TOPIC: 2007 Tokens

Alrighty,<br /><br />So, I'll admit, I've mostly just been gleaning over this discussion of wands and recharges/charge use tokens.<br /><br />And I think there is some compelling arguments to not do so.<br />Like one of you said, if a wand was to consolidate tokens, not having to fuss with a bunch of magic missiles in combat, doing the charge use things really only muddies the thing. In that case you may as well just stick to individual scrolls. <br />And charges would seem reasonable to be wand specific. So there would be far much more printing and complicating the matter than simply making more scrolls or wands.<br /><br />While it may be a neat idea, doesn't make it the most practical. And like someone said, how long before people will expect to be able to recharge other things, such as the necklace of fireballs and what not.<br />I really think that this is just opening a messy can of worms, and unless you're going fishing what good is it?<br />

<br />And I think there is some compelling arguments to not do so.<br />Like one of you said, if a wand was to consolidate tokens, not having to fuss with a bunch of magic missiles in combat, doing the charge use things really only muddies the thing. In that case you may as well just stick to individual scrolls. <br />And charges would seem reasonable to be wand specific. So there would be far much more printing and complicating the matter than simply making more scrolls or wands.<br /><br />While it may be a neat idea, doesn't make it the most practical. And like someone said, how long before people will expect to be able to recharge other things, such as the necklace of fireballs and what not.<br />I really think that this is just opening a messy can of worms, and unless you're going fishing what good is it?<br />

<br /><br />I disagree. Lets take it point by point:<br /><br />1) f a wand was to consolidate tokens, not having to fuss with a bunch of magic missiles in combat, doing the charge use things really only muddies the thing.<br /><br />Who said it was? I sorta figure if it was a consolidation effort, it was poorly put together and we've gone far past this point. After all, if the point was consolidation we should have had people _turn in_ scrolls of magic missile and for every 5 they get a wand. Just adding wands to the mix wouldn't consolidate anything, and would simply spawn more of that particular spell.<br /><br />2) And charges would seem reasonable to be wand specific.<br /><br />I'm not exactly sure where reasonable enters things with TD. What seems to be at the core of the various rule decisions is that things should be simple. A general token for one use from a wand is about as simple as it gets really. It's no more complex than masterwork arrows or bolts and there's no reason to play by the rules when the rules only make things more complex. There are plenty of examples for that in TD.<br /><br />3) how long before people will expect to be able to recharge other things<br /><br />So? IMO, that would actually be a positive. It opens a new door and lets people hope for rechargable wonderous items and rings in the future. I don't see any downside at all to this. It's sorta like arguing back before we had ultra-rares that we couldn't bring out a +2 longsword because soon people would also want a +2 mace. We all know where that led.

It just seems like you are trying to replace the same thing with just more of the same.<br />I mean instead of buying 5 charges, why don't you just buy 1 wand?<br />You're still having to replace what you use, you just seem to be complicating it more now.<br /><br />But hey, to each their own.<br />Besides its not like its especially important to me. What ever floats your token boat.

In terms of token managability, would you rather bring 5 Scrolls of Melf's Acid Arrow or a the Wand?  5 Scrolls of Magic Missle or the Wand ?(note there is a small difference in functionality).  And the same for Wand of CLWs and Detect Magic.<br /><br />The ONLY benefit for using the Wand instead of the scroll counterparts for those listed above is token managability.  <br /><br />And logically speaking, the charges are inside the wand.  If charges are not Wand specific, this doesn't really make sense.  You carry around energy?  And then go through the process of putting it into the Wand to use?   ;/ <br /><br />And even if you had this generic wand charge, it would quickly become wand specific because of its value.  No one would burn a "wand charge" in a Wand of MM, MAA, or DM.  It just wouldn't make practical sense. <br /><br />The only other thing you could charge is the Necklace of FB (and the Ring of Three Wishes).<br /><br />I think the concept is good for a gold sink but the only feasible way I see it as being implemented is to have True Dungeon print a bunch of the Wands and charge you gold to turn your old depleated wand in for a new one.  You won't need to print a new kind of "charge" token, it still functions as a gold sink, it encourages Wand use, and charges can have different "refill" value.  Simple and accomplishes all goals.<br /><br /><br />

Manageability is sort of a matter of indifference. If you have enough tokens to be worried about it, it's almost certain you have a binder or some sort of organizational system.

*is being silly*<br /><br />How about +1 socks of warming?<br /><br />Or gloves of frost bite protection?<br /><br />Or Metal Stien?<br /><br />Potion: Dwarven Ale<br />+1 to courage?<br /><br />Ring of Binding?<br />Engagment ring for Smak<br /><br />Gear: Ball and Chain<br />Similar effect as weighted net?<br /><br />So, what do you think? =D

<br />*is being silly*<br /><br />Ring of Binding?<br />Engagment ring for Smak<br /><br />

<br /><br /> =D LOL Good one!

Teehee.  =D<br />Am glad someone finally found one of my jokes funny.

ring of binding? ball and chain? wouldn't they be about the same in my case? completely joking of course. she might not be warm to the idea of a TD wedding nor our families. i'll have to try and guage her reaction to the whole thing over lunch sometime. i have talked her into attending indy '07. she was supposed to attend this past year, but her work blew that. none the less, i would love for her to meet everyone and see what a great time it is.

<br />And logically speaking, the charges are inside the wand.  If charges are not Wand specific, this doesn't really make sense.  You carry around energy?  And then go through the process of putting it into the Wand to use?   ;/ <br /><br />And even if you had this generic wand charge, it would quickly become wand specific because of its value.  No one would burn a "wand charge" in a Wand of MM, MAA, or DM.  It just wouldn't make practical sense. <br />

<br /><br />But if we were all practical we'd be engineers. Well maybe. I don't see it from a practicality standpoint but from a user preference and availability point of view. What if the scrolls you mentioned weren't readily availabe to the player? Wand charges offer an alternative. <br /><br />I do agree that it simply adds more tokens to carry, which isn't necessarily a good thing.<br /><br />

<br />I think the concept is good for a gold sink but the only feasible way I see it as being implemented is to have True Dungeon print a bunch of the Wands and charge you gold to turn your old depleated wand in for a new one.  You won't need to print a new kind of "charge" token, it still functions as a gold sink, it encourages Wand use, and charges can have different "refill" value.  Simple and accomplishes all goals.<br />

<br /><br />I too like it as a gold sink. Sitting here, I could imagine these "generic wand charges/energy batteries" being almost a common token available through the online store (order a bag of 10) or in the tavern. I wouldn't see them as necessarily being in the typical token bag, but I guess they are as good as a dagger token, or more so as they probably have a better trade value.<br /><br />In game I could see:<br />

<br />
• Lesser wands (MM, MAA, Det. M) costing 1 charge tokens
<br />
• Moderate wands (LB, CLW) costing 2 charge tokens
<br />
• Etc.
<br />

<br />Now it does seem wrongfully generic in many ways (like carrying around batteries or ammunition). But printing one type of generic charge token seems easier than wand specific ones.<br /><br />To a comment earlier about getting a wand in a bag, but having no charge tokens, perhaps they stick with the check boxes, so even a new wand has at least the base number of uses. These simply allow "spent" wands to be reused.<br /><br />Otherwise, as mentioned, I'd be all for being able to trade in spent wand tokens, plus some X amount of gold or other tokens to acquire a fresh new one... but then this also requires TD to print extra tokens of specific items.<br /><br />I don't know. It still seems like an intereseting idea to me overall if it will get people to be more willing to use wands.<br /><br />Good discussion.

<br />ring of binding? ball and chain? wouldn't they be about the same in my case? completely joking of course. she might not be warm to the idea of a TD wedding nor our families. i'll have to try and guage her reaction to the whole thing over lunch sometime. i have talked her into attending indy '07. she was supposed to attend this past year, but her work blew that. none the less, i would love for her to meet everyone and see what a great time it is.<br />

<br /><br />Actually they were all kinda for you. Teehee<br /><br />+1 socks for the soon to be missus, as women tend to notoriously cold feet. I have heard comments from some married fellows about their wives toe-cicles.<br /><br />Gloves, Well sometimes we gals can be moody and cold. And you must handle with caution, lest you get frost bite. <br /><br />Metal Stien and Ale go together, cause you might need a little courage using the next item. <br /><br />Ring of Binding.<br /><br />After that, well naturally you now have ball and chain in your collection.<br />See the theme now? <br />Of course its all just in fun now, mind you. Not trying to offend. Just being silly.<br />

<br />Gear: Ball and Chain<br />Similar effect as weighted net?<br />

<br /><br />But don't guys always lose the initiative in arguments?