TOPIC: 2022 Transmuted Kind of

Just making it clear that I'm not speaking for anyone other than myself. I respect everyone's position, but I'm just expressing a viewpoint that represents only me. I make tough decisions on a number of slots. I welcome that. it's all a balancing act and it makes putting builds together fun. I tweak builds from run to run just to see if I can improve them. For me, another IS slot expander does nothing, but maybe that's only me. i can't speak for anyone else's build and am not trying to. I just want Jeff to know there are other opinions.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: Those are the drawbacks for playing Wizard, mitigated or not that's what exists in design.

If it's easy to mitigate, it's not really a drawback.

Ian Lee wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: YOu said you are “not seeing why it should be easy to max out charm slots.”

I don’t think the measures one must go to to qualify for max charms are “easy” in any sense.

Not that I want to belabor this, but I don't like being misquoted. Saying that I don't think it should be easy is not in any way saying that it is easy. Two different things. Dave thinks people should be able to get to the max without giving up things like class transmutes. Endgame responded. I should have quoted him, but I didn't expect the other posts in between that lost context on where the conversation was at.

It's not easy to max out charms. If the charm legendary happens, it's still not easy. Not everyone has all tokens, even though comments often seem to assume that people do, sometimes my comments as well. Sure, would require a legendary, a relic, and an UR to not use OOP neck UR to get to 10.

But, I was not saying it was. I was saying I don't see any reason it needs to be any more than the 10 fingers max needs to be easy to reach with current tokens or with future tokens.

Put a different way, saying there's no requirement for slot expansion, but I already said that in ... the same post. Can just suffer forever obsoleting tokens in slots to make room for new more desirable tokens.

What I did say in a different post is that TD has a fundamental problem. It restricts token usage, yet wants people to want more tokens. That leads to various outcomes of different desirability to different people: create new slots, which has happend a bunch of times; create slot expanders, which has been prolific recently; add more slotless.

An area that can both sell more tokens and not keep expanding slots is to have combinations of tokens that are really good together but not with other tokens. But, there are only so many strategies in TD, with the class structure giving reasons for classes to play a certain way. Classes themselves give a reason to get a wider range of tokens, but some people don't want to play a variety of classes and some people just get everything they need for every class, so problem not solved.

If you tried to do something like make slingbow cleric really good by introducing an armor set with lots of slingbow bonuses, not only fighting against those who don't want to do something like that but the very nature of the class paradigm where cleric isn't supposed to suddenly be awesome at missile combat because that loses identity.

But, I'm getting off on a tangent even if it does get into why it gets harder and harder to add tokens. The more that exists, the more something new has to push the envelope or reinvent the model. CCGs get bloated unless they hit the reset button to where they will no longer resemble where they started. In certain ways, TD no longer resembles where it started and it's not clear where it intends to go.

Ian - I see I misconstrued your meaning when you said:

Ian Lee wrote: Yeah, I'm not seeing why it should be easy to max out charm slots.

That you didn't mean that it was in fact too easy.

I accept that.

Can you accept that interpreting your statement above as an expressing the idea that adding the new charm slot expanders would make it too easy to hit max charms is, while incorrect, neither an unreasonable nor malicious interpretation?

As much as you may like being misconstrued, I don't like it being implied that I "misquoted" you when I quoted you word for word. So I guess neither of us is happy with this exchange.

I like what you have to say on the forums, I learn a lot from you. I'm sorry that I seem to be annoying you.

Grizwald wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: Those are the drawbacks for playing Wizard, mitigated or not that's what exists in design.

If it's easy to mitigate, it's not really a drawback.

It's the drawback to the class as designed. And the lack of AC is not something that's easily mitigated.

Dave wrote: Just making it clear that I'm not speaking for anyone other than myself. I respect everyone's position, but I'm just expressing a viewpoint that represents only me. I make tough decisions on a number of slots. I welcome that. it's all a balancing act and it makes putting builds together fun. I tweak builds from run to run just to see if I can improve them. For me, another IS slot expander does nothing, but maybe that's only me. i can't speak for anyone else's build and am not trying to. I just want Jeff to know there are other opinions.

I speak for the trees

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Grizwald wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: Those are the drawbacks for playing Wizard, mitigated or not that's what exists in design.

If it's easy to mitigate, it's not really a drawback.

It's the drawback to the class as designed. And the lack of AC is not something that's easily mitigated.

It is easily mitigated if a Paladin is in the party.

Rob F wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Grizwald wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: Those are the drawbacks for playing Wizard, mitigated or not that's what exists in design.

If it's easy to mitigate, it's not really a drawback.

It's the drawback to the class as designed. And the lack of AC is not something that's easily mitigated.

It is easily mitigated if a Paladin is in the party.

Dwarf fighter will buy you a round as well. Maybe 2 with the right lenses.

Endgame wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Grizwald wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: Those are the drawbacks for playing Wizard, mitigated or not that's what exists in design.

If it's easy to mitigate, it's not really a drawback.

It's the drawback to the class as designed. And the lack of AC is not something that's easily mitigated.

It is easily mitigated if a Paladin is in the party.

Dwarf fighter will buy you a round as well. Maybe 2 with the right lenses.

That assumes we have a paladin and I am the only Wizard or they have the lenses.

This year I think we had 2 wizards on 75% of my runs and paladin on 10% of them. Out of the ordinary but I'm finding the 2 Wizard thing to be extremely common these days. With my hosted runs at least.

that also only does Melee IIRC, paladinwise.

Should the +4 turkey leg say it can be eaten to heal damage?

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Grizwald wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: Those are the drawbacks for playing Wizard, mitigated or not that's what exists in design.

If it's easy to mitigate, it's not really a drawback.

It's the drawback to the class as designed. And the lack of AC is not something that's easily mitigated.

It is easily mitigated if a Paladin is in the party.

Dwarf fighter will buy you a round as well. Maybe 2 with the right lenses.

That assumes we have a paladin and I am the only Wizard or they have the lenses.

This year I think we had 2 wizards on 75% of my runs and paladin on 10% of them. Out of the ordinary but I'm finding the 2 Wizard thing to be extremely common these days. With my hosted runs at least.

that also only does Melee IIRC, paladinwise.

I feel like someone is talking about me.

bpsymington wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Rob F wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Grizwald wrote:

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: Those are the drawbacks for playing Wizard, mitigated or not that's what exists in design.

If it's easy to mitigate, it's not really a drawback.

It's the drawback to the class as designed. And the lack of AC is not something that's easily mitigated.

It is easily mitigated if a Paladin is in the party.

Dwarf fighter will buy you a round as well. Maybe 2 with the right lenses.

That assumes we have a paladin and I am the only Wizard or they have the lenses.

This year I think we had 2 wizards on 75% of my runs and paladin on 10% of them. Out of the ordinary but I'm finding the 2 Wizard thing to be extremely common these days. With my hosted runs at least.

that also only does Melee IIRC, paladinwise.

I feel like someone is talking about me.

I feel like your runs may have some selection bias towards wizards XD

Potion of ample plenty should be renamed “Chest of Ample Asets” as a Monty Python nod (and the double entrandre.).