Why do Martials need better things?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

701 to 750 of 1,265 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

I created several new crossbows and a mechanic to use them that it's not feat-taxing, but this is not a house rule thread.


alexd1976 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
I am interested in the concept of stronger draw crossbows... but then we must consider that they just used mechanical systems ANYWAY...
Tell me... Where do you think the energy to shoot the bolt comes from? What is generating the force that adds tension to the crossbow's string?
A mechanical crank that allows even the weakest person to pull the bow back.

And what exactly is applying the force necessary to turn the crank? It isn't turning by itself, so what is it?

Could it be... The person's strength?

alexd1976 wrote:
it doesn't matter how strong the person pulling the trigger is. The string is going to be X distance back regardless of how strong the person was loading it.

It does matter. The person must be strong enough to turn the crank. Admittedly, that is much easier and more effective than simply pulling the crossbow's string... Because it maximizes your strength. That's what cranks are designed to do. So, rather than not adding Str, crossbows should have a fixed (but upgradable) Str-modifier, just like longbows.

Because in the end, they are both doing the same thing. Maximizing the force the user adds to the projectile. That's why both those weapons hit further and harder than simply throwing the arrow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

More to the point.

Who cares?

This is not a Medieval Combat Simulator.

That died out the second it was printed.

So to me if you want Mighty crossbows have at it.


alexd1976 wrote:
If anything, strong characters SHOULD be allowed to reload faster than weaker ones, but i don't think they should get a strength bonus on the damage

The CROSSBOW would get bonus damage if built stronger rather than faster (you *do* have to be careful selecting the crossbow, some mechanisms were integral rather than attached/bypassable). One would likely want something with a balance of speed and strength. "Strength Bonus" is the easiest way to do this without a table dedicated to crossbows. Much like a bow though, if you can't handle the crossbow because it's not a mechanism you're strong enough for, you're still as screwed.

Note: I would be completely fine with a table dedicated to crossbows.

Quote:
I guess you COULD conceivable make a crossbow that required a certain strength to use, but then you could just make a gearing system to load it regardless of strength...

Yeah see, that's kind of how they work to begin with. "Strength" is the draw. Composite (actually ALL bows realistically) are no different at all: You need a certain amount of strength to draw it. Crossbows are just built so that you can *supplement* your own strength with mechanisms that multiply it at a cost in time.

Quote:
Was there not a time when crossbows ignored a certain amount of armor? Maybe back in 2nd ed?

There was a table of Armor vs Damage types but it was mostly ignored/optional. Crossbows were a bit weaker back then as well, but there was *much* less chance (and attacks per round, etc) of having the kind of strength that would really help your bow out, and there was an incredible difference in training: Bows needed an additional proficiency slot (and long/short were separate; you knew specific weapons, so a starting fighter with specialization in bows might just barely know how to use a dagger along with it, and nothing else).


TarkXT wrote:

More to the point.

Who cares?

The designers, apparently... Crossbows don't add Str-modifier to damage rolls because it "wouldn't be realistic".

Personally, I think it's stupid. I value fun and game balance far, far more than I do realism. Hell! I don't even care about realism! This is the game where a halfling can kill a titan by repeatedly kicking its toe!

I do care about consistency, though...


They're also kept slow because otherwise "wouldn't be realistic".

This in a world where realistic is alien elves dodging the lightning spells of a dragon at 20 000ft while trying to stab it with a magic sword before you mildly hurt your knees and walk off your un-assisted landing at terminal velocity onto that ancient crashed spaceship.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Firearms should add Str too. I'm strong and can press the trigger REAL hard.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
SomethingRandom wrote:
Firearms should add Str too. I'm strong and can press the trigger REAL hard.

that energy is transferred to the mechanism that releases the flint which creates a spark, you might make the gunpowder ignite quicker by a fraction of a second, but no meaningful increase in combat effectiveness from pulling the trigger hard.

Grand Lodge

Of course, firearms with greater recoil require more strength to actually hold steady, so it wouldn't be too out there.


SomethingRandom wrote:
Firearms should add Str too. I'm strong and can press the trigger REAL hard.

This is sort of the point I was trying to make about crossbows.

They have a predetermined distance that the string is pulled back to.

Once loaded, anyone can fire it.

With a bow, you can pull the string back farther, because YOU are the 'trigger'.

Crossbows, as far as I know, have only one device for holding the string in place before firing, so you either are able to load and fire it, or are not.

they aren't variable.


The only part that "isn't variable" is that trigger - and even then you can have different weights on there too.

But ALL that changes is that once you've drawn a bow, you have to hold it yourself. That's the only difference. It's a type of spring; whether you're keeping it wound by pushing down on it or keeping it wound by pinning it as-is in place, either way it's wound.

As for firearms, they are for the most part independent of strength: Other than actually holding the thing up and handling recoil (again though there's devices or mountings that help here, as can your firing position) It's a chemical reaction and the physical structure of the weapon itself that are doing all the work. Chemical potential rather than mechanical storage of the wielder's energy.

Firearms are a vastly different mechanism, so long as one does not deliberately oversimplify things in an attempt to keep the status-quo.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Of course, firearms with greater recoil require more strength to actually hold steady, so it wouldn't be too out there.

not really, as recoil isn't an issue with flintlocks


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote:
SomethingRandom wrote:
Firearms should add Str too. I'm strong and can press the trigger REAL hard.

This is sort of the point I was trying to make about crossbows.

They have a predetermined distance that the string is pulled back to.

Once loaded, anyone can fire it.

With a bow, you can pull the string back farther, because YOU are the 'trigger'.

Crossbows, as far as I know, have only one device for holding the string in place before firing, so you either are able to load and fire it, or are not.

they aren't variable.

you can adjust the draw strength when you put the crossbow together (most were break-downable) by adjusting the cords binding the "bow" section.


please scroll to second image on page

It doesn't matter how strong you are, the string goes to the same spot every time, and anyone can pull the trigger.

Strength won't affect crossbow damage unless the design has multiple spots to pull the string back to, determined by STR.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote:

please scroll to second image on page

It doesn't matter how strong you are, the string goes to the same spot every time, and anyone can pull the trigger.

Strength won't affect crossbow damage unless the design has multiple spots to pull the string back to, determined by STR.

as has been mentioned most people only claim it effects load speed and should infer a bonus to damage.


alexd1976 wrote:
SomethingRandom wrote:
Firearms should add Str too. I'm strong and can press the trigger REAL hard.
This is sort of the point I was trying to make about crossbows.

Except it isn't the same.

The bullet's energy comes from the gunpowder explosion. The bolt's energy literally comes from the crossbowman's muscles, only he's using a crank as an intermediary to maximize the effectiveness of his efforts.

(Also, technically, you could move your firearm really fast to increase the bullet's speed... But you better have a really freaking fast "jab" if you want to add any significant amount of energy to the projectile. :P)

alexd1976 wrote:
Whether it is loaded by a STR 18 or STR 12 person doesn't matter.

It does matter if Str 12 is not enough to turn the crank. Once you cock the crossbow, it's irrelevant who pulls the trigger, but the Str modifier would represent the "energy" transferred from whoever cocked the crossbow to the bolt.


Bandw2 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Of course, firearms with greater recoil require more strength to actually hold steady, so it wouldn't be too out there.
not really, as recoil isn't an issue with flintlocks

How?

Sure you don't have to worry about aiming followup shot [unless you have a means of reloading as a free or swift action] in the same round, but if you lack sufficient strength to properly shoot a firearm of any type that thing is knocking you prone and it's NOT the good kind for shooting [probably a -2 or -4 penalty for a shot fired in the same round as being knocked over by your firearm.]

Probably some non-lethal damage to your body for failing to support the weapon properly as well.


Lemmy wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:
Whether it is loaded by a STR 18 or STR 12 person doesn't matter.
It does matter if Str 12 is not enough to turn the crank. Once you cock the crossbow, it's irrelevant who pulls the trigger, but the Str modifier would represent the "energy" transferred from whoever cocked the crossbow to the bolt.

My point, obviously, was that the person loading the crossbow CAN'T affect the damage of the crossbow. It's all or nothing.

You either CAN load it by placing the string, or you CAN'T.

The force applied to the bolt is determined by the design of the weapon, not the fact that Arnold is firing it, rather than Urkel.

The trigger mechanism releases the string from a fixed point. The distance traveled and the force imparted by the crossbow is a fixed equation, not affected by the users strength.

IF you design a crossbow that requires a higher strength to LOAD, that's something entirely different. If you REQUIRE a STR 18 to pull that string back, STR 17 and less can't use it at all.

Agreed?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Of course, firearms with greater recoil require more strength to actually hold steady, so it wouldn't be too out there.
not really, as recoil isn't an issue with flintlocks

How?

Sure you don't have to worry about aiming followup shot [unless you have a means of reloading as a free or swift action] in the same round, but if you lack sufficient strength to properly shoot a firearm of any type that thing is knocking you prone and it's NOT the good kind for shooting [probably a -2 or -4 penalty for a shot fired in the same round as being knocked over by your firearm.]

Probably some non-lethal damage to your body for failing to support the weapon properly as well.

the mass of the gun itself resists the force of the shot long enough for the bullet to exit before significant change in direction occurs.

a gun that can knock you prone will do so regardless of your strength as you won't have enough mass to resist it, it will simply lift you off your feet(unless you're shooting up or something).

strength is merely needed to control the recoil so that you can easily adjust for it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:
Whether it is loaded by a STR 18 or STR 12 person doesn't matter.
It does matter if Str 12 is not enough to turn the crank. Once you cock the crossbow, it's irrelevant who pulls the trigger, but the Str modifier would represent the "energy" transferred from whoever cocked the crossbow to the bolt.

My point, obviously, was that the person loading the crossbow CAN'T affect the damage of the crossbow. It's all or nothing.

You either CAN load it by placing the string, or you CAN'T.

The force applied to the bolt is determined by the design of the weapon, not the fact that Arnold is firing it, rather than Urkel.

The trigger mechanism releases the string from a fixed point. The distance traveled and the force imparted by the crossbow is a fixed equation, not affected by the users strength.

IF you design a crossbow that requires a higher strength to LOAD, that's something entirely different. If you REQUIRE a STR 18 to pull that string back, STR 17 and less can't use it at all.

Agreed?

they could if they used mechanisms that concentrated your force and gave you advantage such as a crank or a lever, however these slow you down.


Bandw2 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Of course, firearms with greater recoil require more strength to actually hold steady, so it wouldn't be too out there.
not really, as recoil isn't an issue with flintlocks

How?

Sure you don't have to worry about aiming followup shot [unless you have a means of reloading as a free or swift action] in the same round, but if you lack sufficient strength to properly shoot a firearm of any type that thing is knocking you prone and it's NOT the good kind for shooting [probably a -2 or -4 penalty for a shot fired in the same round as being knocked over by your firearm.]

Probably some non-lethal damage to your body for failing to support the weapon properly as well.

the mass of the gun itself resists the force of the shot long enough for the bullet to exit before significant change in direction occurs.

a gun that can knock you prone will do so regardless of your strength as you won't have enough mass to resist it, it will simply lift you off your feet(unless you're shooting up or something).

strength is merely needed to control the recoil so that you can easily adjust for it.

Methinks you might be taking the meaning of the Strength stat a bit too realistically.

Strength is your ability to resist physical forces, irrespective of actual mass.


Bandw2 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:
Whether it is loaded by a STR 18 or STR 12 person doesn't matter.
It does matter if Str 12 is not enough to turn the crank. Once you cock the crossbow, it's irrelevant who pulls the trigger, but the Str modifier would represent the "energy" transferred from whoever cocked the crossbow to the bolt.

My point, obviously, was that the person loading the crossbow CAN'T affect the damage of the crossbow. It's all or nothing.

You either CAN load it by placing the string, or you CAN'T.

The force applied to the bolt is determined by the design of the weapon, not the fact that Arnold is firing it, rather than Urkel.

The trigger mechanism releases the string from a fixed point. The distance traveled and the force imparted by the crossbow is a fixed equation, not affected by the users strength.

IF you design a crossbow that requires a higher strength to LOAD, that's something entirely different. If you REQUIRE a STR 18 to pull that string back, STR 17 and less can't use it at all.

Agreed?

they could if they used mechanisms that concentrated your force and gave you advantage such as a crank or a lever, however these slow you down.

Agreed.

This is why I don't have STR be a factor in crossbow damage in my games.

The only change I would make to crossbows would be to increase their base damage. Maybe give them a bonus to penetrate armor, cause that's kinda what they were good at. :D

+2 maybe? +4 might be a bit much.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So, apropos to the thread title, martials do need better things, and for reasons that don't have to do with real-world crossbow mechanics?


alexd1976 wrote:

My point, obviously, was that the person loading the crossbow CAN'T affect the damage of the crossbow. It's all or nothing.

You either CAN load it by placing the string, or you CAN'T.

True... Though I don't know if it'd be possible to make a crossbow with an adjustable crank that can be cocked in different position for greater or lower strength (IRL, I suppose there is no point to it, as crossbows would be designed to most crossbowmen have similar strength, so all the designer has to do is craft an weapon who can use the most of the average crossbowman's strength, but in the world of Pathfinder, where Strength can vary widely and instantaneously, it'd make sense).

Also... Magic.

Just tackle the "Adaptive" enhancement to crossbows and voilà!

alexd1976 wrote:

The force applied to the bolt is determined by the design of the weapon, not the fact that Arnold is firing it, rather than Urkel.

The trigger mechanism releases the string from a fixed point. The distance traveled and the force imparted by the crossbow is a fixed equation, not affected by the users strength.

IF you design a crossbow that requires a higher strength to LOAD, that's something entirely different. If you REQUIRE a STR 18 to pull that string back, STR 17 and less can't use it at all.

Agreed?

True. The Strength modifier to damage would be "placed" on the bolt during the reload action, not the shoot action. Still, a Strength modifier should be added, only it would be the one of the person who reloaded the crossbow, rather than the shooter's.


alexd1976 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:
Whether it is loaded by a STR 18 or STR 12 person doesn't matter.
It does matter if Str 12 is not enough to turn the crank. Once you cock the crossbow, it's irrelevant who pulls the trigger, but the Str modifier would represent the "energy" transferred from whoever cocked the crossbow to the bolt.

My point, obviously, was that the person loading the crossbow CAN'T affect the damage of the crossbow. It's all or nothing.

You either CAN load it by placing the string, or you CAN'T.

The force applied to the bolt is determined by the design of the weapon, not the fact that Arnold is firing it, rather than Urkel.

The trigger mechanism releases the string from a fixed point. The distance traveled and the force imparted by the crossbow is a fixed equation, not affected by the users strength.

IF you design a crossbow that requires a higher strength to LOAD, that's something entirely different. If you REQUIRE a STR 18 to pull that string back, STR 17 and less can't use it at all.

Agreed?

they could if they used mechanisms that concentrated your force and gave you advantage such as a crank or a lever, however these slow you down.

Agreed.

This is why I don't have STR be a factor in crossbow damage in my games.

The only change I would make to crossbows would be to increase their base damage. Maybe give them a bonus to penetrate armor, cause that's kinda what they were good at. :D

+2 maybe? +4 might be a bit much.

You could always put a penalty on that every x strength required to load the crossbow does x amount of recoil to the one who fires it, treating your str modifier as a kind of DR.

In other words, say you have a +3 crossbow, you can load it with 16 str, you can fire it with any strength level as normal, however, you need 16 strength to fire it without penalty, if you fire it with less, you take 1 nonlethal for each modifier level under that requirement every time you fire it after the first shot, as well as a -1 to attack penalty for every nonlethal you take.

In that example, every shot a 12 str build fires after the first with that +3 crossbow would deal 2 non-lethal, and take a compounding -2 penalty to each successive shot due to bruising.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Since Path of War from Dreamscarred Press and the Stamina system from Pathfinder Unchained are both regularly considered as potential fixes to martial/caster disparity, I put together a homebrew thread that includes a document that presents rules to combine the two and equalize martial/caster performance a bit. It's presented as a general subsystem that can be easily added to pretty much any campaign and applies universally.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Lemmy wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

My point, obviously, was that the person loading the crossbow CAN'T affect the damage of the crossbow. It's all or nothing.

You either CAN load it by placing the string, or you CAN'T.

True... Though I don't know if it'd be possible to make a crossbow with an adjustable crank that can be cocked in different position for greater or lower strength (IRL, I suppose there is no point to it, as crossbows would be designed to most crossbowmen have similar strength, so all the designer has to do is craft an weapon who can use the most of the average crossbowman's strength, but in the world of Pathfinder, where Strength can vary widely and instantaneously, it'd make sense).

Also... Magic.

Just tackle the "Adaptive" enhancement to crossbows and voilà!

alexd1976 wrote:

The force applied to the bolt is determined by the design of the weapon, not the fact that Arnold is firing it, rather than Urkel.

The trigger mechanism releases the string from a fixed point. The distance traveled and the force imparted by the crossbow is a fixed equation, not affected by the users strength.

IF you design a crossbow that requires a higher strength to LOAD, that's something entirely different. If you REQUIRE a STR 18 to pull that string back, STR 17 and less can't use it at all.

Agreed?

True. The Strength modifier to damage would be "placed" on the bolt during the reload action, not the shoot action. Still, a Strength modifier should be added, only it would be the one of the person who reloaded the crossbow, rather than the shooter's.

You're simplifying what strength means to a crossbow.

The poundage of a crossbow can be altered, just like it can be for a bow. So you CAN pull a crossbow back to the same point, and it have different amounts of penetrating power.

So, you are ignoring 'for a given point' AND 'At a given POwer' and arguing just 'at a given point'.

Whereas the crossbow argument is NOT that. THe crossbow argument is 'For a given poundage, you can reload faster or slower depending on your strength.' Assuming the 'point' remains static.

So, I'm really not at all sure where this argument comes from. Trying to argue that someone using a 300 lb xbow with a 12 str can crank it back as fast as someone with an 18 Strength to the exact same point is totally belittling the superior power of mr 18 Str.

Once it's there...sure, the bolt is completely equal, the same amount of energy is invested regardless of who hits the trigger. At which 18 Str 10 Dex guy hands it off to 10 Str 18 Dex guy, who chortles and drives it up the orc's eyeball at fifty paces. They swap and do it again.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Lemmy wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

My point, obviously, was that the person loading the crossbow CAN'T affect the damage of the crossbow. It's all or nothing.

You either CAN load it by placing the string, or you CAN'T.

True... Though I don't know if it'd be possible to make a crossbow with an adjustable crank that can be cocked in different position for greater or lower strength (IRL, I suppose there is no point to it, as crossbows would be designed to most crossbowmen have similar strength, so all the designer has to do is craft an weapon who can use the most of the average crossbowman's strength, but in the world of Pathfinder, where Strength can vary widely and instantaneously, it'd make sense).

Also... Magic.

Just tackle the "Adaptive" enhancement to crossbows and voilà!

alexd1976 wrote:

The force applied to the bolt is determined by the design of the weapon, not the fact that Arnold is firing it, rather than Urkel.

The trigger mechanism releases the string from a fixed point. The distance traveled and the force imparted by the crossbow is a fixed equation, not affected by the users strength.

IF you design a crossbow that requires a higher strength to LOAD, that's something entirely different. If you REQUIRE a STR 18 to pull that string back, STR 17 and less can't use it at all.

Agreed?

True. The Strength modifier to damage would be "placed" on the bolt during the reload action, not the shoot action. Still, a Strength modifier should be added, only it would be the one of the person who reloaded the crossbow, rather than the shooter's.

If it's Adaptive, it'll change force to whoever is holding it.

So, this whole argument would be moot. it would take everyone the same amount of time to reload an adaptive crossbow, because it would always be at their base Str. Handing it over to another person would just make it set to the new person's strength.

5E allows xbows and bows the same str, dmg and rate of fire in the interests of flavor and balance, right?

==Aelyinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

alexd1976 wrote:


Was there not a time when crossbows ignored a certain amount of armor? Maybe back in 2nd ed?

That is something worth considering if you want to come up with new rules for crossbows...

Came out first in the Birthright rules. Crossbows gained +2 to hit against Armors greater then AC 5.

OF course, back then you had Crossbows of Speed which doubled your firing rate...

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:


Was there not a time when crossbows ignored a certain amount of armor? Maybe back in 2nd ed?

That is something worth considering if you want to come up with new rules for crossbows...

Came out first in the Birthright rules. Crossbows gained +2 to hit against Armors greater then AC 5.

OF course, back then you had Crossbows of Speed which doubled your firing rate...

==Aelryinth

I miss the older versions sometimes...

Back when Elf was a class... man that was sweet.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Basic is easy to approximate.

Elf (Racial Class)
HD: d6
BAB: 3/4
Skill Points: 4 + Int per level.
Skills: Craft, Profession, Survival, Perform (any), Knowledge (any), Stealth, Perception, +2 of choice.
Weapons: Simple weapons, + all Elven weapons, longbow, longspear, scimitar and rapier.
Armor: Light and Medium Armor.
Starting Languages: Elf, Common, Dwarven, Gnome, Gnoll, Goblin, Halfling, Orc. And maybe Fey? + Int.
Saves: As Ranger.

Spells: The Elf gains spellcasting as a Bard of Equal level, including the ability to cast in armor. However, instead of Bardic spells, the Elf chooses to Prepare Spells as a Wizard and use the Wizard class list (using Spells Known), or Spontaneously Cast spells as a sorcerer using the Wizard class list (just like a Bard). Treat the Elf as if she has the Elven Bloodline if casting as a Sorcerer for determining bonus Spells Known.

At 1st level, Elves pick a Favored Terrain and gain the bonuses from it just like a ranger. Their natural coloration tends to reflect their favored terrain.

Elves gain a +1 Th with bows and swords to reflect many years of study in their racial weapons. 'Wilder' elves tend to prefer the scimitar and its druidic ties, 'civilized' elves tend to prefer the longsword. Likewise, 'wilder' elves tend to prefer bloodline magic, and civilized elves wizardry.

========
If you want to Pathfinderize it, you could increase their low light vision, Favored Terrain bonuses, give them a favored enemy or two, and perhaps add an extra skill and skill point as they level up. Around 10 or so, they could gain bonus Mithral Heavy Armor Prof and casting ability to reflect their racial capstone in Elven Plate, and perhaps only 2 hp/level after that point, reflecting the fact that they are a powerfully magical but frail race, and base racial classes aren't as strong in the long run as true classes.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

You're simplifying what strength means to a crossbow.

The poundage of a crossbow can be altered, just like it can be for a bow. So you CAN pull a crossbow back to the same point, and it have different amounts of penetrating power.

So, you are ignoring 'for a given point' AND 'At a given POwer' and arguing just 'at a given point'.

Whereas the crossbow argument is NOT that. THe crossbow argument is 'For a given poundage, you can reload faster or slower depending on your strength.' Assuming the 'point' remains static.

So, I'm really not at all sure where this argument comes from. Trying to argue that someone using a 300 lb xbow with a 12 str can crank it back as fast as someone with an 18 Strength to the exact same point is totally belittling the superior power of mr 18 Str.

Once it's there...sure, the bolt is completely equal, the same amount of energy is invested regardless of who hits the trigger. At which 18 Str 10 Dex guy hands it off to 10 Str 18 Dex guy, who chortles and drives it up the orc's eyeball at fifty paces. They swap and do it again.

I have no idea what exactly you're arguing...

My point is: The Str modifier to damage is how the game mechanics represent the energy transferred from the shooter to the projectile. Since the energy that moves the bolt comes from its shooter (or "reloader", whatever), then the "reloaders" Strength modifier should be added to the crossbow damage roll.

Whether this is a fixed amount (e.g.: "only people with Strength modifier +4 can reload this crossbow and it always adds a +4 to damage rolls") is irrelevant to my argument.

(Also, theoretically, there could be a minimum Strength requirement to be able to reload the crossbow and shoot at full damage, since the tension on the string would make it harder and harder to crank the crossbow... But that would be making the game needlessly complicated, IMO).

Aelryinth wrote:
5E allows xbows and bows the same str, dmg and rate of fire in the interests of flavor and balance, right?

I have no idea. I play a little 5E on occasion, but no one in the group uses crossbows. I also don't see how that is relevant to the discussion.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

was more referring to Alexd.

Having an 'absolute strength to reload' is kinda foreign to the very design of a crossbow...slower reloads make more sense.

But if you rule it that way...sure, reloader's strength all the way, UNLESS you are using Adaptive, which adapts itself to whoever is using it, not just reloading it.

==Aelryinth

Community Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and their responses. Accusations of trolling do not help the discussion—be civil to each other, thank you!

Shadow Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, spellcasters get a constant flood of new cool things. Why is it so verboten to occasionally give non-spellcasters cool new things?

And on the rare occasions that they do give non-spellcasters cool new things, why do they immediately follow it up in that same supplement with a spell that lets spellcasters do that same cool new thing, only several levels earlier, more effectively, and generally scaling with level?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah even Ultimate Combat had 28 pages of spells (just the descriptions, not counting the list) and plenty of archetypes/options/feats for full casters too. Alchemist, Magus, Paladin, Ranger make sense, but the biggest share was still for clerics, druids and sorc/wiz.

In comparison, Ultimate Magic had what for combat feats? Radiant Charge, the Quarterstaff chain, and maybe learning one ranger trap? No archetypes for pure martials or anything.

Would've been a great time to introduce more "supernatural" (read: completely and utterly mundane by the standards of golarion's ecology, which is the definition of mundane that should be used, not our world's) abilities to bring the martials up to par.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Well, spellcasters get a constant flood of new cool things. Why is it so verboten to occasionally give non-spellcasters cool new things?

This!

Kthulhu wrote:
And on the rare occasions that they do give non-spellcasters cool new things, why do they immediately follow it up in that same supplement with a spell that lets spellcasters do that same cool new thing, only several levels earlier, more effectively, and generally scaling with level?

I just had to quote it and separate both parts so it is less likely that one of them is missed by skimming.

Those two things hit it on the head exactly.


Aelryinth wrote:

was more referring to Alexd.

Having an 'absolute strength to reload' is kinda foreign to the very design of a crossbow...slower reloads make more sense.

But if you rule it that way...sure, reloader's strength all the way, UNLESS you are using Adaptive, which adapts itself to whoever is using it, not just reloading it.

==Aelryinth

Meh, I use the RAW for crossbows, was just spitballing with everyone else.

If I was to implement changes, I would just bump up damage, and give them a bonus vs armor.

I think bringing STR into it is silly, tbh.

Grand Lodge

I know that english longbows were deadlier, faster and shoot farther than crossbows.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

Well, spellcasters get a constant flood of new cool things. Why is it so verboten to occasionally give non-spellcasters cool new things?

And on the rare occasions that they do give non-spellcasters cool new things, why do they immediately follow it up in that same supplement with a spell that lets spellcasters do that same cool new thing, only several levels earlier, more effectively, and generally scaling with level?

Don't forget that spell-caster options are far less likely to be Crane Winged into oblivion.


Longbows also needed years of training for what we'd qualify as *proficiency*; that much training on a crossbow would mean quite the weapon-master. If "martial proficiency" feat represents the time and training needed for a longbow, then Focus and Specialization and something else (either far-shot or point-blank-master maybe) would all have to fit in a single crossbow feat.

Now, the english longbow WAS faster and shot further. Under 200 yards the crossbow was generally better at penetration, but they were otherwise roughly as lethal due to the lighter bolt and (deliberate) low draw length. The weapon was built to be portable. If you're willing to take massive strength into account, a larger crossbow could easily have a 20" or longer draw length instead of 12-14", which would drive its output straight into "I cast gravity-bow on my longbow" territory, or allow you to use a much lower draw weight than "winch it for a minute". Unfortunately the bow also required a *lot* of time and very high quality wood to produce, and couldn't be kept loading for a rapid shot should you be surprised (not that that's very good for the crossbow, but hey, living.)

This is all assuming no one's touching any of the technology regularly availble on much of Golarion: If nothing else you could easily see autoloaders. Whether a clockwork gnome(er, gnomish system) that handles the winching for you (still has reload time, but it doesn't eat your actions doing so), a limited-charge CO2 cartridge, or a high speed electrical motor, or even just some bloody MAGIC that pulls the bloody thing for you, there's very little reason to be hand-cranking the things.

Just as a comparison point, modern crossbows we have available in real life are hand-drawn, but they're also compound models: They're accurate, quite easy to draw (think 'hand' not 'light') and put a bolt in the air with enough speed and force to drop a bear.


Lemmy wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

Well, spellcasters get a constant flood of new cool things. Why is it so verboten to occasionally give non-spellcasters cool new things?

And on the rare occasions that they do give non-spellcasters cool new things, why do they immediately follow it up in that same supplement with a spell that lets spellcasters do that same cool new thing, only several levels earlier, more effectively, and generally scaling with level?

Don't forget that spell-caster options are far less likely to be Crane Winged into oblivion.

Has ANY casting option been hit with the nerf bat as hard as Crane Wing? I get their reasoning, but I'm STILL salty about that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Janvs wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

Well, spellcasters get a constant flood of new cool things. Why is it so verboten to occasionally give non-spellcasters cool new things?

And on the rare occasions that they do give non-spellcasters cool new things, why do they immediately follow it up in that same supplement with a spell that lets spellcasters do that same cool new thing, only several levels earlier, more effectively, and generally scaling with level?

Don't forget that spell-caster options are far less likely to be Crane Winged into oblivion.
Has ANY casting option been hit with the nerf bat as hard as Crane Wing? I get their reasoning, but I'm STILL salty about that.

Divine Protection. But that's because it was made available to those filthy martials... XD.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Darklord Morius wrote:
I know that english longbows were deadlier, faster and shoot farther than crossbows.

Then LIGHT crossbows.

Heavy crossbows blew them away in power. That's why H Crossbows existed.

And 'deadlier' is relative. Longbow arrows at range could not get through late generation plate armor any better then crossbows could. You basically needed a solid hit at nigh point blank range with a bodkin point to have a chance at penetration past the 1300's or so.

Oh, and those highly trained longbowmen were also GREAT bandits and poachers! Heh.

==Aelryinth


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This whole bow thing brings back memories.

Good times.
Good times.

701 to 750 of 1,265 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why do Martials need better things? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.