|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Hey folks.
I understand that many have asked about the legitimacy of using a large crossbow on a medium creature. Of course, the responses seem to be very mixed, and it seems a lot of people who have responded in such threads either are not aware of the rules for crossbows, or simply state their opinion rather than what the rules dictate. I'd like to make this thread the nail in the coffin for this subject by offering what I do believe is a comprehensive RAW approach to this matter, but I'm also asking for any evidence supporting for counter-arguments in regards to the rules themselves.
I'm going to ask about the legitimacy of a medium-sized character using a large heavy crossbow as a primary weapon. I'm operating on the principle that it can be done, because the rules, both RAW and RAI appear to allow this to be doable, and from my understanding there are no clauses which explicitly prevent this, nor are there any balance concerns.
So let's look at what we have for rules for just the heavy crossbow:
Heavy Crossbow:
Quote:
Loading a heavy crossbow is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity.
Note: You draw a heavy crossbow back by turning a small winch. Normally, operating a heavy crossbow requires two hands. However, you can shoot, but not load, a heavy crossbow with one hand at a –4 penalty on attack rolls. You can shoot a heavy crossbow with each hand, but you take a penalty on attack rolls as if attacking with two one-handed weapons. This penalty is cumulative with the penalty for one-handed firing.
Okay, so we're at being able to shoot a regular crossbow one-handed as though it were a one-handed weapon, and it needs more than one hand to reload RAW - you need one hand to hold it and another to crank the winch and load the bolt as a full-round action. That's fine.
Crossbow Mastery:
Quote:
The time required for you to reload any type of crossbow is reduced to a free action, regardless of the type of crossbow used. You can fire a crossbow as many times in a full attack action as you could attack if you were using a bow. Reloading a crossbow for the type of crossbow you chose when you took Rapid Reload no longer provokes attacks of opportunity.
Alright, so now we're at explicitly and unquestionably any kind of crossbow being able to be reloaded as a free action.
So our medium crossbow is able to be shot with two hands with no penalty with a free action reload albeit weighted as a one-handed weapon for the sake of TWF. It still requires two hands to reload, though.
So when we bump the size up, per the way weapon sizes work:
Quote:
Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.
A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.
Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.
The crossbow would be designated as a one-handed weapon as designation is assigned to all weapons, and its size designation is based upon the mere ability to be wielded in one hand. Thus, a medium creature can absolutely and undeniably shoot a large heavy crossbow. But what of reloading?
Most other posts end here, with the ruling on over-sized crossbows being a matter of DM discretion due to the need of reloading such a large object. I'd like to reference the two-handed weapon rules, however, as well, for the notion of being able to hold the weapon, in this case, a crossbow, with one hand.
Combat (Two-handed FAQ):
Quote:
What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?
Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).
So, what we have here, is the ability to hold the large heavy crossbow with no problems in one hand. One hand is required to hold the crossbow as mentioned in the description of the weapon, doing so is not a problem per the FAQ, and actions can still be performed while one-hand-holding the two-handed weapon also in the FAQ, so reloading the crossbow, one hand holding it, and one hand turning the crank, would be acceptable by all rules standards and also be entirely free actions. Crossbow mastery then turns this reloading time into a free action as well, allowing full use of iteratives.
Are there any rules disputes or contradictions that I'm not aware of preventing these kinds of interactions? I understand it is the DM's discretion to limit free actions, but this doesn't really seem exploitative since all crossbows require the same action economy technically speaking, for all of them require two hands to reload and all are affected by crossbow mastery.
As far balance, the damage remains similar to that of the bow due to the lack of composite options for damage, manyshot for enchantment procs/volume, ammunition enchantment procs, etc. All said and done, the heavy crossbow does 2d8 damage base at a -2 penalty to hit, and so does a normal attack + manyshot on a non-composite longbow, except the crossbow requires Rapid Reload and Crossbow Mastery to use. It's "big" damage on a single bolt, and scales nicely with effects like vital strike and Gravity bow, re-gaining competitiveness with a composite enchanted longbow through a feat investment at one attack per turn over volume of arrows gaining damage benefits and enchantment procs. Seems like it RAW gives the crossbow a semi-viable place among a couple of niche builds taking a different approach to ranged than sheer arrow-slinging as normal, and it still ends up a bit weaker in the medium/higher levels.
I'd love to hear thoughts and feedback, and hopefully this thread finally answers all future questions on the matter and can clarify some of the rules debates from the past.
As a side note, I'd also like to ensue discussion then on the use of the Double Crossbow. What is the intended use of this weapon if it meets none of the criteria for reloading speed, does the same damage, and has a greater attack penalty, as well as explicitly stating that it cannot be used in one hand? The weapon is undeniably a mechanically poor one from the action economy, attack penalty, proficiency, and damage POV's. Is there any kind of way to justify this weapon, or should we just acknowledge it as a horrible option for ranged users?
Certainly firing the large crossbow isn't an issue, but I see two other problematic parts of your interpretation.
a)
Wouldn't you still receive the -6 on attack rolls from the -4 for one-handed shooting plus the inappropriate sizing penalty? How is this in any way a good option? Shooting without the -4 penalty makes the weapon two handed again, which the size increase makes unwieldable.
b)
"If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all."
This is the problematic because it doesn't say you can't attack with a weapon when it is more than two-handed, it says you can't wield a weapon when it is more than two-handed. Wielding isn't a very well defined word, but you presumably need to wield the crossbow to reload it. The heavy crossbow is a two-handed weapon when you want to reload the weapon, meaning a large heavy crossbow is more than a two-handed weapon and can't be reloaded.
Remember: wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand due to a special ability only makes it a one-handed weapon when you are actually wielding it in one hand! There's an FAQ that sets this precendent.
" Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?
If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on."
When you go back to wielding it in two hands to reload, it is a two handed weapon, which means it can't be wielded anymore due to the size increase. I find any argument trying to say a heavy crossbow isn't normally a two-handed weapon very suspect indeed: "Normally, operating a heavy crossbow requires two hands."" is pretty clear.
You could certainly argue a weapon does not need to be wielded to be reloaded, at which point AFAIK there are no rules to debate and we end up in limbo 'table variation' land, which is a pretty bad place to be at least for PFS.
You wouldn't take -6 while two-hand-firing a heavy crossbow, as firing a heavy crossbow two-handed doesn't incur any penalties. The -4 is only incurred off of the weapon while firing the medium heavy crossbow one-handed, and obviously one cannot fire the large heavy crossbow one-handed due to the sizing rule. Increasing the size of the weapon and firing it two-handed is legal as the weapon's base size designation is medium and classifies as a one-handed weapon. Increasing to a large size, the weapon gains increases by one step as all medium -> large weapon conversions go, incurring just the -2 penalty when used in two hands.
The crossbow being "wielded" in two hands while reloading contradicts size rules across the entire weapon family, though. All crossbows require two hands to reload. Upping the size for any of them, even when not going over the size limit of the creature, would therefore be impossible, for in all instances the number of hands needed would increase by one. Thus, a large hand crossbow would not be able to be used at all, for this logic would dictate the "two-handedness" to reload would make the weapon size too large. I'm not sure about you, but that interpretation seems not only against the entire weapon-size aspect of the game (giants could not wield large diminutive crossbows because the weapons would be "too big"), but it also makes no logical sense when guided by RAW.
I would take the "normally operating a heavy crossbow requires 2 hands" element to say it's a large weapon to start. This would fit closer to the sizing element too. I'd house rule you could fire it with two hands at -4 rather than saying it could not be used. If your looking for total RAW then the language can be argued for your suggestion as equally as not able to be wielded at all. A more cunning rules lawyer would make an equally good pitch for each and if I went with this build I'd prepare myself for table variance. I think the house rule is very fair though.
You're looking at what's basically a faster double crossbow in that case.
While my own tables all agree there should not incur any penalties when a large heavy crossbow is used this way due to the feat costs and obvious disparity between bows and crossbows (and the lack of language explicitly preventing this), what you're basically suggesting as a house-rule is a faster-reloading Double Crossbow (though everyone knows that the double crossbow is objectively bad). Frankly, I'm genuinely surprised that the double crossbow isn't actually a good weapon, seeing as it also requires exotic proficiency, and could have been a very good way to help improve the disparity between bows and crossbows. I understand the hesitance on making a simple ranged weapon a powerful option for mages, but normally they need to stick to light crossbows for the reloading time is substantially faster for marginally less damage; taking a full round to reload is begging for death, and any feats used are better-spent on metamagic or item creation for the most part, definitely not on the crossbow mastery line.
It is interesting to seem some other interpretations. I am trying to find a RAW answer if possible, though. Even though I don't play strictly PFS, my groups have a tendency to abide very closely to RAW with a select list books and available resources that play similarly to PFS. I'm proud to keep my characters legitimate, but building a crossbowman appears nigh pointless when it's so heavily out-classed despite absurd amounts of min-maxing. As such, I'm hoping to see if a consensus could be reached (in either direction) to either be a happy player building something different than the norm with some viability, or end up a bit upset the option is definitively a "no-go" from evidence from others, but happy and understanding I would be playing something not breaking the rules.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
1) You need to adjust all handedness factors when you size stepup. This doesn't just apply to the default manner to wield the weapon, but "virtual" manners to wield it, such as wielding a Large Bastard Sword; if you have EWP, you may wield it as a 1-h weapon which steps up to 2-h if Large. But if you lack EWP, you must treat it as a "virtual" 2-h weapon which also steps up to "unwieldable" if Large. Likewise, a Heavy Crossbow is 2-h which steps up to "unwieldable" if Large and if it may be wielded one-handed at a -4 penalty, that steps up to two-handed if Large. Wielding a Large Heavy Crossbow in two-handed would be equivalent to wielding a Medium Heavy Crossbow one-handed; you can't say, "Oh, well, I'm wielding it in two hands so there's no penalty" any more than you can wield a Large Bastard Sword without EWP and say, "Oh, well, I'm wielding it in two hands so I'm fine". However...
2) "With one hand" and "one-handed" are two very different and distinct rules elements. To wield a weapon "one-handed" means it follows all the rules for one-handed weapons, including size step-up, rules for TWF, Power Attack and Str to Damage bonuses, etc. But wielding a normally two-handed weapon "with one hand", "in one hand", or anything of the like only excuses you from devoting two hands to the effort; it still counts as a 2-h weapon for all other purposes (see Lance FAQ). A Heavy Crossbow isn't, actually, wielded "one-handed" at a -4 penalty; it's wielded "with one hand" at a -4 penalty which takes it out of the scope of the "two-handed weapons one-handed" FAQ and into the scope of the "lance in one hand" FAQ. In other words, it isn't a virtual handedness category as with the Bastard Sword so it's still a two-handed weapon, one step up which places it firmly in the realm of "unwieldable".
3) There is no distinction between "wield" and "attack with" in Pathfinder; in fact, the two are intimately intertwined. To "wield" a weapon means actively using it to make attacks. So you can't justify anything with, "it doesn't say attack with, it says wield" because, in this system, the two are synonymous.
So, I forget the name of the feat and I didn't read all the text but the answer is your sure as hell can't do this.
They actually recently released a feat (from Weapon Master's Handbook I believe) that allows you to wield an oversized crossbow or gun by having two people operate it. It's a teamwork feat, and one person reloads and the other person fires.
With the existence of that feat it is impossible to operate an oversized.
Isnt a Large Crossbow basically just a Light Ballista? Both are Crossbows with 3d6 base damage. And Ballistas have rules on how to handle these unhandily-sized ranged weapons with medium characters.
So i'd orient myself on these.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Normal two-handed operation of a heavy crossbow would increase to unusable.
Similarly, loading a heavy crossbow would increase from two-handed to unusable.
The option to FIRE a heavy crossbow one-handed with a -4 penalty would change to an option to fire a large heavy crossbow two-handed with a -6 penalty.
So you could fire it once, but then wouldn't be able to reload it.
Claxon wrote: So, I forget the name of the feat and I didn't read all the text but the answer is your sure as hell can't do this.
They actually recently released a feat (from Weapon Master's Handbook I believe) that allows you to wield an oversized crossbow or gun by having two people operate it. It's a teamwork feat, and one person reloads and the other person fires.
With the existence of that feat it is impossible to operate an oversized.
Interesting. Obviously the book is pretty new, and I wasn't aware of its existence. Would love to look at it further if you don't mind sharing. That's a shame, though. I was hoping the weapon might finally be usable; seems not at all still.
Guru-Meditation wrote: Isnt a Large Crossbow basically just a Light Ballista? Both are Crossbows with 3d6 base damage. And Ballistas have rules on how to handle these unhandily-sized ranged weapons with medium characters.
So i'd orient myself on these.
Large heavy crossbow would be 2d8. 1d10 -> 2d8 by size progression.
CBDunkerson wrote: Normal two-handed operation of a heavy crossbow would increase to unusable.
Similarly, loading a heavy crossbow would increase from two-handed to unusable.
The option to FIRE a heavy crossbow one-handed with a -4 penalty would change to an option to fire a large heavy crossbow two-handed with a -6 penalty.
So you could fire it once, but then wouldn't be able to reload it.
Operation and wield are the terms at odds, it seems. Operation requires a second hand to reload, but wield isn't defined as to clarify if reloading is considering wielding or not.
I'm not convinced the penalties stack this way to attack. The weapon's size is forcibly classified as one-handed otherwise one-handed firing would not be possible at all. Sizing to large would make the weapon's size classify as two-handed, allowing for one shot at -2, and if ruled as being "too big" would only make the weapon not able to ever be reloaded.
I would use ballista rules as suggested by Guru-Meditation
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HellHunter wrote: The weapon's size is forcibly classified as one-handed otherwise one-handed firing would not be possible at all. You can fire a ballista, catapult, canon, or intercontinental ballistic missile with one hand. That doesn't make any of them 'one-handed weapons'.
The heavy crossbow is "normally" a two-handed weapon... a wielder places one hand under the stock for support, aims down the barrel, and pulls the trigger with the other hand. Just like a shotgun or rifle.
You CAN instead hold a heavy crossbow with one hand on the trigger and butt, point it in the right general direction, and fire... but your accuracy is going to suffer. Again... just as it would if you tried that with a shotgun or rifle.
I will fire my canon with one hand!! No, wait, I use both hands to type. (You mean, of course, cannon.)
HellHunter wrote:
I'm not convinced the penalties stack this way to attack. The weapon's size is forcibly classified as one-handed otherwise one-handed firing would not be possible at all. Sizing to large would make the weapon's size classify as two-handed, allowing for one shot at -2, and if ruled as being "too big" would only make the weapon not able to ever be reloaded.
This is really tortured logic.
As has been shown with citation, two handed weapons with the ability to be used one-handed are are only one-handed when they are actually being used in one hand. The two-handed crossbow normally needs two hands to use and this is very very clearly spelled out in the rules text.
The litmus test is: would you let someone wield a large bastard sword without EWP? It is (sometimes) a one-handed weapon after all.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
