TOPIC: Last Second Changes Made - Sorry! FINAL Contact Sheets

Matthew Hayward wrote:

archmage78 wrote: This might have already been answered but unfortunately with 17 pages of responses I can't find it. Is the old mad evokers charm going to be the same as the new one?

Nope - currently it says you may channel 1 hp for 1 point of damage on a damage spell.

Hopefully, you have the answer to your question from the previous responses. But reading your question also reminded me that people might also be asking what happens to the Old MEC. I don't think that's clarified yet, but I assume there will be some exchange program to get the revised version. In other words, I don't think we'll be able to use the previous version of MEC as it was originally written.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Adam Guay wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Guedoji wrote: Dropping this right here for consideration for next year.


Death Knight Mail
truedungeon.com/sets
+6 AC &
+1 STR
All except Monk & Wizards

Set Bonus: Deals 4 pts of damage to any monster that hits wearer in melee

I like it.

Death Cowl....
Head slot
+3 ranged damage
Wizards and rogues and rangers

This is honestly too weak given Cranston's

It'd need to be +4 or more likely +5 to compete.

I know but that seems like a relic level hat....maybe +4 at best....and I forgot possible druid on cowl too.

Dave wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

archmage78 wrote: This might have already been answered but unfortunately with 17 pages of responses I can't find it. Is the old mad evokers charm going to be the same as the new one?

Nope - currently it says you may channel 1 hp for 1 point of damage on a damage spell.

Hopefully, you have the answer to your question from the previous responses. But reading your question also reminded me that people might also be asking what happens to the Old MEC. I don't think that's clarified yet, but I assume there will be some exchange program to get the revised version. In other words, I don't think we'll be able to use the previous version of MEC as it was originally written.

Jeff's original post can be found here, truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=640&id=251675&start=0

this is the excerpt where Jeff mentions the plans for the MEC

"So long as the old MEC is an ingredient for the Relic then most folks won't mind, and those who won't be making the Relic -- they can send it in for a free swap. The main issue as I see it (I could be wrong) is that we have a crazy matrix of all these different spell bonuses and extra spells possible that is compounded by the poorly designed MEC token"

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Allen John wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: The problem you are going to see removing bonus from the second puck is asking Rangers and Monks to accept a loss of 30+ damage per turn.

That doesn't seem like something they will be willing to take lightly

At least with Rangers, I've come around to thinking the problem is that it's too easy to hit, not that the hits do too much damage. The swings are supposed to be erratic, but with the +hit numbers we can reach, it's possible to reach a situation where you almost have to try to miss.

I'd argue that the Ranger double-slide needs some sort of penalty to hit, but I have no idea what could possibly balance it across multiple difficulties.

Wade Schwendemann (Dr. Uid) wrote: Ok, serious question here.

How does discussing hypothetical damage outputs on classes where powers aren't defined and class cards are about to be re-done actually help anything?

Why does damage output of one class vs. another matter at all? If you want to be the best damage dealer there is, play Monk (or soon, Wizard). It is a team game. If I'm playing Paladin, I know that my guarding the wizards often means we don't get attacked, leaving them to channel HP into spells.

If we kill the monster in 1 or 2 rounds, we all participated. Are there bragging rights in some parties that we just don't have in mine? That seems kind of annoying honestly.

If someone is overgeared for their difficulty level and doesn't tone it down, that would take a LOT of the fun out of it for me.

I guess people (this is not aimed at any one person) just like the debate?

Anyhow /rant

Maybe it's different at Epic level, but in my experience I can't recall the last time any of us sliders even cared what the casters were casting, let alone how much damage they were doing. They could be off playing canasta with the DM for all we care.

“Apply STR/2 bonus to hit to each slider, apply STR bonus to damage to each slider”
Scales perfectly as tokens do.

Harder to calculate in the dungeon though.

The following suggestion changes nothing with the core rules, but just adjusts the monk. Perhaps it doesn’t go far enough, but it’s also less disruptive.

2nd ed DnD has a penalty for using 2 weapons. Maybe Adapt it to TD?

For monk, this is pretty easy to do without disrupting the new player experience.

2 weapon style - -2 to hit for sliding 2 pucks

Change base monk str to 9, or even 7.

Add rule: fists of steel. Monk gains +4 hit and +2 damage when using empty pucks.

Eventually it makes sense to swap from fists to weapons, but it would take a serious chunk out of monk base +hit (it’s -5 hit / -3 damage from where we are now)

This moves the BIS monk build in my phone from +23 hit to +18, which may have a real impact on damage due to misses.

The problem with Monks is DAMAGE caused by 2 attacks, not the likelyhood of hitting.

If the damage is not addressed nothing will change and every new +STR or +melee damage token will make the damage gap even wider.

Changing their chance to hit doesn't address the damage problem

I don't really follow here. If you don't hit you don't do damage. If you have to add +hit back to the build you are sacrificing damage.

Also TD can also address melee damage by making 19 and 20 harder to hit on the slider board. In VTD this does not work, but if VTD keeps being a thing I would expect them to move to a more sophisticated client that might allow for more than a 1d10 roll to see if you hit.

OrionW wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Allen John wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: The problem you are going to see removing bonus from the second puck is asking Rangers and Monks to accept a loss of 30+ damage per turn.

That doesn't seem like something they will be willing to take lightly

At least with Rangers, I've come around to thinking the problem is that it's too easy to hit, not that the hits do too much damage. The swings are supposed to be erratic, but with the +hit numbers we can reach, it's possible to reach a situation where you almost have to try to miss.

I'd argue that the Ranger double-slide needs some sort of penalty to hit, but I have no idea what could possibly balance it across multiple difficulties.

Wade Schwendemann (Dr. Uid) wrote: Ok, serious question here.

How does discussing hypothetical damage outputs on classes where powers aren't defined and class cards are about to be re-done actually help anything?

Why does damage output of one class vs. another matter at all? If you want to be the best damage dealer there is, play Monk (or soon, Wizard). It is a team game. If I'm playing Paladin, I know that my guarding the wizards often means we don't get attacked, leaving them to channel HP into spells.

If we kill the monster in 1 or 2 rounds, we all participated. Are there bragging rights in some parties that we just don't have in mine? That seems kind of annoying honestly.

If someone is overgeared for their difficulty level and doesn't tone it down, that would take a LOT of the fun out of it for me.

I guess people (this is not aimed at any one person) just like the debate?

Anyhow /rant

Maybe it's different at Epic level, but in my experience I can't recall the last time any of us sliders even cared what the casters were casting, let alone how much damage they were doing. They could be off playing canasta with the DM for all we care.

“Apply STR/2 bonus to hit to each slider, apply STR bonus to damage to each slider”
Scales perfectly as tokens do.

Harder to calculate in the dungeon though.

The following suggestion changes nothing with the core rules, but just adjusts the monk. Perhaps it doesn’t go far enough, but it’s also less disruptive.

2nd ed DnD has a penalty for using 2 weapons. Maybe Adapt it to TD?

For monk, this is pretty easy to do without disrupting the new player experience.

2 weapon style - -2 to hit for sliding 2 pucks

Change base monk str to 9, or even 7.

Add rule: fists of steel. Monk gains +4 hit and +2 damage when using empty pucks.

Eventually it makes sense to swap from fists to weapons, but it would take a serious chunk out of monk base +hit (it’s -5 hit / -3 damage from where we are now)

This moves the BIS monk build in my phone from +23 hit to +18, which may have a real impact on damage due to misses.

The problem with Monks is DAMAGE caused by 2 attacks, not the likelyhood of hitting.

If the damage is not addressed nothing will change and every new +STR or +melee damage token will make the damage gap even wider.

Changing their chance to hit doesn't address the damage problem

I don't really follow here. If you don't hit you don't do damage. If you have to add +hit back to the build you are sacrificing damage.

Also TD can also address melee damage by making 19 and 20 harder to hit on the slider board. In VTD this does not work, but if VTD keeps being a thing I would expect them to move to a more sophisticated client that might allow for more than a 1d10 roll to see if you hit.

4d6-4 sounds about right.

Mike, you can stop posting the giant wall of text damage analysis, we've stopped reading your posts 5 pages ago.

kurtreznor wrote: Mike, you can stop posting the giant wall of text damage analysis, we've stopped reading your posts 5 pages ago.

And all the scrolling is irritating my carpal tunnel!

OrionW wrote: I don't really follow here. If you don't hit you don't do damage. If you have to add +hit back to the build you are sacrificing damage.

Also TD can also address melee damage by making 19 and 20 harder to hit on the slider board. In VTD this does not work, but if VTD keeps being a thing I would expect them to move to a more sophisticated client that might allow for more than a 1d10 roll to see if you hit.

lowering to hit numbers while not addressing the core problem of 2 pucks dealing 2x damage does not resolve the core problem of dual puck classes. That being the damage divide between 1 puck and 2 puck classes caused by 2 puck classes having the ability to double down on all damage boosts that are created at a 2x level over single puck classes.

If you lower hit so that they hit less often you do lower damage today but it's a short term bandaid in a game where power creep is GUARANTEED on a year by year basis.

No matter what you do to fix it today any new tokens that are created will continue to fuel the damage gap between the classes and any penalties applied to hit today will be eventually eroded away with power creep until we are back at the same issue, just with a much larger gap between the classes.

The ONLY way to resolve the issue is to remove the design that allows for the gap to occur. Any other solutions are a stop gap measure at best.

kurtreznor wrote: Mike, you can stop posting the giant wall of text damage analysis, we've stopped reading your posts 5 pages ago.

You are welcome to ignore it. I was correcting the numbers to match what Edwin and Matthew and I came up with. It should be the last update.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

OrionW wrote: I don't really follow here. If you don't hit you don't do damage. If you have to add +hit back to the build you are sacrificing damage.

Also TD can also address melee damage by making 19 and 20 harder to hit on the slider board. In VTD this does not work, but if VTD keeps being a thing I would expect them to move to a more sophisticated client that might allow for more than a 1d10 roll to see if you hit.

lowering to hit numbers while not addressing the core problem of 2 pucks dealing 2x damage does not resolve the core problem of dual puck classes. That being the damage divide between 1 puck and 2 puck classes caused by 2 puck classes having the ability to double down on all damage boosts that are created at a 2x level over single puck classes.

If you lower hit so that they hit less often you do lower damage today but it's a short term bandaid in a game where power creep is GUARANTEED on a year by year basis.

No matter what you do to fix it today any new tokens that are created will continue to fuel the damage gap between the classes and any penalties applied to hit today will be eventually eroded away with power creep until we are back at the same issue, just with a much larger gap between the classes.

The ONLY way to resolve the issue is to remove the design that allows for the gap to occur. Any other solutions are a stop gap measure at best.

Are you suggesting that we remove the ability to slide 2 pucks all together?

To me, that is part of what makes Monk & Ranger unique. I was under the impression that they sacrifice the ability to wear certain gear to be able to bolster their combat stats, making it easier for the monster to hit them and forcing them to choose between CON & STR/DEX.

If we are going to look at ways to reduce the Monk & Ranger's damage, we should be reviewing every other class at the same time so we can organize the classes in the desired order of damage output. I think too much is missed or forgotten when we try and balance things over multiple years and I expect that it would only get more heated than the Legendary Class Tokens did this year.

Additionally for those who don't wish to remove the Second Puck, I am curious how should we be quantifying the "Challenge" of sliding a second puck? I have been playing since 2012 and I still sometimes have issues with getting the second monk puck slid gracefully before the first puck has stopped. I admit I miss some slides simply because I slide too hard and slide off the board or bounce of another token and hit the side, or even dont slide hard enough and dont make it to the part of the board that counts.

Daniel Mickey wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

OrionW wrote: I don't really follow here. If you don't hit you don't do damage. If you have to add +hit back to the build you are sacrificing damage.

Also TD can also address melee damage by making 19 and 20 harder to hit on the slider board. In VTD this does not work, but if VTD keeps being a thing I would expect them to move to a more sophisticated client that might allow for more than a 1d10 roll to see if you hit.

lowering to hit numbers while not addressing the core problem of 2 pucks dealing 2x damage does not resolve the core problem of dual puck classes. That being the damage divide between 1 puck and 2 puck classes caused by 2 puck classes having the ability to double down on all damage boosts that are created at a 2x level over single puck classes.

If you lower hit so that they hit less often you do lower damage today but it's a short term bandaid in a game where power creep is GUARANTEED on a year by year basis.

No matter what you do to fix it today any new tokens that are created will continue to fuel the damage gap between the classes and any penalties applied to hit today will be eventually eroded away with power creep until we are back at the same issue, just with a much larger gap between the classes.

The ONLY way to resolve the issue is to remove the design that allows for the gap to occur. Any other solutions are a stop gap measure at best.

Are you suggesting that we remove the ability to slide 2 pucks all together?

To me, that is part of what makes Monk & Ranger unique. I was under the impression that they sacrifice the ability to wear certain gear to be able to bolster their combat stats, making it easier for the monster to hit them and forcing them to choose between CON & STR/DEX.

If we are going to look at ways to reduce the Monk & Ranger's damage, we should be reviewing every other class at the same time so we can organize the classes in the desired order of damage output. I think too much is missed or forgotten when we try and balance things over multiple years and I expect that it would only get more heated than the Legendary Class Tokens did this year.

Additionally for those who don't wish to remove the Second Puck, I am curious how should we be quantifying the "Challenge" of sliding a second puck? I have been playing since 2012 and I still sometimes have issues with getting the second monk puck slid gracefully before the first puck has stopped. I admit I miss some slides simply because I slide too hard and slide off the board or bounce of another token and hit the side, or even dont slide hard enough and dont make it to the part of the board that counts.

2 pucks in knee hamd ....back to back slid at one time.

kurtreznor wrote: Mike, you can stop posting the giant wall of text damage analysis, we've stopped reading your posts 5 pages ago.

+1