Armor piercing crossbow [Archive] - Wizards Community

Armor piercing crossbow [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
RobbyPants
11-02-06, 09:57 AM This is a simplified variation on the 2.5E PO rules in Combat & Tactics:

Back in 2E, crossbows were terrible, and there was little or no reason to choose them, so C&T came up with a mechanic to make them more viable: they made them armor piercing (to an extent). The idea is that large enough crossbows generate a tremendous amount of force. They would be slightly more effective against armor. Here's what I'd propose:
A heavy or light crossbow (not hand or repeating) used against an armored opponent would ignore up to 2 points of armor or natrual armor bonus.
This is a little more simple than the C&T approach, but I don't want to bog the game down too much with new mechanics. What do you think of this idea? Would it be too powerful as a simple weapon? Should it become martial? Any suggestions?
RodinGates
11-02-06, 03:20 PM I'd think it would be more appropriate to make in an enhancement rather than a completely new weapon in and of itself. For example, you could just pay a +1 enhancement bonus for 'Armor Piercing' to deduct 2 points of armor or natural armor (thus not deflection or dex) from the AC of an armored opponent when attacking.

Also I'm not sure but there may be a similar enhancement in Races of the Wild, although I might be thinking of Exit Wounds.
WhiteHarness
11-02-06, 06:05 PM I don't think light crossbows should be given this armour-piercing quality. It ought to be restricted to Heavy Crossbows only.
draconic_swine
11-02-06, 06:14 PM I'd suggest against doing this, as this opens up quite the can of worms. If crossbows get armour piercing, then why not longbows? What about melee weapons like picks, flails, and morning stars? This type of thing would require revamping the weapons list with an eye towards armour types, I'm thinking.

I'd go with RodinGates's suggestion of making it a weapon enhancement, probably restricted to piercing weapons.
Tony Vargas
11-02-06, 07:29 PM Crossbows do have a reputation for being good at defeating armor (different crossbows vs different types of armor at different times, and the reputation may not have been deserved, but still...).

3E gave many weapons noted for thier effectiveness against armor high crit multipliers. Examples would be picks, lances, halberds and axes, for instance. Weapons that reputedly had some trouble with armor (rapiers and scimitars, even swords in general) OTOH, tended to get broad threat ranges. This actually makes a little bit of sense, mechanically - if your chance to hit is poor, a good threat range doesn't help, while a 20/x3 or x4 will at least have a chance of dishing some serious damage when it does get in a lucky shot vs a heavily armored (thus high-AC foe). Not strong modeling, but it's something.

I'd be inclined to change crossbows from 19-20/x2 to 20/x3 for the light crossbow, and 20/x4 for the heavy crossbow, to represent thier 'armor-piercing' qualities.
RobbyPants
11-02-06, 10:33 PM I don't think light crossbows should be given this armour-piercing quality. It ought to be restricted to Heavy Crossbows only.
The only reason I suggested it as I did, was that is how it is in the C&T book. Restricting it to heavy only wouldn't be a bad idea.

I'd be inclined to change crossbows from 19-20/x2 to 20/x3 for the light crossbow, and 20/x4 for the heavy crossbow, to represent thier 'armor-piercing' qualities.
Not a bad idea...

I always wondered why crossbows had a range of 19-20.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RobbyPants 11-02-06, 09:57 AM	This is a simplified variation on the 2.5E PO rules in Combat & Tactics: Back in 2E, crossbows were terrible, and there was little or no reason to choose them, so C&T came up with a mechanic to make them more viable: they made them armor piercing (to an extent). The idea is that large enough crossbows generate a tremendous amount of force. They would be slightly more effective against armor. Here's what I'd propose: A heavy or light crossbow (not hand or repeating) used against an armored opponent would ignore up to 2 points of armor or natrual armor bonus. This is a little more simple than the C&T approach, but I don't want to bog the game down too much with new mechanics. What do you think of this idea? Would it be too powerful as a simple weapon? Should it become martial? Any suggestions?
RodinGates 11-02-06, 03:20 PM	I'd think it would be more appropriate to make in an enhancement rather than a completely new weapon in and of itself. For example, you could just pay a +1 enhancement bonus for 'Armor Piercing' to deduct 2 points of armor or natural armor (thus not deflection or dex) from the AC of an armored opponent when attacking. Also I'm not sure but there may be a similar enhancement in Races of the Wild, although I might be thinking of Exit Wounds.
WhiteHarness 11-02-06, 06:05 PM	I don't think light crossbows should be given this armour-piercing quality. It ought to be restricted to Heavy Crossbows only.
draconic_swine 11-02-06, 06:14 PM	I'd suggest against doing this, as this opens up quite the can of worms. If crossbows get armour piercing, then why not longbows? What about melee weapons like picks, flails, and morning stars? This type of thing would require revamping the weapons list with an eye towards armour types, I'm thinking. I'd go with RodinGates's suggestion of making it a weapon enhancement, probably restricted to piercing weapons.
Tony Vargas 11-02-06, 07:29 PM	Crossbows do have a reputation for being good at defeating armor (different crossbows vs different types of armor at different times, and the reputation may not have been deserved, but still...). 3E gave many weapons noted for thier effectiveness against armor high crit multipliers. Examples would be picks, lances, halberds and axes, for instance. Weapons that reputedly had some trouble with armor (rapiers and scimitars, even swords in general) OTOH, tended to get broad threat ranges. This actually makes a little bit of sense, mechanically - if your chance to hit is poor, a good threat range doesn't help, while a 20/x3 or x4 will at least have a chance of dishing some serious damage when it does get in a lucky shot vs a heavily armored (thus high-AC foe). Not strong modeling, but it's something. I'd be inclined to change crossbows from 19-20/x2 to 20/x3 for the light crossbow, and 20/x4 for the heavy crossbow, to represent thier 'armor-piercing' qualities.
RobbyPants 11-02-06, 10:33 PM	I don't think light crossbows should be given this armour-piercing quality. It ought to be restricted to Heavy Crossbows only. The only reason I suggested it as I did, was that is how it is in the C&T book. Restricting it to heavy only wouldn't be a bad idea. I'd be inclined to change crossbows from 19-20/x2 to 20/x3 for the light crossbow, and 20/x4 for the heavy crossbow, to represent thier 'armor-piercing' qualities. Not a bad idea... I always wondered why crossbows had a range of 19-20.