TOPIC: Notes about Tokens for 2019

Eric wrote: For the WoW players out there.. think of the neck slot as the Heart of Azeroth

I've been trying not to

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: I believe it was "a little something extra" for druids and rangers.

Which could mean only druids and rangers get anything, or could mean everyone gets something and Druids and Rangers get a little bit more.

You're correct, it could be interpreted either way. Even if it was interpreted that there would be something for everyone, that's clearly subject to change now. If people with two items dropped from +10 healing to +4 healing, people with 4 or (soon) 5 items might lose any potential additional bonus.

It actually seems pretty appropriate to me that if the bonuses are being depowered, it should be depowered at the top and bottom end. It doesn't seem quite fair that the bottom end get a 60% decrease in healing, and the top end actually get more powerful (+10 healing plus bonus damage). And I am saying that as someone that can get multiple party members to 4 items once the Teeth are released.

That is a fair point. I would be in favor of starting a new set with the kilt, the teeth, and whatever multi-year, multiple UR item we start in 2020. Then leave eldritch with +1 level, +4 heal and +1 damage at 2 items, and +1 level, +6 heal, +2 damage at all 3 items.

I'm not sure how you can possibly start with the Kilt Teeth as non-Eldritch, since people have spent a lot of resources into building them as part of their Eldritch set. There are a lot of people that need those two to get them to two or three items. Unless you say they are Eldritch AND something else.

I think it's totally OK to have five eldritch items and only bonuses for two and three items.

Mike Steele wrote:
I think it's totally OK to have five eldritch items and only bonuses for two and three items.

I'll agree to disagree with you on this.

Diminishing returns, sure.

No bonus at all, not as much.

Mike Steele wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: I believe it was "a little something extra" for druids and rangers.

Which could mean only druids and rangers get anything, or could mean everyone gets something and Druids and Rangers get a little bit more.

You're correct, it could be interpreted either way. Even if it was interpreted that there would be something for everyone, that's clearly subject to change now. If people with two items dropped from +10 healing to +4 healing, people with 4 or (soon) 5 items might lose any potential additional bonus.

It actually seems pretty appropriate to me that if the bonuses are being depowered, it should be depowered at the top and bottom end. It doesn't seem quite fair that the bottom end get a 60% decrease in healing, and the top end actually get more powerful (+10 healing plus bonus damage). And I am saying that as someone that can get multiple party members to 4 items once the Teeth are released.

That is a fair point. I would be in favor of starting a new set with the kilt, the teeth, and whatever multi-year, multiple UR item we start in 2020. Then leave eldritch with +1 level, +4 heal and +1 damage at 2 items, and +1 level, +6 heal, +2 damage at all 3 items.

I'm not sure how you can possibly start with the Kilt Teeth as non-Eldritch, since people have spent a lot of resources into building them as part of their Eldritch set. There are a lot of people that need those two to get them to two or three items. Unless you say they are Eldritch AND something else.

I think it's totally OK to have five eldritch items and only bonuses for two and three items.

That's a fair point.

I know I might be in the minority. But I for one and not pleased with the two UR changes. I spent a lot of money getting those tokens for my group. And I don't like that they are being changed. I paid for the item to do what it does. And yes I know, that I can exchange it for something else. But I don't want something else, I wanted those specific items for what they did. Not something else, changing them seems just like a shitty move to me.

Edward Deangelis wrote: I know I might be in the minority. But I for one and not pleased with the two UR changes. I spent a lot of money getting those tokens for my group. And I don't like that they are being changed. I paid for the item to do what it does. And yes I know, that I can exchange it for something else. But I don't want something else, I wanted those specific items for what they did. Not something else, changing them seems just like a shitty move to me.

I don't think your alone. I understand your point of view and I just bought some of the tokens that got changed as well. There is the option of not changing them and then in 3+ years if the game collapses due to power creep and no one being challenged now your tokens you paid a lot of money for are worthless.

I will swallow the pill and prefer to keep playing this game 5-10 years from now.

Ed

MasterED wrote:

Edward Deangelis wrote: I know I might be in the minority. But I for one and not pleased with the two UR changes. I spent a lot of money getting those tokens for my group. And I don't like that they are being changed. I paid for the item to do what it does. And yes I know, that I can exchange it for something else. But I don't want something else, I wanted those specific items for what they did. Not something else, changing them seems just like a shitty move to me.

I don't think your alone. I understand your point of view and I just bought some of the tokens that got changed as well. There is the option of not changing them and then in 3+ years if the game collapses due to power creep and no one being challenged now your tokens you paid a lot of money for are worthless.

I will swallow the pill and prefer to keep playing this game 5-10 years from now.

Ed

Agreed

I doubt you will find many who are "happy" with the change. There was a week's long donnybrook the last time there was discussion of a change. I also understand that for someone who only has this one UR its more painful.

But Ed's take is right on the money.

Edward Deangelis wrote: I know I might be in the minority. But I for one and not pleased with the two UR changes. I spent a lot of money getting those tokens for my group. And I don't like that they are being changed. I paid for the item to do what it does. And yes I know, that I can exchange it for something else. But I don't want something else, I wanted those specific items for what they did. Not something else, changing them seems just like a shitty move to me.

I appreciate what you're saying - it absolutely does feel bad.

I was also nailed by this (I own lenses, shadowskin, and also multiple Medallion of Mystic Mouth, and also I transmuted a bunch of wands that I would have kept had I know the rules were about to change).

Anyway - I've been able to balance the bad feelings with the understanding that this helps the game thrive, which I like.

I play magic the gathering too - they ban stuff every now and then, or errata it. It's a bad day when it happens, but its the best of some bad choices when they do.

I trust that TD here is making the best of a bad choice (e.g. ban/errata vs. negative game experience).

Us as players are always going to be better at breaking tokens than the designers are going to be at safety proofing them - every once in a while something is going to slip out that warps the game too much. When it does, these things will happen.

I guess we can all take it as a compliment that we figured out an application of the tokens that were better than the designers intended - go us!

Edward Deangelis wrote: I know I might be in the minority. But I for one and not pleased with the two UR changes. I spent a lot of money getting those tokens for my group. And I don't like that they are being changed. I paid for the item to do what it does. And yes I know, that I can exchange it for something else. But I don't want something else, I wanted those specific items for what they did. Not something else, changing them seems just like a shitty move to me.

I sympathize with you but think of it this way. Nightmare monster damage was calculated on 1 healer in their party having this token and when they didn't nightmare runs were crushing parties so they have to drop the damage down on many of them. This caused the run to turn into a cake walk for many nightmare parties with this token. Oh we took 20 damage the entire fight instead of 60 etc. It makes it really hard to balance out damage for monsters. This change will make it more consistent because even if you really spec out a cleric you still have this much narrowed down range of healing then the crazy amounts we had before. It sucks, i get that but in the end it makes dungeons more balanced and fun in the long run.

Picc wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Picc wrote:

Grekel! wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Grekel! wrote:

kurtreznor wrote:

Jeff Martin wrote: SPECIAL NOTE about Relics and Legendaries

Now that every class has at least a few generic legendary tokens, starting in 2019 we will be producing class specific ones. Every Relic and Legendary class specific token, barring some thematic exceptions will occupy the neck slot so as not to interfere with any previous Eldritch items. The two classes that will not be in the neck slot are the Bard and Paladin. This puts all the classes on a roughly even slot impact basis. I hope you like the new 2019 legendaries for the Bard, Druid, & Rogue! Next year we plan on Neck slot items for the Barbarian, Monk and Ranger -- while the +2 Holy Avenger (from 2019) can be transmuted up to a +5 Holy Avenger! We wanted to add the +2 Holy Avenger in this year -- since Paladins will be venturing into the Infernal Pit!

oldschoolfrp.tumblr.com/image/125089241577

all neck slot? that sounds terrible. unless some of the relic level items are just bad, every single neck slot UR will become crap over the next few years. for a slot that was always touted as the premier slot and given some of the best URs, this is awful. I can see some of the classes being given their legendary in the neck slot; and the other half of the classes can trade for their now-unused neck URs. maybe the other half can have a specific slot selected for their special item; perhaps back slot?

The neck slot does present a real source of potential anguish for many players... but eventually you're going to have to give up something... I do agree that neck seems very "pricey" if you will... but then, for me so does back...

Yes. At some point everyone is going to have to give up something. No way around it.

And realistically I know that, and I am OK with it. I just particularly feel inclined to whine about it a little bit because, the neck slot already forces me to choose between amulet of wonder and charm necklace… I don’t want to have to make more hard decisions…

I can think of one easy way around it. New slot, call it guild mark or something. That said I'm also fine if it stays as is. Remember at least palis and bards class specific legendaries are a sword and lute. Which imo is fantastic given amulet of guarding is just so pali.

I really don't want another new slot. But trust me I get it. I have a lot of the stat boosting UR neck items, Amulet of Wonders and Charm Necklaces. All of which may be somewhat useless to me if this happens. However there could always be a kick ass legendary charm one day that may make the Charm Necklace more relevant and a really cool AoW power so I'll be hanging on to those. And the stat boosters should still be in demand from the UR level players.

I suppose we could do something truly legendary and say that the legendary class necks would all grant a second neck slot for an UR (but thats basically just a new slot by another name)

True - but it sounds funnnnn! Maybe it actually gives you two heads like Zaphod B....?!?!

I'd recommend making the guidance about the future of class legendary slots a little more abstract. Simply stating Eldritch slots will be avoided barring theming should be enough to reassure people their greens won't be competing with class defining oranges. Rather than locking into neck it's just blocking out feet/ring/legs.

Grekel! wrote:

Picc wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Picc wrote:

Grekel! wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Grekel! wrote:

kurtreznor wrote:

Jeff Martin wrote: SPECIAL NOTE about Relics and Legendaries

Now that every class has at least a few generic legendary tokens, starting in 2019 we will be producing class specific ones. Every Relic and Legendary class specific token, barring some thematic exceptions will occupy the neck slot so as not to interfere with any previous Eldritch items. The two classes that will not be in the neck slot are the Bard and Paladin. This puts all the classes on a roughly even slot impact basis. I hope you like the new 2019 legendaries for the Bard, Druid, & Rogue! Next year we plan on Neck slot items for the Barbarian, Monk and Ranger -- while the +2 Holy Avenger (from 2019) can be transmuted up to a +5 Holy Avenger! We wanted to add the +2 Holy Avenger in this year -- since Paladins will be venturing into the Infernal Pit!

oldschoolfrp.tumblr.com/image/125089241577

all neck slot? that sounds terrible. unless some of the relic level items are just bad, every single neck slot UR will become crap over the next few years. for a slot that was always touted as the premier slot and given some of the best URs, this is awful. I can see some of the classes being given their legendary in the neck slot; and the other half of the classes can trade for their now-unused neck URs. maybe the other half can have a specific slot selected for their special item; perhaps back slot?

The neck slot does present a real source of potential anguish for many players... but eventually you're going to have to give up something... I do agree that neck seems very "pricey" if you will... but then, for me so does back...

Yes. At some point everyone is going to have to give up something. No way around it.

And realistically I know that, and I am OK with it. I just particularly feel inclined to whine about it a little bit because, the neck slot already forces me to choose between amulet of wonder and charm necklace… I don’t want to have to make more hard decisions…

I can think of one easy way around it. New slot, call it guild mark or something. That said I'm also fine if it stays as is. Remember at least palis and bards class specific legendaries are a sword and lute. Which imo is fantastic given amulet of guarding is just so pali.

I really don't want another new slot. But trust me I get it. I have a lot of the stat boosting UR neck items, Amulet of Wonders and Charm Necklaces. All of which may be somewhat useless to me if this happens. However there could always be a kick ass legendary charm one day that may make the Charm Necklace more relevant and a really cool AoW power so I'll be hanging on to those. And the stat boosters should still be in demand from the UR level players.

I suppose we could do something truly legendary and say that the legendary class necks would all grant a second neck slot for an UR (but thats basically just a new slot by another name)

True - but it sounds funnnnn! Maybe it actually gives you two heads like Zaphod B....?!?!

I love that book.