Why no mighty crossbows?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well, you could rule that it takes a number of rounds equal to the Mighty bonus to work the crank. And that for each bonus to Str a character has, that number is reduced by one (to a minimum of a move action).

If you wanted Mighty crossbows, that'd be the way I'd do it. Good idea!

EDIT:

Alternatively, only masterwork heavy crossbows may be made Mighty. It takes one additional full-round action per point of Mighty to load.

No reduction in loading times.

Thus, a truly monstrous heavy crossbow (say, a Heavy Crossbow (+9)) could be made, but would require a full minute of cranking to reload. This would result in a crossbow that could be fired once per minute and do 1d10+9 damage., or ~15 points on average. It costs 50gp +300gp (MW) +900gp (Mighty+9) = 1,250 gp.

Compare this with a mounted ballista: 3d8 damage, or ~14 points on average, is served by a single crewmember, and is much harder to move. It costs 500gp, and takes two full-round actions to reload (or, roughly 5 shots per minute). It has an attack roll penalty of -4 for a medium creature.

On a first pass, this looks pretty close to balanced ...

 

[WizarDru]

Longbows were produced for each person specifically, or people selected one that fit them from a range of different ones; crossbows, on the other hand, were standardized and were utilized by common people.
And trebuchets are catapults, a ballista would be a crossbow.

D'oh! I knew that, don't know what I was thinking.

Longbows weren't always crafted especially for someone...but many Englishmen used those same bows to hunt, so already had their own. Crossbows were much easier to use, and required much less training. They were, however, initially more expensive to produce.

Something you need to consider about a 'mighty' crossbow is how it would scale, up and down. Would there be a S, M, Lg, Huge versions and so on? If not, why not? Equip an ogre with a Large Mighty Crossbow, and you've got a hurtin' waitin' to happen. Time isn't really a good balancer for such an item: the main people who are going to use it aren't going to care, I think, about the increased time. The average human or dwarven fighter PC is going to have a minimum of a +3 Str. bonus. Make the requirement too high, and only the monsters would be using them, or magically buffed PCs. How about a sorceror with bull's strength?

I'm not saying that it's a bad idea, but personally I'd consider all the ramifications before you do.

 

[Aaron2]

I don't see any real way to make a mighty crossbow to take advantage of higher strength without raising the question of a wimp just using a crank to pull it back. A character with a strength of 2 could still use a "mighty crossbow +8" with the help of a strong enough crank. The benefit would have to be inherent in the weapon, which means it is not a strength bonus but an inherent bonus or something like that.

This question has come up before. I made a chart for different sized crossbows versus the user's Strength to determine what method he must use to span it. For example, a character with a Strength of 18 can reload a heavy crossbow just by using his hands but a character with a Strength of 10 must use a windlass which takes four times as long.* This way a high Strength character can chose to either use a bigger crossbow or use a smaller one faster.

http://www.freewebs.com/hedgehobbit/Crossbows.html

The problem with using super pulleys is that most characters will drop the crossbow rather than waste 2+ rounds reloading. So there isn't much more of a penalty for having a pully that requires 20 rounds versus one that requires 2. Both are one-shot weapons.

Oh, there were lighter crossbows, they were mostly made to be used for hunting and stuff.

The Romans had groovy smallish ballistas called "Scorpions". They mounted the thing onto a cart so it was sort of a mobile machine gun. Neat.

Aaron

*In favor of fun, I purposefully underestimate the time needed to use these devices.

 

[Thanee]

The problem is, that crossbow damage is simply too low. It should be more in the realms of a mighty bow to begin with.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Aaron2]

The problem is, that crossbow damage is simply too low. It should be more in the realms of a mighty bow to begin with.

I'm of the opinion that bow damage is too high. I liked them better at 1d6.

Aaron

 

[Plane Sailing]

My opinion is that crossbows should have their mightiness built in. WotC didn't do it because they wanted all weapons do just have a straight die without modifiers for its basic damage.

However, the crossbow essentially swaps the mechanical power of its own bow for the muscles of the archer.

I'd make all light crossbows +2 damage, all medium crossbows +4 damage and all heavy crossbows +6 damage, and I'd put a Str prereq on the rapid reload feat if it doesn't have it already.

p.s. Wizardru, you are SO not thinking of Trebuchets!

http://www.castlewales.com/trebucht.jpg

Perhaps you meant Ballista?

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/ballista.gif

Cheers

 

[Saeviomagy]

My suggestion:

Mighty crossbows exist. They are costed as for the mighty component of composite longbows.

Firing a crossbow you do not have the strength for imposes a -2 penalty to hit - they are heavy and unwieldy.

The default crossbow requires a strength of 1.

You cannot reload a crossbow that you do not have the strength for - it doesn't come with the appropriate tools or fittings to allow you to do so.

I think that makes mighty crossbows workable. Primarily it stops the party from spending a long time loading a ludicrously powerful crossbow ahead of time. At the same time, the strongest party member could still load up a crossbow for each party member, but they'd suffer penalties to hit.

 

[taliesin15]

sure, why no M-16s for that matter?

or thermonuclear bazookas?

but with hollow-point bolts, right?

I do think the merchants who sell them should display vats of gel displaying how much better the flesh rips apart with these new gadgets, like they do at the cool Gun Shows down here in Texas

 

[Saeviomagy]

sure, why no M-16s for that matter?

There's an answer to that so trivial, I'm not sure why I'm bothering. Because guns do not fit the style of a typical D&D campaign. Duh.

 

[Felix]

And trebuchets are catapults, a ballista would be a crossbow.

Not quite. Trebuchets are more like oversized slings while catapults are the oversized slingshots. Though the result is basically the same. Subtly different physics.

...I'll just go be pedantic elsewhere then, shall I?