion complaining about reload disparity...
If you're only going to quote the tongue-in-cheek stuff, then I don't see any reason to "go the rounds" with you. ;)
Oh, come on, you're being dense on purpose now...
Are you really that shocked? I think the argument is turning quickly into "its useful in select situations, and therefore awesome" but ignoring the "It was made worse on purpose" gig.
Anyways, in a similar thought of one item being superior to the other, I've always wondered what the point of armor beyond Chain shirt/breastplate/full plate was. It seems to be a minor pricing thing at earlier levels, and occasionally there's a fluke (Mithral kikko), but you really don't have a big reason to wear chainmail over the breastplate do you? I guess an army of red shirts is a thing... but that's not the best and its not a huge price difference, especially because it quickly becomes a drop in the bucket.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, come on, you're being dense on purpose now...
Yeah, if you have Str 12 or less, the difference is not relevant... you deal more damage, but take longer to reload...
I don't have a problem with this... Nor does Nicos. Or anyone who agrees with us, I believe.
The problem is when a guy who made a point of specializing crossbows still can't be nearly as effective as a guy who invested half the amount of feats in longbows...
Should longbows be more effective? Maybe. They're martial weapons after all. Should they be so superior that using any other ranged weapon is the same as heavily nerfing yourself (unless you're a Gunslinger)? I don't think so.
Nope. Once again assumptions don't hold up to testing.
Rangers can get Crossbow Mastery at 6th level, even if they lack the prerequisites.
One feat. At the level you can get multiple attacks.
Fighters can get it just as early.
A Heavy Crossbow is 1d10. A Longbow is 1d8.
So lets say I want to make a Crossbow Master. I don't need Str, because it gives me no benefit. My Dex can therefore be higher, and therefore I can be more likely to hit. Or I can put points elsewhere, like Wisdom for ranger spells, or int for skill points (and Focused shot)
As a fighter I have extra feats and extra damage from it being my primary weapon. Loading still provokes, but firing doesn't. And if reloading is a free action, I reload after I fire before I get swarmed so my first shot next round doesn't provoke. Or if I have crossbow mastery I no longer provoke AoO with the crossbow I took rapid reload with.
Hell I could dual wield crossbows early on to get two shots in the opening round before rapidly reloading one.
What do you set as viable, let's see if I can get there. Because I see a lot of assumptions and not a lot of numbers or builds...as usual...
|
|
I believe the bow is superior to the crossbow for martial classes.
Capable of firing multiple shots in a round without needing a feat for fast reload (Rapid Reload makes it Free/Move/Standard instead of Move/Standard/Full round
The damage is only a base 1d8 for a longbow, but it becomes very effective for doing things like preventing a spellcaster from casting if they get exposed and can be a source of steady damage
Most Martial weapons are better for martial classes.
Funny that...
|
|
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.
Two answers to this question:
1 - It's a disingenuous argument. Greatclub vs Greatsword is the argument you want to make.
2 - There's an argument for it. A maul is significantly more effective against armored opponents than any sword will ever be, ever. Unfortunately, that will never be true in PF terms.
1. The crossbow is a simple weapon.
The greatclub is a simple weapon.
That is the point. If you aren't a martial class, you can be proficient with crossbow but probably not a longbow.
That is a feat.
2. A Maul is a Martial Weapon. It required training, and if not a martial class, a feat.
Surprisingly martial classes have the advantage when using martial weapons.
Weird...
I believe the bow is superior to the crossbow for martial classes.
Capable of firing multiple shots in a round without needing a feat for fast reload (Rapid Reload makes it Free/Move/Standard instead of Move/Standard/Full round
The damage is only a base 1d8 for a longbow, but it becomes very effective for doing things like preventing a spellcaster from casting if they get exposed and can be a source of steady damage
Most Martial weapons are better for martial classes.
Funny that...
Weapons should be better for martial classes. Period. Because they are martial classes.
Beyond that, whether its a simple, martial or exotic, should NOT really matter. ESPECIALLY when you have an archetype that FOCUSES on a certain weapon.
Now, some argument could be given for exotic being /slightly/ better. But with some of the things that become 'exotic' is really dumb. Like Hand crossbows, Repeating Crossbows, Butterfly Knives, etc.
Its like having two archetypes for wizard... Fire and Ice.
If you take the fire archetype you get to add your dex mod to damage. You can cast any fire type spell as a swift action, ignore energy resistance/immunity, set creatures on fire, become immune to fire yourself, Change any spell type to fire if it has another of the five elemenets..etc.
But if you take Ice you get the ability to spend a full round action to add half your int mod onto the damage. Oh, and your spells can fatigue the enemy. -yay-
Nope. Once again assumptions don't hold up to testing.
Rangers can get Crossbow Mastery at 6th level, even if they lack the prerequisites.
One feat. At the level you can get multiple attacks.
Fighters can get it just as early.
A Heavy Crossbow is 1d10. A Longbow is 1d8.
So lets say I want to make a Crossbow Master. I don't need Str, because it gives me no benefit. My Dex can therefore be higher, and therefore I can be more likely to hit. Or I can put points elsewhere, like Wisdom for ranger spells, or int for skill points (and Focused shot)
As a fighter I have extra feats and extra damage from it being my primary weapon. Loading still provokes, but firing doesn't. And if reloading is a free action, I reload after I fire before I get swarmed so my first shot next round doesn't provoke.
Hell I could dual wield crossbows early on to get two shots in the opening round before rapidly reloading one.
What do you set as viable, let's see if I can get there. Because I see a lot of assumptions and not a lot of numbers or builds...as usual...
¬¬'
Go on, build a crossbow whatever that deals about the same damage of an equally optimized character with a longbow, then.Crossbows don't allow you to invest in Int or Wisdom. They simply give you no benefit for Str, so you choose something else because you ahve no choice...
Removing an option and forcing you to pick something else is not the same as giving you an option ¬¬'
Your Fighter will have +2 skill points per level? Whoopie-dee-doo... Let's hope that compensates for dealing half the damage and needing more feats to do so. (and still have mediocre skills, BTW).
Your Ranger has 1 more 2nd level spell? Great... If only you hadn't nerfed your damage to the ground, that extra spell would be nice...
Damage is not everything, but it's really important for martial classes.
And Focused Shot sucks. Hard. It's a terrible feat that gets more and more useless as you level up.
Stop asking for builds, it doesn't even make sense in this discussion. Even SKR said crossbows are strictly inferior to longbows. He never disputed that fact, he just gave his reasons as why things are like that.
Fighters/Ranger can use crossbows better than other classes... So what? They are still overshadowed by Fighters/Rangers using longbows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. The crossbow is a simple weapon.
The greatclub is a simple weapon.
OBJECTION!
The great club is a martial weapon.
Short post in hopes it doesn't get ignored:
Should longbows be more effective? Maybe. They're martial weapons after all. Should they be so superior that using any other ranged weapon is the same as heavily nerfing yourself (unless you're a Gunslinger)? I don't think so.
I don't have a problem with longbows being better than crossbows/thrown weapons. (And they are definitely better).
My problem is that the gap in effectiveness is huge. Even a specialized crossbow man is easily overshadowed by longbows.
|
|
Of course it matters. Again, should a club be as good as a greatsword?
No, one is simple and one is martial.
A crossbow is a simple weapon. It is able to be used by all classes without martial proficiency.
It is an advantage of Martial Classes that they start with something that is a feat for all of the other classes.
On top of that, they ARE better that the other classes with simple weapons.
But simple weapons are not as good as martial weapons. By design and definition they aren't as good. If the difference is one feat, that is exactly what it is supposed to be.
A crossbow is better than the Longbow for the following concepts (Off the top of my head):
1) Classes that only have simple weapon proficiency.
2) Low strength, high dex builds.
3) Back up ranged weapons for TWF builds (you can have then out in the first round of combat to get a ranged attack in before you close)
Feel free to add more.
Why do so many people on here insist that they are being "punished" if they have an idea that can be completely viable, but requires a feat here or there that might make them "suboptimal"
Heaven forbid the game not be exactly written to make whatever idea you have in your head be the absolute best possible mechanical option that can happen...heaven forbid the classic concepts be (gasp) better than outliers...
|
|
Short post in hopes it doesn't get ignored:
Should longbows be more effective? Maybe. They're martial weapons after all. Should they be so superior that using any other ranged weapon is the same as heavily nerfing yourself (unless you're a Gunslinger)? I don't think so.I don't have a problem with longbows being better than crossbows/thrown weapons. (And they are definitely better).
My problem is that the gap in effectiveness is huge. Even a specialized crossbow man is easily overshadowed by longbows.
You keep saying this over and over like it is actually true.
It isn't.
It is like saying a rapier is clearly inferior, and ignoring finesse builds.
With two feats you can reload a crossbow as a free action without provoking an AoO for loading or firing (since it never provokes firing)
You're really missing the point, ciretose. Not because you can't understand it, but because you choose to purposely ignore it.
I'll repeat it one more time... This time with 2 different quotes. If you decide to ignore our argument once more, so be it... This is quickly becoming a pointless discussion going around in circles...
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')."
No one is complaining than a few weapons are better than others. That's not our criticism nor the subject of this thread.
Stop asking for builds, it doesn't even make sense in this discussion. Even SKR said crossbows are strictly inferior to longbows. He never disputed that fact, he just gave his reasons as why things are like that.
But demanding build contests in every single thread so he can have a chance to prove his superior system mastery is Ciretose's main thing. You can't take that away from him, he'd have nothing left!
Back on topic, I think Crossbows would've been much better served by dropping Rapid Reload and Crossbow Mastery as feats, and replacing them with something that shifts crossbows to more of a "one big hit" focus. It would make them fit how crossbows really work, and it would give them a much more distinct niche than just being Longbow light.
1. The crossbow is a simple weapon.
The greatclub is a simple weapon.
OBJECTION!
The great club is a martial weapon.
Even better.
A club is a simple weapon. A crossbow is a simple weapon.
It has a higher feat pre-requisite to effectively wield a greatclub than a crossbow.
Objection
There is very few classes that cannot wield a martial weapon. Bestow Proficiency sees to that.
You have also ignored previous posts of where it was pointed out martial weapons are weaker than simple in the view of 'its martial, that makes it automatically better'
Simply a "Martial" character truly only is receiving more options for having access to all martial weapons. You have yet to explain why a human fighter has prof with Kobold or Ratling Tailrings. Or how taking a single level of fighter suddenly nets you prof with a rather large collection of various weapons. A Flail is not a sword, A bow not a hammer. A chakarum not a spear. Yet, a single level of fighter is capable of simulating 'years' of training with such a bizarre variety of weapons, armor and shields.
So to simply state the mantra "ITS MARTIAL SO ITS BETTER!" over and over again, does you no good service within thy deed. It only serves to discredit you further, as there is no HIGHER feat pre-requisit to effectively wield a greatclub than a crossbow. Only that the Developers had arbitrarily placed a weapon in a category to limit the number of options a non-weapon focus class was presented with, as far as weapons go.
|
|
At the moement you entirey archetype devote solely to club and you take two special club feats, the answer is yes.Of course it matters. Again, should a club be as good as a greatsword?
Are you referring to the fighter archetype? Because that actually gives you bonuses.
Also True Primative, Brawler, Savage Warrior, Knife Master, etc...called...come on Nicos, you are better than that.
@Lemmy - No you are once again assuming something is true without actually seeing if it is true.
The Crossbow is actually better for some builds than the longbow. It is only worse with a relatively high strength build when you consider you can fire without provoking AoO as soon as you get to crossbow master.
Stop asking for builds, it doesn't even make sense in this discussion. Even SKR said crossbows are strictly inferior to longbows. He never disputed that fact, he just gave his reasons as why things are like that.But demanding build contests in every single thread so he can have a chance to prove his superior system mastery is Ciretose's main thing. You can't take that away from him, he'd have nothing left!
Back on topic, I think Crossbows would've been much better served by dropping Rapid Reload and Crossbow Mastery as feats, and replacing them with something that shifts crossbows to more of a "one big hit" focus. It would make them fit how crossbows really work, and it would give them a much more distinct niche than just being Longbow light.
*claps*
Indeed. Even if Xbows did less damage over a sustained time, having the ability to do one big burst of damage, would give them the niche that they should have.
There is all this complaining about how you have to spend two stats for a comp long bow, and you only spend one for a crossbow.
Well.. Belt of Physical might or whatever it is... +6str +6dex Poof, three more damage added onto Comp longbows. Three more accuracy for both.
|
|
You keep saying this over and over like it is actually true.
It isn't.
It is like saying a rapier is clearly inferior, and ignoring finesse builds.
With two feats you can reload a crossbow as a free action without provoking an AoO for loading or firing (since it never provokes firing)
Come one ciretoce, you are using two feats to do what a archer can do for free, and the archer will still do more damage, much more damage. how that is not a huge diference?
An Archer can fire without provoking a AoO in your game?
While.. kinda truish.. at the same time, they often don't give /any/ trade off.Dagger, War Razor and butterfly knife.. are all daggers.
Dagger 2 gp 1d3 1d4 19–20/×2 10 ft. 1 lb. P or S
War razor 8 gp 1d3 1d4 19-20/×2 — 1 lb. S
Knife, butterfly 5 gp 1d3 1d4 19-20/×2 — 1 lb. P or SIt basically gets progressively worse. The weapon Dagger, has far better capabilities than the Razor or Butterfly. And its a Simple weapon. You'd be hard press not to be prof with Dagger. All of them get +2 to conceal it. So.. what is the deal? Where is the give and take? You give a more powerful feat and you get nothing in return.
Just wanted to point out but the differences are butterfly knives if proficient can be drawn as a swift action. Also war razors and butterfly knoves weren't reprinted in ultimate equipment so its not really a part of the "core" rules so it probably doesn't count. Though war razors....I got nothing although I believe it was mostly made to give the skinsaw murders a creepier vibe.
Just wanted to point out but the differences are butterfly knives if proficient can be drawn as a swift action. Also war razors and butterfly knoves weren't reprinted in ultimate equipment so its not really a part of the "core" rules so it probably doesn't count. Though war razors....I got nothing although I believe it was mostly made to give the skinsaw murders a creepier vibe.
While.. kinda truish.. at the same time, they often don't give /any/ trade off.Dagger, War Razor and butterfly knife.. are all daggers.
Dagger 2 gp 1d3 1d4 19–20/×2 10 ft. 1 lb. P or S
War razor 8 gp 1d3 1d4 19-20/×2 — 1 lb. S
Knife, butterfly 5 gp 1d3 1d4 19-20/×2 — 1 lb. P or SIt basically gets progressively worse. The weapon Dagger, has far better capabilities than the Razor or Butterfly. And its a Simple weapon. You'd be hard press not to be prof with Dagger. All of them get +2 to conceal it. So.. what is the deal? Where is the give and take? You give a more powerful feat and you get nothing in return.
Where does it say you can draw it as a free action?
Benefit: If you are proficient with the butterfly knife (or have the Quick Draw feat) and are holding it in your hand, you may open it as a free action; a nonproficient user must spend a move action to open it. Otherwise, treat this weapon as a dagger. When it’s closed, you gain a +2 bonus on Sleight of Hand checks made to conceal it on your body.
Quick question...which is better a dagger or a greatsword? I believe this is unfair to dagger fighters. Oh oh and the cane sword...I mean it's only fluff its a cane I can't believe its "so" much worse than a rapier.
Just wanted to point out but the differences are butterfly knives if proficient can be drawn as a swift action. Also war razors and butterfly knoves weren't reprinted in ultimate equipment so its not really a part of the "core" rules so it probably doesn't count. Though war razors....I got nothing although I believe it was mostly made to give the skinsaw murders a creepier vibe.
While.. kinda truish.. at the same time, they often don't give /any/ trade off.Dagger, War Razor and butterfly knife.. are all daggers.
Dagger 2 gp 1d3 1d4 19–20/×2 10 ft. 1 lb. P or S
War razor 8 gp 1d3 1d4 19-20/×2 — 1 lb. S
Knife, butterfly 5 gp 1d3 1d4 19-20/×2 — 1 lb. P or SIt basically gets progressively worse. The weapon Dagger, has far better capabilities than the Razor or Butterfly. And its a Simple weapon. You'd be hard press not to be prof with Dagger. All of them get +2 to conceal it. So.. what is the deal? Where is the give and take? You give a more powerful feat and you get nothing in return.
Where does it say you can draw it as a free action?
Benefit: If you are proficient with the butterfly knife (or have the Quick Draw feat) and are holding it in your hand, you may open it as a free action; a nonproficient user must spend a move action to open it. Otherwise, treat this weapon as a dagger. When it’s closed, you gain a +2 bonus on Sleight of Hand checks made to conceal it on your body.
Drawn opened point is its made to be different. Its not a dagger by the special abilities granted to it. A dagger is a dagger and a butterfly knife is a butterfly knife....kinda like a crossbow is a crossbow and a Longbow is a Longbow....weird.
@Lemmy - No you are once again assuming something is true without actually seeing if it is true.
The Crossbow is actually better for some builds than the longbow. It is only worse with a relatively high strength build when you consider you can fire without provoking AoO as soon as you get to crossbow master.
Go ahead and pretend crossbows are awesome weapons. You talk so much about builds, then give us a crossbow specialist that is about as effective as an equally optimized longbow specialist...
Also, find me a post where I say crossbows should be equally or more effective than longbows.
"Option A is just as good as option B if you don't invest any resource at all in any of them" is not a very good argument. Who cares how good they are if you don't invest enough to make it a good option?
"But if you have low Str, crossbows are about the same, maybe even better" is also pretty weak, because in either case, you ranged damage sucks. 1d10 might be more damage than 1d8, but neither of which is likely to matter...
But I give up. You don't want to see my point. You completely ignore the point of the discussion no matter how often I bring it up.
Go on, keep thinking that I'm complaining about crossbows not being as good as longbows, if you want.
If you still don't understand what I've been saying (or, more likely, pretends you don't understand), there is no point to this discussion.
I'm out.
Quick question...which is better a dagger or a greatsword? I believe this is unfair to dagger fighters. Oh oh and the cane sword...I mean it's only fluff its a cane I can't believe its "so" much worse than a rapier.
Actually Cane sword - Can be disguised to look like a cane, it does have a mechanical advantage over the rapier in that it does have this ability. Allowing one to keep a concealed weapon without having to really hide it.
That's its ability. Its hide able. Not to mention, a later incarnation of it called the Sword Cane Pistol. So, really a sword cane has two functions. hide ability and ability to be melded with a firearm.
Dagger vs Greatsword - Daggers can be hidden, thrown, duel wielded. The can be used as a tool, put in your off hand, melded with a gun. You can do a large number of not killing things with them. You can send a dagger to that girl you love, but is about to be forced to marry that evil viser. You can sneek into a girls bedroom as she's about to plunge a dagger into her breast, and comment about how there is a shortage of perfect breasts in the world. You can sneak up on someone in the shower. There is a reason why its not called cloak and greatsword.