They attack touch AC in the first range increment, like firearms.
Still not good enough....
Think of it this way, it's a way for lower level NPCs (mooks) to still do SOME damage and present SOME challenge to a party that far outstrips them.
Mind you I did say decent, not good ;)
I actually think that's a decent idea. We're not really talking realistic crossbows here, but then we don't have realistic bows or firearms either. Especially not the bows. I feel, though, that the solution fits really well on the conceptual level. A crossbow is conceptually sort of a cross between a bow and a firearm. Having a little bit of firearm mechanics and a little bit of bow mechanics would suit that concept nicely.
Play 'em just as RAW.
In my home games I houserule they can have a Strength score like composite bows. It makes sense and increases their efficacy if you don't want to use a bow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been giving crossbows in my games an inherent +1 bonus to hit and increased their damage dice by one size. Then I let there be "strength" crossbows, much like Mighty Composites for bows, except that they do 1 1/2 their bonus in damage, much like a 2handed weapon. I also treat crossbows as "two handed" for Deadly Aim. It pretty much has made crossbows slow but more damaging per shot than a bow, kind of like a ranged greatsword in a lot of ways. Now they feel more like something that a peasant can pick up, aim, and fire. They haven't outstripped bows yet in my games but my players have been loving/hating them and they're a bit more wary now of enemies with crossbows because they know that a headshot from one of them is going to do some serious damage.
I like the idea of making them do attacks against touch AC but ultimately decided that I wanted the firearms to have a different sort of niche in ranged combat and to make up for all of the hoops you have to jump through just to get and keep the weapons... But I like your idea. I went the "mo' damage, mo' bettah" route.
Most of the simple weapons are meant to be bad... (whichs makes the trope of the Assassin sneaking in with a dagger kinda depressing "Why not use a kukri or wakazashi!!!MURR!!!!"
Play 'em just as RAW.
We're discussing ways to make crossbows decent, stay on topic.
Ok, bypassing the whole "Do they need to be fixed at all" issue, this is a terrible idea. Just take a second to think about what this would effectively do: kill firearms.
The ability of firearms to hit touch AC is balanced by their short range increments, misfire chance, and cost to operate.
A light crossbow (same base dmg as a pistol) has a range increment of 80', 4 times the range of the Pistol. Crossbows have no misfire chance, and probably cost a tenth or less in gp to buy and use.
If crossbows were given this bonus, why would anyone use a firearm again? Sure, they take a few feats to be able to full attack with them, but firearms do too, and you also get a crit range of 19-20, which is generally accepted as better than x3 or 4, especially once you pick up imp. crit.
All around, bad idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If crossbows were given this bonus, why would anyone use a firearm again?
"Starting at 5th level, a gunslinger can select one specific type of firearm (such as an axe musket, blunderbuss, musket, or pistol). She gains a bonus equal to her Dexterity modifier on damage rolls when firing that type of firearm."
Make them hit touch AC AND lower then damage dice by 1 step, then it's decent.
Play 'em just as RAW.We're discussing ways to make crossbows decent, stay on topic.
They are decent.
Why do all weapons have to be identical?
I feel conflicted. On the one hand, I want crossbows to move out of the water balloon design space that Pathfinder's game design philosophy has intended for them. On the other hand, I really don't like the gun touch attack thing.
Surely there must be some other way. Like making crossbows the one big shot weapon. Or the one really big shot weapon for mighty heavy crossbows.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa, stop asking for water balloons to be a good weapon.I want my water ballon based archetype now.
Hmmmm....an alchemist with waterballoons. Bomb balloons, potion balloons, and balloon animal golems!
I feel conflicted. On the one hand, I want crossbows to move out of the water balloon design space that Pathfinder's game design philosophy has intended for them. On the other hand, I really don't like the gun touch attack thing.
Surely there must be some other way. Like making crossbows the one big shot weapon. Or the one really big shot weapon for mighty heavy crossbows.
I had an idea once, back in 3.5 era, before I even knew of pathfinder... make their damage less variable. Crossbows are pretty much sharp-stick guns. They pretty allowed any band of peasants give knights a bashing.
So how about this. Heavy is nor 1d10, it's 1d6+4. And light will be 1d6+2.Optional, allow them to ignore any natural AC lower than 2, and any non-magical armor lower than medium.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked the idea of letting crossbows be the "Greatsword" of ranged weapons.
They have an inherent "composite" ability, and can add 1.5x damage on a hit.
Make them incompatible with Rapid Shot, and then make them reloadable as a Free action (because having a Feat tax for that is just STUPID).
They now can fire heavy shots, high damage, but still fire significantly slower than a bow (which gets an extra shot straight up, and Manyshot, in addition to 1x Str with a composite bow).
Make the damage dice significantly larger (not 1d10 vs 1d8 for a Heavy crossbow and a Longbow). Something like 2d4 or 2d6.
Still not quite as good as a bow (because you need more MAD to take real advantage of it), but different, and BETTER.
Should probably come up with a new upside for the Repeating Crossbow though in that case. Perhaps leave Crossbow Mastery in, give the Repeating Crossbow the ability to utilize Rapid Shot and Manyshot if you have that feat or summat. Seems fair for a 2 Feat tax (Exotic Weapon Proficiency and Crossbow Mastery, not counting the other prereqs which probably need to be reworked).
I really like the "Strength rating" for crossbows. Might want to add something in about reloading times being longer when you don't have the strength.
I also like the idea of improving vital strike with a crossbow.
And other idea in to change the damage from one dice to multiple. 2d4 instead of 1d8, 2d6 instead of 1d10 or 1d12. I think this will upgrade their average damage and make them nastier to the vital strike tree.
Gravity bow on a heavy crossbow does 2d8 damage.
Vital strike with that, and you get to 4d8, take the vital strike chain and your up to 8d8.
Still not enough, but it's nice, sorta....
If you allow third party feats, there is a feat that allows you to use a weapon too big for you....
And you now have a 3d8 base, 6d8 with vital strike, and 12d8 with the whole chain.
Still, not good enough, but at least it's somewhere.
True, but IIRC that's not because crossbows were as good as bows (they weren't), but because they were drastically easier to learn.
The (English/Welsh style) longbow was pretty much the most devastating ranged weapon up till guns were fairly developed (they overlapped with guns by a couple of centuries). But to be really good with them you had to train from the age of 6 (or something like that). As I understand it, very few people alive today could use a full strength English/Welsh longbow, because just being strong isn't enough -- they used specific muscle groups that were developed in the training. The draw weights of those things were just colossal, much more than any hunting bow nowadays, because they were made to go through armor.
Heh. Leave it to the English to adopt a weapon ten+ centuries after it became widespread on European battlefields and three centuries after archers (both untrained conscripts and elite warrior castes) on the Continent had abandoned it in droves, use it as their primary weapon in one war in which they get crushed in the end, and then spend all future time claiming that it was their weapon and it was the best weapon ever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. Leave it to the English to adopt a weapon ten+ centuries after it became widespread on European battlefields and three centuries after archers (both untrained conscripts and elite warrior castes) on the Continent had abandoned it in droves, use it as their primary weapon in one war in which they get crushed in the end, and then spend all future time claiming that it was their weapon and it was the best weapon ever.
I didn't know they used the cricket bat in Europe. Huh.
A friend of mine who ran a game with a few dwarf or gnome crossbowmen bad guys on an elevated position, armed with repeating heavy crossbows. The damage they dealt to the party was very nasty. I don't remember the party's level, nor was a comparable encounter with bows examined. But it was an interesting example.
Heh. Leave it to the English to adopt a weapon ten+ centuries after it became widespread on European battlefields and three centuries after archers (both untrained conscripts and elite warrior castes) on the Continent had abandoned it in droves, use it as their primary weapon in one war in which they get crushed in the end, and then spend all future time claiming that it was their weapon and it was the best weapon ever.True, but IIRC that's not because crossbows were as good as bows (they weren't), but because they were drastically easier to learn.
The (English/Welsh style) longbow was pretty much the most devastating ranged weapon up till guns were fairly developed (they overlapped with guns by a couple of centuries). But to be really good with them you had to train from the age of 6 (or something like that). As I understand it, very few people alive today could use a full strength English/Welsh longbow, because just being strong isn't enough -- they used specific muscle groups that were developed in the training. The draw weights of those things were just colossal, much more than any hunting bow nowadays, because they were made to go through armor.
The Longbow wasn't widespread on European battlefields in the 5th or 6th centuries. You're think of the Shortbow.
I feel that if you really need to make them better, the easiest and most realistic way to do so is to increase their damage dice within the first range increment. If the attack is not in the first range increment the damage dice is normal, however if within the first range increment the damage dice is say, double. light does 2d8, heavy does 2d10. After all the power of a bolt comes from a whole move action of loading, whereas the damage of an arrow comes from the movement of your arms. Big difference that should be represented in damage. I don't even feel this is op at all.
Prefer making them be one shot with massive damage myself. Should take a while to reload.
I liked the idea of letting crossbows be the "Greatsword" of ranged weapons.
They have an inherent "composite" ability, and can add 1.5x damage on a hit.
Make them incompatible with Rapid Shot, and then make them reloadable as a Free action (because having a Feat tax for that is just STUPID).
They now can fire heavy shots, high damage, but still fire significantly slower than a bow (which gets an extra shot straight up, and Manyshot, in addition to 1x Str W ith a composite bow).
Make the damage dice significantly larger (not 1d10 vs 1d8 for a Heavy crossbow and a Longbow). Something like 2d4 or 2d6.
Still not quite as good as a bow (because you need more MAD to take real advantage of it), but different, and BETTER.
Should probably come up with a new upside for the Repeating Crossbow though in that case. Perhaps leave Crossbow Mastery in, give the Repeating Crossbow the ability to utilize Rapid Shot and Manyshot if you have that feat or summat. Seems fair for a 2 Feat tax (Exotic Weapon Proficiency and Crossbow Mastery, not counting the other prereqs which probably need to be reworked).
not bad. Same direction I'm going in, but a few differences.
Ok, bypassing the whole "Do they need to be fixed at all" issue, this is a terrible idea. Just take a second to think about what this would effectively do: kill firearms.
The ability of firearms to hit touch AC is balanced by their short range increments, misfire chance, and cost to operate.
Well, aside from Rynjin's point that Gunslingers add Dex to damage, which nothing can do for crossbows, firearms are the most commonly houseruled-out portion of Pathfinder. GMs think it breaks their sense of fantasy the same way psionics does (and anyone who knows me on here knows I'm a huge psionics fan).
What my solution does is maintain the flavor of the crossbow as a short-range, armor-piercing weapon that novices can use.
What my solution does in contrast to what seems to be another popular solution, increasing damage dice, is to provide some low-level near-automatic damage for people who aren't combat experts, rather than a lower chance to hit with more damage. The people who use crossbows regularly in my experience are non-combat types, like low level casters or healers or that friend who is just playing to be social and role-play and isn't optimized. It'd give those characters something to do that would contribute without unbalancing the party dynamic.
Just my 2cp.
It doesn't help much but I have been toying with the idea that weapon damage = the amount you exceed the AC target by + 2/3rds rounded down the base weapon damage....
Example
Gary the Guard has a Heavy Xbow and Bob the Brigand is his target.
Bob has an AC of 15.
Gary rolls a 17 +3 for BAB and Dex a total of 20...
Gary does 8 for the heavy X bow and 5 for being accurate... 13 points to Bob.
It gives a nice boost to the Martial classes.
i think i like the 'greatsword' idea too.
what about Hand X-bow. 1.5x too?
I've actually ruled that hand crossbows don't get the 1.5 benefits like light and heavy crossbows, mostly because they seem to me to be more of a sort of rogue-type surprise weapon. I increased their damage as well, and gave them the +1 to hit, but didn't add in the other adjustments because they're sort of a different beast in my mind.
The idea of a crossbow having a mighty component makes sense to me, and I'm not sure why they didn't put it in-game originally. It also makes sense that you'd have them fill a different role in ranged combat, that of the Vital Strike ranged weapon over a rain of arrows deal.
I've also added in windlasses that let you increase your strength score for the purposes of using crossbows. They're expensive, as are mighty crossbows, but they let weaker characters build for crossbows if they want. I've been debating whether or not to make them increase the reload times, but that'd require me also changing the default reload times which hasn't been an issue so far.
What I've found my players doing is actually thinking more about what kind of ranged weapon their enemies are using, and one player has been tinkering with the mechanics and actually puts out decent damage at range with Vital Strike on his fighter. Though his hit chance isn't great, the +1 has made a difference and he doesn't mind having to reload because when he hits it's threatening.
This bugs me too.
I added the "Crossbow kill shots" feat into my Homebrew packet recently, simply put a character with that feat deals +1/3 his character level as bonus damage on all attacks with crossbows and ballistae (prereq: Weapon focus, Point blank).
In my games ive considered the following:
All crossbows have a Composite rating (from 0-up to infinity! Good luck reloading it though), you can fire any crossbow regardless of strength rating, but for every point of strength below the bow´s strength rating the user has the time it takes to reload the Crossbow increases by one step, the base reload time remains unchanged. If the Crossbow composite score exceeds your strength score by 3 or more you need to succeed on a Str check made at the end of the reload action (DC = Str score required to reload with no penalty), on a failure the action is wasted, if it becomes impossible for a character to roll high enough to reload a crossbow then it is simply impossible for that character.