Just curious, did I miss some big change?
Generally speaking, the format and writing style tends to be very concise and to the point, but I'm reading over the occult classes and it's just...paragraph upon paragraph upon paragraph of wording for every class feature.
Is this gonna be the new standard for future books, or is this an exception?
To be fair, many of the Occult classes are much more complex than their brethren. The Kineticist alone took me a few read-throughs to figure out completely. In addition to different authors having different writing styles, being as specific as possible in the description of class features helps prevent the need for FAQs and errata down the line.
To be fair, many of the Occult classes are much more complex than their brethren. The Kineticist alone took me a few read-throughs to figure out completely. In addition to different authors having different writing styles, being as specific as possible in the description of class features helps prevent the need for FAQs and errata down the line.
I'm having trouble comparing the balance between these and the other classes, I'm still at Kineticist and just the blast alone feels a little...strong. I seen people complain at Alchemist bombs, while these blasts seem to have unlimited use and a 1d6+1 per 2 two levels.
But it kind of boils to. New writers were let loose and they tried something new, got rather wordy (still arguing myself if it's better or not). On one hand, as you say, it might help in the future by being clear, on the other hand, each time they use an ability, they need a cheat sheet.
Once I figured out the classes, I found myself referencing the book a lot less. Just give it time. It's a lot to digest, for sure, but so is the Core Rulebook.
As for the Kineticist, take a quick tour of the forums. You'll see that the consensus is pretty unanimous that the class is far from overpowered. A lot of people even criticize the Kineticist for doing too little damage compared to a well built martial character.