Crossbows bite: solutions…?

The 'strength' of a crossbow is represented in it's damage die. How much damage would a bolt do if you just stabbed somebody with it? Maybe a d4? That means that, 'on average' a light crossbow is adding +2 damage to the bolt, and the heavy +3. That might be under-rating the heavy a bit, but it sounds about right for the light crossbow.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Re: Just a half-thought...

Imret said:
Ever since the 'Goblins of Doom' fiasco (which, suffice it to say, involved a 10th-level paladin, a band of goblin wolfriders, and seven crossbow bolts doing 9 damage between them), my own group implemented a simple little house rule for crossbows, though it's more damage-oriented than rate of fire.

Rather than 1d8 for a light crossbow and 1d10 for a heavy, they now do 1d4+4 and 1d4+6, respectively; we've found this, combined with Rapid Reload, makes even the light crossbow wielder dangerous. They're like very small bows (which is more or less true) wielded by very strong people (which is, again, basically true).

Just my own possible solution.

I don't see the reason for the change ... heck, with a couple of different die rolls you could have hit 10 times for 60 pts of dmg! ... I'm not sure if it makes much of a difference, but how about change the d8 to 2d4, and the d10 to 2d6?
 

RangerWickett said:
When a fighter gets 4 attacks with a greatsword, is he really swinging the thing four times in one 6-second round?

No, he's not "swinging" he's STRIKING.

It's like the difference between a karate strike and a wild roundhouse thrown by an untrained teenager.

It's entirely possible to strike four or more times in six seconds with a well-balanced greatsword.
 

my thoughts on it

crossbows are just cool
lets not forget the 1/6 CR kobalds that can easily dish out 1d8 damage (this is the scourge of all the low level characters in my campaign), plus, if you don't like a crossbow, then DON'T use it!:D

Crossbows can be concealed, especially good for rouges. Bows also have to be strung up (if you DMs are making this a rule:rolleyes: ), taking a round to do this, whereas with a crossbow, you can keep it by your bed roll (noise in the bushes, sit up, *TWANG* *THUNK*), whereas with a bow (noise in the bushes, get out of bedroll, pick up bow, string bow, get arrow, knock arrow, shoot arrow)

And, bows aren't always knocked, you keep the arrows in your quiver, so for killing shots, keep a concealed covered hand crossbow with a bolt covered with blakc lotus poison in your bag.
If you really feel the urge to have to change this rule, then change it! although it doesn't really need it.

Someone said it would suck for fighters to use crossbows, well thats why they don't use them:eek:.

For militaries its just more fun to describe, instead of running away, knocking an arrow and shooting, it's a row of people stepping back five ft. (or foward, depending on the situation) and shooting a WHOLE bunch.

In my opinion, crossbows are for non fighting classes to have a fairly good ranged weapon, and to use for flavor, whereas bows are just better. :p
 



Tony Vargas said:
Doesn't make sense if you compare it to a tulip, either.

What I mean:

Bows do d8 damage. Probably because the strength behind the weapon. (I don't think there is much difference between an arrow and a quarrel.) But you can have Mighty bows that add a STR bonus to things; why can't a crossbow, with a mechanical STR, have the same thing?
 

LostSoul said:

Bows do d8 damage. Probably because the strength behind the weapon. (I don't think there is much difference between an arrow and a quarrel.) But you can have Mighty bows that add a STR bonus to things; why can't a crossbow, with a mechanical STR, have the same thing?

You certainly could. An upsized crossbow (medium or heavy) would do 2d6 damage. :)
 

Remove ads

Top