Mighty Crossbows

[Knight-of-Roses]

Aaron, correct, Strength only effects load time. Get the half orc in the party to recock all of them and you are golden.

Kamrain, same thing could be said of bows too. Yet they get Strength bonuses.

New write up:

Mighty Crossbows

These crossbows are custom built using only the finest materials. It takes exception skill to make the weapon both accurate and hard hitting. In game terms, they must be master work in order to have a Strength Bonus to damage.
Hand and light crossbow may be improved up to a +2 Strength Bonus to damage, while the stronger heavy crossbow can be improved up to a +4 Strength Bonus to damage. Unfortunately, these crossbows are notoriously difficult to recock).

User’s Str bonus compared to Crossbow’s....Load Time

+3 or more......................................................Normal
0 to +2............................................................Doubled
Less.................................................................Triples
If the user’s Strength Bonus is 2 or more less than the crossbow’s Strength Bonus (3 for a heavy crossbow), then he cannot recock the crossbow at all. [This can be applied to all crossbows if one wishes, assume that a normal crossbow has a +0 Strength Bonus.]
For reloading, a standard action and a move action can be used interchangeably for hand and light crossbows.

The Rapid Reload feat drops the reload time by one level. However, due to the difficult of reloading Strength Bonus crossbows, it can never be a free action to reload one.

Each point of Strength bonus granted by a crossbow costs 150 gold.

If using the great crossbow (from Sword and Fist/Arms and Equipment Guide), it can go up to a Strength bonus of +5 but it is considered to have a Strength bonus 1 higher for calculating reload times. Like a heavy crossbow, someone with a Strength bonus of 3 less than the weapon’s cannot recock it at all.

 

[Aaron2]

Can you please stop using the word "recock"? I laugh every time I read it. I don't even think it is a real word.


Aaron (sorry, I couldn't take it anymore)

 

[Knight-of-Roses]

Can you please stop using the word "recock"? I laugh every time I read it. I don't even think it is a real word.

Well, I cannot use the word without the re- attacked or it gets censored by the board's system . . .

And, why should it not be? The prefix "re-" meaning: a) once more, again. b) back; with return to a previous state. (Oxford American Desk Dictionary)

Second word: a) The firing lever of a gun. b) cocked position of this. (Same source) Well, in this definition, from a modern dictionary, it is designed for firarms but the terms work equally well for crossbows.

So, by recocking a crossbow you return it to its cocked (i.e. ready to fire) state. A perfectly valid construction in English.

 

[Rackhir]

I'm not sure I understand what Strength has to do with the damage of a crossbow. If I can get it drawn, whether physically or mechanically, and I fire it, any 'strength bonus' to damage is already applied. That's how ballista work, isn't it? My strength is irrelevant if I can get the thing cocked somehow.

But isn't that represented by giving crossbows a bigger damage die? Just a little confused.

Kamrain, same thing could be said of bows too. Yet they get Strength bonuses.

That the damage of a bow should be dermined solely by its size is incorrect. There is a basic difference between the operation of the bow and that of a crossbow and that is that the damage of a bow (IRL) is DIRECTLY related to the strength with which it is pulled. If things were being modeled more accurately then the system should probably have strength bonuses/penalties applied with any type of bow, up to a limit per type of bow, as not all bows can be drawn up to the same level of "pull" weight. If you wish to look at it this way the base damage of a bow is determined by the size/weight of the arrow shot at a base strength pull (simplified to just take into account the size of the bow) and the strength bonus represents the additional force possible over that base level. Where as a crossbow is shot with the same amount of force no matter who's using it, so it is reasonable to model it's damage based just on it's size/strength since the two are directly related.

That said the idea of CBs that are stronger than normal and thus do more damage is not unreasonable and the increased reload time is a good representation of the problems a "stronger" crossbow would have in usage.

However, the whole concept strikes me as a classic case of "Well weapon X does Y. Why can't my favorite weapon Z, have the same advantage/ability?" Crossbows are not bows, they do not operate like one, they do not serve the same purpose. Crossbows are modeled in the game as second class weapons to bows, because they ARE second class weapons to bows in nearly every way.

 

[Knight-of-Roses]

However, the whole concept strikes me as a classic case of "Well weapon X does Y. Why can't my favorite weapon Z, have the same advantage/ability?" Crossbows are not bows, they do not operate like one, they do not serve the same purpose. Crossbows are modeled in the game as second class weapons to bows, because they ARE second class weapons to bows in nearly every way.

Except for their greater range and penetraitive ability, their ability to be used by anyone, their ability to be kept ready to fire. Yes, they are very different weapons and used, historically, in very different ways.

However, in D&D, there are not any of the histrorical limitations on bows. As you partially pointed out in your comments. Archers need to be strong, fit and in good health. It also takes years of practice to make a good archer, especially for long and composite bows. Arguably both longs bows and composite bows should be exotic weapons to represent this. But that is straying from the point.

In my initial post I commented on why Strength bonus crossbow, which was essentially why not? If someone wants to have a really cool crossbow, they should be able to. And rather then having ever 18 Str fighter say, "Hm, guess I better get the +4 Str bonus comp longbow." This at least this gives an interesting, and competitive, alternative.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

However, in D&D, there are not any of the histrorical limitations on bows. As you partially pointed out in your comments. Archers need to be strong, fit and in good health. It also takes years of practice to make a good archer, especially for long and composite bows. Arguably both longs bows and composite bows should be exotic weapons to represent this. But that is straying from the point.

I don't think I agree with that. D&D does put a lot of the historical limitations on archers. If you check the Wizards character optimization boards, you'll find that they consider strength the second most important stat for an archer. Con is important too (although not as important as for melee types). A con penalty would make an archer less viable. Diseases (filth fever, Demon Fever, Devil Chills, Mummy Rot, etc are devastating to an archer's effectiveness). So D&D archers, DO need to be strong, fit, and in good health if they're going to be effective.

You'll also notice that nearly every good archer has the point blank, precise shot, and rapid shot feats as well as the bow proficiency. In order to have all of those at first level, you need at least one fighter level--which is traditionally interpreted as representing intense training (years of training if it's your first level). So, every check point in your list of the historical limitations of bows is represented by the D&D archer as is.

In my initial post I commented on why Strength bonus crossbow, which was essentially why not? If someone wants to have a really cool crossbow, they should be able to. And rather then having ever 18 Str fighter say, "Hm, guess I better get the +4 Str bonus comp longbow." This at least this gives an interesting, and competitive, alternative.

That's an entirely different question. And it goes the question of whether or not you want a realistic game. Bows are better than crossbows for most purposes--as long as you're trained in their use. So, in a realistic game, the fighter ought to say, "I guess I'd better get a quality bow." If, OTOH, cool (I'm restraining myself from writing kewl here) is what you're going for and crossbows are cool, then you need mechanics that make "cool" viable. At some point, however, you'll need to decide how far you're willing to go to make "cool" mechanically advantageous. Knife fighters are cool too but making knives as effective as longswords so that the knife fighter could keep up with the swordsman in combat wouldn't sit well with a lot of players and wouldn't work in many campaigns.

Myself, I like bows being the weapon of a warrior and crossbows being what the town hands out to commoners when they need to defend the walls against a siege (and what the barkeep keeps behind the bar to deal with violent customers).

 

[FoxWander]

I'd decided to houserule mighty crossbows into my game before I even finished reading my PHB back when 3E first came out. I balanced the extra damage with increased load times. Theoretically, with the right mechanical device a person of any strength could recock almost any size crossbow- it will just take time. My rule was that for every point of STR bonus above your own, it takes an extra action more than normal to reload. Since you effectively get two actions per round, standard and move, that means if you don't move or attack it would take you one extra round to reload a Mighty Crossbow with a bonus 2 higher than your STR. Rapid Reload works just like it does now- it reduces this time by one action. My cost for a Mighty Crossbow was that same as for a Mighty Bow, up to a bonus of +4, to get a higher bonus it needs to be a Masterwork crossbow as well.

This means that a person of any strength could have one potentially devastating shot, if they want to spend the $$$ on a super souped-up crossbow, but then they put it aside and use something else. Bows, mighty or not, are still the missile weapon of choice because of their relative ease of use and rate of fire.

Knight, looks like your rules work about the same as mine, but I'm wondering about this bit...

If the user’s Strength Bonus is 2 or more less than the crossbow’s Strength Bonus (3 for a heavy crossbow), then he cannot recock the crossbow at all. [This can be applied to all crossbows if one wishes, assume that a normal crossbow has a +0 Strength Bonus.]

Why do you have this rule in there? Unless you're refering to attempts to recock the crossbow purely with strength? I mean, with the right mechanical device then even a child could recock a ballista! Just wondering.

BTW, not that it's been mentioned, but if anybody thinks something like this is unfair or ridiculous then keep in mind that a normal Mighty Bow could easily be modified to hold at full draw and effectively become a "crossbow". (sort of) Take a look at this site- Draw-Loc

 

[Knight-of-Roses]

Knight, looks like your rules work about the same as mine, but I'm wondering about this bit...Why do you have this rule in there? Unless you're refering to attempts to recock the crossbow purely with strength? I mean, with the right mechanical device then even a child could recock a ballista!

With the right mechanical device, exactly. Even a cranquin (sp?) requires a certain amount of pure brute physical strength to use.

Elder-Basilisk, well put, but truely good archers using powerful bows were fairly rare historically. I was just noting that because you are a trained warrior (i.e. fighter) does not mean that you should automatically be a good archer. And even without those feats (point blank, rapid and far shot whould be my choices for a military archer) a mid-level fighter with a longbow, especially a strength bow, is quite nasty.

The Italians and the Chinese certainly considered crossbows to be the missile weapon of choice for their soldiers, but that is history.

Now, before I forget, thank you all for reading and discussing this. I have been enjoying it.

 

[Rackhir]

BTW, not that it's been mentioned, but if anybody thinks something like this is unfair or ridiculous then keep in mind that a normal Mighty Bow could easily be modified to hold at full draw and effectively become a "crossbow". (sort of) Take a look at this site- Draw-Loc

Actually, you are dead wrong about this unless you are planning on permiting a rather higher level of technology. What you are referring to in that link is not a composite bow, but a COMPOUND Bow, which is a totally different kettle of fish. Composite bows are just that, bows made of a composite of different materials, typically various kinds of woods, bone, glue. They make for a stronger and more powerful bow, especially for the same size. One of the classic weaknesses of bows was their susceptibility to dampness and rain, which could cause a bow to warp, a compound bow to delaminate and the strings to become loose and useless. Also neither the strings nor the bows could take being strung for days on end. IYR in FOTOR, Aragorn had to restring his short bow before each battle for exactly this reason. So you can't make a classic bow into anything like a crossbow without magic or much higher technology.

Compound bows with their wheels and pullies are a strictly modern invention, dating from the 1960's. Also with their high quality metals, carbon fiber composite materials, plastics and wires, plus infinitely better manufacturing techniques create bows that Legolass can only fantasize about. The mechanical advantage the wheels and pullies give them, in D&D terms would probably give a x2 or x3 multiplier to the strength bonus. They also don't warp or delaminate, with strings that can be left strung for years.

 

[Centaur]

Compound bows with their wheels and pullies are a strictly modern invention, dating from the 1960's. Also with their high quality metals, carbon fiber composite materials, plastics and wires, plus infinitely better manufacturing techniques create bows that Legolass can only fantasize about. The mechanical advantage the wheels and pullies give them, in D&D terms would probably give a x2 or x3 multiplier to the strength bonus. They also don't warp or delaminate, with strings that can be left strung for years.

Actualy you are wrong about the multiplier on the compound bow. The mechanical advantage offered by a compound bow is actualy quite ingeneous. Remember that you still need to pull the string back and that force is what is used to propel the arrow. However, once the string is pulled back to the bows "Sweet Spot", the force required to hold it there is reduced by a factor of 10 (I think, I'm not sure the actual factor). This means that while it may take 75lbs of pull strength in your arm to get it to ready, you only need to deal with 7-8 pounds while you aim. This help mostly in a steady aim and lower arm fatigue.

In game terms, this would equivalate to a bonus to hit, not damage.

That said, the mechanical advantage would allow a person with only lower strength bonus to use a higher stength compound bow without penalty as the force is reduced while he prepares to shoot. It would however take him longer to draw the string back in the first place, if even possible.

This is how the device in the link above is able to work. the trigger mechanism and light weight arm it is mounted on only needs to handle less that 10 lbs. of draw strength were it is positioned. This "Sweet Spot" on the bow is only about an 1" or 2 wide.

But then again, compound bows are not the discussion here.