TOPIC: Feedback on Rules Clarification

kurtreznor wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

jedibcg wrote: I like it, where is dust and ammunition though?

I would propose they are both Activated slotless.

Dusts, like potions, require a standard action.

Ammo is an exception, and doesn’t require any additional action, neither standard nor free.

I would hope that dream dust, faerie dust, and pixie dust would be treated like ammo, even if the others require a standard action.

Ammo (including magic dust) would be categorized as reactionary items; used in response to making an attack with the appropriate weapon/spell.

I was thinking of Dust of Appearance and such. I agree, last year’s dusts, as well as Pearls of Prayer or Planes, are more like ammo.

I suppose you could lump them all under “reactionary,” but maybe we can call that group “triggered” or something else now.

Or just create a fourth group, “ammo.”

Not sure if this approach addresses Jeff’s concerns or not.

I kind of feel like adding yet more subtle rules no one is going to understand or follow properly light be moving us in the wrong direction.

If we must add an additional action type, Id suggest we ape MTG reactions. You can have as many per round as are triggered by the circumstances that arise.

Re the point about rangers in the original post. Why are we forcing then to attack with 2 hands. I mean if someone wants to attack at half power whats the problem?
Also putting stickers in the new magnetic sliders will present an issue since the bottoms are not flat.

Picc wrote: Re the point about rangers in the original post. Why are we forcing then to attack with 2 hands. I mean if someone wants to attack at half power whats the problem?

Because dem's been the rules forever apparently (although clarified last year in a discussion). It says right on their character card:

"Dual Wielding Fighting Style - When Ranger make melee (hand-to-and) attacks, they do so by sliding two weapon pucks at the exact same time - one in each hand."

This does not say "may". For the Ranger, in the rules, melee attack simply means "slide two weapon pucks at the exact same time - one in each hand."

Asking why this is so is like asking why other classes slide only one puck, or why clerics can't use edged weapons, or why some offensive spells don't require a slide: it's just the rules.



As to why this might be a good rule, let me pitch you some ideas:

1. Variation / difference between classes are good and interesting, and give players something to anchor onto. Making a ranger slide 2 pucks allows a new player to form the impression "If I'm ambidextrous or particularly coordinated, Ranger might be the class for me." If it's optional, then it's just another rule to remember, not a class defining trait.

2. New players may not appreciate or understand how awesome and powerful getting 2 attacks per round is.

This rule prevents them from making a huge blunder that is not in their interest, of going into the dungeon with only 1 weapon because that's all they had and they were too shy to mention it in the coaching room or thought it was no big deal.

3. From a thematic or in universe perspective Rangers have a "Dual Wielding Fighting Style." They have a very particular set of skills. Skills they have acquired over a very long training period. Skills that make them a nightmare for monsters. They simply would not be effective sliding one melee weapon - it's not what they are trained to do.

Wizard's can't wield a Glaive-Guisarme - not what they are trained to do.

Cleric's can't wield a measly dagger - not what they are trained to do.

Rangers can't attack with one melee weapon - not what they are trained to do.

4. For True Grind, this opens up some interesting scenarios for the DM - since ranger may only engage in melee attacks with 2 hands, any effect that disables one hand or something is very effective against one of the most powerful classes in Grind.

5. From a balance perspective Rangers are very powerful relative to other classes. They get 2 attacks per round in melee. They get a class based ranged damage bonus baked into their character card. They get access to an above average array of equipment. They have good saves and decent HP.

Allowing them a choice of 1 versus 2 pucks makes them strictly more powerful than forcing them to use 2 pucks.

Why make a ruling that makes Rangers even more powerful than they already are? Having a teensy weensy drawback (_must_ attack with two hands) on a massive advantage (attack twice per round) is fine.

Also putting stickers in the new magnetic sliders will present an issue since the bottoms are not flat.

Even if it were practical, this should not be done. It encroaches too much on Monks.

Find or trade for gear, the first room in TD is the coaching room. Start your teamwork there.

Ranger melee weapons in 2018 are:

2 rare (1 also usable by Rogue)
2 uncommon (1 also usable by Rogue)
5 common (3 also usable by Rogue)

The odds of a 10 person party not having at least 2 Rogue usable weapons and at least 1 additional Ranger weapon appear to me to be in the neighborhood of 1%.

My apologies for my belated reply. Given how many slotless items we have I generally like the idea of using a free action to "ready" a slotless item. I also agree that the current rules (as I have played it) requires a free action to switch between combat modes (e.g. ranged vs. melee).

However, I don't like adding an "instantaneous" action specifically for the Pouch of Tulz. The other items you mentioned in your first post (e.g. Shield of the Scholar) aren't slotless anyways so I don't think they need any special rules.

To get around the Pouch of Tulz problem, I suggest making "Pouch" a slot, or otherwise make it special now that we have a few pouch choices. If it was a slot, it could be like mainhand items where you could spend a free action to switch your "active" pouch. It would also open up future possibilities of being able to have more than one active pouch at a time (although still each action would only use one pouch, you just wouldn't have to use your free action to select which pouch is active).

Figurines shouldn't be affected by any of this; they aren't a slotless item, therefore no free action should be required to "ready" a figurine.

So in summary, my suggestion is: a free action is required to ready a "slotless" item, but pouches aren't slotless items, and in fact we now have a "Pouch" slot, and like weapons you can switch your active pouch by spending a free action. But if you only use one pouch then it is always ready to be used without spending any free actions.

Kirk Bauer wrote: My apologies for my belated reply. Given how many slotless items we have I generally like the idea of using a free action to "ready" a slotless item. I also agree that the current rules (as I have played it) requires a free action to switch between combat modes (e.g. ranged vs. melee).

However, I don't like adding an "instantaneous" action specifically for the Pouch of Tulz. The other items you mentioned in your first post (e.g. Shield of the Scholar) aren't slotless anyways so I don't think they need any special rules.

To get around the Pouch of Tulz problem, I suggest making "Pouch" a slot, or otherwise make it special now that we have a few pouch choices. If it was a slot, it could be like mainhand items where you could spend a free action to switch your "active" pouch. It would also open up future possibilities of being able to have more than one active pouch at a time (although still each action would only use one pouch, you just wouldn't have to use your free action to select which pouch is active).

Figurines shouldn't be affected by any of this; they aren't a slotless item, therefore no free action should be required to "ready" a figurine.

So in summary, my suggestion is: a free action is required to ready a "slotless" item, but pouches aren't slotless items, and in fact we now have a "Pouch" slot, and like weapons you can switch your active pouch by spending a free action. But if you only use one pouch then it is always ready to be used without spending any free actions.

Are you suggesting slotless items would require JUST a free action or a free action to ready and a standard to use?

Just want some clarity.

EDIT: Either way I don't think it works to lump all slotless together.

Ammo requiring both means it would never get used.

Scrolls only requiring a free action would be OP (imo).

jedibcg wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: My apologies for my belated reply. Given how many slotless items we have I generally like the idea of using a free action to "ready" a slotless item. I also agree that the current rules (as I have played it) requires a free action to switch between combat modes (e.g. ranged vs. melee).

However, I don't like adding an "instantaneous" action specifically for the Pouch of Tulz. The other items you mentioned in your first post (e.g. Shield of the Scholar) aren't slotless anyways so I don't think they need any special rules.

To get around the Pouch of Tulz problem, I suggest making "Pouch" a slot, or otherwise make it special now that we have a few pouch choices. If it was a slot, it could be like mainhand items where you could spend a free action to switch your "active" pouch. It would also open up future possibilities of being able to have more than one active pouch at a time (although still each action would only use one pouch, you just wouldn't have to use your free action to select which pouch is active).

Figurines shouldn't be affected by any of this; they aren't a slotless item, therefore no free action should be required to "ready" a figurine.

So in summary, my suggestion is: a free action is required to ready a "slotless" item, but pouches aren't slotless items, and in fact we now have a "Pouch" slot, and like weapons you can switch your active pouch by spending a free action. But if you only use one pouch then it is always ready to be used without spending any free actions.

Are you suggesting slotless items would require JUST a free action or a free action to ready and a standard to use?

Just want some clarity.

EDIT: Either way I don't think it works to lump all slotless together.

Ammo requiring both means it would never get used.

Scrolls only requiring a free action would be OP (imo).

Tulz requires a Free Action to use, as printed on the token, and you only get one FA per turn because Valetutto is not yet emperor of the universe, so this proposed rule seems cumbersome.

Besides, non-weapons are not allowed to be swapped around, per the rules. Unless we start adding other slots to the list of swappable slots.

So a pouch slot locks in your GAP or Tulz for the entire adventure, and you couldn’t swap them around. Unless you say you have two or three Pouch slots, at which point you don’t need to swap them around anyway.

I’m still concerned that we’re throwing out solutions when I don’t think we’re even sure what problem we’re trying to solve.

If we go there, then using changing a wand should cost a free action in order to be consistent. Just as should taking any single healing item, etc.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Picc wrote: Re the point about rangers in the original post. Why are we forcing then to attack with 2 hands. I mean if someone wants to attack at half power whats the problem?

Because dem's been the rules forever apparently (although clarified last year in a discussion). It says right on their character card:

"Dual Wielding Fighting Style - When Ranger make melee (hand-to-and) attacks, they do so by sliding two weapon pucks at the exact same time - one in each hand."

This does not say "may". For the Ranger, in the rules, melee attack simply means "slide two weapon pucks at the exact same time - one in each hand."

Asking why this is so is like asking why other classes slide only one puck, or why clerics can't use edged weapons, or why some offensive spells don't require a slide: it's just the rules.



As to why this might be a good rule, let me pitch you some ideas:

1. Variation / difference between classes are good and interesting, and give players something to anchor onto. Making a ranger slide 2 pucks allows a new player to form the impression "If I'm ambidextrous or particularly coordinated, Ranger might be the class for me." If it's optional, then it's just another rule to remember, not a class defining trait.

2. New players may not appreciate or understand how awesome and powerful getting 2 attacks per round is.

This rule prevents them from making a huge blunder that is not in their interest, of going into the dungeon with only 1 weapon because that's all they had and they were too shy to mention it in the coaching room or thought it was no big deal.

3. From a thematic or in universe perspective Rangers have a "Dual Wielding Fighting Style." They have a very particular set of skills. Skills they have acquired over a very long training period. Skills that make them a nightmare for monsters. They simply would not be effective sliding one melee weapon - it's not what they are trained to do.

Wizard's can't wield a Glaive-Guisarme - not what they are trained to do.

Cleric's can't wield a measly dagger - not what they are trained to do.

Rangers can't attack with one melee weapon - not what they are trained to do.

4. For True Grind, this opens up some interesting scenarios for the DM - since ranger may only engage in melee attacks with 2 hands, any effect that disables one hand or something is very effective against one of the most powerful classes in Grind.

5. From a balance perspective Rangers are very powerful relative to other classes. They get 2 attacks per round in melee. They get a class based ranged damage bonus baked into their character card. They get access to an above average array of equipment. They have good saves and decent HP.

Allowing them a choice of 1 versus 2 pucks makes them strictly more powerful than forcing them to use 2 pucks.

Why make a ruling that makes Rangers even more powerful than they already are? Having a teensy weensy drawback (_must_ attack with two hands) on a massive advantage (attack twice per round) is fine.

Also putting stickers in the new magnetic sliders will present an issue since the bottoms are not flat.

Even if it were practical, this should not be done. It encroaches too much on Monks.

Find or trade for gear, the first room in TD is the coaching room. Start your teamwork there.

Ranger melee weapons in 2018 are:

2 rare (1 also usable by Rogue)
2 uncommon (1 also usable by Rogue)
5 common (3 also usable by Rogue)

The odds of a 10 person party not having at least 2 Rogue usable weapons and at least 1 additional Ranger weapon appear to me to be in the neighborhood of 1%.

The Bard card does not say anything about lore checks in puzzle rooms. Only specifics lore checks regarding monster knowledge.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: My apologies for my belated reply. Given how many slotless items we have I generally like the idea of using a free action to "ready" a slotless item. I also agree that the current rules (as I have played it) requires a free action to switch between combat modes (e.g. ranged vs. melee).

However, I don't like adding an "instantaneous" action specifically for the Pouch of Tulz. The other items you mentioned in your first post (e.g. Shield of the Scholar) aren't slotless anyways so I don't think they need any special rules.

To get around the Pouch of Tulz problem, I suggest making "Pouch" a slot, or otherwise make it special now that we have a few pouch choices. If it was a slot, it could be like mainhand items where you could spend a free action to switch your "active" pouch. It would also open up future possibilities of being able to have more than one active pouch at a time (although still each action would only use one pouch, you just wouldn't have to use your free action to select which pouch is active).

Figurines shouldn't be affected by any of this; they aren't a slotless item, therefore no free action should be required to "ready" a figurine.

So in summary, my suggestion is: a free action is required to ready a "slotless" item, but pouches aren't slotless items, and in fact we now have a "Pouch" slot, and like weapons you can switch your active pouch by spending a free action. But if you only use one pouch then it is always ready to be used without spending any free actions.

Are you suggesting slotless items would require JUST a free action or a free action to ready and a standard to use?

Just want some clarity.

EDIT: Either way I don't think it works to lump all slotless together.

Ammo requiring both means it would never get used.

Scrolls only requiring a free action would be OP (imo).

Tulz requires a Free Action to use, as printed on the token, and you only get one FA per turn because Valetutto is not yet emperor of the universe, so this proposed rule seems cumbersome.

Besides, non-weapons are not allowed to be swapped around, per the rules. Unless we start adding other slots to the list of swappable slots.

So a pouch slot locks in your GAP or Tulz for the entire adventure, and you couldn’t swap them around. Unless you say you have two or three Pouch slots, at which point you don’t need to swap them around anyway.

I’m still concerned that we’re throwing out solutions when I don’t think we’re even sure what problem we’re trying to solve.

Good point. Not sure yet if I clearly understand what (if any) problem there is that's trying to be fixed.

I believe the "problem" that needs to be fixed is we currently do things that are not technically allowed.

For example, Drink from Stu's Stein for 2 potions and take you action to drink a 3rd potion. Not technically allowed because you don't have 2 free actions.

Other example, use pouch of tulz and your main action to drink 2 potions, not allowed because you don't have 2 free actions.

Another example, Switch gear from ranged to melee and drink a potion as your standard action.


Basically what we need to fix is the fact that reading a scroll and drinking a potion and using a wand all require a free action to "ready" it first if its not already equipped.

The fix is either to say that a standard action is sufficient to both ready and use or we have to get more creative.

I personally like the idea of a pouch slot and say we can have 4 pouches so folks can use tulz, quiver, greater alchemist pouch, and Greater scroll tube. Then there is not need to ready any item pulled from any of those and its just a free action to activate or standard action to cast whatever rules normally follow those items. That would fix it for everyone that has those tokens, and those token lines are fairly healthy but it would encourage more tokens around those areas which isn't a bad thing. A wand bag comes to mind as something cool that could be added.

I think Ammo and Ammo-dust need to be ruled as non-action items and they just work as part of the primary action. Your standard action to shoot your bow assumes an arrow, just make the call the dust works the same way for casting. Casting assumes some spell components and dust is one of them.

That would fix the majority of the issues. There would still be some left like Kvothe’s Bloodless, its slotless so it would require a free action to "ready" just to reduce damage which seems clumsy and Certainly not how its currently played. Speaking as someone who spends their free action every round and can never have enough free actions I would likely not have bought as many Bloodless if it required a free action to use. I suspect there are others out there that are in the same boat.

valetutto wrote: I believe the "problem" that needs to be fixed is we currently do things that are not technically allowed.

For example, Drink from Stu's Stein for 2 potions and take you action to drink a 3rd potion. Not technically allowed because you don't have 2 free actions.

Maybe I just don’t pay attention, but it seems that I’ve seen this exact scenario described on the forum before as a valid tactic, and no one said anything against it.

In fact, I point you to: tokendb.com/token/pouch-of-tulz/

Where it is explicitly stated you can Tulz a potion as a FA, then Oil your weapon as a standard action in the same round without spending a FA to ready said oil.

So I’m not sure why we're suddenly saying that sort of thing is not allowed.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

valetutto wrote: I believe the "problem" that needs to be fixed is we currently do things that are not technically allowed.

For example, Drink from Stu's Stein for 2 potions and take you action to drink a 3rd potion. Not technically allowed because you don't have 2 free actions.

Maybe I just don’t pay attention, but it seems that I’ve seen this exact scenario described on the forum before as a valid tactic, and no one said anything against it.

In fact, I point you to: tokendb.com/token/pouch-of-tulz/

Where it is explicitly stated you can Tulz a potion as a FA, then Oil your weapon as a standard action in the same round without spending a FA to ready said oil.

So I’m not sure why we're suddenly saying that sort of thing is not allowed.

I think that is the crux of the discussion about the rules "clarification"

We seem to be (at least to some of us) trying to fix something before agreeing on what it is exactly that needs to be fixed.

Each token has its own set of rules, and while trying to tie them all together is elegant, it is also quite cumbersome.

If we are creating "pouch" as a slot, I would also suggest allowing at least 3 of them. I too would not have bought any Ash's Death Pouch if I had known it would compete with Pouch of Tulz.
That said, I understand that people used to be able to switch rings, cloaks, etc in the dungeon, and now that is not allowed.