TOPIC: 2021 Wizard Relic/Legendary Almost Final!

For what is worth, I feel very strongly that the relic and legendary should not include the effects of the Mad Evokes Charm. My thoughts are that this is such an amusing and zany token meant to add some verity and even some levity to the Wizard. But not meant to be the main flavor of what a Wizard is and how he/she casts spells. Previous iterations thus far had some very excellent powers and ability’s. Namely the Medallion of Mystic Mouth. A bonus to damage for a successful skill check is also a great idea. But copying copying a uniquely creative and fun token such as the Mad Evokers Charm robs that token of its uniqueness and fun. Thanks everyone.

Dave wrote:

edwin wrote: The way I run an Elf Wizard (I have no desire to use MEC. I am not saying that these tokens should remove the MEC portion just like the Ranger legendary that I use and do not take advantage of a companion since I am far less accurate in sliding with two pucks):
- current relic provides a benefit of +6 damage per roughly half the spells I cast.
- current legendary provides the benefit of +10 per roughly half the spells I cast. I also slide last to avoid affecting other good slides and would not aim for a 19-20 unless I chuck the hammer. The FA 0- level spell may be used once or twice early in a run though.

Over a run I would gain around 30 damage for the relic and 112 points of damage for the legendary as a trade off of 3 charms.

This is a different perspective than looking at how much it adds or how it stacks up against other classes damage potential.

Not decided one way or another until the final design is completed before I decide whether to transmute.

This does not account for any other possible changes from 2021 tokens.

With all the focus on MEC, its good to have another perspective. I guess its only hypothetical until the token is finalized, but just curious as to what 3 charms you'd consider sacrificing for the legendary.

Draco-Lich, Glory and Questor's would be the three I lose. Minus a ring, can't avoid auto failures on saves. And the bump on slide spells just in case since I cast them as scrolls and don't get bonus spell damage (zephyr).

The legendary does not compensate for those in my opinion.

Beau wrote: For what is worth, I feel very strongly that the relic and legendary should not include the effects of the Mad Evokes Charm. My thoughts are that this is such an amusing and zany token meant to add some verity and even some levity to the Wizard. But not meant to be the main flavor of what a Wizard is and how he/she casts spells. Previous iterations thus far had some very excellent powers and ability’s. Namely the Medallion of Mystic Mouth. A bonus to damage for a successful skill check is also a great idea. But copying copying a uniquely creative and fun token such as the Mad Evokers Charm robs that token of its uniqueness and fun. Thanks everyone.

The “problem” of MEC is it may have wanted to be fun and zany but it became a staple for BiS and the baseline token for defining the damage of Wizards, making it part of their core identity unintentionally (and unfortunately). I dislike also thinking of MoMM as so core to the identity. These two tokens murder the Wizard’s HP or use a large quantity of consumables, but they also crank out the damage so they are the ones everyone looks at. I agree, I love the idea of including MoMM *if* the token also makes wands nonconsumable (no other legendary uses consumables without making them nonconsumables, heck the Monk even turns thrown into returning). I am okay with MEC being rolled into the relic and legendary (and reprinted as UR) because the relic is decreasing the damage to self, I would love it even more if the legendary further reduced that damage to self. I’m also absolutely thrilled by a legendary with no MEC and a lot of the earlier effects (like boosting skill check damage, adding spell boxes, and adding free action spells).

Anthony Barnstable wrote: [ I’m also absolutely thrilled by a legendary with no MEC and a lot of the earlier effects (like boosting skill check damage, adding spell boxes, and adding free action spells).

I absolutely agree with this statement. I think some of the past iterations had more interesting design space. Utilizing MEC centered in the design right now means everything becomes about the raw damage amount. That token is also inherently confusing which leads to many flawed comparisons.

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Beau wrote: For what is worth, I feel very strongly that the relic and legendary should not include the effects of the Mad Evokes Charm. My thoughts are that this is such an amusing and zany token meant to add some verity and even some levity to the Wizard. But not meant to be the main flavor of what a Wizard is and how he/she casts spells. Previous iterations thus far had some very excellent powers and ability’s. Namely the Medallion of Mystic Mouth. A bonus to damage for a successful skill check is also a great idea. But copying copying a uniquely creative and fun token such as the Mad Evokers Charm robs that token of its uniqueness and fun. Thanks everyone.

The “problem” of MEC is it may have wanted to be fun and zany but it became a staple for BiS and the baseline token for defining the damage of Wizards, making it part of their core identity unintentionally (and unfortunately). I dislike also thinking of MoMM as so core to the identity. These two tokens murder the Wizard’s HP or use a large quantity of consumables, but they also crank out the damage so they are the ones everyone looks at. I agree, I love the idea of including MoMM *if* the token also makes wands nonconsumable (no other legendary uses consumables without making them nonconsumables, heck the Monk even turns thrown into returning). I am okay with MEC being rolled into the relic and legendary (and reprinted as UR) because the relic is decreasing the damage to self, I would love it even more if the legendary further reduced that damage to self. I’m also absolutely thrilled by a legendary with no MEC and a lot of the earlier effects (like boosting skill check damage, adding spell boxes, and adding free action spells).

I might in the minority, but I don't mind keeping the MEC "cost" high. I like running with MEC, but then I've built my Elf Wizard around needing a high HP pool in order to be able to use it. I have also have non-MEC builds where I've moved my HP items to spell buffs,etc... By keeping the "cost" high, it feels like it offsets the perceived OP of the token because I have to build explicitly for it. All that extra damage to the Room/Monster isn't free. By rolling MEC into the Relic/Legendary, I no longer have a choice.

At the moment it's a charm necklace or the legendary. While rolling my MEC build it would free up a charm slot, but then I lose the other two. And I'd likely swap it back out as soon as I don't want to play my MEC Elf.

I’m also absolutely thrilled by a legendary with no MEC and a lot of the earlier effects (like boosting skill check damage, adding spell boxes, and adding free action spells).

+1

James Bennett wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote: [ I’m also absolutely thrilled by a legendary with no MEC and a lot of the earlier effects (like boosting skill check damage, adding spell boxes, and adding free action spells).

I absolutely agree with this statement. I think some of the past iterations had more interesting design space. Utilizing MEC centered in the design right now means everything becomes about the raw damage amount. That token is also inherently confusing which leads to many flawed comparisons.

Unfortunately I think we are WAY too far into the design scene to try shifting the direction of the Wizard token in another direction. We probably need to embrace the Mad Evokers Necklace and aim to guide the rest of the abilities towards things that benefit the class.

Beau wrote: For what is worth, I feel very strongly that the relic and legendary should not include the effects of the Mad Evokes Charm. My thoughts are that this is such an amusing and zany token meant to add some verity and even some levity to the Wizard. But not meant to be the main flavor of what a Wizard is and how he/she casts spells. Previous iterations thus far had some very excellent powers and ability’s. Namely the Medallion of Mystic Mouth. A bonus to damage for a successful skill check is also a great idea. But copying copying a uniquely creative and fun token such as the Mad Evokers Charm robs that token of its uniqueness and fun. Thanks everyone.

Interesting perspective!

The part I bolded is, I think, a problem because if you put in a bonus to skill check then MeC users get more benefit from it than non-MeC - it risks creating a huge gap between players around one token.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

James Bennett wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote: [ I’m also absolutely thrilled by a legendary with no MEC and a lot of the earlier effects (like boosting skill check damage, adding spell boxes, and adding free action spells).

I absolutely agree with this statement. I think some of the past iterations had more interesting design space. Utilizing MEC centered in the design right now means everything becomes about the raw damage amount. That token is also inherently confusing which leads to many flawed comparisons.

Unfortunately I think we are WAY too far into the design scene to try shifting the direction of the Wizard token in another direction. We probably need to embrace the Mad Evokers Necklace and aim to guide the rest of the abilities towards things that benefit the class.

I agree with that statement. If this had been the approach for iterations three and four after MEC was first brought up I think we would have been in a better place. Nothing to do now but press forward!

I find it hard to focus on more than general goals at this point:

• I'd prefer not seeing the token center around a consumable token. It could make the consumable free, but I'd imagine there would be a higher cost to other effects if this was part of the token.
• I like seeing the MEC evolve through a progression up to legendary. Reducing the HP cost is cool.
• I like it modifying skill test bonuses, but I dislike making the tests automatic. I really like the proposed idea of granting a smaller damage bonus on failed tests.
• Affecting sliding spells at the same time as skill checks feels like it might spread focus too thin