TOPIC: FINAL IMAGES (Common through Transmuted!)

When: "Wizards shouldn't be on this token because then wizards might use it." is unironically being used as the only argument in favor of not letting wizards use robes, you know something is amiss...

I think it is fair to have an item that is more powerful for Bards, Clerics, and Druids knowing that they are giving up AC compared to Wizards that would not be making the same choice. Hopefully at some point we get a fancy Arcanum robe and this conversation is a lot less important.

OK, I failed my will check to suggest different robes

Robes of the Traveler
+3 AC, +1 saves (baby lucky mail)

Adept's Robe
+2 AC, +1 focus

Robes of Regeneration
Regen 2

Robes of the Savant
+5 to skill check effect

Invoker Professor's Robe
-10 damage from single element

Robes of Expertise
don't mark off the first level 1 spell cast 1/game

Robes of the Fighter Mage:
Base Str becomes 18. 1 cast of new spell: tensor's Transformation

As someone who is not primarily a Wizard, the robes seem confusing. The more conditional spell bonuses that get added, the less likely they will be used correctly. Having the bonus on the party card seems like it would be preferred.

If we want to do something that is not just a flat Focus bonus, how about a Robes of the Cabal? +2/+3/+4 depending on number equipped in the party?

I suggested this for rare:

Robe of the Philosopher
Torso
-1 DEX, -1 STR, +2 INT, +2 WIS

TD keeps avoiding making INT/WIS/CHA matter more than it does, but, then, there's also a dearth of effects in increase the non-physical stats.

Can upgrade that to UR by losing STR/DEX drops and going like +3 INT/WIS. Starhide/Aron's increase INT, so it's not as cleanly different, and it doesn't mean a lot right now, but it's something.

I'd actually like to see Will save increase out of torso, so could shift more towards that with like:

Robe of Resolve
+3 WIS, +2 Will save

Kind of specialized, but leave it open to any class and maybe it gets used for some particular purpose.

Fiddy wrote: As someone who is not primarily a Wizard, the robes seem confusing. The more conditional spell bonuses that get added, the less likely they will be used correctly. Having the bonus on the party card seems like it would be preferred.

If we want to do something that is not just a flat Focus bonus, how about a Robes of the Cabal? +2/+3/+4 depending on number equipped in the party?

While I think Robes of Cabal would be cool and a good idea for next year, I don't find the item that hard to figure out (I guess the concern is that someone might add it to a level 0 spell?).

Azzy wrote: When: "Wizards shouldn't be on this token because then wizards might use it." is unironically being used as the only argument in favor of not letting wizards use robes, you know something is amiss...

I think we have to hope INT does something in the charachter card redesign, and then the INT granting properties of the Moonhide and Sunhide robes will matter, and also open the door to UR robes with some effect other than DEX or AC.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Azzy wrote: When: "Wizards shouldn't be on this token because then wizards might use it." is unironically being used as the only argument in favor of not letting wizards use robes, you know something is amiss...

I think we have to hope INT does something in the charachter card redesign, and then the INT granting properties of the Moonhide and Sunhide robes will matter, and also open the door to UR robes with some effect other than DEX or AC.

While this is true and I agree with you, that doesn't invalidate Azzy's point. "X class shouldn't be on this token because X class might use it." is super flawed. Another instance of that phrase could be "Druids shouldn't be able to use Bead of Bounty because they might find it useful." There are still no playable Wizard UR robes printed since 2017 (and none before that) and there's no real argument about why Wizards shouldn't be on this one.

I don't think any class intentionally has a slot they simply don't have options for. If there's nothing ever printed for the slot, then there will continue to never be tradeoffs to make in that slot.

OrionW wrote:

Fiddy wrote: As someone who is not primarily a Wizard, the robes seem confusing. The more conditional spell bonuses that get added, the less likely they will be used correctly. Having the bonus on the party card seems like it would be preferred.

If we want to do something that is not just a flat Focus bonus, how about a Robes of the Cabal? +2/+3/+4 depending on number equipped in the party?

While I think Robes of Cabal would be cool and a good idea for next year, I don't find the item that hard to figure out (I guess the concern is that someone might add it to a level 0 spell?).

The concern isn't "this token on its own is tough to remember and will get screwed up". It is "if we go down this path and have a half-dozen tokens like this with different bonuses getting added to different subsets of spells, people will screw it up"

ini wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Azzy wrote: When: "Wizards shouldn't be on this token because then wizards might use it." is unironically being used as the only argument in favor of not letting wizards use robes, you know something is amiss...

I think we have to hope INT does something in the charachter card redesign, and then the INT granting properties of the Moonhide and Sunhide robes will matter, and also open the door to UR robes with some effect other than DEX or AC.

While this is true and I agree with you, that doesn't invalidate Azzy's point. "X class shouldn't be on this token because X class might use it." is super flawed. Another instance of that phrase could be "Druids shouldn't be able to use Bead of Bounty because they might find it useful." There are still no playable Wizard UR robes printed since 2017 (and none before that) and there's no real argument about why Wizards shouldn't be on this one.

I don't think any class intentionally has a slot they simply don't have options for. If there's nothing ever printed for the slot, then there will continue to never be tradeoffs to make in that slot.

Druid's were left off of the Bead of Guided Strike because they might use it last year (even though they have expanded crit printed on the class card). It happens every year that someone is left off of a token. WIth that said it would make sense to have a wizard UR torso soon - with class cards coming soon though it might be better to have one that works with the new cards.

OrionW wrote:

ini wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Azzy wrote: When: "Wizards shouldn't be on this token because then wizards might use it." is unironically being used as the only argument in favor of not letting wizards use robes, you know something is amiss...

I think we have to hope INT does something in the charachter card redesign, and then the INT granting properties of the Moonhide and Sunhide robes will matter, and also open the door to UR robes with some effect other than DEX or AC.

While this is true and I agree with you, that doesn't invalidate Azzy's point. "X class shouldn't be on this token because X class might use it." is super flawed. Another instance of that phrase could be "Druids shouldn't be able to use Bead of Bounty because they might find it useful." There are still no playable Wizard UR robes printed since 2017 (and none before that) and there's no real argument about why Wizards shouldn't be on this one.

I don't think any class intentionally has a slot they simply don't have options for. If there's nothing ever printed for the slot, then there will continue to never be tradeoffs to make in that slot.

Druid's were left off of the Bead of Guided Strike because they might use it last year (even though they have expanded crit printed on the class card). It happens every year that someone is left off of a token. WIth that said it would make sense to have a wizard UR torso soon - with class cards coming soon though it might be better to have one that works with the new cards.

There have been lots of Wizard tokens that I'd have loved for the Druid to be on. Ring of Expertise and MEC come to mind. I advocated for both of them to include Druid at the time.

OrionW wrote:
Druid's were left off of the Bead of Guided Strike because they might use it last year (even though they have expanded crit printed on the class card). It happens every year that someone is left off of a token. WIth that said it would make sense to have a wizard UR torso soon - with class cards coming soon though it might be better to have one that works with the new cards.

Fair point, though a lot of classes were left off of the Bead. That feels like a considered design choice: a slot swap of a popular ability, given to an intentionally small subset of the martial classes. Even more nuanced, it's the martial classes that usually get a boatload of feats and feature flexibility in their kit.

The robe doesn't feel that way, since it's a super generic effect that can slot into every spellcasting class and isn't a slot swap or anything weird. It's straight up a slightly reduced-scope focus attribute, and fits all casters equally well. I don't even particularly care about *this* particular robe. I just don't think that "wizards shouldn't have UR robes because they don't have a tradeoff" is good design. All classes lose something if they just don't equip something in that slot.

If there are new cards, that would make sense to have one at the same time. I imagine all the classes will have reworks though, so a number of classes are going to want tokens like that. Even if there is going to be a new one printed next year, it seems good to have choices in the slot.

There have been lots of Wizard tokens that I'd have loved for the Druid to be on. Ring of Expertise and MEC come to mind. I advocated for both of them to include Druid at the time.

I mean, these are barely comparable, so I don't quite know where to start. I'll try to humor it though.
Ring of Expertise would have made sense since Crown of Expertise was available to everyone. However, Ring of Quick Blessings was clearly printed to be a parallel effect in the same year. This was a measured design choice that gave divine casters fast spells and arcane casters more spells. If you wanted to open both tokens up to both types of casters, make them generic, and only allow one to be equipped, I could follow that logic at least. Then it would be a trade off of "fast vs more" and that's cool.

MEC was made to be a core part of the wizard class and to give it an identity and feels kind of like a bad faith argument. A few sample comparable arguments: "Why can't Fighters use Iktomi's?", "Why can't Barbarian use Raphiel's", and "Why can't Clerics use Widseth's"