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

Bob Chasan wrote: Wow thank you Matthew!

I have not looked at this thread for probably a week because I was too upset and didn’t want to angry post. Someone else told me about your post and I skipped all the intervening posts and went directly to yours.

I have the same exact feeling. I echo your sentiments on nearly every point. Every year’s Tokens sets include multiple strength dexterity and con Enhancers all of which benefit the Melee classes while focus items fall tragically far behind. If I had access to the entire token database I believe +35 is the maximum focus I could achieve but melee classes can get to +60 damage.

Yep.

Best in Slot Monk is +20 to hit +37 to damage on both pucks before bardsong.

Best in Slot Barbarian is +22 +61 before bardsong

Best in Slot Melee Ranger is +21 +33 on both pucks before bardsong.

Best in Slot Legendary Wizard is +34 spell damage, +11 ranged hit (to hit on a 2 for slide spells) with 49HP before bardsong. Most changes to boost HP from here drop saving throws or spell damage.

94HP 30 Spell damage 17 AC 21/17/13 saves

49HP 34 Spell Damage 18 AC 24/26/23 saves



So yeah, it's possible to bump that HP but doing so comes at a loss to spell damage and a massive loss to saving throws, both lowering our damage and our chances of surviving attacks.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: 94HP 30 Spell damage 17 AC 21/17/13 saves

49HP 34 Spell Damage 18 AC 24/26/23 saves



So yeah, it's possible to bump that HP but doing so comes at a loss to spell damage and a massive loss to saving throws, both lowering our damage and our chances of surviving attacks.

Also the chance of making attacks - I've been noticing a lot of "save of skip a round" effects in dungeons the last few years.

Nymph had it this year.
Room 1 frost drake or whatever had it in the Odin year.
Final room evil tree thing had it in the Rothfus year.

I'm sure I'm forgetting stuff.

If you go into the dungeon with a 13 will save on HC+ I think you shouldn't be surprised to sit out multiple rounds of combat.

So glass cannon accomplished?

Jamie Campbell wrote: So glass cannon accomplished?

mass HP, weak saves, MEC only 3 times all dungeon.

Glass accomplished? Cannon nowhere near.

Not going to quote that massive thing but thank you Matthew, that was extremely well thought out and I agree on every point.

Matthew, apologies for not quoting your entire post, I'm just trying to save space on the forum. I just want to say it was very well thought out and a very worthwhile read. It pretty much echoes a lot of my feelings about the tokens as we went through design.

As for the above comment asking if "glass cannon" was achieved. My feeling is no on both fronts. After I've come to understand that Cranston's bonus affects spells, I think I'll be able to get my spell damage up to 32, while still running close to 80 hp and save bonuses around 20 for each category. This is actually slightly better than my current build and the only time I come close to dying in the dungeon is when I use MEC multiple times. MEC has been about 80% nerfed and I see using it 1-3 times per dungeon based on circumstances. If I needed to use a slot just for MEC, I wouldn't even bother. So the only reason to own the charm is for transmuting.

Edit: Sorry, you also need to own MEC if you're Trent and need it just because it exists.

Jamie Campbell wrote: So glass cannon accomplished?

You could maybe come to that conclusion if a wizard was soloing a dungeon and had no other classes to compare it to. Now it's mostly just glass.

Thank you, Matthew, for taking time to write that post. I often find myself flipping through heated forum debates looking for your posts, waiting to reach my own conclusions until you have crunched the numbers and presented the data. Through all the shouting, your posts always seem to cut through the noise. They can always be counted on to be deeply analytical, evidence-based, thoughtful, and even-handed. And you’ve outdone yourself this time. Thank you for so perfectly communicating what so many of us have struggled to fairly convey.

Pretty sure it's been touched on in this thread, but this current MEC (compared to the previous 1:1 iteration) also feels like a big nerf to Clerics and Druids (er, healy Druids. Healy Druids!) -- instead of spending their SA to (try to) deal their own damage, they'd need to use it to burn a spell to help the Wizard continue to deal extra damage.

Looking at just the available tokens and next year's set, we have

• +4 Focus from 2019 ( Lenses of Divine Sight , Gregor's Tome of Focus )
• +3 Focus from 2020 ( Arcane Belt , Gloves of Focus )
• +3 Focus from 2021 (Pants of Focus, Crown of Focus)

and on top of that, there's +3 healing from 2020's Linked Shirt of Healing .

This means for a single use of the MEC, a Cleric/Druid equipped with a LSoH, both Rares, and all four UR's listed above would need to burn a 2nd-level Cure Moderate Wounds to help the Wizard deal an additional 18 or 20 damage. The Druid could instead spend the SA and a 2nd-level Firebolt to instead deal 21 (24) damage, and the Cleric could instead spend the SA and a 1st-level Spiritual Hammer to slide for 18 damage (or just swing their weapon).

In comparison, the previous 1:1 iteration would have allowed the Cleric/Druid to channel 26 (29) damage through a Wizard -- more than what's possible with this iteration. Even with less healing equipped, it would still a viable option: the Wizard could limit the amount of HP channelled (e.g., only doing 10 at a time, instead of 25) so the Cleric/Druid can keep the rest of the party up.

Sure, there are more factors to consider -- the Cleric might not be geared to swing well; or you could have a different level of healing; or you could elect to heal only outside of combat, effectively making MEC 1/combat -- but as is, this new MEC seems unusable for newer parties, and this doesn't even consider the (lack of) max HP others have already brought up in this thread.

I would love to hear more from Jeff on how or why he took the token in this final direction.

Even more than that, I would love his breakdown of how/why he made each suggested proposal he gave us. What persuaded him, etc.

Anthony Barnstable wrote: I would love to hear more from Jeff on how or why he took the token in this final direction.
Even more than that, I would love his breakdown of how/why he made each suggested proposal he gave us. What persuaded him, etc.

Agreed, I think most of us would have been ok with 1:1 or 2:1 (possibly with a cap) hp channeling + the decreased cost on the mage powers, and the reversion to double base damage at a huge hp cost just seems nearly unusable as an UR for the time being at anything other then epic play, and even then is a huge healing sink on the party.

I'd also still love to hear what happened here, as I think a lot of us really felt blind-sided by this:

Jeff Martin wrote: ... A short time ago I received some detailed info that made me change the new MEC, the Relic and the Legendary for the Wizard. I hope you will not be too disappointed...