GM's Kneejerk reaction to Kineticist?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


So we're playing Skulls & Shackles, game gets to Level 6. This was around the time I decided to join, and I said; "Hey, I wanna play a Kineticist." "What's that?" Asks my GM. "It's a class in the new Occult Classes hardcover," I say, with a big smile on my face.

"I'll have to look at it," my GM says with a sidelong glance and completely straight face. I already ave a bad feeling.

I take a shower, something that takes me about twenty minutes 'cause, y'know - I enjoy my showers. My GM is similarly smiling.

"Woo! No." "What? Why?" "That Kineticist damage, stacks faster than a Rogue's sneak attack. Makes Gunslinger damage output look like little peashooters. Nah, man - no Kineticist. Everything in Occult Adventures is OP, game breaking, and makes every other class in the game obsolete."

I knew this was going to happen. I ask that those of you who can please list every tiny little detail as to why he is wrong about the Kineticist. I need exact numbers, probabilities, with one optimized build for straight damage and other examples used from a build meant for general play. That's probably asking a lot, but this fella' had a complete kneejerk reaction that needs to be put to rest. He's a good GM when he's playing, but the guy just refuses to listen to me and thinks I'm trying to play something overpowered - this is the guy who thinks the Alchemist is a super-broken OP class now matter how it's played, and outright banned both it AND the Swashbuckler at one point from play on the grounds they were 'unstoppable killing machines.'

I've tried getting the water blast replaced with a 3+CON Hydraulic Push (like the Ocean domain Cleric) and he still never gave the 'okay.' He said "I'll have to think about it." and then never once brought it up again, and would just shrug whenever I would bring it up and ignore me - which I found odd, since the only thing he brought up as OP WERE the blasts.


If he's banned the Swashbuckler for being to OP, just accept the Occult ban. You can't force a person to change their mind. And if you try and force them to he'll probably resent you, still not let you play it, and not want you to play at all. Find something you'd like to play that's allowed.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Your GM was in the shower with you, smiling, and you STILL aren't allowed to play it?

You got... um...
screwed?

Nyuck nyuck nyuck.


Swashbuckler is OP?

Time to roll up a Core Rogue and hey, take it easy on your feat selection - you wouldn't want to make this guy think you're powergaming...


DM_Blake wrote:

Swashbuckler is OP?

Time to roll up a Core Rogue and hey, take it easy on your feat selection - you wouldn't want to make this guy think you're powergaming...

Heck, I think Adept might be more balanced...


RebelOrdinator wrote:
... Hoo boy, alright. He's obviously in the wrong as a GM, but alright. :| Thanks. Taking the problem seriously and all that.

No the problem is that you won't really be able to reason with the guy, he's not willing to listen to you, so when you show up with pages of comments showing that he should, he won't read those either.

Sorry.


I was under the impression that swashbuckler was one of the weaker classes...

yeesh.

For a bit of advice, remind the GM that the kineticist is limited to a single standard action per round, wheras the rogue can stack iteratives onto his sneak attack. In addition, remind him that the rogue gets his weapon damage in addition to his sneak attack damage, whereas the kineticist's blast damage is ALL his damage.

In addition, if we're talking about core rogue, remind him that it's a horrendously underpowered class and shouldn't be used as a basis of balance.

And finally, if he wants to ban overpowered classes, remind him that nothing is more game-breaking than a wizard.

EDIT: Also, remind him that if the kineticist had only the same damage as the rogue but the rogue gets to keep all of his skill and talent utility, the kineticist would be clearly underpowered.


There are maybe four threads on the first two pages of the forums. maybe on the very first page of the forum depending on when you look. these threads are hundreds of posts complaining about or looking for ways to bring the kineticist damage output "up to par" It functions on a different mind set than the other classes in the game but it doesnt master DPR. There is little to no feat support for the class so what you see is what you get. and what you get is a once per round blast that is subject to either DR or energy resistance with a limited range that averages 5-7 damage per level. a few times per day, ballpark it at 7 once you are in the double digit levels, you can boost your capabilities to almost reach the damage of a blaster caster but at the cost of your HP. this leaves you with about the same number of "high damage spells" and the same HP as that blaster caster.


I can say he isn't looking at larger context a lot of the time.

He most likely banned swashbuckler because of the bonus equal to level on damage. But you would be surprised- precise strike mostly plays catch up until higher levels.

That is because it only works with 1 weapon/1 handed. So it is otherwise weaker than 2 handing, since they get x1.5 power attack and str bonus. Compared to other full BAB characters...yeah, it is mostly par for course. It enables your fighting style, and that is about it. And this is especially true since most swashbuckler players on this board are deathly afraid of common damage boosters like power attack.


What kind of Kineticist did you have in mind? If it's not about a damage dealer, it might be easier to convince him. Involve him as much as possible, so only present a concept (e.g. buffing and / or debuffing, showing some Kineticist talents), NOT a build.

Maybe he is afraid of your optimization skills - maybe you gave him reason for that in the past. In that case focus on creating a character instead of a build, make some suboptimal decisions in favor of flavor, and get a still playable character.

Finally, if you really want a damage dealer, give him information how to counter it. A fire Kineticist obviously will get some trouble with fire resistance - at least at the beginning.


Can you ask him for specific details on the ban or walk him through the errors in his math?

"Makes Gunslinger damage output look like little peashooters."

A level 7 Gunslinger with alcehmical rounds can fire three shots for 1D12+6 (or +7 with a magic gun, or +8 with Magic Gun and PBS) for ~3D12+21. Averaging 39 damage against touch AC.

A level 7 Kineticist with an energy blast can fire one blast for 4D6+8 (4 elemental overflow, 3 from 1/2 CON, 1 from PBS). Average damage is 21 and subject to elemental resistance and immunity. Lets assume gather energy was used to make them both full attacks, that bumps it up to ~6D6+12, averaging 29 damage.

so, the 'Slinger is hitting with an average of 39, could misfire but could also crit for a x4 in there. the Kinny is averaging 29, a full ten points less, cant misfire but that crit mod is only x2 and energy resistance is far more likely to come into play.

If he ever complains a class is outshining a roque's sneak attack progression you can go ahead and slap him for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

OK, jokes about weird DM paranoia aside, here's what you say:

"Get out of my shower and wipe that smile off your face!"

j/k.

Here's what you really say:

"I'm very disappointed that you banned an idea that I thought might be fun. I really would like to play that kineticist because it seems new and refreshing and different from the things I've played before. I recognize that it might be overpowered and I'm willing to compromise on that for the sake of the whole game and the enjoyment of all the players including you, the GM. But I would really appreciate a compromise. Let me try this class. Let's both find out together if it's overpowered and if it turns out that it is, then we can nerf it along the way to make it more balanced. That would make me happy and keep your game in full balance. Isn't that what you want? Happy players who get to play characters they find interesting?"

If he can't listen to a reasonable, balanced, and compromising approach like that, then this guy has real control-freak problems and you might want to find another GM. I hope that's not the case.

Then again, I don't know you, so I have to consider that YOU might be part of the problem. Maybe this GM does know you and recognizes that you're the kind of guy who always wants to make OP characters and break his game balance. If you are that type of player, fix yourself, not your GM. And if you're not, then see above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

OK, jokes about weird DM paranoia aside, here's what you say:

"Get out of my shower and wipe that smile off your face!"

j/k.

Here's what you really say:

"I'm very disappointed that you banned an idea that I thought might be fun. I really would like to play that kineticist because it seems new and refreshing and different from the things I've played before. I recognize that it might be overpowered and I'm willing to compromise on that for the sake of the whole game and the enjoyment of all the players including you, the GM. But I would really appreciate a compromise. Let me try this class. Let's both find out together if it's overpowered and if it turns out that it is, then we can nerf it along the way to make it more balanced. That would make me happy and keep your game in full balance. Isn't that what you want? Happy players who get to play characters they find interesting?"

If he can't listen to a reasonable, balanced, and compromising approach like that, then this guy has real control-freak problems and you might want to find another GM. I hope that's not the case.

What are you doing here, being all rational and calm?!?

Get out of here, you responsible and socially aware adult!

;)


What Chess said. :-(


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I disagree with what Chess said.

Chess referred to "forcing" the GM to change his mind. Nobody wants a power struggle between players and GMs. Nobody should even be trying to "force" the GM to change his mind.

Chess also suggested just giving up and playing something the GM will allow. I totally disagree. Giving in to tyranny, even on such a small scale as GM/Player interaction, just enables more tyranny, and it's never fun for those who give in all the time.

Rational discussions where everybody finds a winning solution, where everybody learns and grows and recognizes their own needs as well as the other side's needs, and from which a fair solution that accommodates everyone is far preferable to just giving up.


Play a summoning focused sorcerer. It's tame, core, and makes the swashbuckler look stupid.

GMs can always ban non-core items no questions asked. Once the gm bans core material that is when you have an issue with either the gm or the game.


Probably some already said it..but roll a Barbarian and break it, Pounce on his face and Superstitious his day.

Or a Save or Suck wizard. Or a prismatic ray Oracle. Cause balance.

More on topic and less childish..the Kineticist's damage is really nothing special. Sure, rogue damage is worse, but then again a druid animal companion does more than a rogue.


DM_Blake wrote:

I disagree with what Chess said.

Chess referred to "forcing" the GM to change his mind. Nobody wants a power struggle between players and GMs. Nobody should even be trying to "force" the GM to change his mind.

Chess also suggested just giving up and playing something the GM will allow. I totally disagree. Giving in to tyranny, even on such a small scale as GM/Player interaction, just enables more tyranny, and it's never fun for those who give in all the time.

Rational discussions where everybody finds a winning solution, where everybody learns and grows and recognizes their own needs as well as the other side's needs, and from which a fair solution that accommodates everyone is far preferable to just giving up.

If he thinks the swashbuckler is OP and too strong and is ignoring the OP's questions about the blasts and stuff then he's not going to change his mind. You coming in with a Max DPR gunslinger or Super Rogue and using "facts" to prove him wrong and that he shouldn't ban the kineticist most likely wont lead to a happy resolution.

Blake, I agree that nice discussion like you suggest is the best, it just seems from the OP's statements that it's not likely to work out. If the OP cares that much then he should definitely try to talk it out. Just I wouldn't bring up "The forums say" or anything like that unless the GM normally trusts the forums.

Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi, I'm Mark Seifter, and there's a level 6 kineticist in my Skull & Shackles game (also I wrote the class). I will say this: Skull & Shackles is actually a pretty synergistic AP for kineticists, and water manipulator in particular is extremely powerful when dealing with ships. Our kineticist does solid and extremely useful damage; he was even far and away the lead before iteratives popped in for the full BABs at 6, but now the other damage dealers do more when iteratives hit. You can tell your GM that I've checked the math on the class's direct damage for him and can assure him that it's not built to "make a gunslinger look like a peashooter" or topple archers' damage output. It can hold its own in damage, with potential for utility and control. I won't say he shouldn't be careful about what things he allows in his games (I certainly don't allow everything we publish in mine!) or even that there are potential things he might not like in the kineticist's toolbox, but I worked out the math, and he shouldn't need to worry about damage. If you tell him that, with the nuance, it might help because it's not just a flat out denial of the GM's opinion, but rather an analysis that tries to look at all directions and also see the GM's perspective. Have him check out the utility and make sure he's OK with it, but for damage, I can at least provide him the world's only 6 month playtest of the final class, running the same AP, as evidence that the damage should be OK.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And Mark wins the thread!


Mark Seifter wrote:
(I certainly don't allow everything we publish in mine!)

At the risk of derailing the topic: please, do tell!

Designer

James Langley wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
(I certainly don't allow everything we publish in mine!)
At the risk of derailing the topic: please, do tell!

Not gonna derail (past this post I guess), but we can discuss it in my off-topic questions thread. The summary is that my players and I discuss each rules element, particularly outside the RPG line, and agree together if there are ones that we do or don't want to include, based on us each considering whether it would be fun if someone was using that ability (from either PC or NPC direction). We also rotate GMs among a few of us and keep this consistent when we do so.


Your GM has a very poor grasp of the game, and you should tell him so directly.

The Kineticist is a pretty terrible damage dealer, and certainly doesn't outdo a Gunslinger unless he's looking at a guy shooting once per round.

The Kineticist can, BARELY achieve "passable" damage output if you try really really hard.

Go look at the "Kineticist Damage" thread. At 11th level you hit like 50 DPR without taking Burn (and you never want to take Burn if your Overflow is already maxed. It's so bad.). That's not counting you having to bypass Spell resistance for energy blasts, so you need to attack AC (Touch AC, but still AC), AND THEN need to bypass spell resistance to deal your piddly damage. God help you if you actually used Burn on that Blast since now your max HP is 11 lower for the rest of the day and you have nothing to show for it.

He's even flat out WRONG that it stacks faster than a Rogue's Sneak Attack. It stacks at the SAME SPEED as the Rogue's Sneak Attack, at best, with no potential for it to be applied multiple times per round (barring Kinetic Blade), and doesn't add weapon damage into the picture. Sneak Attack increases at 3rd, 5th, 7th, etc. and so does the Kinetic Blast.

So an Energy blast is dealing 1d6+Stat at 1st level (Physical 1d6+1+stat).

Sneak Attack is dealing weapon damage (usually 1d6, ala Shortsword) + 1d6 Sneak Attack + Stat.

That extra 1d6 sticks around until the Kineticist gets Composite Blasts at 7th, but more realistically only appears when he can use COmposite Blasts without eating Burn at 11th. And doesn't take into account the Rogu by 8th is attacking at least twice per round, or 3-4 times with Two-Weapon Fighting.

He is so wrong on so many levels it's difficult to begin and end telling him how wrong he is so it's easiest just to tell him he's wrong and should wipe that smug look off his stupid face.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

F&&* that guy. Make a core druid instead.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Your GM has a very poor grasp of the game, and you should tell him so directly.

The Kineticist is a pretty terrible damage dealer, and certainly doesn't outdo a Gunslinger unless he's looking at a guy shooting once per round.

The Kineticist can, BARELY achieve "passable" damage output if you try really really hard.

Go look at the "Kineticist Damage" thread. At 11th level you hit like 50 DPR without taking Burn (and you never want to take Burn if your Overflow is already maxed. It's so bad.). That's not counting you having to bypass Spell resistance for energy blasts, so you need to attack AC (Touch AC, but still AC), AND THEN need to bypass spell resistance to deal your piddly damage. God help you if you actually used Burn on that Blast since now your max HP is 11 lower for the rest of the day and you have nothing to show for it.

He's even flat out WRONG that it stacks faster than a Rogue's Sneak Attack. It stacks at the SAME SPEED as the Rogue's Sneak Attack, at best, with no potential for it to be applied multiple times per round (barring Kinetic Blade), and doesn't add weapon damage into the picture. Sneak Attack increases at 3rd, 5th, 7th, etc. and so does the Kinetic Blast.

So an Energy blast is dealing 1d6+Stat at 1st level (Physical 1d6+1+stat).

Sneak Attack is dealing weapon damage (usually 1d6, ala Shortsword) + 1d6 Sneak Attack + Stat.

That extra 1d6 sticks around until the Kineticist gets Composite Blasts at 7th, but more realistically only appears when he can use COmposite Blasts without eating Burn at 11th. And doesn't take into account the Rogu by 8th is attacking at least twice per round, or 3-4 times with Two-Weapon Fighting.

He is so wrong on so many levels it's difficult to begin and end telling him how wrong he is so it's easiest just to tell him he's wrong and should wipe that smug look off his stupid face.

Overall, I don't recommend this approach as an attempt to get a kineticist allowed in Skull & Shackles.

However, Rebel, there's some useful stuff in here you might consider telling your GM. Rynjin is not wrong that a baseline kineticist that is just going around doing its at-will stuff and has absolutely no buffs from other party members or expendables generally is looking at roughly 3-rounding an on-CR opponent (for example, unbuffed and using sustainable attacks, our level 6 hydro in S&S has a little under 30 DPR, and a CR 6 monster has 70 hp on average), which makes the class actually in a better place for a published adventure that uses the CR system than a class that is doing half an on-CR opponent or more (since two on-CR opponents are CR+2, which is supposed to be a challenging fight, nearly the hardest fight an AP or scenario will generally throw at you, other than big boss fights, if a 4-player team each does 1/2 of the health of an on-CR opponent without using resources or even buffing or synergizing with each other, just each purely fighting as a single entity and not as a team, they will still end that fight in 1 round and are much stronger than expected; in fact if they use any significant teamwork, prebuffs, or daily resources, at that rate they will also clearly end a CR+3 boss encounter in one round, since they can end the CR+2 in one round without).

All that giant parenthetical being said, there are many characters who actually can do those levels of damage pretty handily. They will possibly be even more disruptive to running a published adventure than a kineticist. It's possible that the GM hasn't encountered one of those builds before, though, either. And either way, I think it's always important to show respect to other people, even when I disagree with their opinions. From what I've found, every time I sit down and talk with someone about the game, they often have really interesting and unexpected reasons or differences in playstyle or metagame that cause their opinions to make a lot more sense than they did at first, so now I start by assuming those.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^^^ this lol.

Just make a pure CRB druid. All you need is Power attack and Natural spell and you can still crush things...

If he bands druid, play a battle cleric.

If he bans that just keep going along ti he bans everything...

Lol


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are few things that irritate me more than someone saying something along the lines of "I'll think about it" and then giving me a look that says "No I won't, and you're an idiot if you think I will". Those kind of people are toxic to be around, so calling them out on their nonsense IS the best way to approach it IMO.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
There are few things that irritate me more than someone saying something along the lines of "I'll think about it" and then giving me a look that says "No I won't, and you're an idiot if you think I will". Those kind of people are toxic to be around, so calling them out on their nonsense IS the best way to approach it IMO.

That's fair. If anything, when you reach that point, taking the time to explain to someone what the problem is when deciding not to game with them any more is better than deciding to just avoid the confrontation and quietly dropping out, since at the minimum it gives them a chance take that into consideration for future decisions, even if you will be leaving the game.

On the other hand, with an interpersonal relationship you're not about to sever, or a game you're not about to leave, I still can't recommend it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
There are few things that irritate me more than someone saying something along the lines of "I'll think about it" and then giving me a look that says "No I won't, and you're an idiot if you think I will". Those kind of people are toxic to be around, so calling them out on their nonsense IS the best way to approach it IMO.

That's fair. If anything, when you reach that point, taking the time to explain to someone what the problem is when deciding not to game with them any more is better than deciding to just avoid the confrontation and quietly dropping out, since at the minimum it gives them a chance take that into consideration for future decisions, even if you will be leaving the game.

On the other hand, with an interpersonal relationship you're not about to sever, or a game you're not about to leave, I still can't recommend it.

Yeah, confronting the GM (or anyone at the table, really) about bad behavior is always a bit of a coin toss. It could lead to the GM realizing they've been acting in a way that causing problems they didn't intend, but it could just as easily turn ugly. Not everyone responds well to constructive criticism.

In my personal experience, most GMs/players with entrenched bad behavior don't react well to being called out about it. I do recall one GM-from-hell who went on a fifteen minute screaming rant that ended with a tableflip after we politely told him that we weren't having much fun with a 4-hour session of his uber-NPC slowly wearing us down while being fiat-immune to anything we tried.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / GM's Kneejerk reaction to Kineticist? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion