TOPIC: Legendary Armor Set Bonus

Picc wrote: Im against any relic/legendary set having bonuses different from the base set. Theres no reason for it, and IMO it will only causd the very top level players to be harder to balance for.

+1

Mike Steele wrote:

Picc wrote: Im against any relic/legendary set having bonuses different from the base set. Theres no reason for it, and IMO it will only causd the very top level players to be harder to balance for.

+1

+2

I think the hardest people to balance for are the top level rangers, druids, and monks.

Since this idea would bring other classes possibly a little closer to those 3, I would say we should consider it as a "catch up" mechanism.

I wasn't on the forums for the discussion of the eldritch 2 piece set power, but giving +1 level to 2 classes and not the other 10 seems a little like this idea to me.

EDIT: if we made this effect a 2 piece legendary armor effect, it might be a good idea to have it a +1 level boost. That way we could include Clerics and Barbarians.
Then maybe a +2 more strength for 3 pieces?

Picc wrote: Im against any relic/legendary set having bonuses different from the base set. Theres no reason for it, and IMO it will only causd the very top level players to be harder to balance for.

There are actually several reasons for it and they've been raised in this thread...

1) Added incentive to make them. As others have expressed, there's no motivation to build the armor because the cost/benefit is not there.

2) It adds another level of aspiration for mid-level players, another ring to reach for when you're already feeling good with what they have.

3) Now that there is a Legendary "set," it seems to fit what has come before while expanding the mythos.

Wade Schwendemann wrote: I think the hardest people to balance for are the top level rangers, druids, and monks.

Since this idea would bring other classes possibly a little closer to those 3, I would say we should consider it as a "catch up" mechanism.

I wasn't on the forums for the discussion of the eldritch 2 piece set power, but giving +1 level to 2 classes and not the other 10 seems a little like this idea to me.

EDIT: if we made this effect a 2 piece legendary armor effect, it might be a good idea to have it a +1 level boost. That way we could include Clerics and Barbarians.
Then maybe a +2 more strength for 3 pieces?

I wouldn't rank the Druids anywhere near the Rangers and Monk's on the power scale. Druids are far below those classes in melee damage.

Mike Steele wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: I think the hardest people to balance for are the top level rangers, druids, and monks.

Since this idea would bring other classes possibly a little closer to those 3, I would say we should consider it as a "catch up" mechanism.

I wasn't on the forums for the discussion of the eldritch 2 piece set power, but giving +1 level to 2 classes and not the other 10 seems a little like this idea to me.

EDIT: if we made this effect a 2 piece legendary armor effect, it might be a good idea to have it a +1 level boost. That way we could include Clerics and Barbarians.
Then maybe a +2 more strength for 3 pieces?

I wouldn't rank the Druids anywhere near the Rangers and Monk's on the power scale. Druids are far below those classes in melee damage.

I agree they are far below in melee damage, but in total damage output I would imagine they are much closer, particularly if the cleric restores spell surge.

Picc wrote: Im against any relic/legendary set having bonuses different from the base set. Theres no reason for it, and IMO it will only causd the very top level players to be harder to balance for.

You mean like if 2 Relic +3 Relic Viper Strike Fangs counted as two items for the Viper Strike Set, but 2 Ultra Rare +2 Viper Stike Fangs did not?

For the record, I generally agree with the policy.

I do think there could be a place for having upgraded items count in an important set where lower ones didn't, as sometimes sets grant fairly unique effects (Mithral, Cabal, Eldrticht 2 piece), and if there was ever a legendary in a conflicting slot then you would lose access to those unique effects or to the legendary.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Picc wrote: Im against any relic/legendary set having bonuses different from the base set. Theres no reason for it, and IMO it will only causd the very top level players to be harder to balance for.

You mean like if 2 Relic +3 Relic Viper Strike Fangs counted as two items for the Viper Strike Set, but 2 Ultra Rare +2 Viper Stike Fangs did not?

For the record, I generally agree with the policy.

I do think there could be a place for having upgraded items count in an important set where lower ones didn't, as sometimes sets grant fairly unique effects (Mithral, Cabal, Eldrticht 2 piece), and if there was ever a legendary in a conflicting slot then you would lose access to those unique effects or to the legendary.

I wasn't in favor of the Viper exception either, to be honest.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Picc wrote: Im against any relic/legendary set having bonuses different from the base set. Theres no reason for it, and IMO it will only causd the very top level players to be harder to balance for.

You mean like if 2 Relic +3 Relic Viper Strike Fangs counted as two items for the Viper Strike Set, but 2 Ultra Rare +2 Viper Stike Fangs did not?

For the record, I generally agree with the policy.

I do think there could be a place for having upgraded items count in an important set where lower ones didn't, as sometimes sets grant fairly unique effects (Mithral, Cabal, Eldrticht 2 piece), and if there was ever a legendary in a conflicting slot then you would lose access to those unique effects or to the legendary.

Just another example of things being different at the highest levels.

I am not asking for the sun, moon, and stars.

I think its an idea, and a good one at that.

Heck, make it an additional +5 HP. Some reason other than just AC to build 3 legendaries that give nothing but AC.

If three legendary redoubt items doubled the redoubt set bonus, I would be very keen to make all 3.

If it was a bonus level, to saves (through the magic of the legendary items), to damage, whatever, I would still be looking for it.

We are definitely talking about a bonus for the 1% here, and I recognize that.

Also, I think the 3 classes we are talking about, particularly the Human Fighter, need a leg up.

I would be fine if we made it only work if you equipped the shield in both melee and ranged, if 'ranged sleeze' is a concern.

Honestly I don't expect we'll get a Legendary bonus.

But I'll join in wishing for one anyway. +1 Level seems fine. That is not enough to get me excited though, since I'll continue to use the Eldritch set to get the level. Another +2 STR might do it.

Matthew Hayward wrote: What if you only get the Legendary Set Bonus if you also equip TaMor's +4 Mithral Bracers

You really should get something nice for doing that...

Poor TaMor - sitting in the front tanking while the rest of the party wails on the monster with Rare Bracers of Fire/Frost/Shock... it looks like they are having such fun!

Haha that is such a bad legendary. Worst in the game? It's one of the few on my "don't bother" list.

As for the helm, getting the Relic is for sure. The Legendary is probably 3rd on my personal priority list (after Relsa's Ring and the Hammer).

Matthew Hayward wrote:

edwin wrote: 19 Legendary, including the proposed two for 2018, with the following breakdown by which class can use:
• 7 all can use
• +6 for Barbarian (13 of 19)
• +2 for Bard (9 of 19)
• +5 for Cleric (12 of 19)
• +3 for Druid (10 of 19)
• +8 for Dwarf Fighter (15 of 19)
• +2 for Elf Wizard (9 of 19)
• +8 for Fighter (15 of 19)
• +1 for Monk (8 of 19)
• +8 for Paladin (15 of 19)
• +3 for Ranger (10 of 19)
• +2 for Rogue (9 of 19)
• +2 for Wizard (9 of 19)

Very heavily weighted in favor of Fighters and Paladin.

I agree with you mainly - but I think I've become convinced over this design season that it would be nice to have some "fighter only" items.

Like - yes - one of their main class bonus is "can use most of the stuff" - but we should have a "superior" weapon or other item every other year or so so there can be something just for them.

Like a 2 hander that fighters may wield 1 handed if they choose, or maybe just a better weapon that other classes may use, like a an updated Dread Sword with +2 typed damage baked into the wheel or something.


Rangers just got a charm that deals +6 damage on a ranged slide hit.

Maybe fighters should get a charm that deals +6 damage on a melee slide hit.

I guess i'll have to disagree, I don't see why fighters need a fighter only legendary right now. They have the best access to Legendaries of any class. If you wanted to argue for a fighter only token that helped re-enforce or emphasize the fighter class definition i'd be willing to hear it out. I think one of the issues with just making fighters the versatile damage guys is it limits them to DPS, which pretty much every class considers themselves DPS and IMO DPS isn't something that should limited to just a single class. MMOs run into this problem ALL the time.

If we wanted to define fighters specifically as Best AC Best Weapon choice, i think they are there already. I think we should take a step beyond that and enhance one of their other powers like the re-slide or something. Otherwise you're right back at the arm's race again. You make a amaze-balls sword then the barbarian's want it because they are DPS/best weapon selection, then the rangers want it because they are 2 puck DPS. and so on and so on.

We should be looking at Key and Vital role defining URs to be the next legendaries. We've done Heal boosting and spell damage boosting, its time to do Bard Song and Rogue boxes. Would be easy enough to do some type of combine all the existing elements into a single token type deal.

valetutto wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

edwin wrote: 19 Legendary, including the proposed two for 2018, with the following breakdown by which class can use:
• 7 all can use
• +6 for Barbarian (13 of 19)
• +2 for Bard (9 of 19)
• +5 for Cleric (12 of 19)
• +3 for Druid (10 of 19)
• +8 for Dwarf Fighter (15 of 19)
• +2 for Elf Wizard (9 of 19)
• +8 for Fighter (15 of 19)
• +1 for Monk (8 of 19)
• +8 for Paladin (15 of 19)
• +3 for Ranger (10 of 19)
• +2 for Rogue (9 of 19)
• +2 for Wizard (9 of 19)

Very heavily weighted in favor of Fighters and Paladin.

I agree with you mainly - but I think I've become convinced over this design season that it would be nice to have some "fighter only" items.

Like - yes - one of their main class bonus is "can use most of the stuff" - but we should have a "superior" weapon or other item every other year or so so there can be something just for them.

Like a 2 hander that fighters may wield 1 handed if they choose, or maybe just a better weapon that other classes may use, like a an updated Dread Sword with +2 typed damage baked into the wheel or something.


Rangers just got a charm that deals +6 damage on a ranged slide hit.

Maybe fighters should get a charm that deals +6 damage on a melee slide hit.

I guess i'll have to disagree, I don't see why fighters need a fighter only legendary right now. They have the best access to Legendaries of any class. If you wanted to argue for a fighter only token that helped re-enforce or emphasize the fighter class definition i'd be willing to hear it out. I think one of the issues with just making fighters the versatile damage guys is it limits them to DPS, which pretty much every class considers themselves DPS and IMO DPS isn't something that should limited to just a single class. MMOs run into this problem ALL the time.

If we wanted to define fighters specifically as Best AC Best Weapon choice, i think they are there already. I think we should take a step beyond that and enhance one of their other powers like the re-slide or something. Otherwise you're right back at the arm's race again. You make a amaze-balls sword then the barbarian's want it because they are DPS/best weapon selection, then the rangers want it because they are 2 puck DPS. and so on and so on.

We should be looking at Key and Vital role defining URs to be the next legendaries. We've done Heal boosting and spell damage boosting, its time to do Bard Song and Rogue boxes. Would be easy enough to do some type of combine all the existing elements into a single token type deal.

Per Jeff, the next Legendaries are going to focus on Fighters and Spell casters.