Crossbow rapid shot?

[ManicMonky]

Quick question to all those smarter than I :)

Can a character, in the 3.5 rule set, use a crossbow with rapid shot? Or is there some other combination that would allow it?

I have a friend that is using a rule from dndwiki that is called Bow Sniper. I believe it's based off of Crossbow Sniper from PHBII, but I'm not sure if it should be full or 1/2 dex damage (cause it's homebrew).

Provided the DM rules that the homebrew rule is no good, could my friend still use the crossbow with rapid shot then?

[Soranar]

to do more than 1 attack a round with a crossbow you need the rapid reload feat, otherwise reloading is a move action

[Cog]

You can get one extra attack per round with a ranged weapon.
If your crossbow isn't a ranged weapon, it is a very strange crossbow indeed. Yes, it works. As Soranar pointed out, you do still need some way of getting the crossbow loaded again; Rapid Shot itself does not accomplish that.

[Hylas]

You either need a repeating crossbow or the rapid reload feat to use rapid shot.

Or some other way of making reloading a free action.

[gorfnab]

Take the feat Hand Crossbow Focus (DotU).
Take crossbow of choice and add the Aptitude (ToB) weapon property.
You may now reload crossbow of choice as a free action.

[Darth Stabber]

Take the feat Hand Crossbow Focus (DotU).
Take crossbow of choice and add the Aptitude (ToB) weapon property.
You may now reload crossbow of choice as a free action.

Oh aptitude, you make so many things that make no sense and shouldn't ever happen possible.

[Thurbane]

Pathfinder 3.5 (i.e. before it became a separate system) had a good feat for this: Crossbow Mastery (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9182514&postcount=20)

[Sr.medusa]

Or you can use Quick Draw, fire a xbow, drop it, draw a new one and fire it.

[Ravens_cry]

Or you can use Quick Draw, fire a xbow, drop it, draw a new one and fire it.
Rapid reload would be better as it has the same feat cost and you can enchant the crossbow itself, which would be prohibitively expensive with a, shall we say, 'The Matrix' ammunition strategy.

[ManicMonky]

Thanks to everyone for the input about the crossbow!

I still wonder what everyone thinks about the feat Crossbow Sniper and homebrew Bow Sniper.

Crossbow Sniper does 1/2 dex damage on a successful attack (PHBII)
Bow Sniper does full dex damage on a successful attack (danddwiki)

Does it seem over powered that Bow Sniper would do full dex damage?

[Ravens_cry]

It's Dandi Wiki, of course it's overpowered.:smallyuk:

[Ezekiul]

I think for crossbows its fine, its harder to get a lot off attacks with a crossbow than a normal bow. Theres a feat called dead-eye that gave dex to damage with any ranged weapon that you have weapon focus with within 30ft and got errataed to only a 1 bab from an 11 bab requirment iirc. Dont be mistaken by multiple other feats called deadeye, there are quite a few of them.

[shortround]

Well here's the thing: on one hand, a ranged martial will get to full attack more often because they don't have to move to full attack like a melee martial would have to. On the other hand, most melee martials also wield their weapons in two-hands and get 1.5 Strength to their attack, in addition to having Power Attack support and Ubercharger builds to make sure their damage keeps up with the CR appropriate encounters. Ranged has to work a bit harder and pull slightly less common sources like Hank's Energy bow among other things to get comparable effects.

At early levels, full DEX to damage is gonna seem really good because DEX plus any STR from a composite bow is gonna put down the greater majority of low level mooks and will fill most Single Monster encounters full of holes. But after around levels 5-6 where melee starts hitting its stride, ranged full attackers should start falling off in damage, especially as more monsters will start having relevant amounts of DR that totally hose martials that get their damage from making a lot of attacks.

To directly answer you question: I personally do not think it's overpowered, especially if the person using the feat isn't overly optimizing, and ESPECIALLY if you have other, more competent sources of damage. Depending on the DM's experience or what kind of game the DM wants to run, he might get frustrated that his mooks/single enouncters get mopped up and might compensate with stronger monsters, as tends to happen when martials do their job properly, but there isn't anything in full DEX to damage that is inherently overpowered given the precedent of 1.5 STR to damage, as I understand it.

EDIT: forgot crossbows cant be composite lol

[Duke of URL]

Piggy-backing on the above...

Small static bonuses to damage do not tend to scale well to higher levels, although they're pretty good early on. At higher levels, you're going to want to lay on additional effects rather than focusing on direct damage, because you just can't keep up with the power curve using a linearly-scaling attack mode.

[Urpriest]

It's not overpowered, but it sets a bad precedent. If the player can find something similar from a reputable homebrewer then I'd allow it.

[Curmudgeon]

Take the feat Hand Crossbow Focus (DotU).
Take crossbow of choice and add the Aptitude (ToB) weapon property.
You may now reload crossbow of choice as a free action.

Aptitude includes a list of feats to which it applies, "or the like". Every one of those example feats include a statement like:
Choose one type of weapon. Hand Crossbow Focus does not, so it's not "like" the examples given in the aptitude enhancement description. For that matter, aptitude is a property modeled after the Weapon Aptitude class feature (of Warblade and Bloodstorm Blade classes).
Each morning, you can spend 1 hour practicing and change the weapons selected for any feat you have that applies only to a single chosen weapon.

Oh aptitude, you make so many things that make no sense and shouldn't ever happen possible.

Only for DMs with poor reading or pattern-matching skills. :smallbiggrin:

[ManicMonky]

Good points all. Static bonuses are lame at high levels, but every point counts of course. Thanks to your advice I can at least present the material to the DM and let him make final decisions. I don't personally care either way, we just like to make sure the right rules are being followed as much as possible.

Our DM has been DMing since D&D alpha we're pretty sure. He gets all the editions mixed up from time to time. :P

[Red_Dog]

Crossbow Sniper is a fantastic feat.

It extends skirmish and sneak attack range up to 60ft. This alone is golden in right build. Now suddenly scout can actually kite quite a bit of enemies.

Besides this, Crossbow over all is a fun weapon but not overly effective. If you are not building swift ambusher[or swift hunter with that amazing ranger's spell that grants sneak attack ^^] maniac that stacks d6s like pancakes on sunday, you might want to think over your choice of weapon. However be that as it may, all you really need to do is find some ways to stack dmg per hit. Which sometimes is not quite easy. Also remember, being Dex based, always means more initiative ^^

There was a section in archery handbook on crossbows but it was mostly info compilation.

P.S. Don't forget! Save a feat, buy a Quickloading crossbow! ^^

P.S.2. I myself actually have a question. Drow of the Underdark has 2 feats that seem to suggest something odd.
=>Hand Crossbow focus lets you re-load as free action.
=>Versatile Combatant lets you fight with both a hand crossbow and a Rapier, and let you shoot in HtH.

But the normal rules state that you have to have a hand free in order to utilize even a free action reloading with a crossbow?

So does it mean you can only make one attack with your hand crossbow and that's where it ends? Or would hand crossbow focus superseed this mechanic?

[The Dark Fiddler]

Rapid reload would be better as it has the same feat cost and you can enchant the crossbow itself, which would be prohibitively expensive with a, shall we say, 'The Matrix' ammunition strategy.

Although it's still not quite as good as just using a single crossbow, couldn't you just carry around mundane crossbows and enchant the bolts you use?

[Cog]

Although it's still not quite as good as just using a single crossbow, couldn't you just carry around mundane crossbows and enchant the bolts you use?
One of the few advantages of projectile weapons is that you can enchant both the projector and the projectile, getting you a higher equivalent +X in abilities for a given cost. Taking advantage of that still requires using only a single (cross)bow.

[Boci]

Aptitude includes a list of feats to which it applies, "or the like". Every one of those example feats include a statement like:

Every one of those feats also has a minimum BAB requirement. Maybe thats what they meant by "or the like". My point is, it cannot be a RAW if the ruling requires you to interpret what "or the like" means.

[Particle_Man]

Mind you, one could take the feat one was going to spend to make the crossbow load faster and instead get proficiency in a composite long bow. :smallbiggrin:

[Siosilvar]

Aptitude includes a list of feats to which it applies, "or the like". Every one of those example feats include a statement like: Hand Crossbow Focus does not, so it's not "like" the examples given in the aptitude enhancement description. For that matter, aptitude is a property modeled after the Weapon Aptitude class feature (of Warblade and Bloodstorm Blade classes).


Only for DMs with poor reading or pattern-matching skills. :smallbiggrin:

While it might be RAI, the sentence "a wielder who has feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon...can apply the benefits of those feats to any weapon that has the aptitude quality" includes no such distinction between feats that have you choose a weapon and feats that apply to a specific weapon. If it "affect[s] the use of a particular type of weapon", it's fair game for Aptitude as written. There's no example given of a feat that affects a single particular weapon but doesn't let you choose because there are none in ToB or Core (except IUS and SUS), the only books the authors assumed that players had.

[Ravens_cry]

One of the few advantages of projectile weapons is that you can enchant both the projector and the projectile, getting you a higher equivalent +X in abilities for a given cost. Taking advantage of that still requires using only a single (cross)bow.
Precisely what I was going to say, thank you. :smallsmile:

[Hylas]

One of the few advantages of projectile weapons is that you can enchant both the projector and the projectile, getting you a higher equivalent +X in abilities for a given cost. Taking advantage of that still requires using only a single (cross)bow.

I'm pretty sure that if you have +1 bolts and you shoot them from a +2 crossbow you only attack as a +2. You do not get +3 attack/damage.

But I suppose if you shoot +1 flaming bolts from a +1 shocking crossbow then you get a +1 flaming shocking attack.

I once gave a crossbow using player a repeating crossbow bolt case that would replicate any non-magical ammunition placed inside of it (the "activation" of the magic was being locked into a repeating crossbow). The only downside is that all shot ammo disappears at the start of his next turn and you can only fire a maximum of 5 times a round. Other than that it was great for poison use and otherwise made them just as effective as a bow user.

[Cog]

I'm pretty sure that if you have +1 bolts and you shoot them from a +2 crossbow you only attack as a +2. You do not get +3 attack/damage.

But I suppose if you shoot +1 flaming bolts from a +1 shocking crossbow then you get a +1 flaming shocking attack.
These statements are both correct, which is why I specified "equivalent" and not merely +X.

[Hiro Protagonest]

For that matter, aptitude is a property modeled after the Weapon Aptitude class feature (of Warblade and Bloodstorm Blade classes).

*clenches fists*

*takes deep breath*

I hate it when people say that. Just because it's a similar name (or even the same one) does not mean it does the same thing. For example, tell me what Insightful Strike does. And what Psionic Fist is. And whether there are Greater versions of those.

[Cieyrin]

It's Dandi Wiki, of course it's overpowered.:smallyuk:

Overpowered? They don't even understand balance over there or anything that resembles it. All I've seen is writers putting up stuff and patting each other on the back at how "awesome" they are at homebrewing. Actually makes me feel ashamed that they have the name D&D Wiki, as it misleads the ignorant into their morass. :smallfrown: Not to mention they misspelled the URL, which makes me cringe every time I look at it.

[Zaq]

Thanks to everyone for the input about the crossbow!

I still wonder what everyone thinks about the feat Crossbow Sniper and homebrew Bow Sniper.

Crossbow Sniper does 1/2 dex damage on a successful attack (PHBII)
Bow Sniper does full dex damage on a successful attack (danddwiki)

Does it seem over powered that Bow Sniper would do full dex damage?

Honestly, I'd sooner houserule Crossbow Sniper to do full DEX damage, and if Bow Sniper were to exist, I'd have an easier time giving it half DEX than full DEX (though it depends on the game—martial characters, nice things, yada yada). Bows already get a stat to damage (you ARE using a composite, right?). Crossbows have to burn a feat, and even then, it's only half the stat, which kind of blows.

[Ravens_cry]

Overpowered? They don't even understand balance over there or anything that resembles it. All I've seen is writers putting up stuff and patting each other on the back at how "awesome" they are at homebrewing. Actually makes me feel ashamed that they have the name D&D Wiki, as it misleads the ignorant into their morass. :smallfrown: Not to mention they misspelled the URL, which makes me cringe every time I look at it.
OK, "overpowered" may not be the right word, but your longer screed sure hit the nail on the head. :smallsigh:

[Curmudgeon]

While it might be RAI, the sentence "a wielder who has feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon...can apply the benefits of those feats to any weapon that has the aptitude quality" includes no such distinction between feats that have you choose a weapon and feats that apply to a specific weapon.
I call shenanigans. You've removed that part of the aptitude enhancement description which provides instructions on how to make such distinctions, and replaced it with "...". I've highlighted that change above.

It's fair to point out that there's ambiguity in that section of the rules, and bring that ambiguity up for discussion. It isn't fair to chop out that part of the RAW and pretend it doesn't exist.

[Darth Stabber]

I call shenanigans. You've removed that part of the aptitude enhancement description which provides instructions on how to make such distinctions, and replaced it with "...". I've highlighted that change above.

It's fair to point out that there's ambiguity in that section of the rules, and bring that ambiguity up for discussion. It isn't fair to chop out that part of the RAW and pretend it doesn't exist.

Good catch! I knew their was something wrong with what had previously been posted but I could not put my finger on it.

[Siosilvar]

I call shenanigans. You've removed that part of the aptitude enhancement description which provides instructions on how to make such distinctions, and replaced it with "...". I've highlighted that change above.

It's fair to point out that there's ambiguity in that section of the rules, and bring that ambiguity up for discussion. It isn't fair to chop out that part of the RAW and pretend it doesn't exist.

You're right, I took out the dependent clause that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. My bad.

EDIT: I suppose I should actually reply instead of just throwing sarcasm around.

No way would I allow everything that gets thrown about with Aptitude in a game. RAW, however, I'm pretty sure they're all legal as long as they only apply to a single weapon. Lightning Maces + Aptitude works under my interpretation of RAW. Three Mountains + Aptitude, for example, doesn't.

EDIT2: More explicitly stating my argument here.
For ease of reference, let's call feats that let you choose a weapon "type A" and feats that specify a weapon they apply to "type B".

The fact that all of the examples listed are type A does not exclude type B feats. Both types fulfill the criteria of "...feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon...", which is the only rule given in the Aptitude description to decide what feats qualify for use with it.

[ManicMonky]

Honestly, I'd sooner houserule Crossbow Sniper to do full DEX damage, and if Bow Sniper were to exist, I'd have an easier time giving it half DEX than full DEX (though it depends on the game—martial characters, nice things, yada yada). Bows already get a stat to damage (you ARE using a composite, right?). Crossbows have to burn a feat, and even then, it's only half the stat, which kind of blows.

Actually, he is using a regular +1 shortbow. Reason being, he's a human rogue with 11 STR and 16 Dex. There for he's not proficient with the Longbow or Composite version of either and wouldn't benefit from the STR bonus anyway.

[Urpriest]

Actually, he is using a regular +1 shortbow. Reason being, he's a human rogue with 11 STR and 16 Dex. There for he's not proficient with the Longbow or Composite version of either and wouldn't benefit from the STR bonus anyway.

Which strategy is he using to get sneak attack at range? Invisibility?

[Curmudgeon]

Actually, he is using a regular +1 shortbow. Reason being, he's a human rogue with 11 STR and 16 Dex. There for he's not proficient with the Longbow or Composite version of either
If you're proficient with a shortbow, you're proficient with a composite shortbow. From the weapon description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#shortbowComposite):
For purposes of weapon proficiency and similar feats, a composite shortbow is treated as if it were a shortbow.