Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Phaylan the Drow 09-12-05, 07:59 AM	i was mucking around with a selection of crossbows at the weekend around a friends house/field and i was looking at the damage that they do to targets and objects/ old pieces of armour ect. and i suddenly thought how under damaged they are compaired to a longbow, my general reasoning is that at lease their damage should be equivilent to a longbow= rounds to re-load longbow 1d8 every round = light crossbow 1d8 every round just easer to hit longbow 1d8 every round = heavy crossbow should be 2d8 and 2 rounds reload i have never seen a rogue take a heavy crossbow because it lacks the damage and is to slow to use, i can understand slow to use but the lack of damage = lack of thought. just my random thought for the day (possibly)
20goingon1232 09-12-05, 08:14 AM	i was mucking around with a selection of crossbows at the weekend around a friends house/field and i was looking at the damage that they do to targets and objects/ old pieces of armour ect. and i suddenly thought how under damaged they are compaired to a longbow, my general reasoning is that at lease their damage should be equivilent to a longbow= rounds to re-load longbow 1d8 every round = light crossbow 1d8 every round just easer to hit longbow 1d8 every round = heavy crossbow should be 2d8 and 2 rounds reload i have never seen a rogue take a heavy crossbow because it lacks the damage and is to slow to use, i can understand slow to use but the lack of damage = lack of thought. just my random thought for the day (possibly) You do realise, of course, that crossbows used to be 1d4 compared to a longbow's 1d8, right? In most ways, the crossbow was inferior to a correctly wielded longbow. The range was inferior to a longbow as was rate of fire. Its penetrating power was more simply because it used a different projectile (one that is heavier and thus optimised for a shorter range than a longbow arrow). A bow with a similar projectile would also do as much damage. Where it excelled (and later where the flintlocks and the muskets excelled) was ease of use. Longbows were effective out to 700 yards with a fire rate of about 12 per minute. The musket of the American Revolution era was effective out to 70 if you were lucky and the fire rate was in the region of 2 per minute. Those ponderous marching squares of redcoats didn't evolve because of some neat freak's idea of war. It is because the longbow took YEARS to train in to be used effectively that it left the battlefield. Much easier to give a boomstick to some 10 year old to point at someone than to train said ten year old to fire arrows. The same principles applies to a crossbow vs longbow.
Black Kitten 09-12-05, 09:01 AM	You do realise, of course, that crossbows used to be 1d4 compared to a longbow's 1d8, right? In most ways, the crossbow was inferior to a correctly wielded longbow. The range was inferior to a longbow as was rate of fire. Its penetrating power was more simply because it used a different projectile (one that is heavier and thus optimised for a shorter range than a longbow arrow). A bow with a similar projectile would also do as much damage. Where it excelled (and later where the flintlocks and the muskets excelled) was ease of use. Longbows were effective out to 700 yards with a fire rate of about 12 per minute. The musket of the American Revolution era was effective out to 70 if you were lucky and the fire rate was in the region of 2 per minute. Those ponderous marching squares of redcoats didn't evolve because of some neat freak's idea of war. It is because the longbow took YEARS to train in to be used effectively that it left the battlefield. Much easier to give a boomstick to some 10 year old to point at someone than to train said ten year old to fire arrows. The same principles applies to a crossbow vs longbow. Simply look to the weapons list in the PHB. The crossbow is a simple weapon. Even a wizard can wield it and do a decent amount of damage (1d10 means 5,5 dmg on average). It will never match up to a longbow, but it is better than a longbow doing 4,5 average dmg at a -4 penalty and prolly more if the Wizard doesn't have the correct strength. Another thing you forget is that you can fire crossbows with 1 hand, as opposed to the longbow. In all there are drawbacks to the crossbow, certainly. And if you are a fighter with the correct strength and dexterity I would certainly advise against using the crossbow, but when you aren't, it's not a bad choice. Just as that I am having a lvl 1 fighter atm that does nothing but defending (going Dw. Defender in the end). I want the guy to be able to simply only switch weapons when going from ranged to melee. Hence I equipped him with a sling (1d4+3 dmg for an average of 4,5, equal to that of a light crossbow).
RubberDuckie 09-12-05, 09:16 AM	Crossbows can be fired while prone, granting a +4 AC bonus versus ranged attacks. I used to have a two-weapon fighting Cleric who'd enter combat with two loaded crossbows, one in each hand. He'd fire both, drop them and move towards the opposition while quickdrawing melee weapons. It's not very effective, but it sure is fun :)
Phaylan the Drow 09-12-05, 09:25 AM	what crossbows have you fired?......... even low poundage crossbows are 2 3 times more powerfull than equivilent longbows (equivilent being range) The largest crossbow (arbelest) has a poundage of 16000 lb draw wieght and the largest longbow has a draw weight of 350 lb the difference is the angle of flight crosbows are like a assault rifle- flat and deadly (shoot through full plate every time .........) longbows rely of weight of fire ie clouds of arrows to get that one vital area...... longbows = fast deadly long range crossbows = slow very deadly medium range its just a factor of how fast too how much damage you want to dish out per shot
malrick 09-12-05, 09:25 AM	if rapid reload hasn't been changed in 3.5, you can fire the light crossbow at same speed as bow, i think, been like 3 years sence i saw it, and i generalaly dont play fighter types
Nom 09-12-05, 09:31 AM	PH pg 117 allows you to fire (but not load) a light crossbow with one hand, at a -2 to-hit penalty. Plus any applicable TWF penalties, if you are using both at the same time.
Thorak 09-12-05, 01:22 PM	what crossbows have you fired?......... even low poundage crossbows are 2 3 times more powerfull than equivilent longbows (equivilent being range) The largest crossbow (arbelest) has a poundage of 16000 lb draw wieght and the largest longbow has a draw weight of 350 lb the difference is the angle of flight crosbows are like a assault rifle- flat and deadly (shoot through full plate every time .........) longbows rely of weight of fire ie clouds of arrows to get that one vital area...... longbows = fast deadly long range crossbows = slow very deadly medium range its just a factor of how fast too how much damage you want to dish out per shot This is all pretty much incorrect. Tests have shown that, comparing a 68-lb draw bow and a 740-lb draw crossbow, both period replicas, the speed of the projectile on firing was basically the same. Here's a link; clicky (http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html) Draw weight is meaningless. All that matters is speed of the projectile. As we know, Force = Mass * Acceleration. If the speed is the same, the acceleration (in a negative direction) at impact will be the same. So the only difference to the force is the mass of the bolt or arrow. and the bow in the example fired a heavier arrow. The reason? Crossbows have shorter arms and fire the arrow over a much shorter distance. They accelerate the bolt faster, but it reaches about the same speed by the time it's fired. The crossbow was in all ways the inferior weapon. Similar range, similar punching power, ridiculously longer reload and rate of fire. The reason it took over was the same reason gunpowder weapons did; ease of use. It took years of training to make a bowman. Crossbows, about a week. Same for muskets. A mass of 100 bowmen against 100 crossbowmen will result in a whole lot of dead crossbowmen. The trick is, it was much more expensive to train the bowmen, and you had to start a lot earlier. Whereas you could have drummed up crossbowmen last week. Part of the problem with your numbers is that you're using modern bows and crossbows, which aren't even remotely the same material or technology as medieval-era weapons. And no bow, meant to be actually used, ever had a draw strength of 350lbs. Are you honestly going to say anyone could pull 350 pounds apart without their arms shaking so badly they couldn't hit a darn thing? Even a 90-lb draw is beyond most people who haven't spent years building the muscles.
20goingon1232 09-12-05, 04:44 PM	Simply look to the weapons list in the PHB. The crossbow is a simple weapon. Even a wizard can wield it and do a decent amount of damage (1d10 means 5,5 dmg on average). It will never match up to a longbow, but it is better than a longbow doing 4,5 average dmg at a -4 penalty and prolly more if the Wizard doesn't have the correct strength. Another thing you forget is that you can fire crossbows with 1 hand, as opposed to the longbow. In all there are drawbacks to the crossbow, certainly. And if you are a fighter with the correct strength and dexterity I would certainly advise against using the crossbow, but when you aren't, it's not a bad choice. Just as that I am having a lvl 1 fighter atm that does nothing but defending (going Dw. Defender in the end). I want the guy to be able to simply only switch weapons when going from ranged to melee. Hence I equipped him with a sling (1d4+3 dmg for an average of 4,5, equal to that of a light crossbow). I forgot nothing. That is exactly what I have said, only I used a real life example. Crossbow is a simple weapon BECAUSE it is such an easy weapon to use. However, in terms of power and penetration (which is what damage is all about), the crossbow is inferior to a longbow. If anything, a longbow should do more damage than a crossbow. It was like that in earlier editions (which is where my 1d4 came from). Phylan - You are wrong. What Thorak said is what studies have shown. Your example is flawed in that it is impractical to wind up a 16000lb draw weapon on the battlefield for one, and for two, the crossbow quarrel is less aerodynamic than the arrow, giving it a lesser range and penetrating power at long ranges.
nissir2000 09-12-05, 05:18 PM	I have bow hunted for 15 years, and been part of national competetive 3d target shooting for 10 years. The bow I hunt with is an 95 lbs. the bow I use at competitions is only 55 lbs. True I can fire the 95 draw one 4 or 5 times without trouble, but try doing it over 100 times in an afternoon :)
Salla 09-12-05, 05:33 PM	This is where the non-middle-ages-weaponry-buff chimes in with 'game balance is more important than realism', right? Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss my cue.
Thorak 09-12-05, 09:45 PM	I have bow hunted for 15 years, and been part of national competetive 3d target shooting for 10 years. The bow I hunt with is an 95 lbs. the bow I use at competitions is only 55 lbs. True I can fire the 95 draw one 4 or 5 times without trouble, but try doing it over 100 times in an afternoon :) And, IIRC, an English longbowman during the Hundred Years' War was required to be able to loose 6 arrows a minute, and hit a target 100 yards away with each one, to consider himself at the bare minimum of skill needed to be a longbowman. And those numbers are fairly reasonable compared to some of the ones bandied about.
20goingon1232 09-12-05, 11:15 PM	This is where the non-middle-ages-weaponry-buff chimes in with 'game balance is more important than realism', right? Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss my cue. There is a game balance. That is why crossbows are Simple weapons and longbows are Martial weapons. Not everyone has the training to use longbows. The advantage is the iterative attacks with the longbow. This is not only balanced game-wise, but is true to form history-wise. In other words, the OP has no leg to stand on.
epifreak 09-13-05, 12:15 AM	what crossbows have you fired?......... even low poundage crossbows are 2 3 times more powerfull than equivilent longbows (equivilent being range) The largest crossbow (arbelest) has a poundage of 16000 lb draw wieght and the largest longbow has a draw weight of 350 lb the difference is the angle of flight crosbows are like a assault rifle- flat and deadly (shoot through full plate every time .........) longbows rely of weight of fire ie clouds of arrows to get that one vital area...... So, what you're trying to justify is that the longbow shouldn't even be a useable weapon. If they rely on "weight of fire ie clouds of arrows to get that one vital area" then one fighter wielding a longbow should be capable of accomplishing nothing with it, rather than, with the right feats, being the cheif damage-dealer right up until about 12th or 13th level. By your statement, dealing damage to a group would require at least 10 or so trained archers. This is where I'll also chime in on the side of balance, saying it's a :censored: :censored: :headexplo :censored: :censored: fantasy game, not a bloody war simulation.
Draco Strang 09-13-05, 12:17 AM	And, IIRC, an English longbowman during the Hundred Years' War was required to be able to loose 6 arrows a minute, and hit a target 100 yards away with each one, to consider himself at the bare minimum of skill needed to be a longbowman. And those numbers are fairly reasonable compared to some of the ones bandied about. You're recalling correctly Thorak. I've been shooting for about 12 years now (started as a little whippersnapper) and only about 3 years ago was I able to finally master a 100lb draw bow. That's with years of practice (at least three times a week) and buku weight training, in addition to my regular athletics and activities. Becoming a competent archer is no mean feat. I can put 10 arrows into the air in a minute and put them into the other endzone. (I do a lot of my shooting at a disused football field, so I've got an accurate set of measurements at my disposal) It's hard though...I could never keep it up for more than about two minutes. After that I'd be out of energy and arrows. The longbow wasn't so much a superior weapon, but it was utilized in a superior way by commanders who had an elite corp of archers at their disposal. If it hadn't been for a lifetime of training, those archers would have been at a serious disadvantage when pitted against crossbowmen.
Aki Warren 09-13-05, 03:13 AM	What is the name of that training, and where can I get information for it? I do love ranged combat that isn't spell related ^__^ On a side note, arrows are superior. Better punch, better RoF, better range. Let us not forget the ability to rain down over a wall or earthworks, while a crossbow is trying to fire through them.
Draco Strang 09-13-05, 03:30 AM	What is the name of that training, and where can I get information for it? Um....misunderstanding. "Buku" is just another word for "a whole lot of." I've done an awful lot of weight training over the years to build my arms and pectorals, so as to be able to handle large draw-weights, among other things. On a side note, arrows are superior. Better punch, better RoF, better range. Let us not forget the ability to rain down over a wall or earthworks, while a crossbow is trying to fire through them. There's no issue of superiority between arrows and bolts. You can get a bolt to arc. All you need to do is angle it correctly. Everything arcs when it's propelled forward, due to gravity and the curvature of the earth. Granted, it's easier for a longbow to cause it's arrows to arc due to their lower trajectory, but a crossbow can do exactly the same thing.
RavenoftheCrags 09-13-05, 04:15 PM	Crossbows, they have lots of advantages, good damage and I like them in real life (you should feel the recoil as you fire the bolt!)
boredgremlin 09-13-05, 06:29 PM	what crossbows have you fired?......... even low poundage crossbows are 2 3 times more powerfull than equivilent longbows (equivilent being range) The largest crossbow (arbelest) has a poundage of 16000 lb draw wieght and the largest longbow has a draw weight of 350 lb the difference is the angle of flight crosbows are like a assault rifle- flat and deadly (shoot through full plate every time .........) longbows rely of weight of fire ie clouds of arrows to get that one vital area...... longbows = fast deadly long range crossbows = slow very deadly medium range its just a factor of how fast too how much damage you want to dish out per shot Modern crossbows are nothing like medieval crossbows. Modern ones are made with alluminum alloys and fiberglass allowing them to get a more powerful pull wieght out of the bow part. Medieval crossbows had a steel bow. Steel has some spring but it still cant be bent very far and doesnt spring back with much power. Those bows had an incredible draw weight because the steel had to be pulled back but unlike a normal bow that didnt translate to the energy of the shot very well because of the nature of steel. Medieval crossbows sucked in comparison to long bows power wise. I read a great site about it but i lost unfortunately. See the power of a bows shot comes from the energy of the bow as it is bent and springs back. The crossbows shorter bow arm meant that it had less power. The same as a shortbow had less power then a longbow. Unfortunately D&D doesnt reflect this. But then it really doesnt accurately reflect the nature of most medieval weapons.
Draco Strang 09-13-05, 06:57 PM	Unfortunately D&D doesnt reflect this. But then it really doesnt accurately reflect the nature of most medieval weapons. So you mean that the spiked chain isn't the best weapon around, and there weren't platoons of chain-wielders that routinely defeated knights in personal combat? :thinks:
20goingon1232 09-13-05, 08:23 PM	So you mean that the spiked chain isn't the best weapon around, and there weren't platoons of chain-wielders that routinely defeated knights in personal combat? :thinks: According to an ancient Japanese tales, the wielder of a kusari-gama frequently made mincemeat of the samurais. Until a wise man engaged him in a bamboo stand. Same difference :D
Draco Strang 09-13-05, 11:19 PM	According to an ancient Japanese tales, the wielder of a kusari-gama frequently made mincemeat of the samurais. Until a wise man engaged him in a bamboo stand. Same difference :D Yea yea yea.....he probably had a lair with the Tooth Bunny (tm) and Easter Fairy.
20goingon1232 09-14-05, 12:16 AM	Yea yea yea.....he probably had a lair with the Tooth Bunny (tm) and Easter Fairy. Nah. Bamboo, man! He slept with pandas.
boredgremlin 09-14-05, 12:56 AM	Well this conversation got wierd. So whatever happened to the panda loving chain master in this story? Because you made it sound like he proposed to a bamboo stand. And thats just too wierd for me.
nyysjan 09-14-05, 05:47 AM	Well this conversation got wierd. So whatever happened to the panda loving chain master in this story? Because you made it sound like he proposed to a bamboo stand. And thats just too wierd for me. no, he proporsed 'in' a bamboo stand, and then they lived happily ever after :D
Andrew_980 09-14-05, 01:43 PM	The arbalast was heinously powerfull, the pope tried to ban the damned thing because it could punch through a man in plate. Crossbows have incredable penetrating capability and that is another reason for their popularity.
Gilean 09-14-05, 02:22 PM	The arbalast was heinously powerfull, the pope tried to ban the damned thing because it could punch through a man in plate. Crossbows have incredable penetrating capability and that is another reason for their popularity.The arbalest, IIRC, was more of a ballista than a crossbow. At least it was something of a hybrid.
Andrew_980 09-14-05, 03:00 PM	The arbalest, IIRC, was more of a ballista than a crossbow. At least it was something of a hybrid It is equivalent to the seige crossbow in one of the books, an "extra" heavy crossbow. Point is that they penetrate better than a bow, part of why the quarrels are shaped the way they are.
Draco Strang 09-14-05, 03:21 PM	The arbalast was heinously powerfull, the pope tried to ban the damned thing because it could punch through a man in plate. Crossbows have incredable penetrating capability and that is another reason for their popularity. Yea, but an arbalest was also about the size of a Mazda Miata. Those things had to be broken down for transport and crewed by several men. Also, it fired bolts that were about as big as your arm. Hardly what I'd call a personal weapon.
Talanall 09-14-05, 03:35 PM	In any case, the papal bans against crossbows were not motivated by their ability to kill men in plate armor. If that had been a problem, then all those men in plate armor who ruled entire nations back in the medieval period would have avoided arming their troops with crossbows. So no, excommunications for using crossbows were NOT some sort of attempt to protect the nobility. That's a lot of hogwash. The ban was motivated by two things: 1) It's easy to train people to use a crossbow. 2) When you have lots of people running around with crossbows, they tend to shoot other people. Masses of crossbowmen caused war to become much more lethal. More people died, and the pope wanted to cut down on the slaughter. So he made it an excommunicating offense to use a crossbow.
20goingon1232 09-14-05, 04:52 PM	Well this conversation got wierd. So whatever happened to the panda loving chain master in this story? Because you made it sound like he proposed to a bamboo stand. And thats just too wierd for me. LoL! In the original story, the kusari-gama guy was a bandit, but a very skilled one. He killed all of the local lord's samurais that tried to bring him to justice (or so went the version I heard). Then someone got wise and fought him in a bamboo stand, where the reach of his weapon and his fighting style was disrupted. Bye-bye, bandit. It is more of a parable-type thing than anything else.
Thorak 09-14-05, 10:33 PM	The arbalast was heinously powerfull, the pope tried to ban the damned thing because it could punch through a man in plate. Crossbows have incredable penetrating capability and that is another reason for their popularity. The English longbow could punch through plate too. I also cite the above study I cited where it was proven, scientifically, that a longbow with a 68-lb draw had more penetrating capability than the 740-lb crossbow. Force is mass times acceleration. The mass of the arrow was double that of the bolt, and their acceleration was the same. Meaning the arrow hit with approximately double the force. The only reason for the crossbow's popularity was ease of use. In all other ways, it was an inferior weapon to the longbow. Same for gunpowder, incidentally. Sure, modern-era repeaters are better, but it takes far too long to reload a muzzle-loading musket. And they took over pretty conclusively from bows for about 400 years. And you couldn't hit a target more than about 50 yards away, due to the smoothbore barrel; the ball had to be loose or it would get stuck, so it bounced around on firing slightly and always went off at a slight angle. Smoothbore muzzleloaders were slow and useless at range except en masse, and yet they replaced bows pretty significantly. Why? Easier to use.
evilgenius 09-14-05, 11:40 PM	In game terms, the advantages of a longbow are obvious. However, the crossbow is cool too for it's own reasons. 1. It can be left loaded and cocked for hours, days etc. Bows can't be held that long... That makes it a good weapon to use for readied actions. As a DM, I won't let a PC hold his readied action with a bow for longer than a minute or two. This makes the heavy crossbow a good sniper's weapon. 2. It can be fired one handed. This is good for a shield using, or Two weapon fighting character. Keep it in one hand, the weapon / shield in the other, and you can get off a cheap shot as you close distance to melee range, drawing your weapon as part of a move action. 3. It can be fired from the prone... Though, with a little imagination, a bow can be fired from the prone too, with your feet, sitting on your bum. 4. Some people prefer a high threat range over a high critical modifier. Crossbow is useful for that. (I personally prefer higher multipliers over crit ranges, but others disagree with me). 5. In game terms, the heavy crossbow has better damage and range (yes, I know I know... I'm just discussing game terms). This, as well as point 1 above, make it a good sniper's weapon. 6. Crossbows look friggin cool! :ayyyy!:
boredgremlin 09-15-05, 05:31 AM	LoL! In the original story, the kusari-gama guy was a bandit, but a very skilled one. He killed all of the local lord's samurais that tried to bring him to justice (or so went the version I heard). Then someone got wise and fought him in a bamboo stand, where the reach of his weapon and his fighting style was disrupted. Bye-bye, bandit. It is more of a parable-type thing than anything else. Ahh now that makes much more sense. Too bad there really isnt any conveniant way to bring real world combat features like that into the game. I can think of a few ideas but they all seem like they would slow down combat too much.
Draco Strang 09-15-05, 11:10 AM	Ahh now that makes much more sense. Too bad there really isnt any conveniant way to bring real world combat features like that into the game. I can think of a few ideas but they all seem like they would slow down combat too much. What...just use light undergrowth statistics on a number of squares in your combat area. Throw up some "bamboo walls" and a block a few squares out with rocks and you've got a pretty convincing bamboo stand. That should simulate the difficulty of using a chain weapon amidst the trees.
Woas 09-15-05, 01:50 PM	Forget crossbows vs. longbows... Have the half-orc wheel the ballista around! Now we're talking! :D
ambiorix 09-15-05, 06:00 PM	This is all pretty much incorrect. The crossbow was in all ways the inferior weapon. Similar range, similar punching power, ridiculously longer reload and rate of fire. The reason it took over was the same reason gunpowder weapons did; ease of use. It took years of training to make a bowman. Crossbows, about a week. Same for muskets. A mass of 100 bowmen against 100 crossbowmen will result in a whole lot of dead crossbowmen. The trick is, it was much more expensive to train the bowmen, and you had to start a lot earlier. Whereas you could have drummed up crossbowmen last week. I believe there is another reason why longbows were not frequently used by medieval soldiers on the continent. The english (or welsh) longbows were made out of the wood of the yew tree which has the best mechanical characterics. Under the climate of the british isles, they grow quite well which enabled a bowmaker to get branches big enough to craft a 2 m high weapon. On the continent however yews don't get much bigger than 3 m, and you couldn't make something bigger than a toy bow out of a local yew. I guess the wood from an ash tree would be the best available here but a longbow made out of ash wood would not be as powerful. This point made crossbows more attractive for French, Flemish, Burgonder, Navarran and Briton (from Brittany) military leaders of the 100 years' war. NB : By the way, England is the only country where yew wood has been used for furniture (no yew tree big enough anywhere else), that's why the cabinets of the Queen Anne period have no equivalent in Europe.
Hairfoot 09-15-05, 11:28 PM	This is where the non-middle-ages-weaponry-buff chimes in with 'game balance is more important than realism', right? And this is where a non-middle-ages-weaponry-buff points out that, in all ways, D&D technology is superior to real-world middle-ages technology. D&D is more like the 20th century, with magic taking the place of chemical science.
Thorak 09-16-05, 12:46 AM	And this is where a non-middle-ages-weaponry-buff points out that, in all ways, D&D technology is superior to real-world middle-ages technology. D&D is more like the 20th century, with magic taking the place of chemical science. Not even remotely. The physical science is roughly late medieval. So a physically built crossbow would be the same as a medieval one. Sure, a magical one might be more similar to a modern compound crossbow. That's why it gets bonuses to hit and damage. But it only works because of the magic, not because the physical technology is any better.
boredgremlin 09-16-05, 02:01 AM	Besides, the magically built crossbow costs 2,050 gp contrasted with the normal 50 gp for a heavy crossbow. So assuming an entire D&D army is using bows built with magical techniques just doesnt fly.