Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FriendoftheDork 11-02-04, 11:45 PM	It may sound strange, but why can't different types of crossbows with different pulls be made just like mighty bows? Would it unbalance the game to have a heavy crossbow that required a certain strenght to c o c k, even with a small winch? And let it add +x to damage? Bows already have the advantage of speedy reloading without any feats, while crossbows seems like a dead end in D&D. This could mean that dwarves could use crossbows effectively, even at higher levels.
AkiAki007 11-03-04, 01:02 AM	It may sound strange, but why can't different types of crossbows with different pulls be made just like mighty bows? Would it unbalance the game to have a heavy crossbow that required a certain strenght to c o c k, even with a small winch? And let it add +x to damage? Bows already have the advantage of speedy reloading without any feats, while crossbows seems like a dead end in D&D. Well, if you think about it, the whole premise of a crossbow is to fire automatically by clicking a trigger, therefore no strength is required. The use of a wench makes it easy to c o c k a crossbox. You can't make the wench a minimum strength requirement because all you would have to do is increase the length of the wench, thereby increasing the torque one can apply to pull the string back in the crossbow. So logically, you can't add a mighty to it, and I think that makes sense and why they didn't add one to the game. I would leave it as is. Bows traditionally have caused higher damage for slower speeds (in real life) and were one of the only weapons ever banned by the Church (they were re-enstated during the crusades) because of their brutality go go through armour and the damage they caused. They were also slow to use and didn't have much of a range - which all holds true in D&D. As time has evolved, the crossbows haven't been able to gain much, but the bows have...composite mainly being one of their huge gains, and also some bows can be strung so you need to be very strong to use them - all of which are reflected in D&D. Aside from the explanation to what we really have in the real world, I think the D&D system is fine just as it is with regard to this. IMO.
FriendoftheDork 11-03-04, 10:21 AM	ehm, the crossbow was the weapon that was banned, because it was deemed unfair that a peseant could kill a knight with one shot. The D&D rules don't reflect that one bit, since bows generally deal more damage. Even english longbows failed to penetrate the armor of french knights at the battle of Agincourt in 1415, as recent tests have shown. However, heavy crossbows could penetrate, at least at short ranges. the only role of crossbows in D&D is for spellcasters who doesen't have bow proficiencies. I just want to make the crossbow a worthwhile weapon, even for fighters and warriors. And I think there's a limit to how long a winch you could efectively use on a crossbow in a short time. But realism aside, I think crossbows sucks in D&D and I think it's cool to have dwarves, humans, even drow use them to great effect. Do you think this is unbalacning, and why?
Lord_Anthrax 11-03-04, 11:20 AM	I don't see where this is a problem, because a crossbow is still a bow in its fundamental function(storing and channeling potential energy into a specific effect), and the same technique used to increase the pull of a long/shortbow(lamination of materials, hence the name "Composite Bow")could be applied to a crossbow. You could make it more expensive for each point of Strength than a longbow(say 150-200 GP instead of 100 GP), representing the additional efforts required in making stronger materials for the winding mechanism and the string catch(or whatever it's called)if you felt such would be more balancing, since crossbows can be used in many situations bows cannot(while prone, in narrow/low spaces)and are available for use by more classes than bows are.
Yak of Darkness 11-03-04, 11:41 AM	The only problem I see with something like this is that most of the added "strength" in a mighty crossbow would be coming from the machinery, not the person using it. Sure, it might take a bit of effort to rooster the crossbow for another shot, but much of that is already taken into account by the reloading time, and I just can't see the game mechanic working like the mighty bows do. If mighty crossbows work like mighty regular bows, it loses a bit of "realism" (standard disclaimer about how yes, wizards are throwing fireballs, etc.) and only serves to blur the distinction between the mechanics. But being able to purchase a straight damage bonus for a stronger machine would either make magical enhancements less worthwhile, or would be priced so high as to be inefficient. Maybe there's a way to make the crossbow do . . . well, what a crossbow was supposed to do. For some scaling fee, a (masterwork) crossbow can be made "mighty" in the sense that it becomes better at piercing armor--your target takes a -1, -2, -3, etc. penalty to it's armor bonus to AC. This not only serves the purpose of the "armor killer" a crossbow was supposed to be, but it doesn't step on magical enchancements' toes as there is no bonus to damage, and its effective "bonus" to attack only applies against armored opponents. It'd take someone better with pricing mechanics to make it work, but that's one feasable idea.
FriendoftheDork 11-03-04, 01:10 PM	yak, the crossbow doesen't need better to hit, the crossbow needs more damage. Are magical bows obsolete because they can be mighty? No. So why not crossbows? Mr. Anthrax, that seems like a good suggestion, increasing the price of "mighty" crossbows. But I still think that bows are better, since you don't need a feat to rapid reload. After all, clerics and wizards can just as easily take martial weapon proficiency bows as to take the rapid reload feat.
AkiAki007 11-03-04, 03:22 PM	Perhaps you could modify the damage done with a crossbow at closer ranges. For instance, if at 1/2 the range increment, it could do 3x dmg, and withing one range increment it would do 2x dmg and outside it would do normal damage.
celebrist 11-03-04, 03:27 PM	we've used increased damage crosbows in our campaigns for years and it doesn't unbalance them in any way, lower rate of fire than bows keeps it in check and higher strength to c o c k transfers logically to more damage. the post about a practical limit on winch handle length substantiates the strength requirement.
celebrist 11-03-04, 03:30 PM	hope i don't get kicked off for not putting spaces in c o c k(arming a crossbow)the first time, is that supposed to prevent flaming/inappropriate posts? nothing can stop a determined idiot
AkiAki007 11-03-04, 03:55 PM	hope i don't get kicked off for not putting spaces in c o c k(arming a crossbow)the first time, is that supposed to prevent flaming/inappropriate posts? nothing can stop a determined idiot I'm new to this type of message board, so when i put that term as a single word i noticed that it just replaced everything with *'s instead. It took me a second to figure out why. It makes sense as this game is played with a wide range of age in mind and a young one might find this forum and read. There could be some bad language trolls hanging around...
Lord_Anthrax 11-03-04, 08:04 PM	Mr. Anthrax, that seems like a good suggestion, increasing the price of "mighty" crossbows. But I still think that bows are better, since you don't need a feat to rapid reload. After all, clerics and wizards can just as easily take martial weapon proficiency bows as to take the rapid reload feat. That's why I said "if". Some might see crossbows being usable in more situations as making them balanced against long/shortbows being able to get Strength bonuses, thus the suggested price hike for those who do want Mighty crossbows. If you don't consider that enough of a factor, then don't use the price hike.
FriendoftheDork 11-03-04, 10:50 PM	Aki, I think double damage, and at least tripple damage is far too powerful, if they were everyone would be carrying a crossbow to use before closing. In other words they'll be as useful as blaster rifles are in Star Wars, and I don't want that in my fantasy world! celebrist, nice to hear that someone else had thought of it before, I've never heard it before and it just came to me one night. And about the language filter, I think it's stupid and would prefer the boards without it, but that's not up to me. On another RPG msg board I used to post in there were no such filter, and it made for some funny situations where you could basically say anything as long as you included a smily. Example: celebrist you stupid idiot ;) (of course our language was a bit harsher) Mr. Anthrax, I was just pointing out the main reason why I feel bows are superior desite my addition of mighty crossbows. But crossbows are generally cheaper than bows, so I think it could be fitting that mighty crossbows are more expensive. Another reason might be less demand, as strong fighters tend to pick the more rapid-firing longbow. I think my conclusion so far is: It will not be unbalacing, and it could be fun as it allows effective crossbowmen at higher levels.
Lord_Anthrax 11-04-04, 07:51 AM	It could also be cultural. Gnomes, for example, might favor mighty crossbows, given their love of tinkering, and among them it could be cheaper to purchase one. Dwarves as well, given that they encounter low, tight spaces more than any of the other common PC races and would favor crossbows for tunnel fighting.
FriendoftheDork 11-04-04, 09:17 AM	arrr... it's more like guidelines really ;) And of course among my favourites, drow :)
Arquinsiel 11-04-04, 09:26 AM	Even english longbows failed to penetrate the armor of french knights at the battle of Agincourt in 1415, as recent tests have shown. However, heavy crossbows could penetrate, at least at short ranges. Erm.... actually this is a historical example of why a longbow is tactically superior to a crossbow and is widly regarded as the finest example of archer combat in all history. Where the hell did you get the idea that longbows can't penetrate armour? Where did the two fingered salute come from if they weren't that useful?
HailSpork 11-04-04, 03:02 PM	You can't make the wench a minimum strength requirement because all you would have to do is increase the length of the wench, thereby increasing the torque one can apply to pull the string back in the crossbow. Crossbows already come in mighty versions. Because of the wench, this just means they take longer to load, IE, heavy crossbows. If you really want strength to affect loading speed in your campaign, perhaps putting a minimum strength requirement on the Rapid Reload feat when applying it to heavy crossbows?
Dungeon Master 11-04-04, 03:58 PM	Exactly. A heavy crossbow IS a mighty crossbow. Want to go even mightier? Buy a ballista! If you feel that crossbows are underpowered compared to bows, rule that crossbows deal d10 or d12 damage. If you want a super-mighty crossbow, have it take a little longer to reload (it has a multiple pulley system inside the stock or has gears or something) but deals 3d6 damage. English longbows had at least 100 lb pull. Most people can't use them and so a crossbow was a viable alternative.
FriendoftheDork 11-04-04, 10:55 PM	Erm.... actually this is a historical example of why a longbow is tactically superior to a crossbow and is widly regarded as the finest example of archer combat in all history. Where the hell did you get the idea that longbows can't penetrate armour? Where did the two fingered salute come from if they weren't that useful? that's a major misconception. Recently historians have tested the theory (which of course most history is), and by looking at french noble armor found at the site, and english longbow arrowheads also found there, by simply firing several times at the armor with the arrows and longbows of appropriate pull. The arrows failed to penetrate. That doesen't mean they couldn't kill horses, or even the nobles when hitting the weak spots. And of course, the french soldiers were not ALL knights in state-of the art armor, so the bows were effective. But the main reason why the french lost (apart from terrible tactics) was their superior armor. They were weighted down and got stuck in the muddy ground, at the mercy of the english longbowmen who killed most of the french knights in melee! Longbows were useful, but so were armor! I don't think crossbows and even guns were that effective against armor either, as armor were tested by being fired upon at close range. The main advantage of longbows over crossbows were speed, and perhaps range.
WunderGoat 11-14-04, 11:29 PM	I too have noticed that damage wise crossbows are horribly ineffective, until i noticed something. Using a crossbow from prone has no disadvantage, while confering an AC bonus to the attacker (prone confers a +4 bonus vs. ranged attacks). Following along these lines I made a few house rules involving bows to limit their effectiveness. Shortbows can be fired from a crouch, while longbows cannot, thus making the shortbow a better option in some circumstances (like sneaking about, squeezing into tight spaces, etc.) Only shortbows can be used from horseback(vanilla PHB says comp longbows can be used from horseback, but regular longbows can't). A feat allows a longbow to be used from horseback(similar to bastard sword proficiency). Bows also cannot be shot around corners for double cover(+8), as they are too large to manipulate and still expose only a small part of the body. End result is that crossbows become very good for street fighting and archer vs archer fights. The one place in my expirience where this was evident was a fight between PCs and kobolds in an abandoned city. A dozen well-armored kobolds (I think level 2 warriors) armed with crossbows held a staircase in a battle vs a 5-man party of 5th level PCs (no nuke-mage). The kobolds basicly had such hich ACs from proning out and crouching that the two PCs with good ranged weapons cound not kill them effectively, and the kobolds had decent attack bonuses due to size, dex, and base attack. The other PCs refused to run up the stairs at the kobolds until a few were killed, and the entire thing ended up being a stalemate until the PCs decided the kobolds were not worth the bother. I have also used more powerful versions of crossbows that did 3d6 damage with good range increment, at the expense of size, expense, loading time, and noise. (The things were massive, made of steel, wood, and some mithril and other similar metals. They used ballista-style springs, a multiple winch and pulley system, a hand winch, a better release, and more expensive bolts. They took 2 rounds to load and needed to be braced in order to be fired accuratly. They were also rather noisy.) You also may wish to introduce the crossbow sight from Arms and Armor to make crossbows even more attractive to PCs. On a side note I am new to the forums, and will probably soon post an extended list of house rules and campaign ideas that I have used in the DM help forum.
evilgenius 12-14-04, 10:02 PM	I love crossbows in D&D. Love'em, love'em, love'em. Why? 1. Fire from the prone without penalty. 2. Can be readied and remain ready for a long time. Ever try to hold a bowstring back for fifteen minutes? impossible. I could imagine it your character has a high str and a normal (non-mighty) bow - but how many high strength archers want normal bows? 3. Critical range of 19-20. More consistent, better with Improved Critical feat. The Deepwood Sniper (yes, I know it's a 3.0 Prestige Class, not 3.5) is DEADLY with a heavy crossbow. 4. Rate of fire problems? Cast Animate Object on your crossbow for auto-c*cking goodness. Alternatively, for the crossbow wielding necromancer, a little animated zombie primate to c*ck and load the thing for you, sitting on your right shoulder. 5. It is perfectly concievable to use Manyshot with a crossbow - though the rules don't allow it. Watch the movie "Ladyhawk". (Actually, don't watch it, I recall that the movie stunk - watch the trailer instead.) The main character had a two-shot crossbow, which looked perfectly reasonable to me. 6. Shoot it one handed. Allows use with a shield. "Wait, you need to load it with two hands!" Not if you see point 4 above. L8er evilgenius
CaoSlayer 12-16-04, 08:22 AM	and what about mading the "composed" x-bows to be "very heavy" x-bows? I mean that by example a cross-bow with extra complex enginery or size would be that heavy that needs pluses in str to be able to lift and aim righ (okey you maybe can raise it, but hiting something with it would be hard.) another solution would be making then so complex that it is required to be very inteligent for reloading and using it, a way of how are made the fire weapons in Iron kingdoms... so by example a x-bow with a +1 to damage need the user to have int. 12 ... the most damaging x-bows (+4 or upper) could be considered real fire weapons. now for building such a x-bow, would be required high ranks in knowledge ingenery in addition to the craft for the x-bow itself just for knowing how to do it... I would say something like DC 15 + 5*int needed.
Ricky 12-16-04, 11:31 AM	Mr. Anthrax, I was just pointing out the main reason why I feel bows are superior desite my addition of mighty crossbows. That's because in general, bows are superior to crossbows, for the simple reason that they fire faster. Really, the only reason to use a crossbow is if you don't know how to use a bow. This happens frequently when the wielder is a farmer conscripted as a soldier, who only knows simple weapons. It also applies for monsters that don't have proficiency with all martial weapons. However, for typical PCs, there is little reason to use a crossbow.
Carpe DM 12-16-04, 03:08 PM	There's a few good reasons to use a crossbow. Firstly, if you don't have an outstanding Strength, they do nice damage compared to what you'd get with a bow. They do have the other benefits outlined above - fire while prone, etc. Crossbows also can be made out of metal, which means if you drop your crossbow in combat to draw your sword, you don't have to worry that it'll break. They can also be mounted onto something, such as the side of a ship or onto a tripod. In the real world a crossbow also requires less physical space to fire. A bow you have to extend one arm, and draw the other way back...that's a wide area you will need. A crossbow doesn't need that. If you add magic into the mix, you could conceivably enchant a crossbow that reloads itself, plus a returning quarrel. This would let you use a crossbow in one hand and a sword in the other. And the best reason to use a crossbow iiiisss.....anybody can use one! If you think logically, if a wizard is going to open a magic shop to sell enchanted weapons, wouldn't he stock more of the weapons that anyone can use (daggers, crossbows, etc) than the ones that few people can use (dwarven double axes, etc)? So there's a better chance you'll randomly come across a good magic crossbow than a good magic bow. Or at least there should be.
evilgenius 12-16-04, 04:12 PM	They can also be mounted onto something, such as the side of a ship or onto a tripod. This is a good one that I forgot to mention above - as a DM I would reduce range penalties for using a mounted crossbow. Additionally, I had the same Dwarven NPCs I listed above with heavy crossbows mounted at the forestock on hinges at the tops of tower shields. Think of it this way - you hold the Tower shield on your left forearm / hand, and at the top, around eye level, the crossbow sits vertically, it's forestock hinged at the top of the shield and the trigger group / stock / butt flush with the inside of the shield. To use, bring the butt into the right shoulder and fire. This would be a move action I figure, but hey - you still get near total cover from your tower shield. Try that with a bow. hmph. Plus, a crossbow can mount the "gnomish crossbow sight" as found in the Arms and Equipment guide. L8er evilgenius
FriendoftheDork 12-17-04, 10:09 PM	ok ok, guys I didn't really want to discuss the advantages of bows compared to crossbows in real life, although I'm sure a crossbow bolt fired from a heavy crossbow (or arbalest) could be as damaging as a longbow shot at short range, even if the longbowman was very strong. But disregarding that, I feel that there is no good reason for a PC archer or even fighter to use the crossbow much in D&D. Still, there are races where crossbows are very popular with: dwarves and drow at least, and I don't want their archers to be that ineffective (dealing less damage) compared to those wielding composite longbows. After all, longbows are easier to fire fast with, and the ekstra damage also comes cheaper according to these house rules. So this is merely a balance thingy, to make crossbows better without nerfing longbows in the process. The strenght limit here is only to prevent people from doing extra damage with crossbows that easily. Oh and I know about the advantages of a crossbow (prone, over tower shields etc, already loaded) but they seldom come into play. BTW, what does the gnomish crossbow sight do?
Razoreface 12-17-04, 11:22 PM	It's not unrealistic, nor stupid. It's actually exactly realistic. If you don't believe me, go to a hunting store and look at some compound crossbows. I have one myself, and it can have parts switched on it to increase the strength of pull to the point that I can't use it. It's normal draw is 125 pounds, but it can do 150 and 175 pounds. And it's not a big bow at all. Yes, you could simply make a crossbow stronger by making it larger, changing the c0cking lever's length and gearing, and that's exactly what raises the physical size of the crossbow to a larger size, and also increases the damage... but you can also increase the damage by making the mechanism simply harder to pull. It requires more strength, just like a compound bow would, but it doesn't make the weapon any larger, and they are the exact same technologies that apply to a bow. Modern recurve and composite bows and crossbows are made exactly the same way, and they have been for a very long time... any bit of research will show that. You just have to not rely on gaming books for research. Crossbows were just as good, and usually better, than a bow. It's easier to draw a 100 pound crossbow than it is to draw a 100 pound bow. Going further, D&D's great crossbow has a winch to c0ck it, which is what takes all the time in reloading. But that winch has no strength requirement... 3 strength or 30, you're always using the winch. What kind of strength do you need to have before it's no harder or slower than if you were using a hand crossbow? That is the silly part of D&D's crossbows. No matter how strong you are, you're stuck with those slow levers and winches.
evilgenius 12-18-04, 01:00 PM	The gnomish crossbow sight, printed in the Arms and Equipment guide, drastically reduces (or eliminates, I can't recall) the penalties for shooting at longer ranges. Since it's copyright information, I won't get specific, but it is a DAMN useful tool for a sniper. L8er evilgenius
Lotus Crane 12-20-04, 05:42 AM	With WotC it's all about the game balance, especially in 3.5, with most real-world comparisons thrown out the window. According to D&D, the light and heavy crossbow are simple weapons. According to D&D, the shortbow and longbow are martial weapons. According to D&D, martial weapons must automatically be more powerful and/or useful than their simple weapon cousins, because they are more exclusive or require more feats. Also according to D&D, exotic weapons must be even more powerful and useful even if they would be horribly impractical in real life (spiked chain anybody?), because again, they are even more exclusive and feat-intensive. I just usually leave it at that. Crossbows are meant to be weaker than bows in D&D because of differing classifications and proficiencies. Sure in the real world crossbows might actually be stronger, but that's in the real world. D&D is not the real world, and by trying to change D&D mechanices to better fit the real world rather than to better achieve perfect game balance, you could potentially make things unfair, even if you think it's more realistic.
FriendoftheDork 12-20-04, 06:17 PM	With WotC it's all about the game balance, especially in 3.5, with most real-world comparisons thrown out the window. According to D&D, the light and heavy crossbow are simple weapons. According to D&D, the shortbow and longbow are martial weapons. According to D&D, martial weapons must automatically be more powerful and/or useful than their simple weapon cousins, because they are more exclusive or require more feats. Also according to D&D, exotic weapons must be even more powerful and useful even if they would be horribly impractical in real life (spiked chain anybody?), because again, they are even more exclusive and feat-intensive. I just usually leave it at that. Crossbows are meant to be weaker than bows in D&D because of differing classifications and proficiencies. Sure in the real world crossbows might actually be stronger, but that's in the real world. D&D is not the real world, and by trying to change D&D mechanices to better fit the real world rather than to better achieve perfect game balance, you could potentially make things unfair, even if you think it's more realistic. Excelent answer. That is, if you would be posting in the "What's the DM to do" forum. This is the forum for House Rules, where people change the rules either to make the game more realistic or to allow som "cool" things. Balance isn't always the issue at hand. But really, alot of people here (Razoreface not included, thank you) think my changes to the crossbow are unrealistic or historical inaccurate. None has told me why these changes are unbalancing, but if you think you know why, then tell me. Right now I would still pick mighty composite longbow any day instead of mighty crossbows if I just want to make as effective archer as possible, mainly because of reload times. Rather 2*1d8+x than 1*1d10+x, even with a -2 to hit with rapid shot. Sure, light crossbows requires only simple weapon proficiency, but it still requires rapid reload to use it as effectively as a longbow, and mighty bows would even be cheaper than mighty crossbows. And really, if the cleric causes 1d8+2 damage with his simple crossbow, is that unbalancing? Said cleric would probably be better off with buff spells and melee combat. Rogues still profit from using shortbows, since they don't have enough feats to waste one on rapid reload, and monks are always better in melee with their flurry abilities anyway. Please tell me what makes this unbalancing, I don't care that crossbows are meant to be weaker, I want them better than they are but not better than bows. So far I've heard nothing to make me withdraw the house rule.
incubus 12-20-04, 07:51 PM	How's about this. 1. Eliminate the heavy crossbow variants from the game 2. All crossbows have a mighty rating, just like bows. They do extra damage equal to this strength rating on a successful hit (a medium +2 mighty crossbow does 1d8+2 damage on a hit) 3. If your strength bonus is greater than or equal to the mighty rating of the crossbow, then you can **** it as it's description indicates (move action for regular crossbows, nothing action for repeating crossbows) 4. If your strength bonus is less than the mighty rating of the crossbow (but within 2 of it), you can **** it as one action more than normal (full round for regular crossbows, move for repeating crossbows) 5. Each size category of crossbow below medium requires 1 strength bonus less to use than it's strength rating would otherwise indicate. 6. Each size category of crossbow above medium requires 1 strength bonus more to use than it's strength rating would otherwise indicate. This means that a character with a strength of 10 can use a regular crossbow to do 1d8, and take a move to reload. He could use a repeating crossbow to reload faster. He could use a mighty +2 crossbow to do 1d8+2 and take a full round action to reload. Characters with a strength of (say) 6, will need to use a regular crossbow with a full-round reload, or a crossbow with a reduced strength (like mighty -2). Small characters with a strength of 6 would need a mighty -1 small crossbow. Etc. etc. At the extreme ends of the scale, a character with a strength of 1 would need to use a mighty -5 crossbow, or a mighty -3 crossbow for a full round reload. A strength 18 character could use a mighty +4 crossbow, or could go the whole hog and use a mighty +6 crossbow with a full round reload. Since the comparable archer is doing 1d8+4 with no reload necessary, I think the longbow still comes out ahead, but the crossbow is now a viable option.
Lotus Crane 12-21-04, 02:29 AM	Balance isn't always the issue at hand. But really, alot of people here (Razoreface not included, thank you) think my changes to the crossbow are unrealistic or historical inaccurate. None has told me why these changes are unbalancing, but if you think you know why, then tell me. Balance is always the issue at hand. Keeping that in mind, I do acknowledge that your changes to the crossbow in your game probably are realistic. I never said they weren't, in fact I agreed that real-world crossbows probably do have more penetrating power. However, the changes are unbalancing in that you just gave people with Simple Weapon Proficiency (a feat that is supposed to be low rank) a potentially better weapon than what people with Martial Weapon Proficiency (a feat that is supposed to be medium rank) could use. Basically the balance of D&D is based on something like this: a human cleric is able to use a crossbow, a simple weapon. An elven cleric is able to use a bow, a martial weapon. If the two of them have otherwise equal stats and equipment, if the two of them just start shooting at each other round after round, the elven cleric with his martial weapon is supposed to win. The simple weapon is supposed to lose. But in your game, the human cleric with the crossbow might actually beat the elven cleric with the bow. This is unbalancing and unfair in that you just went and effectively made a supposed racial advantage of the elf, worthless. When you change one thing, you inadvertently change everything.
Razoreface 12-21-04, 03:57 AM	Even if both did the same damage, a bow is going to be faster unless the cleric also too rapid reload. Any ideas about magic to speed up reloading is on the DM's head, it's out of the rules except what enhancements for it are in A&E, along with any other unusual out of the rules things a person could try with either weapon.. they're out of the rules and not really statistically comparable. If you really wanted, you could mount a bow on something, but just like a crossbow, that's just restricting it's movement unless you can move whatever it's attached to. :) But that means that the elf's one free ability and the human's one feat (if he is using a hand or light crossbow) have an equal effect. One free feat that the elf gets anyway vs one feat that takes away from the other cleric's feat choices, and the remaining difference is like a lot of other comparable weapons; the critical. As a plain old simple weapon, a crossbow doing the same damage will always be slower, something that is a balancing factor. If that elf wanted to take off two arrows per round, his free racial ability and PBS/Rapid shot lets him do that, while a human has to spend three feats. There are other small things that go along with it too. The crossbows all weigh more, as do bolts. While that in itself may not seem significant, for the people on the lower end of the strength scale who might only be getting +1 or +2 from mighty, a couple of pounds can make the difference. Along with that, not all weapons are perfectly and ultimately balanced. Spears and Longspears both are two-handed weapons, do 1d8 damage with a x3 critical, and are simple weapons A greatclub is a martial weapon, does 1d10 damage with a x2 critical. Guisarmes, halberds, lances, and ranseurs all have x3 criticals, and vary in average damage from 4.5 to 5.5, compared to a spear's 4.5 damage. Going from simple to martial doesn't always mean a great jump in ability, if there's any jump at all. Spears are clearly better than a greatclub, and longspears are only worse than lances in the lance's bonuses when used while mounted.
FriendoftheDork 12-21-04, 08:02 PM	Thanks for your example LutusCrane, but the Elf archer has advantage over the human crossbowman, as razoreface pointed out. Keep in mind also that the price of a migthy crossbow will be at least 50% higher, if not double of that of the mighty composite longbow. The elves will still benefit from their weapon proficiencies just like before, even if a crossbow is a viable (yet less effective) weapon of choise for an archer. Will it make less proficent archers more effective? Yes. Is that fair? No. Is the crossbow an unfair weapon? Yes. Does it break the game? No. Is it more fun? I think so. Incubus, i will let someone of less strenght c0ck a mighty crossbow, but that will take 10 times as long, and thus not worth it in combat. Having 6 str halflings doing 1d18+4 damage with a mighty crossbow as a full round action IS unbalanced and not very realistic either.
Xexyz 12-25-04, 11:23 PM	Here's a suggestion. Increase the pull/damage but don't increase the reload time. And remember that the stronger the pull, the stronger the recoil, so anyone without the prerequisite strength wouldn't be able to handle the crossbow since the recoil would knock them backwards.
Razoreface 12-26-04, 02:07 PM	Let's hear it for physics! :D
taltamir 12-27-04, 12:09 AM	Basiaclly, dnd is no in shape or form realistic. Crossbows were banned because they were deemed unfair.. because a simple peasant could easily kill a knight, a crossbow is the gun of the middle ages. It requires no skill to actually use, and very little skill to aim. It can shoot a bullet that penetrates armour, at extreme speeds (so you also dont have to compensate much for gravity). Basically they are deadlier, longer ranged, armour peircing versions of bows. There are no ifs ands or buts about it. You can have a composite bow? you can also have a composite crossbow, in fact they did. A crossbow is like a small balista, it can have anything a bow can have, except it also has a lever which allows you to apply torque to pull the string to levels you could not with a bow. Thus its superior in every single aspect. This is not represented by DnD mechanics in any way shape or form. Instead, they are weaker in dnd. WHY? because the authors lack knowledge of history and physics. The problem? fixing it is easy, but as soon as you start adding realism you brake a bunch of the other balances anc checks of the game, the game is about making it FAIR combat wise between the classes. The fact that there is absolutely no way that things are just always balanced is irrelevent. If you try to play a non combat campaign you have to do alot of tweaking, since the system isnt designed for it, its designed for dungeon delving, and for it, it works well. If you try to make crossbows realistic in any way shape or form your first obstecle is the HP system... A way to do it, is if you play with wound points (actual health = your con score, all HP above it are wound points, crit bypasses wound points and does real health damage). And then, instead of multiplying the DAMAGE crossbows do in short range, multiple the crit range. AND add a bonus to the to hit. Anyways, since realism is irrelevent, I say go ahed and add mighty to it... you dont even need to bother with an explanation.
Robbo 12-28-04, 08:52 AM	Basically I agree with the sentiment above that much realism is sacrificed for playability and balance in DnD, and in my view the game plays pretty well so long as you resist the temptation to ask awkward questions of the rules...unfortunately my group tends to play the "that's not realistic" card at every opportunity when it suites them, and so I am in the process of developing some house rules to address the main issues. I intend to use some of the Unearthed Arcana rules: such as Wound points and armour as Damage Reduction, but as someone has already pointed out, when you mess with one rule, many others are often unbalanced and so have to be modified in turn. One aspect I am tampering with is the effectiveness of missile weapons. In the UK we have recently seen a TV series that investigated the science of certain weapons and armour. I am not an expert myself, but it seemed authoritative, and a brief recounting of the key facts can be found on the Channel 4 website here: http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/W/weapons/longbow1.html (take a look at the other pages while you are there) The conclusion is that: "In tests against a steel breastplate, a bodkin-tipped arrow would dent the armour at 80m (260ft), puncture it at 30m (98ft), and penetrate right through plate and underlying doublet coat to the flesh at 20m (65ft)." It goes on to state that the longbow has more than double the rate of fire of the crossbow. I remember seeing pictures of medieval arrows that surprised me as to how large and thick they were. Perhaps the damage differential between arrows and crossbow bolts in DnD is simply because of the different "calibre" of the ammunition types? As Vitality Points represent combat ability much more explicitly than HP's did, and without some form of exceptional feat or class feature, I rule that projectile weapons do not affect VP's at all, but directly affect WP's - every hit is a critical hit! If the arrow is a bodkin (armour piercing) then full armour DR only comes into play at medium or long range, whereas a barbed arrow will always be affected by armour DR. At short range a reduced DR will apply to bodkins as even if they penetrate, they would likely do more damage to an unarmoured target. A barbed arrow head will do more damage than a bodkin if it actually enters flesh, so I give barbed arrows a notional +1 to damage (only applied after determining whether any armour DR would completely protect against the basic damage rolled). I will apply the "short range overcomes armour DR" rule to crossbows as well. I completely agree with previous comments about why it is still worth using a crossbow in certain circumstances. In particular, the space required, the ability to fire prone, and best of all - you don't have to use up a valuable feat if you are a commoner, etc. (In England, the longbow seems to have died out not because any weapon at the time, including firearms, was "better", but simply because you had to train from boyhood to be able to use it, and people just couldn't be bothered!) So I would be interested in any comments on my suggestions, and also - do you think the slingshot be treated in a similar way?
Razoreface 12-28-04, 10:50 AM	Basically I agree with the sentiment above that much realism is sacrificed for playability and balance in DnD, and in my view the game plays pretty well so long as you resist the temptation to ask awkward questions of the rules... I hate that.. lots. Maybe if people did ask things like that, and didn't get shouted down when they did, certain things that are "right" in fantasy wouldn't have held on so strong over the years. :) I remember seeing pictures of medieval arrows that surprised me as to how large and thick they were. Perhaps the damage differential between arrows and crossbow bolts in DnD is simply because of the different "calibre" of the ammunition types? Old arrows weigh a lot more than bolts, though tend to travel a bit slower than crossbow bolts. The effect is that the two generally have about the same amount of force in them. The lighter, faster projectile will pierce better to do it's damage, while the heavier and slower one will more hammer through.
Elendur 12-28-04, 11:49 AM	Make a mighty crossbow an exotic weapon. This takes care of the simple weapon problem. What I houseruled in my game was you could make the heavy repeating crossbow mighty, which is already an exotic weapon. I did this to make a cool crossbow fighter NPC, but he's still less optimal than a bow fighter, since he has to take that extra feat, and he still has to reload every now and then. Part of this has to do with making simple weapons 'fighter worthy'. For example the quarterstaff is a cool weapon but you don't see a lot of fighters specializing in it due to its suboptimal damage and critical. You don't want to soup up the simple weapons, but at the same time you want to encourage PCs with unusual styles.
Razoreface 12-28-04, 07:37 PM	That'd probably go a long way to keeping it balanced. For example the quarterstaff is a cool weapon but you don't see a lot of fighters specializing in it due to its suboptimal damage and critical. I tried that once, about two years ago, before the feats to improve staves came along, and man... that sucked. Hilarious, but sucky.
Reinhardt_Wyrd 12-28-04, 08:46 PM	that's a major misconception. Recently historians have tested the theory (which of course most history is), and by looking at french noble armor found at the site, and english longbow arrowheads also found there, by simply firing several times at the armor with the arrows and longbows of appropriate pull. The arrows failed to penetrate. That doesen't mean they couldn't kill horses, or even the nobles when hitting the weak spots. And of course, the french soldiers were not ALL knights in state-of the art armor, so the bows were effective. But the main reason why the french lost (apart from terrible tactics) was their superior armor. They were weighted down and got stuck in the muddy ground, at the mercy of the english longbowmen who killed most of the french knights in melee! Longbows were useful, but so were armor! I don't think crossbows and even guns were that effective against armor either, as armor were tested by being fired upon at close range. The main advantage of longbows over crossbows were speed, and perhaps range. Intresting. Could You please tell me where You've read this?
FriendoftheDork 12-29-04, 05:02 AM	Interesting. Could You please tell me where You've read this? I watched it on discovery channel. I think the show was called "Battlefield Detectives" or something like that. Bascially it was a bunch of scientists and historians that tested some historical theories for accuracy. I remember they also tried to find out who killed the Red Baron (von munchausen?) by using an expert marksman, a special laser and a radio-guided Fokker biplane. In any case, they examined existing scources, and made replikas of the supposedly arrow-piercing arrowheads and french plate armor found at the site of Agincourt. Then they fired the arrowheads at the plate (not very long range, I think) and it just dented it. But this armor was state of the art at the time, and is probably the equivalent of D&D full plate. Not only were the plates overlapping, sloped and heavier than before, but the steel itself was forged stronger than before. Previous armors were definetively not that good protection against longbow arrows. The scources told that it had rained before the battle, so the ground was very soddy. They tested the dirt of the area and found that the dirt seemed unaffected when wet, but in fact only absorbed alot of water, like a sponge. So when you stepped on it it got muddy in an instant. With the added weight of full plate, a man would sink to his knees at least... try fighting then! The english longbowmen however, wore no such armor and could even jog on the ground. Which meant they could basically coup de-grace alot of helpess knights with their daggers. The knights soon found that horses were useless on the wet ground, and had to charge on foot in between the two dense woods on either side of the English line. Since the French had alot more knights than the English, their troops were packed very dense, and in the confusion some were even trapled down into the mud. Therefore, the English could win the battle, even against a superior equipped, trained and numerical force. Alot of the french knights were captured, but the English King ordered them executed when he thought they might break free and join the rest of the french army, that still was numerically strong at the time. That's why there were so many noble casualties in that battle. I'm not saying the longbow was useless in the battle, as it caused the french to charge the English lines, but most french knights were not killed by longbow fire. I have read somewhere that late armors where tested by firing a arquebus at them, but I can't remember where or at what range. Does that satisfy you? In any case I'm not an expert in the subject. But even historians and experts may be wrong at times.
Robbo 12-31-04, 09:20 PM	FYI - the Battlefield Detectives series is being repeated on the History channel in the UK during January, with Agincourt on the 28th I think. Interesting that different experiments came to different conclusions - I wonder whether the re-created arrows and armour were the same in each case? I skimmed through Robert Hardy's book "Longbow" today, and he seems to imply that a longbow bodkin arrow would penetrate plate armour if it struck perpendicular to the surface at short range. It goes on to explain that a more shallow angle to the armour's surface resulted in the arrow rebounding without penetration.
Bearfoot 12-31-04, 10:44 PM	Um.. actually I don't think that it was banned because it was "Unfair" I beleive it was banned because "OMG, here's a weapon that a basically untrained pesant can use to kill a knight. Watch out for revolt!" Just an interjection and tangent here... As to the topic, they kind of do already. How about increasing size/weight of the weapon in extchange for damage.. after all, they do have different "powers" of bows already... Hand crossbow, light crossbow, heavy crossbow, balistia... :D ehm, the crossbow was the weapon that was banned, because it was deemed unfair that a peseant could kill a knight with one shot. The D&D rules don't reflect that one bit, since bows generally deal more damage.
taltamir 01-02-05, 02:19 AM	well, yea, thats a very good point. It was banned because it was a danger to their power. And they officially declared it to be unfair (that way they also defame the thing itself, possibily convincing some not to use such "cowardly" tactics). And I have seen plenty of conflicting shows on discovery channel, just cause its discovery doesnt mean its true or very accurate. It tends to be a realiable source, but they are just human.
IceFractal 01-02-05, 03:08 AM	It seems like, for a given pull, having a higher strength would make it faster to reload, rather than more powerful. Here's my attempt at a system for that (might not be balanced): Part 1: The light crossbow and heavy crossbow work as standard. However, beyond the heavy crossbow are the really heavy crossbows, using a really powerful winch that takes longer to wind for more power: Light Crossbow - 1d8 damage, move action to reload Heavy Crossbow - 1d10 damage, full round action to reload Super-Heavy Crossbow - 2d6 damage, 2 full round actions to reload Siege Crossbow - 3d6 damage, 3 full round actions to reload I'm not sure about the cost of these, but they should be expensive enough to keep low-level characters from running around with a sack of loaded Siege Crossbows and just throwing them away after firing. Perhaps Super-Heavy Crossbows could only stay c o c k e d (great, now I feel like a spammer :rolleyes:) for a few minutes without being ruined, and Siege Crossbows only a few rounds. Part 2: Really strong characters can have their crossbows modified, making the winch faster but also more difficult to wind. Really strong characters could have the winch replaced with a manual pull (thinking of Detritus from Discworld here). The reloading time scale is: Free Action - Move Action - Full-Round Action - 2 FRAs - 3 FRAs Now the modifiers: Winch Reduction - The crossbow's winch is modified, making it faster but harder to wind. The crossbow's reload time goes down by one step, but you need a 20 Strength to reload it. Greater Winch Reduction - Even more so, the crossbow's reload time goes down another step, but you need a 30 Strength to reload it. ... and so on (if the reloading time goes down to a free action, its assumed that the winch was replaced with a manual pull). So if you had 50 strength you could reload a modified Siege Crossbow as a free action; given that 50 strength is deific, or at least epic (usually, for PCs, not counting some of the more highly optimized builds), this doesn't seem unreasonable. As I said though, this system may need rebalancing.
Lord Stigius 01-02-05, 10:40 PM	Not long ago, a player of mine had exactly the same issue with crossbows. After a bit of thinking, I introduced into the game the concept of 'mighty crossbow'. This property can be added to any type of crossbow, with mechanics and Strength requirements being the same as with bows. The cache: mighty crossbow is no longer a simple weapon, but a martial one. Not very realistic, agreed, but seems to work well balance-wise.