TOPIC: 2025's Viking-Themed Character Cards

Small update to (not elf) wizard. It now specifies the post-mortem Spell is not "free". I.e., they cannot cast a Spell if all that Spell's boxes have been marked off.

AAckeret wrote: I was looking at it through the lens of the Saga powers being intended for newbies, who have limited ability to resurrect and have taken 6 rooms of damage, and may not know things like must be resurrected in the same room is a rule, or even what they can or cannot do once they have died.

Fair enough. Even then, I'm not worried about it. Let the dead newbie make a small contribution if room 7 is a combat.

Druegar wrote: Because these need to go to the printer ASAP, we simply don't have time for debates about more significant changes beyond the Saga Skills. That said, if we f'd something else up (e.g., accidentally deleting barbarian DR or saving throw bonuses that don't match the previous numbers), please let us know.

Here's a link to the fourth and likely last preview.

TL;DR: of the below: change the combat prowess description to say “+4 to AC” for the 4th level monk and “+5 to AC” for the 5th level monk.

Details:

The Monks “base ac” description of combat prowess is incorrect, and confusing - it should just say it grants +4 ac (+5 at 5th level).

A characters “base AC” is their AC before DEX modifiers and/or AC modifiers.

The “base AC” of all non-monk classes is 10, for example.

Either:

The “base AC” of monks is also 10, and their DEX adds +2, and combat prowess adds +4 (+5 at 5th level).

Or equivalently, but more with needless complexity:

Combat prowess makes The “base AC” of monks 14 (15 at 5th level) and their DEX adds +2.

In no circumstance is the Monk’s “base AC” 16 (or 17 at 5th level). If it were, it would then be further modified +2 due to the Monks 15 DEX for a total initial AC before any other tokens of 18 (or 19 at 5th level) - which is incorrect.

The party card has the correct ACs built in.
The apps have the correct AC built in.
For years, the monk cards have said "Base AC is XX due to martial training"
I think we'll be okay if we continue to use that phrasing. 🙂

I'm with Hayward. Even if you don't change this for these cards, please stop using "base AC" with monk, as it's only confusing and unnecessary.

Meanwhile, can also look to change Instant Safeguard in the future to not set AC but just add a fixed amount to AC, which would make it far less worthless.

Druegar wrote: The party card has the correct ACs built in.
The apps have the correct AC built in.
For years, the monk cards have said "Base AC is XX due to martial training"
I think we'll be okay if we continue to use that phrasing. 🙂

"We've always done it that way" is not a good reason, on it's own, to continue doing something that way.

I know it's always been that way.

It's always been wrong / confusing. I've been mentioning this occasionally for years.

The phrase "base AC" doesn't appear at all in the Players Handbook. It appears exactly once in the Dungeon Master's Guide, and that is as a restatement of the Monk's class powers.

DND's 3rd Edition SRD defined base AC as "The base AC for a medium-sized character or item is 10. Bonuses and penalties are applied to this basic Armor Class to reflect the effects of armor, dexterity, etc."

Using the phrase "base AC" on the Monk card to mean "the AC of the Monk character before any tokens are equipped, including a +2 AC bonus from the Monk's innate 15 dexterity, and also +4 from Combat Prowess (+5 at 5th level)" is confusing.

What is the benefit of introducing a rule term "base AC" on the Monk character card, that is used only in that spot, and whose definition is different from the standard DND 3rd edition definition?

Would you say the "base AC" of the 4th level Bard is 11, and the "base AC" of the 5th level bard is 12? If not, why not?

Just say combat prowess "Grants +4 AC" and be done with it. (+5 at 5th level).

TPTB solicited volunteers to review these cards and report errors.

The fact that the wording of this power had changed in the initial version of these saga cards suggested the phrasing of Combat Prowess was changeable: otherwise I probably wouldn't have brough this up again.

I'm finding it hard to reconcile TBTP's request for volunteer effort with the tone of the response I'm getting, which if I replied in kind would be: "I think you'll be OK if you just change it to 'Grants +4 AC' 🙂."

Matthew,

If I came off as rude, I sincerely apologize. For what it's worth, I agree that the wording is not 100% accurate. Yes, of course, everyone's base AC is 10 and it gets bonuses or penalties as dictated by ability scores, equipment, and what have you.

What we don't want to do is require any unnecessary math at the coaching table--especially on the part of players. I'm aware that some math is inevitable, but we don't want to add more if it's not required. We don't want players, particularly newbies, to have to calculate their AC by taking 10 + (Dexterity-10/2) + a martial bonus. You, me, and probably most forumites are intimately familiar with that mechanic, but a lot of our players at in-person conventions have never played TD before. Believe it or not, a lot of them have never even played D&D before. They're not going to read the TD PHB while sitting in coaching, if ever. I think for most newbies, being able to simply tell them they start off with 16 AC is desirable.

If y'all can give me a single-sentence, single-line, math-free, easy-to-understand way of expressing the AC that monks start off with, that would be terrific.

Druegar wrote: Matthew,

If I came off as rude, I sincerely apologize. For what it's worth, I agree that the wording is not 100% accurate. Yes, of course, everyone's base AC is 10 and it gets bonuses or penalties as dictated by ability scores, equipment, and what have you.

What we don't want to do is require any unnecessary math at the coaching table--especially on the part of players. I'm aware that some math is inevitable, but we don't want to add more if it's not required. We don't want players, particularly newbies, to have to calculate their AC by taking 10 + (Dexterity-10/2) + a martial bonus. You, me, and probably most forumites are intimately familiar with that mechanic, but a lot of our players at in-person conventions have never played TD before. Believe it or not, a lot of them have never even played D&D before. They're not going to read the TD PHB while sitting in coaching, if ever. I think for most newbies, being able to simply tell them they start off with 16 AC is desirable.

If y'all can give me a single-sentence, single-line, math-free, easy-to-understand way of expressing the AC that monks start off with, that would be terrific.

Call it the monk's Starting AC? To distinguish it from base AC of 10 that all classes have.

4th level Monk: Combat Prowess - the monk gains +4 to AC.

5th level Monk: Combat Prowess - the monk gains +5 to AC.

Grizwald wrote: 4th level Monk: Combat Prowess - the monk gains +4 to AC.
5th level Monk: Combat Prowess - the monk gains +5 to AC.

It needs to tell them what their total AC is, before adding any token bonuses.

kurtreznor wrote: Call it the monk's Starting AC?

I considered that one, but I was worried it sounded too much like "base".
What do y'all think? Is "starting" superior to "base"?

Druegar wrote:

Grizwald wrote: 4th level Monk: Combat Prowess - the monk gains +4 to AC.
5th level Monk: Combat Prowess - the monk gains +5 to AC.

It needs to tell them what their total AC is, before adding any token bonuses.

But why? Nobody else needs that.

Ok, just factor the bonus into the base without dex bonus.
4th level Monk: Combat Prowess - the monks starting AC is 14 before bonuses.
5th level Monk: Combat Prowess- the monks starting AC is 15 before bonuses.