TOPIC: Feedback Needed on Rules Changes for 2025 Combat/Classes

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Jeff, I think you're missing the biggest change needed. The Ranger and Monk need to be limited to bonus damage only being applied to one attack per turn, instead of potentially two. Allowing them to apply their bonus melee damage to both attacks is the most unbalancing thing in the game currently.

I would have vigorously agreed at some point, but this situation has been going on so long that now other classes have ways to also double-dip into their damage bonus on a round:

* Wizards get Quicken Mage power allowing 2x damage bonuses once per room
* Druids and Clerics get Ring of Quick Blessing which allows 2x damage bonuses
* Wizards, Druids, and Clerics all get 1/game X of Spell Storing effects, and it looks like will be getting access to it 1/room from Cabal set before too much longer
* Fighters get Double Strike (which is maybe 1 room per dungeon-ish) via their legendary
* Barbarians get Fury 1 or 2 per game
* Rogues get 3x crits on 17-20 2/room with the right tokens in ranged builds, soon to be expanded to 3x crits on 19-20 2/room with the right tokens in melee builds

To sum up: I think the real problem of melee Rangers and melee/thrown Monks having access to their damage bonus 2x per round every round has metastasized to other classes, and is now a generic problem across several classes.

"Fixing" rangers and monks now by simply taking away their damage bonus on the second puck might leave them too far behind all the classes above at this point.

I can't think of an elegant solution here - other than perhaps a pretty widespread rooting out of double damage dealing game wide:

* Ranger and Monk Class Rule - damage bonus applies only to highest hit number slid

* Anything that allows casting a spell that gets a damage modifier as a free or instant action can't be used to cast a damage spell
(e.g. RIng of Quick Blessing, Cleric Relic / Legendary, Cabal Set, Quicken Mage Power, X of Spell Storing, ...)

* Overall crit rule - Only slid 20's can triple crit, regardless of crit range of the attack

I think it's OK to leave Barbarian Fury and Rogue Sneak Attack Crit on 17+ alone in this regime given that they are less frequent than 1/room and/or require a hard slide.

Put a rule in place that only one damage bonus can be applied per character per turn. If a Monk or Ranger hit twice, only one hit gets a damage bonus. If a Druid hits in melee and with a spell, only one gets a damage bonus. If an attack or spell hits multiple targets, the damage bonus is a pool spread over the targets instead of applied in full to each. If two damage spells are cast in a turn, only one gets a damage bonus. Etc, etc.

Well, they do say that compromise is when nobody is happy, so good job.

This actually sounds like a very reasonable rule that could future proof against multiple attacks issues. My only question is why have some of these scenarios gotten so much attention while others have not?

Dave wrote: I do like that this change gives some importance to intelligence, but it's still inferior to strength (melee to hit and damage), constitution (hp and fort saves), dexterity (ranged to hit, AC and reflex saves), wisdom (will saves) and charisma (+1 figurine). One suggestion would be break tomes out into a separate slot and allow extra tomes at certain levels of intelligence. Another suggestion would allow will saves at the higher of wisdom or intelligence.

If you want to do the better-of-two thing, I would expect:

Reflex (and AC?) to be better of DEX or INT
Fort (and HP per level?) to be better of CON or STR
Will (and figurine?...and maybe spirit pets?) to be better of CHA or WIS

With different classes using the different stats for attacks, I like this except for CON gets the short end of the stick now since most classes can more easily boost STR even if they don't need it for their attacks...but maybe that is fine.

Hi Jeff,

I'm not sure what number to attach this comment to, so I'll leave it generic. Overall I like where you are going with every class/role having a defined primary stat. This should have the added benefit to help focus the feedback on token design.

I think there's a good opportunity with this to help the community understand your intention for each class and how they slot into a team. For example, we've heard intention on Wizards (high damage glass cannons with an upcoming slide risk/reward for Elf Wizards) and Druids (jack of all trades), but where do the other classes roles' fit with regards to the following items:

-Missile(Ranged) Damage
-Spell Damage
-Melee Damage
-Survivability (AC/HP/Saves/Self Heal)
-Combat utility (Team buffs, heal others)
-Dungeon utility

In my opinion, these are the axes upon which each class should find their definition and their stats/abilities/tokens. Should reflect that. Maybe it's too obvious and that's why it hasn't been mentioned before, but so often we see so much (sometimes heated) discussion on why a class deserves/doesn't deserve a given token or stat bonus because the community as a whole does not have a guiding principle so we fill in this principle with our own assumptions/biases.

As an example, I'll include where I think the ranger class lies on this scale and we'll see how many people respond to that:

-Missile(Ranged) Damage: 9/10 (Benrow's Monks currently do more damage because of the double bonus and requires a non-STR dedicated build)
-Spell Damage: 2/10 (Only a 2 because ranged rangers incidentally get a lot of spell damage but we have nothing to use it on)
-Melee Damage: 9/10 (double bonus applies here as well)
-Survivability (AC/HP/Saves/Self Heal): 5/10 melee, 7/10 ranged (Fairly average for melee-based, no access to heavy armor. Ranged builds get an extra point for incidental REF saves and AC from DEX, and an extra point due to combat encounters negatively impacting melee more often)
-Combat utility (Team buffs, heal others): 3/10 (5th level gets one heal spell that I've never cast in combat due to need for damage as main action in combat, but recognize the potential to do so. I would bump up the dungeon utility score if I were considering the heal spell there instead. I've only ever cast Barkskin when a prep round is available for an encounter)
-Dungeon utility: 1/10 (No relevant abilities here; upcoming UR coin to grant Rogue test)

I also wanted to list this potential suggestion separately:

I'm seeing feedback regarding the place for Paladins to shine under the proposed system. Perhaps Paladins could be another class that shifts to a "jack of all trades" model except their flexibility would lie purely on the Melee Damage, Healing, and Combat Utility axes? IE they get the flexibility (and accompanying stats) to function as both a 2nd tier healer and melee damage dealer with perhaps some options for abilities that trigger on hit? When we have a Paladin on our team that person typically wields the Sundering Cestus to enable easier hits for everyone, as an example.

I have no skin in this game as I've never played Paladin, so I'll gladly defer to others with more expertise here, but the class seems to be in a strange spot where they are the 3rd best at healing (behind Clerics and Druids with zero actual heal spells) and perhaps the weakest melee class that's melee-focused (no sneak attack, no double token slide, no Rage, etc)

I like where a lot of this is going. From what I'm reading here is that there are a few things the community as a whole is seeking.

1) Class specialization and/or identity.
2) Stat utilization or specification.
3) Ease of adoption for New Players.
4) Ease of adaptation for Veteran Players & DMs.
5) Ease of implementation through a Class Card Reprint.


As someone comparatively new to true dungeon veterancy, my recommendation is to maintain the status quo for what Strength, Dexterity and Constitution offer for and utility. This allows for us to satisfy conditions 2, 3, & 4, and is less work overall for a rework.

That leaves room for specificity & growth for Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma to be adjusted.

Focus currently exists as a catch all for spell damage, healing output, and polymorph damage. Leaving this to Wisdom satisfies conditions 2, 3, & 4.

In terms of gameplay and roleplay, the most satisfying experience comes with interacting with rooms and NPCs. So on paper, Intelligence and Charisma can be attributed for different things, since we're using our natural charisma and observational intelligence to solve puzzles.

Currently the Charisma state functionally operates as a slot expander for figurines. Totally fine imo. This satisfies conditions 2, 3, & 4.

The most underleveraged stat in TD is Intelligence. This is where I see the most room for growth and class specification. In terms of gameplay, as previously stated, we as players are already using our observational intelligence to resolve puzzles. So what does that mean for our characters? I think this is where we can focus our energy for stat adjustments.

If Intelligence becomes the class specialization stat, then we can keep our eyes on how Intelligence boosts the class at all.

For example:
If we want Clerics to outperform Druids on healing, then Cleric as a class uses its intelligence modifier to increase its healing output. Flavor wise this is a connection to the divine.
If we want Rangers to outperform martial classes on to-hit bonuses via accuracy, then Intelligence modifier to increase its to-hit output. Flavor wise this is a connection to hitting far reaching targets
If we want Elf wizard to outperform Wizard on high damage, then the Intelligence modifier to increase its critical range. Flavor wise this is a different vector for multiplanar energy shifts.
If we want Bard casting or Bardsong to be boosted etc...
If we want Monk AC to act differently, use Intelligence modifier to increase AC.

I believe with that, we can design things in such a way that we satisfy points 1-5. And it allows us to think more about how each class would leverage their intelligence and scale it appropriately. As is printed on a relic level ruling "(increased Intelligence does not have a direct in-game benefit, but some tokens have a minimum Intelligence requirement which this token could help fulfill)" I think that's where we have room for play without massive reprints or rethinks.

tl;dr: Keep all other stats as they are, leverage intelligence to be class specific.

Points 1-3: I can see the want to make Wis and Int relevant, and doing that will just make it seem even more silly if you don't make dex work the same way.

Point 4: I am a little worried about having to get a whole new set of tokens for a class I've been playing, but I would like to hear more about this one. I can't really say if I hate it with just this.

Point 5: See points 1-3, but Cha and Bards. I am a little concerned about confusing people with a second table just for bardsong, though.

Point 7: Paladins should probably be based off of Cha. Only the actual spells were ever Wis based. Everything else is Cha.

Ref #8.
Ok, I get what you are trying to do with druid being jack-of-all-trades, but I see a couple issues to consider...

First, without changing older tokens, you will now have two classes of druid: trinket druids (with only one good polymorph combat/game) and Iktomis/potion druids with dedicated polymorph builds.
Are you okay with this? Those of us with dedicated polymorph builds aren't going to give that up unless it stops working; we polymorph every combat, then if melee is not allowed we cast spells. If you want that to change for current druids, that requires a change to how all polymorph works (including old tokens).

Second, the big hurdle in making this not awful in every way is that the druid needs to actually be effective in all the types of abilities, while being less so than the classes that are best. Given the nature of TD, this is very difficult to achieve. Trying to balance the different types of attack actually results in being completely ineffective in some forms of combat. Mainly, in melee, you have to dedicate many slots to boost your to-hit just to be able to do ANY damage. If polymorph/melee can't be your primary attack, you won't dedicate much to that ability, and hence you won't be able to deal any damage. But it does work going the other way; you can make polymorph your primary attack, and your secondary of casting spells will always do something, even if not as good as someone who is a dedicated spell caster. I see some people mentioning top druid polymorph builds having really good spell damage, and I suspect that is the result of legendary focus items...? I don't know, because my wife's polymorph druid definitely has lower spell efficacy because of all the polymorph and melee tokens...but does still have some bonus because of the focus items.

In order to pull off the jack of all trades, maybe focus should add to polymorph to-hit instead of damage? Then maybe you don't need to limit polymorph to 1 combat/game. The spell focus druids will still be able to hit when spells aren't an option (and do minimal damage); and druids who want to polymorph will either be doing less damage or give up other bonuses to boost melee damage. This would be a big change for polymorph druids and greatly reduce damage with current builds, but I think a lot of that (but not all) can be made up by using different tokens if the druid wants more poly damage; the result is reducing net damage bonus across both types of attacks without zeroing either and letting the player decide how much of their bonus goes to which type of attack...which I think is the goal.

Another idea to really push players into not going all-in on a single stat/combat mode: make sure that each combat style is not allowed in one combat EVERY dungeon. Most players won't weaken their primary attack if there is only a small chance that they might have to do something else. But if it is guaranteed that in every dungeon there WILL be a combat that you can't use your primary attack, we will probably see players start adjusting their builds.

The important level of the game to balance is base card level, aka no meaningful tokens. This is the level most people are introduced at. It's also a level we can all choose to play.

That classes and numbers in general are out of whack when have $1,000s of tokens is not a base rule issue but a token issue.

I don't find monk and ranger offensive at sealed pack level. I find fighter having a to hit bonus a good thing. Paladin LoH is amazing at this level. The classes play much more to their designated roles.

Sure, I'd change some attributes, like increase STR for cleric, paladin, rogue. Mess around with hit points so that the gaps between barbarian and vulture food weren't so high. Make Sneak Attack more likely to hit. Try to come up with a better way for bardsong to work so that no instrument bards aren't afflicted with bardsong's OPness. And, yes, try to figure out a way to not have monk/ranger get all of the number bonuses to two attacks every round as it does get out of hand, more so in my mind to monk than ranger as monk has a slew of defensive abilities other classes don't get. But, the reason to redo class cards isn't to fix what legendaries can do. Int/Wis/Cha have some issues with relevance, sure, and maybe some of the points after #1 aren't too much.

But, the other thing beyond balance is also keeping the game grokable for new players. The more class specific modifiers, the more confusing the game. This is also why I'm not enthused by many ideas to change classes from players. The core of the game is a basic level of D&D class differentiation.

GRMBRN wrote: Point 4: I am a little worried about having to get a whole new set of tokens for a class I've been playing, but I would like to hear more about this one. I can't really say if I hate it with just this.

In agreement here. I usually play Elf Wizard. I tried to get Mystic Staves to a place where they would be useful but there simply are not enough tokens granting INT buffs compared to DEX. That DEX also boosts AC notwithstanding, There are really only 4 tokens available to boost INT, the hard to get Bead of Deeper Ones, the new Charm of Thoth, and the Hat of Intellect and Crown of Evocation which share a slot. There are some others out of reach to most players.
The cloak helps with staves only, but still doesn't match a DEX boost.
There will need to be quite a few new INT boosting tokens to get the character to be able to play Hardcore or above.

Ian Lee wrote: But, the other thing beyond balance is also keeping the game grokable for new players. The more class specific modifiers, the more confusing the game.

+1 to this. If class card changes reduce TD's appeal to new folks, it's just a matter of time until Game Over. So while I love my shiny tokens, I humbly but strongly recommend that any class card and rule changes prioritize play fun issues at the Normal/Hardcore level first.

About number four:

Full disclosure, I only play elf wizard and love it for four main reasons: fireball, almost no slide spells, alertness, and I love elves, always have.

I don’t like the change to be primarily slides for elf. I would argue that elves, as more inherently magical, would not require the study/practice (ie…slides) that non-magical humans would.

My idea for wizards would be more to adjust both slightly- sort out the utility spells between the two more evenly, and have more slides on human and more skill checks on elf. Minor tweaks to both classes instead of a full overhaul on one.

Rachel Stemm wrote: About number four:
:
I don’t like the change to be primarily slides for elf. I would argue that elves, as more inherently magical, would not require the study/practice (ie…slides) that non-magical humans would.

My idea for wizards would be more to adjust both slightly- sort out the utility spells between the two more evenly, and have more slides on human and more skill checks on elf. Minor tweaks to both classes instead of a full overhaul on one.

Makes sense. Good point. +1.