Post/Author/DateTime	Post
burnt_to_crisp 06-13-05, 10:57 AM	is it me or the crossbow only worth anything in the first few levels? they may have better range and slightly better base damage, but it doesn't seem to worth the fact that an archer with a mighty composite bow can add his strength to the damage, not to mention the extra attacks from his base attack bonus. it's much better to use a longbow then to use a light crossbow with quick reloading, it's better even in the parts the crossbow is supposed to be best. plus, you don't have an equivalent feat to the rapid shot and the manyshot which can add plenty of damage. any comments on my point of view?
CaoSlayer 06-13-05, 11:01 AM	is it me or the crossbow only worth anything in the firt few levels? they may have better range and slightly better base damage, but it doesn't seem to worth the fact that an archer with a mighty composite bow can add his strength to the damage, not to mention the extra attacks from his base attack bonus. it's much better to use a longbow then to use a light crossbow with quick reloading, it's better even in the parts the crossbow is best. plus, you don't have an equivalent feat to the rapid shot and the manyshot which can add plenty of damage. any coments on my point of view? The crossbow it is a simple weapon, so it is made to be inferior than a martial weapon like a bow, so a X-bow dont needs a feat for nobody. the x-bow it is designed for low str characters, at higher levels, you can spend a feat for getting a repetition crossbow that fix the main trouble of the bow. Also the another advantage of the X-bow it is the usually missed fact that you can use it while being prone on the ground, so you can be a harder target against other ranged weapons.
burnt_to_crisp 06-13-05, 11:05 AM	it just seems to me like it's better to invest in a Martial Weapon Proficiency feat instead of rapid shot.
SilverFoxKnows 06-13-05, 07:19 PM	but the crossbow is not without its uses. As CaoSlayer pointed out, it can be used while prone. Also the range and damage are better (lt. x-bow vs. short bow). For a high Str, primary archer the bow is way better. But for a low Str back-up archer who only gets one attack anyway the x-bow is fine. A low level Rogue might be better served by the x-bow while a mid-high level Fighter will be better served by the bow. Those are just my observations. Silver
Jaid 06-13-05, 08:39 PM	a crossbow can also be fired one-handed, which sometimes is a factor (for example, for someone who wants to fire two or more crossbows using TWF/MWF). or for someone who does a lot of climbing (i'd like to see someone try to fire a longbow while climbing a cliff... look, ma, no hands *splat* ). but yeah, prone can actually be a good thing in ranged combat. +4 to AC vs ranged attacks. not to mention easier to hide, therefore easier to ambush. they have their advantages. but yes, generally speaking, a bow is a better choice for ranged combat, if you are a dedicated archer type.
Niveus Lynx 06-13-05, 10:26 PM	Using bow while prone on ground...I'd house rule that you'd have to be proficient, due to the fact of the odd way you have to draw/shoot it.
Jaid 06-13-05, 11:40 PM	uhhh... normally you just can't use a bow while prone at all. are you, perchance, saying that you would allow persons proficient with the bow to use it while prone? personally, i just don't see this happening. i really can't envision a practical way to use a bow while prone. simply the way you draw it would be horribly unpleasant. at best, i might allow it at a -4 penalty (ie, they are still worse off relative to a crossbow wielder, by an equal amount). there is precious little reason to have a crossbow if you can use a bow, and these reasons make perfect sense, so i see no reason to houserule them away.
BladeDrinker 06-14-05, 01:38 AM	Bows vs. Crossbows (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=437707)
beezly 06-14-05, 09:25 AM	Remember, at first level, your 6 str grey elf wizard does 1d8 damage with a Xbow and 1d8-2 damage with a Longbow.
Leaf_Mage22 06-14-05, 10:04 AM	So a bow and a crossbow which is better which is worse. Well lets see the Bow is a very effective, and wide used weapon. The thing is with the bow it requires a skill to become greatly effective. Someone who trains or has the feats to do great damage, multishot, rapid shot, thus giving the bow an obvious advantage, not to mension composite with adding strenght. However give the bow to a low strenght char, or to someone who doesn't know an arrow from a stick then well no Shield Spell required there. But lets see the advantages of the crossbow. The crossbow is a more complex ranged cousin of the bow. It requires some engineering and parts to complete a crossbow. However the crossbow is an easy weapon to use, a sort of gun for the past ages, shoots fast and more acurate without having to aim to greatly. The bolt will puncture armor better with its fast spring action. Also someone only needs to be able to reload a crossbow to use it, rather then having the strenght, the skills, the feats that a bow would require. LeafMage22 :D
Beamup 06-14-05, 11:04 AM	it just seems to me like it's better to invest in a Martial Weapon Proficiency feat instead of rapid shot. You know, it's not like everyone who wants to have a ranged attack available is willing to invest a feat in it. Sure, if you are, the bow is a better pick. But if your class doesn't grant bow proficiency and you just want something for a ranged attack (without investing exceedingly valuable feats), the crossbow is your best bet. Bows are for dedicated archers. Crossbows are for people who want a ranged attack as cheaply and easily as they can get one.
Ayodrinn the Silver 06-15-05, 02:00 PM	Many people seem to forget you CAN apply rapid shot to a crossbow.
macdknife 06-15-05, 02:22 PM	the crossbow has better damage longer range and can be used as a club in close combat or fited with a bayonet.. and best to use by dworfs halfings and gnomes ... thay can not use a long bow.... and in tight spaces in and open feld the long bow can put out 3 ot 4 times the arrows as bolts all are best used in groups of 10 or more
ClementWillowbreaker 06-15-05, 02:40 PM	Many people seem to forget you CAN apply rapid shot to a crossbow. Only if you waste a feat on Rapid Reload, which only applies to a specific kind of crossbow, and doesn't even apply to the best of all ranged weapons... THE SLING
Ayodrinn the Silver 06-15-05, 09:53 PM	What cant be applied to a sling, RR or RS? And slings have a normal rate of fire, so you can apply RS and dont need to apply RR. :D
WaterRabbit 06-15-05, 11:27 PM	The primary problem with crossbows is they don't represent their true advantage. A crossbow allows a relatively weak person to fire the projectile at a much great pull than they could with a bow. Crossbows use mechanical means to draw the bow: levers and winches. IMHO, a medium-sized light crossbow so have an effective strength bonus of +2 and a heavy should have an effective strength bonus of +4 for a 1d8+2 and a d10+4, respectively. I would also like to see light, medium, heavy, and siege arbalests. The reload speed should be based upon the cocking mechanism -- goat's foot, windlass, cranequin, etc.
Chaser 06-16-05, 02:48 AM	The primary problem with crossbows is they don't represent their true advantage. A crossbow allows a relatively weak person to fire the projectile at a much great pull than they could with a bow. Crossbows use mechanical means to draw the bow: levers and winches. IMHO, a medium-sized light crossbow so have an effective strength bonus of +2 and a heavy should have an effective strength bonus of +4 for a 1d8+2 and a d10+4, respectively. Yes, well, this is already taken care of, a heavy crossbow does more damage than a longbow, etc., so there you go. I actually disagree with you, though. Traditionally, a longbow always had better range than commonly fielded crossbows, [Battle of Circy[sp?] with Longbowmen outranging and outloosing missiles versus the vaunted Italian crossbowmen] so the longbow could easily be seen as having more damage potential, as it threw a heavier missile farther, and therefore with greater force, etc. You could always build a stronger crossbow with strong cocking mechanism, though, of course, thus overcoming the traditional crossbow's problem of not delivering its pull rating to its missile as effectively as a longbow does. That said, the game balances crossbows and bows pretty well as is. I would also like to see light, medium, heavy, and siege arbalests. The reload speed should be based upon the cocking mechanism -- goat's foot, windlass, cranequin, etc. This is a great idea, and with room for much houseruling. I would tie the cocking mechanism NEEDED for a particular crossbow based on strength. For example a light crossbow might be hand [well, gauntlet] or belt-hook and stirrup pulled for strength 14 or greater, goat's foot cocked for str 10-13, and windlass or cranked below str 10. There would be the possibility of time elements as well due to loading mechanism. I use a bit of this when I DM, people tend to fire crossbows once at the beginning of combat and then drop 'em for melee. Takes too long to reload, etc.
Vahenir 06-16-05, 02:53 AM	I actually disagree with you, though. Traditionally, a longbow always had better range than commonly fielded crossbows, [Battle of Circy[sp?] with Longbowmen outranging and outloosing missiles versus the vaunted Italian crossbowmen] so the longbow could easily be seen as having more damage potential, as it threw a heavier missile farther, and therefore with greater force, etc. You could always build a stronger crossbow with strong cocking mechanism, though, of course, thus overcoming the traditional crossbow's problem of not delivering its pull rating to its missile as effectively as a longbow does. Actually, you two aren't disagreeing at all. You're talking about different aspects of the weapon. A crossbow utilizes a much heavier pull. He's right. A crossbow bolt doesn't go as far as a longbow arrow. You're right. Quarrels are thicker, and much heavier than an arrow - so even with the added pull, the projectile still won't go as far, but will fire with quite a bit of power nonetheless. Anyway, this entire argument boils down to : The crossbow is fine - it's a simple weapon, it has stats appropriate for a simple weapon. If your character is hugely strong - then you want a longbow. This is a lot like saying the dagger is not a good weapon choice for a Str 22 Fighter - because the Greatsword is better in every way for him. Of course it is. Not every item is perfect for every character.
aelryinth 06-16-05, 02:59 AM	You can make a crossbow's pull dependent on strength every bit as easily as you can a bow. The balance problem comes in when suddenly everyone is toting around 18 Str Heavy Xbows they can use. Simply apply an extra move action for every point of strength bonus below what the crossbow is set at to reload it. So, yes, Grannie can shoot the 18 Str heavy xbow she's been practicing with the last 40 years...it just takes her an extra 3 rounds to **** and load it. She usually just passes it to her brawny son to do just that, and grabs the SECOND heavy crossbow to line up and take her shot while he works on the first one, and they switch off. IMC, I've Dwarves who specialize in the Crossbow, especially for sieges. They have a brawny lesser fighter follow them around and **** back the crossbows for them while they take the shot. The High Dex Crossbow specs put the shots home, the High Str warriors prime the pump for them. A great system for a siege...makes every bolt do more dmg. ==Aelryinth
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer 06-16-05, 03:10 AM	Everyone seems to have left out an obvious advantage of the crossbow, the great crit range. A 19-20 for x2 means you are more likely to crit than the x3 bow.
Quirriff 06-16-05, 03:39 AM	Bows are suppose to be very good in the hands of a skilled person, more so than crossbows. Crossbows generally have more damage potential and almost everybody can use them (except Druids). Mty bows are the best ranged weapon, Did the English always win because they had Welsh Crossbowmen, NO! They had Welsh Longbowmen (The Longbow is of Welsh origin). So we get the point that Bows are superior to crossbows in many ways but not all. There are four ranged weapons in D&D, Bows, crossbows, Slings, and thrown Weapons. Thrown Weapons have the advantage of being cheap redily available and being a spontanious ranged weapon with great damage potential. They are also one handed, so you can have a shield in one hand and throw a weapon in the other. Bows have a faster rate of fire, and mighty bows you can add your strength potential for damage. You must use a bow two-handed. Crossbows have more damage, more range and a greater critical threat. Almost everybody can use them, they can be fired while prone (so if you're in a missle battle you have the advantage). However they are slow to reload. Slings have the least damage, least critical threat, but they do Bludgening damage (which helps in some cases). They can be fired as often as a bow and you always add your strength bonus to damage (even with a 0cp sling), and if you run out of ammunition you can always pick up a rock and use it. Slings have the advantage of being one handed as well, so you can have a shield with a sling. Who remembers AD&D when Crossbows only did d4 damage compaired to the Bow's d6 twice per round?.
burnt_to_crisp 06-16-05, 04:07 AM	Crossbows have more damage, more range and a greater critical threat. Almost everybody can use them, they can be fired while prone (so if you're in a missle battle you have the advantage). However they are slow to reload. you forgot about you being able to use it in one hand, with certain penalties
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer 06-16-05, 04:25 AM	Bows are suppose to be very good in the hands of a skilled person, more so than crossbows. Crossbows generally have more damage potential and almost everybody can use them (except Druids). Mty bows are the best ranged weapon, Did the English always win because they had Welsh Crossbowmen, NO! They had Welsh Longbowmen (The Longbow is of Welsh origin). So we get the point that Bows are superior to crossbows in many ways but not all. The main thing to consider is that the Longbow was very rare. It takes a lot of effort to make a longbow compared to a crossbow. When the Pope declared the Crossbow could not be used on Christian and was the work of Satan, that should be enough to prove how deadly the crossbow can be. A Heavy Crossbow is capable of going through a car. The longbo wis just as capable as the crossbow, but since few of them existed outside of Great Britian, it wasn't perceived as such a threat (and required trained personal to use, as compared to a crossbow in which a peasant can learn to use in less than an hour). There are four ranged weapons in D&D, Bows, crossbows, Slings, and thrown Weapons. Thrown Weapons have the advantage of being cheap redily available and being a spontanious ranged weapon with great damage potential. They are also one handed, so you can have a shield in one hand and throw a weapon in the other. It also adds a strength bonus to damage. Traditionally used to avoid reach weapons such as spears, or to get a first strike prior to engagement. Bows have a faster rate of fire, and mighty bows you can add your strength potential for damage. You must use a bow two-handed. Because of composite bows of strength, they will do the most damage in the game. Our mid-level ranger can put out 5 shots a round (Rapid Shot while Hasted). Crossbows have more damage, more range and a greater critical threat. Almost everybody can use them, they can be fired while prone (so if you're in a missle battle you have the advantage). However they are slow to reload. Generally the best weapon to use without Rapid Shot while 5th level or lower, since you only have one attack. Slings have the least damage, least critical threat, but they do Bludgening damage (which helps in some cases). They can be fired as often as a bow and you always add your strength bonus to damage (even with a 0cp sling), and if you run out of ammunition you can always pick up a rock and use it. Slings have the advantage of being one handed as well, so you can have a shield with a sling. The first troops to use slings in mass were the Romans , I believe. Who remembers AD&D when Crossbows only did d4 damage compaired to the Bow's d6 twice per round?. But crossbows had penetration when it came to armor back then too. :) Who ever used THOSE tables?
Vahenir 06-16-05, 04:37 AM	When the Pope declared the Crossbow could not be used on Christian and was the work of Satan, that should be enough to prove how deadly the crossbow can be. A Heavy Crossbow is capable of going through a car. A car, huh? You've been watching a bit too much television, I think. The crossbow wasn't banned by the Papacy because it was deadly. All weapons are deadly. It was banned because it allowed ignoble commoners to kill trained soldiers with absolute ease, and from a safe distance. This, to a Medieval mindset, was abhorrent! That a low-born welp could kill a blue-blooded knight from a distance!? Surely it is the Devil's Hands that a crossbow is truly shot from! To understand the ban, you must understand the mindset at the time. The first troops to use slings in mass were the Romans , I believe. Egyptians and Nubians used them in mass before the Roman Empire was founded. Who ever used THOSE tables? Oh God! Those things were such a pain. Thankfully other publishers have since proven that you can demonstrate armour vs. weapon style technology without overcomplicating the game.
Aurotuli 06-16-05, 04:58 AM	The first troops to use slings in mass were the Romans , I believe. As I recall there are jugs, wall paintings (carvings?), etc that depict large groups (armies?) of sling-users in the ancient near east. Not sure of the exact locale, however. Babylon? Sumeria? Ancient Persia? Not Egypt, but you get the general jist of where I mean. I'm just not entire sure as to when, except that I'm mostly sure it was before Rome. I think helenic time period or the one just prior to that. I wish I had my old college history texts with me at the moment.
Maraxus 06-16-05, 05:05 AM	This is a lot like saying the dagger is not a good weapon choice for a Str 22 Fighter - because the Greatsword is better in every way for him. Of course it is. No, I think the dagger is the better weapon for the high-strength fighter. High strength means, you are good in grappleing, so you will want to have a weapon, you can use in a grapple. *Slaps himself for trying to hijack the thread* Yes, as a dwarf, I'm very unpleased with the way crossbows are handed in D&D. Range: Bows shoot further ... but indirectly. For aim and shoot in an almost direct line, the Crossbow is the weapon of choise. In any case at low range. Maybe you could represent this by giving the crossbow a greater range but less range increments. Damage: Right, I had the idea of migty Crossbows, too. However, I would say hand crossbows and repeading crossbows sould be considered light - only half the mighty bonus - to a maximum of half the strength bonus - is added to damage. And of cause you need the damage when reloading. Reloading: I think the time you need to reload a crossbow is okay. It's a missconception of D&D that a bow is a low damage fast attack speed weapon, but comparing crossbow and meelee weapons, it's okay. I would even say, that you can take even longer to reload a crossbow, if you want to reload one with a greater str. requirement. Light crossbow: 1 str bonus less: 1 full round, 2 less: 2 full rounds Heavy crossbow: 1 less: 2 full rounds, 2 less: 4 full rounds. And than, you can also use crossbows to large for your size (one step), if it is mounted on a bipod (light crossbow) or tripod (heavy crossbow) at a -2 penalty and again doubled reload time. If you fire even larger crossbows, it is called a ballista. :)
Inigo Carmine 06-16-05, 10:30 AM	Range: Bows shoot further ... but indirectly. For aim and shoot in an almost direct line, the Crossbow is the weapon of choise. Everytime the bow vs crossbow thread comes up I see something like this stated, but it never makes any sense to me. As far as I know, both a bow and a crossbow can both be fired in a straight line. The only thing that effects range is the initial velocity and the angle at launch (assuming equal aerodynamics). ============== Also, people need to get over the "crossbow should be doing massive damage" and "crossbows pierce armor better then bows" thing. It's not true. The crossbow has a significantly higher draw weight than a bow, this is true. However, this doesn't make it do more damage than a bow. The draw weight on a crossbow has to be that much higher because the "bow" part of the crossbow is that much smaller than an actual bow. If you had a crossbow with the same draw weight of a longbow, the bolt would slide out of the front of it and probably hit the ground a couple yards away at the most. The higher draw weight is what even makes it comparable to a bow. When all is said and done, once the arrow on a bow is loosed, and once the bolt on a crossbow is shot, they behave pretty similarly. The difference was that a bow was harder to use, but for someone who is trained, they could put 3-4 accurate arrows in the air at the rate the trained crossbowman could put one. If anything, D&D is a bit too kind to the crossbow (mostly in the reload speed). They wanted to make it a viable weapon for heroes instead of relegating it to the cheap, easy to use commoner army weapon.
Tony Vargas 06-16-05, 12:35 PM	Also, people need to get over the "crossbow should be doing massive damage" and "crossbows pierce armor better then bows" thing. It's not true. Crossbows were reputed to be good at penetrating armor. Heavycrossbows being comparable to early firearms in that regard. History and physics asside, the mere reputation is enough to consider modeling it in D&D. Of course, D&D doesn't model armor penetration at all, so it's nearly a moot point. What D&D /does/ seem to do, though, is give weapons that were better (or supposed to be better) at penetrating armor a higher crit multiplier (battle axe, pick, warhammer) or just solid damage in the case of bludgeoning weapons (mace, flail), and those that were supposed to be better against lighter-armored victims a broad threat range. It even works out, since a broad threat range is best against an enemy you can hit on a 19 or 18, not just a 20, while a high crit can occassionally deliver massive damage even to a heavily armored foe you can hit only on a 20. Given that, you could change the crossbow for a 19-20/x2, to a 20/x3 (equivalent, balance-wise) for the light, and x4 for the heavy (bit of a boost, but with a full-round to re-load, it'd be hard to overpower the thing).
aelryinth 06-16-05, 08:08 PM	Ah yes, the 1E xbows. d4 dmg...except for Dwarven Sharpshooters, of course. It also took TWO extra slots to spec bow, and only one to spec xbow. So spec xbow for the point blank shot, drop it and charge with your half ogre using his dual wield bastard swords. Then along came Birthright, where the xbow finally got upgrades...more dmg, and +2 TH against Armor across the board. ==Aelryinth
jaerad 06-17-05, 04:10 AM	Given that, you could change the crossbow for a 19-20/x2, to a 20/x3 (equivalent, balance-wise) for the light, and x4 for the heavy (bit of a boost, but with a full-round to re-load, it'd be hard to overpower the thing). I'm begining to hate Tony and his damn good ideas.
Chaser 06-17-05, 04:46 AM	Actually, you two aren't disagreeing at all. You're talking about different aspects of the weapon. A crossbow utilizes a much heavier pull. He's right. A crossbow bolt doesn't go as far as a longbow arrow. You're right. Quarrels are thicker, and much heavier than an arrow - No. The bolt is shorter and therefore lighter. If it were thicker, it would be much worse at armour penetration than an arrow. Crossbow bolts did not go as far for a variety of reasons, but if they were intended to penetrate armor, being heavier than an arrow was not one of those reasons.
Vahenir 06-17-05, 06:47 AM	I'm begining to hate Tony and his damn good ideas. We all hate Tony and his good ideas. That's why he hasn't become a successful game designer - we're all secretly working to hold him back, because he's better than us. ;) No. The bolt is shorter and therefore lighter. If it were thicker, it would be much worse at armour penetration than an arrow. That's not correct. A crossbow quarrel (or bolt) was much thicker than a standard arrow. Any treatise on crossbows will tell you that. They -had- to be thicker to withstand the pounding they took when fired. A normal arrow would snap under the pressure. But ignoring that - it's simply historical fact that crossbow quarrels were thicker and shorter than arrows were. Armour penetration has nothing to do with the thickness of the shaft, and everything to do with the length, thickness, and shape of the HEAD of the quarrel or arrow. As a matter of fact, one could presume that a well-placed crossbow bolt, being thicker than an arrow, would penetrate armour better because of the extra weight pushing the head deeper. To summarize: 1) Crossbow quarrels were, in fact, thicker and heavier than a normal arrow's shaft. 2) The shaft of an arrow or quarrel has little to nothing to do with penetration - as penetration ability relies on the dynamics of the item's head, not the item's shaft. but if they were intended to penetrate armor, being heavier than an arrow was not one of those reasons. Well I already pointed out that they were heavier - and that did cause them to have a shorter range. But we'll move on to the "intended to penetrate armour" comment: They weren't. Crossbows were invented long before heavy armour was even an issue - and simultaneously existed in places with a decided LACK of any serious protection. For example, China had crossbows - even though your average Chinese soldier probably wouldn't have been wearing a great deal of protective items that could shield him anyway. And to drive the nail into the coffin of this issue: If crossbows were INTENDED to penetrate armour with such ease, please explain why they were so horribly BAD at that very objective for the first three or four generations of the weapon.
woodwalker 06-17-05, 03:27 PM	cross bows are extremly powerful, thats the reason that platemail was invented. a crossbow bolt can pierse chainmail easily. also, it took years of training to shoot a bow acuratly, but a crossbow is fairly easy.
Vahenir 06-17-05, 05:29 PM	cross bows are extremly powerful, thats the reason that platemail was invented. 1) There is no such thing as "platemail." 2) Plate armour's invention had nothing to do with crossbows. a crossbow bolt can pierse chainmail easily. Actually, a crossbow quarrel would have a fair amount of trouble, in the era of mail, piercing a mail hauberk. Hence the reason crossbows did not have widespread use at the time.
WaterRabbit 06-17-05, 08:39 PM	Yes, well, this is already taken care of, a heavy crossbow does more damage than a longbow, etc., so there you go. Clearly I disagree with you here. The best you can get out of a normal light crossbow is 1d8 vs. a composite long bow is 1d8+STR Mod (feats are a wash here). Modern crossbows made with modern materials have better efficiency than their medieval counterparts. A modern crossbow with a 150 lb. pull is sufficient to take down a deer at short range. A medieval crossbow with a ~700 lb. pull was equivalent to an ~80 lb. pull longbow [depending on the reference]. Medieval military crossbows could go up to 1500 lbs. of pull. So, not only is a crossbow inferior damage wise to an equivalent longbow; both are inferior to a long sword. This is a problem with all projectiles in d20. They don't take into account the mechanical or chemical 'effective strength' on a projectile. I actually disagree with you, though. Traditionally, a longbow always had better range than commonly fielded crossbows, [Battle of Circy[sp?] with Longbowmen outranging and outloosing missiles versus the vaunted Italian crossbowmen] so the longbow could easily be seen as having more damage potential, as it threw a heavier missile farther, and therefore with greater force, etc. You could always build a stronger crossbow with strong cocking mechanism, though, of course, thus overcoming the traditional crossbow's problem of not delivering its pull rating to its missile as effectively as a longbow does. I never stated anything about range so I don't see how you could really disagree with me on that point. However, as to range you are quite wrong. A 15th century 1500 pull crossbow had about 150 yard advantage over a longbow. Also, Crecy is a poor example of longbow being better than crossbow. If you do even a modicum of research you will discover that the Genoese crossbowmen suffered from wet strings, their pavises still loaded as baggage, outnumbered, commanded by leaders that did not understand how to use them, and being overrun by the French cavalry. This was more a contest of tactics than of weapons. [Note the rain did not affect the bowmen because they were able to unstring their bows and keep them dry]. Crecy took place in 1346 and Agincourt in 1415. By the time of Agincourt, the longbow was unable to loose a projectile that could penetrate the plate armor used at the time. That said, the game balances crossbows and bows pretty well as is. In the game, crossbows are only a good choice for characters with an 11 STR or lower. Situations where crossbows were more effective in the real world than in the game are not modeled. To represent the training difference there would have to be a feat requirement just to use a longbow (i.e. exotic weapon). So what advantages are left? You can lie prone and fire a crossbow, very infrequent advantage maybe 1% overall. You can fire behind a smaller slit than a bow, again now a common occurrence. The critical ranges are the same 19-20/x2 = 20/x3. In addition, you are required to take a feat to get a light crossbow the same rate of fire as a longbow. So in no way is a crossbow comparable to a longbow. The fact that a longbow is a marital weapon is not much of a disadvantage -- a single level of a fighter-class solves that problem.
WaterRabbit 06-17-05, 09:04 PM	Actually, a crossbow quarrel would have a fair amount of trouble, in the era of mail, piercing a mail hauberk. Hence the reason crossbows did not have widespread use at the time. I generally agree with your analysis of weapons, but I disagree with you here on two points. Typically crossbow bolts weigh about the same as a war arrow, between 60-80 grams. However, during the era of mail, crossbow technology was still in its infancy. Crossbow technology came into its own during the 14th and 15th centuries. A crossbow from that period would have little problem penetrating chainmail.
Vahenir 06-18-05, 12:27 AM	However, as to range you are quite wrong. A 15th century 1500 pull crossbow had about 150 yard advantage over a longbow. Uh.. A Welsh longbow has a range of about 350-360 yards. A 'heavy' crossbow has a range of about 300 yards. No doubt, a crossbow has better range than a smaller bow - such as a hunting bow, or even the recurve bows favoured by Eurasian cultures. But against a longbow - not quite. I generally agree with your analysis of weapons, but I disagree with you here on two points. Typically crossbow bolts weigh about the same as a war arrow, between 60-80 grams. We're talking about shaft-weight (considering both arrow and quarrel are likely to be outfitted with similar heads, given the circumstance). The quarrel bolt was thicker and shorter, but also denser, than the typical arrow from a hunting bow or longbow. I never said it was -intensely- heavier, just that it was in fact heavier. To use grams - the crossbow bolt would be about 85-90, while the arrow would be around 70 grams. It's not a huge difference, but it matters. However, during the era of mail, crossbow technology was still in its infancy. Crossbow technology came into its own during the 14th and 15th centuries. A crossbow from that period would have little problem penetrating chainmail. I don't disagree. But D&D is not anachronistic - light crossbows, I presume bear some resemblance to early crossbows, exist beside heavy crossbows, which I presume to be something like the later 15th century crossbows. My point was exactly what you agree with - early crossbows could not penetrate the armour of the era. So it's absurd to make such a claim as "crossbows were intended to puncture armour." Later crossbows eventually came to be able to, from a certain distance and if the crossbow was of a certain pull - but that was never the main intention during the crossbow's inception - when it was quite unable to do anything of the sort.
WaterRabbit 06-18-05, 12:20 PM	Uh.. A Welsh longbow has a range of about 350-360 yards. A 'heavy' crossbow has a range of about 300 yards. Here is where different sources disagree. 300 yards is more in line with a longbow. When talking about a longbow may people often refer to the the characteristics of the bows found on the Mary Rose as being examples, forgetting that these were bows stats were derived from replicas made of them. Some researchers have assigned suspiciously high draw strengths to these bows. Others have assigned more modest values to them. Also, note that the Mary Rose sank in 1545 -- i.e. the Renaissance and not the Medieval period. From my reading, a longbow firing a war arrow would have an effective range in the 180-200 yard range. These bows would have a draw of 80-110 lbs. The longest verified shot I have read about is in the range of 300 yards +/- 10 yards.. For a military crossbow the longest verified shot is 400 yards +/- 10 yards. I am still searching for what the effective range would be, but probably in the neighborhood of 200 yards. No doubt, a crossbow has better range than a smaller bow - such as a hunting bow, or even the recurve bows favoured by Eurasian cultures. But against a longbow - not quite. If you stop and think about this for a minute, you would see this statement can never be true. The limitation on a longbow is human power. The height and strength of the bowman will limit the draw. Remember the longbow is still a simple bow (i.e. not a compound bow) and is in effect a composite bow only because of the properties of yew. OTOH, the limitation of a crossbow is mechanical. The limitation here is how heavy a weapon someone could carry and hold steady (and even then it can be braced like a gun). Late Medieval military crossbows had draws somewhere between 1200-1500 lbs. -- much greater than most people could draw with a longbow. We're talking about shaft-weight (considering both arrow and quarrel are likely to be outfitted with similar heads, given the circumstance). The quarrel bolt was thicker and shorter, but also denser, than the typical arrow from a hunting bow or longbow. I never said it was -intensely- heavier, just that it was in fact heavier. To use grams - the crossbow bolt would be about 85-90, while the arrow would be around 70 grams. It's not a huge difference, but it matters. They don't use similar heads at all (other than they are both pointy). A quarrel has about a 2.5 oz. conical head and a bodkin arrow is about 1.5 oz. with a much longer head. The quarrel is shorter (about 12") to decrease resistance on the shelf. The arrow is longer (24" or more depending on the draw of the archer) so that a greater draw, thus more power, can be achieved. A quarrel typically has two feathers and an arrow three. There feathers give better stability, but two prevent the quarrel from catching in the release. Overall the quarrel and arrow are in the same weight range. Also, there is quite a bit of variation -- especially in arrows. Quarrels had to be made for a mechanical device so had to be more uniform. They were varnished to decrease drag both in the air and in the release. Bows were generally customized for the individual archer. A taller archer could fire a longer, heavier arrow than a short archer. I don't disagree. But D&D is not anachronistic - light crossbows, I presume bear some resemblance to early crossbows, exist beside heavy crossbows, which I presume to be something like the later 15th century crossbows. My point was exactly what you agree with - early crossbows could not penetrate the armor of the era. So it's absurd to make such a claim as "crossbows were intended to puncture armor." Later crossbows eventually came to be able to, from a certain distance and if the crossbow was of a certain pull - but that was never the main intention during the crossbow's inception - when it was quite unable to do anything of the sort. I don't quite agree with you on this point. There has always existed an arms race between offensive power and defensive capability. Clearly even the most ancient of crossbows were effective at killing people or else we wouldn't be talking about them at all as weapons of war. It is not that the crossbow could not penetrate mail (or a shirt full of holes) it is more that the arrow could. The proper military role of the crossbow is defense. It became a weapon of offensive when armor became proof against arrows. When armor became proof against quarrels the handgun develops from being just a curiosity to an actual tool of war. Crossbows are more suited for a defensive or siege role than an offensive role. There slow rate of fire is the primary reason. A bowman could typically loose 12 arrows per minute. Now these shots were part of a volley and not necessarily aimed at a specific target. For precise aimed shots this rate would decrease. For a crossbow the rate of fire depends on its mechanism: Windlass 1 quarrel per minute Cranequin 2 or 3 per minute Goat's foot lever 3 per minute Belt Hook 3 or 4 per minute By hand 7 or 8 per minute During the time an arbalester is loading he is exposed. This is why the crossbow is married to the pavis -- portable cover. However, a pavis is not a very mobile item. It is time consuming to reposition on the field of battle. Given these drawbacks a commander would not bother to deploy arbalesters against a force only protected by mail. However, once armor becomes proof against arrows, it is better to have arbalesters than ineffectual bowmen. It is unfortunate that the French were so incompetent in their deployment of their forces on the battlefield; otherwise, Crecy might have turned out quite differently.
J_Riley 06-18-05, 12:48 PM	Who remembers AD&D when Crossbows only did d4 damage compaired to the Bow's d6 twice per round?. Me, me, I do! ;) I guess I'm old huh?
SylvrDragon 06-18-05, 01:05 PM	Remember, at first level, your 6 str grey elf wizard does 1d8 damage with a Xbow and 1d8-2 damage with a Longbow. I'd like to knopw what game you're playing, since Str doesn't factor into x=bows or bows unless you're using a composite bow and even then, you ONLY apply bonus, not penalty.
WaterRabbit 06-18-05, 04:19 PM	I'd like to knopw what game you're playing, since Str doesn't factor into x=bows or bows unless you're using a composite bow and even then, you ONLY apply bonus, not penalty. He would be playing the game by the rules in the v3.5 players handbook. His statements are completely correct. Yours are not. STR penalties apply to all bows. A STR Bonus can only apply to a composite bow that has been made to accomodate it. Perhaps you should reread the rules on bows.
SylvrDragon 06-18-05, 04:26 PM	He would be playing the game by the rules in the v3.5 players handbook. His statements are completely correct. Yours are not. STR penalties apply to all bows. A STR Bonus can only apply to a composite bow that has been made to accomodate it. Perhaps you should reread the rules on bows. I looked it up again and you were correct...Hoy, I'm sorry abour that one >.o