TOPIC: Ten Token Challenge

Rogue

1. +5 Viper Strike Fang
2. Viper Strike Shirt
3. Viper Strike Belt
4. +2 Assasin's Crossbow
5. Boots of the Four Winds
6. Charm of Avarice
7. Blessed Redoubt Mail
8. Ring of Heroism
9. Stu-pendous Pendant
10. Icecrag Hero's Earcuff OR Kvothe's

Raven wrote: If you want to look at things strictly by which class has an advantage over which other class, don't forget that the Ranger is "penalized" for needing to devote 2 tokens to melee weapons.

The ranger doesn't need to equip 2 melee tokens, they have the choice to, in order to get a huge power boost. Given that choice, Fighters, Rogues, Bards, etc. would make the same choice. If they don't like what that choice does to their build, they can choose to slide one puck instead.

I'd be curious to see how many Rangers or Monks choose 1 melee weapon in this format. My guess wold be 0 (But you'll find some rangers who choose 0 melee weapons to focus on ranged).

Raven wrote: But I think you're missing the point, Matthew.

This isn't about trying to build a character which is stronger than other characters in the party. It's a question of, "What's the best way to equip [$CLASS] with just 10 tokens?"

Or, even more accurately, "What's the best PARTY you can put together using only 10 tokens per class?"

I totally get that. I'm just observing that with that particular set of restrictions, at the Eltritch token level, it bends the power curve in favor of Druid and Ranger. It bends it so much that to me personally, it's not a very enticing format. I understand many other people won't feel that way, and I'm perfectly happy with that.

I'm advancing an opinion here - I don't think it's the "right" opinion.

I would find it a fun exercise to build out a 10 person party under these restrictions.

One could propose a "no PEDs" format where all players couldn't boost stats on their character cards above +3.

I'd say people who didn't want to play the "no PEDs" format or pointed out that the format tilts towards spell casters being more powerful than melee characters could do so without missing any sort of a point about teamwork.

bpsymington wrote:

Lodestone (KH) wrote:

bpsymington wrote: I don't grind, but if I had to do a 10-token challenge, here is my set-up:

Hat of Intellect
Mad Evoker's Charm
Charm of Avarice
Robe of the Archmage
Cloak of the Mage
Charm of Brooching
Greater Cloak of Destiny
Sniper Specs
Ring of Spell Storing
Boots of the Four Winds

CoA?

Yeah, that's assuming I am doing a regular run, not True Grind. For Grind I would change it to something else, maybe the Ious Stone: Topaz Trilliant.

Got it, thought you meant 'If I had to do a 10-token challenge (for Grind).'

But I would go back to the earlier questions about the original assumption. The one about only restricting those tokens having an in-game effect. So CoA is a meta-game token but not an in-game one so you get that as a freebie. Besides, that lines up with all the restricted-token sealed/green/red runs done.

Matthew Hayward wrote: Weaponless Monk

Interesting idea, but I think you are losing a lot of to-hit/dmg without weapons.

I would go with this (if I had +5's):

Class Monk

Level: 5
Health: 41
Melee
+ To Hit: 17
+ Damage: 15 +Eldritch +Poison
AC: 19
Missile
+ To Hit: 6
+ Damage: 5 +Eldritch
AC: 19
AC Bonus vs Ranged: +0
Saves
Fortitude: 15
Reflex: 15
Will: 16
Retribution Damage: 3 +Eldritch
Surprise:
Free Movement:
Psychic:
Spell Damage: 0
Healing Bonus: 0
Treasure: 3

Set Bonuses: Viper Strike 3-Piece, Elemental Eldritch 3-Piece

Melee Mainhand: Asher's +5 Viper Strike Fang
Melee Offhand: Asher's +5 Viper Strike Fang
Neck: Amulet of the Champion
Back 1: Pharacus' Greater Cloak of Destiny
Shirt: Viper Strike Shirt
Hands: Mithral Gauntlets
Finger 1: Supreme Ring of Elemental Command
Waist: Surtr's Girdle of Fire Giant Strength
Feet: Boots of the Four Winds
Special 1: Rod of Seven Parts (Complete)

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Raven wrote: If you want to look at things strictly by which class has an advantage over which other class, don't forget that the Ranger is "penalized" for needing to devote 2 tokens to melee weapons.

The ranger doesn't need to equip 2 melee tokens, they have the choice to, in order to get a huge power boost. Given that choice, Fighters, Rogues, Bards, etc. would make the same choice. If they don't like what that choice does to their build, they can choose to slide one puck instead.

I'd be curious to see how many Rangers or Monks choose 1 melee weapon in this format. My guess wold be 0 (But you'll find some rangers who choose 0 melee weapons to focus on ranged).

Alright, maybe the rules have changed, but I remember (years ago) being told the Ranger *had* to fire 2 pucks at the same time. That was the ranger's power, and weakness. You couldn't slide just 1, unless you were doing ranged combat.

In fact, there was a small sub-set of rangers who refused to fight melee, because they couldn't handle the 2-puck mechanic. When they tried to use just 1 in combat (insisting they only had 1 weapon) a DM told them they'd have to slide an empty puck with their off hand, to keep up the 2-handed mechanic.

Perhaps rulings are different now.

Raven wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Raven wrote: If you want to look at things strictly by which class has an advantage over which other class, don't forget that the Ranger is "penalized" for needing to devote 2 tokens to melee weapons.

The ranger doesn't need to equip 2 melee tokens, they have the choice to, in order to get a huge power boost. Given that choice, Fighters, Rogues, Bards, etc. would make the same choice. If they don't like what that choice does to their build, they can choose to slide one puck instead.

I'd be curious to see how many Rangers or Monks choose 1 melee weapon in this format. My guess wold be 0 (But you'll find some rangers who choose 0 melee weapons to focus on ranged).

Alright, maybe the rules have changed, but I remember (years ago) being told the Ranger *had* to fire 2 pucks at the same time. That was the ranger's power, and weakness. You couldn't slide just 1, unless you were doing ranged combat.

In fact, there was a small sub-set of rangers who refused to fight melee, because they couldn't handle the 2-puck mechanic. When they tried to use just 1 in combat (insisting they only had 1 weapon) a DM told them they'd have to slide an empty puck with their off hand, to keep up the 2-handed mechanic.

Perhaps rulings are different now.

You may be right about that - so I need to backtrack here. It never occurred to me that Ranger dual weapon focus was not optional.

The wording on the card and the DM guide doesn't indicate it is a "may" ability.

That being said I'm having a hard time imagining a main dungeon DM enforcing that a ranger can't attack if they only have one weapon token (although perhaps it would be enforced that they must slide two pucks, one empty).

Monks appear a bit different - reading the DM guide strictly it looks like they are constrained to slide two pucks when making a Flurry of Blows attack, but need not use Flurry of Blows. I guess they can't slide a single open handed puck or bracer puck in this scenario.

Certainly in this challenge requiring Rangers to equip 0 or 2 melee weapons adds an interesting wrinkle.

Doesn't seem to be optional - from the Dungeon Master's Guide:

When engaged in melee, rangers attack with two weapons. To do so, the player must slide both pucks at the same time, one in each hand. Players who are physically unable to use both hands may slide both pucks with the same hand. Just make sure both pucks are slid at the same time.

bpsymington wrote: Doesn't seem to be optional - from the Dungeon Master's Guide:

When engaged in melee, rangers attack with two weapons. To do so, the player must slide both pucks at the same time, one in each hand. Players who are physically unable to use both hands may slide both pucks with the same hand. Just make sure both pucks are slid at the same time.

Serious question: if a rust monster ears one of a Rangers weapons, and they don't have a spare, they can no longer attack?

Or they can attack by sliding an empty puck and one with their weapon?

Matthew Hayward wrote:

bpsymington wrote: Doesn't seem to be optional - from the Dungeon Master's Guide:

When engaged in melee, rangers attack with two weapons. To do so, the player must slide both pucks at the same time, one in each hand. Players who are physically unable to use both hands may slide both pucks with the same hand. Just make sure both pucks are slid at the same time.

Serious question: if a rust monster ears one of a Rangers weapons, and they don't have a spare, they can no longer attack?

Or they can attack by sliding an empty puck and one with their weapon?

Good question. Can the ranger just switch to ranged so I don't have to answer?

I'll confer with TPTB on this type of situation.

Matthew Hayward wrote: if a rust monster {eats} one of a Rangers weapons, and they don't have a spare, they can no longer attack?

I seriously doubt that was the intent, but I'll confer with the grande fromage.

Druegar wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: if a rust monster {eats} one of a Rangers weapons, and they don't have a spare, they can no longer attack?

I seriously doubt that was the intent, but I'll confer with the grande fromage.

Awesome - while conferring I'd be curious if a ranger can simply choose to present 1 weapon in the coaching room, and if so can they slide normally, or do they slide an extra empty puck.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Druegar wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: if a rust monster {eats} one of a Rangers weapons, and they don't have a spare, they can no longer attack?

I seriously doubt that was the intent, but I'll confer with the grande fromage.

Awesome - while conferring I'd be curious if a ranger can simply choose to present 1 weapon in the coaching room, and if so can they slide normally, or do they slide an extra empty puck.

Before the stack of common weapons was available, groups with only the starter packs sometimes struggled to find an offhand weapon for the Ranger. I don't know that I ever sent a Ranger into the dungeon without an offhand, but we scrambled from time to time.