Crossbows: Easy to implement changes and gameplay shift


Homebrew and House Rules


I have been unsatisfied in how Pathfinder 2 (and 1) have dealt with crossbows. Or anything that is not a bow. I wish they had made them distinct choices.

Perhaps it isnt necessary, but I like having meaningful differences in ranged weapon that dictate gameplay not just damage output.
I havent come accross any suggestions that solidified a different niche for crossbows, and I waited til Guns and Gears was out to think about it. I know we have dabbled in rulings for pathfinder 1, but often were too clunky. So here's a Pathfinder 2 proposed house rule for heavier crossbows to simulate arbalests, and I'd like to hear your suggestions.

Explanations and goals
Crossbows are subpar and not different enough from bows. They should have a niche just like they did in history, and were effective weapons that saw hundreds of years of combat.
- Easy to use and train to a low standard
- Can hold the shot
- Good power
- Power not always depending on user (i.e. reload cranequins, pulleys, etc)

New Trait: AIM
When shooting a loaded crossbow you take aim and choose the opportune moment to shoot.
Spend a Single Action + Reaction, crossbow gains a ranged version of Power Attack (+one die damage, counts as 2 MAP attacks). This shot can be taken during your round, or as a reaction.

War Crossbow
1d8. Reload 2. 120ft range. Propulsive. Aim.

Heavy War Crossbow
1d10. Reload 2. 150ft range. Martial. Propulsive. Aim. Deadly.

Cranequinn/Pulleys
Mechanical contraption that aids in reloading a crossbow, allowing you to benefit from propulsive despite not meeting the strength requirements. Increases reload time by 1.

Considerations
The idea is to get crossbows to be slower to reload, but be able compete with a bow build, and offer a different play style, opening options towards Running Reload, or having a reloaded crossbow as a starter, or sniper gameplay, or siege defense.
The Aim trait adds power attack at range, adding an extra damage dice. This is strong since these crossbows can only reliably shoot once per round already, but it does come at the penalty of shooting once per round and consuming a reaction (open to action economy suggestions here). Perhaps the Deadly trait is debatable, I personally would like to put it to Fatal but I havent run proper numbers to warrant this.

Some basic numbers, just weapon damage, traits and strength:
Damage potential for a Heavy Crossbow single strike with Striking rune, strength of 18, is around 13 average (1d10 + 1d10 striking + 2 propulsive). Shooting with Aim, 18.5 average (3d10+2). A crit, if Deadly is applied, would be 42.5.

Same 18 strength shooter with a composite longbow striking would do in a single shot 1d8 + 1d8 striking + 2 propulsive, average 11 or so. But with reload 0, they can shoot two more times..the dpr calculation would have to include %hit and all that stuff.

A striking greatsword 18 strength does easily 23.5 damage average in a single hit, higher upper numbers too. A powerattack crit averages 47.

Obs. Numbers are approximations, no complex formulas used. Feel free to point any mistakes out.

I'd be happy to get some feedback, I GM mostly so I am not very versed in player feat/options that could interact with all of this. Overall I think it is lightweight and does not require a lot of tinkering and remembering, which is something I prioritise when bringing a new rule to the table.
At some point I'd like to get to guns. The ones I've introduced at our table have their own rules as a unique item, but that is for another thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

IMO they work pretty well as-is. However if I *were* going to alter ranged weapons it would be Bows rather than Crossbows.

Bows are really strength weapons when it comes to damage, so I would drop all self bows (short, long, composite, etc) down one damage die size, make short and long bows propulsive, and make their composite versions propulsive+ (use full strength modifier instead of half).

I would not add propulsive to crossbows BTW, one of their key design tradeoffs is that effectiveness is mechanical, not strength based.


A lot of what you say makes sense. However, my goal here is to touch as little as possible and come up with as few new mechanics as possible. Keep it simple, easy to use, introduce, and elegant whilst having most gameplay effect. Im focusing on heavy crossbows in general first.

I disagree that they work well as is. They are a sub par weapon, and are only used because they have the lowest entry tag (simple), or on some very niche rangers (running reloads). I am happy to be wrong, and I wouldnt mind seeing builds that use them, differently than archers. I'm glad that you do think they work well though, gives me some more to think about.

As to their effectiveness, in history, I strongly reccomend Tod Workshop's videos and research into this together with Joe Gibbs. Example windlass crossbow vs bow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w8yHeF4KRk&t=602s
There is a lot of misunderstanding about crossbows and bows that come from decades of fantasy media portraying legolas as the only valid option. They were both terrific weapons, and had their separate niches.
Example: A longbow man, whilst having a longer rate of fire, wouldnt be able to shoot very heavy bows for a long time. They'd get tired, worn or injured. Crossbows can shoot all day from a parapet with time.
However, this being fantasy afterall, we dont have to follow history exactly, but we can defintely attempt to make space for crossbows.

Propulsive
My train of thought is that loading a crossbow by hand requires strength, with a foot hook or not. Here propulsive is warranted.
The pulleys/cranquinns mimick pure strength with mechanical advantages. So I dont think it is so far fetched.
The only other STR to ranged trait available in PF2 is Brutal. Which I may also consider.

I definitely see where you come from saying that strength is for archers. Then again the more advanced a bow is (recurve, composite, pulleys) the more mechanical it becomes. I thought about Dex for damage, but I didnt want to encourage single stat building, and also believe that to differentiate Xbows/Bows/Guns, Xbows should get damage from static traits to symbolise their mechanical prowess.
Perhaps Str for bows, Dex for xbows and Traits/static/Damaged die for guns would work best?

Thanks for the answer, cant wait to hear more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I would value simplicity as well, but approach it from the opposite direction. You are proposing changes to crossbow rather than bow. I just think the reverse is a better fit if you are aiming for verisimilitude. Currently bows provide high rate high damage to characters without investment in strength… which feels a bit off.

Re bows and mechanical advantage: recurve and composite construction only allow a bow to store more force for the same pull distance and, simultaneously, to be shorter and easier to wield. They do not reduce the strength needed. Basically the construction enables making a more powerful bow, that requires a more powerful archer to use.
Compound bows (not currently in the game) do not reduce the strength needed to *draw* the bow either… however the cams massively reduce the strength needed to *hold* the bow and further reduce the height. That makes them a lot easier to hunt with since holding an aim point is way easier, multiple shots are less tiring and moving through brush is easier*… but a weak archer will really struggle to get the pull even started.

*sort of… since modern bows have all kinds of stuff hanging off of them


At the least, I can see that I probably need to assume the Heavy Warcrossbow is reloaded without need for strength otherwise it locks a lot of classes out of its benefits. Or having the cranequinn as purchasable but not increasing reload by 1.

I see what you mean that bows need to the ones fixed, and I agree, however xbows would need some compensation because they are not good numerically. The whole ranged fantasy in Pathfinder 2 has been one of the few misses this system has had.

Edit.
The ranger in our party started with a shortbow..but after a few sessions came to me to ask if he could change some things to have a composite longbow and some stat changes, since his damage was pretty terrible. Since then, the propulsive is helping some. All bows should have this trait, and there should be a little more choice in types of bows too. Ah well.

Edit 2.
Instead of penalising for str requirements, a good option is to say that if you can reload the crossbow manually without the pulley/cranequinn, then you can reduce the reload time by 1. I'd have to run some numbers for that though to see where it lands. It still means Shoot Reload Shoot - Reload Shoot Reload. Which isnt too fantastic, not overshadowing bows.
Noticed I misread Brutal, it affects the attack roll not the damage. So pretty good for javelins or similar.


(ninja'd)

I have to agree BloodandDust.

Seems to me bows need some adjustments, but given those possible adjustments it may recontextualize the situation with xbows to some degree. Either way I don't think it would be possible to do this without adding some degree of complexity back into the game.

Also, I think there is a problem with using propulsive with xbows.
It would have the side effect of muddying the perception of what that trait represents which complicates it unnecessarily.
In other words, when I see propulsive, I think "a ranged weapon that uses some muscle power for extra damage". But that has to be redefined if used with xbows.


Hey welcome, thanks for the feedback.

Propulsive describes stored energy in drawing back the string pushing forward the msisle, which is done by either an arm, crank, lever or a pulley. It doesnt matter, the result is the same. The use of the word propulsive is misused in game, I would say rather than it not applying to crossbows. It does boil down to semantics, but I get what you mean. I did it to add as few things as possible and I could indeed add a bunch of new traits. Was I designing from scratch Id also not use a ranged power attack.
I still prefer using already written things, makes it easier to compare mechanically and nummerically.

It is interesting that so far the answers are about bows being misrepresented, I really like where that conversation goes. I could imagine redoing bows/xbow/guns design from the bottom up in a new campaign, but my group is not very invested in tinkering and appreciate stuff that they can look up in the rules. Also good to know there could be some confusion in how people view the traits.

My main concerns are design wise. Does this do what I intend it to do?
I.e. Longer Reload, Single Shot a round and remaining viable, promoting a different style of ranged combat, making it interesting?

How would you make bows different than they are currently? Adding more strength? What would the difference be between recurves, composites, short/long?
Is dex to damage more for crossbows? Or guns? PF has avoided dex to ranged damage, probably with good reason. Could gun's chemical energy be better described by extra dice or static bonuses? How do we make crossbows and guns different, when they share a lot of the practical uses and limitations?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I like crossbows as is and think their niche feels pretty distinct from bows. With investment they can hit like an absolute truck. It is hard to get that investment outside of rangers or gunslingers, though.


I must be out of the loop with crossbows. Countless searches in the forums and the prd have left me without good answers as to how.

Is there any difference between doing those shots with a crossbow than a bow, except 1 single die bump up and crossbow ace? In exchange for 3 shots a round? Is the shoot and run tactic competitive? Wouldnt a bow user do the same, but better? What about the massive feat tax required for them to even do similar to bows?
If the answer is "they are fine as simple weapons" I agree. However, it is not what these rules were about. They were to look for a different playstyle with a dedicated weapon, not a secondary ranged option.
I havent changed anything in simple crossbows as I also believe they do well in their simplicity, but are they really used as main choices?

Not trying to be combative, I am trying to understand. Because from my experience (as GM), and the narrative in all these threads is not great for crossbows, and now I am getting answers that they are powerful.
I would appreciate examples, if anything to use them myself.

Some references on previous topics:

Quote from Mark Seifer, from the following thread
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42p0s?Have-Crossbows-Changed-in-a-Meaningful-W ay#1

"Just for any simple weapon in general, rather than crossbows in particular, they are not going to be as powerful as a martial weapon. If they were, what's the point of having simple and martial weapons as a distinguishing feature between characters? When comparing them to bows, as in the OP, they are supposed to be weaker on the net; they are a category down. Now in PF1, due to the action economy, they were pretty terrible even when compared to other simple weapons. In PF2, they're quite solid for a simple weapon, which means worse than a martial."

Thread in which you also chime in, Cpt Morgan, about how subpar crossbows are, in exchange for doubtful versatility (last post you actually counter one of them yourself, but you also point out other versatility qualities):
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42zob?Crossbows-in-Pathfinder-2e#1

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43hx7?How-viable-is-Crossbow-Gunslinger#1

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42zob?Crossbows-in-Pathfinder-2e#1


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

A crossbow ranger spends their first level feat and fourth level feat and are good to go. I think there's a 10th level feat as well, but that isn't an insurmountable thing.

And it isn't just one die size. It is two die sizes over the short bow. Longbows have serious problems in smaller dungeon spaces. In more open spaces, the crossbow also has a bigger range increment than either bow. To optimally use bows you need to carry both or get point black shot, which is actually your second and fourth level feats. You also need to dump points into strength if you want to max damage, which leaves you less room for wisdom and whatever else.

Bows are the way to go if you want to switch hit. Crossbows, by comparison, are affordable at level 1, work perfectly fine at any range (with Running Reload you can even step to avoid AoEs), free up ability boosts to get you wisdom making you better at ranger staples like perception, survival, and nature, and encourage a more mobile style of play.

When you look at level 1, comparing crossbow Ace to Hunted Shot with a short bow, you're looking at 7.5 damage a hit vs 3.5 a hit. You need to actually land 3 short bow hits to surpass the damage of a single bolt. Not likely with map, even with flurry. Crossbows also play nicer with the precision edge since they don't usually care about follow up attacks. 1d10+2+1d8 feels amazing at level 1, especially on a weapon you can open a fight with at range.

The damage numbers vary as you go up in levels, and usually a fully optimized bow user pulls ahead... But not by much and they have paid a higher cost to do it.


Regarding the first post, my gut instinct on the aim trait is that it makes crossbows much stronger at level 1 because an extra d10 is worth a lot and very few ranged classes have functional reactions at that level. However, at later levels, the extra reaction eats up a bigger and bigger opportunity cost because many items, class / skill / ancestry feats can grant some pretty good reactions, and a single d10 isn't worth much when enemy hp pools bloat.

Edit: Just a heads up, being able to attack outside your turn doesn't allow you to interrupt spells in this edition. You need specific text, such as one that appears in attack of opportunity, to disrupt manipulate actions.


https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43k66?Building-a-hitandrun-Crossbow-shooter#16
I made a thread asking for advice on how to make crossbows work after your suggestions, and I have to say I am pleasantly surprised with the answers. Like you state Cpt Morgan, it works within specific niches. I am looking forward to trying some of it out!
However what I see is that the Heavy crossbow is rather forsaken, a reload of 2 is too heavy in actions, and most advice is to avoid it.

Voideternal: Indeed that extra die at low level is large, however very much under melee still, and not so far from hitting twice with a longbow. Also, I gave Aim a Power Attack, so it will scale somewhat with level (and gravity bow and so on). Power Attack itself has its problems where it isnt worth it (in melee) in comparison to many options, unless high resistances or vs high AC. I think it fits the Heavy Warbow precisely for this reason. (https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/cw8ys6/2hweapon_fighter_ana lysis_exacting_strike_vs/)
I think one way of gating it away from 1st level is simply with price. Then if the PCs do have access to it, it is through GM fiat, and at that point balance is not important.
On the reaction, it is indeed a problem, but the option to shoot normaly exists, and it is still a decent option. (in the ranger's case I didnt find anything in their feat selection that competed with it.)

My conclusion is that the niche of a heavy, slow reload crossbow like an arbalest is still very much unfulfilled. The crossbow of choice is the standard simple crossbow of 1 action. By making the Reload 2 crossbow a little more powerful we make it a bit more competitive, but still behind multiple shots a round. I think I am not off the mark, mechanically wise.

There definitely is, for me and it seems others, a design issue in representation between bows, crossbows and guns, that hasnt really been addressed well in PF2.
On the game design aspect it is tempting to not tie Xbows with strength, and be full dex. However, this encourages dex stacking which was a problem in PF1...static bonuses might be wiser (and we do see this in game with crossbow ace). I also imagine carrying a big arbalest to take some strength, specially adventuring, lugging that much wood isnt wieldy and you're not going to be the nimble shooter, so Str requirement makes some sense. On the pulley/cranequinn, it requires effort to load it, and doing it in combat requires strength and technique, perhaps tying it thus to strength. It isnt perfect, but for that I'd design all of the weapons from scratch. STR serves the purpose of limiting dex stacking, allowing switch hitting, and making it obvious that carrying and using an arbalest on the run is not for weak characters. It serves to balance between dex/str mechanically.
Ideally if designed from scratch, crossbows would have their own damage attached to weight loading (pounds, or rather kilos, I still resent the lack of metricness in this media..), but this is again beyond the scope of a simple tag rule.

Adding some descriptions.

War Crossbow
1d8. Reload 2. 120ft range. Propulsive. Aim. Expensive (15gp).
This large cross is powerful, but heavy and unwieldy. Usually loaded with a lever or foot claw.

Heavy War Crossbow (strength requirement added)
1d10. Reload 2. 150ft range. Martial. Propulsive. Aim. Deadly. Requirement 14 strength. Expensive (25gp).
This is a heavy arbalest with power to rival longbows, at a lower rate of fire. Usually loaded with a lever or foot claw.

Cranequin/Pulleys (Expensive, avoids early level issues)
These set of pulleys or cranks allow anyone to load the war crossbows, at the cost of more time, regardless of strength.

If I try these, I'll come back with some feedback, but I suspect it wont be anything too surprising or game changing apart from enabling a bit more the switch hitting or mobility shooting with a crossbow.
In the case of the very niche ranger build, which is probably the most successful out of all, it'll make it more dedicated, but still require investment. With the advice, I'll make a long bow ranger and a crossbow ranger and look at the numbers more in depth.

Edit: I'd design a Pavise shield at some point too, perhaps as a magical item to avoid base design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok so...this is really hard to word. You crammed a lot of things into one weapon trait and called it simple/easy when it isn't. There's the lack of scaling to consider, the consumption of a reaction, the way this interacts with the ready action, the action economy tax for aim, weather MAP is even a factor on a reload 2 weapon, and propulsive not being reflavored the way kickback was for guns.

So rather than try and wall of text some stuff I don't feel qualified to break down, I think I'll propose to you two ways that would work with the system better while keeping the core of your ideas: Fighter Feat or Deadly Aim.

If we are going the way of the feat, we can start with the fact that ranged weapons are intentionally given a lower power budget than melee weapons in this system. You mentioned Power Attack, now compare and contrast that with Fulminating Shot. Not an exact comparison obviously since one is a class archetype feat and the other is tied to the scariest martial in the game, but a simple retooling of Fulminating Shot as a fighter feat that does d6 precision damage would go along way to enabling a crossbow build for fighters who are otherwise locked into bows.

If we are going the way of weapon traits we need to lower the power budget even further, but there is a design space that's close enough to what you want in the form of Fatal Aim. It has the mechanic of asking for actions in order to give you more damage, and there are several crossbows that were designed to be shot from the hip one handed that you could choose to aim with both hands to line up a deadlier shot. For personal reasons I will say I'm not a fan of fatal aim which is why I didn't include it in my latest update, so I haven't figured out the theoretical worth of Deadly Aim or ran any math tests on it, but again, this would seamlessly fit in with the existing mechanics of the game a lot better than what you are proposing.

Hope this helps.


First of all, thanks for the feedback and taking the time!

Before I go on, yeah a wall of text, you've made me rethink some stuff, and perhaps there are a couple of simpler solutions that mesh with the concept. However, this is a weapon that only ever gets shot 1 time a round, to keep in mind when comparing it to anything else.

Thinking about it all in context:
I am not married to specific numbers, the flavour of text/name too much, nor the combining ready action portion of the AIM trait, if it makes it complicated. I think however sacrificing an action and reaction is alright for a rather powerful effect. Otherwise, you can use Fulminating shot if you have it, they are not exclusive, or shoot normaly.

What I want to conserve is:
1. shooting once (achieved through long reloads),
2. powerful single shot that trails close to bow use,
3. the weapon itself is powerful with position and preparedness being key (and easy to shoot, but mediocre if not dedicated)
4. easy to reference all components: can slap a trait or two that already exist so someone at my table can look it up (and here perhaps dropping the reaction from Aim is best and calling it just power attack, or use fulminating instead for simplicity, but worse scalability)

Point by point:
On why Power Attack: it already exists, it recreates a sort of vital strike in pathfinder 2, and like you mention the MAP is nor here nor there so essentially it is just the damage. It is too much damage for ranged single action, so I do think 1 action alone is too little.
Didnt know about fulminating shot, or I must've glossed over it being in spellshot. It is also a good tool for this, so thanks! perhaps a better one and easy to change the numbers in it. However it also, for a spellshot, doesnt cost any MAP vs the fighter's massive power attack MAP cost.

Lack of scaling: Power attack scales, but indeed might not be enough (it is not a great feat as it is). Then again, power budget seems to be a concern at the same time? I think price is a good gatekeeper for not worrying of access at early levels. I'll have a look at some later level damage when I have some time. Propulsive is in part in built scaling too.

Deadly Aim: I dont like penalties to hit when you're shooting once per round, personally (flavourwise this one makes absolutely no sense. Accurate aim name, hitting less often..this, fatal aim, propulsive..there are a lot of traits that describe poorly what they actually do).

Fatal Aim: I didnt like Fatal Aim either. And also not very effective, a 2hander crossbow we'd be shooting doublegripped always. But close in what it tries to do, can drop deadly and slap this on, then it is just deadly vs fatal. I honestly am not very happy with the powder weapon design in Pathfinder 2 all in all.

Kickback vs propulsive: Propulsive scales, also ties it to a balanced str/dex build. Crossbows never had much kickback compared to guns. Reflavouring the name and trait is fine, I just want stuff that can be referenced.

I disagree a bit about power budgets. This is a weapon that gets shot once per round, no way around it, so it has to be higher than something worth shooting twice/thrice, we unfortunately did not get such a weapon in the Guns and Gears otherwise we'd have an example...probably because this whole concept doesnt play well with this system (consider how direct damage spells are generally the subpar option). I still think a composite longbow in the hands of a ranger build is a superior weapon (but, have to calculate this properly.)

PS. I like your work on your crossbows and I think that they have a place in Pathfinder 2, and the designers have just chosen not to give base crossbows a simple non-power budget. However on the comparison of this vs say the Arbalest, I'd pick the Arbalest of your doccument, power wise. Makes the existing builds better. My intent is to pigeon hole this crossbow to a single shot.

PS 2. There is a doccument another user posted about decoding weapon attribute power budgets. I use it for melee weapons, and works well. I'll see if I can dig it out.

PS3. On using feats, rather than items, I think I'd just give Power Attack for ranged characters and call it a day, the 2 MAP is enough to deter more shots. However, then I'd put a juicy unique crossbow, or have to use your Arbalest, to consider it.


I agree with bows being the problem more than crossbows or guns, and one guy at my table actually had an interesting idea: Bows have reload 1, but they have a trait (draw weight X) with a strength requirement that brings it to reload 0, thus making bows a str/dex hybrid weapon and crossbows being a pure dex weapon.
And to differentiate crossbows and guns, guns keep their die size or go down a step, and target Reflex DC instead of AC.


I've been wondering if maybe bows should drop a damage die (shortbows to d4, and longbows to d6) but gain the agile trait. This could emphasize the difference between crossbows being slow and easy to use, and bows being better in the hands of experts (martials).
Also I don't know why bows have deadly and crossbows don't, from a narrative sense.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Crossbows: Easy to implement changes and gameplay shift All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules