TOPIC: READ THIS! Change to MEC and Details on Relic & Legendary

And I skipped over Quicken in my last post. This one is now troublesome for me. It basically gives me Cabal set ability (extra spell at cost of free action), but with an added +5 hp cost. Do I dump the Cabal Set and get back those slots to pump hp, spell damage and/or saving throws? Do I try to use both and get to do two spells in a round twice per room? If I combo with conserve, that may work. Of course, that will cost me 10 hp, but seems like that may be one of the better gains from the new tokens (much better than MEC). And I still need to free up slots somewhere (that challenge is actually as fun as it is frustrating).

Can we /please/ go back to the language of “channel” instead of “sacrifice”?
“Channel” 5 (25) HP to perform MP/AMP/MEC.

Dave wrote: And I skipped over Quicken in my last post. This one is now troublesome for me. It basically gives me Cabal set ability (extra spell at cost of free action), but with an added +5 hp cost. Do I dump the Cabal Set and get back those slots to pump hp, spell damage and/or saving throws? Do I try to use both and get to do two spells in a round twice per room? If I combo with conserve, that may work. Of course, that will cost me 10 hp, but seems like that may be one of the better gains from the new tokens (much better than MEC). And I still need to free up slots somewhere (that challenge is actually as fun as it is frustrating).

Keeping both and getting two FA Damage spells per room seems like a very good approach.

Mike Steele wrote:

Dave wrote: And I skipped over Quicken in my last post. This one is now troublesome for me. It basically gives me Cabal set ability (extra spell at cost of free action), but with an added +5 hp cost. Do I dump the Cabal Set and get back those slots to pump hp, spell damage and/or saving throws? Do I try to use both and get to do two spells in a round twice per room? If I combo with conserve, that may work. Of course, that will cost me 10 hp, but seems like that may be one of the better gains from the new tokens (much better than MEC). And I still need to free up slots somewhere (that challenge is actually as fun as it is frustrating).

Keeping both and getting two FA Damage spells per room seems like a very good approach.

You're probably right. Maintaining a balanced build will be the challenge. I don't see a good way out without dumping Arcane Belt and going with Orion's Belt to get some slots back.

Dave wrote: I do have questions for the clerics and druids out there. How much healing can you do? and how much healing do you think is reasonable to allocate toward a wizard?

I main Cleric/Druid and consider myself a decent NM (not Epic) healer; I have the recent UR focus tokens and the relic +3 baton, gradually working toward some additional upgrades, but no Eldritch set and (so far) no extra spells.

My current builds are +12 healing, so if my Cleric spell-swaps everything for healing (and passes all skill checks) that's 6x13+5x20+3x28+1x36 = 298 total. (Druid would be a bit less, because either I'm using some of those spells for damage or I'm running a polymorph build with a smaller +healing bonus)

How much healing do I feel is reasonable to allocate toward a wizard? Depends entirely on how the party is doing, and whether I feel like I'm in danger of running out of spells. If we're acing the puzzles and finishing combats in 1 round, no problem! But if we're taking too many 120 damage hits from puzzle mistakes and/or monster AoE attacks, and I'm the only large-scale healer, then I'd be reluctant to allocate much much than a "fair share" to the Wizard when the reason they need extra healing is by their own voluntary choice rather than natural consequences from the dungeon.

Bottom line from my perspective: I 100% agree that how much healing the party has is a huge variable in determining whether this new version of MEC is usable in a given run, and I hope this change doesn't lead to too many prearranged forum runs where I'm no longer a good enough healer to run with you all.

jedibcg Banjo 513 Lover wrote: I have no issue with private feedback as long as it comes before cutoffs and that feedback it expressed to the community. Feedback after FINAL cuts or that is not shared is what pissed me off last year. I choose not to participate this year because of that. Though if Jeff and Co do want to take private feedback after the FINAL cuts obviously he has every right, but I don't know why anyone would want to provide public feedback before cuts if they can be trumped but post FINAL non-community discussed feedback. This comment has nothing to do with the MEC in general just the way token design happened last year and may (I don't know because I did not particpate) have happened this year.

This take sums up the situation and its frustration pretty well.

Leitz wrote:

jedibcg Banjo 513 Lover wrote: I have no issue with private feedback as long as it comes before cutoffs and that feedback it expressed to the community. Feedback after FINAL cuts or that is not shared is what pissed me off last year. I choose not to participate this year because of that. Though if Jeff and Co do want to take private feedback after the FINAL cuts obviously he has every right, but I don't know why anyone would want to provide public feedback before cuts if they can be trumped but post FINAL non-community discussed feedback. This comment has nothing to do with the MEC in general just the way token design happened last year and may (I don't know because I did not particpate) have happened this year.

This take sums up the situation and its frustration pretty well.

+1

Kitkumi wrote:

Leitz wrote:

jedibcg Banjo 513 Lover wrote: I have no issue with private feedback as long as it comes before cutoffs and that feedback it expressed to the community. Feedback after FINAL cuts or that is not shared is what pissed me off last year. I choose not to participate this year because of that. Though if Jeff and Co do want to take private feedback after the FINAL cuts obviously he has every right, but I don't know why anyone would want to provide public feedback before cuts if they can be trumped but post FINAL non-community discussed feedback. This comment has nothing to do with the MEC in general just the way token design happened last year and may (I don't know because I did not particpate) have happened this year.

This take sums up the situation and its frustration pretty well.

+1

+1 here as well.

==================

Unrelated to the above, a suggestion for what to do with INT as a stopgap until an actual use can be found: every point of INT bonus -> -1 point of self damage.

This leaves INT in exactly the same state it was before for non-MEC wizards (that is, completely useless - not good, but can be patched later as needed), means Hat of Intellect is a useful option for UR-tier players, and means that the relic and legendary both have an interesting interaction with the class legendary. And thematically, it makes sense: a smarter wizard can negate some of the consequences of their actions.

I no longer have a dog in this fight, as at minimum I'm selling all my Wizard shit due to the last several years of clusterfucks of changes. But since I played a Wizard for years, I figure I may as well give an educated two cents.

Dave wrote: I do have questions for the clerics and druids out there. How much healing can you do? and how much healing do you think is reasonable to allocate toward a wizard?

My backup Cleric build is +13 healing. I do not have a CoSS. For VTD at least, I normally auto-fail the skill checks to make sure I have enough time to heal out of combat (edit: and don't interfere with puzzle solving). So, my normal healing available is:

(14*4)+(18*3)+(26*2)+34 or 196.

I feel my cleric backup build is fairly middle of the road as far as NM healing goes:

tdcharactercreator.com/#/character/edit/ced11c47-8ffd-4a67-84cb-2922b9444801

So, 4 rounds of MEC at 25 a go can eat up more than half of my total available heals....that could be fine on a good run with backup healing from other people and knowing the puzzles. Start taking push (edit: or puzzle) damage and now there's a problem.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: The Mage Medallion Relic provides some nice options of effects in Quicken and Sharpen, assuming the Wizard player likes sliding spells. Bringing the Crown of Elemental Expertise into the options list is nice, but could use a few more elements to allow for greater diversity.

Fork is a great design but I worry about the limitation of it being damage only. That seems to me that it could be used as a way to restrict Wizards from Forking our strongest spells to a second target by tacking on an unwanted secondary effect. I would suggest instead saying the secondary target only receives the damage of the initial target but is not affected by any secondary effect. That removes the chance of double dipping in secondary effects without removing options from the ability.

Intensify makes me very unhappy to see as a Wizard. Spell Resistance coming into effect again in combat leads to potential MASSIVE wasted HP on a spell trigger that deals no damage simply because the Wizard has no way to know spell resistance is active before casting the spell. It also still gives a 25% chance for the spell to fail, which slows down combat and potentially wastes a powerful spell and HP investiture. And only affects 1 spell cast that turn, AND is only usable 1 time per room. Having spell damage return and having the class relic only be partially effective against it, and only if you know it's coming and only 1 time per room leads to situations where I, as a Wizard, sit out an entire combat, because I did my only 1 spell that can deal damage and it's not worth casting anything I know has a large chance of failing.


At the Relic level I do not see there being much chance that I ever use the Relic necklace Mage Powers more than 1 time per combat.

Intensity is situational, Fork is situational, Alter is situational

Quicken and Sharpen I see getting used together on the same slide spell in every room. Possibly Alter if I know of an elemental resistance or vulnerability specifically related to the only 3 damage options I have on that ability.

No matter what the situation I see this as my combat with the Relic.

Round 1
Quickened, Sharpened, Mad Evokered Scorching Ray (possibly Altered) at a cost of 35HP
Standard Action Spell (Magic missile, scorching ray, etc)

Round 2-100
Mad Evokered whatever spell is strongest.

The Relic no longer gives me any bonus over just having the charm.

The Legendary has the same problem.

I would suggest instead


Relic - Choose 4 Mage Powers, you have access only to these mage powers this run

As a free action 1/round you may apply 1 or 2 of your chosen Mage Powers to a spell. You may also apply Mad Evoker's Charm effect to it as your 1/round application if desired.

Legendary - Choose 7 Mage or Arch Mage powers, you have access only to these powers this run.

As a free action 1/round you may apply 1, 2 or 3 of your chosen Mage Powers to a spell. You may also apply Mad Evoker's Charm effect to it as your 1/round application if desired.




This gives the Wizard the ability to choose powers to match their playstyle and allows the necklace to provide a turn by turn bonus to the Wizard the same as all other class specific tokens currently do.

Giving the Wizard Free Action spells with the ability to cast two damage spells per round every round would be very overpowered. Even just allowing it once per room combines with the Cabal set to give it twice per room.

....... Are you SERIOUSLY saying this after getting FIVE Free Action spells off an Ultra Rare Ring? SERIOUSLY?

Don't forget pushing up to the final hour to get that changed to unlimited, too. Druids now have 5 FAs on a UR ring for no cost and wizards have a max of four (assuming 4 combat rooms, more commonly 3), with a max of one per room AND at the cost of 5HP and having to create a Legendary.

I'm personally missing where the balance is here.

NightGod wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: The Mage Medallion Relic provides some nice options of effects in Quicken and Sharpen, assuming the Wizard player likes sliding spells. Bringing the Crown of Elemental Expertise into the options list is nice, but could use a few more elements to allow for greater diversity.

Fork is a great design but I worry about the limitation of it being damage only. That seems to me that it could be used as a way to restrict Wizards from Forking our strongest spells to a second target by tacking on an unwanted secondary effect. I would suggest instead saying the secondary target only receives the damage of the initial target but is not affected by any secondary effect. That removes the chance of double dipping in secondary effects without removing options from the ability.

Intensify makes me very unhappy to see as a Wizard. Spell Resistance coming into effect again in combat leads to potential MASSIVE wasted HP on a spell trigger that deals no damage simply because the Wizard has no way to know spell resistance is active before casting the spell. It also still gives a 25% chance for the spell to fail, which slows down combat and potentially wastes a powerful spell and HP investiture. And only affects 1 spell cast that turn, AND is only usable 1 time per room. Having spell damage return and having the class relic only be partially effective against it, and only if you know it's coming and only 1 time per room leads to situations where I, as a Wizard, sit out an entire combat, because I did my only 1 spell that can deal damage and it's not worth casting anything I know has a large chance of failing.


At the Relic level I do not see there being much chance that I ever use the Relic necklace Mage Powers more than 1 time per combat.

Intensity is situational, Fork is situational, Alter is situational

Quicken and Sharpen I see getting used together on the same slide spell in every room. Possibly Alter if I know of an elemental resistance or vulnerability specifically related to the only 3 damage options I have on that ability.

No matter what the situation I see this as my combat with the Relic.

Round 1
Quickened, Sharpened, Mad Evokered Scorching Ray (possibly Altered) at a cost of 35HP
Standard Action Spell (Magic missile, scorching ray, etc)

Round 2-100
Mad Evokered whatever spell is strongest.

The Relic no longer gives me any bonus over just having the charm.

The Legendary has the same problem.

I would suggest instead


Relic - Choose 4 Mage Powers, you have access only to these mage powers this run

As a free action 1/round you may apply 1 or 2 of your chosen Mage Powers to a spell. You may also apply Mad Evoker's Charm effect to it as your 1/round application if desired.

Legendary - Choose 7 Mage or Arch Mage powers, you have access only to these powers this run.

As a free action 1/round you may apply 1, 2 or 3 of your chosen Mage Powers to a spell. You may also apply Mad Evoker's Charm effect to it as your 1/round application if desired.




This gives the Wizard the ability to choose powers to match their playstyle and allows the necklace to provide a turn by turn bonus to the Wizard the same as all other class specific tokens currently do.

Giving the Wizard Free Action spells with the ability to cast two damage spells per round every round would be very overpowered. Even just allowing it once per room combines with the Cabal set to give it twice per room.

....... Are you SERIOUSLY saying this after getting FIVE Free Action spells off an Ultra Rare Ring? SERIOUSLY?

Don't forget pushing up to the final hour to get that changed to unlimited, too. Druids now have 5 FAs on a UR ring for no cost and wizards have a max of four (assuming 4 combat rooms, more commonly 3), with a max of one per room AND at the cost of 5HP and having to create a Legendary.

I'm personally missing where the balance is here.

I can't believe that people are still arguing that the Druids are overpowered. Druids have only seven damage spells, and none of them area attacks (unlike the Wizard). Even if they free action the three (not five, since two are healing spells) damage spells from this UR Ring, they will use up six of their seven damage spells in just one room in three rounds of combat. Total base damage plus skill checks for those spells is only 97, or 117 if you spell surge Lightning Storm. Even assuming 30 points of bonus spell damage on each spell, the total damage for all 7 damage spells is only 327. Adding in Charm of Spell Swapping grants at most three additional spells, for 36 more points of base + SK damage, and figuring in 30 points of bonus spell damage that still only gets the Druid to a total of 453 spell damage - for the entire Dungeon.

Wizards have 14 Damage spells (including an Area attack spell), or 16 with Charm of Spell Swapping, and the new UR Ring grants them an additional 3-4 spells (one per room). The MEC allows base and SK spell damage to double, the Wizard Relic allows an additional spell to have damage done to a second monster (doubling the damage) plus allows a spell to be cast as an instant in every room. Unlike the Druid, the Wizard can take full advantage of this because he isn't going to run out of damage spells. Conserve allows the Wizard to recast their best spell in every single room without marking it off (3-4 more 20 point Area attack spells per Dungeon). Combining the new UR Ring, the Legendary class token, and the Charm of Spell Swapping the Wizard can get 22-24 damage spells per adventure to the Druid's 10, and the Wizard gets their best damage spell (which is an area attack spell) 4-5 times in an adventure compared to once for the Druid.

Let's look at the Wizard's Area attack ability with the Legendary Ring. The Wizard can do their area attack spell the regular time plus another 3-4 times per Dungeon (via Conserve), and make their next best spell damage two monsters at once another 3-4 times per Dungeon (via Fork). That's 7-9 Area Attack Spells per Dungeon for the Wizard. Plus, the Wizard can do their best Area Attack spell plus forking their second best damage spell in the first round of every room via Quicken, and one can be MECed.

There is simply no comparison in the amount of spell damage a Druid can do to what a Wizard can do, the Wizard is tremendously far ahead.

Trying to increase the Wizard's power by arguing that the Druid is overpowered is a false argument. The amount of spell damage the Druid can do is only a fraction of what the Wizard can do.

If there is one thing I think we can all learn from the 2020 process is that the Druid conversation sucks he oxygen out of the topic. I think we should keep this thread focused on Wizards.