# Why do Crossbows Suck?



## Hussar (Apr 23, 2014)

In every edition of DnD the crossbow has been the red headed stepchild of ranged weapons. It did far less damage than a bow in AdnD, required load times in later DnD. 

Why are bows just so much better?


----------



## Morrus (Apr 23, 2014)

The poster boy for the longbow is Robin Hood. The crossbow only has William Tell. Just not the same!


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 23, 2014)

Probably because of a fear of high base damage and because the system doesn't allow any better representation than that of the nastiness of being hit with a crossbow bolt.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 23, 2014)

Well, if you're sufficiently strong and trained, I think a bow _is_ better than a crossbow, unless the target is point blank.

But Russ, clearly you don't watch The Walking Dead.


----------



## innerdude (Apr 23, 2014)

Hussar said:


> In every edition of DnD the crossbow has been the red headed stepchild of ranged weapons.




In Savage Worlds they're not. Even at high levels, 4-5 guys with crossbows aiming at a party of 4 characters is more than enough to make them sit up and take notice. One of the things I LOVE about Savage---ranged weapons are effective, deadly, and MUST be strategically countered . . . just like in real life.   

Standing out in the open against any reasonably competent ranged weapon foe is a recipe for major pain.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 23, 2014)

Well, the heavy crossbow did a little more damage per hit vs large targets and had a longer range than a longbow. It also rocked at hitting hitting things in general and was a little better than a longbow at that thanks to the weapon vs armor type tables. Once specialization turned up, it had a great point blank range and cost one less proficiency slot than longbow specialization. So, I'm not so sure it was the red-headed stepchild in all editions.

I think 3e/PF handles it reasonably well too. Its crit potential balances off the goes just fine. Its ease of use for the general populace does too. I think the possibility of making mighty/strength bows should be added with each crossbow being given a strength rating. Include that and I think everything would be golden.


----------



## GSHamster (Apr 23, 2014)

Traditionally, isn't the crossbow open to more classes than the bow? The longbow is pretty much limited to fighters and elves, I believe. Rogues could use shortbows.

So there, the restricted weapon gets to do more damage.

Second, I think that between Robin Hood and Legolas, the bow archetype is simply stronger than the crossbow, and that gets reflected in the game.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 23, 2014)

Morrus said:


> The poster boy for the longbow is Robin Hood. The crossbow only has William Tell. Just not the same!




Yes. One has a cool overture, and the other hasn't!

(Actually, I wonder if William Tell is a more popular myth in Europe than Robin Hood...)

Cheers!


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 23, 2014)

Two words; weapon proficiency. In some versions crossbows are a Simple Weapon, while more conventional bows are Military Weapons. While not completely congruent with reality, that's sort of 'reality adjacent.'

There are also role playing aspects. If one of my players said that he was covering a prisoner with a drawn longbow I'd have him start rolling endurance checks to see how long he could hold it. A crossbow just is.


----------



## GSHamster (Apr 23, 2014)

Also, maybe there's an unconscious bias away from guns. Being mechanical, the crossbow represents the step in-between bows and guns. But most D&D players want a world with swords and bows, not guns. 

So a slight depression in the value of a crossbow pushes people way from the path that leads to guns, and back to the bow.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 23, 2014)

GSHamster said:


> Traditionally, isn't the crossbow open to more classes than the bow?




Sort of.

In AD&D, the classes that could use a bow: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Assassin.
In AD&D, the classes that could use a crossbow: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Assassin, Monk.

Clerics were limited to a throwing hammer for their ranged weapons.
Druids had daggers, darts and slings.
Magic-users had daggers and darts, as did Illusionists
Thieves had dagger, darts and slings.
Monks had crossbow, dagger, hand axe and javelin.

It took a few years before it loosened up. (I think Unearthed Arcana allowed the thieves to use hand crossbows...)

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Apr 23, 2014)

Hussar said:


> In every edition of DnD the crossbow has been the red headed stepchild of ranged weapons. It did far less damage than a bow in AdnD, required load times in later DnD.
> 
> Why are bows just so much better?




Because, historically, bows were so much better. Here's a good article on the topic: http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html

(And the load times were in AD&D as well. Bows fire at two times per round, Crossbows at once a round, Heavy Crossbows at once every two rounds).

The damage on a crossbow in AD&D is possibly too low; it likely should be the same as a bow. The main advantage of a crossbow was that anyone could use it, but were inferior compared to trained archers.

Of course, the main way we see bows and crossbows in D&D isn't exactly the mass battles like Agincourt where the English longbow really made a name for itself!

I've just been playing Men of Iron, a wargame by Richard Berg with a number of battles around the period of the 100 Years War. Longbows are by far the superior weapon in his take, as well. The volume of fire is a massive point in their favour compared to the crossbow, something that we tend to lose in D&D, due to the "one shot per round" thing. When one weapon fires 2-5 as often as the other, the AD&D version may be lowering damage as an abstraction...

Cheers!


----------



## tomBitonti (Apr 23, 2014)

I wonder if crossbows as usually shown, which is made with modern materials, are rather superior to a crossbow which would be provided to a common soldier.  I imagine that the quality varied quite a bit according to what materials were available.

I suppose the same can be said for modern bows, which are more usable than a period bow, with reduced strength requirements.  Perhaps a longbow should a smaller damage die but start out as a strength weapon (1d8 going to 1d6+2).

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Savage Wombat (Apr 23, 2014)

MerricB said:


> Yes. One has a cool overture, and the other hasn't!




Robin Hood's has lyrics.

Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding through the glen
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, with his band of men
Feared by the bad, loved by the good
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood!​

(Anyone else hear "Dennis Moore"?)


----------



## GMMichael (Apr 23, 2014)

Ryujin said:


> Two words; weapon proficiency. In some versions crossbows are a Simple Weapon, while more conventional bows are Military Weapons.




Two more words: skill and price.

Longbows are simply a more deadly weapon than crossbows.  A crossbow, however, takes significantly less training to use.  If crossbows ever replaced longbows, it was partially because you could field a platoon of crossbowmen much faster than you could field a platoon of archers, due to lower training requirements.

Longbows are also more expensive than crossbows.  I won't delve into actual market prices in history, but d20srd agrees with me in 3.5 terms.  My guess is that a longbow required hours (days?) of artisan craftsmanship, while a crossbow requires a fraction of that attention.

Notice that neither training nor bulk-purchasing get much attention in RPGs.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 23, 2014)

Longbow?  Sure, presuming we're assuming that you mean an English longbow. But short bows also out damage crossbows by a considerable amount.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 23, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> I wonder if crossbows as usually shown, which is made with modern materials, are rather superior to a crossbow which would be provided to a common soldier.  I imagine that the quality varied quite a bit according to what materials were available.




Crecy (1346) saw crossbows against longbows, with the crossbows being used by the Genoese crossbowmen, famous mercenaries of the time. Unfortunately for the Genoese and the French, rain before the battle damaged the crossbow strings and so they were mostly useless in the battle; the longbowmen had just unstrung their bows and protected their strings... and the battle was thus won by the English.

Richard Berg has this to say about the Genoese crossbows at Crecy: "The crossbows used at this time were of wooden construction, not the metal crossbows of a century later. As such, they were not as efficient nor as powerful as the latter, or the Longbow—which had greater range and penetrating power than the wooden crossbow (some 375 yards max to maybe 250 yards max). Conversely, the shorter, heavier crossbow quarrel often made up in stoutness what it lost in momentum, in terms of penetration, vis a vis the longbow."


----------



## MerricB (Apr 23, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Longbow?  Sure, presuming we're assuming that you mean an English longbow. But short bows also out damage crossbows by a considerable amount.




For proper comparison using AD&D statistics:

Shortbow: 1d6 damage vs Small, 1d6 damage vs Large. Rate of Fire: 2/round. Range 5/10/15
Longbow: 1d6 damage vs Small, 1d6 damage vs Large. Rate of Fire: 2/round. Range 7/14/21
Composite Shortbow: 1d6 damage vs Small, 1d6 damage vs Large. Rate of Fire: 2/round. Range 5/10/18
Composite Longbow: 1d6 damage vs Small, 1d6 damage vs Large. Rate of Fire: 2/round. Range 6/12/21

Light Crossbow: 1d4 damage vs Small, 1d4 damage vs Large. Rate of Fire: 1/round. Range 6/12/18
Heavy Crossbow: 1d4+1 damage vs Small, 1d6+1 damage vs Large. Rate of Fire: 1/2 rounds. Range 8/16/24

If vs Armour Type modifiers are taken into account...
Against platemail+shield (AC 2): Shortbow -5, Comp. Shortbow -3, Light Crossbow and Comp. Longbow -2, Heavy Crossbow and Longbow -1
Against chainmail (AC 5): CLB +0, CSB +0, LB +1, SB +0, HXB +2, LXB +0
Against leather (AC 8): CLB +2, CSB +2, LB +3, SB +2, HXB +4, LXB +3
Against unarmoured (AC 10): CLB +3, CSB +3, LB +3, SB +2, HXB +4, LXB +3

Cheers!


----------



## Bluenose (Apr 23, 2014)

MerricB said:


> Crecy (1346) saw crossbows against longbows, with the crossbows being used by the Genoese crossbowmen, famous mercenaries of the time. Unfortunately for the Genoese and the French, rain before the battle damaged the crossbow strings and so they were mostly useless in the battle; the longbowmen had just unstrung their bows and protected their strings... and the battle was thus won by the English.




I'm fairly sure that 10,000 longbowmen (an approxiamte figure, but based on the surviving muster rolls) out-shooting 4,000 Genoese crossbowmen (based on the number of mercenaries Genoa made available on several occasions) doesn't indicate much about the superiority of the longbow to the crossbow. Nor does a battle where most of the casualties were inflicted in melee combat make the longbow seem desperately impressive. See also, Flodden.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 23, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Longbow?  Sure, presuming we're assuming that you mean an English longbow. But short bows also out damage crossbows by a considerable amount.




Not in 3.5. 

medium sized short bow does 1d6 (20/x3)
medium sized light crossbow does 1d8 (19-20/x2)

The drawbacks to the bow are it is considered a martial weapon and it criticals less frequently.  
The advantage of the bow is you can improve the damage with a specialty weapon, and the rate of fire is superior if the user is trained sufficiently (i.e. gets multiple attacks a round or has taken specific feats).

As a DM, I'd have no trouble adding a house-rule to allow crossbows to become strength weapons as well, but it never came up since the typical users of crossbows do not specialise strength.


----------



## delericho (Apr 23, 2014)

Hussar said:


> In every edition of DnD the crossbow has been the red headed stepchild of ranged weapons. It did far less damage than a bow in AdnD, required load times in later DnD.
> 
> Why are bows just so much better?




Because the crossbow got banned in real life for being way over-powered. You don't get more broken than that! Hardly surprising, therefore, that when we upgraded to 0E it was hit with the nerf-bat.


----------



## Lindeloef (Apr 23, 2014)

Hussar said:


> In every edition of DnD the crossbow has been the red headed stepchild of ranged weapons.
> 
> Why are bows just so much better?




Not in 4e. The superior Crossbow is the best ranged weapon you can get cause it is the most accurate one.
Sure you need a minor to reload it but there is a feat for that to make it a free action.



MerricB said:


> Yes. One has a cool overture, and the other hasn't!
> 
> (Actually, I wonder if William Tell is a more popular myth in Europe than Robin Hood...)
> 
> Cheers!



Not that I know of... but can't image that would be the case.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 23, 2014)

delericho said:


> Because the crossbow got banned in real life for being way over-powered.




Erm - along with the bow. And possibly the sling.


----------



## delericho (Apr 23, 2014)

MerricB said:


> Erm - along with the bow. And possibly the sling.




Well, yes. But since that kinda ruined my joke, I decided to overlook it.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 23, 2014)

DMMike said:


> Two more words: skill and price.
> 
> Longbows are simply a more deadly weapon than crossbows.  A crossbow, however, takes significantly less training to use.  If crossbows ever replaced longbows, it was partially because you could field a platoon of crossbowmen much faster than you could field a platoon of archers, due to lower training requirements.
> 
> ...




The skill and practise thing is where my "reality adjacent" comment comes in


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 23, 2014)

delericho said:


> Because the crossbow got banned in real life for being way over-powered. You don't get more broken than that! Hardly surprising, therefore, that when we upgraded to 0E it was hit with the nerf-bat.




Comment about the banning of crossbows toward the end. IIRC there are three videos in this series on crossbows.

[video=youtube;-z3RfHNq1Hc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z3RfHNq1Hc&list=UU9pgQfOXRsp4UKrI8q0zjXQ[/video]


----------



## Halivar (Apr 23, 2014)

Along the same lines: why are both the sling and the quarterstaff only d4? Both could crush armor and bone with a hit. (Remember, the quarterstaff is a 7-9 foot* long lever! waa-POW!)

EDIT: some quarterstaffs were up to 12 feet!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 23, 2014)

Halivar said:


> EDIT: some quarterstaffs were up to 12 feet!




That would be the buck and quarter staff (but don't tell anyone)


----------



## SkidAce (Apr 23, 2014)

ExploderWizard said:


> That would be the buck and quarter staff (but don't tell anyone)




That's just daffy...


----------



## GMMichael (Apr 23, 2014)

delericho said:


> Because the crossbow got banned in real life for being way over-powered...




"...as well as slings and bows..."

Looks like that was just early gun-control.  Goes to my point on prevalence of crossbows though: crossbows, being easy to use and produce, made gun control necessary (in some eyes).

Cheers to [MENTION=27897]Ryujin[/MENTION] for the video.  The end of the video really made it worthwhile.


----------



## delericho (Apr 23, 2014)

DMMike said:


> "...as well as slings and bows..."




...



delericho said:


> Well, yes. But since that kinda ruined my joke, I decided to overlook it.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 23, 2014)

DMMike said:


> "...as well as slings and bows..."
> 
> Looks like that was just early gun-control.  Goes to my point on prevalence of crossbows though: crossbows, being easy to use and produce, made gun control necessary (in some eyes).
> 
> Cheers to [MENTION=27897]Ryujin[/MENTION] for the video.  The end of the video really made it worthwhile.




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.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 23, 2014)

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.


----------



## EnglishLanguage (Apr 23, 2014)

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.)


----------



## the Jester (Apr 23, 2014)

Halivar said:


> Along the same lines: why are both the sling and the quarterstaff only d4? Both could crush armor and bone with a hit. (Remember, the quarterstaff is a 7-9 foot* long lever! waa-POW!)
> 
> EDIT: some quarterstaffs were up to 12 feet!




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 (Apr 23, 2014)

the Jester said:


> 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.



My mistake!



the Jester said:


> 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).



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 (Apr 23, 2014)

DEFCON 1 said:


> 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.



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 (Apr 23, 2014)

Saelorn said:


> 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.)



Why sneak attack with a crossbow when you can sneak attack with... a BALLISTA?


----------



## Umbran (Apr 23, 2014)

The crossbow sucks because... well, you wouldn't want it called a "crossblow" would you?

Didn't think so.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 24, 2014)

the Jester said:


> 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.



In B/X both staves and slings are d4 weapons.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 24, 2014)

pemerton said:


> In B/X both staves and slings are d4 weapons.




That's odd.  The Rules Cyclopedia lists staff as a d6 weapon.  Perhaps there was errata to the earlier books?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 24, 2014)

Nagol said:


> That's odd.  The Rules Cyclopedia lists staff as a d6 weapon.  Perhaps there was errata to the earlier books?



I'll double-check in my books when I get home.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 24, 2014)

DMMike said:


> Longbows are also more expensive than crossbows.  I won't delve into actual market prices in history, but d20srd agrees with me in 3.5 terms.  My guess is that a longbow required hours (days?) of artisan craftsmanship, while a crossbow requires a fraction of that attention.




That's probably an ahistorical game rule trying to balance the effectiveness of a longbow versus a crossbow.

According to Robert Hardy's _The Longbow,_ in late 13th century England, a longbow cost around 13-16 pence - that's silver pennies, so maybe 15 silver pieces in D&D terms.

That book also says a crossbow at that time costs something like 3 to 7 shillings, or 36-84 pence, which is roughly three to five times more expensive than a longbow. The ammunition was also more expensive: two dozen longbow arrows cost three pence, while a score of crossbow bolts cost seven pence.

Partly that might be due to supply - the economy of England at the time was geared to produce a _*lot*_ of longbows, after all - but bear in mind a crossbow in an inherently more complicated device.

For both a crossbow and longbow the artisans have to make a bow and bowstring, but for the crossbow they also have to make a stock and trigger mechanism. The trigger in particular would be a costly part of the weapon. For a powerful military crossbow, the trigger mechanism needed to be made out of metal, and the precision manufacturing required would not have been cheap with the technology of the time.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 24, 2014)

Why do crossbows suck is the wrong question.  The right question is "Why don't bows suck".  Other than bows (and in post UA 1e/2e, darts), all ranged weapons other than bows have sucked.  Crossbows?  Sucked.  Javelins?  Sucked.  Firearms?  Sucked.

Two important aspects of DnD are that it plays very fast and loose with what a melee attack even *is*, and it takes a lot of hits to drop a guy.  _Unlike melee attacks though, ranged attacks are well quantized_: each attack consumes one piece of ammo.  This causes problems with crossbows and early firearms: you can't just up the attack rate while maintaining SOD, so unless individual hits are EXTREMELY high damage, the sustained damage is unacceptably low.  It also causes problems with thrown weapons: unless the weapons return, you can't carry that many.

Bows hit the sweet spot where people are willing to accept high ROFs while having ammo that can be carried in bulk.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Apr 24, 2014)

Kraydak said:


> Why do crossbows suck is the wrong question.  The right question is "Why don't bows suck".  Other than bows (and in post UA 1e/2e, darts), all ranged weapons other than bows have sucked.  Crossbows?  Sucked.  Javelins?  Sucked.



I've gotten decent mileage out of thrown weapons in both 3.X and Pathfinder. The lack of apparent range can be an issue, but the ability to use Dexterity to hit (and _free_ Strength to damage), _while_ using a shield, makes a javelin (or chakram) pretty decent for the lightly-armored warrior. And if you can only carry six or so? Well, at least they don't break upon throwing, so you can retrieve them easily enough after combat.

The only _potential_ drawback is that you can't make multiple attacks, due to the move action required to draw the weapon, but even then that only kicks in at high levels (6+) when multiple attacks start to really matter.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Apr 24, 2014)

Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Historically, crossbows played a significant role in the warfare of East Asia, Europe and the Mediterranean. The invention of the crossbow caused a major shift in the role of ranged weaponry among armies, as the traditional bow and arrow had long been a specialized weapons system which required a considerable degree of lifetime training, physical strength and expertise to operate with any degree of efficiency; in many cultures, despite being usually drawn from the common class, bowmen were considered a separate and superior caste, as their archery skill-set (similar to many horseman cultures) was essentially developed from birth and impossible to reproduce outside a pre-established cultural tradition, which many nations lacked. In contrast, the crossbow was the first projectile weapon to be simple, cheap and physically-undemanding enough to be operated by large numbers of conscript soldiers, thus enabling virtually any nation with sufficient coin to field a potent force of ranged crossbowmen with little expense beyond the cost of the weapons themselves. This led to the ascendancy of large mercenary armies of crossbowmen (best exemplified by the Genoese crossbowmen), and the eventual death of the heavily armored aristocratic knight as armies became progressively dominated by conscripts equipped with increasingly-powerful ranged projectile weapons.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow



In D&D terms I would say Light Xbows (1-handed firing, 2-handed loading) are as damaging as a shortbow because of their bow length. Heavy Xbows (2-handed always, set to fire) are as damaging as a longbow, also because of bowlength. However, Xbows can be even bigger in the different sizes of ballistae requiring multiple people to load and fire. 

The drawback to crossbows is they take longer to fire each round, 1/round or 1/two rounds. The benefit is they don't require the strength and training normal bows do and can be used by bands of irregular combatants without too much hassle. I would say Thieves, Clerics, and Fighters are trained in Xbow, though Fighters would rarely find much use for them given their proficiency with better ranged weapons.

Also, crossbow bolts are more easily retrievable and tend not to break like wooden arrows.


----------



## GMMichael (Apr 25, 2014)

Cleon said:


> Partly that might be due to supply - the economy of England at the time was geared to produce a _*lot*_ of longbows, after all - but bear in mind a crossbow in an inherently more complicated device.
> 
> For both a crossbow and longbow the artisans have to make a bow and bowstring, but for the crossbow they also have to make a stock and trigger mechanism. The trigger in particular would be a costly part of the weapon. For a powerful military crossbow, the trigger mechanism needed to be made out of metal, and the precision manufacturing required would not have been cheap with the technology of the time.




Good points.  Regarding the machinery of the crossbow, I have to wonder whether the craftsmanship of the, say, middle ages made it a simple process or not.

Did you take a look at the video posted by Ryujin earlier?  The trigger mechanism was not much more than a cog and a wedge.  Seems pretty easy to pull off.  And the bow portion looked to be a piece of steel.

This has me thinking that a crossbow can be made by any blacksmith, while a longbow (of good quality) might require a wood-specialist (bowyer, maybe?).  

Given the time period in question, would we be better off discussing in terms of labor-hours, instead of prices?


----------



## Blackbrrd (Apr 25, 2014)

DMMike said:


> Good points.  Regarding the machinery of the crossbow, I have to wonder whether the craftsmanship of the, say, middle ages made it a simple process or not.
> 
> Did you take a look at the video posted by Ryujin earlier?  The trigger mechanism was not much more than a cog and a wedge.  Seems pretty easy to pull off.  And the bow portion looked to be a piece of steel.
> 
> ...



Metal was really costly, while wood grows on trees.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 25, 2014)

DMMike said:


> Good points.  Regarding the machinery of the crossbow, I have to wonder whether the craftsmanship of the, say, middle ages made it a simple process or not.
> 
> Did you take a look at the video posted by Ryujin earlier?  The trigger mechanism was not much more than a cog and a wedge.  Seems pretty easy to pull off.  And the bow portion looked to be a piece of steel.
> 
> ...




The thing with "any blacksmith" is that he doesn't just nip down to Home Depot and pick up a few steel ingots. There's a reason why early smiths would often have their legs broken, so that they couldn't leave town 

I'm also the guy who posted in the video comments about having made a speargun out of Lego when I was a kid, using the same trigger principle. I researched it by hitting my local library. It really wasn't much more than a cylinder with a pin running through it, as an axle, and a couple of notches cut into it. One notch held the string while the other butted up against the front tang of the trigger bar. For ease of use this would be repeated on opposing sides of the barrel, so that you didn't have to fiddle around finding the right side notch on the battlefield.

Remember that if the bow of a crossbow was steel, it would have to be spring tempered. That would typically be weapon smithing, not necessarily the sort done by the guy who shoes your horse.


----------



## Derren (Apr 25, 2014)

Blackbrrd said:


> Metal was really costly, while wood grows on trees.




Problem is for a good bow you need rather specific wood (both the right sort and correctly grown) while any iron (there are crossbows fully made out of metal) will do for a crossbow.

Why do crossbows suck? Because all advantages of crossbows are neglected in D&D (training is hardly an issue, armor penetration and fatigue is not modeled) while the advantages of bows (theoretical rate of fire) are even more important than in reality.

Edit:
But when you assume that all PCs are trained archers, an assumption the rules seem to back, it makes sense that the bow is better than the crossbow because in trained hands it is.
A different way to represent that would be to make the bow weaker than the crossbow, but have more feats for it which would ultimately make it stronger.


----------



## tomBitonti (Apr 25, 2014)

I'm wondering if crossbows are not handled well because most game systems are too abstracted to handle important details.

A crossbow has a lot more mechanism to it and should have a higher fumble chance, say, because the trigger or release a gummed with mud: There seems to be more that can go wrong.

Although, for the untrained, there should be a high fumble chance for using a bow.  That is, comparing a crossbow with a bow, the consequence of untrained vs trained (or for a bow, highly trained) should matter a lot more than what is typically built into the game rules.

This would be similar to early firearms, which should have a chance of blowing up in your face, or jamming, or simply not firing, or for any weapon which had mechanical bits (e.g., the Koa-Toa man-catchers; in Pathfinder, weapons weapons which act as syringes; generally, anything with a poison delivery mechanism).

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Blackbrrd (Apr 25, 2014)

Derren said:


> Problem is for a good bow you need rather specific wood (both the right sort and correctly grown) while any iron (there are crossbows fully made out of metal) will do for a crossbow.
> 
> Why do crossbows suck? Because all advantages of crossbows are neglected in D&D (training is hardly an issue, armor penetration and fatigue is not modeled) while the advantages of bows (theoretical rate of fire) are even more important than in reality.
> 
> ...




They already do that in many editons, you need martial weapon proficiency for bows, but not for crossbows. You can then add feats like rapid shot to fire more quickly.


----------



## Derren (Apr 25, 2014)

Blackbrrd said:


> They already do that in many editons, you need martial weapon proficiency for bows, but not for crossbows.




Which is rather pointless as so many classes have martial weapon proficiency and those who don't usually do not need a ranged weapon. Only the rogue is actually restricted by this.


----------



## Scorpio616 (Apr 25, 2014)

Ya can't give a hand cranked crossbow good enough damage because some foolish game designer will let some borked ability to magically and instantly reload in eventually.

I also think the early editions put a ridiculously HIGH value on 'damage die +1' and '2d4' damage values since 4-5 HP was the typical HP of the 1HD combatant.

Plus ranged weapon in an underground skirmish situation are fairly moot since even *most* of D&D editions have the good sense to make it very hard to use missile weapons in melee.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 25, 2014)

DMMike said:


> Good points.  Regarding the machinery of the crossbow, I have to wonder whether the craftsmanship of the, say, middle ages made it a simple process or not.
> 
> Did you take a look at the video posted by Ryujin earlier?  The trigger mechanism was not much more than a cog and a wedge.  Seems pretty easy to pull off.  And the bow portion looked to be a piece of steel.




I think I've seen that Lindy Beige video a while ago - it certainly seemed familiar. It looks like the standard "*nut and trigger*" crossbow lock which is a simple, straightforward design. I'd think it would still need a metalworker of some skill to manufacture with a forge and handtools.

That said, the Chinese were mass-manufacturing crossbow trigger mechanisms that were much more sophisticated thousands of years earlier (*literally*).



DMMike said:


> This has me thinking that a crossbow can be made by any blacksmith, while a longbow (of good quality) might require a wood-specialist (bowyer, maybe?).




I'd think that manufacturing a good example of either weapon would likely be the work of a specialist. Although I would think that making a bow would be the easier of the two.



DMMike said:


> Given the time period in question, would we be better off discussing in terms of labor-hours, instead of prices?




That'd be interesting if we could find some reliable information on how much labour each required, but I don't know of any sources.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 25, 2014)

Derren said:


> Problem is for a good bow you need rather specific wood (both the right sort and correctly grown) while any iron (there are crossbows fully made out of metal) will do for a crossbow.




True. In the middle ages England imported a lot of the yew wood they used to make longbows.



Derren said:


> While any iron (there  are crossbows fully made out of metal) will do for a crossbow.




You need pretty good quality steel for a metal crossbow - at least for the "working parts" like the prod and parts of the trigger. In our modern era good-quality steel is abundant and cheap, but it was expensive and sometimes hard to acquire in Medieval times.

Although a fantasy world may also have cheap steel. If we're talking D&D, a longsword costs three times more than a longspear and costs less than a pony or guard dog - that's far cheaper than they'd have been in real life.



Derren said:


> But when you assume that all PCs are trained archers, an assumption the rules seem to back, it makes sense that the bow is better than the crossbow because in trained hands it is.
> 
> A different way to represent that would be to make the bow weaker than the crossbow, but have more feats for it which would ultimately make it stronger.




That's what I'd do if I was rewriting D&D. Being a military archer required long practice to build up the strength and skill to use a powerful bow, so it makes sense to require some character investment to become a good archer. A bow that grants full strength bonus on damage (what was called a "mighty" composite bow in 3E) ought to require an exotic weapon feat to use accurately, judging by how much training they needed in real life.


----------



## Derren (Apr 25, 2014)

Cleon said:


> Being a military archer required long practice to build up the strength and skill to use a powerful bow




Thats also a good point. Using a good bow requires a lot more strength than a crossbow with the same draw strength as you could use mechanical aids or even just your feet to pull the crossbow into position while you have to do it with your arms for the bow. I already mentioned the fatigue as constantly pulling a bow to full strength tires you really quickly.

But if those forums and my previous players are any indications, PCs tend to be optimized so strength is not a problem.


----------



## Greenfield (Apr 26, 2014)

Part of the reason D&D archery differs from real world archery is proficiency.

In the real world, it takes years of training to be good military longbowmen.  A crossbow, on the other other hand, could be taught in a few weeks.  It's much easier to aim.

But in D&D, and RPGs in general, you're either proficient or you aren't.  Your class gives it to you for free, or you spend a feat on it.  Learn either one by adding the feat, takes a few seconds with the pencil and your character sheet and you're done.

Another difference is the timing.  Battles in real life took place over a day, and archers of any flavor tended to be dug in or otherwise protected.  Rate of fire was limited by how quickly your scavengers could collect spent enemy arrows and get them back to your archers. Nobody carried the hundreds of arrows, per man, needed for an all day assault.  Instead you'd shoot your supply at the enemy as they shot theirs at you.  If your troops were advancing you or designated scavengers would collect the arrows from both sides and get them back to you.  If your side was forced to retreat you ran short, since you can only collect the ones that land within your own ranks.

Specifically though, your rate of fire wasn't limited so much by reload time as it was by arrow supply.  The only time you needed to rapid fire was when an enemy force charged the archers' position and you lacked the infantry or fortifications to stop them.

In D&D, all battles that PCs are involved in are rapid-fire skirmishes, begun and finished in under two minutes.  The ability to shoot faster is far more important in that setting, and arrow supply is often ignored.

In that setting, losing a full round to reload is a fatal weakness.

Some of the heavy crossbows of the middle ages had a small crank-action winch that drew the bowstring.  A man of just about any strength could work one, but it was time consuming.  

Medium crossbows often had a stirrup of sorts at the firing end, so the archer could put their foot in it and haul back the string with both hands.  Faster than the crank, but still slower than the longbow.

The light crossbow was almost a pistol, in size and operation.  Okay, maybe a sawed-off shotgun size.  But it could be cocked with one hand and fired with the other.  Good for rapid fire skirmishes, though it lacked the straight knock-down power of the heavier models.

The Chinese had a type of crossbow with a box to hold the bolts and a lever action to draw and nock them.  Rapid fire, but less punch than even the light European crossbow.

On the whole the crossbow was harder to make:  Moving parts, and bow limbs that had to be heavier, yet could still flex without cracking.

In the real world (and in the game, though it's seldom played) you could shoot a shortbow while mounted.  Long bows, on the other hand, posed a problem for the horseman:  You couldn't shift aim from one side of your mount to the other.  The long limbs of the bow couldn't swing past the horse's neck easily.

The final difference between the real world and the game involves how armor works.

In the real world, a crossbow could punch plate armor at short and medium range. Longbows were less effective at this unless they had special armor piercing arrowheads.  ("Odds!  Bodkins! " pretty much meant, "Oh spit, they brought cop-killers")

But since D&D doesn't use armor to reduce damage, heavy or light weapon makes no difference.  You hit the AC and you hit, period, whether it's with a javelin or a juice glass.

As a side note:  Some tests were done with "poisoned arrows".  Arrow heads were made with grooves to retain a liquid poison via capillary action, then fired.

The speed of passage through the air pretty much scattered the venom in flight.  Unless you were firing point blank, it meant nothing.

Arrow heads could be specially prepared well in advance, but they had to have grooves and hollows for poison, and then they'd have to be covered in wax, to protect it.  Nobody ever did the "Dip and shoot" thing we see people do in games.

The tribes in Africa and South America (and Southeast Asia for all I know) that traditionally poisoned their arrows were more stone age, and didn't use arrow heads at all.  Their arrows had sharpened wooden tips that they'd bake dry near a fire, to harden them.  Once dried they'd soak the wood in the poison, and it would be absorbed.  

In game terms we'd call them sort of the opposite of "master worked".  They'd have penalties to range and accuracy, and do less damage.

Now, why do longbows rule in game?  Probably because of Robin Hood, movies like Spartacus and similar cinematic scenes that inspired the authors.  It makes a better visual image for fantasy art.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 26, 2014)

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.

[video=youtube;iIkxyjVu9gc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIkxyjVu9gc[/video]


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Apr 26, 2014)

I blame 4E and Pathfinder, and 3E to a lesser extent.

It was traditionally the case that, if you wanted to attack, you made an attack roll (Strength for melee, Dex for ranged) against AC. Everyone used the same rules. Although spellcasters could bypass this on a very limited basis with their handful of spells per day, their only at-will attacks were with weapons, at which they did not excel. Crossbows (3E) and darts (2E) filled the niche of providing the at-will ranged attack for characters who aren't very good at fighting.

Since late 3.5 at least, and possibly earlier, spellcasters stopped needing to use weapons. At-will magic meant that they never needed to use the weapons of which they were not a master. And, with the removal of non-master combatants from the weapon arena, crossbows were left with no purpose. If you remove the at-will magic from 5E, then I think it fairly likely that the crossbow will again find a home with the mage.


----------



## Derren (Apr 26, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Apr 26, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Apr 26, 2014)

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 (Apr 26, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> 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 (Apr 26, 2014)

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 (Apr 26, 2014)

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


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 26, 2014)

EnglishLanguage said:


> 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 (Apr 26, 2014)

Ryujin said:


> 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 (Apr 26, 2014)

EnglishLanguage said:


> ?? 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 (Apr 26, 2014)

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


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 26, 2014)

EnglishLanguage said:


> 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 (Apr 26, 2014)

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 (Apr 26, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> 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.



Derren said:


> 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 (Apr 26, 2014)

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 (Apr 26, 2014)

Greenfield said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Apr 26, 2014)

Bluenose said:


> 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 (Apr 26, 2014)

Derren said:


> 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 (Apr 26, 2014)

Ryujin said:


> 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 (Apr 26, 2014)

Derren said:


> 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 (Apr 26, 2014)

Ryujin said:


> 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).


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 26, 2014)

Derren said:


> 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).




There's "proofing", and then there's what happens on the battlefield.


----------



## Derren (Apr 26, 2014)

Ryujin said:


> There's "proofing", and then there's what happens on the battlefield.




Sure, on the battlefield armors were not 100% bulletproof. But that firearms pierced armor automatically is a myth, they still offered good protection against them (Gothic and Maximilian plate). It was just not economical to equip all soldiers with them. Thats why breastplates were still used way into the Napoleonic wars for important persons.
As firearms advanced they could eventually penetrate armor reliably, but that point came after firearms already dominated the battlefield.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 26, 2014)

Derren said:


> Sure, on the battlefield armors were not 100% bulletproof. But that firearms pierced armor automatically is a myth, they still offered good protection against them (Gothic and Maximilian plate). It was just not economical to equip all soldiers with them. Thats why breastplates were still used way into the Napoleonic wars for important persons.
> As firearms advanced they could eventually penetrate armor reliably, but that point came after firearms already dominated the battlefield.




Automatic? Hardly, or no one would wear helmets in modern warfare. The breastplates did, however, take on more of a role of a badge of rank and ceremonial use. It became obvious that mobility was more important on a more modern battlefield, though breastplate use would continue on into the Renaissance.


----------



## Bluenose (Apr 26, 2014)

Derren said:


> 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.




There were marginal advantages for firearms over bows in terms of penetration, but it was possible to make armour that was "proof" against pistol or arquebus. What you could do with a firearm (and it was done as early as the 1530s) was increase the power without greatly increasing the difficulty of firing it, which wasn't the case with a longbow due to the physical limits of human beings.

And actually, there were mixed crossbow and pole-arm formations, in Medieval Scandinavia, Spain, and a few other places, though not for very long. Few of them involved pikes, but then wide adoption of the pike didn't happen until the later 15th century, after the Swiss made it famous.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 26, 2014)

Derren said:


> Thats also a good point. Using a good bow requires a lot more strength than a crossbow with the same draw strength as you could use mechanical aids or even just your feet to pull the crossbow into position while you have to do it with your arms for the bow. I already mentioned the fatigue as constantly pulling a bow to full strength tires you really quickly.




It's usually worse than that, because a crossbow typically has a shorter drawlength than a bow (drawlength being the distance the missile is pulled back before firing).

An arrow with fired with an 18-inch drawlength from a 100-pound bow will have roughly the same energy (and hence damage potential) as a 200-pound crossbow with a 9-inch drawlength, but the former can be drawn by a strong human fairly easily, while the latter requires mechanical aids or exceptional strength.



Derren said:


> But if those forums and my previous players are any indications, PCs tend to be optimized so strength is not a problem.




The idea is that drawing a powerful bow places enormous stresses on certain muscles and joints, so a specialist "greatbow" archer would have exercized long and hard to make those as strong as possible. For example, some of the skeletons found in the Mary Rose have abnormally overdeveloped shoulders & arms, and are presumed to have been archers.

I'd presume they'd have had good all-round "generic strength", but they also had really powerful back & shoulder muscles on top of that, which might not have made much difference to their strength in general melee.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 26, 2014)

Greenfield said:


> In the real world, it takes years of training to be good military  longbowmen.  A crossbow, on the other other hand, could be taught in a  few weeks.  It's much easier to aim.




Agreed. That's the main difference that few RPGs address.



Greenfield said:


> Another difference is the timing.  Battles in real life took place over a day, and archers of any flavor tended to be dug in or otherwise protected.  Rate of fire was limited by how quickly your scavengers could collect spent enemy arrows and get them back to your archers. Nobody carried the hundreds of arrows, per man, needed for an all day assault.  Instead you'd shoot your supply at the enemy as they shot theirs at you.  If your troops were advancing you or designated scavengers would collect the arrows from both sides and get them back to you.  If your side was forced to retreat you ran short, since you can only collect the ones that land within your own ranks.




Eh? Any army worth its salt would have made sure to carry enough arrows in their supply train to keep their archers going. The easy way to keep the archers supplied is to have runners going back and forth delivering quivers full of arrows - which from what I've read is how they did it in battles like Agincourt.

For horse-archers that'd have been difficult, for obvious reasons, but a horse archer can carry a lot more arrows. I'd read a Mongol archer would have 120 arrows or more in extra-large quivers on their saddle.

Sending people running around picking up arrows would have been a very inefficient way of keeping the supply going, it makes more sense that they'd have gathered those arrows after the fighting (or in-between bouts, maybe).


----------



## Cleon (Apr 26, 2014)

Derren said:


> 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.




The only way an archer can use a fraction of a bow's potential drawstrength is by drawing the arrow a shorter distance than normally. That means the end of the arrow won't be near their face and makes it harder to aim - they can't put the nock next to their eye and look down the shaft if the end of the arrow's nowhere near their face. 

Further, I suspect an archer using an overpowered military "greatbow" wouldn't hold their aim, but release as soon as they were at full draw and had a bead on their target. When you draw a bow that's at the limit of your strength, it takes so much effort your point of aim will start to wander all over the place as your muscles strain to hold the bow at full draw.

For accurate shooting they'd likely be better off with another bow, one that's as powerful as they can comfortably hold at full stretch - I could see an medieval yeoman having a 60 or 70 pound "hunting bow" for accuracy and a 100 or 120 pound bow for military service.


----------



## Derren (Apr 26, 2014)

Cleon said:


> The only way an archer can use a fraction of a bow's potential drawstrength is by drawing the arrow a shorter distance than normally. That means the end of the arrow won't be near their face and makes it harder to aim - they can't put the nock next to their eye and look down the shaft if the end of the arrow's nowhere near their face.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g

Althoough that bow certainly has not a very high draw strength (30 lb), much lower than bows actually used in a war.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 26, 2014)

For what it's worth, there is basically bugger-all evidence that it takes years to train military archers.  Archery isn't inherently all that difficult, and people can build up muscle quite rapidly.  On the other hand, pre-modern states couldn't afford large bodies of standing troops, so to have a pool of archers you needed to convince your yeoman class that keeping in shape to shoot high draw-weight bows is fun.  Which is a pretty hard sell.  Alternatively, your military elite could be primarily archers (Japan, say), of course, but in Europe that wasn't the case.


----------



## Derren (Apr 26, 2014)

Kraydak said:


> For what it's worth, there is basically bugger-all evidence that it takes years to train military archers.




Except all the historical documents which said it did.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 26, 2014)

Derren said:


> Except all the historical documents which said it did.




There are lots of historical documents saying that to raise military archers you need to hire people and put them in a training camp for 2+ years just working on their archery?  I certainly have never heard of even one such.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 26, 2014)

Greenfield said:


> As a side note:  Some tests were done with "poisoned arrows".  Arrow heads were made with grooves to retain a liquid poison via capillary action, then fired.
> 
> The speed of passage through the air pretty much scattered the venom in flight.  Unless you were firing point blank, it meant nothing.
> 
> ...




If someone wanted to poison an arrow they would surely use a poison with high enough viscosity to stay on the business end of the arrowhead. Something treacly or resinous.

If they used a runny liquid of course it'd flow off. For that matter, an assassin who wanted to poison a blade wouldn't need something a good deal thicker than water to do it.


----------



## Cleon (Apr 26, 2014)

Derren said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g
> 
> Althoough that bow certainly has not a very high draw strength (30 lb), much lower than bows actually used in a war.




I've already seen that video. It's an inherently less accurate way to fire a bow, as I argued in the earlier post.

A 30 pound draw is likely enough to deal with an unarmoured opponent, but it'll be pretty useless against anyone in armour.

Actually, if that's 30 pounds at a normal draw it'd be less powerful with the part-draw trick he's using, so the arrows would do even less damage.

'Course in a real fight a speed archer could always poison their arrows. I've read that Chinese repeating crossbows (chu-ko-nu) were often used with envenomed bolts, partially because they were so low-powered the missile itself didn't do much damage.


----------



## Nagol (Apr 26, 2014)

Kraydak said:


> There are lots of historical documents saying that to raise military archers you need to hire people and put them in a training camp for 2+ years just working on their archery?  I certainly have never heard of even one such.




England had laws on the books demanding all (non-aristocratic) men aged 60 or less would own a bow and practice archery weekly.  That's a lot of hours of training.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 26, 2014)

Kraydak said:


> For what it's worth, there is basically bugger-all evidence that it takes years to train military archers.  Archery isn't inherently all that difficult, and people can build up muscle quite rapidly.  On the other hand, pre-modern states couldn't afford large bodies of standing troops, so to have a pool of archers you needed to convince your yeoman class that keeping in shape to shoot high draw-weight bows is fun.  Which is a pretty hard sell.  Alternatively, your military elite could be primarily archers (Japan, say), of course, but in Europe that wasn't the case.




In England there were actually laws, from at least the 1500s onward, that required all males to own both bow and arrows, and required mandatory practice. In the early 1500s the requirement was for all males aged 7 through 60. If you train everyone then you're bound to end up with quite a few who excel, and who are obviously physically developed to do the job.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 26, 2014)

Ryujin said:


> In England there were actually laws, from at least the 1500s onward, that required all males to own both bow and arrows, and required mandatory practice. In the early 1500s the requirement was for all males aged 7 through 60. If you train everyone then you're bound to end up with quite a few who excel, and who are obviously physically developed to do the job.




Throughout Europe, there were laws requiring people (well, at least respectable people with money who could be more-or-less trusted to want to uphold the status-quo) to possess arms and armor (according to status and wealth) and to practice with them.  England's laws were completely normal.  The laws had absolutely nothing to do with bows (or other weapons) being particularly hard to learn, and everything to do with states being too poor to maintain standing armies of any size: if you can't afford to hire people, equip them, and them hide them away in training camps for a few months, then you need to be able to recruit more-or-less competent, already geared people.  Regardless of what weapons they are going to be using.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 26, 2014)

Kraydak said:


> Throughout Europe, there were laws requiring people (well, at least respectable people with money who could be more-or-less trusted to want to uphold the status-quo) to possess arms and armor (according to status and wealth) and to practice with them.  England's laws were completely normal.  The laws had absolutely nothing to do with bows (or other weapons) being particularly hard to learn, and everything to do with states being too poor to maintain standing armies of any size: if you can't afford to hire people, equip them, and them hide them away in training camps for a few months, then you need to be able to recruit more-or-less competent, already geared people.  Regardless of what weapons they are going to be using.




Of course it isn't difficult to learn basic archery skills. In fact a couple of days worth of work would make for a reasonably accurate archer. It's not the skill involved that's at issue, however. As my own recent re-entry into archery reminds me it takes work to build the muscles that you use in archery. Where pulling my own 45 pound longbow was once no more difficult than stretching an elastic band, it now takes far more effort. My 50 pound Mongol style horsebow takes even more significant effort. 

Now Medieval folk weren't exactly superhuman, despite some rather oddly held beliefs by some. Building and maintaining the muscle required to draw a 80+ pound (frequently up to 130 pound) longbow takes constant work. From that point of view the bow is 'particularly hard.'


----------



## MoonSong (Apr 27, 2014)

Ryujin said:


> Of course it isn't difficult to learn basic archery skills. In fact a couple of days worth of work would make for a reasonably accurate archer. It's not the skill involved that's at issue, however. As my own recent re-entry into archery reminds me it takes work to build the muscles that you use in archery. Where pulling my own 45 pound longbow was once no more difficult than stretching an elastic band, it now takes far more effort. My 50 pound Mongol style horsebow takes even more significant effort.
> 
> Now Medieval folk weren't exactly superhuman, despite some rather oddly held beliefs by some. Building and maintaining the muscle required to draw a 80+ pound (frequently up to 130 pound) longbow takes constant work. From that point of view the bow is 'particularly hard.'




Also don't forget that muscle development not only requires the right kind of training. Nowadays it is fairly easier because we hav cheap access to protein and corn derived food, but in the middle ages that wasn't so easy, peasants lacked the nutrition to quickly develop muscle tissue, and keeping that muscle in working condition also requires training and nutrition. In such conditions the right genetic make up is also an advantage. That is why rising an army of archers was as expensive and time consuming.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 27, 2014)

But was it though?  Expensive I mean. I recall reading that one of the primary reasons the English had so many archers at Agincourt was because archers were about the cheapest soldiers you could field.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 27, 2014)

KaiiLurker said:


> Also don't forget that muscle development not only requires the right kind of training. Nowadays it is fairly easier because we hav cheap access to protein and corn derived food, but in the middle ages that wasn't so easy, peasants lacked the nutrition to quickly develop muscle tissue, and keeping that muscle in working condition also requires training and nutrition. In such conditions the right genetic make up is also an advantage. That is why rising an army of archers was as expensive and time consuming.




An excellent point. 



Hussar said:


> But was it though?  Expensive I mean. I recall reading that one of the primary reasons the English had so many archers at Agincourt was because archers were about the cheapest soldiers you could field.




Cheap is relative. Most of those archers would likely have been spearmen, if the training regimen hadn't existed. The English had bowmen because they foresaw the need for bowmen.


----------



## MoonSong (Apr 28, 2014)

Hussar said:


> But was it though?  Expensive I mean. I recall reading that one of the primary reasons the English had so many archers at Agincourt was because archers were about the cheapest soldiers you could field.




I dunno, perhaps sheeps? was England sheepland back then as it is today?


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 28, 2014)

KaiiLurker said:


> I dunno, perhaps sheeps? was England sheepland back then as it is today?




All the sheep that you kill are sheep whose wool you won't be selling next season.


----------



## MoonSong (Apr 28, 2014)

Ryujin said:


> All the sheep that you kill are sheep whose wool you won't be selling next season.




But eating an old sheep is still better than no meat.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 28, 2014)

KaiiLurker said:


> But eating an old sheep is still better than no meat.




The point being that there are only so many old sheep.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 28, 2014)

And you really wouldn't be shooting sheep with a bow.   

But if bows were really so clearly superior to crossbows, why have crossbow units at all, and why would they be so cheap?  You'd think that a vastly superior force like this would be in very high demand, and thus command a much higher price.


----------



## Derren (Apr 28, 2014)

Hussar said:


> But was it though?  Expensive I mean. I recall reading that one of the primary reasons the English had so many archers at Agincourt was because archers were about the cheapest soldiers you could field.




Considering that it took 2-4 years to make a longbow (drying the wood) and that England had at some point a shortage of wood required for longbow so that they taxed foreign merchants in bow staves (although that was way after Agincourt I believe) I don't think thats correct. Maybe for a common bowmen with a low strength hunting bow, but not for a trained longbow archer.



Hussar said:


> But if bows were really so clearly superior to crossbows, why have crossbow units at all, and why would they be so cheap?  You'd think that a vastly superior force like this would be in very high demand, and thus command a much higher price.




Better armor penetration, faster training times meaning higher reinforcement rates and once you figured out how to make the trigger in masses crossbows were more easy to make than real quality longbows as they didn't need quite as specific materials and also being able to train "normal" people to use high strength crossbows because of mechanical aids instead of relying on finding enough strongmen.
Plus they usually didn't fatigue as fast as longbow archers so would probably do better than them in a day long siege battle, especially on the defensive side.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 28, 2014)

Hussar said:


> And you really wouldn't be shooting sheep with a bow.
> 
> But if bows were really so clearly superior to crossbows, why have crossbow units at all, and why would they be so cheap?  You'd think that a vastly superior force like this would be in very high demand, and thus command a much higher price.




You mean like elite Swiss mercenaries? (see my earlier post).


----------



## Derren (Apr 28, 2014)

Ryujin said:


> You mean like elite Swiss mercenaries? (see my earlier post).




The swiss were the pikemen. Famous Crossbow mercenaries were the Italians (Genoa and Venice).


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 28, 2014)

Derren said:


> The swiss were the pikemen. Famous Crossbow mercenaries were the Italians (Genoa and Venice).




Both Swiss and Italian actually. See "tactics and organization":

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_armies_swiss.html


----------



## Derren (Apr 28, 2014)

Ryujin said:


> Both Swiss and Italian actually. See "tactics and organization":
> 
> http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_armies_swiss.html




The swiss used crossbows as part of their pike formations (and later phased them out for guns), but they were never hired for their crossbow skills alone.
The Italians on the other hand were hired specifically for their crossbows.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 28, 2014)

Hussar said:


> And you really wouldn't be shooting sheep with a bow.
> 
> But if bows were really so clearly superior to crossbows, why have crossbow units at all, and why would they be so cheap?  You'd think that a vastly superior force like this would be in very high demand, and thus command a much higher price.




Consider the geo-politics. Compared to virtually everyone else, England has always had manpower issues. Investing in mass numbers of cheap peasant levies or even mercenaries was not really on the table. Manpower-preserving strategies were pretty important. They invested in smaller numbers of higher value units. Everybody else, able to rely on larger continental population resources, could swing cheap manpower and as the Soviets proved when throwing poorly trained, poorly led, and poorly equipped Ivans at the Germans, quantity has a quality all its own.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 28, 2014)

Derren said:


> The swiss used crossbows as part of their pike formations (and later phased them out for guns), but they were never hired for their crossbow skills alone.
> The Italians on the other hand were hired specifically for their crossbows.




And yet the crossbows figured prominently, due to their effective use of them. Replacing them with the arquebus was a natural progression.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 28, 2014)

Nagol said:


> That's odd.  The Rules Cyclopedia lists staff as a d6 weapon.  Perhaps there was errata to the earlier books?



I checked my books.

Moldvay Basic has slings as d4, no staves.

Cook/Marsh Expert has slings and staves both as d4.

RC has slings as d4, staves as d6. Perhaps the Mentzer revisions upped the damage for staves and this was incorporated into RC? I think the reason for staves being at d4 was to balance mages, by allowing them access to staves as well as daggers without increasing their melee damage output.


----------



## Hussar (May 5, 2014)

In all this historical discussion we are ignoring important bits though, IMO. What about the shorter races?  Wouldn't dwarves and gnomes be pretty heavily invested in creating better crossbows?  

For dwarves and gnomes, a lot of underground fighting would be pretty short range- limit of dark vision and the like. Maybe a much heavier bolt with shorter range but more stopping power. That sort of thing.


----------



## MoonSong (May 5, 2014)

Hussar said:


> In all this historical discussion we are ignoring important bits though, IMO. What about the shorter races?  Wouldn't dwarves and gnomes be pretty heavily invested in creating better crossbows?
> 
> For dwarves and gnomes, a lot of underground fighting would be pretty short range- limit of dark vision and the like. Maybe a much heavier bolt with shorter range but more stopping power. That sort of thing.




Like the one in the Hobbit just more portable? that would be awesome! quick sell the idea to Paizo before someone beats you to the punch. (For the record this post features zero sarcasm, that is a very good idea nobody noticed before. I'm not a xbow fan, but having the fantasy equivalent of a rocket launcher is just pure win)


----------



## Derren (May 5, 2014)

Hussar said:


> In all this historical discussion we are ignoring important bits though, IMO. What about the shorter races?  Wouldn't dwarves and gnomes be pretty heavily invested in creating better crossbows?
> 
> For dwarves and gnomes, a lot of underground fighting would be pretty short range- limit of dark vision and the like. Maybe a much heavier bolt with shorter range but more stopping power. That sort of thing.




They would certainly invest more in crossbow than bows. Their short size would mean they couldn't use long bows anyway and being able to load a crossbow and keep it loaded would be an advantage when fighting around corners. Also, crossbows have a flatter trajectory than bows.

Still, it is still short range and low visibility which are not good conditions for ranged weapons, so even though they would prefer crossbows over bows ranger weapons in general wouldn't be used much. If they come up to the surface on the other hand they would certainly prefer crossbows over short bows.

Also some videos (no real expert but more of an informed hobbyist)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvTymyb1bBE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z3RfHNq1Hc


----------



## Ryujin (May 6, 2014)

Derren said:


> They would certainly invest more in crossbow than bows. Their short size would mean they couldn't use long bows anyway and being able to load a crossbow and keep it loaded would be an advantage when fighting around corners. Also, crossbows have a flatter trajectory than bows.
> 
> Still, it is still short range and low visibility which are not good conditions for ranged weapons, so even though they would prefer crossbows over bows ranger weapons in general wouldn't be used much. If they come up to the surface on the other hand they would certainly prefer crossbows over short bows.
> 
> ...




All of the figures that I've had of Dwarven missile users have always been crossbowmen. It struck me that Gnomes and Dwarves, as natural engineers, would gravitate to a more mechanical weapon than a stick with a string.

I posted some Lindybeige earlier in the thread. He's my favourite Monty Python loving, role playing historian.


----------

