Crossbow Poll

That's right. There are already intelligence penalties/boni for various combat actions. I think the important point to note is that without training, anyone (regardless of intelligence) is pretty crappy with a certain weapon. I had assumed proficiency feats represent this training. What about glaives? Anyone can swing a stick, should they require a feat?

 

A crossbow is a much more complicated weapon than a Bow, but it is much easier to use....hence it is a simple weapon. I spent a lot of time training in the Army with an M16. The part about loading and unloading the weapon took about 10 minutes. The following hundreds of hours of training were spent on hitting the target. The point I'm making is that aiming a ranged weapon is what takes training....not loading it. Loading it takes a brief lecture. Requiring a feat is overkill. It's like requiring a feat to unsheath a sword.

 

The logical conclusion to what you're arguing is to not require feats for any particular weapon, more weapon types. That is not D&D, and if that change was made the entire game system would become unbalanced. It's not meant to be realistic, it's meant to be consistent, enjoyable and fair.

 

No. I'm arguing that someone with reasonable intelligence is perfectly capable of loading a repeating crossbow which, in all other respects, behaves in the exact same manner as a standard one. To put it in more modern terms, what I'm arguing is that if you can fire a revolver that you can fire a cartridge loader. I'm not arguing that being able to fire a handgun implies the ability to fire a rifle (it doesn't) or vice-versa. Nor am I arguing that being able to use a broad sword implies proficiency with a rapier.

 

So if you can fire a bow, you can fire a shortbow? Fire a crossbow then fire a repeating crossbow? Fight with an axe, fight with a dwarven axe? That's some kind of feat dependency system which still caries the proviso above.

 

vote count is 11 (one requires a feat) : 16 (both require feats)

 

That is an assumption that is not supported by the rules or the description. The very requirement of a feat implies that the repeating crossbow does not behave in all respects, other than loading, in the exact same manner as a standard crossbow. The repeating crossbow has a magazine, and a cocking lever, that could significantly change the hand position and weight distribution of the weapon, thus changing it's handling characteristics. There are similar differences between rifles of the same caliber: Just because you are accurate with one model does not mean you can pick up a different model and be as accurate without some practice.

@Krunch: We can read the poll results. There is no need for you to spam the thread with a running tally.

 

@blue: It's not about spam or spamming, it was intended for people to see how the vote talley has changed and is changing as the discussion progresses. And, it was not with every vote, just every few or several votes. However, if you prefer no running talleys, then, ok.

 

If a repeating crossbow did not function in all other respects like a normal crossbow, then requiring a feat would be fine.......however, I would argue that you should be allowed to benefit from the rapid shot (but obviously not many shot) feat with a repeating crossbow. Since it reloads itself, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to benefit from rapid shot with a repeater.

 

Ahhh...the good old days of the First Edition. Way back when, there were simple things like weapon proficiencies. Either you took one and could use a certain weapon; or you suffered a penalty for not being proficient with it & used it anyway. I only brought repeating light crossbows into my campaign once. The persons using them were specialists with them. All they were was a non-magical version of a Crossbow of Speed. They had the disadvantage of requiring a re-load after 3 rounds of use, because they could only hold 6 bolts. This re-load took a whole round during which they could not fire, or do anything else except guide their mount. This being accomplished with the lower extremities, of course, and very carefully, lest one fall off while re-loading. That is never a good thing.

Ted, keep it simple, and as compliant as possible. I don't think the game will suffer from having a couple of groovey missile weapons for the weaker party members to use when they haven't got a spell to cast...regardless of whether or not they spend a feat to get to use it.

 

I see some posters assume that logic and common sense apply. This is not true - this is DnD

 

A monk and a barbarian were travelling together and one night they camped out in the wilds so they decided to set a watch in case of random encounters. the barbarain took the first watch while the monk slept. things were pretty quite and the barbarian getting bored started to whittle sticks that were lying around to pass the time. when his watch was over he woke the monk and went to sleep while the monk stood guard. A few hours later a group of brigands attacked their camp and the monk jumped up to defend the barbarian but instantly had to call and wake him up to help him. "whats da problem?" asked the barbarian as they fought side by side. "Well" said the monk "I just can't hit the bastards as I'm taking a -4 penalty to attack rolls because someone carved my staff into a spear"


and that sums up a lot of what I think of DnD weapon profincies

 

Hmm, I definetly agree with Ted on this one. I can understand the point of wanting to stick exactly to the rules, but in this case I believe them to be wrong. That's how rules get changed right? You play by them and discard or correct ones that obviously don't work. Learnig to use a smaller version of a two-handed weapon one handed takes work and practice, no one with experience with both rifles and pistols would argue this. Learning to work a lever instead of pulling back the string two handed just aint that hard.

My dad is a gunsmith and I grew up in the shop handling virtualy evry kind of civilian firearm made. I you learn to shoot well with a single-shot (I did), shooting well with a repeater is EXACTLY the same. The only difference is your reload process. Swithcing gears from a bolt action to a lever or a pump hasn't been a problem for anyone I've seen. The only switch I seen people have a problem with (poorly trained), is the first time with a semi-automatic. Seems people who only work with repeaters get lax on simple bloody rules of safety, like where your finger goes when your not firing and muzzle control.

Anyhow, that's just my $0.02. :lalala:

Cuchulainn.

 

Well, here's the thing. Troika created ToEE with the goal of trying to simulate the PNP rules as closely as possible. I have a ton of house rules in my own game, but I don't suggest them here because this isn't my home game. It's a video game that's going to be played by many people, who each have their own vision of how the game "should be". I think the best choice is to stick to the PNP rules as closely as possible, as they are the base point that everyone's experience and opinions are built from.