Magic Potions Don't make Projectile Attacks Stronger ?!

[Kurgan]

I was having a discussion recently and this has come up a couple of times... and it might lead to a bit of a rant at the end.

It is said to me that a potion that normally enhances your attacks with extra dice (or Spell too I suppose, see "Courage") would not make a Crossbow bolt stronger. Why not?

"Because" they will reason, "the magic potion just makes your muscles temporarily stronger. So it might make you throw a dagger or hand axe harder than before, just as it would make you swing your Battle Axe or Sword Stronger, and do a more powerful hit to the enemy."

"But" they will say, "the Crossbow always is loaded in a specific way, you are not adding any extra tension to the bow string and you are just pressing the trigger like you would without supernaturally enhanced strength. So it shouldn't do any more damage."

To me though this is just an excuse to nerf the crossbow (again, what is it with people wanting to nerf the Crossbow? and often it's the same people who also believe it should be able to hit the close diagonals like a longsword; no offense to these people of course, I'm just puzzled by the logic)...

The game mechanic isn't based on historical accuracy, the laws of physics or any other sort of "realism" it's simply a game bonus is how I treat it. It makes your attack stronger because it does, that's the whole point of it. Calling it "Potion of Strength" doesn't mean it makes your arm muscles bigger. It refers to the strength of the attack (more dice = stronger, obviously, because it can do more damage, being harder to block completely).

What would a magic potion or spell that makes attacks stronger do for a Crossbow? You could say it magically focuses your aim, so that you are more likely to hit your target. Maybe you are more likely to hit the chink in the armor, or hit a vital organ. Or maybe it adds poison to the tips of the arrows or gives them better armor piercing heads? Maybe the spell never made you physically stronger, but made the weapon better, by increasing the weight of it (or the opposite, making it lighter and easier to handle) or sharpened the blade (or hardened it)?

See, using your imagination you can come up with a rationalization after the fact for why it makes a Crossbow attack stronger just as it makes the other types of hits stronger. Maybe it isn't referring to your muscle strength so much as the strength of the attack.

So to someone who doesn't want to nerf the crossbow this way, you haven't convinced me with your magic doesn't make you a better marksman argument. How does potion of defense work? Does it make your skin thicker? Does it nullify the trauma of the incoming attacks? Does it make your attacker more likely to miss? Does it make you move faster so you are more likely to dodge or block their incoming attacks? I'd tend to go with the last one. But this is magic we're talking about... somehow it works, and your justification for it working comes after the fact. I'm not against people changing the game, just challenging some of the commonly used arguments for why their way is better.

There are plenty of ways to make the Crossbow less powerful, but to me the Crossbow is fun to use and nerfing it only serves to discourage its use. Why would you want to discourage people from using it? If you as Zargon think it makes the game too easy for the heroes, there are other things you can do besides nerfing it. For example...

Make your monsters stronger or more numerous. Give your monsters crossbows too. Adjust the price. Whatever. But "nerfing" to me takes the fun out of it. Making a random chance for the string to break (making your weapon useless), or requiring you to spend more money on buying extra bolts (how many do you actually need per adventure? 20? 100? 1000?) or limiting the range to something silly like 9 squares (okay, so you haven't really weakened it for most encounters... you'll still be able to hit every monster in the room from the safety of the doorway, you just won't be able to shoot monsters on the other side of the long corridor without moving halfway there so within pursuit distance of the Orc and goblin). Sorry for the rant, but there you go. If you want to Nerf the crossbow go for it, but arguing the logic of magic physics to do it doesn't convince me.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

As at least one of the people responsible for pulling the pin on this particular grenade, I just wanted to say that I only made the observation that "attack" in the context of wording along the lines of "you may roll an extra combat dice, the next time you attack" is ambiguous around whether the reference is to hand-to-hand attacks only, missile attacks only or hand-to-hand AND missile attacks (and where throwing weapon attacks sit in all of this) and I had always made the assumption (and it was an assumption that I wasn't even aware that I had made until an alternative was pointed out) that it was referring to hand-to-hand attacks specifically. This assumption may be correct or incorrect I was just making an observation that I had made an assumption.

It wasn't in any way an attempt to nerf the crossbow, introduce more realism or historical accuracy or modify the laws of physics or anything similar

Kurgan, as you have correctly pointed out, there are many other threads around modifications/interpretations of the rules around the Crossbow specifically and missile weapons in general elsewhere so I'll leave those thoughts for those threads but for me personally clearing up interpretations and/or modifications around the use of the crossbow and missile weapons in general is NOT motivated by a desire to discourage people from using it, it is purely around increasing the clarity of the rules, and ensuring that the Crossbow and other Missile Weapons such as the Short bow are internally consistent with each other, throwing weapons and weapons in general.

For example if someone was to rule that the short bow cannot be used in combination with a shield, because it needs both hand to operate effectively and you cannot switch between weapons outside of your attack action, then internal consistency might suggest that the same rule needs to be applied to the crossbow.

[Kurgan]

Thanks for your reply...

The other throwing weapons: dagger, throwing axe (remake), and spear (EU only) all differ from the crossbow in one very important way... they result in the loss of the weapon, regardless of whether they hit their target (other than the newly introduced Bandolier for the Rogue in the remake of course). The first is no big deal but losing an expensive weapon to throw it at an enemy is a pretty big risk. Making it so that a magical bonus doesn't impact those weapons would be a disappointment if it were introduced, and since it's a rare thing (whereas a crossbow could be fired on every turn there is a monster, potentially) for me as Zargon I wouldn't object to it being there.

Balance vs. Realism. Not to single you out specifically with this, I've seen many, many places online over the years where attempts are being made to change the crossbow and realism is usually cited as a justification. Not always or exclusively. And usually it's not something consistently applied across the board, though admittedly one could imagine these same people have a more elaborate system explained elsewhere that adjusts the rest of the equipment in various ways to make them more historically accurate.

What is "balance"? Is this meant to give the monsters a better chance to survive, by making the crossbow less likely to kill them vs. other weapons? All weapons are not equally desirable, as some are simply weaker than others in the NA rules (see example of the Shortsword, which to me is present in the armory more as a way to explain how much gold you can get by selling it or if you forget how many dice to roll since it's the starting weapon of two heroes).

I can agree with you that at least some of those people believe they are "adding realism" to the game (or "achieving balance" implying that the Crossbow was OP and "out of balance" before). I just find fault with the decisions they've made. I don't generally see them applying the same attention in other areas, leading me to suspect they are just trying to nerf a weapon they think is too powerful (which is a perfectly legit thing to do, I don't really have a problem with people nerfing things if they want to in their game, though I recommend they see how it all works out together rather than just changing the one thing that bothers them and leaving the rest alone). It may not be the intention that no one will want to buy the Crossbow anymore when they're through, but it may have that unintended effect. Is a game without crossbows better than one with them? It's all personal preference. The consistency I see is that a potion or spell that buffs your attack dice does so regardless of what weapon you're using (and even if you're attacking with your bare fists!).

I may have a personal preference generally against nerfing things in the basic game, but that doesn't mean I think those people are wrong. They prefer to do it their way, but I think that the "realism" argument isn't as bulletproof as may first appear. Ultimately it doesn't matter what I think because people can do whatever they want anyway, but I wanted to challenge that notion and articulate more what I thought about it. I would say it makes sense that a magic spell that increases the damage you do would work even if you were using a gun or pressing a button that activates a drone that then attacks your enemy... because to me it's just a magic bonus to damage potential, not an increase of arm strength.

The only distinction I see is between "combat" (referring to rolling dice to attack) and "magic" (everything else that isn't included in the first one). If we treat Missile Attacks as a completely different category sure. Then again the magical attack of the Genie is more like a conventional attack compared to that of Fire of Wrath/Ball of Flame under the NA rules.

One could also argue that the artwork of the Potion of Strength clearly shows a character flexing an arm muscle and the PC game (which changes many things about the basic game mechanics and so isn't the most reliable guide) makes a reference to muscles swelling (might say the same thing for "Courage").

To me this is just an aesthetic shortcut. We could ask how possibly could "Rock Skin" really protect you from damage? Your skin literally transforming to rock would be a very painful experience and probably detrimental to the health of the receiver and probably wouldn't do anything to actually protect them from damage. Instead it's an artful way of describing what happens.. its as if their skin is suddenly as strong as stone (even if in reality they're taking the hit not on their bare epidermis but on their armor or shield).

To me it's less about scientific realism and just giving an artful, poetic expression to flavor the fact that this game mechanic increased your number of attack (or defense) dice.

I know of a player (and had no problem with it when he was Zargon) who decided that your mind points actually determine how well you can defend against missile attacks, so monsters with low mind points (say, 1 or 2) couldn't roll defense dice against it. So for him he actually buffed the Crossbow (and throwing daggers, etc).

I think the disagreement stems less from the above and more with the desire to change the game mechanics from one way to another that the player might prefer. So if you don't want characters shooting each other... without great risk and high probability of failure, you can adjust other things. My preference for buffing rather than nerfing to achieve that goal is my personal bias of course. Each to their own. But I think I've demonstrated that it's not a foregone conclusion that it MUST be one way because of realism or that this is what the designers should have intended all along.

One thing I like to use now is the German colored dice, to vary probabilities a bit, but more subtly. So Black dice for attack (and green dice for defense) for example showing aptitude, proficiency or greater skill in a certain area based on parameters you set yourself. Not everyone agrees. But maybe a certain character or a champion can wield a certain weapon better than someone else and you can use the colored dice to represent it (same as if they are trying to avoid certain attacks).


All this talk of Arm Strength raises another interesting question. What if it did work that way... and what if the reason the Wizard can't use those weapons is not because he's somehow allergic to (or religiously opposed to) metal, but that he's just lacking in physical strength comparable to the other heroes. Maybe the Potion of Strength or Courage allows him to temporarily use those same big weapons like the others? That would be an interesting mechanic. Somehow should playtest that...

[Kurgan]

I would treat a shortbow and longbow differently than a Crossbow or a throwing dagger. To me they are different types of weapons entirely.

Clarity is great. To me though the attitude of the Zargon or Hero player shouldn't be "well obviously I will follow the rules but if I think it's unrealistic I won't." To me that's a case where if the player is challenging something, then Zargon has to make the call. Zargon of course can use his "experience and imagination" to inform his call but it's his call to make. It might be that he rules the Crossbow is unchanged by Potion of Strength because having bigger arms doesn't change the string tension with the trigger pull, or he might reason that it's tuesday and he's hungry, so it doesn't work. He's Zargon!

But, if one were to strive for "consistency" I guess you could just offer for sale different versions of the crossbow that increase in strength (and price). Or maybe stick to different types of throwing weapons? But that doesn't answer the question for those who say that magic that makes your muscles bigger shouldn't make these weapons stronger because it's just the trigger pull with your finger. Some argue that loading the crossbow is the problem, that this takes two hands and so should take longer. To those people I'd ask, so are you saying the strength of the attack shouldn't increase with magical enhancement but the speed in loading it (which requires strength) is enhanced?

Maybe Courage and Potion of Strength should actually allow someone who has a crossbow to fire TWICE instead of once (but at the same damage roll value)?

This is all not to say that people who take the "it doesn't work with the Crossbow" approach need to add a "Potion of Marksmanship" that works the same way as Potion of Strength but on the Crossbow specifically, BUT, that's a fine idea too if someone wants to steal it.

The argument that the crossbow should forfeit a shield because it's "obviously two handed" because it takes two hands to load (never mind that real crossbows of the right size can be loaded and fired one handed by a clever person) can be answered by saying they obviously loaded the crossbow between turns and that's a free (and automatic) action just like someone doesn't have to take an extra turn to "ready" their sword or whatever (unless a person really wants to role play those and countless other actions in their game). To make things really realistic, they should also say that the Shield CAN be used with the Staff, Battleaxe, Spear, etc. without penalty because in real life there are shields and warriors who could do that too. And maybe in those rulesets they do this and I just missed it because I was so focused on the crossbow. Maybe Potion of Defense should not take armor into account if it's making one's skin thicker or stronger? Or maybe the presence of armor of some kind should be enhanced by the magic of Potion of Defense/Rock Skin?

I should point out that the Potion of Resilience/Defense in the Japanese version, if I recall correctly, was something more like the Potion of Elasticity, implying that actually the way it magically works is to make the hero harder to hit, like he's dodging or wriggling away from the attack and maybe only getting a glancing blow and this is simulated by the increase of defense dice...

To me it seems clear though that Courage and Rock Skin in the 1st Edition were meant to be the exact same as Potion of Strength and Potion of Resilience (aka Defense). It was in the 2nd edition that the spells achieved a greater power by having them last beyond the single roll (see the controversy when Avalon Bill on the AH discord said Courage only lasts for one attack in the remake edition). Potion of Speed was like Swift Wind. Now when you have a physical object (Potion, Spell Scroll) it can be passed around, while a spell is kept with the owner so that's a difference between them.

[wallydubbs]

I generally don't allow a Potion of Strength to increase crossbow attacks. Kurgan already covered the reasons why, even if he may not agree with them. But I'll respect his opinion.
In Regards to Courage, it's not necessarily the hero's strength that is being effected, more so his focus, I suppose, as courage would discards the sloppiness one would have while panicking.

The notions about throwing weapons such as hand axe or dagger, an argument can be made regarding Potion of Strength, it increases throwing power which reflects on speed and impact.
I would also allow a Potion of Strength to aid a hero attempting to open a Stone Doorway. This may not be specified on the card, but it would give the heroes a better chance at moving the stone slab.

I never really put that much thought into Potion of Defense, "Defense" is not so much an encompassing description as "Strength" or "Courage", there are a great many ways one can defend themselves, but the only other meaning one can take from their physical might would mental fortitude, but this potion doesn't really do much to aid mind points.
You can say I'm nitpicking or what-have-you, but this is essentially the way I play the game.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Lots of interesting food for thought here (although not all of it relevant to this particular topic – so I’ll reply to the crossbow-shield bit on the Crossbow--2 handed or can use a shield? topic!)

This is a complex area.

Kurgan makes a good point to bear in mind that Courage Spell/Potion of Strength, Rock Skin Spell/Potion of Resilience(Defence) and Swift Wind Spell/Potion of Speed where all originally paired and had the same effects (granted there are intrinsic differences between potions and spells, but the effects were the same), so perhaps the first question here is whether you (A) restore this approach, which AH appears to go with, or (B) accept the latter logic of the potion being a more powerful but shorter lived effect and the spell being a less powerful but longer lived effect and apply this consistently.

Why this is relevant is because if we go with (A) then for consistency any decision around hand-to-hand and/or throwing and/or other missile attacks would need to apply equally to both pairs, if we go with (B) then that doesn’t have to be the case, but even then for simplicity you might want to keep the effects consistent either across the board or at least across the spells and across the potions.

Another good point that Kurgan has made that the relevant cards as they stand state “attack” which by default (although the text isn’t always consistent on this) applies equally to hand-to-hand and missile attacks (whether bow or thrown) so a change here would be a change which to my mind has yet to be justified.

That said I agree with wallydubbs around the logic of excluding crossbows for the Potion of Strength, however you then need to consider short bows, slings and other non-throwing missile weapons and the Potion of Strength and also whether the same logic applies to Courage spell as the Potion of Strength.

I’m starting to get the feeling that leaving it as written and applying it to all attacks for both the potion and the spell might be the cleanest option, despite that logic being a little suspect around crossbows specifically, for me the cleaner simpler rules trump any complications.

Balance vs. Realism. Not to single you out specifically with this, I've seen many, many places online over the years where attempts are being made to change the crossbow and realism is usually cited as a justification. Not always or exclusively. And usually it's not something consistently applied across the board, though admittedly one could imagine these same people have a more elaborate system explained elsewhere that adjusts the rest of the equipment in various ways to make them more historically accurate.

I don’t understand what you mean by “Balance vs. Realism”, a game can be perfectly balanced and still completely unrealistic (chess) and as I’ve said before in a game, especially a fantasy one, then realism isn’t really a factor for me, clear, concise, simple mechanisms that are internally consistency is what I’m seeking.

Clarity is great. To me though the attitude of the Zargon or Hero player shouldn't be "well obviously I will follow the rules but if I think it's unrealistic I won't."

Yes but this is back to internal consistency, I would expect players, including the Evil Wizard Player, in general to accept, this is the mechanism that we use in this game to represent a particular activity or situation (this is pretty much the agreement you enter into when you play any game, or watch a fantasy film). However, if another activity or situation that is pretty much the same to the first one and yet we treat it in an entirely different and conflicting way, then we risk breaking immersion and forcing conversations about how the game works in the middle of a session when we should be focussing on what our characters are doing.

For example, I would expect players to accept that for missile attacks, throwing/non-throwing/magic missiles we use a “clear line of sight mechanism”, so a figure that I can validly target with a Ball of Flame could also target me with a Crossbow. Fair enough, but if you then say, if both figures are in the same room but with another figure in between then you can’t use the crossbow (as LOS is blocked), fine, but you can still use the Ball of Flame (even though LOS is blocked), then that will prompt a “why”, in essence we are breaking our own, previously accepted, rule.

But, if one were to strive for "consistency" I guess you could just offer for sale different versions of the crossbow that increase in strength (and price).

I don’t get this bit, if you split the crossbow like this, as an example
• Light Crossbow – 2AD, 200gc
• Heavy Crossbow – 3AD, 350gc

How would that be any more or less consistent than;
• Short bow – 2AD, 200gc
• Heavy Crossbow – 3AD, 350gc

I would also allow a Potion of Strength to aid a hero attempting to open a Stone Doorway. This may not be specified on the card, but it would give the heroes a better chance at moving the stone slab.

Interesting…

[Kurgan]

Yeah Chess is a fantasy game with arbitrary rules on one hand but a Chess lore expert can give reasons why everything is how it is in the game. When I was younger I had a book that explained these, like the pawns attacking diagonally to represent that they were peasants with pikes, and Knights could move the way they do because they were mounted warriors having their horse leap over obstacles and flanking, or the power of the Queen or the Bishop being represented by their pieces' moves (the King is an important but vulnerable man who moves conservatively but if he is taken the kingdom is defeated). I don't recall any explanation of pawns converting into Queens (them converting into other types of pieces makes "more sense").

I think if you make a change to the game, because it enhances your enjoyment of the game (or you are doing it purely for the sake of novelty because you're bored or curious) that's perfectly legit. For me these things don't do much for me, but I will respect your rules at your table, so if I'm playing somebody and they nerf the crossbow but keep everything the same, so be it. I'm not going to be annoying at the table about it!

[lestodante]

Potion of strenght is showing a character flexing his biceps, so it comes naturally to think to more physical strenfgt. On the other side, since the image is just an example, I agree on teh fact it amy give more concentration to shoot a more accurate hit with a missile weapon. So I would agree with both solution but I prefer the first one for some reason.
curious, if you notice the new crafted Heroic Brew from Rise of the Dread Moon, they have specified you may perform two weapon attack instead of one... what other kind of attack it could be?

[opalmox]

Ok, so how about a scroll spell or an ability card designed specifically for ranged attacks.

It could be an air spell called archer's breeze or a scroll/ability card called focus, where in ranged attacks gain +1 attack/damage.

[lestodante]

custom cards or homebrew rules can fix anything but I guess we were discussing about offical rules/cards.