Bows as exotic weapons

[Gobbo]

My friend came up with the idea of making bows exotic weapons. We feel that crossbows have been neglected with the current rules. Who wants to spend a move or standerd action to reload. In the real world, bows take a while to master, but a crossbow can be operated with little training.

We also feel that archers are extremely deadly, given the right feats and equipment. Forcing an archer to spend a feat to use his bow would help reign in their power.

I was curious to hear what others think.

 

[FireLance]

Well, the rules as written pretty much do what you want - crossbows are simple weapons which almost every class can use without penalty. Bows are martial weapons and only a handful of classes start out proficient in them.

As for the deadliness of archers, I find them quite balanced with other fighting characters. The campaign I'm running is still low-level, but the big combat bruisers don't feel outdone by the archers.

 

[Cheiromancer]

If crossbows are simple, some kind of bow should be martial.

How about shortbows are martial, but to use them from horse-back takes an EWP?

Longbows can be exotic all the time. Except for elves- they treat them as martial weapons.

 

[Darklone]

If you are concerned about Xbows, double their damage. That helps. And don't allow Rapid Reload.

 

[Zad]

Xbows are easier to use, that's why they're Simple weapons, not martial.

I don't buy the "archery is overpowered" argument, especially in 3.5. So I don't really see a need to nerf them further.

And all a crossbow wielder has to do is spend a feat on rapid reload to up their fire rate. I've fired a crossbow and I can tell you they're damn slow to load, so I think the action requirement is accurate.

 

[the Jester]

Bows are already martial weapons, so what you propose (making them harder to master) is already built into the game.

A bow is not as hard to master as, say, a spiked chain or double-headed weapon. It shouldn't be exotic, imho.

 

[brento766]

bows not overpowered

Bows may seem overpowered, in a plains setting. But put the archer in a situation like a dungeon crawl and they will come across many problems from no line of sight, cover, ambushes. Also, archers are very powerful at low levels, but at higher levels they lose their potency. What happens when you encounter a creature that has dr 5? They have to roll pretty high on the old damage dice to make a significant impact (unless they have ungoddly str and a mighty bow (these things cost a lot)) whereas the fighter just powerattacks and rends them a new one if you get my drift. Also, a way to keep them in check, make them keep track of ammo. A dungeon crawl can seriously deplete a quiver and they may be out of luck. Lastly, make it as costly as possible: a bow consists of two parts the actuall bow and the arrow. So if they want to masterwork it, they have to masterwork their arrows as well. Our group rounds it out to be about 7 gp per arrow; that is more than the average commoner makes in a month for one attack!

 

[HarryFlashman]

I typically run a low magic setting using the Grim-n-Gritty rules. As such I have never liked the 3E rules for weapons. They rarely take into account how deadly weapons truly were.

But this is not about my distates for the 3E weapon's stats.

A Few rules:

Bolts are very sturdy compared to arrows. Give them a better survivability rate. 25% on a successful hit, 50% on an unsuccessful attack

in AD&D 1st ed missile weapon changed range increments when it was used in a dungeon. In real life a Crossbow is typically shot directly at an oponent with little or no arc where as Bows are nearly always shot at an arc. Reduce the maximum range of bows when used in enclosed places.

Historically "heavy crossbows" were highly effective against armored troops. In Grim-n-Gritty they recieve a penetration bonus which I would not see being unreasonable.

Using a Bow Stave as a weapon is uttery stupid or the act of a desparate desparate man. Clobbering an Ork with the butt of your Crossbow when in close combat is highly sensible. Drawing your Sword next would be more sensible, still. i would rule that a Bow, used in close combat as a weapon, would be ruined as a bow. Of course Crossbows would not suffer this problem.


Historically Longbows were exotic weapons requiring years of practice and training. Crossbows could be handed to the nearest peasant and become highly effective weapons in their hands.

In real life I would prefer to face a man with a bow rather than a crossbow so long as their training was similar. On a field of battle bowmen were typically only successful in large groups. Not so with the crossbowman.

 

[Piratecat]

HarryFlashman, appropos of nothing - superb user name. If you want a Flashman avatar, give me a holler via email.

Sorry for the hijack.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

Gobbo, you’re reasoning in sound but I'm not in favor of exotic weapon proficiency... The use of a feat makes allot of the weapons not worth the trouble.. .

I would almost rather see a BAB requirement over the feat... hmmm I'll have to think upon that.