TOPIC: Time to start the 2021 Token dev process

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote: So for you, my original thought of 1 to at most 2 per year would be better. Would you consider the Cleric legendary if it was Fighters 2021, Wizards 2022, Cleric 2023?

I’m sorry , Anthony, but you miss my point. My issue is the quantity of class-specific legendaries, not the speed at which they drop. Since there are 12, or even 10, I won’t be making any regardless of whether they get released one, three, or twelve per year. And I think it would be super annoying to those who do want them if we slow down now, especially to those who come last.

If there were only going to be half as many, then yes, making one or two a year would have been fine, leaving space for a few more generic ones. And the flexibility would have meant they wouldn’t have had to be so OP

Hmm, I like that. Maybe the next set of legendaries is a set of 6 usable by 2 classes each. Then a set of 4 usable by 3 classes each. Then a set of 3 usable by 4 classes each. Then a set of 2 usable by 6 classes each.

Wizard, Elf Wizard
Fighter, Dwarf Fighter
Barbarian, Paladin
Cleric, Druid
Ranger, Monk
Rogue, Bard

Wizard, Elf Wizard, Druid
Cleric, Paladin, Bard
Fighter, Dwarf Fighter, Barbarian
Monk, Ranger, Rogue

Wizard, Elf Wizard, Druid, Cleric
Fighter, Dwarf Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin
Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Bard

Wizard, Elf Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Bard, Ranger
Fighter, Dwarf Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk, Rogue

UR idea for next year

Charm of Finesse
Use DEX instead of STR to determine melee to hit.

More Charm and Ioun Stone URs since those slots are being expanded. Maybe 2 URs each per year for a few years.

Reading through the threads, I really like the slot opening up for Race...but there is a bigger play in my mind for this:

1. to keep up with the legendary, perhaps a compromise in 2021...a legendary for the "fighters", a legendary for the "wizards"....and then a legendary for characters that are non-human...The non-human legendary creates an interesting draw...but is good for the "non-human" canon.

2. in 2022, the relics start using URs that "sink" for the more specialized "mutations" of human...such that...using perhaps the bead slot, it transmutes the character...some...and then also opens the ability to use the legendary from 2021...

3. the relics from 2022 expire recipes in 2024 at which time a more "industrious style" bead is possible but produces a lowered result in the mutation for the bead...

of course, if there is some grand plan for beads, changing the slot is fine...

4. opening up some serious URs that further classify the character would be good once the other attributes etc are in the game...using these other attributes can create influences of "Fearless", "Noble"...blah blah


.02

I just think that currently there is so little gear that is race specific, the design space could easily start with uncommon and rare’s that are race specific. There are plenty of items named Elvish or Elven something or other but are not specific to elf wizard. I would like to see more design around that space then starting off with a legendary for specific races

There is a precedant for a single token giving different benefits to different classes: Shoes of Skill . I see no reason why a fighters' legendary couldn't do the same--particularly when there is also precedent for requiring a visit to the TDb to discover the effects of a token, namely Iktomi's Shaper Necklace and Widseth's Legendary Lute .

Druegar wrote: There is a precedant for a single token giving different benefits to different classes: Shoes of Skill . I see no reason why a fighters' legendary couldn't do the same--particularly when there is also precedent for requiring a visit to the TDb to discover the effects of a token, namely Iktomi's Shaper Necklace and Widseth's Legendary Lute .

I Like it. Thanks for Chiming in.

Druegar wrote: There is a precedant for a single token giving different benefits to different classes: Shoes of Skill . I see no reason why a fighters' legendary couldn't do the same--particularly when there is also precedent for requiring a visit to the TDb to discover the effects of a token, namely Iktomi's Shaper Necklace and Widseth's Legendary Lute .

Very cool.

Druegar wrote: There is a precedant for a single token giving different benefits to different classes: Shoes of Skill . I see no reason why a fighters' legendary couldn't do the same--particularly when there is also precedent for requiring a visit to the TDb to discover the effects of a token, namely Iktomi's Shaper Necklace and Widseth's Legendary Lute .

That is really cool and definitely opens up the options more.

Druegar wrote: There is a precedant for a single token giving different benefits to different classes: Shoes of Skill . I see no reason why a fighters' legendary couldn't do the same--particularly when there is also precedent for requiring a visit to the TDb to discover the effects of a token, namely Iktomi's Shaper Necklace and Widseth's Legendary Lute .

Same applies to the Wizards. It is debatable which question is first, but the questions still boil down to:

Since the goal of these legendaries were to be class specific, should they be as specific as possible and there be 12 in total or to be just as specific as other tokens are and there be 10 in total?

Assuming only one token for Fighter/Dwarf Fighter (Wizard/Elf Wizard), should it grant the same effect to each or different effects to each? Precedent is that it can grant different effects to each, but not that it must.

Then the final question becomes what should the effects be.

I feel like I am still utterly torn on the first question about separate or conjoined token. As a Wizard/elf wizard who plays both identically and recognizes the differences in design of the two classes is wands vs polymorph (two things I don’t ever want to use), I get the most benefit from a conjoined token that doesn’t grant different effects (even though it could if design wanted that) because it is slightly less likely to focus on those two specific aspects that I don’t want from the token.

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Druegar wrote: There is a precedant for a single token giving different benefits to different classes: Shoes of Skill . I see no reason why a fighters' legendary couldn't do the same--particularly when there is also precedent for requiring a visit to the TDb to discover the effects of a token, namely Iktomi's Shaper Necklace and Widseth's Legendary Lute .

Same applies to the Wizards. It is debatable which question is first, but the questions still boil down to:

Since the goal of these legendaries were to be class specific, should they be as specific as possible and there be 12 in total or to be just as specific as other tokens are and there be 10 in total?

Assuming only one token for Fighter/Dwarf Fighter (Wizard/Elf Wizard), should it grant the same effect to each or different effects to each? Precedent is that it can grant different effects to each, but not that it must.

Then the final question becomes what should the effects be.

I feel like I am still utterly torn on the first question about separate or conjoined token. As a Wizard/elf wizard who plays both identically and recognizes the differences in design of the two classes is wands vs polymorph (two things I don’t ever want to use), I get the most benefit from a conjoined token that doesn’t grant different effects (even though it could if design wanted that) because it is slightly less likely to focus on those two specific aspects that I don’t want from the token.

I have been running elf wizard about 50% of the time. No desire to run wizard though. I prefer the elf wizard spell selection much more.

Won't be using wands much any more and don't polymorph as elf wizard. Wands don't seem to be needed in the groups I mostly run with. Polynorph tokens may or may not be used with Ranger Legendary.

I kind of like the idea of only 10 class legendary tokens better than 12 if elf wizard and wizard can have something different from one another on there legendary, same for the fighters.