TOPIC: Time to start the 2021 Token dev process

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Philip Goodman wrote: I also want to state something that should be abundantly clear:
The class relic/legendary should not be a place to balance a class!

The Paladin Legendary grants +5 to hit, a stacking +1 to number of players guarded 1/game, 15 points of healing, a twice per game party wide save bonus, auto-kills evil outsiders on a slid 20, and is effectively slotless.

Wizards should not be chastised for desiring a legendary token that includes elements such as:
* large party card bonuses to damage in their preferred attack mode
* unprecedented bonuses to actions tied to the class
* effectively granting additional standard actions
* effectively slotless

For those of you with feelings about the Wizard Legendary, I encourage you to Please put your preferences in the informal poll by picking a column, labeling it with your name, and filling in the options:

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L_b-2cnyVo3Qfx0y0L4pmz5UFBBjDBEEaf805H9VzcE/edit#gid=0


Also consider reading/contributing to the prior thread on this topic at:

truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=570&id=249841

Ok, everything else aside, the Paladin legendary is NOT effectively slotless. It is a one handed melee weapon. The Paladin player has to choose between attempting to use their legendary, or using a 2 handed weapon with the potential to then add several damage boosters that don't apply to one handed weapons.

When class specific legendary items were announced, it was stated that they would be in the neck slot, except for the legendary bard instrument and the Holy Avenger.

Wizard players (and all other classes save those two) should be chastised for asking for something that is "effectively slotless," if for no other reason than it takes away from legitimate conversation.

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Philip Goodman wrote: I also want to state something that should be abundantly clear:
The class relic/legendary should not be a place to balance a class!

The Paladin Legendary grants +5 to hit, a stacking +1 to number of players guarded 1/game, 15 points of healing, a twice per game party wide save bonus, auto-kills evil outsiders on a slid 20, and is effectively slotless.

Wizards should not be chastised for desiring a legendary token that includes elements such as:
* large party card bonuses to damage in their preferred attack mode
* unprecedented bonuses to actions tied to the class
* effectively granting additional standard actions
* effectively slotless

For those of you with feelings about the Wizard Legendary, I encourage you to Please put your preferences in the informal poll by picking a column, labeling it with your name, and filling in the options:

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L_b-2cnyVo3Qfx0y0L4pmz5UFBBjDBEEaf805H9VzcE/edit#gid=0


Also consider reading/contributing to the prior thread on this topic at:

truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=570&id=249841

Ok, everything else aside, the Paladin legendary is NOT effectively slotless. It is a one handed melee weapon. The Paladin player has to choose between attempting to use their legendary, or using a 2 handed weapon with the potential to then add several damage boosters that don't apply to one handed weapons.

When class specific legendary items were announced, it was stated that they would be in the neck slot, except for the legendary bard instrument and the Holy Avenger.

Wizard players (and all other classes save those two) should be chastised for asking for something that is "effectively slotless," if for no other reason than it takes away from legitimate conversation.

What "choice" are you referring to that Paladin's are forced to make?

Nothing prohibits a Paladin from:

A. Equipping a two handed melee weapon at build time, and gaining all desired benefits from that build.
B. Switching into their +5 HA when they want to use its Grace, Guard, Lay on Hands, or Auto-kill outsider ability

To me, something is "effecitvely slotless" if you can gain most/all of the benefit without it blocking your use of another item in any slot outside of fringe set bonus scenarios. I believe HA qualifies.

The requirement that the Wizard item be in the Neck Slot doesn't mean it can't be effectively slotless. Any neck legendary item could include the ability to equip an additional neck slot item as part of its effect. Or, similar to how HA works could include a "you may begin a combat encounter with this equipped, regardless of what you equipped during coaching, you may swap this with another neck slot item as a free action."

I'm having hard time understanding why you think a request that the wizard legendary include characteristics found in other class legendaries is something to be chastised for, and how such requests move the conversation away from legitimacy.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Philip Goodman wrote: I also want to state something that should be abundantly clear:
The class relic/legendary should not be a place to balance a class!

The Paladin Legendary grants +5 to hit, a stacking +1 to number of players guarded 1/game, 15 points of healing, a twice per game party wide save bonus, auto-kills evil outsiders on a slid 20, and is effectively slotless.

Wizards should not be chastised for desiring a legendary token that includes elements such as:
* large party card bonuses to damage in their preferred attack mode
* unprecedented bonuses to actions tied to the class
* effectively granting additional standard actions
* effectively slotless

For those of you with feelings about the Wizard Legendary, I encourage you to Please put your preferences in the informal poll by picking a column, labeling it with your name, and filling in the options:

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L_b-2cnyVo3Qfx0y0L4pmz5UFBBjDBEEaf805H9VzcE/edit#gid=0


Also consider reading/contributing to the prior thread on this topic at:

truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=570&id=249841

Ok, everything else aside, the Paladin legendary is NOT effectively slotless. It is a one handed melee weapon. The Paladin player has to choose between attempting to use their legendary, or using a 2 handed weapon with the potential to then add several damage boosters that don't apply to one handed weapons.

When class specific legendary items were announced, it was stated that they would be in the neck slot, except for the legendary bard instrument and the Holy Avenger.

Wizard players (and all other classes save those two) should be chastised for asking for something that is "effectively slotless," if for no other reason than it takes away from legitimate conversation.

What "choice" are you referring to that Paladin's are forced to make?

Nothing prohibits a Paladin from:

A. Equipping a two handed melee weapon at build time, and gaining all desired benefits from that build.
B. Switching into their +5 HA when they want to use its Grace, Guard, Lay on Hands, or Auto-kill outsider ability

It may be that the HA isn't effectively slotless, but I can't think of any plausible scenarios where it isn't, and the example you provided does not seem to either.

That is fair. I was (incorrecrly) assuming you meant it was slotless because it didnt occupy the neck slot.

Honestly, I didn't consider the idea of switching melee weapons after entering things into a build.

My point about the announcement of the neck slot for classes other than bard and Paladin remains.

If we are encouraged to bring along multiple weapons to swap out as needed, we really need to see some interesting monsters in the dungeon that makes this valuable.

Examples:
A mage that casts immunity: Magic weapons (pull out those normal weapons)

Skeletal undead that take reduced damage from bladed / slashing weapons

I believe N1 Astral Journey had a magic immune monster

Wade Schwendemann wrote: I believe N1 Astral Journey had a magic immune monster

It was the Ogre Mage that was immune to spells, excluding Magic Missile, if I remember correctly, and it was also inaccessible to melee the first round of combat as well.

It's not exactly the same thing, but it does essentially ask the Wizard to pull out their ranged weapon. I'm thinking something similar, but the monster is immune to +1 to +5 weapons. If you want to damage it, pull out your normal Long Sword, or your Masterwork Broad Sword.

Thats what I thought you.meant, I didnt pull out the module.

Wizard legendary... All spells are forked. (Cast twice with possible different targets.)

(Or only 2 spells or whatever...)

They run out same time, but it’s a glorious blaze.

Endgame wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: I believe N1 Astral Journey had a magic immune monster

It was the Ogre Mage that was immune to spells, excluding Magic Missile, if I remember correctly, and it was also inaccessible to melee the first round of combat as well.

It's not exactly the same thing, but it does essentially ask the Wizard to pull out their ranged weapon. I'm thinking something similar, but the monster is immune to +1 to +5 weapons. If you want to damage it, pull out your normal Long Sword, or your Masterwork Broad Sword.

Cool concept. Probably easier implemented as immune to magical weapons. There's a heavy grey area around rare weapons with some having +1 and others not.

Also seems a bad idea for new player retention to make a monster immune to their only rare weapon for non UR players.

I see no issue letting UR+ players get screwed like that. We have a lot more investment into the game and can learn to adapt to a monster like that. It's not going to drive us away and it opens up interesting options for non magical UR weapons, or more likely non magical 3*/4* transmute weapons.

Generally speaking I'm totally good with an encounter design that punishes high tier tokens but lets Rare- builds run as normal.

Lequinian wrote: Wizard legendary... All spells are forked. (Cast twice with possible different targets.)

(Or only 2 spells or whatever...)

They run out same time, but it’s a glorious blaze.

Unfortunately we've seen what a wonderful clusterf%$# doubling spells can cause. Plus it's extremely uncommon to have multiple enemies in combat.

An upgraded Mad Evoker's effect that doubles base and bonus damage would be close to the same thing and would be easier to implement.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: I believe N1 Astral Journey had a magic immune monster

It was the Ogre Mage that was immune to spells, excluding Magic Missile, if I remember correctly, and it was also inaccessible to melee the first round of combat as well.

It's not exactly the same thing, but it does essentially ask the Wizard to pull out their ranged weapon. I'm thinking something similar, but the monster is immune to +1 to +5 weapons. If you want to damage it, pull out your normal Long Sword, or your Masterwork Broad Sword.

Cool concept. Probably easier implemented as immune to magical weapons. There's a heavy grey area around rare weapons with some having +1 and others not.

Also seems a bad idea for new player retention to make a monster immune to their only rare weapon for non UR players.

I see no issue letting UR+ players get screwed like that. We have a lot more investment into the game and can learn to adapt to a monster like that. It's not going to drive us away and it opens up interesting options for non magical UR weapons, or more likely non magical 3*/4* transmute weapons.

Generally speaking I'm totally good with an encounter design that punishes high tier tokens but lets Rare- builds run as normal.

I'm only cool with this idea if the creature is also immune to spells. Surely if magic weapons don't work, spells won't either.

But I dislike the idea overall. It feels like you mostly punish people in the middle that have upgraded their weapon but haven't reached the point of carrying around a golf bag of backup weapons.

Fiddy wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: I believe N1 Astral Journey had a magic immune monster

It was the Ogre Mage that was immune to spells, excluding Magic Missile, if I remember correctly, and it was also inaccessible to melee the first round of combat as well.

It's not exactly the same thing, but it does essentially ask the Wizard to pull out their ranged weapon. I'm thinking something similar, but the monster is immune to +1 to +5 weapons. If you want to damage it, pull out your normal Long Sword, or your Masterwork Broad Sword.

Cool concept. Probably easier implemented as immune to magical weapons. There's a heavy grey area around rare weapons with some having +1 and others not.

Also seems a bad idea for new player retention to make a monster immune to their only rare weapon for non UR players.

I see no issue letting UR+ players get screwed like that. We have a lot more investment into the game and can learn to adapt to a monster like that. It's not going to drive us away and it opens up interesting options for non magical UR weapons, or more likely non magical 3*/4* transmute weapons.

Generally speaking I'm totally good with an encounter design that punishes high tier tokens but lets Rare- builds run as normal.

I'm only cool with this idea if the creature is also immune to spells. Surely if magic weapons don't work, spells won't either.

But I dislike the idea overall. It feels like you mostly punish people in the middle that have upgraded their weapon but haven't reached the point of carrying around a golf bag of backup weapons.

I wouldn’t do it on normal or hardcore - this would be a maybe nightmare thing and definitely epic thing. Perhaps in nightmare the wizard casts protection from magical weapons and the spell lasts 2 rounds. Perhaps in epic the wizard casts chain Contingency, which auto casts protection from magical weapons and globe of invulnerability (immune to 5th level spells and lower) at the start of combat and they last 3 rounds.

An any case, I’m not really a huge fan of using more weapons than what you equipped in coaching. However, if it’s really intended that players do things like swap in ava’s to use it’s special abilities only and then swap out, it might as well be made as a design feature of the dungeon too.