Crossbow Sight? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Crossbow Sight? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Dheran
11-13-07, 06:14 PM I remember reading somewhere about a crossbow sight that, if I remember correctly, helped reduce range penalties. Can someone help me out with the book name and page number of this item?

Thanks.
curtis_ownby
11-13-07, 07:55 PM Arms and Equipment Guide page 36. Have fun with the long range combat.
Dheran
11-14-07, 02:03 PM Thanks; that's exactly what I was looking for. I'm trying to make a challenge suitable for high-level PCs, and I figure being hit by dozens of crossbow bolts before they're even aware of where the enemy is located is a good start.

This sight is weird, though, as it reduces range penalties by 2, but has no effect on the first 2 range increments. So the penalty progression is the following:
0 -1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7
RobbyPants
11-14-07, 02:21 PM Thanks; that's exactly what I was looking for. I'm trying to make a challenge suitable for high-level PCs, and I figure being hit by dozens of crossbow bolts before they're even aware of where the enemy is located is a good start.

This sight is weird, though, as it reduces range penalties by 2, but has no effect on the first 2 range increments. So the penalty progression is the following:
0 -1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7
But normally range increment penalties are -2 per increment. So if what you first posted is accurate, wouldn't it be something more like:

-0, -2, -2, -4, -6, -8, -10, -12, -14, - 16, -18?

So, with a range increment of 80 feet for a light crossbow, it would seem that you'd have -2 to hit from 80 up until just before 240 feet. I guess ideally, you'd start the engagement about 235 feet off, giving the minimal penalty, and several rounds of shooting first. It would take typical PCs two rounds of doing nothing but sprinting to cover that distance (and their ACs would drop during that time).
1 ton ghost
11-15-07, 02:57 PM i know they make a passing reference to one in X-Bow Sniper (PHBII) in conjuction to the prowess the feat provides, but i just don't know.
i do like Arms and Equip but it is 3.0 for what it's worth. conflicted on my end. upside is they never really mangled ranged combat or increments between editions, so that's a good argument.
opposing though is it's not terribly realistic. it's not like a rifle and scope where you sight it in for specific ranges. they're implying the sights are good for any range at a flat rate. nice and simple, but lil' phony. there's way more wind veer and the trajectory is far more likely to change given it's mass. a bullet is much faster, granted, but w/ a bolt (or arrow) you have to consider resistance on the broadhead, the shaft, and the fletching. that's alot of drag. i don't know. i'd love to use them as x-bow kinda' gets the shaft, but on some levels it's outstanding:
-3.0 cover is way better (since you're using a 3rd ed book anyway...); it allows for more degrees of cover which are easilly exploited by the horizontal build of an x-bow. you could feasibly get "3/4's cover" very easilly in most any terrain by taking a knee behind a fallen log, rock, etc. instead of just "cover" via 3.5ed.
-you can 1 hand it; sometimes you only need 1 shot (True Strike, poison, etc.)
-they're Simple Weapons; this is why the Pope outlawed them as peasants were suddenly very adept at killing armored knights. point 'n click. of course, he overturned that for the Crusades...

oh, and for your hypothetical ambush; engage them as far out as possible just like the real world. even some long range spells won't reach you this far out. gives you more time to reposition or regroup your ranged units too. more distance means more fire. more fire, more hits, etc. etc.
usually a forward observer w/ a spyglass will Spot ideally and direct fire in a volley (x-bow is the smarter bet anyway; you lose Str bonuses from a bow in vollies and x-bow range is better i thought [don't quote me on that last bit])
Dheran
11-15-07, 05:08 PM But normally range increment penalties are -2 per increment. So if what you first posted is accurate, wouldn't it be something more like:

-0, -2, -2, -4, -6, -8, -10, -12, -14, - 16, -18? Oh, absolutely (except that the progression by to-hit penalty is actually
0 -2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18
if you interpret the sight as allowing you to shoot out to 12 range increments). I was just showing the progression in range increments rather than to-hit penalties for simplicity of presentation.
RobbyPants
11-16-07, 11:40 AM Now, I don't have A&EG, but what you posted was that it has no effect on the first to increments (which would stay at -0 and -2), and that it reduces the penalties by 2. So, if the second range increment is normally -4, wouldn't it be -2 rather than -0?

I could be wrong, because I based my calculations off of your initial post, and not on the wording of the item itself.
RavenDrake
11-16-07, 03:48 PM Actually, the wording is that you treat enemies as being two range increments closer than they actually are, but it does not affect foes within the first two range increments(representing a calibration aspect, IE it's tuned to help with foes that are three or more range increments away moreso than foes that are closer by) so the penalties would, by my reckoning, be -0, -2, -0, -2. -4, etc...
Cifer
11-19-07, 07:56 PM there's way more wind veer and the trajectory is far more likely to change given it's mass. a bullet is much faster, granted, but w/ a bolt (or arrow) you have to consider resistance on the broadhead, the shaft, and the fletching. that's alot of drag. i don't know.
While I can't find the sources right now, it actually seems to be the other way round: Firing an arrow or bolt doesn't need as much compensation for trajectory than a bullet - that's the point of the fletching.
1 ton ghost
11-20-07, 01:30 AM While I can't find the sources right now, it actually seems to be the other way round: Firing an arrow or bolt doesn't need as much compensation for trajectory than a bullet - that's the point of the fletching.

go find some (your sources) then, a physics book, or any old episode of Mailcall, they'll all pretty much give the same answer. it's not the other way around though some flechettes and sabbots do have stabilizers that deploy midflight. "seems" vs. science and history is painfully 1-sided.

there's more matter on an arrow/bolt w/ alot less kinetic energy behind it than a bullet. just means there's more mass and area for resistance which will effect it's path or trajectory. speed it up or make it more aerodynamic and there will be far less to compensate for. fletching stabilizes its flight and yes, it has some effect on trajectory, but the fletching keeps the arrow's ass end in the back where it belongs.
Velcro Zipper
11-20-07, 02:04 AM Once you figure out the range modifications for that scope and mount it to your crossbow, you should consider getting it enchanted. A magic scope could provide blindsight, true seeing or even just darkvision if you don't already have it. Of course, you have to figure out the cost of making a magic scope yourself.
1 ton ghost
11-20-07, 02:33 AM Once you figure out the range modifications for that scope and mount it to your crossbow, you should consider getting it enchanted. A magic scope could provide blindsight, true seeing or even just darkvision if you don't already have it. Of course, you have to figure out the cost of making a magic scope yourself.

nice. i like. good idea.
baby the Hell out of it though. resighting your scope sucks. you can't really jostle it around and all so you might need a ruling on melee engagements, jump, climb, stuff like that, but i like where your head's at.
my friend was considering enchanting a spyglass (why doesn't one exist yet anyway?) and using Craft to cannibalize it to his arquebus but all i had in store for him was untimely death so it didn't work out.
damn. you should seriously post that in Magic/Spells. a glass that granted darkvision/blindsight, etc...it'd be cheaper than goggles cause you can't employ them in the same manner, but for recon and the like, it's really good.
RobbyPants
11-20-07, 10:03 AM Actually, the wording is that you treat enemies as being two range increments closer than they actually are, but it does not affect foes within the first two range increments(representing a calibration aspect, IE it's tuned to help with foes that are three or more range increments away moreso than foes that are closer by) so the penalties would, by my reckoning, be -0, -2, -0, -2. -4, etc...
That makes sense. Without the A&EG, all I had to go on was the OP's description.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dheran 11-13-07, 06:14 PM	I remember reading somewhere about a crossbow sight that, if I remember correctly, helped reduce range penalties. Can someone help me out with the book name and page number of this item? Thanks.
curtis_ownby 11-13-07, 07:55 PM	Arms and Equipment Guide page 36. Have fun with the long range combat.
Dheran 11-14-07, 02:03 PM	Thanks; that's exactly what I was looking for. I'm trying to make a challenge suitable for high-level PCs, and I figure being hit by dozens of crossbow bolts before they're even aware of where the enemy is located is a good start. This sight is weird, though, as it reduces range penalties by 2, but has no effect on the first 2 range increments. So the penalty progression is the following: 0 -1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7
RobbyPants 11-14-07, 02:21 PM	Thanks; that's exactly what I was looking for. I'm trying to make a challenge suitable for high-level PCs, and I figure being hit by dozens of crossbow bolts before they're even aware of where the enemy is located is a good start. This sight is weird, though, as it reduces range penalties by 2, but has no effect on the first 2 range increments. So the penalty progression is the following: 0 -1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 But normally range increment penalties are -2 per increment. So if what you first posted is accurate, wouldn't it be something more like: -0, -2, -2, -4, -6, -8, -10, -12, -14, - 16, -18? So, with a range increment of 80 feet for a light crossbow, it would seem that you'd have -2 to hit from 80 up until just before 240 feet. I guess ideally, you'd start the engagement about 235 feet off, giving the minimal penalty, and several rounds of shooting first. It would take typical PCs two rounds of doing nothing but sprinting to cover that distance (and their ACs would drop during that time).
1 ton ghost 11-15-07, 02:57 PM	i know they make a passing reference to one in X-Bow Sniper (PHBII) in conjuction to the prowess the feat provides, but i just don't know. i do like Arms and Equip but it is 3.0 for what it's worth. conflicted on my end. upside is they never really mangled ranged combat or increments between editions, so that's a good argument. opposing though is it's not terribly realistic. it's not like a rifle and scope where you sight it in for specific ranges. they're implying the sights are good for any range at a flat rate. nice and simple, but lil' phony. there's way more wind veer and the trajectory is far more likely to change given it's mass. a bullet is much faster, granted, but w/ a bolt (or arrow) you have to consider resistance on the broadhead, the shaft, and the fletching. that's alot of drag. i don't know. i'd love to use them as x-bow kinda' gets the shaft, but on some levels it's outstanding: -3.0 cover is way better (since you're using a 3rd ed book anyway...); it allows for more degrees of cover which are easilly exploited by the horizontal build of an x-bow. you could feasibly get "3/4's cover" very easilly in most any terrain by taking a knee behind a fallen log, rock, etc. instead of just "cover" via 3.5ed. -you can 1 hand it; sometimes you only need 1 shot (True Strike, poison, etc.) -they're Simple Weapons; this is why the Pope outlawed them as peasants were suddenly very adept at killing armored knights. point 'n click. of course, he overturned that for the Crusades... oh, and for your hypothetical ambush; engage them as far out as possible just like the real world. even some long range spells won't reach you this far out. gives you more time to reposition or regroup your ranged units too. more distance means more fire. more fire, more hits, etc. etc. usually a forward observer w/ a spyglass will Spot ideally and direct fire in a volley (x-bow is the smarter bet anyway; you lose Str bonuses from a bow in vollies and x-bow range is better i thought [don't quote me on that last bit])
Dheran 11-15-07, 05:08 PM	But normally range increment penalties are -2 per increment. So if what you first posted is accurate, wouldn't it be something more like: -0, -2, -2, -4, -6, -8, -10, -12, -14, - 16, -18? Oh, absolutely (except that the progression by to-hit penalty is actually 0 -2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18 if you interpret the sight as allowing you to shoot out to 12 range increments). I was just showing the progression in range increments rather than to-hit penalties for simplicity of presentation.
RobbyPants 11-16-07, 11:40 AM	Now, I don't have A&EG, but what you posted was that it has no effect on the first to increments (which would stay at -0 and -2), and that it reduces the penalties by 2. So, if the second range increment is normally -4, wouldn't it be -2 rather than -0? I could be wrong, because I based my calculations off of your initial post, and not on the wording of the item itself.
RavenDrake 11-16-07, 03:48 PM	Actually, the wording is that you treat enemies as being two range increments closer than they actually are, but it does not affect foes within the first two range increments(representing a calibration aspect, IE it's tuned to help with foes that are three or more range increments away moreso than foes that are closer by) so the penalties would, by my reckoning, be -0, -2, -0, -2. -4, etc...
Cifer 11-19-07, 07:56 PM	there's way more wind veer and the trajectory is far more likely to change given it's mass. a bullet is much faster, granted, but w/ a bolt (or arrow) you have to consider resistance on the broadhead, the shaft, and the fletching. that's alot of drag. i don't know. While I can't find the sources right now, it actually seems to be the other way round: Firing an arrow or bolt doesn't need as much compensation for trajectory than a bullet - that's the point of the fletching.
1 ton ghost 11-20-07, 01:30 AM	While I can't find the sources right now, it actually seems to be the other way round: Firing an arrow or bolt doesn't need as much compensation for trajectory than a bullet - that's the point of the fletching. go find some (your sources) then, a physics book, or any old episode of Mailcall, they'll all pretty much give the same answer. it's not the other way around though some flechettes and sabbots do have stabilizers that deploy midflight. "seems" vs. science and history is painfully 1-sided. there's more matter on an arrow/bolt w/ alot less kinetic energy behind it than a bullet. just means there's more mass and area for resistance which will effect it's path or trajectory. speed it up or make it more aerodynamic and there will be far less to compensate for. fletching stabilizes its flight and yes, it has some effect on trajectory, but the fletching keeps the arrow's ass end in the back where it belongs.
Velcro Zipper 11-20-07, 02:04 AM	Once you figure out the range modifications for that scope and mount it to your crossbow, you should consider getting it enchanted. A magic scope could provide blindsight, true seeing or even just darkvision if you don't already have it. Of course, you have to figure out the cost of making a magic scope yourself.
1 ton ghost 11-20-07, 02:33 AM	Once you figure out the range modifications for that scope and mount it to your crossbow, you should consider getting it enchanted. A magic scope could provide blindsight, true seeing or even just darkvision if you don't already have it. Of course, you have to figure out the cost of making a magic scope yourself. nice. i like. good idea. baby the Hell out of it though. resighting your scope sucks. you can't really jostle it around and all so you might need a ruling on melee engagements, jump, climb, stuff like that, but i like where your head's at. my friend was considering enchanting a spyglass (why doesn't one exist yet anyway?) and using Craft to cannibalize it to his arquebus but all i had in store for him was untimely death so it didn't work out. damn. you should seriously post that in Magic/Spells. a glass that granted darkvision/blindsight, etc...it'd be cheaper than goggles cause you can't employ them in the same manner, but for recon and the like, it's really good.
RobbyPants 11-20-07, 10:03 AM	Actually, the wording is that you treat enemies as being two range increments closer than they actually are, but it does not affect foes within the first two range increments(representing a calibration aspect, IE it's tuned to help with foes that are three or more range increments away moreso than foes that are closer by) so the penalties would, by my reckoning, be -0, -2, -0, -2. -4, etc... That makes sense. Without the A&EG, all I had to go on was the OP's description.