TOPIC: Final MEC, Mage Medallion and Arch-Mage Medallion

I don’t know if this has already been said and I have never played wizard, and thus have little dog in this fight, but why is the token construction with wizard focused on spending HP? Why not have dmg tethered to Int so that it mattered, and so the wizard wouldn’t have to stack con but would chase something that didn’t add to the bp total?

(Only saying this because if the cards are going to be redesigned, why not fix a focused flaw to the system)

Kaelten wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Kaelten wrote: I've been following but not commenting on the discussion, but here I go, and please forgive my frankness. For context, our team is now running nightmare and considering trying epic soon. Also, I realize that I'm not going to be speaking for anyone out there who's a big fan of MEC builds.

This is pretty bad. It's just not fun for some of us. In the worst case, this could straight up trigger people and prevent them from playing TD at all.

The changes here take a class that is generally underserved in a lot of ways and force them into one specific playstyle to be the most effective at the high-end. This playstyle, self-harm, has both negative connotations out of the game and to some groups, including ours, just isn't fun.

The fact that the -only- way for a Wizard to engage with what should be the epitome of their class's tokens is to engage in such an incredibly controversial game mechanic is not a win for the Wizards amongst us and not for any of us who love True Dungeon.

I wish we would find a way to make the legendary make the class better overall and wouldn't force MEC builds or self-harm mechanics on anyone who would rather abstain.

Please give Wizards a choice and let them keep having fun.

Is there any way to preserve the mechanics in a way that would be appealing to you under a different description?

For example, if you had "mana" equal to your starting hitpoints, and spent "mana" to activate this item, and gained "mana" each time you healed, and lost "mana" each time you were damaged, etc.?

In other words, if we called HP "Mana" for users of these tokens would that change anything about how this is landing for you?

I could see getting away from being powered by HP could be a big win both mechanically and the more thematic side of things.

But that makes me think that there's potentially a whole direction of exploration where you could make INT meaningful by building such a mana pool instead of tying it to HP at all.

You could then introduce more metamagic type functions and use tokens like MEC to unlock their availability similar to how some items imbue psychic powers.

This could be a very interesting idea overall, make Wizard more unique and exciting (at least for some), and set the stage for significant more build variety in the future.

Maybe wizards could voluntarily reduce their starting HP in coaching to create a mana pool. Simulates long hours poring over dusty times and neglecting to exercise.

Trying to catch up on posts. Of course, I continue to skim through comments and think about the changes. For me, they still work, but I understand this playstyle is not for everyone. I do think the one thing that is sort of out of character is that it pushes the wizards to try and maximize hp and by association constitution (seems somewhat contradictory to being made of "glass"). I'd prefer that the "mana" (to use the word referenced in a previous post) were based off something like intelligence rather than constitution.

Of course, the problem with that is we've only got like 2 or 3 tokens that impact intelligence and at least 40-50 that impact hp/constitution. So from a build perspective, it's much much better to use hp. Also, who needs another counter to try and monitor. So, I just look at it like I'm drawing upon life energy (hp) to enhance my spellcasting. That works thematically.

Ian Lee wrote: I would imagine Jeff could say something like "We plan on doing additional class legendaries in the future to highlight different aspects of classes." to give druids not into polymorph, rangers not into ranged, fighters not into one-handed weapons, wizards not into cutting themselves hope for another go at it.

I both understand how basing around MEC mechanics is unappealing to some and view this game as one not served well if tokens are universally appealing as that consumes design space. Widseth's Legendary was a rather obvious way to go, but will a bard legendary that does stuff not involving bardsong feel right?

Of course, I think we'd all love to know if such things are being planned.

I think the root of the problem with Wizard is it's more controversial than most classes' quintessential flavor.

Unlike Polymorph Druid, Ranged Rangers, and Singing Bards, MEC is not built into the class's concept.

Those who feel MEC is that quintessential aspect of the class are really just being gaslit by the fact it's been one of the few viable Wizard builds at the high end for so long it became a defacto expectation among them. If the class was "Blood Mage" and not "Wizard" it'd be a very different situation if no less controversial out of game.

Harlax wrote: Maybe wizards could voluntarily reduce their starting HP in coaching to create a mana pool. Simulates long hours poring over dusty times and neglecting to exercise.

I'd still like the idea of making INT mean something, even if we need a mechanic like "trade con points for int" for a few years until more int bumping tokens could be introduced.

Honestly, I've been floored repeatedly by how little use some stats have while STR DEX and CON are all massively important and add to most characters in multiple ways.

This seems a pretty big violation of 'unique coolness' as a guiding principle. The concentration of importance minimizes which kind of tokens are useful, concentrates value on certain tokens more, and means you have less variety in viable builds.

Templar wrote: I don’t know if this has already been said and I have never played wizard, and thus have little dog in this fight, but why is the token construction with wizard focused on spending HP? Why not have dmg tethered to Int so that it mattered, and so the wizard wouldn’t have to stack con but would chase something that didn’t add to the bp total?

(Only saying this because if the cards are going to be redesigned, why not fix a focused flaw to the system)

From my view:

1. Since 2014 spend health to gain damage has been a central effect for many Wizard players .

2. There are currently 3 tokens, at most 2 of which can be equipped, that boost INT. If INT suddenly started to matter in the same way STR matters we'd need 10 years of INT boosting tokens to get anywhere useful I think.

Kaelten wrote:

Ian Lee wrote: I would imagine Jeff could say something like "We plan on doing additional class legendaries in the future to highlight different aspects of classes." to give druids not into polymorph, rangers not into ranged, fighters not into one-handed weapons, wizards not into cutting themselves hope for another go at it.

Unlike Polymorph Druid, Ranged Rangers, and Singing Bards, MEC is not built into the class's concept.

Fair criticism.

To belabor this a bit, I am not in favor of the process using MEC as the focus because I think it's a good way to go. I just want to move on from the class transmutes as they have been much less fun for people than True Adventures was likely going for. The expectations were jacked up so high that the only way to not get criticized was if god tokens got made that seemed like they could never be surpassed. That set them up for failure.

Add to that expectations on what the point of relics and legendaries are supposed to be changing, and TA "just can't win". See how much people complain currently about the Holy Avenger, where the legendaries of yesteryear were of the "2 better than relic" type.

I actually prefer the more narrowly useful class transmutes because once you make the best token ever, you have nothing else to do. But, the TD model is far more predicated upon better than different.

bpsymington wrote: Is it confirmed that 20 INT is no longer required?

Confirmed.

Matthew Hayward wrote: Question:

I'm not sure how to parse Mage Medallion's text: "If not using MEC Mage Power in rd, may use another different Mage Power each Round"

It appears that Relic users can use each of Intensify, Acrane Slide, and MeC once per room. Is that right?

This is correct.

For the mage and arch mage powers, can I assume you must have the required hp to use those powers. In other words, its not like the old MEC where you could use the effect even if you didn't have the full 10 hp and then just die afterwards.

Matthew Hayward wrote: Question:

When using other Mage Powers, e.g. Intensify, Arcane Slide - do I get any damage bonus from the 15 HP? Or does the 15 HP just unlock that effect without modifying the spell?

The 15 HP just unlocks the Mage or Arch-Mage power. One of those Powers is the Mad Evoker effect. Keep in mind it also takes a Free Action, too.

Matthew Hayward wrote: 1. Since 2014 spend health to gain damage has been a central effect for many Wizard players .

Sure, but there's a difference between "it's been central because it's a great mechanic" and "it's been central because it's about the only option".

Matthew Hayward wrote: 2. There are currently 3 tokens, at most 2 of which can be equipped, that boost INT. If INT suddenly started to matter in the same way STR matters we'd need 10 years of INT boosting tokens to get anywhere useful I think.

This is the chicken and egg problem right? i.e.:

"We can't make INT meaningful because there are not enough tokens to support it!"
"We don't have INT tokens because it's not meaningful enough to put on tokens!"