Post/Author/DateTime	Post
NetID556 05-30-06, 03:31 AM	It seems to me that due to reloading times and weight factors, that using a bow is the way to go, hands down for a would be ranged fighter. Anyone care to argue for the side of using a crossbow in combat extensively?
da chicken 05-30-06, 04:17 AM	Honestly, crossbows in D&D are only meant for classes that can't use a bow. They're the weapons of wizards and clerics who don't want to lug around a bag of rocks for a sling or who have a 8 or less Strength. They're only useful very early when you don't have a high enough BAB for a second attack. Once you get something like Rapid Shot or something, though, crossbows are useless. Crossbows are cheaper to buy, and they do more damage per shot, buy they're so slow and dangerous to load they're not worth it for very many shots. The only other advantage of the crossbow is that you can poad it before you fight and fire it one handed. You could draw it in the first round, fire the weapon, then drop it and draw your melee weapon. However, in this case it's better to use a thrown weapon like a shortspear or throwing axe. Historically of course, "bow" meant shortbow for everyone except the English after Agincourt and the destruction they wrought with their Welsh longbows. In reality, it also takes years of training to learn a bow, whereas you can train someone to use a crossbow in a few days if necessary. If you have crossbowmen, you don't have to pay for a standing army. You just buy the weapon and store it until you need it.
Enaloindir 05-30-06, 04:55 AM	Actually, with the printing of the Crossbow Sniper feat in PHB2, the crossbow became a very nice weapon for a ranged rogue: adding half your Dex bonus as a damage bonus, and increasing the range of your sneak attack to 60'. Of course, this still requires a feat investment. Enaloindir
Father Dale 05-30-06, 09:10 AM	Yeah that feat realy helps out the crossbowman. An archer with at least a little strength and a Mighty composite bow would do more damage than guy with a lt xbow and rapid reload. This feat at least puts them on par. Although I don't think the xbow works with Manyshot, since it refers to 'arrows' and not ranged weapon or projectile weapon like Rapid Shot does. So the bow still has that over the lt xbow. Well, plus it doesn't take two feats to make it decent. :)
Sunrider 05-30-06, 09:11 AM	Depends on the situation. For your average dungeon-crawler, where you are partied with melee and spellcasting classes, don't fight too many long-range stealth battles and damage-per-round is king, bows dominate. For a lone sniper, or team of snipers, fighting primarily in extended, stealthy battles at beyond 30-60' range, the light crossbow (with Rapid Reload and Crossbow Sniper) is a far better weapon. Since you can't fire more than one shot per round and still hide, you're limited to firing one shot per round anyway and, with a high Dex, you'll be doing more damage per shot than the longbow. Furthermore, you can find cover to Hide more easily (since crossbows can be fired prone), will have a higher AC against ranged attacks if you are spotted (due to being Prone) and can make better use of SotR (fire once, move behind cover, then hide again next round). In a close-range arena battle, with nowhere to run and nowhere to hide, the longbow dominates. In a protracted, running battle, the longbow loses to such a crossbow specialist; naturally, the crossbowman will use tactics to force such a battle onto an opponent. Sure, the sniper does less damage per round than the arrow-spammer, but the sniper does far more damage per point of damage taken - essentially, the battle takes longer, but the sniper takes less damage. Incidentally, I find the D&D terms 'longbow' and 'shortbow' quite meaningless, and hardly worth the distinction (apart from classes with proficiency with one and not the other). A 'short' bow for one person may be a 'long' bow for another and, anyway, the range and damage difference is really up to the strength and training of the individual. Just use the mechanics as you like (and as you qualify for) and describe the bow how you wish...
Thorak 05-30-06, 10:08 AM	It seems to me that due to reloading times and weight factors, that using a bow is the way to go, hands down for a would be ranged fighter. Anyone care to argue for the side of using a crossbow in combat extensively? Historically speaking, the bow is the better weapon. It just requires more training. The reason crossbows and, later, black powder guns took over was their simplicity and ease of use. While archers were better, you had to start training them young, and train for years, whereas a crossbow you just need the weapons and a couple weeks of training.
Traevanon 05-30-06, 10:22 AM	Actually if you want to be the best ranged fighter be a WArlock. ;)
RaspK FOG 05-30-06, 10:34 AM	Historically speaking, the bow is the better weapon. It just requires more training. The reason crossbows and, later, black powder guns took over was their simplicity and ease of use. While archers were better, you had to start training them young, and train for years, whereas a crossbow you just need the weapons and a couple weeks of training. Actually, that's quite subjective; crossbows evolved into magnificent medium range projectile weapons, and they still remain the most efficient portable close range projectile weapon without the use of explosives or modern physics. On the other hand, a bow is still much more efficient at greater ranges, and you can actually use it to rain arrows down on your opponent. They also are quite better for hunting, since their pull remains strong at greater ranges. On the other hand, a modern firearm is much simpler than both and can be quite more powerful and better specialised for the occassion (in such a case, you can kiss simplicity bye-bye, but that's another thing); in fact, an antimaterial rifle can shoot at impossible ranges compared to the bow, and we all have heard of a true story or some urban legend about one dislocated member or another, haven't we?
Sunrider 05-30-06, 10:45 AM	Historically speaking, the bow is the better weapon. It just requires more training. The reason crossbows and, later, black powder guns took over was their simplicity and ease of use. While archers were better, you had to start training them young, and train for years, whereas a crossbow you just need the weapons and a couple weeks of training. Training was one factor, but hardly the only one. For a start, a crossbow was just as powerful in the hands of a weak person as a strong one. Just as in every army up to (and including) World War 1, disease killed more troops than enemy action. Soldiers afflicted by illness would be weaker than usual, and longbowmen with years of training were no less vulnerable to disease than recently-conscripted crossbowmen. Starvation was another factor. Combined, disease and starvation resulted in troops getting weaker and weaker during extended campaigns and in besieged towns. The difference is, a weaker longbowman (in D&D terms, suffering a Str penalty due to disease) will be unable to pull a a longbow and penetrate armour effectively (-2 to attacks if you have insufficient Str, lower Str bonus to damage), whereas a crossbowman isn't nearly as badly affected - crank up the crossbow to full power and you can still penetrate armour. Secondly, for the purposes of the defence of fortifications, it was possible to build larger crossbows capable of tremendous power - this meant increased range and penetration. Safe behind the battlements, a defending crossbowman would have had plenty of time to reload - a crossbow with a draw weight of 2000-3000lb wouldn't be unusual. Sure, the rate of fire wasn't high, but each shot counted. A defending longbowman, on the other hand, would still be limited by the draw-weight of the bow. Thirdly, unlike a bow, a crossbow can be held in the 'loaded' position. This left more time for aiming - ideal for snipers (despite the fact that mediaeval European warfare was dominated by sieges, with the occasional field battle, it must be remembered that this wasn't the case in the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, the Far East and Central Asia; also, even in Europe, ambush was not an uncommon tactic, albeit not an 'honourable' one). Finally, crossbow bolts, due to their shorter, stouter construction, were more likely to survive impact against a target than long, slender clothyard arrows - at the end of a battle, a victorious army could recover a lot of crossbow bolts from both sides, whereas not many clothyard arrows would have survived. In an age where the logistics train was slow and unreliable at best, keeping up a steady supply of ammunition could be a problem; the fact that a longbowman would use up ammo five times as fast as a crossbowman didn't help either.
Thorak 05-30-06, 10:58 AM	Actually, that's quite subjective; crossbows evolved into magnificent medium range projectile weapons, and they still remain the most efficient portable close range projectile weapon without the use of explosives or modern physics. On the other hand, a bow is still much more efficient at greater ranges, and you can actually use it to rain arrows down on your opponent. They also are quite better for hunting, since their pull remains strong at greater ranges. On the other hand, a modern firearm is much simpler than both and can be quite more powerful and better specialised for the occassion (in such a case, you can kiss simplicity bye-bye, but that's another thing); in fact, an antimaterial rifle can shoot at impossible ranges compared to the bow, and we all have heard of a true story or some urban legend about one dislocated member or another, haven't we? I'm talking medieval-era technology, not modern. In which bows were quite simply better. Similar flight speed and projectile mass, and thus penetrating power and range, of the heaviest crossbows of the time. With a much faster refire rate. Sunrider; yes there are other advantages to crossbows. But for sheer kill-the-enemy efficiency, bows are better weapons. It's when you get into tactical, economic, and recruiting issues that crossbows become more advantageous.
Sunrider 05-30-06, 11:03 AM	Actually, that's quite subjective; crossbows evolved into magnificent medium range projectile weapons, and they still remain the most efficient portable close range projectile weapon without the use of explosives or modern physics. On the other hand, a bow is still much more efficient at greater ranges, and you can actually use it to rain arrows down on your opponent. They also are quite better for hunting, since their pull remains strong at greater ranges. Depends what you define as 'modern' - precharged pneumatic airguns were developed as early as the 14th century, and were capable of higher accuracy and greater power than either bows or crossbows (although a lot of pre-battle pumping was needed to achieve the necessary air pressure - airgunners would carry several precharged air canisters around, just as a musketeer would carry a powder flask). The Austrian cavalry actually used semi-automatic airguns against Napoleon's forces - in an age where the average musket had a rate of fire of two shots a minute or so, these airguns (using a gravity-powered magazine) were capable of anywhere from ten to twenty shots a minute. On the other hand, airguns are relatively complex mechanical devices - in an age where your average peasant would not be familiar with machinery more complex than a water-driven mill, spnning wheel or hand loom, it would be easier to train someone how to wind a lever to pull a bowstring back, or ram a bullet down a tube, than to operate a breech-loading, bolt-action rifled airgun full of crankshafts, pistons, springs and cams.
Sunrider 05-30-06, 11:17 AM	Sunrider; yes there are other advantages to crossbows. But for sheer kill-the-enemy efficiency, bows are better weapons. It's when you get into tactical, economic, and recruiting issues that crossbows become more advantageous. In an open, force-on-force, all-guns-blazing battle, then yes (although the Golden Horde is probably a better example of this than the English longbows - after all, longbowmen were slaughtered time after time whenever terrain and conditions actually allowed a proper charge by French heavy cavalry, whereas the Mongol armies regularly routed European heavy cavalry in open battle). As a sniper-type weapon, though, it's hard to beat the crossbow - 'muzzle' energy is similar for both weapons, but clothyard arrows exhibit far more drag than crossbow bolts, and tend to follow a higher trajectory. Of course, a combination of the two, guarded by pikes/halberds, may have been even more effective - fast-firing longbows to thin out the enemy, with ultra-heavy arbalests (or arquebuses) thrown into the mix to kill anything which comes too close... N.B.: As a historical counterfactual, it would be rather interesting to pit a force of English longbowmen (guarded by pikes/halberds, of course) against an army of Mongol horse-archers. I suspect it may actually be a rock-paper-scissors, scenario, where heavily-armoured cavalry can run down archers (since most arrows will be deflected by armour), mounted archers can rout heavy cavalry (due to speed, range and manoeuvre) and massed foot archers can hold out against mounted archers (due to the light armour of the horse archers). Pity they never faced each other in battle...
Tony Vargas 05-30-06, 11:57 AM	Anyone care to argue for the side of using a crossbow in combat extensively? Extensively? No, but the weapons still have thier place in the game. Crossbows have a reputation for being slow, the weapons of common troops; while bows (particularly english longbow and mongol composite bow) have gained near-mythic reputations. D&D models both to an extent. D&D crossbows are simple weapons, that don't take STR penalties, and, while thier reload times quickly become onerous to adventurers, a shot every 6 or 12 seconds is actually pretty darn good - making them ideal for less combat-oriented classes, and 'weaker' and less well-trained advesaries. Similarly, bows are made martial weapons, and - through remarkably rates of fire (a high-level fighter with rapid shot can loose a shaft almost every second!) - obvious best choices for even mid-level combat-oriented classes. To some degree, that models the myth and reality of the weapons fairly consistently. One point where it doesn't is with the threat/crit of the weapons. D&D has generally modeled weapons more likely to be used with great skill, or by adventurers in general, using broad threat ranges; while modeling those more likely to be used by the less skills, or those with a penchant for inellegant but brutal power, with higher crit multipliers. Bows and crossbows reverse this general pattern, bows are 20/x3 and crossbows 19-20/x2. I think it'd be nice to at least reverse that, and, it wouldn't hurt to give the very low rate-of-fire heavy crossbow 20/x4.
Pandaemoni 05-30-06, 12:12 PM	Interesting thread. In addition to training issue, the crossbow was historically also considered "too accurate". That was the reason the Pope, Urban II, banned the weapon as "too terrible for use in war" (against Christians, at least). Nobles felt the weapon allowed peasants to potentially target nobles in battle, rather than firing randomly into the the ranks of enemy soldiers. They were simply so accurate and effective that they came to be regarded as "evil." It was very common to simple kill enemy crossbowman captured in battle, rather than ransoming them back or setting them free at the end of hostilities (which was more common).
woodwalker 05-30-06, 12:48 PM	a heavy crossbow does 1d10 damage. a longbow does 1d8. heavy crossbow is a simple weapon. a longbow is a martial weapon. a heavy crossbow has a range of 120feet, whilst a longbows range is 100. a heavy crossbow costs 50gp, a longbow costs 75gp.
jaelis 05-30-06, 01:22 PM	The question that has always bothered me is, when would you ever use a hand crossbow instead of a light crossbow? Oh, but I wanted to mention an advantage of crossbows. You can use them prone, which is a big deal in a ranged firefight.
Inigo Carmine 05-30-06, 02:10 PM	The question that has always bothered me is, when would you ever use a hand crossbow instead of a light crossbow? It's the only crossbow that can be shot (but not reloaded) one-handed without penalty..assuming you're proficient of course. Also, it's not explicit in the rules, but I've always kind of held the house rule that it is considered a light weapon (making it a better offhand weapon for twfers) and more easily concealed than its bigger brothers. The real question is why would anyone besides the rogue (who is the only one automatically proficient with it) use one? It's probably intended to be a rogue-only item just like the monk weapons are usually monk only by virtue of being "exotic", but only really as powerful as a simple/martial. ===== That being said, my TWF rogues usually carry one as an offhand weapon when going into the unknown. Loose in the first round, drop, and draw offhand melee weapon. It's 30ft range increment overlaps nice with sneak attack range. If affordable, it usually carries a poisoned bolt as well.
jaelis 05-30-06, 03:44 PM	It's the only crossbow that can be shot (but not reloaded) one-handed without penalty..assuming you're proficient of course. Also, it's not explicit in the rules, but I've always kind of held the house rule that it is considered a light weapon (making it a better offhand weapon for twfers) and more easily concealed than its bigger brothers. Actually, both light and 1H crossbows count as light weapons for TWF, it says so in the TWF section. That being said, my TWF rogues usually carry one as an offhand weapon when going into the unknown. Loose in the first round, drop, and draw offhand melee weapon. It's 30ft range increment overlaps nice with sneak attack range. If affordable, it usually carries a poisoned bolt as well. Why not just carry a light crossbow in two hands and do the same thing? They can used poisoned bolts too. I guess you could carry two hand crossbows and fire both in the first round, which is nice since it doubles your SA damage. I guess that is a pretty good use. Though it does take a full round action, so you'd have to draw your weapon next turn (or use quickdraw.)
fatal error 05-30-06, 03:55 PM	On the subject of the English Longbow. The area in my setting that was designed to have a long foot archery tradition (like that of england) uses Great Bows rather than Long Bows. I feel this makes it more unique, and reflects the fact that you really need specific training with the weapon to be good (the EWP). Carry on.
Selebius 05-30-06, 04:00 PM	In our game bows are quite difficult to use during dungeon crawling. Sometimes there may be not enough room to use a bow, and most encounters allow only one shot before everybody gets physical. Crossbows offer a good first strike punch, can be used while prone and crawling through the Kobold lair and the fighter always can get some ammo from the wizard- that guy should not be trusted to use things with sharp points anyway:D. So bows rule aboveground and X-bows below. Sel
Fanged Fremont 05-30-06, 04:06 PM	Where are those gnomes to build us a 3.5 compatible automatic crossbow.
Rudi_Schteppen 05-30-06, 05:10 PM	The gnome is here: First, get it in your head, the only way you will be able to get a high rate of fire is to A) have a significant amount of ammo, and B) have the string automatically return to an under tension position (ready to recieve the bolt) Alright, an auto crossbow? Get a heavy crossbow or heavy repeating crossbow. Now, get the enchantment Everloaded and you have solved the ammo problem. Now the deal with a repeating crossbow is that you have to re-winch the string into place to fire, so this presents a bit of a problem. How on earth would you get the string back? Simple. Get an Amulet of the Unseen Helper built into the crossbow stock, and order it to automatically re-**** the weapon. If that is all the thing has to do, it will be able to achieve greater rates of fire by focusing soley on that. But anyways, the crossbow has significant advantages over the longbow. Have any of you guys ever tried to keep a longbow dry? Not easy. Unless you have those things lacquered, they will lose a significant amount of tensile strength. Now, an arbalest, which is my kind of crossbow, has a unique thing going for it. They can be disassembled, then reassembled. It's a lot easier to shelter a 1.5 foot bow than it is a 4-5 foot bow. But yeah. Also, crossbows can be made out of metal. I mean, you'd need to be built like any old nerd to use a longbow made out of one; at those lengths steel loses tensile strength. Now, a shorter piece of metal has a greater tensile strength. Here's a test for you unbelievers. Get two metal rulers, one a foot long the other 6 inches. Flex them. Which one bends easier? The longer one. Now, to harness the strength of the steel, just add a winch to the stock, and you can have a prepubescent 12-year-old fire a crossbow at 300lbs. A kid like him probably couldn't get over 50lbs on a longbow. I know I couldn't, and I was built like a mini body builder at age 12, because let's face it, when you get paid to work outdoors, at hard labor, you will harden and bulk out.
Inigo Carmine 05-30-06, 07:57 PM	Why not just carry a light crossbow in two hands and do the same thing? They can used poisoned bolts too. Because I like to have a melee weapon in one hand. Ideally, I get the jump on people, but it's not always the case, and having a melee weapon pre-drawn can be beneficial sometimes. The 2 hand crossbows thing is nice*, but suprise rounds only allow a standard action attack anyways, so no twfing. *I had one character that did carry an extra one, along with quickdraw, for those occasions where mid-battle an enemy was denied their dex bonus (monk w/ stunning fist in party) but was more than 10ft away so I couldn't 5-ft step and melee. Only ever got to use it once, but man was that cool. My BAB was low enough that I would only have gotten one shot without TWF, so the inability to reload them was a moot point; they were shoot and drop weapons.
Sunrider 06-01-06, 08:48 AM	The question that has always bothered me is, when would you ever use a hand crossbow instead of a light crossbow? Oh, but I wanted to mention an advantage of crossbows. You can use them prone, which is a big deal in a ranged firefight. As I mentioned before, this also makes them ideal sniping weapons - a lot more objects will offer cover to a prone character than a standing one, so you have many more opportunities to hide. The +4 AC bonus against anyone without Improved Precise Shot is also a useful bonus, although sniper-type archers don't tend to have high AC anyway, concentrating more on stealth and speed (I often take the Quick and Aggressive traits, and the Vulnerable and Noncombatant flaws, with long-range sniping specialists - the 40' base speed, +2 Initiative and two extra feats are far more useful than the 2 AC and 2 attack bonus in melee that I sacrifice). And, if you're spotted, just use your superior speed to move behind another object (granting full cover) so that you can attempt another Hide check. With PHBII out, Fighter (obviously multiclassed with Ranger, with the Able Learner feat to max out Hide/Spot/Move Silently/Listen, maybe Cragtop Archer for more range and better Spot) or Ranger is now a tough choice for a long-range (i.e. not Greater Multishot+Sneak Attack) sniper archer - do you want the extra +4 to attacks and +6 to damage and a few extra feats, or do you want extra skill points and the Camouflage/HiPS ability (flavourwise, I don't like spellcasting rangers anyway, regardless of how good their spells are)?
Sunrider 06-01-06, 09:00 AM	Also, crossbows can be made out of metal. I mean, you'd need to be built like any old nerd to use a longbow made out of one; at those lengths steel loses tensile strength. Now, a shorter piece of metal has a greater tensile strength. Here's a test for you unbelievers. Get two metal rulers, one a foot long the other 6 inches. Flex them. Which one bends easier? The longer one. Now, to harness the strength of the steel, just add a winch to the stock, and you can have a prepubescent 12-year-old fire a crossbow at 300lbs. A kid like him probably couldn't get over 50lbs on a longbow. I know I couldn't, and I was built like a mini body builder at age 12, because let's face it, when you get paid to work outdoors, at hard labor, you will harden and bulk out. Ordinary bows can also be made out of metal - this was often used as an alternative to the horn-and-sinew composite construction. Steel bows were commonly used in India; their cavalry archers, armed with composite or steel bows (later firearms as well), together with a tulwar as a sidearm and for charging, mounted on fast, lightly-armoured horses, were extremely effective (although many of these weapons and tactics were introduced by the invading Mughals during the 16th century, who were themselves decendents/victims of the Mongol horse archers several centuries earlier... mounted archery has a long history). I guess different weapons held different degrees of significance in different parts of the world, though - whereas the epitome of mediaeval European martial nobility was the steel-clad knight, armed with lances, swords and other melee weapons, mounted on a heavily-armoured (and thus slower) steed, the epitome of martial nobility in many other places (with different concepts of honour) was the mounted horse-archer.
Sunrider 06-01-06, 09:22 AM	Originally Posted by NetID556 Anyone care to argue for the side of using a crossbow in combat extensively? Extensively? No, but the weapons still have thier place in the game. Crossbows have a reputation for being slow, the weapons of common troops; while bows (particularly english longbow and mongol composite bow) have gained near-mythic reputations. D&D models both to an extent. D&D crossbows are simple weapons, that don't take STR penalties, and, while thier reload times quickly become onerous to adventurers, a shot every 6 or 12 seconds is actually pretty darn good - making them ideal for less combat-oriented classes, and 'weaker' and less well-trained advesaries. Similarly, bows are made martial weapons, and - through remarkably rates of fire (a high-level fighter with rapid shot can loose a shaft almost every second!) - obvious best choices for even mid-level combat-oriented classes. To some degree, that models the myth and reality of the weapons fairly consistently. One point where it doesn't is with the threat/crit of the weapons. D&D has generally modeled weapons more likely to be used with great skill, or by adventurers in general, using broad threat ranges; while modeling those more likely to be used by the less skills, or those with a penchant for inellegant but brutal power, with higher crit multipliers. Bows and crossbows reverse this general pattern, bows are 20/x3 and crossbows 19-20/x2. I think it'd be nice to at least reverse that, and, it wouldn't hurt to give the very low rate-of-fire heavy crossbow 20/x4. I assume you mean using a crossbow extensively in D&D warfare, not in real-world fighting? In that case, take the sniper example I've been using - with Rapid Reload and a build specialising in long-range sniping, a crossbow is a far more capable weapon than a regular bow. Prone firing = higher AC and more place to hide/snipe from, while Crossbow Sniper means you're doing more damage per shot (and, when sniping, you'll only be firing once per round whichever weapon you use). Also, you won't have to waste feats on Manyshot, Rapid Shot, etc, since you won't be using them (get Concealed Ambush, Woodland Archer and Able Sniper instead). You won't be doing as much damage per round as a regular archer, but your ratio of damage inflicted to damage taken will be much higher. Not so useful on an open battlefield between two armies but, in a guerilla-type conflict, the crossbow's probably better. Given that D&D warfare has more similarities to modern war than mediaeval war (air attacks, AoE attacks, etc.), large clashes between densely-packed armies will be less common; ambushes and small-unit patrols (by units up to company size - either as combat patrols to destroy enemy forces, or recon patrols to call in heavier firepower from outside) will predominate. In such a conflict, I see crossbow sniper-builds as analogous to modern infantry forces (which place a huge emphasis on stealth, reconnaissance and the ability to inflict damage without taking too much themselves) and cavalry-archer builds as analogous to armoured forces (less stealth, but more firepower). A foot archer giving up the stealth advantage for greater offensive firepower is analogous to a modern soldier leaving a well-defended, concealed foxhole, charging across open ground to attack an enemy position - potentially more 'firepower', but you're also putting yourself at far greater risk. It has its place but, assuming that armour (cavalry archers), artillery (wizards) or air strikes (flying forces) are available, it's probably better to call them in and let them handle the task. Meanwhile, you stay well-hidden and shoot at any enemy troops who reveal themselves in order to fire at the attacking 'tanks'... It's called 'combined arms'...