Talk:Rapid Fire Crossbow (3.5e Equipment)

Unrealistic?
D&D. Unrealistic. Whatever do you mean?

But if you say so, I guess you're right that auto-loading mechanisms are impossible. That's why machine guns, auto-crossbows, and other rapid-fire devices were never invented. Seriously, how can a machine fire AND load itself? Impossible, gotta be magic. -- Eiji-kun 10:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And of course we cannot abide unrealistic things. --DanielDraco 10:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ...Oh snap! The Dire Reverend 15:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't hurt to have a sentence describing how it works, would it? Machine guns store their energy in gunpowder in the shells. Real automatic crossbows have some sort of mechanism whereby the firer pulls back the string before each shot, but being able to fire continuously by holding down the trigger precludes that unless it's an absurdly heavy trigger. Why not say something like "each bolt is spring-loaded in the clip" or "special crystals most commonly mined on the Elemental Plane of Wood are laid down the barrel, functioning as a wooden railgun"? --Foxwarrior 18:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't mostly because it's a pointless bit of fluff I feel best left up to others, if they ever actually want to incorporate it. In Eberron, it's probably alchemical crystals and magiscience.  Elsewhere it might be some kind of steampunk device.  I'm not really too worried about settling on any particular one. -- Eiji-kun 18:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If it's fluff that you don't want, why include the description "The crossbow loads itself as a free action as long as their is ammo in the stock."(sic)? Objects don't get actions, creatures do. And it's not unprecedented to say "in a medieval setting, this works with alchemical hydraulics while industrial tech versions may use steam, but the concept remains the same" or something of the sort. But as Foxwarrior stated, there has to be something to pull back the string. Guns have the benefit of each unit of ammunition able to provide some energy to move to the next round, but crossbows do not. So if you want to keep the item setting-agnostic, at least give a general mechanism that could be interpreted in different contexts instead of an object gaining creature abilities. I'd also suggest bumping the price back up, at least to be on par with the repeating crossbows already out there. Right now, it's cheaper for the damage it does.--Quey 22:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Exotic weapons require the investment of a feat and thus can be cheap. The heavy and light repeater suck and I suspect this item was made to replace them. --Leziad 22:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing is, the heavy repeating crossbow is an exotic weapon already. Why, exactly, does it suck?--Quey 22:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It require you to invest a feat in, cost too much money and even then it doesn't fix the iterative attack problem with crossbows. You need yet another feat (rapid reload I think) and invest even more money for enhancement to get the iterative attack a bow would get (with slightly higher dice damages but you don't have the ability to add your str like a composite bow). Basically it require too much resources to be brought on par with other ranged weapons. This crossbow while it still need a feat does not require further resources to be made decent. --Leziad 22:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do I include its reload but not how it's done? Because that's a mechanical aspect: "You don't need to take an action of your own to reload this weapon until its stock is out".  That's a property of the weapon which is important, but it's not important how this is done... springs, gears, magic, little crossbow fairies, the color yellow, etc... since you can play anything from cavemen to far future to weird scenarios where crossbow fairies and the color yellow make sense as ways machines work, I don't see the need to try and specify the impossible task of categorizing each one, nor do I feel the particular need to tie it down to one specific time frame or reason.  You keep bringing up "objects can't take actions"... ignoring the fact this isn't technically true (intelligent items, items which react to stimulus like traps), it's a moot point since that is very much placed in the mechanics and, as mentioned before, specific trumps general.  If you're really having trouble rationalizing this in your mind, consider the trap.  You can make perfectly mundane traps to auto-reset, without WotC going into detail how this is achieved.  So imagine that inside your crossbow you have a little auto-reseting trap of "move bolt into place, pull back string".


 * tl;dr You've confused mechanics for fluff, and I think the current wording is just the right amount of fluff to crunch. YMMV.


 * Oh, and yes, this is meant as a replacement, as repeating crossbows suck hard. So hard, that the Heavy Repeater is actually useless, literally.  I can get into why it fails to even achieve the goal of repeating later.  (EDIT CONFLICT: What he said.) -- Eiji-kun 22:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not confusing the two; I have two different objections. First, objects cannot take actions. Even intelligent magic items get ability scores, and are considered creatures ("these items think and feel the same way characters fo and should be treated as NPCs." DMG 268, "Intelligent Items"). As for traps, it may be that the traps take energy from their trigger, or maybe someone needs to rewind them after being sprung so many times (as the DM wishes). That rewinding is not specifically stated in books, but they still don't take actions.


 * The other objection was that you don't say how it works. It would be nice, but it's not absolutely necessary. But since you decided to go as far as to describe the presence of a mechanism and some sort of "action" going on, you might as well get more specific on how it works. You don't have to describe every possible setting. You could give an example or two, or even something as vague as "cutting edge engineers have figured out how to create an efficient store energy so the crossbow can quickly reset itself, allowing iterative attacks from BAB...". If you don't want to even go that far, don't go so far into the description so that it sounds like *poof* it works because the mechanism *physical impossibility*.


 * A suggestion: If I were making it, I would add something in for resetting it. Like you have to spend a minute winding it after going through a couple clips. SOMETHING. Heck, maybe you wind the clips themselves beforehand, and they store the energy.


 * I do understand your wanting to improve the repeating crossbow. I do think the other mechanics work very well.--Quey 23:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The automatic trap reset I refer to is here. As you can see, there's no specifics how (which is just fine), just that it does, either immediately or after a timer.  I just want to emphasize this cause, well, it's a pretty clear case of "objects taking actions".  We don't really call it that cause the reset action is "no action", so it's not a problem.  Though... now that I think about it, I have the perfect thing.


 * They use bolt clips. Stick a spring in the clip.  When it fires, the pre-coiled spring loosens, tossing in the next bolt for firing.  So if its a concern for you, the energy is coming from the bolt clips themselves.  Satisfying?


 * Fortunately it seems its just come down to a case of conflicting fluff needs. While I'm not terribly convinced it's needed, I also don't particularly care too much.  Maybe later I'll stick in the spring-bearing clip idea. -- Eiji-kun 02:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Honestly, just saying "It works because of the mechanism," is completely valid. That completely fails to answer what the mechanism is or how it works, but you don't need to explain clockwork to say that clocks work because of gears.  --Undead_Knave 03:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Finally, I found what I am looking for. PHB Glossary, pg. 304: "action: A character activity. Actions are divided into the following categories, according to the time required to perform them (from most time required to least): full-round actions, standard actions, move actions, and free actions." pg. 306: "character: A fictional individual within the confines of a fantasy game setting. The words “character” and “creature” are often used synonymously within these rules, since almost any creature could be a character within the game, and every character is a creature (as opposed to an object)." That last part is important. When a trap resets itself, it doesn't have a choice in the matter. I ask, what other options does it have? What other actions does it get in a round? What is it's initiative? It doesn't have options, actions, or and initiative count; it's an object. It didn't have any choice in the matter of resetting. It happens automatically. Anything an object does is the result of a character's actions. Objects do not have ability scores, but constructs, as creatures, do. Incidentally, I found this while randomly wandering: Repeater Module --Quey 04:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(Indent reset) Yes. Your quote doesn't contradict me though. In your words, a trap doesn't have a choice in the matter. Trap goes off, it resets, no free will involved. Here the same occurs. Item is fired, trigger goes off, item is reloaded. It'll continue to be that way until it runs out of its 30 shots. It doesn't get any other actions because it doesn't say it gets any other actions, and not being sentient in any way, why would it?

Ah, the Repeater Module. Long ago I worked with Sulacu on that, a bit of hivemind thinking. I don't recall which game first. It's a good item, though in hindsight probably overprised. That's for Sulacu to edit though. She makes good stuff. -- Eiji-kun 04:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the PHB is clear about this. Actions are a character/creature activity, and creatures are not objects. Therefore, as objects are not creatures, they do not get the creature activity called the "action". Read it over again, or look it up for yourself. It absolutely contradicts the idea of objects getting actions. Actions are for characters. Period.--Quey 05:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Really? We're down to quibbling over "The crossbow loads itself as a free action as long as there is ammo in the stock" as opposed to "The crossbow immediately and automatically reloads itself as long as there is ammo in the stock"? - Tarkisflux Talk 05:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I go for a higher standard of quality. There is a big difference between those two statements. Saying that objects can take actions goes against the rules and common sense. If you don't want to improve articles then you don't need to be in this discussion. Besides, someone is wrong on the internet.--Quey 06:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Consider this the uninformed opinion of an average joe on the internets, but I can't even tell the difference between the two, even if you asked me. I'm not dumb by any means, but this is a granularity far beyond the whims of the average man.  Perhaps for an English teacher, I dunno, my field of choice is science and art... -- Eiji-kun 06:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well Eiji, I think the second is better because it removes the possibility of confusion as to what happens if the action can not be performed. It also removes the possibility that a sloppy reader might misread that and assume that the firing character needs to spend a free action to reload, which isn't bad but isn't intended. Plus, it's more in line with trap resets, which just sort of happen and don't reference action costs at all. - Tarkisflux Talk 06:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If it is as you say, then changed it'll be. It is now "The crossbow immediately and automatically reloads itself as long as there is ammo in the stock".  -- Eiji-kun 06:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm actually a Computer Engineer, not an English teacher. It has nothing to do with English teachers or average Joes. It has to do with the fact that, in D&D, "free action" means something in particular, and it is a precise technical term. While a free action may be "immediate and automatic", it neither guarantees that ALL free actions are automatic, nor that all immediate and automatic things are free actions. (I do have a healthy interest in logic and Linguistics, though :P)--Quey 07:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It really wouldn't matter if it read that the crossbow could reload as a free action. If two rules contradict each other, the more specific always supersedes the more general.  If it read that the crossbow could reload as a free action, that implies that:
 * The crossbow can take actions.
 * The crossbow can spend a free action to reload. (This isn't actually implied, but rather explicitly stated; it still merits pointing out, here, though.)
 * The crossbow - not being sentient - cannot choose its actions.
 * With these three things, we can see that the crossbow will either always take the action or never take the action. Given that there are rules for what happens should the crossbow reload, it's pretty easy to see which happens.  It's a case of if-then statements.


 * I stun their crossbow! Now it can't reload! lol --Ghostwheel 08:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I do know about specific superseding general. I'm for it, with a caveat: the exception to the general rule should be demonstratively different. When weapons say they can be dropped to avoid a counter trip, there's an actual difference there. Just like feats have the "normal" section, I believe that if you have an exception, you should be able to say what the difference is (or what the "normal" would have been), and hopefully, that difference is worth it. Here, we're needlessly adding an exception to the rule of "items don't get actions" for no appreciable change in the rules. If, however, you were to say that it's worth it to house rule in "this item gets actions", and you came back to review the item, you'd see that the rule it creates is horribly ill-defined. Can you stun it now as if it were a creature? Does the item get an initiative count? Furthermore, it sets the precedent that automatic things are now actions. How many automatic things a character does are actions. Nothing comes to mind for me. If you want to made some specific case that is an exception to the general rule, make it worth it. Here, since keeping the rules consistent with the general rule takes almost no effort I see no reason that it should not conform.--Quey 11:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Are we seriously still arguing about weather or not a ranged weapon should be able to auto-fire? Granted, it would be a little more complex than your standard crossbow.  Has anyone here seen VanHelsing?  I think they pulled it off pretty damn well.  Is it really all that hard to believe? --BackHandOfFate 22:40 10 August (PST)


 * Saying "it would be a little more complex than your standard crossbow" is quite the understatement. I mean, come on. Then you bring up the VanHelsing crossbow? It's about as far as you can get from a standard crossbow, and nowhere near realistic. It's great for an action movie. It'd work great as a magical device. But as a mundane item, even modern technology would have a hard time pulling off that rate of fire for 300gp, er, dollars. Just the engineering challenge of making the arms strong enough to be pulled back and fired a few times a second would be great. So, yes, all that is hard to believe. But it's a matter of degrees. The standard D&D repeating crossbow sits more toward what real repeaters are like, but pushed into the unreal - which is fine. That VanHelsing device sits way beyond realism, and this Rapid Fire Crossbow sits in between. And it's not that far out there. It's certainly not something that has existed in reality, but as it stands, it's not completely ridiculous.--Quey 02:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Even though this article has mostly positive ratings, the single negative rating makes it so that it would take an unreasonable amount of loves to become a community favorite – 6 more! This is an unfair expectation noting not only how few rate on this wiki, but also that a single like or neural, would meant the article would need even more. I am not meaning to infer that the negative rating should not be here – it most certainly should! Only a problem with the standards of ratings themselves. --Franken Kesey 06:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And? That's a feature, not a bug Franken Kesey. It means we don't put mixed rating articles up as CommFaves / CommOpps and instead save those for articles where we have a stronger consensus. And since we have the ability to exclude ratings that refer to things that are no longer true (which I have just done for Quey's rating), outdated ratings won't block that sort of thing. - Tarkisflux Talk 17:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (Replying to Quey, two posts up.) Oh oh oh oh! Man am I glad you brought up realism and rate of fire!  Because D&D itself is sooooooo borked when it comes to "realism" here, repeating crossbows or no.  This, incidentally, is also why "it's not realistic" is not a very good reason for D&D, a world where commoners can run full sprint for a minute, you can break the speed of light by passing a rock along a conga line, and the ability to pass through a 2 inch hole as an extraordinary, perfectly mundane ability.


 * The "real" rate of a crossbow firing is slow as shit. I quote, "A trained crossbowman could get off about 1 bolt per minute, vastly inferior to the 12 arrows a trained longbowman could achieve."  Apparently then a untrained commoner is 10 times as fast reloading with a light, and 5 times as fast with a heavy.  God help them if they get training (Rapid Reload) and become nearly 40 times as fast if their BAB is good.  And that's done already without a single point of magic to their name.


 * "Realism" demands a lot of weird things, like women having lower overall strength capacity* (according to inDenial FATALites anyway), diseases and poisons typically being far more deadly their their D&D counterparts, and most wounds being both fatal and crippling instead of being patched up with bedrest. But this does not make much of a fun game.  I'm not saying take a pure gamist approach, but you should have a greater appreciation for gamism for the purposes of having a smooth and working game.  So is this fast?  Hell yeah it's fast.  But this is the equivalent of movie heroes never reloading their guns and other botches from reality for the sake of the story.  Considering the extraordinary world around them, with creatures violating square cubed law left and right and wonky gravity physics, I can't imagine it's the rate of fire on a crossbow that twists thine figurative panties.


 * (*EDIT: Oh, and no, I don't actually believe this. It is, if anything, a cautionary tale of what happens when you get overly concerned with realism over anything else.) -- Eiji-kun 03:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I get the whole sprinting and rock passing things (though a DM might adjudicate otherwise for the rock passing, and probably should, similar to the mounted combat rules taking arrival time into account), epic abilities are something else. If this is some epic crossbow, fine, whatever. But I don't think that's what we're discussing here. I will give you that a heavy crossbow's speed is quite exaggerated, but I do think that the light crossbow's lever operated (or perhaps even hand operated) action would be faster than the rewinding action cited in your link. Also, a 20th level character is something beyond reality, and is bound to do many extraordinary things.


 * When I mentioned rate of fire, I was referring to the VanHelsing crossbow which fired at machinegun speed. Like, 3+ bolts in the air at the same time fast.


 * Yeah, there are a lot of abstractions made in D&D. Though disease kills most NPCs, it's not something the players have to deal with all of the time. They're exceptional. They have more HP that is not only the result of physical toughness, but the training to turn a dangerous blow into something less threatening. I am aware of these things and I accept them. Now, to be clear, I did not say that the speed of the Rapid Fire Crossbow was too high; I said the speed of the movie crossbow was ridiculous. I never had a problem with the speed of the Rapid per se, just with the original wording of magical free actions and energy coming out of nowhere.


 * As for sex differences, they do exist. Men in general have a higher performance ceiling for some activities (and, as proven in the recent Olympic games, not all activities). There's enough of a difference that the US military doesn't draft women or require them to register for the Selective Service. I am however opposed to such discrimination.--Quey 04:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)