Why no mighty crossbows?

[Psimancer]

Heavier crossbows are called Arbalests, and historically crossbows did come in a variety of strengths. The way a crossbow was spanned was dependant on its pull and used a myriad of devices or techniques, such as; by Stirrup & Hand, Belt & Claw, Cord & Pulley, Goatsfoot Lever, Push Lever, Windlass or Cranquin. Generally speaking, the greater the pull, the more complex he device and the longer it took to span. D&D currently just doesn’t cover these alternatives.

 

[Stormrunner]

Realistically (Aiiee! No! Not in D&D! Take it away!), a crossbow is simply an especially-Mighty shortbow mounted cross-wise on a stock. The heavy crossbow allows you to fire a bow much stronger than you could draw by hand. The main advantage of the light crossbow is that it can be kept cocked and ready to fire for up to several hours (longer than that stretches and weakens the string), whereas even a trained longbowman can only keep a bow at full draw for a few seconds. The Chinese repeating crossbow allows a high rate of fire but is horribly inaccurate - you're literally shooting from the hip, bracing the stock against your hip while supporting it with one hand and using the other hand to work the lever back and forth: think of firing a pump-action shotgun by bracing the butt on your hip, using one hand to pull the trigger and the other hand to rack the slide as fast as possible. It was used only by the military, in full-scale battles where you could point the spray of bolts in the general direction of a mass of enemies and be assured of hitting something . I see 3.5 has introduced the "heavy repeating crossbow", an oxymoron which could only result from ignorance of how the thing works. (Further evidence of ignorance arises from the illustrations, which either depict the cocking lever as a Gatling-gun type crank, or depict multiple bows stacked up like pancakes, which would be far too heavy and unwieldy.) By definition, a heavy crossbow is too strong to by hand, even with both hands - and the repeating crossbow, by definition, has to be light enough to with one hand.

IMC, a "light" crossbow is simply a crossbow whose Str rating is less than or equal to the user's (and thus can be cocked by hand with a move action). A "medium" crossbow requires a lever (and a full-round action) to , and can have a Str bonus up to 2 greater than the user. A "heavy" crossbow requires a crank-and-ratchet mechanism (cranequin) to , requiring a full-round action plus another full-round action for every 4 points (or fraction thereof) of "extra" Str bonus. And yes, this means that heavy crossbows (and often, medium ones) are treated as one-shot weapons in most D&D combats.

 

[Gez]

Some people are enjoying the denaughtification filter far too much.

 

[Darkness]

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

Modern firearms are in the DMG (p.146). Mighty crossbows are not.

 

[diaglo]

It seems to make sense that they would exist. A crossbow with a heavier pull that can only be loaded by a character with the approprate strength bonus, and then deals the Mighty bonus to damage when fired.

The only potential I can see for abuse is to have all the characters have a mighty crossbow, which the strongest character pre-loads for them so they can get extra damage the first round of combat. But that doesn't really seem that bad.

simple answer...

the long and short of it is the designers had a bow fetish.

crossbows are left out b/c they didn't like them.

edit: although, my real guess has to do with simple vs. martial

 

[Laurel]

I like the idea that though there is no additional damage it could help with speed of loading.
A +4 PC would be able to crank the gears faster then someone with a +2 str bonus.

One could also try to rationalize that as with each + to str bonus the more pullies/complex the bow gets and thus the more taught the crossbow. This could then add to damage as the force pushing the ammunition has more power. It may not be realalistic, but could be visually aceptable and it's not like this would be the first time.

Personally, I would let it have the speed but not the damage, and certainly not both faster load and more damage just by a str bonus to the xbow- there are people who train to grind the gears on a sailboat so the sail is raised faster in a race (and other such gear actions). SO to me it makes sense that it would be easier for some with a higher strength to rotate the gear around without getting tired or having issues as it gets taught. but it is really all about DM preference

 

[taliesin15]

Saeviomagy
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.

Exactly my point. I think its pushing things a little bit having crossbows in D&D. I know there were primitive ones around farther back, but I think the first heroic literature that cites them is from the late Middle Ages. Because I've never encountered a reference to a crossbow in Beowulf, Icelandic Saga, the Mabinogi, Irish Myth, the Iliad and so on, it seems like its the same thing as M-16s and so on (refer to my intentionally absurd list of weapon choices)...and naturally of course the DMG mentions firearms, but I wonder how many people really understand the mechanics of early firearms. Or cannons for that matter. Hollywood has coloured so much, for example, folks' perceptions regarding ship to ship cannon fire. Up until the 17th century, since cannons were so undependable (accuracy and power-wise), that the strategy was to shoot them at the opposing ship's sails, hoping it would catch fire.

I think there's a huge problem with crossbows already as it is--I mean, that automatic reloading crossbow? Who do you think yr kidding? I mean, its as bad as the design of the Bard--there's no credibility on the presentation of a Bard's Perform Skill vis a vis Fantasy and Historical sources. I can't wait for the 4.0 AD&D rules to includes the Rapper Bard Prestige Class, with Skills in Breakdancing, giving Gang signals with your hands (Yo, Marge, yr soaking in it!), and Rap Skills, DOGG. I'm gonna get mid-evil on your bizzle!

 

[Rackhir]

One of the reasons why crossbows suck compared to bows is simply that Crossbows suck compared to bows. If you really want to have "mighty" crossbows in your campaign then numerous ways have been suggested already. If you are doing it, because it "doesn't seem fair" for one to have it and not the other, well like I said, crossbows suck compared to bows.

Bows are much more difficult to learn to use, essentially you need to be an expert to use one well or to it's full advantage. Crossbows are much simpler in operation and simpler to teach. THAT is the strength of crossbows vs a bow. You can take a peasant (or mage) and teach him to use one with decent effectiveness in a minimal period of time. Since your typical character using a bow as a missile weapon IS an expert (fighter, ranger, paladin, etc...) there's no reason why bows shouldn't be "better" than crossbows. After all they ARE better than crossbows. In the hands of an expert, they can outrange, out shoot and out damage nearly any crossbow.

 

[Aaron2]

Exactly my point. I think its pushing things a little bit having crossbows in D&D. I know there were primitive ones around farther back, but I think the first heroic literature that cites them is from the late Middle Ages. Because I've never encountered a reference to a crossbow in Beowulf, Icelandic Saga, the Mabinogi, Irish Myth, the Iliad and so on, it seems like its the same thing as M-16s and so on (refer to my intentionally absurd list of weapon choices)...

Crossbows were used by the Romans. If your going to throw out every item in D&D that post-dates the Roman Empire, or the Illiad, then you won't have much left. (like no stirrups for your horses)


Aaron

 

[WizarDru]

I know there were primitive ones around farther back, but I think the first heroic literature that cites them is from the late Middle Ages. Because I've never encountered a reference to a crossbow in Beowulf, Icelandic Saga, the Mabinogi, Irish Myth, the Iliad and so on, it seems like its the same thing as M-16s and so on (refer to my intentionally absurd list of weapon choices)...

You aren't seriously trying to suggest that D&D adheres to anything in the realm of historical accuracy, are you? I mean, look at the armor choices, for example. By the time platemail was in regular use, many technological advances we don't normally associate with D&D were in full swing, like corrective lenses, certain medical advances and the compass. D&D mixes and matches with no regard to actual history or technological invention and anachronism is the order of the day.

Besides which, most of the stories you cite are from or histories that refer to periods in the BCE, which hardly are directly related to D&D, don't you think?