Rules Design Question: Why is "Take Damage, if Necessary" part of the Check?

[First World Bard]

(Since I know how the rule works, but not why it works, I figured this was a better forum than the Rules Discussion forum. Feel free to move the thread if that's not actually the case.)

Having read Mike's blog post about the game continuing for some time, and the rulebook being a living document (awesome post, by the way!) I figured I'd ask a rules design question for the group behind the game, as well as anyone else that want to chime in, of course? :)

Why are you bound by the cards you've played earlier in the check during the "Take Damage, if Necessary" part of the check? I feel like this disproportionately affects characters that use lots of items. I would think that Sanjan would like to use both his Amulet of Mighty Fists and Bracers of Protection, and that Seioni should benefit from her Sihedron Medallion if her Wand of Force Missiles wasn't up to snuff.

There are examples of this in the Armor category, as well. If all Valeros has to fight the Ghost is a Deathbane Shield, he needs to weigh actually using it to get the Magic trait vs being able to use his armor if he shanks the roll. The same decision is required of Mirasel wearing a Snakeskin Tunic throwing daggers at an enemy: take the +1 bonus, or save the Armor use in case the dice are cold?

Arcane Armor and Mirror Image were errata'd to allow them to combine with other spells. I'm curious as to why Spells were special-cased in this regard, instead of changing the Take Damage, if Necessary portion of the check to allow a new set of card-plays.

I wouldn't be surprised if something broke were you to do that, I haven't really taken the time to think it through. If this question has been thought through by the developers or anyone else, I'd be interested to hear about the discussion. Once again, thanks for making a great game that actually has me thinking about the intricacies of the rules and writing up a forum post. :)

[csouth154]

I think it would make perfect sense to allow the use of a damage reducing item even if you used an item earlier in the check. Same with armor. It makes no sense to me at all that you can't use the Snakeskin Tunic, for instance, to add to your dex check and also absorb damage on the same check. I mean...the armor is on your body, right? What's the issue? I don't think it would break anything. The game would hardly play differently at all, really...and it would be more thematic.

[aurax]

I agree, taking damage should be a separate step of the encounter sequence. It will make the whole thing easier to remember, too.

However, some items will lose a lot of appeal, I am thinking on those marked as "you can play another item on this check" -> that advantage will be lost.

So I do not think the current pool of cards would easily accept this change.

[Hawkmoon269]

There is a comment by Mike here that gives a bit of insight into some of this, but I think you were looking for more maybe.

There is also so minor discussion here, here, and here.

I think (but I'm only guessing here) the reason it is this way is at least partially for these reasons:

1. Multiple checks to defeat. They want each of the checks to result in damage against monsters. If taking damage weren't part of the check, it would have to be part of the encounter, and if you would have to create a cycle of check, damage, check, damage to handle multiple checks to defeat. Which might just get messy.

2. I think they want you to have to make that tough choice you describe. I think there are damage reducing items, armors, and allies. And those types of cards can also be played to help the check itself. They want you to have to choose whether to increase the check, or hold something back for damage. Remember, making choices is one of the key components of the game.

As to why Spells get such a big exception, notice it is Arcane spells that get the exception, and that the Arcane characters can't (generally) keep armor, or at least not much of it. So by giving them an exception for Mirror Image and Arcane Armor, they instead face a different choice: "Do I use a spell card slot in my deck to have in case of damage, or do I use that slot for another purpose?" Even if Ezren or Lem were to think about taking an Armor card feat, they are basically saying "Do I take an armor for protection, or use that feat to give me another spell?"

So I think it comes down to wanting you to have to make a choice and not have it be a "no brainer" decision.

That is just my guess though. I could easily be totally wrong and instead have just wasted your time reading this. I would love to hear more about why this was decided this way, because I love hearing about how the game was designed. (Was it this way in the playtest, which was very different?)

[First World Bard]

Hawkmoon269 wrote:

That is just my guess though. I could easily be totally wrong and instead have just wasted your time reading this. I would love to hear more about why this was decided this way, because I love hearing about how the game was designed. (Was it this way in the playtest, which was very different?)

Hawk, you beat yourself up too much sometimes.

The provided links were very useful, as always. :)

[kysmartman]

The spells had to be given errata because you couldn't play them otherwise. I mean yeah, Ezren and Lem have a weapon, but are you really happy if you ever have to use them? Poor Seoni has no default weapon slot and you're going to want her first 3 card feats to be spells to make her almost impossible to kill, unless playing her solo. This takes the obvious choice of taking another attack spell over a card you'd never get to play and turned that into an actual choice.

As for why the other stuff was done that way, I'd love to know that too though I like Hawk's post a lot.

[Mike Selinker]

My short answer: Because making you make choices is part of the game.