TOPIC: Latest 2009 Token Images

<br />#1 Rogues are not Proficient with any shields (PHB pg 50)<br />

<br /><br />I would like to see an "off-hand parrying dagger" for rogues... and stick to the shield free rogue... just my opinion. I always liked Grey Mouser's sword-fighting style. <br />

All we can do is point out issues we have with various tokens. It's just obvious the torc doesn't have traction for some reason. it's like the whole gearon's mace thing for me. In the end, jeff just fundamentally disagrees.  Notta to do past that point.

The main problem that I see with creep is that it will increase the divergence between new and experienced players, perhaps to the point where they will not be able to play together, due to the vast differences in their survivability and ability to inflict damage. A lesser problem is that the people who spend the most money will be vastly superior in capability (although to la lesser extent than new players perhaps) to those who spend less, since they will have the most powerful tokens, all compounded and multiplicative. The "creeped" players will get much less thrill from the standard dungeon and will only be really challenged by the nightmare version. The new players will only be able to play the standard dungeon, since they will be too vulnerable to the dungeon that challenges the "creeped" players. I'm sure there are other more sensitive issues of play balance that begin to matter as creep gets more severe, but those are the ones that seem apparent to me. As for the amulet of armor +2, it seems reasonable to me only because there are so many excellent choices for the neck slot, and the hand of glory available as an option, that that slot is already maxed out and cannot creep further.

At least it is not the issue if we had a mithral shield. Mithral reduce armor penalty by 3 and arcane failure by 10 percent.  Meaning even a mage could use it.

Forgive me if this suggestion has already been made, I didn't see it but I only skimmed the pages of replies.<br /><br />The Rare Runestones are named "Runestone X" whereas the Uncommon Runestones are named "X Runestone".  I think for sorting purposes, it would be better to pick one format for the name and go with it instead of using one for rares and a different one for uncommons.  <br /><br />In particular, I like "Runestone X" because that puts them all together in the list when sorted alphabetically.  (Case in point, the Uncommon Runestones are scattered throughout the contact sheets.  The Rare Runestones are all together and easy to spot.)<br /><br />

But my point is the FILS is not even a 5 % improvement like the torc. It's 5% in 1 in 4 combats so it is at most a 1.25% increase and shouldn't constitute making it a rare.

Of course it should.

<br />

<br />#1 Rogues are not Proficient with any shields (PHB pg 50)<br />

<br /><br />I would like to see an "off-hand parrying dagger" for rogues... and stick to the shield free rogue... just my opinion. I always liked Grey Mouser's sword-fighting style. <br /> <br />

<br /><br />I second that!

So what you are saying is any increase be it 1%, 5%, or 110% of an existing item should increase its rarity by a category?  If that is the case then the Torc s/b an UR.

Yes it should. What's your point? Didn't we just go through this? At some point, all we can do is point out the way we think things should be. It's a fundamental difference of opinion and since it's not our event, we don't get the final say.

My point is I think some things are large enough power creeps to warrent an increase of rarities and there are some changes that do not. The FILS increase I do not think warrents an increase in rarity (if it remains +2/+3), where as the Torc should (as we have the precedence of the bracers +1 Rare going to UR when it became +2)