Legio_MCMLXXXVII's page

A Medium.

I built one that was surprisingly effective with 14s almost all the way across the board. 14 14 14 14 8 14. He was hilarious to play, until he did something unwisely impulsive and got himself killed.

He had as much of a chance to hit, when using the Champion Spirit (with Spirit Focus) as a Fighter with 18 strength, and did just as much damage. On other days he had access to an incredible variety of skills, and was invaluable in social situations. He could use both arcane and divine magic items, and had access to niche spells which wouldn't regularly come up. All in all he was fun to play, and was intentionally MAD as possible.

@UnArcaneElection, @Chromantic Durgon <3

please take your private war somewhere else.

1 Arguments about armor? Armor is very necessary early on where the difference between 15 and 20 AC is life and death. nobody wants to see an argument of Light Vs Heavy armor.

2 Bonus feats, i like them because they actually allow more variations than a strict "pick this to not suck" feat structure. Personally Id like those semi-exclusive feats like Point Blank Master be available to more people. Ranger Fighting Styles for other classes would fit that, too bad Ranger isnt so great.

3 I like options. There are plenty of middle-ground in the hybrid classes. Some very clearly shift in favor of one-side or the other through class abilities. The Hunter for example has a pretty cool animal companion as a second warrior on your team. Investigator on the other hand has plenty of skills and specialist abilities.

I personally favor combat becomes its more practical and immediately useful. I still try to plan accordingly, hence why why Im so reluctant to use a Fighter or Barbarian. I don't know if that animal companion will still be useful at level 20, and I doubt it because at the very least it means you split magic items between two characters. Someone pointed out the Skald's Inspired Rage only helps melee characters, and so on.

Im not done here, but thanks to everyone for the ideas. I like to read and hear what people think.

So, one thing that's kinda nice about the Medium, and one reason I keep pushing it, is that the class has no required feats to work. You can take some, but as a general rule, you can take whatever you want and go nuts. Spirit Dancer is probably the most versatile of the archetypes, but the base Medium isn't bad.

Short of fighter bonus feats, which you don't qualify for, you can do just about anything. Not that fighter bonus feats are really worth it in the first place. I'd much rather get quasi-pounce, and access to a third attack at level 8 over any of the options the fighter gets, if I'm playing the melee game. Especially if I've hasted myself, to make it 3 attacks with full BAB plus one iterative. There's your full attack action right there.

Rogue doesn't need a fix. Pathfinder just needs to be balanced more towards the claims of the base system. Against CR appropriate enemies and challenges, Rogues perform completely viably. They simply don't min/max as hard as other classes.

If the game were more consistent in the way it's optimization is executed, you wouldn't hear complaints about rogues. That's party of why I'm excited for Starfinder. I'm willing to bet the system will, while being backwards compatible, be more consistent throughout.

CR appropriate? More like CR-1 or -2. If you're dealing with CR=CL enemies as a Rogue, you're going to have a bad time.

So.

I think the question would be whether or not you can retrain class features, not class levels. At present, the worst that can be said for occult class retraining is that they do not have synergy with anything, and as a result, must retrain at the more expensive rate.

Class features pose a problem, because those are clearly spelled out in the retraining rules. At present, given the way the rules are written, a character can retrain into an Occult class using the 7 day per level rate, but may not retrain class features of an existing Occult class. This certainly needs to be erratad, because the problem will only continue to escalate from here, as new classes are introduced.

How to fix the rogue? Make it an NPC class. Now you can use all of the better classes for Rogues, without people crying about wanting to play a class just because it's got a misleading name tacked on it.

Medium has:

d8 HD - check

3/4 BAB - check

4+ Skill Points - check

Martial Weapon Proficiency - when channeling a Champion Spirit, plus one Exotic Weapon each day

Medium Armor Proficiency - Check

Shield Proficiency - when channeling a Guardian Spirit, plus Heavy Armor Proficiency

6th level spells - when channeling a Heirophant or Archmage Spirit, with access to the two good spell lists (Wizard and Cleric, can pick new spells each day), otherwise 4th level spells

Bonus Combat Feats - not really, but equivalent and occasionally superior class abilities

At least 1 class feature with combat bonuses - all Champion Spirit bonuses are combat related, and make you better than a fighter so long as you have them

Minor class abilities to other areas - Trickster and Marshall Spirits grant access to a number of assorted buffs, to include to skills and initiative

The Medium, especially as a Spirit Dancer, is the closest you will get to a jack of all trades. The only thing you have to really try and manage is your Influence, but you won't be using as much of it as a normal Medium would be either.

Medium gets you basically everything, at a price. Bonus points if you choose Spirit Dancer as your archetype, since you now have everything on a day by day and encounter by encounter basis. Just be careful with your influence, and you'll be fine.

I could also say Summoner, if you're willing to be fairly broad on how exactly you fulfill your requirements. You can almost always summon SOMETHING to meet a challenge, after all, and a skill monkey Eidolon is hilarious for making up for your lack of personal skills.

Summoner. Wand of Aram Zey's Focus. Go nuts.

Play an Alchemist. Or an Investigator. Or a Medium. Really, play absolutely anything that isn't a Rogue, because the Rogue is absolutely the most useless and most replacable class in the entire game, possibly even moreso than the fighter. Yes, it's not easy to disarm magical traps if you don't have a Rogue. Unless you just use some other method to flat out set them off, and ignore the problem entirely. Play a Cleric that raises Bloody Skeletons, and feed them into traps over and over again, since they keep getting back up.

Really, just don't play a Rogue. Seriously.

Kevin Willis wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

jmclaus wrote:

I was wondering if it has been backed up by any sort of writing, as it doesn't appear to be in the guide.

Sure. This question comes up often enough.

The last time this question came up, my response was "Day Job modifiers must apply to the entire skill to be useful".

Three comments later, John Compton confirmed I (and another poster who answered similarly) was correct.

Scroll down a little farther for John's opinion on the alchemist bonus.

He thinks he remembers it applying. The answer now is the same as it was then. There's no official answer, but John seems to believe it does apply.

I read everything in that comment to suggest that the Alchemist's class ability would not apply to Day Jobs.

So, you ignored the bit at the end where he said that he thinks it applies, but can't recall exactly? Because that would lead me to believe that the bonus might apply.

Ever seen a hurricane? Nature can be cruel.

Hurricanes are neither cruel nor benevolent. They simply are. Any moral virtue we assign to them is entirely outside the bounds of their own existence. Such is nature.

Nature does not care whether or not any given animal dies, any given tree falls, or any given lake is drained or river flooded.

I was using Battle Song of the People's Revolt to supply a teamwork feat.

I know (and appreciate) John's presence and value his interpretation, so for now, until I hear otherwise via FAQ, this is how I'll run it, and expect players at my tables to abide by the rule.

I may not like it, but until the FAQ gets its needed enhancement, I don't see an option.

So, was that teamwork feat Amplified Rage, by any chance? Because if you say yes I'll be grossly disappointed.

When in doubt, let your players walk into their own failure. Anyone have any idea what the stats are for Abrogail II Thrune? No? Here's a hint, I woulnd't want to pick a fight with the Queen of Devils, her Hellknight Legions, her bound devil minions, and whatever else she may have to throw out at the party.

Let them try, let them really assess what exactly their attempt will mean, and if they keep trying, don't be afraid to let them fail horribly when they attempt to pit their party against the might of an entire nation with the backing of Hell.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Check out here and look at the occult ones.

Very good, thanks for that!

I couldn't figure out where to look in the Paizo pages for those.

MidknightDiamond does have a point about the Base Classes from APG.
I found fan-made stats for them here, which works well enough for me.

Stats for Iconics give me some idea of where to start when I'm tinkering with builds on Hero Labs.

Thanks again for the help!

Remember, if you build an iconic, you have to make it a bad build. They can't be specialized in being good at anything useful, and they have to be the most generic form of a class that you can make. Which is why we have a pyrokineticist as our iconic. Because fire resistance totally isn't the most common resistance in the entire game, yeah?

There are two.

First, a friend of mine made the Orb of Defenestration. Picking it up resulted in a character being teleported thirty feet into the air, and dropped though a plate glass window.

The second was one I actually experienced. It was simultaneously awesome and terrifying. Another friend gave us a ring in loot. I identified it as a custom magic item which granted one extra spell per level per day. Note that this is not spell per level you could cast, but in fact granted you a 9th level spell slot as soon as you put the ring on. I failed to catch that it had a curse attached to it, where it basically had reverse fast healing, and shut off when your character got to 1hp. Did I mention that you couldn't take it off? Because that was also a thing. That was a bad day.

FiddlersGreen wrote:

In keeping with the thread title, do the re-flavouring rules allow for changing clothing styles to fit your character?

Specifically, my character traded in his Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier for a Khepresh of Refuge, but being a character of Tian ethnicity and a former member of the Lantern Lodge, I'd like to be able to have it as a Jingasa of Refuge instead.

It is a Khepresh. This is the reason none of my characters had Jingasas.

And this leaves me still waiting for an ushanka. Oh well.

Related to the OP, describing it as a "Lycanthrope Extract" would be not untoward, so long as you make it clear that it is an extract of lycanthropes (like vanilla, but with more fur and screaming) as opposed to something that actually turns you into a lycanthrope.

I am actually intrigued with the idea of making a character with a Therianthrope Extract for various purposes now. It's a nifty idea.

Eclipsed Continual Flame, have it Heightened for best results.

Exlipsed is a metamagic feat from Blood of Shadows.

If you can't sing, don't sing.

Actually, even if you can sing, probably don't anyway.

I don't care about cigars, but people who sing at the table are a damn nuisance, and should be firmly muzzled. Especially since most of the one's I've met sing terribly.

Make a Fetchling Master Summoner. Buff Stealth, grab an Eclipsed Ioun Torch, and enjoy your hilarious number of Summoned monsters. Pick the alignment that most amuses you, and go wild.

D6/2 levels is generally considered a tolerable amount of damage. Especially for a single target RTA. It's not great, but it's also not obsolete as soon as you level up either.

Good and neutral summons are honestly better than evil ones. They give you the most variety of abilities, from status removal, healing, buffs, and direct damage SLAs, to pure combat, to adding new forms of movement for your allies. Summoned good and neutral monsters are much better in the long run.

If you're using Sacred Summons, you'll probably need to be a Good summoner, and use Summon Good Monster to bolster your list. Archons and Angels are always good picks. Neutral runs into issues, because you only get a few picks of LN and CN outsiders to work with, and True Neutral is completely hosed, so no Sacred Summons for Pharasmin clerics.

Most complicated? Barbarian 1/Bloodrager 1/Titan Fighter 3/Beastmorph Alchemist X. The biggest trick was making the levels come together the right way so that he got things when he needed them.

He ended up using a funtionally Gargantuan Earthbreaker to deal 12d6+23 maximized, each turn. It was not polite.

Don't forget, you said there were two. It's 240,000lbs. That's approximately the same as having 2 MBTs sitting on the top floor of whatever you're standing in. Or 6 WWII era Shermans. Or two Tigers and a PzIII.

When you can compare your summoned monsters to multiple tanks in terms of sheer mass, it's probably not going to be good for whatever structure they're occupying.

I think that, as pointed out twice so far, the elementals were intended to cause such a collapse. They wanted this to happen, it wasn't an accident.

Melkiador wrote:

Pathfinder doesn't seem to have meaningful rules for burrowing, which earthglide basically is. But I see nothing to suggest you are weightless while using earthglide.

Earth Glide (Ex) A burrowing earth elemental can pass through stone, dirt, or almost any other sort of earth except metal as easily as a fish swims through water. If protected against fire damage, it can even glide through lava. Its burrowing leaves behind no tunnel or hole, nor does it create any ripple or other sign of its presence. A move earth spell cast on an area containing a burrowing earth elemental flings the elemental back 30 feet, stunning the creature for 1 round unless it succeeds on a DC 15 Fortitude save.

IMHO: the whole building falling down feels like a sign of its presence.

I seem to recall that he specified that the elementals were intentionally not earthgliding, so that they could bring their weight to bear on the structure.

Legio: Exactly my thought about it. I have been claiming all along that you need to invest the feats into it for summoning to matter. And it seems you agree, since you summon 1d3+1 or 1d4+2 creatures. They even claim that you only need to summon ONE creature. It is a step in trying to claim that clerics are so hugely powerful, that they don't even need to put in the feats for summoning to be huge. Thank you for understanding. It seems you have some inkling about what you're talking about.

My favored class is Summoner, I better know what I'm talking about. Even then, three feats isn't a huge investment, four if you pick up the Alignment Summoning feat that is relevant to you. Not for the ROI anyway.

As to your earlier question, concerning the encounters, and a single monster to end them, I choose the Catrina Psychopomp for the 4 CR8 monsters (probably) since they have the potential to have a will save that is a 50/50 shot on the save or die Calm Emotions Aura. For a single CR12 monster I choose...really anything with a fly speed and a ranged attack. It will kill the target eventually, even if it sucks to wait for the thing to finally croak. Dealing with something at CR+5 isn't easy with a single creature until you get a bit higher up.

Okay, you get Augment Summoning. This lets you get up a single dire lion at level 9. The dire lion is CR 5. It has a +4 to Str and Con. This means it gets a few extra hp, +2 Will, +2 to hit and some extra damage. The celestial template gives it DR and a smite. Generously, if you say this corresponds to a +1 CR, you just used a full round to summon a creature three CR below your own. And the big cats are the ones usually touted as "beatsticks" for summoning.

Let us go even higher. Perhaps then it gets better? Summon monster 8 gets you an elder elemental. You are level 15. The single elemental you get is CR 11, plus the various modifiers that no longer correspond to a +1 CR. Note that the massive power of the elder earth elementals above was manifested through the GM deciding the inn was not structurally stable due to the mere presence of the creatures - under those circumstances, a normal rat would be overpowered.

Let us move on to the much-touted SLA critters. The bralani azata with its lightning bolt is a good example. With summon monster 5, the bralani is CR 6, and does 6d6, Reflex DC 15 for half. This computes to 21 pts, save for half on a somewhat mediocre save. Meanwhile, the cleric lvl 9 has several options to do more damage himself, of which the most iconic is flame strike for 9d6, Reflex DC 15+Wis mod for half, 30 pts. Note that I am certainly not saying flame strike is a powerful option, just that a single bralani is not going to make a dent in the battle of 9th level characters.

And so it goes on. Everyone thinks summoning is all that, in truth it is far more balanced than it seems. Sure, for long battles, it is ace. Some creatures are insane, like the lantern archon. But in general, to truly make it spectacular and properly powerful, you NEED to invest the feats.

Yeah, except that you're not going to be summoning 1 Dire Lion. You'll be summoning 1d3+1 Lantern Archons (or 1d4+2 with Summon Good Monster), or Hound Archons, or Lions, or Celestial Giant Eagles. And they will be terrible to fight against. Because while the Celestial Giant Eagles are hitting on 12s against the average CR9 monster, they're going to connect, and you just summoned between 92 and 184 hp worth of ablative meat shields. Flying ablative meat shields. Lions? 84 to 168 hp, each with three attacks that also hit on 12s against the average CR9 monster. Lantern Archons? 87 to 174 hp with a total of 6 to 12 touch attacks. Hound Archons hitting on 10s and 15s for their full attacking greatswords, for 2d6+6 damage with each swing, and bringing a whopping 136 to 272 hp that those enemies are going to have to chew through before they can try to hit you.

Summoning is an amazing power, and the only thing that makes the cleric less awesome at it is the fact that it doesn't get the Summoner's scaling SLA, which is frankly one of the best class features in the entire game.

And this assumes you only stick with good creatures. Neutral and Evil options have some interesting potential too. Get in a fight with some Psychopomps some time, and you'll soon be having a bad time. Especially since most fights aren't a single CR=CL monster, and weaker enemies are more vulnerable to the SLAs and other abilities of your summoned monsters.

I'm in a Reign of Winter campaign right now. We all decided to play 6 level casters. Except for the Bloodrager, but he's a Bloodrager so who cares?

We have a Bloodrager, Skald, UnSummoner, UnSummoner Master Summoner (me), Warpriest, and Bard. Not everyone is present for every session, but we have so far successfully conquered every challenge with only a party death, and the GM has confessed that he's been trying to make things tougher to no avail. The only fight that has really threatened us so far was the Dragon, and he advanced it by an age category iirc. And we still killed it.

6 level casters are the best.

Find a cliff. Throw the angry thing off the cliff. Repeat as needed.

You can also use windows, holes, into cielings, and all sorts of other unpleasant things. When you can throw enemies around, you just need to find the nearest thing you don't want to be thrown into, and then make them be in it.

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:

Do you really want me to get into Oakeshott typology? It's actually a very good definition, considering that longsword is a class of swords, as opposed to a specific sort of sword. There are a number of different types of longsword, categorized by Ewart Oakeshott as some of the types X through XXII, all with defining characteristics.

What happened to types I to IX?

Those are actually not Oakeshott types. Oakeshott based his typology, on an earlier typology of Viking swords made by Jan Peterson, numbered I-IX.

I think I would go with a Chained Master Summoner, skill monkey Eidolon. Then back that up with a Wild Caller. For Magical support take a Shaman, and for massive group buffs run an archer Skald. Everyone takes Leadership at 7 and picks up a Wizard cohort. Because screw game balance.

The Master Summoner takes the alignment summoning feat that is most applicable to the AP, the Wild Caller takes a Ring of Summoning Affinity (Kami) to boost group support, the Shaman does Shaman things with cackling fortune being a hilarious boost to summoned allies, while the Skald makes everything that gets summoned in INCREDIBLY ANGRY. Nothing says "I hate everyone" like Celestial Dire Tigers with a 35 strength and Smite. Plus Spirit Totem, and other sorts of shenanigans. You really don't want to get into a fight with these guys at any level, and it only gets worse as they get higher up.

Does it really matter what PF calls a certain weapon? Names will vary based on setting. shortsword<longsword<greatsword makes intuitive sense for putting things into the handedness categories PF uses. If I was statting out the Roman military, I would likely use "shortsword" stats rather than "gladius" stats.

See, that sounds good, until you realize that for some folks having a different flavor to their sword is against campaign rules. No reflavoring your scimitar or katana to be anything but a scimitar or a katana in PFS. Stupid g%& d$!n pig.

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:

Klara Meison wrote:

>Longsword is not an ambiguous term in HEMA. It refers specifically to two handed swords of the late medieval and renaissance periods, and is distinct from greatswords or zweihanders. The longsword we have in game is an arming sword.

Well that's not much of a definition of a sword, now is it? Shouldn't it be defined through blade length/width/weight/form or other factors related to the blade itself, instead of the time period when it was actively used?

Do you really want me to get into Oakeshott typology? It's actually a very good definition, considering that longsword is a class of swords, as opposed to a specific sort of sword. There are a number of different types of longsword, categorized by Ewart Oakeshott as some of the types X through XXII, all with defining characteristics. By comparison, a Gladius Hispaniensis is a specific thing with a definite form and design. Longsword is a class of weapon, a longsword of a given type has the further defined characteristics you're looking for.

So what would you classify in the "Long Sword" Category?

XIIa, XIIIa, XVa, XVIa, XVII, XVIIIb and c, XX and XXa, and XXII are all swords of the longsword type. The XVIIIe is also a two handed sword, but is more of a proto-zweihander than a longsword, and is exemplified by the two handed claymore.

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:

hasteroth wrote:

Reverse bladed katana, because I'm a Rurouni Kenshin fanboy.

I'd also like to see Broadswords added... Cause why do we have Shortswords and Gladius but not Broadswords?

Also Legio, Longsword is an ambiguous term that refers to a very wide variety of one-handed, two-handed and hand and a half swords... But the Pathfinder Longsword is merely a long-bladed Shortsword. Though you are right about Falchions, and Exotic weapons are made Exotic due to their need for specialized training with the specific weapon as opposed to being covered by general martial training.

Longsword is not an ambiguous term in HEMA. It refers specifically to two handed swords of the late medieval and renaissance periods, and is distinct from greatswords or zweihanders. The longsword we have in game is an arming sword.

Exotic weapons are not exotic in a great number of cases. The falcata is not a particularly exotic weapon, nor is the bastard sword, the kama is literally a sickle, the katana is the cultural equivalent of the arming sword in areas where it was prevalent, a khopesh is an ancient weapon, but not an exotic one, a dwarven longaxe or longhammer is a pollaxe or lucerne hammer (which is especially stupid since we already have a lucerne hammer), a sling staff was historically a simple weapon. These are all allegedly exotic weapons in pathfinder, not because they require specialized training to use, but because they are either better than other options, like the katana, or because they are uncommon weapons.

Broadsword, on the other hand, is an ambiguous neologism developed in the Victorian period to refer to certain sorts of older swords, and had very little fixed definition at the time. In modern parlance a broadsword could be assumed to refer to a sort of basket hilted sword prevalent in the 16th through 18th centuries, and distinct from the backsword only in that it has two sharpened edges, but even that is largely a modern way of figuring things.

...

The bastard sword was actually fairly rare. Very few examples of true hand and a half swords have been recovered, and they appear to have been a short lived transitional design between the arming sword and the longsword.

As to the katana, it occupies the place of the arming sword in japanese culture because of its common usage. While it is a rather awkward and peculiar piece of steel, being a short bladed two handed sword with a single edge, it fills the same ubiquitous place as the medieval arming sword.

>Longsword is not an ambiguous term in HEMA. It refers specifically to two handed swords of the late medieval and renaissance periods, and is distinct from greatswords or zweihanders. The longsword we have in game is an arming sword.

Well that's not much of a definition of a sword, now is it? Shouldn't it be defined through blade length/width/weight/form or other factors related to the blade itself, instead of the time period when it was actively used?

Do you really want me to get into Oakeshott typology? It's actually a very good definition, considering that longsword is a class of swords, as opposed to a specific sort of sword. There are a number of different types of longsword, categorized by Ewart Oakeshott as some of the types X through XXII, all with defining characteristics. By comparison, a Gladius Hispaniensis is a specific thing with a definite form and design. Longsword is a class of weapon, a longsword of a given type has the further defined characteristics you're looking for.

Reverse bladed katana, because I'm a Rurouni Kenshin fanboy.

I'd also like to see Broadswords added... Cause why do we have Shortswords and Gladius but not Broadswords?

Also Legio, Longsword is an ambiguous term that refers to a very wide variety of one-handed, two-handed and hand and a half swords... But the Pathfinder Longsword is merely a long-bladed Shortsword. Though you are right about Falchions, and Exotic weapons are made Exotic due to their need for specialized training with the specific weapon as opposed to being covered by general martial training.

Longsword is not an ambiguous term in HEMA. It refers specifically to two handed swords of the late medieval and renaissance periods, and is distinct from greatswords or zweihanders. The longsword we have in game is an arming sword.

Exotic weapons are not exotic in a great number of cases. The falcata is not a particularly exotic weapon, nor is the bastard sword, the kama is literally a sickle, the katana is the cultural equivalent of the arming sword in areas where it was prevalent, a khopesh is an ancient weapon, but not an exotic one, a dwarven longaxe or longhammer is a pollaxe or lucerne hammer (which is especially stupid since we already have a lucerne hammer), a sling staff was historically a simple weapon. These are all allegedly exotic weapons in pathfinder, not because they require specialized training to use, but because they are either better than other options, like the katana, or because they are uncommon weapons.

Broadsword, on the other hand, is an ambiguous neologism developed in the Victorian period to refer to certain sorts of older swords, and had very little fixed definition at the time. In modern parlance a broadsword could be assumed to refer to a sort of basket hilted sword prevalent in the 16th through 18th centuries, and distinct from the backsword only in that it has two sharpened edges, but even that is largely a modern way of figuring things.

Adamantine chain, improvised adamantine weapon. Done.

It does appear to be the only item of that sort though, so I hope you're just looking for a bludgeoning weapon.

Just fix the damn list first. Then we can talk about adding new weapons to it.

No more one handed longsowrds, or two handed falchions, or any of the other nonsense we keep getting out of game designers. And no more "exotic" non-exotic weapons. Holy crap.

I would argue that aether is the best, for values of best.

Most of the elements are punishingly monobuild.

Aether goes:

Pushing Infusion OR Kinetic Blade

Kinetic Healer OR Telekinetic Finesse

Extended Range

Telekinetic Haul

Bowling Infusion

Telekinetic Invisibility

Foe Throw

Telekinetic Maneuvers OR Touchsight

Extreme Range OR Kinetic Whip

Force Barrier OR Reactive Touchsight

Extreme Range OR Kinetic Whip OR Wall

Suffocate

Disintegrating Infusion

Spell Deflection OR Ride the Blast

Extreme Range OR Kinetic Whip OR Wall OR Grappling Infusion

Spell Deflection OR Ride the Blast OR Telekinetic Deflection OR Telekinetic Globe

Extreme Range OR Kinetic Whip OR Wall OR Grappling Infusion

Spell Deflection OR Ride the Blast OR Telekinetic Deflection OR Telekinetic Globe

Something? I genuinely have no idea what to do with this level of Infusions. There's nothing really great left to take. I guess amuse yourself with something nifty at level 19.

Spell Deflection OR Ride the Blast OR Telekinetic Deflection OR Telekinetic Globe

See the problem here? There's really not a lot of questions about what abilities you're going to take, the question is what order to take them in. There are a few levels with genuine options, like the choice between touchsight and TK Maneuvers, but there are other levels where there are plainly bad choices. If you're taking self telekinesis, skilled kineticist, or draining infusion, you're wrong.

You can make a very cool character by selecting from among these abilities as you level up, and marking things off as needed. You'll have a lot of utility and damage ability if you're clever. If you're willing to wait, yuo can kill most enemies eventually just by using Suffocate until they fail a save, which instantly drops them to 0, and they can't recover via regeneration.

Into the Looking Glass, and sequels by John Ringo and Travis S Taylor

Anything Starfire by Steve White

Freehold by Michael Z Williamson

I've never met a scenario I couldn't solo. I'm sure it's out there, but I certainly haven't encountered it yet. This feat honestly seems pretty weak.

I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure that my Summoner would blow that DPR out of the water at level 10. 1d3+1 augmented Celestial Lions seems like a bad way to go out. Just the static modifiers on three smiting lions overwhelm the average DPR of this rogue, and most level appropriate enemies. Three attacks at about +13 all adds up to a world of hurt, especially with a damage bonus of +17 per hit against evil enemies.

One of my best friends is Thumpy Brumgar.

Summoner pretending that his Eidolon is an elf, and playing as a pair of archers?

Sir Baron Tyrone Reximus and his loyal valet?

There's more weirdness, I just have to remember it all. The scary part is that no matter how silly it is, it's terrifyingly effective at actually getting things done.

In our recent Reign of Winter game it has been decided that Giant, as a language, sounds suspiciously like Swedish. As a result, whenever we happen to be dealing with trolls, they all greet us with a hearty "Bork bork bork."

Also, we have the Nopehole. Anything we don't feel like being in melee with goes in the Nopehole. At which point I usually start flinging Lemures into the pit after it. So we end up with a nopehole full of hideous hellpit abominations and corpses.

Also, really anything that involves the Cauldron of Overwhelming Allies and the Rod of Giant Summons. 2d3+1 Giant Lemures? This is cruel and terrible and I should probably be ashamed.

I'm actually noticing that most of the truly funny and awful things that we've done are my fault. I may want to reassess my life choices.

Moving back onto the topic, two of the six semi-regular players in our Reign of Winter campaign are women. The Bard is rather trying, with her peculiar obsession with bears and somewhat flippant attitude. The Calistrian Warpriest is amazing, though much more likely to flay someone alive. I've been trying to convince my wife to join in for years, but she won't even consider it, despite her fondness for freeform play by post stuff.

One thing that I have noticed in the past is needing to specifically ask for ideas or opinions from female gamers. The other two guys in the group would be tossing out ideas, and the one girl in the group is sitting quietly until we specifically asked for input. That was a pain in the neck, and it's happened with more than one gorup. I have no idea why it happened, but I greatly prefer the women we have now to ones I've dealt with in the past. Even if I do want to set the bard on fire for constantly talking about bears.

What the Words Say

Because the other option has given us crane wing, metaphorical hands, 1/day magic items with attunement periods, (previously) requiring 2 actual weapons to flurry of blows, feats and abilities letting you add spells known not working unless they're in-class, and many more.

This man knows what's up.

http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=655449

I built this guy for Reign of Winter. He primarily ran as a Champion, but he was amazingly versatile. On off days he would switch to whatever was needed, although he was intended to adventure as a switch hitter at higher levels.

At very low optimization levels, where people are playing a CRB Rogue and Fighter and the Cleric is purely blasting and never chose a deity, the Kineticist keeps up fine. Problem is that's a disturbingly low ceiling, devoid of someone even going "hey, that "rapid shot" thing seems pretty neat!" It seems the balancing point for the whole thing was somewhere around -2CR, which isn't even baseline for the system, but somehow apparently baseline for PFS or most APs. Yet most tables I've talked to or played at are usually hovering around +1 for "normal encounters", to account for the fact that the guy with power-attack and a massive two-hander doesn't waste his first turn picking up a pair of sticks and trying to TWF the remainder of the fight.

There's some very good talents, and there's a lot of bad or worthless ones. Things that would be totally fine if burn was a temporary measure, or a risk system such as the Gambler's. But it isn't, so they aren't. Some elements are flat out better, stronger AND more versatile than others. There's NO excuse for Wood, especially when standing next to it is Earth.

Even the damage - touted as a main component of the class - falls utterly apart against all but the most actively minimized builds. Many infusions aren't great, or disable the potential to do anything by throwing in some very easy saves, because dealing a quarter of your blast damage IF they stay in the area is somehow devastating.

Of course... all this is only aimed at the main Occult form of the Kineticist (including those archetypes... something went horribly horribly wrong writing the overwhelming soul and kinetic chirurgeon)

There's some very solid support (and elements!) for them over in the 3pp materials, from Light to Gamblers, that can really make a decent character.

That's all pretty spot on. My big complaint is just the last bit. I shouldn't need a third party developer to make a class work, especially when I play PFS, and third party stuff isn't an option.

nennafir wrote:

Anyway, I am just surprised by the negative tone about kineticists on the forum, because that wasn't really my experience playing one.

One thing I've noticed is that first responses about classes tend to be disproportionately sampled from players who are playing games extremely above the expected Pathfinder baselines, with challenges far beyond them as well (or at least, they are generally building characters with extremely-above baseline numbers and have said that those are necessary to survive in their games). These are some of our players who are highly invested, skilled analysts in the context of how things would work in their own games (a skill honed by playing in dangerous extremely-above baseline games where they have to be great at that skill to survive), and quick thinkers, so that investment and quick thinking leads to them responding first. I noticed the same thing happened after hunter came out for a while too, as well as any class that (unlike hunter and kineticist) was reined in from its playtest (even APG summoner had a short thread about it being weak just after the final version hit, even though it eventually wound up causing problems in baseline games that warranted an unchained version).

I'm really glad you're enjoying your pyrokineticist! In my experience as well, searing flesh has also been a fairly useful deterrant, especially if, as you suggest, you amp the burn when they try to grapple you. A lot depends on what you face. If the whole adventure was with those will'o wisp, you'd be sadder (though searing flesh ignores SR and thus magic immunity, so if you can get up some electricity resistance, it's in a bit of a standoff if it tries to touch you; it'll probably go after someone else though).

So far, I've tried to gather some data from games with more baseline difficulties, and what I've seen so far from those numbers is that kineticists are usually doing well in those (exception; sometimes kineticists who go physical blast and prioritize Con over...

You know, if the games I'm playing are extremely above the baseline, it sounds like the baseline is disturbingly low. No wonder PFS scenarios always feel like they've been soft. I have no idea how anyone plays at a level where the kineticist would be considered powerful. I literally cannot fathom what would have to take place in order to make this class be at all above average.

The kineticist is fun, but under equipped, and you've refused to acknowledge it every timne it's brought up. You've delayed all the good powers to a level later than any other "caster" would get them, and left the entire class as a punishing series of monobuilds if you want it to be any good. Fix extra wild talent so it doesn't suck, give us more talents to choose from, and we no longer have this issue. No one wants to play a class where you only get one or two choices at any given level, it's dull and unrewarding.

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:

No, it was not inevitable. They chose to create an entirely new class, with an entirely new mechanic, give it five subclasses before archetypes, and then not dedicate the page space that was needed to supporting it.

I'm sorry, but given the basic premise of the Class (people who control one of the 5 Elements, but aren't spell-casters per se) this was indeed inevitable.

And that's a neat concept and works fine, but was never gonna have as many abilities per level as would be ideal starting out.

What would you have done, have only Fire and Aether in the book? Maybe then we'd have gotten, say, Water instead of Wood and Void. That's potentially mechanically viable, but it's terrible thematically and forces a huge portion of people to play an element they dislike, which would be way worse for sales and piss off way more people than the current setup.

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:

Yes, I know Mark got extra space in the book for more talents. There should have been more still. There should never be a level where you're obligated to take Skilled Kineticist, or really any other universal talent, because you don't have an option from your element.

There are few of these. void is the only one that really seems to lack an option at a particular level.

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:

I expect, not unreasonably, that each spell level for each element should contain three good choices to pick from. Not three choices, but three good ones. I should not have to look at an element and either have one option, like Void Kineticist 2 or Aetherkineticist 5, or a single obviously better choice like Air 6.

Air 6 is actually 2 options, with Flight and Haste both available. That's not as clear a choice as you imply.

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:

As to good builds, there are not over a dozen good builds. There are essentially two good builds, because each of these elements is basically a different archetype. So, each version of this class has essentially two good

...

It was not inevitable. There were options available to make more space in the book for wild talents. Cut some spells, it's not like we don't have a ton of those already, and not like they don't take up quite a bit more space than any given wild talent. Add some pages. You can fit a decent number of talents on one page. Options existed, and were not utilized. If the book cost more to include more talents, oh well. I'm going to have to buy a supplement for this book at some point anyway, when they finally give us more talents to work with.

Air 6 is one option. You take fly, because you would be silly not to take it at 6th, considering that you have no utility talents to take at 8th, and Haste is only decent at 6th anyway. Nowhere near as good as the mobility option of fly.

If archetypes are the only good build for the class, the class is bad. Core Monk? It's a bad class. Just because there's an archetype that makes it not awful doesn't mean that the base class doesn't have glaring flaws, it only means that there's something out there that can somewhat patch over the crippling weaknesses.

Chess Pwn wrote:

I agree that it's not how the boards normally talk about feat taxes. As far as I know we only use it to mean a feat that you don't want on it's own but need for a feat you do want.

But trying to figure out what Mark is trying to say when he says that they are a feat tax since it obviously wasn't what we think it normally is.

Glad to answer: The thing I like about you Chess Pwn is that in a lot of threads, you're really good at asking the right questions. :)

During the playtest, there was some solid analysis that kineticist needed to gain, on a level-by-level basis, more "high-level" (meaning current) wild talents than it had, including some builds using a hypothetical EWT for top-tier wild talents. The conclusion the poster drew was that EWT needed to allow top-tier wild talents, and thus despite the fact that it's going to become a ubiquitous feat that blocks all other options, it would be worth it because the kineticist would have enough wild talents. I took a look at those analyses and determined that the playtester was 100% correct on the numbers, but I thought that the builds with all EWT were unbearably feat-faxed to reach that point. So essentially, I gave the kineticist all those full-level EWT feats as freebies by doubling the class's inherent growth (which is basically the same thing that would happen if you took the feat every time and it gave the topped-out wild talent). Essentially, I gave more than that person asked for in his or her analysis (I was able to get wings for it thanks to everyone's participation in the polls we did at the end, so thank you to all poll participants, and if you're this person, which really includes several other people who made similar analyses and not one person, bravo!). By eliminating the feat tax, I was able to leave Extra Wild Talent at the point where it's effective for versatility (and particularly synergistic with a second element, which is why we've seen here that the people who prefer mono-element tend to also use EWT...

Bad news, you borked that up pretty bad. You still need the feat, and now you've made it suck on top of still needing it. Good job breaking it.

Kineticist needs more wild talents, but it doesn't need the garbage low level talents we get access to, it needs the mid level ones that you thought we should give up to take a second element. You're so busy patting yourself on the back for eliminating this feat tax that doesn't exist that you're not listening to folks tell you they want their feat back. Hell, even if it was once per five levels, it's entirely worth taking, because that puts it available right in time to pick up a third level talent and still take a second element at 7th.

JiCi wrote:

The Burn mecanic needs to be seen like a Metamagic feat: the cost can be high, but it's optional.

What I really, but REALLY hates about the class is the fact that you HAVE to fight unarmed. What's the point of having weapon proficiencies if nothing can be done to enhance them, let alone use them?

I can't hold an item, or a weapon, if you want to gather power... yeah... very practical...

I was sure I've heard of people who used conductive bows with kineticist.....

Quote:

No, it was not inevitable. They chose to create an entirely new class, with an entirely new mechanic, give it five subclasses before archetypes, and then not dedicate the page space that was needed to supporting it. Yes, I know Mark got extra space in the book for more talents. There should have been more still. There should never be a level where you're obligated to take Skilled Kineticist, or really any other universal talent, because you don't have an option from your element.

I expect, not unreasonably, that each spell level for each element should contain three good choices to pick from. Not three choices, but three good ones. I should not have to look at an element and either have one option, like Void Kineticist 2 or Aetherkineticist 5, or a single obviously better choice like Air 6.

As to good builds, there are not over a dozen good builds. There are essentially two good builds, because each of these elements is basically a different archetype. So, each version of this class has essentially two good builds, which is generally considered to be rather bad. Unless you like your Kineticist looking generally like each other Kineticist of the same role and element, in which case good on you.

Dude calm down. Yes, we know it's low on material. It was inevitable unless it was the only new class in the entire book.

Apparently not everyone got the message.

I'm perfectly ok with the idea of buying a book to support the kineticist, I would have been perfectly ok to pay more to buy a book with a complete class in it too. Especially when compared to the five partial classes we were given.