Why do Crossbows Suck?

[Derren]

Several reasons.

1: A crossbow was a peasant's weapon. Not because it was cheap, but because you could teach someone to use a crossbow in an afternoon and have them useful on a battlefield if only to upset opposing light troops. The joke that to train an archer you start by training his grandfather is only half a joke.

2: You might be able to load and fire a crossbow in 6-10 seconds using a goat's foot if you were hurrying - but longbows were much faster. (The 3e move action to reload for a light crossbow isn't far off).

3: Because of 1 the average skill of a combat longbowman was massively greater. Because of 2 the use you could get from a high skill longbow was much greater. So if you were going to specialise you went for the bow.

4: The crossbow was basically a European weapon of the late middle ages (yes, I know the Chinese even had repeating crossbows). The bow was used by masses of feared armies from English and Welsh Freelances to the Mongols, the Persians ("Ride a horse, shoot a bow, and speak the truth"), the Parthians (Carrhae, anyone?) and many, many other armies.

But basically it boils down to the crossbow being a weapon for relatively rich peasants and the way it changed the battlefield being to allow them to narrow the gap with professionals.

1. And most soldiers during the middle ages were peasants.

2. Archers can shoot arrows in rapid succession by only utilizing a fraction of the bows potential draw strength, but when fully drawing a longbow the rate of fire dropped and also tired out the archers rather fast. Thats why most archers in battle did not even fire at their maximum ability unless absolutely necessary. Also, aiming was harder has the archer could only hold the draw for a few seconds before his arm started to fatigue. Not a problem for volley fire, but aiming on a chaotic battlefield was only possible at a short window.

4. Also a common misconception. The romans already used crossbows and they never fell out of use by the European powers either, both on the battlefield and for hunting. Already in the High Middle Age in the 13th century armies tended to field more crossbows than bows.

 

[Ryujin]

Several reasons.

1: A crossbow was a peasant's weapon. Not because it was cheap, but because you could teach someone to use a crossbow in an afternoon and have them useful on a battlefield if only to upset opposing light troops. The joke that to train an archer you start by training his grandfather is only half a joke.

2: You might be able to load and fire a crossbow in 6-10 seconds using a goat's foot if you were hurrying - but longbows were much faster. (The 3e move action to reload for a light crossbow isn't far off).

3: Because of 1 the average skill of a combat longbowman was massively greater. Because of 2 the use you could get from a high skill longbow was much greater. So if you were going to specialise you went for the bow.

4: The crossbow was basically a European weapon of the late middle ages (yes, I know the Chinese even had repeating crossbows). The bow was used by masses of feared armies from English and Welsh Freelances to the Mongols, the Persians ("Ride a horse, shoot a bow, and speak the truth"), the Parthians (Carrhae, anyone?) and many, many other armies.

But basically it boils down to the crossbow being a weapon for relatively rich peasants and the way it changed the battlefield being to allow them to narrow the gap with professionals.

The crossbow was a very expensive weapon that was typically used by very expensive mercenary soldiers. Swiss mercenary soldiers would be a prime example. It was also a siege weapon, for obvious reasons. It wasn't very likely to be slapped into the hands of some peasant levy, for obvious reasons of cost.

I won't bother going into the Roman use, as it's already been mentioned.

Here's a little comparison for you:

[video=youtube;7g-0-RK3cjk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g-0-RK3cjk[/video]

 

[Neonchameleon]

1: Most soldiers in any era have been peasants. This doesn't matter. The people who decide what is honourable are either those at the top or those who are literate and/or have big soap boxes. Aristocrats have always been peachy keen with peasants fighting - as long as the aristocrats have a huge advantage from more expensive armour or weapons.

2: Aiming might be harder, but the skill is correspondingly higher. As for speed, part of it depends on target and target;s armour. Goat's feet were for fairly light crossbows - the crossbow equivalent of the 125lb longbow would be an arbalest with a winch that was much slower to wind.

4: I'm not aware they used them en masse. I know that Crossbows have been around a long time as a curiosity, but other than the Cho-ko-nu and the European for ridiculous European plate I'm not sure who used them in warfare.

 

[Derren]

2: Aiming might be harder, but the skill is correspondingly higher. As for speed, part of it depends on target and target;s armour. Goat's feet were for fairly light crossbows - the crossbow equivalent of the 125lb longbow would be an arbalest with a winch that was much slower to wind.

4: I'm not aware they used them en masse. I know that Crossbows have been around a long time as a curiosity, but other than the Cho-ko-nu and the European for ridiculous European plate I'm not sure who used them in warfare.

A 125lb longbow would be a heavy warbow and would have had a much lower rate of fire than a common 100 lb longbow or the 80lb or less longbows shown in the videos above.

And except for the English all European powers used crossbows heavily during the middle ages. Especially the Italian nations where famous for their crossbowmen. That medieval armies consisted mostly out of archers instead of crossbowmen is a romantic urban myth. Instead the short training times for crossbows and firearms allowed more of them to be fielded.

About the construction of longbows, not sure if it is true, but I read that the wood for longbows had to be dried for up to two years before the bow could be made. If thats correct it certainly would be another advantage of the crossbow.

 

[Minigiant]

D&D pretty much archetypes its range weapons.

Bows are for experienced fighters and warriors (and elves).
Throwing axes, spears, and hammers are for strong warriors who lack the experience or dexterity to use bow effectively (or dwarves)
Crossbows and slings are for all other weaponry users who need range.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

4e actually had really good Crossbows that didn't eventually get obsoleted into uselessness though, especially the Superior Crossbow.

 

[Ryujin]

4e actually had really good Crossbows that didn't eventually get obsoleted into uselessness though, especially the Superior Crossbow.

Because of useless spell ranges my 4e Warlock carried a crossbow until level 5.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

Because of useless spell ranges my 4e Warlock carried a crossbow until level 5.

?? Most Warlock spells have at least a range of 10, which is only 5 less than a crossbow(even then they have a number of close blast powers), which is still pretty big unless your fighting on maps about a hundred or so squares across(in which case even Superior Crossbow users are screwed).

Actually, looking at my Warlock, I only have one spell with a range lower than 10(which is a close blast).

 

[Ryujin]

?? Most Warlock spells have at least a range of 10, which is only 5 less than a crossbow(even then they have a number of close blast powers), which is still pretty big unless your fighting on maps about a hundred or so squares across(in which case even Superior Crossbow users are screwed).

Actually, looking at my Warlock, I only have one spell with a range lower than 10(which is a close blast).

Powers have ranges. Weapons have range categories (short/medium/long). Eldrich Blast can't attack a target at range 11, but a crossbow can attack someone at range 30 for example. You just get penalties on the attack with the crossbow, which is better than standing there with your thumb up your nethers.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

Considering 90% of enemies can't attack from 30 squares away either, it's kind of a moot point.