TOPIC: 2021 Ultra Rare Almost Final!

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: Far too many comparisons of Wizard damage gloss over the fact that a 10 round simulation guarantees the Wizard is dead if they do not expend consumables or receive outside healing.

There's no calculation given to account for that.

But fortunately the Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Bard are there to heal you. This is a team game.

Druids need to have the Legendary improved or get some love from items like this ring. The Druid class is not in a good spot in epic play. I would like to see Clerics, Wizards, and Druids get nice things this year.

I've been gone for a while, but just got back. I see we hate Druids now, good, good. What else did I miss? Did ya'll manage to nerf Nightshade's even more... err... neck-slot expansion yet?

Grrrrrr, Droods bad! Go get them Droods!

I kid.

A slightly longer post on Clerics in regards to Ring of Expertise and Ring of Quick Prayer.

The current "optimal" Cleric build for rings is:

+5 ring of focus
+3 ring of focus OR Ring of Spell Storing
Charm of Glory -> Ring of Spell Storing or +3 Ring of Focus


If you aren't doing legendary tokens, that bumps the optimal config to +3 ring of focus and ring of spell storing. Tracking down the Greater ring of Focus is a game of patience. There are usually only 1 or 2 available on the market (Trent, TD tavern, Forum stores) at any one time, and getting one for sub $400 can be a challenge.

Ring of spell storing is near relic price at this time. My guess is I could track one down for 225 if I really tried and was given enough time, but I wouldn't call it highly available or anywhere near PYP prices.

Finally, you could go dig up a +1 ring of focus for a little more than PYP prices, but I'll bet if 5 clerics all went looking for them, at least 1 would come up empty.

So what does that leave a Cleric ring wise? Mostly level, melee, and save boosters, or the +1 dex / str rings. Not much there to actually reinforce the cleric theme.

So, if I were a new Cleric, not really willing to jump in on $300+ tokens, I would probably team up Ring of Expertise and Ring of Quick Prayer.

This allows a few strategies, assuming the following:
Ring of Quick Prayer does not allow damage spells
Ring of Expertise does not allow healing spells

The options with both rings:

Party buff and combat actions (best used room 1 to save prayer):
Cast Bless as a free action and use expertise to not mark off bless. Slide to attack
Slide remaining rounds.

Ranged Combat option 1) (best used if out of prayer)
Cast Spiritual Hammer with Expertise, Mark off Bless as a free action
Mark of Spiritual hammer, restore power as free action
Cast cure light wounds as both standard and free action

Ranged Combat option 2) (prayer availble)
Mark off Prayer, Mark off Bless as a free action
Cast Spiritual hammer with Expertise, restore power as free action
Mark off Spiritual hammer, maybe cast cure light wounds as a free action


The Combat Healer
Mark off Prayer, cast Bless as a free action and use expertise to not mark off bless.
Mark off Cure Serious wounds, Cast Cure Light wounds as a free action and use expertise
Mark off cure moderate wounds, mark off cure light wounds as a free action
Mark off cure moderate wounds, cast cure light wounds as a free action

There is a lot to think about in these actions, and it's similar to using the relic, just a little less powerful. It also gives rings a very cleric vibe instead of just using the slot for +2 melee damage (ring of frost) and, say, +1 str. You can also (thankfully!) ignore trying to stack enough dex to throw a hammer - you can get 2 casts of Spiritual hammer in one room which is probably sufficient to not feel useless.

OrionW wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: Far too many comparisons of Wizard damage gloss over the fact that a 10 round simulation guarantees the Wizard is dead if they do not expend consumables or receive outside healing.

There's no calculation given to account for that.

But fortunately the Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Bard are there to heal you. This is a team game.

Druids need to have the Legendary improved or get some love from items like this ring. The Druid class is not in a good spot in epic play. I would like to see Clerics, Wizards, and Druids get nice things this year.

That does not change the fact that the healer classes have to heal you to make up for the additional damage. It should be taken into account and it is not. That's all I am saying.

Druids ARE going to get their legendary improved. Jeff has stated he will be rebalancing the class legendary tokens once this year is finalized.

What exactly is setting the Druid class not in a good spot in Epic play currently? Do you have data for what you are saying? It's easier to fix a problem we can identify

Mike Steele wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: I'd ask again for the Druids and maybe Clerics be added to the Ring of Power. It's a basic Spellcasting token, and it should have all the spellcasters on it. It doesn't seem overpowered to use it in each room for a healing spell, but if that's the reason the Druid and Cleric aren't on it, it can specify non-healing spells only.

While we are at it put Wizards on the ring of quick charming. It's a core spellcaster ring.

Honestly just put the Cleric UR back to Cleric only like the Wizard UR is. Don't weaken the cleric designed UR just to give Druids another token

The Druid hate is strong with this one...

Oh I'm not hating on Druids with this comment. I promise you that.

Pushing the Druid on the ring has caused the CLERIC SPECIFIC ring to be weakened for Clerics by the addition of Druids to the ring. That's not acceptable. Remove Druids and restore the original design of the token.

I looked at all versions of that ring, saw how strong it would be for Wizards, knew that adding Wizard would require nerfing the item and did the honorable thing. I DIDN'T ask to be put on the ring, even knowing how massive of a DPS boost that ring would be in our hands.


So far this design cycle I've seen you ask

Put Druids on the Ring of Expertise
Put Druids on the Ring of Quick Blessings
Put Druids on the Mad Evoker's Charm

And i've seen you state multiple times that Druids are weaker healers than Clerics and weaker spellcasters than Wizards multiple times, been shown the math doesn't agree with you and had you continue to spout it.

This is the year for the Wizard Fighter and Cleric legendary tokens. Maybe just step away from trying to push the Druid onto the tokens and just let the Clerics and Wizards get their own class legendaries without having them nerfed to serve Druids.

Jeff has already said he will be giving all existing legendary class tokens an overview after this design phase is finished. Just wait for that and push for a positive change on your class legendary neck.

That's just not accurate. Matthew did an analysis of Druid and Cleric and Cleric was slightly ahead after Figurine of Power: Phoenix. And that's before the Class Relic/Legendary. I'd say raising from the dead at full health not to mention Divine Intervention puts the Cleric VERY comfortably ahead.

If there were any Druid vs. Wizard comparisons I missed them. I did see an analysis of Druid which put it at around 900 points over 10 rounds, while I also saw multiple analysis of the Wizard at well over 100 per turn. I don't see how that equals the Druid being able to out-damage the Wizard. And I'm not sure if that's adding in the additional damage the Wizard will be getting from tokens this year.

If you there were, as you say, multiple analysis showing the Druid being more powerful in damage spells than the Wizard, please link to them, as I'd like to see them. I will admit that there were entire pages of comments which I haven't read, so they may well be there and I didn't see them.

There are a few specific situations that a Wizard can get over 100 damage in a single round but they are not by any means the average damage of 100+ per round for the Wizard. That's just incorrect.

I'll ask you the same thing. If there's proof of 100+ damage per round on the current Wizard BIS tokens please show it to me.

Perhaps those over 100 estimates were from earlier versions of the Wizard Legendary, but post 17 of the current Wizard Legendary thread shows 973 damage over 10 rounds, so that is just barely under 100 per round, and above the 901 Matthew calculated for the Druid over 10 rounds on post 85 of this very thread when the Ring of Quick Prayer didn't have the current restrictions on it and he was calculating 10 free action uses of Freezing Orb. So, even using the original version of Ring of Quick Prayer the Wizard was ahead.

That post calculates in a non existing potential token. Using that for the reasoning of saying Druid is weak is a logical fallacy.

You'd need to compare like to like for it to be a valid comparison. BIS 2020 Wizard to BIS 2020 Druid

Which admittedly that 900 damage did not take into account.

Perhaps Matt will grace us with a current BIS analysis

Actually, since we're probably nearly done with this process, this is a perfect time to do a BIS analysis of the classes using the tokens as designed. That would be a good way to see whether any of the classes are really unbalanced if these current tokens are implemented. Of course, if anyone had a 2020 BIS analysis as a baseline that is always good too.

This version of the tokens has already had 4 or 5 significant changes without the next image set being posted. That's not what I would call a good place to start.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

OrionW wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: Far too many comparisons of Wizard damage gloss over the fact that a 10 round simulation guarantees the Wizard is dead if they do not expend consumables or receive outside healing.

There's no calculation given to account for that.

But fortunately the Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Bard are there to heal you. This is a team game.

Druids need to have the Legendary improved or get some love from items like this ring. The Druid class is not in a good spot in epic play. I would like to see Clerics, Wizards, and Druids get nice things this year.

That does not change the fact that the healer classes have to heal you to make up for the additional damage. It should be taken into account and it is not. That's all I am saying.

Druids ARE going to get their legendary improved. Jeff has stated he will be rebalancing the class legendary tokens once this year is finalized.

What exactly is setting the Druid class not in a good spot in Epic play currently? Do you have data for what you are saying? It's easier to fix a problem we can identify

The Druid legendary is designed for melee play. Epic level characters should be able to crit for 120+. Druids cannot.

Druid healers do not have the same support abilities of Clerics.

Druid casters don’t have the same damage as Wizards or ability to hit multiple enemies with one spell.

Druids are a half step behind where they should be in all 3 play styles.

OrionW wrote: Druids are a half step behind where they should be in all 3 play styles.

That's the thing that you keep overlooking. They are ONLY a half step behind (at most) in three different playstyles, all with the same build. They are able to determine round by round what they want to do. All those other classes? They get one choice. Or they can invest a lot to make a second playstyle viable, but only at high cost to the first one. And that is a decision those classes mostly have to make during character creation, not round by round.

OrionW wrote: The Druid legendary is designed for melee play. Epic level characters should be able to crit for 120+. Druids cannot.

What do you mean? This build can crit for 122 - I can optimize it further for more damage, but I aimed for >60hp (with 10 synergy bonus) and 20 or greater saves in every category.
tdcharactercreator.com/#/character/edit/33c2f9dc-cdc1-466a-b790-c1f472099363

OrionW wrote: Druid healers do not have the same support abilities of Clerics.

Healing is a form of support. If you take the above build, trade Fiendish Charm for Spell Swapping, Ring of Frost for a +5 ring of Focus, and Drake's for Supreme Ring, you'll pick up +22 healing and more healing spells than a Cleric. You can also spell surge to close the gap even more - at the cost of +4 damage on the build.

OrionW wrote: Druid casters don’t have the same damage as Wizards or ability to hit multiple enemies with one spell.

I can create a Druid spell build - I'm pretty sure the druid can hit +34 spell damage, just like the wizard, trading AoE spells for spell surge.

Edit, I was wrong - the Druid can hit +35 spell damage due to greater mistletoe. Add bardsong for +39 with the earcuff of inspiration.

tdcharactercreator.com/#/character/edit/2dbe3ae2-246b-4f8b-b2e0-e762ef15410e

OrionW wrote: Druids are a half step behind where they should be in all 3 play styles.

Where should they be? Given they can do any of these 3 rolls, they really shouldn't be better than any of the comparable classes, correct?

Fiddy wrote: Monster: "Oh look, that tasty Rogue is walking towards me with their Dagger that looks almost as big as a sword"
Rogue: "Surprise, sucker!" <Throws sword Dagger>
Monster: "I did not see that coming."

Thanks, Fiddy - that made me laugh

Picc wrote: Not knocking the power, just trying to keep the "Nightshade" prefix more consistent as I already have to have a printed card to explain what it does most room GMs and this is going to make it a lot more common in the years to come.

I agree that - where possible - keeping similar powers on similarly-named tokens is best. Less work for Coaches & DMs to remember. Less folks referring to TdB for clarifications. Less arguments in the dungeon.

Picc wrote: Honestly I'm not even sure why were changing it. There is still demand for the 2007 short sword, I personally use it over viperstrike to this day. In a vacuum the new throwing dagger seems stronger. If it were up to me, I would just do a reprint with the new graphic.

Me too. Or I *would* have.
But now that there's the possibility of a Sneak Attack weapon with Built-in SA at Range, I am salivating at the possibility, and it'd be hard to go back to the vanilla version.

That said Raven should sound off on this, since it is her eponymous prefix and there might be back end discussions we are not privy too.

Nope. Not that I'm aware of. And if there were, it would probably be me pestering Jeff to... I dunno... maybe add more Sapphires to the graphic ; )

Personally, I think it's a little overpowered (especially with the baked-in first round sneak option) but I've decided to stop commenting on it. Worst happens if we leave it alone: the Rogues get a *very* sweet new dagger which gives a Rare-level power to people who are still just making the jump from Rare to UR. But once people go beyond UR to Relic, they've got that power baked into the Relic, so it's not as big a deal. Worst happens if we keep arguing about it: Jeff uber-nerfs it, or removes it from the line up.

So I'll be here in the shadows, just biding my time.

Raven wrote:

Fiddy wrote: Monster: "Oh look, that tasty Rogue is walking towards me with their Dagger that looks almost as big as a sword"
Rogue: "Surprise, sucker!" <Throws sword Dagger>
Monster: "I did not see that coming."

Thanks, Fiddy - that made me laugh

Picc wrote: Not knocking the power, just trying to keep the "Nightshade" prefix more consistent as I already have to have a printed card to explain what it does most room GMs and this is going to make it a lot more common in the years to come.

I agree that - where possible - keeping similar powers on similarly-named tokens is best. Less work for Coaches & DMs to remember. Less folks referring to TdB for clarifications. Less arguments in the dungeon.

Picc wrote: Honestly I'm not even sure why were changing it. There is still demand for the 2007 short sword, I personally use it over viperstrike to this day. In a vacuum the new throwing dagger seems stronger. If it were up to me, I would just do a reprint with the new graphic.

Me too. Or I *would* have.
But now that there's the possibility of a Sneak Attack weapon with Built-in SA at Range, I am salivating at the possibility, and it'd be hard to go back to the vanilla version.

That said Raven should sound off on this, since it is her eponymous prefix and there might be back end discussions we are not privy too.

Nope. Not that I'm aware of. And if there were, it would probably be me pestering Jeff to... I dunno... maybe add more Sapphires to the graphic ; )

Personally, I think it's a little overpowered (especially with the baked-in first round sneak option) but I've decided to stop commenting on it. Worst happens if we leave it alone: the Rogues get a *very* sweet new dagger which gives a Rare-level power to people who are still just making the jump from Rare to UR. But once people go beyond UR to Relic, they've got that power baked into the Relic, so it's not as big a deal. Worst happens if we keep arguing about it: Jeff uber-nerfs it, or removes it from the line up.

So I'll be here in the shadows, just biding my time.

Magical christmas land ...but what if this was a shuriken with returning from ring of the drake?

Adam Guay wrote:

Raven wrote:

Fiddy wrote: Monster: "Oh look, that tasty Rogue is walking towards me with their Dagger that looks almost as big as a sword"
Rogue: "Surprise, sucker!" <Throws sword Dagger>
Monster: "I did not see that coming."

Thanks, Fiddy - that made me laugh

Picc wrote: Not knocking the power, just trying to keep the "Nightshade" prefix more consistent as I already have to have a printed card to explain what it does most room GMs and this is going to make it a lot more common in the years to come.

I agree that - where possible - keeping similar powers on similarly-named tokens is best. Less work for Coaches & DMs to remember. Less folks referring to TdB for clarifications. Less arguments in the dungeon.

Picc wrote: Honestly I'm not even sure why were changing it. There is still demand for the 2007 short sword, I personally use it over viperstrike to this day. In a vacuum the new throwing dagger seems stronger. If it were up to me, I would just do a reprint with the new graphic.

Me too. Or I *would* have.
But now that there's the possibility of a Sneak Attack weapon with Built-in SA at Range, I am salivating at the possibility, and it'd be hard to go back to the vanilla version.

That said Raven should sound off on this, since it is her eponymous prefix and there might be back end discussions we are not privy too.

Nope. Not that I'm aware of. And if there were, it would probably be me pestering Jeff to... I dunno... maybe add more Sapphires to the graphic ; )

Personally, I think it's a little overpowered (especially with the baked-in first round sneak option) but I've decided to stop commenting on it. Worst happens if we leave it alone: the Rogues get a *very* sweet new dagger which gives a Rare-level power to people who are still just making the jump from Rare to UR. But once people go beyond UR to Relic, they've got that power baked into the Relic, so it's not as big a deal. Worst happens if we keep arguing about it: Jeff uber-nerfs it, or removes it from the line up.

So I'll be here in the shadows, just biding my time.

Magical christmas land ...but what if this was a shuriken with returning from ring of the drake?

Perhaps, a +2 Viper Strike Shuriken? With a +3 relic upgrade?

Endgame wrote:

Adam Guay wrote:

Raven wrote:

Fiddy wrote: Monster: "Oh look, that tasty Rogue is walking towards me with their Dagger that looks almost as big as a sword"
Rogue: "Surprise, sucker!" <Throws sword Dagger>
Monster: "I did not see that coming."

Thanks, Fiddy - that made me laugh

Picc wrote: Not knocking the power, just trying to keep the "Nightshade" prefix more consistent as I already have to have a printed card to explain what it does most room GMs and this is going to make it a lot more common in the years to come.

I agree that - where possible - keeping similar powers on similarly-named tokens is best. Less work for Coaches & DMs to remember. Less folks referring to TdB for clarifications. Less arguments in the dungeon.

Picc wrote: Honestly I'm not even sure why were changing it. There is still demand for the 2007 short sword, I personally use it over viperstrike to this day. In a vacuum the new throwing dagger seems stronger. If it were up to me, I would just do a reprint with the new graphic.

Me too. Or I *would* have.
But now that there's the possibility of a Sneak Attack weapon with Built-in SA at Range, I am salivating at the possibility, and it'd be hard to go back to the vanilla version.

That said Raven should sound off on this, since it is her eponymous prefix and there might be back end discussions we are not privy too.

Nope. Not that I'm aware of. And if there were, it would probably be me pestering Jeff to... I dunno... maybe add more Sapphires to the graphic ; )

Personally, I think it's a little overpowered (especially with the baked-in first round sneak option) but I've decided to stop commenting on it. Worst happens if we leave it alone: the Rogues get a *very* sweet new dagger which gives a Rare-level power to people who are still just making the jump from Rare to UR. But once people go beyond UR to Relic, they've got that power baked into the Relic, so it's not as big a deal. Worst happens if we keep arguing about it: Jeff uber-nerfs it, or removes it from the line up.

So I'll be here in the shadows, just biding my time.

Magical christmas land ...but what if this was a shuriken with returning from ring of the drake?

Perhaps, a +2 Viper Strike Shuriken? With a +3 relic upgrade?

yes let's ruin the Nightshare reprint that Rogues have been clamoring for and instead make it a Monk token!

I hope you were both cracking jokes