crossbow and longbow ranges [Archive] - Wizards Community

crossbow and longbow ranges [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Golden Zealot
08-14-06, 01:47 PM Why is it that the heavy crossbow has a longer range than the longbow, as does the light crossbow to the shortbow? It is well known that the longbow, while less deadly, was the crossbow's superior when it came to rate of fire (which the rules reflect), and range (which the rules have reversed for the weapons). Is this just for balance, and would it hurt the game too much to swap the heavy crossbow's range for the longbow's range, and same for the light crossbow and shortbow?
SephDragoon
08-14-06, 01:52 PM I think this is more a reflection of accuracy at said range than anything. Sure, the longbow could be arched and fired into a field of soldiers and would most likely hit one just because of the sheer number of them. But, hitting a specific soldier from the same range was near impossible. Crossbows were more accurate weapons, even if they were shorter range. So, higher range isn't the issue, but more range increments I think, like, what is the standard, up to three times your range increment, but at -8 to attack. Maybe it should be upped to 4 times range increment at -12 to attack for the longbow and short bow?
Seerow
08-14-06, 01:55 PM I think this is more a reflection of accuracy at said range than anything. Sure, the longbow could be arched and fired into a field of soldiers and would most likely hit one just because of the sheer number of them. But, hitting a specific soldier from the same range was near impossible. Crossbows were more accurate weapons, even if they were shorter range. So, higher range isn't the issue, but more range increments I think, like, what is the standard, up to three times your range increment, but at -8 to attack. Maybe it should be upped to 4 times range increment at -12 to attack for the longbow and short bow?

I believe the standard is up to 10 increments away, -2 for each increment. So you could take a -20 and fire 10 increments away.

Shutting the Crossbow down to half increments I don't think would be unfair. But then, I'd give anyone actually using a crossbow rapid reload for free, as that just seems stupid to me.
SephDragoon
08-14-06, 01:58 PM Meh, well, my bad. In either case, increments are the issue here.
Dire Celestial Bonobo
08-15-06, 12:14 AM I believe the standard is up to 10 increments away, -2 for each increment. So you could take a -20 and fire 10 increments away.

Two nitpicks:

1) "Fire" is for guns; it literally refers to setting fire to the gunpowder. Generally, one "launches" or even "looses" arrows.

2) 10 range increments + Far Shot = first-level character shooting an arrow 3000 feet. Historically-accurate max ranges with an English longbow were more like 1000 feet, and 2000 was pushing it for the lighter arrows of a Mongol composite bow. Before the 20th century, the world record distance was about 2400 feet (Turkish lord, special paper-fletched arrow).

So there are a variety of issues with D&D's weapon ranges. Given that, it probably won't be a big deal if the OP jiggers them around some (although I would recommend he just cap crossbows to 5 range increments; that gives them a slight accuracy edge, but a serious range deficiency as compared to a bow. Not that shots at 6-10 range increments are common sights in most games anyway...)
Vahenir
08-15-06, 12:26 AM But then, I'd give anyone actually using a crossbow rapid reload for free, as that just seems stupid to me.

Seems stupid to me too. Crossbows are notoriously difficult to reload without significant training. People like the Genoese Mercenaries would have something like 'rapid reload.' Not everyone with a crossbow.

Generally, one "launches" or even "looses" arrows.

'Loose' is the more common word, to point a fact.

Historically-accurate max ranges with an English longbow were more like 1000 feet, and 2000 was pushing it for the lighter arrows of a Mongol composite bow.

Accurate? Noooo. Max distances, period. And the "Mongol" composite bow could not fire 2000 feet. The most powerful bow in the medieval era was the Turkic bow. It could outpower and outdistance any of the other composites.

You have your numbers generally correct - just remove the word 'accurate.' Hell, look 1000 feet away. How accurate could you be without a scope? I'm not saying that's a -huge- distance, but it's not -close- either. And the human eye is only so good.

In any event, I agree with the general sentiment that limiting the increments of the crossbow is probably the best way to go. They remain the more accurate weapons (although it's extremely debatable as to whether or not this is historically true), but their effectiveness is limited moreso by limited range.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Golden Zealot 08-14-06, 01:47 PM	Why is it that the heavy crossbow has a longer range than the longbow, as does the light crossbow to the shortbow? It is well known that the longbow, while less deadly, was the crossbow's superior when it came to rate of fire (which the rules reflect), and range (which the rules have reversed for the weapons). Is this just for balance, and would it hurt the game too much to swap the heavy crossbow's range for the longbow's range, and same for the light crossbow and shortbow?
SephDragoon 08-14-06, 01:52 PM	I think this is more a reflection of accuracy at said range than anything. Sure, the longbow could be arched and fired into a field of soldiers and would most likely hit one just because of the sheer number of them. But, hitting a specific soldier from the same range was near impossible. Crossbows were more accurate weapons, even if they were shorter range. So, higher range isn't the issue, but more range increments I think, like, what is the standard, up to three times your range increment, but at -8 to attack. Maybe it should be upped to 4 times range increment at -12 to attack for the longbow and short bow?
Seerow 08-14-06, 01:55 PM	I think this is more a reflection of accuracy at said range than anything. Sure, the longbow could be arched and fired into a field of soldiers and would most likely hit one just because of the sheer number of them. But, hitting a specific soldier from the same range was near impossible. Crossbows were more accurate weapons, even if they were shorter range. So, higher range isn't the issue, but more range increments I think, like, what is the standard, up to three times your range increment, but at -8 to attack. Maybe it should be upped to 4 times range increment at -12 to attack for the longbow and short bow? I believe the standard is up to 10 increments away, -2 for each increment. So you could take a -20 and fire 10 increments away. Shutting the Crossbow down to half increments I don't think would be unfair. But then, I'd give anyone actually using a crossbow rapid reload for free, as that just seems stupid to me.
SephDragoon 08-14-06, 01:58 PM	Meh, well, my bad. In either case, increments are the issue here.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 08-15-06, 12:14 AM	I believe the standard is up to 10 increments away, -2 for each increment. So you could take a -20 and fire 10 increments away. Two nitpicks: 1) "Fire" is for guns; it literally refers to setting fire to the gunpowder. Generally, one "launches" or even "looses" arrows. 2) 10 range increments + Far Shot = first-level character shooting an arrow 3000 feet. Historically-accurate max ranges with an English longbow were more like 1000 feet, and 2000 was pushing it for the lighter arrows of a Mongol composite bow. Before the 20th century, the world record distance was about 2400 feet (Turkish lord, special paper-fletched arrow). So there are a variety of issues with D&D's weapon ranges. Given that, it probably won't be a big deal if the OP jiggers them around some (although I would recommend he just cap crossbows to 5 range increments; that gives them a slight accuracy edge, but a serious range deficiency as compared to a bow. Not that shots at 6-10 range increments are common sights in most games anyway...)
Vahenir 08-15-06, 12:26 AM	But then, I'd give anyone actually using a crossbow rapid reload for free, as that just seems stupid to me. Seems stupid to me too. Crossbows are notoriously difficult to reload without significant training. People like the Genoese Mercenaries would have something like 'rapid reload.' Not everyone with a crossbow. Generally, one "launches" or even "looses" arrows. 'Loose' is the more common word, to point a fact. Historically-accurate max ranges with an English longbow were more like 1000 feet, and 2000 was pushing it for the lighter arrows of a Mongol composite bow. Accurate? Noooo. Max distances, period. And the "Mongol" composite bow could not fire 2000 feet. The most powerful bow in the medieval era was the Turkic bow. It could outpower and outdistance any of the other composites. You have your numbers generally correct - just remove the word 'accurate.' Hell, look 1000 feet away. How accurate could you be without a scope? I'm not saying that's a -huge- distance, but it's not -close- either. And the human eye is only so good. In any event, I agree with the general sentiment that limiting the increments of the crossbow is probably the best way to go. They remain the more accurate weapons (although it's extremely debatable as to whether or not this is historically true), but their effectiveness is limited moreso by limited range.