TOPIC: Transmute Token Ideas

edwin wrote:

Endgame wrote: Cleric Transmute:

4*:
+4 Amulet of Protection. +4 ac, +4 all saves.
Transmutes from rare +2 amulet of protection.

Relic:
+4 Hit (ranged and melee)
Cast Bless and Prayer as a Free Action
Mass Cure once / game
Raise Dead (as PoDD) once /game

Legendary
+7 Hit (ranged and melee)
Cast Spells as a Free Action
Mass Cure Twice / game
Raise Dead (as PoDD) twice /game

Mass Cure:
All party members heal 8 damage.

How about Relic Raise dead as listed. But for Legendary Raise Dead to full hit points once per game?

Realized I didn’t reply to this. I like it! Better to restore 1 person to full vs 2 to 1 hp.

Endgame wrote:

edwin wrote:

Endgame wrote: Cleric Transmute:

4*:
+4 Amulet of Protection. +4 ac, +4 all saves.
Transmutes from rare +2 amulet of protection.

Relic:
+4 Hit (ranged and melee)
Cast Bless and Prayer as a Free Action
Mass Cure once / game
Raise Dead (as PoDD) once /game

Legendary
+7 Hit (ranged and melee)
Cast Spells as a Free Action
Mass Cure Twice / game
Raise Dead (as PoDD) twice /game

Mass Cure:
All party members heal 8 damage.

How about Relic Raise dead as listed. But for Legendary Raise Dead to full hit points once per game?

Realized I didn’t reply to this. I like it! Better to restore 1 person to full vs 2 to 1 hp.

That seems massively overpowered to me, in a number of ways.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Jeff321 wrote:
Yeah I didn't order Semi-Lich Skull yet because Jeff said it wouldn't stack.

Let's be careful.

Jeff said the transmuted X of Cavadar wouldn't count as equipping 7 unique teeth for the purpose of the Semi-Lich skull.

Jeff didn't say anything about whether you could use and equip a Semi-Lich skull and associated teeth while also using and equipping X of Cavadar.

The latter statement is what I would understand "stacking" to mean.

I agree it could be disallowed, or it could work. I'm just trying to reign in any perception that it was already stated not to work.

I reached (or leapt) to the same conclusion Jeff321 did. But if the transmute is announced this year, there is still time to PYP the skull, so I felt safe in taking that course.

Mike Steele wrote:

Endgame wrote:

edwin wrote:

Endgame wrote: Cleric Transmute:

4*:
+4 Amulet of Protection. +4 ac, +4 all saves.
Transmutes from rare +2 amulet of protection.

Relic:
+4 Hit (ranged and melee)
Cast Bless and Prayer as a Free Action
Mass Cure once / game
Raise Dead (as PoDD) once /game

Legendary
+7 Hit (ranged and melee)
Cast Spells as a Free Action
Mass Cure Twice / game
Raise Dead (as PoDD) twice /game

Mass Cure:
All party members heal 8 damage.

How about Relic Raise dead as listed. But for Legendary Raise Dead to full hit points once per game?

Realized I didn’t reply to this. I like it! Better to restore 1 person to full vs 2 to 1 hp.

That seems massively overpowered to me, in a number of ways.

Restore to full health, or the whole transmute?

Endgame wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Endgame wrote:

edwin wrote:

Endgame wrote: Cleric Transmute:

4*:
+4 Amulet of Protection. +4 ac, +4 all saves.
Transmutes from rare +2 amulet of protection.

Relic:
+4 Hit (ranged and melee)
Cast Bless and Prayer as a Free Action
Mass Cure once / game
Raise Dead (as PoDD) once /game

Legendary
+7 Hit (ranged and melee)
Cast Spells as a Free Action
Mass Cure Twice / game
Raise Dead (as PoDD) twice /game

Mass Cure:
All party members heal 8 damage.

How about Relic Raise dead as listed. But for Legendary Raise Dead to full hit points once per game?

Realized I didn’t reply to this. I like it! Better to restore 1 person to full vs 2 to 1 hp.

That seems massively overpowered to me, in a number of ways.

Restore to full health, or the whole transmute?

Casting Mass cure twice per day seems OK.

+7 to hit seems high but I'm not really sure how that matches up with other Class Legendaries, and it probably shouldn't include ranged.

Cast all Spells as a Free Action seems pretty overpowered. Does that allow the Cleric to cast a spell both as Free and Regular action? Maybe something like " Cleric can make melee attack and cast spell on same turn" might work better?

Raise Dead (either as PoDD or Elixir of Healing) really seems to devalue the consumable tokens to me (not in the monetary sense, but in the functional sense), and kind of makes death irrelevant in the adventure.

I'd prefer to see abilities like increased healing, increased Turn Undead abilities, improved Bless, etc.

Mike Steele wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Endgame wrote:

edwin wrote:

Endgame wrote: Cleric Transmute:

4*:
+4 Amulet of Protection. +4 ac, +4 all saves.
Transmutes from rare +2 amulet of protection.

Relic:
+4 Hit (ranged and melee)
Cast Bless and Prayer as a Free Action
Mass Cure once / game
Raise Dead (as PoDD) once /game

Legendary
+7 Hit (ranged and melee)
Cast Spells as a Free Action
Mass Cure Twice / game
Raise Dead (as PoDD) twice /game

Mass Cure:
All party members heal 8 damage.

How about Relic Raise dead as listed. But for Legendary Raise Dead to full hit points once per game?

Realized I didn’t reply to this. I like it! Better to restore 1 person to full vs 2 to 1 hp.

That seems massively overpowered to me, in a number of ways.

Restore to full health, or the whole transmute?

Casting Mass cure twice per day seems OK.

+7 to hit seems high but I'm not really sure how that matches up with other Class Legendaries, and it probably shouldn't include ranged.

Cast all Spells as a Free Action seems pretty overpowered. Does that allow the Cleric to cast a spell both as Free and Regular action? Maybe something like " Cleric can make melee attack and cast spell on same turn" might work better?

Raise Dead (either as PoDD or Elixir of Healing) really seems to devalue the consumable tokens to me (not in the monetary sense, but in the functional sense), and kind of makes death irrelevant in the adventure.

I'd prefer to see abilities like increased healing, increased Turn Undead abilities, improved Bless, etc.

Monk and ranger items add +4 and +7 damage (monk gets that bonus to both pucks of course) and Barb gets +6 +10, so the +4 and +7 hit seemed to match the existing values.

The reason for + to both ranged and melee is that the cleric is very often under20 Dex when fitting +heal items (thus the complaints about Thor’s) and you only have 2 attack spells, one of which only works against evil monsters. It would be really nice to be able to hit in both melee and ranged, even if it isn’t for huge damage.

Mass cure would be essentially +5 Healing on a cleric build with charm of spell swapping (roughly 14 Healing spells at +5). My preference for mass cure over +heal is ease of use. When my party takes 15 puzzle damage, just using a single heal is way easier than figuring out how to divide cure minor wounds across the group.

The intent on the spells as a free action is to upgrade the prayer and bless as free action from the relic. The goal is to cast a spell and slide, but I couldn’t find anything to broken with casting 2 heals in the same round. There are several items already that let you cast 2 spells (ex, zephyr, RoSS, cabal) and I’ve never used any of them to cast 2 heals in combat. This could be restricted to 1 / room, but since I couldn’t see anything problematic with I left off the room qualifier to leave more space for text on the token.

The raise dead option is mainly to find a Themes 4th ability, which seems to be the average number of abilities for the class items. It’s not as powerful as abilities that don’t turn in consumables (ex Druid poly potion) and from what I hear about parties crushing epic, it’s probably a dead ability that will rarely be used. It could be replaced or dropped and it wouldn’t bother me at all.

An option to buff bless or prayer would be be awesome! What do you suggest?

Edit: turn undead is so bad above normal I would prefer to stay away from including it on the legendary. Let the fix for that either come from the new character card, or a new holy symbol.

I know this is the year of class legendaries/relics, but there is no +3 Ranged weapon that isn't thrown.

Matthew Galambus wrote: I know this is the year of class legendaries/relics, but there is no +3 Ranged weapon that isn't thrown.

If you are referring to not thrown and able to attack at range, there is the legendary bow and other tokens that add to hit at +3 or more.

Fiddy wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Breaking with all precedent and requiring an eldritch transmute to require lots of trade goods and/or additional URs also seems like a bad idea to me.

Breaking with all precedent? This isn't an Eldritch Relic, this is a Grand Eldritch. There has been exactly one other transmute like this. 7 years previous. And unlike that one, the components of this one have required along the way that you had an additional token in order to use the pieces. The prior one's components could be used all by themselves.

There is one direct precedent. It had one of each trade good.

There are three related precedents. Each has one of each trade good and maybe a GF. If you declare these to not be precedent, then you're left only with the RoSP.

So yes, a proposal to include numerous other trade goods and/or URs breaks all existing precedent - whether you consider that precedent to include all Eldritch tokens, or only RoSP. I'm not sure why that seems to be something people are struggling to understand or agree with - it's very straightforward.

It doesn't follow that:
1. because the Teeth had a mechanic that required other token enablers
2. therefore the transmuted item should have a different form of transmute recipe than every other Eldrtich/Grand Eldritch token.

That's a non sequitur.

Can you think of a single example of any transmute where the thing being transmuted required token enablers, and the recipe also required those same enablers? I can only think of counterexamples (Io's, Thor's and their relics don't require DEX boosters in their recipes).

Why do you want to go against all precedent by adding a power not part of the components into the Eldritch transmute without including the component that gives that ability?

In other words, I simply see the imbuer as part of the whole. Since we've needed an imbuer before the transmute, I believe most people aiming to do the transmute probably have one (or more).

Here is how I'm viewing precedent for Eldrtich token transmute recipes:

Eldrtich tokens, regardless of effect or whether they are Grand Eldritch or Eldritch or any other considerations, have always had the following in their recipe:

* 1 of each of: AI, AP, AG, DP, DS, EB, EM, MH, MS, OE, PS trade goods
* 1 of each of a pre-announced set of tokens with a yearly release cycle

In addition, the Kilt of Dungeonbane required one Golden Fleece.

Thus for me, the precedent is that the recipe includes the things listed above, and does not include things not listed above.

This notion of precedence allows one to predict what future recipes would be, if they stuck to precedent.


I am having a hard time making sense of what your notion of precedence is. Based on what you've said it leaves me with the (possibly false) impression that for you that things that have never occurred before, e.g.:
* Eldrtich ingredient tokens that rely on a token based enabler to be used
Create precedent for other things that also have never occurred before, e.g.:
* The inclusion of the enabling token in the Eldritch transmute

So I'm going to leave it at that and let everyone else make up their mind about which approach to precedence is the better one.

From here on out I'll just address your proposed recipes without further reference to precedent.

Ok, let's take a step back. I see that you mentioned "numerous other trade goods". You apparently took a leap on what I meant when I said the recipe with the UR enabler would be cheaper. That may be on me for not giving a specific example. What if the recipes were simply:

Recipe 1: 7 teeth, one rare enabler (assuming one is printed in 2021) plus one of each trade good, including GF.

Recipe 2: 7 teeth, plus a UR enabler. Nothing else.

That gives you a recipe pretty close to what you're expecting, and still matches my criteria of the UR recipe using fewer trade goods.

Thanks for a specific example - it does help a lot!

I would be fine with recipe 1. Although the inclusion or exclusion of a 2021 rare is a matter of indifference to me.

I would not like recipe 2, for reasons:
a. It pulls UR enablers out of the pool, which I believe will tend to devalue the excess teeth of which there will be plenty, including 2021 7th teeth
b. It doesn't pull trade goods out of circulation, which I believe will tend devalue the scarcer of those trade items (AG, EB, OE, and maybe AI, AP, EM) and things which transmute to them
c. It discourages trading/transmuting/secondary market activity - if all I need is 7 teeth and a Semi-Lich skull, then I just buy one for $100 as a PyP and be done with it. If I need 1 each of a bunch of trade goods maybe I trade, maybe I transmute some of my old treasure pulls, etc.

I think each of the predicted consequences of a-c above is less preferable than the alternative of the recipe being the same as it was for RoSP, replacing the rod segments with teeth, and optionally including a Golden Fleece.

edwin wrote:

Matthew Galambus wrote: I know this is the year of class legendaries/relics, but there is no +3 Ranged weapon that isn't thrown.

If you are referring to not thrown and able to attack at range, there is the legendary bow and other tokens that add to hit at +3 or more.

I think he's saying there is no Relic, ranged, non-thrown weapon with a to-hit of +3.

So making something like a +3 relic sling or a +3 relic shortbow might be nice for people.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Breaking with all precedent and requiring an eldritch transmute to require lots of trade goods and/or additional URs also seems like a bad idea to me.

Breaking with all precedent? This isn't an Eldritch Relic, this is a Grand Eldritch. There has been exactly one other transmute like this. 7 years previous. And unlike that one, the components of this one have required along the way that you had an additional token in order to use the pieces. The prior one's components could be used all by themselves.

There is one direct precedent. It had one of each trade good.

There are three related precedents. Each has one of each trade good and maybe a GF. If you declare these to not be precedent, then you're left only with the RoSP.

So yes, a proposal to include numerous other trade goods and/or URs breaks all existing precedent - whether you consider that precedent to include all Eldritch tokens, or only RoSP. I'm not sure why that seems to be something people are struggling to understand or agree with - it's very straightforward.

It doesn't follow that:
1. because the Teeth had a mechanic that required other token enablers
2. therefore the transmuted item should have a different form of transmute recipe than every other Eldrtich/Grand Eldritch token.

That's a non sequitur.

Can you think of a single example of any transmute where the thing being transmuted required token enablers, and the recipe also required those same enablers? I can only think of counterexamples (Io's, Thor's and their relics don't require DEX boosters in their recipes).

Why do you want to go against all precedent by adding a power not part of the components into the Eldritch transmute without including the component that gives that ability?

In other words, I simply see the imbuer as part of the whole. Since we've needed an imbuer before the transmute, I believe most people aiming to do the transmute probably have one (or more).

Here is how I'm viewing precedent for Eldrtich token transmute recipes:

Eldrtich tokens, regardless of effect or whether they are Grand Eldritch or Eldritch or any other considerations, have always had the following in their recipe:

* 1 of each of: AI, AP, AG, DP, DS, EB, EM, MH, MS, OE, PS trade goods
* 1 of each of a pre-announced set of tokens with a yearly release cycle

In addition, the Kilt of Dungeonbane required one Golden Fleece.

Thus for me, the precedent is that the recipe includes the things listed above, and does not include things not listed above.

This notion of precedence allows one to predict what future recipes would be, if they stuck to precedent.


I am having a hard time making sense of what your notion of precedence is. Based on what you've said it leaves me with the (possibly false) impression that for you that things that have never occurred before, e.g.:
* Eldrtich ingredient tokens that rely on a token based enabler to be used
Create precedent for other things that also have never occurred before, e.g.:
* The inclusion of the enabling token in the Eldritch transmute

So I'm going to leave it at that and let everyone else make up their mind about which approach to precedence is the better one.

From here on out I'll just address your proposed recipes without further reference to precedent.

Ok, let's take a step back. I see that you mentioned "numerous other trade goods". You apparently took a leap on what I meant when I said the recipe with the UR enabler would be cheaper. That may be on me for not giving a specific example. What if the recipes were simply:

Recipe 1: 7 teeth, one rare enabler (assuming one is printed in 2021) plus one of each trade good, including GF.

Recipe 2: 7 teeth, plus a UR enabler. Nothing else.

That gives you a recipe pretty close to what you're expecting, and still matches my criteria of the UR recipe using fewer trade goods.

Thanks for a specific example - it does help a lot!

I would be fine with recipe 1. Although the inclusion or exclusion of a 2021 rare is a matter of indifference to me.

I would not like recipe 2, for reasons:
a. It pulls UR enablers out of the pool, which I believe will tend to devalue the excess teeth of which there will be plenty, including 2021 7th teeth
b. It doesn't pull trade goods out of circulation, which I believe will tend devalue the scarcer of those trade items (AG, EB, OE, and maybe AI, AP, EM) and things which transmute to them

And I think devaluing excess teeth, along with the aforementioned trade goods, is bad.

Matthew, I agree with pretty much everything you're saying, including that requiring a UR that activates psionic abilities is counter-productive because you want them to stay in circulation for people that aren't able to get all seven Teeth. And I'll add that there is already a precedent for there to be a power in the Eldritch Tokens that isn't a part of the individual components. The Rod of Seven Parts gives a sub-class ability every year, that's totally new from the individual rods and trade item tokens.

Personally, I've always assumed that the Eldritch Tooth would activate Psionic Powers, it would be pretty weak if it didn't.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

edwin wrote:

Matthew Galambus wrote: I know this is the year of class legendaries/relics, but there is no +3 Ranged weapon that isn't thrown.

If you are referring to not thrown and able to attack at range, there is the legendary bow and other tokens that add to hit at +3 or more.

I think he's saying there is no Relic, ranged, non-thrown weapon with a to-hit of +3.

So making something like a +3 relic sling or a +3 relic shortbow might be nice for people.

I proposed the +2 sling of seeking in the UR thread. Given a sling is low damage, a +3 sling may be a suitable UR as well, haven’t really thought about the possibility