TOPIC: 2020 Ultra Rare Token Images

Justice wrote: If these UR's go through as proposed I see my wife and I picking up close to 11 of these and multiples of. Time to line up a side job.

I count 12 I want for me and my wife. My buddy will want the barb bracer at least. As much as I want that shield for ranged offhand I won’t let myself spend $100 on it lol. And I still need at least two PYPs from last year.

Flik wrote:

Philip Goodman wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Philip Goodman wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Jeff321 wrote:

Flik wrote:

Matt Goodman wrote: The barbarian bracers should probably have 2H weapons only.

I’m inclined to agree, otherwise they become BIS for all melee classes? Maybe not for ranged ranger or most rogues that actually want to sneak attack.

Agreed

Also agree

Also agree.

Alternatively, just limit it to: Barbarian, Fighters, Paladin.

Another agreement from me and class limiting would also work.

I'd go for either suggestion, but I'd prefer the class limitation.

I had another thought and haven't seen it posted yet.

What about playing into the name Bracers of Reckless Fury and having a self- damage penalty?

• +6 damage with melee weapons.
• Take 4 damage on successful melee hits

I'd think that would be pretty reckless especially for a ranger. I would probably still keep monk off of it as I don't think it makes sense for them to be reckless.

I'm still okay with the other suggestions; I just like this idea more for flavor.

I don’t think a measly 4 dmg is enough of a drawback for BIS melee bracers.

I like the previous suggestions to nerf it. Either make it 2h dmg only or make it +4 for 1h and +6 for 2h. Keeping the negative ac as well (except for barb).

Keep in mind there are +2 typed damage bracers with no drawback at rare, and a +2/+2 with no drawback UR for ranged (and it's quite an old UR, there has been lots of power creep wince then).

I think these should be kept to 2 handers, and left alone with the -2 AC drawback.

4 damage per hit will add up to 20+ damage over the course of the dungeon, it's significant.

In the future, perhaps we could have a UR +3 damage to any melee bracers, or +4 with a drawback.

There was a lot of confusion with the character builders when Bliss Bull Shield was printed as to ranged-shield-sleeze, in terms of what happens if you equip this in the ranged offhand but not the melee off hand - do you get your +1 STR or not in melee?

We're now going to confront a similar thing with the shield of luck:

There is only 1 set of saves on the party card.

If I equip shield of luck in only one of my two modes off-hands, do I get the saves in the other mode?

What is recorded on the party card?

Similar problems apply with the transmuted Holy Avenger.

James J Krot wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: This table shows the odds of a Monk stunning a monster with their 16-20 stun range in the first or second round of combat, assuming they are X% likely to hit on each puck:

Odds of      Odds of 
Scoring 16+  Stunning in 
Per Puck     Round 1 or 2
10%          34%
20%          59%
30%          76%
40%          87%
50%          94%
60%          97%
70%          99%
80%          99.8%
90%          99.99%

It seems to me that we're going to see a stunned monster in round 1 or 2 at least two thirds of the time with this token.

To stun the monster 1/2 the time on round 1 or 2 you'd want the odds of a single puck stunning the monster to be around 16%.

I might shrink this range to 18-20 (but I don't know how often the stun is desired to be triggered, or how common non-stunnable monsters are).

Stun locking a monster is already a think the rosp character can already do that with a spell, with cleric helping I think we could keep something stunned for 8 rounds with the right build.

For the long-term viability of the game, it seems like enabling the party to lock down the monster in stuns so that it never gets an attack in is a pretty bad idea. Some of the stuff like this enabled by these new tokens seems a lot more unbalancing to the game than the two tokens which were nerfed last year for being unbalanced.

Matthew Hayward wrote: There was a lot of confusion with the character builders when Bliss Bull Shield was printed as to ranged-shield-sleeze, in terms of what happens if you equip this in the ranged offhand but not the melee off hand - do you get your +1 STR or not in melee?

We're now going to confront a similar thing with the shield of luck:

There is only 1 set of saves on the party card.

If I equip shield of luck in only one of my two modes off-hands, do I get the saves in the other mode?

What is recorded on the party card?

Similar problems apply with the transmuted Holy Avenger.

I expect shield of luck to be off hand save booster of the year. Maybe it should be moved to helm of luck - of course, I've suggested the helm in every revision instead of the plate and it hasn't shown up, so I don't expect it to now.

Also, at uncommon the shield of the stag is 2 ref save. I'll be using it for my whole party in the off hand ranged.

Wayne Rhodes wrote: I really like the charm of glory, but maybe to strong with all the charm expanders. If printed as is I would definitely get one.

A thought to nerf it some (if someone else as already posted this idea I missed it)

May equip up to 3 rings if no charm expanders used.

I think that's too much nerf. I can see how giving up 1 of 3 charm slots to get the ring slot feels much closer in power to giving up 1 neck slot or 1 hands slot, but I don't think many people would actually buy that version. Higher end players would be effectively giving up 3 of 5 (or 4 of 6, or even more) charm slots, and lower end players who don't own many good charms probably also don't own a compelling third-best ring.

I can see adding some other drawback here, maybe something like -1 Con, -3 HP, or -1 Saves.

Alternatively, maybe Charm of Glory occupies 2 Charm slots? (this has the IMO nice property that e.g. Charm Bracers + Charm of Glory = Gloves of Glory for wrists instead of hands, which promotes build flexibility)

jpotter wrote:

Endgame wrote: Still think the -1 con should be put on the arcane items, and then add the +3 con should be part of the set bonus.

Let's starting making a cost to slot expanders. In this case either pay a con penalty or lock in 3 slots for the set (not much of a penalty considering it has 2 expanders and an awesome belt)

Do you not feel that putting a cost on slot expanders now is unfair to newer players? Essentially the older players got all of their slot expanders w/out a negative side-effect, but we aren't giving that option to the new players? I totally get what you are saying, but I feel negatives on the tokens now would more adversely affect new players. Old players will just stick with their out of print tokens that didn't hurt them.

A possible middle ground is to put costs on any new slot expanders which are stronger than existing slot expanders.

If we accept that charms are generally stronger than iouns, then Arcane Bracelets are weaker than Charm Bracelets and therefore don't need a penalty. OTOH Arcane Earcuff is stronger than either Orbits (since charms > iouns) or Charm Bracelets (since giving up 1 of 2 ear slots is less opportunity cost than giving up wrists), and therefore it would not be at all unfair IMO for Arcane Earcuff to have a penalty. Speaking as someone who currently owns zero slot expanders and is excited to buy some next year.

edit: and if we do give Arcane Earcuff a penalty for balance, I think I'd actually prefer that said penalty not be erased by a set bonus.

JACKOFTRADZE wrote: Jeff, print them.....run to the printer now.

Being in Design for 20 years it will never stop until you let it. Second guessing, little voices too many opinions, this is like Round 5. Time for the Design Fatality.

Dude, we can't stop now! There are still nice things for new players that Jeff hasn't been talked out of yet!

Xavon wrote: Wow, I need 11 URs next year, at least...

But why change it from a 'Drik' to a 'Blade'?

Previous weapons named "Dirk" had different damage wheels.

My problem with this set of URs isn't in individual tokens but in the concentration of like effects. It smacks of a lack of ideas for making URs interesting.

I'm actually less interested in this year's tokens because they suggest power for the sake of power.

More more more just feels like being on a treadmill, as some have brought up.

The focus on slots whether expanding or exchanging is the most soul sucking , but more damage, more physical stat bumps contribute.

I find the comments about new players being a smokescreen. Very few new players are looking for URs. It just all seems to be a sales drive for those who already pick up a bunch of URs in a year without a treasure enhancer.

Again, spread this stuff out and it may feel much better.

Ian Lee wrote: My problem with this set of URs isn't in individual tokens but in the concentration of like effects. It smacks of a lack of ideas for making URs interesting.

I'm actually less interested in this year's tokens because they suggest power for the sake of power.

More more more just feels like being on a treadmill, as some have brought up.

The focus on slots whether expanding or exchanging is the most soul sucking , but more damage, more physical stat bumps contribute.

I find the comments about new players being a smokescreen. Very few new players are looking for URs. It just all seems to be a sales drive for those who already pick up a bunch of URs in a year without a treasure enhancer.

Again, spread this stuff out and it may feel much better.

Disagree on the smoke screen. TD has been or will be introduced to many new players at new conventions. This past year many new names have shown up making 8k orders.

Ian Lee wrote: My problem with this set of URs isn't in individual tokens but in the concentration of like effects. It smacks of a lack of ideas for making URs interesting.

I'm actually less interested in this year's tokens because they suggest power for the sake of power.

More more more just feels like being on a treadmill, as some have brought up.

The focus on slots whether expanding or exchanging is the most soul sucking , but more damage, more physical stat bumps contribute.

I agree with some of what you've said, but for an alternative perspective, I find slot expanders / swapping one of the most fun element of the game. Without them character builds would be very straightforward: decide what you want to optimze for, then put in the best tokens. You have to consider many more things when you can expand/swap slots.

I find the comments about new players being a smokescreen. Very few new players are looking for URs. It just all seems to be a sales drive for those who already pick up a bunch of URs in a year without a treasure enhancer.

Again, spread this stuff out and it may feel much better.

I try (I don't always succeed) to assume good intentions from people, especially people like the TD design crew who have demonstrated with their actions over and over that they have good intentions.

I think you can reconcile "new players" as "players who are newly collecting URs in 2020 and 2021."

If you look around you will see that indeed there are new players collecting, quite a few. Now - they might have started playing in 2018 and taken a few years to get here, but these are the new players I assume we're talking about. Not literal 'I've never played True Dungeon before and it's Gameholecone 2020.'

If you look at the people who ran 8k forum auctions this last year, there are quite a few new people doing that compared to the past.

Matthew Hayward wrote: ...it's Gameholecone 2020.'

I might actually go to Gameholecone!