TOPIC: Almost Final Ultra Rare Token Images! Please give these your look-see!

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Allen John wrote: I...I still want the hat...

...I probably shouldn't say that, though, since I don't want to convince Jeff that it's okay to listen to everyone else when they say "new" players don't need nice things.

(Seriously, though, blocking two Stones is *way* less of a drawback than blocking a ring *and* giving -1 to saves. +1 to saves is my best Stone, and this is only asking me to give up my fourth-best.)

I think most of us want 5he hat to go back to a 4 IS max, rather than 3

+1

The hat seemed great at 4 ioun stones.

I don't understand the nerfing of it. Or if you're going to nerf it, how bout just make it

"-2 ioun stones"

That way new players can still build from there with expanders and such?

jpotter wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Allen John wrote: I...I still want the hat...

...I probably shouldn't say that, though, since I don't want to convince Jeff that it's okay to listen to everyone else when they say "new" players don't need nice things.

(Seriously, though, blocking two Stones is *way* less of a drawback than blocking a ring *and* giving -1 to saves. +1 to saves is my best Stone, and this is only asking me to give up my fourth-best.)

I think most of us want 5he hat to go back to a 4 IS max, rather than 3

+1

The hat seemed great at 4 ioun stones.

I don't understand the nerfing of it. Or if you're going to nerf it, how bout just make it

"-2 ioun stones"

That way new players can still build from there with expanders and such?

This is definitely better. How would it compare to ring of fateful heroism and charm of glory as proposed.

Flik wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: OK, I revise my suggestion. Keep the Arcane items to Cabal items and don't change their slots. We'll just need a creative name for the Arcane Bracelets.

Great idea Kirk honestly upset I didn’t think to add to an existing set.

Agreed not changing bracelets to head because that only punishes cleric for armor head piece sets.

But cabal items please!!

The three tokens are already top of the line without any set bonuses. If they were part of the cabal set, they would probably have to have some negative modifiers added to balance the cabal set bonus.

MasterED wrote: I am certainly in favor of maximum slot numbers. I think it should be closer to:

Ioun Stone (9) - Max 4 extra
Charm (8) - Max 5 extra

Why do I say that because with Ioun Stones we can get to 7 and Charms we can get to 8 today. These new slot expanders should just give us different ways to get there not improve the numbers. I am giving a benefit to IS for 2 more just because of all the new treasure enhancers.

Back is already set at 2 and Ring at 3 so those should be ok.

Ed

Ed, I agree with you, I might even bump Charms down another spot. A max of 7 Charms is still expanding the slot to more than double the original number.

I think the hat (as is) may not be the most desired token for 90% of the forumites, but it will be the most desired UR for just about everyone else playing TD. If I was a new player and got this I would definitely want to come back. There are many annual players with many reds and have never played a level 5 character. This will still be the best single-UR level-granting token.

Beertram wrote: I think the hat (as is) may not be the most desired token for 90% of the forumites, but it will be the most desired UR for just about everyone else playing TD. If I was a new player and got this I would definitely want to come back. There are many annual players with many reds and have never played a level 5 character. This will still be the best single-UR level-granting token.

I think you're right. But I also think it is the UR a new player is likely to outgrow the quickest. Which does seem to go against the intent of the tokens named after someone. Maybe balancing that is that the tokens will likely get passed down to even newer players once outgrown? I do think bumping it back up one Ioun slot would be fine and make it more likely to stay with its original owner longer without overpowering it.

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Allen John wrote: I...I still want the hat...

...I probably shouldn't say that, though, since I don't want to convince Jeff that it's okay to listen to everyone else when they say "new" players don't need nice things.

(Seriously, though, blocking two Stones is *way* less of a drawback than blocking a ring *and* giving -1 to saves. +1 to saves is my best Stone, and this is only asking me to give up my fourth-best.)

I think most of us want 5he hat to go back to a 4 IS max, rather than 3

I'm fine with it at 3, I think the target audience for this probably doesn't have four great IS. I suspect the change was made to make it more equal to similar previous tokens, so people that just got those other tokens don't have huge buyer's remorse.

EvilJohn wrote:

JACKOFTRADZE wrote: Once the Cooks Hat got nerfed from adding IS two revisions ago it was taken off my list. I no longer have skin on this one so this is just an honest assessment: Kill this token, it's awful.

Yeah, I agree. I don't really care much as I decided to invest in a Ring of Heroism last year. I thought the 4 Ioun limit was OK, and a fair trade-off, because the head slot is generally pretty weak for non-fighters. But now the Ring of Fateful Heroism looks much better.

And the theme and look just dosen't go with D&D or TD in my opinion.

I did not catch this went down to three. 4 I was honestly thinking of getting a few, three it is likely not happening. Maybe one for the bard, she really needs to be fifth level, especially with the lute. I admit it is closer to equal “loss of slots” as other 1 level items I guess stacking charm slot in response is an option.

I’ll be honest the “get everyone a level in one year” this might be the best option, but can we relook at opportunities to grant over a few cycles so we can get a level from a few items that don’t suck over three or four years? Printing the whole of the might set in one year didn’t happen did it? It came out over a few years so small purchasers could be in on it. And they could be in on the transmuted Heroic Charm which just became one of the easier 5th levels. For non-eldritch.

I was okay thinking I wouldn’t expand the iounstone slots in favor of a few levels for some of my party, but going down to three I may only honestly fit it for one, the opportunity cost on the others is too much from nine to three.

jpotter wrote: "-2 ioun stones"

That way new players can still build from there with expanders and such?

I think this is the best idea. Keeps it at 3 per the new proposed token and still lets people grow with it until they replace it.

The question it bring is 2 IS slots worth a Ring or Charm slot (other ways to get to level 5) and I think they are.

Ed

Re: Lenses of Seer Sight

I agree with the many voiced comments that this token is strictly better than Lenses of Vital Insight. With all the conversation around Power Creep, it surprises me that they were not toned down, but I thought, “okay, maybe it’s supposed to be better to drive sales.” ... and then I saw Jeff’s comment that he would allow a trade-in... so that’s clearly not it. It’s just a reprint with a little extra to make it not an exact duplicate.

What if it had a small drawback to offset the bonus Dex?

Like “Rogue May sneak attack with Bows” (Instead of “Ranged Weapon”)

That gives it flavour which Vital Insight doesn’t have, and forces a choice for those Rogues who use daggers or hammers or crossbows... AND leaves design space for making a cool Lenses token down the road which adds Ranged Sneak to a different weapon type.

Mike Steele wrote:

Flik wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: OK, I revise my suggestion. Keep the Arcane items to Cabal items and don't change their slots. We'll just need a creative name for the Arcane Bracelets.

Great idea Kirk honestly upset I didn’t think to add to an existing set.

Agreed not changing bracelets to head because that only punishes cleric for armor head piece sets.

But cabal items please!!

The three tokens are already top of the line without any set bonuses. If they were part of the cabal set, they would probably have to have some negative modifiers added to balance the cabal set bonus.

I'm kind of against this. The Cabal set was never really that popular outside of a hardcore few (and it was a pain to adjudicate in coaching)

Raven wrote: Re: Lenses of Seer Sight

I agree with the many voiced comments that this token is strictly better than Lenses of Vital Insight. With all the conversation around Power Creep, it surprises me that they were not toned down, but I thought, “okay, maybe it’s supposed to be better to drive sales.” ... and then I saw Jeff’s comment that he would allow a trade-in... so that’s clearly not it. It’s just a reprint with a little extra to make it not an exact duplicate.

What if it had a small drawback to offset the bonus Dex?

Like “Rogue May sneak attack with Bows” (Instead of “Ranged Weapon”)

That gives it flavour which Vital Insight doesn’t have, and forces a choice for those Rogues who use daggers or hammers or crossbows... AND leaves design space for making a cool Lenses token down the road which adds Ranged Sneak to a different weapon type.

Not a bad idea (could be a Rare if changed to Hand Crossbows). The big issue is the +2 Assassin's Crossbow which would be the big token left out.

Jeff did say there will be a trade in for Lenses of Vital Insight if people wish. Seems like that would work.

Ed