Arbalest and heavy crossbow (and bows I guess)


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion


So now we have a new martial crossbow, but why didn't Paizo just update the heavy crossbow rather than creating a new entry? As it stand the heavy crossbow is just taking space in the weapons list for nothing because no one is going to use a reload 2 weapon. Even reload 1 crossbows are a hard sale when bows are reaload 0, deadly and potentially propulsive. The arbalest backstabber pales in comparison giving less damage bonus on top of being conditional

It would have made more sense to me to give deadly to the crossbow, this way you really have a choice to make between two distinctive style : slow firing counting on crit for big damage or rapid firing with stable damage bonus from propulsive.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, the big difference is that the heavy crossbow is a simple weapon. As someone who has used one, it's not something I'd use on a martial character. It's a "fire once and drop" weapon at low-levels for simple weapon-locked classes. What they did with the arbalest is given martial crossbow users an option for the "heavy duty" crossbow while keeping the heavy crossbow for the simple weapon users.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I also wanted to react to "no one is going to use a heavy crossbow" as I used one, too, on my low level Sorcerer. It's actually a very nice weapon as the damage is high. With a potency crystal it really packs a punch at low level on classes that are not used to be strong before a few levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To say nothing of more niche situations like having the piercing damage needed against an enemy or when having the range/defense to reload while other options are less effective.


Ruzza wrote:
I mean, the big difference is that the heavy crossbow is a simple weapon. As someone who has used one, it's not something I'd use on a martial character. It's a "fire once and drop" weapon at low-levels for simple weapon-locked classes. What they did with the arbalest is given martial crossbow users an option for the "heavy duty" crossbow while keeping the heavy crossbow for the simple weapon users.

I actually never thought of just dropping the damn thing after the first shot, this indeed open a niche for it to be used. I'm still dubitative as if backstabber is enough as a bonus for a "main weapon" compared to the bow's deadly.

SuperBidi wrote:
Yeah, I also wanted to react to "no one is going to use a heavy crossbow" as I used one, too, on my low level Sorcerer. It's actually a very nice weapon as the damage is high. With a potency crystal it really packs a punch at low level on classes that are not used to be strong before a few levels.

I guess I'm just biased against single die roll. It is more damage in the long run, but each individual shot is a gamble so the reload 2 still feel like a bit too much of a drawback. Maybe some kind of limitation on the same level as volley for the longbow would have been good.


I want to stress that the problem has been that simple weapons are not meant to be main weapons. Simple weapon-classes really use them as ways to engage their schtick or when they don't want to use other resources. The heavy crossbow, as a simple weapon, was difficult to use as a main weapon and had no martial counterpart until the arbalest. That said, I still enjoyed a gravity weapon, Running Reload, Precision ranger before the Remaster.

I would say that there are builds that work well with a single attack a round. As a matter of fact - and SuperBidi can feel free to correct me - but I feel like you gamble more with multiple attacks if you aren't built for doing so.

EDIT: Misread what you said, but gonna keep that up there. Something also to keep in mind that while the debate of "is deadly better than backstabber" there are a lot of different ways to make a character. A ranger may not consistently land crits in the same way as a crossbow gunslinger, but could also have a build based around Hiding and Striking out from cover. Or even rogues looking to have a solid weapon to Strike from hiding with before leaping into flanking. There are so many aspects to consider that comparing things one to one and trying to ascribe value to them is really going to vary from player to player and character to character.


Heavy Crossbows can also be relevant if you're creating a low level npc or monster that will start a fight in an advantageous position.

As for the Arbalest... The comparison of weapons with reload to bows has often been uneven. It's probably better to compare the Arbalest to other martial weapons with reload, such as the Sukgung (Longer range and fatal aim d12, but a lower base damage die) or the Harmona Gun (Longer range and concussive, but it's uncommon and has kickback).


Yeah, the Sukgung or Taw Launcher are the crossbows for fatal/deadly, legendary accuracy types. The arbalest is for regular martial accuracy types, or the ranger. Some people really dislike reload but there's a lot of advantages to the d10 ranged weapon, especially if you can consistently get backstabber.

- Better range than a shortbow or longbow, and no volley, but higher base damage than either.

- Composite bows can push the peak DPR ahead for bows, but call for strength investment. Crossbow builds can sink points into wisdom, which makes you feel like more of a ranger with perception, nature, and survival. (And no one complains about having a better will save.) I put points in intelligence on my crossbow kobold so I could also Craft for the party in our wilderness campaign and make snares. You can even make the rare ranger face with charisma investment, and try to leverage the nerfed* Crossbow Ace for Create a Diversion.

*The crossbow ace feat was nerfed, but if you spend the feat on gravity weapon or Sniping Duo dedication instead you'll wind up with better DPR on the arbelest in the long run than pre-remaster.

- Bows get walled by resistance pretty hard, which crossbows punch through better. Piercing rarely bypasses resistance or triggers weakness, and precious material ammunition really isn't cost effective. Bows do perform better when flaming and astral runes come into play, though.

It's really hard for any reload weapon to our damage a shortbow at short range with maximum investment (point blank shot, strength for propulsive) but at that point you're spending a lot of resources to deal less damage than melee while still being within a single stride of melee. Crossbows tend to have significantly longer range and feats which encourage staying mobile and safe, and they can hit like an absolute truck. It's a pretty different style of play, but one I dig more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for all the answers, that helped me seeing this under a new light.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Arbalest feels like Paizo's answer to remove (or rather nerf) Crossbow Ace, though in the process made it harder to benefit from its traits (backstabber) unless you actually take Crossbow Ace. In practice, they nerfed all crossbows and had a single crossbow work like all crossbows used to work though they still force you to take Crossbow Ace to benefit from it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Not directly related, but one thing that reloading has going for it is that your turns go super fast compared to most other players. Move, fire, reload is such a snappy turn that it makes me appreciate crossbow users for saving us all time. True chad reason to use em.


exequiel759 wrote:
Arbalest feels like Paizo's answer to remove (or rather nerf) Crossbow Ace, though in the process made it harder to benefit from its traits (backstabber) unless you actually take Crossbow Ace. In practice, they nerfed all crossbows and had a single crossbow work like all crossbows used to work though they still force you to take Crossbow Ace to benefit from it.

The new crossbow ace isn't worth taking unless you're doing a Charisma ranger build, which I think we can agree is quite rare. In practice, you actually take Gravity Weapon and/or Sniping Duo instead and wind up with higher damage than before even without backstabber because you aren't paying to upgrade your damage dice anymore and can stack +3 damage per dice in static modifiers. (+2 per dice status from gravity weapon, +1 per dice circumstance from Sniping Duo.) You also wind up with a focus pool which can help build all kinds of shenanigans later.

The only drawback is it locks you into an archetype, but it is one of the strongest archetypes in the game for range builds and thematically appropriate if you like the crossbow fantasy, so that cost is non issue IMO. Old Crossbow Ace not stacking with the damage bonus is a pretty big mark against it.

The whole "Paizo nerfed Crossbows" meme isn't true. They nerfed Crossbow Ace but also made it so you don't need Crossbow Ace and can make a more powerful build.


WatersLethe wrote:
Not directly related, but one thing that reloading has going for it is that your turns go super fast compared to most other players. Move, fire, reload is such a snappy turn that it makes me appreciate crossbow users for saving us all time. True chad reason to use em.

That's true if your table has both an understanding and a consensus around cover rules. Otherwise it gets a bit messy.

But the turns still tend to feel snappy even with that.


Captain Morgan wrote:
The whole "Paizo nerfed Crossbows" meme isn't true. They nerfed Crossbow Ace but also made it so you don't need Crossbow Ace and can make a more powerful build.

In a sense, yes, but also no. All crossbows stayed the same, so they weren't nerfed, but 90% of crossbow users were going to take Crossbow Ace (or the gunslinger's equivalent) so for most crossbow users they did receive a nerf. Also, which I think is important to note, the older crossbows that weren't reprinted in PC1 tecnically still count as bows, thus you wouldn't be able to use the new Crossbow Ace with them. Obviously this is easy to homebrew / fix for non society tables, but doesn't remove the fact that RAW those aren't considered as crossbows for the new rules.


exequiel759 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
The whole "Paizo nerfed Crossbows" meme isn't true. They nerfed Crossbow Ace but also made it so you don't need Crossbow Ace and can make a more powerful build.
In a sense, yes, but also no. All crossbows stayed the same, so they weren't nerfed, but 90% of crossbow users were going to take Crossbow Ace (or the gunslinger's equivalent) so for most crossbow users they did receive a nerf. Also, which I think is important to note, the older crossbows that weren't reprinted in PC1 tecnically still count as bows, thus you wouldn't be able to use the new Crossbow Ace with them. Obviously this is easy to homebrew / fix for non society tables, but doesn't remove the fact that RAW those aren't considered as crossbows for the new rules.

Are you telling me there are going to be people still locked into crossbow ace even though it isn't the feat they picked anymore? Are you really telling me any GM, PFS or otherwise, wouldn't let you immediately replace this feat? Or are you just saying that 90% of crossbow users are dumb and will decide to keep the new crossbow ace? That's kinda what it sounds like if they were taking crossbow crackshot on a regular basis, because that feat was always pretty bad. Or are you saying that there are ranger players who either are too dumb to, or are not allowed to, immediately swap their crossbow for an arbalest?

Because assuming GMs and players have an ounce of reason, they simply ditched the regular crossbow and crossbow ace for an arbalest and gravity weapon, then profit.

Say it with me. NEW CROSSBOW ACE IS BAD. 90% OF CROSSBOW USERS SHOULDN'T TAKE NEW CROSSBOW ACE.

Edit: it occurs me that you might not have read the new crossbow ace that closely and are conflating it with the gunslinger's covered reload. The ranger feat lets you Take Cover or Create a Diversion. It does not let you Hide like the gunslinger action. That's incredibly worse. Not only will most rangers have crappy Deception scores, but subsequent attempts at Create a Diversion are effectively at a -4 penalty. Take Cover, meanwhile, will not inflict flatfooted unless you're spending a second action to hide with said cover. So you have two actions, neither of which can consistently land off guard for backstabber, making this feat a total skip. Now, if you could actually Hide like the gunslinger? It would be a different story. But you can't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't disagree with you, but one of the main problems of crossbows is that they have really low damage and the only thing that could "fix" that (I don't have enough "" here to represent how little impact it had in practice) was Crossbow Ace, so by removing it you are effectively reducing the damage of all crossbow users. I get that having that feat "open" to take something else is nice, but what are you going to take to make you better with crossbows? I honestly can't take of a single feat that isn't Crossbow Ace that helps you with crossbows (and that doesn't help you with ranged weapons in general).

Anyways, the best crossbow user in the system is a thaumaturge (Implement's Empowerment + Adept Regalia go broooom)

Liberty's Edge

WatersLethe wrote:
Not directly related, but one thing that reloading has going for it is that your turns go super fast compared to most other players. Move, fire, reload is such a snappy turn that it makes me appreciate crossbow users for saving us all time. True chad reason to use em.

As silly as it is to agree with this I had the same experience in the early days when newer player made a Ranger and went with a crossbow and his turns were always consistently took a tenth of the time that the Sorcerer and Fighter and the group required.


exequiel759 wrote:

I don't disagree with you, but one of the main problems of crossbows is that they have really low damage and the only thing that could "fix" that (I don't have enough "" here to represent how little impact it had in practice) was Crossbow Ace, so by removing it you are effectively reducing the damage of all crossbow users. I get that having that feat "open" to take something else is nice, but what are you going to take to make you better with crossbows? I honestly can't take of a single feat that isn't Crossbow Ace that helps you with crossbows (and that doesn't help you with ranged weapons in general).

Anyways, the best crossbow user in the system is a thaumaturge (Implement's Empowerment + Adept Regalia go broooom)

I am honestly perplexed by what you're talking about. Are you thinking that rangers will be continue to use crossbows now that the arbalest exists? Because you'd have to be ignorant of the new weapon's existence to do that.

Are you ignoring that the arbalest raised the baseline damage of the combat style to almost what it was with old crossbow ace? Because its really close now. You don't need Crossbow Ace to patch the damage anymore.

And why does it matter if the better options also exist for other weaoons? That's an arbitrary restriction. But I will give you two crossbow specific examples.

1. Gravity Weapon. Yes, a regular now can use it. But it only applies to your first strike. Not even your first hit, like the precision edge. It's obviously better suited for single strike weapons, especially if you take something like Hunter's Aim.

2. Crossbow terror. If you really miss that +2 circumstance bonus, you can get it at level 6 through the archer archetype. Heck, it is even better now since it doesn't have those conditional triggers like old Crossbow Ace. Of course, if you're smart you won't take Crossbow Ace because you already took sniping duo and have a +2 circumstance bonus to damage from that will will scale with your striking runes.

Finally, I'm assuming you must be referencing the hand crossbow, not the crossbow crossbow, for Thaumaturge?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Outwit ranger with some charisma is getting the most out if crossbow ace. Even a +2 in cha with outwit is equivalent to having a +4 in cha.
I would say its in line with outwit being a more defensive and skill oriented path.

Turn 1
Hunt prey
Strike maybe with backstabber depending in how combat started.
Crossbow ace to take cover and reload (defensive use)

Turn 2
Strike
Crossbow ace to create diversion and reload (offensive use)
Strike with backstabber

Create diversion can be used then with a next action to hide making the turn more defensive.


Captain Morgan wrote:


2. Crossbow terror. If you really miss that +2 circumstance bonus, you can get it at level 6 through the archer archetype. Heck, it is even better now since it doesn't have those conditional triggers like old Crossbow Ace. Of course, if you're smart you won't take Crossbow Ace because you already took sniping duo and have a +2 circumstance bonus to damage from that will will scale with your striking runes....

The problem with this is that crossbows are a separate group from bows now. The Arbalest is not a bow it is a crossbow.

So many of the other feats in Archer - some of which did work with crossbows - no longer do. There are still some eg Point Blank Shot at level 4 and Running Reload at 6, Crossbow Terror at 6 which overlaps with Point Blank Shot, Mobile Shot Stance - I think that is all.
But you get nothing from the dedication now as a crossbow user. Not even the crit specialisation

The archer dedication needs cleaning up and I'm not sure exactly how they will do that or when Paizo will get around to it.


Gortle wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


2. Crossbow terror. If you really miss that +2 circumstance bonus, you can get it at level 6 through the archer archetype. Heck, it is even better now since it doesn't have those conditional triggers like old Crossbow Ace. Of course, if you're smart you won't take Crossbow Ace because you already took sniping duo and have a +2 circumstance bonus to damage from that will will scale with your striking runes....

The problem with this is that crossbows are a separate group from bows now. The Arbalest is not a bow it is a crossbow.

So many of the other feats in Archer - some of which did work with crossbows - no longer do. There are still some eg Point Blank Shot at level 4 and Running Reload at 6, Crossbow Terror at 6 which overlaps with Point Blank Shot, Mobile Shot Stance - I think that is all.
But you get nothing from the dedication now as a crossbow user. Not even the crit specialisation

The archer dedication needs cleaning up and I'm not sure exactly how they will do that or when Paizo will get around to it.

I imagine it hasn't gotten any attention from them because the non-class archetypes are getting updates in Player Core 2.


I imagine they'll get around to it in player core 2. That's where we expect the non-multiclass archetypes.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Outwit ranger with some charisma is getting the most out if crossbow ace. Even a +2 in cha with outwit is equivalent to having a +4 in cha.

I would say its in line with outwit being a more defensive and skill oriented path.

Turn 1
Hunt prey
Strike maybe with backstabber depending in how combat started.
Crossbow ace to take cover and reload (defensive use)

Turn 2
Strike
Crossbow ace to create diversion and reload (offensive use)
Strike with backstabber

Create diversion can be used then with a next action to hide making the turn more defensive.

Yes, this is the sort of build that can utilize the new version of the feat. But how many rangers have you seen with outwit? Is it more than 10%


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:

I imagine they'll get around to it in player core 2. That's where we expect the non-multiclass archetypes.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Outwit ranger with some charisma is getting the most out if crossbow ace. Even a +2 in cha with outwit is equivalent to having a +4 in cha.

I would say its in line with outwit being a more defensive and skill oriented path.

Turn 1
Hunt prey
Strike maybe with backstabber depending in how combat started.
Crossbow ace to take cover and reload (defensive use)

Turn 2
Strike
Crossbow ace to create diversion and reload (offensive use)
Strike with backstabber

Create diversion can be used then with a next action to hide making the turn more defensive.

Yes, this is the sort of build that can utilize the new version of the feat. But how many rangers have you seen with outwit? Is it more than 10%

Im sure its rare which would make my player running it pretty happy she picked it. But for her it works for the kind of play she finds fun.


Yeah, ranger faces work much better than you'd think, honestly. That said, they are not the typical ranger build which focuses dex and wisdom skills, because those govern "ranger stuff." My point isn't that crossbow ace has no place, but that arguing it is going to be a default ranger feat which has lowered the ceiling on crossbow builds doesn't compute.


Captain Morgan wrote:

I imagine they'll get around to it in player core 2. That's where we expect the non-multiclass archetypes.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Outwit ranger with some charisma is getting the most out if crossbow ace. Even a +2 in cha with outwit is equivalent to having a +4 in cha.

I would say its in line with outwit being a more defensive and skill oriented path.

Turn 1
Hunt prey
Strike maybe with backstabber depending in how combat started.
Crossbow ace to take cover and reload (defensive use)

Turn 2
Strike
Crossbow ace to create diversion and reload (offensive use)
Strike with backstabber

Create diversion can be used then with a next action to hide making the turn more defensive.

Yes, this is the sort of build that can utilize the new version of the feat. But how many rangers have you seen with outwit? Is it more than 10%

It's me, I'm the outwit crossbow ranger! (Or I would be, if I wasn't the GM).

I do unironically think Outwit is an under appreciated subclass though, and it would be 100% my choice as a ranger. Being able to spam create a diversion, being able to be the face with hunt prey in social encounters, being the smart guy who can recall knowledge for weaknesses and call them out for allies, demoralize, maybe feint if the monster charges me, etc. It's a really versatile subclass that usually gets overlooked for the extra damage of Flurry/Precision. I like being the guy who can be smart about wildlife and how to fight them.

I wonder how niche "take cover + reload" bonus is, because I usually try to include some cover for my archer fighter whenever we get into fights, but maybe some GMs aren't as generous. I like to scatter rocks, barrels, and fallen logs when it seems right.


Take Cover isn't bad per se, but not all GMs rule the cover and "lean" rules consistently, which makes it easy to hurt your own accuracy with it. It's also worse than Hide both offensively (no off guard) and defensively (+2 AC vs 50% miss chance on all targeted effects.)


I really want to like outwit, I really do, but if in a combat-centric system you are going to make me chose between being good at combat or being good out of combat I'm always going to choose to be good at combat because I don't want to be a burden to the party and I also want to have fun during combat. Even the investigator, which is IMO a class that really needs a lot of love, at least doesn't force you to make the choice between being good at combat and out of combat. I feel outwit needs some warpriest love and get better feat support, and probably some small built-in effect in the subclass itself.

Sadly, the ranger was already re-printed and Paizo pretty much left the class as is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, outwit exists as an option for those who really want it, but builds always feel really complicated because of MAD. It would help if Master Monster Hunter didn't kick in so late.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
exequiel759 wrote:

I really want to like outwit, I really do, but if in a combat-centric system you are going to make me chose between being good at combat or being good out of combat I'm always going to choose to be good at combat because I don't want to be a burden to the party and I also want to have fun during combat. Even the investigator, which is IMO a class that really needs a lot of love, at least doesn't force you to make the choice between being good at combat and out of combat. I feel outwit needs some warpriest love and get better feat support, and probably some small built-in effect in the subclass itself.

Sadly, the ranger was already re-printed and Paizo pretty much left the class as is.

If running an AP with a pretty narrow combat focused design i understand this point to a degree.

Im running my own campaign with friends. I have the opportunity to let my outwit player use what they are good at leading up to encounters. Any player can do these things but people pick outwit because they like to do them and want to be better at them. Things like scouting the enemy position recalling info about the terrain and geography and finding a trail that leads the party to an advantageous position before starting the encounter. Maybe one with higher ground with boulders to roll down at the enemy.
Maybe they wanted to set up a an ambush where they attack from hiding, create a diversion and sneak off. While the enemy is focused on finding the outwit ranger the rest of the party joins in the attack.
That kind of player wants to contribute in unique ways and has fun when they succeed on those kinds of checks and their ideas helped the party in some way. Outwit gives bonuses to stuff like this. Crossbow ace compresses a reload with take cover or create diversion. So really it allows an reload to be squeezed into a turn that was probably going to leave it for next turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paizo not touching Outwit at all in PC1 is almost as surprising as them deciding to nerf crossbows. Really don't get the thought process.

I really like the idea of a skill focused ranger, and Outwit does let you get some juicy bonuses, but the synergy is awkward (it boosts Cha and Int when you don't have a lot of reason to invest there, especially when Wisdom is your magic stat if you choose to go that route) and you completely give up any offensive gimmick for it, which is kind of a big deal. Champions get a significant bonus to AC against everyone and a unique reaction in exchange for not having a DPR gimmick, the ranger's +1 that doesn't stack with a shield and only works against a single enemy kind of pales in comparison.

.... Also +2 to stealth checks against a single enemy is a really awkward mechanic.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Maybe the outwit ranger ends up splitting the enemy group with thise tactics and for her the encounter becomes a chase for the enemies pursuing her while the rest of the party attacks the remaining enemies as a normal encounter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Paizo not touching Outwit at all in PC1 is almost as surprising as them deciding to nerf crossbows.

Could you please stop saying that they nerfed crossbows? Because they didn't, unless by crossbows you mean the very specific combination of the simple crossbow and crossbow ace feat. As long as people use the martial crossbow options they got buffed.

Grand Archive

Loosing out on the +2 to damage from crossbow ace kinda stinks but I wonder how much of a difference that would make compared to having a consistent d10 with the arbalest. Plus, crossbow terror still exists if you want it. Not sure if that will be reprinted in core 2 though.


Powers128 wrote:
Loosing out on the +2 to damage from crossbow ace kinda stinks but I wonder how much of a difference that would make compared to having a consistent d10 with the arbalest. Plus, crossbow terror still exists if you want it. Not sure if that will be reprinted in core 2 though.

The thing is you don't really miss out on the +2 as long as you don't bother taking the new crossbow ace and take the better feats. It's not quite a 1 to 1 comparison because gravity weapon and sniping duo only apply to your first strike in the round, gravity weapon needs a set up action, and sniping duo doesn't trigger unless your ally lands a hit. But you also get significantly better scaling damage (3 per dice in total, as opposed to a flat 2 that never grows), backstabber on top of that, the ability to ignore your partner as soft cover, and access to all the really powerful Sniping Duo reactions and stuff. The old crossbow ace build could also take Sniping Duo at 2nd level, but your circumstance bonuses wouldn't stack so the new version has less redundancy.

They arbalest also makes it easier for other classes to build into crossbows because the only thing you really really want is running reload, there are 3 different archetypes which get you that. Archer got it for you at 6th but compared with crossbow terror. Now you can be pretty functional at level 1, and archer is a solid pick as long as your GM isn't obnoxious about the bow/crossbow split.

Grand Archive

Captain Morgan wrote:
Powers128 wrote:
Loosing out on the +2 to damage from crossbow ace kinda stinks but I wonder how much of a difference that would make compared to having a consistent d10 with the arbalest. Plus, crossbow terror still exists if you want it. Not sure if that will be reprinted in core 2 though.

The thing is you don't really miss out on the +2 as long as you don't bother taking the new crossbow ace and take the better feats. It's not quite a 1 to 1 comparison because gravity weapon and sniping duo only apply to your first strike in the round, gravity weapon needs a set up action, and sniping duo doesn't trigger unless your ally lands a hit. But you also get significantly better scaling damage (3 per dice in total, as opposed to a flat 2 that never grows), backstabber on top of that, the ability to ignore your partner as soft cover, and access to all the really powerful Sniping Duo reactions and stuff. The old crossbow ace build could also take Sniping Duo at 2nd level, but your circumstance bonuses wouldn't stack so the new version has less redundancy.

They arbalest also makes it easier for other classes to build into crossbows because the only thing you really really want is running reload, there are 3 different archetypes which get you that. Archer got it for you at 6th but compared with crossbow terror. Now you can be pretty functional at level 1, and archer is a solid pick as long as your GM isn't obnoxious about the bow/crossbow split.

I don't like it when archetypes are chosen as the standard way to do things. It's certainly a powerful option but it's probably better to compare things within the class.


I mean if we are talking rangers, gravity weapon is in class and probably will boost your damage higher in the long run by itself than crossbow ace did.

If we are talking any other class, feels kind of moot because only 2 classes have native crossbow support.

Grand Archive

Captain Morgan wrote:

I mean if we are talking rangers, gravity weapon is in class and probably will boost your damage higher in the long run by itself than crossbow ace did.

If we are talking any other class, feels kind of moot because only 2 classes have native crossbow support.

The crossbow ace vs gravity weapon is fair. I do wonder what the average damage bonus for original crossbow ace is compared to just having a d10 crossbow though. It might just be a wash at that point alone.

Assuming standard crossbow use anyways. The repeating heavy crossbow could have been used with original crossbow ace but I don't know if anyone actually wanted to use that thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I dont think crossbow ace as it is should be compared to feats that are meant to increase damage. I mean it can donthat but its not really the main thing it does.
If you were going to reload anyway then crossbow ace is adding mainly a defensive action to that reload. The option to create a diversion is there but it is wasted if your doing a reload as your last action.
If it added hunt prey to the list of actions you could do with your reload then it would probably be better for offense.

Grand Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluemagetim wrote:

I dont think crossbow ace as it is should be compared to feats that are meant to increase damage. I mean it can donthat but its not really the main thing it does.

If you were going to reload anyway then crossbow ace is adding mainly a defensive action to that reload. The option to create a diversion is there but it is wasted if your doing a reload as your last action.
If it added hunt prey to the list of actions you could do with your reload then it would probably be better for offense.

That was my suggestion a while back. Should have been called "Hunter's reload" or something to add back the action economy that hunted shot and twin takedown have for their own niche's. Hunt prey + reload would do wonders for loaded weapon rangers.


Yeah that would be a swell feat worth taking. In general, I feel like an opportunity was missed for that whole idea. The ranger has lots of action compression options against its prey, but very little action compression for the hunt prey action itself.


Powers128 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

I mean if we are talking rangers, gravity weapon is in class and probably will boost your damage higher in the long run by itself than crossbow ace did.

If we are talking any other class, feels kind of moot because only 2 classes have native crossbow support.

The crossbow ace vs gravity weapon is fair. I do wonder what the average damage bonus for original crossbow ace is compared to just having a d10 crossbow though. It might just be a wash at that point alone.

Assuming standard crossbow use anyways. The repeating heavy crossbow could have been used with original crossbow ace but I don't know if anyone actually wanted to use that thing.

Eh, I don't think the d10 base would be a wash on its own. The old crossbow ace applied across two turns, so the only times it shouldn't have applied are when you hunted prey before combat and if you needed to take a full round off weapon use for some reason. How often you can hunt prey before combat probably varies wildly between tables, but it's gotta be less than half the time even with a generous GM. I really didn't like the weird conditions needed to trigger crossbow ace. You could probably count on having it 95% of the time and I doubt you remembered to turn it off the other 5%. (Better than a feat that won't apply 95% of the time and you won't remember the 5% where it does, but still annoying design.)

That said, I think backstabber on top puts the damage pretty close, and I'm comfortable saying gravity weapon should take you over the top.

Repeating heavy crossbow would have gotten the +2 damage bonus but not the damage dice bump since it isn't simple. I think the only advantage you gained from using it was a a longer range than the base crossbow. And while I'm a big defender of range increments factoring into weapon budget, the basic crossbow ranger already has a 240 foot no penalty range. 360 feet is a bit overkill.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Arbalest and heavy crossbow (and bows I guess) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.