TOPIC: Re: Dragonscale

<br />To which I would respond, you are right.  The Rogue needs more Dex.  <br />

<br /><br />Rogue to 18 wouldn't be a horrible idea IMO. Druid down to 14 or 12 makes sense too.<br /><br />If I were to think of dex characters from highest to lowest (from an archtype point of view)<br /><br />Rogue<br />Monk<br />Barbarian<br />Ranger<br />Wizard<br />Druid<br />Paladin<br />Fighter<br />Cleric<br /><br /><br /><br />

A heal spell heals at least one point of damage.  There is no bead check for cure minor wounds.<br />

<br />Rogue to 18 wouldn't be a horrible idea IMO.

<br /><br />I'd be in favor of that.  The Rogue is generally one of the weaker classes.  This would be a nice balancer and would make more sense thematically, the nimble Rogue.

<br />So, you're arguing for the druid because of the newbies who decide to play it? The druid gets it's best AC from a common, AC 4 from reinforced leather. That would give the druid with just that piece of common armor an AC of 7. A cleric equally equipped would have an AC of, well, 4. In the world of a newbie with few tokens, the druid is clearly superior. So I'm not sure the arguement that a newbie's perspective would be against a cut works out. It's obviously far better from someone with a good stash of tokens who might have uncommons and rares. Even then, since there's often an enhanced emphasis on armoring tanks first, it's a conundrum that faces the higher end of the scale. Newbies and those with a few pouches to their name really don't come into play.<br /><br />If the concern is balance, and as you and others have stated that you feel the rogue is unbalanced, I think we could adress both points. Again, unless the rogue argeuemnt is just a purposeful red herring. As we suggest fixes to the rogue, like making having it be clue only or maybe rogue gets a point of healing or some non-token solution, you and others who claim to care for balance recognize the problems with the druid once the rogue is fixed.<br />

<br /><br />I'm saying that I don't think that the Druid is unbalanced.  For the player that has access to even just uncommons - and anyone that's even bought a few bags of tokens can trade for half-plate, a large shield, and great helm, the Cleric is clearly vastly superior to the Druid.  The druid is only superior to the Cleric when someone has the Dragonscale items, and that is such a small percentage of players that I don't think you'd redesign the character for that.  I don't think the Druid should be changed at all, and I think if you did depower the Druid it would be a pretty useless class for anyone but the few with Dragonscale items (if then).  <br /><br />I also don't think the Rogue is unbalanced.  I think if the treasure box gave a treasure token to the entire group that would solve the Rogue problem.  Maybe have one or two chests per dungeon (knock-proof) where the Rogue could get a clue or treasure for the entire group, and the rest of the rogue's traps/locks could be in the course of the adventure, like removing a trap from a door the group must go through.  <br /><br />I personally wouldn't change any of the characters, I think they all work very well together, and that people have gotten very used to them.  

<br />I personally wouldn't change any of the characters, I think they all work very well together, and that people have gotten very used to them.  <br />

<br /><br />If I were going to change characters, I would boost the Barbarian (+2 Str), Monk (+2 dex), and Rogue (+4 dex).  The Wizard boost was a good move as the Wizard used to be the weakest and generally worthless.  I think the same is true of the other 3. 

<br />

<br />To which I would respond, you are right.  The Rogue needs more Dex.  <br />

<br /><br />Rogue to 18 wouldn't be a horrible idea IMO. Druid down to 14 or 12 makes sense too.<br /><br />If I were to think of dex characters from highest to lowest (from an archtype point of view)<br /><br />Rogue<br />Monk<br />Barbarian<br />Ranger<br />Wizard<br />Druid<br />Paladin<br />Fighter<br />Cleric<br />

<br /><br />Gah!  You forgot the bard!  (Who I think should go just below ranger.)

Rogue 18<br />Monk 17<br />Barbarian 16<br />Ranger 16<br />Paladin 15<br />Cleric 14<br />Bard 14<br />Druid 14<br />Fighter 14<br />Wizard 12<br /><br />Just for thought...

<br />The rogue is hardly overpowered and if I could find another sucker to take the job, I'd pass it over in an instant.

<br /><br />Ooh! Oooh! I'm a sucker!<br />I'll be your Rogue!<br />(And I'm very good at keeping the treasure pull, and spouting off made-up-on-the-spot "clues" to help out the party, so they think I'm being good).<br /><br />

<br />Ooh! Oooh! I'm a sucker!<br />I'll be your Rogue!<br />(And I'm very good at keeping the treasure pull, and spouting off made-up-on-the-spot "clues" to help out the party, so they think I'm being good).<br /><br /><br />

<br /><br />Doh!  No wonder the dang clue never helps!    You tricky rogues!

<br />Rogue 18<br />Monk 17<br />Barbarian 16<br />Ranger 16<br />Paladin 15<br />Cleric 14<br />Bard 14<br />Druid 14<br />Fighter 14<br />Wizard 12<br /><br />Just for thought...<br />

<br /><br />Wouldn't that just be incredible amounts of AC creep for most classes? 3rd ed rules suggest a 22 point pointbuy for 'challenging' campaigns. Most of the chars seem to be at that level overall with a few oddities. I'm not sure pushing up the power level is a good idea. If anything, characters should be adjusted downwards if anything. It's in TD's best interest to have people rely more on tokens, if they can manage it without a huge uproar. One reason to reduce the amount of player cast healing for example.

i dunno - what are the stats now?<br /><br />I though most bonus stuff stopped at 16.

Well, currently the only one with an 18 is the druid.  (Along with a 16, 14 and 14)  I would love to play a character with those stats.