GimmeYerGold's [revised] Custom Cards Preview: Combat Skills

[GimmeYerGold]

Skills!

These are short, only 9 skills but I think it'll be plenty. This requires a bit more background explanation though

Notes:
1) I previously had hero-specific skills that were tied into an advancement system based on number of quests completed. Specific skills were granted to all heroes, even spellcasters. I found this led to an overabundance of cards, and reduced the importance of spells and items. For instance, my wizard had his 9 spells, plus 2 or 3 skills, PLUS his potions and items!! That's just too much to choose from.

2) So, the skills in THIS set are intended for use only by the Barbarian, the Dwarf and the Monk. The "skills" for the spellcasters should remain just that, their spells.

3) First, 6 skills are available, then a new skill is introduced for every 3 quests completed. They are meant to all be fairly balanced, like hero spells.

4) Similar to the spell selection process by the Elf and Wizard (and Bard in my custom set) each hero will take turns choosing an allotted number of skills. The Monk may choose 3 skills, the Dwarf 2, and Barbarian chooses 1 skill. The choose in that order, one at a time, until each Hero has their share.

5) Reasoning: The monk has low body points (only 3!) but high attack, so may choose more skills to offset his body point handicap. (a "glass cannon" remember?) The barbarian will have an all-the-time extra +1 attack die, so I felt any more than 1 skill would make them too powerful, diminishing their importance as the frontline fighter. The dwarf will start with a dagger, and 2 skills, plus the trap disarming skill to fit right in the middle between the monk and the barbarian.

Thoughts: I am considering calling these "Combat Spells," and replacing all instances of the word "skill" with "spell," so that the "cast a spell" action is a universal action to all heroes, and any potions or artifacts that affect spellcasting may also be used for these, furthering my goal of modularity with this set.

Of course, even if they were called "Combat Spells" they would not be available for use by the "true" spellcasters, at least, not in addition to the spells they already can choose from, and the Barbarian, Dwarf, and Monk would not be able to use the other spell groups. (This sort of limitation mechanic among spell groups functions like the Elf Quest pack, how the Wizard may not choose from the Elf Spells, but the Elf can.)

This is my newest addition of card sets. It's meant to be less complicated to play with on the front end, but required some thinking about on the back end.

Any feedback is welcome, as always.

More card sets I'm working on:
[revised] Encounter Cards here: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2828
[revised] Artifact Cards here: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2826
[revised] Chaos Spell Cards here: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2822
[revised] Hero Spell Cards here: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2821
[revised] Monster Cards here: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2820
[revised] Equipment Cards here: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2818
[revised] Lone Monster Cards here: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2816
[revised] Settlement Cards here: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2813
[revised] Treasure Cards here: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2812

[cynthialee]

Call them "Combat Actions" or "Special Actions" instead of Spells or Skills.
Calling these actions spells is confusing.
Calling them skills leads one to think that the card should not be surrendered after use.

Allow the Mage to gain a Combat Card after every 10th quest and it will not be unbalanced. When you add extras for warriors and do not provide something for the Wizard then balance issues will raise their heads.

[cynthialee]

Also I would have them buy the action card with 'quest points' for lack of a better term and they start each dungeon only with the cards they have purchaced.
I feel perhaps the system as set is too generous in the allocation of these cards.

[GimmeYerGold]

Thanks for the feedback! Overall, did the cards seem balanced?

The idea was that a spellcaster would still feel even with a warrior who has these skills, The Barbarian has 1 skill = the elf has 3 spells, the Dwarf has 2 skills = the Bard has 6 spells, the Monk has 3 skills = the Wizard has 9 spells. The idea is that 1 spell group = 1 skill, 3 spells vs 1 skill. I feel like the ratios could even the odds, as long as the skills were balanced enough.

As for the wizard, or the other spellcasters choosing these skills, once enough quests are achieved and there is an excess of skill cards introduced, then perhaps the idea of a spellcaster replacing one of there spell groups with a single skill could work naturally, and inversely, the monk could choose a single excess spell in place of their allotted 3 skill cards.

The idea is I want the warrior-type heroes to have something to choose from other than "kill nearest monster" each turn as a proactive action, but I don't want to overload ALL the Heroes with options or throw the balance outta wack--the monk having 3 skills at most does not seem excessive. In the set there exists only 3 actual "combat" skills, and the way they are introduced will prevent any one hero from choosing all 3, if every hero wanted to choose one.

This deck, and the settlement deck seem to be the ones in need of the most work to integrate them snag-free, and actually add something to the game without mucking it up. I'd like to be able to include them both without having to add an addendum of rules.

With the warrior-type skills in mind, I'm going to allow the bard to purchase all armor types, but no ranged weapons beyond a sling, and his weapon tops out at a 3 dice mace (350 gold coin price tag). I've allowed the wizard to be able to purchase the mace as well, no ranged weapons beyond a sling, and regular wizard armor restrictions. I feel that helps make the spellcasters feel more like they're on even turf with the warriors. Each spellcaster has at least 3 armors they can purchase, and there is a talisman of might to increase their body points by 1. The equipment is the advancement, and the skills and spells are the "less messy" alternate actions.

[Anderas]

I don't like them as much as the others. They seem to be quite strong! Are they one-use only or can they be reused as often as the hero wishes? In case of one-use i might change my mind a bit.

[GimmeYerGold]

I don't like them as much as the others. They seem to be quite strong! Are they one-use only or can they be reused as often as the hero wishes? In case of one-use i might change my mind a bit.

Yes, these skills are each used as an action, once per quest, like spells. I agree these are in need of the most work to fit with the others, along with the settlement cards which need some workshopping as well.

Thanks Anderas!

[cynthialee]

My only issue with them is the allocation at start.

After a set amount of Dungeons the Heroes except the Wizard should be allowed to learn 1 of these. And it is the same one every Dungeon. As they advance they can learn new powers.
Now I could see allowing a Monk Hero to start with one of these cards. But I guess that really depends on the Monk being used...not all player created heroes are cut from the same cloth.

[Daedalus]

A heap o' feedback (TL;DR warning):

It seems best to me to make a seventh seperate action: Use a Skill (Barbarian, Dwarf, and Monk only). Similar to the Cast a Spell action, it is used in place of an Attack action. This organization mirrors the three seperate Search actions.

Acrobatics

If this is meant to be a combat skill and match the image, I'd change "On this turn, you may move part way, perform another action, and complete your movement." > On this turn, you may move part way, perform an attack action, and complete your movement. This will prevent the combination of two combat skill actions which would be too much, in my opinion. It also would prevent odd searches which have little or nothing to do with acrobatics.

Awareness

This is a cool skill, but combat isn't involved. The catch-all "Skill" would cover Awareness and the other combat skills more accurately, in my opinion. If you want to keep Combat Skill accurate, you might want to drop Awareness from the group or even create a new skill group for stealth or exploration.

Cover

I'd modify "...As soon as a friendly figure you can 'see,' is attacked by an enemy figure,..." > ...As soon as a friendly figure you can 'see,' and reach is attacked by an enemy figure,... As the spell stands, it is possible to switch figures from more than 12 spaces away in a long corridor. It's also possible traps can be ignored. This isn't anything new in Hero Quest (trap and secret door searches operate similarly.) This is really a call to address an old issue. If your play style doesn't require such detail, then dismiss it.

Regardless, there is an issue concerning line of sight between two diagonally-adjacent opponents:

. . ______
|b|o|_|
|o|_|_|
|_|_|e|
Can the Elf see the Barbarian between the Orcs in this square room? Some at the Inn think the answer is yes while some say no. If yes, movement rules must be contradicted and overridden for the Elf to move between the Orcs and change places with the Barbarian (cards can do that.) By rewording as "see" and reach, both LOS and movement issues can be avoided if you think this clarification is needed.

Does Cover forfeit a Hero's action on his next turn as an action was already spent and is owed? I'm assuming yes.

Wandering Monsters opens a can of worms, as Cover may be used in any other Hero's turn as well as Zargon's/Morcar's. On another Hero's turn, may a Hero taking a Cover action (moving to switch positions) later move again on his turn? I assume yes, using an action and then a move; is this what you intend? May a Hero move to within sight of another Hero but not take an action, then use the unspent action to take a Cover action later in the same round of turns? I'd guess this also is allowed.

Cover uses automatic movement. A Hero in plate mail can exploit this by leapfrogging into a battle already engaged by faster Heroes. Likewise, a plate-mail laden Hero could leapfrog a long distance out of an engagement by trading places with a Hero using the Cover action. This suggests Cover might benefit from using rolled movement to prevent circumventing the plate mail handicap. Rolled movement would also provide another way to solve the long corridor 12+ move, the intervening trap issue, and potentially solve the assumed move + secondary rolled move if desired.

Finally, here is a shortened alternate and an optional alternate:


Cover

This special skill may be used during an
enemy's turn. When a friendly figure
you can "see" is attacked, you may
immediately trade places with them to
defend the attack instead.

Cover

This special skill may be used during an
enemy's turn. When a friendly figure
you can "see" is attacked, you may try
to defend in their place. Immediately
Roll your movement dice. If you can
reach the attacked figure's space, move
that figure to the nearest empty space
and move your figure to defend the
attack instead. If a trap ends your turn
or your roll is too low, you can't cover.

[Daedalus]

The rest of the cards:

Furniture Toss

To throw a piece of furniture like a weapon, you must be able to ''see" the target. Since the furniture may affect an area, does this mean a figure obstructed by the seen target may also be hit even though it isn't visible, or must all figures hit be seen? In the example below, the Barbarian throws a weapon rack (###)at two Orcs:

. . . ._________
|#|#|#|_|o|
|_|b|_|e|o|
|_|_|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|_|_|
If he targets the top Orc, can he hit the bottom Orc that isn't visible as well, entirely missing the obstructing Elf? If the answer is the lower Orc can't be hit, then that means a second rank of figures can never be targeted. In that case, the area of effect of a 2x3 piece of furniture doesn't ever apply. However, your card implies incedental targets can be hit since area of effect is mentioned. Therefore, the answer must be yes, the lower Orc can be hit.

To help clarify the issue for the reader, I'd change "...allowing you to immediately throw it like a weapon. It affects an area of squares equal to the number of squares that the furniture occupied." > ...allowing you to throw it at a target like a weapon. It affects the target and any other squares equal to the area the furniture occupied.

While throwing a table or weapon rack makes sense in a fun way, throwing a fireplace doesn't seem possible. I'd change "This skill may be used on an adjacent piece of furniture, allowing you...." > This skill may be used on an adjacent piece of furniture except the fireplace, allowing you.... For that matter, throwing an alchemist's bench, altar, sorcerer's table, tomb, bookcase, or cabinet is quite a stretch considering figures blocking line of sight can be ignored. Maybe just limit throwing a piece of furniture at a target in a square adjacent or diagonal to the furniture. That's a bit more wordy, though.

Quick Reflexes

This skill appears to allow a lot. For instance, it is possible to Trample forward with 3x3 AD attacks and then Whirlwind Strike with 4x2 AD attacks. Or are two Combat Skill actions considered the same action for the purposes of this skill? In that case either Trample or Whirlwind Strike could be combined with an attack--still a lot, in my opinion. At least combat skills are one-offs.

Trample

Moving through enemy squares is basically Veil of Mist. Adding in up to 3x3 AD attacks is a bit much, in my opinion. I think it could be enough for a Trample to affect just 2 figures with a 2 AD attack each. A little less trampling should still be fun with this cool skill.

Whirlwind Strike

This spell pretty much summons the attack power of 4 adjacent Fire of Wrath spells which lower-powered monsters will have trouble defending. I think two adjacent attacks should be sufficient to create a payoff. If you feel it isn't enough, another option could be for the primary attack of the two to be a regular attack while the secondary attack be 2 AD.

[Daedalus]

If you Inkscaped this, I think it would work as a substitute for the Ignore Wound image. It was fanmade art from this Talisman site.