Angel Hunter D's page

Karmagator wrote:

Just a heads-up, according to Luis Loza on Discord, focus points are still capped at 3.

also here in the rules forum

Ah, that one is annoying. I was thinking we could probably get away with 4 for sure.

Angel Hunter D wrote:

I mostly agree, although I don't see a mechanical difference between uncommon and rare. Differentiating or removing Rare would be nice.

Doesn't the GMG do this? Seems to spell out that Rare items are designed to be generally inaccessible without high effort or special circumstances while uncommon options shouldn't be too difficult for players to acquire.

I should have said "for players." As has been said before, for either case as a player my only way to get it is asking the GM. Actual methods of distribution might vary, but unless it has access requirements I can meet an uncommon thing and a rare thing are functionally the same.

HeHateMe wrote:

I'd like to see Uncommon and Rare take a hike, personally.

As a DM, I enjoy easy signposts that allow the DM to say "no" without singling themselves out as the bad guy. More knobs and levers for DMs is a good thing, not a bad thing. Maybe I don't want some blessed one/ reincarnated soul/ automaton/ contracted my soul to a devil/ anything saying "I wanna be the campaign protag, not a party member" type PC in my game. Uncommon and rare signals that they need permission, it's not a presumed right to be absolutely anything in the story that's trying to be told. Some might consider that a strictly session 0 issue, but I think tools to help session 0 run smoothly with fewer protracted arguments is a boon, not a hindrance. It also sets a framework for DMs to make custom tags for the classes, ancestries, backgrounds, and spells of their setting. All in all a great tool, no complaints

I mostly agree, although I don't see a mechanical difference between uncommon and rare. Differentiating or removing Rare would be nice.

I have a Dwarf Fighter with a Bastion archetype running 2 sturdy shields and making judicious use of Quick Repair in an AP I'm running. He blocks a lot, twice as much as most characters would. Blocking was nice but not amazing until he hit legendary crafting, now it's really good.

I am wary of the balance implications of ability score substitution in all things.

It's starting to sound more and more to me like people want everything to run off Constitution. Would it not be simpler and more balanced to just not have the KAS be Constitution in the first place?

A different KAS has been a common suggestion, it just doesn't seem to be doing enough.

Angel Hunter D wrote:

kripdenn wrote:

dmerceless wrote:

Unicore wrote:

What I think is really getting to people that are frustrated with the blasty-ness of the Kineticist is that the gonzo damage boosters that they get to their blast attacks only trigger when there are 3 or more enemies to attack in a combat. That is the situation where their damage with blasts gets much better than even fighters.

I think you're forgetting a very important principle of d20 games, or heck, any game with HP and that doesn't have a death spiral mechanic: HP only does something when it goes to 0. Doing 20 damage to 3 targets is absolutely not the same value as doing 60 damage to 1 target. Yes, there's an edge case or two where splitting damage can be good, but simply summing up the damage you're doing to multiple targets in a 1-1 ratio and saying "haha, you're outdamaging a Fighter" is just... wrong. While you're tickling 4 different people, the Fighter already took an enemy out of the fight, which means less actions taken and less damage done by the other side.

I'm not saying AoE is worthless, but for multitargeting to be good, you need to do a lot better than "I do 130% of the damage I would normally do, but it's split between 3 targets".

You're forgetting that an AOE can take out multiple targets while setting up other targets to be killable by another party member. If there are many small enemies or if a larger enemy was left with just a little bit of health or if you did enough damage to the boss to let the fighter kill it next, then that does a lot to help the fight.

Yes, in corner cases made just so this looks good, where you somehow know the enemy's HP, it will look good. In general play, according to many people's experiences, it's not common or good.

Pretty much any DM should tell you if an enemy looks unscathed, hurt, hurt badly, or near death. Bringing an enemy within kill range, finishing off a weakened enemy, and killing off minions are not corner...

They should, but I haven't seen anything in the rules to actually say they have to. So, it will vary table to table and isn't a base assumption we can make.

It's also easy to dismiss half damage on a fail. That is a pretty big boost to for, even if it isn't flashy or doesn't feel great to only do half damage.

It's easy because the damage on a success isn't enough for a lot of people to consider it worth using, half of that isn't even worth mentioning.

dmerceless wrote:

Unicore wrote:

What I think is really getting to people that are frustrated with the blasty-ness of the Kineticist is that the gonzo damage boosters that they get to their blast attacks only trigger when there are 3 or more enemies to attack in a combat. That is the situation where their damage with blasts gets much better than even fighters.

I think you're forgetting a very important principle of d20 games, or heck, any game with HP and that doesn't have a death spiral mechanic: HP only does something when it goes to 0. Doing 20 damage to 3 targets is absolutely not the same value as doing 60 damage to 1 target. Yes, there's an edge case or two where splitting damage can be good, but simply summing up the damage you're doing to multiple targets in a 1-1 ratio and saying "haha, you're outdamaging a Fighter" is just... wrong. While you're tickling 4 different people, the Fighter already took an enemy out of the fight, which means less actions taken and less damage done by the other side.

I'm not saying AoE is worthless, but for multitargeting to be good, you need to do a lot better than "I do 130% of the damage I would normally do, but it's split between 3 targets".

You're forgetting that an AOE can take out multiple targets while setting up other targets to be killable by another party member. If there are many small enemies or if a larger enemy was left with just a little bit of health or if you did enough damage to the boss to let the fighter kill it next, then that does a lot to help the fight.

Yes, in corner cases made just so this looks good, where you somehow know the enemy's HP, it will look good. In general play, according to many people's experiences, it's not common or good.

Angel Hunter D wrote:

So it does poor damage even with Earth and forces you to spread it out so it's worth even less, with punishing action economy. It's just not doing what was expected or desired.

If two characters in a party can do 75% of target hp in two actions, the second to act wastes 2/3rds of their potential.

If instead, one of those characters does 25% of target hp to three targets, the target still dies in one round, but next round the second target only takes one character to defeat.

Except the party doesn't know the enemy's HP. That's a level of optimization the system doesn't facilitate. All they see is that one character hurt it and the next character killed it.

And I have to agree with Temperans. The lengths some of you go make poor performance sound like a good thing.

So it does poor damage even with Earth and forces you to spread it out so it's worth even less, with punishing action economy. It's just not doing what was expected or desired.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Also, multiple enemy encounters aren't limited to low level creatures. Some of the deadliest AP encounters are two APL+1 foes or a higher level for plus minions. Those minions can keep you from teaching the spell slinging boss by clogging up charge lanes, or provide the boss flanking if you do close.

Multi-target damage on casters is fine. The kineticist damage may still need a buff, but people focus too much on focus fire.

Yet the general felling is that AoE isn't necessary.

My currently AoA party started with half-casters/half-martials. But the party blasters casters switch to martials due the felling of low damage of AoE a limited number of spellslots. Against strong opponents even with minions they now prefer the concentrated and constant damage of the martials, they usually kills all minions in 1-2 rounds then focus to boss. Including one of these players is fan of blasters (I will call him to test the Kineticist) but he give up saying that PF2 is a game for martials and switch from druid to swashbuckler! (yes I don't understand until now but he said that at last he likes the swashbuckler ah-ha! style! kkk)
The only caster that's still "surviving" in this party is the Bard because he likes to support (its a Bard with Marshal archetype).

I've had very similar results with my party. My bard even got some wands so he has some AoE spells...but he'd rather Inspire and cast Haste because his smoldering fireball hurts several enemies but the Fighter can more often than not actually kill something - and dead enemies don't hit back. An enemy with 1 HP hits just as hard as one with 100.

I think it might just be a consequence of the system, even the fighter in fullplate with a shield gets hit fairly often, so the best way to mitigate damage is to remove an entire enemy. And if that's not actually the best strategy it's the one that's served them best.

So, I'm thinking this is not a unique experience and is probably why so few people really seem to care about AoE damage. It's just not that valuable to a player who can't see the HP bar.

I think maybe we should stop trying to figure out the class budget for stuff, we don't have that info and since we don't Paizo can be flexible with it to make the class fun. If the sweet spot is slightly over budget but fun, I don't really see that as a problem. We're still going to see other classes get played all the time even if kineticist is an 11/10 because it doesn't fulfill every character fantasy.

yeah, the unnecessary limitation they lift later on is just the final nail here.

well, it is. 35% of the time, the enemy making up a usually homogenous group all have AoO. So it is 100% of the time, on that 35% of the time. And that's too often for a lot of people to enjoy it.

The problem with "we still have ranged options" is that it's creates a very bad incentive IMO.

Let's think, why someone will risky to do melee attacks in general?
It's to being able to do more damage (add STR bonus to damage) and to receive benefits from flanking and some times to do some melee maneuvers from athletics and feint or to be able to do some reactions like AoO.

But what's happen when your class risky to receive an AoO just due the usage of your main ability at melee? You won't go to melee!

This is creating a strong motive to players don't do a melee Magus, a melee Inventor, a melee Thauma, and now a melee Kineticist.

I don't understand what's strange design decision from Paizo designers is this. It's like they are signalizing "we don't like that you do melee characters with these classes".

That's the only thing that makes sense me, and it doesn't make any sense! This is just one more reason to add to my list of why I don't like any classes since core. Unnecessary limitations and hoops and deceptive options.

YuriP wrote:

Thaago wrote:

No, it shouldn't. The class should have medium armor by default.

On alternative solution to armors would be down level of Assume Earth’s Mantle to 1 and turn it in something similar to Drakeheart Mutagen . This would solve the AC problem for STR melee without break the thematic.

That would solve it for earth kineticists anyways. Water could have ice armor or something.

hmm, that sounds familiar.

and up to 35% of enemies having AoO doesn't mean 1/4 enemies get you clobbered. usually you have groups of similar enemies. Chances are that's 1/4 entire combats where you shouldn't do the thing you're supposed to do.

Kekkres wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

dmerceless wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

I hope readers can put some trust in paizo to balance the class as is, making small tweaks instead of a huge revamp. Paizo is getting better and better at balancing and making things fun, coming up with solutions to problems. If all we say is that we like it as it is, but needs some small tweaks and more damage, they will come up with solutions to those problems.

You gotta belieeeeve

I think the main issue is: keeping the class with as much utility as it currently has, while doing the damage us "blaster kineticist people" want it to do, and not being overpowered, is probably just impossible. You can't be good at everything, and this version of the class was not made to be good at the things I want it to be good at.

Yup, that is definitely correct. There's no way Paizo will be able to please all parties on this.

Might be worth establishing some acceptable parameters for single target damage, though. I don't think Paizo will make it a full blown "magical archer" with zero out of combat utility or AoE, which is what you'd need to get single target damage comparable to a martial.

So how much less damage than a Ranger, Fighter, or Gunslinger is it ok for them to deal?

my goalpost is rogue sneak damage, rogue is the most "out of combat utility at will" martial class we have, and while the nature of their utility not exactly the same, i feel like its a good starting point,

I'm reluctant to use rogue as a benchmark because their damage is situational, especially at range. Unless you're going dread striker/dirge of doom (and no, gestalt, not every party needs to have that) you're not consistently getting sneak attack out of a bow multiple times a round. If you are playing with a party that consistently gives grapples or frightens, you basically have the best DPR in the game.

I think consistentcy is what people want, otherwise they'd be satisfyed with True Strike...

I dunno, over 10 levels the rogue couldn't sneak attack, like, 5 times? it's situational, but it's a pretty easy situation to set up. once they get debilitations it's even easier.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Kekkres wrote:

i was more talking as an average over the course of a day than an exact model, Rogues are compitant at damage but even if they always have sneak on they never come close to the average of a barbarian or fighter

That doesn't sound right. Using the most comparable weapons I can find would be the Elven Curve Blade Thief vs Falcon Barbarian.

1d8+4+1d6 = 12 average.
1d10+4+2 = only 11.5

You can push that a bit depending on your instinct, but unless you're taking Giant Instinct penalties you'll be pretty close. I think Dragon Instinct is the gold Standard for damage and even it falls behind at a few levels when more sneak attack dice kick in.

Edit: this also feels a little off topic since the kineticist is primarily a ranged class and won't be dealing melee damage, but I think the same concept holds up when you look at ranged builds. A d6 on every attack in a round is a better than a Ranger getting 1d8 only once, and so on.

elven curve blade is HARDLY the average rogue, i was going by thief rapier rogue as the standard since that is a weapon at default availibility

I've been comparing to a rogue with a shorbow, my damage MVP in the AP I've been running.

I legitimately have no idea how people were reaching the conclusion that you got double the class feats.

probably because the impulse abilities look a lot like spells and nobody blinks at a caster getting a feat and multiple spells a level.

Kekkres wrote:

it doesnt help that our first con class has average fort and medeocre hp so they arent even the best at con things

Legendary at 15, plus critfails are fails, plus normal successes are crit successes, plus half damage on failed fort save vs damage. I really don't know what more you could possibly want, there.

on HP... for a class that's meant to be at range for the most part, it's still pretty darned good.

is it really meant to be at range? a lot of it seems to want you to go into melee (and then get AoO'd to bits).

dmerceless wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

I hope readers can put some trust in paizo to balance the class as is, making small tweaks instead of a huge revamp. Paizo is getting better and better at balancing and making things fun, coming up with solutions to problems. If all we say is that we like it as it is, but needs some small tweaks and more damage, they will come up with solutions to those problems.

You gotta belieeeeve

I think the main issue is: keeping the class with as much utility as it currently has, while doing the damage us "blaster kineticist people" want it to do, and not being overpowered, is probably just impossible. You can't be good at everything, and this version of the class was not made to be good at the things I want it to be good at.

Yup, that is definitely correct. There's no way Paizo will be able to please all parties on this.

Might be worth establishing some acceptable parameters for single target damage, though. I don't think Paizo will make it a full blown "magical archer" with zero out of combat utility or AoE, which is what you'd need to get single target damage comparable to a martial.

So how much less damage than a Ranger, Fighter, or Gunslinger is it ok for them to deal?

and even then, those pale in comparison to a halfling rogue archer - which is about where i'd want a class to be for damage requiring setup.

The day paizo breaks their own tenants on class balance and makes something truly unbalanced. Just to satisfy power fantasy of the player. Is the day I ban a new class from my table.

I doubt it will happen however.

I'm surprised you think of them so poorly though. Quite a few felt quite nice to me.

If the 3 I've ran through mock scenarios my favorite has been the strength kineticist relying on aura's and support spells.

It's OK if the Kineticist is as strong as a Core class. That's what breaking/bending their tenets on class balance would result in.

Brew Bird wrote:

Elemental Blast also has the impulse trait, which in turn grants the manipulate trait, so melee kineticists will be provoking attacks of opportunity on their strikes.

I'm just not sure what Elemental Blast as its own action is trying to solve. I don't think the Strikes are so powerful that they'd break Flurry of Blows or Haste? And if Paizo is worried about non-kineticists getting them easily, the multiclass archetype could just start with weaker versions of the blasts.

The AoO triggering does check out, which is not great.

The playtest does seem to be pre-guarded against this obvious combo... but this wouldn't be the first time 2 classes synergize well. I agree that the better choice is to accept that the Monk and Kineticist will be multi-class buddies, but keep the power level to a tolerable level.

Monk/Kineticist seems to be what a lot of people will want to do in some way anyhow, doesn't hurt for it to actually be good too.

yeah, that's about the crux of it

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Air is way too low, because honestly any range value over 60' doesn't matter. I can count on 1 hand the number of times a map that large has ever been used in a game i've been part of. Whether it's a limit of the battle maps used or average table size, we just don't really see anything happen at those ranges due to practical limits.

Doesn't matter? I beg to differ! I agree that in might not come up often in some sessions, but that's a far cry from "doesn't matter!"

My sorcerer has absolutely killed it in numerous encounters thanks in no small part to her numerous long range spells and cantrips that allow her to snipe from 120 feet away or more.

You'll never convince me that it "doesn't matter" when it's the only reason the party survived some encounters.

frankly I'm surprised that you had a map big enough for that. I've gone through a lot of PFS and a few APs, and they don't seem common enough for the range to make the d4 seem worth it in any way. It just doesn't seem to be the way the game is typically played - and because of that I don't really think it's worth designing around to the extent that we see a d4 for someone's primary damage ability.

Guntermench wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

I think they're talking about Aquatic Combat and these lines

Sure, and I quote once more:

'You can Gather an Element, hold it, and use it even in environments where this normally wouldn’t be possible.'
So it is possible to use water bludgeoning (and slashing if it exists) underwater (obviously not automatically missing with them).

You can make strikes underwater already.

They just auto miss if they're ranged.

Well, if you guys think that auto-missing attacks are possible to use, I can't add anything else.

I guess the designers really should make this more clear then.

it definitely needs another pass. possible and feasible are different, and while possible water blasts aren't feasible underwater.

Air is way too low, because honestly any range value over 60' doesn't matter. I can count on 1 hand the number of times a map that large has ever been used in a game i've been part of. Whether it's a limit of the battle maps used or average table size, we just don't really see anything happen at those ranges due to practical limits.

it's a post-core class, the action economy will always be a struggle. but maybe that feedback will mean something this time around.

as for a blasting niche, it seems to be a pretty popular desire and fits the class fantasy. Lacks the versatility of a real caster and lacks the accuracy of a real martial. good damage doesn't seem that big an ask.

So we have at least 2 instances of Core classes needing fewer stats than other classes. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Core classes were the strongest. I'd really like a new class to hit that level and Kineticist has the option and theme strengths of the monk it just needs a chassis that's good too.

But targetting multiple opponents with attacks like that is like, pretty bad. Especially past level 8. Every experience I've had tells me that focused fire is superior for single attacks for a system that tends to like sending "boss" encounters at us with single large targets. Being Bumi, Slayer of Fodder isn't worth much when everyone can slay fodder.

And Forceful without baseline martial accuracy isn't really worth much.

It's like being a cyclist at a motorcycle club. It's cool, but you're not exactly playing the same game.

Yeah, it has its advantages but on some level it seems fundamentally at odds with the system goals, to me at least.

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I think the aura manipulation feat should be baked into the class and the number of aura feats increased. Having blast accuracy tied to con is too “one stat to rule them all”

Is it really that different from a casting stat though? Sure, there's HP on Con but the defensive proficiency isn't very impressive so they're going to take a beating most of the time.

Yes, because a caster would usually have to also invest in Con to keep enough HP and shore up their fort saves. If Con is the to-hit stat then the kineticist can reliably ignore Str, Int, and Cha.

They can ignore them if they only exist in encounter mode, but if they do something other than crack skulls they'll want some Int and Cha, and some Str if they want medium armor and a shield plus the basic adventuring gear.

I think the aura manipulation feat should be baked into the class and the number of aura feats increased. Having blast accuracy tied to con is too “one stat to rule them all”

Is it really that different from a casting stat though? Sure, there's HP on Con but the defensive proficiency isn't very impressive so they're going to take a beating most of the time.

An indestructible shield at level 1 might be a little too good honestly. Especially if you can poach it.

Don't you need to Gather and then take the action to Raise it? Sounds decent for 2 actions but not too good.

Angel Hunter D wrote:

yeah, this is entirely what the focus system was supposed to replace. but for some reason they don't want to use it as widely as it should be used.

tbf, this time around i dont think that the focus system would help, because it isnt that you can use said abilities "once per 10 minutes". It is that those abilities enforce a 10 minute immunity to them.

So, a kineticist can do them like 5 times, but only once per target.

We would need something like a reverse focus point system, that affected the targets instead of affecting the caster.

Maybe a simple condition on the target could work. Like "Energized".

Give the abilities that have said timers a similar Trait like "Energizing".

And then have something like:
"Each time you cast an Energizing ability on a target, increase his Energized condition by 1 to a maximum of 2. You cannot cast an Energizing ability to someone who is Energized 2 already. Energized dissipates to 0 after 10 minutes."

While this would be a buff in the sense that you could cast as an example twice the same ability on them, it's also a nerf because you cannot cast 3 different abilities on them as well. Balance and the "maximum" can always be tweaked of course, but it does make the bookeeping simpler.

I see what you mean. Probably should have had a keyword since core then.

Skabb wrote:

Flavorfully, Kineticists use their body to channel elements, so constitution makes sense from that perspective. Though having some kind of burn-like mechanic would certainly help make that flavor truly realized via mechanics.

Personally, I think the players class works well without burn, but I do agree that CON should be more integral to the class. I think they should bring back damage keying off of CON.

why not make it closer to a spell and key attack off as well?

manbearscientist wrote:

At level 1 with Flexible Blast it is at best +6 elemental blast 1d8+3 in melee, and +6 elemental blast 1d8 at ranged. It isn't longsword damage at ranged. It's longword damage in melee, and longbow damage at ranged, with worse action economy (for example, no easy way to attack a second time with agile at early levels with 2 actions).

Earth has the propulsive trait, so you do add some Strength to your ranged attacks.

on one element, i'd like all of them to be good even if earth is my favourite.

QuidEst wrote:

I don't think anybody uses a d4 weapon for damage except with damage boosters, but that's what air is expected to do.

Air seems to be about spamming Aerial Boomerang at early levels, to be honest, with Cycling Blast at level 6 to toss in a weak blast. A potential 4d4 in a 60-foot line with 'full' scaling (DC 17) is much better than a piddly 1d4 agile blast. Also scales up every two levels, which not everything does for kineticist.

seems to be an issue with blasts in general, they are presented and in our perception as a main attack, but are written as supplementary to the attacks you need to spend a feat on. i don't think i really like it that way.

This is the trade-off for getting martial progression. It would be bad for balance if the class got both martial proficiencies and full caster proficiencies. Part of why I thought the class should be more of a caster than a martial, but here we are

they don't really have martial proficiencies, it's more like warpriest proficiencies.

the blasts are magical, so why not attack with the main stat like casters?

Angel Hunter D wrote:

RexAliquid wrote:

manbearscientist wrote:

Saedar wrote:

manbearscientist wrote:

That said, I'm somewhat skeptical that Elemental Blast is intended to be their core weapon. It certainly isn't scaled that way. It seems that on-demand impulses are supposed to be the main damage, outside of outliers like Chain Blasts.

I don't really buy this. There are several feats that build off Elemental Blast across the level spectrum. They clearly think it is something that can be built towards.

Yes, but once you get those feats it is almost always terrible to use Elemental Blast itself. It is not at all comparable to any martial's attack; it is both less accurate and less damaging. For the first 6 levels of the game Elemental Blast caps out at "deals the same damage as a Sorcerer with a longsword and strength as a secondary stat".

IDK, longsword damage from 20 ft away seems pretty decent to me. The elven sorcerer with a longbow can't do that.

except it's not longsword damage, you're not adding a stat to it.

I'm going to guess you haven't played a dex fighter then, I am well used to not adding a stat.

then say that's what your comparison is, Dex fighters are relatively uncommon.

manbearscientist wrote:

This seems to be an 'poor chassis, good options' approach. Attacking with Elemental Blast is not designed to be competitive by itself, and is not equivalent to any martial using their basic class features.

Meanwhile, you have the extraordinarily action-efficient Chain Blast and early access to relatively decent AoE to compensate.

Blegh, that is like, the last thing i wanted this class to be

same here, why change the class fantasy that much and keep the same name?

yeah, this is entirely what the focus system was supposed to replace. but for some reason they don't want to use it as widely as it should be used.

Here's my minor annoyance so far (separate from yours which I mostly share): Circulate Qi - standardize that stuff, is it Qi or Ki in Pathifnder?

manbearscientist wrote:

Saedar wrote:

manbearscientist wrote:

That said, I'm somewhat skeptical that Elemental Blast is intended to be their core weapon. It certainly isn't scaled that way. It seems that on-demand impulses are supposed to be the main damage, outside of outliers like Chain Blasts.

I don't really buy this. There are several feats that build off Elemental Blast across the level spectrum. They clearly think it is something that can be built towards.

Yes, but once you get those feats it is almost always terrible to use Elemental Blast itself. It is not at all comparable to any martial's attack; it is both less accurate and less damaging. For the first 6 levels of the game Elemental Blast caps out at "deals the same damage as a Sorcerer with a longsword and strength as a secondary stat".

IDK, longsword damage from 20 ft away seems pretty decent to me. The elven sorcerer with a longbow can't do that.

except it's not longsword damage, you're not adding a stat to it.

Con is good to have more health so when you in melee and use an impulse action, if the enemy has attack of opportunity, you have health to help survive.

seems a poor compensation to me

I'm not talking charop. I'm specifically saying I think the Elemental Blast is undertuned between weakish damage, non-attack key ability, and delayed proficiency when weighed against the mechanical footprint of the feature and my own personal interest in being a competent all-day magical blaster.

yeah, it's just not good enough. reminds me of the alchemist, which is sad. actually, comparing it to either alchemist or war-priest is no good for me, i've never seen someone play either and be satisfied with it - they always switch to something else.

keftiu wrote:

You only need to Gather once to use the blast. While it’s technically two actions on the first turn of combat, you’re only using one every time following that unless you use an Overflow ability.

You can Gather Element out of combat as well, same as drawing your weapon.

I think gathering elements is more apt to compare to Stances. There are actions that end it and (some of the time) you're expected to switch between them.

Being partway through the document, I'm thinking that unless CON does something more obvious the Key Ability should be Str or Dex and Flexible Blasts should be built into that (Finesse on Dex, Brutal on Str). A lot of good points have already been made on why CON isn't feeling right, I don't think I need to rehash them.

I doubt it'll happen, but I'd love a book where there are no new classes or archetypes but we get a bunch of feats for existing classes/archetypes.

At one point I thought they had intended to hire someone explicitly to help with the intent to work on communicating with the teams, authors, and segmentations in the company to do a kind of FAQ/Errata liaison work position that had them dedicated to finding all such flaws from the community and getting them into the hands of the team so as to answer them but if memory serves me correct this happened shortly before the pandemic hit and doing this kind of work would likely be complicated by, you know, the whole ZOOM workplace thing so I think the idea was just... scrapped.

It can be done online, I've got people doing similar work at my job and they make it happen. They're worth their weight in gold.