TOPIC: 2019 Ultra Rare Token Images!

Phrash wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:
Case A is your to hit bonus, minus the monster's AC, requires you to slide a 16 or better.

So, with the averages you posted, the necessary to-hit bonus to not be in case A are:

Normal: 2.86
Hardcore: 5.61
Nighmare: 10.75

You are making my point for me.

If you have a ranged to-hit bonus (including Bardsong / Cleric bless/prary) of better than 3 on normal, 6 on hardcoree, and 11 on nightmare, then case A doesn't pertain, and the "hit on 15+" effect of this bow does exactly nothing.

If you want to throw in bardsong, fine. I'll give you 1/3 for bless cause it's a 1/game thing. So lets say 2 and 1/3.

And, hey, I'll be extra nice and say the crossbow should have +2 normally because it's an Ultra Rare so 4 and 1/3

Normal is a wash, fine.
Hardcore: This weapon provides an extra 1.3 to hit. That over 2 dex or as if it was better than a +3 weapon. That's pretty good.
Nightmare: Why in the world does this, by itself, have an extra 6.42 to hit? That is like having a weapon with +8 to hit built into it!

Please tell me how to get 6+ to hit in ranged combat without considerable token investment that would not also take up token slots.

4th and 5th level cleric both have 1 bless (+1 to hit) and 2 prayer (+2 to hit). I was trying to be conservative.


I see what you are saying about Nightmare - I just don't agree it's important.


At Nightmare you are going to need a raft of other token stuff to survive. If all you have is this bow:

a. You'll be dealing 6.66 damage and the monster will thank you for making the DM take up time to do calculations instead of killing it.
b. You're going to get 2-shotted or killed by environment damage sooner rather than later.

I would like someone who thinks this token is very powerful show me an _actual_ build they would consider take into the dungeon, and explain how in that build:

a. Ranged combat is a thing they would be doing instead of melee or spell.
b. This token is better than a mighty ranged or non-mighty +2 UR weapon.

So far we had someone provide a build and I appreciate that effort a lot, I think what that build showed though was rangers want to do melee.


In case we can agree about something here - I think the damage wheel is too generous on this, I'd knock it down by 1 or 2.

Phrash wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Matt Goodman wrote: And again, I want to reiterate, why is the fixed fate crossbow better than the +2 Keen Longbow????

Please explain how:

6.66 average damage, crit on 20

is "better than"

13.x average damage, crit on 19-20

?

+2 Keen Longbow is not +2 Keen Slayer Bow

Ha! You've got me there - I was hoping I could update that before someone responded.

I was looking a the relic bow, which of course should be better!

The UR bow is 6.5 average damage, and crits on 19-20.

In the abstract that's probably better, but it's hard to see.

I support lowering the damage wheel on the Fixed Fate by 1-2.

Also - I think historically ranged weapons could use a boost to bring them into the modern era.

Modern 2 handed melee weapons are hanging out at 7.5 average damage.

I think it would be good to get ranged up there too.

This token may not be the right one to do it on.

Picc wrote:

Adam Guay wrote: I thought the crossbow was to be Fixed Fate....which I thought of as no damage modifiers or bonuses to hit. Then you would have to slide a 15 or better and you only got the damage from the crossbow with no modifiers.

If the cross truly is un-modifiable in any way its much more ok.

That said I was reading the token as you just needed a final attack score of at least 15 to hit regardless of if the monster say had a 35 AC. I grant you that's probably wrong but let be honest it will be interpenetrated that way in the dungeon frequently.

Even so Jeff will need to be mindful of it when placing the 15-20 zones on all future combat boards (and maybe even deciding which old boards to bring out again).

Honestly I agree with Mike, it would probably be safer to just bring back the mighty shortbow this year.

I read it as need to slide a 15+ to hit, then would do damage as a ranged weapon, with a typical ranged damage bonus.

I don't think right now is the time for the mighty shortbow, what with the mighty longbow still in print and 3 weapons in this set.

Maybe a different reprint (Lenses of Vital Insight if we leave that power off the rogue legendary)?

Also, the Bard should be added to the tome, whatever powers it ends up with . I really don't see why giving the bard access to the focus item should be an issue.

If we want to keep bards away from the auto-pass ability to simulate that bardic knowledge is random, not all-encompassing, I can see that.

Fiddy wrote:

Adam Guay wrote: I thought that's why Jeff added the purple ring around the damage wheel to help out with the dm being able to notice the token.

For hitting, yes. For damage, no. Or at least that was my understanding.

That wasn't even my understanding, since I didn't see anything not allowing modifiers, but I could be mistaken. I thought if your skill was high enough you might hit on a lower number, but worst case it always hit on 15-20.

Speaking of Tome, it would make more sense to me as something like, “If you forfeit skill check, spell does +2”

Straight-up slotless Focus bothers me more than skipping the check does.

Now there’s a cost, and much less pressure to do check, but you can if you feel lucky. And it pretty much preserves what I think most people thought was the best part of the token anyway.

Should appeal to newbies who haven’t learned their stuff yet, or people trying out a new class, or veterans who are in too much of a hurry. Useless in Grind, though.

I really don’t see why it should apply to polymorph. Spells aren’t potions, and visa versa.

Picc wrote:

valetutto wrote: Also for reference i'm also a believer in the old version of the tome except that it should allow the bard to use it.

I am in favor of adding the bard (and not just because I want an AOE healing build to be viable)

I'd be fine with the Bard being added as well. Do they only do their skill check for the monster lore?

Mike Steele wrote:

Picc wrote:

valetutto wrote: Also for reference i'm also a believer in the old version of the tome except that it should allow the bard to use it.

I am in favor of adding the bard (and not just because I want an AOE healing build to be viable)

I'd be fine with the Bard being added as well. Do they only do their skill check for the monster lore?

Yeah lore only, healing is fixed.

Regarding fixed fate.

I will create an actual build; however, my main point with the previous build is that by investing very little, a ranger, who yes wants to do melee, can create a build that is mostly geared for melee and still do a ton in range. (I know I'm not explaining myself well enough, I'm too worked up about this right now).

Two other arguments to hold us over. I read that people were comparing fixed fate to Thor's. Please reread that sentence. This token is so good, people are comparing it, an ultra-rare, to Thor's, a legendary! If that doesn't concern people, I don't know what will.

Second argument. You're taking away design space. Taking away choices. Now, even though they won't do as much damage, a pure melee character can easily engage in ranged combat. There is now no (or very little) downside. They don't have to wonder or have a plan if ranged attack is necessary. I just really believe this token is bad for the game in the long run.

Should we be decreasing the UR strength kilt to +4 STR, -2 Dex, -2 Con?

I think getting +6 Str in this slot, whatever the drawbacks, seems too good for a UR.

Compare to gloves of the brute, +5 Str, -2 Dex in the hands slot.

This seems too good right now.

Wade Schwendemann wrote: Should we be decreasing the UR strength kilt to +4 STR, -2 Dex, -2 Con?

I think getting +6 Str in this slot, whatever the drawbacks, seems too good for a UR.

Compare to gloves of the brute, +5 Str, -2 Dex in the hands slot.

This seems too good right now.

+4 str & -2 con gives a net +2 to all three stats when adding the three kilts together.

Matt Goodman wrote: Regarding fixed fate.

. I read that people were comparing fixed fate to Thor's. Please reread that sentence. This token is so good, people are comparing it, an ultra-rare, to Thor's, a legendary! If that doesn't concern people, I don't know what will.

.

You may be counting me as one of those people. I chose to make Thor's last year rather than Welfor's.

This moved my Dwarf Fighter build from sad joke at ranged to a "hey you can can hit on something other than 20." And that hit would get STR bonuses. A hit from Thor's would be significantly better. If I used Fate, I might hit more often, but for a lot less damage.

Which is better? Mostly, my desire was to get something cool and to not feel useless if I was forced to go ranged. Thor's did that. Fate would do that too.

Harlax wrote:

Matt Goodman wrote: Regarding fixed fate.

. I read that people were comparing fixed fate to Thor's. Please reread that sentence. This token is so good, people are comparing it, an ultra-rare, to Thor's, a legendary! If that doesn't concern people, I don't know what will.

.

You may be counting me as one of those people. I chose to make Thor's last year rather than Welfor's.

This moved my Dwarf Fighter build from sad joke at ranged to a "hey you can can hit on something other than 20." And that hit would get STR bonuses. I hit from Thor's would be significantly better. If I used Fate, I might hit more often, but for a lot less damage.

Which is better? Mostly, my desire was to get something cool and to not feel useless if I was forced to go ranged. Thor's did that. Fate would do that too.

As the cleric the only time I ever tried a range attack with my sling was against the dreaded gazebo.