|
3 years ago ::
Dec 18, 2009 - 10:55AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2006
|
I do sort of like the exclusivity that occurs by requiring card races to use one less card. It helps keep races that should be rare more rare and seems to reduce how much they are picked as a powergaming platform. It also takes one more card out of the stacks.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 18, 2009 - 11:18AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2008
|
While I like some of those, I wonder if it would turn the game into more of a us vs. them situation than is strictly necessary. I think LFR should be as little adversarial as possible (between GM and players) and while a little bit of it is necessary, I think adding tools like this make it more so. As for reduced cardage - yes, I think that 5 at Paragon is too much. 4? 3? probably plenty. I'd like to see cards more like "Gain a minor action for one round while dazed" instead of "Snap out of it!". Cards that negate monster abilities, or seriously enhance your own, are too powerful for something that isn't a core mechanic. D&D wasn't built with the assumption that players are going to be able to ignore certain rules, so why do the cards do that? Even the re-roll cards are too powerful I think. Adding a +X (5?) in certain circumstances would be plenty of benefit. Re-rolling on a 1 sort of kills the whole point of missing on a 1 (likewise I'm not sure how I feel about Lucky Shot). Cards that add a bit of move, or quick drawing something, or allowing a jump in certain circumstances aren't game breakers but can add a lot of fun and flavor. Unlocking races: Meh. I think, (so far) either the races are two cheesy and there's a reason they aren't core, or they are too weak. Keep the +1/2 benefit for a spent card to allies only. It encourages sharing and tactical thinking. GM's don't need it for their monsters 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 18, 2009 - 10:57PM
#13
|
|
|
No multiple copies of cards in a stack
2 cards at heroic (plus quest cards)
3 at paragon (plus quest cards)
4 at epic (plus quest cards)
This sounds about right... 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 19, 2009 - 12:19PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2008
|
I'll repeat my suggestion:
Using an RPGA reward card during play reduces the XP and base gold for the mod by 1% for all players. There's still a benefit to having many cards and, indeed, getting new ones: in the face of a TPK or failed skill challenge you have more options to pull it out.
However, if every player in your group uses all of their cards willy-nilly, they could lose up to 30% of the rewards for the mod at paragon tier.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 19, 2009 - 5:15PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2009
|
I'll repeat my suggestion:
Using an RPGA reward card during play reduces the XP and base gold for the mod by 1% for all players. There's still a benefit to having many cards and, indeed, getting new ones: in the face of a TPK or failed skill challenge you have more options to pull it out.
However, if every player in your group uses all of their cards willy-nilly, they could lose up to 30% of the rewards for the mod at paragon tier.
Not that I'm opposed to the suggestion, but reducing base gold and XP by using cards could have a couple of unintended consequences.
1) Players who want to use cards will still use them, and some animosity at the table might occur.
2) Some players might actually want to reduce their xp (at the cost of a little less gold) in order to keep their characters at a play level longer in order to fill in quests. Whether or not this a good or bad thing, I don't have an opionion on. Just remarking that it might occur.
"At Gencon 2010, WOTC will announce a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons." - crm(1/2010)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 19, 2009 - 8:08PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2004
|
Some great ideas have been posted.
How about when a player uses a card the DM can reroll an attack against that character or reroll a save versus an effect that character caused?
Or give the DM a generic +1 to use per card played.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 19, 2009 - 8:42PM
#17
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Why the need to increase the number of cards as you increase in level or tier, anyhow?
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 19, 2009 - 10:45PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2008
|
I'd honestly be happy with stack size of 2/3/4 heroic/paragon/epic, but I'd almost like to see them categorized.
You can have
any number of quest cards
1 creation card at level 1 only
1/3/5 expansion cards (at 5/15/25)
2/3/4 effect cards at 1/11/21
Something like that keeps the number allowed close to what it is now bu
Blah blah blah
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 19, 2009 - 11:10PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2005
|
Some great ideas have been posted.
How about when a player uses a card the DM can reroll an attack against that character or reroll a save versus an effect that character caused?
Oh yeah, so when he finally rolls a 1 and it looks like my character will just be dazed, slowed, and prone instead of dominated or restrained, that tiny speck of false hope can vanish too? I'd rather not have cards at all than have that kind of mechanic. (Of couse, I'd favor "no cards at all" but that's beside the point).
Or give the DM a generic +1 to use per card played.
That would be better but still not a very equitable trade. The DM knows all of the PCs defenses or can ask. PCs don't get to know the monsters' defenses unless they're writing down what hits and misses as they go and it still takes a while to find the right number. At the tables I play, probably 30-50% of the bonuses from cards end up being wasted because we have to take a gamble and it doesn't always pay off. Now the card does have an initial benefit so it would still be better to have the cards than not to have them, but that doesn't mean it would be a good idea.
The bottom line on cards is that most of them are situational or worthless (turn the tide, for instance is something that may not trigger at all and almost certainly won't trigger when you need it) but a few of them are really powerful (re-rolls, lucky shot, snap out of it, that'll do, etc). Now, D&D players on the whole are reasonably smart and tend to take the ones that are powerful and ignore the ones that are useless.
Now, you could change them by making them less inherently attractive, but that would only make things worse. You could reduce xp (which would actually increase the gold/xp ratio and thereby marginally increase character power over time), reduce gold (which would essentially reduce them to consumables), give the DM some kind of mechanical benefit if the players use them (depending on what it was, it might do anything from making them wholly worthless to not doing anything)--but in the end, players would adjust to their cost/benefit analysis and, if it did anything, you would be faced with either a worse situation. If you made them unattractive enough, no-one would use them and they become just a big waste of time, cardstock, and postage. If you make them less attractive without making them all unattractive, you would simply reduce the variety of cards people used. If it's no longer worth the price to, for example, get a shift during a run and grant a +2 bonus to an ally, or to get a shift when you are bloodied, but it is still worth the price to get out of daze, rather than seeing people with a quick getaway, a scramble to safety, and a snap out of it, they'd just take three snap out of its. Neither of those situations would be an improvement to the card system.
Now, if you reduce the number of cards people get, you would reduce their impact on the game. If you agree with me that they probably have too much impact at the moment, that would be an improvement.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 20, 2009 - 12:21AM
#20
|
- Dragon Slayer
- If only he would apply himself
- Dammit Jim, this is Star Trek, not D&D!
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2006
|
The DM knows all of the PCs defenses or can ask. PCs don't get to know the monsters' defenses unless they're writing down what hits and misses as they go and it still takes a while to find the right number.
This is not always true. Some DMs follow the advice Andy Collins gave in his article Game Transparency, which suggests letting players clue in on defenses as they interact with the monsters. Even with the ones that don't, it usually isn't a big deal. To be honest, I seldom know PC defenses better than players know monster defenses, or vice-versa. And I don't see DMs generally memorizing my defenses. There are 4 defenses per player, 4-6 players... my brain might recall the defender's AC, but tends to flush just about everything else.
On the card ideas, most tables of players with all the rewards choose just about the same rewards over the same tier spread. There is some minor variation by build/role. As they reach paragon they start taking a few more situational cards for fun or to cover new possibilities (like the shift away card or the run one just to trigger +2). Card choices seems predictably optimized to me, and I doubt any strategy will change that - it really can't get much more optimal, just smaller in breadth. At low levels, At-Will re-roll and That'll Do shines. Snap Out of it as you gain some levels. Around 7-10, depending on build, drop 1-2 At-Wills for others depending on role, plus take more Snap Out of It. If you do damage, Lucky Strike is a big one.
Anything that voids all current cards would likely be met with resistance. The likely solution is to limit the number of current cards. Then, add more cards of a more reasonable sort so that you can still have the fun element and the collectible side (encouraging con attendance, especially the big cons), but without breaking the system. A slight lowering of total numbers may or may not be needed depending on the ratio of current cards to less powerful ones. I've had a couple of reward card discussions for home games, with the idea being to make play more fun and interesting, not predictable and too easy. The ideas from Savage Worlds comes to mind, though they are more open-ended (and often more powerful) than I would use here. An example of a cool one for the Deadlands weird west setting is a card that suddenly brings a traveling merchant into a scene. You could use it for cover or to get away in combat, for supplies in the wilderness, etc. This is too much, but shows the extent of what a gaming system can allow. For LFR, I keep going to the idea of something weaker than a utility power but in that vein.
Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips! Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).
|
|
|
