So the classic problem of the crossbow being overly weak is coming up for me. Particularly the Repeating Heavy crossbow. Takes an exotic weapons proficiency and yet does 1d10 damage average of 5.5 damage vs Composite longbows 1d8+STR Mod 4.5+ STR Mod Damage. Even with just a STR Mod of 12 given the repeating crossbows need to take a full round action to reload that provokes and attack of opportunity the Longbow is clearly better. You spend an exotic weapons proficiency feat for this?
I think Crossbows are cool and should be a valid option. I've done a few searches on the topic and I've seen a few different solutions. They all seem to boil down, outside of the crazy ones, to increasing damage or giving armor penetration. The two solutions I've seen to damage are allowing strength to be applied to crossbows which puts damage on par with an longbow 5.5+STR mod average or just up the damage dice to 2d6 for a heavy crossbow 7 damage average. Though given the feat your spending on Repeating to still have the reload draw back this seems fairly meh.
The other solution I've seen is to give cross bows the ability to ignore armor similar to the ability that firearms have. This makes since given the major real world advantage of crossbows was that they where highly effective at punching through armor. I've seen someone propose giving the full Early Firearm Penetration ability and others just reduce the bonus armor gives (Though giving a bonus to attack seems easier to me).
Adding damage seems like it buff the cross bow but does not make it worth using given the remaining draw backs. Armor penetration seems flavorful but also super powerful if not done correctly. Possibly some combination of the two might hit a sweet spot.
I would like the thoughts of the community. Thanks.
Here are some ideas:
Allow Str to damage but give 1.5 damage per +1 Str bonus. Rational being that the crank enables you to build up more power over time rather then putting your full strength into a single draw.
Allow some DR penetration. In my current game I am rolling with armor as damage reduction and allowing guns to penetrate the armor DR (aka breastplate give +3 AC and DR 3/firearms) you could try something similar though I don't think this solution will scale well to high levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the inherent STR bonus route.
A crossbow has a stock about the size of a shortbow, so base damage d6. But it's a super tight crossbow, one that needs a significant STR to pull. Give the shortbow an inherent 18 STR because of its mechanical advantage (so 1d6+4 damage) and the heavy crossbow 22 STR (for 1d6+6) damage.
Go look at the Bolt Ace archetype for the Gunslinger. Dex to damage at 5th level (which is when fighters normally get weapon training without an archetype), which is also their hit stat and AC. Also by spending Grit they can hit Touch AC with crossbows.
Then you have Crossbow Mastery (APG feat) which doesn't take much to get in to and allows you to reload one kind of crossbow (minus the double crossbow) as a free action allowing full attacks very easily, and also reloading the selected crossbow doesn't provoke attacks. 19-20x2 crit which bows don't have either. Crossbows are a very valid option.
Even before Bolt Ace they were. You trade off the Str to damage for a higher crit range. Better chance for critical effects and enchantments to go off. Inquisitors are automatically proficient in all crossbows too (also APG) and can bane anything pretty easily for extra damage dice.
You can also fire crossbows while prone, which you can't do with bows.
My answer is treat everyone as though they had rapid reload for any crossbows they are proficient with.
This gets light crossbows to be able to be fired at full rate with no feat expenditure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inherent STR rating?
Higher Deadly aim scaling +3 opposed to +2?
Option to inherently use pinpoint targeting?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about give a Pull rating which would allow for heavier pull crossbows that require more strength to reload. Much as with Composite Longbows which can allow you to use your STR mod for bonus damage, allow Pull to have the same effect with crossbows.
I would require a Heavy Crossbow and for every point the Pull rating exceeds your STR mod, you require an additional standard action to crank to reload. At Pull equal to STR mod you can reload as a standard action (and now can make use of reload speed up feats). If your STR mod exceeds your Pull you gain no benefit.
You then gain the Pull rating to damage on every attack because it is a mechanic of the heaviness of the cranking and how hard it is to reload. Even a weakling would get it though would have problems reloading quickly.
People, I understand you want the crossbow to be better...
But you must consider the mechanical balance.
A longbow/shortbow is a martial weapon, while a light crossbow and heavy crossbow are simple weapons. Many of the modifications you all are suggesting would make crossbows arguably better than the longbow/shortbow.
I'd allow a crossbow to have a strength rating if it was ever brought up. Irl they are better at armor penetration. There is a video of a modern crossbow penetrating a lower level bulletproof vest.
edit: I decided to link it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nLRymWv-CA
People, I understand you want the crossbow to be better...
But you must consider the mechanical balance.
A longbow/shortbow is a martial weapon, while a light crossbow and heavy crossbow are simple weapons. Many of the modifications you all are suggesting would make crossbows arguably better than the longbow/shortbow.
Perhaps Increase reload time by one step if you don't have the same or higher str rating than the crossbow.
People, I understand you want the crossbow to be better...
But you must consider the mechanical balance.
A longbow/shortbow is a martial weapon, while a light crossbow and heavy crossbow are simple weapons. Many of the modifications you all are suggesting would make crossbows arguably better than the longbow/shortbow.
Perhaps change crossbows to be martial weapons that can be used as if they were simple weapons if that's all you have, but only gain the new benefits if you have martial weapon proficiency, similar to say, a bastard sword? Or just turn them into martial weapons entirely.
I personally would rather they be an effective martial weapon than an ineffective simple weapon. And honestly, I'm no weapons expert but crossbows always seemed a bit too... complicated to be simple, tbqh.
A major difference between bows and Crossbows is that, for a bow, loading and shooting are the same action while for crossbows, they are separate.
Have Crossbows no longer provoke an Attack of Opportunity when fired; you are just pulling a trigger after all.
Edit: I do like the idea of emulating early firearms within the 1st range incrementioned though.
Ok, here's what you do to "fix" crossbows. Keep in mind that, traditionally, crossbows were meant to be a ranged weapon that didn't require tons of training to use and could even be given to conscripted peasants so they wouldn't just stand there like a bunch of useless yokels. They were not meant to be as good as bows and, surprise, they are far inferior to bows.
First, use the composite bow mechanic of having a strength rating for crossbow damage. The harder it is to crank, the more tension you can store up and the harder it will hit. But it would need to be a bit modified due to the nature of the weapon. With a Bow, if you have lower than the strength rating, you suffer a penalty to your attack roll. In the case of a crossbow, it should be a penalty to reloading speed; reloading is increased by 1 step if you don't have the necessary strength. Treat it as a two-handed weapon such that you get 1.5x Str to damage. For example, a Heavy Crossbow with a Str rating of +4 would let you use up to a +4 Str bonus to apply +6 damage (4 * 1.5), but if you had less than a +4 Str modifier, reload time would go from full-round to 1 round (meaning it provokes at any time during the round until the start of your next turn).
Second, Crossbows that are currently martial weapons would be given the caveat that if you lack martial proficiency with them, you can treat them as simple weapons. As simple weapons, their reload time is increased by 1 and they cannot be used one-handed (except for hand crossbows). For exotic crossbows, do the same, except that they can step down to martial proficiency (again, with increased reload and no one-handing). This reflects how they could even be used adequately by untrained persons.
Third, remember that Crossbows are not meant to be a primary weapon. They are meant to be used by those who have no other means to attack. Any loser can pick up a crossbow and take a pot shot at the opponent every other round or so. Having an entire squad of conscripted peasants with crossbows...
I think this is reasonable to make cross bows more competitive, but not outright better than bows.
Still, a light crossbow on someone with a good strength score is going to be better than the longbow, provided they take Rapid Reload.
Many of the modifications you all are suggesting would make crossbows arguably better than the longbow/shortbow.
Okay.
Here's a thing I've come to believe over the years... sometimes broken is okay. What I mean - specifically - is that if a player has a hankering for playing a knife-thrower instead of the Power Attacking greataxe-using barbarian, I'd help them. There are "best" options in the game, and that's fine as a baseline. But exceptions should be made occasionally.
I wouldn't blanket make crossbows better, but I'd certainly be willing to houserule for an adventure or campaign to allow a character concept to flourish.
What I'm saying is I'd probably leave the wizard and cleric's crossbows baseline, but let the guy playing a crossbow ranger actually compete... specifically because he's not playing yet another composite longbow user.
So, your observation isn't wrong. It's just not always... important, I think.
Many of the modifications you all are suggesting would make crossbows arguably better than the longbow/shortbow.Okay.
Here's a thing I've come to believe over the years... sometimes broken is okay. What I mean - specifically - is that if a player has a hankering for playing a knife-thrower instead of the Power Attacking greataxe-using barbarian, I'd help them. There are "best" options in the game, and that's fine as a baseline. But exceptions should be made occasionally.
I wouldn't blanket make crossbows better, but I'd certainly be willing to houserule for an adventure or campaign to allow a character concept to flourish.
What I'm saying is I'd probably leave the wizard and cleric's crossbows baseline, but let the guy playing a crossbow ranger actually compete... specifically because he's not playing yet another composite longbow user.
So, your observation isn't wrong. It's just not always... important, I think.
Many of the modifications you all are suggesting would make crossbows arguably better than the longbow/shortbow.Okay.
Here's a thing I've come to believe over the years... sometimes broken is okay. What I mean - specifically - is that if a player has a hankering for playing a knife-thrower instead of the Power Attacking greataxe-using barbarian, I'd help them. There are "best" options in the game, and that's fine as a baseline. But exceptions should be made occasionally.
I wouldn't blanket make crossbows better, but I'd certainly be willing to houserule for an adventure or campaign to allow a character concept to flourish.
What I'm saying is I'd probably leave the wizard and cleric's crossbows baseline, but let the guy playing a crossbow ranger actually compete... specifically because he's not playing yet another composite longbow user.
So, your observation isn't wrong. It's just not always... important, I think.
I mean, I've been a big fan of abolishing most weapons and armor and simply having certain "types".
The 2-handed slashing weapon with improved crit range like "greatsword" or the 2-handed weapon with larger crit modifier like the "greataxe". But not actually calling them any thing specific. You get to describe your weapon however you want (within reason) and it just has certain mechanical benefits.
In the case of ranged weapons simple stringed ranged weapon could be crossbow, and martial stringed ranged weapon could be a bow. But it could also be your "martial crossbow" which functions like a bow. Because I don't need the mechanics of the weapon to impinge on functionality.
This sort of things basically puts weapons on even footing, and allows you to use weapons of a different sort without needing to worry about shitty mechanics.
However, one thing I wont agree with is that as long as crossbow and longbows exist and one is martial and one is simple the longbow should be better mechanically.
You want a simple solution? Heres a new feat:
Awesome Crossbow!
You can use a crossbow as though it were it a longbow, including for Manyshot and adding composite strength rating. You decided to take this feat instead of taking "martial weapon proficiency longbow" or wanted to be a little different. This replaces rapid reload. You're welcome.
Add your strength modifier again every time you get an iterative attack instead of turning the crossbow into a longbow light. It takes fewer feats to use and penetrates DR better than a bow, but it's too end damage is lower.
If someone really wants to focus on it, they could take vital strike feats to pick up the crossbows extra dice. You still end up with less damage because you can't add weapon bonuses more than once. Also, if you miss, your boned.
Edit: the extra strength could represent that extra crank you get in before firing.
People, I understand you want the crossbow to be better...
But you must consider the mechanical balance.
A longbow/shortbow is a martial weapon, while a light crossbow and heavy crossbow are simple weapons. Many of the modifications you all are suggesting would make crossbows arguably better than the longbow/shortbow.
Eh? The dagger is arguably as good or better than a lot of the martial weapons.
So thanks for the feed back everyone lots of great ideas and lots of different points some I agree with and some I disagree with.
After thinking about it and talking things over with my DM draft one of my crossbow house rule works like this.
Simple Weapon Crossbows Remain the same as they currently are. If your proficient with martial weapons you gain proficiency with Mechanical Crossbows. These have the same stats but the Mechanical Crossbow adds a mechanism that allows increased power. This Allows a +2 bonus to hit with point blank range (30ft) and a +1 in the first range increasement against targets with Armor and Natural Armor bonuses. The crank also allows you to add strength bonus to damage in the same way you would with a composite bow, including the same GP cost in crease.
Repeating Crossbows Also gain access to this same mechanism and bonuses
I find the Martial Mechanical Crossbow to be balanced against normal bows because even though the Mechanical bow does more damage and has a too hit advantage they also eat actions to reload. In most situations I still find bows to be better than the upgraded Mechanical Crossbows which I feel like means generally I'm doing this right. I don't want Crossbows to be better just more competitive or equally good.
Repeating Crossbows unless you get the feat for free are still currently sub par as if your going to spend a feat rapid reload on a Mechanical Crossbow seems better. I may want to push the Repeating Crossbow with some other small bonus but I'm not sure what yet. Though we may allow reloading the light version as a move action just to make it more consistent with normal crossbows.
The difference between a crossbow and a longbow should be a single feat. That's how many feats you need to acquire a longbow in the first place. If you spend more than one feat getting the crossbow equal to a longbow, you are wasting your feats. It's fine if a crossbow is inherently worse than a longbow, but it should only take one feat to make up the difference.
This is what I was trying to get at.
It's one feat to gain proficiency in longbows (versus being innately proficient with crossbows for most/all classes).
So, to me the easiest thing to do is have the player spend 1 feat and now you have basically treat the crossbow like a bow.
A light crossbow with rapid reload is basically a longbow.
Light crossbow deals 1d8 19-20x2 crit with 80ft range
Longbow deal 1d8 20x3 with 100ft range
So all we need to really do is add the ability to make a "composite light crossbow" and you've put light crossbows on even-ish terms with longbows.
The increased range of the bow isn't really a bonus, and the improved crit range of the crossbow is actually nice, but you did have to spend an extra feat to get it and archery is already a feat intensive combat style. So in the end, I think all that really needs to be done is to make "composite" crossbows that function exactly like composite ability on longbows. With the caveat that if you are proficient with all martial weapons you automatically gain this theoretical feat.
Although, given that choice I would actually probably choose the new version of the crossbow for the higher crit range, but they're otherwise pretty equal.
So yeah, only thing needed for crossbows to be an acceptable weapon is to allow "composite" and to give rapid reload (with all types of crossbows) to characters who have martial weapon proficiency.