In playing Rise and now working through Adventure Deck 5 in Skulls, my gaming group consensus is that armor is our least favorite card type and we dislike it taking up space in our hand. I think our dislike is that armor is a very passive card. So we are thinking of a way to negate this issue. We came up with the idea that instead of an exploration, you may instead equip your armor (assuming that it is in your hand), and that armor would then not count towards your max hand size. Armor would still then be used as normal, so if it is used then it is discarded, buried, recharged, etc. As per normal. Also, in order to equip armor a player couldn't have used the "once per game, you can discard a card to draw a card" rule and can't use that rule for the rest of that game. There was discussion that using an exploration to equip was skewed too far, so we decided that after equipping Armor, a person could roll a D6 and on a 5 or 6 still explore, but on a 1 through 4, they would need to use another card to allow this action. Thoughts about this idea? Does this rule seem "balanced?"
Does an equipped armor still count as being in your hand? I ask because there's a villain in S&S 5 that cares about that and you could run into issues if they are not counted as part of your hand.
Also, if you are instructed to recharge your hand and draw that many cards, would that include the equipped armor or does that stay put?
Also, in order to equip armor a player couldn't have used the "once per game, you can discard a card to draw a card" rule and can't use that rule for the rest of that game.
That seems to me like an odd restriction, especially since you can always discard any number of cards while resetting your hand at the end of your turn (and that isn't limited to once per game). The power of the rule you quoted is that you can use it during your turn instead of just at the end of it, so that card draw can be used to keep exploring or whatnot. I don't see how it comes into play regarding armor though.
Does an equipped armor still count as being in your hand? I ask because there's a villain in S&S 5 that cares about that and you could run into issues if they are not counted as part of your hand.
"Yes, it essentially would allow you to hold an extra card in your hand."
Also, if you are instructed to recharge your hand and draw that many cards, would that include the equipped armor or does that stay put?
"I think my group would exclude it from this rule."
Also, in order to equip armor a player couldn't have used the "once per game, you can discard a card to draw a card" rule and can't use that rule for the rest of that game.
That seems to me like an odd restriction, especially since you can always discard any number of cards while resetting your hand at the end of your turn (and that isn't limited to once per game). The power of the rule you quoted is that you can use it during your turn instead of just at the end of it, so that card draw can be used to keep exploring or whatnot. I don't see how it comes into play regarding armor though.
Essentially equipping a card will mean that you will be able to have one extra card in your hand which seems like it could be pretty powerful, especially if it lasts several turns. So to try and balance it out, we thought that a player would have to make a choice to either during the game use the discard a card to draw a card rule or they could use the equip armor home made rule but not both.
If it helps, we drew some inspiration for the idea from Lost Legends which you equip cards to your character. We didn't like the game of Lost Legends but we really liked this concept.
Two possible balancing additions:
1) If the character takes damage, they must use the armor to reduce the damage, if possible. This would prevent players from equipping one armor card and using a different (presumably better) armor card to affect the damage.
2) If the armor can be used to affect the damage and the character still takes damage after reducing the damage as much as possible (i.e., has to discard cards), the armor card must be discarded as the first card. This would mitigate some possible abuse of having the extra card. Damage that the armor can't affect wouldn't apply here, allowing the player to discard other cards.
Interesting rules idea. I think I like it, especially for those early characters with great weapons but small hand sizes. ;P
Would this rule apply ONLY to armors? Or to anything that can be worn?
This is a potential can of worms if so, but some things are magic items not armor IIRC (Ezren's robes comes to mind)
But if you open it up to 'magic items' (that are not one-shot like potions) that makes it too powerful, (Sajan and his favorite amulets, I'm looking at you!) :)
Hm, I may try this rule with my solo game I'm playing with Seoni and Kyra (RotRL) The time I've had just getting them through the intro adventure, I should be able to tell if this is too much advantage or not.
I like Brother Tyler's addendum rules and will play it that way.
Question, is this power available to any character? Or only those that are 'proficient' with armor?
Two possible balancing additions:
1) If the character takes damage, they must use the armor to reduce the damage, if possible. This would prevent players from equipping one armor card and using a different (presumably better) armor card to affect the damage.
2) If the armor can be used to affect the damage and the character still takes damage after reducing the damage as much as possible (i.e., has to discard cards), the armor card must be discarded as the first card. This would mitigate some possible abuse of having the extra card. Damage that the armor can't affect wouldn't apply here, allowing the player to discard other cards.
My group was thinking the same thing. Thank you for writing out those rules.
Interesting rules idea. I think I like it, especially for those early characters with great weapons but small hand sizes. ;P
Would this rule apply ONLY to armors? Or to anything that can be worn?
This is a potential can of worms if so, but some things are magic items not armor IIRC (Ezren's robes comes to mind)But if you open it up to 'magic items' (that are not one-shot like potions) that makes it too powerful, (Sajan and his favorite amulets, I'm looking at you!) :)
My group has discussed expanding the use of the rule for other things but I didn't want to include those thoughts in this thread as I wanted to keep it to our original idea about armor first. We haven't even had opportunity to play test the armor rule yet and want to do only that before considering other changes.
Hm, I may try this rule with my solo game I'm playing with Seoni and Kyra (RotRL) The time I've had just getting them through the intro adventure, I should be able to tell if this is too much advantage or not.
I like Brother Tyler's addendum rules and will play it that way.
Question, is this power available to any character? Or only those that are 'proficient' with armor?
Our group thoughts are that as long as a character has obtained armor, they can use this rule but then if anything requires that the lose the armor, then the must follow that rule. For example, I am playing a character that can't currently keep any armor. I might acquire an armor during an adventure but once that adventure is completed and I am resetting my hand, I can't keep it(even if the armor is still equipped). I hope that makes sense.
I would love to hear your thoughts on how your playtest goes.