In RQ2, like every other fantasy gaming system, crossbows are way weaker than bows. They take twice as long to reload, you don't get strength bonuses to damage, and they do the same or less damage than bows. These rules may be realistic -- historically I know that armies of bowmen were triumphant. However, stylistically it seems weird to have one of the two main ranged weapons be something that no player would choose from a purely rational perspective. I would like to equalize this somewhat, just to have more variety. Do any of you have house rules or other ideas how to make things a little more balanced, so that players who like the idea of a crossbow aren't being penalized for the choice?
House rules ideas to make crossbows more attractive?
- Thread starter Voomer
- Start date
Bows require a good strength to use. People without that strength will finder that the heavy crossbow, with it's sundering Manoeuvre is pretty good. Upping their Damage to 1d10 for light crossbow, 2d6 for heavy and 2d8 for Arbalest could probably be decent though.
Since crossbows can be pre-loaded and used for a single shot, the group I'm in are very fond of having them and then switching to melee so they can get a shot in if the enemy is too far away to charge.
Since crossbows can be pre-loaded and used for a single shot, the group I'm in are very fond of having them and then switching to melee so they can get a shot in if the enemy is too far away to charge.
havercake lad
Banded Mongoose
Crossbows can be shot instantly, add a strike rank to draw a bow string ?
The crossbow can maintain aim far easier than a bow, it can also utilize a resting point.
Although crossbow can be heavy, long bows are unweildy in tight spaces..the bows quiver or arrow bag adds to the encumberance far more than a set of quarrels.
Crossbow users can utilize cover better than an archer.
Chance of strain and injury through using powerful bows , especially if user has poor strength, or is malnourished or in a fatigued state.
Larger crossbows are aided by mechanical devices.
You could rule that longbow archers need to keep in training to keep skills and muscle power at optimum.
The crossbow can maintain aim far easier than a bow, it can also utilize a resting point.
Although crossbow can be heavy, long bows are unweildy in tight spaces..the bows quiver or arrow bag adds to the encumberance far more than a set of quarrels.
Crossbow users can utilize cover better than an archer.
Chance of strain and injury through using powerful bows , especially if user has poor strength, or is malnourished or in a fatigued state.
Larger crossbows are aided by mechanical devices.
You could rule that longbow archers need to keep in training to keep skills and muscle power at optimum.
HalfOrc HalfBiscuit
Mongoose
My understanding (though I have zero personal experience in the matter) is that it is easier to learn to use a crossbow competently. So you could perhaps add a bonus to the starting skill - say 10%.
Simulacrum
Mongoose
I house rule that only certain bows - recurve and longbow for example - have sufficient upper draw weight to allow a damage bonus to be applied, and these have higher minimum STR requirements. That can mean that for simple damage purposes crossbows can be a good option.
Rather than add +10% to the basic (which breaks the basics system) I would suggest either some circumstances in which using a crossbow is an easier task than using a bow (or attracts less penalty), or making the training process quicker.
Rather than add +10% to the basic (which breaks the basics system) I would suggest either some circumstances in which using a crossbow is an easier task than using a bow (or attracts less penalty), or making the training process quicker.
People who are good with bows usually have it as part of their culture - think of the English being required to turn up for bow practice on the village green every Sunday. It's much easier to pick up a crossbow and fire it with no training than it is to do the same with a bow. You could always say that people can only use a bow if they come from a culture that emphasises its use, or can come up with a good back-story about how they learned to use one. It doesn't make the crossbow any more appealing, but does make the bow harder to use as a default weapon.
Easy of use/training and utility (as well as obvious production costs) are the historical reason for the migration from one form of missile weapon to the next.
Sling --> Bow --> Crossbow --> Black-powder smooth bores --> etc
Its takes a lot more effort for some one to be come competent with a bow as opposed to a Crossbow.
You could emulate the difficulty in learning by modifying the improvement rolls.
ie
x2 INT bonuses for Crossbows/Fire Arms
Halve the INT bonus for Sling
But then you could apply this to all skills - you could also increase the granularity of the bonus... but this may just be overkill and an over complication a nicely stream lined system.
Sling --> Bow --> Crossbow --> Black-powder smooth bores --> etc
Its takes a lot more effort for some one to be come competent with a bow as opposed to a Crossbow.
You could emulate the difficulty in learning by modifying the improvement rolls.
ie
x2 INT bonuses for Crossbows/Fire Arms
Halve the INT bonus for Sling
But then you could apply this to all skills - you could also increase the granularity of the bonus... but this may just be overkill and an over complication a nicely stream lined system.
Lord High Munchkin
Mongoose
Well, although that is sort of true for some areas of Western Europe, it isn't for large areas of the world.Exubae said:
Many cultures and nations simply didn't generally bother with crossbows, as their bows were already more powerful and adaptable. The Ottomans being a good example, using bows far into the 18th century for their rapidity and penetration (the Ottomans were also pretty keen on guns, of course).
While on the other hand, the Chinese invented the crossbow very early on, and after never widely bothered with bows (although invading nomad elites did, and placed some status on doing so until the early 20th C). These are examples of cultural bias... the native Han stereotypically thinking the bow "barbarian", the Mongols and Manchu thinking the crossbow "effete".
In India and SE Asia both were used side by side.
Even in Western Europe the crossbow didn't take over, and was even seeing a major decline in the 15th century (except in the Empire). For example, the King of France certainly had ready access to crossbows, but chose to have his Scots bodyguard equipped with livery bows. In Burgundy, England, and to a much lesser extent Northern Italy with their colonials, livery bows (and recurve in Italy) were far more widespread... even though they had the manufacturing and population to take advantage of crossbows. Then guns came into use naturally.
MRQ2 makes generalisations, but there are huge differences (for very good, rational, local reasons) due to geography, culture, bias, material culture etc.. I have a vague recollection that RQIII had the balance better... but I don't have any of the RQ books to-hand to check.
That said, the biggest issue as regards damage imbalance is with two-handed swords (too much damage) and heavy bladed pole-arms (too little).
True but I was going for a sweeping generalization...
The sequence was meant to high light the physical difficulty of mastering the various weapon technologies and general shifts that occurred because of the time required to maintain those skills, rather than exact steps of the evolution of weaponry by every culture on the planet.
As it would be nice to model the difficulty in learning/progressing with a weapon - rather than boosting the damage of a weapon just to make it more appealing.
havercake lad
Banded Mongoose
Arguably some cultures with a choice of both weapons saw hunters prefering the crossbow. Likewise crossbow was particularly useful in siege operations as aim could be kept and cover used and the rate of fire was not as important.
This seems to me the balancing point - have a maximum number of CAs that can be used for aiming (say 3) for hand-drawn bows, and no maximum or a larger maximum for crossbows.havercake lad said:
Also, crossbows can be preloaded and drawn, allowing a shot on the first CA in a combat.
Together, I suspect those two rules make a crossbow more attractive, particularly for people sneaking around with one.
Jujitsudave
Mongoose
Perhaps having crossbows get maximum aim at for 1 combat action since they are easier to aim than bows. Also, since it was a lot easier to train people with, make the base Dex x 3 instead of x 2 for crossbows or even firearms if those exist in the setting.
Crossbows were rather powerful weapons and at one point appeals were made to the church to have them banned as one simple shot from a peasant with minimal training could fell a fully armoured knight. The damage from these weapons, especially the Arbalest, should be comparable or even exceed the damage from bows.
Crossbows were rather powerful weapons and at one point appeals were made to the church to have them banned as one simple shot from a peasant with minimal training could fell a fully armoured knight. The damage from these weapons, especially the Arbalest, should be comparable or even exceed the damage from bows.
Loz
Mongoose
One of the key advantages of a crossbow is that users can release higher draw forces than could be achieved with conventional bows, and obviously keep that draw force contained for immediate use.
Some suggestions:
Keep crossbow base damage As Is, but include the user's damage bonus, yet at one step higher (so 0 = 1D2, 1D2 = 1D4, etc).
Or...
Crossbows automatically ignore 1D3 points of armour (this could be just 1 point, or 1D2, depending on the crossbow and how you want your campaign).
I'm focusing on more creative damage applications because I don't think speed effects - such as adjustments to CA or strike rank - really reflect upon the weapon's clear advantages over conventional bows.
Some suggestions:
Keep crossbow base damage As Is, but include the user's damage bonus, yet at one step higher (so 0 = 1D2, 1D2 = 1D4, etc).
Or...
Crossbows automatically ignore 1D3 points of armour (this could be just 1 point, or 1D2, depending on the crossbow and how you want your campaign).
I'm focusing on more creative damage applications because I don't think speed effects - such as adjustments to CA or strike rank - really reflect upon the weapon's clear advantages over conventional bows.
