TOPIC: Eldritch and UR Kilt.....Everyone happy?

What if Jeff changed the name if the Kilt to...

Gregor's Dungeon Delving Kilt.
or Gregor's Kilt of Dungeon Delving

Then it would always stay around in builds and there would be that reminder of where Jeff's love of D&D came from.

Lordoftherealm wrote: What if Jeff changed the name if the Kilt to...

Gregor's Dungeon Delving Kilt.

Then it would always stay around in builds and there would be that reminder of where Jeff's love of D&D came from.

That's an interesting idea.

I think it sounds pretty good, though no other eldritch items are named.

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Lordoftherealm wrote: What if Jeff changed the name if the Kilt to...

Gregor's Dungeon Delving Kilt.

Then it would always stay around in builds and there would be that reminder of where Jeff's love of D&D came from.

That's an interesting idea.

I think it sounds pretty good, though no other eldritch items are named.

Even so exceptions happen. Most legendaries are named, charm of avarice is not. I'd be ok with it.

Picc wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Lordoftherealm wrote: What if Jeff changed the name if the Kilt to...

Gregor's Dungeon Delving Kilt.

Then it would always stay around in builds and there would be that reminder of where Jeff's love of D&D came from.

That's an interesting idea.

I think it sounds pretty good, though no other eldritch items are named.

Even so exceptions happen. Most legendaries are named, charm of avarice is not. I'd be ok with it.

Sounds good to me, too.

Picc wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Lordoftherealm wrote: What if Jeff changed the name if the Kilt to...

Gregor's Dungeon Delving Kilt.

Then it would always stay around in builds and there would be that reminder of where Jeff's love of D&D came from.

That's an interesting idea.

I think it sounds pretty good, though no other eldritch items are named.

Even so exceptions happen. Most legendaries are named, charm of avarice is not. I'd be ok with it.

I certainly wouldn't mind, though if Greg liked to wear kilts it would make much more sense.

Lordoftherealm wrote: What if Jeff changed the name if the Kilt to...

Gregor's Dungeon Delving Kilt.
or Gregor's Kilt of Dungeon Delving

Then it would always stay around in builds and there would be that reminder of where Jeff's love of D&D came from.

+1

The Falcon wrote:

Lordoftherealm wrote: What if Jeff changed the name if the Kilt to...

Gregor's Dungeon Delving Kilt.
or Gregor's Kilt of Dungeon Delving

Then it would always stay around in builds and there would be that reminder of where Jeff's love of D&D came from.

+1

I figured if Jeff wants to name it Gregor’s he will, my guess is since the kilt was cooked up 2 years ago as a concept it’s probably less fitting a tribute. Personally I think tribute tokens should be distinctive and interesting, if possible grab some part of the personality of the person with the mechanics, think Lotus Blossom Bowls, chipped bull. I personally would not know what said mechanics would be so I will not comment on that.

Lordoftherealm wrote: What if Jeff changed the name if the Kilt to...

Gregor's Dungeon Delving Kilt.
or Gregor's Kilt of Dungeon Delving

Then it would always stay around in builds and there would be that reminder of where Jeff's love of D&D came from.

I do like the idea of making the Eldritch token a tribute to Jeff's Brother, if that's something Jeff would want.

Wade Schwendemann wrote: Just to be 100% clear Ed, I'm proposing either +4 Str (possibly 5, but unlikely) or +6 Dex or +6 Con. Not one token that gives all 3 at once.

Yes I read it as +4 Str (possibly 5, but unlikely) or +6 Dex or +6 Con and believe it is too strong (but that is just my opinion).

Ed

Xavon wrote: So, I know other have mentioned parts of this before. But's my full take:

Let's look at the rings:
Each individual ring gives -5 damage from one element, and 2 retribution of the same.
The Eldritch ring gives -10 from all four elements, and 3 Eldritch retribution.
The DR is merged, and then doubled. The retribution damage is a bit more unclear, but if one considers merging the four elements to be making them Eldritch (since that bypasses all resistances, immunities, DR, etc.) then one can say it is merged and then increased by 150%

Let's look at the boots:
the individual boots+3 of an elemental damage to one type of attack, except 2 handed weapons which get +5 of one element
The Eldritch Boots give +5 Eldritch to all attack types. Again, hard to judge, but if one uses the previous merging criteria, then the are merged (with a bit extra) and then spreading them across all damage types could be considered doubled or even tripled, especially given the current focus on forcing switching between melee and range.

So by that formula, if the Kilt (as it sits) should be merged and doubled, we get:
STR: -2 -0 +6 = +4 -> +8
DEX: +6 -4 -3 = -1 -> -2
CON: -2 +6 -3 = +1 -> +2

Now I suggested 4, 2 and 2 (choice of what gets the four), which is the equivalent of take +4 off of STR and moving it to DEX, and then letting the play pick which one is the +4 as 'compensation' or balance for the highest value being lower than the base kilts.

I know it doesn't help the people that need the +6 DEX, but it is closest to the prior pattern.

Edit:
Even if the proposed STR kilt were reduced to +4, -2, -2, the end result is the same:
STR: -2 -0 +4 = +2 -> +4
DEX: +6 -4 -2 = -0 -> -0
CON: -2 +6 -2 = +2 -> +4

so move 2 from STR or CON into DEX and voila...

I believe you are proposing it be +4 to STR and -2 to DEX and -2 to CON. That would be much weaker then the current proposal. I don't think anyone would stand for that.

Ed

MasterED wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: Just to be 100% clear Ed, I'm proposing either +4 Str (possibly 5, but unlikely) or +6 Dex or +6 Con. Not one token that gives all 3 at once.

Yes I read it as +4 Str (possibly 5, but unlikely) or +6 Dex or +6 Con and believe it is too strong (but that is just my opinion).

Ed

But you’re okay with the con part being +6 CON -1 FORT (because that’s what +4 CON +5 HP is)

So if we make it +4/6/6 and -1 FORT that should be perfect

You’ve been already agreed to the CON part of that formula, and I will agree to the DEX part. Not that we’re the only two who matter...

Brad Mortensen wrote:

MasterED wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: Just to be 100% clear Ed, I'm proposing either +4 Str (possibly 5, but unlikely) or +6 Dex or +6 Con. Not one token that gives all 3 at once.

Yes I read it as +4 Str (possibly 5, but unlikely) or +6 Dex or +6 Con and believe it is too strong (but that is just my opinion).

Ed

But you’re okay with the con part being +6 CON -1 FORT (because that’s what +4 CON +5 HP is)

So if we make it +4/6/6 and -1 FORT that should be perfect

You’ve been already agreed to the CON part of that formula, and I will agree to the DEX part. Not that we’re the only two who matter...

A lot of people don't like negatives, I'd leave the -1 Fort off, otherwise perfect, except I'd bump the ST to +5 like it was in an earlier version of the transmute.