Historically, What Was The Rate of Fire For Crossbows?

[S'mon]

I did up my own crossbow stats for the reasons given above. The 'siege crossbow' listed is more of a small ballista.

Crossbows (ST is the Strength required to use it without a mount)
Crossbow Type Damage Range Inc Target Armour Reduction Reload Time
Light X-bow, 35gp, 6lb, ST 5 1d8 80’ 0 Move action
Heavy X-bow, 50gp, 9lb, ST 9 1d10 120’ -2 1 round
Battle X-bow, 65gp, 12lb, ST 13 2d8 160’ -4 2 rounds
Arbalest, 80gp, 24 lb, ST 17 2d12 200’ -6 4 rounds
Siege X-bow, 160gp, 48lb, ST 21 2d20 200’ -10 8 rounds (1 man), 6 rounds (2 men)

Edit: Maybe I should reduce the ranges. I was a bit hamstrung by choosing to work off the PHB stats as far as possible, which give crossbows very good range but very poor (historically) damage. D&D always seems to have had a thing about underrating mechanical missile weapons - the ballista did 2d6 in 1e-2e, it does 3d6 now. After experiencing realistic rules systems (eg Twilight 2000 & all) that base damage off actual kinetic energy (eg 9mm round does 1d6, 110mm tank shell does circa 120d6), I can't stand the way D&D rates ballistas - that can easily kill 6 men with 1 bolt - as less damaging than a typical PC's greatsword.

 

[Mytholder]

"To train a longbowman, start when his father is eleven...."

Wibble. I misread that as:
"To train a longbowman, start when his father is elven..."

 

[Felon]

Ah, the great longbow/crossbow debate reareth its head again.

Truly, there were all kinds of longbows, many types of crossbows, and armor plates of varying thickness and temper. Talking about the Middle Ages is not like talking about the wild west. What we consider the Middle Ages was, after all, a really long frickin' period of time--we're talking a few centuries here--and it encompassed the better part of a whole darn continent. When you hear some fellow arguing insistently that there is one "official" statistic with regards to how fast a crossbow could be loaded or at what range a bolt could penetrate plate armor, it's safe to assume the person you're listening to hasn't lent a great deal of thought to the matter regardless of how many books he's read or websites he's visited.

For instance, a crossbow with a low amount of pull is obviously going to require less effort to recock than one with a heavier draw, and there's quite a bit of difference between the lightest crossbow that ever was and the heaviest one. This is a weapon that went through a long evolution, so why would anyone be surprised to find that documents from the time of the War of the Roses provides different information than was scribed during the Hundred Years War? The latter started a century earlier.

For game purposes you have to figure out where you are within the crossbow's evolution. Is it like D&D, where you still have "plain" wood bows existing alongside the patently-superior composites? Are there tempered-steel prods that likewise outshine composites? If you want a crossbow to be more powerful than a bow, then you ought to go with steel. After all, a longbow’s prod has a much broader width than that of a crossbow, so the only thing that could ever endow a crossbow with a better draw is having a prod that’s impossible to pull back by hand. Which begs the question of what reloading devices are available? Can’t decide how fast a crossbow reloads if you don’t have that established. If there are just wooden crossbows, then perhaps marksmen are still reloading by hand or belt claw. If you're up to steel bows, then you're going to need a goot's hoof or, more likely, a crannequin [sic?].

This was all likely discussed when 3e went into design, and they ultimately went for the abstracted, highly-unrealistic set of statistics. They threw out STR minimums too, which really would have played a more meaningful part with bows than with melee weapons. Meanwhile, they retained the notions of “mighty” crossbows, which is kind of nonsensical. When you have a +4 mighty light crossbow and a +1 mighty heavy crossbow, why exactly is the former still considered “light” and thus faster to reload than the latter? Light crossbows should not be allowed to be mighty.

 

[Fade]

Remember that in battlefield use bows were not really aimed as such. You simply launched volley after volley of arrows in an arcing trajectory (for range) in the direction of the enemy regiments. Quite literally a 'rain of arrows' (or bolts), with which particular enemy they landed on more or less a matter of chance.

You still needed a lot of practice, just to pull those plate-armour piercing longbows. I heard it quoted as starting with the grandfather, but father seems reasonable as well.

 

[Angcuru]

I dunno, man. A couple of times I was practicing with my LOW-quality bow my shots went wide and went right through the sheet of 1/4 inch plate steel I use as a backrest for the target. What to make of that....?

 

[med stud]

Early 16th century crossbows used by skilled users (ie German mercenaries in my source) could fire at a maximum of 300 meters and accuratly up to 90 meters.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This was all likely discussed when 3e went into design, and they ultimately went for the abstracted, highly-unrealistic set of statistics. Meanwhile, they retained the notions of “mighty” crossbows...

No, they didn't.

The only Mighty weapons in the Core Rules are bows, not crossbows.

Sword and Fist introduced Mighty Whips.

But no mighty crossbows in the Core Rules.

-Hyp.

 

[El Ravager]

From what I am gathering, it seems that while the core rules may not have necessarily captured the true effectiveness of the crossbow, they did end up making the rules reflect who would use one. It seems that historically, the crossbow's main advantage is that it can be used with little to no training and the same holds true in DnD3e. The crossbow isn't the best option for a well trained fighter - its the wizard who lacks combat training that will probably pick up the crossbow and fire a few bolts.

 

[Ulrick]

I suggest you send this question to Mail Call or Conquest on the History Channel.

See, not only will we get an answer, but will also get to see crossbows fired in cool medieval battle reanactments.

YEAH!

 

[MerakSpielman]

Perhaps longbows should be made an exotic weapon to reflect the years of training needed...

I also think the damage from crossbows should be increased by one die size.

The "punching through armor" aspect of crossbows would be more easily reflected if the D&D design team had decided to use an "armor provides DR" type system. But they didn't, and it would take an entire rules-rewrite to implement such a system and make sure it was balanced everywhere.