TOPIC: Contemplating Gregor's Tome

Just chiming in to say that the Rod of Persuasion and the Libram of Looting are the sole two tokens that made me feel comfortable in building and playing a Rogue.

No problems with auto-succeed tokens, really. Though if I had my 'druthers, I'd make a token that affects multiple classes a relic, seeing that there are uncommons that allow retries and URs that allow bypassing for specific classes.

One token that allows all classes (minus the Bard? Really? People seem intimidated by that board of symbols the most!) to auto-succeed? Seems like relic level power to me. But then people might say only auto-succeed seems too underpowered for a Relic.

Meh. I'm fine either way, personally. I'm not going to fight other players to be the Cleric or Wizards in a party, I have the crowbar in case I'm ever playing Rogue, and enjoy memorizing the Bard symbols, so it's not likely to be a token I'll largely seek out. It's merits on the community at large, though, I definitely can understand and support.

Just a correction of my own:

MasterED wrote: Just a correction -

Raven wrote: In its first incarnation (on the L&L forum) the token read, "Auto-succeed at skill checks & +1 to healing, damage spells, & polymorph attacks."

It was actually +2.

By having both powers on one token it was beyond OP.

Raven wrote: If there's a Tome slot eventually, it might be appropriate for a +1 Tome of focus. But if we put the +1 into a slotless token right now, then there'll be that much more backlash against any potential Tome slot in the future, because people would see it as losing a free +1 focus.

I respectfully disagree - look at Questor's Charm. When it launched the Charm slot it didn't get backlash.

I am fine with the Tome as it sits.

Putting an envelope to my head to predict the future (if you get the reference +1 to you)...

Soon there will be another Tome that does grant an auto succeed and who knows we might even see a Tome slot. It has been discussed in the forums just nothing yet.

Questor's Charm did NOT launch the Charm slot.

When it was first printed, Questor's Charm was slotless. It was only when other charms were printed that a Charm slot was formally created.

Same thing with Shirts. Spider Silk Shirt existed as slotless for many, many years until they decided to formally make a Shirt slot in 2011.

The Boots of Elvenkind were also the only piece of footwear until 2007 but in that case, there were plans to introduce more footgear.

Raven wrote:

Grekel! wrote: Raven,
The Rod has a penalty.
The Bowl is a kind of limited or partial bypass.

If It is to be a bypass token, it should include a drawback.

If there was another UR which gave a player a chance at 3 free tokens per run.. yeah, it should have a drawback!

But we've already demonstrated (repeatedly) that +2 healing or +2 damage is an acceptable power level for a token.

I can agree, tho, that an auto-pass for the Bard would be more significant than this, so I can understand the desire to have them left off this token. Perhaps another auto-succeed token for the Bard - with a penalty or downside - would be good at a later date.

I also don’t think that a UR token is a very good way to address special needs...

No, it isn't. I agree there. But I also disagree with it as an argument against.

Although some folks have said it could be used to address Special needs, I don't hear anyone asking for a token designed specifically for that reason.

In fact, I would really caution against using "Special Needs" an argument for or against the token.

Saying that "an auto-succeed token addresses special needs" makes it sound like everyone who is asking for it as a way to avoid anxiety has some diagnosable psychological problem. They probably don't; and if they do, it's their own choice whether they compensate for it, or ask for accommodations.

There's plenty of other reasons to want an auto-succeed token. You might have a quiet voice and have a hard time talking over noisy friends. You might be nervous around strangers. Even if it's something like, "I was up really late last night and am hung over this morning, and don't want my party to suffer for my bad choices" is completely valid. Or it could just be, "Meh... I don't feel like it today."

Let's not bring special needs into it.

First - let me say that I always appreciate the thoughtfulness and civility of your arguments. Although I do not agree 100% of this, you do make very, very good points.

Just one final thought - You said...

If there was another UR which gave a player a chance at 3 free tokens per run.. yeah, it should have a drawback!

But we've already demonstrated (repeatedly) that +2 healing or +2 damage is an acceptable power level for a token.

True that +2 or 3 healing/damage is acceptable on a token. And it seems to me that some have put forth the argument similarly that the +3 to wizard’s damage spells is really is no big deal for the overall gameplay - either way, pro or con bypass - and I haven’t a complaint with that. It is in fact smal compared to the stacked bonuses of other tokens. But that small plus to damage and healing, is the only in-game non-token way to boost a spell... so if it is to be granted freely, by a token, (Avenue an UR, I would still argue that a drawback is fair... (and it need not be identical to the Rod’s drawback... it could be scaled or unique...).

Last - if we left the bard off and made such a token for wizards, clerics and druids... I can agree, that this is fair, and allows for not making it necessary to create 3 separate tokens to do the same thing.

Thanks too for pulling this thread out separately... it has been a really good and meaningful discussion!

Raven wrote:

Matt Goodman wrote: I find it interesting your signature line, Raven:

"THERE WILL NEVER BE A TOKEN EQUAL TO A GOOD BRAIN!"- Smakdown

Isn't an auto-succeed token trying to do this?

LOL
A bit out of context, but touché!

Boilerplate wrote: Thanks for teasing out the Tome conversation, Raven. I agree that much of the discussion gets lost in the big design threads.

Thank you for your insightful response, Boilerplate!
I don't know if I have time to respond to all of it, but there's a few I'd like to address:

First, the human element is one of the things I love most about this game, and I think that we should be very slow to minimize it. Taking the memorization challenge out of casting is like taking sliding out of physical combat

While I agree that the human element is a fantastic part of TD, I disagree with the analogy.

The memorization challenge is a cool gimmick to make players feel like wizards, but all it really does is add a couple(-ish) points of damage to a total (where combat can add enough to 1-shot a monster). If we wanted to emphasize the human element, we'd make ranged fighters throw darts/beanbags, and make the Paladin physically Lay on Hands for a full minute to do his healing, and get the Barbarian to Scream and pound her chest as she goes into Rage.

In fact, we could require the Bard to sing, and the DM could adjust the party's inspiration totals up or down depending on how good his performance was.

But we don't. We sacrifice those aspects to make the game run more smoothly for everyone else.

So while I think there's something to be said for keeping the challenge intact to provide flavour and fun, I think there's a lot more to be said for listening to the people who say they don't find it fun.

Third, skill tests are one of the few areas in the game where you can get a better result regardless of the tokens in your kit. In that sense, they democratize the game a bit. I love the notion that someone with a very basic token set can potentially earn a tiny bonus that has nothing to do with spendy tokens. Allowing an auto pass token allows the big token spenders to neutralize that tiny advantage with cash. Fuels the “pay to play” critique of TD.

I understand the notion behind this... but disagree with the net result.

You're saying that "big spenders" could neutralize a newbies advantage by spending cash on an auto succeed token which gives them 2-ish extra points. Well, that's *exactly* what the revised option is offering: Spend cash to get a token which gives you +2 to your spells.

So while it feels like an auto-pass would be cheating, what's really coming across to me is that it's okay to cheat as long as you're doing even more damage than a newbie could do.

Fourth, I love that casters currently have to struggle with the decision about whether to take time for the skill test or forego it in hopes of allowing the party to get in more rounds. It is a VERY interesting decision for casters, and removing it from the game with an auto pass on every spell would remove some excellent tension and depth from the caster classes.

True. I totally agree here.
And yet, the Libram Of Looting got rid of the "VERY interesting decision" about taking Loot or Clue.

I choose not to run with that token because I like making that decision, but I am okay with others who prefer not to penalize their parties for personal gain (the way some some Wizards feel they penalize their parties by taking too much time on the challenges.)

Raven, I think you made a key point about some players not enjoying the skills test. I think it's enough of a deterrent to keep some people from playing the classes at all (I've seen it happen). To me that's reason enough to put auto succeed back in.

One of my biggest concerns about the original auto succeed design for the Tome was its ability to be used with every single spell - that could be 8-10 uses per run based on the number of skill test spells on the L4 and L5 wizard cards (I didn’t check for the other casters). RoP and Libram get max three uses per run (and RoP costs 10 hp). Bowls and FOP: Raven get max one use per run. Limit the Tome to 1x per game and I am less concerned. Maybe 1x per room would be okay.

As an aside, I’m unpersuaded by the Libram of Looting analogy. To me it feels more like a class specific TE than a skill bypass token. You still have to pass the rogue test to use it (or bash the box and take damage). (And yeah, maybe it should be a relic.) And Ektdar’s feels different too - you still have to attempt the test, it is just easier. And same with the Bowls. You still have to take the test, you can just improve your odds by selecting two zones (once per game). I can’t really articulate why, but I think I am fine with making the test easier a few times per game. I’d just rather not eliminate it entirely.

Mike Steele wrote:

Raven wrote:

Matt Goodman wrote: I find it interesting your signature line, Raven:

"THERE WILL NEVER BE A TOKEN EQUAL TO A GOOD BRAIN!"- Smakdown

Isn't an auto-succeed token trying to do this?

LOL
A bit out of context, but touché!

Boilerplate wrote: Thanks for teasing out the Tome conversation, Raven. I agree that much of the discussion gets lost in the big design threads.

Thank you for your insightful response, Boilerplate!
I don't know if I have time to respond to all of it, but there's a few I'd like to address:

First, the human element is one of the things I love most about this game, and I think that we should be very slow to minimize it. Taking the memorization challenge out of casting is like taking sliding out of physical combat

While I agree that the human element is a fantastic part of TD, I disagree with the analogy.

The memorization challenge is a cool gimmick to make players feel like wizards, but all it really does is add a couple(-ish) points of damage to a total (where combat can add enough to 1-shot a monster). If we wanted to emphasize the human element, we'd make ranged fighters throw darts/beanbags, and make the Paladin physically Lay on Hands for a full minute to do his healing, and get the Barbarian to Scream and pound her chest as she goes into Rage.

In fact, we could require the Bard to sing, and the DM could adjust the party's inspiration totals up or down depending on how good his performance was.

But we don't. We sacrifice those aspects to make the game run more smoothly for everyone else.

So while I think there's something to be said for keeping the challenge intact to provide flavour and fun, I think there's a lot more to be said for listening to the people who say they don't find it fun.

Third, skill tests are one of the few areas in the game where you can get a better result regardless of the tokens in your kit. In that sense, they democratize the game a bit. I love the notion that someone with a very basic token set can potentially earn a tiny bonus that has nothing to do with spendy tokens. Allowing an auto pass token allows the big token spenders to neutralize that tiny advantage with cash. Fuels the “pay to play” critique of TD.

I understand the notion behind this... but disagree with the net result.

You're saying that "big spenders" could neutralize a newbies advantage by spending cash on an auto succeed token which gives them 2-ish extra points. Well, that's *exactly* what the revised option is offering: Spend cash to get a token which gives you +2 to your spells.

So while it feels like an auto-pass would be cheating, what's really coming across to me is that it's okay to cheat as long as you're doing even more damage than a newbie could do.

Fourth, I love that casters currently have to struggle with the decision about whether to take time for the skill test or forego it in hopes of allowing the party to get in more rounds. It is a VERY interesting decision for casters, and removing it from the game with an auto pass on every spell would remove some excellent tension and depth from the caster classes.

True. I totally agree here.
And yet, the Libram Of Looting got rid of the "VERY interesting decision" about taking Loot or Clue.

I choose not to run with that token because I like making that decision, but I am okay with others who prefer not to penalize their parties for personal gain (the way some some Wizards feel they penalize their parties by taking too much time on the challenges.)

Raven, I think you made a key point about some players not enjoying the skills test. I think it's enough of a deterrent to keep some people from playing the classes at all (I've seen it happen). To me that's reason enough to put auto succeed back in.

I do not enjoy sliding, and sliding deters me from playing a physical combat class. But I wouldn’t even dream of asking for a token that would allow me to skip sliding every turn so that I could feel more comfortable trying out fighter et al. Like I said above, I think such a token would cause a riot. On second thought, maybe we should create a token that allows sliders to roll a d20 instead of sliding (and maybe do average damage on the wheel)...

If players don’t enjoy the memorization tests, then they can simply choose not to take them and their spells will still be plenty effective. Not so with sliding; there is no option to skip and do 3 less damage. To me, that already makes the casting classes more “approachable” than the physical combat classes.

How much would I feel put out if someone else paid $100 for avoiding skill tests?

For getting +3 on healing / damage in less time and/or with more consistency?

I think it's hard for me to feel the personal impact. I get the principle but I can have my code and let others have theirs without really being impacted at all. Except the scenario where groups who want speed peer pressure using it.

I could be wrong, but I don't think TD becomes less fun for me if someone has a bypass test token, even accounting somewhat for unintended consequences.

Having addressed that I can see a marketing issue with the perception of paying $100 for such effects but tokens are intended to bypass challenges. Envy may be a marketing problem and a marketing boon to the game, but it seems like players either accept it or it's already a deal breaker.

Wands are a far bigger fish to fry in my mind, and I'm not so affected on that either.

Boilerplate wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Raven wrote:

Matt Goodman wrote: I find it interesting your signature line, Raven:

"THERE WILL NEVER BE A TOKEN EQUAL TO A GOOD BRAIN!"- Smakdown

Isn't an auto-succeed token trying to do this?

LOL
A bit out of context, but touché!

Boilerplate wrote: Thanks for teasing out the Tome conversation, Raven. I agree that much of the discussion gets lost in the big design threads.

Thank you for your insightful response, Boilerplate!
I don't know if I have time to respond to all of it, but there's a few I'd like to address:

First, the human element is one of the things I love most about this game, and I think that we should be very slow to minimize it. Taking the memorization challenge out of casting is like taking sliding out of physical combat

While I agree that the human element is a fantastic part of TD, I disagree with the analogy.

The memorization challenge is a cool gimmick to make players feel like wizards, but all it really does is add a couple(-ish) points of damage to a total (where combat can add enough to 1-shot a monster). If we wanted to emphasize the human element, we'd make ranged fighters throw darts/beanbags, and make the Paladin physically Lay on Hands for a full minute to do his healing, and get the Barbarian to Scream and pound her chest as she goes into Rage.

In fact, we could require the Bard to sing, and the DM could adjust the party's inspiration totals up or down depending on how good his performance was.

But we don't. We sacrifice those aspects to make the game run more smoothly for everyone else.

So while I think there's something to be said for keeping the challenge intact to provide flavour and fun, I think there's a lot more to be said for listening to the people who say they don't find it fun.

Third, skill tests are one of the few areas in the game where you can get a better result regardless of the tokens in your kit. In that sense, they democratize the game a bit. I love the notion that someone with a very basic token set can potentially earn a tiny bonus that has nothing to do with spendy tokens. Allowing an auto pass token allows the big token spenders to neutralize that tiny advantage with cash. Fuels the “pay to play” critique of TD.

I understand the notion behind this... but disagree with the net result.

You're saying that "big spenders" could neutralize a newbies advantage by spending cash on an auto succeed token which gives them 2-ish extra points. Well, that's *exactly* what the revised option is offering: Spend cash to get a token which gives you +2 to your spells.

So while it feels like an auto-pass would be cheating, what's really coming across to me is that it's okay to cheat as long as you're doing even more damage than a newbie could do.

Fourth, I love that casters currently have to struggle with the decision about whether to take time for the skill test or forego it in hopes of allowing the party to get in more rounds. It is a VERY interesting decision for casters, and removing it from the game with an auto pass on every spell would remove some excellent tension and depth from the caster classes.

True. I totally agree here.
And yet, the Libram Of Looting got rid of the "VERY interesting decision" about taking Loot or Clue.

I choose not to run with that token because I like making that decision, but I am okay with others who prefer not to penalize their parties for personal gain (the way some some Wizards feel they penalize their parties by taking too much time on the challenges.)

Raven, I think you made a key point about some players not enjoying the skills test. I think it's enough of a deterrent to keep some people from playing the classes at all (I've seen it happen). To me that's reason enough to put auto succeed back in.

I do not enjoy sliding, and sliding deters me from playing a physical combat class. But I wouldn’t even dream of asking for a token that would allow me to skip sliding every turn so that I could feel more comfortable trying out fighter et al. Like I said above, I think such a token would cause a riot. On second thought, maybe we should create a token that allows sliders to roll a d20 instead of sliding (and maybe do average damage on the wheel)...

If players don’t enjoy the memorization tests, then they can simply choose not to take them and their spells will still be plenty effective. Not so with sliding; there is no option to skip and do 3 less damage. To me, that already makes the casting classes more “approachable” than the physical combat classes.

I don't see sliding and memorization tests as similar at all, personally. I've never seen anyone skip a combat class due to sliding, in my experience those are seen as the "easier" classes due to the lack of memorization required.

Mike Steele wrote:

Boilerplate wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Raven wrote:

Matt Goodman wrote: I find it interesting your signature line, Raven:

"THERE WILL NEVER BE A TOKEN EQUAL TO A GOOD BRAIN!"- Smakdown

Isn't an auto-succeed token trying to do this?

LOL
A bit out of context, but touché!

Boilerplate wrote: Thanks for teasing out the Tome conversation, Raven. I agree that much of the discussion gets lost in the big design threads.

Thank you for your insightful response, Boilerplate!
I don't know if I have time to respond to all of it, but there's a few I'd like to address:

First, the human element is one of the things I love most about this game, and I think that we should be very slow to minimize it. Taking the memorization challenge out of casting is like taking sliding out of physical combat

While I agree that the human element is a fantastic part of TD, I disagree with the analogy.

The memorization challenge is a cool gimmick to make players feel like wizards, but all it really does is add a couple(-ish) points of damage to a total (where combat can add enough to 1-shot a monster). If we wanted to emphasize the human element, we'd make ranged fighters throw darts/beanbags, and make the Paladin physically Lay on Hands for a full minute to do his healing, and get the Barbarian to Scream and pound her chest as she goes into Rage.

In fact, we could require the Bard to sing, and the DM could adjust the party's inspiration totals up or down depending on how good his performance was.

But we don't. We sacrifice those aspects to make the game run more smoothly for everyone else.

So while I think there's something to be said for keeping the challenge intact to provide flavour and fun, I think there's a lot more to be said for listening to the people who say they don't find it fun.

Third, skill tests are one of the few areas in the game where you can get a better result regardless of the tokens in your kit. In that sense, they democratize the game a bit. I love the notion that someone with a very basic token set can potentially earn a tiny bonus that has nothing to do with spendy tokens. Allowing an auto pass token allows the big token spenders to neutralize that tiny advantage with cash. Fuels the “pay to play” critique of TD.

I understand the notion behind this... but disagree with the net result.

You're saying that "big spenders" could neutralize a newbies advantage by spending cash on an auto succeed token which gives them 2-ish extra points. Well, that's *exactly* what the revised option is offering: Spend cash to get a token which gives you +2 to your spells.

So while it feels like an auto-pass would be cheating, what's really coming across to me is that it's okay to cheat as long as you're doing even more damage than a newbie could do.

Fourth, I love that casters currently have to struggle with the decision about whether to take time for the skill test or forego it in hopes of allowing the party to get in more rounds. It is a VERY interesting decision for casters, and removing it from the game with an auto pass on every spell would remove some excellent tension and depth from the caster classes.

True. I totally agree here.
And yet, the Libram Of Looting got rid of the "VERY interesting decision" about taking Loot or Clue.

I choose not to run with that token because I like making that decision, but I am okay with others who prefer not to penalize their parties for personal gain (the way some some Wizards feel they penalize their parties by taking too much time on the challenges.)

Raven, I think you made a key point about some players not enjoying the skills test. I think it's enough of a deterrent to keep some people from playing the classes at all (I've seen it happen). To me that's reason enough to put auto succeed back in.

I do not enjoy sliding, and sliding deters me from playing a physical combat class. But I wouldn’t even dream of asking for a token that would allow me to skip sliding every turn so that I could feel more comfortable trying out fighter et al. Like I said above, I think such a token would cause a riot. On second thought, maybe we should create a token that allows sliders to roll a d20 instead of sliding (and maybe do average damage on the wheel)...

If players don’t enjoy the memorization tests, then they can simply choose not to take them and their spells will still be plenty effective. Not so with sliding; there is no option to skip and do 3 less damage. To me, that already makes the casting classes more “approachable” than the physical combat classes.

I don't see sliding and memorization tests as similar at all, personally. I've never seen anyone skip a combat class due to sliding, in my experience those are seen as the "easier" classes due to the lack of memorization required.

Yet it is possible, even with a ludicrous bonus, to totally miss when sliding. Your Wizard's Magic Missile always hits.

A fifth-level Cleric has eleven healing spells. Four are one-point cantrips.

The +2 Focus every round increases their total maximum healing by 22. Everyone is cool with that. And both of our damage spells hit a little harder.

Autopass increases the max healing and damage spells by... well, zero. It affects seven spells and ensures that they pass the skill check to do those 21 bonus points. This would be the end of civilization as we know it.

So which one is more over-powered again?

To me, all of the anti-autopasd arguments seem to boil down to “I don’t like it,” or “that’s not as much fun.”

Meanwhile, the pro-autopass players DO like it, and we’re telling you we think it will be more fun.

Besides, tribute tokens always do something special. What’s so special about Focus?

Harlax wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Boilerplate wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Raven wrote:

Matt Goodman wrote: I find it interesting your signature line, Raven:

"THERE WILL NEVER BE A TOKEN EQUAL TO A GOOD BRAIN!"- Smakdown

Isn't an auto-succeed token trying to do this?

LOL
A bit out of context, but touché!

Boilerplate wrote: Thanks for teasing out the Tome conversation, Raven. I agree that much of the discussion gets lost in the big design threads.

Thank you for your insightful response, Boilerplate!
I don't know if I have time to respond to all of it, but there's a few I'd like to address:

First, the human element is one of the things I love most about this game, and I think that we should be very slow to minimize it. Taking the memorization challenge out of casting is like taking sliding out of physical combat

While I agree that the human element is a fantastic part of TD, I disagree with the analogy.

The memorization challenge is a cool gimmick to make players feel like wizards, but all it really does is add a couple(-ish) points of damage to a total (where combat can add enough to 1-shot a monster). If we wanted to emphasize the human element, we'd make ranged fighters throw darts/beanbags, and make the Paladin physically Lay on Hands for a full minute to do his healing, and get the Barbarian to Scream and pound her chest as she goes into Rage.

In fact, we could require the Bard to sing, and the DM could adjust the party's inspiration totals up or down depending on how good his performance was.

But we don't. We sacrifice those aspects to make the game run more smoothly for everyone else.

So while I think there's something to be said for keeping the challenge intact to provide flavour and fun, I think there's a lot more to be said for listening to the people who say they don't find it fun.

Third, skill tests are one of the few areas in the game where you can get a better result regardless of the tokens in your kit. In that sense, they democratize the game a bit. I love the notion that someone with a very basic token set can potentially earn a tiny bonus that has nothing to do with spendy tokens. Allowing an auto pass token allows the big token spenders to neutralize that tiny advantage with cash. Fuels the “pay to play” critique of TD.

I understand the notion behind this... but disagree with the net result.

You're saying that "big spenders" could neutralize a newbies advantage by spending cash on an auto succeed token which gives them 2-ish extra points. Well, that's *exactly* what the revised option is offering: Spend cash to get a token which gives you +2 to your spells.

So while it feels like an auto-pass would be cheating, what's really coming across to me is that it's okay to cheat as long as you're doing even more damage than a newbie could do.

Fourth, I love that casters currently have to struggle with the decision about whether to take time for the skill test or forego it in hopes of allowing the party to get in more rounds. It is a VERY interesting decision for casters, and removing it from the game with an auto pass on every spell would remove some excellent tension and depth from the caster classes.

True. I totally agree here.
And yet, the Libram Of Looting got rid of the "VERY interesting decision" about taking Loot or Clue.

I choose not to run with that token because I like making that decision, but I am okay with others who prefer not to penalize their parties for personal gain (the way some some Wizards feel they penalize their parties by taking too much time on the challenges.)

Raven, I think you made a key point about some players not enjoying the skills test. I think it's enough of a deterrent to keep some people from playing the classes at all (I've seen it happen). To me that's reason enough to put auto succeed back in.

I do not enjoy sliding, and sliding deters me from playing a physical combat class. But I wouldn’t even dream of asking for a token that would allow me to skip sliding every turn so that I could feel more comfortable trying out fighter et al. Like I said above, I think such a token would cause a riot. On second thought, maybe we should create a token that allows sliders to roll a d20 instead of sliding (and maybe do average damage on the wheel)...

If players don’t enjoy the memorization tests, then they can simply choose not to take them and their spells will still be plenty effective. Not so with sliding; there is no option to skip and do 3 less damage. To me, that already makes the casting classes more “approachable” than the physical combat classes.

I don't see sliding and memorization tests as similar at all, personally. I've never seen anyone skip a combat class due to sliding, in my experience those are seen as the "easier" classes due to the lack of memorization required.

Yet it is possible, even with a ludicrous bonus, to totally miss when sliding. Your Wizard's Magic Missile always hits.

That's just it though, every str item contributes to bypassing the slide. If you have +20 hit your effective bypassing being able to miss.We could make the skill-autopass token require a failed attempt at a skill check I suppose but at that point I suspect the conversation would go something like

DM (starts looking for beads): Show me...

Player interrupts pointing at DMs apron:That one, I have the tome. Jim you heal 8.

Arnold wrote: Where's the love for folks with anxiety who discover our great game in 2021 and beyond?

Would it be possible to make Gregor's a timeless UR choice? I'd be on board in an instant if it were always a choosable UR from now on. Also, as a very special tribute token it would be cool if it were timeless.

Going to a forever UR might be opening another can of worms. I feel like a 2 year print followed by a reprint if the price went nuts would still be a reasonable accommodation.