TOPIC: FINAL Notes about 2019 Tokens

Lordoftherealm wrote: Jeff, if you are creating a Tome slot, you may want to include the rogues Libram in it.

I agree if the requirement is like the figure of power where you get the first with base CHA

So if INT is the tome slot then I say set the first tome at something like 11 that way rogues are not left scrambling to get INT. Then if there is a tome later that the rogue can also use a choice would need to be made.

Wayne Rhodes wrote:

Lordoftherealm wrote: Jeff, if you are creating a Tome slot, you may want to include the rogues Libram in it.

I agree if the requirement is like the figure of power where you get the first with base CHA

So if INT is the tome slot then I say set the first tome at something like 11 that way rogues are not left scrambling to get INT. Then if there is a tome later that the rogue can also use a choice would need to be made.

I would set the first tome at 0 like current FoP. Then scale it from there, 16 for 2, etc.

Wayne Rhodes wrote:

Lordoftherealm wrote: Jeff, if you are creating a Tome slot, you may want to include the rogues Libram in it.

I agree if the requirement is like the figure of power where you get the first with base CHA

So if INT is the tome slot then I say set the first tome at something like 11 that way rogues are not left scrambling to get INT. Then if there is a tome later that the rogue can also use a choice would need to be made.

So less of a Libram and more of a Coloring Book of Looting.

Fiddy wrote: ... Because I enjoy being able to spend actions doing things other than healing. And that is what I see as the most likely downside to the cut in healing, the fact that Clerics (and maybe to a lesser extent Druids) will be stuck spending more of their time healing and less doing anything else.

So what's the problem? It's not like clerics have been given any neat items so they have anything else to do during combat...

Phil Norton wrote:

Wayne Rhodes wrote:

Lordoftherealm wrote: Jeff, if you are creating a Tome slot, you may want to include the rogues Libram in it.

I agree if the requirement is like the figure of power where you get the first with base CHA

So if INT is the tome slot then I say set the first tome at something like 11 that way rogues are not left scrambling to get INT. Then if there is a tome later that the rogue can also use a choice would need to be made.

I would set the first tome at 0 like current FoP. Then scale it from there, 16 for 2, etc.

That's my thinking. The first Tome would not have an INT requirement, but you'd have to have a certain INT to get a second or more.

Phil Norton wrote:

Wayne Rhodes wrote:

Lordoftherealm wrote: Jeff, if you are creating a Tome slot, you may want to include the rogues Libram in it.

I agree if the requirement is like the figure of power where you get the first with base CHA

So if INT is the tome slot then I say set the first tome at something like 11 that way rogues are not left scrambling to get INT. Then if there is a tome later that the rogue can also use a choice would need to be made.

I would set the first tome at 0 like current FoP. Then scale it from there, 16 for 2, etc.

I had no idea where the line was for getting the first figure of power, good to know it’s 0. I hope the tome slot can expand past 2 in the future with enough INT, I figure at that point you are giving up something else for a stat that only helps you get tomes, unless they tie something else to INT as well.

Boilerplate wrote:

Wayne Rhodes wrote:

Lordoftherealm wrote: Jeff, if you are creating a Tome slot, you may want to include the rogues Libram in it.

I agree if the requirement is like the figure of power where you get the first with base CHA

So if INT is the tome slot then I say set the first tome at something like 11 that way rogues are not left scrambling to get INT. Then if there is a tome later that the rogue can also use a choice would need to be made.

So less of a Libram and more of a Coloring Book of Looting.

I think that could be a funny uncommon or common next year. Just have it as a turn in token version of the Libram.

Apologies, if this has already been asked and answered.

Shouldn't the Relic Lute have a note as well about what standard actions it can take?

It looks like both the Relic Lute and Legendary Loot have the same wording about being able to take certain other standard actions. Why does the Relic Lute require two hands, and the Legendary Lute not require any? Or does the "no hands" on the Legendary mean it can do even more than what the standard UR Bard items do (sliding, casting, etc while also doing Bard Song)?

Jeff Martin wrote: We will also be reprinting these tokens as 2019 Ultra Rares with the corrected text and new artwork. Starting at Origins 2019, you will have to turn in the old tokens for the new 2019 versions. If you would prefer to replace the old token with a completely different UR token, you may turn your old token in for any 2018/2019 Ultra Rare. Either way you will receive a 10x treasure draw chip as a thank you for your understanding during this rebalancing. The old versions of these tokens will no longer be usable after Jan 31st, 2020; you must exchange your old token before that date. The old tokens will have the new power starting at Origins 2019.

Talked to my friend last night who doesn't follow the discussions here much. Also happens to be someone who bought one of these two tokens after GC this year so hasn't used it, yet.

Occurs to me that having the option of two URs instead of one UR and 10x chip would be closer in value to how much the tokens have gone for in recent years. I realize it's not necessary to protect people from their choices (like buying an OOP token). Just came to mind. Of course, UR and 2x 10x chips also closer to recent prices, but, as much as I'm throwing this thought out there of changing the trade in, I dread a 200 post argument on what's more fair or whatever. I take solace in thinking that this topic would have come up anyway closer to Origins 2019.

Of course, it also struck me that 1 for 2 is more UR-multiplicative than may be desirable. Also, as much as the changes may impact one token more than the other, I would not want to see the arguing over which is more valuable to where one deserved a different trade in than the other.

Ian Lee wrote:

Jeff Martin wrote: We will also be reprinting these tokens as 2019 Ultra Rares with the corrected text and new artwork. Starting at Origins 2019, you will have to turn in the old tokens for the new 2019 versions. If you would prefer to replace the old token with a completely different UR token, you may turn your old token in for any 2018/2019 Ultra Rare. Either way you will receive a 10x treasure draw chip as a thank you for your understanding during this rebalancing. The old versions of these tokens will no longer be usable after Jan 31st, 2020; you must exchange your old token before that date. The old tokens will have the new power starting at Origins 2019.

Talked to my friend last night who doesn't follow the discussions here much. Also happens to be someone who bought one of these two tokens after GC this year so hasn't used it, yet.

Occurs to me that having the option of two URs instead of one UR and 10x chip would be closer in value to how much the tokens have gone for in recent years. I realize it's not necessary to protect people from their choices (like buying an OOP token). Just came to mind. Of course, UR and 2x 10x chips also closer to recent prices, but, as much as I'm throwing this thought out there of changing the trade in, I dread a 200 post argument on what's more fair or whatever. I take solace in thinking that this topic would have come up anyway closer to Origins 2019.

Of course, it also struck me that 1 for 2 is more UR-multiplicative than may be desirable. Also, as much as the changes may impact one token more than the other, I would not want to see the arguing over which is more valuable to where one deserved a different trade in than the other.

There have been trade-ins of lower-powered tokens into the stronger incarnations, but naturally there was no additional incentive to do so.

If there was ever a token recall due to nerfing, I don’t remember it.

Your value assessment may be a little low (LoDS is probably more like three), but I’m also grateful Jeff is offering us anything at all. Gift horses and all that.

Ian Lee wrote:

Jeff Martin wrote: We will also be reprinting these tokens as 2019 Ultra Rares with the corrected text and new artwork. Starting at Origins 2019, you will have to turn in the old tokens for the new 2019 versions. If you would prefer to replace the old token with a completely different UR token, you may turn your old token in for any 2018/2019 Ultra Rare. Either way you will receive a 10x treasure draw chip as a thank you for your understanding during this rebalancing. The old versions of these tokens will no longer be usable after Jan 31st, 2020; you must exchange your old token before that date. The old tokens will have the new power starting at Origins 2019.

Talked to my friend last night who doesn't follow the discussions here much. Also happens to be someone who bought one of these two tokens after GC this year so hasn't used it, yet.

Occurs to me that having the option of two URs instead of one UR and 10x chip would be closer in value to how much the tokens have gone for in recent years. I realize it's not necessary to protect people from their choices (like buying an OOP token). Just came to mind. Of course, UR and 2x 10x chips also closer to recent prices, but, as much as I'm throwing this thought out there of changing the trade in, I dread a 200 post argument on what's more fair or whatever. I take solace in thinking that this topic would have come up anyway closer to Origins 2019.

Of course, it also struck me that 1 for 2 is more UR-multiplicative than may be desirable. Also, as much as the changes may impact one token more than the other, I would not want to see the arguing over which is more valuable to where one deserved a different trade in than the other.

IF there were to be an increase in the comp offered for the swap, i would suggest that it be for a copy of the new version AND 1 PYP. Not 2 PYPs.

Brad Mortensen wrote: Your value assessment may be a little low (LoDS is probably more like three), but I’m also grateful Jeff is offering us anything at all. Gift horses and all that.

+1