So I think by now most of you have, at some point or another, read about my dislike for armors. I think they're next to worthless, no matter what the character. The trait on many magic armors that allows you to recharge it when you reset your hand isn't even enough for me, as, if you plan to not use it, there's still a turn between drawing it and recharging it in which it does nothing, and I still nearly always get rid of it anyway, making my deck worse for having it there (if I never use it all it does is slow down the turns in which I draw it).
There are a couple exceptions, for instance I think the Snakeskin Tunic is well designed as you can use it for a bonus when you don't need it as armor. Of course, since you can't discard it to prevent damage when you use it for the buff it's basically a glorified belt/headband...
But I digress. The reason I made this thread was to just chat about how to improve armor so that it still helps the game and does what it's supposed to but that even people like me will like it. This will probably accomplish nothing, but I thought it would be an amusing exercise. I had an idea myself and thought I'd share it and get people's opinions on it, so I'll start off the conversation.
---
My idea:
The crux of the matter, to me, is that, rather than hold onto armor until you take damage, many players would rather have another card in their hand that does something else. While they're waiting on the damage the armor will prevent, it's not doing anything where another card might be doing something helpful. This is further exhasperated by the fact that, the better built and stronger your character is, the less often you need to play your armor.
But what if there wasn't a choice between armor or the other card? My thought is that, if armor didn't count towards your hand size, it wouldn't take the place of other cards; having armor in your hand would be like a bonus card, rather than a card you have in place of something else.
So, what if every (or at least most non-basic / magical) armor had the following text:
Immediately after resetting your hand, you may reveal this card to draw a card.
With this ability, a player with a hand size of 5 cards has five cards every turn until she draws an armor. Then, if she desires to, she may reveal the armor to have a sixth card in hand - her hand is now the typical five cards plus an armor. If she draws another armor, her hand (if she wants to only) can be her normal 5 cards, plus her two armors. And for those who are worried about drawing too many cards - the effect is optional, you can reveal as many or as few armors as you like to draw cards.
So now players can still use armor exactly as intended - but they don't have to make the choice between having armor or another card in hand.
Thoughts? Anyone else have any ideas?
|
So I think by now most of you have, at some point or another, read about my dislike for armors. I think they're next to worthless, no matter what the character. The trait on many magic armors that allows you to recharge it when you reset your hand isn't even enough for me, as, if you plan to not use it, there's still a turn between drawing it and recharging it in which it does nothing, and I still nearly always get rid of it anyway, making my deck worse for having it there (if I never use it all it does is slow down the turns in which I draw it).
There are a couple exceptions, for instance I think the Snakeskin Tunic is well designed as you can use it for a bonus when you don't need it as armor. Of course, since you can't discard it to prevent damage when you use it for the buff it's basically a glorified belt/headband...
But I digress. The reason I made this thread was to just chat about how to improve armor so that it still helps the game and does what it's supposed to but that even people like me will like it. This will probably accomplish nothing, but I thought it would be an amusing exercise. I had an idea myself and thought I'd share it and get people's opinions on it, so I'll start off the conversation.
---
My idea:
The crux of the matter, to me, is that, rather than hold onto armor until you take damage, many players would rather have another card in their hand that does something else. While they're waiting on the damage the armor will prevent, it's not doing anything where another card might be doing something helpful. This is further exhasperated by the fact that, the better built and stronger your character is, the less often you need to play your armor.
But what if there wasn't a choice between armor or the other card? My thought is that, if armor didn't count towards your hand size, it wouldn't take the place of other cards; having armor in your hand would be like a bonus card, rather than a card you have in place of something else.
So, what if every (or at least...
Armors for the most part only come into play when you take damage. The way we take damage most often is that we fail a combat check and have to reduce that damage with armor. Since there is already this relationship between combat and damage, why not take that one step further?
What if you can display or recharge an armor to add 1 to your combat check? This way you always have a choice to remove it from play (display, recharge) and gain a combat bonus, or hold onto it in case you take damage. Maybe it always has more damage reduction than it provides as a combat bonus, providing another trade-off.
Flavor-wise combat does not mean attack, but the overall battle. Armor helps in battle, hence it can provide a small benefit to combat.
I think maybe that would make armor too good. Especially if you could stack the effect and have two or three armors "on the side."
Maybe something like discard/bury to get a combat bonus? Thematically it would mean diving in closer to the enemy and recklessly shredding your armor.
I think there ought to be more of a distinction between different kinds of armour.
I think shields should have more options for offence, particularly when used by characters proficient with armours.
actual worn armour (breastplates, mail, full suits etc) shouldn't have these powers, but I think the power level needs to be better.
Too many times, I've ended up discarding an armour as just "a card" for the damage, rather than playing it for its power.
By adventure 6 of RotR, there were a couple of armours which were massively useful - but only a very limited number, the ones which could be revealed to deal with damage of types other than just combat.
Particularly early on, if you're fighting properly, you won't take that much damage, unless it's from direct effects - Enchanter, Goblin Pyro - none of the armours are any use against single points like that.
So, overall, more utility for the shields, and more power for the wearables would seem sufficient for me.
But armor doesn't really help you fight better, it just keeps you from getting hurt.
What if you could only have one armor on the side? This effect could be in the rules, too, instead of on the cards.
After a player resets her hand, she may reveal one armor to draw another card.
Although, I don't think it would be too big a deal to have multiple armors "on the side."
EDIT: Ninja'd by Jim! I'll reply to you in a moment.
Also, I think if armors can be used to add to combat bonuses then we're stuck back where we started, where they're not doing what was intended.
I think there ought to be more of a distinction between different kinds of armour.
I think shields should have more options for offence, particularly when used by characters proficient with armours.
actual worn armour (breastplates, mail, full suits etc) shouldn't have these powers, but I think the power level needs to be better.
Too many times, I've ended up discarding an armour as just "a card" for the damage, rather than playing it for its power.
By adventure 6 of RotR, there were a couple of armours which were massively useful - but only a very limited number, the ones which could be revealed to deal with damage of types other than just combat.
Particularly early on, if you're fighting properly, you won't take that much damage, unless it's from direct effects - Enchanter, Goblin Pyro - none of the armours are any use against single points like that.
So, overall, more utility for the shields, and more power for the wearables would seem sufficient for me.
The only thing I'd be cautious about here is getting too complicated. I think armor is fundamentally flawed - you don't fix that with a complicated series of effects on every armor.
What if you displayed some armors? And you could only keep one displayed at a time. Then when you took damage, you did what the armor said to reduce damage (reveal, recharge, discard, bury).
Seeing some armor or a character that could do that sounds interesting.
Recharge this card to reduce Combat damage dealt to you by 4.
Banish this card to reduce all damage dealt to you to 0; if you are proficient with heavy armors, bury this card instead.
If you are proficient with heavy armors, you may display this card if you have no armor already displayed. When you are dealt damage, you may activate a power on this card as if you had played it. You may bury this card at any time you are not in an encounter.
So, you drop the ability to recharge it when resetting your hand. And if you want to swap it out to display another armor you have to bury it. But it would give a big bonus to being proficient and would keep it from hurting your hand size.
What if you displayed some armors? And you could only keep one displayed at a time. Then when you took damage, you did what the armor said to reduce damage (reveal, recharge, discard, bury).
Seeing some armor or a character that could do that sounds interesting.
Hmm, let's take it a step farther. How about this:
You "equip" the armor, removing it from your hand and putting it on your character card. If there was already an armor equipped, discard that armor. You can use any of the armor's effects while it is equipped as if it was in your hand. They could even make things like "While you have this armor equipped, you may evade banes with the ranged trait," or "...equipped, your hand size is increased by one," or "...equipped, you may trade cards with another player at any time during your turn." The possibilities go on...
Armor is like insurance: not everyone wants it, not everyone likes it, and not everyone thinks it is worth the cost. But there are those who do, and people who find insurance/armor to be invaluable, especially when it comes time to actually use it.
It sounds like you want the protection but you want it for free. Part of the cost of having this protection is that it takes up a spot in your hand.
This same argument could also be made of just about any card, especially items, which IMO are far more situation than armor.
Armor is like insurance: not everyone wants it, not everyone likes it, and not everyone thinks it is worth the cost. But there are those who do, and people who find insurance/armor to be invaluable, especially when it comes time to actually use it.
It sounds like you want the protection but you want it for free. Part of the cost of having this protection is that it takes up a spot in your hand.
This same argument could also be made of just about any card, especially items, which IMO are far more situation than armor.
There would still be a cost - there are only so many cards that go in your deck. Not near as much of one, to be sure, but still. Regardless, the current cost on armors seems to be too high. Especially in RotR - I doubt you'll find hardly anyone who used armors in that AP compared to those who rarely used them.
And there are plenty of items far from situational (compared to armor). Staff of Minor Healing, Masterwork Thieves Tools, Emerald Codex just to name a few. In fact, a lot of the most powerful effects come from items... There are a lot of situational items, to be sure (I'm looking at you, potions!), but there are far more non-situational items than non-situational armors.
I like Orbis' fix to armor; having it displayed works really well.
However, I think their is a fundamental misconception about armor in this thread. People keep saying that you only need it when things go badly. Sure, armor helps out when you get a bad die roll, but, at least in RotR, what really need is armor that helps you deal with pre and post combat damage. The ability to handle that kind of damage is what seperates successful and unsuccessful parties in the first campaign. Yes, items can fill that roll, but armors, especially the high level armors are your best tools for mitigating that damage.
I like Orbis' fix to armor; having it displayed works really well.
However, I think their is a fundamental misconception about armor in this thread. People keep saying that you only need it when things go badly. Sure, armor helps out when you get a bad die roll, but, at least in RotR, what really need is armor that helps you deal with pre and post combat damage. The ability to handle that kind of damage is what seperates successful and unsuccessful parties in the first campaign. Yes, items can fill that roll, but armors, especially the high level armors are your best tools for mitigating that damage.
Whoohoo, Josh agreed with me! :D
...Sorry, nothing of value to add at this point. XD
lol
However, I think their is a fundamental misconception about armor in this thread. People keep saying that you only need it when things go badly. Sure, armor helps out when you get a bad die roll, but, at least in RotR, what really need is armor that helps you deal with pre and post combat damage. The ability to handle that kind of damage is what seperates successful and unsuccessful parties in the first campaign. Yes, items can fill that roll, but armors, especially the high level armors are your best tools for mitigating that damage.
Agree. Armor (shields notwithstanding) lets you reduce any* damage (*assuming the damage doesn't prevent you from reducing it), not just combat damage. This alone makes armor a huge plus in my book.
EDIT: Taking damage in general is "things going bad" regardless of whether it is the result of a failed check.
I like Orbis' fix to armor; having it displayed works really well.
However, I think their is a fundamental misconception about armor in this thread. People keep saying that you only need it when things go badly. Sure, armor helps out when you get a bad die roll, but, at least in RotR, what really need is armor that helps you deal with pre and post combat damage. The ability to handle that kind of damage is what seperates successful and unsuccessful parties in the first campaign. Yes, items can fill that roll, but armors, especially the high level armors are your best tools for mitigating that damage.
While your statement that pre- and post-combat damage are the big reasons for mitigation, I disagree with your conclusion that armor is the most effective means of dealing with it. The problem with that conclusion is that most of that kind of damage is non-combat (fire, force, poison, etc.) which armor cannot handle without being buried until adventure 5 (with 3 exceptions: shield of fire resistance, hide of fire resistance, and the reflecting shield, none of which handle force or poison, or have more than 1 copy). On the other hand, in the item slot, you have amulet of resistance, sihedron medallion, and ring of protection, both in the first few adventures (one being basic) and all able to prevent non-combat damage. That is the big weakness of armor: that it cannot handle the very thing it is there for: preventing damage. Because such a high percentage of armor cannot block non-combat damage, it does end up as nothing more than an insurance policy for most of the game, and really only becomes worthwhile once you can suit up with a reflecting shield, invincible breastplate, and adamantine armor.
I completely agree that armor doesn't fully come into its own until AP 5&6. But all armors have the power to bury to soak a large spike in damage, and that's generally enough to get you by most threats on the early game. I fully endorse tweaking armor to make it better against non-combat damage.
I'll admit that even I, the great armor hater, frequently ran Ring of Protection for pre-combat damage. My box was altered to increse the number of mosters that do this to up the difficulty, but still.
Note, however, that I never took more than one ring of protection. I wouldn't want multiple armors even if they all had the ability of Ring of Protection.
It's also worth noting that, even if armors didn't count towards your hand size like in my initial suggestion, most of the time I still wouldn't want an armor as one of my deck slots until I got one with a special, additional ability. That might be just personal taste, but it doesn't change the fact that it's true, even when armor is that much better.
Honestly, as is, when I'm looking at a character and I see that they come with armor in their deck, I consider it a downside - several characters are way down on my list of how much I want to play them just because they have armor...
I hate armor as it is right now lol
Simple, thematic solution. Armor should mean the difference between victory and defeat, not victory and running away. If you absorb all damage with the basic portion of armor's reduction (not the bury/discard ability), then the monster is considered defeated. This also makes sword and board style viable.
So all armors become luckstones?
Yeah, that seems a bit much, considering the cost of Luckstones or Seoni's power. Oloch's ability to use armor as a RoP seems fairly balanced, and it gives you something to do with armor, but like Orbis I'm way, way down on armor, and I'm not sure what could fix it without making it feel immediately overpowered. Using it as post-check insurance immediately strikes me as way too strong--a chainmail would be a post-fail +2, which is as good a Greater Luck Stone, and you don't even have to bury it.
|
|
I think we should wait to see how armor's role has or has not changed in Skull & Shackles before we pass judgment on the card type as a whole. This is hardly the first time this critique has been mentioned, and Mike, Chad, and his crew are generally pretty amenable to changing the "weaker" parts of the game to make it more useful and fun.
The one thing I noticed is that the Buckler card was "reveal" to reduce one combat damage, but only if you're proficient in light armors. That's interesting for a Basic card, though every shield in RotR beyond the Wooden Shield is as "reveal," as far as I know.
Of course there's also the BUCKLER GUN, which I'm awaiting details on.
After a player resets her hand, she may reveal one armor to draw another card.
This game is really about making choices and trade offs. So maybe this new ability for armor is something you can get on a support card, you gotta earn it. And maybe if a player buries an armor it gets buried by that player too. Some kind of magical talisman for armor that makes it "lighter" for the whole party.