I'm willing to bet wizards will have less schools than before too.
If so, the limited spells is even worse.
So far we have what; mentalism, battle magic, the shape shifting one, the lightning and spirit Ustalavian style... Just those four confirmed? Can't remember the shape changer school name, but I don't think the Ustalavian school has been named.
Halfway to the mark of the old schools, anyway.
Battle Magic
Civic Wizardry (said to include a wall spell)Protean Form
Mentalism
Unified Theory of Magic (technically not a school; universalist)
Are I think every confirmed school. The ustalavic one was used only as an example as far as I know.
|
Okay, genuine question re: wizard flexibility. Does this feature ever actually come up in play? I'm being serious here - I don't think I've ever really seen it be an actual thing at the table. Every prepared caster I've ever played and every prepared caster I've ever played alongside used basically the same prepared spell list every day, with very occasional swap outs of one or maybe two spells on extremely specific occasions, like needing a given specific-use spell (stone to flesh, for example) that they had to wait until a new set of preparations to cast - but then they just went right back to what they had before. Even that is less common the more your group invests in scrolls, in my experience. I mean, as a theoretical white-room construct, sure, the loss of the potential spells for your school slot is a nerf, but as a practical matter? I highly doubt it's going to prove to be at my tables, at least.
In my experience, no. I reckon it's just an argument to defend the decades-old status quo of Vancian casting.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, genuine question re: wizard flexibility. Does this feature ever actually come up in play? I'm being serious here - I don't think I've ever really seen it be an actual thing at the table. Every prepared caster I've ever played and every prepared caster I've ever played alongside used basically the same prepared spell list every day, with very occasional swap outs of one or maybe two spells on extremely specific occasions, like needing a given specific-use spell (stone to flesh, for example) that they had to wait until a new set of preparations to cast - but then they just went right back to what they had before. Even that is less common the more your group invests in scrolls, in my experience. I mean, as a theoretical white-room construct, sure, the loss of the potential spells for your school slot is a nerf, but as a practical matter? I highly doubt it's going to prove to be at my tables, at least.In my experience, no. I reckon it's just an argument to defend the decades-old status quo of Vancian casting.
I played with a rotating list of spells, while keeping some bread and butter, and I still don't think Vancian casting should remain.
Personally, I think the so-called versatility is very much a thing of theory-crafting mostly. In play, the vast majority of players do not change their spells because they already did the mental work of sifting through the "best options". This, in turn, means a select few spells that are generic enough to not be dead slots, thus obvious choices, a few utility spells applied after the fact (or Scroll material) and a whole bunch of spells that are not good enough to choose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my experienced most wizards including myself, change their spells based on a variety of situations.
Even if they have a default 'loadout' of spells.... they have multiple defaults. One for adventuring days, one for travel days, one for downtime days, sometimes multiple for downtime days if they have different key activities they do (bit it crafting, working, gathering information, etc).
In addition to the variety do different sets, I most would tweak their loadout based on what terrain/opponents sets we begin seeing recurring, to better optimize their ability to respond.
However, I would also say it is not fair to say that Schools have to be replaced with a spell list as long as the old lists. The old spells were associated with one arbitrary spell list and some were niche usefulness spells other key spells others potentially nearly entirely existing for fluff. They don't all contribute equally towards genera functionality of filling a school slot. Ideally, school curriculums should include spells which will hopefully be crossing old school boundaries, and also presumably include primarily key useful spells in the sets. I haven't seen the specifics of any of the teased curriculum lists, so I can't judge them as to if they meet that. I agree that there should be more than one choice for each Rank of spell. But since the list should be arbitrarily set to include more of the most useful spells within that theme, no matter the Type of magic, the number of spells in the 'theoretical list' should absolutely be shorter than the old magic category type schools, since they should be more curated in order to be more valuable choices in the first place.
Some other things we may not know details on. Is any other features potentially tied to curriculum. What if for instance for each Rank of spell below your highest, you get to pick a single spell of your choice that you 'already' know (so it doesn't impact the free known spells) to be considered part of your Personal Curriculum, and that spell then counts as part of your curriculum for purposes of spell slot use? Having a Personal curriculum should insure you always have a spell you consider worthwhile in your curriculum you can place in a slot.
As an [Uncommon] rule set, I'd also specify that if someone researches their own new spell, after completing all the requirements to create the unique spell, that spell would become an additional part of your Personal Curriculum.
Something else that could come into play would be to allow Thesis choice potentially adding a small set of themed spells to one's curriculum, similar to how college degrees can include 'Minors' as well as Majors. I could see the Improved Familiar Attunement one potentially having spells themed towards helping your familiar. Others are hard to think of specific spell themes however so maybe difficult to balance as those might not be able to contribute to the character's curriculum effectively.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems no one remembers the PF2 playtest blogs that uncovered things little by little and how people would moan and cry and scream.
The sky is falling ? Nothing new here.
I disagree personally. There is something new here in that people are going to have repurchase books if the changes are so notable as to greatly modify the existing paradigm as these changes appear to do.
This is looking less and less like PF2.5 and more and more like PF 3.0.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems no one remembers the PF2 playtest blogs that uncovered things little by little and how people would moan and cry and scream.
The sky is falling ? Nothing new here.
I disagree personally. There is something new here in that people are going to have repurchase books if the changes are so notable as to greatly modify the existing paradigm as these changes appear to do.
This is looking less and less like PF2.5 and more and more like PF 3.0.
I wouldn't go that far. A bunch of term replacements and a handful of nerfs and...anti-quality of life changes to casters are nothing new for 2e errata. Remember them removing wizard's extra 10th level slot from spell blending or all the familiar nerfs? Now they're making the early game worse and nerfing the flexibility of their 4th slot. Business as usual.
This reminds me of how much we complain during the kineticist playtest to about the weak mechanics that we didn't want another frustrating class.
IMO this was one of the main points that made them to rethink the class to be what we get today.
I wouldn't go that far. A bunch of term replacements and a handful of nerfs and...anti-quality of life changes to casters are nothing new for 2e errata. Remember them removing wizard's extra 10th level slot from spell blending or all the familiar nerfs? Now they're making the early game worse and nerfing the flexibility of their 4th slot. Business as usual.It seems no one remembers the PF2 playtest blogs that uncovered things little by little and how people would moan and cry and scream.
The sky is falling ? Nothing new here.
I disagree personally. There is something new here in that people are going to have repurchase books if the changes are so notable as to greatly modify the existing paradigm as these changes appear to do.
This is looking less and less like PF2.5 and more and more like PF 3.0.
I do not remember the familiar nerfs.
10th level wizard slots I do recall. Pretty much made the wizard viable for the diehards mostly.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem I and many other people are having with all the changes to wizards, cantrips, and the like is really a mismatch of expectations vs what the designers are trying to accomplish.
It's clear to me now that casters were never intended to be blasters or have damage remotely approaching that of a martial. Rather the purpose of casters are to support the martials via buffs, debuffs, and the occasional oddball hat trick.
Frankly, this is not what I came to play. But to be fair the designers never advertised the classes as such.
The question that I, and I beleve others need to come to terms with is what to do next. Obviously grumbling on the forums isn't going to change anything.
I see 3 choices:
1. Keep playing what one is currently playing and accept that this is the way things will be.
2. Play a martial.
3. Play a caster in a different game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't go that far. A bunch of term replacements and a handful of nerfs and...anti-quality of life changes to casters are nothing new for 2e errata. Remember them removing wizard's extra 10th level slot from spell blending or all the familiar nerfs? Now they're making the early game worse and nerfing the flexibility of their 4th slot. Business as usual.It seems no one remembers the PF2 playtest blogs that uncovered things little by little and how people would moan and cry and scream.
The sky is falling ? Nothing new here.
I disagree personally. There is something new here in that people are going to have repurchase books if the changes are so notable as to greatly modify the existing paradigm as these changes appear to do.
This is looking less and less like PF2.5 and more and more like PF 3.0.
I do not remember the familiar nerfs.
10th level wizard slots I do recall. Pretty much made the wizard viable for the diehards mostly.
Pretty sure the familiar "nerfs" were more clarifications on how they were meant to be ran. Familiars can't activate items, and familiars can't utilize Valet via Independent. That's about all I know of in terms of "nerfs."
The 10th level slots nerf affected more than Wizards, though, so it wasn't exactly something targeted to Wizards in particular, they just happened to be affected as well as other classes.
I highly recommend, once it "officially" comes out, that people look at Rage of Elements blast spells. They have mollified like 60% of my concerns.
These spells aren’t exclusive to the kineticist?
Well that is really good to know then. Yeah, that is a relief to hear. Thank you for sharing that information.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
These spells aren’t exclusive to the kineticist?I highly recommend, once it "officially" comes out, that people look at Rage of Elements blast spells. They have mollified like 60% of my concerns.
They sort of can't be. Kineticist doesn't cast spells natively, it uses a separate mechanic called impulses.
Here's my list from the other thread. Everything below is on the arcane and primal lists (except beheading buzz saw, which is only arcane). Only looking at zero-duration blasts for the most part.
Heaving earth: 7th, single-target, 6th level disintegrate damage but not gated behind an attack roll or a Fortitude save (basic reflex instead). Scaling is basically nonexistent, but very impressive!
Cave fangs: 3rd, AoE, fireball damage, fireball scaling. Next!
Exploding earth: 2nd, single-ish target, higher than scorching ray damage, slightly worse scaling but some of it is splash. Pretty decent.
Dehydrate: 1st, meh AoE to start but gets better, depends on how you value persistent damage but valued at roughly double normal damage it scales faster than fireball or horizon thunder sphere, getting up to higher than 5th cone of cold (7d6 persistent) at level 5 and higher than heightened chain lightning (10d6 persistent) and fireball radius at level 7. Plus some control! Very happy.
Rainbow fumarole: 8th, AoE, duration spell, averages out to 5th level cone of cold damage but awesome vibes and obscene control on some of the options. The pure damage roll is equivalent to 8th level chain lightning.
Beheading buzz saw: 7th, line, depends on how you value persistent damage but double-valued it's worth about 55.5 points, midway between chain lightning out of a 6th and chain lightning out of a 7th. Scales as fast as thunderstrike, but in a line that's a lot better.
Splinter volley: 2nd, it's wood scorching ray (blazing bolts now). Moving along.
Arrow salvo: ...
That's why I don't want to get to revved up early. They might have a plan. Paizo usually listens to their customer base.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If utility brought by magic is the balancing point for casters then APs need to be written in such a way that it makes a significant difference that isn't easily solved by a skill check or another martial - which presents the problem of magic being mandatory.
Right now APs as written don't need a spellcaster which is a good thing in many ways but if spellcasters are balanced around utility then that utility needs to have an equivalent impact the same way as good damage or a good skill check - this is not true right now. Its not even vaguely true, you can't write an AP around the assumption that a given spell will be available in party so utility brought will never be enough.
Basically, there is not a good reason to reduce caster damage if you are not writing APs where caster utility is as relevant - right now its not relevant and can't be essential as you need to cater for non caster parties and cannot design around access to 1 spell in 1000's.
TLDR - Extra utility brought by magic means nothing for published adventures as you cannot write with the assumption the party will have a spell caster or that the spell caster will use/have the utility spells required. Spell casters need to be balanced around direct contribution to combat in terms of damage like other classes utility cannot be designed around for published so it cannot be balanced around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If utility brought by magic is the balancing point for casters then APs need to be written in such a way that it makes a significant difference that isn't easily solved by a skill check or another martial - which presents the problem of magic being mandatory.
Right now APs as written don't need a spellcaster which is a good thing in many ways but if spellcasters are balanced around utility then that utility needs to have an equivalent impact the same way as good damage or a good skill check - this is not true right now. Its not even vaguely true, you can't write an AP around the assumption that a given spell will be available in party so utility brought will never be enough.
Basically, there is not a good reason to reduce caster damage if you are not writing APs where caster utility is as relevant - right now its not relevant and can't be essential as you need to cater for non caster parties and cannot design around access to 1 spell in 1000's.
TLDR - Extra utility brought by magic means nothing for published adventures as you cannot write with the assumption the party will have a spell caster or that the spell caster will use/have the utility spells required. Spell casters need to be balanced around direct contribution to combat in terms of damage like other classes utility cannot be designed around for published so it cannot be balanced around.
This isn't entirely true. APs aren't written assuming you have spells, but having them can sure make things easier. Scouting and divination spells can provide helpful clues about what lies ahead. An illusion spell can help bypass encounters you'd otherwise have to fight through. Certain NPCs won't divluge their secrets with any amount of skill checks, but a charm spell can get them talking.
And sometimes the mundane solution is absurdly risky compared to the magical one. I had players recently choose to use a rowboat to explore a dangerous new area rather than "waste" slots on water walk and water breathing. Suffice to say they regretted that decsion when Chuuls tore the boat apart and killed their front liner. And just before that, they needed to descend into a hundred foot out and decided that climbing down ropes would suffice. The rogue critically failed a check from 90 feet up, landed prone and hurt, and suddenly was rolling initiative as monsters attacked and their allies were still trying to get down the rope. A Soft Landing would have made things a lot less hectic for them, as would using any of their several options to magically scout.
In both examples, the players had assumed they would be able to explore at their leisure and that magic wouldn't be necessary to progress in an AP. And they were only sorta right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I've figured out why some of the spells have been changed. They're adaptations of OGL spells. Slapping on a coat of paint isn't enough. They need to be meaningfully altered. That means significant changes to some basic mechanics. The spells that only got a new name had already been meaningfully changed from their OGL counterparts (eg. Blazing Bolt being quite different from Scorching Ray). The fact that the blasting spells in Rage of Elements stack up quite well to pre-Remaster spells is because they're Paizo IP, and thus can be whatever Paizo likes.
Yes, this may well be paranoia on Paizo's part. However, as I've said before, remember who we're talking about. If it keeps them safe, I'm all for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I don't want to get to revved up early. They might have a plan. Paizo usually listens to their customer base.
Well, it would be nice if someone from the development team would give the community some feedback as to what their intention is here. From what I've seen the last weeks, they normally are very responsive when so many people are upset at something at once, so it is odd that, while people have been discussing this during a work week for four days now, they have kept completely silent about it. It kinda looks like they somehow were caught flat-footed, errr, I mean off-balance by the outrage.
Unless they don't accept any questions at their GenCon video panel, they'll be asked about it soon enough, anyway. But they can't have been completely unprepared that caster players might be unhappy about those changes, do they?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I don't want to get to revved up early. They might have a plan. Paizo usually listens to their customer base.Well, it would be nice if someone from the development team would give the community some feedback as to what their intention is here. From what I've seen the last weeks, they normally are very responsive when so many people are upset at something at once, so it is odd that, while people have been discussing this during a work week for four days now, they have kept completely silent about it. It kinda looks like they somehow were caught flat-footed, errr, I mean off-balance by the outrage.
Unless they don't accept any questions at their GenCon video panel, they'll be asked about it soon enough, anyway. But they can't have been completely unprepared that caster players might be unhappy about those changes, do they?
I think we have figured out the intention now, and it was also stated in the preview doc: give us the rules to use anything referenced in Rage of the Elements, which had an awkward release date.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we have figured out the intention now, and it was also stated in the preview doc: give us the rules to use anything referenced in Rage of the Elements, which had an awkward release date.That's why I don't want to get to revved up early. They might have a plan. Paizo usually listens to their customer base.Well, it would be nice if someone from the development team would give the community some feedback as to what their intention is here. From what I've seen the last weeks, they normally are very responsive when so many people are upset at something at once, so it is odd that, while people have been discussing this during a work week for four days now, they have kept completely silent about it. It kinda looks like they somehow were caught flat-footed, errr, I mean off-balance by the outrage.
Unless they don't accept any questions at their GenCon video panel, they'll be asked about it soon enough, anyway. But they can't have been completely unprepared that caster players might be unhappy about those changes, do they?
Uh, that's not the "intention" which people are talking about in this thread. What people are questioning are stuff like removing the key stat to damage bonus on all spells which use it (which was confirmed to be the model going forward some pages back) and some of the specific spell changes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I don't want to get to revved up early. They might have a plan. Paizo usually listens to their customer base.Well, it would be nice if someone from the development team would give the community some feedback as to what their intention is here. From what I've seen the last weeks, they normally are very responsive when so many people are upset at something at once, so it is odd that, while people have been discussing this during a work week for four days now, they have kept completely silent about it. It kinda looks like they somehow were caught flat-footed, errr, I mean off-balance by the outrage.
Unless they don't accept any questions at their GenCon video panel, they'll be asked about it soon enough, anyway. But they can't have been completely unprepared that caster players might be unhappy about those changes, do they?
I'm hoping they have data on how players use spells and what players want more of, caster players specifically and are incorporating changes to make that happen.
I am not noticing more reaction damage spells. My players like those type of spells as it gives casters something to do with their reaction. They also seem to be increase the damage of some blasting spells and adding useful riders.
They may have some other plan with cantrips. We will see.
I'd rather them not release information out too early, then it changes and they have to tell everyone again.
I can't imagine they didn't see all the threads about how terrible wizards and witches are and the reasons why. They should be able to test the veracity of the claims and make changes to improve the play experience of wizards and witches.
So far it seems they have improved on their ability to design classes after the release of the APG and the major issues that made those classes probably the least played in the game due to mechanical design choices that did not work so well like Panache generation and the Investigator being a mess of a class that is severely underpowered. Or the witch feats being terrible.
Every other class after that has been fairly good and very playable. As much as I dislike the joined hit point pool of the summoner, I'm finding the play-style pretty fun.
If they improved summons, I'd love to build a summoning focused summoner. But the summoner's action economy is absolutely amazing if you use the class to do things other than what the summoner was built to do.
So the main miss by Paizo was the APG. If they fix the APG classes, the overall classes should be pretty good. People seem to love the Kineticist. So that sounds like a winner too.
If they're learning this much from their failures or misses, then I have to imagine they have some kind of plan for casters to make them more fun and effective, at least the casters that have problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm a lot less worried than I was previously.
For cantrips, I would really like to see some sort of option for a ranged fort save. I also really think Daze could do with a slight damage buff.
And after further reflection, the ignition buff in melee could be useful if we get some more options to make wizards more survivable.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, that's not the "intention" which people are talking about in this thread. What people are questioning are stuff like removing the key stat to damage bonus on all spells which use it (which was confirmed to be the model going forward some pages back) and some of the specific spell changes.I think we have figured out the intention now, and it was also stated in the preview doc: give us the rules to use anything referenced in Rage of the Elements, which had an awkward release date.That's why I don't want to get to revved up early. They might have a plan. Paizo usually listens to their customer base.Well, it would be nice if someone from the development team would give the community some feedback as to what their intention is here. From what I've seen the last weeks, they normally are very responsive when so many people are upset at something at once, so it is odd that, while people have been discussing this during a work week for four days now, they have kept completely silent about it. It kinda looks like they somehow were caught flat-footed, errr, I mean off-balance by the outrage.
Unless they don't accept any questions at their GenCon video panel, they'll be asked about it soon enough, anyway. But they can't have been completely unprepared that caster players might be unhappy about those changes, do they?
Then it's good that Paizo gave us the Remastered preview pdf a bit before the GenCon panels so that people can ask about things that worry them.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I don't want to get to revved up early. They might have a plan. Paizo usually listens to their customer base.Well, it would be nice if someone from the development team would give the community some feedback as to what their intention is here. From what I've seen the last weeks, they normally are very responsive when so many people are upset at something at once, so it is odd that, while people have been discussing this during a work week for four days now, they have kept completely silent about it. It kinda looks like they somehow were caught flat-footed, errr, I mean off-balance by the outrage.
Unless they don't accept any questions at their GenCon video panel, they'll be asked about it soon enough, anyway. But they can't have been completely unprepared that caster players might be unhappy about those changes, do they?
In general, I'm not sure why development teams don't state their intentions upfront, especially if wanting feedback. It just creates confusion and diluted feedback since you don't know to make suggestions against the intent or if it's just bad execution on an intent you agree with.
But hard to say without seeing the big picture what's going on here. Perhaps there are item bonuses to attack spells, really awesome Wizard focus spells, etc.
Mostly bc people are going to yell at you regardless of what you do so you might as well not ACTIVELY go out and shoot your own foot. Personally, if I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, I'm gonna choose the path that's less stressful on me and doesn't force me to stay on the backfoot and defend myself. I don't blame developers in any industry separating themselves from consumers outside of marketing they choose to do. Good or bad, the market decides the rest
These spells are interesting and open up some space with spell design, but feel pretty well balanced with pre-remastered spells to me.
Needle Dart being all traditions caught me by surprise. I don't have Rage of Elements yet so I haven't read into the context of these spells, but I can see a lot of casters happy to add that to their list. It might even be an interesting preview of using material components into the future. Hopefully "in your possession will be clarified in the Remaster core as to whether it requires being in hand or if you can somehow fire needle darts out of your back pack, but being able to trigger material weaknesses with a cantrip is a big boost.
Beheading buzz saw not doing damage on a success is a pretty big limiter for a spell that targets a save. This is generally worse than if the spell targeted AC directly. It does let them pile on a lot of damage to the spell though. It will be an absolute goon shredder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Glass shield is really interesting too and great for wizard builds that have put spells into being annoying to attack generally. I hope there is some clarification about how the restart timer works for this spell. Is it an either regular shield or glass shield deal? can you do one, than the other?
Timber, slashing gust, take root* (edit: I meant read roots, take root doesn't look that interesting beyond being a one action spell with a very niche utility. At least it is more useful now that automatic trips and shoves wont exist) and detect metal are all also fascinating new cantrips showing off new design space. It looks like number of hands free is combing back for spell balance. Timber is also a cantrip that can actually benefit from the widen feat for wizards.
Dehydrate is funny with its scaling. The rest is pretty whatever. Needles at least will scale nicely with all the buffing and debuffing that goes around for free in a good party.
Some nice defensive, support and utility spells though.
Needle Dart is good on its own, but it can do horrible damage if the caster pays attention to weaknesses, gets their hands on some of the deadlier skymetals, or both. Which was probably part of the plan. A properly played Needle Dart will be the new Electric Arc (at higher levels or unless the DM is either generous or not paying attention).
Needle Dart is good on its own, but it can do horrible damage if the caster pays attention to weaknesses, gets their hands on some of the deadlier skymetals, or both. Which was probably part of the plan. A properly played Needle Dart will be the new Electric Arc (at higher levels or unless the DM is either generous or not paying attention).
If you are meaning to imply 3 lots of damage and 3 lots of weakness from Needle Darts, that is not the case. It is one lot of damage.
I also play Telekinetic Projectile as exaclty the same for material properties so there is no difference there.The Mental trait on Needle Darts is a concern though as it makes for some not obvious immunity cases. But hopefully damage and immunity will be clarified in the Remaster.
Needle Dart is good on its own, but it can do horrible damage if the caster pays attention to weaknesses, gets their hands on some of the deadlier skymetals, or both. Which was probably part of the plan. A properly played Needle Dart will be the new Electric Arc (at higher levels or unless the DM is either generous or not paying attention).If you are meaning to imply 3 lots of damage and 3 lots of weakness from Needle Darts, that is not the case. It is one lot of damage.
I also play Telekinetic Projectile as exaclty the same for material properties so there is no difference there.The Mental trait on Needle Darts is a concern though as it makes for some not obvious immunity cases. But hopefully damage and immunity will be clarified in the Remaster.
I see the metal trait. I'm not seeing the mental. That would suck.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see the metal trait. I'm not seeing the mental. That would suck.Needle Dart is good on its own, but it can do horrible damage if the caster pays attention to weaknesses, gets their hands on some of the deadlier skymetals, or both. Which was probably part of the plan. A properly played Needle Dart will be the new Electric Arc (at higher levels or unless the DM is either generous or not paying attention).If you are meaning to imply 3 lots of damage and 3 lots of weakness from Needle Darts, that is not the case. It is one lot of damage.
I also play Telekinetic Projectile as exaclty the same for material properties so there is no difference there.The Mental trait on Needle Darts is a concern though as it makes for some not obvious immunity cases. But hopefully damage and immunity will be clarified in the Remaster.
Gortle is probably confusing the two because they're not used to seeing the new metal trait.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It totally feels reasonable to wear rings that are made out of various metals and have them fly apart into needles.