TOPIC: 2020 Transmuted Beta Images

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: What is Fury?

The ability to play a Lute of Fury. Finally Barbarians can make music!

Yes! Bardbarian!

Also, the lute is a single use 2 handed weapon, one can smash during the performance (1/room or 1/game)

Matthew Hayward wrote:

OrionW wrote:

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.

I made the Druid item - I don't think the first year items were that underpowered: the bard and rogue one both combine multiple ur effects and have the practical outcome of granting additional standard actions.

The Druid item is powerful for a very, very specific build, and has some general utility outside that build (perhaps not worth giving up charm necklace or MMM or even amulet of focus though).

Flavor / rp wise it is also very strong - but that doesn't have a big appeals to everyone.

I do feel a bit bad for druids here wrt legendaries. Maybe we could give them back really really for real no polymorph restrictions in tdb? Or 2 forms per room?

I agree, it would be nice to go back to no polymorph restrictions, I think even with that change it's maybe a bit underpowered, but definitely closer in power to the others.

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

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.

"The rules" matter a great deal.

I'm not concerned with players who cheat - they cheat only themselves, as it were.

The scenario I described for the paladin is allowed by the rules, so pointing to a scenario where someone has cheated to justify the power level is a bad look in my opinion.

I'll concede that as well.
If we take the saves off the weapon, this scenario is avoided. I don't think this is necessary.
I don't see how it is any different than a player who is using a 1 handed weapon on the party card, then switches to a 2 handed weapon and has to remind the DM about the AC they lost from a shield though, or why it would be any more difficult.

Should we never print a weapon with saves on it? That's an option of course.

It’s probably such a corner case that some would not be using the avenger when it’s available that it’s probably not a big problem, that said like I suggested earlier lock it in the melee slot if you are going to use it at all. Maybe even add a effect that it can’t be dropped, destroyed, or disarmed, so that the locked in slot can’t be changed mid game. The only time you could use another weapon is in range if this was done. And problem solved.

Matthew Hayward wrote: What is Fury?

ohhh i thought it said furry

jedibcg wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: What is Fury?

This image is hidden for guests.
Please log in or register to see it.

ohhh i thought it said furry

no I, uh, I just wear all these pelts for protection you see.

I think the Lenses of the Owl are a little underpowered for a transmute. Lenses of Focus provide +1 to spells and is only a Rare. Lenses of Heimdal Sight give +1 to melee and is also rare. There are also several uncommons which give +1 to either ranged or allow recasting of 0 & 1st level spells.
I think the Owl should be +2

I love this version of the +5 Holy Avenger.
I will be making it.
Not sure how but I need it.
I'm also happy with it not stacking with another guard, I can see guarding 2 people but 3? we need to let the GMs have some hope of hitting a player

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Philip Goodman wrote: Can the monk relic and legendary get something different instead of additional stuns per room and auto-kill please? I really dislike these effects, and I feel like I am not the only monk player with this opinion.

Can we also revisit balancing the "budget" of the token? The relic in particular just reads +3 damage. There's no way I'll ever slide a 20/20 or more than one 20 a combat.

Maybe throw out a few ideas? You have good ones.

Okay.

I feel like I already hit a lot of the same notes in my post in the L&L section. I was tempted to repost all of it here as it's technically a different audience, but that would probably be too annoying.

truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&defaultmenu=141&catid=55&id=249862&start=108#342979

I want to restate a couple things from that post directly:

When considering legendary class tokens, designing relic/legendary tokens that provide stat bonuses are in very real danger of becoming outstripped and less impactful over time. Other tokens or additional slots will eventually provide better/more stats. Stats on relic/legendary class tokens also limit the design space for future tokens as they will be directly compared to the relic/legendary. This will either encourage faster power creep of the new tokens (e.g. strength belts in recent years) or less desirability.

...

I think a lot of people are in the "monks do not need more damage" camp, including myself, and I am worried that the relic/legendary will be balanced weakly if it contributes to monk damage in any significant way.

My brother also made a post with a lot of the same suggestions.

• Self-healing or temporary health mechanic similar to an enhanced version of the healing from Ring of Dark Health .

*Edit: This ring is amazing for Monks and Rangers and I am really hoping to see another form of it made available to Monks in the future.

• Disarm mechanic reducing physical damage of enemy.
• Something psychic-related like "immune to charm, possession and other character loss-of-control effects". The +1 psychic power fits this bill and is pretty neat.
• Called attack. Some sort of "unleash the dragon" AoE attack. Attack 1 target. melee damage splashes to other enemies.
• Called attack. Some sort of "take additional damage" attack. At end of round enemy takes an additional 10%/20% of the damage taken during the round from all sources.
• Summon shadow clones that absorb an attack, basically giving +1 activation of shadowskin.
• Increased stun range trigger. Legendary would end up with a range of 17-20.
• I would like to avoid instant kills.
• I would like to avoid increasing the number of stuns possible per combat.

Alternatively, if we are not locked into the monk amulet:

• Relic to Legendary Flurry-Compatible quarterstaff that allows for empty 2nd puck slide. Extended range similar to Gloves of the Flying Fists . In the spirit of "Ruyi Jingu Bang" wielded by Sun Wukong.
• I was originally against putting the "melee attack at range" effect into the legendary, but it would be thematic for "Ruyi Jingu Bang" and I am running short on other ideas. I believe it to be better than a stat bonus.

"Out there" ideas

• Introduce a ki resource pool. Have several options for ki spending. Like using one of the aforementioned Called Attacks, self healing, increased stun range or GotFF activation. More options available on legendary.
• Healing on hit determined by Wisdom modifier.
• Bonus AC from Wisdom modifier.

I like the new ranger transmute and I think that the ammo buff is on par with flavor but would like to see only one ability use a consumable

Also I agree that the ring of stam needs just a little more at the 4 star stage. The ring of the dire boar gives +3 to hp which is only 1-2 less and 1 fort save less and is fairly inexpensive to make

I don't want to keep harping on the +5 Holy Avenger because I'm not anti-paladin or anything. With my backup class being Wizard I find myself liking the guard facility on a regular basis. I really like Paladins, but I rarely play one, so again I want to leave that caveat.

Now imagine the following slotless Legendary:

• +5 to Saves
  • Guard one more ally
  • Can sacrifice twice
  • 10-pt heal (1/game
  • Auto-kill Evil Outsider on 20
  
  
  That's almost as much saves as Pharacus' Cloak, and has the effect of Amulet of Guarding, and is slotless to boot. So that's pretty good. I wouldn't like to remove the extra guard because of the flavor. I agree with others if we reduce the saves to +2 or something then you have a token that's not too OP.
  
  Now you might argue "but it isn't slotless". I'll argue that it is not only slotless, it is actually better than slotless. Why is that? It's slotless because equipping it in your Mainhand doesn't prevent you from utilizing any other weapons. So it doesn't take up that slot. To be fair it would block something like a Viper Set bonus but most Paladins don't use Viper Strike Fangs from what I see. This is why I consider it slotless. Because there are no weapons higher than a +5 to-hit, and because almost all other weapons don't have a party card effect, there is no downside to equipping this.
  
  Why is it better than a slotless? Because you can't attack with a slotless. This is also a great weapon. So you can choose: equip it but don't slide it and it is slotless. Slide it and it is a +5 Legendary weapon. This assumes its effects still apply even when you switch weapons which hasn't been explicitly stated.
  
  So here are the options a Paladin has with this Legendary:
  
  • If they don't like it as their weapon, equip it and use the other weapon. If the other weapon wasn't a +5 then you just sleazed it into a +5 but didn't break any rules. So it's slotless and also upgrades any other weapon to a +5 to-hit.
  • If they do like it as their weapon, now they have a great Legendary token that is also a great +5 weapon.
  
  I like the token, just tone down or even remove the save bonus. Actually now that I think about it that's my preferred option. Since save bonuses are recorded on the party card, and since players can swap weapons, it is simpler to not have save bonuses on a weapon.
  
  Now, regarding stacking the guards. It seems we are getting into game-breaking territory here. With 1 guard you have a tough choice. With 3 guards you can guard both wizards as well as the bard. That's 1/3 of the party that doesn't have to worry much about their AC.
  
  Another way to look at it is the Paladin would be taking an average of 40% of all attacks. In a 3-combat dungeon, with 3 rounds per combat, and 10 players, and with monsters making single-target melee attacks, players were already averaging only one attack per dungeon.

Kirk Bauer wrote: I don't want to keep harping on the +5 Holy Avenger because I'm not anti-paladin or anything. With my backup class being Wizard I find myself liking the guard facility on a regular basis. I really like Paladins, but I rarely play one, so again I want to leave that caveat.

Now imagine the following slotless Legendary:

• +5 to Saves
  • Guard one more ally
  • Can sacrifice twice
  • 10-pt heal (1/game
  • Auto-kill Evil Outsider on 20
  
  
  That's almost as much saves as Pharacus' Cloak, and has the effect of Amulet of Guarding, and is slotless to boot. So that's pretty good. I wouldn't like to remove the extra guard because of the flavor. I agree with others if we reduce the saves to +2 or something then you have a token that's not too OP.
  
  Now you might argue "but it isn't slotless". I'll argue that it is not only slotless, it is actually better than slotless. Why is that? It's slotless because equipping it in your Mainhand doesn't prevent you from utilizing any other weapons. So it doesn't take up that slot. To be fair it would block something like a Viper Set bonus but most Paladins don't use Viper Strike Fangs from what I see. This is why I consider it slotless. Because there are no weapons higher than a +5 to-hit, and because almost all other weapons don't have a party card effect, there is no downside to equipping this.
  
  Why is it better than a slotless? Because you can't attack with a slotless. This is also a great weapon. So you can choose: equip it but don't slide it and it is slotless. Slide it and it is a +5 Legendary weapon. This assumes its effects still apply even when you switch weapons which hasn't been explicitly stated.
  
  So here are the options a Paladin has with this Legendary:
  
  • If they don't like it as their weapon, equip it and use the other weapon. If the other weapon wasn't a +5 then you just sleazed it into a +5 but didn't break any rules. So it's slotless and also upgrades any other weapon to a +5 to-hit.
  • If they do like it as their weapon, now they have a great Legendary token that is also a great +5 weapon.
  
  I like the token, just tone down or even remove the save bonus. Actually now that I think about it that's my preferred option. Since save bonuses are recorded on the party card, and since players can swap weapons, it is simpler to not have save bonuses on a weapon.
  
  No, regarding stacking the guards. It seems we are getting into game-breaking territory here. With 1 guard you have a tough choice. With 3 guards you can guard both wizards as well as the bard. That's 1/3 of the party that doesn't have to worry much about their AC.
  
  Another way to look at it is the Paladin would be taking an average of 40% of all attacks. In a 3-combat dungeon, with 3 rounds per combat, and 10 players, and with monsters making single-target melee attacks, players were already averaging only one attack per dungeon.

Great analysis, I agree 100% save should be removed entirely, and guard shouldn't stack. I love the guard ability, but the Paladin shouldn't be able to guard 1/3 of the rest of the players.

Mike Steele wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: I don't want to keep harping on the +5 Holy Avenger because I'm not anti-paladin or anything. With my backup class being Wizard I find myself liking the guard facility on a regular basis. I really like Paladins, but I rarely play one, so again I want to leave that caveat.

Now imagine the following slotless Legendary:

• +5 to Saves
  • Guard one more ally
  • Can sacrifice twice
  • 10-pt heal (1/game
  • Auto-kill Evil Outsider on 20
  
  
  That's almost as much saves as Pharacus' Cloak, and has the effect of Amulet of Guarding, and is slotless to boot. So that's pretty good. I wouldn't like to remove the extra guard because of the flavor. I agree with others if we reduce the saves to +2 or something then you have a token that's not too OP.
  
  Now you might argue "but it isn't slotless". I'll argue that it is not only slotless, it is actually better than slotless. Why is that? It's slotless because equipping it in your Mainhand doesn't prevent you from utilizing any other weapons. So it doesn't take up that slot. To be fair it would block something like a Viper Set bonus but most Paladins don't use Viper Strike Fangs from what I see. This is why I consider it slotless. Because there are no weapons higher than a +5 to-hit, and because almost all other weapons don't have a party card effect, there is no downside to equipping this.
  
  Why is it better than a slotless? Because you can't attack with a slotless. This is also a great weapon. So you can choose: equip it but don't slide it and it is slotless. Slide it and it is a +5 Legendary weapon. This assumes its effects still apply even when you switch weapons which hasn't been explicitly stated.
  
  So here are the options a Paladin has with this Legendary:
  
  • If they don't like it as their weapon, equip it and use the other weapon. If the other weapon wasn't a +5 then you just sleazed it into a +5 but didn't break any rules. So it's slotless and also upgrades any other weapon to a +5 to-hit.
  • If they do like it as their weapon, now they have a great Legendary token that is also a great +5 weapon.
  
  I like the token, just tone down or even remove the save bonus. Actually now that I think about it that's my preferred option. Since save bonuses are recorded on the party card, and since players can swap weapons, it is simpler to not have save bonuses on a weapon.
  
  No, regarding stacking the guards. It seems we are getting into game-breaking territory here. With 1 guard you have a tough choice. With 3 guards you can guard both wizards as well as the bard. That's 1/3 of the party that doesn't have to worry much about their AC.
  
  Another way to look at it is the Paladin would be taking an average of 40% of all attacks. In a 3-combat dungeon, with 3 rounds per combat, and 10 players, and with monsters making single-target melee attacks, players were already averaging only one attack per dungeon.

Great analysis, I agree 100% save should be removed entirely, and guard shouldn't stack. I love the guard ability, but the Paladin shouldn't be able to guard 1/3 of the rest of the players.

Agreed o the saves being OP, I'm ok with the extra guard. That said as an alternate to guarding an extra person what would folks think of something like extending the existing guard extending to include ranged or spells or both. Or just letting the Pali move their guard 1/room .