Crossbows bite: solutions…?

[Tony Vargas]

However, all other advantages a crossbow may have are insignificant next to a bow guy who’s getting 4 attacks a round.

That has a lot more to do with the guy (16th level fighter-type) than the bow. Obviously, the crossbow is a simple, low-finesse weapon ideally suited as a weapon of choice for characters who are not experienced fighters. Elites, OTOH, will gravitate towards the much harder to learn draw bows. That's actually even 'realistic,' and it doesn't even detract from the game.

A first (or even 5th) level warrior archer, is not that impressive next to a same-level-warrior with a crossbow. The archer can move a bit before firing, but that's about it. If you're comparing characters w/o martial weapon proficiency, the crossbow, by virtue of not taking a -4 attack penalty, wins handily. If you're talking characters with STR penalties, the crossbow is a godlike damage machine compared to thier other weapon options.

Not every weapon is best, or even remotely worthwhile, for every character. A +4 Mighty Composite Longbow might seem utterly superior to a lowly light crossbow - but which would be dangerous in the hands of an 8 STR kobold? Not a very fair comparison, since the Longbow is too big to use. How 'bout a shortbow then? d6-2 or d8, which do you think scaly would prefer?

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Crossbows are very popular among clerics, arcanists, rogues and the like. At higher levels, when itterative attacks become an option, rogues will likely drop them in favor of the shortbow (for the multiple attacks). Generally, only elves and characters with free martial weapon proficiency or free bow proficiency take bows. You rarely see a wiz or cleric trading in thier crossbow for a drawbow at the cost of a feat... of course, at higher level, you rarely see them use the crossbow, either, they've got more than enough spells.
So, yeah, I've seen plenty of crossbows, especially at lower levels.

That's light crossbows. I've only ever seen three characters arm themselves with Heavy crossbows (a bard, a sorcerer and a wizard) and the first two where mine. Though they're really not very good all-around weapons because of thier abysmal rate of fire, they're good for the occassional pot-shot when you have nothing else to do, and thier range increment is increadible.

 

[Jeph]

Try assigning light crossbows Penetration 2, and Heavy Penetration 3. Weapons with Penetration ignore the listed amount of armor / natural armor bonus to AC.

That's how Grim Grit does it, IIRC.

 

[gpetruc]

Heavy crossbows are useful (and used) only in some specific circumstances:
1) sieges; one crossbowman at every arrowslit, another one behind reloads the weapon; and so you fire 1 shot/round, with a range good enough to reach the other army, and if you hit you dish out a good damage
2) traps/ambushes. Every character shoots a bolt in the surprise round. Can bring down many foes (weak ones, obviously) at the beginning. Also, it would be much more easy to scratch build a trap with a crossbow.
3) shoot once and forget situations.

Light crossbows are used usually by unskilled people. A few dozens non commoner NPC (such as experts) armed with crossbows can be a good match against an attack of orc raiders, and might kill many orcs before they get to close combat.

Also, one thing about crossbows is that you can fire from prone or similar covering positions. In a ranged skirmish having +4 AC can really help.

Bows are better in the hands of a very good bowman also because
- bow is art, while crossbow is simply tech.
- a bow is a true heroic weapon. The only hero with a crossbow was William Tell, i think.

Anyway a suggestion could be make the crit 19-20/x3, that gives out a bit more damage. Or give a flat +1 to hit (that stacks with masterwork/magic).

 

[mroberon1972]

Strength of arms...

Simple, use the D&D mechanic that best emulates what a crossbow was: Strong.

Give the crossbow a strength bonus to hit and damage based on how powerful it is. This is what a real crossbow did. This is also why it takes so long to reload one. Most people were not as strong as the crossbow...

This makes them much more effective, so be careful how high a strength you allow. Mine vary according to need. I would also advise increasing the reload time for really strong crossbows (which might have to use a crank to redraw...)

Mr. Oberon

 

[Plane Sailing]

One idea that I've been toying with is giving arbitrary "mighty" ratings to crossbows. After all, part of the point of the larger crossbows is that they are too powerful to be cocked by hand, and need a lever, stirrup or winch!

I'd go for

Hand crossbow +0
Light crossbow +3
Heavy crossbow +5

The Rapid Reload feat would only be possible if you had at least the same Str bonus as the mighty crossbows. I would also give them a x3 crit like all other piercing weapons.

The end result of this is that crossbows do a bit more damage normally, and are VERY nasty on a critical.

I consider it ridiculous that you can have characters getting +4 damage bonus on drawing a mighty bow, but there is no damage bonus on a heavy crossbow that could never be drawn by hand! In deciding to avoid giving a + damage modifier to any weapons I think that the designers forgot that the crossbow (more than any of the other weapons) is a machine, and should have its own Str attribute.

Cheers

 

[Tamarack]

Please do NOT multiply the crossbows damage by the number of attacks normally allowed in a full round action. Since the first attack is at the highest bonus, it would most likely hit. You would therefore turn random chance (some arrows will hit, some will not) into a sure thing. The drawback you mentioned of only being able to target one opponent is negligible, since by the time a fighter has four attacks, you're probably not fighting lots of goblins/kobolds anymore.

 

[RangerWickett]

This is an idea I've pondered in my own game:

When a fighter gets 4 attacks with a greatsword, is he really swinging the thing four times in one 6-second round? Maybe. Or maybe those extra 'attacks' just represent his ability to hit really well if he takes a full round action.

So, since I'm flexible in the way I run the game, I'd let a guy with a crossbow make his full complement of attacks in one round, and for each 'hit' that single crossbow bolt would do more damage. However, he would only be able to target one foe at a time. if a normal archer wanted to save his arrows, he could do the same thing, or he could be ultra nifty and shoot at four different targets in one round.

Likewise, if a fighter with a rapier takes four attacks and uses them to Disarm, Attack, Trip, and Attack an Object (nearby rope), I might say that in one fluid motion he ducks low in a sweep kick, stabs under his foe's crossguard, then pulls upward, using his own blade as a lever to wrench his foe's weapon away. His opponent falls to the ground, weaponless, and our fighter casually flips his rapier in a backhanded cut, severing the rope behind him and dropping a chandelier on his foe.

 

[Pbartender]

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

That about the right answer...

Historically, crossbows weren't that much better than bows, and longbows were more accurate and had a farther range.

The advantage to crossbows, however, is that any mope with two arms can use one. Line the peasants up on the city wall, pass around 200 crossbows, and you have an instant militia.

Longbows, on the other hand, were especially deadly, but the archers had to be trained from a very young age... That's quite an investment of resources and time to build an army on.

So, when you think about it, the game models that pretty closely. Crossbows are good for any low-level or untrained character (especialy those in large groups). Bows are better for experienced fighters and warriors.

 

[Imret]

Just a half-thought...

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.