I'd be grateful for any suggestions regarding the following wall of text, thanks

I was considering imposing an item limit in the game as a house rule. It doesn't happen every time, but there are a few games (particularly with the less challenging Ancient Ones and certain investigators) where it becomes possible for investigators to stockpile lots of items.

There are other ways to make stockpiling less likely, such as increasing the general difficulty to reduce the free time the investigators have to go to the stores or have encounters, but I think an item limit makes sense in and of itself - it seems a little odd to have a character running around with two rifles and a shotgun (this doesn't happen often of course, but it being possible is strange).

I can think of two methods for item restriction. First, separate unique items; common items; spells; skills; and allies.

The first method is to assign slots based on stamina and sanity. So unique items and spells both use up a sanity slot, and common items use up a stamina slot.

For example; if an investigator has a maximum sanity of 5, they have 5 spell slots and 5 unique item slots. An investigator with 7 maximum stamina has 7 common item slots.

Next, items are assigned weights or slot counts. For example, in the common item deck, all 2-handed weapons count as 2 slots. X-handed weapons and tasks count as 0 slots. 1-handed weapons and tomes count as 1 slot. The rest of the items can be sorted through and assigned weights or slots (I'd say items like the student newspaper and map of Arkham should be 0 slot, while most others would be 1 slot). Vehicles would count as 0 slots (as they aren't being carried).

The process can then be repeated for the unique item and spell decks.

The second method is similar, but instead uses maximum possible Lore for spells, maximum possible Fight for common items, and maximum possible Will for unique items.

Obviously there are a few considerations for both methods. The first method seems a little inelegant (unique items and spells both use sanity; most investigators have similar Sanity and Stamina stats), while it does make a certain amount of sense - characters such as the professor won't be able to carry many common items, while the soldier will be able to carry a lot. Conversely, the professor will be able to have lots of spells and unique items to reflect his arcane training and interests, while the soldier's fragile mind can't handle such occult burdens.

The second method is more elegant (Fight is used as a strength check in many encounters and so makes sense as a common item carrying capacity measure, Lore makes sense for spells).

It also means that the soldier (6 Fight) can be a walking armoury, while the professor (6 Lore) can have many spells, which makes sense.

For the second method to work, the limit would have to be the maximum possible Fight, Will, or Lore score - changing the slider wouldn't affect the limit.

I wanted to give unique items a separate measure from common items to reflect their sanity cost - they are generally bizarre items from other worlds and dimensions, and so the idea is that their limit should be measured by an investigator's Will or Sanity. Too much contact with unearthly items wouldn't be good for the mind. Exhibit items would count as unique items for the purpose of slots.

This would only work if you allowed investigators to discard items if they take a new item that would go over their item limit. Hopefully item limits would also force investigators to make some difficult choices during the game and make it more challenging.

Finally, there are some problems. Some characters have low Fight scores but should (thematically) be able to carry lots of items - the Bootlegger for example (3 fight).

Also, should a change in maximum Sanity or Stamina (for the first method), or Lore, Will, or Fight (the second method - for example certain skill cards) also affect the item limits?

I'd also like to limit skills and possibly allies too, but I'm not sure how to do it (perhaps an arbitrary limit not based on stats).

So, if anyone has any suggestions about this and how to make it work better, I'd be very grateful. I've already gone through the decks and assigned slot counts, so if anyone is interested in using item limits I can post those and save some work. Also, any criticisms are welcome - if I've missed a really obvious reason as to why its unworkable, please let me know.

Thanks!

that's a lot of house rules to fix something that really isn't broken..

but if you have to limit the items, do it the simpler way instead of overcomplicating it with extra rules in absurdum. your first suggestion of stamina and sanity limiting the items makes most fairness with it being 10 for most characters (8 for wendy and 11 for.. what's-her-name). end the rule there and it's not overly complicated and you don't have to make it into an equipment managing game.

Taurmindo said:

::Laughter::

Alternatively, max lore for spells, max fight for weapons, and that's it.

You RPers ;'D

Taurmindo said:

Hank!

Anyway... it's an interesting point of view. I don't feel the need to limit equipment, but both your ideas were interesting

Midbar said:

I saw professor Walters reading a tome while riding a military motorcycle with two star spawns in his backpack...

Julia said:

actually, i meant lily chen (what's- her -name). i don't have innsmouth yet so i didn't know hank had 5/6 until i looked it up just now.

Uh... that's true, even Lily is an 11! Didn't remember you don't have IH, sorry!

Thanks for the replies. Yeah, I guess it does complicate the game a lot. There was one game where a friend who was playing as the explorer got the deputy of Arkham and a retainer, and ended up with a lot of money. We were trying out Nyarlathotep and we realised how weak he was, so we were just waiting for him to come through, and the explorer just sat in the Administration Building collecting skills. He had 12 or so skills by the time the AO came through. Imagine the Dilettante with deputy of Arkham and a retainer - $4 per turn!

Of course, that was partly due to Nyarlathotep's weakness. On that subject, does anyone know if the various skills, allies, and items that allow you to exhaust them instead of paying a clue token are usable against Nyarlathotep? It seems a little ridiculous - an investigator with one of those is immortal against him.

Also, the politician was being used by someone else in that game, so the terror level didn't rise, and it was fairly easy to sit back and wait for Nyarlathotep.

Though even that item-hoarding game wasn't as bad as the one with Hastur as the AO and the politician being used (a combination that we've since banned).

Again, thanks for the feedback

Midbar said:

Since Nyarlathotep makes investigators lose their clue tokens, everything that can be exhausted instead of spending clue tokens (Granny Orne, Mythos Lore, Changed, Leo’s Personal Story, …) should not apply. However, this does not prevent Roland Banks from lasting forever against Nyarlathotep (without Epic Battle).

Roland Banks's special ability does not work during final combat. Though Rex Murphy with a passed story can live forever, too. So the rule should really be, "clues cannot be gained during final combat." At least not for Nyar or those others who attack clues.

Tibs said:

I must be missing something here, his personal story states " Upkeep : The first player gains 1 Clue token", so I'm not sure how this helps?

During the Final Battle, there is no Upkeep phase (it is replaced by Investigators Refresh ), so I can see how this stops Roland Bank's unique ability from triggering but wouldn't it be the same for Rex?

xris said:

Final battle has a normal Upkeep at the beginning of each combat round, it's in the available FAQ, don't even have to wait for the fabled proto-FAQ.

Dam said:

You can't have it both ways. Why is this different for Roland+Unique Ability and for Rex+Personal Story?

Tibs said:

Roland Banks (Unique Ability) Upkeep : If Roland has fewer than 2 Clue tokens, he gains 1 Clue token
Rex Murphy (with Extra! Extra) Upkeep : The first player gains 1 clue token

If facing Nyarlathotep neither of these characters can be devoured (as long as Rex is the last, or only, investigator standing). Again, what am I missing here.

Well, first, I'm not sure that Rex has to the last man standing. Does his Personal Story card leave play if he does, or is it in play for the rest of the game? How would we know? But in any case, if Rex is still standing he'll gain one clue per turn.

Roland also would gain clues. The answer is that they obviously shouldn't.

Roland has been confirmed that he cannot use his ability in final combat (he can't receive money anyway as per final battle rules). One rule that I've been trying to promote is that investigators cannot receive clues during final combat, and this would save Nyarlathotep from certain defeat against these conditions.

Tibs said:

A while back I asked a question about Power tokens and the Final Battle to FFG and received this response:

"In an upcoming FAQ it will be clarified that investigators cannot gain Clue tokens or Power during the final Battle."

I might now be seeing some light at the end of the tunnel
Tibs said:

"Roland Banks's special ability is not allowed by the game rules during final combat."

Reading your reply above, I now think what you might mean is...

"Roland Banks's special ability breaks the game during final combat."

If so, my apologies as I misunderstood. What I was looking for was confirmation that whatever reason Roland couldn't gain clues during the Final Battle, the same reason should apply to investigators like Rex. When Nyarlathotep is the Ancient One, certain characters can break the game under certain circumstances. For example, Roland can never be devoured during the Final Combat, neither can Rex+Extra! Extra! What's the point of playing this combination if this is the case.
Tibs said:

No, I mean Roland's ability has been officially disallowed during final combat. A player who owns Innsmouth doesn't necessarily own Kingsport so Epic Battle won't be there to "bail him out." Though, it does break the game against a couple AOs. And as Musha pointed out, the point is now moot.

xris said:

Well, say Rex gets devoured before final combat. Does Extra! Extra! remain in play, for other investigators to benefit from it? Why wouldn't it? Why would it, I guess?

Tibs said:

Oh Tibs, stop it. You're getting so wrapped up in your wisdom again that you're forgetting where it comes from.

AH Manual, Devoured Investigators, page 17: "The player immediately discards all of his cards..."

I think his Personal Story qualifies as one of Rex's cards, yes?

jgt7771 said:

Good, okay, perfectly unambiguous. Now apply that same rule to Tommy Muldoon's personal story.

He passes if he's devoured. This removes a doom token. It also says "The next time the terror level would increase, discard this card instead." If the card is discarded along with the rest of his stuff, that obviously can't happen and is entirely pointless. So this one clearly stays in play until needed.

But if that one stays in play, does Wilson's if he's later devoured? It also blocks terror increases - in his case, three times. But he doesn't have to be devoured to pass it. Similarly Wendy's can be discarded later to clear the Outskirts.

And if Wilson's or Wendy's stays in play, why wouldn't Rex's? Or Kate's? (Or, for a negative effect, Mandy's Fail?)

But on the other hand, if they do stay in play, what happens with Norman's pass (who rolls the dice)? Or - stretching it a bit! - Jim's?

(I think that's all the ones with ongoing effects that don't solely apply to the owning investigator)

jgt7771 said:

Good, I was hoping someone would find a quote like this (so that I didn't have to).

Anyway, the answer is, "I'm not sure." The only reason I'm not sure is because of a card like Tommy's, that clearly says "The next time the terror level would increase, discard this card instead" but doesn't explicitly say the card stays in play. I mean, it's obvious it stays in play, but maybe all cards stay in play?

It's a fun mental exercise, but the answer is almost certainly "no." In any case, it's not really relevant to the concern that originally raised it.

Tibs said:

You are taking this card ( Giving His All ) out of context with the rest of the Personal Story.

Please read We Need a Hero . It clearly states that "If Tommy is devoured, place " Giving His All " in play". So his Personal Story does say the card is put into play after Tommy is devoured.

As jgt7771 stated
AH Manual, Devoured Investigators, page 17: "The player immediately discards all of his cards..."

I see no inconsistencies with this. Personal Story cards are discarded if an investigator is devoured. Tommy Muldoon's personal story is an exception and the story card " We Need a Hero " clarifies this.

Other Personal Stories, such as Wilson Richards or Wendy Adams, makes no mention of their personal story remaining if the investigator is devoured, therefore why think they should?

Okay, good. I guess it's safe to say that personal stories with long-term consequences are discarded when their owner dies. That can sting sometimes but it's definitely simple.

EDIT: Wow, Xris said it so much better. And even used deductive reasoning. Thanks, Xris.

xris said:

Well, the thing is, EVERY personal story says the same thing: to place "pass/fail" card in play.

For Rex- he may spend 10 Clues to place "Extra! Extra!" in play.

For Wendy- If there are 3 or more elder sign tokens on the board, place "Family Reunion" in play.

Then, placing those cards in play has 1 or more effects.

For Rex- First effect: Rex gains $5 and is immediately Blessed. Second effect: Upkeep: The first player gains 1 Clue token.

For Wendy- First effect: Wendy gains $10. Second effect: Discard this card to return all monsters in the Outskirts to the monster cup.

I've never played this way before, nor have I even thought of it this way before, until this post, but the wording here makes it sound like they are global effect cards that, once in play, stay in play, until discarded for another benefit, if applicable. When you place the cards in play, they don't say "YOU gain X," directing the investigator that passed the story to gain his benefit. They direct the players to play the card to gain a bonus for the rest of the game, but to also give X to Rex, or Wendy, or whoever the named investigator may be. Let me point out that Rex's "Extra! Extra!" does not say, "Upkeep: Rex allows the first player to gain 1 Clue token," which would imply the benefit is contingent on Rex's continued existence. It simply says, give the first player a Clue token. Rex is not part of that effect, even though he does gain $5 and a Blessing card.

I've always just discarded the PS story cards when the investigator was devoured, except for all cards that allowed you to discard them for further benefit. But after thinking about it in this way, it sounds like they are ALL in the game for the rest of the game, once played. If that is really the case, I will house rule this.

Musha Shukou said:

Well, yeah, the Player would gain that bonus for the rest of the game...or until the Player's Investigator is devoured, and all cards are then discarded. Just because it's a "global effect" doesn't mean it still isn't a single card in the possession of a Player.

The difference with Tommy is, the Investigator is ALREADY devoured, so when the Player gains Tommy's Pass card, technically a new Investigator is taking possession of it. Now if THAT second Investigator is then devoured, then I would say that if Tommy's card had still not been used, it would be discarded as well.