The complexities of the kineticist


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Congratulations to Paizo on making the most complicated class to date. Between the playtest and the final version, I had to read the class entry over no less than six times before it started to click. Between the redundant terminologies (wild talent this and wild talent that, pseudokinesis this and pseudokinesis that), the constant back and forth caused by all the "see page X for [this class' abilities]", and all the big sciency words, it's no wonder it took even an accomplished reader such as myself so long to wrap their head around it. God forbid someone with dyslexia wants to play this class!

Did anyone else have trouble making sense of its class abilities upon their first (or even second and third) read through?

Even now, I can't help but think it's stats will be ever evolving as it gains and loses burn, slowing the game down as everyone tries to figure out what all the new numbers are.

Does anyone else think the class could have been simplified (in the way it was written, if not in the way it was designed as well) and made more efficient. If so, how?

It looks like a great class that covers a lot of cool character concepts, and I can't wait to try it out, but I'm left to wonder about the quality of its execution. I think more thought could have gone into making it an easier read. For example, having more defined game terms for its class abilities might have made things a little bit easier to grasp I think. Instead of constantly saying everything's full name (blast wild talent, infusion wild talent, form infusion wild talent, utility wild talent, etc.; quite the mouthful to say the least) they could have just used the base names most of the time (blast, infusion, utility, etc.) to avoid misreadings and misunderstandings.


I didn't have any problems reading it over other than talents sharing a name and the basic kinesis powers being in a weird spot.

Oh and the saving throws being different for different things, I guess.


Should we tell him about vancian casting?


I didn't look at the classes in the playtest, and had a similar hard time getting to understand the kineticist.
The different types of wild talents was one thing.
Finding out how much damage a blast makes was another.
The effects of some wild talents (Blue fire?) did it some more.


Didn't feel any more complicated than metamagic or alchemist/barbarian I guess.

but I generally set up premath for most things so it doesnt' look like it'll slow down for me.

Shadow Lodge

I think it's an interesting class personally


It's a great class but it makes me glad I use Hero Lab to track stats. Mostly because of things that stay buffed for the whole day when you spend burn though.


It's more complicated then any of the classes from ACG but so are most of the classes from the OA book in general.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Foul II wrote:
I think it's an interesting class personally

Oh yeah, they totally nailed it on that aspect. I'm merely worried about the technical complexities.


Also to be honest I found the medium and occultist to more complicated then the kineticist especially the playtest versions.


I can only comment on the playtest so far, but I didn't consider the Kineticist terribly complex. Definitely a lot simpler than the Medium.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Lord Foul II wrote:
I think it's an interesting class personally
Oh yeah, they totally nailed it on that aspect. I'm merely worried about the technical complexities.

For you, doesn't that usually translate into "Gold mine for corner interpretations of rules I need to work out?"


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Lord Foul II wrote:
I think it's an interesting class personally
Oh yeah, they totally nailed it on that aspect. I'm merely worried about the technical complexities.
For you, doesn't that usually translate into "Gold mine for corner interpretations of rules I need to work out?"

Paizo keeps me quite busy. There is certainly getting to be less and less time in the day. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Kineticist is designed to have versatility only outmatched by a Vancian caster; I don't think you could make it less complex without losing a lot of what makes the class great.

Designer

Arachnofiend wrote:
The Kineticist is designed to have versatility only outmatched by a Vancian caster; I don't think you could make it less complex without losing a lot of what makes the class great.

I can understand the just using "simple blast" or "form infusion." Truth be told, that's how I had it after the design passes. Putting the full name with wild talent every time is something the editors do to make it easier to understand. If it's actually making it harder, it's good feedback that I can tell the editors next time we're in a similar situation.

Grand Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I love the class, but I do wish the talents had been sorted by level instead of alphabetically.


I didn't have any issue with it. I read it twice before I became used to used to it. Initial reading while devouring the whole book and second reading catch anything I missed.


Ravingdork wrote:

Congratulations to Paizo on making the most complicated class to date. Between the playtest and the final version, I had to read the class entry over no less than six times before it started to click. Between the redundant terminologies (wild talent this and wild talent that, pseudokinesis this and pseudokinesis that), the constant back and forth caused by all the "see page X for [this class' abilities]", and all the big sciency words, it's no wonder it took even an accomplished reader such as myself so long to wrap their head around it. God forbid someone with dyslexia wants to play this class!

Did anyone else have trouble making sense of its class abilities upon their first (or even second and third) read through?

Even now, I can't help but think it's stats will be ever evolving as it gains and loses burn, slowing the game down as everyone tries to figure out what all the new numbers are.

Does anyone else think the class could have been simplified (in the way it was written, if not in the way it was designed as well) and made more efficient. If so, how?

It looks like a great class that covers a lot of cool character concepts, and I can't wait to try it out, but I'm left to wonder about the quality of its execution. I think more thought could have gone into making it an easier read. For example, having more defined game terms for its class abilities might have made things a little bit easier to grasp I think. Instead of constantly saying everything's full name (blast wild talent, infusion wild talent, form infusion wild talent, utility wild talent, etc.; quite the mouthful to say the least) they could have just used the base names most of the time (blast, infusion, utility, etc.) to avoid misreadings and misunderstandings.

Doesn't seem that bad to me. Odd levels give you extra dice on your blast + an infusion. Even levels give you a wild talent plus your potential level cap on the talent increases. Burn is the only 'resource' you track and you're capped based on level and Con mod on how much you can take in 1 round or 1 day. You can bank burn from prior days eventually and you can 'chargin muh lazor' to reduce it on blasts. Overall, it's very different, but not seemingly so complex that it would take me ages to level-up such a character or run a turn for them. In fact, I imagine it'd actually be quite quick compared to choosing to play a prepared caster. Aside from having so many cool options to choose from and agonizingly narrow it down to one each level, my only complaint with the class is that burn does so much non-lethal damage to you. Other than that, I love it!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The Kineticist is designed to have versatility only outmatched by a Vancian caster; I don't think you could make it less complex without losing a lot of what makes the class great.
I can understand the just using "simple blast" or "form infusion." Truth be told, that's how I had it after the design passes. Putting the full name with wild talent every time is something the editors do to make it easier to understand. If it's actually making it harder, it's good feedback that I can tell the editors next time we're in a similar situation.

I feel it would have been enough to have state that blasts, defense, infusions (and its two sub-categories), and utility were all different types of wild talents. Would have saved a bit of page space too probably.

But when it says things like "infusion wild talent" and "form wild talent" I start thinking of them as being in the "wild talent" group, not the latter being in another subgroup of the former.


I don't have the book yet, but for my $.02 I'd say it's important to have classes with a wide variety of complexity.

After a couple decades, straight fighter with or without a couple feat chains, or straight rogue, or straight whatever starts to get... unchallenging. More fiddly bits is a good thing. And for new(ish) players or those who are looking to be too drunk/asleep for math after the first hour of a session, there are still classes for you.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The Kineticist is designed to have versatility only outmatched by a Vancian caster; I don't think you could make it less complex without losing a lot of what makes the class great.
I can understand the just using "simple blast" or "form infusion." Truth be told, that's how I had it after the design passes. Putting the full name with wild talent every time is something the editors do to make it easier to understand. If it's actually making it harder, it's good feedback that I can tell the editors next time we're in a similar situation.

I feel it would have been enough to have state that blasts, defense, infusions (and its two sub-categories), and utility were all different types of wild talents. Would have saved a bit of page space too probably.

But when it says things like "infusion wild talent" and "form wild talent" I start thinking of them as being in the "wild talent" group, not the latter being in another subgroup of the former.

Yeah, that's how I initially had it. I find this feedback extremely useful in the PDT's conversations with the editors though, in the future (in case we have to decide something like this, where the editors generally prefer spelling it out as being less confusing), so thank you!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:


For you, doesn't that usually translate into "Gold mine for corner interpretations of rules I need to work out?"

Did you really come into this thread only to attack ravingdork? Do you have a personal vendetta against him?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
LazarX wrote:


For you, doesn't that usually translate into "Gold mine for corner interpretations of rules I need to work out?"

Did you really come into this thread only to attack ravingdork? Do you have a personal vendetta against him?

It's okay. He gets a free pass at such things.


One of my players very first pathfinder characters was/is a kineticist/mutagenic brawler gestalt, and the only factor he got confused with was figuring out whether the ability score increases from both classes stacked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Is there no one else?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

While in the process of trying to make a 6th-level kineticist, I realized that I couldn't take the 3rd-level infusion I wanted (even though my character meets the prerequisite of being twice its level) because the next opportunity to get it is 9th-level, not 6th or 7th.

Why is that? That makes it so there is literally no difference whatsoever between a 3rd-, 4th-, and 5th-level infusions except for their DCs and Concentration modifiers.

It also means a person can't get a low-level infusion, like the Snake form infusion wild talent (mouth full!), until 9th-level!

At first I thought, well I'll just retrain the class ability at 6th-level to get it then. Except the retraining rules only cover specific class abilities, and Occult Adventures doesn't seem to really go into that at all.

Then I thought maybe there is a built in switching mechanic, like how sorcerers switch out spells known. When I looked into it, however, the next available opportunity to switch out an infusion was 11th-level!

Next, I recalled that there was an Extra Wild Talent feat that would allow me to get it at 6th (since we all know that feats can definitely be retrained). However, when I looked that up I then found that the feat only allows for certain wild talents that are 2 levels lower than your maximum! That means I would only be able to get another 1st-level infusion or utility at 6th-level!

Why is it so hard to get a low-level infusion? Shouldn't there also be one at 7th- and 15th-level? Those gaps really muck things up! You'll end up with people essentially skipping over the low-level 3rd- and 4th-level infusions altogether in order to go straight for the more powerful 5th-level infusions (or the 5th- and 7th-level infusions for the 9th-level infusions for that higher level gap).

Why do those gaps exist? What could possibly be the design philosophy behind having them? Is it an error? The iconic kineticist Yoon is only 7th-level, and yet has a 3rd-level infusion...somehow (she also appears to have too many infusions). Please say it is a mistake and we are supposed to be able to get them sooner than 9th-level!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

"At 6th, 10th, and 16th levels, a kineticist can replace one of her utility wild talents with another wild talent of the same level or lower." Maybe use this to replace the utility wild talent you get at 6th level with an infusion wild talent?

EDIT: Expanded element at 7th level allows you to choose another utility or infusion if you stick with the same element (which probably explains Yoon.) Same thing at 15th level. These fill in the gaps for kineticists that stick with the same element.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Oh, it seems you can get the 7th- and 15th-level wild talents through Expanded Element. I guess that's where the extra talents are supposed to come from.

*facepalm*

EDIT: Ninja'd!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

And responded to while I was bolding :)

Silver Crusade

I hope it's not too complex, I have a lot to work to do with it once it's out. The playtest didn't seem too complex, but that's obviously a rough draft of a finished class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If people really are having a hard time doing the math on pen and paper then switch to hero lab. A couple of clicks and the math you have to do in your head is done for you. There are always easier ways to do things. They could of done it easier in editing but it's too late for that now, the book is printed and shipped, why are you complaining about something that can't be changed.

Now that the book is printed there are still ways to make it easier, such as hero lab.

Instead of criticizing the work or the writing, or complaining about something that can't be changed now, why don't you talk about what you liked about the class, and help people understand it by writing something about the ability you feel is a simpler explanation.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Funny stuff ::rollseyes:: Alric, you are obviously unaware of RD's presence as a weird character creating machine.

Additionally, suggesting a tool that only has the playtest version of the class currently is not overly helpful to those who wish to build a character with the "printed and shipped" version of the rules.

EDIT: Thirdly: This has been rated as useful feedback by a member of Paizo staff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alric Rahl wrote:

If people really are having a hard time doing the math on pen and paper then switch to hero lab. A couple of clicks and the math you have to do in your head is done for you. There are always easier ways to do things. They could of done it easier in editing but it's too late for that now, the book is printed and shipped, why are you complaining about something that can't be changed.

Now that the book is printed there are still ways to make it easier, such as hero lab.

Instead of criticizing the work or the writing, or complaining about something that can't be changed now, why don't you talk about what you liked about the class, and help people understand it by writing something about the ability you feel is a simpler explanation.

Except it can make things better, either in later prints, or in future products.

Also, criticizing someone's attempt to make a product better isn't really a good standard to be setting.

What's more, not everyone can (or are willing to) pay for Hero Lab. Last I heard, they charge you for each book you want to use in the program. I have better places for my money to go than the doubling of my roleplaying budget.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alric Rahl wrote:

If people really are having a hard time doing the math on pen and paper then switch to hero lab. A couple of clicks and the math you have to do in your head is done for you. There are always easier ways to do things. They could of done it easier in editing but it's too late for that now, the book is printed and shipped, why are you complaining about something that can't be changed.

Now that the book is printed there are still ways to make it easier, such as hero lab.

Instead of criticizing the work or the writing, or complaining about something that can't be changed now, why don't you talk about what you liked about the class, and help people understand it by writing something about the ability you feel is a simpler explanation.

I do like to hear what people think about wording so I can do even better at wording things next time (or bring them as tools in my bag if I get into a discussion with other teams about how to word things). However, that said, your idea about posting cool things people are finding or a short guide for new players about the kineticist is one that excites me. Heck, if no one else writes a kineticist guide for a long time, maybe I'll have to return to the optimization guide circuit to write one (though I'd much rather see the opinions of a few different people other than me, as I've noticed that people all have different elements they love and favor over the others, so it would be amazing if we had five guides, each written by someone who liked that element the best!).

Dark Archive

I still refer to your guides every now and then, Mark, so don't feel like you can't write one up every once in a while. ;)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alric Rahl wrote:
If people really are having a hard time doing the math on pen and paper then switch to hero lab.

I use Herolab. But I also keep in mind that Herolab is a shortcut, not a means of teaching the system, and doing the work the hard way is what's going to teach you how to see if someone is doing it right as a GM.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seranov wrote:
I still refer to your guides every now and then, Mark, so don't feel like you can't write one up every once in a while. ;)

They're a little out of date now. Hoo boy! I look back at what I said back then and often think "Yeah, these things are so not true any more with all the new books that came out since then raising the bar," given how much of those classes' niches have been stolen since then. But given that you actually wind up playing a core-only game, I still stand by most of my blue/green/orange/red ratings, including my snarky comments about bad options (I think it's important for me to be critical where it is due, since I hope that it helps convey that I'm being honest when I talk about how excited I am about things; I'm just easily excitable by stuff I find cool!).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CWheezy wrote:
LazarX wrote:


For you, doesn't that usually translate into "Gold mine for corner interpretations of rules I need to work out?"

Did you really come into this thread only to attack ravingdork? Do you have a personal vendetta against him?

I have never attacked RD personally. He's mellowed out a bit lately but those who know his posting history will acknowledge that he's shaved RAW very tightly to argue for some questionable corner interpretations.

If you feel that I ever meant it personally, RD. Know that it was never intended to be so.

Silver Crusade

Mark Seifter wrote:
I do like to hear what people think about wording so I can do even better at wording things next time (or bring them as tools in my bag if I get into a discussion with other teams about how to word things). However, that said, your idea about posting cool things people are finding or a short guide for new players about the kineticist is one that excites me. Heck, if no one else writes a kineticist guide for a long time, maybe I'll have to return to the optimization guide circuit to write one (though I'd much rather see the opinions of a few different people other than me, as I've noticed that people all have different elements they love and favor over the others, so it would be amazing if we had five guides, each written by someone who liked that element the best!).

...I've been saying I was going to write one since the play test.

Designer

N. Jolly wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I do like to hear what people think about wording so I can do even better at wording things next time (or bring them as tools in my bag if I get into a discussion with other teams about how to word things). However, that said, your idea about posting cool things people are finding or a short guide for new players about the kineticist is one that excites me. Heck, if no one else writes a kineticist guide for a long time, maybe I'll have to return to the optimization guide circuit to write one (though I'd much rather see the opinions of a few different people other than me, as I've noticed that people all have different elements they love and favor over the others, so it would be amazing if we had five guides, each written by someone who liked that element the best!).
...I've been saying I was going to write one since the play test.

Cool, I've always liked your alchemist guide! It's more complete than Ogre's (which I was about to write an alchemist guide the day Ogre posted, oddly enough). I'm greedy, but I'm hoping for EVEN MOAR GUIDES too.

Silver Crusade

Mark Seifter wrote:
Cool, I've always liked your alchemist guide! It's more complete than Ogre's (which I was about to write an alchemist guide the day Ogre posted, oddly enough). I'm greedy, but I'm hoping for EVEN MOAR GUIDES too.

It was also put out about 2 years later than Ogre's, I never liked theres to begin with though, which was the reason I made mine and even got into guide writing.

I plan to give a solid guide for this class to alleviate the need for more than one, although I wholeheartedly welcome others to make one too. I'm just well aware of the work that goes into it, and so I don't expect to see a torrent of guides.

I'm hoping it's not too complex, because while I'm known for helping with the ease of playing something, there's only so much I can do.

And if you've only checked out my Alchemist guide, I'd suggest giving my others a look, especially my beginner character building guide, which I think is a great tool to help get new players into things.

I'm looking forward to putting together my Avatar: TLA/LOK themed guide for this though, it looks like you put a lot of work into this class and I enjoyed following along in the playtest.

Designer

N. Jolly wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Cool, I've always liked your alchemist guide! It's more complete than Ogre's (which I was about to write an alchemist guide the day Ogre posted, oddly enough). I'm greedy, but I'm hoping for EVEN MOAR GUIDES too.

It was also put out about 2 years later than Ogre's, I never liked theres to begin with though, which was the reason I made mine and even got into guide writing.

I plan to give a solid guide for this class to alleviate the need for more than one, although I wholeheartedly welcome others to make one too. I'm just well aware of the work that goes into it, and so I don't expect to see a torrent of guides.

I'm hoping it's not too complex, because while I'm known for helping with the ease of playing something, there's only so much I can do.

And if you've only checked out my Alchemist guide, I'd suggest giving my others a look, especially my beginner character building guide, which I think is a great tool to help get new players into things.

I'm looking forward to putting together my Avatar: TLA/LOK themed guide for this though, it looks like you put a lot of work into this class and I enjoyed following along in the playtest.

I have only had time to read the beginning part, but that looks like a really good guide too!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
LazarX wrote:


For you, doesn't that usually translate into "Gold mine for corner interpretations of rules I need to work out?"

Did you really come into this thread only to attack ravingdork? Do you have a personal vendetta against him?

I have never attacked RD personally. He's mellowed out a bit lately but those who know his posting history will acknowledge that he's shaved RAW very tightly to argue for some questionable corner interpretations.

If you feel that I ever meant it personally, RD. Know that it was never intended to be so.

I didn't really take offense to your post in this thread. It's totally true that I get excited about the possible rules vaguaries. The only time people's comments bother me is either 1) when it is a direct attack against me, or 2) it is something that might hurt the chances of my getting a worthwhile answer.

I am a little curious to know what you meant by "mellowed out" though. I've not observed that myself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of particularly complicated classes usually become a lot simpler when you actually make a character.

Sometimes the act of making a character sheet makes it worlds simpler.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Insain Dragoon wrote:

A lot of particularly complicated classes usually become a lot simpler when you actually make a character.

Sometimes the act of making a character sheet makes it worlds simpler.

I totally agree with this sentiment.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Can someone help me better understand Yoon's statblock? Specifically her blast notations?

It reads as follows:
Kinetic Blasts—fire blast +8 (4d6+2), blue flame blast +10 (8d6+2)

At first I thought the numbers were attack and damage rolls, but none of them seem to be adding up. What are they supposed to be representing?


They are the attack/damage rolls, but there's a series of typos to be corrected. It should be +10 on fire blast and +12 on blue flame blast - +5 BAB +4 DEX +1 size. Elemental Overflow provides +2 attack and damage for blue flame blast because it requires 2 burn to use. Damage should be 8d6+4 for blue flame blast.

Silver Crusade

I thought it was +2 attack and +4 damage?


Endoralis wrote:
I thought it was +2 attack and +4 damage?

You are correct. Had to re-read that passage. With that in mind, that puts BFB to 8d6+6 if you're accepting burn to use it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Shouldn't she also be getting an additional +5 to damage for her Constitution modifier?

1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The complexities of the kineticist All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.