TOPIC: Time to start the 2021 Token dev process

macXdmg wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

macXdmg wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Fiddy wrote: Crazy thought... Make the Fighter Legendary start with a weapon usable only by Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians, (and Clerics?).

Then, in 2022, do a weapon Relic/Legendary for the same classes based off that same UR. By then it will have been 8 years since Welfor's came out, and it seems like there really ought to be more of a gap between the Legendary weapons used by all and those that are more restricted.

I like this idea - I think I'd keep it to Barbarians and Fighters only. Maybe paladins. Definitely not clerics.

To differentiate from Avernon's which is quite strong, maybe a 1 handed weapon with a decent but not outstanding damage wheel (d10+5?), and abilities tacked on? Maybe the Sundering ability from Seh'Lahs, or the +2 Death Flail triple crit ability on nat-20 first slide?

What if it was double to hit bonus instead of trying to match two handed weapons it would occupy a strictly different base. Attack vs damage.

Edit: Crap, I was going to say “6/8/10/12/14/16 as a plus 8 weapon one handed” but Welfor’s +5 is ... a lot worse then.

Well, if Welfor's can transmute into a Holy Avenger.....

Welfors plus a holy ur weapon might make a holy avenger?

I’d prefer to see holy weapons or ur weapons usable by paladins in melee be the relic transmute. I am not opposed to a legendary upgraydd for a double dose of holiness in the recipe department but could see the want to not re-collect older legendaries.

A large part of what legendaries are for is to hoover up the enormous excess tokens produced by TD's sales model.

Having a legendary recipe that took another legendary + a few extra trade goods would defeat this part of the legendary design.

I wouldn't get your hopes up on ever seeing a legendary recipe that takes in one and gives you another, and if there were we should start with things like Ta'Mor's Mithral Bracers and Khing's Ring of Supreme Evasion, not the perfectly serviceable, but overall meh Welfor's.

Note to those about to object with: "BUT WHAT ABOUT CHARM OF AVARICE RECIPE #1!!?!?!." Charm of avarice was never intended to be a legendary, it was printed as a relic, it was changed into a legendary due to counterfeiting concerns.

Matthew Hayward wrote: A large part of what legendaries are for is to hoover up the enormous excess tokens produced by TD's sales model.

Having a legendary recipe that took another legendary + a few extra trade goods would defeat this part of the legendary design.

I wouldn't get your hopes up on ever seeing a legendary recipe that takes in one and gives you another, and if there were we should start with things like Ta'Mor's Mithral Bracers and Khing's Ring of Supreme Evasion, not the perfectly serviceable, but overall meh Welfor's.

Note to those about to object with: "BUT WHAT ABOUT CHARM OF AVARICE RECIPE #1!!?!?!." Charm of avarice was never intended to be a legendary, it was printed as a relic, it was changed into a legendary due to counterfeiting concerns.

I would like it A LOT.

I don't expect to see it at all.

I would say I'm hopeful, but they are not high hopes.

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: A large part of what legendaries are for is to hoover up the enormous excess tokens produced by TD's sales model.

Having a legendary recipe that took another legendary + a few extra trade goods would defeat this part of the legendary design.

I wouldn't get your hopes up on ever seeing a legendary recipe that takes in one and gives you another, and if there were we should start with things like Ta'Mor's Mithral Bracers and Khing's Ring of Supreme Evasion, not the perfectly serviceable, but overall meh Welfor's.

Note to those about to object with: "BUT WHAT ABOUT CHARM OF AVARICE RECIPE #1!!?!?!." Charm of avarice was never intended to be a legendary, it was printed as a relic, it was changed into a legendary due to counterfeiting concerns.

I would like it A LOT.

I don't expect to see it at all.

I would say I'm hopeful, but they are not high hopes.

The recipe I came up with was basically trying to find the middle between VSF and WS and it looked like the only thing in significance is the extra UR.

To Matthews point, it would seem that if the point was to suck up extra tokens, there need to be more legendaries every year. And I would say that the easiest way, assuming deletion of tokens was the goal, is a “double” or “triple” the cost in trade tokens and change the relic & ur requirements on old legendaries. If you want to make another welfor’s but you only have a VSF and some other 1 -> 2 or 3, and 3x the trade, bobs your uncle! Maybe it needs to include a weapon (any) relic, maybe it needs (any) ur or (Weapon) ur or both.

I don’t think that’s the intention anymore though, or something like that would have been proposed.

We've seen a couple tokens now playing around with the taunt class ability, so I was thinking maybe we could maybe make some tokens that grant the ability to taunt un-tauntable creatures, like how we have tokens that allow crits/sneak attacks on normally un-critable creature types. Rarity would depend on how widespread the effect is.

Something like: Lens of Mocking Visage: Dwarf Fighter: Negates Constructs Taunt Immunity

or something like

+1 Garden Sheers: Negates Plant critical, sneak attack and taunt immunities for your attacks

MetaphoricDragon wrote: un-tauntable creatures

I can't find a reference to the concept of an "un-tauntable" creature in the TD rules, nor can I recall it ever being a thing. Can you cite a reference?

Druegar wrote:

MetaphoricDragon wrote: un-tauntable creatures

I can't find a reference to the concept of an "un-tauntable" creature in the TD rules, nor can I recall it ever being a thing. Can you cite a reference?

Interesting. Just looked up my past feedback, it was the Dancing with Stones run back in 2017 , I was told all the constructs were immune to taunting

MetaphoricDragon wrote: it was the Dancing [Among] Stones run back in 2017 , I was told all the constructs were immune to taunting

I think I may know where the confusion lies. In room 4 of that module, there is a note which says, "Attached Scrael are not affected by taunt." That's a reference to a very specific situation where a Construct is physically attached to a character and because of that attachment, it's immune to taunt.

Druegar wrote:

MetaphoricDragon wrote: it was the Dancing [Among] Stones run back in 2017 , I was told all the constructs were immune to taunting

I think I may know where the confusion lies. In room 4 of that module, there is a note which says, "Attached Scrael are not affected by taunt." That's a reference to a very specific situation where a Construct is physically attached to a character and because of that attachment, it's immune to taunt.

Ahhhh okay, that makes some sense. In my run then, that ruling may have been erroneously applied to the other Scrael encounters, not just room 4, and it being the first time I ran into constructs as a taunting dwarf fighter I made the assumption it was something inherent to constructs like how crit immunity works. Good to know that's not the normal case going forward. Thank you!

Fiddy wrote:

James J Krot wrote: I really really don't want to see separate legendarily for the fighters and wizards that pretty much means I will never make one because I never know which fighter I will play and I only play it 30% of the time to begin with.

Agree.

(snipping separate argument/suggestion I agree with)

At the risk of sounding a bit callous, so what?

If I make the Monk Legendary, and someone else wants to play Monk, and we use whatever method (not opening that can of worms here), and I lose, I don't get to use it. If Raven kindly steps aside to let a newbie play Rogue (assuming she has the Rogue Legendary), she doesn't get to use it. And in either of those cases we are shuffling a lot more tokens than just our neck slot to play an alternate class.

So yeah, I would say give the FIghters and Wizards split Legendaries. They will still be better off than any other class in the event they don't get to play the specific variant, having to potentially swap out only one token (though admittedly that may not be the case for the Elf Wizard legendary I suggested). And it will be for fun/interesting to give to variants specific items geared to their abilities and encouraging alternate builds/play styles.

If you can only make one (like many of us, and unlike most players who can't make any), choose the one you would rather play. Then if you don't get to use it because that flavor of wiz/fighter is taken, you are in the same boat as the rest of us.

Xavon wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

James J Krot wrote: I really really don't want to see separate legendarily for the fighters and wizards that pretty much means I will never make one because I never know which fighter I will play and I only play it 30% of the time to begin with.

Agree.

(snipping separate argument/suggestion I agree with)

At the risk of sounding a bit callous, so what?

If I make the Monk Legendary, and someone else wants to play Monk, and we use whatever method (not opening that can of worms here), and I lose, I don't get to use it. If Raven kindly steps aside to let a newbie play Rogue (assuming she has the Rogue Legendary), she doesn't get to use it. And in either of those cases we are shuffling a lot more tokens than just our neck slot to play an alternate class.

So yeah, I would say give the FIghters and Wizards split Legendaries. They will still be better off than any other class in the event they don't get to play the specific variant, having to potentially swap out only one token (though admittedly that may not be the case for the Elf Wizard legendary I suggested). And it will be for fun/interesting to give to variants specific items geared to their abilities and encouraging alternate builds/play styles.

If you can only make one (like many of us, and unlike most players who can't make any), choose the one you would rather play. Then if you don't get to use it because that flavor of wiz/fighter is taken, you are in the same boat as the rest of us.

My reason? To date, there are only 2 uncommon tokens that Dwarf Fighter can use that the human Fighter cannot (the 2018 lenses and the 2020 charm). And there are 0 tokens the human Fighter can use that the Dwarf cannot. I don't think growing that list of tokens is a good thing.

But then again, I'm all for rolling Fighters and Wizards back into a single class each anyways.

Xavon wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

James J Krot wrote: I really really don't want to see separate legendarily for the fighters and wizards that pretty much means I will never make one because I never know which fighter I will play and I only play it 30% of the time to begin with.

Agree.

(snipping separate argument/suggestion I agree with)

At the risk of sounding a bit callous, so what?

If I make the Monk Legendary, and someone else wants to play Monk, and we use whatever method (not opening that can of worms here), and I lose, I don't get to use it. If Raven kindly steps aside to let a newbie play Rogue (assuming she has the Rogue Legendary), she doesn't get to use it. And in either of those cases we are shuffling a lot more tokens than just our neck slot to play an alternate class.

So yeah, I would say give the FIghters and Wizards split Legendaries. They will still be better off than any other class in the event they don't get to play the specific variant, having to potentially swap out only one token (though admittedly that may not be the case for the Elf Wizard legendary I suggested). And it will be for fun/interesting to give to variants specific items geared to their abilities and encouraging alternate builds/play styles.

If you can only make one (like many of us, and unlike most players who can't make any), choose the one you would rather play. Then if you don't get to use it because that flavor of wiz/fighter is taken, you are in the same boat as the rest of us.

So things like the paladin sword could have been a 1 handed weapon in a few builds, only +5, nothing else special but still a +5 weapon. It makes giving up the class slightly easier. The Druid, rogue, monk, cleric (I am guessing) would require a secondary neck slot item minimally, but with fighter * and wizard * we could make generic items that could legit play two classes, one better than the other. Then in five years could do it again favoring the other * class more. A second Monk legendary with a different rule set might be worth doing in the future. Maybe a second Ranger too. And yes I am suggesting a melee focused version of two dual sliders, maybe they are one legendary for two classes, that for the most part don’t overlap. (I might throw Aron’s on a ranger I guess)

Options, even sub optimally, isn’t bad.

Is there a reason we can't have one legendary for fighters that does something different for each? Second/ third use of Specialization/Taunt per room.