Shield Walls and Crossbows

[thenightgaunt]

I've been scrounging around the Pathfinder books and there are 2 things that I'm either passing over completely or just aren't there. So I was wondering if anyone knew if these rules were covered in Pathfinder, or where I might be able to find them.

1. Shield Wall rules:
You and your companions line up, raise shields and essentially increase your overall defensive value. Also, your other friends can stand behind you and attack the enemies infront of your shields with their polearms. Other than the benifits of just setting up this kind of formation when using minis (no flanking and the ability to come to one another's aide very easily) are there any specific Shield wall rules in Pathfinder?

2. Crossbows:
Fantasy RPGs have been doing their damnedest to make these the crappy alternative to bows for a while now, but they're actually a superior weapon. A longbow requires a bowman have a 180lb pull to fire an arrow (which is why everyone is supposed to normally use shortbows). So unless you're very very strong, you either won't be able to fire an arrow, or you'll get tired out fast. Crossbows, do the same job but without the need for high strength. But they also punch through armor as though it was cardboard. There was a reason why a Pope tried to ban the damn things.
A few RPGs have taken this into effect, giving crossbows bonuses to hit against armor, or by having them ignore a certain amount of AC on an armored target. Does Pathfinder have anything similar for crossbows?

 

[SteelDraco]

Shield Walls are represented by the Shield Wall teamwork feat, which increases the AC bonus of your shield if an adjacent ally also has the feat.

Crossbows always suck in D&D, except for the fact that they're Simple weapons, and thus easily used by conscripts. I don't believe Pathfinder did anything to change this.

 

[frankthedm]

1. Use reach weapons to attack over & around your allies ( -4 to hit though )

2. House ruling that in is easy enough. +2 to hit vs. armored foes for a Heavy crossbow ( medium ) felt alright to me.

 

[Dingo333]

For shield wall, if you are talking about tortoise formations walking around the battle field, there are not any rules I am aware of (I am unaware of any books involving army vs army combat and that is where you are likely to find the info)

There is a shield wall feat that with some player coordination could simulate the effect you want basically, all the players go on same initiative, attack seperatly, and are all covered by shield bonus though only the outer most would have to worry about anything without reach

As for crossbows, they are simple weapons, dealing more damage and with a 19-20/x2 crit. Their only "penalty" is they are difficult to reload in combat

Bows on the other hand are martial weapons (more training), that only apply str when composite and built for specific strength ratings. They have a x3 crit, but this I feel is more to represent the ability to hit smaller target areas (crossbow recoil sometimes interfering with accuracy) You also need to remember that players are stronger on average then normal people

 

[thenightgaunt]

For shield wall, if you are talking about tortoise formations walking around the battle field, there are not any rules I am aware of (I am unaware of any books involving army vs army combat and that is where you are likely to find the info)

There is a shield wall feat that with some player coordination could simulate the effect you want basically, all the players go on same initiative, attack seperatly, and are all covered by shield bonus though only the outer most would have to worry about anything without reach

As for crossbows, they are simple weapons, dealing more damage and with a 19-20/x2 crit. Their only "penalty" is they are difficult to reload in combat

Bows on the other hand are martial weapons (more training), that only apply str when composite and built for specific strength ratings. They have a x3 crit, but this I feel is more to represent the ability to hit smaller target areas (crossbow recoil sometimes interfering with accuracy) You also need to remember that players are stronger on average then normal people

Not a tortoise formation actually, but a shield wall. Kind of a simpler, less effective but more maneuverable version. More middle ages than greek/roman like the tortoise/phalanx. 2nd Ed. D&D had rules for it (counts as 50% cover vs missiles, and a +1 AC bonus to people in the wall.) but I don't recall if 3rd Ed. did. The nice thing was that you could have your polearm infantry behind the shieldmen, attacking their targets with only a -2 penalty to hit (still 2nd Ed.) and at the same time each sheildman gets a normal attack with a 1-handed weapon.

What was the Shield Wall teamwork feat from? It's sounds right as far a bonus feat (say for soldiers like the Spartans who trained specifically in the technique). But the thing is, you get the benifit from the formation even without excessive training. It's just like a spear hedge in that regard.

As for crossbows, they are/were cheaper to make than regular bows, required less training, and they were more powerfull and more accurate than normal bows. To aim a bow you pull back and hold the arrow, aim and release. The longer you had to aim, the longer you had to hold back the force on the string (talking about old bows, not modern composites). That could make one's aim get a bit shaky. A crossbow is like a rifle, you can take your time, rest it against a support, aim, breath, and take your shot whenever you liked. Historically, they were better than bows in almost every way. And yes heros are stronger than most NPCs. But heros don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. What matters is that the NPC king of the kingdom that the PC's are in, is going to want to arm his men with the best/most effective weapons possible. An elf PC with a longbow can kick serious ass, but a group of 10 armed soldiers with crossbows should make anyone hesitate.

They were ignored largely in 3rd because they were only really fleshed out in the players option books for 2nd. And so that's carried over into 4th and Pathfinder really. I do like Frankthedm's house rule suggestion though. I just wish there was something official as I'm not the GM at the moment.

 

[triqui]

As for crossbows, they are/were cheaper to make than regular bows, required less training, and they were more powerfull and more accurate than normal bows. To aim a bow you pull back and hold the arrow, aim and release.

Swords are also better than axes or spears. However, for balance reasons, they are made mostly equal. Otherwise, nobody would use them (like happened with 2ed battleaxes 1d8/1d8 compared to longswords 1d8/1d12). Crossbows can be better than bows, but higher training, or worse than bows, but easier to use. Making them both better and easier to use make bows completelly useless, which might hinder some players concepts (like someone wanting to play an elven archer for example)

r you had to aim, the longer you had to hold back the force on the string (talking about old bows, not modern composites). That could make one's aim get a bit shaky. A crossbow is like a rifle, you can take your time, rest it against a support, aim, breath, and take your shot whenever you liked. Historically, they were better than bows in almost every way.

That's not really true. Welsh and English longbowmen co-existed with crossbows and arbalests, and they were much better. They had comparable range and firepower and armor pierce, but they could fire 20 arrows in the time crossbowmen fired 4 or 5 bolts. Sure, only highly trained and really strong men could fit for the job, but they were much better.


A possibility to make for a more real approach could be making the Crossbow do more damage, having a bonus to pierce armor, but making it reload time 3 or 4 rounds. That would be realistic. However that would make crossbows unable to use. And game balance>realism

 

[thenightgaunt]

That's not really true. Welsh and English longbowmen co-existed with crossbows and arbalests, and they were much better. They had comparable range and firepower and armor pierce, but they could fire 20 arrows in the time crossbowmen fired 4 or 5 bolts. Sure, only highly trained and really strong men could fit for the job, but they were much better.


A possibility to make for a more real approach could be making the Crossbow do more damage, having a bonus to pierce armor, but making it reload time 3 or 4 rounds. That would be realistic. However that would make crossbows unable to use. And game balance>realism

Aye, though English longbowmen don't really count, they weren't the norm. The English did have that law that required all young bows get in daily bow practice. Which resulted in the King having a specially trained population to recruit his bowmen from (a brilliant idea). With other nations though, you'd likely have a much different result.

I actually like the house rule idea though. It takes into effect the slow reload time with them, which was messed up with the shift from a 1 minute round to a 6 second round. Crossbows doing more damage, bows firing faster. I like it.

 

[triqui]

Aye, though English longbowmen don't really count, they weren't the norm. The English did have that law that required all young bows get in daily bow practice. Which resulted in the King having a specially trained population to recruit his bowmen from (a brilliant idea). With other nations though, you'd likely have a much different result.

That would be the equivalent of bows being martial (or superior in case of the english longbow) weapons, instead of simple ones. Every other city guard and his militia grandmother could fire a crossbow. That does not mean crossbows are better than longbows. Only that you need a much better training to use the longbow. (shortbows on the other hand are quite worse)

I actually like the house rule idea though. It takes into effect the slow reload time with them, which was messed up with the shift from a 1 minute round to a 6 second round. Crossbows doing more damage, bows firing faster. I like it.

Notice that this would make the crossbow a NPC only weapon. A group of militia or city guards might have Crossbows to fire before engaging, but a PC is not likely to do so (although I had a fighter with an arbalest in 2e that used to fire-and-forget). For PC, using a weapon ussually means feats and/or magic weapons investment. And it's not very likely than a player will burn feats in weapon focus, and money in magical crossbows, just to fire 1 bolt every 4 rounds.

 

[thenightgaunt]

That would be the equivalent of bows being martial (or superior in case of the english longbow) weapons, instead of simple ones. Every other city guard and his militia grandmother could fire a crossbow. That does not mean crossbows are better than longbows. Only that you need a much better training to use the longbow. (shortbows on the other hand are quite worse)

That kind of does mean that they're better than longbows. Does the ability to give a group of 20 random villagers minimal training and some mass produced weapons that do as much or more damage than a longbow and have better penetration to boot, make it a better weapon? Compared to a weapon that requires years of training and above average strength to use? Hells yes. Traditional Japanese Samurai swords are works of art, but mass produced guns still proved to be better weapons.

Notice that this would make the crossbow a NPC only weapon. A group of militia or city guards might have Crossbows to fire before engaging, but a PC is not likely to do so (although I had a fighter with an arbalest in 2e that used to fire-and-forget). For PC, using a weapon ussually means feats and/or magic weapons investment. And it's not very likely than a player will burn feats in weapon focus, and money in magical crossbows, just to fire 1 bolt every 4 rounds.

The benifit of a crossbow wouldn't come from special feats, it would be part of how the weapon essentially works. Crossbows would be weapons of PCs if they didn't have a high strength score, or wanted a good ranged weapon without having to invest feats into it. But, then crossbow related feats would be a sight to behold. Faster reload time, bonuses to hit, etc...
The point is, there's nothing wrong conceptwise about a fire and forget ranged weapon. Fire, drop, enter melee.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Two things come in my mind:

- You can build a decent sniper with the crossbowman archetype in the APG. use a Double Crossbow and the Deadly stroke feat. This mean quadruple damage in a single long range shot. If you want to PEWPEWPEW arrows archcery is better, but is nice, expecially if friendly spellcasters cast improved invisibility on you.

- Try out a two weapon fighting rogue with hand crossbows, the crossbow mastery feat and weapon cords. You can dish out a decent amount of damage, even if the penalties to hit can be dire (maybe you must multiclass fighter, or need to be well buffed).