Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Clawhound 03-08-05, 03:13 PM	Anyone using alternate crossbow rules? Heavy crossbows were infamous for their power and their armor piercing, and I wanted to simulate that in the rules. Here are the ones that I prefer: Light crossbows remain the same. Heavy crossbows keep the same damage/attack/threat/range. Each heavy crossbow has a strength rating from +1 to +6. This bonus applies both to hit and damage. This bonus does not stack with any Dex bonuses. The crossbow requires one move action to reload, plus one move action per bonus to winch, minus one move action per bonus point of strength. If the crossbow is +4 or more than your strength bonus, it's too heavy to aim, and you need a stand to steady it, which requires an addition move action. Winching causes attacks of opportunity. If your strength bonus exceeds the crossbow's strength bonus, you treat the crossbow as a light crossbow. Crossbows weigh +25% per bonus strength point. Heavy crossbows are bulky! Rapid Reloading reduces crossbow loading time by one move action. Example: A 10 strength footsoldier takes 4 move actions to winch his +4 heavy crossbow, one move action to ready and load his crossbow, one move action to steady it on it's stand, and one attack action to shoot it for +4 to hit, and +4 damage. That's six move actions and one attack action. That's way slow. He shoots about once per four rounds. When he and 20 of his closest friends fire at the enemy, the enemy notices! (In real life, it can take 1-2 minutes to reload a winching crossbow.) If his company was trained in rapid reloading, they could fire once every three rounds. Example: Thor, an 18 strength barbarian, takes two move actions to **** his +6 heavy crossbow (+6 crossbow - +4 strength bonus = 2 move actions), he doesn't need a brace, and then takes one more move action to load it, and an attack action to shoot it. He shoots every other round. If Thor had a Bull's Strength, he could treat his heavy crossbow as a light crossbow and shoot every round.
Tyler Do'Urden 03-08-05, 03:18 PM	That's needlessly complicated.
Gloriam Etriae 03-08-05, 04:35 PM	To simplify this, you may just want to use the Mighty Longbow prices for "Mighty" Heavy Crossbows (keep the regular Heavy Crossbow for weakling wizards and the like ;) ), and have that +1 to +4 bonus apply only to damage (a crossbow's accuracy should only be a function of Dexterity). If you want to get more complicated, you can say that the heavy crossbow takes one extra full round action to load if the character doesn't have an equivalent or higher strength bonus. I think I may pilfer this idea for my own campaign setting.
RPM33 03-08-05, 04:45 PM	Sounds heavily unbalanced. It makes no sense for a bowman of average strenght to expend the the additional turns to winch the bow for such a paltry bonus when he could double or triple the rate of fire using an ordinary xbow. Stronger fighters will enjoy substantial bonuses to hit and damage with increased rate of fire. Just looks like you want to turn your bricks into tanks. RPM
Clawhound 03-08-05, 04:57 PM	Actually, I'm was thinking more of crossbow as infantry weapons. In history, crossbows had the gun niche before guns did. They had a slow rate of fire, but when they fired, they punched through armor. This is why the bonus applies to both attack and damage. When the defending orcs are using +4/+4 crossbows, and none of them are masterwork, and they get a to-hit bonus that exceeds their low dex, you can see why they'd be popular weapons. You are right that mighty bows work far better than crossbows under these rules. For a strong character, bows just make more sense. Heck, for characters, bows just make more sense.
Gloriam Etriae 03-08-05, 04:59 PM	Honestly, mighty crossbows would only be used effectively on the battlefield. They're good one-shot weapons in a skirmish-level combat for characters who can't/don't use bows...too long of a reload time to be effective after the first shot, much like an arquebus or other firearm. That's partly why I suggested making use of already-established rules (for mightly longbows), and incurring the extra reload time for those who just aren't strong enough to crank the string back effectively. But, hey, it adds a little alternative flavor, especially if you tie into a regional affinity or something similar.
Gloriam Etriae 03-08-05, 05:01 PM	You are right that mighty bows work far better than crossbows under these rules. For a strong character, bows just make more sense. Heck, for characters, bows just make more sense. Well, except for those characters who don't get martial weapon proficiencies. ;)
Aneul 03-08-05, 05:06 PM	Actualy, the cross bow was not nearly as effective as the long bow. Crossbows were considerably less acurate then long bows at rages exeeding 50 ft, and a longobw equipt with bodkin arrows could punch armor at a distance about as well as the crossbow could at close range. Consider that the use of the longbow is what eventualy made the mounted knight obsolete, the knight and the crossbow had coexisted for nearly a century prior to the aquisition of the longbow by any substantial force.
RPM33 03-08-05, 05:10 PM	Nah, xbows were adopted because it required less time to train troops to fire them accurately, than did longbows. In the hands of the average peasant longbows have greater damage potential, but xbows hit more often. Why do the orcs get +4/+4? Shouldn't a dex penalty kick in here somewhere? RPM
RPM33 03-08-05, 05:13 PM	my "nah" was directed at claw, not aneul, for, the sake of clarity
DM Zoc 03-08-05, 05:13 PM	Consider that the use of the longbow is what eventualy made the mounted knight obsolete, the knight and the crossbow had coexisted for nearly a century prior to the aquisition of the longbow by any substantial force. That's because nobody could figure out how to use the longbow "correctly" for a long time after they were invented; there's something to be said for "simple" weapons.
Gloriam Etriae 03-08-05, 05:42 PM	Historically, the longbow didn't make the mounted knight obsolete. The amount of training required to effectively use the weapon made good longbowmen few-and-far-between (but incredibly devastating nonetheless). The advent of gunpowder and effective firearms spelled the death knell of the knight, as kings could field devastatingly efficient armies at a much lower cost of training. A peasant could be taught in a few weeks how to effectively fire an arquebus, and 10 such weapons would take a knight down in his tracks (for less money).
RPM33 03-08-05, 06:37 PM	That's because nobody could figure out how to use the longbow "correctly" for a long time after they were invented; there's something to be said for "simple" weapons. Huh? What's complicated about a longbow? In operation it's no more complex than a short bow; archaeological evidence suggests bow use for greater than 10,000 years. The longbows development was directly attributable to increases in the protective capabilities of armor in England, specifically. Most early longbows were made of yew, a particularly strong wood that could support the "pull" required of bow that could defeat the new armor common on the battlefield. Other countries, specifically Italy developed more powerful xbows to counteract the new armor. Italy and most of Europe did not have access to English Yew at the time. If Yew was a common specie I suspect the longbow would have become widespread more quickly, and possibly earlier historically.
Gloriam Etriae 03-08-05, 06:46 PM	True enough, RPM, but archery was still an art that required years of practice to become and remain proficient, whereas the simpler crossbow (and, later, firearms) could be learned within a few weeks.
RPM33 03-08-05, 08:16 PM	Absolutely. Archery is indeed a demanding art.
Thelon Fairblade 03-09-05, 09:04 AM	Back to the original idea: What about giving the "Mighty heavy crossbow" an armor-ignoring or armor-piercing bonus instead of a bonus to hit. A +4 HXB isn't any more accurate against that Dex 18 unarmored wizard than a normal crossbow, but it will pierce the ranger's chain shirt like it wasn't even there....
FriendoftheDork 03-09-05, 09:21 AM	I've already suggesting similar rules, but basically just mighty crossbows, for simplicity. Without sufficient strenght, crossbows take 1 minute to reload, so to prevent wizards etc. from using +4 mighty crossbows effectively. In addition, heavier crossbows are more expensive just like bows. Oh and the bonus only applies to damage, after all heavier pull doesen't make it more accurate. You could implement armor piercing rules, but I think it would be too complicated for what it's worth. Perhaps +4 to hit against armored foes (any armor bonus) within 50' ?
Clawhound 03-09-05, 10:31 AM	I like the idea of the armor bonus in the first range increment. The strength/speed of the quarrel gets you the accuracy that you are looking for. Past that, keep the damage but nix the firing accuracy. I'm seeing lots of good stuff here. I do remember that crossbows were little valued until a certain battle, which I can't remember, when someone thought to use many crossbowmen in a single volley. The results were brutal. After that, crossbowmen became very popular, as they could be trained quickly, coordinated, and had a great punch. They only needed one volley, so firing slow but hard worked for them. I wish I could remember that battle. The longbow is not only a demanding weapon, but a delicate one. They take years to develop, as you aim, then draw-and-shoot in one motion. You do NOT hold a yew bow at full tension for more than a few seconds, because if you do, you'll crack your bow. Crossbows, on the other hand, were quite abusable.
Gloriam Etriae 03-09-05, 11:24 AM	Okay, to incorporate a couple things from this, how would this sound for Mighty Heavy Crossbows? Mighty (Heavy) Crossbow: Heavy crossbows can be made with greater tension, providing the wielder with a mechanical Strength bonus to damage within the crossbow's first range increment. The crossbow can be bought with a +1 to +4 mechanical Strength bonus; each +1 costs 100gp, in addition to the cost of a regular crossbow. Mighty crossbows can be fired with no penalty by anyone proficient with the heavy crossbow, but those with strength bonuses that are less than the Strength rating of the crossbow require an additional full round action to load the weapon.
RPM33 03-09-05, 01:18 PM	[QUOTE=Clawhound]I like the idea of the armor bonus in the first range increment. The strength/speed of the quarrel gets you the accuracy that you are looking for." How does strength/speed equate to accuracy? If I have a shaky hand, no strength/speed bonus on an xbow will remedy that. I doubt any projectile with subsonic velocity will help very much. "The longbow is not only a demanding weapon, but a delicate one. They take years to develop, as you aim, then draw-and-shoot in one motion." No archer aims and shoots in one motion-that's strictly fantasy (pun intended). Further, the longbow is neither demanding nor delicate. It is the art of archery that is demanding. "You do NOT hold a yew bow at full tension for more than a few seconds, because if you do, you'll crack your bow." What? That is absolutely false. If anything longbows and bows in general are stronger than xbows. The limiting factor in holding a bow at full tension is not the strength of the bow, it's the strength of the bowman. What makes you assume xbow bows are stronger or more durable? Remember, none of these bows are compound nor are they laminate. "Crossbows, on the other hand, were quite abusable." Again, this is patently false. To this very day, xbow bow's are cheap, disposable, and inexpensive to manufacture compared to a longbow. The central body of a medieval xbow is quite solid, of course, it's the bow and not the body that is at issue here. Claw-perhaps the best thing for your players is a trebuchet. This being the equivalent of the really mighty xbow you seek.
Vatras 03-09-05, 02:24 PM	If someone wants to have stronger heavy crossbows, double their base damage. No reason to get overly complicated.
IceFractal 03-09-05, 02:41 PM	I can see where this system is coming from, and it does the job a lot more simply than many I've seen for the same problem. The problem is this: 1) The strength of crossbow is proportional to how powerful the firing mechanism is. Unlike a mighty bow, a mighty crossbow shouldn't be any harder to load, just take longer. 2) On the other hand, someone massively strong (I'm thinking Detritus from Discworld with his seige crossbow here) could manually pull back the firing mechanism instead of winching it. I came up with a system to model this, but decided it was too complicated (damage went up a whole step each time and added another full round to winching, strength had an effect at specific levels like 20 & 30). This system seems like a fairly simple solution to the problem. However, I'd require that, like a mighty bow, mighty crossbows (the ones with a bonus) be made for a specific wielder setup. So for instance, you could have a Mighty (+4) crossbow, made for a 14 Strength wielder (thus taking 2 moves to winch). Changing it to a Mighty (+4) crossbow for an 18 Strength wielder (thus acting as a light crossbow), would take some recalibration by a skilled weaponsmith. Also, since Heavy Crossbows now only take as long as Light Crossbows to load, they probably should only do 1d8 damage, their only difference being that they can be made "Mighty". Basically: Light XBow = Normal Bow, Heavy XBow = Composite Bow. A heavy crossbow with a +1 bonus would be effectively the same as a masterwork heavy xbow is in the normal rules, same avg damage (5.5), same bonus to hit, same time to reload (actually a slight difference - two move actions is more flexible than a FRA, but also provokes two AoOs, seems balanced). Therefore a giving a heavy xbow a +1 bonus should cost ~300 gp.
Clawhound 03-09-05, 03:47 PM	My understanding of bows comes from a man who owns wooden bows. That doesn't mean that he's right, any more than a gun owner will be right about his guns, but your objections don't mean that he's wrong. Perhaps this comes from pre-fiberglass sports bows, where they were mass-manufactured, but not yew bows. I'll have to dig around.
RPM33 03-09-05, 04:07 PM	My d+d books are old and I don't keep up with all the new source books, but I don't pretend to be a d+d expert. I have owned both bows and cross bows, and have been involved with archery for over a decade, I don't pretend to be an archery expert. The only thing I can say I am expert in is not pretend I am knowledgeable about things of which I have no knowledge. My understanding of bows comes from a man who owns wooden bows. That doesn't mean that he's right, any more than a gun owner will be right about his guns, but your objections don't mean that he's wrong. Perhaps this comes from pre-fiberglass sports bows, where they were mass-manufactured, but not yew bows. I'll have to dig around.
Deoxy 03-09-05, 04:35 PM	The battle of Agincourt is the famous battle of bowmen VS knights, where the bowman slaughtered the knights. Unfortunately, it seems highly likely that what primary killed the knights in question was the mud they were fighting on. The English longbow was indeed a mighty and fearsome weapon (more on that in a minute) - it's weakness, at this battle at least, was the much-hailed bodkin arrowhead. This arrowhead as not desinged to pierce armor, it was designed to be CHEAP. It was also made with iron instead of steel for the same reason. Arrowheads recovered from Agincourt to confirm last lst part - and tests with replica iron arrowheads against replica steel plate (and we've got LOTS of steel plate left from the time in museums all over EUrope) show that the arrowheads just didn't go through. So, with better arrows or lesser armor, the longbow was indeed dominating. It was incredibly powerful - the English had many archers due to the avaiability of the yew (which produced the power) and tradition (probably an outgrowth of having a good weapon) which encouraged archery. Professional English archers can be identified long after death by the noticeably more developed right shoulder. As to Agincourt, even without the modern science, there are accounts from both sides of the battle describing the archers putting down their bows and dispatching en masse helpless knights stuck in the mud with knives and sledgehammers. Hardly a description of a dominant longbow. The age of heavily armored knights (most of which WERE NOT mounted in battle, by the way) was ended by firearms (most especially pistoliers with bandoliers of pistols), not the longbow.
Keenath 03-09-05, 04:38 PM	The point of a crossbow was NEVER the strength of the impact. A longbow can always put away more power than a crossbow. The thing that made crossbows so vital on the battlefield was that you NEED NOT TRAIN to use one! That's why crossbows are a simple weapon. The whole point was that you could slap one of those thing in anyone's hands, and with a minimum of training they could put the bolt about where you need it -- the arrow goes where you point it. It takes years of practice to become so proficient with longbows, though you get superior damage and -- more importantly -- fire rate out of them.
Paladin18 03-09-05, 05:03 PM	I allow players to fire a crossbow from the prone position and recieve a +2 on their attack bonus. This is to emulate the stability of firing from the prone position.
Drachasor 03-09-05, 05:20 PM	Not sure how balanced this is...but my thoughts: Mighty Heavy Crossbows should be available at least up to +4 normally. You must have a strength modifier within 1 point of the Mighty Crossbow modifier to use Rapid Shot with it. If your Modifier isn't two points below the M. Xbow mod, then you require an extra full round action to reload it. These are always masterwork and cost 450 gp for a +1, and an additional 100gp for each +1 thereafter. Mithral Mighty Heavy Crossbows are easier to reload, and can be used with rapid reload as long as your strength mod is at least 2 below the Mighty Crossbow rating. If you are 4 below, then you require an extra full round action to reload it. The cost is the same as for a Mighty Crossbow, plus 4000gp. Adamantine Mighty Heavy Crossbows are the pinnacle of the art. They range from +5 to +8 strength modifiers, with the same requirements otherwise as a regular Mighty Crossbow. They have a base cost of 4050 gp (masterwork, adamantine), and every +1 above +5 costs an additional 300gp. Additionally, if your strength modifier is 200% higher than the mod on the Mighty Heavy Crossbow, you may reload it as though it were a light crossbow. (For Heavy Crossbows, non-mighty, the requirement is a modifier of +2). -Drachasor
ShadowNinja 04-08-05, 04:28 PM	Aneul: Yes, the xbow co-existed for years with knights, but that is exactly what dissproves your point. The crossbow was considered such a deadly weapon that the church (Which had almost all the power at the time) outlawed its use. So, therefore I would assume the crossbow to be more damaging (On armor) then a Longbow.
DM Zoc 04-08-05, 04:34 PM	I have a question about the intended "mighty" crossbows. Since the strength is only required to load them (which is the only way it makes sense), does this mean you can have the half-orc barbarian load the crossbow and then give it to the elf rogue to fire? I can see this bringing up balance issues.
Tony Vargas 04-08-05, 05:08 PM	Anyone using alternate crossbow rules? Heavy crossbows were infamous for their power and their armor piercing, and I wanted to simulate that in the rules. Yes, or I was when I was running a D&D campaign. In addition to punching through armor, crossbows were also important because they were effective with relatively little training, as has been pointed out. Anyway, the changes I did were simple. Since other weapons with good reputed amor penetration, like axes and picks have high crit multipliers, and, for that matter, since high crits slightly favor masses of low-AB attackers statistically, I just changed those. Light Xbow 20/x3; heavy 20/x4. That's an upgrade for the heavy crossbow, basically nuetral for the light. It represents a weapon that punches through armor like an axe or pick, and it's favorable for massed low-BAB gaurds and soldiers. 'Relatively little training,' BTW, can also be taken to mean average STR, as well as relatively low level and simple weapon proficiency. Longbowmen, as has been mentioned, had to be pretty strong (in a specific way), and they trained extensively to achieve that STR. So, I don't see much point in 'mighty' Xbows, at least from a simulationist PoV. Warriors with the 'luxury' (free time and good diet, I guess) to develop a high STR could also learn to use 'mighty' draw bows.