OK, this question is for anyone who uses Player's Option: Combat & Tactics. My last question generated some great input, so I am open to your comments and thoughts. Under the description of the crossbow, it now has armor penetrating power (FINALLY, given their lethality), which makes great sense to me. Here's the conundrum:
Does it work against a wizard with Shield, Armor, or any other type of magical effect (obviously, Stoneskin is out)?
What about Bracers of Defense?
I got into a lengthy "debate" with one of my exalted players. He was against it, saying that the penetrating power of a crossbow wouldn't apply to a Shielding spell (though he may've backed off on the Armor spell given the name implication alone). I called "you know what" on it and said that the bolt would. Even though magic is involved, a barrier akin to armor is erected, and thus, would be affected. We tabled the discussion at an impasse.
I am inclined that armor penetration applies to Bracers, too...
For the record, shouldn't the long bow have a similar ability, given that, historically, this weapon was specifically created by the English to penetrate (French?) knight plate mail? If memory, and history knowledge, serves me, I thought the English longbowmen were universally feared b/c of both their skill, and the lethality of their weaponry against armor.
I look forward to your collective perspectives on this query.
OK, this question is for anyone who uses Player's Option: Combat & Tactics. My last question generated some great input, so I am open to your comments and thoughts. Under the description of the crossbow, it now has armor penetrating power (FINALLY, given their lethality), which makes great sense to me.
To which edition of the game are you refering?
Quote:
Does it work against a wizard with Shield, Armor, or any other type of magical effect (obviously, Stoneskin is out)?
My immediate position is, 'No.' This is coming mainly from a 3rd Edition perspective, though. In 3rd ed., these magical protections are given the 'Force' description. They are not counted as metal, etc. armor. Therefore, it follows that such force power is only negated by magic, not mundane weapon power.
Quote:
What about Bracers of Defense?
Same thing.
Now, AD&D introduced us to the Weapon vs. Armor Class bonuses and penalties. This was a great concept, in my opinion, but it bogged the game down too much and was rarely used (in my experience and from what I've read on these boards). This may give some support to your proposal, if you are taking into account only AD&D rules.
Second Edition simplified the Weapon vs. Armor Class bonuses and penalties by classifying all weapons into one of three classes - Bludgeoning, Piercing, & Slashing, then assigning To Hit bonuses and penalties to those three classes for every Armor Class type. This still simplified version still didn't prove to be simplified enough.
That being said, I support just about any house rule you and your players decide to implement in an attempt to improve the appeal of the crossbow as a character weapon. For my group, we increased the damage of crossbows significantly. A bow could fire four times in two rounds (2nd Ed.) compared to a heavy crossbow's single shot, but the single shot of the heavy crossbow would do double the average amount of damage that a single arrow did. If the Bad Guys surrounded my PCs with drawn bows and demanded their surrender, the PCs would always charge, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid style. If they found themselves in the same situation, but facing heavy crossbows, they played much more conservatively.
Quote:
For the record, shouldn't the long bow have a similar ability, given that, historically, this weapon was specifically created by the English to penetrate (French?) knight plate mail? If memory, and history knowledge, serves me, I thought the English longbowmen were universally feared b/c of both their skill, and the lethality of their weaponry against armor.
This is true. 3rd Ed. tries to solve the problems described above by making longbows do more damage than shortbows and making crossbows Simple weapons. Perhaps it's because I'm just too 'Old School', but the idea of wizards and clerics running around carrying crossbows on their backs just irritates me to no end...
To answer your question, I think that the Player's Options are technically (?) considered 2nd edition.
I recall vividly the expansive 1st edition table to which you are referring, and agree they were cumbersome to use. I applaud the attempts to make combat sequences more 'realistic' (my main player always chides me on that account), but the 2nd edition chart you mentioned (aggregating weapons according to type) I found more streamlined, user-friendly, and sensible.
The detailed descriptions of weapons and armor in the Combat & Tactics book really expanded what the earlier Arms and Equipment Guide described. This newer tome discusses bonuses and penalties that certain weapons have vs. types of armor. However, as usual (and guilty), I began to wonder about the effects of weapons against spells and magic items that duplicate armoring effects: Shield, Armor, Bracers of Defense, etc.
This came up semi-recently in a game when a fighter leveled a light crossbow against a Shield-protected mage and fired. I wondered if the armor penetration ability of the crossbow could be applied...and thus, my question to you all...
Anyone else?
-Lanthorn
p.s. for the record, I always disliked how "weak" missile weapons seemed, until recently (with crossbows at least); gimme a bow any day to attack an enemy from afar (I guess that's the elf in me speaking)!
Seems like you have a lot of rule questions especially on spells. We will tackle the spells first.
The Shield spell as per 2E players handbook grants an AC of 3 against small device propelled missiles (arrows, bolts, bullets, manticore spikes, sling stones, etc.) In this line alone the spells description states the level of protection from bolts which are fired from crossbows. The bonus does not apply because the bolt is not piercing any man-made material it is an invisible force barrier now as per the spell the bonus only applies to frontal assaults so flank or rear attacks do not receive the benefit of the AC bonus.
The Armor spell as per 2E players handbook, the wizard creates a magical field of force that serves as if it were scale mail armor (AC6). This can lead some to believe that scale mail armor is created and worn. However, spell clearly states it is a magical field of force which means it is not susceptible to a material hardness. Since it is force the crossbow does not gain the benefits it has against actual armor.
The Bracers of defense now first we need to see how they work. These are magical arm guards or gauntlets. If a player wears armor it conveys no additional benefits much like an armor spell. Since it does not create a physical wearable suit of armor and therefore is not susceptible to the bonus a crossbow grants against armor.
Now just an added bonus The bracer's work with other magical protection however an armor spell does not therefore the player would only receive the benefit of the bracer's.
The shield spell works with the bracer's, but it will not stack with the armor spell because the armor spell says so. In this case if a shield spell is in effect and the caster casts an armor spell the shield spell cancels the armor spell out. Now if an armor spell is in effect and the wizard casts a shield spell the armor spell cancels it self out as it does not work with other forms of magical protections. Though it works with an actual shield but not with equipped armor.
I hope this helps.
Argon
Last edited by Argon on Mon Aug 29, 2011 3:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Argon, you are quickly becoming my resident "Sage."
I do thank you for your insights and explanations. I guess the 'force' explanations (or is that The Force??? sorry for the shameless Star Wars plug...) will suffice, and I am sure that one of my players will enjoy the fact that you 'backed me down' on this issue, esp. since he and I go back and forth like a tennis match.
Of course, I very much appreciate the sentiment that you and many others defer to 'house rules' so long as everyone can agree. Are you sure that many of you don't have a dash of Rao's philosophy in you?
thank you once again, and I look forward to future posts!
Your welcome! To answer your query some of us may have a touch of Rao in us some could use a bit more. Overall I think a lot of the threads you have started have been well received. Keep them coming.
Argon, indeed you are as noble (I won't use the word inert) as the gas for which you are named (I seriously doubt that is why you chose that monniker, but it sounds good)! Thank you for your continued input and support.
So, everyone, you can blame our illustrious barbarian if my posts lose your interest, as I have LOTS to toss your collective path. Hopefully, this won't happen. The last thing I need is for a barbarian to growl, "Enough talk!" and hurl a dagger into my gut.
yours in continued posting,
-Lanthorn
p.s. don't say I didn't warn you...there WILL be more coming!
The 2E options books add much to the game. I would say that crossbows do affect things like a shield or armor spell, bracers of defense, rings of protection, etc. Why? because there is a difference between the amount of force exerted between a thrown dart and a heavy crossbow. The force isn't unbeatable, just fairly strong.
Think of it this way.
A 3th level fighter hucks a dart at a mage with a shield spell up, at the same time that a 1st level fighter fires a heavy crossbow bolt at the mage. Skill beats force, but force doesn't beat force? Definitely one to go in the big book of What the Heck?!, as sensibly it should be exactly the opposite. Otherwise Captain Kirk would have been telling the weapons officer to get the heck outta his chair and let him punch the fire button.
"Amazing how you always seem to be able to 'finesse' those plasma torpedoes through the enemy's completely undamaged shields, captain."
And that's why Kirk gets all the women(and why he probably has more bastard children than any man in Federation space).
No, I don't see it that way. These magical effects are not impenetrable force fields like a wall of force spell creates(if they were, these effects being AC 2 or worse, they apparently must have lots of holes in them ), but a field of force which can hold out only against so much, so anything that gives a penalty to AC should affect them. As such, armor and magical effects simply function as resistance to force to varying degrees, and crossbows, as per the the Players Options: Combat & Tactics book, exert more force than other similar missile weapons. Accordingly, the resistance of real armor and magical effects will not stand up to crossbows better than the other will. It is a straight up AC modification, so it should be applied as such across the board. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
At long last, SOMEONE agrees with me! Did a layer of the Abyss freeze over???
Cebrion, your arguments are, to me, logical, articulate, and witty. I couldn't have written them any better myself (and obviously, in my intro, didn't). I am in complete concurrence with you on this issue (everyone, write down the time and date), and would rule likewise. I don't see why a crossbow couldn't "punch through" magical defenses either!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
