TOPIC: Transmuted 2020 Token Images - Final-ish

MasterED wrote:

Aothos wrote: Point of Order:

With the Cloak of the Elm having a +4 Con, shouldn't the Pendant of the Yew be +4 Con also, making Ralson's Pendant of the Elder Yew +5 Con.

the UR should be +3 CON.

There is only the Beserker Cloak UC which is +2 CON, -2 AC. That would put the Rare at the +2 CON level (no penalty), so a UR would be +3 CON.

Do not adjust the Relic/Legendary up - put the UR Cloak back down to +3 CON.

Ed

The UR was bumped up because it sucks.

Even at +4 con, lets compare to +2 saves cloak...
You lose 2 ref and 2 will, but gain 10hp. Which is close. That is a judgement call, i wouldnt say either is definitely better.

Oh, hold on. This assumes you are level 5 or you lose 2hp...and a ranger or you lose 1ac...and i am comparing to a RARE! I want exactly 1, strictly to transmute, and i hope i never see another.

The real problem is that we are designing the HA for 2 different groups
1. New Paladin players who can get "2 legendaries for one" by making the HA and get the class specific powers as well as a legendary weapon to attack with, so we have to make it weak enough that it isnt unbalanced.
2. Existing relic/legendary Paladins, who want a legendary that is at least close to as good as the ones of other classes in the current year, and one that replaces Welfor's or Thor's.

I don't know how we reconcile this. I am definitely in favor of giving more defensive powers to the Paladin legendary. If guard can't be expanded, maybe add another use of Grace?

My previous statement stands of course, I'm making it. I would like more defense on it.

MasterED wrote:

Endgame wrote: Lenses of the Owl: Is currently a reprint of the Lenses of Accuracy. Can this be be name changed to Lenses of Accuracy?

Agreed - and make the recipe similar but current.

Endgame wrote: Ring of Stamina:
Still not a fan of only +2 con. If there is no desire to have a +fort save on this, can it go back to +3 con?

Generally a 4 start is a bit weaker than a UR so if you make it +3 CON it will be similar to the Cloak (which should be +3 as well) without a modifier but in the Ring slot. So it probably needs a small negative like -1 Reflex save.

Ed

For 4* compare with blessed tempest gloves (compared to relic ring of focus) Enchanters whetstone (no real comparison... Maybe rod segment 5), and belt of ogre mage power.

Note, my preferred ring of stamina is a combination of Fort and con, such as +5 fort and +1 con, but since I've suggested it multiple times without luck, I don't the TPTB agree with a combo token

Endgame wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

MasterED wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: That has some stacking risk since the Barbarian doesn't have to "move" to the Relic, he can outfit both the Relic and UR. That is an advantage of some of the classes that's been overlooked, how the UR and Relic/Legendary are additive. The Druid, for example, gets zero benefit from outfitting the UR in addition to the Relic/Legendary.

Mike is bringing up a good point. At this time there are only Rare (+2) or lower DMG bonus items in the Wrist slot. By making this item we give a +4 DMG bonus to 2H Barb/Fighters/Paladin (the common 2Hers) and then allow stacking with a Relic or Legendary. This really means the Barbarian net bump for the Relic/Legendary with the UR would be +10/+14. We also have to consider this item when we do the Fighter's legendary next year.

This should probably be in the Hands slot where the competing items are:

Gloves of the Brute (+5 STR, -2 DEX)
Mithral Gauntlets (+4 STR)
Gauntlets of Linked Fury (+5 DMG when using two handed melee weapons)

+6 is better than +5 and the Barbarian wouldn't get the -2 AC penalty so it is clearly better for them.

Ed

Ed, I agree.

I Agree.

I also suggested moving this to the gloves spot in 4 different revisions and it didn't move, so I gave up.

As a different perspective, as a melee I like the bracers to be able to challenge the wrist slot expanders and bracers of guided strike. At first glance it seems to promote build diversity.

If it were to fall into the hands slot I just don't see it competing over gloves of the brute / gloves linked fury. Which seems to possibly be peoples point?

MasterED wrote:

Endgame wrote: Ring of Stamina:
Still not a fan of only +2 con. If there is no desire to have a +fort save on this, can it go back to +3 con?

Generally a 4 start is a bit weaker than a UR so if you make it +3 CON it will be similar to the Cloak (which should be +3 as well) without a modifier but in the Ring slot. So it probably needs a small negative like -1 Reflex save.
Ed

Forget "weaker than a UR", I'm not sure that it's even better than the rare that transmutes into it. Is +4 hit points really that much better than +3 to Fort saves? Even if it is, is it better enough to entice anyone to spend ~$40?

Justice wrote: As a different perspective, as a melee I like the bracers to be able to challenge the wrist slot expanders and bracers of guided strike. At first glance it seems to promote build diversity.

If it were to fall into the hands slot I just don't see it competing over gloves of the brute / gloves linked fury. Which seems to possibly be peoples point?

I agree in the bracers slot it can add diversity and choice.

In the hands slot it would be strictly better than gauntlets of linked fury for barbarians, and +1 damage for -2 AC for other 2H melee types.

Can we revert the frequency restriction of range FoB on the monk relic or add the other bonuses from Ring of the Drake (+2 ranged damage and returning shurikens) to the monk relic?

I don't think there's enough room on the relic to add text for the latter but the relic feels like it is greatly reduced in this version.

When the relic allowed for FoB against ranged targets it was easy to dismiss the loss of +2 range damage and the returning shurikens.

Now that the relic only allows using FoB against ranged 1/room it is very striking to me that the bonuses from the ring are missing from the relic. The ring almost feels more powerful than the relic to me without even considering casters are getting +2 spell damage (why is spell damage on this ring again?).

The other ingredient URs have had their effects conferred to the relics and similarly allow stacking with them.

I have full intentions of making the legendary so this is mostly out of concern for other monks aiming for the relic.

The legendary looks great and could still lose 1 damage.

Seeing the frequency of the ranged FoB nerfed on the relic makes me worried about seeing it nerfed on the legendary at the last moment. I strongly suggest not doing that. If it would get nerfed on the legendary I would honestly suggest removing it entirely and having the legendary grant no less than 5 uses of psychic powers.

Fiddy wrote:

Rob F wrote:

PalaDan wrote: Still not understanding how the AoG/Guard on HA combo is being considered so unbalancing. Neither does the “free neck slot” argument.

Fighters will be able to equip their legendary with any weapon they choose, including Welfor’s.
Barbarians will be able to equip their legendary with any weapon they choose, including the deathcleaver.
Monks -> neck + Asher’s
Rangers -> neck + Io’s

They’re all getting bumps to their ability to attack. Extra guard bumps a paladin’s ability to defend.

Your correct that the classes you mentioned all will get to equip their Legendary weapon and their Legendary neck slot. The difference though is in the powers of the Legendary weapons beyond just the damage. Welfor's and Cleaver have none. Asher's two points of poison which most are immune to, and Io's extra crit range but a big stat to get there. With the HA you could make a case that just the powers of the sword alone could be combined into a powerful Token. And these powers are now being put on a weapon which takes up no slot. What Token could be made from the powers of the other Legendary weapons? +2 poison damage, so maybe a Rare at best. And 18-20 crit but must have 20 Dex. That's how I see there being a difference in the weapons. The HA as is will become the most powerful weapon ever created.

You're absolutely right, but part of issue hidden there is that Welfor's (at least) is weaker than it should be (given the classes it is restricted to and the weapons available with fewer restrictions). We didn't reign in Asher's or Thor's enough when they were made. Welfor's really ought to be bumped up (via some TokenDB errata) or replaced with a newer Legendary. But we're unlikely to get a new Legendary weapon for Fighters and their kin for several years, since next year the Fighters get their necklace.

I think it is somewhat appropriate for the HA to be the current most powerful weapon, at least until there is one that Fighters can use.

I wouldn't want to see a Paladin weapon more powerful than ones Fighters and Barbarians can use, since fighting is pretty much all those classes do, while the Paladin has other abilities. Like you said, it will likely be years before the Fighters get another Legendary weapon. Since this sword has so many other abilities, it's actual damage should be below the other Legendary weapons that don't have all the bonus abilities.

Mike Steele wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Rob F wrote:

PalaDan wrote: Still not understanding how the AoG/Guard on HA combo is being considered so unbalancing. Neither does the “free neck slot” argument.

Fighters will be able to equip their legendary with any weapon they choose, including Welfor’s.
Barbarians will be able to equip their legendary with any weapon they choose, including the deathcleaver.
Monks -> neck + Asher’s
Rangers -> neck + Io’s

They’re all getting bumps to their ability to attack. Extra guard bumps a paladin’s ability to defend.

Your correct that the classes you mentioned all will get to equip their Legendary weapon and their Legendary neck slot. The difference though is in the powers of the Legendary weapons beyond just the damage. Welfor's and Cleaver have none. Asher's two points of poison which most are immune to, and Io's extra crit range but a big stat to get there. With the HA you could make a case that just the powers of the sword alone could be combined into a powerful Token. And these powers are now being put on a weapon which takes up no slot. What Token could be made from the powers of the other Legendary weapons? +2 poison damage, so maybe a Rare at best. And 18-20 crit but must have 20 Dex. That's how I see there being a difference in the weapons. The HA as is will become the most powerful weapon ever created.

You're absolutely right, but part of issue hidden there is that Welfor's (at least) is weaker than it should be (given the classes it is restricted to and the weapons available with fewer restrictions). We didn't reign in Asher's or Thor's enough when they were made. Welfor's really ought to be bumped up (via some TokenDB errata) or replaced with a newer Legendary. But we're unlikely to get a new Legendary weapon for Fighters and their kin for several years, since next year the Fighters get their necklace.

I think it is somewhat appropriate for the HA to be the current most powerful weapon, at least until there is one that Fighters can use.

I wouldn't want to see a Paladin weapon more powerful than ones Fighters and Barbarians can use, since fighting is pretty much all those classes do, while the Paladin has other abilities. Like you said, it will likely be years before the Fighters get another Legendary weapon. Since this sword has so many other abilities, it's actual damage should be below the other Legendary weapons that don't have all the bonus abilities.

Again, we're comparing the HA to other legendary weapons in a vacuum. Yes, the HA will compound with AoG, but so will the older legendary weapons with the legendary neck slots:
Ranger with Io’s:
• 10-20 damage wheel
• Criticals on 18-20
• +4 Con
• +9 to damage with ranged attacks,
• 2 scrolls per game
• Animal friend
Barbarian with Averon’s:
• 8-21 damage wheel
• +10 to damage
• +1 Rage
• Fury 2/game
Monk with 1 Asher’s:
• 8-13 damage wheel (includes 2 poison damage)
• +6 FoB sacred damage
• Stun on 18-20
• FoB on ranged attacks
• T5 psy power
• +1 psy power
Bard with Wydseth’s – can equip Thor’s:
• 6-11 damage wheel
• Crit on 19-20
• Both melee and ranged w/returning
• +4 hit/damage for the entire party
• May perform any standard action while using bardsong
Druid with Drue’s:
• 6-13 or 6-18 damage wheel
• +5 to spells, healing and polymorph damage
• Polymorph into elemental as a free action (w/spells)
o DR against a chosen energy type
Paladin with Ava’s and the “free neck slot”:
• 6-14 damage wheel
• “20” kills Evil Outsider
• Grace 2/game
• +15 LoH
• +1 Guard 1/game
• Either +1 guard (AoG) or +3 Str/+4 Con

And we don't even know what the fighter/dwarf fighter necks will do yet.

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Justice wrote: As a different perspective, as a melee I like the bracers to be able to challenge the wrist slot expanders and bracers of guided strike. At first glance it seems to promote build diversity.

If it were to fall into the hands slot I just don't see it competing over gloves of the brute / gloves linked fury. Which seems to possibly be peoples point?

I agree in the bracers slot it can add diversity and choice.

In the hands slot it would be strictly better than gauntlets of linked fury for barbarians, and +1 damage for -2 AC for other 2H melee types.

Disagree completely. In the bracers slot, long term it will always be better to go with the slot expander.

Currently using charm bracelets you can work yourself to +5 2H damage. IMO, as soon as we hit the next relic charm the Barb bracers go out the window for anyone using more than a handful of URs.

While Ioun bracers don't currently propose a threat to raw damage of the bracers, the versatility would still lead me to recommend ioun bracers for long term usage over the +6 damage bracers.

Endgame wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Justice wrote: As a different perspective, as a melee I like the bracers to be able to challenge the wrist slot expanders and bracers of guided strike. At first glance it seems to promote build diversity.

If it were to fall into the hands slot I just don't see it competing over gloves of the brute / gloves linked fury. Which seems to possibly be peoples point?

I agree in the bracers slot it can add diversity and choice.

In the hands slot it would be strictly better than gauntlets of linked fury for barbarians, and +1 damage for -2 AC for other 2H melee types.

Disagree completely. In the bracers slot, long term it will always be better to go with the slot expander.

Currently using charm bracelets you can work yourself to +5 2H damage. IMO, as soon as we hit the next relic charm the Barb bracers go out the window for anyone using more than a handful of URs.

While Ioun bracers don't currently propose a threat to raw damage of the bracers, the versatility would still lead me to recommend ioun bracers for long term usage over the +6 damage bracers.

I think you bring up a interesting point that is hinged on future power creep. There is also a interesting conversation about BIS vs build diversity and how the two are not mutually exclusive. However I feel these conversations would be best in the UR threads instead of here. May I suggest we move this over?

There are far to many pressing concerns ..cough..PALADIN..cough

Justice wrote:
There are far to many pressing concerns ..cough..PALADIN..cough

We just wanna be better protectors.

Let us protect you, peeps!