Ye Olde Inn

Just playing around with the formatting here, I modified the standard character card. Since the subject of character cards are handled differently in the case of HQP. I wanted to see if this could work for my purposes. I might still change some stuff, depending on how it goes. Comments, critiques, or suggestions?

Personally, I like the character's image being part of the background of the card. The characters sound interesting.

StratosVX wrote:Personally, I like the character's image being part of the background of the card. The characters sound interesting.

I like that, too. Only the faces shouldn't be covered by the lettering. Otherwise a fine solution.
Also, try different fonts. Gaze for the title, maybe bold or italics for the special rules parts that will help them be differentiated from the introductory sentence.
I do like the rules themselves, some of them I wrote up for my own heroes.
Don't even know if I presented them somewhere at the inn, but then again, some of them just impose themselves on you when you think about character classes.
Well done.

P.S. I take it that "Complex" (as with the Chronomancer) is a special rule for equipment cross-referenced in your rulebook or somewhere else.
That's also a major feature of what I've been trying to write. Geniuseseseses think alike.

knightkrawler wrote:

StratosVX wrote:Personally, I like the character's image being part of the background of the card. The characters sound interesting.

I like that, too. Only the faces shouldn't be covered by the lettering. Otherwise a fine solution.
Also, try different fonts. Gaze for the title, maybe bold or italics for the special rules parts that will help them be differentiated from the introductory sentence.
I do like the rules themselves, some of them I wrote up for my own heroes.

I used the same fonts from the template of the original cards here. But you're right, some differentiation would help the special ability stand out more. I'll see what I can do.

knightkrawler wrote:Don't even know if I presented them somewhere at the inn, but then again, some of them just impose themselves on you when you think about character classes.
Well done.

P.S. I take it that "Complex" (as with the Chronomancer) is a special rule for equipment cross-referenced in your rulebook or somewhere else.
That's also a major feature of what I've been trying to write. Geniuseseseses think alike.

Yes, all of the capitalized words have specific meaning. I had posted up the rules here at the Inn some time ago, and in it all equipment has been re-categorized with keywords. This is the list of keywords I use.

Bulky - may not be used with a Two-Handed weapon
Complex - too unwieldy to be used by Hybrid and Caster classes
Cumbersome - too unwieldy to be used by a Caster class
Heavy - movement is reduced to 1d6
Long - melee attacks orthogonally 2 squares away
Ranged - shoots projectiles at a distance up to your BP squares
Reach - melee attacks diagonally and orthogonally
Reclaimable - not lost once thrown, but broken on a 4, 5, or 6 on 1d6
Thrown - is thrown at anyone at a distance up to your BP squares
Two-Handed - requires two hands to use, may not be used with a shield

When I publish my version of the equipment sheet, it will once again list the keywords and their definitions in the corner, so even if you don't have the rules handy you will know what you can and can't do with each item.

Here's the updated layout. (Also pictures half the size because holy cow those were huge.) It goes:
Class Name (Type)
Description
Ability
Restrictions
Stats.


Yes, I changed the art for the Chronomancer to a female Dragonkin. Because reasons.

I think the second set is better. Looking at the Warrior though, I think there is a lot going on in the background over the stats. Especially around the Body Points. Still looks really good though.

StratosVX wrote:I think the second set is better. Looking at the Warrior though, I think there is a lot going on in the background over the stats. Especially around the Body Points. Still looks really good though.

I agree about that, it probably should have more transparency. But remember the art is just a placeholder for now and it will be changed in the future.

However, it occurs to me that maybe "Restrictions" might be misinterpreted? Is it possible someone reading the card will see the list of restrictions as what the character is restricted to using? This would be the absolute opposite of what it's intended for. I wonder if there is a more direct and clear way of communicating that?

I don't understand the splitting into weapon and armor. Well, I do, but I don't think it's necessary. Do your equipment cards list those monikers like "Complex" or "Shield"? Or do they just cross-reference to a list in the rules? If the cards carry them themselves, a hero could see what he can't use after reading the restrictions on his character class card.
Thus, you could just write "none" where there are no restrictions.

Teldurn wrote:However, it occurs to me that maybe "Restrictions" might be misinterpreted? Is it possible someone reading the card will see the list of restrictions as what the character is restricted to using? This would be the absolute opposite of what it's intended for. I wonder if there is a more direct and clear way of communicating that?

No ...s

Teldurn wrote:However, it occurs to me that maybe "Restrictions" might be misinterpreted? Is it possible someone reading the card will see the list of restrictions as what the character is restricted to using? This would be the absolute opposite of what it's intended for. I wonder if there is a more direct and clear way of communicating that?

The only thing I've been able to come up with is "Prohibited".