TOPIC: Changing Token Powers: OK, Meh, or Bad?

Michael wrote:

Singsalot wrote: My general stance is, "Avoid when possible, ameliorate where practical, enforce when pressing."

If not changing leads to more problems than changing, change. If it will reduce perceived value, do what you can to ease the transition for the owners.

+1
I dislike tokens changing out from under me, but realize sometimes all good alternatives have been exhausted.

Another +1. I think this has been the approach to date and encourage TPTB to continue along this path.

A quick response to the Original Topic (dont have time to read everything right now):

Changing Tokens after they have been printed is bad. Any changes made after someone has purchased an item lowers trust in the game. Lower trust will likely lead to people spending less money on tokens. Additionally, the more rare and expensive a token is the likely that changing it will lower that trust.

However, the game being in an unhealthy state will also lower trust and lead to people spending less money.

So, changing tokens might be necessary but it should be rare and only done as a last resort.

Final note: I believe that the changes to tokens in the original post were justified.

Matthew Hayward wrote: I think changing token powers is bad.

I think it is something that should be done only as a last resort.

My position is basically this. Other then items that are stated to "have a different effect every year", any changes should be approached as an extreme last resort not a design feature. Major errata/clarifications that go against the widely accepted usage/recalls (at least for me) undermine confidence in repeatedly spending (in many cases) multiple hundreds of dollars on individual tokens.

And to be clear I do feel like the power that be have been responsible with their choices thus far but it still needs to be a power they use sparingly.

Brad Mortensen wrote: IMO the class-specific Legendaries were/are a mistake, so I’m pretending they don’t exist. (Even the pending cleric one.)

Not to derail, but I also agree with this statement. I was really excited about having a class specific relic/legendaries at first. And it is awesome when you get to use them but to be honest, more often then not now it just feels bad to not getting to play the classes that I built the relics for and that makes me wonder if I'm personally just being petty. Don't know what to do about this, I wouldn't support a recall or anything, but feels bad man.

Make a sword and then don’t get to play Pali for a few runs, only relic weapon you have, could still be a +3 weapon for a Fighter, Barb, Cleric? Even if the * #s, extra healing, and reroll were all ignored for non Pali wielders, it’s a relic weapon. Wizards could still use any poly potion without turning in at legendary even if they couldn’t poly into the most legendary of all. Statistic increases for Ranger could be almost anyone, maybe it would need to leave off some for too powerful a bonus.

Honestly if it had been an Amulet of Legendary Classiness and had the powers change per class that wore them. This comes from a moderate token-holic, one that might make his primary class legendary (will totally setup for it) and will likely decide that it’s easier to just use the relic as I never get to play monk anymore anyway. I loved the idea, I would love everyone of them, it just isn’t realistic to really use ANY of them (except free fury, I loan that glitter out if someone in my group is playing bard).