So I'm giving so thought to how I'm going to redesign the Crossbow vs the Bow. To this end I'm making a few assumptions. These weapons are developed along similar lines to what was seen IRL, however not necessarily within the same time periods. IE; the crossbow hasn't been around as long and its design has focused more on knock down power than it has on range and reload speed.
The bow is for longer range, faster shots and offers a higher threat.
The crossbow has comparatively shorter range, longer reload times, but offers a larger base damage dice and has a higher crit multiplier.
The biggest difference here is range of the Xbow. I'm thinking that when I compare the Heavy XBow to a longbow I only want it to have about 70% of the range.
This is my thought so far...ideas?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see upping the light xbow to 1d10 and the heavy to 2d6. Leave the crit at 19-20 and range doesn't matter (you could spend a lot of time researching what is realistic, but the fact of the matter is that when playing pathfinder you will almost never have a fight more than 100 ft apart so whatever).
Weapons in pathfinder/d&d were never "realistic." I do think crossbows could use some love, but that just means they need to be altered to something viable to use in game mechanics. Realism doesn't need to play any part in it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In real life the biggest difference between a bow and a crossbow is the amount of training it took to learn how to use it properly. To effectively use a bow requires a lot of training. As the saying goes to train a archer you start with his grandfather. The crossbow on the other hand can be learned very quickly. Probably takes about a week to get someone up to speed with a crossbow.
The game tries to simulate this by making bows marital weapons and crossbows simple weapons. The problem is that means that almost any full marital character can use a bow. What they should have done is to make bows exotic weapons, and crossbows martial weapons. The way it is now just about anyone can use a crossbow and most characters can use bows.
In reality a fully trained archer is a lot more effective than a person using a crossbow. The difference is that the fully trained archer is an elite trop, where the crossbowman is a common trop. If I am building an army I can have a very small troop of archers, or I can equip a large portion of my troops with crossbows. When crossbows came out they changed the face of warfare not so much because they were better than the bow, but because now it was possible to have a large number of fairly competent ranged attacks.
Longbows should be exotic (they take years of practice), though not shortbows. Crossbows should have a Strength rating, which governs how long it takes to reload them as well as the damage.
But really, a crossbow is not going to be comparable to a pull bow for an adventurer. They're fantastic in sieges and for sniping, but a big one is incredibly slow and clumsy to reload so quite impractical for rapid fire or anywhere near a melee.
You could give a crossbow an aiming bonus, such as +1 to hit per round of aiming at the target if the shooter is stationary (max +2, +3 if the bow is braced against a solid object). A bow can't be held back for long enough to make a difference. Or perhaps instead of +1 per round, +1 per attack you skip (so +2 per round at BAB+6).
The weapon that really deserves some love is the sling. These things can be scarily dangerous, and should at least get the same free-action reload that bows do. Don't stand too close to the slinger, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Longbows should be exotic (they take years of practice), though not shortbows. Crossbows should have a Strength rating, which governs how long it takes to reload them as well as the damage.
But really, a crossbow is not going to be comparable to a pull bow for an adventurer. They're fantastic in sieges and for sniping, but a big one is incredibly slow and clumsy to reload so quite impractical for rapid fire or anywhere near a melee.
You could give a crossbow an aiming bonus, such as +1 to hit per round of aiming at the target if the shooter is stationary (max +2, +3 if the bow is braced against a solid object). A bow can't be held back for long enough to make a difference. Or perhaps instead of +1 per round, +1 per attack you skip (so +2 per round at BAB+6).
The weapon that really deserves some love is the sling. These things can be scarily dangerous, and should at least get the same free-action reload that bows do. Don't stand too close to the slinger, though.
Exotic longbows would hamper or hurt many ranged builds- that's one feat down the drain, simply to gain use of your main weapon. You seem to be aiming for lots of realism, but in a game where a high level character can fire 6 arrows in 6 seconds, I think this level of realism is both a handicap and a futile effort.
The thing is, a longbow isn't that awesome, unless you have plenty of feats or class features that make it better - in other words, unless your character has plenty of additional training.
Longbow archers are already awesome and basically the best martials.
In my games I make crossbows attack vs touch at half increment. Their penetration power made them vilified in the days and it helps give options against folks in full plate in my otherwise low powered games.
Even a short bow requires a lot of training. Many of the same techniques are used with all bows. Both the long bow and short bow use similar if not identical stances, release and grips.
As to the feat tax a solution would be to eliminate point blank shot and replace it with bow proficiency. Have this be a special feat that gives you proficiency for all bows. Since point blank shot is pretty much a straight up feat tax simply eliminate it completely. Drop it as a prerequisite from all feats and feat chains.
Make crossbows marital weapons instead of simple. The crossbow is a pure military weapon anyways so should not be a simple weapon. Simple weapons should be something that is either so common that everyone has one, or something that anyone can make a reasonable replica of. Clubs and staves are basically branches of a tree, spears are a sharpened stick, and everybody has access to knives.
Eliminating point blank shot also improves the crossbow because many of the crossbow feats also have it as a prerequisite. By shortening the feat chains you make crossbows a more viable weapon. This would make the crossbow the default weapon for most militaries that can build them.
Elves would still be proficient with bow. This would give elven archers a bit of an advantage, but in all honesty they are supposed to be some of the best archers.
Make crossbows marital weapons instead of simple. The crossbow is a pure military weapon anyways so should not be a simple weapon. Simple weapons should be something that is either so common that everyone has one, or something that anyone can make a reasonable replica of.
That's not how the the game classifies weapon for proficiency. No one has a morningstar lying around, and I'm pretty sure it's not that easy to produce, but it's still a simple weapon because you basically wield it as a club, and just about everyone knows how to do that. On the other end of the spectrum, an Estoc is basically just another sword, but you don't use it like one, and thus it's exotic. Even more, most people have the material for a rope gauntlet at home even today, but attacking with it is different from how one would usually fight unarmed (more attacks with the forearm than the hand), and it's therefor an exotic weapon.
You most definitely don't need a trained soldier to use if fairly well, and that's why the game classifies it as a simple weapon.
Deklord is right about the Morningstar. I probably over simplified what should be a simple weapon, by not including that a weapon that is used in an identical manner to another simple weapon should also be a simple weapon. A martial weapon should be a weapon that is fairly common that requires some training and practice. Like simple weapons they should include more exotic weapons that are used in an identical manner as another martial weapon. Exotic weapons should be weapons that require special training in order to fully utilize.
Temperans suggestion has some merit, but what I would do is make it a crossbow specific feat. Archery has some decent bow specific feats, but crossbows have relatively few. Sure it has some feats that get rid of some of the negative aspects of using a crossbow, but little in the way of giving them something unique. His suggestion sounds like a great feat for a crossbow specific feat.
Would it be reasonable to make crossbows function as if the wielder had Shot On the Run automatically?
While I can buy that you'd need a feat to draw a bow while moving, both firearms and crossbows are exceedingly easier to fire, and should have some kind of benefit to showcase this quality.
They should honestly not provoke either, but that's more a question of balance than realism.
Since no one in their right mind takes crossbow or the heavy version as their thematic weapon (meaning, when they design their character, they conjure up some fighter with a big ol'crossbow racked lazily over their shoulder), I tried to sweeten the pot to get some takers.
All crossbows ignore damage reduction. All crossbows are custom built like composite longbows, and they actually do double the strength damage modifier. And increased base damage dice as well.
Crossbows should have some punch if they aren't going to be a fantasy full auto rifle like the longbow archer.
*shoots demon lord with nonmagical crossbow*
*bolt punches through demon lord's DR 20/cold iron, epic, and lawful*
I like the idea of Spheres of Might Sniper versus Barrage for Crossbow vs Bow.
Sniper Sphere upgrades damage to 1d10, +1d10 per 4 BAB (1d6 if you hit touch AC instead of normal AC)
Barrage lets you make a ton of attacks, but with stacking penalties. You can make 6 attacks with +20 BAB, all of them at full BAB but at -12 (and as an attack/standard action). You can make two attacks at a -2 and keep going with the penalty to get more.
I would make it so a crossbow only provokes an attack of opportunity when being loaded, not when being fired.
Crossbows do not add your strength bonus for a very good reason. You don’t cock a crossbow by pulling back the string. They have mechanical methods of cocking them instead of using brute force. Heavy crossbows in particular usually are usually wound with a wheel type device. Even light crossbows have a lever that multiplies the force used to draw back the string.
Working the mechanism for the crossbow faster will not result in more damage. Once a crossbow is cocked you can give it to another person and it still does exactly the same amount of damage. A higher STR should affect how fast the crossbow is loaded not how much damage it does.
I could see adding a STR min of 13 to rapid reload. But I would change the feat so that it applies to all crossbows not just a specific type. If you do that then change the prerequisite for crossbow mastery to a STR of 15, and have it that using a crossbow does not provoke an attack for using or reloading. If you follow my advice and eliminate point blank shot this would actually make a heavy crossbow a viable weapon. Sure it would take about 3 feats but that is not that bad. A human fighter could actually get this at 1st level. It would make the crossbow use a little MAD, but not all that much more than an archer. It would also make crossbow a viable weapon for close combat.
I never understood why the crossbow specific feats were so weapon specific. Multishot can be used with any bow not just a single bow. The crossbow feats should be the same.
I never understood why the crossbow specific feats were so weapon specific. Multishot can be used with any bow not just a single bow. The crossbow feats should be the same.
'Realism', I presume. Drawing a bowsting is mostly the same for every bow, but spanning a crossbow string is vastly different depending on the crossbow. Some are manual (possibly with a stirrup so you mainly use your leg muscles and not the arm muscles), some have a level, some use a small winch. Being trained in attaching and using a lever quickly doesn't help you be better with a heavy crossbow with a permanently attached winch.
Speak for yourself. Crossbows are a classic if you're going for a vampire hunter/van helsing vibe or a more traditional sniper type.
Depends on your preference and background, I guess. For people into anything real-life medieval, or classical medieval fantasy, a crossbow is usually more of a common soldier's weapon, not something for a PC to focus on. If you're more interested in, say a movie that's set in 1888, rather than the time periods Pathfinder emulates, you might prefer crossbow.
I wouldn't say you need to go to 1888 to get the time period where crossbows were fashionable, late medieval/renaissance works perfectly well for when crossbows were in vogue. I'll also add that the only reason I'd ever not be using a crossbow with a dwarf character would be because there's firearms I want him using instead. Probably can boost that to any small character in general. Hate the mental image of small races and longbows while dwarfs are that in combination with my inner Warhammer fan.
Speak for yourself. Crossbows are a classic if you're going for a vampire hunter/van helsing vibe or a more traditional sniper type.Depends on your preference and background, I guess. For people into anything real-life medieval, or classical medieval fantasy, a crossbow is usually more of a common soldier's weapon, not something for a PC to focus on. If you're more interested in, say a movie that's set in 1888, rather than the time periods Pathfinder emulates, you might prefer crossbow.
In my setting gunpowder is extremely limited, its secrets only known by an isolationist gnome island nation. Crossbows targetting touch AC at half-increment helps fill the void the lack of firearms creates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd often thought of taking the "Guns Everywhere" rules and turning them into "Crossbows Everywhere", with the Bolt Ace being the default Gunslinger build, "Crossbow Training" being granted at level 1, and the "Amateur Gunslinger" feat becoming "Amateur Bolt Ace"
What this would end up accomplishing is giving Dex-to-damage with a 1 level dip and having a feat that would grant a Grit pool, allowing the user to spend 1 point to target touch AC for the crossbow's first range increment.
I wouldn't say you need to go to 1888 to get the time period where crossbows were fashionable, late medieval/renaissance works perfectly well for when crossbows were in vogue.
It's not about them being fashionable, it's about them being used by the type of character you play as a PC. Because unless it's a first level one shot, a PC is a highly trained expert in their chosen field, that's what the class levels and feats represent. Also, Van Helsing's crossbow is pure fiction, absolutely no one at that time seriously used a crossbow (or a bow, for that matter).
The oldest found chinese crossbows date back to 650 BC. In europe, crossbows were used by the ancient greece and romans starting in the late 5th century. The greek version even exists in Pathfinder. They almost vanished between the 5th and 9th century, but then reemerged during the 10th century and saw widespread by the 12th century when they replaced bows as the default range weapon for ordinary soldiers (except in Britain).
But the thing is that they were used because they were easy to use, i.e. you didn't need to invest a huge part of the soldier's training time to make them good at the weapon (unlike with bows). Same reason early firearms first came into widespread use. At high skill levels (mostly due three to six times higher firing speeds), the longbow was a superior weapon, as the brits showed the french multiple times during the hundred year war. Crossbows were actually better in penetrating plate armor, but longbows were vastly advantaged against cavalry (by taking out the horses).
There actually were a sort of elite crossbowmen, but those relied on having two helpers (one holding the tower shield when the shooter wasn't firing, the other for additional reloading), that's not something you can emulate in an ordinary campaign.
Hate the mental image of small races and longbows while dwarfs are that in combination with my inner Warhammer fan.
Bow length is relative to the wielder's size - in the case of a longbow, it means roughly the same length as the wielder's height.
So then, in answer to the question of (essentially) "why bother?" Because it is an aspect of world building that I'm working on. In my vision the Xbow has a poor range and reload speed but offers more knock down power and is easier to learn how to use. Much of this is already D20 cannon, however i'm trying get a feel for the types of missions the crossbow would be used in over the bow. Understanding these types of elements early in a campaign helps with the immersion of the campaign setting when it all remains consistent.
2)I've decided the way to address some of this (while giving consideration to everything said here on the forums in both this thread and in others) is to not increase the base damage of the Xbow, but rather to adjust it's threat / crit ranges and range increments and then do the same with the bow in order to maintain distinction between the two weapons.
H.Xbow: 1d10 w/ a natural threat on 20, crit x2 (x3*), range 80
Weapon Type: Martial
Weight: 12 lbs
Within the first range increment the H.Xbow has a x3 critical damage
If equipped with a scope the x3 crit extends to the first TWO range increments. A Masterwork scope = first 3 range increments.
L.Xbow: 1d8, 20 / x2 (x3*)
Weapon Type: Simple
* x3 Crit only applies when using a scope within 30 ft, MW scope extends to the first full range increment. Range: 50
Arguably the scope could also reduce range penalties to only -1 within their respective range increments. IE; - 1 within the first 3 range increments for a MW scope mounted on a H.Xbow.
Lbow threat: 19-20 x 2, range 120
Sbow threat: 19-20 x 2, range 90
I think this would pretty much addresses my original concerns. The Xbow is more dangerous at short to medium ranges, but those ranges are shorter, and outside of those ranges becomes less accurate. The bow by comparison benefits from longer range and more frequent crits although generally requires more training. This of course also makes L.Xbows more common than its martial H.Xbow brother.
Both bow and xbow family continue to benefit from the plethora of magic enchantment and feat possibilities as per normal.
I'll have to given additional thought to how other types of these weapons would be effected by things like composite bows, etc.
You seem to have just made crossbows even worse. Heavier, shorter range, worse crits. And the long and (especially) short bows are better (longer range, arguably better crits). I find myself wondering why.
@Mudfoot my objective here is definitely not to suggest that the Xbow vs Bow are direct peers, and thus should be effectively the same weapon.
Nothing could be further from my vision of them, rather both weapons will have specialized roles. The Xbow under my current vision is simply more effective at shorter ranges and offers a heavier knock down power within those shorter ranges. This adjustment is also taking into effect other optional rules within the campaign that I've not already discussed, such as the use of Armor as DR. Thus the higher crit window (at shorter ranges), and higher base damage than a bow allow it to be more effective against a heavy armored foe. This works well even with light cross bows which any peasant can be armed with (still a simple weapon) to take out fully armored Calvary units.
As for the bow begin generally "better" I don't necessarily agree per se. It is however more specialized in that my adjustments allow for the bow to have a better rate of fire than the crossbow (already a part of the D20 RAW), longer range, and more common (but less powerful) crits. This fits well within my current vision of the weapon. I've also included a few house rules for things like getting impaled by an arrow, etc so the bow vs xbow are should balance out well within their given roles.
@Zwordsman
No, i'm thinking the scopes for the xbow will be an optional upgrade for the weapon, much like scopes are for modern day rifles. They are optional, and thus will cost extra to have them made for the weapon in question. I've not yet decided on costs for them however, but I'm open to suggestions on this point.
AoO and Reload speeds I've not touched with these rules for the Bow or Xbow. As for the rate of fire on the Xbow, yes...it sucks. Just like it does in real life. Bows simply fire much faster, that is the difference between the two. I'd also point out however that multiple attacks don't really become a thing until mid-tier levels anyway, and even then really only for core martial classes with full bab. Thus 85% of the classes will feel the effects of this pretty minimally, and fighters have extra feats for things like Improved Crit and Rapid Reload to help off set this limitations.
Given my campaign tops out at E12 a lot of the issues (which only really appear at higher levels) are not as much of a consideration for my campaign.
@Zwordsman
The biggest difference which jumps out at me immediately when considering the sling vs L.Xbow is the various upgrades that could be done to the Xbow in general. Adding features like Repeating, Scopes, etc would allow the Xbow to become very customized where as a sling is just a sling. Of couse that statement doesn't get into the availability of feats and enchantments which could alter the viability of virtually any weapon within a Fantasy D20 context.
Also the sling is treated as a thrown weapon and therefore only has like 5 range increments vs an Xbow which has 10. Thus the answer to your question of "why use an Xbow when slings are more common and much cheaper?" Longer range, higher base damage, more customization options and the potential for higher crits.
I'd also point out that when pressed into military service for a kings army the troops were often given weapons, armor and training fitting to the role said ruler demanded of them...at least if he wanted them to live long enough to actually accomplish whatever task was set before them. Thus by this point, those who were expected to be using Xbows would have been trained with the weapon and given one as a part of their assigned duties. Versus those who were simply pulled out of a farmer's field and thrust onto the front lines would still have their slings and other simple / common weapons and likely not much else. This second group of "soldiers" would of course be more accurately be called "cannon fodder" than soldiers if they were being deployed in the same capacity as a unit of Xbow snipers.
As to your second question about why the light crossbow would have developed in a world with the additional options present with the H.Xbow, I say that it is simply not as complex of a weapon. It is lighter, and intended for soldiers and hunters who did not have extensive training in military weapons. This is essentially the same reason there are short swords, longs swords and bastard swords. Simple weapon, trained weapon, and specialized weapon. A fully upgraded H.Xbow would definitely be a specialized weapon, vs a "standard" H.Xbow would be the sorta weapon that typically only professionally trained soldiers or mercenaries would be found using with any degree of accuracy.
As this is text based its hard to emote. So just for clarity. I'm not trying to argue anything. Just giving ideas and giving counter thoughts. Since you're trying to build something and extra viewpoints help.
Completely understand. Please allow me to be equally as clear when I say that the additional thoughts and feedback are more than welcome. No harm done, please proceed.
Slings get str to damage as thrown. But. they are projectile weapons and are labeled as such. In Core and Ultimate Equipement. So they get 10 increments as any other ranged projectile weapon.
Allow me to draw your attention to the following d20PFSRD.com webpage: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/weapon-descriptions/sling which states
Cost — Weight —
Damage 1d3 (small), 1d4 (medium) Critical x2 Type bludgeoning
Range Increment 50 ft. (projectile)
Category ranged Proficiency simple
Weapon Groups thrown
Now for comparison I'll also draw your attention to the boomerang (an obviously thrown weapon):
Cost 3 gp Weight 3 lbs.
Damage 1d4 (small), 1d6 (medium) Critical x2 Type bludgeoning
Range Increment 30 ft. (projectile)
Category ranged Proficiency exotic
Weapon Group thrown
In both cases these are listed as "projectile" and "thrown" with the description for each specifically stating they are strength based attacks...meaning they are thrown weapons and not "launched" as would be the case with an Xbow. This is likely a point I'll address in my house rules for clarity and to avoid confusion at the gaming table should this come up.
There are plenty of upgrades to crossbows it sounds like in your game.
True, but then if you look across the 200 or so officially published PF manuals and AP books from the past few years you'll see that is still D20 cannon (at least in concept). Repeating Xbow, Double Xbow, scopes, extended magazines (I forget where I seen this one), specialty bolts (such as grappling hooks), alchemical bolts, etc etc. And let us not overlook the composite bows, strength bows, etc etc on the other side of the table.
Standing armies get trained. I don't see why the soldiers you mentioned would use simple weapons instead of martial weapons if they were being trained.
Training takes time and money. In the modern military not all soldiers are trained to the same levels. Basic training is just that...basic. Advanced Infantry Training (US Army) went much further into weapon training, and special forces groups much further still. Medieval / Fantasy armies are no different, and the cost of a L.Xbow vs that of a sling while much more expensive also allowed a typical "grunt" to hit a target from twice the range with a L.Xbow or 2 1/2 with a Heavy Xbow, for even more with the various bows. This is what is know as "first strike capability", IE the ability to hit the other guy before can really do anything about it. Typically because you have superior range.
As for why not have them use martial weapons, because not all of them were trained as fighters, or even warriors. Keep in mind most medieval armies were little more than farmers pressed into service.
Drafted troops (canon fodder) get like a week of training at best. Historically speaking. At the current set up, if they wanted to improve their ability instead of paying for light xbows and bolts. They'd be able to instead provide better armour or shields and just use slings.
True but if that were all that were needed the Romans would have outfitted their slave / soldiers with slings and not swords. Instead however they were outfitted with both weapons and armor, given the opportunity to do so.
Unless you're kingdom is the type that does the "several months of service on a rotation" sort of thing I suppose. In which case they're back to the "soldiers why not martial trained" situation. Though that would mean the kingdom would probably have substanally more light xbow laying around than an army that just drafted random villagers.
True. I'm using a couple of assumptions here for the composition of an army (specifically). #1 I'm more or less following established demographics for a population. 95% of the "soldiers" are level 1 - 3 commoners or warriors. Not classed Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, etc. About 1 in 20 MIGHT have a PC class, however even then these troops likely still have NPC class levels which has slowed down their progression. This is important because it affords us the opportunity to look at who could afford better weapons and equipment.
----------
I dont' think the sling heavy light comparison is quite the same as short, long, bastard swords. Those three are all used in different situations and reasons. Short for brush/inside. long with shields or mobility. Bastards for hauling off.
Agreed, my example was not a direct 1 to 1 comparison, merely making the point that the like the swords, slings, xbow, bow, etc all have their nitch roles and can be effective in those roles.
I'm sort of hard pressed to see a timing when someone would use a light crossbow over a sling (for simple weapon folks).
This goes back to the thrown vs projectile points addressed earlier. It is my assumption that the sling is effectively using the rules as a thrown weapon, and thus limited to 5 range increments vs the L.Xbow being able the shoot out to 10.
Thank you for your thoughts and input!
I 100% agree with you on how the sling is written. It will be added to me list of changes for balance purposes and be rewritten in as a thrown weapon. 500ft range for a sling is pretty crazy after all.
Real world range for a sling is more than 500 ft, though 500 is a fair number to go on. This is FEET, not YARDS. I can easily throw a cricket ball 60 yards = 180 ft. A sling bullet will go much, much further.
I really can't see a scope helping a mediaeval crossbow in any material way. At short range you don't need it unless the target is tiny, and at longer ranges the crossbow is less accurate than the scope anyway. It's not a rifle.
EDIT found this: (wikipedia sling:talk)
Larry Bray set the Guinness World Record for a stone cast with a sling in 1981, achieving an impressive range of 437m (Norris, 1985). In retrospect, Mr. Bray believes he could have surpassed 600m mark with a better sling and lead projectiles (Bray, Personal Communication, March 21st, 2004)
So a mid-level fighter with a bit of specialism should be approaching 1500-2000 ft.
Shiny goodness there.
I wonder how accurate possible it is.That is one thing I wish Pathfinder had. Just scaling abilities going up with profiency. Instead of just things completely locked out of options. Or I guess trait's allowing weapon profiency of some sort.
Sounds like you basically want Kirthfinder's equipment system, where rather than "Simple" "Martial" and "Exotic" weapons, each weapon type has "Simple" "Martial" and "Exotic" proficiency. (For example if you wanted to learn how to use the stats of a "Falcata" you'd take exotic Broadsword proficiency. Also broadswords are only allowed to be wielded in one hand now so there's no more of this falcatas breaking the game stuff anymore.)
And as to Crossbows in particular I kinda like how they handled crossbows (Although sadly they changed the action economy so I can't just totally steal it for non KF games)but here's what it says (TLDR they have a mechanical strength bonus
CROSSBOWS
Crossbows work similarly to bows, except their Strength is mechanical (through winding) rather than limited by the user’s Strength. Default mechanical strength scores are 12 (+1 damage) for a hand crossbow, 16 (+3) for a light crossbow, and 20 (+5) for a heavy crossbow. Crossbows can be constructed with higher mechanical strength scores (see “SpringSteel” under special materials, below), but they are expensive and difficult to produce. Some crossbows can be fired one-handed (as shown in the individual descriptions), but all of them generally require two hands to reload.
Exotic Proficiency: If you have Exotic proficiency with a crossbow that is loaded and in hand, any time you are hit with a ranged attack, you can fire that crossbow at your attacker as an attack of opportunity.
Repeating Crossbows: Repeating crossbows like the Chinese chu-ke-nu hold 5 crossbow bolts. As long as it holds bolts, you can reload it by pulling the reloading lever (a free action). Loading a new case of 5 bolts is a full-round action (regardless of your level of proficiency) that provokes attacks of opportunity. Repeating crossbows have a mechanical Strength score 4 lower than normal (1d6+1 damage for light repeating crossbows, 1d8+3 for heavy repeating
crossbows). Hand crossbows and prodds do not have repeating versions.
Standard crossbows deal piercing damage; the prodd deals bludgeoning damage instead.
I don't disagree with any of the input being offered here, however in order to maintain game balance there is a point at which reality stops and games mechanics have to kick in. As such in order to deal with the extreme possibilities of real world ranged weapons we simply have to pick values based upon relative ranges and then scale those numbers relative to the different weapon types available in the campaign.
As for the use of scopes on the crossbow, I agree it isn't "realistic" in some ways, especially within the first range increment, but does help to explain why only more wealthy mercenaries, nobles, etc would have such a modified Xbow. In short, because they are expensive. This doesn't matter much when you are looking at a level 10 + character vs a CR 10 + encounter, but matters A LOT when you are asking how many of these weapons would be commonly found in the hands of a 3rd - 5th level NPC Warrior. A L.Xbow would likely be fairly common, and a H.Xbow probably much less so given its greater expense, weight, etc. The same would be true of a Sbow vs a Lbow. The short "hunting" bow vs an elven long bow.
Why do we even care about such a thing? For the same reason we care about things like how much gold or silver a typical NPC might earn in a month. It allows us to have a relative sense of who has the gold, the power, the influence and how much of it. These factors mean a lot when world building. Don't think so? Take one look at Game of Thrones, or the Witcher video games, vs say World of Warcraft.
GOT / Witcher put a lot of thought into these sorta things and their worlds feel like living worlds as a result. As a DM I look closely at this level of detail so that I design encounters which remain consistent, and thus more believable.
@Dajur that is already factored into to my rewrite. Feel free to scroll up and you'll see I've already stated that I use an AC = DR system and the H.Xbow is quite effective against it.