Card-Based Combat - Feasible?

[FreakyCheeseMan]

So, based on another thread on this forum, I just came up with an idea for a card-based combat system (Using regular playing cards.)

If the person who started that thread is reading this... I don't *think* this is what you had in mind, but if so, sorry for stealing your idea.

The system would work like this: At the start of combat, everyone draws some number of cards, based on their level and abilities. These represent the options available to them, and their range of freedom in the fight. Actual hands - flushes, full houses, etc - don't matter, only the individual cards.

Every action costs at least one card, of some sort. The most basic attacks, defenses and spells will take one card of any type; these represent your most basic cut-and-thrust maneuvers, that you can attempt under pretty much any circumstances.

More complicated actions will have limitations on the cards you can use for them - a shield bash, for instance, might require a spade; A disintegration spell might require an ace. These represent actions that you cannot take all the time - they require some random opening in your opponent's defenses, some opportunity in the ebb and flow of magic, whatever.

Every time you use a card, you draw a new one. Certain events, however, will force you to discard your entire hand - being knocked down, for instance, or stunned by a spell. This represents being forced onto the defensive, where you no longer have the time or freedom to consider a range of options. Other actions (Or simply withdrawing from the fight for a round) will renew your hand.

The purpose of this system is to encourage characters of all classes to use a variety of actions; rather than fighters or mages picking one spell that they apply in every situation, they have to work with the resources available to them at the moment.

So... anyone think this is actually worth the effort and complexity it adds to gameplay? Anyone seen anything like this before?

[Grinner]

I can see this having the effect of segregating combat from normal gameplay even more than most games.

Still, I like this. A lot. It physically puts the game in the players' hands, rather than leaving it as a nebulous contest of numbers and dice.

I think it's worth pursuing.

[SamBurke]

I think it's a good idea, but you might want to set up a specialty deck for it. Could be cool, though.

Subb'd.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Interesting. Could be fun, especially for a Western-themed game. I presume that "class" abilities would let you manipulate the deck in various ways?

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Interesting. Could be fun, especially for a Western-themed game. I presume that "class" abilities would let you manipulate the deck in various ways?

*Nods*

I want to stress that this isn't like deadlands - dice are still used to decide the *results* of actions. The cards just put a limit on what actions can be used at a given time, so players don't end up repeating the same thing on every turn.

[Xechon]

Hm, I wonder if this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244715) is the post you are referring to? If so, no - this is not what I was going for (or TheOOB, the thread owner). The idea was the character assumes a "stance" at the beginning of the whole round based upon the type of action they wanted to do. This is pretty much solely for the purpose of everyone acting at the same time, instead of in turns.

As for your idea- definitely feasible. I am afraid it might slow combat and create a combat environment based more on chance than tactics, although it does represent opportunity in a very disconnected way. Consider having a system by which the cards in your hand are the limit of actions that round, possibly even in a non-turn-based manner such as synchronized combat or variable initiative based on previous action. Any form of this of this idea, however, would be a huge change to the 3.5e system.

As a clarification, do you intend to allow characters to assign moves to certain card types, or have them pre-assigned based on class?

[Grod_The_Giant]

*Nods*

I want to stress that this isn't like deadlands - dice are still used to decide the *results* of actions. The cards just put a limit on what actions can be used at a given time, so players don't end up repeating the same thing on every turn.

Hmm? Deadlands (or at least the version I have) only uses a deck for initiative.

[NichG]

As long as the hand size is big enough, or the cards represent broad-enough categories, I don't think it'll make chance dominate over tactics. Basically, instead of 'precompute the optimal tactics' it becomes 'compute the optimal tactics on the fly given this set of options I have' (so it becomes more challenging tactically since you have to adapt not only to what the enemy does but to what you draw, but still a tactical game).

I could see something like this for spellcasters; the number on the card determines the maximum spell level that can be cast using the card and the suit doesn't matter (or in a more complicated version, the caster must assign a suit to each of his spells and can only cast spells of the suit of the card using that card). The result would be that at low levels, the card system has very little impact, but at high levels it starts putting a little pressure on the tactics without being overwhelming (because if you want to cast a 3rd level spell you can do it with 11/13 of all cards), while still sometimes preventing an alpha-strike with the highest level stuff.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Hmm? Deadlands (or at least the version I have) only uses a deck for initiative.

Hucksters use cards to determine the strength of their spells, and the other whatdyamacallits, special classes, use cards for their abilities as well.

Normal characters only use cards for initiative, though.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Hucksters use cards to determine the strength of their spells, and the other whatdyamacallits, special classes, use cards for their abilities as well.

Normal characters only use cards for initiative, though.

Ah, right. Guess I need to do more than skim the book one of these days.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Hm, I wonder if this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244715) is the post you are referring to? If so, no - this is not what I was going for (or TheOOB, the thread owner). The idea was the character assumes a "stance" at the beginning of the whole round based upon the type of action they wanted to do. This is pretty much solely for the purpose of everyone acting at the same time, instead of in turns.

As for your idea- definitely feasible. I am afraid it might slow combat and create a combat environment based more on chance than tactics, although it does represent opportunity in a very disconnected way. Consider having a system by which the cards in your hand are the limit of actions that round, possibly even in a non-turn-based manner such as synchronized combat or variable initiative based on previous action. Any form of this of this idea, however, would be a huge change to the 3.5e system.

As a clarification, do you intend to allow characters to assign moves to certain card types, or have them pre-assigned based on class?

I figured that pre-assigned would be simpler; there shouldn't be (much) tactical difference anyway, and it saves time and honesty.

Slowing combat is definitely a concern. I realize this would never work with a standard D20 - it wouldn't even work with the entirely-non-d20 system I've been designing. Making combat more chance-reliant would also be something I'd worry about... hrrm.

[Eloel]

]
This reminds me of Crusader (ToB)'s maneuver mechanism. Certainly workable, interested in seeing how you handle it.