Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Rogeif Yharloc

Lemmy's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 6,219 posts (7,632 including aliases). 4 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 9 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,219 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't get the "Burn scales because the benefits scale". That doesn't match any other class feature in the game. The penalty to AC doesn't get bigger wheb Barbarians level up. Nor do Wizards have to spend two spell slots to cast low-level spells just because their Int and CL got higher.

What makes Burn even more frustratingly player-unfriendly is the fact that the price for each ability not only growes higher with character level (unlike literally every other class feature in the game), but also grows steeper and steeper every time yku use the abiility.

FtB is not "rewarding" anyone. It simply compensates for the lack of weapon enhancements. At best, it reduces the unnecessary punishment your character takes for simply using his class features.

And how exactly is the Kineticist a "not resource-management class"? It uses one of the most precious and scarcest resources in the game to fuel everything! If it's supposed to be an "at-will", then make it at-will!

Seriuiusly... Mark mentioned player psychogy and said that people overvalue negatives and that's why so many players dislike Burn... But even assuming that's the case, rather than valid and concrete criticism of the mechanics, why make a game mechanic that discourages players from using their characters' abilities?

Even mlp says thst Burn must be "avoided like the plague". It's not like the Kineticist os doing something so absurdly powerful that it must be "balanced" by suffering incurable damage. Really, what's the point of making a class featuee that must be "avoided like the plague"?

To make things worsr, even non-Burn related features are needlessly complicated and restrictive, like Spark of Life and the Extra Wild Talent feat.

It seems players are so excited with the idea of finally playing an at-will blaster/elementalist that they willing to bear with whatever bad mechanics come attached.


Since the playtest is over anyway, I'd like to ask a few questions...

1- What's the expectation of Burn usage that the class is balanced around?
2- What's the reason for Burn to be based on HD rather than a static damage?
3- Why not make it so that once I suffer Burn to fuel an ability, I can use it for the rest of the day, thus encouraging playera to use their class features, instead of trying to avoid them?
4- Why is FtB based on Burn rather than an always-on bonus? It'd not be unbalanced and Kineticists wouldn't need to go Supernova on their very first encounter just to be able to hit the broad side of a mountain during the rest of the day...

Burn should be something that you use when you need a great power boost... Not a price you pay every time you do something other than your most basic techniques... And it certainly shouldn't be part of your morning ritual. IMO, the way FtB currently works, it removes the whole flavor behind Burn.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

I'd just add a "Burn pool" and make it a not-horrible mechanic.


Are the stories from the Pathfinder Tales novels considered canon?


Milo v3 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Not that it matters, really... I doubt it'll be changed. Mark never commented on anything about Burn (or maybe I missed it), so I take it he likes the mechanic.

At best, we get an archetype that uses a ki pool or something, but since it...

He has mentioned the idea of an archetype that removes burn, but cannot take any wild talents that would cause the character to take burn, and instead they get some other benefits.

So it wouldn't have access to composite blasting, metakinesis, elemental body, spark of life or many other powers that are exactly what make Kineticists fun to use...

That's exactly what I feared.

*sigh*


mlpindustries wrote:
I never said you couldn't complain about getting worse at spending Burn, I only said that you couldn't complain about that AND at the same time complain that you never get better at reducing Burn. If you're only looking at flat numbers, then, yes, you take 6 nonlethal at 6th and at 7th for using the same ability. But, then, when looked at in that light, you DO get better at reducing Burn damage, because when you spend a move action at 6th, you save yourself 6 HP, while using that move action at 7th saves yourself 7. That's all I was saying there.

And you still end up worse... Because even though you're saving 10hp instead of 6, you're still losing more than you'd have lost if you were at lower level.

---

And it's not just the principle of Burn that annoys me. I don't care about the "principle" of a fictional class. I care about its functionality. I think it's a bad mechanic, both from a fun perspective and from a balance perspective.

1- it's not fun not being able to use your class features. Similarly, it's not fun trying to avoid using your class features at all costs. Every other class feature in the game gets more uses as the levels go up, taxing the character less and less, encouraging the player to use if more often. Burn does the inverse. It costs more and more for the same benefit.

2- The Kineticist wouldn't be overpowered if he spent points from a resource pool rather than hp. In fact, if that and the number of skill points were all that was changed, the Kineticist would still be underpowered.

3- It doesn't matter if you have the same hp as a Rogue with Con 14 or 16... It still stands that your character spent far more points in Con in exchange for the same benefit (or lower, if you use your class features twice a day).

Not that it matters, really... I doubt it'll be changed. Mark never commented on anything about Burn (or maybe I missed it), so I take it he likes the mechanic.

At best, we get an archetype that uses a ki pool or something, but since it can't be better than the Burn-using Kineticist, it'll probably lose access to many of the abilities that would make me want to play a Kineticist in the first place...


mplindustries wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
a small note i find re-reading the playtest doc: that burn cant be healed By Any Means beyond bedrest, my pocket-cleric note actually cant happen. you're stuck with permanent (for the day) reduced HP anytime burn comes up. i mean said cleric can prop you up if you get pushed under, but there's nothing stopping the enemy from just knocking you back down again with your nice low HP, and that eats into your and your cleric's actions (which could be allocated elswhere)
But..I just showed like three posts up that you don't actually have low HP. Con is your second best stat here, which basically means you're sitting on the same stack of effective HP as everyone else.

For twice the price in ability points...

My guy with Con 22 has the same hp as the Rogue with Con 14... Until I use my class features again! Then I'll have even less! Truly a fun and rewarding mechanic!


mplindustries wrote:
FtB Triggers based on Burn you've taken. You don't specifically spend it on FtB.

I know that... But you still gotta take Burn. And you better do ti early at the day, or your to hit will be about a 50~65%.

mplindustries wrote:
Again, I get that you don't like that, but don't act like the class is super fragile because you don't want t play the way they were intended.

Kineticists are not "super fragile". But they are far more fragile than any combat class should be.

mplindustries wrote:
And I am more than willing to accept the Kineticist is a secretly more challenging class to play than it initially seems, since people using Burn in combat were probably doing it wrong, despite nothing about the class text saying, "Hey, really, don't do this unless you MUST."

I honestly can't see how having a class feature that the player hopes never have to use is good design. Every Paladin is excited to face an evil enemy because Smite evil is awesome. Every Ranger has fun fighting his FE because it's awesome. And so on... Only the Kineticist goes "I really hope I don't ever have to use this!".

Players should be excited about using their class features... Not trying to avoid it at all costs.

mplindustries wrote:
Either you recognize that Burn is proportional, so while you never get better at reducing Burn, you also don't get worse at handling Burn because it's entirely proportional, or you believe Burn is absolute and gets worse as you level, in which case you get better at reducing Burn over time, because reducing 1 Burn at level 5 saves you 5 HP, while reducing 1 Burn at level 3 only saves you 3 HP.

"Proportional" means nothing. Only flat numbers matter, because damage isn't dealt in "percentage of health", it's dealt in flat numbers. Having 50% of 80hp is still better than having 100% of 30hp.

You do get worse at using it... Want to use an ability that costs 1 Burn? Well, it costs you 5hp at 5th level... Then, somehow, it starts costing 6hp at 6th level... and 7hp at 7th, and so on. That is getting worse at using Burn. The fact that you can afford to be worse doesn't change the fact that you are getting worse.

What other class features works like that? Where the cost for using it increases with level? The Bard doesn't have to spend more rounds of Bardic Performance to maintain his abilities just because he gets more rounds and higher Cha as he levels up. The Wizard doesn't have to spend 2 spell slots instead of 1 for casting Fireballs just because he got more spells per day and higher Int. The Paladin doesn't have to spend 2 LoH to cure the same amount of damage he could heal with a single use of the abiltiy just to "balance" the fact that he is at higher level has higher Cha. Monks don't get an increasing penalty to Will saves to compensate their good Will save progression and focus on Wis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I like the idea of being better at reducing burn. I personally like how Feel the Burn works, I think it could use a higher bonus (+2 per point of Burn would feel more like a bonus rather than a break-even).

That kinda my feel on it... Kineticist currently pays a really high price just to compensate for his lack of enhancement bonuses to accuracy/damage...

If the class got the weapon-equivalent bonus to blasts and then could use Burn to actually excel, rather than just break even, it'd be more fair.

And since I'm already here...

1- Spark of Life should be simplified/buffed. Make it an Summon Monster SLA that only summons elementals and comes at the same levels a Wizard would get access to the appropriate version of the spell.

2- The restrictions to the "Extra Wild Talent" feat are pointless, arbitrary, needlessly complicated and simply not fun. No other "extra class feature" feat has such restrictions. There is literally nor eason for it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Since Kineticists don't use iteratives... Couldn't they get the ability to reduce Burn by -1 every time they would a new attack? (So -2 at 8th level and -3 at 15th)

And the bonus from FtB should really just be granted to the class without requiring Burn... Then Burn would be a bonus rather than a necessity that unfairly taxes the character.


mplindustries wrote:
When you take average HP, though, you get to round up for whatever reason.

I think that's just the rule in PFS. If you want the actual average, it's best is assume the character alternate between rolling 4s and 5s.

mplindustries wrote:
If it takes 1-2 hits to take you out, it takes 1 or 2 hits to take anyone in the party out. As I was pointing out, you'll have at least as many HP as other d8 classes (with better defenses, except for Will), and are likely to have as many HP as the Fighter. And this is after Burn (1/3 of your level worth, spent on Kinetic Form and your defenses).

I'm not convinced. Using Burn a few times a day will put you only slightly above average hp at best. (Metakinesis or composite blasts, for example, can't have burn reduced. And you also need FtB for that mediocre accuracy).

mplindustries wrote:
Your point about being unconscious is a good one, but I just don't think you're actually going to be in that situation more often than anyone else.

I somehow doubt that's the case. Other classes get hit... They get healed. Kineticists uses Burn... Well, that's too bad. Next hit or two and he's out. At least that what I saw happen in the 2 Kineticist playtests I had.

At very least Kineticists need to become better at reducing Burn with a move action as the levels go up. It still makes no sense that the Kineticists not only never gets better at that, but also gets worse at using Burn, suffering more and more damage for the exact same benefit.


mplindustries wrote:
Average HP for a d8 is equal to 5 + Con + 1 (FCB) and probably + 1 (Toughness).

Well... Technically, it's 4.5 per HD. Not 5.

mplindustries wrote:
Plus, I just made a big long post about how good Kineticist defenses are.

I think the cost of getting those defenses, added to the cost of getting mediocre accuracy is still too high... Having high defenses isn't all that great when 1 or 2 hits (or AoE effects) is all that is necessary to knock you out.

mplindustries wrote:
Oh, and they actually aren't losing real HP, just taking nonlethal, so they won't die if they exceed it, just fall unconscious and stable.

That... Really doesn't help much... You're still not playing the game and still not helping your party in any way. Unconscious or dead, the end result is the same: The player is bored and the character is useless.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Our campaigns are moving really slowly, aren't they? :(


Kirth Gersen wrote:
In 1st edition, clerics got no spells at 1st level; their progression started at 2nd. That 1-level lag would be enough of an entry cost to justify two domain powers and channeling at 1st level, and some additional cool domain powers or domain-related bonus feats along the way. You could also give them back heavy armor proficiency, to help with survivability at 1st level.

Heavy armor proficiency wouldn't really help at 1st level... or even 2nd or 3rd, since full plates are expensive as hell.

Besides, Clerics need more interesting abilities, not a simple power-up. They're already one of the most powerful classes in the game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Clerics are very powerful due to being full casters... But they could really use more interesting class features (including a capstone). They are the most boring class to build, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

BTW, Spark of Life should really be buffed and simplified.

Can't it simply work like a Summon Monster SLA that only summons elementals and comes at the appropriate levels, rather than being crappier version that comes at later level...

I doubt summoning a single type of creature will break anything or step on any caster's toes.

Also, every Kineticist should get Kn(Planes) and Kn(Nature) as class skills. Really, this class is a mess in the skill department.


Bloodragers is, overall, more powerful... But Barbarians are still pretty awesome, even without Beast Totem (Superstition is really the only "obligatory" Rage Powers. The others are great, but you can be effective without them).


I am a millionaire... In cents... Of Japanese yen...

Maybe even in full Japanese yen...! 'til I pay my bills, that is...


Heh... It's kinda funny seeing this debate about tattoos.

My brother-in-law is not only a tatto artist, but also the owner of a tattoo studio. Both him and my sister have lots of tattoos... We joke saying that they look like human-sized comic books...

My brother and my other sister have a few tattoos each, but nothing that attracts too much attention. I'm the only one of the bunch who never got tattooed (and don't plan to).

I have nothing against tattoos... I think they can be pretty cool, but I've never seen an image that I thought I'd like during all my life. So I never made any.

Just a few days ago, someone asked my Brother-in-Law: "Do you work?". He laughed and answered that yes, he does work. Still, apparently some people do think that tattooed. So yes, there are people who still see tattoos as thing for those who are lazy, irresponsible or downright criminal. It's and outdated view, IMO, but it still exists.

While it's everyone's right to change their appearance however they want, they must be aware that your appearance is literally the first thing the person sees about you, so it's a great part of how you'll be judged. It might be unfair, but it's true nonetheless... And companies are aware of that. And since most clients won't stick around for weeks just to better know your tattooed employee, companies avoid hiring people with visible tattoos, even if they don't share the outdated view on tattoos.

Years ago, I had a hard time finding my first job due to having long hair. The very same principle applies. Many people still see a long-haired guy and think he's a demon-worshiping drug addict or something equally undesirable, and companies understandably avoid hiring people who can negatively affect their images...

I didn't think less of any of the companies. Growing long hair, much like getting a tattoo, is a choice, not a random accident of birth. And we're all aware those aesthetic choices are not very well seen in many professional fields, so at very least, those who have tattoos, long hair or any other "unorthodox" choice of personal style can and will be more-or-less fairly seen as someone who is willing to sacrifice a chance of employment in favor of aesthetics... And that is usually not a good message to send when you're looking for a job.

tl;dr: Maybe not hiring someone because of their tattoos (or any other "unorthodox" choice of personal style) is due to prejudice, but it can also be due to to very reasonable assumptions. Even if they are not completely accurate. Don't be so quick to call someone a bigot because they don't agree with your view on a particular choice of personal aesthetics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Bold Strider wrote:
You sound like a whiny child. You may have a valid opinion but you are just coming across as a whiny child.

Perhaps, but when I start hearing things like "you can choose to ignore your class features" or "you can choose to play a different class" in a freaking playtest, it's difficult not to be frustrated...

"You can play a different class" is, short of personal attacks, literally the least constructive thing to be said in a playtest. The whole point is making the class something you want to play. "You can ignore your class features" isn't much better either, since helping with the design of those feature is the goal of every playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
If a class is not suited to your playstyle, don't play it. There are quite a few classes I disagree with and won't play.

Then why don't you stop replying to this thread and be content with whatever comes out? After all, you don't have to play the class...

Just because I think Burn is poorly designed, doesn't mean I don't want to play the class.

You know what? I don't care anymore... I'm not in the mood to repeat the same arguments over and over again just because people want to pretend those issues are not issues at all.

Obviously, those who criticize Burn are not welcome here. I'm getting the impression that anything that is not praise won't be heard... So I'm going to bed before my frustration gets the better of me.

It's up to Mark now

If he decides to listen to those who feel Burn is poorly implemented... Good. We'll have a better designed class.
If he decides the criticism on Burn is unfounded... Too bad. I'll just resign myself to have yet another flavorful class with bad mechanics and houserule the hell out of it.

My humble request is that Mark takes a serious look at the criticism directed at Burn and if he disagrees with them, that it at least doesn't be because of "arguments" such as "you can always choose not to use your class features or play a different class.", since those are not real arguments, just another version of "My way or the highway!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:

You are free to not use Burn.

Those of use who enjoy the benefits offered feel the reward is worth the cost, and will have much stronger characters for taking advantage of the Burn mechanics as they currently exist.

I'm also free to criticize what I see as poor design and hope it's reworked. In fact, that's the whole point of the playtest.

"You're free not to use Burn" is like saying "You're free not to use your class features". I want to use my class features. Every player does. But this particular class feature is poorly designed. A class feature that players are doing their best to avoid using is a poorly designed class feature.

And I disagree. I think those of us using burn will have much weaker characters than they should have, due to using Burn mechanics as they currently exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I am unconvinced that everyone agrees with you on this point.

I doubt everyone agrees with me (or anyone else) on anything... There will always be disagreements.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Every kid who wants more skill points says "Every class with 2 skill points per level that isn't based on intelligence should get more" or something to that effect. Though I maybe do think that intelligence casters should not be penalized skills for specializing in intelligence.

However, intelligence is not a stat every character wants and needs. Constitution is. Basing this class on constitution is sort of a balancing factor by itself in my opinion. And I really think you get a lot of value out of constitution just by not being dead. If I were a wizard, I would take a full attack from the dragon and be dead. If I am a Kineticist with a lot of burn, I am just unconscious. I still was able to drop my nova though, and knocking me out is probably going to be the last thing that dragon does.

Or maybe it won't if there is not an accuracy buff. That isn't burn's fault though.

Here is the problem... Mark knew what Con did when he created the class. If the character having lots of hp is a problem... Then why make it Con based?

Is kinda like making Bards based on Cha, then worrying about it being too good on Bluff/Diplomacy and deciding to give the class a penalty to those skills.

That's a bad idea. It's like fighting your own class design. If you don't want a class to have lots of hp, don't make Con-based. If you don't want it to have lots of skill points, don't make it Int based, you don't want it to have great Initiative, don't make it Dex based.

Instead, we get a Con-based class... That is punished for being Con based. But the "balancing" factor that punishes it simply outweighs the benefits... To the point where the Con-based class effectively has less hp than it would have if it were based on another attribute but didn't suffer Burn.

The Kineticist is supposed to be Con-based an be able to deal great amounts of damage with a single standard action... But every thing in the class punishes him for that. You lose hp for using your class features, and you need a move action to lose slightly less hp for using your class features...

And to make it worse, it has pointless restrictions, like the feat that only allows you to grab feats of lower levels. Why does it have that restriction? No other similar feat has anything like that.

IMO, Mark grossly underestimated the drawback of Burn and was too conservative with the power scale of quite a few class abilities, including said feat.

I understand he doesn't want his first official Paizo class to be overpowered, but as it's, I'd say it's barely better than Ninjas, which are quite underpowered themselves, despite having a few nice tricks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
I don't have a problem with Burn. I get far more out of it than what it costs me.

Well... I do have a problem with Burn and it cost me more than it's worth.


Artanthos wrote:
My barbarian uses her rage every single day, it's necessary for me to use it.....

And when he stops using Rage, he is not weaker than he'd be if he didn't have rage. And multiple uses of rage don't make you weaker and weaker until a mook can beat you with a single hit. At worst, you'll be fatigued for a couple minutes... And with the right resources, you can heal that fatigue in one round... Or even become completely immune to it.

Artanthos wrote:
It has already been stated that damage may well be increased. Very few people disagree on this point. It has little to do with the burn mechanic, which open a lot of doors for all day buffs, whose strength is at the kineticist's discretion.

And that's great and all... But it only addresses part of the problem with Burn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alakallanar wrote:

4: Well, he kind of gets better at avoid Burn through Infusion Specialization, etc.

5: But the points in Con you "sacrificed" (Actually you still get all other benefits of the Con except for the HP. Granted that is the most import aspect, but "sacrificing" Con is still an exaggeration.) give you most benefits from the equivalent points in a damage stat (in addition to the actual effects of the Burn usage). And the benefits you don't get are easily canceled out by the benefits of Con you still get.
7: Rage makes you weaker than you were before using it. Alchemist Cognatogens too. I'm certain there are quit a few more.

4- Except in the case of composite blasts and metakinesis. And those also stack with whatever else you use.

5- It's still punishing you for the ability to focus on Con. Which makes no sense... If focusing on Con is so powerful, then why make it Con-based in the first place?

7- It doesn't. Those features have drawbacks, but they are very short-lived... Usually only lasting for as long as you use said features. Burn's drawbacks not only are far more serious, they also last all day long and get worse and worse every time you sue your class features..

Alakallanar wrote:
I'm happy with the mechanics of Burn and FtB , since I'm not like this vocal minority of people who have a psychological problem with sacrificing anything for a by comparison larger benefit.

The problem we have is not about making a sacrifice, but about making a huge sacrifice for benefits that are simply not all that good. That bonus from FtB? All it does is give you the accuracy and damage you lost due to not being able to use magic weapons.

You're not getting a larger benefit, you're catching up to those who didn't have to make the same sacrifice.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
3- There is a huge difference between "This is a limited resource, I better save for when it's absolutely necessary" and "This is a limited resource, I hoe I never have to use it because it makes me weaker than i was before". Burn is literally the only class feature in Pathfinder that players will do their best to avoid using. If a players doesn't like the idea of using their character's class features, those class features are poorly designed.

People who do not understand Burn will avoid using it.

Those who understand Burn will use it every single day, before they ever encounter their first opponent. They will then avoid using it for trivial fights, holding Burn as an option for when the #!@$ hits the fan.

The cost of burn only increases with level if you neglect your CON as you level. If you invest in CON, you get far more out of Burn than what it costs you.

In my playtest, I used FtB every day... Because I had to. It's necessary for me to use it, and yet... All it does is put me on par with Ninjas...

The cost of Burns increases one wya or another. It doesn't matter if you have Con 10 or Con 200. It'll cost more to you at 10th level than it cost at 5th, even though it gives you exactly the same benefit. And if you focus on Con, you're not focusing on Dex, so your accuracy suffers. I chose to focus on Con... Then mal told me I should have focused on Dex.

And no matter what... You still lose a huge chunk of your hp just for "privilege" of using your own class features.

Artanthos wrote:
Why do you think a class that spends its entire life with its nose stuck in a book only gets 2 skill points/level?

You mean "Just as many as Clerics, Paladins, Fighters, Sorcerers, Summoners, Antipaladins and Warpriests, none of which are Int-focused"? Because, at least according to the ACG's class design guide, Paizo apparently believes every class should have as few skill points as possible.

Artanthos wrote:
You also gain the benefits of Burn all day, not just for a single action.

And your hp is still gone all day as well... Meanwhile, the Gunslinger who recovered Grit is just as strong as he was before he spent it all in the first place.

Similarly, a Barbarian who runs out of Rage isn't made weaker than he'd have been if he didn't have Rage at all. At worst, he's fatigued for a couple minutes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:

1: It sure is handy that this is a class that gets to specialize in constitution rather than having to buy up strength or charisma.

2: Touch attacks give you an accuracy advantage and if it weren't for kinetic blade, this class would not need to rely on iterative attacks for damage. I have already said that I wish this class could get more accuracy for its burn, though.

3: Grit and other things make you lose class features when you use them up and casting enough 9th level spells means you don't have access to any 9th level spells. I recognize that the cost is high, but you are getting things in return.

4: Why does that make no sense?

5: You still get con for fort saves and you still have a big buffer that keeps you from death.

6: That is a good point, I think. Toughness at level 1 is a really good feat for this class (it will absorb 3 points of burn for you), but that is kind of the nature of the beast.

7: This is the same point as 3 reworded.

8: I agree. That is a dumb argument.

9: True enough. I think it is kind of neat that you kind of change your role over the course of the day, though. And you can spend a little bit of burn each morning to buff up your defenses.

1- Yeah... And then lose the whole benefit of focusing on Con... It's like a Wizard suffering a penalty to skill points to compensate for focusing on Int. Or a Cleric suffering a penalty to Will saves to compensate for focusing on Wis. Or a Bard suffering a penalty to Bluff/Diplomacy to compensate for focusing on Cha. -.-'

2- Then either make all attacks a touch attack or do something for non-touch attacks to not become a waste of time without FtB.

3- And yet, Grit can be easily recovered. Losing all your spells doesn't make you weaker than you'd be if you didn't have spells in the first place. Sames goes for all other class features.

4- Because it doesn't? Avoiding Burn should be something every Kinetics would try to become better at. Why don't they?

5- Yay... You get half the benefit for all those points invested in your attribute... Why should you be punished for being able to focus on Con? If Mark doesn't want the class to have more health, then why even bother making it Con-based? Besides, Burn often leaves the Kineticist with less health than other d8 classes.

It's like your own class features are fighting you and doing what they can to stop you from actually using them...


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Burn... The problem with Burn...

1- HP is a very valuable, very scare resource (from level 1, characters can often deal more damage than they can take).

2- Feel The Burn doesn't give you an accuracy advantage. It simply makes you catch up with other medium BAB class (for as long as they don't use their own class features). And this comes at an increasingly high cost. If something is obligatory to make the class function properly (and ftB is), it should harm you for using it.

3- There is a huge difference between "This is a limited resource, I better save for when it's absolutely necessary" and "This is a limited resource, I hoe I never have to use it because it makes me weaker than i was before". Burn is literally the only class feature in Pathfinder that players will do their best to avoid using. If a players doesn't like the idea of using their character's class features, those class features are poorly designed.

4- It makes no sense. The Kineticist never gets better at reducing the cost of burn.

5- You're sacrificing Con for the ability to sue your class features, or, doing the inverse, and sacrificing the ability to use your class features for high Con. Essentially, FtB basically means you got a 5~10 points lower point buy just for the "privilege" of using your class features.

6- Burns becomes more costly as the levels go up. Which the complete opposite of what happens to every other class feature in the game, which get more and more uses as the character levels up.

7- No other class features makes you weaker than you were before using them. Burn is akin to a Wizard losing health to cast spells and taking a penalty to skill points because he's able to focus on Int... Or Fighters suffering a penalty to Str to "compensate" for Weapon Training.

8- "But the percentage of health stays the same" is not a valid point, because percentage of health means absolutely nothing. Only flat numbers matter. It's better to have 50% of 80hp than 100% of 30hp.

9- It exacerbates the problem of Rocket-Tag Combat. "Lose all this health and hope you can one-shot the enemy... Because if it survives, it'll surely one-shot you!"

I mean no disrespect to Mark, but Burn is an awful mechanic.


Weapon Finesse?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah... Skald, Hunter and Arcanist would be better off as archetypes or alternate casting system. Warpriest could have been completely removed from the book, or maybe turned into an Inquisitor or Cleric archetype... Sacred Fist is the only good thing in that class. And it could have been an Inquisitor/Cleric archetype as well.

We don't really need 6 new classes every year. We don't even need getting a new class every year... We already have 36 of them. And a few of those are quite unnecessary already.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
minoritarian wrote:
The whole "paizo owns everything you post" clause kind of puts me off posting my homebrew here.

If that's the problem, just post it in googledoc or something, then provide the link here.

Personally, I doubt I'll ever be a a designer for Pathfinder (or any other game, it's really not in my carrier plan), so I don't really care if Paizo (or anyone else) uses one of my ideas... If I did, I wouldn't be sharing them on the internet.


I'm getting too invested in this discussion... I'll give it a break at least 'til tomorrow. Suffice to say I'm very worried about the future of this class.

We haven't heard anything from Mark in a while. We have no idea what he thinks of the issues/suggestions/criticisms brought up since his last post.

AFAIK, he never mentioned anything about changing skills, enhancement bonuses or Burn.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
[I think Burn is fine]

You're oversimplifying my stance.

1~2- Every class uses their features to excel. Kineticists use theirs to be mediocre. And they pay a high price for it. The Inquisitor runs out of Judgement/Bane, he's still as powerful as he'd be without it. The Kineticists runs out of hp... He's weaker than he would be if he didn't have his abilities.

3- "Lasting all day" is proven to not be worth much more than "last every round of combat". e.g.: Rage. And the Kineticist's "bonus" is not really a bonus, it's just the removal of a harsh penalty (not being able to sue weapon enhancements) in exchange for another harsh penalty (lose a considerable chunk of your health).

4- It does matter. That's the whole point. They do not perform all that well, even though they lose one of the most precious resources a character has.

mplindustries wrote:
Would you be satisfied if an item existed that granted an enhancement bonus to kinetic blasts? FtB is not classified as an enhancement bonus, so, there's clearly room for that kind of thing.

Yes... Kinda... At least the accuracy would be fine (assuming we get a damage boost), and FtB would actually be a bonus, rather than a necessity.

But Burn would still not be a good mechanic, IMO. It's too harmful. With the proposed item, accuracy wouldn't be much of an issue, but using other abilities would still be too costly.

It really sucks to get a new ability and then think "Well... I really hope I never have to use this one"... It's okay if it's something like healing*, since most characters obviously would want to avoid getting injured, but it's really frustrating when it's an offense/utility tool that I should feel excited about using.

A Paladin's player gets smite and thinks... "Next time we face an evil enemy, I'm going to be awesome!"
A Kineticist's player gets Metakinesis and thinks "Next time we face a dangerous enemy, I hope it's not dangerous enough for me to have to use my class features!"

Burn mechanics make the class frustrating to build and play. It's like I'm walking on a minefield. While everyone else is doing their best to be awesome, I'm doing my best to not kill myself with my own class features. That hurts balance and enjoyment of the class. I've seen more than a few playtest reports of players refusing to ever use anything that cost them burn. That's not just they saving their powers for the more dangerous enemies, but actually doing their best to avoid using their class features!

And unlike every other class, who can use their abilities more and more often, the Kineticist is penalized more and more for the very same benefit. 1 point of Burn at 20th level hurts more than 1 point of Burn at 5th level. That makes no sense. Why doesn't the Kineticist ever get better at reducing Burn? Why does Burn deal more damage, rather than less?

- - -

* That said, getting healing abilities allows characterto do stuff that gets them harmed with no consequences, so even those have a better "feel" than composite blasts and metakinesis, from a gameplay perspective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
FtB bonuses are applied every single time you gather energy. All day long.

Tsc... Let me rephrase that.

You use FtB. You get the benefit. You lost hp and you got the +X to attack rolls. That effect lasts all day long... Once it reaches +1 for every 3 Kineticist levels, it doesn't increase anymore.

So the +X effect is used once. Its effects last 24h or whatever... But it's still only used once. That one time, you lose hp.


Artanthos wrote:
A kineticist does not loose HP every time he uses FtB. He gives up the hp once, at the beginning of the day, and enjoys the benefits all day.

I know.

So he only uses it once a day... And suffers Burn that one time... Therefore, he loses hp every time he uses FtB... Which is once a day.

Every other Burn he suffers is unaffected by FtB (well, technically they get the cool visuals, but you know what I meant). You get no benefit from it.


1- How do gods battle each other? Do they go head-to-head or do they prefer to settle things using their worshipers, avatars, servants, etc?

2- What do gods think of creatures that are able to use divine power without worshiping a deity, like Oracles?

3- What Pathfinder Tales novel would you suggest to...

3a- Someone who knows well and enjoys Pathfinder and Golarion.
3b- Someone who plays Pathfinder, but knows little about Golarion.
3c- Someone who played Pathfinder/D&D in the past but is mostly unfamiliar with the rules and the setting.

4- What fantasy books are you currently reading?


Maybe condense it into 3 scaling feats? First one gives SLA os 1st, 2nd and 3rd level once you reach the levels a Sorcerer would get access to spells of that level... 2nd one does the same for 4th~6th level SLA. And the alst one does it for 7th~9th level SLAs?

9 feats is too much... 1 feat is too little... 2 or 3 would work nicely, IMO.


Artanthos wrote:
Ranged Blasters are going to spam Maximize all day long.

And still not very impressive without FtB.

Artanthos wrote:
Composite Blasts are not meant to be constantly used until high level.

Burn damage increases with level. And losing hp is far more harmful than, say, running out of Rage.

Artanthos wrote:
You ignore every single ability that boosts the kineticist for a few points of burn. Most of which provide all-day

I don't ignore anything. A Few points of Burn equals [a few points x character level] of incurable damage. That's a pretty heavy price to pay. Burn stacks up too quickly.

And of course... The Kineticist actually becomes worse at using Burn. An ability that would cost him 5hp at 5th levels, costs him 10hp at 10th, even though it still gives exactly the same benefit. What other class becomes worse at using its own class features? Paladins don't suddenly have to spend 2 uses of LoH to get the benefits of his 2nd and 3rd Mercies.

Artanthos wrote:
Resource management is a thing. People who understand this concept won't be killing or crippling their characters.

No other class is crippled by using their resources. No other class is weaker when they run of uses of their abilities than they would be if they didn't have those abilities in the first place.

Resource Management is a thing, sure... But the Kineticist is in a really bad economy. He pays a high price for mediocre results.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

I now you read my post. You even replied to it... Still, I consider it a good counter to the claim that Kineticists are accurate/damaging enough.

Accurate enough.

Not damaging enough. The problem is, full BAB won't increase DPR.

They are only accurate enough when they sacrifice a considerable amount of hp... While every other classes uses their features to excel, Kineticists use theirs to be average.

If something is obligatory to make a class effective, it shouldn't be harmful to the character.

If it isn't obligatory, then the class should be able to function well without it and excel when using it... You know... Like every other class feature out there.

FtB is like making the Monk lose hp every time he uses FoB. Or making a Cleric suffer incurable damage every time they buffed themselves.


I now you read my post. You even replied to it... Still, I consider it a good counter to the claim that Kineticists are accurate/damaging enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
I'm not quite as optimistic... Mark expressed the opinion that raising damage would be a better solution, so I fear Kineticists might end up joining Rogues in the "I can deal decent damage... During the 30% of time I actually hit stuff!" bench. :/

Given that 85% accuracy is well demonstrated on physical attacks by mid-level, I would say you are greatly exaggerating the issue.

Increasing the to-hit bonuses of the class will only affect non-touch melee iteratives. It will have no impact when blasting against opponents of average AC. I would rather see the base damage the and utility issues of the class addresses.

Ahem...

Lemmy wrote:

Okay! Fine! You win! Kineticists need more damage!

My real problem is with Feel the Burn.

If it's obligatory, then it shouldn't hurt the character. The Rogue is not losing half his life to wield his magic weapon.

If it's optional (and IMO, it should be), then the Kineticist should be able to work without it and excel when using it, which means he needs a boost to accuracy/damage. That's not the case... Without FtB, Kineticists have the accuracy and damage of a Rogue with no magic (or even masterwork) weapon.

Burn is a high price to pay for mediocrity... What other class has to use their best buffs and resources just to be mediocre?

- - -

Here are examples of character who are at least as good as a Fighter...

- A Cleric using his highest level spells and domain powers.
- A Ranger fighting his Favored Enemy
- A Paladin using Smite Evil
- An Inquisitor using Judgement and Bane
- A Hunter using Animal Aspect and fighting side-by-side with his Animal Companion
- A Druid using Wildshape and spells
- A Magus using Arcana and spells.
- A Sorcerer using metamagic blast spells.
- An Alchemist using Extracts/Mutagens.

And so on... Do you see the pattern yet? All of those classes use their limited-use class features to excel! Their resources allow them to go above and beyond! And many of those resources are not even all that limited, nor do they make you weaker for using them.

The Kineticist, OTOH, is not only restricted to mediocrity, he is also paying the highest price of them all. A "permanent" loss of hp.

So while those classes lose access to their class features if they use them too much, they at least don't grow weaker than they'd be if they didn't have those features in the first place. The Kineticist does. And not only that, after using Burn once or twice, he becomes so fragile that even a mook can put him down... And unlike Wizards/Sorcerers, he doesn't have a bazillion different spells to boost his defenses... Just some okay-ish powers.

And then we have the fact that losing hp in Pathfinder is particularly dangerous... Rocket-tag is already a known problem in the game, whether people admit or not... A moderately optimized 2-handed Ranger can already one-shot CR-appropriate enemies... And also be one-shot by that same enemy.

How much does Burn exacerbate that problem? Specially if the Kineticist gets a (much needed) damage boost? He can kill the enemy in one round... But a mook can also put him down in the same time.

I don't go looking for Rocket Tag in my games, but it still shows up, because attack/damage outpaces AC/hp, often with little to no effort... And my players are not even particularly good or worried about optimization. Specially when average character level reaches the double digits.

- - -

tl;dr:

Other Classes: Use limited resources to excel
Kineticists: Use a very limited resource to be mediocre
Other Classes: Uses up their ability and they become as weak as they would be if they didn't have those abilities in the first place
Kineticists: Uses up their ability and they become weaker than they would be if they didn't have that ability in the first place.

Burn is too taxing and too difficult to correctly balance. Losing hp would need more playtest to get it right. And we are not getting more playtest time. It's best to simply let it go.


I'd do this.


Artanthos wrote:
The smart kineticist is only going to accept enough burn to maximize his FtB bonus. Usually by activating all-day abilities. With CON as a casting stat, he should still have as many, or more, hit points as other d8 classes. Additional burn should only be taken to NOVA the BBEG or prevent a TPK.

"The smart Kineticist will do all he can to avoid using his class features. Because they not only negate the main benefit of having Con as their casting stat, they also make him weaker. i.e.: You might as well ignore composite blasts and metakinesis, unless you want to be taken down by a mook."

No other class goes into vegetative state because they went nova... And many of those have much better tricks a than a glorified Sneak Attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay! Fine! You win! Kineticists need more damage!

My real problem is with Feel the Burn.

If it's obligatory, then it shouldn't hurt the character. The Rogue is not losing half his life to wield his magic weapon.

If it's optional (and IMO, it should be), then the Kineticist should be able to work without it and excel when using it, which means he needs a boost to accuracy/damage. That's not the case... Without FtB, Kineticists have the accuracy and damage of a Rogue with no magic (or even masterwork) weapon.

Burn is a high price to pay for mediocrity... What other class has to use their best buffs and resources just to be mediocre?

- - -

Here are examples of character who are at least as good as a Fighter...

- A Cleric using his highest level spells and domain powers.
- A Ranger fighting his Favored Enemy
- A Paladin using Smite Evil
- An Inquisitor using Judgement and Bane
- A Hunter using Animal Aspect and fighting side-by-side with his Animal Companion
- A Druid using Wildshape and spells
- A Magus using Arcana and spells.
- A Sorcerer using metamagic blast spells.
- An Alchemist using Extracts/Mutagens.

And so on... Do you see the pattern yet? All of those classes use their limited-use class features to excel! Their resources allow them to go above and beyond! And many of those resources are not even all that limited, nor do they make you weaker for using them.

The Kineticist, OTOH, is not only restricted to mediocrity, he is also paying the highest price of them all. A "permanent" loss of hp.

So while those classes lose access to their class features if they use them too much, they at least don't grow weaker than they'd be if they didn't have those features in the first place. The Kineticist does. And not only that, after using Burn once or twice, he becomes so fragile that even a mook can put him down... And unlike Wizards/Sorcerers, he doesn't have a bazillion different spells to boost his defenses... Just some okay-ish powers.

And then we have the fact that losing hp in Pathfinder is particularly dangerous... Rocket-tag is already a known problem in the game, whether people admit or not... A moderately optimized 2-handed Ranger can already one-shot CR-appropriate enemies... And also be one-shot by that same enemy.

How much does Burn exacerbate that problem? Specially if the Kineticist gets a (much needed) damage boost? He can kill the enemy in one round... But a mook can also put him down in the same time.

I don't go looking for Rocket Tag in my games, but it still shows up, because attack/damage outpaces AC/hp, often with little to no effort... And my players are not even particularly good or worried about optimization. Specially when average character level reaches the double digits.

- - -

tl;dr:

Other Classes: Use limited resources to excel
Kineticists: Use a very limited resource to be mediocre
Other Classes: Uses up their ability and they become as weak as they would be if they didn't have those abilities in the first place
Kineticists: Uses up their ability and they become weaker than they would be if they didn't have that ability in the first place.

Burn is too taxing and too difficult to correctly balance. Losing hp would need more playtest to get it right. And we are not getting more playtest time. It's best to simply let it go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:

Ok, let's see where that's coming from. Can I assume all the same stats and weapons and stuff, except +3 to hit from BAB? And he has Vital Strike, Power Attack, and Furious Focus?

That'd be a 90% hit rate for 4d6+19 (33 average), right? So, 29.7 DPR?

The normal blast without empowerment would be 5d6+13 (30.5), so, 22.875.

With 10d6+10+Con (and FtB, because, again, mandatory), 53 average, you'd need to go down to a 55% hit rate before the warrior wins.

The Warrior also has full BAB, which means he gets Improved Critical. With Power Attack/Vital Strike, that's +20 (4d6+21/18-20/x2) ... Average DPR is 41.65

The Kineticists would attack with +18 (10d6+14)... Which goes creates an average DPR of... 40.42, which is different from my last calculation (I'm not sure what's the difference. I guess I really do need to sleep), but still lower than the Warrior's average standard action DPR.

And yes... Characters don't need 90% accuracy... But if they are going to lose half their life in incurable damage, they deserve 90% accuracy... Again, Burn is a high price to pay just to achieve mediocrity.

Urgh... Whatever... See you tomorrow... Or later today, I guess... It's past midnight already, after all...


mplindustries wrote:
Being level 11 is another feat and another d6+1 damage on the blast, and 20k gold, but it shouldn't be a 20 point difference, should it?

Found it. I forgot to account for Empower Matakinesis... Still, notice my EDIT. A Warrior with Vital Strike deals more damage with a standard action than the Kineticist would deal even if his blast's damage were [10d6+10+Con modifier].

EDIT: By Poseidon's beard! I just noticed I spent my whole day off playing video-games and discussing a playtest class... Urgh... I gotta go to bed...

Good night to you all... Or good morning or good afternoon, depending on where you live.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

mlp, you keep tempting me to quote... That's evil!

mplindustries wrote:
Burn is not a class mechanic, it's a cost. The mechanic is "do this at-will but take this penalty until you get to the point when you can ignore the penalty."

Burn is a mechanic. And it is a class feature. In the same way that Rage is ("Use this ability and get X benefit, but also these penalties").

Except, the Barbarian uses Rage to excel, while Kineticists use FtB to achieve mediocrity. When a Barbarian (or any other class with limited-use class feature) runs out of uses of his class features, he's not suddenly weaker than he'd be if he didn't have those features in the first place... The Kineticist is.

That's the problem with Kineticists, they have to put a lot of effort and sacrifice just to be average...

mplindustries wrote:
And I'm still curious about what you think a good hit chance is for same CR enemies ;)

How about the same accuracy as any other medium BAB class using their features? A Cleric who casts Divine Favor is not just at Rogue's level of accuracy. Neither is an Inquisitor who uses Judgement or Bane... Or a Hunter using Animal Focus and the teamwork feats he shares with his animal companion. Much less a Bard with Bardic Performance...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's see... A Half-Elf 10th level Kineticist... Focusing on Dex rather than Con...

Quick Build:
Kineticist
Human Kineticist 10
Medium humanoid (human)
Init +6; Senses Perception +18
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 16, touch 16, flat-footed 10 (+6 dexterity)
hp 113 (10d8+60) (assuming PFS progression... Actual average is 105hp)
Fort +15, Ref +17, Will +11
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Ranged light crossbow +14 (1d8/19-20/×3)
Kineticist Spell-Like Abilities (CL 10th; concentration +14)
At will:
Air Blast +15 (5d6+9/20/x2)
Electricity Blast: +15 (5d6/20/x2)
with Feel The Burn (30hp; 26.55% of total hp):
Air Blast +18 (5d6+9/20/x2)
Electricity Blast: +18 (5d6/20/x2)
Statistics
--------------------
Str 7, Dex 22, Con 18, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 7
Base Atk +7; CMB +5; CMD 24
Feats Defensive Combat Training, Iron Will, Point-blank Shot, Precise Shot, Toughness, Weapon Focus (blast)
Skills Fly +19, Knowledge (planes) +11, Perception +18, Stealth +19

Average DPR vs AC 24: 27.5 (including Point-Blank shot)

That's 26% of my HP just to have mediocre accuracy... Let' say I want to use Metakinesis or a composite blast... There goes another 10 or 20hp (8.85% or 17.7%). So... use Burn twice and you now have 63 hp (A Rogue will have at least 83... And the same accuracy and damage).

You lost (at least) 44.25% of your health in exchange for a Rogue's accuracy and the audacity of using your class features twice in the same day... That's a high price for mediocrity...

For a quick comparison, a Hunter with a +3 Greatsword, Vital Strike, Power Attack and Furious Focus has a DPR of 28.80 with his standard action attack... And that's before counting on Animal Companion, Animal Focus, teamwork feats or spells...

A similarly built Warrior has a +20 to hit and average DPR of 41.6 (with just his standard action!). That's more than the Kinetict's DPR would be even if his blasts dealt [10d6+10+Con Modifier] damage! (His DPR would be 35.04, BTW).

Are Kineticists really expected to eal less damage than a Warrior? Does no one really see anything wrong with an obviously combat-focused class having to sacrifice hp just to reach the accuracy of an Expert?


mlpindustries... Our back-and-forth conversation, while engaging, is creating increasingly longer posts... So I'll just stop the quotes here before we have to scroll down 4 screens just to read our replies...

(BTW, dragons are no longer the under-CRed bastards they were in 3.5. Some of them are actually somewhat weak for their CR).

But you did convince me that Kineticists need a buff to damage... In addition to a buff to accuracy (and Weapon Focus is a really boring feat).

And I still see Burn as a really bad mechanic. Too costly and too harmful for its rather weak benefits. FtB itself is basically paying a heavy tax just to be mediocre (at best), while every other class uses their class features to excel with no cost to themselves. They might run out of uses of a certain feature, but they don't actively cripple themselves for using them (Well... The Barbarian is fatigued after using rages, but only for a few rounds. He doesn't lose the benefits from his Full BAB, d12 HD or ability to focus almost solely on Str and Con).

I get Toughness, FCB gone to hp and Con 22... And at 10th level, after using FtB, I got the same amount of hp as a guy with Con 20 who didn't use a feat or FCB. Therefore, my class feature is denying me the ability to benefit from my investment just so I can have (at best) mediocre accuracy.

And that's only talking about FtB... Use Burn again and you're likely to have even less hp than other d8 classes.

If I'm going to burn half my health on a boost, it should make me awesome! Not just on par with the weakest class in the game!

1 to 50 of 6,219 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.