Why do Crossbows Suck?

[MerricB]

Traditionally, isn't the crossbow open to more classes than the bow?

Sort of.

In AD&D, the classes that could use a bow: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Assassin.
In AD&D, the classes that could use a crossbow: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Assassin, Monk.

Clerics were limited to a throwing hammer for their ranged weapons.
Druids had daggers, darts and slings.
Magic-users had daggers and darts, as did Illusionists
Thieves had dagger, darts and slings.
Monks had crossbow, dagger, hand axe and javelin.

It took a few years before it loosened up. (I think Unearthed Arcana allowed the thieves to use hand crossbows...)

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

In every edition of DnD the crossbow has been the red headed stepchild of ranged weapons. It did far less damage than a bow in AdnD, required load times in later DnD.

Why are bows just so much better?

Because, historically, bows were so much better. Here's a good article on the topic: http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html

(And the load times were in AD&D as well. Bows fire at two times per round, Crossbows at once a round, Heavy Crossbows at once every two rounds).

The damage on a crossbow in AD&D is possibly too low; it likely should be the same as a bow. The main advantage of a crossbow was that anyone could use it, but were inferior compared to trained archers.

Of course, the main way we see bows and crossbows in D&D isn't exactly the mass battles like Agincourt where the English longbow really made a name for itself!

I've just been playing Men of Iron, a wargame by Richard Berg with a number of battles around the period of the 100 Years War. Longbows are by far the superior weapon in his take, as well. The volume of fire is a massive point in their favour compared to the crossbow, something that we tend to lose in D&D, due to the "one shot per round" thing. When one weapon fires 2-5 as often as the other, the AD&D version may be lowering damage as an abstraction...

Cheers!

 

[tomBitonti]

I wonder if crossbows as usually shown, which is made with modern materials, are rather superior to a crossbow which would be provided to a common soldier. I imagine that the quality varied quite a bit according to what materials were available.

I suppose the same can be said for modern bows, which are more usable than a period bow, with reduced strength requirements. Perhaps a longbow should a smaller damage die but start out as a strength weapon (1d8 going to 1d6+2).

Thx!

TomB

 

[Savage Wombat]

Yes. One has a cool overture, and the other hasn't!

Robin Hood's has lyrics.

Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding through the glen
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, with his band of men
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood!​

(Anyone else hear "Dennis Moore"?)

 

[GMMichael]

Two words; weapon proficiency. In some versions crossbows are a Simple Weapon, while more conventional bows are Military Weapons.

Two more words: skill and price.

Longbows are simply a more deadly weapon than crossbows. A crossbow, however, takes significantly less training to use. If crossbows ever replaced longbows, it was partially because you could field a platoon of crossbowmen much faster than you could field a platoon of archers, due to lower training requirements.

Longbows are also more expensive than crossbows. I won't delve into actual market prices in history, but d20srd agrees with me in 3.5 terms. My guess is that a longbow required hours (days?) of artisan craftsmanship, while a crossbow requires a fraction of that attention.

Notice that neither training nor bulk-purchasing get much attention in RPGs.

 

[Hussar]

Longbow? Sure, presuming we're assuming that you mean an English longbow. But short bows also out damage crossbows by a considerable amount.

 

[MerricB]

I wonder if crossbows as usually shown, which is made with modern materials, are rather superior to a crossbow which would be provided to a common soldier. I imagine that the quality varied quite a bit according to what materials were available.

Crecy (1346) saw crossbows against longbows, with the crossbows being used by the Genoese crossbowmen, famous mercenaries of the time. Unfortunately for the Genoese and the French, rain before the battle damaged the crossbow strings and so they were mostly useless in the battle; the longbowmen had just unstrung their bows and protected their strings... and the battle was thus won by the English.

Richard Berg has this to say about the Genoese crossbows at Crecy: "The crossbows used at this time were of wooden construction, not the metal crossbows of a century later. As such, they were not as efficient nor as powerful as the latter, or the Longbow—which had greater range and penetrating power than the wooden crossbow (some 375 yards max to maybe 250 yards max). Conversely, the shorter, heavier crossbow quarrel often made up in stoutness what it lost in momentum, in terms of penetration, vis a vis the longbow."

 

[MerricB]

Longbow? Sure, presuming we're assuming that you mean an English longbow. But short bows also out damage crossbows by a considerable amount.

For proper comparison using AD&D statistics:

Shortbow: 1d6 damage vs Small, 1d6 damage vs Large. Rate of Fire: 2/round. Range 5/10/15
Longbow: 1d6 damage vs Small, 1d6 damage vs Large. Rate of Fire: 2/round. Range 7/14/21
Composite Shortbow: 1d6 damage vs Small, 1d6 damage vs Large. Rate of Fire: 2/round. Range 5/10/18
Composite Longbow: 1d6 damage vs Small, 1d6 damage vs Large. Rate of Fire: 2/round. Range 6/12/21

Light Crossbow: 1d4 damage vs Small, 1d4 damage vs Large. Rate of Fire: 1/round. Range 6/12/18
Heavy Crossbow: 1d4+1 damage vs Small, 1d6+1 damage vs Large. Rate of Fire: 1/2 rounds. Range 8/16/24

If vs Armour Type modifiers are taken into account...
Against platemail+shield (AC 2): Shortbow -5, Comp. Shortbow -3, Light Crossbow and Comp. Longbow -2, Heavy Crossbow and Longbow -1
Against chainmail (AC 5): CLB +0, CSB +0, LB +1, SB +0, HXB +2, LXB +0
Against leather (AC 8): CLB +2, CSB +2, LB +3, SB +2, HXB +4, LXB +3
Against unarmoured (AC 10): CLB +3, CSB +3, LB +3, SB +2, HXB +4, LXB +3

Cheers!

 

[Bluenose]

Crecy (1346) saw crossbows against longbows, with the crossbows being used by the Genoese crossbowmen, famous mercenaries of the time. Unfortunately for the Genoese and the French, rain before the battle damaged the crossbow strings and so they were mostly useless in the battle; the longbowmen had just unstrung their bows and protected their strings... and the battle was thus won by the English.

I'm fairly sure that 10,000 longbowmen (an approxiamte figure, but based on the surviving muster rolls) out-shooting 4,000 Genoese crossbowmen (based on the number of mercenaries Genoa made available on several occasions) doesn't indicate much about the superiority of the longbow to the crossbow. Nor does a battle where most of the casualties were inflicted in melee combat make the longbow seem desperately impressive. See also, Flodden.

 

[Nagol]

Longbow? Sure, presuming we're assuming that you mean an English longbow. But short bows also out damage crossbows by a considerable amount.

Not in 3.5.

medium sized short bow does 1d6 (20/x3)
medium sized light crossbow does 1d8 (19-20/x2)

The drawbacks to the bow are it is considered a martial weapon and it criticals less frequently.
The advantage of the bow is you can improve the damage with a specialty weapon, and the rate of fire is superior if the user is trained sufficiently (i.e. gets multiple attacks a round or has taken specific feats).

As a DM, I'd have no trouble adding a house-rule to allow crossbows to become strength weapons as well, but it never came up since the typical users of crossbows do not specialise strength.