Now that I'm back from DDXP and settled in, it's time to spoil the 3 new Promo Rewards Cards that were released. 
Coordinated Attack General
"Ready? On three..." - Aryana, half-elf artifice and master tactician <+1>
Prerequisite: Membership in an Adventuring Company, Adventuring Company play session.
Benefit: When a member of the group spends the extra action point granted by the Adventuring Company, use this card to gain a +1 bonus to all attacks until the end of your next turn. Turn this card sideways to indicate that it is used.
Champion of Winter General
"I braved the icy clutches of the north for this?!" <+1>
- Unknown adventurer, just before assaulted by an eye of frost
Benefit: When you take cold damage from an attack or deal cold damage with an attack, use this card to increase or decrease the cold damage by 5 (your choice). Turn this card sideways to indicate that it is used.
Death's Foe General
"Trouble the world of the living no longer!" - Grim, tiefling paladin <+1>
Benefit: After you hit a creature with the undead keyword with an attack, use this card to score a critical hi if you've rolled a natural 19. Turn this card sideways to indicate that it is used.
Benefit: After you hit a creature with the undead keyword with an attack, use this card to score a critical hit if you've rolled a natural 19. Turn this card sideways to indicate that it is used.
Er, so Death's Foe is Lucky Shot, except limited only to undead and no countervailing benefit to make up for the limitation. Am I missing something, or is this card just a trap?
Thanks for posting these.Benefit: After you hit a creature with the undead keyword with an attack, use this card to score a critical hit if you've rolled a natural 19. Turn this card sideways to indicate that it is used.
Er, so Death's Foe is Lucky Shot, except limited only to undead and no countervailing benefit to make up for the limitation. Am I missing something, or is this card just a trap?
You aren't missing anything, alas.
One friend let it inspire him to create a completely ineffective 0-synergy PC. He would, of course, only choose this card for his stack.
Death's Foe was the "humor piece" of the convention. All judges received that one in their D&D gift backpacks. It was brilliant of Tulach to bring levity to the convention via a reward card...
One friend let it inspire him to create a completely ineffective 0-synergy PC. He would, of course, only choose this card for his stack.
Oh, all the attendees got it. There was some perplexion goin' on.
I'm not promising that we'll change anything, but one of the areas where the LFR Global Admins can make changes is in how Reward Cards interact with the campaign. I do not see us ever removing the cards from the campaign entirely; I know a lot of people would be happy if we did, but I think that Organized Play still sees the cards as a useful marketing tool, a nice convention giveway, etc. and I think that a majority of players either like them or are at least ambivalent towards them.
What you might see us do, however, is alter the way the LFR "card stack" rules work and/or issue errata for specific cards. For example, Alphastream mentions that Death's Foe would be a fine card if it wasn't a subset of what you can already do with Lucky Shot. Rather than have everybody chuck their Death's Foe cards into a shoebox, I'd rather see us tone down Lucky Shot. Maybe LS should only work on a particular subtype of creatures, or maybe it only works with at-will powers, or maybe it takes up 3 spaces in your stack instead of 1 (meaning you can have 3 cards that are not Lucky Shot, or you can have Lucky Shot), or ... ?
The simplest option, of course, would be either to do nothing (in which case Death's Foe is worthless) or ban Lucky Shot (in which case Lucky Shot is worthless) but neither of those feels particularly satisfying to me since players were given both cards in good faith. I'm not a fan of adding rules, but this might be a case where adding a few rules for specific cards would be a net positive for the campaign.
Thoughts? Any other cards you think we should consider changing, and if so, how?
Gomez
The simplest option, of course, would be either to do nothing (in which case Death's Foe is worthless) or ban Lucky Shot (in which case Lucky Shot is worthless) but neither of those feels particularly satisfying to me since players were given both cards in good faith.
Death's Foe is such a niche card that I'd consider it worthless as written. I've played modules which I ended with Lucky Shot unused (my sorcerer never having rolled a 19, or only rolled one when I didn't want to use the card, such as against a minion). The conditions under which you can use Death's Foe are so specific that I can't imagine ever taking it, since absent an adventure that you know has nothing but undead in it, the odds are against you being able to actually use it. That risk might be worth it if the afterbonus was +2 or better or it did something even more impressive (like turned it into a critical hit and made the damage radiant or somesuch).
This wouldn't be the first rewards cards to be useless. Leaving aside cards like Arcane Tide, Elemental Fury or I'm Not Done Yet (none of which I have ever seen used, though I can conceive of builds or situations where players could take them), or Second Chance (which should only ever be taken by the mathematically illiterate), there's Secrets of Alchemy (which grants a benefit that was shortly thereafter given to everyone without need for the card).
I don't see any need for staff to make sure that rewards cards have value. There are a lot of "trap" options in the game; some rewards cards just happen to fall into that category.
The most obvious change in how cards work I'd like to see would be disallowing duplicates. One That'll Do helps make up for a failure in a skill challenge; multiples makes the skill challenge irrelevant.
Greetings...
I'm not promising that we'll change anything, but one of the areas where the LFR Global Admins can make changes is in how Reward Cards interact with the campaign. I do not see us ever removing the cards from the campaign entirely; I know a lot of people would be happy if we did, but I think that Organized Play still sees the cards as a useful marketing tool, a nice convention giveway, etc. and I think that a majority of players either like them or are at least ambivalent towards them.
What you might see us do, however, is alter the way the LFR "card stack" rules work and/or issue errata for specific cards. For example, Alphastream mentions that Death's Foe would be a fine card if it wasn't a subset of what you can already do with Lucky Shot. Rather than have everybody chuck their Death's Foe cards into a shoebox, I'd rather see us tone down Lucky Shot. Maybe LS should only work on a particular subtype of creatures, or maybe it only works with at-will powers, or maybe it takes up 3 spaces in your stack instead of 1 (meaning you can have 3 cards that are not Lucky Shot, or you can have Lucky Shot), or ... ?
The simplest option, of course, would be either to do nothing (in which case Death's Foe is worthless) or ban Lucky Shot (in which case Lucky Shot is worthless) but neither of those feels particularly satisfying to me since players were given both cards in good faith. I'm not a fan of adding rules, but this might be a case where adding a few rules for specific cards would be a net positive for the campaign.
Thoughts? Any other cards you think we should consider changing, and if so, how?
I think that if there was a limitation on how many of each card could be included in a stack, it would help to make Death's Foe less useless.
1 of any card can be in a stack
Or
make Lucky Shot only against humanoids which then makes Death's Foe somewhat valuable.
Keith
DF should be a +2 and perhaps something else. The problem is that some mods advertise they are undead-heavy... or players hear about it through replaying or forums. So, if you make it really strong, such as 18-20, then you are making those undead-heavy mods that much easier.
My pick for controlling reward cards is 1 per stack and changing the CCG to grant fewer per each tier of play. These are all non-core effects, so we should limit how often they happen, period.
The conflicting forces are the rewards program - the campaign wants you to delve, wants you to go to big conventions, wants you to feel rewarded... and the balance being preserved.
To that end, a possibility is the following:
- 1 card per stack, no duplicates
- Keep the number of cards you can have at a number similar to what you have now, but...
- Limit how many can be used per 1 round of adventure
The last one is the key. You might have 5 cards in your stack at paragon but only be able to use 3 cards in a 1-round adventure. This means you have to make choices as situations come up but you still have a reason to like cards, do the delve, enjoy rewards, etc.
For the # to use as a limit we can see the various proposals in several threads. A common approach is to reduce the total cards used per adventure by 2-3 depending on tier (such as using 3 at paragon), but the proposals differ.
I think the main problem with the rewards cards is that you get too many of them. Five cards at paragon is just too many for mods where you generally only see three combats, each of which is typically over in a couple rounds. The monster that dazes has one or two chances to hit the party with its dazing power, if they all have room in their stack for a snap, the monster is rendered pretty useless. Also, it ends up often being in a lot of ways like a universal +1 to hit or saves for the party, since in the situations where you need it, an ally will generally have a +1 available.
That a new card inferior in every way to Lucky Shot should be released is bizarre, but I don't think we need to find a way to validate that decision, any more than we should discuss banning the purchase of alchemical formulas so that there's a point to the Secrets of Alchemy card.
Personally, my first choice would be to leave Death's Foe alone--even absent Lucky Shot, I'd consider it fairly worthless except in niche situations, but it's hardly alone in that status. My second option would be to make the attack the card is used on also deal radiant damage and have a +2 afterbonus.
To be honest, I can't say I would bother taking any of the three cards, with or without the existence of Lucky Shot. Considering that con support (which is how other cons get the rewards cards) is on hold until at least April, if not permanently, I'm fine with them merely being historical curiosities and not much more. I can't say that I'd be thrilled to see a card that was just publicly distributed weeks ago get nerfed or pulled for no other reason than to give meaning to a DDXP-only rewards card.
As far as changes go, while I think no one would have argued for 2/3/5/6 cards per adventure if it hadn't started that way, changing that now is likely to be seen as taking away and garner an outcry. (Adding a per-round limitation would also be seen in that light, all the more so as we no longer have events enumerated in rounds.)
Whether the harm of some disgruntled players is worth the benefit of hewing closer to core rules balance is a question for someone else, as I can't say the cards really bother me. Of all the things that bring imbalance to the table, I see rewards cards as having the least effect and that effect being mostly evenly distributed. I'm far more concerned with imbalances that cause one player to marginalize the rest of the table than one that just requires a slight bumping up of challenges across the board.
My suggestions would be:
* Add a 'no duplicates' restriction.
* Add a restriction that you can only use one rewards card per encounter. This has the effect of restricting the cards to ~3 per adventure, but is probably easier for players to swallow than a hard limit. This spreads out the effect of the cards, as well as forcing more strategic use (which likely ends up with most cards unused, being kept in reserve, just in case).
Any solution that involves actual errata to either card is weak. Either the rules should be changed in a way that doesn't invalidate the wording on either card (or create a need to look things up on a card-by-card basis), or Lucky Shot should be banned, or things should be left as they are. Any other solution is a recipe for disaster.
To be clear, we can just leave things as they are and go "oops, mi cupla, we'll do better." There is nothing wrong with that, but I would like to find a way to see cards, even poor ones, get play time. There are still cards from the first set that never see play time.
My suggestions would be:
* Add a 'no duplicates' restriction.
* Add a restriction that you can only use one rewards card per encounter. This has the effect of restricting the cards to ~3 per adventure, but is probably easier for players to swallow than a hard limit. This spreads out the effect of the cards, as well as forcing more strategic use (which likely ends up with most cards unused, being kept in reserve, just in case).
I like both of these. It would reign in card use without gutting it. It was also have the side effect of making DF useful. it also makes some of the creation cards a little less costly to use once you hit higher levels.
They seem like the very easiest fixes, that combined would solve most of the perceived problems while minimizing (if not eliminating) the inevitable outcry.
if we are attempting to form a consensus then I agree with the notions of "no duplicates" "
Ditto
Is limiting to one card per encounter a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing when seen in the light of mutli-round adventures (Specials, Battle Interactives, and other modules with more than the three typical encounters).
Devils advocate checking in.
Is limiting to one card per encounter a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing when seen in the light of mutli-round adventures (Specials, Battle Interactives, and other modules with more than the three typical encounters).
I think it is a pretty good start. The complaint isn't that they are being used but, that they dominate play. Limiting how many are used per encounter seems to better address the problem. Besides, counting skill encounters, most mods have more then 3 encounters and there are cards usable in skill challenges as well as creation cards which count against the stack.
I suppose we would have to also declare whether using a card's bonus to a die roll would count as a "use" as well. My preference would be to leave that unrestricted.
For this reason, I'd say that reducing the stack size and maybe outlawing duplicates would be a better solution. Another alternative might be to have a small stack size and let you "recharge" a card whenever you reach a milestone.
I think you want to avoid any solution that involves errating a rewards card. I know I personally wouldn't like my physical card changing (even if I could reprint a PDF version of it). If you can reprint the actual card with errata and make it available in future convention offers, then it may be more palatable, but I still don't think I would like it much.
I'm surprised that no one looked at this card and saw how 'pointless' it was before it was released. Plus, now that there are psionic and shadow power sources available in LFR, I'm surprised that one of the DDXP cards wasn't to reroll an at-will power (level 1 non-augmented for psionic) for each of those power sources.
Then again, Death's Foe is not likely to be seen as a useful card even sans Lucky Shot. So the best thing to do may be to do nothing in regards to it and keep an eye on the utility of future cards.
Jay Anderson
The other abuse we see often is Snap Out of It. It isn't uncommon to have 2-3 of these in a stack, making a single daze-dealing encounter be daze-free. I've seen the cards result in two daze-heavy encounters result in little daze. In fact, the daze ends up being a reward. You get a +1 to a future roll! That isn't the intention of the game, obviously.
Lucky Shot is probably third in my area. The main reason it is abusive is that it allows players to skip something like a Jagged Weapon and go with something else (Radiant, Bloodiron, etc.) for the best of both worlds - crit more often AND deal additional damage. Given the odds, you really only need one of these in your stack, but 2 covers just about any adventure if you really want to crit. 0 cost (outside of a different card), tremendous potential damage spike. With some builds, such as drow rogues with the off-hand crossbow, the added damage is just shy of the "oh my God, I've lost my mind" level, especially when combined with Bloodiron or other tricks.
Instinctive Reaction can be strong as well. It can essentially provide 10 or 15 health by ending ongoing damage at paragon. When monsters have synergies based on ongoing, the card is encounter-changing.
That'll Do is huge distortion. You just about eliminate one failure per skill challenge, if not more. This makes any potential challenge evaporate.
Beyond that, the cheese/abuse/distortion I see is just in having options. Having extra movement, getting away when bloodied, etc., with such a lard card stack you can afford to have some "what if" cards, which further adds to PC flexibility to survive encounters. With so many options you can cover your weaknesses or add to your strengths, all at no cost. And, of course, you have the +1 and +2 bonus. The more I track the issue at tables, the more I am amazed at the number of times per encounter that cards make a difference.
I hear a lot of people supporting the "No dupes" idea. I also could support Bgibbon's idea of one per encounter, though it is a bit limiting. I like that it is a simple rule, but I suspect it might be better to just have a certain stack size and a smaller "use" size. Paragon could be have 5 in your stack, use up to 3. That gives you the flexibility to do what you want when you want, but limits the number of effects. Combined with no dupes, you would still end up with the boost to having lots of options but you cut down on the number of times it comes up and prevent build-focused abuse.
@Wolfstar, I think the default should be a per-round limit. BIs and 2-round Specials could always limit things further. I don't see any benefit to the game in treating a 2nd round differently, to be honest. It is either fine on a per-round basis or not, and having a 2nd round should not change things.
The card system is fine as it is. There might be some situation cards that were not well designed with being a poor mans replacement such as what caused this discussion is not a horrible thing. I am one that enjoys some roleplaying to my roll playing of my characters so might take such a card where lucky shot I never would.
The card system is fine as it is. There might be some situation cards that were not well designed with being a poor mans replacement such as what caused this discussion is not a horrible thing. I am one that enjoys some roleplaying to my roll playing of my characters so might take such a card where lucky shot I never would.
Did I just see Stormwind's Fallacy be evoked here?
The Cards do not in one way or another help or hinder roleplaying. They are all very strictly rules mechanics based. Lucky Shot is not any more 'role playie' or 'roll playie' then Death's Foe is. However, having a card that is inferior to another card, and one that can be freely printed, isn't doing anyone any favors outside of the artist who was commissioned to do the art. (Assuming it wasn't recycled)
While I agree we should not change the wording on the rules of the cards, and we are still a bit away from a play space where we can openly say "No more then X amount of cards of the same type per player), arguing that Death's Foe is adding to roleplaying is dubious at best.
It's more of a case of if cases like Death's Foe (Not to mention cards like Minion Slayer, Arcane Tide, and Elemental Fury) need some encouragement in some form to be choosen to share tablespace with the At-Will reroll series, and Lucky shot, and That'll Do. I think the RPGA Reward developers need to take a look at how people are playing and finding spaces where a bit of luck or a place where having a power work a little different would actually be of a benefit and offer a one shot method for that.
I mean, look at these first three cards for 2010. We have one that will be at almost every table (Coordinated Attack is nice), one that is playing to the optimizer players (Champion of winter, really? The Frost Weapon players really needed 5 more damage?), and then we have... something that never is going to see play. While that is still okay, I would really like to see a rule in place that gets people to consider using these weaker cards.
This wasn't really an issue back in the day since there was no such thing as PDF copies of the RPGA cards but now with WOTC releasing cards in this format after a specified amount of time, allows those to have multiple copies without having to put in the convention support.
Okay now I'm just rambling so all i want to say is adding a "No Duplication" clause to the Reward cards area will be a good thing.
Today, on Random Idea Month:
What if anyone at the table, including DMs, could use the plus once a card has been used?
What if the DM could use the plus after it had been used by a player? (I.e., the lifecycle is: use card, player uses the plus, DM uses the plus.)
DMs can already give up to a +2 if they feel it is appropriate for the situation. All that using a card would do is keep the players from complaining when a just miss becomes a hit.
I'd feel better about tagging on a +1 to hit after the roll if it came with a card and a justification. Also, it'd amp up the pressure on the players not to use cards. Is this desirable? Dunno.
Greetings...
The simplest option, of course, would be either to do nothing (in which case Death's Foe is worthless) or ban Lucky Shot (in which case Lucky Shot is worthless) but neither of those feels particularly satisfying to me since players were given both cards in good faith. I'm not a fan of adding rules, but this might be a case where adding a few rules for specific cards would be a net positive for the campaign.
Thoughts? Any other cards you think we should consider changing, and if so, how?
Why not simply take Death's Foe and allow it to extend your crit range by 1? A character with a crit range of 19-20 can't really use Lucky Strike for much. Death's Foe would allow for a crit range on an undead of 18-20 for that character.
Devils advocate checking in.
Is limiting to one card per encounter a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing when seen in the light of mutli-round adventures (Specials, Battle Interactives, and other modules with more than the three typical encounters).
I think the point of having cards is to be able to build your own stack. Cards add a level of fun, a sense of control, and a pressure release valve to rolls.
As experienced players we can all look at things that seem broken or over powered, and yes, using player reward cards can be powerful. However, I am very happy to see the RPGA trying to be more inviting about bringing new players into this living capaign. When I introduce a new player to the reward cards system and give them some to use, they smile...
...I think we sould let that part sink in a second, they smile. Those of you that tend to develop a lot of new players I think you have similar experiences. New players like to see that they can get a little extra player benefit so they feel like they aren't going to screw up. It is like a safety net so they don't feel so much like a n00b.
For players that are more experienced they can use the cards to mitigate personality. I have a player that takes lots of rerolls because he gets over emotional when he misses. It is a pressure release for him. With the reward cards many players don't feel as owned by the dice rolls.
Give gamers enough rules and options and yes, of course we will find ways to abuse things. We spend years learning how to move through very complex systems. However, when thinking about the person just learning to game. They especially should be able to take multiple cards of a specific type to help make them feel better.
If you want Death's Foe to be relevant, that is a good thing. Keep it a good thing by making the card better, not taking from others. That is just my personal philosophy of justice though.
All races give +2 to one stat and a+2 on anouther stat
But If you dont change that people want like races you might loose some people.
give people options.personaly send those cards to D&D store who put on your game to encourge play.
btw we loosing players to pathfinder bewarn..
i hope darksun draws players in we need sales to improve to make stock go up... opps did i forget to mention im a stock holder...
Ok so
Lucky Shot
Re-roll
Lucky Strike
That'll Do
Snap Out of It
So after you get your P1 cards... why take any others?
I've looked at others like Arcane Tide and wanted to use them, but they are so specific.
The cards should be simple.
Commonly used cards (re-rolls, Lucky Shot, etc) should be +1
Harder to use cards (Death's Foe, etc) +2
Some of the hardest to use (One shot, One kill (especially at Paragon) should have been +3
That encourages diversification. One card of the same type per stack just means folks will all be running the same stack.
If so, does anyone have any pics or info on those cards?
There was also a special rewards card for PH3 Gameday in March. It has an ad on the back, specifies that it could only be used for the gameday on the front, and allowed players wielding it to crit on 19 or 20 all day.
Neither it nor the Encounters cards are legal in any other RPGA play format, especially LFR. But I like to allow anything/everything in my home games to help promote my players coming out for all the public events and local cons.
By the way, does anyone know what cards are in the current Con Rewards kits?