TOPIC: Re: Need Your Token Ideas for 2008!

<br />The only bad thing about the coat/cloak whatever would be what slot does it take?  <br /><br />I don't think people would like to give up +1 or +2 on saves to use that item...<br /><br />I suggest a small change - a Utility Pouch - this would be a ZERO slot item and not require the player to give up anything.<br />

<br /><br />I must admit I like the idea of the Brown Coat, but yes would it be a robe or cloak designation? Either would work really. I don't mind seeing people go for a cool item that enhances roleplaying as opposed to min/maxing your character stats. But that's my opinion. I would rather not see a Utility Pouch because that goes against the concept of the idea of Jacket of Many Things where depending on what pocket you reached into depended on what you pulled out. I could see a Utility Belt where multiple things are hanging off of it. That would be doable and in my opinion very handy for a thief or ranger or even a bard.<br /><br />Player: "Uh, I can't find my rope token so I'll use my Utility Belt and get it from there. Now I'll attach my Grappling Hook token onto the 'non-existent' rope and swing it across trying to hit that tree limb!"<br /><br />After all I was thinking of this token as a way of using the commons without having to carry them around with you. That doesn't mean I won't have commons on me - you never know when you might have to sacrifice one to the coin toss or spider web trap (such as in 2006). <br /><br />I do like the suggestion of changing it to a belt if a Brown Coat is not workable. My only question is what rarity level would it be. Would a rare be enough for such an item? It seems a little weak to me to be a Purple though. So that's my concern really.<br /><br />I am surprised no one has come up with the abuses of such an item though. I can think of players trying to use the Belt to produce consumables or Rations which would effectively given them 7 scrolls or healing points back. That is what I wanted to avoid by making it a Gear only item. That and it would put the onus on the player to come up with remembering what gear items there are available. And not on the DM's for having to make sure they have the tokens available for the players who use The Utility Belt. <br /><br />After all no DM wants to have to hunt for a dagger or shortsword that a player requested from a Utility Belt. Logically I could see a hunting knife in the belt but not a shortsword. The only way I could see a weapon coming from such an item is if the slider is empty and the weapon you pulled from the Belt only does 1 point of damage. Since it is a utility knife and not an actual fighting weapon. Or a hand axe meant for chopping trees not monster limbs. To be on the safe side though I would just limit this to Common Gear tokens only.<br /><br />Lady Myke<br /><br />

I like the non-gp treasure, and the new items are more interesting than the dinnerware.  As far as good characters taking treasure, I assumed the monastery was abandoned.  Besides, the magical research I am doing is for the benefit of mankind!<br />

I had an idea for boots or maybe even slippers though they would take up the same slot.<br /><br />How about Boots of Levitation. Once again I know this has been talked about before and I don't want to just have it replace Boots of Free Action. So here's what I was thinking.<br /><br />Boots of Levitation: Wearer is able to walk over any rough surface due to floating one inch over the ground.<br /><br />However the wearer is still able to be caught by some traps and cannot walk over precipices since they would still fall into them. A precipice or Ravine being more than 1 inch.  I was also thinking that things like the Shambler's Slime would still affect the wearer since it would still catch them and keep them from moving. This way Boots of Free Action still has an advantage over the Levitation ones.  But the Levitation Boots may be able to allow the wearer to walk over any trap that is pressure sensitive in the floor since s/he does not actually touch it. <br /><br />I am not sure if these would be of use and I know they won't be even thought of  til at least 2009 but hey at least I am starting to think of neat token ideas. I hope.<br /><br />Lady Myke

Wow...thank you all for 17 pages of awesome feedback.<br /><br />We are moving on now to the rouhg design stage, and that can affect the token composition as well.  Much depends on finding a good graphic!<br /><br />Thanks again.  More info will be posted later.

jeff,<br /><br /> you might want to check out the frazier arms museum in louisville. i have not been there, but i plan on going. they are supposed to have an excellent collection that should be right up TD's alley.

<br />Wow...thank you all for 17 pages of awesome feedback.<br /><br />We are moving on now to the rouhg design stage, and that can affect the token composition as well.  Much depends on finding a good graphic!<br /><br />Thanks again.  More info will be posted later.<br />

<br /><br />Hi Jeff!<br /><br />Maybe you could list on the forums the general idea of some of the graphics you're looking for - or even be very specific since the token list has been published.  You might save yourself a lot of work if you list all the tokens you're looking for a graphic for, and open it up to the forum members to send in photos for you to consider.  It would be fun for forum members also to be able to contribute a photo or two to the final token set   =)<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Mike

Agreed, Mike.

We are doing pretty good so far.  I found a good source, but I can always use more.<br /><br />If anyone has any orcish looking weapons please send me some good pics!  They need to look evil and mean.

I did a quick google search and came up with some images thay may provide inspiration:<br /><br /> images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=orc+weapons&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Copyright issues.<br /><br />One alternative is to use something like Flicker to search. One of their terms of service that I recently found out about is that anyone can use the images for any reason, whether it be corporate or whatever. You, in effect, lose the rights to your own pictures by posting htem on flicker. Dunno if that's true of other photosharing sites.

That is not completely true Henwy.<br /><br />Most people probably don't bother to copyright their pics on flickr, but not all.<br />And hosting them on flickr doesn't lessen the ability to do so either.<br />My brother does photography, and has pictures posted. Underneather are all sorts of little icons.<br />If you mouse over it acknowledges that his photos have creative common attribution. No commercial use, no derivative use. <br /><br /><br />You can set a license for each and every picture you post on flickr under the following settings:<br /> Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons<br /> Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons<br /> Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons<br /> Attribution Creative Commons<br /> Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons<br /> Attribution-NoDerivs Creative Commons<br /><br />So you cannot take just anyone and everyone's picture and use them for what you like from that site. They may reserve the right to use your photos as part of your agreement, but that doesn't mean anyone can since you can establish licensing use of your pictures.

I thought creative commons is the default? I guess it's possible that people fiddle with it, but it's not likely. Take a look at the recent case with Virgin and the lawsuit. It's pretty much DoA because of the flickr terms. The only angle they really have according to law experts is the whole model angel.