Bladed crossbows

[arkol]

Hello there. I'm looking for some sort of melee weapon that can be attached to crossbows so you can attack with them in melee. For 3.0/3.5 Anyone know of something like that?

[Winter]

No, but why not just attach a shortsword to it (1d6 dmg) and call it an exotic weapon? (And unless you take the profincy(Crossbow-Sword-Thing) in it, you get the usual penalties when fighting with it in Melee)

[arkol]

Because I don't wanna waste a feat on coolness? :smalltongue:

[UserClone]

Crossbow Bayonet. Complete Scoundrel, P. 109. Comes in both knife and sword sizes.

[arkol]

Ah of course. The only one I don't have... thanks UserClone!

[Thurbane]

There's also the from MIC (p.47) - a magical +1 crossbow/battle axe that you can use as either weapon. It's actually called the Bladed Crossbow.

[Flickerdart]

Or you can just have armour spikes on your armour, and not attach useless junk to your crossbow.

[Thurbane]

Only (slight) drawback is you can't Power Attack with armor spikes...

[UserClone]

@Flickerdart: From a purely optimization standpoint, sure. But if a bayonet is what (s)he wants, why sacrifice the concept for a slightly increased utility (and, as Thurbane points out, no Power Attack)?

[arkol]

Yes, thanks once again Userclone. Not everyone is trying to squeeze every last drop of juice from a character.

[Flickerdart]

I'm not sure how "have spikes on your armour instead of spikes on your crossbow" counts, or could possibly count, as "squeezing" anything.

[Kalim]

IIRC, the only problem with bayonets is that they're... FRAs to apply and remove, and you can't shoot your crossbow with it fixed.

It's pretty thematic. I have a Gunslinger in a PF game that has a bayonet, despite it being totally crap. Sure, armor spikes might be better, but they're hardly thematic or interesting to a primarily ranged character.

[Flickerdart]

How would it be more interesting for a ranged character to not be able to use his weapon at range? The whole reason bayonets existed in the first place was to let musketmen fight pikemen in melee on more-or-less equal ground. A bayonet fixed to a crossbow doesn't have nearly that much reach. Which is why crossbowmen never used 'em. Oh and also because they didn't exist until the 17th century. That's also a thing.

In other words, bayonets are neither thematic nor interesting for crossbows, at least not any more than armour spikes.

[Darth Stabber]

Having fired a rifle with a bayonet affixed I can tell you that throws off your aim a lot more than you might think. Now if you have taken the time to practice you can probably compensate, but bayonets weren't attached until you were about to use them historically. Also consider that a bayonet on an old fashioned musket gives you a pretty good reach, but crossbows, even heavy ones, are fairly short. Additionally with the bow part sticking out so far, it would be very awkward, whereas on a musket, it's effetively a spear.

Now as far as optimization goes, you should already have armor spikes and they should be +X defending armor spikes, therefore your weapon's ability to hit at both range and melee has value.

Honestly I couldn't help but think of this:
Yo dawg I hear you like weapons, so we put a weapon in your weapon so you can fight while you fight.

[Spiryt]

How would it be more interesting for a ranged character to not be able to use his weapon at range? The whole reason bayonets existed in the first place was to let musketmen fight pikemen in melee on more-or-less equal ground. A bayonet fixed to a crossbow doesn't have nearly that much reach. Which is why crossbowmen never used 'em. Oh and also because they didn't exist until the 17th century. That's also a thing.

In other words, bayonets are neither thematic nor interesting for crossbows, at least not any more than armour spikes.

Well, that's all fine, but fantasy setting doesn't have to follow the same events and trends like Europe...

And bayonets at least did exist, unlike armor spikes.

Anyway, I'm not aware about crossbow bayonets either.

Probably crossbow would be way to awkward and frail frame for bayonet to be worth the fuss.

[Flickerdart]

And bayonets at least did exist, unlike armor spikes.
Saying that bayonets existed so crossbow bayonets are authentic, is like saying spikes existed, therefore armor spikes are authentic. Yes, there were bayonets. No, they were never used on crossbows.

[arkol]

I guess we should all be playing human commoners, warriors and experts then.

[mattie_p]

I guess we should all be playing human commoners, warriors and experts then.

You mean you guys aren't?

I know that RAW, bayonets are legal (thanks, UserClone, for the reference) with no penalty as a ranged weapon but a -2 to it as a melee weapon, but I'd houserule it as an exotic weapon that requires a proficiency if attached.

[arkol]

Because melee (and ranged or basically any non-mundane) can't have nice things.

De-railing the topic I started myself... this is why 3.5 has so many problems, people keep piling penalties on mundane things, and many of them might even make sense from a "realism" point of view but meanwhile every character capable of spell casting is telling the laws of physics to sit on the corner and cry with free actions.

[SowZ]

The bayonet is basically a way to sheath your crossbow, a move action, and then draw a shortsword, another move action. This would take both your standard and move action. Bayonet is just a refluff of something, not a mechanical change. If you have another way of describing how your crossbow blades work that functions the same mechanically as drawing a shortsword, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to fluff it.

[Flickerdart]

Why would you want to sheathe your crossbow? Just hold is in your other hand.

[arkol]

Can't. Two weapon shooting and fighting rogue/swashbuckler with dual wield hand crossbows and (in this case) dagger bayonets.

What? I said I was going for cool, not effective. :smalltongue:

[Agent 451]

For reference, there is also a Bladed Crossbow in Arms and Equipment Guide. It's a +2 Heavy Crossbow that requires an exotic weapon proficiency feat, if memory serves.

[UserClone]

I would actually reconsider that if you're going to dual-wield. Yes, in your head it will look cool, but the -4 per attack will make your guy look like a ****tard in melee.

I'd personally be more in favor of skewering a dude with the sword-length blade jutting out from the front of my heavy crossbow, right after twanging him with a bolt from it as he approached. But that's just me.

[arkol]

Kenku for +4 when flanking, which is basically the only time I'm actually gonna dual strike. It offsets the penalties.

Sure you could go with normal weapons and have a great bonus instead of a "no-bonus-no-penalty" but eh, I like the idea anyway :smalltongue:

[Agent 451]

I'd personally be more in favor of skewering a dude with the sword-length blade jutting out from the front of my heavy crossbow, right after twanging him with a bolt from it as he approached.

Heh. Reminds me of the spear spikard (and the even more ludicrous war spikard) from Magic of Eberron.

[Spuddles]

You mean you guys aren't?

I know that RAW, bayonets are legal (thanks, UserClone, for the reference) with no penalty as a ranged weapon but a -2 to it as a melee weapon, but I'd houserule it as an exotic weapon that requires a proficiency if attached.

Why?
123434577274575424572465331646453

[Straybow]

1) Because swords don't have 4 foot wide crossguards for a reason, and that's what a blade sticking out of a crossbow would be.

2) Because swords don't have 3 foot long, 4-8 lb grips that are funny shaped and not really meant to be used as grips for a sword, which is what a blade sticking out of a crossbow would be.

2) An opponent's weapon would easily damage the laths and make the crossbow part broken (ruin the aim, if not causing stress concentrations that make the laths fail when spanned).

[mattie_p]

@Spuddles:


1) Because swords don't have 4 foot wide crossguards for a reason, and that's what a blade sticking out of a crossbow would be.

2) Because swords don't have 3 foot long, 4-8 lb grips that are funny shaped and not really meant to be used as grips for a sword, which is what a blade sticking out of a crossbow would be.

2) An opponent's weapon would easily damage the laths and make the crossbow part broken (ruin the aim, if not causing stress concentrations that make the laths fail when spanned).

This. Sorry I didn't see your query earlier, Spuddles. I am of the opinion that 3.5 needs nice things for anything other than casters, but the item in question is ridiculous. We're not talking about an M16/M4 with a bayonet (which I have fired) but an already unwieldy item, now with extra weight at the tip.

I'm all for sacrificing effectiveness for flavor, I've done it myself, but there are consequences. Dropping an item is a free action. Drawing a weapon can be (or should be for a melee character, if they care) a swift action. Hack away. You don't need a sword sticking out from the end of your crossbow. If you were to fire a monstrosity like this, it would not be like a normal crossbow. If you were to fix a bayonet on it and use it as a melee weapon, it would be an improvised weapon unless you were specially trained in its use. Make a skill trick to use it, I can live with that. Maybe not a feat, unless you intend to keep the bayonet on it. Then call it a feat.

[Righteous Doggy]

I like how someone ask for nice things and someone says no thats impossible and stupid... anyways.
I think someone tried to pull one out of one of the magazines one time. it was treated like a dagger. I said we should make the edges sharp so we could use it as a double weapon if only for rule of cool.
The complete scoundrel thing looks almost identical. Should go with it!(if you haven't already)

[Doughnut Master]

For me, the utility of the crossbow bayonet has not so much been that I can fight in melee (I won't), but that I can enchant it with lovely things like Warning or luck rerolls. All that for -2 to an attack that I probably won't hit with anyway. Sure. Why not?

[mattie_p]

Righteous Doggy, I understand where you are coming from, rule of cool and all that jazz, but every single other double weapon in the game that I can find is an exotic weapon. (OK, quarterstaff is a double weapon, technically). Please feel free to find other contradictions, I am sure they are out there. For this, I am not willing to dive through splatbooks to make my point.

The SRD, for 3.5, makes the point. Doubleweapons, in 3.5, 9 times out of 10, are exotic weapons. I know that Complete Scoundrel says otherwise, and since it is RAW I will accept it, I'm just saying my initial inclination is improvised weapon. To be honest, it is kind of like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60864), which, while awesome, is unrealistic, and I wouldn't let that fly in my games.

To me, rule of cool means putting props in the fight area, so that a warrior-type can run, jump onto and slide down the 10' wooden table, and still charge the bad guy and stab him with a sword. There are no rules for that, but it is awesome so I let that ride. Taping a weapon onto another weapon? (Call it a bayonet, we all know it is duct tape). Sorry, just not that cool in my book.

This is my opinion, so take it for what it is worth. I don't call it RAW.

[arkol]

I don't get the comparison of the bayonets to double weapons. You're not attacking with both in the same round.

[UserClone]

Indeed, there is no reason to bring double weapons into it, though the case could still certainly be made that a bayonet be houseruled into exotic weaponhood. That having been said, I'm freakin' positive I would personally have no troubles stabbing a dude with a bayonet.

****, if I wanted to, I could sovereign glue a sword onto a crossbow and call it a bayonet, but that wouldn't be a bayonet. This bayonet we are discussing is RAW.

[Righteous Doggy]

The edges were bladed/weaponized rather than a bayonet sticking out of the front(I've seen far more insane and you underestimate my imagination) The one the guy wanted to bring was a light weapon. It really didn't have anything to do with the conversation about raw things. I even pointed out the bayonet looked good for the job...

[Spuddles]

@Spuddles:



This. Sorry I didn't see your query earlier, Spuddles. I am of the opinion that 3.5 needs nice things for anything other than casters, but the item in question is ridiculous. We're not talking about an M16/M4 with a bayonet (which I have fired) but an already unwieldy item, now with extra weight at the tip.

I'm all for sacrificing effectiveness for flavor, I've done it myself, but there are consequences. Dropping an item is a free action. Drawing a weapon can be (or should be for a melee character, if they care) a swift action. Hack away. You don't need a sword sticking out from the end of your crossbow. If you were to fire a monstrosity like this, it would not be like a normal crossbow. If you were to fix a bayonet on it and use it as a melee weapon, it would be an improvised weapon unless you were specially trained in its use. Make a skill trick to use it, I can live with that. Maybe not a feat, unless you intend to keep the bayonet on it. Then call it a feat.

Again- why? D&D is so far removed from real combat. Why worry that a medival crossbow couldnt have a bayonet? It seems like an unnecessary penalty when the barbarian gets so angry he turns into a bear and the cleric fights with a wooden greatsword, a second pair of arms, and a flying shield.

Melee sucks because dnd players are so biased. Herp derp, I know all about swords IRL, and there's no way you could do that! Thanks guy, but I'm not playing D&D for it's superb realism simulator.

[Darth Stabber]

If you are willing to go for a swordbow(MiC). It can change back and forth between a +1 logbow, and +1 longsword, and it can change back and forth during the same attack routine.

[Greyfeld85]

On the note of unlikely/unwieldy weapons, I'm currently DMing a campaign where I'm allowing a player to spend an extra 400gp on her bard's violin to add a weapon on the tip of her violin bow (masterworking both the instrument and the weapon) so that she doesn't have to put her instrument away every time she needs to pull out a weapon and defend herself. It effectively has the stats of spiked gauntlets (1d4 damage, 20/x2 crit, piercing). It may not be "realistic," since realistically the force required to stab somebody with it would probably snap the bow in half, but we both thought it was freaking cool, and she's happy with it, so we ran with it.

On the note of crossbows themselves, I've actually been tweaking around with creating a homebrew 5-level crossbow PrC. It's not done yet, but if you're interested in taking a look at it, just let me know.

[Thurbane]

I really don't see how a crossbow bayonet, even one of sword length, is particularly more silly or unwieldy than half of the fantasy weapons in 3.5.

Gyrspike anyone? :smalltongue:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2444qwi.jpg

[Flickerdart]

The gyrspike is a perfectly practical weapon. Those spikes are actually rubber, and intended to create a comfortable grip, while you flail your arm around like a madman to control the sword.

[Red_Dog]

=>arkol

To my understanding, you are trying to build a dual handcrossbow wielding gunslinger? I've made an NPC like that once.

I didn't bother with bayonets because =>

There is Exotic Weapon Master in CWar. You need almost nothing to get in [+6BAB, yeah, you'll get in by lvl7-8 oh well]. And the class gives you right off the bat an ability called Close-Quarter Range Combat. It means you can shoot enemies without provoking AoOs from them! Who needs bayonets when you can just shoot them in ze face again! ^^ Ask your DM if she/he can knock of BAB requirements a bit so you can get in by lvl6 like 95% of PrC.

Your main feats are =>
Handcrossbow focus, TWF&Improved TWF, Crossbow Sniper.

4 feats is pretty doable even for just a fighter dipping rouge[I am not sure what build you are going with].
If you got 4 lvls of fighter, you can pick up Weapon Spec & Ranged Weapon Mastery.

P.S. By the by, crossbows main shtick is able to do Precise damage at 60' because of Crossbow Sniper. It really is a great feat, especially with hand xbow focus ^^[that feat comes from Drows of the Underdark, Sniper comes from PHBII].

Best of luck! ^^

[Straybow]

Again- why? D&D is so far removed from real combat. Why worry that a medival crossbow couldnt have a bayonet? It seems like an unnecessary penalty when the barbarian gets so angry he turns into a bear and the cleric fights with a wooden greatsword, a second pair of arms, and a flying shield.

Melee sucks because dnd players are so biased. Herp derp, I know all about swords IRL, and there's no way you could do that! Thanks guy, but I'm not playing D&D for it's superb realism simulator. Hey, if we were talking Munchkin© D&D, no problem. There's a difference between fantasy and comic relief.


I really don't see how a crossbow bayonet, even one of sword length, is particularly more silly or unwieldy than half of the fantasy weapons in 3.5.

Gyrspike anyone? :smalltongue:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2444qwi.jpg
I know. Clearly designed to be used by gripping the blade, like the mordschlag technique for the German longsword. And, in a pinch, you could turn it around and poke people with that silly, clumsy sword part (like that's gonna do any good).

[White_Drake]

The bayonet is basically a way to sheath your crossbow, a move action, and then draw a shortsword, another move action. This would take both your standard and move action. Bayonet is just a refluff of something, not a mechanical change. If you have another way of describing how your crossbow blades work that functions the same mechanically as drawing a shortsword, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to fluff it.

Why not just houserule that if you have Quick Draw you can affix your bayonet as a swift action or some such?
Also, what's the point of dual-wielding hand crossbows? You get two shots before you have to drop one of them to reload. Drow of the Underdark has a feat--Hand Crossbow Focus--which grants +1 to hit and reload as a free action, 2 for 1.

[Eloel]

I don't really see how something like this (http://hoveysmith.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/c2-21-levin-crossbow-pistol-with-blade.jpg) can't be modified to have folding sides. Swift to fold sides (you have a perfectly functional shortsword), swift to re-open them (back to crossbow).

If magic exists, technology can be imitated.

Edit:
I can also see a crossbow used as a pick if built accordingly, though it's probably worth noting that I never fired a real crossbow.

[Ashtagon]

I don't really see how something like this (http://hoveysmith.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/c2-21-levin-crossbow-pistol-with-blade.jpg) can't be modified to have folding sides. Swift to fold sides (you have a perfectly functional shortsword), swift to re-open them (back to crossbow).

If magic exists, technology can be imitated.


The arms of a crossbow, at least in traditional construction techniques, are a single piece. It can't fold.

Of course, if you don't care about verisimilitude, make up whatever rules you like for your game.

[Eloel]

The arms of a crossbow, at least in traditional construction techniques, are a single piece. It can't fold.

Of course, if you don't care about verisimilitude, make up whatever rules you like for your game.

I don't see why it can't be realistically done as two pieces, was what I was going for. Sovereign Glue it to the haft, make the haft metal (adamantine, if you're really worried about breaking), and make that part rotate. Should work.

[Ashtagon]

I don't see why it can't be realistically done as two pieces, was what I was going for. Sovereign Glue it to the haft, make the haft metal (adamantine, if you're really worried about breaking), and make that part rotate. Should work.

If the arms fold back towards the grip, then the hinge becomes a weak point. More precisely, the pin that is locking the hinge in position is the weak point. We're looking at about 120 lb of pressure on a pin that is maybe 1/4" diameter. That's roughly equivalent pressure to being 1000 feet underwater.

If they fold forwards, then the arms would get in the way of the blade.

Considering that steel weighs about ten times as much as wood, you will probably encounter encumbrance issues if you make the entire weapon out of it.

I'll cheerfully concede this any time you want to say a wizard did it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt).

[Eloel]

If the arms fold back towards the grip, then the hinge becomes a weak point. More precisely, the pin that is locking the hinge in position is the weak point. We're looking at about 120 lb of pressure on a pin that is maybe 1/4" diameter. That's roughly equivalent pressure to being 1000 feet underwater.

Hence, adamantine.
While I get your point - not particularly possible in real life - though I'm still unconvinced that it'd break verisimilitude in a world with functional adamantine.

Edit:

I'll cheerfully concede this any time you want to say a wizard did it.

Yeah, close enough.

[UserClone]

****, now I want to make one in real life to show it can be done...

[Spiryt]

Still don't really get all the fuss, crossbows indeed make crappy platforms for bayonets, being, generally speaking, heavy, short, clunky and delicate to make things worse....

But with so many things making even less sense in DnD, I can't see how it should work as say, dagger mounted on crossbow, perhaps with small penalty to some stuff.

Folding bows are very real things as well, not really good idea, as it limits capabilities quite a lot, but it's certainly doable.

[Straybow]

There are probably a few ways to make detachable laths, but then if you are going to take the time to fold or detach the laths so you can use the bayonet, why not just have a sword and draw it? Attach the crossbow to a harness to you can just sling it behind you.

Note that all of the ways to fold or detach laths will make the crossbow, and hence the crossbow sword, heavier and therefore more cumbersome in that way instead of cumbersome because of two foot laths sticking out each side. The crossbow is already nearly twice as heavy as you want the whole sword to be.

[Spuddles]

Crossbows with axes under them would be pretty bad ass. Shoot some dudes, then hack them to pieces.


traditional construction techniques

We wouldn't want to have any anachronisms in our D&D. Everything in the PHB is soooo true to traditional construction techniques.

/s

[PlusSixPelican]

I'm not sure what it costs in 3.5, but you could do something (I think it be a feat) to learn how to use your crossbow bolts as improvised daggers without the normal -4 penalty. Then you don't even need to buy anything extra or nothin'. Also, I really, really hope thinking of this months after the last post isn't bad. o////o

[Xerxus]

So a person comes in with a concept. It doesn't matter what the concept is. And asks for rules that would make it work. And you see fit to bash the concept because it isn't realistic or optimized.

Nothing is realistic in this RPG. Shields are ridiculously underpowered compared to reality. At least half of all weapons are made up and completely useless in reality. And there's magic.

As for optimization, that should not even be a question. Sure, it shouldn't be completely useless, but it really isn't all bad as far as crossbow users go. So what does it matter if your armor spikes are better? The optimization should only go so far as to stay within the concept.

[Spuddles]

So a person comes in with a concept. It doesn't matter what the concept is. And asks for rules that would make it work. And you see fit to bash the concept because it isn't realistic or optimized.

Nothing is realistic in this RPG. Shields are ridiculously underpowered compared to reality. At least half of all weapons are made up and completely useless in reality. And there's magic.

As for optimization, that should not even be a question. Sure, it shouldn't be completely useless, but it really isn't all bad as far as crossbow users go. So what does it matter if your armor spikes are better? The optimization should only go so far as to stay within the concept.

Finally a voice of reason.