TOPIC: Final Ultra Rare Token Images

Ian Lee wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Ian Lee wrote: Actually, overlooked the obvious.

Restrict the Gauntlets to Cleric, Druid, and Paladin. That justifies being strictly better.

It doesn't make a ton of sense that ranger gets bonuses to healing, for one thing.

And Fighters, because they are fighters

The more I think about it, due to how most classes don't actually have healing spells, would make far more sense to be a cleric only token.

In universe logic: yes.

Out of universe logic: no, because a +3 to hit in melee gloves item is a perfectly serviceable melee UR for all classes, so it is wasteful to use 1 out of 20 UR slots on a Cleric only token that could be an any melee player token.

I guess you could make it:

+3 to hit in melee
Cleric: +2 to healing spells
(Druid: +2 to polymorph damage???)

If the thinking is the healing is too good for Bards and Druids, too weird for Rangers, and too confusing for everyone else.

If there is a desire for a cleric only hand slot item, I'd give them a slightly bumped up Lenses of Divine Sight:

+3 to healing Spells/Scrolls and may divide (in any way) between 1 additional target.

(Stacks with the 2 targets of Lenses of Divine Sight so you get 3 targets possible if you use both).

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Arnold wrote: Want to echo the opinion that gauntlets are plenty good at +2 to-hit and +2 healing.

Then there's room for Brute, Finesse, Death Knight, etc to all have a place. You can also reprint Gloves of Weapon Finesse in 2+ years.

If it's the year of the Cleric, then I guess +3/2 is cool, too.

I disagree. +2 to melee hit, +2 to melee damage, and participate in a set bonus is par for this slot.

To-damage is worth more than to-hit unless your damage modifier is up around +20 or more (depending on your assumptions about what percentage chance increase comes from +1 to hit, I'm using 5%).

+to-hit eventually becomes useless as you get to a point where you need a 1 to miss, damage never goes out of style.

All that to is losing +1 damage for +1 to hit is already a bad tradeoff, so if these were:

+3 melee to-hit, +1 melee to-damage I think they would be worse than Death Knight Gauntles.

So, all that remains to consider is:

Is +1 melee to-damage and a set bonus ~= +2 healing?

I think it is close enough.

I guess it depends on the build. There are probably people playing higher difficulty levels with less than BIS builds that would value the + to hit a lot more than + damage. I'd always thought actually that + to hit was valued higher than + damage in token design, but I do understand your point that some builds are so high that they already hit all the time.

Hmm - you may be right.

If you figure your chance of:

* Hitting but not critting is: h
* Critting is: c
* Average non-crit damage is: d
* Increased percent chance in hitting from +1 to hit: p

Then:

Pd = Damage with +1 damage = h + 2c
Ph = Damage with +1 hit = p*d

For values like:
Hit but not crit: 60%
Crit: 5%
Average damage: 20
Increased percent chance of hitting from +1 to hit: 5%

Then:
Pd = 0.7
Ph = 1

So you'd rather have +hit in that situation.

If instead
Hit but not crit: 50%
Crit: 5%
Average damage: 10
Increased percent chance of hitting from +1 to hit: 5%

Then:
Pd = 0.6
Ph = 0.5

So you'd rather have +damage in that situation.

To avoid bitter, bitter Wizard tears, can we get clarity on some interactions with Ring of the Savant before it's finalized and/or people acquire them.

1. Ring of the Savant and Mad Evoker's Charm effects.
The skill test bonus has historically been doubled by Mad Evoker's Charm.

I assume then that on a passed skill test, with Ring of the Savant and usage of Mad Evoker's Charm, a level-0 spell's damage before other +spell damage modifiers is:

(3 base damage + 3 skill test + 5 ring of the savant) * (2 for MeC) = 22, before adding in other +spell damage modifiers.

2. Ring of the Savant and Burning Hands.
Historically the skill test result has been added to the damage of all monsters for AoE the spell Burning hands.

I assume then that on a passed skill test with Ring of the Savant Burning hands deals:

6 base + 3 skill test + 5 ring of the savant = 14 points of damage to all monsters.

(Any other spell damage modifiers to Burning Hands, including MeC, provide a pool of damage to be distributed among monsters).

Bonus Bitter Druid Tears Question: Ring of the Savant and Spell Surge.
Historically Spell Surge has doubled the base and skill test bonus of a healing or damage spell.

I assume then that on a passed skill check with Ring of the Savant and Spell Surge, the total effect is:

(3 skill test +5 ring of the savant modifier ) * (2 for spell surge) = 16, before any other +spell healing or damage modifiers.

Matthew Hayward wrote: To avoid bitter, bitter Wizard tears, can we get clarity on some interactions with Ring of the Savant before it's finalized and/or people acquire them.

1. Ring of the Savant and Mad Evoker's Charm effects.
The skill test bonus has historically been doubled by Mad Evoker's Charm.

I assume then that on a passed skill test, with Ring of the Savant and usage of Mad Evoker's Charm, a level-0 spell's damage before other +spell damage modifiers is:

(3 base damage + 3 skill test + 5 ring of the savant) * (2 for MeC) = 22, before adding in other +spell damage modifiers.

I was assuming that the extra damage from the successful skill test would not be doubled with MEC, since the additional damage comes from a token and not the card itself.

Matthew Hayward wrote: To avoid bitter, bitter Wizard tears, can we get clarity on some interactions with Ring of the Savant before it's finalized and/or people acquire them.

1. Ring of the Savant and Mad Evoker's Charm effects.
The skill test bonus has historically been doubled by Mad Evoker's Charm.

I assume then that on a passed skill test, with Ring of the Savant and usage of Mad Evoker's Charm, a level-0 spell's damage before other +spell damage modifiers is:

(3 base damage + 3 skill test + 5 ring of the savant) * (2 for MeC) = 22, before adding in other +spell damage modifiers.

2. Ring of the Savant and Burning Hands.
Historically the skill test result has been added to the damage of all monsters for AoE the spell Burning hands.

I assume then that on a passed skill test with Ring of the Savant Burning hands deals:

6 base + 3 skill test + 5 ring of the savant = 14 points of damage to all monsters.

(Any other spell damage modifiers to Burning Hands, including MeC, provide a pool of damage to be distributed among monsters).

Bonus Bitter Druid Tears Question: Ring of the Savant and Spell Surge.
Historically Spell Surge has doubled the base and skill test bonus of a healing or damage spell.

I assume then that on a passed skill check with Ring of the Savant and Spell Surge, the total effect is:

(3 skill test +5 ring of the savant modifier ) * (2 for spell surge) = 16, before any other +spell healing or damage modifiers.

Based on your examples, I'd recommend the extra damage (hopefully less than 5) go into the pool, because it seems pretty broken otherwise.

Most have glanced over the huge draw back of time on the ring of the savant. we know that 3 isn’t enough because high end players don’t currently use the slot less +3, so if this is also taking a slot then why is 5 too much?

Miathan wrote: Most have glanced over the huge draw back of time on the ring of the savant. we know that 3 isn’t enough because high end players don’t currently use the slot less +3, so if this is also taking a slot then why is 5 too much?

To me, this is aimed at players that are currently doing the skill check. I think it's a mistake to try to make it so powerful to entice those that are skipping the skill checks to start doing them again. Who knows how overpowered it would have to be in order to balance to some people the time it takes to do a skill check? There's no drawback on time at all for those that are currently doing skill checks.

Mike Steele wrote:

Miathan wrote: Most have glanced over the huge draw back of time on the ring of the savant. we know that 3 isn’t enough because high end players don’t currently use the slot less +3, so if this is also taking a slot then why is 5 too much?

To me, this is aimed at players that are currently doing the skill check. I think it's a mistake to try to make it so powerful to entice those that are skipping the skill checks to start doing them again. Who knows how overpowered it would have to be in order to balance to some people the time it takes to do a skill check? There's no drawback on time at all for those that are currently doing skill checks.

That’s not accurate. The draw back is not fitting an always active damage ring.

Mike Steele wrote:

Miathan wrote: Most have glanced over the huge draw back of time on the ring of the savant. we know that 3 isn’t enough because high end players don’t currently use the slot less +3, so if this is also taking a slot then why is 5 too much?

To me, this is aimed at players that are currently doing the skill check. I think it's a mistake to try to make it so powerful to entice those that are skipping the skill checks to start doing them again. Who knows how overpowered it would have to be in order to balance to some people the time it takes to do a skill check? There's no drawback on time at all for those that are currently doing skill checks.

Correct, these are people that are doing them for fun or need that will have no draw back, so people not at bis get 5 dam where bis players get 8. I feel this is a perfect token it gives people already doing it a boost to what they love and it entices others to do it as well

Miathan wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Miathan wrote: Most have glanced over the huge draw back of time on the ring of the savant. we know that 3 isn’t enough because high end players don’t currently use the slot less +3, so if this is also taking a slot then why is 5 too much?

To me, this is aimed at players that are currently doing the skill check. I think it's a mistake to try to make it so powerful to entice those that are skipping the skill checks to start doing them again. Who knows how overpowered it would have to be in order to balance to some people the time it takes to do a skill check? There's no drawback on time at all for those that are currently doing skill checks.

Correct, these are people that are doing them for fun or need that will have no draw back, so people not at bis get 5 dam where bis players get 8. I feel this is a perfect token it gives people already doing it a boost to what they love and it entices others to do it as well

+1

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Arnold wrote: Want to echo the opinion that gauntlets are plenty good at +2 to-hit and +2 healing.

Then there's room for Brute, Finesse, Death Knight, etc to all have a place. You can also reprint Gloves of Weapon Finesse in 2+ years.

If it's the year of the Cleric, then I guess +3/2 is cool, too.

I disagree. +2 to melee hit, +2 to melee damage, and participate in a set bonus is par for this slot.

To-damage is worth more than to-hit unless your damage modifier is up around +20 or more (depending on your assumptions about what percentage chance increase comes from +1 to hit, I'm using 5%).

+to-hit eventually becomes useless as you get to a point where you need a 1 to miss, damage never goes out of style.

All that to is losing +1 damage for +1 to hit is already a bad tradeoff, so if these were:

+3 melee to-hit, +1 melee to-damage I think they would be worse than Death Knight Gauntles.

So, all that remains to consider is:

Is +1 melee to-damage and a set bonus ~= +2 healing?

I think it is close enough.

I guess it depends on the build. There are probably people playing higher difficulty levels with less than BIS builds that would value the + to hit a lot more than + damage. I'd always thought actually that + to hit was valued higher than + damage in token design, but I do understand your point that some builds are so high that they already hit all the time.

I definitely value +hit more than damage as a Druid. Focus is great, but makes getting enough +hit difficult, particularly at epic when the VTD dice had a tendency to roll 4.

Very much looking forward to the return of in person play where +hit is less important than your slide.

I’ll be using the following build for an analysis of the new skill check ring in a couple hours. If anyone feels this is not reflective of a reasonable build of someone just stating to get into URs, let me know why.

tdcharactercreator.com/#/character/edit/6ea68f32-d7d1-4f0c-b31e-a7e7373cc87d