swils

"Plenty of beasties to knock around, gold flying out from every which way, I could take a likin' to a place like this!"

"You're right. I had a moment of forgetfulness." Respite got changed way back to have the heal-after-battle and I forgot that it kept the sleep-outside dealy too.

"Because Docken told me I didn't need one due to my barbarian-ness."

"Althior, mind tossin' me a heal before ya rest? No reason to waste ether doin' it after." Fifteen!

"The one who doesn't take a nap after a well fought battle, that's who!" "I don't mind all that much, actually. I've got a feeling that if we're gonna be here for awhile, we'll see plenty more and if we just let Docken gorge himself early, he'll be too stuffed to lay claim to anything fun we get later on, heh heh."

D'oh, I entirely missed the 10 ether cost on the "Miss" roll. Point conceded.

Pie was an incredibly good sport with all those extra rounds and descriptions he had to write up, all for the sake of Thormy pilfering an extra 140 gold or so

Well, megablocks. I was almost finished typing when my laptop BSoD'ed on me. Itemized second attempt: 1) I've got no problem with E-BC's outclassing BC's. I'd just like to see more cost to it. I liked the Fields idea, though maybe lower the points cost or change the requirement (clear a camp in one of the expanded zones, perhaps). I believe it was Sandy who said that other EC's require specific quests, so why should these be different, and I agree with that sentiment. 2) Aside from scroll use, no other mage suffers from the ether-starvation that MK's face. Every other mage class expends at most 1 ether per class-action. At 1 ether per enemy hit, an Archmage would essentially get two free casts after each Shield and that's at a bare minimum. I think that's just too much staying power, especially if you consider a lucky mage (not that classes should necessarily be balanced around their potential after positive effects). Plus, you're looking at the equivalent of 6 to 36 gold generated(saved) per shield roll (or 4-24 if you reference Grand Tonic). 2a) It does seem like a stronger Mystic Knight shield roll due to the ether restoration. Maybe limit it to a single die, so it hits between 1 and 6 times and then generates 1 ether per hit? 3) I think it would be easier to just attach a "Weak to [Element]" in the corresponding color, but that's just me. I can see the argument for resistances, though, so maybe your way is better. 4) Names. Yeah, "[Adjective]+[basic Class Name]" can be an awkward set up. I was just suggesting in that format, though, as Sandy expressed interest in keeping the BC name in the EC's name.

From the Forest Ranger, " SPOT - The forest ranger marks a target. Next round, that target will take triple damage." , nice implementation of an expose weakness effect. I'm not sure how "Forest" fits in, other than the idea of a nimble scout navigating a dense forest with ease (and, of course, the naming of the rolls). "Recon Ranger" maybe? If you couldn't tell, I really like the idea of making the name describe the draw Ignore that, I realize that the idea behind the Shield roll is a hail of arrows coming from the treetops, leaving the victims confused as to where it came from. I approve! I feel like doubling the Archmage's current ether will leave them in a state of limitless ether, unless they suffer a series of really unfortunate rolls, or the QM has methods in place to strike at their ether supply. I'd tone it down a fair bit, maybe just restore 1 ether for every 2 enemies hit. As for the "Miss" roll, I'd suggest the ability to apply an elemental weakness of the AM's choice, rather than changing the type. It wouldn't quite make sense for a Bird to change from Flying to a Rock, after all, heh. I'd make the weakness last for 3 rounds, too. Other than that, I like the way you think, Pie. I'm torn on whether or not there should be more requirements than simply hitting 30 if the classes follow a similar direction as the one's you're tossing out, as they add some serious benefits to the abilities of the basic classes and would make basic classes near obsolete. On the other hand, Basic Classes would essentially be non-existent for players past 30 even if the "Expert-Basic Classes" only offered flat numbers advantages, as there would be no reason nor advantage to not just advance to the EC for your class.

"Oof, it's gettin hard to walk, what with all this gold weighin' me down!" Thormanil grins as he follows Docken to the Sanctuary.

To me, "Scout Ranger" would imply the ability to, quite literally, scout ahead, or perhaps be very agile. I would expect a "Scout Ranger" to have the ability to either see enemy stats ahead of time like some artifacts allow you to do, or to have some chance of evasion on rolls of 5 and 6. Or perhaps they'd apply an "Expose Weakness" type debuff to an enemy that allows their team to do amplified damage, perhaps because they scouted ahead and provided valuable intel, so to speak.

The names should reflect the advantage/strength being amplified. In the case of a rogue focused on stealing more gold, "Greedy Rogue" would be fitting (though it might not sound very intimidating). A Knight focused on taking less damage could be a "Stalwart Knight" while a Ranger might be a "Deadly Ranger" if the class' focus is high single target damage. Etc, etc.

"Anything to make it harder for the big pie in the sky, as they say! ...wait, who says that?" Thormanil will attack Mad Cow from the back row until he is at risk of being KO'ed by a damage roll, or is confused, after which he will return to his thumb twiddling.

"Aw, c'mon Docken. Lemme take a few swings at the cow. Might find some gold in one of its four stomachs!"

Actually, yeah, I like the looks of that. Well played, CMP, well played.

It's true, there's nothing wrong with the classics! However, if someone wanted to release a halberd that stunned its target and had a stealing effect attached as a boss drop... I certainly wouldn't argue against it

I knew it didn't in the arena, but in general, it doesn't? Weak.. my armor feels that much less useful

I wholeheartedly agree that you're gaining more gold per roll with a rogue's mug than anyone else's. Before the change, the Raider's shield was definitely the best option for generating gold in any ordinary situation and I think it was a good change; Raiders were just way too appealing. The chance to steal could be a good direction. I'd say keep Rogue v2's shield stealing as a guaranteed thing, and make it a 2/6 chance to steal on rolls of 2 or 3. That'd spread the flavor around without guaranteeing a huge income, I like it.

Well, darkness would be strong against all heroes before immunities. We might see some artifacts that offer protection vs one element in exchange for weakness to another.. It would be a factor for confused/hexed enemies.

Not at all. It has the potential to generate huge amounts of gold per hit, I recognize that. But to refer to the change to the mechanics of other stealing abilities as a nerf? Much to learn, the imp has. Perhaps increasing the damage on Rogue's shield in addition to adding damage-to-gold-steal to rolls 2-4 was a bit much. As the gold steal is the rogue's "thing", that addition alone might negate the need for any damage increases. Nerf... heh heh heh

Indeed, but that would be the draw. By staying a pure rogue, you give up all of the neat effects that the Rogue AC's offer: Assassination, AoE damage, Utility, etc. Gold generation is, arguably, the defining feature of the Rogue BC and this would emphasize that. If the idea is to offer upgraded basic classes for the sake of players who, for RP reasons, don't care to go to any of the EC's, then I think they should stay as close as possible to the original class. It lets everyone achieve that feeling of advancement at the Lv30 tier without having to push aside their RP.

Oh, duh, true enough. Thormanil twiddles his thumbs in the back row until he's needed.