Post/Author/DateTime	Post
pukunui 11-06-06, 05:19 PM	Hey all, I was just looking at the entry on whisper gnomes in Races of Stone, and there's a picture of a female whisper gnome holding this crossbow with a wicked, serrated blade attached to the front of it. I'm just wondering if that is an actual weapon or if it's just something that the artist pulled out of his ass. The only crossbow listed in the RoS equipment section is the great crossbow, which doesn't appear to have a blade on it ... Am I missing something? I think it looks pretty cool -- a dual ranged/melee weapon (a la a rifle with a bayonet) would be awesome, especially for a rogue type. Cheers, pukunui EDIT: this is the picture to which I refer ... http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ros_gallery/83303.jpg
altec_seeker 11-06-06, 05:22 PM	It's out there jsut don't remember what book I saw it in.... sorry
pukunui 11-06-06, 06:17 PM	It's out there jsut don't remember what book I saw it in.... sorry I've just looked through the Complete series, the Races series, the Environment series, both Heroes of books, the BoVD and BoED, Planar Handbook, Eberron Campaign Setting, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Arms and Equipment Guide ... I can't find it anywhere. Sigh. Anyone?
altec_seeker 11-06-06, 06:21 PM	Ok i found it.. Magic Weapon Arms and Equipment Guide (3.0), p. 100
Artector 11-06-06, 06:22 PM	Recent issue of Dragon had a bladed crossbow too.
pukunui 11-06-06, 06:25 PM	Ok i found it.. Magic Weapon Arms and Equipment Guide (3.0), p. 100 Ah, I didn't expect it to be a magic item, so I didn't look there. I don't really see why it should be only a magic item. Hmm ... Thanks, though!
Whisper_Swiftblade 11-06-06, 06:39 PM	realy, I don't remember that pic in it?
pukunui 11-06-06, 06:45 PM	realy, I don't remember that pic in it? p. 95 of Races of Stone. So the +2 bladed crossbow in the A&EG is a heavy crossbow with a blade that does 1d8 base damage. The weapon in the picture, though, looks more like a light or hand crossbow. If I wanted to make a non-magical bladed crossbow, it would obviously be an Exotic Weapon ... but what sort of damage should the blade do? If we're talking 1d10 ranged/1d8 melee for a medium-sized bladed heavy crossbow ... should I just work my way down from there? A med-sized bladed light crossbow might do 1d8/1d6 ... Hmm, that would make a bladed hand crossbow almost worthless (1d4/1d2?). Especially if we're talking small size (1d3/1 dmg?) ... oh well. Thoughts, anyone?
Whisper_Swiftblade 11-06-06, 07:38 PM	it seems to just be a bayonet, wich is pretty much just a dagger at the end of a gun (or in this case cross bow) so I would just treat it as a dagger (without throwing) that maybe can be set for a charge (but only with larger crossbows)
pukunui 11-06-06, 07:55 PM	it seems to just be a bayonet, wich is pretty much just a dagger at the end of a gun (or in this case cross bow) so I would just treat it as a dagger (without throwing) that maybe can be set for a charge (but only with larger crossbows) I respectfully disagree. I think it looks more lightweight and deadly than what you're suggesting. I don't think you could set it for a charge, and it looks like it could be used quite effectively to slash at opponents as well as stab at them. It's some sort of sword-bow, definitely based on a hand crossbow. The blade could be a dagger. So we could say, for a small-sized one, that the damage would be an even 1d3/1d3. Does that sound fair?
Whisper_Swiftblade 11-06-06, 08:06 PM	I respectfully disagree. I think it looks like more than a bayonet. It looks like she could wield it as a sword of sorts - slashing at an opponent with it not just impaling them as they charge at her. I see your point Plus, what she's holding is NOT a large crossbow. It looks more like a hand crossbow. There's no way you could set that against a charging creature. I am aware that it is not a large crossbow, I was just bringing that up for refrence of what I would do in the case of the big ones (no reason the small ones should get all the fun)
pukunui 11-06-06, 08:14 PM	Oops, I was editing my post while you were replying to it ... I see your point Touché. ;) I am aware that it is not a large crossbow, I was just bringing that up for refrence of what I would do in the case of the big ones (no reason the small ones should get all the fun)Yes, that's fair enough. A larger one could double as a spear or something. But if we're talking hand crossbow + dagger blade ... then do you think that 1d3 ranged/1d3 melee sounds fair enough? And it would be a piercing/slashing weapon. More expensive than a hand crossbow, plus a bit heavier. 2lbs for a small one and 4lbs for a medium one.
draconic_swine 11-06-06, 10:26 PM	But if we're talking hand crossbow + dagger blade ... then do you think that 1d3 ranged/1d3 melee sounds fair enough? If you're referring to a Small hand crossbow with a Small dagger attached, then it's perfectly fine. I'd allow it to be attached to any crossbow, not restricing it to just hand crossbows. I think I'd also give an attack penalty to ranged attacks due to the weight of the dagger; taking an exotic weapon proficency would erase this penalty and allow you to use it in melee.
pukunui 11-06-06, 10:31 PM	If you're referring to a Small hand crossbow with a Small dagger attached, then it's perfectly fine.Cool. Yes, that's what I was getting at. I'd allow it to be attached to any crossbow, not restricing it to just hand crossbows.Oh, of course! I was just specifically addressing the weapon in the picture, which would need to be small-sized since it's for a gnome. I think I'd also give an attack penalty to ranged attacks due to the weight of the dagger; taking an exotic weapon proficency would erase this penalty and allow you to use it in melee.Agreed. The entry for the +2 bladed crossbow in the A&EG says that you need Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bladed crossbow) to use it as a melee weapon without incuring the -4 non-proficiency penalty, but I'd say that you'd need special training to use it properly in both of its capacities, not just one or the other. You would need to learn to compensate for the added weight of the blade when using it as a crossbow, and you would also need to learn to account for its unusual shape and any balance issues that might arise (i.e. the bow part doubles as an unusually long and heavy hilt for the blade) when using it as a melee weapon.
Archangel62 11-07-06, 11:31 AM	actually I think it's using the bayonet from Arms and Equipment guide, but hey, that's just me.
pukunui 11-07-06, 01:51 PM	actually I think it's using the bayonet from Arms and Equipment guide, but hey, that's just me. If that's a bayonet, then my left foot is a monkey. :D Anyway, I found no mention of a bayonet in the A&EG. Can you site a page number please?
Watchman 11-07-06, 03:35 PM	Bayonet on a crossbow. :twitch: No. Just... no.
pukunui 11-15-06, 08:23 PM	:bump: Just curious to see if anyone else has anything to say about this.
SilverFoxKnows 11-15-06, 10:25 PM	I've been toying with the idea for a while. I don't have A&EG or RoS. I was watching either the History, or Military, Channel and it seemed natural that the militaristic Hobgoblins would have found a way to mount a bayonet on a crossbow. Their favored class is Fighter so spending a bonus feat on Bayonet Fighting isn't too steep. With their +2 Dex the odds are good they'll qualify for TWF- A stab followed up by a hit from the butt of the crossbow. d6/d6 for a light crossbow, d8/d8 for a heavy crossbow. I wouldn't give every Hob a bayonet but there would be special troops armed with them. Maybe for city fighting. It's not historically accurate but neither are fireballs.
Coralwand 11-16-06, 01:04 PM	I'm reminded of the Bayonet attachment for lutes noted in the Bard/Rogue 3.0 handbook. they kind of blew damage wise (1d4 19-20x2) but I think were simple weapons; too bad it was paperback and disentigrated the moment the 3.5 handbooks came out or I'd check for you.
pukunui 11-16-06, 01:48 PM	too bad it was paperback and disentigrated the moment the 3.5 handbooks came out or I'd check for you.LOL
Watchman 11-16-06, 04:28 PM	A lute bayonet is an idea at least three times as stupid as crossbow bayonet, which is an idea already mighty dumb and in practice entirely unworkable. Whoever dreamed up that one clearly didn't have the faintest idea of anything concerning either lutes or bayonets. I'll bet he or she had a really poor taste in music too. Anyway, kids, just forget the whole crossbow bayonet idea all right ? Thanks to their clunky and cumbersome T-shape crossbows are already unsuited for close combat, even as improvised clubs. The things are kind of short (even the heavy steel-stave ones have base frames a little over half a meter long or thereabouts) and rather unergonomic; moreover, the bow arms (usually about as long in total as the frame, or a bit less) kind of gets in the way. Ergo, they're both hopelessly clumsy and far too short for the job. Now, a still bigger problem is that after about one second of close combat the thing is going to be entirely useless as a ranged weapon. Any damage to the actual bow, even if it's of steel, is a virtual quarantee that it'll break the next time you try to reload the thing - and if it gets damaged when "cocked and locked" it'll likely actually tear itself to bits straight away. And then there's the bowstring. You get exact one guess how much combat that part can withstand, especially if anything with edges is involved on the other side. Any hand-to-hand combat use of a crossbow, especially with the stupid bayonet, is going to expose these two extremely vital and very fragile parts of the weapon to the sort of punishement that causes high turnover rates among proper melee weapons and for that matter shields, both of which are actually designed for the rigours of life-and-death close fighting. There's some very good reasons why bayonets required firearms (which, being basically just long metal tubes, are both rather better shaped for melee use and by far more structurally resilient) to develop, and why crossbowmen normally had a couple of ranks of armoured spearmen or the like to keep pesky enemies at an arm's lenght. I wouldn't give every Hob a bayonet but there would be special troops armed with them. Maybe for city fighting. It's not historically accurate but neither are fireballs.Dedicated urban (read as "fortress") assault troops, if they were going to bother with ranged weaponry to begin with (isn't that what dedicated missile troops are for anyway?), would almost certainly be opting for a big-ass shield for improved survivability and throwing spears for any short-range skirmish ability they might need. Easy to carry, easy to use, cheap, easy to dump if necessary without a second though, effective enough, easy to re-use, and the bigger kind (in game terms whatever the 3.0 Shortspear is called nowadays) doubles as a perfectly decent melee weapon in a tight spot. Considering the distances they're going to get used in the short range is hardly an issue, and if it comes down to that strapping a few darts for longer-range reach to the inside of the shield is always a perfectly viable option. As a bonus such troops can also double as elite shock troops in open-field battles. The historical examples (eg. Macedonian/Hellenic pheraspidai and hypaspistai and the specially equipped Iberian and Libyan veterans employed by the Carthaginians) did, anyway, and it's only good sense to be able to employ such expensive specialists for other purposes if necessary. If those guys were going to go for TWF (instead of, say, two-handed weapons for "extra killy") for some reason I'd say they'd just make their shields spiky. Then those could be employed flexibly as changing needs dictate, and if they can spare a Feat for that one that lets you keep the shield's AC bonus when bashing that much better. And given that dedicated assault troops were invariably elite formations commonly drawn from crack veterans (as the nature of fortress assault combat gives a considerable edge to quality over quantity), odds are they can. Especially if they don't have to waste EWPs on Really Stupid Devices Of Dubious Value. Me, I figure they'd stick to proven, sensible weapons like swords and axes (which would incidentally be useful for chopping down doors) and spend their Feats on things like Dodge, Weapon Focus (the one for the spear doubling neatly for ranged use) and similar stuff actually useful in their demanding field of expertise.
pukunui 11-16-06, 06:08 PM	Anyway, kids, just forget the whole crossbow bayonet idea all right ? Thanks to their clunky and cumbersome T-shape crossbows are already unsuited for close combat, even as improvised clubs. The things are kind of short (even the heavy steel-stave ones have base frames a little over half a meter long or thereabouts) and rather unergonomic; moreover, the bow arms (usually about as long in total as the frame, or a bit less) kind of gets in the way. Ergo, they're both hopelessly clumsy and far too short for the job. Who are you calling a kid? I'm older than you by almost 3 months! :P Anyway, I think you're taking this way too seriously. Who cares if it's not realistic? Anyway, the "original" bladed crossbow is magical, so it can undoubtedly work because magic ain't realistic so who gives a ****? Plus, no one that I know bothers to track weapon damage - sunder rules excepted - so your argument with regard to the "realism" of a bladed crossbow is pointless (pun intended). Relax, mate. It's just a game ... and a fantasy one at that. It doesn't have to make sense. If it boils you up that much, just stop reading the thread.
Watchman 11-16-06, 06:31 PM	"Fantasy" and "stupid" aren't the same thing though... Or at least one would dearly hope so. :P Anyway, the last I saw (3.0, granted) Javelins got a -4 penalty for melee use with the justification that they "aren't sturdy enough" or something along those lines. AFAIK that's pretty much bollocks, but it certainly didn't keep the designers of later books from coming up with atrocities like bladed bows (:weep: )... Mind you, there was in history an attempt to attach a longbow to a four-odd meter pike (one of the experimental solutions for an issue which the bayonet elegantly solved). But it was readily proven quite unworkable and ditched. Magic and fantasy are one thing, but one is allowed to expect a certain minimum of basic consistency and credibility particularly from things that do not directly relate to those. Sort of like gravity still works like it does here if magic or something similar isn't specifically used to override that. And why any enchanter would bother making magical bladed crossbows is a wee bit beyond me to begin with. Those certainly can't have been much of a sales success, given that they turn a weapon already clunky and inconvenient to haul around and reload to a quite literal pain in the arse - that damn blade ought to really get in the way of reloading you know. But the most fundamental reason I loathe ideas like this (such as the atrocious double weapons, bladed bows and a lot of other stuff I prefer to forget) is that they stink of being gratuitious gimmicks invented to fill space and look "cool", which is a design philosophy I kind of despise in all of its incarnations. That they altogether too often try to claim that a sword made out of cheese would actually work, and thereby downright insult my intellect and common sense, does not help one bit. You are free to do what you want with them, of course. There's just no reason for me to like them, or stay quiet about it. :D
pukunui 11-16-06, 06:35 PM	I don't think it's stupid in the slightest. There's just no reason for me to like them, or stay quiet about it. :DDidn't your mother ever tell you, "If you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything at all"? :P But the most fundamental reason I loathe ideas like this (such as the atrocious double weapons, bladed bows and a lot of other stuff I prefer to forget) is that they stink of being gratuitious gimmicks invented to fill space and look "cool", which is a design philosophy I kind of despise in all of its incarnations. That they altogether too often try to claim that a sword made out of cheese would actually work, and thereby downright insult my intellect and common sense, does not help one bit.Sounds to me like your intellect is too easily insulted. Your intellect needs to develop a sense of humor. Lighten up a bit. Personally, I find being called a "kid" more insulting than the idea of a totally unrealistic weapon in a game full of unrealistic ideas that's designed to help you escape from reality and have a bit of fun now and again ... what's the harm in that? Besides, I can see it working quite well as a rogue weapon designed for use with sneak attacks and the like. It wouldn't necessarily have to be used as a sword, parrying blows with the enemy and all that. Seriously, though, if you don't like it, go find something better to do. These boards have more than enough negativity already.
Watchman 11-16-06, 06:40 PM	She did, actually. I like to think that's why I explain why I think something sucks instead of just saying it sucks. ...'course, I've never been all that good at taking her wise advice to heart anyway... :D
pukunui 11-16-06, 06:48 PM	...'course, I've never been all that good at taking her wise advice to heart anyway... :DTsk tsk. :nonono: You should always listen to your mother ... especially when she tells you not to play with pointy things inside! ;)
Watchman 11-16-06, 06:52 PM	Well, my life would overall be a lot easier if I were. ...not that she were exactly adverse to calling dumb ideas such either though. I can blame my genes for being snarky. :rolleyes:
Watchman 11-16-06, 06:54 PM	You should always listen to your mother ... especially when she tells you not to play with pointy things inside! ;)No no, around here it's traditional to play with them outside. And heavily intoxiciated, with equally drunk strangers. :duel:
pukunui 11-16-06, 06:57 PM	Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not very good at keeping my mouth shut either ... but I'm learning that there's a time and a place for it, and I feel like this sort of thing isn't worth getting so worked up about ...
ReverendBSB 11-16-06, 07:00 PM	Stats for Bladed Crossbow from Dragon Magazine issue #349. Two Handed Simple Melee Weapon cost 150 gp DMG S-1d3 M-1d4 Crit 19-20x2 8lbs P or S Simple Ranged Weapon Dmg S-1d6 M-1d8 Crit 19-20x2 80' range P
Watchman 11-16-06, 07:00 PM	IMHO "cool" was never a legit replacement for "sensible" or "feasible" though. But YMMV.
pukunui 11-16-06, 07:06 PM	Stats for Bladed Crossbow from Dragon Magazine issue #349. Two Handed Simple Melee Weapon cost 150 gp DMG S-1d3 M-1d4 Crit 19-20x2 8lbs P or S Simple Ranged Weapon Dmg S-1d6 M-1d8 Crit 19-20x2 80' range P Awesome! Thanks, Reverend! IMHO "cool" was never a legit replacement for "sensible" or "feasible" though. But YMMV. Now, see, I would regard that as an invalid argument in the context of d&d. There's already so much that's not sensible or feasible in the game - what's one more wild and crazy idea going to do? Not much really.
Watchman 11-16-06, 07:08 PM	Isn't that like saying it's no big deal to get a tooth knocked out just because you've already lost half of them, though...?
SilverFoxKnows 11-16-06, 07:39 PM	A lute bayonet is an idea at least three times as stupid as crossbow bayonet, which is an idea already mighty dumb and in practice entirely unworkable. Whoever dreamed up that one clearly didn't have the faintest idea of anything concerning either lutes or bayonets. I'll bet he or she had a really poor taste in music too. Anyway, kids, just forget the whole crossbow bayonet idea all right ? Thanks to their clunky and cumbersome T-shape crossbows are already unsuited for close combat, even as improvised clubs. The things are kind of short (even the heavy steel-stave ones have base frames a little over half a meter long or thereabouts) and rather unergonomic; moreover, the bow arms (usually about as long in total as the frame, or a bit less) kind of gets in the way. Ergo, they're both hopelessly clumsy and far too short for the job. Now, a still bigger problem is that after about one second of close combat the thing is going to be entirely useless as a ranged weapon. Any damage to the actual bow, even if it's of steel, is a virtual quarantee that it'll break the next time you try to reload the thing - and if it gets damaged when "cocked and locked" it'll likely actually tear itself to bits straight away. And then there's the bowstring. You get exact one guess how much combat that part can withstand, especially if anything with edges is involved on the other side. Any hand-to-hand combat use of a crossbow, especially with the stupid bayonet, is going to expose these two extremely vital and very fragile parts of the weapon to the sort of punishement that causes high turnover rates among proper melee weapons and for that matter shields, both of which are actually designed for the rigours of life-and-death close fighting. There's some very good reasons why bayonets required firearms (which, being basically just long metal tubes, are both rather better shaped for melee use and by far more structurally resilient) to develop, and why crossbowmen normally had a couple of ranks of armoured spearmen or the like to keep pesky enemies at an arm's lenght. Dedicated urban (read as "fortress") assault troops, if they were going to bother with ranged weaponry to begin with (isn't that what dedicated missile troops are for anyway?), would almost certainly be opting for a big-ass shield for improved survivability and throwing spears for any short-range skirmish ability they might need. Easy to carry, easy to use, cheap, easy to dump if necessary without a second though, effective enough, easy to re-use, and the bigger kind (in game terms whatever the 3.0 Shortspear is called nowadays) doubles as a perfectly decent melee weapon in a tight spot. Considering the distances they're going to get used in the short range is hardly an issue, and if it comes down to that strapping a few darts for longer-range reach to the inside of the shield is always a perfectly viable option. As a bonus such troops can also double as elite shock troops in open-field battles. The historical examples (eg. Macedonian/Hellenic pheraspidai and hypaspistai and the specially equipped Iberian and Libyan veterans employed by the Carthaginians) did, anyway, and it's only good sense to be able to employ such expensive specialists for other purposes if necessary. If those guys were going to go for TWF (instead of, say, two-handed weapons for "extra killy") for some reason I'd say they'd just make their shields spiky. Then those could be employed flexibly as changing needs dictate, and if they can spare a Feat for that one that lets you keep the shield's AC bonus when bashing that much better. And given that dedicated assault troops were invariably elite formations commonly drawn from crack veterans (as the nature of fortress assault combat gives a considerable edge to quality over quantity), odds are they can. Especially if they don't have to waste EWPs on Really Stupid Devices Of Dubious Value. Me, I figure they'd stick to proven, sensible weapons like swords and axes (which would incidentally be useful for chopping down doors) and spend their Feats on things like Dodge, Weapon Focus (the one for the spear doubling neatly for ranged use) and similar stuff actually useful in their demanding field of expertise. Before you start calling people stupid kids you better make sure you're above reproach or run the risk of showing everyone what a hypocrite looks like. D&D is full of things that wouldn't work, or at the very least wouldn't have worked with the actual tech level. I take it you're also opposed to mercurial weapons and mithril weapons because neither would be viable in real life. Smoke sticks and tanglefoot bags come to mind, as well. I take it all the armor and weapons in your world are period correct? You do know this is a fantasy game, right? If you can accept the idea of Hobgoblins then why not the idea of Hobgoblins having crossbows proportioned like rifles? Why not steel cable bowstrings and shorter but stronger prods? What, it wouldn't make sense? You know how much a Dragon would weigh? You think they'd really be able to fly. If you're after realism I think you're playing the wrong game. Perhaps Peasants and Dirt would be more to your liking? Since you bring up ancient armies I guess you know that Balearic slingers were just as feared as any archer of the time. Did you un-nerf the sling? Or make the sword pointless against plate? No, that would make sense.
pukunui 11-16-06, 07:45 PM	Isn't that like saying it's no big deal to get a tooth knocked out just because you've already lost half of them, though...? Only if you're intent on viewing "wild and crazy" or "cool" ideas as the devil. If you're going to make basic assumptions about how a fantasy world works in regards to "realism" (such as taking the laws of physics as applicable unless stated otherwise), then there's a whole lot more at stake then whether or not a bladed crossbow is a functional weapon. Let's use dragons as an example. They're such a fundamental part of the game that they even make up one half of its name ... yet, realistically, nothing that big should be able to fly without some sort of propulsion system. Since dragons don't have jet engines, then they're not exactly feasible in a "realistic" world with gravity and such, are they? So if you're willing to accept the existence of dragons in your fantasy world, why can't you accept a weapon that functions as both a crossbow and a dagger? Perhaps the fantasy world has special materials that make the weapon more feasible.
pukunui 11-16-06, 07:47 PM	You know how much a Dragon would weigh? You think they'd really be able to fly.LOL. Silver Fox - great minds think alike!
Whisper_Swiftblade 11-16-06, 08:26 PM	IMHO "cool" was never a legit replacement for "sensible" or "feasible" though. But YMMV. have you ever heard of a little something called a spiked chain?
pukunui 11-16-06, 08:32 PM	have you ever heard of a little something called a spiked chain? In Watchman's defense, I think it's safe to assume that he does know about the spiked chain. I infer it from this comment of his: But the most fundamental reason I loathe ideas like this (such as the atrocious double weapons, bladed bows and a lot of other stuff I prefer to forget [my emphasis]) is that they stink of being gratuitious gimmicks invented to fill space and look "cool", which is a design philosophy I kind of despise in all of its incarnations. That they altogether too often try to claim that a sword made out of cheese would actually work, and thereby downright insult my intellect and common sense, does not help one bit. I'm guessing he was lumping the spiked chain in with "other stuff I prefer to forget". :D BTW, I love how you can click on the little arrow next to someone's name in a quote and it takes you to their original post! :ayyyy!: