TOPIC: Final MEC, Mage Medallion and Arch-Mage Medallion

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: It actually seems like the new MEC isn't that different from the old MEC. The old MEC probably just didn't support the Character card changes. With current cards, the old MEC did an additional damage up to 20 for 10 HP, which is where the Relic/Legendary are now. If the MEC weren't modified, and the spell damage on the cards doubled, all of the sudden the MEC could do 40 bonus damage for the 10 HP.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the new MEC ability is even better than the old MEC, not worse. It's not nerfed, it's kind of super-charged. That is, if the "up to 14 HP" part is reusable and not once per room. If it's reusable, it can be on every spell, even multiple spells per turn. It also can do up to 14 bonus damage on each spell (28 for Relic/Legendary), where the old MEC only doubled the base + SK of the original spell, which on the old cards maxed out at 20 and could have been a lot lower. Plus, of course, once per combat, you can sacrifice unlimited HP for damage, and get it as free action.

Is that how everyone else reads this? Did the Wizards get a power boost and not a nerfing? If so, I'm not complaining if Jeff thinks that's necessary to get the Wizards to the power level he wants them at, I'm just making an observation.

The way I am currently reading it:
MEC - Mage Power 1/room = Spend X hp for X dmg and if X >= 15, this spell is FA

Relic - can do a Mage Power 1/round, each Mage Power 1/room =
1: MEC but X hp -> 2X damage, if X >= 15 HP spell is FA
2: Spend 15 HP -> FA your SA spell has SR 50%, no bonus damage
3: Spend 15 HP -> FA your slide spell crits on 18-20

Arch Mage Powers
4: Spend 15 HP -> change damage type
5: Spend 0/15/30/45 -> cast spell without marking it off card
6: Spend 0/15/30/45 -> add this spell’s damage to another character’s physical attack

this does not mesh with the current wording of the newly updated token images on page 10 and is the core question of the group right now

It might, it all depends on MEC whether (1/room) applies to both sentences or just the second sentence. It will be interesting to see which way it goes when Jeff clarifies it. I agree with you that it is the core question now.

Once again, I step away for a few hours and come back to see things heading in a different direction. When I left, I know there were concerns around using hp as the resource, I thought Jeff expressed his thoughts for why that made sense to him. I'm not completely opposed to going in another direction, but we have a long history of tokens that impact hp which give me a lot of flexibility. I'm afraid that moving to another resource will provide very few options and we'll just end up with cookie-cutter wizards who all look the same because only a handful of tokens (at most) can impact their ability. Anyway, that's just my high level thought.

Go ahead and continue to brainstorm new ideas understanding we probably have only around 48 hours to lock this down. Was the prior proposal unworkable? Was it broken? Was it going to cause a mass flight of players from the game? Not trying to be a stop to any of this, but am trying to understand the necessity of creating a whole new dynamic in such a short period of time. In any event, appreciate all the passion people seem to have in this. I'm certain everyone is trying to do what they think is right.

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

OrionW wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

BrainScan wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

BrainScan wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

BrainScan wrote: With the wizard cards being redone, I'm sure there are numerous cool ways for a new resource to be added to the cards to get away from HP as a resource.

The problem with that is some wizards seem to be really attached to the concept of HP as a resource and will be mad if it goes away.

Conversely, some wizards are really adverse to the concept of HP as a resource and will be mad if the whole identity of the wizard seems like it is being shifted to require it.

Personally, I don't have any problem with HP as a resource but I am not attached to it. I would be very interested in some creative alternatives.

If the HP as a resource is limited to these Wizard Class tokens, it won't even be a factor in the vast majority of Wizard players. Hopefully the Class Card revision doesn't introduce that mechanic on the base card spells, at least for Level 4 players.

Adding some additional boxes to the Wizard cards (called "Mana", "Mage Power", "Augments", whatever) could have some default effect for the wizards that this token line could expand on or use as a resource. It wouldn't be that much different to the paladin having Lay On Hands boxes, etc. It could get away from having an entire line of tokens (which some people consider class-defining) based around HP as a resource. Granted, anything at this point will probably make someone mad...

Changing an existing, token build defining design six years after it was released is going to piss off a LOT of people. I'd expect a LOT more than the number of people who care adamantly in the other direction.

A moderate number of Wizards seem not to care one direction of the other. But a Wizard who has built around the Mad Evoker's Charm has purchased specific tokens to boost HP for MULTIPLE years in order to tailor to the playstyle of the token. Changing the playstyle of the token would invalidate likely over a thousand dollars in token acquisition.

Please stop trying to decimate MEC players by breaking the token design

I am simply trying to brainstorm some options. I personally use the Mad Evoker's Charm so my build is also at stake here. I also have a Lenses of Divine Sight and am familiar with the fallout from a major token redesign.

I understand. And I keep a pair of LoDs on hand for any healers who don't own them. They are definitely best in slot for healers IMO.

Yes the change to LoDS sucked but at least it's change didn't fundamentally alter the stat priority for tokens for the class. Removing the HP to damage piece from Mad Evoker would take HP/Con from #2 or #3 on priority to #6 or #7 and shift the best tokens for that build in a MASSIVE way. It wouldn't just affect 1 token it would require replacing probably 7-8 UR+ tokens. That's a massive change and a massive expense to those players, especially with the 7 tokens they have to replace probably dropping in half in cost due to no longer having a class design that has them as a core desire.


I absolutely support having other options of payments added in the future or something similar but I won't support any design change that invalidates the existing MEC token build. That's just simply too big of an expense to force on a subset of players.

The change to the Eldritch set bonus along with the change to LoDS is not too dissimilar to what you are describing with the HP boosting items. I know I purchased an Eldritch item on the secondary market for the set bonus (+10 to healing) only to have it changed and I am sure I am not the only one. I would recommend only making this level of radical change if there is a very compelling game reason.

There was a compelling game reason from Jeff that MEC had to fundamentally change. At least 2 Wizards have expressed very compelling social reasons to change either MEC or a MEC-based relic/legendary (and they have been mostly shouted down with the idea “political correctness is bad”).

There was a mechanical/scaling issue that made Jeff need to change HOW the Mad Evoker's Charm does it's HP to Damage conversion.

YOU and another member of your personal party presented a NOT very compelling reason to completely destroy the design of a token over the fact that YOU and the other member of your party MISREPRESENT THE DESIGN of the token as being promoting self harm when it's not part of the design and Jeff has specifically answered your concerns over the design explaining the ACTUAL intent behind the design and YOU have chosen to ignore his clarifications and decide that EVERYONE should lose the Mad Evoker's Charm because YOU and a member of your party feel mentally triggered at an unnamed PUG player in your party using the mad evoker's charm. There's multiple ways to avoid you getting personally triggered by another player using the token and you interpreting it's use as promoting self harm but you would prefer to destroy a token that has been a core build option for Wizards for six years, which requires changes in token selection to use in order to protect you and your crew member from a potential random player joining your PUG group and using a token that you feel could trigger you.

IF YOU FEEL THAT WAY

1 - don't join PUG groups if there's a chance that another players playstyle could cause a mental trauma trigger for you without their knowledge.

2 - ASK the players to avoid referencing self harm when using the Mad Evoker's Charm or related tokens due to your concerns

3 - form your own groups and restrict Wizards joining your group from using the tokens in question.

ALL of those solutions would protect your group AND not negatively affect dozens of other players by destroying the class identity they choose to embrace.

Yet that's not good enough for you. You feel all other Wizard players should lose access to a core design option for the class in order to protect the mental health of you and your player who are choosing to misinterpret the design of a token and use it as a reason to call for the destruction of a token you dislike.

My stance has nothing to do with "political correctness is bad"

My stance is "Demanding a fundamental change in a game to suit your own personal needs instead of using the resources at your command to avoid ever encountering the issue is bad"

Stop misrepresenting my words in order to get offended.

The only things we need to discuss this weekend are the words on the tokens....to include hp spent...the total hp needed to unlock a power...amd how many powers each step up unlocks. As fast as the powers themselves they can and probably will be debated and adjusted.

For simplicity:

MEC
Usable by Wizards
Use Mage Power 1/room

MM
Usable by Wizards
Use Mage Power or Improved Mage Power 1/round, each power max 1/room

Legendary
Usable by Wizards
Use Mage Power, Improved Mage Power, or Arch-Mage Power 1/round, each power max 1/room

Then we can easily meet the deadlines with no time crunch concerns and have a reasonable amount of time like 1-2 weeks to discuss what these three powers are and how many options for each should initially exist.

BrainScan wrote: Here is a possible starting point for something that doesn't explicitly use HP as a resource but still encourages having a lot of it (if desired).

*Important Note* the numbers below are off the cuff and will probably need to be tweaked by those who are good at such things.

Wizard card change includes the following:
Mage Power: As a free action use a mage power to augment the next spell cast. Each available Mage Power may be used 1 / room. 3 boxes.
Mage Power (Empower Spell): Adds 10 points of damage to spell.

Mad Evokers Charm:
Allows 1 additional use of Mage Power. Can use Mage Power (Evokers Wrath): Adds 20 points of damage to spell but monster gets a free attack against caster next round (this attack cannot be avoided or negated in any way).

Relic:
As MEC. Allows 1 additional use of Mage Power. Adds two new Mage Powers.

Legendary:
As Relic. Allows 1 additional use of Mage Power. Adds two new Mage Powers.

This is not possible to design as the player cards are not designed yet and that change has not been made, examined or validated to not be overly strong (it's WAY too strong on the class card)

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

BrainScan wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

BrainScan wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

BrainScan wrote: With the wizard cards being redone, I'm sure there are numerous cool ways for a new resource to be added to the cards to get away from HP as a resource.

The problem with that is some wizards seem to be really attached to the concept of HP as a resource and will be mad if it goes away.

Conversely, some wizards are really adverse to the concept of HP as a resource and will be mad if the whole identity of the wizard seems like it is being shifted to require it.

Personally, I don't have any problem with HP as a resource but I am not attached to it. I would be very interested in some creative alternatives.

If the HP as a resource is limited to these Wizard Class tokens, it won't even be a factor in the vast majority of Wizard players. Hopefully the Class Card revision doesn't introduce that mechanic on the base card spells, at least for Level 4 players.

Adding some additional boxes to the Wizard cards (called "Mana", "Mage Power", "Augments", whatever) could have some default effect for the wizards that this token line could expand on or use as a resource. It wouldn't be that much different to the paladin having Lay On Hands boxes, etc. It could get away from having an entire line of tokens (which some people consider class-defining) based around HP as a resource. Granted, anything at this point will probably make someone mad...

Changing an existing, token build defining design six years after it was released is going to piss off a LOT of people. I'd expect a LOT more than the number of people who care adamantly in the other direction.

A moderate number of Wizards seem not to care one direction of the other. But a Wizard who has built around the Mad Evoker's Charm has purchased specific tokens to boost HP for MULTIPLE years in order to tailor to the playstyle of the token. Changing the playstyle of the token would invalidate likely over a thousand dollars in token acquisition.

Please stop trying to decimate MEC players by breaking the token design

I am simply trying to brainstorm some options. I personally use the Mad Evoker's Charm so my build is also at stake here. I also have a Lenses of Divine Sight and am familiar with the fallout from a major token redesign.

I understand. And I keep a pair of LoDs on hand for any healers who don't own them. They are definitely best in slot for healers IMO.

Yes the change to LoDS sucked but at least it's change didn't fundamentally alter the stat priority for tokens for the class. Removing the HP to damage piece from Mad Evoker would take HP/Con from #2 or #3 on priority to #6 or #7 and shift the best tokens for that build in a MASSIVE way. It wouldn't just affect 1 token it would require replacing probably 7-8 UR+ tokens. That's a massive change and a massive expense to those players, especially with the 7 tokens they have to replace probably dropping in half in cost due to no longer having a class design that has them as a core desire.


I absolutely support having other options of payments added in the future or something similar but I won't support any design change that invalidates the existing MEC token build. That's just simply too big of an expense to force on a subset of players.

How do you feel about adding an alternative? Lose X HP OR mark off a Y level spell? Gives an option for those who don’t want to use HP for some reason , but doesn’t invalidate existing HP builds

I'm fine with that. It was actually suggested earlier in the thread and I supported an option of 5hp per spell level sacrificed.

BUT I don't see it making it into the tokens that literally have to be finalized TODAY and even attempting to do so may have massive unexpected consequences as we have seen several times in token design over the years so I say leave that to be an errata or a new Mage Power

Agree that trying to bake it in now as text on the token is a terrible idea. Adding it as some kind of option to the mage power keyword is the best solution if Jeff wanted to add it as an option. Could even do a “beta” run of it in some kind of limited fashion if desired - updating token dB is easier than printing new tokens.

Dave wrote: Once again, I step away for a few hours and come back to see things heading in a different direction. When I left, I know there were concerns around using hp as the resource, I thought Jeff expressed his thoughts for why that made sense to him. I'm not completely opposed to going in another direction, but we have a long history of tokens that impact hp which give me a lot of flexibility. I'm afraid that moving to another resource will provide very few options and we'll just end up with cookie-cutter wizards who all look the same because only a handful of tokens (at most) can impact their ability. Anyway, that's just my high level thought.

Go ahead and continue to brainstorm new ideas understanding we probably have only around 48 hours to lock this down. Was the prior proposal unworkable? Was it broken? Was it going to cause a mass flight of players from the game? Not trying to be a stop to any of this, but am trying to understand the necessity of creating a whole new dynamic in such a short period of time. In any event, appreciate all the passion people seem to have in this. I'm certain everyone is trying to do what they think is right.

The previous change to Mad Evoker's Charm would have cost the game a minimum of at least 2 Legendary level Wizards permanently as it invalidated their entire builds. It would also cost a Relic legel Bard, Monk and Rogue because I would have no reason to host token builds for my friends if I no longer play the game.


The current design is perfectly fine to me and Jeff's explanation removed any worry on my end of the design promoting self harm in any way.

That doesn't seem to be the case for Anthony but he's demanding the game change to meet his personal needs instead of just changing how he plays the game to protect the mental health of his group.

I don't agree with changing the entire game to protect 2 players from an occurrence they've so far never encountered (per his own words saying they've never run with an MEC wizard) and that can easily be protected against forever by simply not joining random groups and making sure that groups they join don't have MEC build Wizards in them. I see no reason why EVERYONE should change their gameplay and how they enjoy playing the game just to allow two people to freely join random PUG groups when they would be at no risk of triggering if they simply formed their own play groups

Adam Guay wrote: The only things we need to discuss this weekend are the words on the tokens....to include hp spent...the total hp needed to unlock a power...amd how many powers each step up unlocks. As fast as the powers themselves they can and probably will be debated and adjusted.

100% agree

Anthony Barnstable wrote: There was a compelling game reason from Jeff that MEC had to fundamentally change. At least 2 Wizards have expressed very compelling social reasons to change either MEC or a MEC-based relic/legendary (and they have been mostly shouted down with the idea “political correctness is bad”).

Yeah, I have been disappointed by the insensitive responses made by a few here on the forums. They are dismissing a serious trauma by equating it with a simple dislike. Not only does that show a lack of sympathy for your fellow gamers, but it creates barriers to having the conversation that we need to have: is this a problem that needs fixing?

I think it is just the nature of things that there is a whole spectrum of what shouldn't be printed. TD isn't going to put the Confederate flag on a new banner token, but a holy symbol for a made-up diety is ok even though there are likely a few religious types who would be offended. So, where does this ability fall on that spectrum? I tend to fall on the side that it isn't explicit enough to warrant changing, but the fact that multiple people are bringing it up as an issue is making me question that stance. This is a discussion that should be had...though, maybe in private by concerned parties with Jeff, who can discuss those concerns with whomever he feels can help him make the best decision.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

OrionW wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

BrainScan wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

BrainScan wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

BrainScan wrote: With the wizard cards being redone, I'm sure there are numerous cool ways for a new resource to be added to the cards to get away from HP as a resource.

The problem with that is some wizards seem to be really attached to the concept of HP as a resource and will be mad if it goes away.

Conversely, some wizards are really adverse to the concept of HP as a resource and will be mad if the whole identity of the wizard seems like it is being shifted to require it.

Personally, I don't have any problem with HP as a resource but I am not attached to it. I would be very interested in some creative alternatives.

If the HP as a resource is limited to these Wizard Class tokens, it won't even be a factor in the vast majority of Wizard players. Hopefully the Class Card revision doesn't introduce that mechanic on the base card spells, at least for Level 4 players.

Adding some additional boxes to the Wizard cards (called "Mana", "Mage Power", "Augments", whatever) could have some default effect for the wizards that this token line could expand on or use as a resource. It wouldn't be that much different to the paladin having Lay On Hands boxes, etc. It could get away from having an entire line of tokens (which some people consider class-defining) based around HP as a resource. Granted, anything at this point will probably make someone mad...

Changing an existing, token build defining design six years after it was released is going to piss off a LOT of people. I'd expect a LOT more than the number of people who care adamantly in the other direction.

A moderate number of Wizards seem not to care one direction of the other. But a Wizard who has built around the Mad Evoker's Charm has purchased specific tokens to boost HP for MULTIPLE years in order to tailor to the playstyle of the token. Changing the playstyle of the token would invalidate likely over a thousand dollars in token acquisition.

Please stop trying to decimate MEC players by breaking the token design

I am simply trying to brainstorm some options. I personally use the Mad Evoker's Charm so my build is also at stake here. I also have a Lenses of Divine Sight and am familiar with the fallout from a major token redesign.

I understand. And I keep a pair of LoDs on hand for any healers who don't own them. They are definitely best in slot for healers IMO.

Yes the change to LoDS sucked but at least it's change didn't fundamentally alter the stat priority for tokens for the class. Removing the HP to damage piece from Mad Evoker would take HP/Con from #2 or #3 on priority to #6 or #7 and shift the best tokens for that build in a MASSIVE way. It wouldn't just affect 1 token it would require replacing probably 7-8 UR+ tokens. That's a massive change and a massive expense to those players, especially with the 7 tokens they have to replace probably dropping in half in cost due to no longer having a class design that has them as a core desire.


I absolutely support having other options of payments added in the future or something similar but I won't support any design change that invalidates the existing MEC token build. That's just simply too big of an expense to force on a subset of players.

The change to the Eldritch set bonus along with the change to LoDS is not too dissimilar to what you are describing with the HP boosting items. I know I purchased an Eldritch item on the secondary market for the set bonus (+10 to healing) only to have it changed and I am sure I am not the only one. I would recommend only making this level of radical change if there is a very compelling game reason.

There was a compelling game reason from Jeff that MEC had to fundamentally change. At least 2 Wizards have expressed very compelling social reasons to change either MEC or a MEC-based relic/legendary (and they have been mostly shouted down with the idea “political correctness is bad”).

There was a mechanical/scaling issue that made Jeff need to change HOW the Mad Evoker's Charm does it's HP to Damage conversion.

YOU and another member of your personal party presented a NOT very compelling reason to completely destroy the design of a token over the fact that YOU and the other member of your party MISREPRESENT THE DESIGN of the token as being promoting self harm when it's not part of the design and Jeff has specifically answered your concerns over the design explaining the ACTUAL intent behind the design and YOU have chosen to ignore his clarifications and decide that EVERYONE should lose the Mad Evoker's Charm because YOU and a member of your party feel mentally triggered at an unnamed PUG player in your party using the mad evoker's charm. There's multiple ways to avoid you getting personally triggered by another player using the token and you interpreting it's use as promoting self harm but you would prefer to destroy a token that has been a core build option for Wizards for six years, which requires changes in token selection to use in order to protect you and your crew member from a potential random player joining your PUG group and using a token that you feel could trigger you.

IF YOU FEEL THAT WAY

1 - don't join PUG groups if there's a chance that another players playstyle could cause a mental trauma trigger for you without their knowledge.

2 - ASK the players to avoid referencing self harm when using the Mad Evoker's Charm or related tokens due to your concerns

3 - form your own groups and restrict Wizards joining your group from using the tokens in question.

ALL of those solutions would protect your group AND not negatively affect dozens of other players by destroying the class identity they choose to embrace.

Yet that's not good enough for you. You feel all other Wizard players should lose access to a core design option for the class in order to protect the mental health of you and your player who are choosing to misinterpret the design of a token and use it as a reason to call for the destruction of a token you dislike.

My stance has nothing to do with "political correctness is bad"

My stance is "Demanding a fundamental change in a game to suit your own personal needs instead of using the resources at your command to avoid ever encountering the issue is bad"

Stop misrepresenting my words in order to get offended.

For the record, the other person who opposed it is a player I do not know. As far as I am aware they have never done a run with me. My partner who plays Elf Wizard has avoided the token design threads entirely. The other party members I run with have not been following Wizard token designs (because they don’t play Wizard).

Anthony Barnstable wrote: For simplicity:

MEC
Usable by Wizards
Use Mage Power 1/room

MM
Usable by Wizards
Use Mage Power or Improved Mage Power 1/round, each power max 1/room

Legendary
Usable by Wizards
Use Mage Power, Improved Mage Power, or Arch-Mage Power 1/round, each power max 1/room

Then we can easily meet the deadlines with no time crunch concerns and have a reasonable amount of time like 1-2 weeks to discuss what these three powers are and how many options for each should initially exist.

Absolutely 100% no.

I will not support a change to the core design of the MEC token like this. It completely invalidates an extreme number of builds.