Crossbows bite: solutions…?

[RogerBacon]

Crossbows bite: solutions…?

A 16th level fighter can make 4 attacks a round with a bow ( or more with feats ). The same fighter can only make one with a crossbow. Conclusion: only an idiot would use a crossbow.

In real life the crossbow was a weapon to be feared. In DnD, people usually say, “Whew. Thank God he has a crossbow and not a bow”.

The solution I am thinking of using is to allow one attack per round with the crossbow and let it do its normal damage TIMES the amount of attacks the firing character gets with a bow (excluding bonus attacks from feats). So the 16th level fighter would do 4d8 with a crossbow because he normally gets 4 attacks per round and the crossbow normally does 1d8 (I think). This would be a full-round action , of course.

The only problem with this system is that the attack uses his best attack bonus, while the bow guy is getting diminishing returns for the 4 arrows he fires in a round. I think this is partially compensated for by the fact that the crossbowman can only target one guy, often over killing him, while the bowman can shoot 4 separate targets.

What does everyone think? Which would you rather be under this system: the bow guy or the crossbow guy?

One last note: In over 20 years of role-playing I have only seen a crossbow chosen by a player once. It was in an Ares Magica campaign. Crossbows can kill in a single shot in that game.

Roger Bacon

 

[uv23]

This is how the Chinese resolved that particular issue:

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/rept_xbow.htm

 

[Drawmack]

I modify the bow instead of the crossbow. Here is how I calculate damage on a bow 1dx-y where x is the normal damage die for that bow and y is the number of shots fired in a round minus one. Also you get a -y circumstance penalty on your attack rolls.

The reason that I do this is purly logistics. In order to increase the damage from a cross bow as you're suggesting you would have to increase the tension. Increasing the tension increases reload time. It's already hard enough to fire and load a crossbow in six seconds (go ahead and try it sometime). However by the bow getting weaker with each shot it makes it only do a very slightly more damage then the cross bow and you're less likely to hit. This makes the cross bow a much more realistic weapon while keeping it, at least, founded in reality.

 

[Crothian]

Crossbows have better damage and range. They just can't be fired as fast. THat's the way it is in game and real life. Also, crossbows are simple weapons, more classes can use them.

But, if you want to make crossbows more feared I'd increase the damage and/or the crit range. Make a light crossbow do 1d10, crit 19-20/x3

 

[melonneko]

IIRC, crossbows were feared when they came into mass use because they are easier to shoot and aim with than a bow. Pretty much like a gun is today, you point and pull the trigger, where as a good archer was often trained from a young age. a good archer block of composite or recurve (im not sure if thats the same thing) was more feared on the battle field, because bows shoot farther and punch through armor easier than a crossbow at longer ranges. crossbow's were an equilizer weapon.
anyways, i have no problem with how the weapons are now, if you want a lot of shots, take repeater crossbow effiency

 

[Tony Vargas]

Different weapons have different strengths.

The strengths of a composite bow are:

Very good range (110)'
Good Damage (d8)
Takes STR bonus
Useable with iterative attacks.

The strengths of a crossbow are:

Good damage (d8)
Doesn't take STR penalties
Simple weapon.

And, that's pretty accurate, really. Crossbows were tremendously popular because they were easier to use than bows, so were ideal for large armies without too much training... for that matter, even well trained armies (in the D&D sense, any army where the troops are 5th or lower level warriors - I'd guess that'd be most of 'em).

About the only thing 3E doesn't accurately credit the crossbow with is armor penetration, they were pretty decent at it. Weapons with good armor penetrating characteristics - warhammers, picks, axes - are generally given high crit multipliers.

I could see changing the light crossbow's crit to 20/x3 and the heavy to 20/x4, in the name of 'realism' (and balance, the heavy crossbow's rate of fire /really/ hurts it) - as this does more accurately model low-finesse, easy to use, powerful weapons, which is what crossbows were.

 

[Chroma]

You've got two options...

...at least...

Repeating crossbow or take the Feat: Rapid Reload to be able to squeeze out another shot. I totally freaked out my players when a "wimpy" fighter Rapid Fired a light crossbow into them by means of combining those two Feats.

 

[RogerBacon]

In order to increase the damage from a cross bow as you're suggesting you would have to increase the tension.

I was rationalizing the increased damage by saying the experienced fighter was hitting a more vital spot. That’s why it’s a full round action.

I don’t think the crossbow is (much) worse than the bow in the hands of a character who only gets one attack around. I know both weapons have their advantages. However, all other advantages a crossbow may have are insignificant next to a bow guy who’s getting 4 attacks a round.

One last question for the group: What would you say the ratio is among players you’ve seen who take crossbows as opposed to bows? As I’ve said, I’ve never seen anyone take a DnD crossbow.

Roger Bacon

 

[Drawmack]

I've seen a lot of fighters grab a corss bow for their ranged weapon. Also classes that get proficiency with a cross bow but not with a regular bow usually take them. I see them used a lot and if my PCs don't have any they're going to come up against orcs using them from the pillars in an abandon dwarven city.
[/city]

 

[uv23]

Or you could make all bows exotic weapons...