TOPIC: READ THIS! Change to MEC and Details on Relic & Legendary

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Dave wrote: [
So, can I use Boost on a spell and then my standard action to cast a second spell? Since I'm not actually casting the spell, but only using Boost, isn't this a free action and not a standard action?

Here's how I think of it: Boost replaces the effect of one of your cast spells with a new effect, which is add the base damage and skill check bonus to a physical attack slide of another player. Boost does not create or cast the spell (like all mage powers), so you need a spell to transform with Boost. Like all mage powers (except Absorb), it requires a FA to activate.

So you cast a spell (however you do that), and then you boost it with a FA Mage power, replacing its effect with the boost.

You could Quicken+Boost to as a FA, and have the spell whose effect amounts to a boost be cast as an instantaneous action.

Looking at it another way - clearly Alter doesn't cast the spell that is being altered - it modifies a spell you have already cast via some other means. I think Boost is the same.

I disagree completely. Boost appears to sacrifice a spell instead of casting it as a channel of power to another player. It makes no sense that this would take up the Free Action and the Standard Action of the Wizard. They are already giving up a sizable amount of damage losing all spelldamage bonuses to apply boost. It seems extremely harsh to ALSO expect them to lose their standard action.

EDIT: This speculation is wrong:

Do you see a wording difference with Alter that makes you think these two effects are mechanically different?

"...once per round an Ashenne's Arch-Mage Medallion allows a wizard to modify a spell (not a scroll, special power/ability, or magic item) with one or more of the Arch-Mach Power effects listed below...""

You need a spell to modify with Boost to begin with. That spell has to be generated by something that's not a FA (because you need your FA for boost itself)

The long explanation in the Example section of Boost arguing for why it's good, does not mention that you can boost using a FA only, which would seem to be a big selling point if true.

I'd be delighted to learn otherwise.

EDIT: clarifications at:

truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=5&id=251869&start=84#384809

It'd be great if we could get some clarification on things like this.

Then again it'd be great if we could get a form of the Mad Evoker's Charm that's usable instead of this version. The cost is simply too high on this version to use it every turn like the existing one tends to be used.

Appreciate the discussion and it seems like more clarification is needed around Boost, specifically does it require a standard action to initiate the spell before you can use Boost with a free action to channel the damage to an ally? I really can see that being ruled either way. I'm clear that no other M/AM power could be used on a different spell in that same turn. I also want to know if I have to mark off the spell I use with Boost. I assume yes, but then I should also be able to use Conserve on that same spell to not mark it off. And if it does require a standard action to initiate the spell, can I then use Quicken on that same spell to recapture my standard action? There are so many ways I can see this being misplayed in the dungeon.

And yeah, MEC is mostly unusable with its current high cost. The only time I plan to use it is when I can combo it with Fork or Boost so that the modified damage can be doubled. Otherwise, it just feels too costly. The only other exception I might make is toward the end of the final combat room if I have available hp and am looking for every last bit of damage to try and finish the monster off. As a standalone UR, it does feel almost unplayable.

Dave wrote: And yeah, MEC is mostly unusable with its current high cost. The only time I plan to use it is when I can combo it with Fork or Boost so that the modified damage can be doubled. Otherwise, it just feels too costly. The only other exception I might make is toward the end of the final combat room if I have available hp and am looking for every last bit of damage to try and finish the monster off. As a standalone UR, it does feel almost unplayable.

As a wizard player who's not at the level of Dave (but who's survived a couple of Epic runs and plenty of NM runs), I couldn't agree any more strongly. MEC's only use for me in this form is as a base for the class neck. It will get used once per run regularly and maybe twice, if there's lots of healing available. It's really the worst version of it I've seen and I would never wear it on it's own.

If it was like the cleric neck where you needed the UR to make the neck and also needed one to wear to get the effect of the UR, I would just get the one for transmuting. With all of the other URs I want this year, I might just put it off anyway, it's way down on my want list now, especially with needing to make a legendary to get most of the useful effects. Probably money and mats better spent elsewhere.

jedibcg Banjo 237 Lover wrote:

Miathan wrote:
I was saying in response to all ideas be sent behind the scenes. It’s Jeff’s show he is more than welcome to take council from whoever he wants. He could call a random person in China and have them make all the tokens if he wanted.

This 100% true, but the community doesn't have to like it. And if they don't like they may choose not to contribute or contribute in another way than happens nows in community forums.

I can say that if all feedback went private, I probably wouldn't participate, either. Not because I was boycotting, just because I wouldn't have a specific prompt (ie. Someone on the internet is wrong). I wasn't planning to be involved this year, I just wanted to see what was happening, but some things I just had to reply to and add a voice to one side or offer a new option.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: It'd be great if we could get some clarification on things like this.

Then again it'd be great if we could get a form of the Mad Evoker's Charm that's usable instead of this version. The cost is simply too high on this version to use it every turn like the existing one tends to be used.

It’s almost like it would have been better to just retire MEC or give it a non-damaging action, huh?

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: It'd be great if we could get some clarification on things like this.

Then again it'd be great if we could get a form of the Mad Evoker's Charm that's usable instead of this version. The cost is simply too high on this version to use it every turn like the existing one tends to be used.

It’s almost like it would have been better to just retire MEC or give it a non-damaging action, huh?

Well you and Mike pretty much got your wish...it's almost useless now. So I guess you both get a mission accompolished?

I think this latest design is perfect*. When I dared to dream about the wizard legendary over the last three years of class-specific legendary development, the two things I wanted most* were:

(1) a relic/legendary “SUPER MEC” that was really just a nerfed version - a “meh”c, if you will - of a token I already have, rather than something new and exciting like a familiar or spellbook; and

(2) increased class complexity so that I could spend even more time than I already do during combat explaining to DMs how wizard powers are supposed to work.

Also, super pleased* with the design process. After three years of developing class-specific legendaries and weeks of dangling superior token designs in front of the forums (allegedly) for feedback, I was really hoping* that TPTB would boost* community goodwill by, not once but twice, disregarding “final” designs that had the benefit of open dialogue in favor of a design developed seemingly in the dark with only the private comments of an unnamed few. A very satisfying* experience.

My party is really going to love* my shiny new DM-confounding “meh”c. Almost as much as I loved* the design process. Three years of design time and thousands of community hours on forum posts exceedingly well* spent.

Nailed* it.

_{*Readers with deficient irony-detectors may freely substitute antonyms for these words.}

Boilerplate wrote: I think this latest design is perfect*. When I dared to dream about the wizard legendary over the last three years of class-specific legendary development, the two things I wanted most* were:

(1) a relic/legendary “SUPER MEC” that was really just a nerfed version - a “meh”c, if you will - of a token I already have, rather than something new and exciting like a familiar or spellbook; and

(2) increased class complexity so that I could spend even more time than I already do during combat explaining to DMs how wizard powers are supposed to work.

Also, super pleased* with the design process. After three years of developing class-specific legendaries and weeks of dangling superior token designs in front of the forums (allegedly) for feedback, I was really hoping* that TPTB would boost* community goodwill by, not once but twice, disregarding “final” designs that had the benefit of open dialogue in favor of a design developed seemingly in the dark with only the private comments of an unnamed few. A very satisfying* experience.

My party is really going to love* my shiny new DM-confounding “meh”c. Almost as much as I loved* the design process. Three years of design time and thousands of community hours on forum posts exceedingly well* spent.

Nailed* it.

_{*Readers with deficient irony-detectors may freely substitute antonyms for these words.}

+1

Matthew Hayward wrote: I'll analyze Wizard damage output with the Legendary, vs. Medallion of Mystic Mouth.

10 combat rounds over 3 rooms, with 3 rounds in the first two rooms and 4 in the 4th.

I assume:

1. Top end-ish wizard with +30 spell bonus and Medallion of Mystic Mouth, Crown of Expertise, Charm of Spell Swapping, and MeC.

2. The Wizard spell swaps into the highest available non-damage spell.

3. The Wizard uses MeC on their three best spells. One could certainly use MeC more but it would require coordination from multiple players, and/or massive use of consumables - and here I'm analyzing the Wizards contribution.

With Medallion of Mystic Mouth:

2x Lightning Storm with 20 base damage, doubled with MeC : 2*(20+20+30) = 140
1x Magic Missile with 8 base+3 skill check, doubled with MeC : (8+3+8+3+30) = 52
6x Magic Missile with 8 base+3 skill check : 6*(8+3+30) = 246
1x Burning Hands with base 6+3 skill check : 1*(6+3+30) = 39
10 uses of a wand, 8 points for wand + 2 for Human Wizard + 2 for Ioun Stone Flourite Cube : 10*(8+2+2) = 120

Total damage assuming all skill checks pass: 594, at a cost of 75 hp and 3 rare wands.

With the new Legendary:

With the new legendary, the Wizard can casts a Quickened, Conserved Lightning Storm in each room.

3x Quickened, Conserved Lightning Storm, doubled with MeC: 3*(20+20+30) = 210
Now for our remaining 10 standard actions:
2x Lightning Storm with 20 base damage: 2*(20+30) = 100
7x Magic Missile with 8 base+3 skill check : 7*(8+3+30) = 287
1 Burning Hands with base 6+3 skill check : 1*(6+3+30) = 39

Total damage assuming all skill checks pass: 636 at a cost of 105 HP

So this adds ~40 damage over the course of the dungeon at a cost of 30 additional HP but saves you 3 rare wands over MMM, allowing Wizards to deal ~63 points of damage a round on average over 10 rounds. It also gives you lots of flexibility with Absorb, Assure, etc. and for sliding Wizards Pierce.

One could add Ring of Spell Storing to both builds to add another 50 point Lightning Storm, at the cost of 2 damage on each spell. In the MMM build that also costs you 12 damage for the round you use it because you would have been able to use a wand instead.

By comparison, under VTD rules, similarly geared Monks have:

35 melee damage + 10 weapon damage per puck, 70% hit chance, 20% crit chance = 2*45*(.7+2*.2) = 99 points of damage round, with a 36% chance of stunning the monster each round until it's dead or stunned.

This. I am sure others could math out the comparative costs, but I’m pretty sure it would take years and years of dungeons before the cost of wands for MMM wizards would add up to the cost of the new legendary. Especially since the new meh(c) will necessitate more healing consumables than before. Might even be the case that me(h)c wizards will have higher consumable costs than MMM wizards.

Is adding roughly 4 damage/round over 10 rounds (at huge HP cost) and a handful of complex, DM-confounding powers sufficiently worthwhile to justify sacking MMM? I’m having a hard time seeing it.

Adam Guay wrote:

Anthony Barnstable wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: It'd be great if we could get some clarification on things like this.

Then again it'd be great if we could get a form of the Mad Evoker's Charm that's usable instead of this version. The cost is simply too high on this version to use it every turn like the existing one tends to be used.

It’s almost like it would have been better to just retire MEC or give it a non-damaging action, huh?

Well you and Mike pretty much got your wish...it's almost useless now. So I guess you both get a mission accompolished?

I only half succeeded though? It is back to sacrificing instead of channeling and the class relic and legendary both cut yourself still, not even a single power offered that deals no damage. Would have been thrilled if there was even just one on each.

Boilerplate wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: I'll analyze Wizard damage output with the Legendary, vs. Medallion of Mystic Mouth.

10 combat rounds over 3 rooms, with 3 rounds in the first two rooms and 4 in the 4th.

I assume:

1. Top end-ish wizard with +30 spell bonus and Medallion of Mystic Mouth, Crown of Expertise, Charm of Spell Swapping, and MeC.

2. The Wizard spell swaps into the highest available non-damage spell.

3. The Wizard uses MeC on their three best spells. One could certainly use MeC more but it would require coordination from multiple players, and/or massive use of consumables - and here I'm analyzing the Wizards contribution.

With Medallion of Mystic Mouth:

2x Lightning Storm with 20 base damage, doubled with MeC : 2*(20+20+30) = 140
1x Magic Missile with 8 base+3 skill check, doubled with MeC : (8+3+8+3+30) = 52
6x Magic Missile with 8 base+3 skill check : 6*(8+3+30) = 246
1x Burning Hands with base 6+3 skill check : 1*(6+3+30) = 39
10 uses of a wand, 8 points for wand + 2 for Human Wizard + 2 for Ioun Stone Flourite Cube : 10*(8+2+2) = 120

Total damage assuming all skill checks pass: 594, at a cost of 75 hp and 3 rare wands.

With the new Legendary:

With the new legendary, the Wizard can casts a Quickened, Conserved Lightning Storm in each room.

3x Quickened, Conserved Lightning Storm, doubled with MeC: 3*(20+20+30) = 210
Now for our remaining 10 standard actions:
2x Lightning Storm with 20 base damage: 2*(20+30) = 100
7x Magic Missile with 8 base+3 skill check : 7*(8+3+30) = 287
1 Burning Hands with base 6+3 skill check : 1*(6+3+30) = 39

Total damage assuming all skill checks pass: 636 at a cost of 105 HP

So this adds ~40 damage over the course of the dungeon at a cost of 30 additional HP but saves you 3 rare wands over MMM, allowing Wizards to deal ~63 points of damage a round on average over 10 rounds. It also gives you lots of flexibility with Absorb, Assure, etc. and for sliding Wizards Pierce.

One could add Ring of Spell Storing to both builds to add another 50 point Lightning Storm, at the cost of 2 damage on each spell. In the MMM build that also costs you 12 damage for the round you use it because you would have been able to use a wand instead.

By comparison, under VTD rules, similarly geared Monks have:

35 melee damage + 10 weapon damage per puck, 70% hit chance, 20% crit chance = 2*45*(.7+2*.2) = 99 points of damage round, with a 36% chance of stunning the monster each round until it's dead or stunned.

This. I am sure others could math out the comparative costs, but I’m pretty sure it would take years and years of dungeons before the cost of wands for MMM wizards would add up to the cost of the new legendary. Especially since the new meh(c) will necessitate more healing consumables than before. Might even be the case that me(h)c wizards will have higher consumable costs than MMM wizards.

Is adding roughly 4 damage/round over 10 rounds (at huge HP cost) and a handful of complex, DM-confounding powers sufficiently worthwhile to justify sacking MMM? I’m having a hard time seeing it.

I am pretty confident if I just throw a bunch of words at a DM with this token, I can do what I want.

“I Quicken, Fork, Pierce my Scorching Ray, that slid hit, MEC Fireball, damage total 128, I adjusted my health, mark these two boxes here.”

The DM probably won’t even question it because it will be so many words they don’t know and way too much math for them to have to do to double check if, so they’ll just take my word instead of wasting 3 minutes of our room time tallying up the damage of 1 of two wizards in the room.

Yes, my party will surely love that.

(Just kidding, because I don’t want to use these tokens)