|
"Nerfing Produce Flame" was not on my PF2R bingo card.
I want to say there's a mechanic we're missing here, because nerfing blasters is about the oddest thing Paizo could choose to do, but if there was something missing it'd probably be in the document so...
A possibility yes, since we don't have the full Remaster to look over.
Hopefully there's more in the classes themselves or something else.
Well. Wizards got shafted it seems.
Straight-up downgrade with seemingly no saving graces.
It feels like the saving grades are things that are going to be in the actual class features. The pdf that dropped today just handles the things that are obviously different in RoE, one of which is "spells don't have schools anymore" and "certain spells need new names."
If you're playing a Wizard right now you should probably not convert before you've seen the actual book. I mean, Arcane spells changing doesn't just hit the wizard, it hits the Magus and 25% of Witches, Sorcerers, and Summoners too.
Unless these are merely placeholders before the book is out, saying these changes don't affect the Wizard is like saying Wizard isn't a spellcasting class. Sorry, but given that Cone of Cold got nerfed pretty hard, it sets a precedent for what we can expect spells to function as in the future, which is that attack roll spells now do even less damage than before (because we have to account for Magus now), and a fair amount of AoE damage effects are being curtailed to being Fireball-lite since they apparently scale a little too much from the expected math. Really, the only new spell I liked from the remaster thus far is the Meteor Swarm one, since it now permits multiple damage types to bypass resistances/exploit weaknesses. (It also solidified the idea of using pre-Remaster Wish to turn Meteor Swarm into Comet Swarm, since this version of the spell puts them as an equal rank effect.)
Not to mention they have an example school for the Wizard, which is basically a significantly reduced version of what the Wizard could originally do, which, if that's what we can expect schools to function as, it really hurts their versatility. And with Wizard being the de facto versatility caster, that's the last thing you should be nerfing on them.
I mean, we can sit there and hope they get something like Improved Resolve, or even maybe Evasion, or some better feats, or mayhaps some actual features for the class besides "I can cast spells, hyuck hyuck hyuck!" But given that this is a Remaster and not a new edition, expecting those changes to happen doesn't sound likely.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Nerfing Produce Flame" was not on my PF2R bingo card.
I want to say there's a mechanic we're missing here, because nerfing blasters is about the oddest thing Paizo could choose to do, but if there was something missing it'd probably be in the document so...
Ignition isn't really a down grade though, it now does D6s (as in 2d6s at first level in melee, and a D6 for persistent damage. There are a lot of questions about how these new spells are going to interact with class features and each other. The PDF is a tease of both big changes and not very big changes somehow all at the same time. I do think I will be waiting to implement any remastery changes until all the books are out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well. Wizards got shafted it seems.
Straight-up downgrade with seemingly no saving graces.
It feels like the saving grades are things that are going to be in the actual class features. The pdf that dropped today just handles the things that are obviously different in RoE, one of which is "spells don't have schools anymore" and "certain spells need new names."
If you're playing a Wizard right now you should probably not convert before you've seen the actual book. I mean, Arcane spells changing doesn't just hit the wizard, it hits the Magus and 25% of Witches, Sorcerers, and Summoners too.
Unless these are merely placeholders before the book is out, saying these changes don't affect the Wizard is like saying Wizard isn't a spellcasting class. Sorry, but given that Shocking Grasp and Cone of Cold got nerfed pretty hard, it sets a precedent for what we can expect spells to function as in the future, which is that attack roll spells now do even less damage than before (because we have to account for Magus now), and a fair amount of AoE damage effects are being curtailed to being Fireball-lite since they apparently scale a little too much from the expected math. Really, the only new spell I liked from the remaster thus far is the Meteor Swarm one, since it now permits multiple damage types to bypass resistances/exploit weaknesses. (It also solidified the idea of using pre-Remaster Wish to turn Meteor Swarm into Comet Swarm, since this version of the spell puts them as an equal rank effect.)
Not to mention they have an example school for the Wizard, which is basically a significantly reduced version of what the Wizard could originally do, which, if that's what we can expect schools to function as, it really hurts their versatility. And with Wizard being the de facto versatility caster, that's the last thing you should be nerfing on them.
I mean, we can sit there and hope they get something like Improved Resolve, or even maybe...
At higher ranks of hieghtening, Thunderstrike will do more damage than shocking grasp, and it also has 120ft of range, so it is barely a comparable spell any more. We also need to see if resistances and weaknesses are going to be given out more liberally or about the same before we can really analyze how useful doing 2 types of damage with a spell will be.
Where is this PDF?
Nerfs to the wizard? What would possibly make a Paizo designer do this given the class is already viewed badly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also the added range on so many of these spells could be an indicator that APs moving forward are going to utilize larger maps and less confined locations. If that is true, a lot of spells are getting pretty big boosts. If it is not true than it is a pretty strange design decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ignition isn't really a down grade though, it now does D6s (as in 2d6s at first level in melee, and a D6 for persistent damage. There are a lot of questions about how these new spells are going to interact with class features and each other. The PDF is a tease of both big changes and not very big changes somehow all at the same time. I do think I will be waiting to implement any remastery changes until all the books are out."Nerfing Produce Flame" was not on my PF2R bingo card.
I want to say there's a mechanic we're missing here, because nerfing blasters is about the oddest thing Paizo could choose to do, but if there was something missing it'd probably be in the document so...
This is basically a more versatile Gouging Claw at that point, which already does D6s with a persistent damage critical benefit, though if we're going for more basic damage, Telekinetic Projectile would probably be more effective, especially since spellcasters aren't very likely to critically hit an enemy.
Its flavor text should be changed though, because snapping your fingers from ranged to melee really should not have a correlation of increased damage. It would be different if it used a separate gesture between melee and ranged, but it doesn't.
**EDIT** Removed a comparison made in bad taste.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where is this PDF?
Nerfs to the wizard? What would possibly make a Paizo designer do this given the class is already viewed badly.
https://paizo.com/pathfinder/corepreview PDF link here.
... Without being able to see the focus spells it's hard to tell exactly how meaningful this is, but blast nerfs is a not a great first impression.
Where is this PDF?
Nerfs to the wizard? What would possibly make a Paizo designer do this given the class is already viewed badly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if
They nerfed blast damage
And give accuracy increase in potency runes
And keep true strike as sure strike
Thus, they balance caster damage, but still make it feel good to hit/crit more
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if
They nerfed blast damage
And give accuracy increase in potency runes
And keep true strike as sure strike
Thus, they balance caster damage, but still make it feel good to hit/crit more
Well, they've nerfed blast damage in some spells, like Cone of Cold, and even nerfed some spell attack rolls like Shocking Grasp, and removed attribute bonus to damage in cantrips, but no mention of potency runes for spell attack rolls.
And Sure Strike only working on actual Strike actions/activities would be more in-line with what I would want/expect, since again, spell attack rolls are designed to be a likely terrible/NPC-specific option.
Where is this PDF?
Nerfs to the wizard? What would possibly make a Paizo designer do this given the class is already viewed badly.
https://paizo.com/pathfinder/corepreview PDF link here.
... Without being able to see the focus spells it's hard to tell exactly how meaningful this is, but blast nerfs is a not a great first impression.
Thanks.
Howling Blizzard is supposed to be Cone of Cold or Ice Storm? If Ice Storm, cool. If Cone of Cold, lame. We don't want to create difficult terrain in that large an area. It interferes with your own players movement. Who cares if it slows down the enemies if it does the same thing to your team. It creates an issue for your own team that messes up the combat area. It slows the game down and makes tracking movement a bigger pain the ass. It isn't a cool addition. It's an annoying addition that lowers the damage, while at the same time adding an annoying add on effect that doesn't help your team.
I hope there are not more of this in there. Nerfs to damage which was already too low along with annoying addon effects that make the game slower.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Took me a bit to even realize people are pointing to thunderstrike as shocking grasp.
... Assuming one really does completely replace the other, I think it's hard to call it a straight nerf. You're trading 4 damage at level 1 (which admittedly is pretty significant at that level) but gaining 120 feet of range, half damage on a failure, and an extra 2.5 damage per spell level (so it surpasses Grasp at level 3).
A little more subjective but clumsy interests me more than the persistent damage since it means I get to enable martials while blasting.
Ignition isn't really a down grade though, it now does D6s (as in 2d6s at first level in melee, and a D6 for persistent damage. There are a lot of questions about how these new spells are going to interact with class features and each other. The PDF is a tease of both big changes and not very big changes somehow all at the same time. I do think I will be waiting to implement any remastery changes until all the books are out."Nerfing Produce Flame" was not on my PF2R bingo card.
I want to say there's a mechanic we're missing here, because nerfing blasters is about the oddest thing Paizo could choose to do, but if there was something missing it'd probably be in the document so...
It's a downgrade for the vast majority of users. Wizard and sorcerer and druid and such do not want to be using manipulate actions in melee (for that matter neither does anyone else), and frankly don't want to be in melee at all.
But thunderstrike? That's one of the best things in here. Lots and lots of scaling.
Looking at the ifrit, it's basically an efreeti clone but with water weakness (as is proper!). Faydhaan changed a bit (-1 to damage, -1 to hit with trident, -3 to reflex saves, +1 to will saves) but is for all intents and purposes marid. The monsters haven't changed much at all, basically.
Thunderstrike is subtly good, but requires a good amount of analysis to come to that conclusion. It does a minimum of 2 damage (instead of 1) per spell rank, has a significantly less maximum (16 versus 24), does an average of 9 damage per spell rank, and is consistent between ranks. It also has two damage types, which is pretty unique, and still maintains the accuracy boost, replacing persistent damage with a rarely applied but helpful condition.
However, it's really only better than Shocking Grasp past 2nd rank due to scaling, since Shocking Grasp does an average of 13 damage with the possibility of 2.5 average persistent damage, only increasing by 6.5 damage per spell level (or 7.5 if we include the persistent damage), but if Shocking Grasp kept the scaling of 2D12 damage per rank, with D4 persistent damage per rank, there's no way it would outpace.
Though I think this goes against the design principle of "lower rank spells shouldn't be outperforming/pacing higher rank spells," it's somewhat a step in the right direction in terms of making consistent/desirable spells.
Problem is, they don't take this design prospect and apply it more universally to spells, because we look at this, then look at Howling Blizzard, and it's pretty bad. Howling Blizzard just makes the area difficult terrain, and does heightened Fireball damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if
They nerfed blast damage
And give accuracy increase in potency runes
And keep true strike as sure strike
Thus, they balance caster damage, but still make it feel good to hit/crit more
Well, they've nerfed blast damage in some spells, like Cone of Cold, and even nerfed some spell attack rolls like Shocking Grasp, and removed attribute bonus to damage in cantrips, but no mention of potency runes for spell attack rolls.
And Sure Strike only working on actual Strike actions/activities would be more in-line with what I would want/expect, since again, spell attack rolls are designed to be a likely terrible/NPC-specific option.
Thunderstrike is now save half and scales better than anything this side of disintegrate. And is actually pretty decent range. I'd actually say it's an enormous buff over shocking grasp, especially because it doesn't have to deal with the spell attack roll inherent accuracy penalty anymore.
As for keeping true strike and giving out caster accuracy runes for spell attacks... yeah it's the only way to actually make them functional.
Oh, I thought it maintained its melee attack roll status. Relegating it to a ranged save-based effect makes it pretty powerful, then. I kind of feel bad for the Magi who used to use Shocking Grasp with it, though, but it is what it is.
Storm Druids might not really bother to memorize this type of spell, though, since Tempest Surge basically does this same effect, except better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Howling Blizzard is supposed to be Cone of Cold or Ice Storm? If Ice Storm, cool. If Cone of Cold, lame.
It's entirely possible they merged the two spells into one, though even doing that, it's pretty bad, because now instead of having a decent spell that's useful for a few levels and a junk spell that's kind of meh to begin with, we're now left with a junk spell that's kind of meh to begin with, since at that point a Fireball (maybe it's renamed into Explosion?) is probably going to be more efficient, unless we're dealing with Cold-weakness/Fire-resistant enemies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Based on the flavor of Thunderstrike and it using basic Reflex instead of an attack roll, I was under the impression it was a replacement for Sudden Bolt until reading this thread.
Pretty sure Sudden Bolt will probably either be relegated to that AP in particular, or phased out of existence, since it's basically already overtaken by Thunderstrike.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of this looks cool
Ignition/Produce Flame is upgraded.
Thunder Strike looks cool.
I like the tags better. No more schools is nice. I never loved the schools of magic. Unnecessary complexity for one class.
I like some of this. I'll have to look closer, but it looks like they are adding versatility. I like more actions making spells more powerful. It fits fictional magic well.
Ignition was nerfed early on when it matters. Used to be 1d4+4 (6.5) on a hit for a full caster. Now 2d4 (4)Some of this looks cool
Ignition/Produce Flame is upgraded.
Thunder Strike looks cool.
I like the tags better. No more schools is nice. I never loved the schools of magic. Unnecessary complexity for one class.
I like some of this. I'll have to look closer, but it looks like they are adding versatility. I like more actions making spells more powerful. It fits fictional magic well.
No ability score bonus. I did not catch that. That does kind of suck.
Hopefully in the new magic rules, they add it on to all spells like strength adds to all damage.
This change should have been made ages ago in my opinion. Why strength adds to all weapon damage, but casting stats don't add to spell damage is beyond me. Should be done as a standard.
I'd like to see classes like the Swashbuckler and Rogue add dexterity to damage as a class feature.
That will suck if Produce Flame goes in like this without an ability score bonus to damage. Make it even lamer at 1st level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we might just be getting less uniformity among cantrips and increased amount of flexibility in how spells are used. RoE had at least two new attack cantrip with 60 foot ranges. Slashing gusts is 2d4 but targets two enemies. But Needle Darts is the standout. 3d4 piercing (7.5 average), 1 persistent bleed, and can trigger precious metal weaknesses like cold iron on fey. Most importantly, available to all traditions.
Ignition feels weird in relation to this, but I'm wondering if they are going to value energy damage more highly than physical going forward. What really bugs me is the clear Roy Mustang inspiration is great, but doesn't totally make sense for melee.
I'm not worried about the Curriculum spells though. The School of Mentalism list contains some of the best illusion options in the game plus divination, including true strike, illusory creature, phantasmal killer and calamity. If you have a dud, you can heighten an old spell, or propose a thematic addition to the curriculum.
I rather like the new cone of cold. Losing damage stinks and all, but that's one helluva an opening move at long range with the huge radius plus difficult terrain.
I wonder if adding your attribute to the damage of your spells is going to be something done at the class level rather than the specific spells.
I would see why they would want to avoid saying "[spell] deals [type] damage equal to [dice] + your spellcasting attribute modifier" like 200 times in the core book.
It would be similar to how the rule for "You need to take 2 additional feats from an archetype in order to take a different dedication" is now just part of the rules for archetypes, so they don't have to keep printing it over and over again.
Like how many spells do damage and don't add your casting modifier currently?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ignition was nerfed early on when it matters. Used to be 1d4+4 (6.5) on a hit for a full caster. Now 2d4 (4)Some of this looks cool
Ignition/Produce Flame is upgraded.
Thunder Strike looks cool.
I like the tags better. No more schools is nice. I never loved the schools of magic. Unnecessary complexity for one class.
I like some of this. I'll have to look closer, but it looks like they are adding versatility. I like more actions making spells more powerful. It fits fictional magic well.
The average for 2d4 is 5. Still less than 6.5, but not quite as bad as 4.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if adding your attribute to the damage of your spells is going to be something done at the class level rather than the specific spells.
...
Something along the lines of the Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization features but for spells?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The boost to d6s for melee, including the persistent fire on a crit gives ignition a pretty strong niche. It is barely worse than produce flame as a ranged spell but much better as a melee spell. This gives it a more clear niche, but it retains pretty decent versatility because you don’t have to be in melee to use it, it is just better if you do. So it is now squarely better than gouging claw.
I definitely want to see more spells. I am guessing that there will now be feat support for adding some attribute modifier to spell damage as a way for “blasting” to be casting specialization.
If they remove ability score to damage, I may make the adjustment myself. Just let every caster add their ability mod to all spell damage. Given Ability mods max out at +7, I'd be ok with that given the huge hit point pools.
I think I will also let the Swashbuckler use Dex to damage. I'm running a bard swashbuckler wit using All For One with boosted Aid from human feats. I'm still missing my panache regain by random bad rolls. And it is absolutely terrible for a class already wielding a smaller dice size weapon. My goodness, if they don't fix the swashbuckler before releasing that is going to be the most avoided class in PF2 besides investigator for martials. Swashbuckler makes the witch look like a higher value class.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is with things like visions of danger and anything that deals damage over time. Either it gets a bonkers boost (unlikely) or they use the wording on dangerous sorcery and only boost spells "that deal damage and don't have a duration".
I'd really prefer the latter, but probably won't happen. It's blatantly stealing dangerous sorcery's damage boost and the sorcerer's niche as king of blasters, and it makes people who cast duration spells sad.
The sorcerer is absolutely not the king of blasting casting. Storm druids and maybe psychics do it better.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The wizard curriculum shown in the PDF seems extremely limited. With only 2-ish spells per rank to choose from, wizard flexibility took a huge hit.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a feat to add a second curriculum to your specialist wizard but even then the list of options for your extra spell slot is still very, very small compared to a whole old spell school.
I'm one of the few players who always thought specialists were superior to universalists, but with that change I might need to change my mind on that. At this point, specialist only looks better if the GM allows the extra slot to be blended away. (Would be nice to have some clarification on spell blending in the remaster, btw.)
I'll reserve final judgment until I see the whole class, of course. But my unwavering resolve to make my next long-term character a wizard just took a huge hit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "Your GM might allow you to swap or add other spells to your curriculum if they strongly fit the theme" part is going to be used very heavily I expect. I would have like an emphasis that this is heavily encouraged, because as-is this is a step back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "Your GM might allow you to swap or add other spells to your curriculum if they strongly fit the theme" part is going to be used very heavily I expect. I would have like an emphasis that this is heavily encouraged, because as-is this is a step back.
That mostly seems like it's meant to make sure you can access spells from later/other books beyond player core. Wouldn't be surprised if PFS and many groups default to replacing spells instead of outright adding some.
I thing base pool of spell slots are unchanged.
I don't worry about total number, just the flexibility of the specialist school slot. Though I could live with the change if they make 4 slots baseline for wizards and give us the extremely limited extra slot on top. Doesn't seem likely to happen, though.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "Your GM might allow you to swap or add other spells to your curriculum if they strongly fit the theme" part is going to be used very heavily I expect. I would have like an emphasis that this is heavily encouraged, because as-is this is a step back.
Unless your GM is okay with expanding it to a few hundred additional spells, there is no way this makes up for the loss.
The Curriculum Spells change is one of the worst possible versions of this change they could have opted for.
In addition to this, from the small preview we have of a School, it does not look to actually expand upon Wizard focus spells at all. There still looks to be only two, and, while this was just a preview, they chose two existing focus spells (one with a slight tweak) to show case.
I think we already had word that there won't be any changes to the Thesis' as well.
Honestly, I'm not even certain what they could do with the class feats alone to overcome the apparent chassis damage.
Hell, the school doesn't even grant an additional skill!
Compared to a Sorcerer Bloodline, this is overall poor.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "Your GM might allow you to swap or add other spells to your curriculum if they strongly fit the theme" part is going to be used very heavily I expect. I would have like an emphasis that this is heavily encouraged, because as-is this is a step back.That mostly seems like it's meant to make sure you can access spells from later/other books beyond player core. Wouldn't be surprised if PFS and many groups default to replacing spells instead of outright adding some.
I thing base pool of spell slots are unchanged.I don't worry about total number, just the flexibility of the specialist school slot. Though I could live with the change if they make 4 slots baseline for wizards and give us the extremely limited extra slot on top. Doesn't seem likely to happen, though.
That would be the best thing they could do in order to flip this change on its head.
If instead of 3+1 the Wizard moved to 4+1, making them the only 5 slot caster, that would be a major boon. Finally giving them a proper edge over Arcane Sorcerers. It would also take the sting out of the Curriculum system.
That said, I currently have no faith that this isn't a outright nerf.
This preview has deleted all my enthusiasm for the Remaster.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Thunderstrike is the new Shocking Grasp, it hurts Magus a lot.
Shocking Grasp is Magus's best choice for a pure damage spell at most spell ranks as bizarrely they had almost no single target attack roll spells printed in Secrets of Magic.
It was so egregious I thought it was an in-joke "Ha, its on theme that Magus just casts Shocking Grasp at every level, just like 1st edition"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also I didn't expect fire shield to get a nerf. What did it ever do to deserve that?As someone who was about to play a melee gish, I'm disappointed. Who has the actions or spell slots to cast a shield spell barely better than the cantrip? And putting the damage behind an action plus reaction makes it near useless for a magus etc.
A backline caster is just going to prepare resist energy for resist 10 cold for two people instead.
That is an understandable change in my eyes. The old fire shield was basically a damage buff disguised as a defensive tool. Instead, it is now a pretty decent defensive tool, which probably was the intention in the first place. Against enemies using a lot of fire, this would be awesome.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the tags better. No more schools is nice. I never loved the schools of magic. Unnecessary complexity for one class.
You probably didn't noticed but this was just a nerf. The school mechanics still there but now you only have just 2 spells per level available from your curriculum to use in your school reserved spell slots.
New school mechanics is a inverted and nerfed sorcerer's bloodline mechanic. While sorcerer gets a granted spell per level but can use all 4 spell slot as it will + 3 focus spells + blood magic. Wizards will get around 2 spells per level but to use in their extra spell slot only for them (for School of Mentalism it gets 3 rank 1 but just 1 rank 9). The rest of the mechanic is a nerfed bloodline, just 2 focus spells.
Unless the wizard get more spell slots or these focus spells become something super cool, or nerf the universalists and the sorcerers probably this will force even more the players to play as universalist or as a sorcerer.
About Ignite (old Produce Flame) becoming 2d4 I don't think this as a nerf but as a change. For ranged casting it becomes a bit more weaker its 1st level ranged reduced from avg 6.5 to 5 while its top rank long range changed from avg 32 to 27,5. But its new short range effect is now avg 7 in 1st rank to 35 in last rank. This basically benefits Magus and low-level MC/innate magic characters than spell casters.
I remember in Paizoncon the designers saying that Divine Lance is also now 2d4. Its possible that all cantrips will loose their attribute bonus for cantrips so this nerf could be something more generalized.
About Thunderstrike in general I liked. Shocking Grasp is good but rarely used in higher levels. Also thunderstrike will help primal casters to be more effective DPR vs big-bosses once they don't have magic missiles.
About Holling Blizzard instead of Cone of Cold I like it new versatility even it being a little nerfed. Now its more in par to energy damage of fireballs and we got an burst option that isn't tainted by other damage type like happen to Eclipse Burst and is way more stronger then Shadow Blast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the tags better. No more schools is nice. I never loved the schools of magic. Unnecessary complexity for one class.You probably didn't noticed but this was just a nerf. The school mechanics still there but now you only have just 2 spells per level available from your curriculum to use in your school reserved spell slots.
New school mechanics is a inverted and nerfed sorcerer's bloodline mechanic. While sorcerer gets a granted spell per level but can use all 4 spell slot as it will + 3 focus spells + blood magic. Wizards will get around 2 spells per level but to use in their extra spell slot only for them (for School of Mentalism it gets 3 rank 1 but just 1 rank 9). The rest of the mechanic is a nerfed bloodline, just 2 focus spells.
Unless the wizard get more spell slots or these focus spells become something super cool, or nerf the universalists and the sorcerers probably this will force even more the players to play as universalist or as a sorcerer.
I can't imagine this is the final form. If that is, then that is some seriously terrible design decisions. So I hope it is not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remaining optimistic that there are factors that we are not seeing that will be entering play here.
Honestly can't see destroying an iconic class when raising other classes *to* that power level would be more fun for everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remaining optimistic that there are factors that we are not seeing that will be entering play here.Honestly can't see destroying an iconic class when raising other classes *to* that power level would be more fun for everyone.
Imagine if they made the absolutely horrendous decision to nerf every other class to make the wizard seem better. Oh my goodness that would be like stabbing a knife in your own game's heart. I hope that is not the case at all. You don't nerf other classes to make another class seem better. Terrible way to do things.