| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as sling range goes
According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the current record for the greatest distance achieved in hurling an object from a sling is: 477.10 m (1,565 ft 3 in), using a 127 cm (50 in) long sling and a 62 g (2.2 oz) dart. This was achieved by David Engvall at Baldwin Lake, California, USA on 13 September 1992. Those of a more traditional bent may prefer the Guinness record for slinging a stone: 437.10 m (1,434 ft 1 in), using a 129.5 cm (51.0 in) long sling and a 52 g (1.8 oz) ovoid stone, set by Larry Bray in Loa, Utah, USA on 21 August 1981.
Generally agreed, but:
A sling will kill you and break bones right through plate.
Are you sure about this part? From my understanding, slings as a major weapon went out of fashion before plate went into fashion. Chain I can see, but wouldn't it depend a lot on how you hit if the target has plate? Of course it'd still hurt like hell, but...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Generally agreed, but:
A sling will kill you and break bones right through plate.Are you sure about this part? From my understanding, slings as a major weapon went out of fashion before plate went into fashion. Chain I can see, but wouldn't it depend a lot on how you hit if the target has plate? Of course it'd still hurt like hell, but...
In Europe, slings went out of fashion, but not in the Americas. Ask Cortez and his conquistadors decked out in plate which weapons he feared more--Aztec arrows, or Aztec sling stones.
Generally agreed, but:
A sling will kill you and break bones right through plate.Are you sure about this part? From my understanding, slings as a major weapon went out of fashion before plate went into fashion. Chain I can see, but wouldn't it depend a lot on how you hit if the target has plate? Of course it'd still hurt like hell, but...
Slings where still use in some parts of the world.They have never really gone out of style... And although they did not have full plate armor, the ancient Greeks and others did have metal Breastplate and a sling could kill a man wearing one of those.
and as for Inca slinghistorian Charles C. Mann quoted a conquistador, who said that an Incan sling "could break a sword in two pieces" and "kill a horse
In Europe, slings went out of fashion, but not in the Americas. Ask Cortez and his conquistadors decked out in plate which weapons he feared more--Aztec arrows, or Aztec sling stones.Generally agreed, but:
A sling will kill you and break bones right through plate.Are you sure about this part? From my understanding, slings as a major weapon went out of fashion before plate went into fashion. Chain I can see, but wouldn't it depend a lot on how you hit if the target has plate? Of course it'd still hurt like hell, but...
Good point. G++$+$n I'm eurocentric xD
why does only one answer to the question 'what is cool?' have to be right?
If you think throwing a rock from a leather cup is cooler than shooting an arrow at someone, and you think that swinging a sword at someone is cooler than altering the fabric of reality and calling magic down to smite them, then you have a way different definition of "cool" than I do.
You were the one that said that Paizo was ignoring the rule of cool by making bows and casters better than slings and martials. I'm all for being able to make your character concept with whatever options you deem to be cool, but I think general consensus would be that archers and spellcasters are more true to the "rule of cool" than sling fighters and martials.
It would be great if you can do your character concept without lagging behind. Everyone will win.Why does the only answer to "what is cool" have to be the PC that wins at DPR?why does only one answer to the question 'what is cool?' have to be right?
If you think throwing a rock from a leather cup is cooler than shooting an arrow at someone, and you think that swinging a sword at someone is cooler than altering the fabric of reality and calling magic down to smite them, then you have a way different definition of "cool" than I do.
Lagging behind WHAT?
That's the question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Full disclosure: I usually play Halflings, and I just lost a Halfling warslinger to the latest FAQ, so I have a vested interest in this topic.)
The Halflings of Golarian book had quite a lot of useful things for slings, including several feats and some really awesome "trick" ammunition.
As far as the "jock strap to throw a rock" comments, that's confusing a sling shot (which is more akin to a bow) for a sling. I think that's also where all the "can't do as much damage" comments stem from, too.
In my perfect PF world, the Halfling sling staff (which is an exotic, btw, so able to be superior than a martial) would be equal to a bow in the hands of a master wielder. This would require that all archery-oriented feats would apply to slings, with the exception of Manyshot (since putting two bullets in the sling would be tricky at best). This means that Rapid Reload would allow a sling to be loaded as a free action. That alone solves most of the issues right there.
If Gravity Bow were expanded to apply to slings as well as bows and crossbows, I'd be in heaven. I wouldn't even beg for a Zen Slinger monk archetype.
It would be great if you can do your character concept without lagging behind. Everyone will win.Why does the only answer to "what is cool" have to be the PC that wins at DPR?why does only one answer to the question 'what is cool?' have to be right?
If you think throwing a rock from a leather cup is cooler than shooting an arrow at someone, and you think that swinging a sword at someone is cooler than altering the fabric of reality and calling magic down to smite them, then you have a way different definition of "cool" than I do.Lagging behind WHAT?
That's the question.
Lagging behind in DPR not to mention that, like in the Crossbow case, you have to invest more feat to have less reward.
I mean, if you are fine making your character concepts not matter if they are stronger or not then a better balance game will not ruin that for you.
For somebody else that like combat effectiveness a better balance game give him more mechanical optionsme.
Everyone woudl win if one option is not the clear superior option.
But you see, a small increase in DPR doesn't make one option "clearly superior" over another. We don't play PvP , nor arena. As long as you contribute to the team and have fun, that's all that matters. If to *YOU* having a little more DPR is critical (and hey, it's not badwrongfun) then why not just play the option that gives you better DPR?
Making every option yield the same DPR = homogenity which is boring.
yeah the whole "you don't have to have to DPR!" is relevant when discussing the difference between longsword and scimitar, not when it's sling vs bow.
But you see, a small increase in DPR doesn't make one option "clearly superior" over another. We don't play PvP , nor arena. As long as you contribute to the team and have fun, that's all that matters. If to *YOU* having a little more DPR is critical (and hey, it's not badwrongfun) then why not just play the option that gives you better DPR?Making every option yield the same DPR = homogenity which is boring.
It is not a small increase. I o not now about slings but at least the difference bethween crossbows and bows is pretty high (as demostrated in the last crossbowman thread).
What matter in a game is amatter of taste. if you do not mind to have emechanical inferior combat style that is fine. There is people that do care about his things.
Even for people that prefer mechanics Afther a cople of character is boring to use always the same weapon. AS a Dm is boring to see the same weaposn over and over again, (not to mention cloack of resistance and stat booster)
more options are better.
Again, a better balance game would not ruin the fun for you, there shoudl not be a problem if there are optiosn taht allow the sling/crossbow to be as good as the longbow, you stil have your character concept people that like mechancis have more options to choose from. Everyone woudl be happy.
Really? Cause my Inquisitor with his Repeating CB is doing just fine. He's only taken PB & Precise shot. Mind you, I am sure that if we ran him out to 20th level (where almost no one plays) and compared him to another PC who did nothing but dump feats etc for DPR he'd lag behind. So?
Well, you see- realistically speaking the CB and the Sling *WERE* inferior to the LB. And then there's a matter of game balance, where they can give a wizard a Light CB and a Cleric a sling so they can plink some at low levels, without having them outshine the archer.
Why does everything need to be homogenized? And let's say they did that. Made the CB, sling and LB exactly equal in all ways. Then, other than writing "longbow" as opposed to "crossbow" then there were be no "options" would there? What would be the point of different weapons if they were all the same? There's a rather basic FRP out there were all one handed weapons do exactly the same damage as others. A dagger, a mace, a battleaxe, a rapier- all the same. You can write down whatever you like. Does that make for more "options" or less? I think it makes for NO options.
You have many options to choose from. Some are better than others at various times, classes and levels. That's what makes them true "options".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making every option yield the same DPR = homogenity which is boring.
Not to put words in anyone's mouth but i dont think thats what folk are asking for, they simply would like a broader range of more effective options.
As an example i have played a half orc fighter who specialized in the great club and had a lot of fun! while lower DPR then the standard axe or great sword I still felt like i could contribute just fine and even had some unique options only i could do ( three mountains and brutal strike in 3.5, Bludgeoner which came in handy when we switched to PF)
While when i tried to do a sniping crossbow character i just felt irrelevant at high levels while i still had to spend more feats just to feel i could contribute a tiny bit, while i have never tried to make a sling specialist i assume they go through the same deal.
All options should not be exactly equal. However, if one option is by FAR superior to all other options in the most relevant ways, those others become non-options for a character who rely on her choice in day to day life.
If you work as a computer programmer and get to choose between Windows PC, Linux PC and Mac either choice will have their pros and cons (and while some people will disagree, the mere fact that there is so much debate on which is preferable shows that they all have benefits).
If you get to choose between Windows, and Atari and a Commodore 64, it's basically a non-choice.
For the computer programmer, the first choice is much more interesting than the second one.
|
I would like to point out that there is still one advantage to the Halfling Sling Staff. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization apply to both the melee and ranged functions, so a Sling Staff specialist could be an effective "switch hitter" that never actually has to switch and doesn't take Quick Draw.
But really, ranged weapons all come down to action economy. If you can reload as a free action, you can make it work. Warslinger halflings can reload a sling as a free action, so they should, in theory, be able to make slinging viable. All they really lose out on is Manyshot and Gravity Bow, but not paying for a Strength rating means they can get a +1 sling earlier. And is a ranged fighter really shelling out for a wand of Gravity Bow and the skill points to UMD it reliably?
DrDeth, if you were to lay a 20th level archery dedicated character next to a 20th lvl sling dedicated character, how much more damage, as a percentage, do you think the archery character would be able to do compared to the sling character?
But you see, a small increase in DPR doesn't make one option "clearly superior" over another.
Well, actually I was comparing CB to LB. But I imagine a sling would do a lot less. Which is correct.
Would anyone demand that a person wielding a dagger do as good as a TH sword? Of course not. Why would expect that the cheap primitive shepherd's sling do as much as the most dangerous weapon in the middles-ages, the longbow?
The LB is simply the much superior weapon, and that's exactly how it should be. It should also be superior to the CB- as it WAS superior to the CB. But still, both the CB and the sling are decent options for some PC's.
Still, my Inquisitor with his CB does fine. But he only has a str of 11.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, what about ideas for how to fix the problem?
Here are some feat ideas
*a feat which reduces the effective hardness of items the sling is being used to sunder
*a feat which reduces effective hard cover
*a feat which allows a sling bullet to 'bounce' the same way that Chain Lightning bounces
*a feat which allows the slinger's Dex mod to be applied to the DC of alchemical items (such as tanglefoot bags) being slung
*a feat which grants knowledge of a few runes to the slinger which allows for easy creation of various sling stones which provides a +1 enhancement to the sling bullet (such as fire burst).
finally, a sling user should more easily be able to use a shield than an archer can
THIS is what I'm talking about. Manyshot - only bows; Bludgeoner - ANY blunt weapon; I was wondering why not more sling specific feats. For that matter: Zen Archer - bows; Arcane Archer - bows. Why not slings?
I get it that some weapons don't do as much damage, and I don't need EVERY weapon to put out the SAME DPR. But if at 10th level a bow-dedicated Halfling fighter can shoot 5 arrows per round with decent chance of 4 hitting and dealing 44 damage while the same Halfling dedicated to the sling hits w/2 attacks dealing 22 damage, maybe an extra feat buried in there allowing the slinger to inflict a ranged Bull Rush at their CMB w/said sling bullet would be worth the trade off in damage.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game is designed so that bows are the only decent option for ranged combat. Every other ranged weapons sucks.
Well, almost... Firearms are pretty good if you're a Gunslinger or Trench Fighter (but they suck even more than crossbows for everyone else).
Crossbows? Sorry, they suck. Firearms... Are you a Gunslinger? No? Sorry, they suck. Slings... Sorry they suck. Thrown weapon... Hah! They make crossbows look good!
I'm beginning to realize how limited are the options for martial characters. It's either 2-Handed , Archery, TWF (with 2 light weapons) or Sword & Board. With great effort, you can push "Combat Maneuvers" here too, but only at low/mid levels and against humanoids.
All other options are either illegal or so ineffective that they might as well be illegal...
Why? I have no idea, but I'm guessing it's because otherwise, it'd not fit "standard" fantasy.
/rant
Because if it isn't the absolute optimal option it sucks...
Is the thought process that ruins the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not every weapon/character combo has to be optimized for damage. Maybe slingers are the masters of trick shots and after level 6 they get advanced feats allowing them to treat a single shot like a splash weapon, ricocheting all over the place. Perhaps using a sling could be combined with Dirty Trick to make chones-shots. @ those suggesting that I'm trying to make every weapon do the same when optimized and therefore ruin the game, that's not what I'm suggesting. I just want something else to do with them is all, especially if you're going to write fluff and racial feats that suggest there's an entire PC core race that uses them as a signature weapon but they have no racial archetype/PrC that takes advantage of that.
|
|
It shows that crossbowman do less damage than bow.
Unless you define "Sucks" as anything less than optimal.
Less good, yes. Sucks. Define "sucks".
Significantly less damage.
But ok, what is your definition of "sucks"?
For me "suck" in this case means more investment trying to do what an archer can do and fail at it.
My definition of sucks is not being able to contribute effectively in a party of 4 players, based on the expectations of CR encounters in the game.
I haven't seen that.
The longbow user is better than the crossbow user. But not by an amount that means you can't play a crossbow user and contribute.
Less good is not the same as "sucks"
That logic is half of the problem on these threads...
Based purely on consistent contribution a sling is fine. In the same way that a fighter based solely on dagger is fine. Yes, it's a weaker option, but at 10th level you're consistently lagging behind a similar fighter with a greatsword. But at least a dagger can be used in a Knife Fighter rogue archetype.
This brings me back to my original quandary: why no similar option for the inferior sling?
Would anyone demand that a person wielding a dagger do as good as a TH sword? Of course not. Why would expect that the cheap primitive shepherd's sling do as much as the most dangerous weapon in the middles-ages, the longbow?
The LB is simply the much superior weapon, and that's exactly how it should be. It should also be superior to the CB- as it WAS superior to the CB. But still, both the CB and the sling are decent options for some PC's.
The realism argument is not good.
Crossbows just have much more penetration power. The crossbow was so strong that the pope baned it. I am pretty much sure that the LB as not superior in almost every way as they are in PF.
There are so many instances were the gme is not realistic that what the is the problem here.
Yes, the LB, in the hands of experts was indeed that much better.
Crecy- about 6000 professional CB mercs faced off vs maybe 7000 English & Welsh Longbowmen.
wiki "The first attack was from the French crossbowmen, who launched a series of volleys with the purpose of disorganizing and frightening the English infantry. ...s. The crossbowmen proved completely useless; with a shooting rate of around 1–2 shots per minute, they were no match for the longbowmen, who could shoot five or six arrows in the same amount of time, and also had superior range due to their bows and elevation. " Note that "completely useless".
Now yes, the heavy arbalest with it's steel bolt and crank was better at penetration, but the RoF was slooooooooow. And of course, that is exactly what we have in D&D.
Are there weapon in the game which aren;t realistic? Certainly. The falchoin is all wrong, for example. But we don't need to push the game away from realism, either.
I mean, what's wrong with the LB being a better weapon? Isn;t the greatsword a better weapon than the dagger?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because some options are designed to not be that cool, because the game have to have a superior/popular option by design.
I think being a guy who carries nothing but a piece of cloth in his pocket but can kick ass is pretty cool.
YMMV.
Again, if you make the optimal options the only options that "don't suck"...that sounds like a game that will get old quick.
And if you make the normal options less effective than odd ones...that sounds like a game that will lose verisimilitude quick.
So if the odd option is less effective, but still able to contribute, I see no problem at all.
The game is designed so that bows are the only decent option for ranged combat. Every other ranged weapons sucks.
Well, almost... Firearms are pretty good if you're a Gunslinger or Trench Fighter (but they suck even more than crossbows for everyone else).
Crossbows? Sorry, they suck. Firearms... Are you a Gunslinger? No? Sorry, they suck. Slings... Sorry they suck. Thrown weapon... Hah! They make crossbows look good!
I'm beginning to realize how limited are the options for martial characters. It's either 2-Handed , Archery, TWF (with 2 light weapons) or Sword & Board. With great effort, you can push "Combat Maneuvers" here too, but only at low/mid levels and against humanoids.
All other options are either illegal or so ineffective that they might as well be illegal...
Why? I have no idea, but I'm guessing it's because otherwise, it'd not fit "standard" fantasy.
/rant
Because if it isn't the absolute optimal option it sucks...
Is the thought process that ruins the game.
I don't mind if something is not the absolute best, or I'd only have listed falchions & longbows in my post. However I do mind that some options are terrible and extremely inferior to other similar options...
I don't have a problem using a dagger instead of a scimitar...But some choices simply suck too much.
Based purely on consistent contribution a sling is fine. In the same way that a fighter based solely on dagger is fine. Yes, it's a weaker option, but at 10th level you're consistently lagging behind a similar fighter with a greatsword. But at least a dagger can be used in a Knife Fighter rogue archetype.
This brings me back to my original quandary: why no similar option for the inferior sling?
Because we don't need thirty feats and twelve archetypes for each and every option in the game?
I would think the easiest fix would be to house rule a martial sling (as opposed to simple) and say it qualifies for anything a bow can qualify for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I devote all my resources and I'm still can't be nearly as good as half-decent archer."
That's why I say other ranged options suck. If bows are one feat ahead of crossbows, then 1 feat should be enough to catch up. But it isn't.
Even if dagger were 1-handed weapons, they'd still not be as inferior to longswords as crossbows are to longbows.
Why must a combat style be superior to all other similar options? The way I see it, having more balanced options is a good thing. Having 1 style that completely outshines all others is not a good thing.
I do mind seeing a character being so utterly less effective simply because one of the designers decided his weapon of choice should suck.
You can go and repeat your reducion ad absurdum nonsense "Should a guy fighting with a strap of cloth be better than a guy with a greatsword? That's unrealistic", it still doesn't make a good point.
And yes, whoever invested more on his combat style should be more effective. Doesn't matter what combat style the player wants, if he invests more resources in it, he should be the better combatant.
|
|
Not all options are equal.
Also, you might want to actually quote what I wrote rather than what you want me to write. It is increasingly hard to get people to actually find what I am saying with all of the people putting words in my mouth that aren't actually there...
I think a guy walking around with a piece of cloth who is even half as effective as an equal level guy with a greatsword is pretty badass.
And you can actually be nearly as effective as a guy with a greatsword.
If you are only playing to see who can get the highest numbers, maybe that isn't true for you. If you are seeing who can create the most interesting and memorable concept, and overcome the greatest challenge, it is.
YMMV.
There are good things and bad things about both.
We have reports from the Romans and other cultures that slings regularly outdistanced bows. Sling stones are significantly less affected by weather and wind, too, so their effective range is even that much farther.
The ammunition is much smaller, too, so you absolutely can't see the projectile in flight from any distance, so you can't dodge it. There's also no obvious "tell" as far as where the slinger is aiming is concerned--he's not pointing the tip of the weapon at you, for example, so it's harder to "dodge his aim," too.
Slings and bows are both dangerous on a hit, but slings actually don't care a whole lot about the armor you're wearing, where as a bow needs to hit dead on to penetrate chain or plate. A sling will kill you and break bones right through plate. And on the topic of mortality, a slinger is a lot more protected, too, because they can load and wield a sling while wearing a shield.
It's up in the air as to which kind of weapon is more accurate. I've heard people argue that modern archery competitions have smaller targets than modern sling competitions, but the fact is, modern archers spent tremendous amounts of money on their bows and arrows and training and spend very long times (in battlefield terms at least) aiming and lining up their shots through special scopes and crap like that. Even in serious sling competitions, there's no slings worth thousands of dollars, no stones that cost more than my phone, and no way to add a scope. Ultimately, I'd wager they're probably about equally accurate...
Wow! Thanks a lot for all this. I find it really interesting to learn about things like this (and another excuse to see that amazing video of the super fast archer is always welcome :) )/
I agree that PF is all about rate of fire for missile weapons thus wouldn't a quick n' dirty fix be to allow rapid reload to work with slings? Would it unbalance anything to allow a simple weapon to be rapid reloading like the crossbow? I really don't think so. While I have never had a player ask about being a top notch slinger I am fascinated by this and might use one as a foe in my Kingmaker game. It certainly would be a surprise for the ranger archer to be matched shot for shot by a sling user!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, define suck. Tell me what suck is. I keep hearing things suck, but no one ever says what "suck" is.
I have said if you can average 1/4th of the damage of an equal CR creature in a round, you are a contributor.
What is your definition of "suck"
My definition of "suck" is when you invest X resources into some path of customization and it results in an unequivocally smaller return than investing X resources into another path of customization.
I don't want things to be identical, that's boring. I could accept it if you could say, "yeah, I know a bow does this better, but a sling has this other advantage." DPR doesn't have to be the only consideration. Maybe the sling could be better for a, I don't know, mobility build or I don't know. Something--it should be better for something.
But when it comes to bow vs. sling (or crossbow), there are absolutely no trade offs. There's never a time when a sling is better than a bow ever. Bows are always better, period, no matter what. That's my problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have the highest number? No. But I want my number to be close enough.
Why is it okay for ranged combatants to be punished simply because they don't want to be an archer?
Why should TWF be inferior to 2-Handed despite the fact that it needs more feats, unreasonably higher Dex, more gold, and it's even more dependent of full attacks?
Because it's not the "standard"? What's the problem with deviating from the norm? A game where character customization is such a big deal should reward different concepts and creative builds, not make it so they're always inferior to "vanilla" combat styles.
Having some options be far superior to others is not an incentive to create the most interesting and memorable concept has nothing to do with how good an option is. Balanced options encourage players to try new things, poorly balanced ones encourage them to always pick the most effective ones.
I don't see how "you can pick this option, but the other one is much, much better" is a better incentive to creativity and innovation than "these options are balanced, but different".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with that comes when "half as effective" equals out to "Why are you here?"
Because Crossbows never really catch up to Longbows. Like, at all. It's a non-option. It has no unique properties, it is literally just "A Bow. But not as good and requires 4 Feats to even equal a bow with 0 Feats. Except not really because you can't get a Composite Crossbow or something similar so you're never dealing any sort of significant amount of damage."
That's bad design. Even if an option is worse in DPR it should have some unique properties to balance that out. The only real unique property of the Crossbow is that it is a Simple weapon, meaning your Wizard can use it when he forgot to prepare Acid Splash that day and he runs out of spells/has nothing better to do.
Should the Crossbow be AS GOOD as a Longbow? Not necessarily. There will always be a best option in a game, it's inevitable.
Should the Crossbow at least have some merit to warrant its use? Yes.
As it stands the Crossbow is worse in DPR than a Longbow with 0 Feats spent after spending 4 Feats, and it has nothing else unique going for it except cool factor (which doesn't get you far when you're not doing anything significant with it).
This is no "Dagger vs Greatsword", the Dagger actually has some merits to it the Greatsword doesn't have. Finessability, one handedness, concealability, the option to utilize it as a short ranged weapon feasibly, and so on.
The Crossbow doesn't have anything like that.
That is the definition of suck. It has no redeeming qualities in comparison to another option that serves the same role.
Even the sling has its ability to add Str to damage, however small a benefit that is with an otherwise unsupported weapon.
But the ONLY time I ever see a Crossbow user as even being viable (not "better than X" just "Worthwhile to have around as at least another body on the field who is not just sucking up resources for no reward") is when used by a Ranger fighting his Favored Enemy, or a high level Fighter with it as the main Weapon Training weapon, since at least then you're adding SOMETHING in the way of static modifiers to damage.
And it really wouldn't take all that much to make it viable either. Change the 3rd level ability of the Fighter Crossbowman archetype to "Can add Dex to damage with Crossbows" (instead of "1/2 Dex to Readied action shots." Blegh.) or add a Gunslinger archetype that does similar (replacing Gun Training with Crossbow Training. Has a double benefit of making Gunslingers an option in games where Gunslingers are banned because of a lack of guns). That's it. Provide one, maybe two options that makes it a choice that is even slightly competitive with the Longbow, or even the Shortbow, and it's fixed. Doesn't have to be a core rework, just an archetype or a Feat chain that makes Crossbows worthwhile to use.
Which makes me angry, because I like crossbows as a fantasy weapon. There are some neat characters in fiction that utilize crossbows (mostly hand crossbows and the repeating kind) to very cool effect.
But you can't really do that in Pathfinder.
|
|
Define "Close enough"
Again, I'm walking around with a piece of cloth. That guy has a giant sword and this guy...a piece of cloth.
If you can't think of a way that might role play more effectively....
@Rynjin - Every class that doesn't have martial weapon proficiency called and said they can't use a longbow without major penalties...
They don't serve the same role. If they did, they would be redundant, so why have them.
I agree it is suboptimal to make a martial class with a crossbow focus, and the crossbowman isn't a great choice relative to a straight fighter with a crossbow.
But I also got over 70 DPR with a crossbow in a fighter build at 10th, so that seemed pretty good to me.
You start adding Dex damage, you start having single attribute dip classes with a class that is already built to mix with rogue (not the denial to dex...)
You can make a viable crossbow guy. But if you don't want to play unless you can have the absolute best numbers...