Wade Schwendemann wrote: The real problem is that we are designing the HA for 2 different groups
1. New Paladin players who can get "2 legendaries for one" by making the HA and get the class specific powers as well as a legendary weapon to attack with, so we have to make it weak enough that it isnt unbalanced.
2. Existing relic/legendary Paladins, who want a legendary that is at least close to as good as the ones of other classes in the current year, and one that replaces Welfor's or Thor's.
I don't know how we reconcile this. I am definitely in favor of giving more defensive powers to the Paladin legendary. If guard can't be expanded, maybe add another use of Grace?
Another way to look at it is the difference between desirable and defining. So much of the interest, seemingly more than last year, is in a single token that will be the best token the class could ever have.
Musing, consider the question: What is the current most important token for a [insert class]? Important is probably a bad word, I could be more consistent and say "defining" instead. What one token will define a [insert class] more than any other? Or, what one token would you most want to have as a [insert class]?
[insert new Legendary] being the most defining or most desirable or whatever seems reasonable. But, the one token to rule them all approach strikes me as shortsighted. If I'm playing wizard, I'd probably say Charm of Spell Swapping is the most desired, then Ring of Spell Storing, then Focus Ring, then Staff, then MEC. I have to think about it, though. There isn't some massive dropoff between tokens.
Related, as it gets to some of why I really dislike the URs not being class specific (besides just how that is out of line with just last year), is that I find a token more desirable because it's class restricted. Cloak of the Elm is a cooler token to me if it's Ranger only or Ranger/Druid. It's not as useful, obviously. But, the references to the maximum damage model point out the extent that tokens are feeding a damage output beast where class differences are largely ignored.
Anyway, getting back to how it seems like the transmutes are trying to do a host of things to be the best thing in the next decade, even putting aside balance, I'd rather that class oriented/specific tokens at UR level come out more often, so you get your extra Sacrifice and your extra Lay on Hands and your extra not-paladin ability from more than one token because then you have more toys and don't have one path to pursue.
Couple side notes.
The dropoff from legendary to relic should not be so massive that someone feels inferior for only having the relic. Seems to me that paladin, ranger, and monk transmutes all suffer from this.
The blue Lenses should be +1/+1 because why even bother if they don't at least do that? I kind of liked the short bow theme that was more prevalent earlier on, Lenses bonus could be even higher with short bows (actually, there's space on the token, +1/+1 and additional with short bows should fit).
I do think Ring of Stamina giving +6 Fort Saves is a cooler token than +2 CON, though the latter is way better for players who need more HP, which is why I didn't have a problem with the change. Not every token is for every player, in fact, URs and up are for few players, with legendaries for a tiny number of players.
