>>Ask *Mark Seifter* All Your Questions Here!<<

[MichaelCullen]

Lou Diamond wrote:

Mark would Paizo consider changing the current hardness rules for metals?

The current rules are an artifact of 3.0 rules and IMO are poor;y written they call for each metal be given a hardness rating based on how thick the metal is, no where in the rules does it say how thick a sword, ax or different type of armor is. My purposal is just give each metal an over all hardness rating. Much easier to adjudicate at the table.

Lou, if you don't mind my interjecting here. I think you have a slight misreading of the damaging objects rules.

Hardness is not affected by thickness, but hitpoints are. As for the hitpoints of weapons, there is a table for this. link

Now this table assumes normal construction. If a weapon is adamantine, the rules in special materials say

special materials wrote:

Weapons and armor normally made of steel that are made of adamantine have one-third more hit points than normal. Adamantine has 40 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 20.

So for example looking at the table in damaging objects a great sword (two handed blade) normally has a hardness of 10 and 10 hitpoints. If that weapon were instead adamantine, you would increase its hardness to 20 and then increase its hitpoints by 1/3. So it would have 20 hardness and 13 hitpoints.

There are similar rules for other special materials. Mithril has the same hitpoints as steel, so use the hitpoints on the table, but its hardness is 15, so change the hardness of a mithril great sword to 15.

The only other thing to remember is that increasing the enhancement bonus of a weapon also increases its hardness and hitpoints. Each +1 adds two hardness and 10 HP. As a note this only applies to actual enhancement bonuses. A +1 flaming great sword may be a +2 equivalent bonus but for hardness and hitpoints, it only benefits from the +1 part.

Also Mark, congrats on this thread reaching the 6,000 post mark.

[Shadow_Charlatan]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Gordrenn Higgler wrote:

What would be the cost of combining the Gravity blast (or Telekinetic blast) with Aetheric Boost and the boost composite from void?

Also how would the damage be calculated?

Gravity or telekinetic with both of those is an option at 15th, since they each work on composites. It would cost 3 burn and do 8d8+16. If you really wanted to run wild, though, you could put both of them on something that is already a composite (at 15th) like void blast (if you were void/aether/void), which would do 16d8+32. It costs 4 burn so is a significant commitment (even composite specialization, supercharged gather, and internal buffer would need to all come together to negate its cost, and that last one is a pretty limited resource), but it is the most damaging composite blast currently possible.

With all the new options since Occult Origins, would you still say the Aetheric Gravity Boosted Void blast is the most damaging composite blast ?

[Renkosuke]

@Shadow_Charlatan I would argue that an Aetheric Gravity Boosted Omnicide is probably the most damaging singular composite blast :D

I say singular because you could instead use Flurry of Blasts on it to hit 6 people with it (with haste), but then I could see the argument that over time, a Wall Omnicide could do more damage. That's a whole can of worms and I don't think that's what you were asking anyway so I'll just return to my corner over here...

Erm, but before that quick question for Mark! In Psychic Anthology (amazing book btw) there's a universal form infusion Blade Rush that says "instantly move 30 feet in any direction". Does this mean move exactly 30 feet? ie; are you allowed to move less than the full movement if you don't see the need to? Also, it says instantly move without provoking but does this allow someone to pass through (but not end up inside) an enemy's square?

Sorta related, but if you are falling during your turn, at what point do you begin falling? Since it's all part of one action, I imagine if you could use Blade Rush to move straight up and attack some flying creature (when you yourself lack that capability) before you start falling, but could you take any other actions? If so, what kinds would be permissible? ie: standard, move, swift, free? Does it depend on what the action does? (for example, using blade rush to leap up and then greater flame jet to maintain your position in the air as a free action, or continue moving as a move action).

This is starting to become a not "quick question" so I'll leave it here, but so far I am loving the new book. I am already using a few things in a campaign-style AP and I can't wait to see what Additional Resources makes of it :D

[Lemartes]

Hi Mark, I'm guessing you had a hand in the Martyr Paladin Archetype but I could be wrong. Thematically and mechanically I love this archetype however, there are a few things I am uncertain about. If you could help that would be great. :)

Rule Links for your convenience:

Paladin

Martyr Paladin

1) Stigmata replaces Smite Evil. However, I don't see anything that replaces Aura of Justice? Therefore with no Smite Evil there is nothing to power the Aura of Justice with. Am I missing something?

2) The Martyr Paladin does not gain immunity to fear from their Aura of Courage.

Fearless Aura

The Fearless Aura Feat grants fear immunity to all your allies. It is my understanding that you count as your own ally. So would you get immunity to fear as well?

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks Mark. :)

[Mark Seifter]

And now another FAQ Friday!

FAQ wrote:

Unsworn Shaman: The unsworn shaman’s minor spirit ability tells you exactly when you gain hexes, but it doesn’t technically say you don’t gain the other hexes from the class progression. Pre-errata, it replaced the hex class feature entirely, which unambiguously removed them. How many hexes does the unsworn shaman receive?

Unsworn shaman still only receives the hexes from minor spirit and does not gain hexes at any other levels. The change from ‘replaces’ to ‘alters’ fixes a problem where the unsworn shaman used to have hexes while simultaneously removing the hex class feature, but the way the minor spirit ability alters the hex class feature is that it changes when you gain hexes to the listed levels.

[Squiggit]

Good FAQ and I think it's the answer most people were expecting and hoping for, but as a followup question:

The Kinetic Knight from the Psychic Anthology uses very similar language on a class feature modifying infusions, but apparently does still gain a normal infusion progression.

How can we tell which is which, in case another archetype with a similar issue shows up in the future?

[Mark Seifter]

Squiggit wrote:

Good FAQ and I think it's the answer most people were expecting and hoping for, but as a followup question:

The Kinetic Knight from the Psychic Anthology uses very similar language on a class feature modifying infusions, but apparently does still gain a normal infusion progression.

How can we tell which is which, in case another archetype with a similar issue shows up in the future?

Now that we've seen the conflict from the dichotomy, we'll try to be more explicit in the future. In general, archetypes will tell you, for instance which infusions they replace, so the conventional way to make this clearer in the text for Unsworn Shaman would be to say that it alters hex and replaces all the hexes normally gained or something like that.

[Gisher]

Yay! FAQ Friday!

[Mizuno Qenido]

So any idea when things'll be less hectic? I think we all have got some burning questions we want to ask :o

[ckdragons]

ckdragons wrote:

I understand RAW that Max Dex from armor and Dex penalty from encumbrance do not apply to CMD, because it's not specifically mentioned, but would you agree that it should as RAI?

BUMP :)

[MichaelCullen]

Do weapons with the ghost touch special ability damage creatures that are wholly on the ethereal plane?

To my knowledge this is never stated anywhere, but only vaguely implied in the text of the blink spell.

ethereal wrote:

An ethereal creature is invisible, insubstantial, and capable of moving in any direction, even up or down, albeit at half normal speed. An ethereal creature can move through solid objects, including living creatures. An ethereal creature can see and hear on the Material Plane, but everything looks gray and ephemeral. Sight and hearing onto the Material Plane are limited to 60 feet.

Force effects and abjurations affect an ethereal creature normally. Their effects extend onto the Ethereal Plane from the Material Plane, but not vice versa. An ethereal creature can’t attack material creatures, and spells you cast while ethereal affect only other ethereal things. Certain material creatures or objects have attacks or effects that work on the Ethereal Plane.

An ethereal creature treats other ethereal creatures and ethereal objects as if they were material.

ghost touch wrote:

Price +1 bonus; Aura moderate conjuration; CL 9th; Weight —

A ghost touch weapon deals damage normally against incorporeal creatures, regardless of its bonus. An incorporeal creature's 50% reduction in damage from corporeal sources does not apply to attacks made against it with ghost touch weapons. The weapon can be picked up and moved by an incorporeal creature at any time. A manifesting ghost can wield the weapon against corporeal foes. Essentially, a ghost touch weapon counts as both corporeal or incorporeal. This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons and ammunition.

Nothing in it's description gives any indication that it would effect ethereal creatures, it is neither force nor abjuration, nor does it say that it effects denizens of other planes.

The confusion comes in with the blink spell.

blink wrote:

You "blink" quickly back and forth between the Material Plane and the Ethereal Plane and look as though you're winking in and out of reality at random. Blink has several effects, as follows.

Physical attacks against you have a 50% miss chance, and the Blind-Fight feat doesn't help opponents, since you're ethereal and not merely invisible. If the attack is capable of striking ethereal creatures, the miss chance is only 20% (for concealment).

If the attacker can see invisible creatures, the miss chance is also only 20%. (For an attacker who can both see and strike ethereal creatures, there is no miss chance.) Likewise, your own attacks have a 20% miss chance, since you sometimes go ethereal just as you are about to strike.

Any individually targeted spell has a 50% chance to fail against you while you're blinking unless your attacker can target invisible, ethereal creatures. Your own spells have a 20% chance to activate just as you go ethereal, in which case they typically do not affect the Material Plane (but they might affect targets on the Ethereal Plane).

While blinking, you take only half damage from area attacks (but full damage from those that extend onto the Ethereal Plane). Although you are only partially visible, you are not considered invisible and targets retain their Dexterity bonus to AC against your attacks. You do receive a +2 bonus on attack rolls made against enemies that cannot see invisible creatures.

You take only half damage from falling, since you fall only while you are material.

While blinking, you can step through (but not see through) solid objects. For each 5 feet of solid material you walk through, there is a 50% chance that you become material. If this occurs, you are shunted off to the nearest open space and take 1d6 points of damage per 5 feet so traveled.

Since you spend about half your time on the Ethereal Plane, you can see and even attack ethereal creatures. You interact with ethereal creatures roughly the same way you interact with material ones.

An ethereal creature is invisible, incorporeal, and capable of moving in any direction, even up or down. As an incorporeal creature, you can move through solid objects, including living creatures.

An ethereal creature can see and hear the Material Plane, but everything looks gray and insubstantial. Sight and hearing on the Material Plane are limited to 60 feet.

Force effects and abjurations affect you normally. Their effects extend onto the Ethereal Plane from the Material Plane, but not vice versa. An ethereal creature can't attack material creatures, and spells you cast while ethereal affect only other ethereal things. Certain material creatures or objects have attacks or effects that work on the Ethereal Plane. Treat other ethereal creatures and objects as material.

This is the only place I know of that the rules say an ethereal creature is incorporeal, everywhere else (to my knowledge) says "insubstantial". Furthermore, the paragraph talking about physical attacks that are capable of striking ethereal creatures hints at ghost touch perhaps working. Are there any physical attacks capable of striking ethereal creatures?

Here is a link to where you clarified that ethereal things are not generally incorporeal.

[ckdragons]

Does the area of a fog cloud count as "poor visibility" and thus make the area "difficult terrain" for tactical movement? What about dim lighting where there is concealment (20%)?

[Catharsis]

Kineticist FAQ!

Suppose I Gather Energy, use a ranged blast, and get hit with an AoO. Do I take the Burn penalty, or has the energy already been invested in the blast at this point?

[Mark Seifter]

FAQ Friday squeaks in before the grand Paizo office fumigation/floor cleaning!

FAQ wrote:

Magus, Kensai: Many of the kensai’s abilities refer to “his chosen weapon.” Is that the “single martial or exotic melee weapon of his choice” from the Weapon and Armor Proficiency ability? If it isn’t, how do I decide what his chosen weapon actually is?

The chosen weapon does indeed refer to the single martial or exotic melee weapon he chose.

Also, my page took a while to load and just sort of hung up Catharsis's question, so I'll say that at that point you wouldn't be "before using the kinetic blast that releases it" since it would happen during using the kinetic blast (the part where you fire it off), so you'd be fine. Due to the AoO timing of intteruption and going before the action, the question is trickier if you refuse to kinetic blast on the defensive and get hit on the AoO from the SLA itself and not the ranged attack. That probably actually does mess you up badly.

[Gisher]

Hooray! FAQ Friday!

[Catharsis]

Yay! :) Also, ouch. That's a really good reason to invest in Acrobatics and/or Kinetic Blade. It also allows DMs to be really annoying by readying ranged attacks to disrupt Kineticists.

[Kalindlara]

Catharsis wrote:

It also allows DMs to be really annoying by readying ranged attacks to disrupt Kineticists.

Or allows players to mess up an enemy kineticist real badly. ^_^

[Catharsis]

One more Kineticist FAQ!

Do alternate racial features that raise CL for elemental magic, such as the Gnome's Pyromaniac and the Half-Orc's Stonesinger, also apply to Kineticists with the appropriate element? Kineticists are not explicitly listed, but of course these features predate the Kineticist, and they seem to be worded in a very inclusive roundabout way.

[Isabelle Lee]

Unfortunately, they have no effect as written. The question comes up a lot, for obvious reasons.

In a world of infinite wordcount, it would have been appropriate to include them alongside the various elemental affinity racial traits listed in Kinetic Invocation's Special entry. On the plus side, it's a simple houserule for anyone interested in doing so. ^_^

[Catharsis]

Isabelle Lee wrote:

Unfortunately, they have no effect as written. The question comes up a lot, for obvious reasons.

In a world of infinite wordcount, it would have been appropriate to include them alongside the various elemental affinity racial traits listed in Kinetic Invocation's Special entry. On the plus side, it's a simple houserule for anyone interested in doing so. ^_^

I can tell that the rules of the alternates class features as written do not include Kineticists, and I'm aware that houseruling is possible. Still, it would be vastly preferable to have an official ruling by the devs. Has there been such a ruling?

[Kalindlara]

They generally don't make rulings on things that unequivocally don't work as written, barring official FAQs and similar situations. (They used to, but it led to a lot more trouble than it was worth.) If they had to show up every time to say "that thing that doesn't work, really doesn't work", we'd never see the back of them.

That said, here's Mark Seifter (in all the glory of his Paizo staff regalia) explaining his recommendations for houseruling kineticists with Pyromaniac. ^_^

[Catharsis]

Kalindlara wrote:

That said, here's Mark Seifter (in all the glory of his Paizo staff regalia) explaining his recommendations for houseruling kineticists with Pyromaniac. ^_^

I'd consider Mark Seifter's recommendations as official as it gets short of actual printed rules. :)

The statement is a bit obscure it its wording, though. The way I interpret it, he thinks Pyromaniac should apply to Gnome Pyrokineticists where caster level explicitly comes into play, but not raise the blast damage (which would be keyed to class level rather than caster level)...? That's disappointing, but I guess it makes sense.

[Secret Wizard]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Mark what do you think about a brawler archetype that flips brawler's cunning? Instead of letting you ignore int provide some int synergy instead. Maybe canny defense from the duelist/kensai or some sort of knowledge check synergy, I'm not sure, but I think the idea sounds kinda cool.

It does sound kind of cool. In other brawler news, I can confirm that at a brainstorming meeting for <redacted>, my suggestion of "Brawler <tons of confused looks>; yes I know brawler doesn't match the theme at all, but it hasn't had stuff for a long time" was met with the inclusion of brawler to the outline. Woo!

Just saw this, bless your soul.

[Chess Pwn]

Secret Wizard wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Mark what do you think about a brawler archetype that flips brawler's cunning? Instead of letting you ignore int provide some int synergy instead. Maybe canny defense from the duelist/kensai or some sort of knowledge check synergy, I'm not sure, but I think the idea sounds kinda cool.

It does sound kind of cool. In other brawler news, I can confirm that at a brainstorming meeting for <redacted>, my suggestion of "Brawler <tons of confused looks>; yes I know brawler doesn't match the theme at all, but it hasn't had stuff for a long time" was met with the inclusion of brawler to the outline. Woo!

Just saw this, bless your soul.

Here's some more joy for you.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Remember when I said this? Well the book in question has been announced!!! So excited!

[Secret Wizard]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Secret Wizard wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Mark what do you think about a brawler archetype that flips brawler's cunning? Instead of letting you ignore int provide some int synergy instead. Maybe canny defense from the duelist/kensai or some sort of knowledge check synergy, I'm not sure, but I think the idea sounds kinda cool.

It does sound kind of cool. In other brawler news, I can confirm that at a brainstorming meeting for <redacted>, my suggestion of "Brawler <tons of confused looks>; yes I know brawler doesn't match the theme at all, but it hasn't had stuff for a long time" was met with the inclusion of brawler to the outline. Woo!

Just saw this, bless your soul.

Here's some more joy for you.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Remember when I said this? Well the book in question has been announced!!! So excited!

YES I WILL GET TO MAKE MY 3-YEARS-WITHOUT-A-BRAWLER-ARCHETYPE TOAST

PUTTING THE BUBBLY ON ICE

[TrinitysEnd]

So I just noticed this, but it's really rustled my jimmies and I have to ask a Developer about this.

Why does the Occultist get a useless Conjuration Implement Resonant Power?

Resonant Power:

Casting Focus (Su): The implement empowers the bearer’s ties to the worlds beyond, allowing his spells to maintain their power for a longer period of time. The bearer can add the implement as an additional focus component to any conjuration spell he casts that has a duration measured in rounds per level. If he does so, he adds 1 to his caster level for every 2 points of mental focus stored in the implement (to a maximum bonus equal to your occultist level). This increase applies only when determining the duration of the spell. Apply this increase after other effects that adjust a spell’s duration, such as Extend Spell.

Going through all the Conjuration Spells an Occultist can get normally, the list of spells that work are as follows:
Glitterdust - Level 2
Major Creation (But only for Rare Metals) - Level 4
Pocketful of Vipers (Likely doesn't work. But if it does, only for when the spell is discharged?) - Level 3

And that is it.

Was this supposed to have more use and then just never did?

[Renkosuke]

Catharsis wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

That said, here's Mark Seifter (in all the glory of his Paizo staff regalia) explaining his recommendations for houseruling kineticists with Pyromaniac. ^_^

I'd consider Mark Seifter's recommendations as official as it gets short of actual printed rules. :)

The statement is a bit obscure it its wording, though. The way I interpret it, he thinks Pyromaniac should apply to Gnome Pyrokineticists where caster level explicitly comes into play, but not raise the blast damage (which would be keyed to class level rather than caster level)...? That's disappointing, but I guess it makes sense.

This confuses me for two reasons.

1: The dwarf stonesinger and gnome pyromaniac abilities both mention level, not caster level, which is a huge distinction.

2: The Spell-like Ability entry in the core rulebook mentions that with the exception of casting time and components required, an SLA functions in all ways like a spell.

It would follow that, as written, pyromaniac and stonesinger would not only affect kinetic blasts, they would add +1 levei to the calculation for damage and spell level. You can make the argument that character level ≠ kineticist level, but you can say the same for character level ≠ caster level for actual spells.

Without dev intervention, as written, this combination should work. Which is a shame since gnomes and dwarves are already solid kineticists. I would actually prefer this to get removed since otherwise I have to continue to put up with a certain Danish 5-star GM bringing his dwarf-oread kineticist to my tables T-T

[GM Tyrant Princess]

Just rule against it. Someone's star count is no measure of their rules authority, and you have the developer who created the class right there, all but saying that it doesn't officially work that way. If your player contests it, tell him to take it up the chain.

[AlgaeNymph]

finally, I'm at the end of this thread.

Question... I need to actually have a question...

Ah.

What empyreal lord do you most identify with, and why?

[Gisher]

TrinitysEnd wrote:

So I just noticed this, but it's really rustled my jimmies and I have to ask a Developer about this.

Why does the Occultist get a useless Conjuration Implement Resonant Power?

** spoiler omitted **

Going through all the Conjuration Spells an Occultist can get normally, the list of spells that work are as follows:
Glitterdust - Level 2
Major Creation (But only for Rare Metals) - Level 4
Pocketful of Vipers (Likely doesn't work. But if it does, only for when the spell is discharged?) - Level 3

And that is it.

Was this supposed to have more use and then just never did?

Mark's previous answer to this question.

[TrinitysEnd]

Gisher wrote:

TrinitysEnd wrote:

So I just noticed this, but it's really rustled my jimmies and I have to ask a Developer about this.

Why does the Occultist get a useless Conjuration Implement Resonant Power?

** spoiler omitted **

Going through all the Conjuration Spells an Occultist can get normally, the list of spells that work are as follows:
Glitterdust - Level 2
Major Creation (But only for Rare Metals) - Level 4
Pocketful of Vipers (Likely doesn't work. But if it does, only for when the spell is discharged?) - Level 3

And that is it.

Was this supposed to have more use and then just never did?

Mark's previous answer to this question.

Thank you Gisher! Still kind of sad, but at least that answers it.

[Gisher]

However, it is really nice if you are playing a Haunt Collector. Solid spells, great focus powers, and a resonant power that you won't mind trading for a Medium Spirit.

[Mark Seifter]

GM Tyrant Princess wrote:

Just rule against it. Someone's star count is no measure of their rules authority, and you have the designer who created the class right there, all but saying that it doesn't officially work that way. If your player contests it, tell him to take it up the chain.

Isabelle is right. As written, it probably doesn't work with kineticist (pyromaniac lists precisely what class abilities it works with, and kineticist isn't on that list; it doesn't have any "and so on" wording). I presented a possible houserule to allow it on caster level checks as a potential compromise between the likely as-written (no effect) and the game-balance-issue other possibility of "+1 level for all things of that element, which for kineticist is the entire class".

[Brew Bird]

Hey Mark, forgive me if this isn't the place to ask, but do you have any input on this issue? I've been trying to find an answer to no avail, and with the recent publishing of the Serial Killer Vigilante (a new archetype that gets studied target), the question's been coming up again at my table.

[Renkosuke]

Mark Seifter wrote:

GM Tyrant Princess wrote:

Just rule against it. Someone's star count is no measure of their rules authority, and you have the designer who created the class right there, all but saying that it doesn't officially work that way. If your player contests it, tell him to take it up the chain.

Isabelle is right. As written, it probably doesn't work with kineticist (pyromaniac lists precisely what class abilities it works with, and kineticist isn't on that list; it doesn't have any "and so on" wording). I presented a possible houserule to allow it on caster level checks as a potential compromise between the likely as-written (no effect) and the game-balance-issue other possibility of "+1 level for all things of that element, which for kineticist is the entire class".

Alright, thanks! I think the largest argument on the side that it does work was "casting spells with the fire descriptor", which was argued to work with SLA's because SLA's say they work in every other way like spells (aside from the lack of components and whatnot). Of course, in practice there are a lot of places where SLAs differ from Spells, but from now on I'll point them toward this thread and look smug.

[Renkosuke]

Coincidentally, would this also mean that feats like Elemental Focus and the Affinity for the Elements trait don't function with Kinetic Blasts?

[Mark Seifter]

Renkosuke wrote:

Coincidentally, would this also mean that feats like Elemental Focus and the Affinity for the Elements trait don't function with Kinetic Blasts?

There's a spectrum of possibilities on the spell vs. SLA question, and I have a post back somewhere where I tried to rate the likelihoods of various options on that spectrum, while ultimately there's no clear cutoff. "Casts" is one useful word to look for, and it separates the feats from the trait, making the trait less likely to apply. In the case of the racial abilities, as I mentioned in Isabelle's linked post, not only do they use cast, they go out of their way to list several class abilities that are SLAs (and groupings whose activated portions contain only SLAs) as applying under an "or" when compared to casting a spell, whereas that would be an odd (but not impossible) choice if the spellcasting was supposed to already cover it.

[DrakeRoberts]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Renkosuke wrote:

Coincidentally, would this also mean that feats like Elemental Focus and the Affinity for the Elements trait don't function with Kinetic Blasts?

There's a spectrum of possibilities on the spell vs. SLA question, and I have a post back somewhere where I tried to rate the likelihoods of various options on that spectrum, while ultimately there's no clear cutoff. "Casts" is one useful word to look for, and it separates the feats from the trait, making the trait less likely to apply. In the case of the racial abilities, as I mentioned in Isabelle's linked post, not only do they use cast, they go out of their way to list several class abilities that are SLAs (and groupings whose activated portions contain only SLAs) as applying under an "or" when compared to casting a spell, whereas that would be an odd (but not impossible) choice if the spellcasting was supposed to already cover it.

That was in reply to one of my threads on the rules forum. It has shaped my newest kineticist greatly, and while I took the trait (because it is worded pretty much just like spell focus which there is decent evidence of working with SLAs) but not the steamcaster feat I'd love so very much. That said, and I pretty much always agree with and defer to your rules logic when making rulings, your SLA logic I find a bit off. Specifically, the section in the Magic part of the CRB that talks about SLAs mentions them having a "casting time" and, at the very end, talks about how an SLA of certain qualities "is cast at the class level the ability is granted." To me, they must therefore truly be cast, and the distinguishing factor as to what does/doesn't work should be if something like 'slots' or 'prepared' or some such are referenced (including not using higher slots as usual, ala metamagic rods). Is there something I'm missing in that analysis, or does that seem reasonable to you, Mark?

[Mark Seifter]

DrakeRoberts wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Renkosuke wrote:

Coincidentally, would this also mean that feats like Elemental Focus and the Affinity for the Elements trait don't function with Kinetic Blasts?

There's a spectrum of possibilities on the spell vs. SLA question, and I have a post back somewhere where I tried to rate the likelihoods of various options on that spectrum, while ultimately there's no clear cutoff. "Casts" is one useful word to look for, and it separates the feats from the trait, making the trait less likely to apply. In the case of the racial abilities, as I mentioned in Isabelle's linked post, not only do they use cast, they go out of their way to list several class abilities that are SLAs (and groupings whose activated portions contain only SLAs) as applying under an "or" when compared to casting a spell, whereas that would be an odd (but not impossible) choice if the spellcasting was supposed to already cover it.

That was in reply to one of my threads on the rules forum. It has shaped my newest kineticist greatly, and while I took the trait (because it is worded pretty much just like spell focus which there is decent evidence of working with SLAs) but not the steamcaster feat I'd love so very much. That said, and I pretty much always agree with and defer to your rules logic when making rulings, your SLA logic I find a bit off. Specifically, the section in the Magic part of the CRB that talks about SLAs mentions them having a "casting time" and, at the very end, talks about how an SLA of certain qualities "is cast at the class level the ability is granted." To me, they must therefore truly be cast, and the distinguishing factor as to what does/doesn't work should be if something like 'slots' or 'prepared' or some such are referenced (including not using higher slots as usual, ala metamagic rods). Is there something I'm missing in that analysis, or does that seem reasonable to you, Mark?

To be honest, the main reason I can only answer the overall question with that spectrum from most to least likely to apply is because I suspect that SLAs, like "wielding", exist in a state where the same naming convention covers two or more ideas that seem to work in different ways (in this case, with a few FAQs to help cover some of the gap and try to guess questions like effective spell levels, divine vs. arcane, and more). And it may be an irreconcilable difference without a gaming group to sit together and decide which way the wind should blow on each issue (also like wielding). With hindsight and understanding the sort of time and other constraints on the production of the CRB, terminologies like these could have certainly been clearer from the get-go. I would be very hesitant to say as a rule that an ability that says "You can do X when casting a spell" would work where an otherwise identical ability that appended "without affecting the spell slot required" would not.

[DrakeRoberts]

Mark Seifter wrote:

I would be very hesitant to say that an ability that says "You can do X when casting a spell" would work where an otherwise identical ability that appended "without affecting the spell slot required" would not.

I agree, which is why I chose not to give my PFS undine hydro/pyro-kineticist steamcaster with much sadness. That said, I do think that an important difference between the rod and steamcaster is that the rod mentions the slots (which SLAs don't have) and employs metamagics (which revolve around slots), whereas steamcaster is utilized by a change of casting time, which an SLA explicitly has. It seems that both mechanically/rules-lawyery-wise and balance-wise that is a potentially notable distinction. But alas, as flavor-perfect and balanced as the steamcaster option would be in the kineticist situation, I agree that the entire SLA issue is best avoided in PFS for people who are exceedingly cautious about not straying from the rules, even accidentally. I do, however, feel that the examples of Spell Focus working with SLA (such as in Bestiary entries) suggests that it is a perfectly reasonable interpreation for the Affinity trait to work with Kineticist SLAs, personally. I do wish we'd eventually get some sort of clear signal on things like this and bardic masterpieces at some point, however, as I hate tip-toeing around options and feeling guilty that I may unwittingly be cheating.

[DrakeRoberts]

On another note, I find it annoying that a water blasting kineticist seems so poor at attacking in underwater combat (blast-wise). Am I missing something with that? Do you think a conductive underwater crossbow could conduct a fire kinetic blast, or would that fail/need a concentration check to use? Seems silly to have to resort to my fire blast underwater to do damage, when I should be so strong within my water-element, but without steamcaster, it seems this might be my best option? Any ideas are GREATLY appreciated!

[Kalindlara]

Mr. Seifter has noted elsewhere that the upcoming Aquatic Adventures will specifically discuss how kinetic blasts (especially water blasts) function underwater. ^_^

[DrakeRoberts]

Kalindlara wrote:

Mr. Seifter has noted elsewhere that the upcoming Aquatic Adventures will specifically discuss how kinetic blasts (especially water blasts) function underwater. ^_^

Didn't even know that such a book was coming out. A shame that I'm in so many water missions right now then, but perhaps I will hold off before playing the 2 upcoming Plane of Water PFS scenarios then. Thanks!

[Mark Seifter]

What it says is that water blasts (and some other watery attack abilities that would be in the same boat) work at full power underwater, though granted it isn't in print yet.

[Chess Pwn]

yeah, the FAQ that augment summons works for SLA is a strong proponent of things working for SLA as far as I can see.

[Gisher]

Mark Seifter wrote:

GM Tyrant Princess wrote:

Just rule against it. Someone's star count is no measure of their rules authority, and you have the designer who created the class right there, all but saying that it doesn't officially work that way. If your player contests it, tell him to take it up the chain.

Isabelle is right.

...

In my experience, that's usually a safe bet. ;)

[DrakeRoberts]

Mark Seifter wrote:

What it says is that water blasts (and some other watery attack abilities that would be in the same boat) work at full power underwater, though granted it isn't in print yet.

That is wonderful. Are they still subjected to ranged weapon attack penalties based on every 5' they travel? I'm assuming that under current rules those penalties still apply, yes?

[Squiggit]

Brew Bird wrote:

Hey Mark, forgive me if this isn't the place to ask, but do you have any input on this issue? I've been trying to find an answer to no avail, and with the recent publishing of the Serial Killer Vigilante (a new archetype that gets studied target), the question's been coming up again at my table.

I don't want to hijack you brew bird, but I think this goes to a much larger issue in general of whether or not archetypes that borrow class abilities should replace references to the original class with references to their own.

Applies to other things too, like whether or not daring champion cavaliers get any damage from precise strike or whether or not exploiter wizards can improve their spell DCs and... a lot more.

[Mark Seifter]

If you like brainstorming weird past life ideas, I'm doing so for an amnesiac samsaran psychic who's much more ruled by her past lives than normal for an Ironfang Invasion campaign starting on Saturday. Right now I'm collecting ideas on my Facebook fan page, but I can peek on this thread as well. My goal is to have a d20 chart (or d100 chart eventually if I get ambitious) that I can use to decide which ancestor is more prominent. I mentioned more details on my post in the link, but the short version is most of the ancestors should be from Tian Xia, and something short like "vigilante attempting to undermine Imperial Lung Wa" is what I'm gathering right now.

[BigNorseWolf]

"My life is one big family reunion...