TOPIC: FINAL 2021 Ultra Rare Token Images!

Endgame wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Endgame wrote: Can cleric get some love this year?

Ring of quick blessing
Please change to non damage spells, add bard

Ring of expertise
Please add druid and cleric and change to non healing spells.

If we went this route, would it make sense to also go ahead and add Wizard to Quick Blessing? There may not be a use currently, but could be useful when cards get redone (or with spellbook)?

While we're at it, maybe shift Quick Blessing to 0th and 1st level non-damage spells?

Yes, I think this would be fine, as long as Quick Blessing went to non damage spells - Wizard doesn't currently have any use, but, like you said, the future spellbook could have some cool, low powered options with it.

Again, per the analysis I just posted, I think without this Ring the max spell damage the Druid can do is in the 530 point ballpark. Far, far under what the Wizard will be able to do. Ring of Quick Blessing needs to include damage spells just to keep the Druid within long-range sight of the Wizard in damage. The five turn limit isn't even needed for the Druid, because from what I can see even with Charm of Spell Swapping the Druid is only going to be getting 10 damage spells, so if five of them are used as instant spells, the Druid is all out of damage spells after five turns.

This token doesn't need to do deal damage at all to work with the Cleric, and it's the item that is part of the cleric transmute. I don't want to compromise the token so some other class can use it. I also don't think this token is balanced with damage included, so no, its not OK to give it with unlimited uses to the druid.

This attitude isn't helping anyone.

Clerics feel a lot of ownership towards this token, but until it goes final and is printed...Jeff is the owner.

It's fine to advocate for your position. I assure you this position has been advocated. And advocated.

The newest intended iteration of this ring was shown in post #129 https://truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&defaultmenu=141&catid=640&id=251650&start=120#378555

Dozens of posts have decreed why this is bad, and how it punishes the Cleric. Then in post #248, Jeff reaffirms that his changes are not an oversight.

https://truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&defaultmenu=141&catid=640&id=251650&start=240#378836

Concerned parties continue to express basically the same concerns for a sizable chunk of the remaining 80+ posts in that thread. Then the final draft is published and the ring remained unchanged.

I think everyone has to agree that Jeff has been super receptive during this process. It's clear he's followed the back and forth. He's even poked fun at the Dr. Uid debate that spiraled (I assume at least partly) from this discussion.

Have the nay-sayers anyone stopped to consider that maybe this is just the token that he wants to make?

If you feel an uncontrollable rage towards how the design of this token has gone, and feel TPTB are totally wrong and still don't understand how you feel, continue to post.

I just don't think new ground had been tread on the subject in a long while.

If new folks want to chime in with anything at all, I think that would be more beneficial than the current conversation on this token.

Fiddy wrote:

edwin wrote:

Fiddy wrote: It seems like we're sorta kinda edging around towards some general ideas here.

I'm going to take a stab at capturing what I think I'm hearing, then others can correct/wordsmith/shoot it down.

It seems to be shaping up that no matter the class, maybe somewhat dependent on the spell level:

• Unlimited FA of existing Damage = Bad. Boosts per-round damage in difficult to predict ways.
• Unlimited FA of existing Healing = Ok. Healing happens outside combat without worrying about actions.
• Unlimited FA of existing Support = Ok. Helps the party more than the individual. Makes Support more likely to be used. Lets player support and still contribute in other ways.

Also, no matter the class, but maybe dependent on the spell level:

• Limited extra Damage boxes = Ok. There are a finite number of potential combat rounds, so the overall impact is small. Helps casters contribute in Grind more than anything.
• Limited extra Healing boxes = Bad. Healing can be used outside combat, so these will get used if available.
• Limited extra Support boxes = Ok. Helps party more than player. Makes Support more likely to be used.

Disagree.

Ok on swapping between standard and free action of stuff on card. So first three items are ok, ok, ok.

Not ok on adding additional boxes. So last three items are not ok, not ok, not ok.

I should have mentioned... if you're going to disagree, I'm cool with that. But please explain in a sentence or two for each (like I did with my reasoning), why?

Updated previous post with more info.

Effect of more boxes is larger changes in abilities and drives to an optimal endgame solution quicker with less variety given ability to swap things around. Let's make everything a 12 pt scroll as a spell, MEC it + spell damage and do it twice per round.

Effect of moving thing between action type without more boxes results in slow burn or fast burn choice by player. Coupled with free action for spells allow freedom to use wand as standard action, or scroll as standard action, or physical attack, or a second spell as standard action in addition to free action spell each round.

Keeping all 3 items in each group with same answer allows easier management of tokens and expectations and allows for more consistent tokens applying to more than a single class.

Different answers make it harder to manage tokens and expectations and results in more arguments of which class should be on which token.

Regarding the Ring of Quick Blessing...

Maybe the text is poorly worded, so I want to explain what it means. I am seeing all kinds of crazy damage claims that I don't understand. The token reads:

May cast 1st-level
spells as Free
Actions (5/game)
& may Restore
Power as a
Free Action
(Cleric only)

This does not give the classes any more 1st-level spells...just let's them use their 1st-level spells as Free Actions. For the Druid that means up to 3 Free Action Freezing Orbs and for the Cleric 1 Spiritual Hammer. The (5/game) is there in case we have items that grant more 1st level spells...so there is a hard limit on the number of spells the Ring can quicken.

This may have been asked before, but is there a reason the start of the Ring of the Siren text reads "+3 damage as Sonic w/..." instead of just "+3 Sonic damage w/..."?

Edit: The Uncommon Ring of the Heavens is also worded that way, while the Runestones and Ring of the Stars have the simpler wording.

Adjustment to the wizard tokens for +spell damage offsets lost of wand bonus twice per round along with avoiding multiplication issue with tokens that double damage.

Previously suggested +5 spell damage for relic and +8 damage for legendary.

If it is harder to manage then need to lower power on tokens to account for worst case combination of tokens that don't apply to newer players and many longer time players. This results in more heated discussions and makes them less enticing to newer players.

Jeff Martin wrote: Regarding the Ring of Quick Blessing...

Maybe the text is poorly worded, so I want to explain what it means. I am seeing all kinds of crazy damage claims that I don't understand. The token reads:

May cast 1st-level
spells as Free
Actions (5/game)
& may Restore
Power as a
Free Action
(Cleric only)

This does not give the classes any more 1st-level spells...just let's them use their 1st-level spells as Free Actions. For the Druid that means up to 3 Free Action Freezing Orbs and for the Cleric 1 Spiritual Hammer. The (5/game) is there in case we have items that grant more 1st level spells...so there is a hard limit on the number of spells the Ring can quicken.

With Charm of Spell Swapping to move 2 spells from L2 the Dr. Uid at UR level boosts their available damage per round by 11 (frozen orb) + 35 (BIS spell damage bonus)

This can be added to a normal Spell attack to more than double their per turn spell damage or added to an existing slide attack giving them a per turn spell damage potential of 90+

Any token that adds 230 damage boosted across 5 turns is incredibly powerful.

If it's OK for that boost to happen at the UR level Wizards would also want to be on the token so also have the potential to use it's effect.

Free Action direct damage spells push the damage curve quite a bit higher when they exist.

No one is worried about Clerics FA casting Spritiual Hammer but there's definitely a concern about the damage output of a class that can build with the intention to be purely damage dealing spellcasting getting a massive boost to their overall damage capability on a per round basis

Arnold wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Let me take one more stab at getting Cranston’s Helpful Hat toned down:

1. Using the extra eyes for Snipers Spectacles has this token give +3/+3 to ranged in the head slot.

Compare with UR Crown of Might at +1/+1 to melee.

+3/+3 to ranged feels like a relic belt, or a relic wrist upgrade to UR Bracers of Supreme Archery.

2. As Ranged now includes all spells, it’s +3 to spell damage at UR - something we’ve never seen - with the extra lenses you can equip Lenses of Focus for +3 to physical ranged, +4 to spell, +1 to healing.


Head slot feels very weak in general - this feels like a big jump up to me.

We were encouraged to consider if the token would be worth it without the +3 damage.

I think for some classes, yes.

I agree with Matthew...there aren't a ton of amazing Head tokens for people who can't equip heavy armor. Furthermore, with the release of the Lucky Set last year, there have to be at least a few Paladins, Fighters, and Clerics that switched to a set with no helm.

This token is very, very good. It's probably too good and a big jump in what the head slot can do.

I know it was said that the +3/+3 to range required two separate tokens, but it would still be a huge jump in the effect the head slot can have on the party sheet.

Finally, by not over-boosting the Hat now, it becomes less of a consideration when creating new UR eye tokens.

Does it get better power level if it's OR instead of AND?

Jeff Martin wrote: Regarding the Ring of Quick Blessing...

Maybe the text is poorly worded, so I want to explain what it means. I am seeing all kinds of crazy damage claims that I don't understand. The token reads:

May cast 1st-level
spells as Free
Actions (5/game)
& may Restore
Power as a
Free Action
(Cleric only)

This does not give the classes any more 1st-level spells...just let's them use their 1st-level spells as Free Actions. For the Druid that means up to 3 Free Action Freezing Orbs and for the Cleric 1 Spiritual Hammer. The (5/game) is there in case we have items that grant more 1st level spells...so there is a hard limit on the number of spells the Ring can quicken.

People are concerned that the ring allows 5*SD where spell damage is modified based on epic level gear + what ever the caster would do that round normally. The issue with this argument is that with epic level gear abilities should do epic damage. The complaints are mostly from Wizards that don't like the fact that for a few rounds Dr. Uld could do almost as much damage as a Wizard (note not more damage... but maybe 80% of the Wizard's damage).

What would be helpful is to understand what the expectation is for max damage in a Patron run or Epic level module run. Because right now I don't think Dr. Uld is close to the max, but I don't know what TD's expectation is.

OrionW wrote:

Jeff Martin wrote: Regarding the Ring of Quick Blessing...

Maybe the text is poorly worded, so I want to explain what it means. I am seeing all kinds of crazy damage claims that I don't understand. The token reads:

May cast 1st-level
spells as Free
Actions (5/game)
& may Restore
Power as a
Free Action
(Cleric only)

This does not give the classes any more 1st-level spells...just let's them use their 1st-level spells as Free Actions. For the Druid that means up to 3 Free Action Freezing Orbs and for the Cleric 1 Spiritual Hammer. The (5/game) is there in case we have items that grant more 1st level spells...so there is a hard limit on the number of spells the Ring can quicken.

People are concerned that the ring allows 5*SD where spell damage is modified based on epic level gear + what ever the caster would do that round normally. The issue with this argument is that with epic level gear abilities should do epic damage. The complaints are mostly from Wizards that don't like the fact that for a few rounds Dr. Uld could do almost as much damage as a Wizard (note not more damage... but maybe 80% of the Wizard's damage).

What would be helpful is to understand what the expectation is for max damage in a Patron run or Epic level module run. Because right now I don't think Dr. Uld is close to the max, but I don't know what TD's expectation is.

In the future please don't make claims about the reasoning for other players making comments.

If you are planning to suggest that a BIS Druid is only capable of producing 500 points of spell damage over 10 rounds of combat and the Wizard is able to do 200 more than PLEASE back it up with numbers indicating that.

My posts above relate to this thread and transmute thread but was asked about why differing opinion on boxes on this thread.

Lequinian wrote:

Arnold wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Let me take one more stab at getting Cranston’s Helpful Hat toned down:

1. Using the extra eyes for Snipers Spectacles has this token give +3/+3 to ranged in the head slot.

Compare with UR Crown of Might at +1/+1 to melee.

+3/+3 to ranged feels like a relic belt, or a relic wrist upgrade to UR Bracers of Supreme Archery.

2. As Ranged now includes all spells, it’s +3 to spell damage at UR - something we’ve never seen - with the extra lenses you can equip Lenses of Focus for +3 to physical ranged, +4 to spell, +1 to healing.


Head slot feels very weak in general - this feels like a big jump up to me.

We were encouraged to consider if the token would be worth it without the +3 damage.

I think for some classes, yes.

I agree with Matthew...there aren't a ton of amazing Head tokens for people who can't equip heavy armor. Furthermore, with the release of the Lucky Set last year, there have to be at least a few Paladins, Fighters, and Clerics that switched to a set with no helm.

This token is very, very good. It's probably too good and a big jump in what the head slot can do.

I know it was said that the +3/+3 to range required two separate tokens, but it would still be a huge jump in the effect the head slot can have on the party sheet.

Finally, by not over-boosting the Hat now, it becomes less of a consideration when creating new UR eye tokens.

Does it get better power level if it's OR instead of AND?

It seems like this token is destined to have a little extra spice. Totally understandable given it's an honorarily named token. I think some of the reservations a few folks have is that it becomes an obvious BIS for many builds.

I'm fine with that if it's the intention. Just seems OP already....and we don't know the possibilities of future eye-slot design.

So to actually answer your question....yeah, it would be more balanced with 'OR'. But I can see why it gets more love.