TOPIC: It is time: +3 Weapons

The title says it all. Despite fears of power creep (which I share), I feel it is quite amazing True Dungeon has gone this long with only +2 weapons.

I think +3 weapons are not quite Legendary material, but certainly Relic. If this still makes people nervous, perhaps they could come with a limitation such as "cannot switch to a different weapon of the same type (melee or ranged)" or something else more creative.

Yo, Jeff, think on this: Each year, offer two or three recipes to create a +3 relic transmute version of a +2 ultra rare. This doesn't have to be only limited to those +2 ultra rare weapons printed that same year.

The recipes should be fairly straightforward, I think. A la Eldrich items (one of each trade item, plus the ultra rare, plus maybe a little more).

Discuss!

If we ever have transmuted +3 weapons, I hope the recipes are a lot more expensive than one of each trade item. But then, I thought this year's recipes should have been much more expensive also...

Well, you said it, so I just threw away all my +2's.

EN 429 wrote: Well, you said it, so I just threw away all my +2's.

Ian, what was your address again? It sounds like it's time for a little dumpster diving

i could get behind a relic +3 weapon. and if done right, only one is needed. make it a d8 weapon that is usable by both bard and cleric. currently, long sword is barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger, and bard; while heavy mace is barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger, and cleric. the only real difference is flavor. so make something that can be used by all those classes and let any similar UR weapon trade in for it.

as for the missing classes:
monk; if they get a relic weapon, it should be unique to monks.
wizard & druid; if they get a relic, why would they want it to be a weapon? it should be something with special abilities.
rogue; would need something better than a simple +3 weapon. they have nightshades short sword, which almost has a +3 damage wheel, it is just missing one point of +to-hit, and giving up the bonus sneak attack damage probably isnt worth trading into a generic +3 weapon...so, again, needs a special item.

this does bring up an interesting question: will we see class restrictive relics and legendaries? i hope so, because i like the variety that class specific items bring.

I was going to suggest a +3 Quarterstaff as a regular UR next year, until Firefox dumped and I lost the post. Basically it was a long explanation of how it is no better than a +2 Scepter of Might and Orb of Might. I will put it together again if the debate here warrants.

How about a +3 Quarterstaff that can be upgraded to other +3 weapons?

I think we, on the forums, have a highly skewed perspective on the whole token economy.

Only one in a thousand tokens is an ultra rare. The vast majority of players (off the cuff, I estimate at least 90%, but likely closer to 95%) will never own even a single purple, even if they play repeatedly.

Although +4 items such as TaMor's Mithral Bracers are absolutely Legendary (and, incidentally, only Artifacts should ever be +5, in my opinion), I feel +3 items should be "high relic"; available to those who actively seek them out and work towards them, yet not so easy to obtain as a simple Pick Your Purple.

I agree, Mike, that any +3 weapon should probably cost more than simply "one of each trade item" to create. However, not too much more.

Legendary are absolutely insane to create. They are more trophies as a "thank you" for massive token buyers than they are legitimate game items. I don't think +3 items should be that rare. I feel it is reasonable for the game to average one +3 item for each 4 or 5 runs, which I feel my suggested system would create.

I could be wrong though, of course. But my overall point still holds, which is that it is time for +3 items to exist. I feel we have a solid enough handle on the game mechanics and enough years have gone by to where we can confidently make decisions as to how a +3 item should be balanced.

Error...repost...

Xavon wrote: I was going to suggest a +3 Quarterstaff as a regular UR next year...

The fact it is a two-hand weapon helps balance this out to where the +3 is almost reasonable. Almost. I feel many players would want tighter class restrictions beyond the usual for a quarterstaff in the situation of +3 though, which I would find difficult to argue against.

What about "+3 Quarterstaff" with a damage wheel just like the +2 version but with +1 all around, just usable by Druid, Monk, and Wizard? (Instead of the usual Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Dwarf Fighter, Elf Wizard, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Wizard.) I feel this would be more acceptable as a regular UR.

The problem with relic/legendary weapons isn't one of creep. We've already blown the fortification to !@#% on that score and there's no reason to complain now about incremental devastation. The real problem is that there are too many weapon types the already smaller pool of transmutes will fall further divided by class restrictions. TD pays some amount for each new token design upfront regardless of how many they end up printing. I don't think it's any coincidence that all of the transmutes we've had so far are usable by all classes. That at least maximizes demand for the cost. When you get around to making a longsword +3, you've already cut out those people whose characters can't use that weapon while the cost to design the token for production is exactly the same. I don't know how much this cost per token is, but I imagine it's at least somewhat cost prohibitive or Jeff would be churning out a lot more variety. It's at this point you almost wish you could make a token with a checklist printed on it and you could just holepunch the box to distinguish whether it's a mace or a sword or a staff.

Garrison wrote:

Xavon wrote: I was going to suggest a +3 Quarterstaff as a regular UR next year...

The fact it is a two-hand weapon helps balance this out to where the +3 is almost reasonable. Almost. I feel many players would want tighter class restrictions beyond the usual for a quarterstaff in the situation of +3 though, which I would find difficult to argue against.

What about "+3 Quarterstaff" with a damage wheel just like the +2 version but with +1 all around, just usable by Druid, Monk, and Wizard? (Instead of the usual Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Dwarf Fighter, Elf Wizard, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Wizard.) I feel this would be more acceptable as a regular UR.

Again, compare to +2 Scepter of Might and Orb of Might. Usable by all classes. Effectively same to hit and damage bonus. +3 staff can overcome +3 DR and is only one UR, but the Scepter/Orb combo counts towards your Might set, and you get the Scepter's secondary effect. Plus the ranger can double attack with the Scepter/Orb combo. All in all, a wash.

Not sure where I fall on the +3 weapons yet (we do have +3 ammo this year so its not unreasonable but I'd still rather err on the side of caution with this one). On the other hand I would like to see class defining relic weapons eventually. Maybe two or three per year, very expensive, and very powerful secondary abilities.

Nightshades sword of sneak attack the first round for the rogue,
Monks sundering cestus acts as Saylahs & considered an open handed attack,
Singing sword, sings for the bard while they attack and cast spells
Staff of the magus, allows the wizard to cast spells from one of the unused character sheets
Rangers twin blades, both weapons sides may be counted as the better of the two slides.
Barbarians great sword, doubles the barbarians strength bonus
etc)

I like the idea of powerful secondary powers on +2 (or even +1) class defining weapons because then if TD released +3 or higher weapons it would force a choice (ie do you take the secondary power or more raw damage). Either way though I'm not sure its needed. As one of my old DMs was apt to point out it doesn't matter how powerful we are the monster we face will always be balanced to give us a challenge.