TOPIC: 2020 Transmuted Beta Images

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: 5) Holy Avengers: big question is: does the guard ability stack with the Amulet of Guarding? In other words, with the +5 Holy Avenger, can the Paladin guard a total of 3 other players? If so I think that's a problem. Either way I see this as more powerful than all of the other Legendaries. For the other three classes, they have to give up the most powerful slot in the game. The +5 Holy Avenger actually frees up that slot instead. It is also a great weapon. And you can also swap weapons. So basically you get a (1) great weapon, (2) free up a neck slot, (3) doesn't really take a slot if you don't want it to, and some other cool effects. It might just be too many.

In other words, for the other classes they have to use up their neck slot for their Legendary (as designed). For the Paladin, they effectively have a slotless Legendary that gives you a +5 to-hit and allows you to use it or any other melee weapon.

Another question: if the Paladin switches weapons do they lose these stated abilities?

PS - I'm not saying we should change the slot. I like the +5 Holy Avenger. I just think it might need to be less powerful than the others to make up for it being effectively slotless.

I think the Avenger needs to be toned WAY down based on this line of reasoning, it is:

1. A slotless Amulet of Guarding. (neck slot UR)
2. A slotless +5 to saves. (Back slot Relic/Legendary)
3. A bunch of other stuff

Is there any doubt that if we printed a slotless legendary token that said:

+5 to saves, You may equip an additional neck item that does not effect the party card or expand slots.

It would be the best legendary token ever printed?

Because what this is is better than that.

I disagree with it being needed to be nerf a lot from where it is now. It is much better then last revision and is slightly over powered.

Saves should be toned down to +1 relic/ +3 legendary and should be in line. Gotta make the sword strong enough so it doesn’t need to be switched out (expect for needing to make ranged attacks); It is class specific so needs a little bit of oomph to it. My feeling is it should not stack with amulet of guarding.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: 5) Holy Avengers: big question is: does the guard ability stack with the Amulet of Guarding? In other words, with the +5 Holy Avenger, can the Paladin guard a total of 3 other players? If so I think that's a problem. Either way I see this as more powerful than all of the other Legendaries. For the other three classes, they have to give up the most powerful slot in the game. The +5 Holy Avenger actually frees up that slot instead. It is also a great weapon. And you can also swap weapons. So basically you get a (1) great weapon, (2) free up a neck slot, (3) doesn't really take a slot if you don't want it to, and some other cool effects. It might just be too many.

In other words, for the other classes they have to use up their neck slot for their Legendary (as designed). For the Paladin, they effectively have a slotless Legendary that gives you a +5 to-hit and allows you to use it or any other melee weapon.

Another question: if the Paladin switches weapons do they lose these stated abilities?

PS - I'm not saying we should change the slot. I like the +5 Holy Avenger. I just think it might need to be less powerful than the others to make up for it being effectively slotless.

I think the Avenger needs to be toned WAY down based on this line of reasoning, it is:

1. A slotless Amulet of Guarding. (neck slot UR)
2. A slotless +5 to saves. (Back slot Relic/Legendary)
3. A bunch of other stuff

Is there any doubt that if we printed a slotless legendary token that said:

+5 to saves, You may equip an additional neck item that does not effect the party card or expand slots.

It would be the best legendary token ever printed?

Because what this is is better than that.

Creating mythical tokens and then arguing against them is not exactly a fair comparison.

The token isn't slotless. Period. It requires being equipped in the Melee mainhand slot, preventing the use of a 2 handed weapon, or an existing legendary with a higher damage cap (and slightly higher average). Doing so means a Paladin can't equip (without cheating of course) a 2 handed melee weapon that is much better.

+5 Saves is a lot. It would be reasonable to drop down to +2/+3.

Adjusting power levels is fine. Let's not take it back to where we had it in the L+L section, which is essentially useless, particularly if Guard doesn't stack.

Edit:

Matthew Hayward wrote: What is Fury?

No one seems to know

I'm sorry you didn't like my illustration - I'm trying to clarify the point. I can do it purely in terms if the proposed token:

By equipping this token during character building, you get +5 to saves on the character builder. This is better than a relic level back slot, and it's been tacked on as an afterthought.

By game rules, you are not required to wield this weapon at any point in the dungeon, so you can indeed switch into any weapon you prefer. You could switch to avernon's deathcleaver, and you could then use it with the new expanded crit range bracers.

Technically you lose the +5 to saves if you do, but it will still be included on the party card. This puts the paladin and the dm in the annoying position of having to talk about saves which uses up time and making the dm remember to do subtraction.

You are right that you have to choose between the +5 to saves during coaching and and party card two handed buffs.

This is simply too good. If this weapon did nothing else but be a decent +5 weapon and confer +5 to saves it would be too good - especially with a Cloak of Shadowskin in print. Instead it also comes with a variety of other Effects, one of which is a neck slot UR.

Yes I agree with Matt here. The Avenger is WAY OP. Look at Thor's, a lot of people think it's OP (I'm one of them) and that Token even has a stat you have to hit to wield it. Avenger +5 Saves, +5 Sword with great damage, built in UR Amulet of Guarding, and still other goodies. Hands down best Token ever created. I know the Pally's want a cool weapon but this one is crazy OP.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: 5) Holy Avengers: big question is: does the guard ability stack with the Amulet of Guarding? In other words, with the +5 Holy Avenger, can the Paladin guard a total of 3 other players? If so I think that's a problem. Either way I see this as more powerful than all of the other Legendaries. For the other three classes, they have to give up the most powerful slot in the game. The +5 Holy Avenger actually frees up that slot instead. It is also a great weapon. And you can also swap weapons. So basically you get a (1) great weapon, (2) free up a neck slot, (3) doesn't really take a slot if you don't want it to, and some other cool effects. It might just be too many.

In other words, for the other classes they have to use up their neck slot for their Legendary (as designed). For the Paladin, they effectively have a slotless Legendary that gives you a +5 to-hit and allows you to use it or any other melee weapon.

Another question: if the Paladin switches weapons do they lose these stated abilities?

PS - I'm not saying we should change the slot. I like the +5 Holy Avenger. I just think it might need to be less powerful than the others to make up for it being effectively slotless.

I think the Avenger needs to be toned WAY down based on this line of reasoning, it is:

1. A slotless Amulet of Guarding. (neck slot UR)
2. A slotless +5 to saves. (Back slot Relic/Legendary)
3. A bunch of other stuff

Is there any doubt that if we printed a slotless legendary token that said:

+5 to saves, You may equip an additional neck item that does not effect the party card or expand slots.

It would be the best legendary token ever printed?

Because what this is is better than that.

Creating mythical tokens and then arguing against them is not exactly a fair comparison.

The token isn't slotless. Period. It requires being equipped in the Melee mainhand slot, preventing the use of a 2 handed weapon, or an existing legendary with a higher damage cap (and slightly higher average). Doing so means a Paladin can't equip (without cheating of course) a 2 handed melee weapon that is much better.

+5 Saves is a lot. It would be reasonable to drop down to +2/+3.

Adjusting power levels is fine. Let's not take it back to where we had it in the L+L section, which is essentially useless, particularly if Guard doesn't stack.

Edit:

Matthew Hayward wrote: What is Fury?

No one seems to know

I'm sorry you didn't like my illustration - I'm trying to clarify the point. I can do it purely in terms if the proposed token:

By equipping this token during character building, you get +5 to saves on the character builder. This is better than a relic level back slot, and it's been tacked on as an afterthought.

By game rules, you are not required to wield this weapon at any point in the dungeon, so you can indeed switch into any weapon you prefer. You could switch to avernon's deathcleaver, and you could then use it with the new expanded crit range bracers.

Technically you lose the +5 to saves if you do, but it will still be included on the party card. This puts the paladin and the dm in the annoying position of having to talk about saves which uses up time and making the dm remember to do subtraction.

You are right that you have to choose between the +5 to saves during coaching and and party card two handed buffs.

This is simply too good. If this weapon did nothing else but be a decent +5 weapon and confer +5 to saves it would be too good - especially with a Cloak of Shadowskin in print. Instead it also comes with a variety of other Effects, one of which is a neck slot UR.

I will concede that the +5 saves is too good. I think deciding on how much to tune the weapon absolutely depends on whether or not the guard will stack with Amulet of Guarding.

Also, I think that using the argument that one can equip one thing in coaching that adds to the party card, then switch into something that isn't on the party card isn't unique to Paladins and this proposed weapon. There is nothing stopping a wizard from equipping a Relsa's Ring and Greater Ring of Focus, for example, then "switching" into a Ring of Spell Storing.

Granted, the rules don't allow for switching rings like they do for weapons.

Matthew Hayward wrote: I think the Monk transmute is basically OK. Tacking in Dark Disciple Shirt I like.

I am worried that skilled monks, monks with helpful flanking rogues, etc. will stun lock monsters leading to no-fun combats.

How about change the legendary stun effect to proc more often but still be limited:

Stunning Fist on 18-20, no stun immunity, 2/room, must declare using ability before slide

?

I agree that monk legendary is decent. I feel a +6 damage would have been a better place especially for a neck slot. Still on the fence if it will be made for me. I do like adding the extra psychic ability compared to necklace providing psychic. Just need to make sure to equip a psychic enabler.

It would be nice to get returning Shurikens but it isn’t a biggie.

Stun gets overlooked a lot but stun can be a over powered ability. Rather sub it out for something else but maybe the ship sailed already.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: 5) Holy Avengers: big question is: does the guard ability stack with the Amulet of Guarding? In other words, with the +5 Holy Avenger, can the Paladin guard a total of 3 other players? If so I think that's a problem. Either way I see this as more powerful than all of the other Legendaries. For the other three classes, they have to give up the most powerful slot in the game. The +5 Holy Avenger actually frees up that slot instead. It is also a great weapon. And you can also swap weapons. So basically you get a (1) great weapon, (2) free up a neck slot, (3) doesn't really take a slot if you don't want it to, and some other cool effects. It might just be too many.

In other words, for the other classes they have to use up their neck slot for their Legendary (as designed). For the Paladin, they effectively have a slotless Legendary that gives you a +5 to-hit and allows you to use it or any other melee weapon.

Another question: if the Paladin switches weapons do they lose these stated abilities?

PS - I'm not saying we should change the slot. I like the +5 Holy Avenger. I just think it might need to be less powerful than the others to make up for it being effectively slotless.

I think the Avenger needs to be toned WAY down based on this line of reasoning, it is:

1. A slotless Amulet of Guarding. (neck slot UR)
2. A slotless +5 to saves. (Back slot Relic/Legendary)
3. A bunch of other stuff

Is there any doubt that if we printed a slotless legendary token that said:

+5 to saves, You may equip an additional neck item that does not effect the party card or expand slots.

It would be the best legendary token ever printed?

Because what this is is better than that.

Creating mythical tokens and then arguing against them is not exactly a fair comparison.

The token isn't slotless. Period. It requires being equipped in the Melee mainhand slot, preventing the use of a 2 handed weapon, or an existing legendary with a higher damage cap (and slightly higher average). Doing so means a Paladin can't equip (without cheating of course) a 2 handed melee weapon that is much better.

+5 Saves is a lot. It would be reasonable to drop down to +2/+3.

Adjusting power levels is fine. Let's not take it back to where we had it in the L+L section, which is essentially useless, particularly if Guard doesn't stack.

Edit:

Matthew Hayward wrote: What is Fury?

No one seems to know

I'm sorry you didn't like my illustration - I'm trying to clarify the point. I can do it purely in terms if the proposed token:

By equipping this token during character building, you get +5 to saves on the character builder. This is better than a relic level back slot, and it's been tacked on as an afterthought.

By game rules, you are not required to wield this weapon at any point in the dungeon, so you can indeed switch into any weapon you prefer. You could switch to avernon's deathcleaver, and you could then use it with the new expanded crit range bracers.

Technically you lose the +5 to saves if you do, but it will still be included on the party card. This puts the paladin and the dm in the annoying position of having to talk about saves which uses up time and making the dm remember to do subtraction.

You are right that you have to choose between the +5 to saves during coaching and and party card two handed buffs.

This is simply too good. If this weapon did nothing else but be a decent +5 weapon and confer +5 to saves it would be too good - especially with a Cloak of Shadowskin in print. Instead it also comes with a variety of other Effects, one of which is a neck slot UR.

Matthew, I agree with you completely that +5 Saves is way overpowered. The Legendary Ring of Protection gives you +6 Saves, and that's ALL that it does. I'd recommend dropping saves completely from this, as it's probably too good even without it. It has the advantage most of the Class Legendary tokens don't have of being a non-Neck slot token, in addition to a great damage wheel it has multiple other abilities (+1 Guard, +1 Sacrifice, Insta-Kill, and 10 points of healing). I think all of those are great Paladin abilities, and so much is crammed into this that it's overpowered.

On a side note - I had a feeling it was bad luck that the Druid was one of the first Class tokens, it seems like they are increasing in power.

I still think the problem with the Avenger is that he's trying to jam too much into one Token. Why can't the Paladins have a kick ass neck item like the rest of the classes and throw saves, guarding, sacrifice, etc. into a neck item? I know we kind of went down the road already with the +2 Avenger but there's no reason not to put the breaks on. Why does a sword have +5 to saves anyway? Make a Pally Legendary neck item and make a Pally Legendary weapon on par with the others. Rogues have a new Neck and Asher's, Barbarians have a new Neck and Averon's, etc. Just make two for the Pally.

Rob F wrote: I still think the problem with the Avenger is that he's trying to jam too much into one Token. Why can't the Paladins have a kick ass neck item like the rest of the classes and throw saves, guarding, sacrifice, etc. into a neck item? I know we kind of went down the road already with the +2 Avenger but there's no reason not to put the breaks on. Why does a sword have +5 to saves anyway? Make a Pally Legendary neck item and make a Pally Legendary weapon on par with the others. Rogues have a new Neck and Asher's, Barbarians have a new Neck and Averon's, etc. Just make two for the Pally.

I don't think the Paladins need two Legendary tokens, but I'd be onboard with their Class UR being the Sword and the Relic and Legendary being neck slot like almost everyone else. Having all these abilities on the Sword, and being able to avoid locking up the neck slot, puts it out of balance.

Mike Steele wrote:

Rob F wrote: I still think the problem with the Avenger is that he's trying to jam too much into one Token. Why can't the Paladins have a kick ass neck item like the rest of the classes and throw saves, guarding, sacrifice, etc. into a neck item? I know we kind of went down the road already with the +2 Avenger but there's no reason not to put the breaks on. Why does a sword have +5 to saves anyway? Make a Pally Legendary neck item and make a Pally Legendary weapon on par with the others. Rogues have a new Neck and Asher's, Barbarians have a new Neck and Averon's, etc. Just make two for the Pally.

I don't think the Paladins need two Legendary tokens, but I'd be onboard with their Class UR being the Sword and the Relic and Legendary being neck slot like almost everyone else. Having all these abilities on the Sword, and being able to avoid locking up the neck slot, puts it out of balance.

I think that would be fine too.

Rob F wrote:
Yes I agree with Matt here. The Avenger is WAY OP. Look at Thor's, a lot of people think it's OP (I'm one of them) and that Token even has a stat you have to hit to wield it. Avenger +5 Saves, +5 Sword with great damage, built in UR Amulet of Guarding, and still other goodies. Hands down best Token ever created. I know the Pally's want a cool weapon but this one is crazy OP.

I don't want one that is unfair. I want one that is good, very good, but ultimately in line with everything "legendary"

I think to do that well, we would need to know about stacking guard or not.

Many seem to feel that 4 people (including the Paladin) using the Paladin's AC is too good.
I can't tell you how little guard really comes into play. Ranged attackers, Spells, AoE from monsters, Frost Giants, Scrael. Is it still in play enough to make guarding 3 too good? I don't think so, but a lot of others do, so I will agree to disagree with them.

If this doesn't stack, what happens is that the Paladin picks up a Stu's or Medallion of Valhalla, and gets +3 Str and either +3 Dex or +4 Con. If those stats were printed on this instead of "may guard 1 additional character" people would be losing their minds, or so I think.

I like the idea of allowing Paladins to choose to support their team with one additional guard OR with extra strength and dex or con, but again, I am in the minority. I don't mind that.

Sacrifice is a fun power, but almost never comes up in the main dungeon.

Mike Steele wrote: On a side note - I had a feeling it was bad luck that the Druid was one of the first Class tokens, it seems like they are increasing in power.

The Druid item was always a little under powered, but become a lot less interesting when they changed the rules on how often you could polymorph. I hope that at some point they remove the one creature per room restriction.

As far as damage it is hard to see how a polymorphed Druid using the legendary would ever match damage with any other legendary wielding class, but if they can stay close in damage that is likely good enough.

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: 5) Holy Avengers: big question is: does the guard ability stack with the Amulet of Guarding? In other words, with the +5 Holy Avenger, can the Paladin guard a total of 3 other players? If so I think that's a problem. Either way I see this as more powerful than all of the other Legendaries. For the other three classes, they have to give up the most powerful slot in the game. The +5 Holy Avenger actually frees up that slot instead. It is also a great weapon. And you can also swap weapons. So basically you get a (1) great weapon, (2) free up a neck slot, (3) doesn't really take a slot if you don't want it to, and some other cool effects. It might just be too many.

In other words, for the other classes they have to use up their neck slot for their Legendary (as designed). For the Paladin, they effectively have a slotless Legendary that gives you a +5 to-hit and allows you to use it or any other melee weapon.

Another question: if the Paladin switches weapons do they lose these stated abilities?

PS - I'm not saying we should change the slot. I like the +5 Holy Avenger. I just think it might need to be less powerful than the others to make up for it being effectively slotless.

I think the Avenger needs to be toned WAY down based on this line of reasoning, it is:

1. A slotless Amulet of Guarding. (neck slot UR)
2. A slotless +5 to saves. (Back slot Relic/Legendary)
3. A bunch of other stuff

Is there any doubt that if we printed a slotless legendary token that said:

+5 to saves, You may equip an additional neck item that does not effect the party card or expand slots.

It would be the best legendary token ever printed?

Because what this is is better than that.

Creating mythical tokens and then arguing against them is not exactly a fair comparison.

The token isn't slotless. Period. It requires being equipped in the Melee mainhand slot, preventing the use of a 2 handed weapon, or an existing legendary with a higher damage cap (and slightly higher average). Doing so means a Paladin can't equip (without cheating of course) a 2 handed melee weapon that is much better.

+5 Saves is a lot. It would be reasonable to drop down to +2/+3.

Adjusting power levels is fine. Let's not take it back to where we had it in the L+L section, which is essentially useless, particularly if Guard doesn't stack.

Edit:

Matthew Hayward wrote: What is Fury?

No one seems to know

I'm sorry you didn't like my illustration - I'm trying to clarify the point. I can do it purely in terms if the proposed token:

By equipping this token during character building, you get +5 to saves on the character builder. This is better than a relic level back slot, and it's been tacked on as an afterthought.

By game rules, you are not required to wield this weapon at any point in the dungeon, so you can indeed switch into any weapon you prefer. You could switch to avernon's deathcleaver, and you could then use it with the new expanded crit range bracers.

Technically you lose the +5 to saves if you do, but it will still be included on the party card. This puts the paladin and the dm in the annoying position of having to talk about saves which uses up time and making the dm remember to do subtraction.

You are right that you have to choose between the +5 to saves during coaching and and party card two handed buffs.

This is simply too good. If this weapon did nothing else but be a decent +5 weapon and confer +5 to saves it would be too good - especially with a Cloak of Shadowskin in print. Instead it also comes with a variety of other Effects, one of which is a neck slot UR.

I will concede that the +5 saves is too good. I think deciding on how much to tune the weapon absolutely depends on whether or not the guard will stack with Amulet of Guarding.

Also, I think that using the argument that one can equip one thing in coaching that adds to the party card, then switch into something that isn't on the party card isn't unique to Paladins and this proposed weapon. There is nothing stopping a wizard from equipping a Relsa's Ring and Greater Ring of Focus, for example, then "switching" into a Ring of Spell Storing.

Granted, the rules don't allow for switching rings like they do for weapons.

As a easy nerf to the Holy Avenger, make it locked into the melee weapon slots if your going to use it at all. This can be a special rule just for the Holy avenger in its text. I don’t like the idea of getting everything for free either but seems like something easy to fix

Kakitahan wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: I think the Monk transmute is basically OK. Tacking in Dark Disciple Shirt I like.

I am worried that skilled monks, monks with helpful flanking rogues, etc. will stun lock monsters leading to no-fun combats.

How about change the legendary stun effect to proc more often but still be limited:

Stunning Fist on 18-20, no stun immunity, 2/room, must declare using ability before slide

?

I agree that monk legendary is decent. I feel a +6 damage would have been a better place especially for a neck slot. Still on the fence if it will be made for me. I do like adding the extra psychic ability compared to necklace providing psychic. Just need to make sure to equip a psychic enabler.

It would be nice to get returning Shurikens but it isn’t a biggie.

Stun gets overlooked a lot but stun can be a over powered ability. Rather sub it out for something else but maybe the ship sailed already.

Stun is an over powered ability?! What about auto kills? Instead of the monster not being able to do actions, the monster is just .... wait for it .... dead.

Expand the stun range and make it once per monster per room. Done. Not over powered. Cool effect that gives everyone another round in combat. Win - win, in my book.