Ye Olde Inn

While working on a crossbow Hero it occured to me there is a thematic problem with the Potion of Strength card. The relevenant text: "...You can drink this strange smelling liquid at any time, enabling you to roll two extra combat dice the next time you attack."

What if you drink it while using a missile weapon? With a dagger, I'd say adding two combat dice makes sense, as would combining the potion with a spear or hand ax. However, firing a crossbow with bonus damage from strength makes no sense to me (same for any bow, if you add them in). Yet rules as written dictate exactly that. I'm houseruling this one to fail with the crossbow. Any other opinions?

I agree.
Yet, as I am one to have all rules and rulings written down, I also include it in the wordings of card texts.
in this case, on the Potion of Strength card:

You find a small purple flask. You can drink this strange smelling liquid
at any time during your turn enabling you to roll
two extra combat dice the next time you attack in melee.
This card is then discarded.
Shuffle it back into its treasure deck only after this quest.

I added "..in melee" to address the problem. At the same time I include diagonal attacks.
I see the same problem with the Courage spell, by the way. But it's easily solved in the same manner.

I don't see that as a problem. The game's physics are already pretty abstract, why draw a line before the crossbow. The singular fact that the benefit gained is bestowed by drinking a magic potion should be enough reason to leave the crossbow alone. Furthermore, "strength" is relative to the measure of its application. Every single weapon is described as providing "attack strength." The potion of Strength specifically influences your next attack, not your ability to fight with a hand-weapon. Its not called the "Potion of Punishing Crossbow Wielder," so why bust balls? What most people call "strength," is actually called fortitude. Strength is a completely relative measure, and for the purposes of describing attacking an enemy in battle it would surely include poise, alacrity, awareness and so on. The game already abstracts the entire physical and mental self into four numerical values. Also, there is no reason on earth you could not use a crossbow in a melee. Unless you're using the erroneous definition of the word ruled in Third Edition D&D? A melee is not anything at all like that. A melee is unstructured combat--all with any equipage, outside of formations, can participate. Its a mixed bag. Imagine playing Chess with completely random pieces. There used to be a sporting event called a Melee, where a bunch of dudes would armor up and beat the hell out of each other with wasters for fame and glory.

If I were going to kick around the crossbow, the first place I would start would be the whole unlimited quarrels shenanigans. I have seen dozens of home-ruled exclusions levied on the poor crossbow, but never a single one that required the purchasing of its ammunition to use.

chaoticprime wrote:If I were going to kick around the crossbow, the first place I would start would be the whole unlimited quarrels shenanigans. I have seen dozens of home-ruled exclusions levied on the poor crossbow, but never a single one that required the purchasing of its ammunition to use.

Well, duh!
I have the Ammunition card.

All my cards for ranged weapons (except the sling) say:
In order to be allowed to use this weapon you must have the card Ammunition.

The Ammunition card itself reads:
This lot of ammunition lasts for one quest.
Price: 35 Gold coins

_______________________________________________

CP, I would be completely be with you, but as I remake all cards, I thought I better not stop before this simple rewording of Courage and Potion of Strength.

________________________________________________

Also, for bows I'd say, strength (as interpreted by Daedalus) does play a significant role. I'm really thinking about this now...

I would probably use tokens.

It's a bonus for attacking. I see no reason for punishing a player for using the crossbow.
Keep it simple.

But maybe "strength" bestows magical powers into the weapon in the hand of the person who drank the potion? The sword/dagger/arrow starts glowing with magical energies! WoOoOoOo...

Or maybe he uses his mighty strength to throw the actual crossbow... whatever...

Goblin-King wrote:It's a bonus for attacking. I see no reason for punishing a player for using the crossbow.
Keep it simple.

But maybe "strength" bestows magical powers into the weapon in the hand of the person who drank the potion? The sword/dagger/arrow starts glowing with magical energies! WoOoOoOo...

Or maybe he uses his mighty strength to throw the actual crossbow... whatever...

Yup, my opinion as well. We agree once more G-K

Also, bigger muscles means greater physical control over your environment. Muscles grant speed and poise. Crossbows are also bastards to reload. Being strong enough to reload a crossbow, while holding a shield, and covering one eye may require spellroids.

chaoticprime wrote:I don't see that as a problem. The game's physics are already pretty abstract, why draw a line before the crossbow. The singular fact that the benefit gained is bestowed by drinking a magic potion should be enough reason to leave the crossbow alone. Furthermore, "strength" is relative to the measure of its application. Every single weapon is described as providing "attack strength." The potion of Strength specifically influences your next attack, not your ability to fight with a hand-weapon. Its not called the "Potion of Punishing Crossbow Wielder," so why bust balls?...

These are excellent points. I'm probably willing to snipe at the crossbow because in my opinion it is the most unbalanced weapon in the game. Also, I think I'm allowing the art to influence my judgement, which may not be the best idea. The picture shows a guy with a bulging bicep and power lines radiating out from around his arm. My take was the strength was a physical sort transfered through his muscles. This is the first definition I think of when I think of strength. This increase cannot be transfered through the mechanical limits of a crossbow, which stores a specific package of force. Unless you're Nigel Tufnel, these ones don't go to eleven. However, take the picture away, and it is much easier to see things as you describe--the application of the damage potential from a weapon. I may decide to simplify to RAW in the future on that basis.

chaoticprime wrote:...What most people call "strength," is actually called fortitude. Strength is a completely relative measure, and for the purposes of describing attacking an enemy in battle it would surely include poise, alacrity, awareness and so on. The game already abstracts the entire physical and mental self into four numerical values.

While I agree your application of the term "strength" within the rules is valid, I see things differently in terms of rationalization. I wouldn't assign personal strength as an umbrella term for poise, alacrity, and awareness. I'd instead place it along side them, and say all of these terms are subsumed by "attack ability" or maybe "power." This is what best describes the attack strength of a weapon, when comibined with the qualities of the weapon itself.

Predominantly, I think personal strength (not weapon strength) best equates to physical strength. This strength is abstractly described in the rules under Body Points (fortitude would also work in the BP sense), but alone personal or physical strength is only part of attack ability/weapon strength. There is my problem. The impression I got from the card is the potion is imbibed and thus confers personal, physical strength. Big arm = physical strength = balls to the crossbow which can't benefit from a big arm. Admittedly, magic can exceed this direct interpretation, but I feel crossbow bolts with external, nonpersonal magical strength attached to them is an unlikely description. For me, strength flows from within. Of course, this is just an opinion I'm attempting to justify. RAW works just as welll in an abstract game, even better if you see things differently.

chaoticprime wrote:Also, there is no reason on earth you could not use a crossbow in a melee. Unless you're using the erroneous definition of the word ruled in Third Edition D&D? A melee is not anything at all like that. A melee is unstructured combat--all with any equipage, outside of formations, can participate. Its a mixed bag. Imagine playing Chess with completely random pieces. There used to be a sporting event called a Melee, where a bunch of dudes would armor up and beat the hell out of each other with wasters for fame and glory.

I have no problem with "melee" as a game term--it needn't agree with the historical meaning. Words are continually given new meaning by those who publish, and melee can quickly define a common game situation clearly. I think knightkrawler's gaming use of melee is understood by most, if not all, forum members.

Another way to put it: "...You
can drink this strange smelling liquid
at any time, enabling you to roll
two extra combat dice the next
time you attack. May not be used
with the crossbow....

If one wanted to include bows, add "or bows" at the end of the last sentence above or change the entire sentence to "May not be used by a weapon that is fired."

chaoticprime wrote:If I were going to kick around the crossbow, the first place I would start would be the whole unlimited quarrels shenanigans. I have seen dozens of home-ruled exclusions levied on the poor crossbow, but never a single one that required the purchasing of its ammunition to use.

I like the way you think. Feel free to check out my earlier thread on the topic.

The card text of mine was translated quick and dirty.
In the German form I use the term "Nahkampf" as opposed to "Fernkampf".