10 hours ago, Ceasarsalad101 said:

If you designed this card just to fool around that would be perfectly fine but if you seriously intend to use it, you need to nerf it. It may not look like a big deal that the Bear can use the hero's surges, but it is. Let me give examples of the Bear that MAY occur in Act I and WILL occur in Act II, because the heroes can buy any of these cards after the Interlude. The Bear can also quite easily roll two surges after the first two quests so the following examples are not uncommon.

Iron Battleaxe: +2 damage and pierce 1
Jeweled Mace: +4 damage
Dire Flail: +3 damage
Light Hammer: +2 damage and stun
Mace of Aver: +2 damage and stun

If the Heroes get the Ironbound Glaive in Act II the Bear get pierce 3 and +3 damage....

All of that is infinitely better that the 1 pierce of the wolf or the 1 extra damage of the Reanimate which relates to my earlier point: Why would you ever pick something else than the Wolf (that is the definition of 'overpowered' btw).
It would just be a shame if the OL would get frustrated midway a campaign because the Bear is wrecking everything and he can't kill it because you bought Stalker for 1XP. Or the other scenario, that the OL player would ban the Bear so you can only use it in co-op mode.

Haha Guess my work isn't done yet. How about if the Bear keeps the Surge ability but only rolls the Blue Attack Dice?

That would be a possibility, but means that the bears use is extremely dependent on the weapons of the beastmaster has equipped. I would drop the surge ability idea. It is too erratic to my taste. Also, never forget that the bear has twice as much HP compared to the wolf. Therefore, the bear should deal less damage or the wolf would become useless.

Plug in your dice in the calculator:

https://chaoschaoticus.github.io/Descent-Damage-Calculator/

and see what the outcome is. If you really want to stick to your idea (using the surge abilities of the beastmasters weapon), then test for the strongest combinations (+1 green dice for the bear, nasty weapon etc.). If the bear deals consistently more damage than the wolf, you have to nerf it.

4 hours ago, Chaoticus said:

That would be a possibility, but means that the bears use is extremely dependent on the weapons of the beastmaster has equipped. I would drop the surge ability idea. It is too erratic to my taste. Also, never forget that the bear has twice as much HP compared to the wolf. Therefore, the bear should deal less damage or the wolf would become useless.

Plug in your dice in the calculator:

https://chaoschaoticus.github.io/Descent-Damage-Calculator/

and see what the outcome is. If you really want to stick to your idea (using the surge abilities of the beastmasters weapon), then test for the strongest combinations (+1 green dice for the bear, nasty weapon etc.). If the bear deals consistently more damage than the wolf, you have to nerf it.

Thanks for the insight. 1 Blue, 1 Green, Uses Surge abilities of an equipped Melee weapon, has 4 Health, & Cannot be healed. I'm also looking at making Dragons as I bought the 4 Dragon Hatchlings on Reaperminis, they'd be each color based on Arctypes (So they can be targeted by Basic Deck 2 Overlord cards).

I really haven't paid much attention to this thread overall, but I do take issue with the following:

"If the bear deals consistently more damage than the wolf, you have to nerf it."

This same fallacious reasoning is prevalent throughout the X-Wing forum. Why does everything in a specific game have to be measured against something as a base line? Why is it necessarily bad if some item is never used, or wouldn't be taken if something new comes out that is stronger?

If you take the above reasoning into account, then every weapon in D2e should be equal to or weaker than the Fire Flask within the Search deck, because if it isn't, no one will ever use it. DUCY?

Especially when it comes to a home brewed solution, or a creation of some new figure, I don't think you should get so hung up on how strong or weak it is compared to some other similar figure. If you do so, everything will lose its creativity, and tend to result in something similar to a limit in Calculus ... it will all approach mediocrity ...

Just my two cents worth (current US value: $1.10)

1 hour ago, any2cards said:

I really haven't paid much attention to this thread overall, but I do take issue with the following:

"If the bear deals consistently more damage than the wolf, you have to nerf it."

This same fallacious reasoning is prevalent throughout the X-Wing forum. Why does everything in a specific game have to be measured against something as a base line? Why is it necessarily bad if some item is never used, or wouldn't be taken if something new comes out that is stronger?

If you take the above reasoning into account, then every weapon in D2e should be equal to or weaker than the Fire Flask within the Search deck, because if it isn't, no one will ever use it. DUCY?

Especially when it comes to a home brewed solution, or a creation of some new figure, I don't think you should get so hung up on how strong or weak it is compared to some other similar figure. If you do so, everything will lose its creativity, and tend to result in something similar to a limit in Calculus ... it will all approach mediocrity ...

Just my two cents worth (current US value: $1.10)

Because if you want to play the game with a serious level of competitiveness FFG can never make a warrior class again because it will never be picked because that Beastmaster is just too strong. In addition to that they also have to make better monster/ OL cards wich puts the usability of the other heroes under pressure.

Not everything has to be equally powerful, but everything must stay in a certain 'marge'.

Once again, that is not a problem if you are just playing for laughs but this phenomenon which is commonly referred to as 'power creep' has destroyed other games before. Like Magic the Gathering for example where a few years down the line only the latest expansions were competitively useful because the first cards that were released were outclassed by power creep

3 hours ago, Ceasarsalad101 said:

Once again, that is not a problem if you are just playing for laughs but this phenomenon which is commonly referred to as 'power creep' has destroyed other games before. Like Magic the Gathering for example where a few years down the line only the latest expansions were competitively useful because the first cards that were released were outclassed by power creep

I agree that power creep can be a serious issue. I started playing mtg with zendikar, and didn't know the power level was crazy high until it dropped back down at return to ravnica (9 expansion later, I think). It made playing the game feel watered down afterwards. The best way to prevent this with descent is to boost old classes or nerf overpowered ones. Same could be done for heroes too. I like where the power level is on the OL, with the exception of the Warlord 3xp and the magus 1xp 1 damage ability. Maybe this could be a new thread on it's own.

3 hours ago, Ceasarsalad101 said:

Because if you want to play the game with a serious level of competitiveness FFG can never make a warrior class again because it will never be picked because that Beastmaster is just too strong. In addition to that they also have to make better monster/ OL cards wich puts the usability of the other heroes under pressure.

By this logic, no one should ever pick any Mage other than Challara. After all, she has the Brightblaze familiar which is permitted to use any Magic weapon and abilities that Challara has equipped to make a Melee attack. So, you can say that Brightblaze is OP because it could be attacking with Blue-Red-Green-Green, where multiple surges provide +4 Hearts.

This is no different than the claims you are making concerning the Beastmaster and a potential Bear, and yet, what I have found over 1,000+ hours of playing D2e, is that Challara is not even in the top 3 of Mages typically taken.

Now, I cannot make any statements one way or the other concerning MtG and Power Creep, as I have never played the game. Many make fallacious claims of power creep across many games ... and many of them don't truly understand the meaning of that phrase, and the true impact to playing the game. I can certainly say this for a fact ... many on this forum have made multiple claims about certain heroes, familiars, and classes and their combinations as "over-powered". They have all been wrong.

8 hours ago, any2cards said:

By this logic, no one should ever pick any Mage other than Challara. After all, she has the Brightblaze familiar which is permitted to use any Magic weapon and abilities that Challara has equipped to make a Melee attack. So, you can say that Brightblaze is OP because it could be attacking with Blue-Red-Green-Green, where multiple surges provide +4 Hearts.

This is no different than the claims you are making concerning the Beastmaster and a potential Bear, and yet, what I have found over 1,000+ hours of playing D2e, is that Challara is not even in the top 3 of Mages typically taken.

Now, I cannot make any statements one way or the other concerning MtG and Power Creep, as I have never played the game. Many make fallacious claims of power creep across many games ... and many of them don't truly understand the meaning of that phrase, and the true impact to playing the game. I can certainly say this for a fact ... many on this forum have made multiple claims about certain heroes, familiars, and classes and their combinations as "over-powered". They have all been wrong.

1

But Challara is not OP, because Brightblaze can not be resummoned every turn. Also, Brightblaze takes the hero ability and heroic feat to function. And Brightblaze can't be improved by the class skills.

I guess we will politely agree to disagree concerning this matter.

4 hours ago, any2cards said:

I guess we will politely agree to disagree concerning this matter.

Retooled my Bear and Large Cat. I decided to give the Bear +2 and Stun for Surges, while the Large Cat rolls 1 Blue, 1 Yellow, and accesses Surges of equipped Melee weapons.

@ Any2cards:

I tend to agree with ceasarsalad101 on this matter. Although I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with strong and weak items/skills/etc, but LeeroyProkins intention was different. He intends to create alternative familiars for the Beastmaster that can be used alongside the wolf, he does not intend to replace the wolf. For this reason, I'd say it makes sense to try to create familiars that are roughly of equal strength. They (could) differ on speed, health, attack dice, defence dice and skills, but overall, should not beat the wolf in every single of these categories. The reason (from my perspective): the Beastmaster gets a little boost by being versatile (he may summon the familiar that fits his needs for each quest), hence a single familiar which is simply outstanding (right from the first quest) would tip the balance and lead to powercreep as ceasarsalad explained. Also, the other familiars would likely never be summoned.

However, the whole thing is different if you assume that the beastmaster has to choose his familiar and has to stick to it for the whole campaign. In this case a single familiar that is (very) strong is no problem since the players can choose the Beastmaster with his new familiar to boost a otherwise rather weak group of heroes. Also, one can draw one familiar at random to give the heroes a little challenge and add some variety.

48 minutes ago, Chaoticus said:

@ Any2cards:

I tend to agree with ceasarsalad101 on this matter. Although I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with strong and weak items/skills/etc, but LeeroyProkins intention was different. He intends to create alternative familiars for the Beastmaster that can be used alongside the wolf, he does not intend to replace the wolf. For this reason, I'd say it makes sense to try to create familiars that are roughly of equal strength. They (could) differ on speed, health, attack dice, defence dice and skills, but overall, should not beat the wolf in every single of these categories. The reason (from my perspective): the Beastmaster gets a little boost by being versatile (he may summon the familiar that fits his needs for each quest), hence a single familiar which is simply outstanding (right from the first quest) would tip the balance and lead to powercreep as ceasarsalad explained. Also, the other familiars would likely never be summoned.

However, the whole thing is different if you assume that the beastmaster has to choose his familiar and has to stick to it for the whole campaign. In this case a single familiar that is (very) strong is no problem since the players can choose the Beastmaster with his new familiar to boost a otherwise rather weak group of heroes. Also, one can draw one familiar at random to give the heroes a little challenge and add some variety.

I probably should of pointed out that I was assuming people would pick 1 Familiar for the entire Campaign I also like the random choosing aspect. I've also made some extra Familiars for the Necromancer Class (Some of them cost XP). I also removed the ability of rolling defense for the Bear.

I'm still trying to work on them.

Why are the attack dice positioned sideways?

1 hour ago, d20familiar said:

Why are the attack dice positioned sideways?

I may have used Attack Dice from weapon cards. As I pointed out earlier I'm really bad at photoshopping.

Tanky bear:
5 HP
1 Blue Die
Brown Armor

Heroes & allies adjacent to this figure gain Shadow. (maybe make the token LG [2 squares])
After an adjacent monster resolves an attack that targets this figure, that monster suffers 1 damage.

Still maybe slightly OP.

On March 2, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Archeantus7 said:

Tanky bear:
5 HP
1 Blue Die
Brown Armor

Heroes & allies adjacent to this figure gain Shadow. (maybe make the token LG [2 squares])
After an adjacent monster resolves an attack that targets this figure, that monster suffers 1 damage.

Still maybe slightly OP.

I made sure to untank the Bear by removing Defense.