TOPIC: Rare Token Thoughts?

Cursed Charm of Brooching - Charm - All

You may equip a total of two back slot items. -1 to saves

(Note: Doesn't stack with Charm of Brooching - you can't get 3 back slots with both.)

Is Initiative something that is really a good idea to make into an arms war?

I realize it's design space, but here's my problem with caring about Initiative:

Party has Initiative bonuses, challenge does not. Party wins Initiative more often than not or all of the time, challenge level decreased by some factor as party consistently gets damage/other effects in first. So, challenges get Initiative bonuses to give parties with Initiative bonuses more challenge. Parties without Initiative bonuses then more consistently go after monsters, skewing challenge level the other way.

Sure, different difficulty levels can have different Initiative bonuses, but that doesn't really solve the case where you either have Initiative bonuses or don't. It's entirely possible to play NM without Initiative bonuses, for instance.

Now, winning or losing Initiative isn't the end all and be all of combat. But, there must be some reason parties try to consistently go first, so it matters to whatever degree. Also, I'd imagine it has greater impact in boss monster fights (obviously matters for weird cases like Draccus) later in dungeons, when the party might be more vulnerable to sudden PC death syndrome.

*shrug* If someone is running Init bonus tokens, they aren't running some other token instead (in theory) which also affects combat prowess, so there's a theoretical balance to it all. It just strikes me as too much all or nothing with Init modification and potentially a path that becomes too important to pursue as challenges increasingly take it into account.

Ian Lee wrote: Is Initiative something that is really a good idea to make into an arms war?

I realize it's design space, but here's my problem with caring about Initiative:

Party has Initiative bonuses, challenge does not. Party wins Initiative more often than not or all of the time, challenge level decreased by some factor as party consistently gets damage/other effects in first. So, challenges get Initiative bonuses to give parties with Initiative bonuses more challenge. Parties without Initiative bonuses then more consistently go after monsters, skewing challenge level the other way.

Sure, different difficulty levels can have different Initiative bonuses, but that doesn't really solve the case where you either have Initiative bonuses or don't. It's entirely possible to play NM without Initiative bonuses, for instance.

Now, winning or losing Initiative isn't the end all and be all of combat. But, there must be some reason parties try to consistently go first, so it matters to whatever degree. Also, I'd imagine it has greater impact in boss monster fights (obviously matters for weird cases like Draccus) later in dungeons, when the party might be more vulnerable to sudden PC death syndrome.

*shrug* If someone is running Init bonus tokens, they aren't running some other token instead (in theory) which also affects combat prowess, so there's a theoretical balance to it all. It just strikes me as too much all or nothing with Init modification and potentially a path that becomes too important to pursue as challenges increasingly take it into account.

The solution is to just give some of the monsters an Init bonus (higher the greater the difficulty).

Xavon wrote:

Ian Lee wrote: Is Initiative something that is really a good idea to make into an arms war?

I realize it's design space, but here's my problem with caring about Initiative:

Party has Initiative bonuses, challenge does not. Party wins Initiative more often than not or all of the time, challenge level decreased by some factor as party consistently gets damage/other effects in first. So, challenges get Initiative bonuses to give parties with Initiative bonuses more challenge. Parties without Initiative bonuses then more consistently go after monsters, skewing challenge level the other way.

Sure, different difficulty levels can have different Initiative bonuses, but that doesn't really solve the case where you either have Initiative bonuses or don't. It's entirely possible to play NM without Initiative bonuses, for instance.

Now, winning or losing Initiative isn't the end all and be all of combat. But, there must be some reason parties try to consistently go first, so it matters to whatever degree. Also, I'd imagine it has greater impact in boss monster fights (obviously matters for weird cases like Draccus) later in dungeons, when the party might be more vulnerable to sudden PC death syndrome.

*shrug* If someone is running Init bonus tokens, they aren't running some other token instead (in theory) which also affects combat prowess, so there's a theoretical balance to it all. It just strikes me as too much all or nothing with Init modification and potentially a path that becomes too important to pursue as challenges increasingly take it into account.

The solution is to just give some of the monsters an Init bonus (higher the greater the difficulty).

Based on the modules from last year, its already happening.

Picc wrote:

Xavon wrote:

Ian Lee wrote: Is Initiative something that is really a good idea to make into an arms war?

I realize it's design space, but here's my problem with caring about Initiative:

Party has Initiative bonuses, challenge does not. Party wins Initiative more often than not or all of the time, challenge level decreased by some factor as party consistently gets damage/other effects in first. So, challenges get Initiative bonuses to give parties with Initiative bonuses more challenge. Parties without Initiative bonuses then more consistently go after monsters, skewing challenge level the other way.

Sure, different difficulty levels can have different Initiative bonuses, but that doesn't really solve the case where you either have Initiative bonuses or don't. It's entirely possible to play NM without Initiative bonuses, for instance.

Now, winning or losing Initiative isn't the end all and be all of combat. But, there must be some reason parties try to consistently go first, so it matters to whatever degree. Also, I'd imagine it has greater impact in boss monster fights (obviously matters for weird cases like Draccus) later in dungeons, when the party might be more vulnerable to sudden PC death syndrome.

*shrug* If someone is running Init bonus tokens, they aren't running some other token instead (in theory) which also affects combat prowess, so there's a theoretical balance to it all. It just strikes me as too much all or nothing with Init modification and potentially a path that becomes too important to pursue as challenges increasingly take it into account.

The solution is to just give some of the monsters an Init bonus (higher the greater the difficulty).

Based on the modules from last year, its already happening.

It wasn’t happening yet at Origins last year. So Dave with his staff of Power and a full CoAS party was steamrolling combats.

Based on the 2018 N series modules, the monsters definitely had bonuses. Steamrolling might have happened in the 2017 modules.

Wade Schwendemann wrote: Based on the 2018 N series modules, the monsters definitely had bonuses. Steamrolling might have happened in the 2017 modules.

Yeah - I was quite surprised.

My party had +10 initiative mod, I believe we rolled off against the Rakshasa on Hardcore and we rolled a 14 and he rolled a 17 and we lost.

Wade Schwendemann wrote: Based on the 2018 N series modules, the monsters definitely had bonuses. Steamrolling might have happened in the 2017 modules.

It did not seem that way, we were the first party through N1 on Nightmare. We won every initiative with ease. They certainly had bonuses at GenCon. N1 needed major adjustment. We finished our combats in one round and no monster even got to swing at us.

+3 Fragile Flail - * * * 6 7 9 11 13 - on * the weapon breaks - token handed into DM. I’m not sure if this balance is right, but the idea of a fragile weapon that could break (and be consumed) is what interests me.

Did you know Obsidian Dagger used a similar concept?

Druegar wrote: Did you know Obsidian Dagger used a similar concept?

I did not know, but that's very cool. So is a broken weapon turned into the gm or just no longer usable?

Cliff Scott-Williams wrote: +3 Fragile Flail - * * * 6 7 9 11 13 - on * the weapon breaks - token handed into DM. I’m not sure if this balance is right, but the idea of a fragile weapon that could break (and be consumed) is what interests me.

I like the concept but if it is a consumable token might make it an uncommon. I would say add the extra pluses to damage but not to hit and lower that to +1.

If it is a +3 rare then you can use the whetstone to add +1/+1 to the bonus and make it +4, very powerful with only a 37.5% chance of landing on a broken condition. Add skill into the equation, can reduce that even % even lower.