Beefing up the Crossbow

[T-Bone JiuJitsu]

I'm working on a new campaign, and I'm going to implement a few optional rules.
One of the changes I'm considering is to make the Crossbow a much more deadly weapon. As it stands, a fighter with a Dex of 10, wearing Full Platemail, standing infront of a Guardsman with a crossbow trained on him has little to fear. In real ife history, weren't Crossbows capable of easily piercing heavy armor?

Here's my idea. I am considering making Crossbows ignore Armor bonus to AC when within 30'. I would still allow a Shield bonus to AC, and any deflection bonus'. In turn, I would rule that light, medium, and heavy armor would provide Damage Reduction of 1,2, & 3 respectively.

My questions... does anyone think that that might break the game, or does it not reflect reality? Should Bows get the same rule?

 

[Hawkeye]

The crosssbow ingoring hard armor was part of the Birthright campaign setting.

Torqumada

 

[T-Bone JiuJitsu]

The crosssbow ingoring hard armor was part of the Birthright campaign setting.

Torqumada

I was not aware of that. Is there any reason the Longbow or Shortbow should not get the same advantage?

I'm worried if I make this change, archery would become overpowering, especially with all the feats and Prestige Classes.

Allowing Shields to help against arrows would go a long way in making shields and magic shields a MUCH more attractive option.

I would also have to rule that a monk would not be able to automatically deflect a crossbow bolt fired within 30. He would need the reflex DC20 save a'la PHB 3.0

 

[Pbartender]

My questions... does anyone think that that might break the game, or does it not reflect reality? Should Bows get the same rule?

I don't think it would necessarily break the game, but it does add needless complications.

Remember, historically the average crossbow wasn't any more powerful, damaging or armor-piercing than you're average longbow. The great advantage to crossbows was that it took significantly less training than a bow to use. Any run-of-the-mill villager could pick one up and be taught how to use it within minutes. Bows, on the other hand, took years of practice (or lots of talent).

Hence crossbows are simple weapons in D&D, while bows are martial.

Also, don't forget that bows and crossbows were mostly used as a sort of medieval machine gun to be most effective, with large numbers of archers firing in volleys. If you have 1200 ordinary archers firing a single volley of arrows, 60 of them are guaranteed hits, and 3 of them are guaranteed critical hits (on average). If the enemy troops are less than heavily armored, those numbers only go up.

I'd leave it as is.

 

[Darren]

My questions... does anyone think that that might break the game, or does it not reflect reality? Should Bows get the same rule?

Yes, historically both crossbows and longbows were capable of penetrating plate armor. But historically, there was no such things as magic, mithril, or adamantine. It seems like special armors should not be quite so vulnerable as mundane armor (and adamantine already gives the damage reduction you mention). I think your suggestion would become more of a problem at higher levels unless you took special armors into account in some way. Consider how much easier it would be for a rogue to get a successful sneak attack with a crossbow at the beginning of combat if he could ignore the enemy cleric's fullplate, or how much more powerful the ranger's +1 holy composite longbow could be against that same opponent.

Broken? Not necessarily, but it needs a bit more work before I'd be happy playing with that rule.

 

[king_ghidorah]

As it stands, a fighter with a Dex of 10, wearing Full Platemail, standing infront of a Guardsman with a crossbow trained on him has little to fear.

The same guardsman when faced with a sword, axe, or polearm, also has little to fear, though IRL he should. Why should he fear a crossbow more than any other weapon?

 

[T-Bone JiuJitsu]

The same guardsman when faced with a sword, axe, or polearm, also has little to fear, though IRL he should. Why should he fear a crossbow more than any other weapon?

The same reason I would more fear someone pointing a gun at me than threatening me with a baseball bat. Both would kill me, but with the bat I would at least have a slim chance.