Another crossbow thread

[knightkrawler]

"You may use the Crossbow once to negate all skulls of a monster's attack. The card is then discarded."
Something like this? Doesn't sound so bad. Nice joker.

[Redav]

For the moment this is what I have in my rules;

If you are attacked while a bow is equipped, you defend with one less combat die. If you receive damage, you may choose to take one body point less but your bow breaks

[Lemmeron]

I am tackling the ranged weapon thing a bit different.

For crossbows I have created a reload card it basically works like this.
It is assumed you begin the quest with the crossbow loaded and ready to fire.
When you see a monster you may fire the crossbow as your attack action - all the usual LOS rules apply (including cant be fired at a monster adjacent to you), and there is a range limit on my ranged weapons that increases as the quality of the weapon increases (I have currently 2 crossbows, throwing daggers, slings, short bows, hunting bows and long bows in my system) You may also defend as normal because it is assumed you see the monster and fire and then ready your weapons as they charge you....

My crossbows




Once it has been fired on - your next turn you have the option to reload it as you attack action.

Reloading is basically automatic if there are no monsters in sight, but usually takes your attack action
Reloading if monsters are in sight if risky and thus like everything in heroquest has consequences....

here is the reload card - hopefully it is pretty self explanatory (if you dont have purple dice you can roll 4 normal white combat dice)


so basically 4 skulls is a critical failure caused by trying to reload while monsters are rushing at you or attacking you (this cant happen to dwarves or mechanics or anyone if no monsters are in sight)

I am still trying to decide if i track the number of bolts on a character sheet or just do the whole purchasing bolts = enough for the current quest.

[Redav]

Just wondering, why does a crossbow allow extra attack dice when it's strength isn't relative to the base attack that a character might have? Also, why do they say 'Can't attack this turn' when it's your action and you couldn't attack anyway?

I'm not being critical here but the reload stuff sounds a bit unnecessarily detailed*. I get why people like to add extra detail as natively HQ's pretty light and misses some obvious stuff but it also isn't heavy tabletop gaming. I think adding reloading is good because those things aren't particularly quick to load but maybe something simple like 'reloading is an action and is only possible if no monsters are within their movement range of you''?

*but it's your game so do as you please

[Lemmeron]

It allows better attack die for dwarves and mechanics because in my game they are better at using mechanical contraptions, hence the dice reflects this over the average character. It also makes sense that an elf who has never used one before is going to be both less accurate and also slower at reloading a crossbow under pressure than a dwarf who in my game has mechanical expertise reflecting they already know how to use it well. This is also alluded to in the way a dwarf disarms traps in the original hero quest. Barbarians in my game already gain an inherent character bonus to all weapons they use, which accounts for their strength and combat prowess, but strength doesnt make you pull a trigger any better - so expertise counts more. This again is all balanced as part of my overall character and game system.

The second is it takes an action to reload, but if you roll 1 skull or less you can fire it again as part of that action - because you reloaded quickly... so you have a chance to actually attack with your attack action (which also allows you a good chance to reload once all the monsters are dead, and then fire it if you go around a corner and see a new baddie)
4 skulls = you try to reload it, and you stuff up bigtime and the damn thing recoils in your hands injuring you in the process and ending your turn
3 skulls = you try to reload it, but are either attacked or put off so badly by the charging monster that you dont get it reloaded.
2 skulls = you get it reloaded, but it takes your attack action, and you dont have time to aim and fire before the monsters move/attack
1 skull or less = you are able to keep your cool, and reload with practiced efficiency and can get a shot off.

The idea is that in combat bad stuff happens, so standing there trying to reload a weapon is likely to have bad consequences, you can do it.... I allow it... there are times it is worth doing... but generally you are better off using your normal weapons and reloading after the fight.

one thing I will be adding into the reload card is that you cannot attempt to reload when an enemy is adjacent to you.

[Anderas]

Hm

I don't like tables for dice rolls, so if it was me alone, I would remove that part. After, it depends on your group. If they think it's cool, then keep it that way.

Then I find it strange that more than half of the Crossbow card is used by "Weapon" "May not be used by Mages" and "Cost 450 Gold Coins".

If you remove that anti magic symbol, this part could look like that:


May not be used by mages
450 Gold Coins

Or you remove the sentence and leave the anti magic symbol only

--> No need to write "Weapon" (except if there is something in your rule set that needs it desperately)
--> No need for range on the Hero Quest Board - but if you like it, why not

Then, to give one additional strength, what does it mean? A Hero with Dagger and Crossbow shoots with 2 Dices; a Hero with Long Sword and Crossbow shoots with 4 dices?
--> I would rather give it a set strength.
--> Either remove the sentence or the part with the Symbol
--> If you use the symbol, remove the "die" after the die
--> clean up: shove all the italic parts in one paragraph to make it easier to read

[knightkrawler]

I think Lemmeron put many thoughts behind this and goes at the whole card and text writing thing from a liguistic standpoint that you don't see in the original HQ.
Like me.
Everything on the card is necessary in his rule complex because it has a very restricted meaning, I'd wager. Like "weapon". As opposed to the original HQ cards, here it has a strong meaning, defininf cross-references of the term "weapon" in other cards and rule texts. It's the key to a ruleset that is to be interpreted in one way and one way only to avoid debates like HQ did between players and the EVP.

The + values are because Lemmeron broke down the base stats of heroes into a basic stat for attack and defend and the starting weapon modifier. After all, when a hero upgrades with equipment, the starting weapon is replaced and thus a different modifier added to his base stat. Original HQ doesn't do that.

[Redav]

--> I would rather give it a set strength.

Agreed but what Lemmeron is accounting for isn't just straight damage, it's also skill and experience (base strength & experience + weapon strength = damage roll). It's not my cup of tea (if this was something I'd account for, I use a skill / bonus system) but each to their own, I'm not bagging that.

[knightkrawler]

I use a base stat system myself. All heroes have 0 AD and 1 DD. Fighters have +1 on both and may enter 1 AD/2 DD directly on their character sheet because it doesn't change even when weaponless. All weapon and armor items have +values. It's just the natural thing to do.

[Anderas]

I rather like to set the weapon stat to a given amount of dices because if you make it a bonus, you needa rule more that tells you what you can combine and what not. Each rule less is a good rule.

So the base stats of a hero would be a good bonus for me because there is no need to clarify where it can be added to: it can be added everywhere. A bonus on a specialized weapon on the other hand needs a rule saying what to combine with it and what not, so i would try to avoid it.

From my pnp roleplay sessions i still have nightmares about dicing tables, so this is a good feason for me to remove it. Even if it costs a game function.

Finally, from my work i am used to making failures if i update something that appears double or triple, which is why strongly opt to have each rule only one time on a card. Some really bad experiences. This is where my "symbol or sentence not both" comes from.