Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zebek 08-30-05, 07:45 PM	I was hoping that Sword and Fist would include some additions to the list of weapons the Monk can use with proficiency (without wasting an exotic weapon feat). For example, the Great Crossbow would seem an obvious choice as the monk is already adept with the light and heavy versions. This crossbow is not particularly complicated and so is not as exotic as the repeating variants. Is there another book that updates the monk list or is the list carved in stone? :confused:
Ranger REG 08-31-05, 02:09 AM	Great crossbow would slow them down. However, a monk can take it, but it is not part of their starting proficiencies. See OA for an expanded list.
Zebek 08-31-05, 05:21 AM	Great crossbow would slow them down. I like that :) The monk already grinds to a halt loading a heavy crossbow (a full-round action + AoO) so I don't see the great crossbow as being that much more of a hindrance. It's just a logical extension of the arbitrary design choice of giving monks crossbows in the first place to ensure they had a decent missile weapon. I'll track down the OA - cheers.
StormCrow42 08-31-05, 12:13 PM	The great crossbow isn't a martial or simple weapon for anyone. Many exotic weapons are exotic because they're better than the non-exotic counterparts. It's a game balance thing.
Zebek 08-31-05, 01:24 PM	The great crossbow isn't a martial or simple weapon for anyone. Many exotic weapons are exotic because they're better than the non-exotic counterparts. It's a game balance thing. But in the Martial list in PHB you have (as an example) Axe, throwing Handaxe Battleaxe Greataxe For game balance, then, the Greataxe should be exotic. Exotic weapons should be exactly that - exotic.
Ranger REG 08-31-05, 01:57 PM	Greataxe is exotic? :uh-huh: To monks from the Far East, yes. To Euros, no.
StormCrow42 08-31-05, 02:58 PM	But in the Martial list in PHB you have (as an example) Axe, throwing Handaxe Battleaxe Greataxe For game balance, then, the Greataxe should be exotic. Exotic weapons should be exactly that - exotic. You've obviously missed the balance issues involved. Each weapon has a tradeoff. The throwing axe exchanges crit range for a range increment and a little weight (for a light weapon). The battleaxe gains more damage for being one-handed instead of light, increasing penalties for using it in your off hand when TWF. Finally, the greataxe gains even more damage for being two handed. It's all part of the balance tree. A great crossbow is exotic for the same reason the bastard sword is exotic when used one handed, it is definitively better than the heavy crossbow, as the bastard sword is better than the longsword and other one handed weapons.
Malcoren 08-31-05, 06:05 PM	OK, I can understand why monks would have Crossbow. It's the ultimate in 'poor man's weaponry'. You just point and shoot. Anyone could do it, really, with only the most basic of experience. But a Great Crossbow? Come on, the thing is nearly as big as the Monk himself! There's a reason it's exotic, and that's not because any old Monk from a monastery should be capable of picking it up and aiming it. Compared to the modern world, it'd be like me saying "Yeah, it's easy for anyone to shoot a rifle. So it makes since that just any person could shoot a .50 cal with no experience." Really doesn't work. The Great Crossbow is an outsized monstrosity that probably takes a ton of training just to be able to hold the thing more or less in place from its massive kick. Otherwise the tension of the metal string no doubt yanks the aim off before the bolt is even done moving off its groove. Net result: -4 (nonproficiency) to hit because of the damn things recoil. The Great Crossobw is definately not a "simple" weapon. ANd I fail to see how its addition to the list would be an 'obvious addition'.
Zebek 08-31-05, 08:25 PM	But a Great Crossbow? Come on, the thing is nearly as big as the Monk himself! There's a reason it's exotic, and that's not because any old Monk from a monastery should be capable of picking it up and aiming it. There is no reason for it to be exotic beyond the fact that ALL the damned Sword and Fist weapons are exotic. Compared to the modern world, it'd be like me saying "Yeah, it's easy for anyone to shoot a rifle. So it makes sence that just any person could shoot a .50 cal with no experience." Really doesn't work. The Great Crossbow is an outsized monstrosity that probably takes a ton of training just to be able to hold the thing more or less in place from its massive kick. Otherwise the tension of the metal string no doubt yanks the aim off before the bolt is even done moving off its groove. Net result: -4 (nonproficiency) to hit because of the damn things recoil. The Great Crossobw is definately not a "simple" weapon. ANd I fail to see how its addition to the list would be an 'obvious addition'. These are all just your interpretations of the small amount of text available. The differences between heavy and great crossbows: Cost - 50gp vs 100gp Damage - d10 vs d12 Range increment - 120ft vs 150ft Weight - 8lb vs 15lb Shoot with one hand - Yes vs No Whoop - a greater crossbow is just a bigger version of the heavy crossbow. Both are winch-loaded. Considering the difference between light and heavy crossbows, it may be artifically more heavy than the extra damage dictates. There is nothing in the text that explains why the weapon is more complicated to use then the light/heavy versions. A heavy mace, for example, is a simple weapon because it is simple to use - it's weight is irrelevant. With a heavy weapon, your training teaches you how to compensate for it. Heavy does not equal exotic. Taking your example, you can fire ANY calibre of rifle/MG/gun/whatever with training. I suggested adding GXbow to the list of weapons a monk could use (and was therefore trained with). What idiot would expect someone to be able to use a 0.50" MG without training? Not me. If you can come up with some concrete reasons why a great crossbow is not as "simple" as a light or heavy crossbow then I'll be happy to read them.
Malcoren 09-01-05, 12:07 AM	"If you can come up with some concrete reasons why a great crossbow is not as "simple" as a light or heavy crossbow then I'll be happy to read them" I came up with plenty of concrete reasons. Apparently, however, they just aren't enough to satisfy you, as it seems that doubling a weapons weight is, itself, not enough for you, even though there is precedent (look at the heavy, metal spears for Salamanders found in Savage Species. Incidentally, they are of identical design to normal spears, except much heavier and made entirely of metal. Yet they require an EWP as well). "There is no reason for it to be exotic beyond the fact that ALL the damned Sword and Fist weapons are exotic" I'm sorry, what is this "Sword and Fist" you are referring to? Last time I checked, the current version of the weapon was in Races of Stone. You know the whole thing about later versions updating and changing the data from newer versions, yes? "These are all just your interpretations of the small amount of text available." ANd saying "Gee, it's just a bigger heavy crossbow, so it has to be the same" is your interpretation of that text. "The differences between heavy and great crossbows:" Just so you know, things are different now. To deconstruct your question, I'll approach it from two directions. Rules Mechanics: The current Heavy Crossbow deals 2D8 damage, has the same increment as a heavy, and has the threat range of a Scimitar. 2D8 is a step up from 1D12, meaning it does even more damage. Mechanically, that alone makes it qualify for the next step up in weapon category. An increase in threat range also constitutes a step up in weapon type. Guess what? It weant from the basics of a Heavy Crossbow (a simple weapon) to a Martial weapon, on up to an Exotic weapon. Games rule wise, its 3.5 stats qualify it for Exotic. If you want to continue arguing it from a 3.0 standpoint, good luck, see the next section. "Realism": "Whoop - a greater crossbow is just a bigger version of the heavy crossbow." Just a bigger version, eh? Well, by that logic, a BALLISTA is just a bigger version of a heavy crossbow. "Both are winch-loaded. " Just like a Ballista. "There is nothing in the text that explains why the weapon is more complicated to use then the light/heavy versions. " No, because it requires some common sense. JUST building the bow bigger itself does nothing aside from providing a more stable firing platform. But the size increase allows a stronger cable to be used in its construction, something that can withstand a far greater amount of pressure being applied to it. Since the entire x-bow is bigger, the rest of it can survive that stress as well, allowing it to be cranked up to a level of tension that would most likely ruin a normal heavy x-bow, if not destroy it outright. Aside from this, you haven't addressed the vastly increased kickback, either. "A heavy mace, for example, is a simple weapon because it is simple to use - it's weight is irrelevant." So if I give you a fifty pound, four-foot mace, it'd be as easy and 'simple' to use as a three-foot eight-pounder? Riiiight. "With a heavy weapon, your training teaches you how to compensate for it. Heavy does not equal exotic." Actually yes, yes it does. If it is sufficiently large enough, it requires special training, which does qualify it for exotic. See the aforementioned Salamander Spears (which, BTW, are 3.0). Wielding much larger, heavier weapons is completely different than wielding their lighter kin. Since you have yet to show how 'diverse' of training your Monks have that they can wield big-arse crossbows, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if peasants trained to use the normal variety can't even wield the big ones properly, then your Monks stands little chance with almost no training. "Taking your example, you can fire ANY calibre of rifle/MG/gun/whatever with training. " Individual training on that specific class of weapon. I, for example, am qualified to use the standard assault rifle, but don't have the special training to use a SAW. Chances are, I'd end up not hitting anything except by pure luck, for the simple reason that I wouldn't know how to brace it properly, what method of aiming and firing to use, wouldn't have practice resisting the recoil, etc. Same thing in this instance with the crossbow. You go from one that almost anyone can pick up and that makes your shoulder sore from a shot or two to one that's nearly as big as your torso and can knock you flat on your rump. " I suggested adding GXbow to the list of weapons a monk could use (and was therefore trained with). " And yet you have no coherent reason why except for the weak argument of 'It's just a bigger crossbow!" "What idiot would expect someone to be able to use a 0.50" MG without training? Not me." Then why do you expect Monks, of all people, to get specialized training in a massive weapon? If you wish to continue, at least try and refute the above points, or perhaps give better reasons for your case other than it just being a 'bigger heavy crossbow'.
Zebek 09-01-05, 01:58 PM	You don't need to lay the sarcasm on quite so thick. As I do not have access to as many D&D books as I would like, I didn't know that the great crossbow had been superceded. It's a pity the errata for S&F doesn't include this information. Our discussion is therefore pretty much null-and-void. Is there an Internet resource listing what-replaces-what that I can check future questions against? I concede that the great crossbow should be exotic due to the rarity of its use and the training needed. I would still question how big you think the great crossbow really is. I was lucky to have found a website selling reproductions and a 4-foot 20lb beast looks like http://www.mwart.com/images/p/Crossbows_Giant_Medieval_Crossbow_47__46 06_356.jpg and is described here (http://www.mwart.com/xq/ASP/pid.356/qx/product.htm). That's not quite "nearly as big as your torso" and the D&D one is lighter - 3/4 the weight of the one pictured. I agree it would have quite a kick though.
bondious 09-01-05, 03:16 PM	:nonono: I think that the whole idea of a Great Crossbow is just a little out of whack. It seems that the designers have such a need to create more and more weapons that a PC could use, and that the people playing the game have such a need for more and more damage, that these things are getting out of hand. You start adding the word "great" in front of nearly EVERYTHING, making it almost litterally a weapon designed for a large creature that a medium creature can use. Here's some examples from the Complete Warrior of what I mean: Greatspear - 2d6 damage, 2-handed Warmace - d12 damage, 1-handed Greatbow - d10 damage ...and then you have the: Great crossbow - 2d8 damage??? (hell, I thought it was d12, sheesh :rolleye2: ) It seems that there is a definate need to constantly push the envolope of what is believable. Hell, why would anyone use a heavy crossbow when they could spend a feat and use a great crossbow? Why use a regluar longbow with d8 damage when you can get a great longbow that does d10? I guess we'll have to then, after all of the weapons have a "great" verson, come up with a "great-great" verson that will be even MORE venerable and powerful than their meager "great" versions. Here we go :twitch: : Greater-than-Great Sword: 3d6 damage, 19-20/x3 critical, +d6 damage on sunder attempts, can be wielded two-handed as a martial weapon or one-handed as an exotic weapon, and it even shoots a short spear concealled in the pommel up to 30 feet with a -4 penalty for d8 damage. Sound cheezy? Well MAYBE this is an exageration, but it's a pretty good satire of this new trend of obsequiously damage-intensive weapons. :yuck:
Zebek 09-01-05, 03:57 PM	...and then you have the: Great crossbow - 2d8 damage??? In the hands of a Hobbit Monk :P Weight halves to 7.5 lbs and damage is reduced to 1d12 (I think) for Small-sized versions! It's actually lighter than a Medium-sized heavy crossbow but does more damage. ;) So as soon as he gets to 3rd and picks up an Exotic weapon feat, he's off to the shops! 100gp well spent indeed. Rapid Reload on Great crossbows, anyone? :confused:
Tetsubo 09-01-05, 05:09 PM	My thoughts on Monk Weapons: Monk Special Weapons I’ve never been happy with how 3.0/3.5 rules have dealt with Monk specialty weapons. Lets look at the official SRD first: “When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired. When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus x 1-1/2 or x 1/2) to her damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a weapon in one or both hands. The monk can’t use any weapon other than a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows.” With the exception of the quarterstaff all of these weapons are very Asian in design. There’s nothing wrong with Asian weapons, I’m rather fond of the tetsubo myself. But in a fantasy world that is trying to be “generic” they seem out of place. Not to mention a world that has quite a few races that aren’t from reality at all. The intent of the designers seems to have been to offer the Monk a selection of weapons that would cover all of the damage type bases (Bludgeoning, Piercing and Slashing). They also threw in a few special abilities as well, i. e. Tripping and Disarming. In and of themselves these aren’t bad ideas. I just think that they weren’t well executed and were shoehorned into an Asian mold. Lets look at each weapon individually (data from the SRD): “Kama: The kama is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding a kama special options. You can use a kama to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the kama to avoid being tripped.” This is a Slashing weapon that offers the user the special ability of making a Trip attack. This weapon design is taken from an agricultural tool still in use today. Not a bad design but it is very much an Asian item. “Nunchaku: The nunchaku is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding a nunchaku special options. With a nunchaku, you get a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an enemy (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails).” A Bludgeoning weapon that offers a Disarm specialty attack. Also derived from an Asian agricultural tool. “Quarterstaff: A quarterstaff is a double weapon. You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A creature wielding a quarterstaff in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round. The quarterstaff is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding a quarterstaff special options.” The classic staff. I wouldn’t alter this weapon at all. Both because it’s ubiquitous to every culture and such a stable of RPG’s. House Rule Idea: I’ve often thought that the quarterstaff should be more attractive to Fighters. One idea I had was to allow a Fighter to take an “exotic” Feat in the quarterstaff. This would change the stats to 1d6/1d6 (Small) or 1d8/1d8 (Medium) x3. Giving the weapon the same stats as an Orc Double Axe. Since the Double Axe is considered balanced I think this idea would fit into the rules easily. “Sai: With a sai, you get a +4 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an enemy (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails). The sai is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding a sai special options.” A second Bludgeoning weapon with a Disarm special attack. The special attack bonus is better than the Nunchaku. I’m not sure why anyone would take the Nunchakus in preference to the Sai. This weapon is at least not derived from an agricultural tool. In the real world these weapons were sometimes sharpened. I realize that the damage is slightly lower but the addition of a Ranged attack makes up for that deficit. “Shuriken: A shuriken is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding shuriken special options. A shuriken can’t be used as a melee weapon. Although they are thrown weapons, shuriken are treated as ammunition for the purposes of drawing them, crafting masterwork or otherwise special versions of them and what happens to them after they are thrown.” I wouldn’t change the rules governing this weapon. I’ve never seen it as an attractive weapon choice but it seems balanced and functional. To avoid the Asian influence I would rename the weapon Throwing Steels. “Siangham: The siangham is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding a siangham special options.” This is frankly the most bizarre choice in the rules system. The Siangham is the most esoteric real world weapon in the game. I was baffled as to why it was chosen. I can understand that they needed a Piercing weapon to accommodate the Damage Resistance rules. But the Siangham is just a strange choice. So, what would I do differently? I’d make the Monk Special Weapons generic in stats and let the individual Monk (or GM) provide the flavor text. For example: Monk Special Weapons: Bludgeoning: 1d4 (Small) or 1d6 (Medium) x2 Piercing: 1d4 (Small) or 1d6 (Medium) x2 Slashing: 1d4 (Small) or 1d6 (Medium) x2 Thrown: 1d3 (Small) or 1d4 (Medium) x2 Range Increment 10 ft. Special: Two of the melee weapons may have one each of the Tripping or Disarming special attack. Bonus will be +2 for said attack. If the Thrown weapon has such a special attack addition the bonus will be +4. The player or the GM will provide the required flavor text for the weapon. Dwarven Monks might have War Drum Sticks (Bludgeoning) or Stone Drills (Piercing). A Monk from a society with a naval background might have Gaff Hook (Piercing with a Trip special attack). Each set of Monk weapons would be tailored to the specific race, culture or martial arts style. There would literally be no limit to the number of potential designs. It would be left to the imagination of the players or GM. Any thoughts?
Ranger REG 09-01-05, 05:14 PM	I concede that the great crossbow should be exotic due to the rarity of its use and the training needed. I would still question how big you think the great crossbow really is. I was lucky to have found a website selling reproductions and a 4-foot 20lb beast looks like http://www.mwart.com/images/p/Crossbows_Giant_Medieval_Crossbow_47__46 06_356.jpg and is described here (http://www.mwart.com/xq/ASP/pid.356/qx/product.htm). That's not quite "nearly as big as your torso" and the D&D one is lighter - 3/4 the weight of the one pictured. I agree it would have quite a kick though. Looks like a heavy crossbow to me.
Malcoren 09-01-05, 05:33 PM	"You don't need to lay the sarcasm on quite so thick. " Sorry. It was a bad day. You just happened to be the first to cross my sights, as it were. My apologes. "I didn't know that the great crossbow had been superceded." Yeah, there's that, too. Bit of a problem there, and you'd think they'd update the data. Try messaging me sometime for more info if you need it. "I concede that the great crossbow should be exotic due to the rarity of its use and the training needed. " And, equally importantly, the design methodology for the weapon rules mechanics. (which, despite our discussion over relative 'realism', trumps the argument on both sides since it exists for game balance reasons). "That's not quite "nearly as big as your torso" and the D&D one is lighter - 3/4 the weight of the one pictured." The weight thing is true, but my torso isn't four feet in height, so that part I still hold my ground on. ;) I imagine the D&D one is a bit refined, however, hence the weight issue, but I seriously doubt either of us could handle the real-world one with much competence, either. Mind you, I doubt that 'reconstruction' is fully functional to the degree that a made-to-actually-kill-people-in-warfare design would be. "Not a bad design but it is very much an Asian item." I disagree. It's nothing more than an oddly-shaped sickle. If anything, the two should be the same weapon with the same stats. In fact, aside from the Tripping ability and Monk designation, they are statisticaly identical. "A Bludgeoning weapon that offers a Disarm specialty attack. Also derived from an Asian agricultural tool. " Can't disagree there. "The classic staff. I wouldn’t alter this weapon at all. Both because it’s ubiquitous to every culture and such a stable of RPG’s. " Agree here as well. "This weapon is at least not derived from an agricultural tool. In the real world these weapons were sometimes sharpened. I realize that the damage is slightly lower but the addition of a Ranged attack makes up for that deficit." Ah yes. The double-sided jitte. I can see this one being sharpened, yes. I also fail to see the logic in having its damage die reduced by one step from the Nunchaku and in turn gaining both a +2 increase on Disarm and a range increment. WTF? If anything, the Sai should give its bonus when you ready an action to disarm an attacker. Incidentally, this would make the opponent really stupid, because if you succeed they just wasted an attack. Unlike a nunchaku, however, a sai isn't really all that good at reaching out and nabbing the other guy's weapon. "To avoid the Asian influence I would rename the weapon Throwing Steels." In our games we call them by whatever the 'local' population does. In some places they are thin-knives, in others shuriken, in others throwing-spikes, etc. I, personally, see this weapon as categorizing any pile of small, tiny, sharp thrown weapons. The Siangham.... I really don't get what this weapon is supposed to be. It looks like a pointy arrow with a little loophole in the end for a cord or somesuch. I'll pass, thanks. Never even seen someone use it before. As for your 'generic' Monk weapons... that's a nice idea, and I think I might use it. Sai or jitte or sword-catcher, it's all pretty much the same. I might test out this approach and see how it works, though mechanically it seems balanced. Thanks for the idea. ;) "Rapid Reload on Great crossbows, anyone?" AND Bondious: Actually, unless you've got some tricks up your sleeve, the 2D8 damage is the only good thing about it. It requires a full-round action to reload. Think you can get around that with a feat? Nope! Because Rapid Reload specifically states only certain crossbows. Since neither the feat entry nor the weapon entry allow one to apply to the other, you're burning an Exotic feat to fire this monster for decent one-hit damage every other round. Unless you've got a really good trick, this is incredibly weak as your levels progress. Especially when you encounter creatures or NPC's with Deflect Arrows, which pretty much make you useless. That's why I reverse-engineered the Sling from Weapons of Legacy, reduced its primary ability somewhat, and made a Great Crossbow called Artillerist's Envy from it. Works much better, and someone can actually build a character around it now. But that's about the only way to make it work.
Zebek 09-01-05, 05:36 PM	Looks like a heavy crossbow to me. Well, that's not really surprising. The diagram for the heavy crossbow (PHB) is almost exactly the same as that for the great crossbow in S&F. The only difference is the weight - and therefore the measurements - but the photo (and PHB/S&F diagrams) has no scale.
Zebek 09-01-05, 06:12 PM	My apologies. Thanks. Appreciated. "That's not quite "nearly as big as your torso" and the D&D one is lighter - 3/4 the weight of the one pictured." The weight thing is true, but my torso isn't four feet in height, so that part I still hold my ground on. ;) I thought you meant "as massive as". I had a quick check to see how big 15 pounds of English yew would be (600 kg/m3) and it looked like a 4"x4"x3'6" block! Obviously that did not include the heavy iron prod (get me, the toxophilite) which must make up a fair amount of the total weight. Mind you, I doubt that 'reconstruction' is fully functional to the degree that a made-to-actually-kill-people-in-warfare design would be. You mean the draw weight would be artificially lower? With modern materials, it should be easy enough to make a reproduction as good, if not better. "Rapid Reload on Great crossbows, anyone?" AND Bondious: Actually, unless you've got some tricks up your sleeve, the 2D8 damage is the only good thing about it. It requires a full-round action to reload. Think you can get around that with a feat? Nope! Because Rapid Reload specifically states only certain crossbows. But I think you've misunderstood why the feat mentions the crossbows it does. The list implicitly excludes repeating crossbows - which existed at the time of going to print - as the reload feat does not enable you to apply a fresh case any quicker. The great crossbow is also excluded but not by design. As the heavy and great crossbows have exactly the same diagram and reload requirements, the great crossbow should be included by association. The great crossbow would require more work to reload but that would be cancelled out through the use of the longer winch handle that comes with it, which is why the reload time is the same as the heavy crossbow. The underlying problem is WOTC not keeping all the parts of the game consistent with each other. It looks like any core text can only reference other core text (so that you can play with just the core books if you want). The Rapid Reload feat in the PHB cannot therefore refer to the great crossbow. That's my understanding anyway. It could be that they are just being lazy. :rolleyes:
Ranger REG 09-02-05, 05:23 AM	Well, that's not really surprising. The diagram for the heavy crossbow (PHB) is almost exactly the same as that for the great crossbow in S&F. The only difference is the weight - and therefore the measurements - but the photo (and PHB/S&F diagrams) has no scale. :uh-huh: Weight??? Are you sure is that all the difference?
Zebek 09-02-05, 10:04 AM	:uh-huh: Weight??? Are you sure is that all the difference? Yes, positive. If you compare the diagrams and text in the D&D books you will see that the only differences are down to weight (not shape or design). The diagrams are identical apart from minor cosmetic differences. A great crossbow is just a scaled-up heavy crossbow. And if you look at the fact that the weight (and therefore the volume) is doubled, the increase is dimensions must only be 26% (1.26 is cubic root of 2). So if a heavy crossbow is, just for argument's sake, 28 inches in length then a great crossbow will only need to be 35 inches in length for the weight to double. The great crossbow is significantly larger than a heavy crossbow but not "Oh-My-God!" larger than a heavy crossbow. I think some of the confusion arises over the lack of dimensions in the books, just weight. Doubling all the dimensions of an item increases the weight eight-fold, not two-fold.
Ranger REG 09-02-05, 04:03 PM	Uh ... huh. :uh-huh: So, tell me again, what is it that great crossbow is better than heavy crossbow?
Zebek 09-02-05, 07:03 PM	Uh ... huh. :uh-huh: So, tell me again, what is it that great crossbow is better than heavy crossbow? The great crossbow does more damage :P
Ranger REG 09-03-05, 03:31 AM	So what's the use for heavy crossbow when great crossbow is better?
FlameLover 09-03-05, 03:34 AM	Weight, conserving feats (for the EWP needed to wield it), cost, firing only 2-handed while heavy is 1-handed to fire and also availability :)