TOPIC: 2021 Ultra Rare Almost Final!

OrionW wrote:

Endgame wrote:

OrionW wrote:

Endgame wrote:

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?

The build you propose has none of the flexibility that folks point to when they keep asking to nerf Druid items.

It also just scrapes by at 120ish crit so it will never be tops on the damage charts.

I disagree with your assessment of support. Clerics will be in a very nice place after this Legendary. Druids won’t have the same other tools that Clerics offer.

Spell surge is nice, but not the same as a Wizard in room 7.

We are talking half a step here... I am not saying they are broken. I am saying there is plenty of room for The Quick Prayer ring in any of its forms so far proposes with out breaking the game balance.

Here, now it crits at 130, has +21 spell damage, +15 healing, and can swap all the spells to damage or healing on demand.

tdcharactercreator.com/#/character/edit/e0084dd2-6a6a-4437-8849-31ee9d96d26e

* Low HPs
* Sub-standard saves
* No room for my charm of awakened synergy
* Also no room for the OMG the sky is falling super overpowered Quick Prayer ring.

Look I get what you are trying to do here, but you are kind of proving my point as you tweak this build. There is room for some Druid love.

I am going to ask you the same questions I just put to Mike.

WHAT EXACTLY do you think the Druid should be at here?

That's over the damage cap you wanted to see, with +21 spell damage for non sliding attacks and +15 to healing AND the ability to swap for more damage or healing at will.

What do you consider good enough for the Druid?

Milambus (Jake) 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?

I know it was a joke, but just to be clear (and probably stomp all the fun out of a joke, sorry) shuriken can not be used in melee.

I don't even think it should be Flurry-of-Blows compatible. This is a Rogue item, let them have a nice item.

An Ultrarare shuriken could be fun next year though.

I'm not 100% sure but j thought TV his dagger had to be thrown for sneak attack.

I agree with other suggestions here on changes to the UR rings. Something like the following should limit abuse without being overly restrictive:

Ring of Expertise
May cast a 0th or 1st level damage spell without marking it off the card (1/room)
Usable by: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizards

Ring of Quick Blessing
May cast 1st level non-damage spells and Restore Power as a free action
Usable by: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizards

I'm thinking giving all of the casters roughly the same opportunities would work well and would encourage some level of build diversity if we want to see these options opened to the Bard and Druid. This does not come without a price though. This suggestion will do little to remove the desire to see a reprint of the +2 Staff of Power since it does not allow for Alertness to be cast each combat.

Overall I think it might be more effective to go back to the original token design for these two, but drop the Druid. I enjoy playing Druid a lot so I'm not looking for it to be nerfed. I just think the gymnastics required to fit it into the design space on these tokens is going to water it down. Clerics need the UR to keep their options open since it is not being baked into the Relic for valid balancing reasons. They are giving up two high-value slots to get the most from their new legendary path which is a high cost that was not asked of others. Given this I think the original proposition is a great, balanced path for Clerics.

If the Druid receives five free action 1st level spells at an UR ring I believe Wizards are justified saying their legendary needs more than the 3-4 0th level free action spells. However, Wizard damage is at a good place without needing to be increased from the current proposed legendary. I know other Wizards may disagree.

Milambus (Jake) 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?

I know it was a joke, but just to be clear (and probably stomp all the fun out of a joke, sorry) shuriken can not be used in melee.

I don't even think it should be Flurry-of-Blows compatible. This is a Rogue item, let them have a nice item.

An Ultrarare shuriken could be fun next year though.

+1. I Think this is a great treat for the Rogues and not all weapons need to be FoB, but I would definitely love to see an UR or transmutable Shuriken a bit better than the normal Rares next year that can be paired with the ring of the drake.

David Zych wrote:

Jeff Martin wrote:

I'm okay with 1st level spells (5/game) since that's the number of boxes on the character card.

RP (1/game) means it no longer applies to the +1 RP from the legendary. Is that intentional? If not, easily fixed by removing the "(1/game)"

How is this?

James Bennett wrote: I agree with other suggestions here on changes to the UR rings. Something like the following should limit abuse without being overly restrictive:

Ring of Expertise
May cast a 0th or 1st level damage spell without marking it off the card (1/room)
Usable by: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizards

Ring of Quick Blessing
May cast 1st level non-damage spells and Restore Power as a free action
Usable by: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizards

I'm thinking giving all of the casters roughly the same opportunities would work well and would encourage some level of build diversity if we want to see these options opened to the Bard and Druid. This does not come without a price though. This suggestion will do little to remove the desire to see a reprint of the +2 Staff of Power since it does not allow for Alertness to be cast each combat.

Overall I think it might be more effective to go back to the original token design for these two, but drop the Druid. I enjoy playing Druid a lot so I'm not looking for it to be nerfed. I just think the gymnastics required to fit it into the design space on these tokens is going to water it down. Clerics need the UR to keep their options open since it is not being baked into the Relic for valid balancing reasons. They are giving up two high-value slots to get the most from their new legendary path which is a high cost that was not asked of others. Given this I think the original proposition is a great, balanced path for Clerics.

If the Druid receives five free action 1st level spells at an UR ring I believe Wizards are justified saying their legendary needs more than the 3-4 0th level free action spells. However, Wizard damage is at a good place without needing to be increased from the current proposed legendary. I know other Wizards may disagree.

Other Wizards do disagree with that statement

Jeff Martin wrote:

David Zych wrote:

Jeff Martin wrote:

I'm okay with 1st level spells (5/game) since that's the number of boxes on the character card.

RP (1/game) means it no longer applies to the +1 RP from the legendary. Is that intentional? If not, easily fixed by removing the "(1/game)"

How is this?

What do you think of that as 1st level, non damage spells and restore spell as a free action? It keeps the cleric flexible, and covers the bases, while letting it be usable by bard and Druid.

Flik wrote: Jeff please go back to original design for the rings for Quick Blessings. Instead of per-game suggestions just make it non-damage spells only as most have suggested as the fix.

For some reasons druids have highjacked the cleric UR and now the nerds affect clerics! We have to wear both items to get the legendary full effect already.

I think 5/game is the sweet spot. I forgot about the Charm of Spell Swapping sleaze. I don't want Clerics having that sleaze available, too. The character cards are not set in stone...and changes made next year to the cards could unbalance things if we leave the Cleric the option to cast 10 1st spells as a free action.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: Agree to Disagree.

If you want to run simulations on the interaction of every token currently on the list and every suggested change on every token to see what it does to Druid damage against other tokens go for it. I don't see it as a worthwhile exercise given how much change we have seen recently but you may find differently.

I do have to admit I am curious tho what you would consider a proper place for the Druid to be at the end of token development?

Do you feel Druids should have the highest spell damage?
Do you feel Druids should have the highest healing?
Do you feel Druids should have the highest melee damage?

How far above or below the next ranked class do you feel the damage/spelldamage/healing should realistically be?

I wasn't focusing on the Druid, I think it would be worthwhile to see how all the classes match up. Ideally that kind of analysis could happen at the start of the process and towards the end.

I don't think that the Druid should be the best healer, that is clearly going to be the Cleric. I don't think the Druid should do the most spell damage, that is clearly the Wizard. I think there's no way the Druid will be tops at Melee, that I think is clearly the Monk and Ranger currently.

I also don't think the Druid should be incorrectly claimed as the most overpowered class when it clearly isn't, and either be left off of tokens or have tokens they are on nerfed because there is a misconception that they are more powerful than they are.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

James Bennett wrote: I agree with other suggestions here on changes to the UR rings. Something like the following should limit abuse without being overly restrictive:

Ring of Expertise
May cast a 0th or 1st level damage spell without marking it off the card (1/room)
Usable by: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizards

Ring of Quick Blessing
May cast 1st level non-damage spells and Restore Power as a free action
Usable by: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizards

I'm thinking giving all of the casters roughly the same opportunities would work well and would encourage some level of build diversity if we want to see these options opened to the Bard and Druid. This does not come without a price though. This suggestion will do little to remove the desire to see a reprint of the +2 Staff of Power since it does not allow for Alertness to be cast each combat.

Overall I think it might be more effective to go back to the original token design for these two, but drop the Druid. I enjoy playing Druid a lot so I'm not looking for it to be nerfed. I just think the gymnastics required to fit it into the design space on these tokens is going to water it down. Clerics need the UR to keep their options open since it is not being baked into the Relic for valid balancing reasons. They are giving up two high-value slots to get the most from their new legendary path which is a high cost that was not asked of others. Given this I think the original proposition is a great, balanced path for Clerics.

If the Druid receives five free action 1st level spells at an UR ring I believe Wizards are justified saying their legendary needs more than the 3-4 0th level free action spells. However, Wizard damage is at a good place without needing to be increased from the current proposed legendary. I know other Wizards may disagree.

Other Wizards do disagree with that statement

Yes we do...

Jeff Martin wrote:

Flik wrote: Jeff please go back to original design for the rings for Quick Blessings. Instead of per-game suggestions just make it non-damage spells only as most have suggested as the fix.

For some reasons druids have highjacked the cleric UR and now the nerds affect clerics! We have to wear both items to get the legendary full effect already.

I think 5/game is the sweet spot. I forgot about the Charm of Spell Swapping sleaze. I don't want Clerics having that sleaze available, too. The character cards are not set in stone...and changes made next year to the cards could unbalance things if we leave the Cleric the option to cast 10 1st spells as a free action.

That will reduce the total healing on the run though, and that healing can all be cast at max value in a puzzle room or after combat.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

James Bennett wrote: I agree with other suggestions here on changes to the UR rings. Something like the following should limit abuse without being overly restrictive:

Ring of Expertise
May cast a 0th or 1st level damage spell without marking it off the card (1/room)
Usable by: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizards

Ring of Quick Blessing
May cast 1st level non-damage spells and Restore Power as a free action
Usable by: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizards

I'm thinking giving all of the casters roughly the same opportunities would work well and would encourage some level of build diversity if we want to see these options opened to the Bard and Druid. This does not come without a price though. This suggestion will do little to remove the desire to see a reprint of the +2 Staff of Power since it does not allow for Alertness to be cast each combat.

Overall I think it might be more effective to go back to the original token design for these two, but drop the Druid. I enjoy playing Druid a lot so I'm not looking for it to be nerfed. I just think the gymnastics required to fit it into the design space on these tokens is going to water it down. Clerics need the UR to keep their options open since it is not being baked into the Relic for valid balancing reasons. They are giving up two high-value slots to get the most from their new legendary path which is a high cost that was not asked of others. Given this I think the original proposition is a great, balanced path for Clerics.

If the Druid receives five free action 1st level spells at an UR ring I believe Wizards are justified saying their legendary needs more than the 3-4 0th level free action spells. However, Wizard damage is at a good place without needing to be increased from the current proposed legendary. I know other Wizards may disagree.

Other Wizards do disagree with that statement

This Wizard also disagrees with James and agrees with Arcanist. Wizards should be the top spell damage dealers (not top damage dealers, just spell damage dealers). Pass 5 of the Wizard UR/Relic/Legendary and this ring to Druid keeps Wizards below Druid and does not really bump Wizards up in damage dealing all that much at all. Especially not to lengendary levels. Include Wizard on the ring please