Why do Crossbows Suck?

[Ryujin]

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

Tell that to the guys with bows and crossbows. Even regular artillery monsters get to attack at more than a range of ten, when most Warlock powers only go to 10. I can recall one particular adventure in which archers were positioned on a cliff at a range of more than 30 and dropping arrows, while most of the party was incapable of attacking back.

 

[Greenfield]

Look up "Long" range spells: 400 ft +40 per caster level. So Fireball has a minimum range of 400 + (5 x 40) = 600 feet. That 120 squares.
Next look up "Medium" range spells. 100 ft + 10 per caster level. So Lightning Bolt has a minimum range of 100 + ( 5 x 10 ) = 150 ft. That's 30 squares.
Magic Missile is in that same category.

It's only the "Short" range spells and powers that have a problem reaching 30 inches.

And , by the way, Warlock's Eldritch Blast has a range of 60 (12 inches), not 50.

Most weapon ranges in D&D make a compromise between realism and what fits on a battle mat. On most tabletops, you can't plot the Fireball minimum range. (10 foot battle mats are even less common that 10 foot game tables.)

I once wrote a superhero game that had range increments for powers based on the user's Dex: For some powers it was Range in Feet divided by user's Dexterity score, with fractions rounding down. Others used Range in Yards, for the longer range abilities. Personally, I think something like that would be an improvement if applied to D&D.

In context of the current discussion, putting Longbows on a "Range in Squares" standard, the average Joe would suffer -1 for over 50 feet and -2 for over 100. That's pretty close to what they have now. Higher Dexes would have longer range increments in general.

Crossbows could be set at twice that, since they're easier to aim. So at 110 feet, when the Longbow is at -2 for range, the Crossbow would only be at -1.

I'd also base maximum Bow range (any type) on the bow's Mighty ranking. Heavier bows shoot farther in the real world, why not in the game? Again, because of the heavier draw on a crossbow, they would generally rate higher.

There's a thought: Want to make crossbows less lame? Allow them Mighty rankings (master worked bows only). If the Rank is higher than the user's Strength then they need a Strength check to cock it. DC is 15 +2 per Mighty rating.

That would bring the damage potential back in line with Composite bows.

 

[Bluenose]

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.

The Balistarii Seniores and Balistarii Theodosiaci were two legio-size units in the army of the Magister Equitem per Orientem. While there's some argument, they were equipped with manuballistae and arcuballistae, which are usually translated as crossbows. And there were other Balistarii units, in various locations. Mass use seems very likely.

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.

My personal theory is that the advantage of firearms was that they could be fired effectively even by troops who were tired and underfed. Worn out longbowmen aren't particularly effective and a hard campaign would wear them out. With firearms you can keep fighting year round, without ruining your army for the next campaign. Instead of having to replace soldiers who were worn out, you could keep them in the ranks. That in itself leads to larger armies, because instead of replacing veterans you're supplementing them.

 

[howandwhy99]

It strikes me that AD&D's Variable Encounter Ranges by Terrain would be a useful re-addition to play, if extremely short range combat is the norm. Visibility when traveling matters, especially if you believe monsters are after you and are smart enough to ambush (goblins ambush). Then you can avoid plotting routes through dangerous terrain. Or just run away. Or attack or ambush others from long distance (EDIT: i.e. your longbows to their crossbows) before they can even get into melee range with you. Which is why hunting tigers in the jungle is more deadly than lions on the plains.

Which reminds me about Pursuit & Evasion rules.

 

[Ryujin]

Look up "Long" range spells: 400 ft +40 per caster level. So Fireball has a minimum range of 400 + (5 x 40) = 600 feet. That 120 squares.
Next look up "Medium" range spells. 100 ft + 10 per caster level. So Lightning Bolt has a minimum range of 100 + ( 5 x 10 ) = 150 ft. That's 30 squares.
Magic Missile is in that same category.

It's only the "Short" range spells and powers that have a problem reaching 30 inches.

And , by the way, Warlock's Eldritch Blast has a range of 60 (12 inches), not 50.

Most weapon ranges in D&D make a compromise between realism and what fits on a battle mat. On most tabletops, you can't plot the Fireball minimum range. (10 foot battle mats are even less common that 10 foot game tables.)

I once wrote a superhero game that had range increments for powers based on the user's Dex: For some powers it was Range in Feet divided by user's Dexterity score, with fractions rounding down. Others used Range in Yards, for the longer range abilities. Personally, I think something like that would be an improvement if applied to D&D.

In context of the current discussion, putting Longbows on a "Range in Squares" standard, the average Joe would suffer -1 for over 50 feet and -2 for over 100. That's pretty close to what they have now. Higher Dexes would have longer range increments in general.

Crossbows could be set at twice that, since they're easier to aim. So at 110 feet, when the Longbow is at -2 for range, the Crossbow would only be at -1.

I'd also base maximum Bow range (any type) on the bow's Mighty ranking. Heavier bows shoot farther in the real world, why not in the game? Again, because of the heavier draw on a crossbow, they would generally rate higher.

There's a thought: Want to make crossbows less lame? Allow them Mighty rankings (master worked bows only). If the Rank is higher than the user's Strength then they need a Strength check to cock it. DC is 15 +2 per Mighty rating.

That would bring the damage potential back in line with Composite bows.

We were specifically talking about 4e so no, Eldrich Blast's range is 10.

The problem with making crossbows more accurate at longer range is that it isn't the truth. Crossbows tend to have shorter range because of simple physics. A shorter, fatter projectile is less stable and becomes even less so with range. You can have as good an eye if you want but if your projectile is affected by windage or simple wobble, then you miss.

Someone tried the longer range for heavier pull bows, back in the 1e days. There was a table published in Dragon IIRC. I might even have a copy of it, but it would be buried in a box, in my basement.

 

[Derren]

My personal theory is that the advantage of firearms was that they could be fired effectively even by troops who were tired and underfed. Worn out longbowmen aren't particularly effective and a hard campaign would wear them out. With firearms you can keep fighting year round, without ruining your army for the next campaign. Instead of having to replace soldiers who were worn out, you could keep them in the ranks. That in itself leads to larger armies, because instead of replacing veterans you're supplementing them.

Shorter training times and less physical requirements were one of the main reasons why crossbows and later firearms replaced bows.
With firearms there also comes the ease of logistics. Once you figured out how to produce gunpowder in large quantities, providing ammunition for firearms is a lot more easy than providing enough arrows. Making a good arrow is actually not that easy and, compared to a batch of lead bullets, quite time consuming.

This is another thing most D&D games gloss over as carrying capacity is either not observed at all or solved by cheap magical items and arrows can be bought anywhere in as much quantities as you want, if you track their consumption at all.

I wonder if 5Es move-attack-move rule would make make the Pavise concept work. But I doubt the rules will allow for a shield that provides total cover (or use cover at all).

 

[Ryujin]

Shorter training times and less physical requirements were one of the main reasons why crossbows and later firearms replaced bows.
With firearms there also comes the ease of logistics. Once you figured out how to produce gunpowder in large quantities, providing ammunition for firearms is a lot more easy than providing enough arrows. Making a good arrow is actually not that easy and, compared to a batch of lead bullets, quite time consuming.

This is another thing most D&D games gloss over as carrying capacity is either not observed at all or solved by cheap magical items and arrows can be bought anywhere in as much quantities as you want, if you track their consumption at all.

Actually I would say that effectiveness was the main reason why firearms started replacing both, as they made armour all but useless. Even with the advent of cannon and early light firearms, the longbow persisted. After all they took 137 longbows off the Mary Rose which sank in 1545, when powder arms were in wide use.

 

[Derren]

Actually I would say that effectiveness was the main reason why firearms started replacing both, as they made armour all but useless. Even with the advent of cannon and early light firearms, the longbow persisted. After all they took 137 longbows off the Mary Rose which sank in 1545, when powder arms were in wide use.

The early firearms were not better than longbows at all and did not pierce armor any better than bows. The full plate armor which we now see as symbolic to knights was primarily invented to defend against firearms, which they did well (and also made knight pretty arrow proof).
It was primarily logistics that made the firearm and pike formation replace the medieval knights. You could train people to use firearms much faster than with bows and provide bullets in larger quantities than bolts and arrows. Had firearms not existed we would have had crossbow and pike formations instead.

 

[Ryujin]

The early firearms were not better than longbows at all and did not pierce armor any better than bows. The full plate armor which we now see as symbolic to knights was primarily invented to defend against firearms, which they did well (and also made knight pretty arrow proof).
It was primarily logistics that made the firearm and pike formation replace the medieval knights. You could train people to use firearms much faster than with bows and provide bullets in larger quantities than bolts and arrows. Had firearms not existed we would have had crossbow and pike formations instead.

That goes against everything that I've learnt, heard, and read about the subject.

 

[Derren]

That goes against everything that I've learnt, heard, and read about the subject.

Then you should read some more.
Plate armor in the late middle ages were generally shot with a pistol to show that they were bulletproof. The dent served as a sign of quality (look at some armor left over from that time, most have that dent somewhere on the chest plate). Only rather late did firearms became so powerful that armor technology could not keep up. But by that time muskets & pike formations already dominated the battlefield because of logistics and economy (full plate armor was expensive, muskets were not).