TOPIC: Final-Final Token Images (minor tweaks this round)

Rob F wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Rob F wrote: Just looked at the UR Gloves and I feel the same way about them as I do about the UR Robe. Too much on one Token. This year Gloves of the Deadshot provide +3 to hit with Ranged and a set bonus. This seems reasonable for UR Gloves. Adding the healing to the Gloves seems too much. Why not reprint Gloves of Weapon Finesse which was last printed 10 years ago in 2013 and then next year give the healing classes a cool UR set of Gloves? Maybe a +3 to Healing instead of +2.

The gauntlets ARE gloves of weapon finesse for everyone but Cleric and Druid. Cleric and Druid will now have to choose between superior combat options (especially brute) vs having weapon finesse with a Healing kicker.

Honestly, the problem with the gloves of weapon finess is that gloves of the brute basically obsoleted them - in many cases they give you the same +3 hit and also +3 damage.

Well Brute does have the -2 DEX drawback. -1 Ranged, -1 Reflex, -1 AC. I MIGHT even go so far as saying go +4 to Hit. I just don't like blending the to hit and healing, I'd rather see a melee gloves this year for the melee types and a healing gloves next year for the healing classes.

The question of if this is a good token for fighters, or if this is a good item for clerics, means it might be a good item for both. While there might be (are) better options for fighter (yeah, who needs dex unless thors) to wield, these are not an 00 dud for them, and the potential that they can use it until someone who is interested for their druid can trade with is an amazing upside. The token is muddy, whom benefits most is a great question, and that likely means it is a solid token design. I love these gauntlets, they are not above a curve for anyone (maybe Druids, who plays Druid anyway 😉) though they’re not bad for anyone either.

To all my Druids, please keep healing me, my ac is low, I’m a monk after all!

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Ian Lee wrote: I was lying down to try to sleep when I got this idea. Posting from phone so not going to explain basis of it in depth tonight.

Necklace of the Not-Zephyr

Cast non-damaging spell as Free Action. (1/room)

You want to make it WORSE?

If you went down the wiz transmute path, would you want the original version? Feel bad about the original version? Obviously, if you were wizzing and didn't have MM or Ashenne's, would be pretty excited by getting another spell off every combat a round sooner.

If you went down the cleric transmute path, would you want the original version? This proposal allows for same Bless/Prayer options as original version or latest unmodifiable version. It has minimal impact to cleric, really, compared to original.

Druid always gained immensely. Druid, with this proposal, still can combat heal better or try something non-blasty as second spell. Bard gained immensely. Bard would lose blasting power. Ranger ... nobody likely cares as long as rangers don't become the best new spellcasters.

This is all in comparison to the unmodifiable latest version. With the unmodifiable latest version, the non-damaging, non-healing spells would work the same, but healing loses significantly depending upon healing bonus, though bard healing often is outside of combat. Wizards can get a FA blast every combat for list damage, which might be their preference over only having a small number of options, but how frustrating is it to wizards to get more damage possibilities that are unmodifiable?

Maybe it's a perception thing. If my bonuses are low and I wasn't already slotlocked, the latest version is still a big deal. If someone really wants to Cat's Grace or Bull's Strength, latest version allows that just as easily as my proposal or original version. If my bonuses are high, outside of bard, druid, ranger, I probably went down the class neck transmute path and don't care about this, anyway.

Is necklace of the zephyr now the same as the bracelets? If so, that's really bad.
If the intent was to allow the Cabal set bonus out of the neck slot, that would be fine.
Does unmodified mean you don't get your spell bonus to attack?

The bead definitely will still sell at +2, but I agree with Fiddy, it's going to be tough to get to the next legendary transmute.

Those pointing out how the Druid double dips on the Robe have a point. Also, Druids aren't giving up nearly the AC a cleric would to use this.

The tome generally feels quite weak. I also worry about the newer players who draws this one.

Ian Lee wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Ian Lee wrote: I was lying down to try to sleep when I got this idea. Posting from phone so not going to explain basis of it in depth tonight.

Necklace of the Not-Zephyr

Cast non-damaging spell as Free Action. (1/room)

You want to make it WORSE?

If you went down the wiz transmute path, would you want the original version? Feel bad about the original version? Obviously, if you were wizzing and didn't have MM or Ashenne's, would be pretty excited by getting another spell off every combat a round sooner.

If you went down the cleric transmute path, would you want the original version? This proposal allows for same Bless/Prayer options as original version or latest unmodifiable version. It has minimal impact to cleric, really, compared to original.

Druid always gained immensely. Druid, with this proposal, still can combat heal better or try something non-blasty as second spell. Bard gained immensely. Bard would lose blasting power. Ranger ... nobody likely cares as long as rangers don't become the best new spellcasters.

This is all in comparison to the unmodifiable latest version. With the unmodifiable latest version, the non-damaging, non-healing spells would work the same, but healing loses significantly depending upon healing bonus, though bard healing often is outside of combat. Wizards can get a FA blast every combat for list damage, which might be their preference over only having a small number of options, but how frustrating is it to wizards to get more damage possibilities that are unmodifiable?

Maybe it's a perception thing. If my bonuses are low and I wasn't already slotlocked, the latest version is still a big deal. If someone really wants to Cat's Grace or Bull's Strength, latest version allows that just as easily as my proposal or original version. If my bonuses are high, outside of bard, druid, ranger, I probably went down the class neck transmute path and don't care about this, anyway.

I missed that it got switched to non-modified in the most recent version until this comment. I'm not sure a 1/room FA unmodified spell is worth a Neck slot UR. Agree that changing it to non-damaging spells is probably the preferred solution for most classes.

Fiddy wrote: Jeff, not knowing what your plan is for the transmute TE in a few years, it is tough to give feedback on the change to the Bead of Bounty. But, by lowering the BoB to +2, you may need to get creative with the other pieces of the transmute if the overall bonus will be close to the bonus of the CoA.

It also feels slightly odd to be limiting the power of the BoB based on logic that a slot expander may someday exist. The Charm Necklace was already out (2012) when CoGF came out (2013). So Charms already had gained slots when that TE was made. I don't think there is a need to drop BoB's bonus.

I agree with this, +3 seemed appropriate for the reasons mentioned. Unless you're wanting the next transmute to be significantly less powerful than the CoA. It seems like it if incorporates three TE URs it will have to be much less powerful regardless, because none of the three are likely to give as many treasure chips as the HoP.

As a spell bard who spams sonic darts with charm of spell swapping and ring of expertise, I’d sooner see the robes affect 0 level spells then 1st-3rd. I’d be comfortable with wizards on such a robe too. The top damage spells that are getting conserved won’t benefit, and it affects fewer spells on the wizard card.

For clerics and druids, affecting 0 level spells would mean it would only benefit their healing spells and not their damage spells.

Jeff Martin wrote: One socket slots are easier to do, but when the slots with more sockets start to fill up we must make a call to bump things up. Maybe we can take a half-step and do +2 damage and then something like -1 from Cold?

Hi Jeff,

I'm actually having a hard time following exactly what you mean in the bold. If I can better understand the logic, I can provide better feedback during token design. I see 3 possible interpretations with this statement.

1) When the initial lower power tokens were created, no room was left for a graceful transition from common -> UR. It's very difficult to have +1 damage at Uncommon and +2 damage at UR, while still leaving room for Rares.

2) When a category with multiple slots becomes filled, people are less likely to purchase side grades with similar power. For example, in gloves, since it a single slot, some people who have mithral / death knight gauntlets will still purchase gloves of the brute, while someone with 5 iouns isn't likely to purchase a variant of a damage dealing Ioun. (ex, you expect that someone with banshee prism wouldn't be interested in a +1 damage +1 saves ioun).

This explanation doesn't seem very likely because different named tokens stack. So you can have 9 +2 damage iouns if you really want, as long as they all have different names.

3) Existing, older tokens are not desirable reprints in these slots. Either because they are overpowered (maybe topaz trilliant), or under powered (sapphire prism).. This means that you need to creep the power of newer iouns.

This one doesn't seem likely, because it is easy to work around. You could reprint Sapphire Prism (2015) with +2 AC and +1 all saves or create a Ruby Trilliant with +2 all saves and -3 fire damage, and either option would have less impact on creep than modifying a recent damage increasing token, players that purchased the iouns in 2012 / 2015 have had them for 6-11years so they are less likely to feel impacted by a new token, and in the end the new tokens would still stack with the 10 year old ones.

4) Some other option I don't really understand.

Rob F wrote: The UR Robe seems like it's trying to do too much. Plus it seems a bit OP. Based on others comments and Jeff's responses why not do the following:

For this year - Robe of Healing:
1st-3rd level healing Spells get +3 total healing. Keep the classes Bard, Cleric, Druid.

Next year: Robe of ????
1st-3rd level damage Spells & polymorph damage get +3 total damage. Make the classes Druid and Wizards.

This satisfies all classes and gives the Druids an interesting choice to make between wearing a healing robe or a damage robe based on the build route they want to pursue. And you could keep it +4 if you wanted but that seems a bit OP. Plus you now have one less Token to worry about designing next year!

I don't think that solution satisfies all classes at all. Clerics and Wizards would each get a robe that enhances nearly all of their spells, but Druids would have to choose between two robes which both only enhance half of the Druid spells.

Leaving this robe as-is and doing a Wizard robe next year is a far better solution.

Rob F wrote: The UR Robe seems like it's trying to do too much. Plus it seems a bit OP. Based on others comments and Jeff's responses why not do the following:

For this year - Robe of Healing:
1st-3rd level healing Spells get +3 total healing. Keep the classes Bard, Cleric, Druid.

Next year: Robe of ????
1st-3rd level damage Spells & polymorph damage get +3 total damage. Make the classes Druid and Wizards.

This satisfies all classes and gives the Druids an interesting choice to make between wearing a healing robe or a damage robe based on the build route they want to pursue. And you could keep it +4 if you wanted but that seems a bit OP. Plus you now have one less Token to worry about designing next year!

I like this idea. Can we all pretend that I thought of this?

Jeff Martin wrote:

Rob F wrote: The UR Robe seems like it's trying to do too much. Plus it seems a bit OP. Based on others comments and Jeff's responses why not do the following:

For this year - Robe of Healing:
1st-3rd level healing Spells get +3 total healing. Keep the classes Bard, Cleric, Druid.

Next year: Robe of ????
1st-3rd level damage Spells & polymorph damage get +3 total damage. Make the classes Druid and Wizards.

This satisfies all classes and gives the Druids an interesting choice to make between wearing a healing robe or a damage robe based on the build route they want to pursue. And you could keep it +4 if you wanted but that seems a bit OP. Plus you now have one less Token to worry about designing next year!

I like this idea. Can we all pretend that I thought of this?

Jeff, please see my earlier post, the only thing this proposal does is screw over the Druid. It gives the Cleric the current robe which enhances all their healing spells and it gives the Wizard a robe next year which enhances all their Damage spells AND Polymorph damage, both of those classes come out great. But, it leaves the Druid having to choose between two incomplete robes, one of which enhances Druid healing and one of which enhances Druid damage. Clerics & Wizards would get to boost nearly 100% of their spells, but the Druid would only be able to boost about 50% of Druid spells regardless of which Robe they choose.

Leaving the current robe as-is and designing a Wizard robe next year is the fair solution to Clerics, Wizards, and Druids.

Jeff Martin wrote:

Rob F wrote: The UR Robe seems like it's trying to do too much. Plus it seems a bit OP. Based on others comments and Jeff's responses why not do the following:

For this year - Robe of Healing:
1st-3rd level healing Spells get +3 total healing. Keep the classes Bard, Cleric, Druid.

Next year: Robe of ????
1st-3rd level damage Spells & polymorph damage get +3 total damage. Make the classes Druid and Wizards.

This satisfies all classes and gives the Druids an interesting choice to make between wearing a healing robe or a damage robe based on the build route they want to pursue. And you could keep it +4 if you wanted but that seems a bit OP. Plus you now have one less Token to worry about designing next year!

I like this idea. Can we all pretend that I thought of this?

Jeff, I'm so glad you thought of making this year's robe healing only -- that is a wonderful idea! Much better for balance.

Mike Steele wrote: Jeff, please see my earlier post, the only thing this proposal does is screw over the Druid. It gives the Cleric the current robe which enhances all their healing spells and it gives the Wizard a robe next year which enhances all their Damage spells AND Polymorph damage, both of those classes come out great. But, it leaves the Druid having to choose between two incomplete robes, one of which enhances Druid healing and one of which enhances Druid damage. Clerics & Wizards would get to boost nearly 100% of their spells, but the Druid would only be able to boost about 50% of Druid spells regardless of which Robe they choose.

Leaving the current robe as-is and designing a Wizard robe next year is the fair solution to Clerics, Wizards, and Druids.

Welcome to the idea of being the jack of all trades, master of none class? Additionally, if you're really planning on going all in on one aspect of your build out in advance (primary healer / damage spells / poly melee), then you really don't have much sacrificing to do.

The primary healer druid goes healing robes, and spell swaps most damage to healing spells.
The primary spell damage druid goes spell damage + poly robes and spell swaps most healing spells for damage spells.
The poly only druid chooses between a relic level damage buff and No AC, or +2 Str and some AC.