Something about Crossbows&guns

[JohnDaBarr]

Some time ago me and a good friend of mine had one of our whats-all-wrong-with-3.5 discussion and came on the subject of the inferiority of range weapons. General agreement was that they need some dmg increasement when the character gains levels (maybe dex to dmg or something).

And then we agreed that crossbows and guns where not ruled properly. They should have a special rule stating that in half of their normal range they ignore armor (except special armor/magic) so they hit touch AC. If some asks me why I'll hit him with the biggest history book I have. Crossbows&guns where primary used because of their ability to PENETRATE armor, and it's was the first time a common guy could do something to that damn noble tincan on the horse.

So why is this not included in our glorious game!?! And I hope it will be in the next edition!

[hymer]

Put that history book down, grasshopper, before you hurt yourself.

Longbows penetrate armour just fine. The primary reason for using crossbows and early gunpowder weapons is that they're easier to teach to a bunch of people fast. In skilled hands (even equally skilled) the longbow is the superior weapon, especially because of how many shots you can get off with one in the time you can load and shoot a crossbow or arquebus.

[JohnDaBarr]

Put that history book down, grasshopper, before you hurt yourself.

Longbows penetrate armour just fine. The primary reason for using crossbows and early gunpowder weapons is that they're easier to teach to a bunch of people fast. In skilled hands (even equally skilled) the longbow is the superior weapon, especially because of how many shots you can get off with one in the time you can load and shoot a crossbow or arquebus.

True, no complains there.


Add masterwork longbow to the discussion.

[Flickerdart]

Armour was in popular use well into the 1800s (for heavy cavalry, at least) because firearms just didn't have the power to penetrate it very well at the time. Unless you have a perfectly perpendicular shot against a moving, curved target, a whole bunch of your precious impact force is being dissipated harmlessly. And that was a plain ol' breastplate you slapped on a guy. What chance does a bullet have against a magically enhanced suit of plate?

I could grant that on rolls to confirm critical hits, armour-piercing weapons like firearms, longbows or war picks could maybe ignore the base armour's AC. But on every shot, even at close range, it would be very odd indeed.

[JohnDaBarr]

I said (except special armor/magic), also heavy cavalry of 17/18th used high quality steel something very different form medieval armor so I say yes anything short of fortify/magic armor should be penetrated, especially if is light/medium.

[Flickerdart]

Honestly you're really going to need to settle on a time period for the armours and weapons in question, since D&D kind of tries to model everything at the same time. And then someone else might prefer to model a different time period in their game. So it's really a setting-level decision rather than a rules-level decision, if anything.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Add masterwork longbow to the discussion.

It doesn't matter what quality the longbow is. If it draws a hundred pounds and shoots eight hundred grain arrows, it pierces armor.

Well-trained archers remained on the scene for centuries after firearms appeared. The Native Americans of the southern plains developed horse archery after foreigners brought horses with them. They could run circles around the pioneers and make pincushions out of them while the guys with the guns reloaded their one-shot muzzle-loaders. It wasn't until repeating firearms appeared that the English began to overtake the plains natives.

Do not underestimate the two sticks and the string that have kept us alive for thousands of years. The Scythians inspired the Greek legends of the Amazons, and managed to beat a Persian force many times their size. The ones that conquered the middle-eastern and eastern plains after them were the Huns, the Mongolians, the Parthians, the Turks. All horse-riding nations who went to war with bows and skirmish tactics. Thousands of miles away, the longbow was developed, a weapon that would prove to be crucial in English and European warfare.

Then some French guys decided to use this newfangled weapon called the crossbow, and they lost. Maybe their archers spent the lost training time drinking, so they were either drunk or had hangovers.

[JohnDaBarr]

Time period: Medival

yeah there where armors that could take a hit form a gun or a crossbow but they where very expensive, heavy and more often than
not you couldn't walk in them.

[Flickerdart]

Personal firearms didn't really exist in the medieval period. It's not until the early Renaissance that anything except rudimentary cannon was used in warfare. It wasn't until the 16th century that the musket became a popular and effective weapon.

[tyckspoon]

Time period: Medival

yeah there where armors that could take a hit form a gun or a crossbow but they where very expensive, heavy and more often than
not you couldn't walk in them.

..you are hugely overestimating the power of an early gun and dramatically underestimating the talents of the armorsmiths. Either that or you've bought into the 'all the armor was like specialized jousting suits' myth; battlefield armor and jousting gear were quite dissimilar, just like modern combat body armor and football pads are very different despite both being for the primary purpose of protecting the wearer.

[Monkeylancer]

Personal firearms didn't really exist in the medieval period. It's not until the early Renaissance that anything except rudimentary cannon was used in warfare. It wasn't until the 16th century that the musket became a popular and effective weapon.

Although D&D is sometimes described as being pseudo-medieval, I sometimes think that pseudo-renaissance would be fitting. Transitional Plate/Maille armour wasn't around until the late middle ages, and full plate armour wasn't really prevalent until the renaissance. So to me, it isn't unreasonable for early firearms to be around in a D&D world, it certainly fits with the other technology present.

However, the rational part of my brain is aware that realism and D&D rules do not really mix.

[Flickerdart]

Right, but the OP specified he was taking about the medieval era.

[HunterOfJello]

As described above, the main difference between crossbows+guns and longbows is the time it takes to learn them. If you get a proper instructor and a group of a dozen men together, you can teach the dozen men how to shoot a crossbow or a gun very well in about 2 weeks. To do that same thing with a longbow could take 2-6 years.


Ranged weapons never did end up working out well in 3.5, but that's just how things go sometimes.

[Anxe]

And crossbows should take forever to reload! And longbows should only cost 2GP!

[ILM]

Personally, I just made a houserule that any and all body armor adds DR/piercing for an amount equal to armor bonus+enhancement bonus. It wasn't so much for historical reasons than to make armor a little more relevant. It does create the issue of low-level characters in full plate being a little more resistant than I'd like, but then again it kind of makes sense if you've dumped all your WBL in the biggest, baddest armor you can find.

[Ashtagon]

The 2e Player's Options books had rules for this. Guns had the best version, then crossbows, then longbows had an inferior version. It amounted to "ignore X points of AC from armour at ranges Y".

[laeZ1]

In pathfinder, firearms aim at touch AC if the target is within the first range increment. Seems like a balanced rule to me, and easily adapted to 3.5.

[JohnDaBarr]

The 2e Player's Options books had rules for this. Guns had the best version, then crossbows, then longbows had an inferior version. It amounted to "ignore X points of AC from armour at ranges Y".


In pathfinder, firearms aim at touch AC if the target is within the first range increment. Seems like a balanced rule to me, and easily adapted to 3.5.

I like both ideas although the first one seams more balanced. I think I'll dig up 2e Player's Options somewhere and do some research!