TOPIC: 2021 Ultra Rare Feedback Part Two

Ok, sorry I missed the last 90 posts.

Rod: seems this is future proofing. I like it.
Axe: trading two-hit for damage at UR. Fun option.
Boots: Holy cow these are good. +3 Dex is s UR. +2 Con and a might set item is a UR. Neither are sought after, but 2 great tastes that taste great together? This seems really good, and may make it hard to make "better" boots in the future. Maybe +2/+2? Or if really necessary, make one of those 2's a 3?
Charm of Fasting: A must have for clerics in a tough spot. Maybe make it a Holy symbol?
Charm of Power: Please add Bard to this. Every spell caster will want one, and there are already enough tokens that Bards feel like they should be on, but aren't.
Cranston's Hat: +3 Damage in a new slot is fun. Will be a great replacement for Crown of Expertise no longer being available. If this affects spells, it's really, really good.
Earcuff of Orbits: sought after reprint, probably a year too soon with all of the slot expanders available now (Arcane, Orion's belt, etc).
Gloves of the Dire Bear: Definitely a sought after request. Maybe the bonus to a single one handed melee weapon gloves can come in 2 years.
ISPN: nice, as expected
Ioun Stone Sunstone Shard: I like this at 5 HP (so as not to step on the toes of the Garnet Cube)
Jinn's Magebook Charm: Versatility is not going to compete for a really crowded charm slot, this will be transmute only unfortunately. Maybe slotless? Then every wizard will want two. Or have it add 2 1st level spell slots (+/- free action)
Lucky Cloak: perfect. Better slot, still part of the set.
Nightshade's throwing dagger: Hoo boy! Love the idea of it. Being able to sneak attack at range without LoVI or LoA is probably way too good though. This will be far more sought after than the short sword. Honestly it's probably good enough without the throwing designation?
Pants of focus: good option for spellcasters not using the eldritch kilt.
Psyferre's spectacles: Assuming reading the scroll is a standard action, these still need to be better to me. +5 Cha doesnt help at least 3 classes (DF, Bard, Paladin) and scroll as a standard action, even in puzzle rooms, just isn't enough for me. Would a scroll as a free action be too much, particularly with shield of the scholar in the set?
Ring of Sacrifice: I think this got far too weak. Was considering version 3 vs ring of frost, as 20 damage at once vs 2 damage per hit seems a reasonable question, at a cost of 10 HP.
Maybe 20 sacred damagge at a cost of 10 HP? That would remove the eldritch from players, leave room for benefits against undead, and make it possibly desirable. As a standard action, that feels ok.
Ring of the Siren: All the "odd" attacks get extra damage. How many are doing more than one of these, to get extra benefits? Could this be +4 and still not be good enough? I dont think it would be too good there.
Shield of the Scholar: Great reprint.
Stu-Pendous: This is still a little odd to me, as it didnt seem to be one of the top reprint requests. It's nice to see.

I apologize if I missed several of you making these exact points.

dave romanin wrote: I may be wrong, as I am fairly new but this group of UR and the UR from 2020 seem like power creep compared to older years offerings.

If we are not careful, nightmare will be too easy and a sixth level of difficulty will be called for...

Yes, thats the unfortunate truth of True Dungeon token design. Power creep drives sales. So the goal tends to be to find the minimum about of Power creep while still maintaining token sales to fund the game.

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: After looking at the Class URs this year, perhaps the Druid and maybe other classes should get another Class UR this year or next. These URs are now designed to be pretty awesome on their own, in the very usable charm slot, and not duplicated in the Relic or Legendary so they stack with them. So the classes this year get a great Class UR and great (probably too great) Relic/Legendary Neck slot tokens that they can use together.

The Druid UR (and I think probably others also, but I haven't checked) has absolutely no usefulness if the Druid has the Relic or Legendary, so ironically (and I guess sadly) the Druid Class UR is more useful to the Wizard than the Druid, because the Wizard can use it but the Druid with the Relic or Legendary can't. Although I'm hoping that if the Druid isn't added to the Spellbook, the Wizard will be removed from the Shaman's Belt. Even so, it would be nice for the Druid (and maybe other classes) to also have a Class Specific UR of similar power to the Class Charms this year that he can use along with his Relic/Legendary.

Or, maybe in the revision phase the Druid Class UR can be revised to have powers that aren't duplicated by the Relic & Legendary and moved to the Charm slot, although that would require a token trade-in and not just tokendb.com revision.

1. Elf Wizard is arguably the best Polymorphere in the game with Focused Polymorph. It makes no sense to remove an expert Polymorpher from a Polymorph token.

2. The other easy fix to your frustration is just bake the URs from this year into the relics. I support your idea for us to do this so the Relics are not useful with the URs. Great idea. (Currently, they do that. The Wizard Relic says it has Jinn’s powers, so it shouldn’t stack.)

1) The reason it makes sense to remove the Wizard is because it is a Druid Class UR. It should be helping the Druid, not the Wizard. Especially when the UR has no benefit to a Druid with the Relic or Legendary, but does still benefit the Wizard. That's absolutely backwards. I think it either makes sense for Druids and Wizards to both have access to each other's class URs, or neither.

2) As you say, the Wizard UR is already baked in to the Relic, which it probably shouldn't be since the Cleric UR isn't baked into their Relic. The Druid UR adds absolutely nothing in addition to the Druid Relic, so baking it in would add nothing to the Relic. It would be nice for the Druid to have a UR that gave powers that are in addition to the Relic/Legendary, like the Cleric and Wizard do.

Again, with both of these points, I'm just asking for consistency, which seems like a very reasonable thing to ask. Either both the Wizards and Druids have access to the other's Class URs, or neither do. Either all the Class URs are baked into the Relics, or none of them are. Either all the Class URs have additional powers that can be equipped in addition to the Relics/Legendaries (or be baked in), or none of them do.

Dergidan wrote:

Raven wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Harlax wrote:

Raven wrote: Nightshade’s +2 Obsidian Throwing Dagger?!

Obsidian? Not Saphire?

Nightshade's +2 sapphire inlaid assassination dagger!

No, wait: Nightshade’s +2 sapphire inlaid obsidian assassination stiletto!

Seriously, tho...

I agree with folks who say simplest is best.
Just getting the Nightshade Sneak-attack Doubling power reprinted is fantastic. A throwable sneak attack weapon is icing on the cake.
It’s okay to drop the damage wheel to normal dagger levels. It’s okay to leave off the special Dagger symbol (tho I really like the symbol). It’s okay if we don’t include First-Round sneak... the extra text would clutter the token, and there’s plenty of ways to get around the delay (even at the rare level). It’ll still be good enough that Rogues (even ones who already have the Original Nightshade Shortsword) will want to PYP it.

Btw, my own personal favorite for name would be:

Nightshade’s +2 Throwing Knife

simple, & to the point. Plus I like the alliteration.
(And if I was in charge of graphics, I’d give it a sapphire blue hilt, instead of purple.

+1 Nightshade's +2 Throwing Knife

Keep the special symbol and double on crit - that's what makes it a "Nightshade's" and DM's should already know what the dagger symbol does.

Keep the thrown ability - it gives rogues a great build puzzle to solve between melee, ranged, and hybrid builds depending on how they want to use it.

If necessary, drop the sneak without 1 round delay. Red-build players have access to this ability from a number of tokens in at least two different slots, higher tier players might have relic/legendary also granting this ability. It's cool, but doesn't need to be built into this token.

If thrown, does this count as a ranged attack? Can a Rogue sneak attack with any other thrown weapon without Lenses of Agility/Vital Insight? It's awesome that this can be thrown for a sneak attack, but if it works like all other thrown weapons, with the dagger symbol added, that's enough to make it a Nightshade's.

I love this token as-is, but I'd rather see it toned down than dropped from the set.

I wonder if any other relic+ Rogues are thinking about getting TWO, so that they can throw a second knife for the second sneak attack attempt...

Throwable melee weapons are ranged attacks when thrown, using ranged to hit bonus. they add strength modifier to ranged damage.

Milambus (Jake) wrote:

dave romanin wrote: I may be wrong, as I am fairly new but this group of UR and the UR from 2020 seem like power creep compared to older years offerings.

If we are not careful, nightmare will be too easy and a sixth level of difficulty will be called for...

Yes, thats the unfortunate truth of True Dungeon token design. Power creep drives sales. So the goal tends to be to find the minimum about of Power creep while still maintaining token sales to fund the game.

Creep keeps getting used. I find it hard to equate the common usage of creep with the obscene power jumps this game has been seeing.

Then, I'm not convinced power can sustainably drive sales. It was Matthew H., I think a year ago, who pointed out that once power increases become expected that there's no reason to buy tokens anymore. So, for one year have new BiS only to have it replaced the next year, crashing value of most recent BiS. Note that this situation has already played out with shirts. To believe that we can fool ourselves perpetually to where there's no consideration for trying to maintain some semblance of power containment makes me think the bubble bursts on token value sooner rather than later.

But, whatever. My thinking about what's good for the orphans is not any different from anyone else doing the same.

Milambus (Jake) wrote:

dave romanin wrote: I may be wrong, as I am fairly new but this group of UR and the UR from 2020 seem like power creep compared to older years offerings.

If we are not careful, nightmare will be too easy and a sixth level of difficulty will be called for...

Yes, thats the unfortunate truth of True Dungeon token design. Power creep drives sales. So the goal tends to be to find the minimum about of Power creep while still maintaining token sales to fund the game.

Let’s see where the creep is this year. The reprints aren’t creep, so 5 aren’t creep by definition.

The rod of the meek and axe appear to be fine, one has limits, the other only has a +hit for dwarves.

The current version of Cranston’s is a source for creep, as it adds a benefit in addition to acting as a slot exchanger. +hit was less creep, no bonus at all (like charm of glory / brooching) would probably be best.

The boots of sweet wood are questionable to the low end of creep. Compared to the boots of the X wind, they don’t seem to bad. Wrist is a very comparable slot in that it has has a +2 Dex and +2 con item a +5 2H item, and a ranged +2 hit and damage. +2 and +2 without a set bonus seems slightly underpowered compared to the damage boots - how many builds do you see with bracers of fast fitness?

The charm of fasting is limited to cleric and doesn’t offer much that wasn’t already available in some form. Healing can be done on an unlimited basis outside of combat, and bless is available via free action from scrolls. So I guess maybe minimal power creep from FA restore spell?

Charm of power is big creep, won’t contest that.

There is a little creep to the power of scrolls via the ring - given where scrolls are, I’m not concerned about that.

Where else is there concern?

Nightshade is likely creep at the moment given it’s also a throwing dagger, but that could be resolved by dropping the damage wheel to d4.

Mike Steele wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: After looking at the Class URs this year, perhaps the Druid and maybe other classes should get another Class UR this year or next. These URs are now designed to be pretty awesome on their own, in the very usable charm slot, and not duplicated in the Relic or Legendary so they stack with them. So the classes this year get a great Class UR and great (probably too great) Relic/Legendary Neck slot tokens that they can use together.

The Druid UR (and I think probably others also, but I haven't checked) has absolutely no usefulness if the Druid has the Relic or Legendary, so ironically (and I guess sadly) the Druid Class UR is more useful to the Wizard than the Druid, because the Wizard can use it but the Druid with the Relic or Legendary can't. Although I'm hoping that if the Druid isn't added to the Spellbook, the Wizard will be removed from the Shaman's Belt. Even so, it would be nice for the Druid (and maybe other classes) to also have a Class Specific UR of similar power to the Class Charms this year that he can use along with his Relic/Legendary.

Or, maybe in the revision phase the Druid Class UR can be revised to have powers that aren't duplicated by the Relic & Legendary and moved to the Charm slot, although that would require a token trade-in and not just tokendb.com revision.

1. Elf Wizard is arguably the best Polymorphere in the game with Focused Polymorph. It makes no sense to remove an expert Polymorpher from a Polymorph token.

2. The other easy fix to your frustration is just bake the URs from this year into the relics. I support your idea for us to do this so the Relics are not useful with the URs. Great idea. (Currently, they do that. The Wizard Relic says it has Jinn’s powers, so it shouldn’t stack.)

1) The reason it makes sense to remove the Wizard is because it is a Druid Class UR. It should be helping the Druid, not the Wizard. Especially when the UR has no benefit to a Druid with the Relic or Legendary, but does still benefit the Wizard. That's absolutely backwards. I think it either makes sense for Druids and Wizards to both have access to each other's class URs, or neither.

2) As you say, the Wizard UR is already baked in to the Relic, which it probably shouldn't be since the Cleric UR isn't baked into their Relic. The Druid UR adds absolutely nothing in addition to the Druid Relic, so baking it in would add nothing to the Relic. It would be nice for the Druid to have a UR that gave powers that are in addition to the Relic/Legendary, like the Cleric and Wizard do.

Again, with both of these points, I'm just asking for consistency, which seems like a very reasonable thing to ask. Either both the Wizards and Druids have access to the other's Class URs, or neither do. Either all the Class URs are baked into the Relics, or none of them are. Either all the Class URs have additional powers that can be equipped in addition to the Relics/Legendaries (or be baked in), or none of them do.

What Wizard Class UR? What Druid Class UR? They aren't Class URs. There are Class Relics and Class Transmutes. There are URs that often have powers that are represented in the Relics and that are in the recipe for the transmute. Some of those UR powers make sense to give to other classes, some do not. In some past cases some have been able to stack, some have not.

No one else can Sneak Attack, so it makes no sense to give other classes access to the UR that goes into the Rogue Relic. Everyone benefits from CON bonuses, so everyone got access to the UR that goes into the Ranger Relic, but the Rangers get a little extra. For the UR that went into the Druid Relic, it was Polymorphing, so it made sense to give it to the classes that Polymorph. For the UR currently going into the Wizard Relic, it is about Spellbooks thematically. Either we can stick with the D&D theme where only Wizards use Spellbooks, so only they get access to the UR, or you could argue that all casters in TD care about Scrolls (which just happen to be going into spellbooks), meaning opening it up to all casters, not just Druids.

As for the consistency you asked for, that ship already sailed. The lack of consistency didn't start with the new designs, but with ones that are already being used. Did you push for it in last year's designs? If not, why are you focused on it now? And what are you suggesting for all the past tokens that are already in players hands?

I can't speak for the other classes without checking, but the Rogue Relic had the UR ingredient baked in.

I was happy about that because I didn't have to buy that UR twice just to keep the power after I transmuted.

Mike Steele wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: After looking at the Class URs this year, perhaps the Druid and maybe other classes should get another Class UR this year or next. These URs are now designed to be pretty awesome on their own, in the very usable charm slot, and not duplicated in the Relic or Legendary so they stack with them. So the classes this year get a great Class UR and great (probably too great) Relic/Legendary Neck slot tokens that they can use together.

The Druid UR (and I think probably others also, but I haven't checked) has absolutely no usefulness if the Druid has the Relic or Legendary, so ironically (and I guess sadly) the Druid Class UR is more useful to the Wizard than the Druid, because the Wizard can use it but the Druid with the Relic or Legendary can't. Although I'm hoping that if the Druid isn't added to the Spellbook, the Wizard will be removed from the Shaman's Belt. Even so, it would be nice for the Druid (and maybe other classes) to also have a Class Specific UR of similar power to the Class Charms this year that he can use along with his Relic/Legendary.

Or, maybe in the revision phase the Druid Class UR can be revised to have powers that aren't duplicated by the Relic & Legendary and moved to the Charm slot, although that would require a token trade-in and not just tokendb.com revision.

1. Elf Wizard is arguably the best Polymorphere in the game with Focused Polymorph. It makes no sense to remove an expert Polymorpher from a Polymorph token.

2. The other easy fix to your frustration is just bake the URs from this year into the relics. I support your idea for us to do this so the Relics are not useful with the URs. Great idea. (Currently, they do that. The Wizard Relic says it has Jinn’s powers, so it shouldn’t stack.)

1) The reason it makes sense to remove the Wizard is because it is a Druid Class UR. It should be helping the Druid, not the Wizard. Especially when the UR has no benefit to a Druid with the Relic or Legendary, but does still benefit the Wizard. That's absolutely backwards. I think it either makes sense for Druids and Wizards to both have access to each other's class URs, or neither.

2) As you say, the Wizard UR is already baked in to the Relic, which it probably shouldn't be since the Cleric UR isn't baked into their Relic. The Druid UR adds absolutely nothing in addition to the Druid Relic, so baking it in would add nothing to the Relic. It would be nice for the Druid to have a UR that gave powers that are in addition to the Relic/Legendary, like the Cleric and Wizard do.

Again, with both of these points, I'm just asking for consistency, which seems like a very reasonable thing to ask. Either both the Wizards and Druids have access to the other's Class URs, or neither do. Either all the Class URs are baked into the Relics, or none of them are. Either all the Class URs have additional powers that can be equipped in addition to the Relics/Legendaries (or be baked in), or none of them do.

Druid UR is effectively baked into the relic and the relic is effectively baked into the legendary because all three are giving you polymorph access to the elemental. The relic basically says “Shaman’s belt, but buff the damage wheel and don’t sacrifice spells”. The legendary basically says “relic, but buff the damage wheel”.

Dergidan wrote: I can't speak for the other classes without checking, but the Rogue Relic had the UR ingredient baked in.

I was happy about that because I didn't have to buy that UR twice just to keep the power after I transmuted.

The Relics/Legendaries released in 2019 did not stack with the base UR used to create them.
The Relics/Legendaries released in 202 did stack with the base UR used to create them.
The current designs for this year's Relics/Legendaries seems to be mixed. Two stack, one is unclear.

Milambus (Jake) wrote:

Dergidan wrote: I can't speak for the other classes without checking, but the Rogue Relic had the UR ingredient baked in.

I was happy about that because I didn't have to buy that UR twice just to keep the power after I transmuted.

The Relics/Legendaries released in 2019 did not stack with the base UR used to create them.
The Relics/Legendaries released in 202 did stack with the base UR used to create them.
The current designs for this year's Relics/Legendaries seems to be mixed. Two stack, one is unclear.

Thanks for the added info. That tells me that there is no precedent one way or the other and each transmute path should be designed according to what suits the individual tokens best, and let’s not worry about who can stack and who can’t.

Mike Steele wrote: I'm just asking for consistency, which seems like a very reasonable thing to ask. Either both the Wizards and Druids have access to the other's Class URs, or neither do. Either all the Class URs are baked into the Relics, or none of them are. Either all the Class URs have additional powers that can be equipped in addition to the Relics/Legendaries (or be baked in), or none of them do.

When I was growing up, my grandmother used to give exactly the same Christmas gift to my sister and to our female cousin who was 1 year older than my sister. Literally identical copies of the same object. And while in a superficial way this was perfectly, incontrovertibly fair (and "consistent"), it really didn't work out well, because the two girls were different people with very different tastes and so they never even came close to being equally happy with their gift.

It makes sense to me that the desired end result is that every class has access to tokens which are great for that class, and ideally that the overall holistic cost/benefit is roughly comparable between classes (which is why I don't mind the Cleric legendary not having the UR baked in -- there's a lot of total benefit there and I'm okay with paying an extra Charm slot to unlock all of it). FWIW I also happen to agree with you that the current Druid class legendary is underwhelming, and I'm glad to hear that Jeff plans to take another look at the existing legendaries.

But the specific form of "consistency" you're asking for above (you can't share "mine" unless I can share "yours", for no better reason than because it's "mine") feels meaningless to me. I don't care about it for the same reason that I don't care whether all class legendaries contain the same number of occurrences of the letter E: as far as I'm concerned it's completely beside the point.