delericho
Legend
...
Well, yes. But since that kinda ruined my joke, I decided to overlook it.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Why do Crossbows Suck?
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
...
Ryujin
Legend
Lindybeige is one of my favourite sources for context where weapons are concerned, with respect to role playing games. He's a historian and gamer, which makes for a rather unique perspective when he gets into gaming. He's got a great series of videos that basically trash every version of D&D, though he obviously has played or does play.
It's because of the gameplay perspective that the crossbow has always gotten short shrift.
The game has always tried to differentiate the bow from the crossbow in some fashion. Now there are several ways to do that, but the problem that crops up is that many of those ways don't ever really impact gameplay around the table. So "bonuses" that one weapon gets over the other don't really grant any tangible benefits because those bonuses don't actually crop up during most regular gameplay.
For instance, long range. 95% (if not more) of all D&D combat occurs well within either the bow or crossbow's normal range. Thus... a crossbow being given a longer range than the bow isn't an actual tangible benefit. So the crossbowman might get an extra couple dozen feet on its longest distance. How many times does that ever actually come up though in normal gameplay? Rarely. Especially with some many battles taking place in dungeons or underground. So that's a "bonus" they always give the crossbow that actually isn't one.
Crossbows traditionally have been Simple weapons, and bows were Martial weapons. That might seem like a "bonus" because it allows more people to use crossbows... but in truth, if you look at the classes and the proficiencies they get, most classes that actually use weapons as their primary attack form get Martial weapon proficiencies as well. And the classes that only get Simple proficiency (and thus would be primed to use crossbows)? Usually they're spellcasting classes and thus have attack spells to use instead. So being a Simple weapon isn't really a "bonus" for the crossbow... because the only people who truly benefit are non-combat commoners who don't have spells and only have Simple weapon proficiency. But none of them are actually anyone in a D&D party.
The other main "bonus" given to crossbows over bows have been higher damage. Whether that's a bigger damage die, or a bigger crit range. But invariably for balance reasons, they always want to keep that bonus damage in check by not making that bonus damage *so* great in comparison to the bow. They are afraid of the potential spike damage of a crossbow, where a warrior shoots it in the first round and does a massive amount of spike damage before dropping it immediately, drawing the melee weapon, and then charging into battle. So they nerf that higher damage by not making the damage die so large, plus giving crossbows reload times. So that overall, crossbow + longer reload over a full fight only slightly might outperform in damage to bow + no reload or higher rate of fire. As a result, that "bonus" of higher damage really isn't that great.
Now... let's take a look at every weapon-using character in the party who might potentially use the crossbow. First off... we can cross off warriors who are STR-based rather than DEX-based. Thrown weapons allow them to use their Strength modifier for attack and damage rolls rather than Dexterity, so none of them would ever choose a crossbow over a thrown weapon. Losing 1 to 4 extra points of attack and damage bonus just isn't worth it. Not for just a bit of extra range... especially considering as I mention above, those warriors would rarely find themselves in a fight where that extra range would really make a difference.
Of those weapon-using warrior types remaining, we can also cross off all the shield-users from the list. Bows and crossbows require two hands to use, thus no one who uses a shield is going to use a crossbow for one round at the top of a fight, drop it, and then have to draw their a weapon *and* put on their shield as they charge into battle. Too much of a hassle! Add in the fact that the crossbow gets left on the battlefield wherever it got dropped... it's much easier to just use a one-handed ranged weapon that is itself it's own ammunition (like the javelin, hammer, dagger or handaxe) that can be drawn, thrown, and then their melee weapon can get drawn right after on the charge into battle.
So that just leaves the Dexterity-focused combat classes that dual wield or single wield their melee weapon, or the ranged weapon focused combat character. But even with them... the single-most killer of anyone's desire to use a crossbow is the Loading property. The "reload" time. Any PC that is high enough level to have an extra attack will *never* use a crossbow because the Loading property guarantees you can't use that extra attack for a second crossbow shot. You aren't allowed to. The Loading property only allows for one shot per action, and the Extra Attack ability doesn't grant you an extra action, it grants you a second attack within that single action. So you fire the crossbow on the first attack, then can't reload it and refire using the Extra Attack. As a result... every single one of those characters are going to select a bow instead so they can take that Extra Attack. Simple fact.
All in all... yeah, crossbows as they stand really are a worthless weapon to anyone who will actually be played in a D&D party. They're great for non-fighting NPCs... but nobody else that would actually ever get played. The only way they could be made worthwhile would be to make their potential damage on a single shot be so big that a person might decide to forsake the hassle just to get that really powerful initial shot... but that kind of spike damage just frightens the designers. Probably because they know that somewhere down the line rules might get introduced that ameliorate those hassles, and you'd end up with a truly unbalanced weapon when all was said and done.
The game has always tried to differentiate the bow from the crossbow in some fashion. Now there are several ways to do that, but the problem that crops up is that many of those ways don't ever really impact gameplay around the table. So "bonuses" that one weapon gets over the other don't really grant any tangible benefits because those bonuses don't actually crop up during most regular gameplay.
For instance, long range. 95% (if not more) of all D&D combat occurs well within either the bow or crossbow's normal range. Thus... a crossbow being given a longer range than the bow isn't an actual tangible benefit. So the crossbowman might get an extra couple dozen feet on its longest distance. How many times does that ever actually come up though in normal gameplay? Rarely. Especially with some many battles taking place in dungeons or underground. So that's a "bonus" they always give the crossbow that actually isn't one.
Crossbows traditionally have been Simple weapons, and bows were Martial weapons. That might seem like a "bonus" because it allows more people to use crossbows... but in truth, if you look at the classes and the proficiencies they get, most classes that actually use weapons as their primary attack form get Martial weapon proficiencies as well. And the classes that only get Simple proficiency (and thus would be primed to use crossbows)? Usually they're spellcasting classes and thus have attack spells to use instead. So being a Simple weapon isn't really a "bonus" for the crossbow... because the only people who truly benefit are non-combat commoners who don't have spells and only have Simple weapon proficiency. But none of them are actually anyone in a D&D party.
The other main "bonus" given to crossbows over bows have been higher damage. Whether that's a bigger damage die, or a bigger crit range. But invariably for balance reasons, they always want to keep that bonus damage in check by not making that bonus damage *so* great in comparison to the bow. They are afraid of the potential spike damage of a crossbow, where a warrior shoots it in the first round and does a massive amount of spike damage before dropping it immediately, drawing the melee weapon, and then charging into battle. So they nerf that higher damage by not making the damage die so large, plus giving crossbows reload times. So that overall, crossbow + longer reload over a full fight only slightly might outperform in damage to bow + no reload or higher rate of fire. As a result, that "bonus" of higher damage really isn't that great.
Now... let's take a look at every weapon-using character in the party who might potentially use the crossbow. First off... we can cross off warriors who are STR-based rather than DEX-based. Thrown weapons allow them to use their Strength modifier for attack and damage rolls rather than Dexterity, so none of them would ever choose a crossbow over a thrown weapon. Losing 1 to 4 extra points of attack and damage bonus just isn't worth it. Not for just a bit of extra range... especially considering as I mention above, those warriors would rarely find themselves in a fight where that extra range would really make a difference.
Of those weapon-using warrior types remaining, we can also cross off all the shield-users from the list. Bows and crossbows require two hands to use, thus no one who uses a shield is going to use a crossbow for one round at the top of a fight, drop it, and then have to draw their a weapon *and* put on their shield as they charge into battle. Too much of a hassle! Add in the fact that the crossbow gets left on the battlefield wherever it got dropped... it's much easier to just use a one-handed ranged weapon that is itself it's own ammunition (like the javelin, hammer, dagger or handaxe) that can be drawn, thrown, and then their melee weapon can get drawn right after on the charge into battle.
So that just leaves the Dexterity-focused combat classes that dual wield or single wield their melee weapon, or the ranged weapon focused combat character. But even with them... the single-most killer of anyone's desire to use a crossbow is the Loading property. The "reload" time. Any PC that is high enough level to have an extra attack will *never* use a crossbow because the Loading property guarantees you can't use that extra attack for a second crossbow shot. You aren't allowed to. The Loading property only allows for one shot per action, and the Extra Attack ability doesn't grant you an extra action, it grants you a second attack within that single action. So you fire the crossbow on the first attack, then can't reload it and refire using the Extra Attack. As a result... every single one of those characters are going to select a bow instead so they can take that Extra Attack. Simple fact.
All in all... yeah, crossbows as they stand really are a worthless weapon to anyone who will actually be played in a D&D party. They're great for non-fighting NPCs... but nobody else that would actually ever get played. The only way they could be made worthwhile would be to make their potential damage on a single shot be so big that a person might decide to forsake the hassle just to get that really powerful initial shot... but that kind of spike damage just frightens the designers. Probably because they know that somewhere down the line rules might get introduced that ameliorate those hassles, and you'd end up with a truly unbalanced weapon when all was said and done.
Last edited:
EnglishLanguage
First Post
In 4e, crossbows were actually really good weapons that held up all the way to level 30.
In PF, crossbows sucked, partly because SKR admitted he personally hated crossbows(along with Monks) and said that wanting to be good with a crossbow Fighter is exactly the same as wanting to be good with a water-balloon throwing Fighter(the hilarity came when people ran the numbers and found a water balloon throwing Fighter was actually miles better than a crossbow Fighter. Even more hilarity when it was found a crossbow Fighter does more damage throwing his crossbow at the enemies instead of firing it.)
In PF, crossbows sucked, partly because SKR admitted he personally hated crossbows(along with Monks) and said that wanting to be good with a crossbow Fighter is exactly the same as wanting to be good with a water-balloon throwing Fighter(the hilarity came when people ran the numbers and found a water balloon throwing Fighter was actually miles better than a crossbow Fighter. Even more hilarity when it was found a crossbow Fighter does more damage throwing his crossbow at the enemies instead of firing it.)
the Jester
Legend
Um... traditionally, they aren't?
To the best of my recollection, quarterstaff has always been a d6 weapon. Slings, in 1e, did 1d4 (stone) or 1d4+1 (bullet), with 1d6+1 vs. large with a bullet.
Looking at the current playtest material, hmmm. I'd say the staff gets a d4 now because 1. It's a dual weapon and 2. It's a simple weapon (i.e. it's a balance issue- you can't have a simple weapon be superior to martial weapons and maintain balance).
Halivar
First Post
My mistake!
I could see them being those values for those without martial proficiency. I will be house-ruling them to be higher damage for those with martial weapon proficiency. One of my players is an English martial arts enthusiast and would probably like this change.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
Which still leaves... the Rogue. When you're attacking at range (and thus not dual-wielding), and your buddies are in melee to grant you sneak attack, then you only ever get one attack per turn anyway. In this situation, Loading is a non-issue, and the slight damage boost from the crossbow makes it strictly superior to the short bow or hand-crossbow. (Obviously, this is subject to change if the hand-crossbow's Light property allows you to dual-wield them, as silly as that would be in terms of reloading them.)
Even then, you still have any non-War cleric, who relies on Divine Strike for extra damage. Although most clerics would probably be using cantrips for scaling damage, the ability to add your Dex bonus to the crossbow keeps it surprisingly competitive - especially if you're using Wisdom as a dump stat.
Halivar
First Post
Why sneak attack with a crossbow when you can sneak attack with... a BALLISTA?
In B/X both staves and slings are d4 weapons.
