other than costing 2,930 gold more. Mithril Kikko is a better version of the the mithril shirt.
Mithil Shirt
Light +4 AC +6 Max Dex 10% ASF 12.5 lbs 1100 GP
Mithril Kikko
Light +5 AC +6 Max Dex 10% ASF 12.5 lbs 4,030 GP
at the later levels
Mithril Kikko is superior to the mithril Shirt for those who are stuck with light armor, or lack armor proficiency or deal with Arcane Failure.
a lot of the oriental armors are slightly more powerful in the hands of a dexterous character, trading 1 point of AC, for 1 extra point of MAX DEX, a lighter weight, and a check penalty reduction.
OK...what should a crossbow be like? Because in every book I've read a crossbow gets fired once and then discarded. Why? Well lets find out.
I admit the Princess Bride quote was good.
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.
Mechanically, its no different from a dagger, other than saying that the player is NOT allowed to consider his dagger to be a butterfly knife or folding razor. (and not being thrown.)
Weapons once broken down into dice and abilities of the weapon, are simply that. If I was to make a Dagger, Stiletto, Butcher knife, or the one of the hundreds of other daggers types.. unless I put an actual mechanic on them, All I'm doing is just bloating the system. And if those mechanics are ultimately worse than the dagger, and are anything but simple weapons without offering something better..or truely a side step enhancement, then I'd be bloating the system with poisoned options.. 3.5 collapsed under the weight of its poisoned options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The root of the problem comes down to arbitrary weapon tiers. A Martial Weapon has to be better than a Simple weapon because there was a Feat invested (like anyone has ever taken a feat for a martial weapon)
When we do that, all of a sudden we have a mechanical argument about character resource investiture that completely overshadows any other argument.
If you invest a character resource in something, that something aught to be better than the thing you can get without spending a resource. That's why by Martial weapons, or even worse, bad Exotics are looked at with such disdain. It turns an interesting option into a bit of sub-optimal fluff that you have to pay for.
You can make a real-world argument about the issue regarding how much more training it takes to learn to use a bow, or how someone who's good at fighting is going to be equally good with just about anything you put in their hands, but in the end none of that matters.
The moment that an in-game resource was required, that option had damn well better be more effective than anything that doesn't require it, because the moment that resource became necessary, mechanics took precedence over everything else.
If you want to even be able to have an argument about the comparative real-world merits of two different weapons, first you have to remove the mechanical costs altogether. If you don't, the one with the higher cost simply has to be the better choice.
this became so quickly into a Xbow thread tnoteven half the thing i wanted to talk about have been adresed.
Particulary the other half of the Op was abut options that are so good that are must have, like instant enemy.
I don't always fight my favored enemy, and when I don't I cast instant enemy.
The most interesting ranger in the world.
And putting the feat investments into crossbow make you better than someone not using the feats...just like if I don't put in precise shot I'm not as good with a bow as the guy who did...
OK...what should a crossbow be like? Because in every book I've read a crossbow gets fired once and then discarded. Why? Well lets find out.
I admit the Princess Bride quote was good.
Game of Thrones, crossbows are used heavily. There is one scene that talks about how it takes so long to load, while a later scene shows off a new design that lets one reload faster, and then there is another scene that if you actually had longbows in.. well lets just say you ain't shooting very much, as its a very cramped space.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we stop pretending that in-game crossbows have real advantages that bows don't?
•Lesser proficiency? Traits and/or Race choice take care of that for free.
•Can shoot while prone? Sniping is super-hard to pull off and the only classes that would even want to are the ones that deal with specific enemy/precision damage. I can't think of any other situation where I'd choose to be prone in combat.
•Can be fired with one hand? Yes, with a penalty to hit. But they can't be reloaded with one hand, so you still need your other hand free for reloading.
•Can be used with a shield? See the last point. You still need a free hand for reloading. (Any "free-hand" shield option would apply equally to an archer as a crossbowman.)
Meanwhile, there is no drawbacks to using a bow (aside from being unable to shoot while prone, which I've already addressed as a non-issue). In real life, you cannot keep your bow strung if you want it to stay functional, but there's no rules to support THAT reality.
Also, Multishot: To pull something like this off you'd have to adjust your fletching (even movies get this part right) and you have to line up your arrows so they'll both fly straight instead of interfering with each other. No way that's a free-action. No way.
SKR might have rage-quit the thread, but I notice no one has addressed the double-standard yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
other than costing 2,930 gold more. Mithril Kikko is a better version of the the mithril shirt.
Mithil Shirt
Light +4 AC +6 Max Dex 10% ASF 12.5 lbs 1100 GPMithril Kikko
Light +5 AC +6 Max Dex 10% ASF 12.5 lbs 4,030 GPat the later levels
Mithril Kikko is superior to the mithril Shirt for those who are stuck with light armor, or lack armor proficiency or deal with Arcane Failure.
a lot of the oriental armors are slightly more powerful in the hands of a dexterous character, trading 1 point of AC, for 1 extra point of MAX DEX, a lighter weight, and a check penalty reduction.
Well, Kikko does require medium armor proficiency too.
Honestly though, a lot of the oriental armor just filled in gaps created by the very strange setup of core armors. I've never understood why D&D/Pathfinder decided to make 75% of the core armor absolutely useless from a mathematical/gamist PoV.
Out of the CRB, the only medium armor worth using is a breastplate, and the only heavy armor worth taking is full plate. They are strictly superior to every other option. The only reason someone would ever use something like splint mail or scale mail (aside from flavor) is because they don't have access to the better armor.
other than costing 2,930 gold more. Mithril Kikko is a better version of the the mithril shirt.
Mithil Shirt
Light +4 AC +6 Max Dex 10% ASF 12.5 lbs 1100 GPMithril Kikko
Light +5 AC +6 Max Dex 10% ASF 12.5 lbs 4,030 GPat the later levels
Mithril Kikko is superior to the mithril Shirt for those who are stuck with light armor, or lack armor proficiency or deal with Arcane Failure.
a lot of the oriental armors are slightly more powerful in the hands of a dexterous character, trading 1 point of AC, for 1 extra point of MAX DEX, a lighter weight, and a check penalty reduction.
Well, Kikko does require medium armor proficiency too.
Not if it is made of mithril
the only penalty to not being proficient with a given armor type, is that it's armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls
mithril kikko has no armor check penalty
and thus no penalty for non-proficiency
meaning a character with light armor proficiency (or none at all) can wear a suit of mithril kikko, but be no worse off than wearing a mithril chain shirt or a suit of leather armor. hell, they would be even better off due to the increased AC.
normal Kikko lacks this benefit
But Mithril Kikko is really damned cheap.
it can be purchased as early as level 5 without many issues.
other than costing 2,930 gold more. Mithril Kikko is a better version of the the mithril shirt.
Mithil Shirt
Light +4 AC +6 Max Dex 10% ASF 12.5 lbs 1100 GPMithril Kikko
Light +5 AC +6 Max Dex 10% ASF 12.5 lbs 4,030 GPat the later levels
Mithril Kikko is superior to the mithril Shirt for those who are stuck with light armor, or lack armor proficiency or deal with Arcane Failure.
a lot of the oriental armors are slightly more powerful in the hands of a dexterous character, trading 1 point of AC, for 1 extra point of MAX DEX, a lighter weight, and a check penalty reduction.
Well, Kikko does require medium armor proficiency too.
Not if it is made of mithril
the only penalty to not being proficient with a given armor type, is that it's armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls
mithril kikko has no armor check penalty
and thus no penalty for non-proficiency
meaning a character with light armor proficiency (or none at all) can wear a suit of mithril kikko, but be no worse off than wearing a mithril chain shirt or a suit of leather armor. hell, they would be even better off due to the increased AC.
normal Kikko lacks this benefit
But Mithril Kikko is really damned cheap.
it can be purchased as early as level 5 without many issues.
Derp, brain farted on mithril dropping the ACP down to 0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of the problem with the "Bows are martial, Crossbows are Simple weapons" argument is that the drawbacks to characters with martial proficiency are more disproportionately affected by the crossbow's drawbacks. Thus, with all things being equal, Crossbow users will see more of the negatives of a crossbow if they can wield martial weapons.
-First is the fact that all martial-proficient classes (with the exception of the Magus, for whom this is a non-issue, and the Battle Oracle, if you so choose that Revelation) have Full BAB, meaning they get iterative attacks earlier. As such, this means that once they get to sixth level, the reload problem becomes immediately apparent, rather than the eight and twelfth levels when other characters notice it.
-Second, Characters without martial proficiency generally do things on their turn other than attacking, full or otherwise. As such, they might need to reload their weapon once or so in a fight, depending on how long it goes; martial proficient characters generally attack or full-attack most rounds, meaning the reload action comes up more often.
-Third, and tied in with the last one, the need for feats to keep them in any means viable is felt much harder by martially proficient classes. Classes with only simple proficiency are unlikely to take the ranged-weapon feat tree, so they wouldn't see much difference between a bow or crossbow, but requiring at least a feat, though often more, delays the already feat intensive ranged-weapon feat tree. True, martially proficient characters tend to get more feats, but difference in opportunity cost is much larger.
-Finally, the main "benefit" of sorts with Crossbows is the lack of a need for a good strength to make them effective. However, the problem is that Fighters/Rangers/ect can better afford to have higher Strength than Wizards or other non-martial proficiency classes, so the lack of a need for strength is less of an issue.
Basically, in short, the main thing that differentiates the Crossbow/Longbow from other similar simple/martial weapon pairings is that, assuming non-proficiency isn't an issue, the opportunity cost for taking (to use an example) a dagger vs a short sword is about the same, whether you're a fighter or a wizard, however with a crossbow, a wizard is going to have a lower opportunity cost for taking a crossbow over a longbow, than a fighter will.
This isn't to say there can't be design decisions that remedy this, without making a Crossbow essentially the same as a longbow, but the problem has to be diagnosed in order to be corrected. An easy correction, that to me, seems like it should please most subsets of people is to make a Crossbow not able to deal out multiple attacks, but to make it more effective when dealing only a single attack, either as a standard action, or, due to the precedent already being set, as a readied action.
(* and it is just plain weaker, you need an extra feat just to do what an archer do for free, you can never use manyshot so your DPR is lower and forget about point blank master cause reloading a xbow always provoke)The crossbow ranger style does make for a decent 2 level dip for a Barbarian that wants a backup option when they can't get into melee range.
With a Belt of Mighty Hurling, they get to use their strength modifier to hit with thrown weapons, and the crossbow style allows them to get deadly aim without having to invest in dexterity.
While true, this doesn't solve the issue of Crossbows. And besides, though I admit to playing most games with fairly high point-buys, I rarely see Dex as that much of a dump stat (with rare exceptions such as Armored Hulk and Invulnerable Rager, where Dex bonus to AC is less of an issue), so the 13 dex requirement might be a bit steep at lower point buys, but even at 20, it's manageable.
If you don't meet the 13 dex requirement for Deadly Aim then your ability to hit with a ranged weapon is already a dubious proposition that just got worse because you're now taking more negatives. And then you're waiting 2 more levels for the best Rage Powers. I really don't see why that would be a good dip at all. A Barbarian that wanted a ranged option would be better to just get a composite bow that had a pull equal to their raging strength modifier or if they wanted to be all fancy get a magic one with that one ability that auto adjusts the bow's strength requirement. 20 strength is practically the minimum for a raging barbarian so you have +5 damage there right away without needing to take any penalties to hit, though Deadly Aim is still an option.
Well, with belt of mighty Hurling, as mentioned above, Strength determines the attack bonus with thrown weapons.
However, it being only slightly cheaper than the +4 Belt of Giant's Strength, I have to wonder how many barbarians would pick that up just for a backup option.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
-Finally, the main "benefit" of sorts with Crossbows is the lack of a need for a good strength to make them effective. However, the problem is that Fighters/Rangers/ect can better afford to have higher Strength than Wizards or other non-martial proficiency classes, so the lack of a need for strength is less of an issue.
Can I just mention again that This PF alternate weapon system has STR XBows, which could be used by people who want that option (without even necessarily adopting that entire alternate weapon system)?
No? Ok, I won't bring it up again. :(
Porphyrogenitus! You have a message. :)
-Finally, the main "benefit" of sorts with Crossbows is the lack of a need for a good strength to make them effective. However, the problem is that Fighters/Rangers/ect can better afford to have higher Strength than Wizards or other non-martial proficiency classes, so the lack of a need for strength is less of an issue.Can I just mention again that This PF alternate weapon system has STR XBows, which could be used by people who want that option (without even necessarily adopting that entire alternate weapon system)?
No? Ok, I won't bring it up again. :(
I am aware of the Kirthfinder houserules. Some of them I think are good; some of them I disagree with. But my point wasn't Crossbows should have strength scores; I was merely pointing out the problems with equating the "Well, a dagger's a simple weapon that's worse than a short sword, which is martial" with the dilemma regarding bows and crossbows.
Personally, I think the way to "fix" crossbows is to grant more design space towards single attacks, instead of relying on iterative attacks to grant the scaling damage through levels. That way, crossbow users wouldn't need to spend feats to try to emulate bows (which they will ultimately fail at, because they're not bows), but instead be separate, and focus on single target single attacks. Personally, I think the Crossbowman archetype really missed out on an opportunity to add this, but as it stands, all it did was throw a little bit of a bone to ready action attacks, which is actually something I find underutilized, but it's not something that can hold up an entire archetype, especially if the base weapon performs sub-par when not used for the pigeon-holed purpose the archetype gives it.
Porphyrogenitus! You have a message. :)
And now you have a reply!
I hope it was what you were looking for. ^_^
I am aware of the Kirthfinder houserules. Some of them I think are good; some of them I disagree with.Yup
But my point wasn't Crossbows should have strength scores; I was merely pointing out the problems with equating the "Well, a dagger's a simple weapon that's worse than a short sword, which is martial" with the dilemma regarding bows and crossbows.
Personally, I think the way to "fix" crossbows is to grant more design space towards single attacks, instead of relying on iterative attacks to grant the scaling damage through levels.
I know your point was broader & different from just the STR thing and I'm not sure I disagree with the idea that Crossbows should excel in single attacks. I'd certainly be interested in seeing a rule that accomplishes that written up & playtested.
I was just offering that link up to narrowly address the Strength thing that people are bringing up, since my impression was it got lost in the back & forth.
Other than that I had nothing to offer pro or con on the bulk of your post so I just mentioned the Str thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to the broader topic, I believe every choice a Player is offered should have a viable reason to take it, and ideally a viable reason not to take it that doesn't eclipse the former. Characters all have their different needs, depending on where the dice lie, and making each choice should give an advantage over the others.
On the Bow vs. Crossbow (vs Sling vs. Thrown) debate, It's my opinion that each one should be superior to the others at something. Preferably in a way that's at least evocative of that weapon's strong points in Real Life/Fantasy Fiction. I don't begrudge Bows getting Manyshot, because that's a fantasy trope specific to bows.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thread necro!
Related to crossbows being worse than bows in the game (and inviable player choices stemming from that), and my earlier arguments about the game modeling reality, if you read this blog post I just made, it's almost like I'm admitting I was wrong. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thread necro!
Related to crossbows being worse than bows in the game (and inviable player choices stemming from that), and my earlier arguments about the game modeling reality, if you read this blog post I just made, it's almost like I'm admitting I was wrong. ;)
Ok, I didn't use True Mind Switch or Mind Seed on him, so who did? In all seriousness though that was good post, especially about how we accept that dragons can fly, giants can function and breeding is bonkers essentially "because fantasy setting" and we ignore those things because it gets in the way of having a good time. Now if we can just get people to extend that to the martial classes...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crossbow / Firearm + Vital Strike (up to Greater) = good damage output and ammo ration :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Woah, what a necro.
2. Haven't read the whole thread, but while I'm here: the idea behind this thread is, as overused as this word is, pretty toxic, and IMO only contributes to the problems of escalation/arms-race/rocket-tag that plagues higher-level play.