TOPIC: 2019 Rare Token Images !!

kurtreznor wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Actually, now that the robe is a straight +2, I think the Monk should be taken off of it. The Monk has never had a rare Robe, or any robe Rare or lower above +1 AC. It's power creep to add the Monk to a straight +2 Rare robe, Both of the +2 AC robes so far have been just Wizards, I'd recommend having this one be just Wizards as well.

I think this is ok. True Monk's have never had Rare robes. But all Rare robes are +2. So the Monk gets a Rare now vs. just a Common. Sounds ok to me.

True, but there have been Rare robes before, and the Monk has been specifically excluded from them, so I'd recommend that continue. The UR robe was different because it wasn't AC.

Jeff, maybe change the wording on the Crown of Treasure Finding to allow it to stack with the Charm of Treasure Finding? Maybe something like "+1 Treasure Chip, stacks only with Charm of Treasure Finding"?

Robe: out of all the years of token design, 'because that is how it was in the past' seems a terrible argument this year.

Treasure finding: i think we need to make sure the transmute is backward compatible with the older rare TE, so the wording on this year rare isnt the issue (ie. The transmute needs to work with the rare wording anyway).

It's not a "it's how it was done in the past" argument, it's a "power creep" and "erasing lines between classes" argument. The Monk has very intentionally been restricted to +1 AC robes in the past, because of it's other abilities. It's the same reason why I didn't want the Barbarian to initially get the +5 AC rare armor.

I'm sure the reason there was a negative on the earler version of the robe was because the Monk was on it. Removing the negative modifier should go along with removing the Monk.

And to be honest, even though Jeff made some big changes this year, I don't think that makes looking at past precedent a "terrible argument". Looking at past precedent is pretty valuable, even if some times changes from past precedent are very intentionally made for a course correction.

Cloak of Painful Luck seems problematic. Often in battle the DM will describe the attack, roll, call out classes and damage. Even if they were to say it was a save, not sure most would catch or remember in the heat of battle to take the 2 damage.

Mike Steele wrote:

kurtreznor wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Actually, now that the robe is a straight +2, I think the Monk should be taken off of it. The Monk has never had a rare Robe, or any robe Rare or lower above +1 AC. It's power creep to add the Monk to a straight +2 Rare robe, Both of the +2 AC robes so far have been just Wizards, I'd recommend having this one be just Wizards as well.

I think this is ok. True Monk's have never had Rare robes. But all Rare robes are +2. So the Monk gets a Rare now vs. just a Common. Sounds ok to me.

True, but there have been Rare robes before, and the Monk has been specifically excluded from them, so I'd recommend that continue. The UR robe was different because it wasn't AC.

Jeff, maybe change the wording on the Crown of Treasure Finding to allow it to stack with the Charm of Treasure Finding? Maybe something like "+1 Treasure Chip, stacks only with Charm of Treasure Finding"?

Robe: out of all the years of token design, 'because that is how it was in the past' seems a terrible argument this year.

Treasure finding: i think we need to make sure the transmute is backward compatible with the older rare TE, so the wording on this year rare isnt the issue (ie. The transmute needs to work with the rare wording anyway).

It's not a "it's how it was done in the past" argument, it's a "power creep" and "erasing lines between classes" argument. The Monk has very intentionally been restricted to +1 AC robes in the past, because of it's other abilities. It's the same reason why I didn't want the Barbarian to initially get the +5 AC rare armor.

I'm sure the reason there was a negative on the earler version of the robe was because the Monk was on it. Removing the negative modifier should go along with removing the Monk.

And to be honest, even though Jeff made some big changes this year, I don't think that makes looking at past precedent a "terrible argument". Looking at past precedent is pretty valuable, even if some times changes from past precedent are very intentionally made for a course correction.

The Monk can wear the Moonhide Robe at the UR level and get +2.5 to AC along with Reflex saves. So I think a strict +2 AC at the Rare level is ok.

Re: Shoes of Skill

Is the intent to give +2 damage across the board while in Polymorph form? Casting with Shirt of the Fae for +2 damage is an outlier, but not sure if the intention is to only boost Polymorph damage.

Edit: posted in wrong spot. sorry

Rob F wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

kurtreznor wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Actually, now that the robe is a straight +2, I think the Monk should be taken off of it. The Monk has never had a rare Robe, or any robe Rare or lower above +1 AC. It's power creep to add the Monk to a straight +2 Rare robe, Both of the +2 AC robes so far have been just Wizards, I'd recommend having this one be just Wizards as well.

I think this is ok. True Monk's have never had Rare robes. But all Rare robes are +2. So the Monk gets a Rare now vs. just a Common. Sounds ok to me.

True, but there have been Rare robes before, and the Monk has been specifically excluded from them, so I'd recommend that continue. The UR robe was different because it wasn't AC.

Jeff, maybe change the wording on the Crown of Treasure Finding to allow it to stack with the Charm of Treasure Finding? Maybe something like "+1 Treasure Chip, stacks only with Charm of Treasure Finding"?

Robe: out of all the years of token design, 'because that is how it was in the past' seems a terrible argument this year.

Treasure finding: i think we need to make sure the transmute is backward compatible with the older rare TE, so the wording on this year rare isnt the issue (ie. The transmute needs to work with the rare wording anyway).

It's not a "it's how it was done in the past" argument, it's a "power creep" and "erasing lines between classes" argument. The Monk has very intentionally been restricted to +1 AC robes in the past, because of it's other abilities. It's the same reason why I didn't want the Barbarian to initially get the +5 AC rare armor.

I'm sure the reason there was a negative on the earler version of the robe was because the Monk was on it. Removing the negative modifier should go along with removing the Monk.

And to be honest, even though Jeff made some big changes this year, I don't think that makes looking at past precedent a "terrible argument". Looking at past precedent is pretty valuable, even if some times changes from past precedent are very intentionally made for a course correction.

The Monk can wear the Moonhide Robe at the UR level and get +2.5 to AC along with Reflex saves. So I think a strict +2 AC at the Rare level is ok.

Agree to disagree.

Rob F wrote: Should the Totem Paint Crushed Ruby be AI for trade goods? Shouldn't it be DP like the Skull??

I think the premise is it is paint (aka ink) and hence an Alchemist's Ink.

Ed

Rob F wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

kurtreznor wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Actually, now that the robe is a straight +2, I think the Monk should be taken off of it. The Monk has never had a rare Robe, or any robe Rare or lower above +1 AC. It's power creep to add the Monk to a straight +2 Rare robe, Both of the +2 AC robes so far have been just Wizards, I'd recommend having this one be just Wizards as well.

I think this is ok. True Monk's have never had Rare robes. But all Rare robes are +2. So the Monk gets a Rare now vs. just a Common. Sounds ok to me.

True, but there have been Rare robes before, and the Monk has been specifically excluded from them, so I'd recommend that continue. The UR robe was different because it wasn't AC.

Jeff, maybe change the wording on the Crown of Treasure Finding to allow it to stack with the Charm of Treasure Finding? Maybe something like "+1 Treasure Chip, stacks only with Charm of Treasure Finding"?

Robe: out of all the years of token design, 'because that is how it was in the past' seems a terrible argument this year.

Treasure finding: i think we need to make sure the transmute is backward compatible with the older rare TE, so the wording on this year rare isnt the issue (ie. The transmute needs to work with the rare wording anyway).

It's not a "it's how it was done in the past" argument, it's a "power creep" and "erasing lines between classes" argument. The Monk has very intentionally been restricted to +1 AC robes in the past, because of it's other abilities. It's the same reason why I didn't want the Barbarian to initially get the +5 AC rare armor.

I'm sure the reason there was a negative on the earler version of the robe was because the Monk was on it. Removing the negative modifier should go along with removing the Monk.

And to be honest, even though Jeff made some big changes this year, I don't think that makes looking at past precedent a "terrible argument". Looking at past precedent is pretty valuable, even if some times changes from past precedent are very intentionally made for a course correction.

The Monk can wear the Moonhide Robe at the UR level and get +2.5 to AC along with Reflex saves. So I think a strict +2 AC at the Rare level is ok.

Agreed. It closes the gap a little, but obviously it's not over powered to allow the monk +2 /3 ac and extra ref save.

Why are Paladin's allowed to use the +1 Flail but not the +2?

Can we please make the flail more blunt looking? Clerics should be able to use it, but not something so pointy I believe.

Also, do we really want Clerics on the Soul armors? Gaining life when someone else dies doesn't feel right for them.

Mike Steele wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Actually, now that the robe is a straight +2, I think the Monk should be taken off of it. The Monk has never had a rare Robe, or any robe Rare or lower above +1 AC. It's power creep to add the Monk to a straight +2 Rare robe, Both of the +2 AC robes so far have been just Wizards, I'd recommend having this one be just Wizards as well.

I think this is ok. True Monk's have never had Rare robes. But all Rare robes are +2. So the Monk gets a Rare now vs. just a Common. Sounds ok to me.

True, but there have been Rare robes before, and the Monk has been specifically excluded from them, so I'd recommend that continue. The UR robe was different because it wasn't AC.

Jeff, maybe change the wording on the Crown of Treasure Finding to allow it to stack with the Charm of Treasure Finding? Maybe something like "+1 Treasure Chip, stacks only with Charm of Treasure Finding"?

We are re-wording the Charm of Treasure Finding.

Arnold wrote: Re: Shoes of Skill

Is the intent to give +2 damage across the board while in Polymorph form? Casting with Shirt of the Fae for +2 damage is an outlier, but not sure if the intention is to only boost Polymorph damage.

The intent is to only boost Polymorph damage.

Wade Schwendemann wrote: Why are Paladin's allowed to use the +1 Flail but not the +2?

Can we please make the flail more blunt looking? Clerics should be able to use it, but not something so pointy I believe.

Also, do we really want Clerics on the Soul armors? Gaining life when someone else dies doesn't feel right for them.

The +2 Death Flail is a different animal from the +1 Dire Flail... See UR soon.