TOPIC: Level 10 idea

Endgame wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

macXdmg wrote: So, I have a theory about subclasses also, that there might be a two sided card coming. Giving access to subclasses to high level players would potentially devalue teeth incredibly.

I like the idea of the +1 hp to the whole party, or a chipped token that grants access to an extra clue, or secret dialogue from a monster. Maybe it could be a dagger so it is swappable in the dungeon (also one less item for dagger runs )

Why would subclass affect teeth? The teeth don’t give access to subclasses, the teeth were never rumored to give access to subclasses. I don’t understand the connection. And the token would be intended to be non-transferable like the Medallion/Badge of Nobility.

Why is it relevant to be a dagger? It could just as easily be slotless and then be even easier to show in dungeon without affecting people’s mainhand slot. I would genuinely be annoyed with a 10th level reward that was a mainhand slot intended for all classes.

He probably meant Rods, not Teeth.

I think Shelly and I have a half-dozen unused vouchers. The subclasses are, IMO, largely underwhelming. I used to use them mostly to get to level 5 while freeing up a slot or two, so we haven’t used them since we got our Boots.

And “subclasses for L10” feels kind of redundant. A lot (not all) of the first players to hit L10s will probably have Rods already, so I’d be all “gee, thanks, now my stack of unused voucher/bookmarks can grow twice as fast.”

I have yet to hear of a person with a Rod who is upset with the idea of more people using the subclasses. As it is, it is hard to find even one person with a rod who routinely uses their annual voucher.

I'm not upset, but I'm opposed.

ROSP classes are granted by equipping of the ROSP token.

I am opposed to granting this effect to people who do not equip the ROSP token.

There are many reasons, but in this case, and in the case of the converted Cavadar item, it would be that the benefit would be less valuable to RoSP owners than everyone else. I can't imagine why we'd specifically design an Eldritch or level 10 bonus in a manner that makes it less desirable to RoSP owners.

I personally have played as the ROSP subclass twice. The first time, the coach ran out of some 5th level cards and offered them to anyone in our party who had 5th level and chose a class he was out of. That was incredibly exciting. The second time, I did something nice for an owner of the ROSP and they gave me their voucher (we were in the same run together) which I immediately spent and was again thrilled to use. Every now and then, I look back on those two times and enjoy that I did it and occasionally think it might be fun again, but then I look at the cards on TD and suddenly become apathetic about it. I am perfectly okay with only ever being able to play those subclasses again if I go buy ROSP but in my experience I have never used them while equipped with the ROSP.

Certainly I'm fine with TD using RoSP cards when there is a shortage of other cards.

In the other scenario you mentioned, both the vet/you were technically cheating:

tokendb.com/token/rod-of-seven-parts/

"...The rod is not “soulforged” (like artifacts are) and can be used by anyone the owner chooses, but the person playing the sub-class must equip the rod for that adventure."

I wouldn’t say that. It wasn’t “technically” cheating, just cheating, unless the voucher user had equipped the Rod.

The answer is simple. If you want to create another path to the subclasses, then replace the subclass power on the RoSP because you just essentially made it worthless

Does it have worth if, as you recounted from your own experience, the owners do not use the ability?

Yes.

Its worth is demonstrated more ably by the continual lobbying of people to make the ROSP classes available by other means, than it ever could be by the testimony of a ROSP owner.

Brad Mortensen wrote:
I wouldn’t say that. It wasn’t “technically” cheating, just cheating, unless the voucher user had equipped the Rod.

The answer is simple. If you want to create another path to the subclasses, then replace the subclass power on the RoSP because you just essentially made it worthless

Do you also call someone who goes on their very first True Dungeon run a cheater if they don’t follow all of the rules they won’t know about perfectly?

Is cheating in your opinion simply the act of not following the rules exactly as they exist (either written or intended and unwritten), even when the coach of that room does not inform you that what you are doing is outside of those rules?

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:
I wouldn’t say that. It wasn’t “technically” cheating, just cheating, unless the voucher user had equipped the Rod.

The answer is simple. If you want to create another path to the subclasses, then replace the subclass power on the RoSP because you just essentially made it worthless

Do you also call someone who goes on their very first True Dungeon run a cheater if they don’t follow all of the rules they won’t know about perfectly?

Is cheating in your opinion simply the act of not following the rules exactly as they exist (either written or intended and unwritten), even when the coach of that room does not inform you that what you are doing is outside of those rules?

Why are we quibbling about this?

Yes, it’s cheating. That’s doesn’t make it the fault of the person who doesn’t know better.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

macXdmg wrote: So, I have a theory about subclasses also, that there might be a two sided card coming. Giving access to subclasses to high level players would potentially devalue teeth incredibly.

I like the idea of the +1 hp to the whole party, or a chipped token that grants access to an extra clue, or secret dialogue from a monster. Maybe it could be a dagger so it is swappable in the dungeon (also one less item for dagger runs )

Why would subclass affect teeth? The teeth don’t give access to subclasses, the teeth were never rumored to give access to subclasses. I don’t understand the connection. And the token would be intended to be non-transferable like the Medallion/Badge of Nobility.

Why is it relevant to be a dagger? It could just as easily be slotless and then be even easier to show in dungeon without affecting people’s mainhand slot. I would genuinely be annoyed with a 10th level reward that was a mainhand slot intended for all classes.

He probably meant Rods, not Teeth.

I think Shelly and I have a half-dozen unused vouchers. The subclasses are, IMO, largely underwhelming. I used to use them mostly to get to level 5 while freeing up a slot or two, so we haven’t used them since we got our Boots.

And “subclasses for L10” feels kind of redundant. A lot (not all) of the first players to hit L10s will probably have Rods already, so I’d be all “gee, thanks, now my stack of unused voucher/bookmarks can grow twice as fast.”

I have yet to hear of a person with a Rod who is upset with the idea of more people using the subclasses. As it is, it is hard to find even one person with a rod who routinely uses their annual voucher.

I'm not upset, but I'm opposed.

ROSP classes are granted by equipping of the ROSP token.

I am opposed to granting this effect to people who do not equip the ROSP token.

There are many reasons, but in this case, and in the case of the converted Cavadar item, it would be that the benefit would be less valuable to RoSP owners than everyone else. I can't imagine why we'd specifically design an Eldritch or level 10 bonus in a manner that makes it less desirable to RoSP owners.

I personally have played as the ROSP subclass twice. The first time, the coach ran out of some 5th level cards and offered them to anyone in our party who had 5th level and chose a class he was out of. That was incredibly exciting. The second time, I did something nice for an owner of the ROSP and they gave me their voucher (we were in the same run together) which I immediately spent and was again thrilled to use. Every now and then, I look back on those two times and enjoy that I did it and occasionally think it might be fun again, but then I look at the cards on TD and suddenly become apathetic about it. I am perfectly okay with only ever being able to play those subclasses again if I go buy ROSP but in my experience I have never used them while equipped with the ROSP.

Certainly I'm fine with TD using RoSP cards when there is a shortage of other cards.

In the other scenario you mentioned, both the vet/you were technically cheating:

tokendb.com/token/rod-of-seven-parts/

"...The rod is not “soulforged” (like artifacts are) and can be used by anyone the owner chooses, but the person playing the sub-class must equip the rod for that adventure."

I wouldn’t say that. It wasn’t “technically” cheating, just cheating, unless the voucher user had equipped the Rod.

The answer is simple. If you want to create another path to the subclasses, then replace the subclass power on the RoSP because you just essentially made it worthless

It doesn't seem to me that it makes it worthless. If someone has a RoSP and enjoys using a subclass once per year, turning 10th level would let them do it twice a year. I'd guess most if not all RoSP owners do more than one run per year.

If both the RoSP and 10th level gave unlimited uses of the premium classes, I'd agree that it made the RoSP redundant, but only for 10th level players.

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:
I wouldn’t say that. It wasn’t “technically” cheating, just cheating, unless the voucher user had equipped the Rod.

The answer is simple. If you want to create another path to the subclasses, then replace the subclass power on the RoSP because you just essentially made it worthless

Do you also call someone who goes on their very first True Dungeon run a cheater if they don’t follow all of the rules they won’t know about perfectly?

Is cheating in your opinion simply the act of not following the rules exactly as they exist (either written or intended and unwritten), even when the coach of that room does not inform you that what you are doing is outside of those rules?

Anthony, I agree with you. If someone does something the rules don't allow, but doesn't realize it, I'd say they were playing incorrectly, but not cheating. I think you have to have intent to be cheating.

Mike Steele wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:
I wouldn’t say that. It wasn’t “technically” cheating, just cheating, unless the voucher user had equipped the Rod.

The answer is simple. If you want to create another path to the subclasses, then replace the subclass power on the RoSP because you just essentially made it worthless

Do you also call someone who goes on their very first True Dungeon run a cheater if they don’t follow all of the rules they won’t know about perfectly?

Is cheating in your opinion simply the act of not following the rules exactly as they exist (either written or intended and unwritten), even when the coach of that room does not inform you that what you are doing is outside of those rules?

Anthony, I agree with you. If someone does something the rules don't allow, but doesn't realize it, I'd say they were playing incorrectly, but not cheating. I think you have to have intent to be cheating.

+1 but also a semantic difference so I can see both sides. End if the day it doesn't matter to the still largely academic argument at hand.

To Matt's point about continuing lobbying for something implying its value, I am ok with expanding access to rod classes persily because I do not see them having much value beyond the initial prestige. It's more about trying to salvage some of the effort that went into them/let other people enjoy that thrill of first time access so they too stop looking at the sub classes as something exclusive from which they are bared.

Also remember the subs were redesigned once already, the old troubadour for example was super valuable to have on a run due to treasure finding, the new one is only "fun" IMO

Picc wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:
I wouldn’t say that. It wasn’t “technically” cheating, just cheating, unless the voucher user had equipped the Rod.

The answer is simple. If you want to create another path to the subclasses, then replace the subclass power on the RoSP because you just essentially made it worthless

Do you also call someone who goes on their very first True Dungeon run a cheater if they don’t follow all of the rules they won’t know about perfectly?

Is cheating in your opinion simply the act of not following the rules exactly as they exist (either written or intended and unwritten), even when the coach of that room does not inform you that what you are doing is outside of those rules?

Anthony, I agree with you. If someone does something the rules don't allow, but doesn't realize it, I'd say they were playing incorrectly, but not cheating. I think you have to have intent to be cheating.

+1 but also a semantic difference so I can see both sides. End if the day it doesn't matter to the still largely academic argument at hand.

To Matt's point about continuing lobbying for something implying its value, I am ok with expanding access to rod classes persily because I do not see them having much value beyond the initial prestige. It's more about trying to salvage some of the effort that went into them/let other people enjoy that thrill of first time access so they too stop looking at the sub classes as something exclusive from which they are bared.

Also remember the subs were redesigned once already, the old troubadour for example was super valuable to have on a run due to treasure finding, the new one is only "fun" IMO

You argue it is only academic and semantic, but generally cheating is a punishable offense and leads to negative value judgements about the cheater. It is generally also a little hurtful to be called a cheater. Imagine your next True Dungeon run you go to pull out your tokens and somehow one random extra token was with your tokens you equip, one you can’t normally equip either because of class restriction or because the slot is already full with another token, the coach or a player next to you notices it before you do and starts calling you a cheater for trying to use that token, how would that make you feel?

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Picc wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:
I wouldn’t say that. It wasn’t “technically” cheating, just cheating, unless the voucher user had equipped the Rod.

The answer is simple. If you want to create another path to the subclasses, then replace the subclass power on the RoSP because you just essentially made it worthless

Do you also call someone who goes on their very first True Dungeon run a cheater if they don’t follow all of the rules they won’t know about perfectly?

Is cheating in your opinion simply the act of not following the rules exactly as they exist (either written or intended and unwritten), even when the coach of that room does not inform you that what you are doing is outside of those rules?

Anthony, I agree with you. If someone does something the rules don't allow, but doesn't realize it, I'd say they were playing incorrectly, but not cheating. I think you have to have intent to be cheating.

+1 but also a semantic difference so I can see both sides. End if the day it doesn't matter to the still largely academic argument at hand.

To Matt's point about continuing lobbying for something implying its value, I am ok with expanding access to rod classes persily because I do not see them having much value beyond the initial prestige. It's more about trying to salvage some of the effort that went into them/let other people enjoy that thrill of first time access so they too stop looking at the sub classes as something exclusive from which they are bared.

Also remember the subs were redesigned once already, the old troubadour for example was super valuable to have on a run due to treasure finding, the new one is only "fun" IMO

You argue it is only academic and semantic, but generally cheating is a punishable offense and leads to negative value judgements about the cheater. It is generally also a little hurtful to be called a cheater. Imagine your next True Dungeon run you go to pull out your tokens and somehow one random extra token was with your tokens you equip, one you can’t normally equip either because of class restriction or because the slot is already full with another token, the coach or a player next to you notices it before you do and starts calling you a cheater for trying to use that token, how would that make you feel?

I’ll try one more time.

Knowingly breaking the rules is, by definition, cheating. In the scenario you described, cheating occurred. The newbie player was not a cheater. The person who loaned the voucher but not the Rod was cheating, not for their own benefit but for the benefit of the newbie. The coach was probably busy and might not have even noticed, so I make no judgment.

So cheating happened, and I think Matthew was right in pointing it out. But nobody, least of all me, said the newbie was a cheater. It sounds like you took it otherwise.

If you think it’s okay to cheat sometimes that’s a whole other debate. All of this is just my opinion.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Picc wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:
I wouldn’t say that. It wasn’t “technically” cheating, just cheating, unless the voucher user had equipped the Rod.

The answer is simple. If you want to create another path to the subclasses, then replace the subclass power on the RoSP because you just essentially made it worthless

Do you also call someone who goes on their very first True Dungeon run a cheater if they don’t follow all of the rules they won’t know about perfectly?

Is cheating in your opinion simply the act of not following the rules exactly as they exist (either written or intended and unwritten), even when the coach of that room does not inform you that what you are doing is outside of those rules?

Anthony, I agree with you. If someone does something the rules don't allow, but doesn't realize it, I'd say they were playing incorrectly, but not cheating. I think you have to have intent to be cheating.

+1 but also a semantic difference so I can see both sides. End if the day it doesn't matter to the still largely academic argument at hand.

To Matt's point about continuing lobbying for something implying its value, I am ok with expanding access to rod classes persily because I do not see them having much value beyond the initial prestige. It's more about trying to salvage some of the effort that went into them/let other people enjoy that thrill of first time access so they too stop looking at the sub classes as something exclusive from which they are bared.

Also remember the subs were redesigned once already, the old troubadour for example was super valuable to have on a run due to treasure finding, the new one is only "fun" IMO

You argue it is only academic and semantic, but generally cheating is a punishable offense and leads to negative value judgements about the cheater. It is generally also a little hurtful to be called a cheater. Imagine your next True Dungeon run you go to pull out your tokens and somehow one random extra token was with your tokens you equip, one you can’t normally equip either because of class restriction or because the slot is already full with another token, the coach or a player next to you notices it before you do and starts calling you a cheater for trying to use that token, how would that make you feel?

I’ll try one more time.

Knowingly breaking the rules is, by definition, cheating. In the scenario you described, cheating occurred. The newbie player was not a cheater. The person who loaned the voucher but not the Rod was cheating, not for their own benefit but for the benefit of the newbie. The coach was probably busy and might not have even noticed, so I make no judgment.

So cheating happened, and I think Matthew was right in pointing it out. But nobody, least of all me, said the newbie was a cheater. It sounds like you took it otherwise.

If you think it’s okay to cheat sometimes that’s a whole other debate. All of this is just my opinion.

Brad, I agree with your definition of cheating. I'm just not 100% sure it applies in this case, as Anthony seemed to me to say that they were unknowingly not following the rules (i.e. not aware that loaning the voucher without the rod was not allowed).

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:
I wouldn’t say that. It wasn’t “technically” cheating, just cheating, unless the voucher user had equipped the Rod.

The answer is simple. If you want to create another path to the subclasses, then replace the subclass power on the RoSP because you just essentially made it worthless

Do you also call someone who goes on their very first True Dungeon run a cheater if they don’t follow all of the rules they won’t know about perfectly?

Is cheating in your opinion simply the act of not following the rules exactly as they exist (either written or intended and unwritten), even when the coach of that room does not inform you that what you are doing is outside of those rules?

For myself, I am fine referring to what transpired as "mistakenly breaking the rules."

I'll be the first to admit I've no doubt done that plenty of times in TD (casting with other stuff in my hands, thinking MeC doubled the base effect of Burning Hands, etc.).

I agree with you that "cheating" should perhaps be reserved for knowlingly breaking the rules.

Sort of like one can make a false statement, and one can lie, but simply making a false statement does not mean one has lied. To lie you must knowingly make a false statement with the intent to deceive.

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

macXdmg wrote: So, I have a theory about subclasses also, that there might be a two sided card coming. Giving access to subclasses to high level players would potentially devalue teeth incredibly.

I like the idea of the +1 hp to the whole party, or a chipped token that grants access to an extra clue, or secret dialogue from a monster. Maybe it could be a dagger so it is swappable in the dungeon (also one less item for dagger runs )

Why would subclass affect teeth? The teeth don’t give access to subclasses, the teeth were never rumored to give access to subclasses. I don’t understand the connection. And the token would be intended to be non-transferable like the Medallion/Badge of Nobility.

Why is it relevant to be a dagger? It could just as easily be slotless and then be even easier to show in dungeon without affecting people’s mainhand slot. I would genuinely be annoyed with a 10th level reward that was a mainhand slot intended for all classes.

He probably meant Rods, not Teeth.

I think Shelly and I have a half-dozen unused vouchers. The subclasses are, IMO, largely underwhelming. I used to use them mostly to get to level 5 while freeing up a slot or two, so we haven’t used them since we got our Boots.

And “subclasses for L10” feels kind of redundant. A lot (not all) of the first players to hit L10s will probably have Rods already, so I’d be all “gee, thanks, now my stack of unused voucher/bookmarks can grow twice as fast.”

I have yet to hear of a person with a Rod who is upset with the idea of more people using the subclasses. As it is, it is hard to find even one person with a rod who routinely uses their annual voucher.

I DID! 2 vouchers per year for a while, then 3 per year, until i sold the rods to help buy a new family car that can fit both kids and lots of stuff.

I would be happy to get the subclasses back as 10th level reward, but i think some of the other top players would like something unique.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:
I wouldn’t say that. It wasn’t “technically” cheating, just cheating, unless the voucher user had equipped the Rod.

The answer is simple. If you want to create another path to the subclasses, then replace the subclass power on the RoSP because you just essentially made it worthless

Do you also call someone who goes on their very first True Dungeon run a cheater if they don’t follow all of the rules they won’t know about perfectly?

Is cheating in your opinion simply the act of not following the rules exactly as they exist (either written or intended and unwritten), even when the coach of that room does not inform you that what you are doing is outside of those rules?

For myself, I am fine referring to what transpired as "mistakenly breaking the rules."

I'll be the first to admit I've no doubt done that plenty of times in TD (casting with other stuff in my hands, thinking MeC doubled the base effect of Burning Hands, etc.).

I agree with you that "cheating" should perhaps be reserved for knowlingly breaking the rules.

Sort of like one can make a false statement, and one can lie, but simply making a false statement does not mean one has lied. To lie you must knowingly make a false statement with the intent to deceive.

I assume the owner of a Rod knows how it works and the rules for when it doesn’t. That’s why I’m very confident in saying the odds are zero that the owner did not know s/he was breaking the rule, i.e. cheating.

But yeah, sure, maybe someone had a $3k token and knew about vouchers and subclasses and the serial numbers and somehow missed the part that says you have to present the voucher AND the RoSP and the serial numbers have to match and all that. But you don’t really believe that for a second, do you? I don’t.

But it’s also possible the RoSP owner had two Rods, or didn’t equip it him/her self, and Anthony didn’t realize it, and so no rules were broken and there was no cheating. I’d believe that.