Every time a playtest group gives up, it seems to be for very similar reasons, among which are:
- Monsters are pure killing-machines and their stats make no sense
- PCs don't feel heroic for their actions
- Combat takes too long and gets boring very fast
- The attack routine is always the same, because there's only one that works : get into melee>strike with melee weapon x2, rinse and repeat
- Magic is underwhelming and casters are worthless
- The game is too complicated and that complexity doesn't come with additional depth of play
Clearly, with so many different people coming out to say their farewell and listing these issues in their feedback, something needs to be done to address them if 2nd edition is ever going to be successful.
My playtest group feels essentially the same.
We're still giving Chapter 4 a shot because a lot of us loved the Kingmaker AP and exploration rules but that's about it, and I don't think we will make it to Chapter 7, for similar reasons... :/
All of my players are now rolling exclusively martial characters, with 2H weapons only, and they're more or less clones of each other.
When Chapter 1 started, I had a Wizard, Alchemist and Sorcerer in this 5-PC party.
I am DMing and I love describing PCs' actions in combat.
Some major changes will need to happen before we consider committing to 2nd edition at release.
Isaac Zephyr wrote:
I feel chances are higher for Drow PCs to end up overpowered if they are made into a separate ancestry rather than a regular elven heritage.
Drow would probably have darkvision built-in, for instance. Right now, you need to pay the "heritage feat-tax" to acquire darkvision, and so you're passing on anything else.
But if Drow becomes a regular ancestry with built-in darkvision, then PCs will have that feature and anything else they get from their heritage feat.
In addition, you assume Drow ancestry feats would be toned down and they would not have such speed options that are available to elves.
You may be right on that account but I think ancestry feats have a potential to offer way more power than boosted speed and there's nothing that says Drow ancestry feats would not turn out to be even stronger. :o
You know what...I'd actually love that!
However, in that case, would you keep school/composition/bloodline powers using the same number of spells points they do now?
I can easily imagine every spellcaster saving their spellpoints for extra spell slots and powers falling on the side as a result. :o
Except for clerics. If you enjoy the support role then clerics are still viable.
My players agree, which is why the only remaining spellcaster in the party is a Cleric. :)
N N 959 wrote:
It's not just the fact that a use of wildshape lasts only for 1 minute.
It's also the inability to do so much as drink a potion (let alone cast a spell) while it lasts, which forces you to pop out of your form and then burn another one again to get back into the fight when your HP are low (+ the loss of actions for doing so, 1 to end the first form, 2 to cast the new one).
Surely, considering your concerns with Rangers and the action economy loss of Hunt Target, you can sympathize.
This essentially means you can have 1-2 encounters a day before sitting on your hands (because a Druid with max STR has no more than 4 uses of wildshape per day until level 15, or level 8 with a specific selection of feats).
My one player that tried the Druid and ditched it had not even played Pathfinder 1st edition before.
So much for your argument that "Paizo has to know that this perspective is skewed because the playtest consist of people who are mostly familiar with casters from PF1", I guess.
You think that casters have been brought down to a power level comparable to martial classes.
We're going to have to agree to disagree.
Have no fears, in the end, I am growing more and more confident from the devs' posts here that Paizo will follow your stance.
I will then stop playing, others will as well and the Pathfinder community will shift to something else while we, older greedy spellcaster players, all move on to another game.
Time only will tell if this was a smart move, from a business standpoint.
You may be on to something.If most names are changed to reflect what they actually describe then I will have one less issue with ancestries.
Red Griffyn wrote:
Lots of good stuff I wish I could have formulated so eloquently myself.
Amen.This is everything I want and can think of in order for spellcasters to become valuable again at any given table.
Someone mentioned in this thread that casters being no more valuable than martial characters will increase the desirability of said martials.
That's not how it is right now: non-multiclassed spellcasters are less valuable than anything else and, as a result, my playest group now consists of 4 martial characters (Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, Monk) and one multiclassed Cleric/Fighter.
The point others and I are trying to make is the following:Deep Gnomes are explicitly called out to be svirfneblin.
On the other hand, Cave Elves are just that: elves who dwell in caves.
They are not Drow and are not called out as such.
They could be Jinin but nothing says they may be Drow and have their distinctive physical features, for example.
You keep making this an argument about how powerful the race is, for some reason.
Let me tell you: give me an heritage feat for elves that says "You are a Drow, your people has dwelled underground for millenia as part of the group of elves that fled the surface as the Earthfall approached. You have distinctive dark skin, white hair and red eyes." and I'm going to take it in a heartbeat.
I don't care about Drow being a powerful ancestry, I care about being able to roleplay an actual Drow without having to pretend it's actually a regular Elf in disguise.
This is a perfect summary of what I expected from this update, and thus the reason why I am currently very disappointed.
I can't shake off the feeling that players in 2nd edition are asked to buy back everything a race would previously give them - and at an agonizingly slow pace, as well.
It's already bad enough that the caster proficiency bumps cost you class feats at those levels, it'd be even worse if there were additional spell DC feat taxes.
I should probably have mentioned that, for me, increased proficiency in spells should not come at the cost of a feat.Martial classes increase their weapon proficiencies for free at odd levels (3rd, 13th), and it never costs them anything.
Why should casters pay with the loss of a feat just to be able to use their spells effectively at appropriate levels?!
Assuming increased spell proficiency no longer comes at the cost of a feat, then picking Spell Focus and its greater variant to boost one school of your choice becomes less of an issue for me. :)
I think what you've listed is just the tip of the iceberg. The entire spell list needs a serious second look, because a lot of spells are simply never worth using (never mind where you think magic should be, these spells simply are not worth your actions to cast). I don't think spells like mirror image would be quite so problematic if other spells were up to shape.
I know.Unfortunately, I'm just trying to keep my expectations in check with what has a realistic chance to come to pass.
Changing some spells' effects from critical failure to failure is something that can be done easily, quickly and, hopefully, does not threaten what is apparently the new "balance point for magic".
I could as well, but Kalindlara nailed it: I want to play as a Drow, not a Cave Elf.
I specifically asked my DM about this and his answer was: well, Cave Elves are just regular elves whith darkvision because they have lived underground, they are not Drow and they don't have their physical or magical features.
So, in the end, after reading 1.4 again, I have to say the following about ancestries:
I like the idea of Heritage feats. I think it's a step in the right direction but there are several issues here that need to be addressed.
- Most of the names for Heritages range from somewhat weird to openly bizarre.
- Terrain variations should not be heritage feats for specific ancestries.
- There is a distinct balance issue with many of the ancestry feats.
Data Lore wrote:
Not what I said and I am not about to get into a forum battle with you. Refer to my post for my actual words.
I did : "you still have folks ranting at them on the forums and claiming that its just "not enough."
I'm not ranting, I'm voicing my concerns and you're dismissing them as "a rant".
I just asked my players who rolled Dwarf characters about this: none of them felt particularly OP and the whole playtest group agreed that Humans was by far the best ancestry, solely on account of the power level of ancestry feats available to them.
I'm going to take your word for it since I did not try that ancestry myself. Maybe Dwarfs were indeed the best but the way it is now, they should probably roll back some of the changes to make them on par with the rest.
Data Lore wrote:
So, according to you, it is wrong of me to state that I am disappointed, and that, unlike you, this update is not what I hoped for?
It's called feedback for a reason: it can't always be good.
I was pretty positive about the changes from 1.3 and I am happy with the new Battle Medic and Natural Medicine, for instance, but I'm really unhappy about ancestries and I should be allowed to say so just as much as you're allowed to say you feel good about it.
Most of the heritage feats feel really bland and uninspired to me, some are even copy/pasted (Arctic Elf/Snow Goblin).
I mean, it's great that you're happy with the update but I don't see how my opinion is supposedly less valid than yours.
I'm terribly underwhelmed.
I now have to select the corresponding heritage feat to gain Unburdened as a Dwarf...and I get nothing more than I used to from it.
I'm sorry but "giving more at 1st level" for every ancestry was supposed to be the goal here and it's an epic failure.
I half expected the Elven heritages to all be terrain variations but I'm still completely let down.
A Snow Goblin and an Arctic Elf get the exact same bonuses. I don't see how that helps make you feel more "goblinish" or more "elvish".
Some of the new feats are incredibly OP while others are just meh.
I don't really now how else to convey what I want from ancestries.
I agree that Sorcerers do not feel so different from Wizards at the moment and it bothers me.
I would like them to feel mechanically different, and not just with how they prepare spells.
Dangerous Sorcery somewhat achieves that, for example. You deal more damage with your damaging spells and only Sorcerers have this feat. This makes Sorcerer the obvious choice for blasting and gives them some sort of unique identity.
Now, I would like something similar but which does not require a feat.
For instance, a player who is interested in having a TWF character can go with the Ranger because he likes the mechanics of Hunt Target or with the Rogue because he likes Sneack Attack better.
I want it to be the same with spellcasters, equal power level, just different options that makes you question what type of spellcaster you want to be.
Honestly, I feel that Sorcerers, instead of being limited in what spells they can heighten, should have had the ability to heighten them at will and without restrictions.
Maybe have Sorcerers interact with metamagic in unique ways?
* The following spells and powers should have their critical failure effect on a regular failure instead:
*Barkskin should receive a serious buff, the DR it gives is pitiful and you gain weakness to the most common energy type on top of that?
*Buff spells in general (target "you" or other "creatures", no harmful effects) should have a duration of 1 minute per spell level, at the very least.
*Mirror Image requires a small nerf: bring back the part where it says "If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss."
*Rope Trick should be a 2nd level spell, no reason why it should be a 4th level spell, especially with the rarer tag.
*Uncommon spells should not be a thing at all. All of the potentially game-breaking options have been nerfed in several ways, no reason to arbitrarily keep players from accessing them as well.
*Nerfs on utility spells should be rolled back (Prestidigitation, Feather Fall, etc.).
And the big three, for me and my players, which are required ASAP:
*Casters should gain increased proficiency in their spells at a different rate: make it expert at level 8, master at level 12 and legendary at level 16.
*Casters need to be able to boost their save DCs but I'm advocating for something more permanent than has been previously offered in this thread: bring back Spell Focus (as a feat level 4) and Greater Spell Focus (as a feat level 10) for all spellcasting classes.
*Monsters' saves are way too high at the moment, 60% to 80% chance that they will save against spells is not balanced.
The issue is that Druids, inherently, will not have such a high DEX modifier and cannot get better armour than Hide.
This is because Paizo is once again enforcing the stupid "no metal armour" thing on Druids.
I agree that your statement is true once you pick up heavy armour proficiency and get your hands on some darkwood plate.
Most medium level druids will have longstrider up and already be fast enough. Sorry doesn't stack.
So, using a polymorph spell saves you from having to cast Longstrider beforehand. Seems like a boon to me since you're saving on one precious spell slot?
No. You basically lose the ability to use most skills
You're right, I should have been clearer with that statement.
I meant that for the skills that polymorph spells boost (usually Acrobatics or Athletics), the bonus from the spell is equal to or better than what you would normally have when not wildshaped.
Yep, but if you want the good movement like fly your combat ability will go way down.
See, that doesn't bother me too much for one reason: assuming a flying shape with one polymorph spell basically equals to saving on the need to cast Fly to begin with.It makes sense to me that your offensive shape would then be slightly toned down but I understand why you would feel differently.
As for your additional criticisms...yes that too.
I would question what it means that the players "have been fine" here.Was it that they were MVP for their party?
Was it that they felt on par with other characters?
Was is not that, but they still felt it was OK regardless because it didn't feel like a big difference between them?
Were they fine because it just means that they were able to survive the low level playtest?
People have different expectations.
Me, I would find it unbearable to merely be able to "survive" in a fight. Once again, different expectations.
If we assume the player above is in the right then somehow it means my expectations are necessarily wrong and I don't see what makes them less valid than anything else.
"Summoning spells are really good and interesting at the mid levels. Specifically, when the druid in my Pale Mountain game dropped a fire mephit between the enemy's front and back lines and it set half of them on fire before soaking up a bunch of attacks and then exploding for even more damage. It was pretty awesome."
This situation worked for the Druid because the DM obviously went after the Fire Mephit. It would not have soaked up any damage otherwise.I will never go after a summon when there is a bigger threat out there, especially with most of the encounters in DD2. It seems to me that most of them would back off from something that just set them on fire...
Had I been DMing, that Druid player would probably not have felt so epic.
"The classes that have magic are still more powerful than the classes that don't."
That doesn't mean much by itself. I assume there is a context for this sentence but right now, I'm left wondering:How are they more powerful?
Because they have raw power that manifests in HP damage?
Because they inflict better conditions with their spells?
Because their buff spells are necessary?
Because they have more utility outside of combat or more skills?
For me, it's a flat out NO to all of the above so I'm not sure exactly what makes spellcasting classes more powerful.
This one I agree with. Spellcasters can have the ability to cast more than one spell in a round.It is, however, a very limited selection of spells that can combo in such fashion so I'm not sure it really is a big argument for the flexibility of the action economy of spellcasting classes.
"So 1st and 2nd level blast slots are better than they were in PF1 because of how weaknesses work. Odds are you don't have enough cantrips to cover every elemental base, so your low level blasts can help with your coverage like you're playing Pokemon. And that is on top of their other advantages-- AoE, range, persistence, reliability."
I was nodding in partial agreement until I read the word "reliability".Yeah, just take a look at monsters' saves and tell me about reliability... :/
"And to echo something I said on another thread there are a lot of spells that are very good in lower level slots, just not damage spells. True Strike is an amazing buff and Ray of Enfeeblement is a solid debufff, both level 1 spells that don't heighten. Level 2 invisibility and mirror image are both great defensives, and Haste and level 3 Fear are an amazing buff and excellent group debuff respectively (Especially now that Frightened penalizes AC and DCs!)."
This I agree with. First positive comment I'm willing to say "yes, that is right" about it.See, I can admit that some things work? :P (not meant to be a taunt here, don't take it personally, I'm joking but my tone does not convey past my keyboard)
"From my play experience, it seems increasingly clear that, whatever it says on paper, casters only feel a bit weaker at lower levels (first couple parts of Doomsday Dawn). Sure, they may not be gods from level 7+ like in PF1, but they still feel competent and impactful once they get some additional spell slots and higher level spells...Whatever it says on paper, *actual play* does not suggest casters uniformly suck."
So, casters are weaker at low levels and then they just become on par with other classes?That doesn't seem to support the argument that spellcasting classes are doing fine...
Besides, casters don't uniformly suck, Clerics are borderline OP when built for combat, warpriest-style.
"When I've playtested casters I didn't feel bad or mediocre. And the people I've seen who have made those complaints have framed them as not being as overpowered as they were. To borrow a phrase "a loss of privilege is not discrimination". Casters were too good. Lowering their power level is not inherently over-nerfing them."
Once again, different expectations. My own are not met with the current state of arcane spells and arcane spellcasting and I feel mediocre.From my own surveys and looking at these boards, I know that I'm clearly not alone in that statement.
The question is, does Paizo even want us for customers?
Time will tell, I guess. Jason Bulmahn said magic surveys would come, latter, after "other things that need to happen first".
Oh, I agree, Aquatic Elves are a very flavorful and useful addition to the game.It's just that I would be disappointed if all elven heritage feats end up being about terrain variations. :)
Was drow as a heritage mentioned?
No, it has not been mentioned yet, or I'd be throwing a party already! :D
One can hope, though.
That was my first thought upon hearing it live from the stream.Fingers crossed until Monday!
Fell magic made it with Fell Gnomes (apparently) and this is in addition of Goblins getting in the CRB in the first place.
In any case, I welcome the addition of heritage feats because it means I can easily homebrew a Drow heritage if it doesn't make it into the CRB, without having to come up with a completely new ancestry in the process.
This means I am far less likely to make up something overpowered or underpowered by building on the elf chassis and simply adding a new heritage feat to the mix.
Binary waste of character or table presence is surprisingly how one of my players just described his character in Chapter 3. Guess what class he played?
It seems to me I should be allowed to state things the way I and my players experience them. It's just as much disrespective to dismiss my opinion on account that you feel it's hyperbolic.
It's not hyperbolic for me and my group. It's exactly how we feel and I have no better way to put it.
There are positive aspects with the playtest, a ton of them (we love the new action economy, archetypes for multiclassing, the concept of having skills feats, unique monsters' abilities in the bestiary...), but none have to do with spellcasters, as far as me and my players are concerned.
We have nothing positive to say about spellcasters, except for Clerics, who are so strong right now I might even tag them OP (has a lot to do with Channel Energy effectively tripling their number of spell slots available at level 1).
I would put together a list of every spell that fails at delivering meaningful impact (to me) and explain why, but magnuskn did that way better when (s?)he started this thread.
I had my own surveys up for magic recently because I wanted to have an idea of the proportion of people that had a similar experience than my players and I and the proportion of those who didn't.
That thread was locked after about 60 people took the surveys and I must admit it doesn't exactly makes me want to try and contribute lengthy feedback anymore. :/
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I'm pretty sure they have.
The BIG issue here is that spells only have the effect you describe on a critical success (or require the enemy to critically fail their save).
At the same time, it's virtually impossible for this to happen because of monsters' uber saves and PCs lack of ability to boost their spell DCs.
In the end, Paizo has done a wonderful job at making it look like you can still contribute meaningfully with your limited spells...while ensuring that this can never happen, because, apparently, spellcasters should not be given a chance to do something out of the ordinary with their very limited number of spells per day.
I've spent the last hours (ever since watching the stream, in truth) researching on how to summon a devil and make a pact with them for this to happen. :P
*just joking of course*
Seriously though, I will be extremely disappointed if Fell Gnomes and Goblins are in but Drows are left out because...reasons?
There was a post in the survey blog post from one of the designers, Jason I think, said they're going to do an entire separate survey on magic. They are waiting because if they do to many surveys at once they get less answers, but it is coming.
I know, I was the one who asked about it. :)It took 2 months to get that answer and I still don't know when they'll be coming, hence the reason why I made my own in the meantime.
Not being able to heal yourself up when needed -if Wildshaped- by drinking a common mundane healing potion is not reasonable.
You seem to come from the assumption that I want the Druid to just be awesome and have it all.
It's not about being able to buff yourself like there's no tomorrow while you're wildshaped, it's about being able to stay in the fight without burning 2 wildshape uses per spell.
Otherwise, you can keep the rules as they are, forget about Natural Spell altogether and give me more uses of Wildshape per day.
This is still a huge loss in terms of action economy and DPR but, at least, it allows me to play a Wildshaped Druid that can actually, you know, wildshape reliably when they get in combat situations...
Alright then, Fighters with only 2 attacks each round still outdamage Barbarians on the account of their increased accuracy, have better AC, can spend their 3rd action demoralizing the enemy, shoving them, etc.
Your character is not pulling their weight.
In that case, what is the purpose of your character?
"Just as well" means just that: with the exact same end results.I find it hard to justify going with another metric, with that phrasing.
Now, in order to achieve the same end results with a spell than you did in 1st edition, you have to hope the enemy will critically fail, which is 5% of the time...
This is an interesting proposal.I'm of the mind that spellcasters should have more spell slots, period, but this is an alternative that Paizo might actually consider because "spellcasters can't have anything for free".
This helps a lot with buff spells having a low duration because you'll be able to use more of them per day.
However, the core issues with spellcasters at the moment is that most spells have very little effect when the enemy saves and they save ALMOST ALL THE TIME.
Giving you more spell slots just gives you the ability to try and fail more times per day. Not great.
Until monsters' saves are fixed and some of the nerfs rolled back so that each spell actually has a significant impact, more spell slots simply won't help much.
I use Roll20 for online play sessions and so I happen to have chat history with all of my dice rolls recorded.
One of five of my 3rd attack rolls would hit last session and that includes 3 natural 20s.
I'm guessing his opinion is quite unpopular at Paizo because the intent was pretty obviously to have Wizards wake up under PF2E rules and realize their magical connection has been severely impaired.
Your link does not seem to be working for me, however?
I think you could add extra limitations to Natural Spell to make it balanced. For example, you might have to pick a specific number of spells to be able to cast in wild shape (eg you could Heal while wildshaped, but not act as a fully functional caster). It could also be a metamagic effect, requiring extra actions and leaving you unable to use other metamagic at the same time.
Or you can have Natural Spell allow for Somatic Casting only.Most spells will require Verbal Casting as well so this would effectively let Wildshaped Druids cast Heal, but with the requirement that it has to be touch range and they can't cast other spells at all because they are restricted to Somatic Casting anyway.
I suspect there will not be a natural spell in this edition - all the combat transformation spells have the text "Your battle form prevents casting spells" (or equivalent language for Avatar). Presumably this means that the developers see casting while shapeshifted to be unbalancing...
I disagree with them on that point but I think you got it right.
In that case, Wildshaped Druids should at least be able to drink potions when they require (much like any other regular martial character), or anything else really, because their action economy totally breaks as soon as they start taking hits in combat which happens...all the time.
Ah, so that's what you were doing. Using an action for Vigor each turn.
You are still losing an attack each round just so you can keep up in terms of defense or play tank (whatever that means, since a good DM will simply ignore a tanky character and move on to bashing someone else whenever they want - and no, your damage being subpar to that of a Fighter will not make you a threat to deal with urgently).
Animal Skin only comes online at level 6.
Barbarians are not proficient with shields so now I'm spending a general feat, wasting an action and reaction each turn that I should have been dealing more damage so I don't die.
Besides, with that DEX modifier you're going with, you probably have either:
Yeah, looking at these options, I'm pretty convinced Barbarians were not intended to be the ultimate tank in this game.
They have mechanics to survive with their low defense and supposedly do a lot of damage in the meantime.
Unfortunately, the action economy of Rage, the round you spend fatigued and the lack of better proficiency in your weapons make it so the last statement (do a lot of damage) doesn't work right now.
You're right, I had not even considered the fact that you can't end your rage prematurely on a whim just so you can start raging again.
In fact, I had not even thought of doing that until I tried to understand how shroudb could get these numbers to begin with.
This adds even more weight to my analysis: no, Barbarians will never be tankier than Fighters, extra temporary HP do not make up for lower AC and the fatigued condition when rage ends.
dnoisette: Possibly. Again, I'm not imputing any nefarious intent on the devs.
I'm not either. I'm saying it's hard enough when you know what mistakes you should avoid making to not make them in the first place and so I understand why the surveys are biased: because Paizo staff is, in the end, humans. :D
You only gain temporary HP when you start Raging.
With 18 CON, at level 9, you gain 13 HP and that's it.
If you want more, you're gonna have to keep reapplying your Rage every round and that is one big a** DPS loss like no other.
Barbarian also has access to Renewed Vigor as a level 8 class feat. It lets you trade an action for Temp HP = 1/2 level + Con. At level 8, when you get it, that should end up being 8 HP for a single action. That's roughly on part with a Fighter raising his shield against a monster that is likely to hit you no matter what (equal level or higher). It's not a terrible bump to the Barbarian's HP pool and augments that "29 every four rounds" rather nicely.
Renewed Vigor will grant you 8 HP, according to my previous example (level 9, 18 CON).You can't use it more than once during your off-rage round because temporary HP are no longer cumulative.
It also has the interesting side effect of further increasing your penalty to AC, because you're taking an action.
I'm not saying Barbarians can't soak up damage.
Or rather, they can be, if you want to reapply your Rage every round.
The damage resistance helps but level 9 is halfway through your character's career. You have to survive (and hopefully have fun with) the first 8 levels before you get there.
I remain unconvinced. :/
I feel it's important that I emphasize the following: I'm not advocating for Barbarians to become better at taking damage.
I want them to become better at dealing damage and I think that extra tiers of weapon proficiency throughout a character's career would go a long way in helping that happen.
I understand the intent and I'm pretty sure that was it as well.
However, this turns out to be overly punitive in play.
I have a great example with one of my players who had shapeshifted into a wolf at level 4. He took two bad hits in a row in a single round and was left with 3 HP.
So fine, Druids should not be able to cast while transformed because balance.
The issue is that they can't drink a potion either.
I find that is a big deal because, for my player, it meant he had a choice of not being able to shapeshift at all for the remainder of the day...or he could just go down this time and hope someone will have him drink a potion or he makes his Fort save. :/
Not exactly the kind of choices one should have to make.
That was extremely obvious in the earliest surveys, especially the one about classes. It still shows in these most recent surveys and it's quite clear what you're expected to answer relative to each subject.
Each question feels more like wanting validation than objective feedback.
For example, you can answer that you would prefer not to have a single proficiency system for all different game elements.
These last two surveys are better honestly.
Not everyone has a background in statistics and I can understand it being a difficult job to produce a solid and unbiased survey.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
It's very good to finally know for sure that this will happen, thank you.
Data Lore wrote:
Its funny how folks get so riled up over this stuff.
Waiting 2 months for an answer will do that to some people and I am totally willing to acknowledge that I am not a very patient individual. :)
I've been looking for that as well.RAW, it does seem like Darkwood is your only possible choice if you want heavy armor that a Druid can wear withut incurring penalties.
RAI, I'm not certain because p.177 does state "Most suits of armor and weapons are made from ordinary, commonly available materials like iron, leather, steel, and wood."
I could see someone using this to justify that their heavy armor is made from chitin or stone (dwarf plate anybody?) and thus is not metal armor.
My own DM ruled that all heavy armors are made of metal and I can only have Darkwood heavy armor for my Druid.
This is an issue because the price is quite prohibitive and items made from special materials do not have a level tag.
Which makes me want to ask the following:
-> What is the corresponding item level for an item made of each one of the special materials presented in the CRB?
Surely, it won't take much extra space to add item level for each special material in the final version.
Alright, I'm hoping a dev will come by this thread to clarify their position, even though I know chances are it won't happen.
Why is Natural Spell not in the CRB?
Is there any chance this feat will make it in the final version?
Wildshape only has minutes duration. You can only effectively use it in combat situations but if you want to cast a spell, you have to give up your current form AND recast it afterwards?
If you have 4 uses of Wildshape per day, this essentially means that casting a spell in each encounter means you can have no more than...2 each day.
If that was the intent, it's broken. Why add mundane healing if some classes are still going to have 5-minutes adventuring days?
A Barbarian will never be tankier than a Fighter.I repeat, never.
Fighters are not supposed to boost their Dexterity, they're meant to keep it low and enjoy the benefits of better proficiency with heavy armor than any other class in the game (except Paladins).
If a Fighter wants to use medium armor (they do get expert proficiency after all) they can. They have enough room to start with 14 DEX, 14 CON, 18 STR and 12/14 in whatever else you like.
A Barbarian has no such possibility. They can never wear better than medium armor but it will take them a lot of time to catch with the max DEX modifier they're supposed to have to work with medium armor.
This is because Barbarians must start with 18 STR and 16 CON. Sure, you can start with just 14 CON and push DEX to 14, why not after all?
Except you always lose 1 AC when raging and up to 4 AC when the rage goes way! You'll never have the AC of a Fighter, even if you try your best at it.
You'll have more HP. Up to 3 extra HP per level, and your temporary HP. Barbarians don't mitigate damage with armor, they do so with their health pool.
If you build for very high CON, you can have an impressive number of HP and temporary HP.
Fighters tank damage with armor, Barbarians tank damage with their HP and yes, that makes them weaker.
At level 6, a Dwarf Fighter with 16 CON has 88 HP.
The Barbarian has 28 more HP than a Fighter when raging.
The Manticore, a 6th level monster, attacks for average 16 HP on a hit.
You won't even mitigate two full hits with your temporary HP.
The Fighter has 16 DEX and is wearing medium armor, say a +1 breastplate.
Except when raging, this goes down to 22 AC, 20 TAC.
See where I'm going with this?
You're at least 10% more likely to get hit every attack and you don't even have enough HP to soak up more than one attack in full before you're on equal ground with the Fighter.
No, Barbarians are not tankier than Fighters.