TOPIC: Basic Changes to 2016 Character Cards

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Harlax wrote: The tank, damage, healer concepts are more MMORPG concepts than D&D concepts.

I play WoW, but I don't want TD to be WoW.

You haven't played much 4th edition, have you .

(In 4e D&D adopted a very similar model, but they called them: "controller, defender, leader, striker").

I haven't played much 2nd ed.

4th ed, meh. If I want to play a minis game I'd play 4ed. Otherwise, old school all the way.

And in the Jurassic era, we called fighters "meat shields."

meat shield, tin can, etc

I did advocate for the prestige version of dwarf fighter to get a taunt ability. So I guess I'm not so pure after all.

I'm glad this thread has been revived. I have a few thoughts (some of which might be duplicates, I didn't go back and re-read all the posts):

1) I do like the suggestion of stats starting out at odd numbers, even if those numbers are one lower than they currently are, so that newbies are more likely to get bumps from tokens (we could have rare or even uncommon slotted tokens to give +1 to a trait).

2) I'd like to see slightly more differentiation between the Barbarian, Fighter, and Dwarf Fighter, since in gameplay you could pretty much have no idea which one you were playing and not miss out on anything. I'm not feeling creative enough to give suggestions right now though. Perhaps a Fighter can drink any potion that increases strength once per room as a free action, for example. Or a Dwarf Fighter can eat one item per room as a free action (or per adventure even), or perhaps they aren't affected by any negative impact from eating something (like the Drow Rations).

3) I'd like more opportunity to use my common and uncommon tokens (like some of my ideas for #2). This would be fun for veteran players (who have lots of these tokens) and newbies (who might have more use for a consumable). I know some of these might be too powerful, but... maybe Ranger can use one ammo token that lasts the whole room. Or perhaps some character(s) for a thematic reason could wear two of something like a belt as long as the rarity is rare or lower (maybe would be interesting for 5th level).

4) Many of the spells could be more interesting. I have never used Barkskin as a 5th-level Ranger, for example.

(related to Barkskin) Honestly when I compare TD to D&D the party size of 10 is a big problem that has really hurt the interest in increasing AC of heroes. When you only have a 1/10 chance of being hit it isn't a big deal. I said this elsewhere but I'd like to see more "intelligent" monsters who will target based on fixed rules or, better yet, hit everybody with one giant attack. Then AC would matter more.

Some suggestions for the attack preference of monsters:
1) Attack the lowest HP (would make many spells/scrolls that increase AC or provide protection much more useful)
2) Attack the lowest AC
3) Attack whoever did the most damage last round
4) Always attacks certain class with fallback options if not there
etc.

Kirk Bauer wrote: I'm glad this thread has been revived. I have a few thoughts (some of which might be duplicates, I didn't go back and re-read all the posts):

1) I do like the suggestion of stats starting out at odd numbers, even if those numbers are one lower than they currently are, so that newbies are more likely to get bumps from tokens (we could have rare or even uncommon slotted tokens to give +1 to a trait).

Yikes, no. I have our 12 Characters built with near every number (all but 1 or 2) being even after adjustments due to tokens. This would mess us up greatly.

Kirk Bauer wrote: Some suggestions for the attack preference of monsters:
1) Attack the lowest HP (would make many spells/scrolls that increase AC or provide protection much more useful)

"You have made an enemy this day."
- Rando the Impetuous

Just kidding That being said - this would have to adjust for the base starting HP somehow, or the Wizard would be the only one getting attacked (or the Paladin).

DMs are often following the room description when they decide whom to attack - the closest player, the one who freed the monster, the good paladin/cleric, the spellcaster. It depends and differs room to room.

Druegar wrote: Damage Per Second
It's a common term in computer games to compare offensive capabilities.
I think an equivalent TD term would be Average Damage Per Round, or just DPR.

It's definitely "Damage Per SLIDE" in TD.

I've been using that phrase since we were min/maxing our builds and trying to figure out how many rounds we would need to take out Smoak (in her original TPK'ing glory)

; )

If DPS(lide) is the generally accepted term, so be it. I still think DPR is a better measure since it factors in monk and ranger double-attacks, but I'm not going to fret over it.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: I'd also suggest looking at bonus to hit and bonus to damage at several levels

baseline (no tokens)
top tier (all legendary+ Ultra Rare tokens)
high tier (All Ultra Rare tokens)
mid tier (all Rare tokens)
low tier (all Uncommon tokens)

I think there is a wide margin between classes at multiple tiers.

I'd look at Spell hit and damage for Wizard, attack and spell for Druid, attack and healing for Cleric, paladin

I've started this effort. I won't be at WYC but maybe someone who is interested can print this out and try to make the case.

This spreadsheet has my work in progress, where I break down combat bonuses, defenses, spell abilities, and hopefully soon equippable token versatility. I then characterize it by standard deviation. Basically green boxes means way better than average, red means way below. Just because it is green or red doesn't mean there is a problem - for example Wizards could potentially have have green in their spell casting area, and fighters in their combat or defensive areas without it indicating a problem.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cr6g8Lf-Le-cmjIKR-nQg-amfEgI7BnT4KpyQznTy_Q/edit?usp=sharing

Anyone can edit the sheet, although if you are going to do major surgery maybe make your own copy. Anyone can also add comments if they would like to see some more data, or have a clearer way of presenting things, or a question.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: I'd also suggest looking at bonus to hit and bonus to damage at several levels

baseline (no tokens)
top tier (all legendary+ Ultra Rare tokens)
high tier (All Ultra Rare tokens)
mid tier (all Rare tokens)
low tier (all Uncommon tokens)

I think there is a wide margin between classes at multiple tiers.

I'd look at Spell hit and damage for Wizard, attack and spell for Druid, attack and healing for Cleric, paladin

I've started this effort. I won't be at WYC but maybe someone who is interested can print this out and try to make the case.

This spreadsheet has my work in progress, where I break down combat bonuses, defenses, spell abilities, and hopefully soon equippable token versatility. I then characterize it by standard deviation. Basically green boxes means way better than average, red means way below. Just because it is green or red doesn't mean there is a problem - for example Wizards could potentially have have green in their spell casting area, and fighters in their combat or defensive areas without it indicating a problem.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cr6g8Lf-Le-cmjIKR-nQg-amfEgI7BnT4KpyQznTy_Q/edit?usp=sharing

Anyone can edit the sheet, although if you are going to do major surgery maybe make your own copy. Anyone can also add comments if they would like to see some more data, or have a clearer way of presenting things, or a question.

Where are you calculating your points autodamage from for the casters?
Does it take into account the 95% chance of all resistable spells to be resisted in the current design?

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: I'd also suggest looking at bonus to hit and bonus to damage at several levels

baseline (no tokens)
top tier (all legendary+ Ultra Rare tokens)
high tier (All Ultra Rare tokens)
mid tier (all Rare tokens)
low tier (all Uncommon tokens)

I think there is a wide margin between classes at multiple tiers.

I'd look at Spell hit and damage for Wizard, attack and spell for Druid, attack and healing for Cleric, paladin

I've started this effort. I won't be at WYC but maybe someone who is interested can print this out and try to make the case.

This spreadsheet has my work in progress, where I break down combat bonuses, defenses, spell abilities, and hopefully soon equippable token versatility. I then characterize it by standard deviation. Basically green boxes means way better than average, red means way below. Just because it is green or red doesn't mean there is a problem - for example Wizards could potentially have have green in their spell casting area, and fighters in their combat or defensive areas without it indicating a problem.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cr6g8Lf-Le-cmjIKR-nQg-amfEgI7BnT4KpyQznTy_Q/edit?usp=sharing

Anyone can edit the sheet, although if you are going to do major surgery maybe make your own copy. Anyone can also add comments if they would like to see some more data, or have a clearer way of presenting things, or a question.

Where are you calculating your points autodamage from for the casters?
Does it take into account the 95% chance of all resistable spells to be resisted in the current design?

I'm just summing up the skill test passed values of numbers on the 4th level character cards for one time damage spells (and assuming one target). For the Druid I add on 7 points to account for them potentially using Spell Surge on Fireblast.

I don't add in the spell resistance chance (wasn't even aware of it till now!).