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

Ho-Yi Fung wrote: Regarding #4:
As actual Elf/Wizard players have pointed out, (non-Elf) Wizards have more slide Spells than Elf Wizards today, so it's strange Elves become the slide Spell class while (non-Elf) Wizards become the no-slide Spell class.
I'd like to add another token of evidence: the 2022 Uncommon Crown of Evocation is exclusively available to (non-Elf) Wizards, and grant +1 to-hit on slide Spell.

If one Wizard is to be identified by having more slide Spells, it should be the one that both has more of them and has more supporting tokens around them.

I disagree with this honestly. If we're actually doing a class redesign previous tokens should only be in consideration for errata purposes. We need to focus on what would make the average player feel most like a wizard. And I personally think Elf Wizard sliding and Human Wizard taking a test is very thematic and helps a player feel like a sorcerer/wizard respectively.

Regarding #2, #3, #5: mental stats
Previously, these stats were unvalued as they did not meaningfully contribute to gameplay; and as such, there is not a lot of support here. While it's nice bonus to have these do something now, how does it mesh with the existing token pool? How does it mesh with the recent pool from, say, 2020, the year VTD started, to the end of 2024?

---

INT currently serves no purpose. Previously, a threshold was required for the original version of the Mad Evoker’s Charm .

Recent: completion Rare Bead of the Deeper Ones (+1); completion Rare Charm of Thoth (+1). (Non-Elf) Wizard only: Uncommon Crown of Evocation (+1).
Appreciation UR Goblet of Toasting (+1-2); multi-year Paragon Elder Orb of Dragonkind / Eldest Orb of Dragonkind (+2).

Older: Rare Hat of Intellect (+4); Relic Starhide Robe (+3); Legendary Aron’s Sunhide Robe (+5).

Total for new players: +2 INT (or +3 INT as (non-Elf) Wizard).
Total overall: +15 INT.

---

WIS currently contributes to Will saves, with no limit. Previously, a threshold was required for the original version of the Lenses of Divine Sight .

Recent: completion Rare Bead of the Deeper Ones (+1); completion Rare Charm of Aset (+1).
Appreciation UR Goblet of Toasting (+1-2); appreciation UR Mark of the 3rd Tenet (+3); multi-year Paragon Elder Orb of Dragonkind / Eldest Orb of Dragonkind (+2).

Older: Rare Charm of Enlightenment (+8!?)

Total for new players: +2 WIS.
Total overall: +17 WIS.

---

CHA currently grants an extra Figurine at a threshold of 16 CHA, but has no other bonuses for stacking higher.

Recent: completion Rare Bead of the Deeper Ones (+1); completion Rare Charm of Hathor (+1).
Appreciation UR Goblet of Toasting (+1-2); multi-year Paragon Elder Orb of Dragonkind / Eldest Orb of Dragonkind (+2).

Older: Rare Crown of Charisma (+4); Legendary Aron’s Sunhide Robe (+5).

Total for new players: +2 CHA.
Total overall: +15 CHA

---

Note that reaching maximums require making suboptimal choices, such as forgoing Treasure, Focus, or saves to equip a +1 stat Bead; or choosing to increase WIS instead of STR.

How do these numbers look, compared to numbers today? Elf/Wizards are most likely to be impacted, as they have the most slide Spells.

Impy wrote: I disagree with this honestly. If we're actually doing a class redesign previous tokens should only be in consideration for errata purposes. We need to focus on what would make the average player feel most like a wizard. And I personally think Elf Wizard sliding and Human Wizard taking a test is very thematic and helps a player feel like a sorcerer/wizard respectively.

I don't play either Wizard, so I have strong no opinion on which feels more thematic. However, I feel we should be very careful about issuing errata on Common, Uncommon, or Rare tokens.

Issuing errata puts the onus on the players to seek them out, or be surprised in coaching. Who gets the most use out of C-R tokens? Newer players, who are less likely to follow along with game design, especially if they haven't fully "bought in" to the game yet. It leaves a bit of a sour taste when a token you've collected (or even sought out) for use changes on you to become less useful, especially if it's in a way that is not captured by the text printed on the token.

At least with transmuted tokens, including Enhanced and Exalted, the player has likely put some effort into acquiring them, so are more likely to be following along with news. URs I feel a bit more ambivalent about: on one hand, it could be a lucky pull. On the other, it's a UR; you will probably become invested if you keep it.

Unless C-R token is absolutely broken for game balance, I feel errata should be issued very sparingly, if at all.

No, I'm most definitely not salty in the slightest about the recent ruling on Trinkets; why would you ask?

Ho-Yi Fung wrote:

Impy wrote: I disagree with this honestly. If we're actually doing a class redesign previous tokens should only be in consideration for errata purposes. We need to focus on what would make the average player feel most like a wizard. And I personally think Elf Wizard sliding and Human Wizard taking a test is very thematic and helps a player feel like a sorcerer/wizard respectively.

I don't play either Wizard, so I have strong no opinion on which feels more thematic. However, I feel we should be very careful about issuing errata on Common, Uncommon, or Rare tokens.

Issuing errata puts the onus on the players to seek them out, or be surprised in coaching. Who gets the most use out of C-R tokens? Newer players, who are less likely to follow along with game design, especially if they haven't fully "bought in" to the game yet. It leaves a bit of a sour taste when a token you've collected (or even sought out) for use changes on you to become less useful, especially if it's in a way that is not captured by the text printed on the token.

At least with transmuted tokens, including Enhanced and Exalted, the player has likely put some effort into acquiring them, so are more likely to be following along with news. URs I feel a bit more ambivalent about: on one hand, it could be a lucky pull. On the other, it's a UR; you will probably become invested if you keep it.

Unless C-R token is absolutely broken for game balance, I feel errata should be issued very sparingly, if at all.

No, I'm most definitely not salty in the slightest about the recent ruling on Trinkets; why would you ask?

I am not TPTB, but if we're gonna really do class redesign then this needs to be approached with the correct amount of effort an planning. Let me clear up some assumptions I had, when I referred to errata I also had an underlying assumption of token reprints.

We need to establish all rule changes, all errata, and a complete token list of all items effected. From there we need to establish a reprint list. Then at every convention for 2 years we need that list pasted next to the build sheets for players stating "The following tokens have been errata'd, please go to the transmutation counter to get it replaced and continue using them"

If TDHQ isn't willing to do that much effort, then I think TD may fall under the weight of all the complexities we're incurring from not actually addressing core design issues.

As a Rogue, the 2025 UR "Coin of Temptation" has felt like a bit of a hit, and got me wondering these last few days if a party made up of Bard/Monk/Ranger + another high DPS class might be better than including a Rogue.

#1) Dexterity feels like a welcome Rogue counterbalance (or put the #1) Dexterity on some token)

Concerning all - will class legendaries be update mased on these class card updates (e.g, different mage powers and archmage powers between elf wizards and human wizard)?. Elf wizard could use sharpen but human wizard can't can't.

Regarding #8: jack-of-all-trades
One way to let a jack-of-all-trades character shine is to introduce situations that are well suited for them. For example, in a single dungeon:
Have a combat against a Tinkerer with a flying contraption.
Have a combat against a Monk who easily catches any Missiles and Thrown weapons. His now!
Have a combat against a Sorcerer who Counterspells everything.
Have a combat against a Trickster with a personal vendetta against your Bard -- but will happily concentrate murder on another squishy if their current target of choice is unavailable.

However, the problem with flexibility is that it's invisible and feels useless when it's not needed, but shines too brightly when it is.
Without forcing the situation, the jack-of-all-trades is left wondering, "Why am I playing a Druid, when I could instead be playing a Double-Striking Fighter; or a Mad Wizard; or a healing-specialist Cleric?"
When it is forced, other players are left wondering, "Why can the Druid sling Spells at the Tinkerer, body both the Monk and Sorcerer with Polymorph, and keep our Bard alive (with the Cleric) against the Trickster, all at the same time? Our Barbarian and Dwarf might as well have just hurled verbal insults, for all the good they were doing; our Ranger has clearly never held a pointed stick before (and did we ever recover the Hammer our Rogue threw?); our Wizard is still moaning about their self-inflicted wounds; and our Paladin Guarded the wrong people!"

Maybe the solution is to design combats so that Druids can deal consistent, flexible, damage, but players who aren't dealing damage can noticeably assist in some other way.
Maybe the Tinkerer uses up fuel to swerve on every missed attack, and lands sooner to open up Melee again.
Maybe the Monk has fewer attacks based on the number of Missiles caught, as his hands are full.
Maybe the Sorcerer is noticeably discomforted as she rapidly burns through her Spell Slots, and surrenders once she's out.

While damage flexibility is nice, it usually ends up being unnoticeable or too noticeable, and its value drops in repeat runs once the player knows what dangers await them, and therefore how to adjust their builds to counter them.

Point #F(ighter)

Um, can the Fighters get some “this is what I’m thinking” direction too? Looks like sword and board melee fighters should convert to archers / Thor throwers so we don’t get retribution / auras / locked out of encounters. This would help the mental block of transitioning from class legendary to a bead expander.

If they’re just for beginners, let’s state that so we can all move on.

If we’re going to enhance, I have several suggestions.

I've seen several posts on this thread that mention that melee attacks is occasionally prevented from functioning, and either stating or implying that ranged attacks do not have this drawback.

It varies by module, but: melee; missile; and spell are all prevented or substantially limited by room design or monster capabilities with some degree of frequency.

It's true that retaliation damage only impacts melee.

But saying "why would anyone do melee with these changes, when melee gets shut down and ranged doesn't!" is not a perspective rooted in fact.

Ho-Yi Fung wrote: Regarding #8: jack-of-all-trades
One way to let a jack-of-all-trades character shine is to introduce situations that are well suited for them. For example, in a single dungeon:
Have a combat against a Tinkerer with a flying contraption.
Have a combat against a Monk who easily catches any Missiles and Thrown weapons. His now!
Have a combat against a Sorcerer who Counterspells everything.
Have a combat against a Trickster with a personal vendetta against your Bard -- but will happily concentrate murder on another squishy if their current target of choice is unavailable.

However, the problem with flexibility is that it's invisible and feels useless when it's not needed, but shines too brightly when it is.
Without forcing the situation, the jack-of-all-trades is left wondering, "Why am I playing a Druid, when I could instead be playing a Double-Striking Fighter; or a Mad Wizard; or a healing-specialist Cleric?"
When it is forced, other players are left wondering, "Why can the Druid sling Spells at the Tinkerer, body both the Monk and Sorcerer with Polymorph, and keep our Bard alive (with the Cleric) against the Trickster, all at the same time? Our Barbarian and Dwarf might as well have just hurled verbal insults, for all the good they were doing; our Ranger has clearly never held a pointed stick before (and did we ever recover the Hammer our Rogue threw?); our Wizard is still moaning about their self-inflicted wounds; and our Paladin Guarded the wrong people!"

Maybe the solution is to design combats so that Druids can deal consistent, flexible, damage, but players who aren't dealing damage can noticeably assist in some other way.
Maybe the Tinkerer uses up fuel to swerve on every missed attack, and lands sooner to open up Melee again.
Maybe the Monk has fewer attacks based on the number of Missiles caught, as his hands are full.
Maybe the Sorcerer is noticeably discomforted as she rapidly burns through her Spell Slots, and surrenders once she's out.

While damage flexibility is nice, it usually ends up being unnoticeable or too noticeable, and its value drops in repeat runs once the player knows what dangers await them, and therefore how to adjust their builds to counter them.

I agree with your general sentiment. If a Dungeon has something like a secret door that is obviously there so the Druid has something to do, that would seem pretty pointless. I hope it doesn't turn into a situation where the Druid is a Jack of All Trades but pretty mediocre at everything.

Matthew Hayward wrote: I've seen several posts on this thread that talk as if melee combat is occasionally prevented from functioning, and ranged does not have this problem.

It varies by module, but melee, missile, and spell are all prevented by room design or monster capabilities with some degree of frequency.

It's true that retaliation damage only impacts melee.

But saying "why would anyone do melee with these changes, when melee gets shut down unlike ranged!" is a perspective not rooted in fact.

I don't have a full history of TD, but since 2017 I can only recall maybe 2 dungeons where ranged attacks were affected were I think I can list 4 dungeons where melee was affected in the last year

So statistically most people are correct. And it does over value a stat and I think you're point while correct ends up muddying the waters at the current time. Because correct in one instance does not invalidate the point that others were trying to make in which melee is (more commonly) affected by room effects.

This does not need to be the case and can be dealt with in module design, but it still needs to be conisdered

In my experience, "the monster can only be attacked at range" rooms are at least twice as common as "the monster can only be attacked in melee" rooms. Maybe even three times more common. I'm not saying it never happens, but I can count the times the ranged ranger in my party has had to switch her attack mode on one hand, whereas I (Barbarian) would need a lot more fingers to do that tally.

Also, while there are times "the monster can only be attacked at range" can be fixed with a Potion of Leaping Attack, that isn't always the case, because Leaping Attack only works for flying or levitating monsters. Sometimes there are other ways to make the monster melee-accessible (use a round climbing up to the monster, ranged attackers do enough damage to bring it to the ground, etc.), but sometimes a melee-based attacker is out of luck.