TOPIC: Time to start the 2021 Token dev process

Brokkr wrote: Is there a reason we can't have one legendary for fighters that does something different for each? Second/ third use of Specialization/Taunt per room.

"Can't" is too strong, but here is perhaps a reason or two why "shouldn't."

1. It would mean there are 5 different Class specific legendaries in 2021 instead of 3 (Cleric, Elf Wizard, Dwarf Fighter, Fighter, Wizard).

2. The mechanical differences between Dwarf Fighter and Fighter, and Elf Wizard and Wizard, are narrower than between any two cother lasses. Offering 2 distinct class legendary effects for these nearly identical classes means that those classes basically get 2 class legendaries to pick between - something no other class gets or approaches getting.

3. I believe there are 2 tokens usable by Dwarf Fighter not usable by Fighter, and 0 vice versa. I believe there are 0 tokens usable by either wizard not usable by the other. In 15+ years of token design this shows a pretty consistent approach that these classes don't get access to different gear.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Brokkr wrote: Is there a reason we can't have one legendary for fighters that does something different for each? Second/ third use of Specialization/Taunt per room.

"Can't" is too strong, but here is perhaps a reason or two why "shouldn't."

1. It would mean there are 5 different Class specific legendaries in 2021 instead of 3 (Cleric, Elf Wizard, Dwarf Fighter, Fighter, Wizard).

2. The mechanical differences between Dwarf Fighter and Fighter, and Elf Wizard and Wizard, are narrower than between any two cother lasses. Offering 2 distinct class legendary effects for these nearly identical classes means that those classes basically get 2 class legendaries to pick between - something no other class gets or approaches getting.

3. I believe there are 2 tokens usable by Dwarf Fighter not usable by Fighter, and 0 vice versa. I believe there are 0 tokens usable by either wizard not usable by the other. In 15+ years of token design this shows a pretty consistent approach that these classes don't get access to different gear.

I think you misread what Brokkr said. He/she meant one legendary, but it simply does different things in the hand of each “sub-class”. Basically same stats but that ‘little extra’ is more tailored.

Seems like a good idea imho

Picc wrote:

jpotter wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Brokkr wrote: Is there a reason we can't have one legendary for fighters that does something different for each? Second/ third use of Specialization/Taunt per room.

"Can't" is too strong, but here is perhaps a reason or two why "shouldn't."

1. It would mean there are 5 different Class specific legendaries in 2021 instead of 3 (Cleric, Elf Wizard, Dwarf Fighter, Fighter, Wizard).

2. The mechanical differences between Dwarf Fighter and Fighter, and Elf Wizard and Wizard, are narrower than between any two cother lasses. Offering 2 distinct class legendary effects for these nearly identical classes means that those classes basically get 2 class legendaries to pick between - something no other class gets or approaches getting.

3. I believe there are 2 tokens usable by Dwarf Fighter not usable by Fighter, and 0 vice versa. I believe there are 0 tokens usable by either wizard not usable by the other. In 15+ years of token design this shows a pretty consistent approach that these classes don't get access to different gear.

I think you misread what Brokkr said. He/she meant one legendary, but it simply does different things in the hand of each “sub-class”. Basically same stats but that ‘little extra’ is more tailored.

Seems like a good idea imho

You know that makes me wonder. Can the rod sub classes use the class legendaries. For example does an assassin count as a rogue.

They definitely count as their base class, otherwise we would be able to have a rogue and an assassin, which is not allowed.

Also, rogue gear all works for assassins. They are alternate classes or sub classes.

jpotter wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Brokkr wrote: Is there a reason we can't have one legendary for fighters that does something different for each? Second/ third use of Specialization/Taunt per room.

"Can't" is too strong, but here is perhaps a reason or two why "shouldn't."

1. It would mean there are 5 different Class specific legendaries in 2021 instead of 3 (Cleric, Elf Wizard, Dwarf Fighter, Fighter, Wizard).

2. The mechanical differences between Dwarf Fighter and Fighter, and Elf Wizard and Wizard, are narrower than between any two cother lasses. Offering 2 distinct class legendary effects for these nearly identical classes means that those classes basically get 2 class legendaries to pick between - something no other class gets or approaches getting.

3. I believe there are 2 tokens usable by Dwarf Fighter not usable by Fighter, and 0 vice versa. I believe there are 0 tokens usable by either wizard not usable by the other. In 15+ years of token design this shows a pretty consistent approach that these classes don't get access to different gear.

I think you misread what Brokkr said. He/she meant one legendary, but it simply does different things in the hand of each “sub-class”. Basically same stats but that ‘little extra’ is more tailored.

Seems like a good idea imho

It is one way to go.

But I would rather them be completely different, so that it is not 80-90% the same (both fighters get a lot of damage and AC versus the Human fighter getting that and the Dwarf getting some damage, some DR, and some retribution). Plus, it potentially runs into wording length issues . And confusion issues.

Xavon wrote:

jpotter wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Brokkr wrote: Is there a reason we can't have one legendary for fighters that does something different for each? Second/ third use of Specialization/Taunt per room.

"Can't" is too strong, but here is perhaps a reason or two why "shouldn't."

1. It would mean there are 5 different Class specific legendaries in 2021 instead of 3 (Cleric, Elf Wizard, Dwarf Fighter, Fighter, Wizard).

2. The mechanical differences between Dwarf Fighter and Fighter, and Elf Wizard and Wizard, are narrower than between any two cother lasses. Offering 2 distinct class legendary effects for these nearly identical classes means that those classes basically get 2 class legendaries to pick between - something no other class gets or approaches getting.

3. I believe there are 2 tokens usable by Dwarf Fighter not usable by Fighter, and 0 vice versa. I believe there are 0 tokens usable by either wizard not usable by the other. In 15+ years of token design this shows a pretty consistent approach that these classes don't get access to different gear.

I think you misread what Brokkr said. He/she meant one legendary, but it simply does different things in the hand of each “sub-class”. Basically same stats but that ‘little extra’ is more tailored.

Seems like a good idea imho

It is one way to go.

But I would rather them be completely different, so that it is not 80-90% the same (both fighters get a lot of damage and AC versus the Human fighter getting that and the Dwarf getting some damage, some DR, and some retribution). Plus, it potentially runs into wording length issues . And confusion issues.

Could be avoided by only printing the common abilities on the token then just adding an keyword ability we could define (maybe even differently for each fighter class) on the tokendb.

Picc wrote:

Xavon wrote:

jpotter wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Brokkr wrote: Is there a reason we can't have one legendary for fighters that does something different for each? Second/ third use of Specialization/Taunt per room.

"Can't" is too strong, but here is perhaps a reason or two why "shouldn't."

1. It would mean there are 5 different Class specific legendaries in 2021 instead of 3 (Cleric, Elf Wizard, Dwarf Fighter, Fighter, Wizard).

2. The mechanical differences between Dwarf Fighter and Fighter, and Elf Wizard and Wizard, are narrower than between any two cother lasses. Offering 2 distinct class legendary effects for these nearly identical classes means that those classes basically get 2 class legendaries to pick between - something no other class gets or approaches getting.

3. I believe there are 2 tokens usable by Dwarf Fighter not usable by Fighter, and 0 vice versa. I believe there are 0 tokens usable by either wizard not usable by the other. In 15+ years of token design this shows a pretty consistent approach that these classes don't get access to different gear.

I think you misread what Brokkr said. He/she meant one legendary, but it simply does different things in the hand of each “sub-class”. Basically same stats but that ‘little extra’ is more tailored.

Seems like a good idea imho

It is one way to go.

But I would rather them be completely different, so that it is not 80-90% the same (both fighters get a lot of damage and AC versus the Human fighter getting that and the Dwarf getting some damage, some DR, and some retribution). Plus, it potentially runs into wording length issues . And confusion issues.

Could be avoided by only printing the common abilities on the token then just adding an keyword ability we could define (maybe even differently for each fighter class) on the tokendb.

Yeah that would be fine - I did misinterpret Brokkr.

Picc wrote:

Xavon wrote:

jpotter wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Brokkr wrote: Is there a reason we can't have one legendary for fighters that does something different for each? Second/ third use of Specialization/Taunt per room.

"Can't" is too strong, but here is perhaps a reason or two why "shouldn't."

1. It would mean there are 5 different Class specific legendaries in 2021 instead of 3 (Cleric, Elf Wizard, Dwarf Fighter, Fighter, Wizard).

2. The mechanical differences between Dwarf Fighter and Fighter, and Elf Wizard and Wizard, are narrower than between any two cother lasses. Offering 2 distinct class legendary effects for these nearly identical classes means that those classes basically get 2 class legendaries to pick between - something no other class gets or approaches getting.

3. I believe there are 2 tokens usable by Dwarf Fighter not usable by Fighter, and 0 vice versa. I believe there are 0 tokens usable by either wizard not usable by the other. In 15+ years of token design this shows a pretty consistent approach that these classes don't get access to different gear.

I think you misread what Brokkr said. He/she meant one legendary, but it simply does different things in the hand of each “sub-class”. Basically same stats but that ‘little extra’ is more tailored.

Seems like a good idea imho

It is one way to go.

But I would rather them be completely different, so that it is not 80-90% the same (both fighters get a lot of damage and AC versus the Human fighter getting that and the Dwarf getting some damage, some DR, and some retribution). Plus, it potentially runs into wording length issues . And confusion issues.

Could be avoided by only printing the common abilities on the token then just adding an keyword ability we could define (maybe even differently for each fighter class) on the tokendb.

Or you could just point them to token dB, precedent from the Druid class legendary.

Something I would like is filling in some missing Ioun Stones over the next few years

Copper Sphere -2 Shock damage
Copper Rhomboid -3 Shock damage
Copper Prism ???
Ruby Sphere -2 Fire damage
Sapphire Sphere -2 Cold damage
Sapphire Rhomboid -3 Cold damage
Glass Rhomboid -5 Acid damage
Glass Prism ???
Amber Rhomboid -5 Poison damage
Amber Prism ???
Coral Prism ???
Coral Rhomboid ???
Coral Pyramid ???
Emerald Sphere ???
Emerald Rhomboid ???
Crystal Cube -1 Sonic damage
Crystal Sphere -2 Sonic damage
Crystal Rhomboid -3 Sonic damage
Crystal Prism ???
Faceted Lapis Lazuli -1 damage from spells
Garnet Rhomboid +3 Str
QuickSilver Rhomboid +3 Dex
QuickSilver Prism ???
Fluorite Sphere +1 wand damage
Fluorite Rhomboid +3 wand damage
Fluorite Prism ???
Tanzanite Rhomboid +3 Saves
Tanzanite Prism ???
Topaz Cube -5 Darkrift damage
Topaz Rhomboid -15 Darkrift damage
Topaz Prism ???
Holy Cube -1 Sacred damage
Holy Sphere -2 Sacred damage
Holy Rhomboid -3 Sacred damage
Holy Prism ???

Obviously, these would not all be in the same year and would be different rarities accordingly. I think going forward the pattern should be Prism = random unrelated effect, Cube = base effect, Sphere = improved cube, Rhomboid = improved sphere, Trilliant = improved rhomboid. Other shapes are faceted, spindle, pyramid, nugget (TE only), Opal, orb, ovoid, ellipsoid, cabochon, tear, and pearl, limiting ourselves to just what exists now and still creating a large design space for name combinations/effects.

For Bard Instruments, I would like to see

Sailor’s Lute: Uncommon. +4 to Fort saves for party while played.

We already have Antressor’s and Trouper’s and now we need the third in the set.
I would LOVE a Bard Instrument that built the earcuff of inspiration (maybe even with an improvement?) into it:

The Magic Flute: Ultra Rare. Grants bardsong bonus to melee, physical ranged attacks, polymorph, spells (slide and skill check), scrolls, and wands.

Healing Siren: Ultra Rare. Apply the bardsong damage bonus as a bonus to healing spells cast while played.

Continuing some common/uncommon cloaks based on past design:

Cloak of Nature +3 Fort (uncommon)
Cloak of the Doe +1 Will (common)
Cloak of the Tadpole +1 Reflex (common)

It might even be interesting to expand on the options for rare cloaks that grant a net +6 to different saves (+2 to all):
+6 Fort
+6 Ref
+6 Will
+3 Fort, +3 Ref
+3 Ref, +3 Will
+3 Fort, +3 Will
Etc

Anthony Barnstable wrote: Continuing some common/uncommon cloaks based on past design:

Cloak of Nature +3 Fort (uncommon)
Cloak of the Doe +1 Will (common)
Cloak of the Tadpole +1 Reflex (common)

It might even be interesting to expand on the options for rare cloaks that grant a net +6 to different saves (+2 to all):
+6 Fort
+6 Ref
+6 Will
+3 Fort, +3 Ref
+3 Ref, +3 Will
+3 Fort, +3 Will
Etc

I would take a rare cloak that gave +3 to my two bad saves in a heartbeat over +2 to all. A +3/+2/+1 similarly. Heck, a +3/+1/+1 would probably fix most of my issues.

This assumes nothing grand from the wis, int, cha stat discussion that is not ongoing and yet curiously keeps going on. This also assumes no grand changes for the worse from the character card discussions, also not ongoing but clearly anticipated.

Matthew Hayward wrote:
- - - so many words - - -

Yeah that would be fine - I did misinterpret Brokkr.

Cutting down from 12 to 10 is good, IMO. It’s a shame it can’t be fewer.