KoriCongo's page

>Page 115: The curriculum spells for the school of Thassilonian rune magic list a spell of an incorrect rank. Under 8th rank, replace “seize soul*” with “hidden mind”.

Might want to make this one clearer to make sure that Seize Soul is still on the 9th Rank slot.
Edit: Oh, just realized how Curriculums are formatted, Seize Soul is just removed entirely.

KoriCongo wrote:

Kilraq Starlight wrote:

KoriCongo wrote:

I think the Avenger errata is actually worse than the book's approach to it. Needing to Hunt Prey then manually inflict off-guard just to get Sneak Attack damage on your deity's weapon makes it way too awkward and unwieldy compared to Hunt Prey being only necessary for the Ranger feats. Avenger has an issue of competing against Ruffian and this really holds them back in that fight.

I don't got the book so I'm unsure if I am missing anything, but doesn't the gang up feat make the offguard aspect very easy to remedy? Assuming you're coordinating with your allies naturally.

Even with the Gang Up feat (which competes with Avenger's own Level 6 feats), you still need to mark a target to Sneak Attack them, unlike every other Rogue Racket. So if your allies aren't in proper positions, that doesn't matter. And Hunt Prey replacing a typical Rogue activity to inflict off-guard is bad, as you can't inflict off-guard on your own.

Again, Ruffian and Avenger are in an arms race (heh) that they really shouldn't be and this errata firmly places Avenger far behind. Avenger isn't built or designed around inflicting off-guard, it doesn't even get Debilitations. So needing to mark and find a way to inflict off-guard makes them incredibly unwieldy.

You only need to Hunt Prey if the weapon wouldn't qualify for Sneak attack already.

I find that trade off quite alright to sneak attack with greatswords.

That and you don't think Ruffian's selection isn't good enough for you. It's not that I don't get that its not THAAAAT big a deal, but given how much else you lose out with the Avenger package and Ruffian is a lot more bang for your buck AND Precision Ranger doesn't have NEARLY the same level of headache, it feels like an unnecessary action tax and punishing to melee Avengers.

KoriCongo wrote:

I think the Avenger errata is actually worse than the book's approach to it. Needing to Hunt Prey then manually inflict off-guard just to get Sneak Attack damage on your deity's weapon makes it way too awkward and unwieldy compared to Hunt Prey being only necessary for the Ranger feats. Avenger has an issue of competing against Ruffian and this really holds them back in that fight.

I don't got the book so I'm unsure if I am missing anything, but doesn't the gang up feat make the offguard aspect very easy to remedy? Assuming you're coordinating with your allies naturally.

Even with the Gang Up feat (which competes with Avenger's own Level 6 feats), you still need to mark a target to Sneak Attack them, unlike every other Rogue Racket. So if your allies aren't in proper positions, that doesn't matter. And Hunt Prey replacing a typical Rogue activity to inflict off-guard is bad, as you can't inflict off-guard on your own.

Again, Ruffian and Avenger are in an arms race (heh) that they really shouldn't be and this errata firmly places Avenger far behind. Avenger isn't built or designed around inflicting off-guard, it doesn't even get Debilitations. So needing to mark and find a way to inflict off-guard makes them incredibly unwieldy.

I think the Avenger errata is actually worse than the book's approach to it. Needing to Hunt Prey then manually inflict off-guard just to get Sneak Attack damage on your deity's weapon makes it way too awkward and unwieldy compared to Hunt Prey being only necessary for the Ranger feats. Avenger has an issue of competing against Ruffian and this really holds them back in that fight.

KoriCongo wrote:

Don't forget we are actually getting a Divine Investigator CA in the following month in Divine Mysteries: the Palatine Detective. No need to cry here.

I did forget about it. But is Palatine detective divine? From the name I thought it'd be occult. Has it been previewed yet?

https://youtu.be/qDIIJXXCXPU?t=2952

If you think a reference to the Spanish Inquisition is nothing to worry about, that it's not disruptive to the flavor of an alignment-neutral archetype, that's fine.

Aside from the fact that yes, it is fine to reference the Spanish Inquisition and all its warts, not every class fantasy has to be positive. It isn't exactly a good thing to be a Rogue or Witch, in terms of base class names. They know it, hence why they bring attention to the fact that Inquisitors still exist and now are literally evil (also I think the switch from Red to Blue is to help make sure she isn't treated like the joke anymore).

Again, the asterisk text was a really bad idea to post, especially right after providing an adequate explanation for a change. Everyone knew the exact reason why Vindicator replaced Inquisitor, it just didn't need to be said outloud because it is just creating conflict and shows some hypocrisy on part of what fantasies are "Valid Tabletop Representations" to sell and market.

Damn, all of these sound wicked. I'm especially happy for my good friend who's favorite 1e class is Inquisitor, both the vindicator and avenger sound right up his alley. And bloodrager sounds perfect; can cast spells while raging and get to add damage to them?! Sign me up.

Would anyone remind me (if it's been teased already) what other class archetypes are to come in this book?

It's 5 Archetypes total in WoI, with the remaining two being Warrior of Legend (Fighter CA where you get to be Achilles, Achilles' Heel and all) and Sneaschel (unknown).

Divine Mysteries have 2 more known, Battle Herald Cleric and Palatine Detective Investigator.

CyberMephit wrote:

And those who came up with and support the idea of renaming it better not read up on real-life paladins :facepalm:

As of the remaster, PF2 doesn't have paladins, either.

I'm...unironically mad it took me two months for me to realize you guys did that...

Kind of does justify my point that the asterisk text there is showing your hands too much.

I would definitely appreciate it if Bloodrager still have Sorcerer Bloodline support. Aside from opening them up to all 4 spell lists, Bloodrager is as much Sorcerer's gishing option as it is Barbarians. Sorcerer Bloodlines are such a neat concept that can apply to so much, it really should have more open support for accessing, at least in limited capacity (think about how many Alchemical Archetypes are made without making Alchemist MC useless). Cutting that out for Spell Vampire is...goofy. It feels like the team put a lot of focus on justifying the name over the reason why Barbarians need such an option...

Also confirming the reason why you downgraded the Inquisitor title is...not smart? At least the way the asterisk is worded, it feels a little backhanded after already providing a fairly clever reason why Vindicator took the spot.

Inquisitor should have been an investigator archetype :(

Don't forget we are actually getting a Divine Investigator CA in the following month in Divine Mysteries: the Palatine Detective. No need to cry here.

I'm... anxious. What I'm getting out of this post is that the cool part of Oracle was ripped out and tossed overboard, and now it has a feat price-tag attached if you want it back.

I don't like this. The cursebound actions sound cool insofar as having a specific array of actions to use is something I like (kineticist, commander and thaumaturge are pretty much the best classes in the game), but it comes at the price of curse benefits no longer being tied to the base class, preventing mysteries from being designed to cater to a specific playstyle. This takes away a lot of Oracle's identity, in my eyes.

Remastered Oracle looks like it's not for me. Which frustrates me, because it used to be *very much* for me.

This is what people wanted Oracle to be from the beginning. It is closer to 1e's ideas without sacrificing too much of the straightforward, impeding Curse design they wanted to stop the obvious issue of people min-maxing curses. People wanted options to customize and indulge in the spiritual well diving simulation of Oracle, not be constrained to one core idea of what they are. Especially if the core idea was really awful ala Lore.

The first take on Oracle also had the issue of being really hard to actually cross into, despite it not making sense. Anyone that wanted to dive deeper in the mysteries of divine power should be able to become Oracles, yet the Multiclass was SOOOOO constrained, you barely get anything out of it. Moving all the curses and effects to feats means that other classes can properly interact with the systems and powers more.

Besides, much of the identity you like didn't even came from the curses but from mystery bonuses and focus spells. A lot of curses didn't actually interfere or promote a specific playstyle, like how Life just got to keep blasting but now also heal or Cosmos didn't even do anything for the most part. In fact, some like Lore ran COUNTER to the idea of picking the subclass (gain all languages, have no way to communicate???), making you question what the point was. Those things are still around, it just now they can focus on putting the meat of the core experience separate from the penalties that cripple you. Very few people play Oracle, 1e or 2e, for the price, but many for the power.

firelark01 wrote:

Will the ashes and time oracles also be remastered, or will they stay forever stuck in the past?

I'm playing a time oracle so I hope I does get some touchups lol.

It is likely you can expect some Day 1 errata to drop with it, possibly with War of Immortals (we are expected to have our second errata push of the year around that time), but ultimately you probably just have to wait and see what PFS says to do, just like with Mosquito Witch and Baba Yaga Witch patrons (and even then Pact Witch was left hung out to dry...).

graystone wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

It was agreed upon that spellshot was really weak even among regular gunslinger sublcasses, one of the reasons being that for no apparent reason it changed your KAS to Int.

It doesn't have Int as it's KAS though: "Your key spellcasting attribute for spellshot archetype spells is Intelligence" but that doesn't change your Key Ability Score.

The archetype itself changes it to Intelligence, and unless I'm missing something, the revised spellshot doesn't change that.

No, you change your *Class DC*, not your Key Ability Score. So it makes it harder to land Firearm Crit Spec for...no good reason.

I'm not quite satisfied with it. Still requiring Beast Gunner for both Spellsling and Master Spellcasting will never not feel awkward. It is an unnecessarily attachment, especially with the restriction of only being allowed to Spellsling with your Beast Guns and not any other guns (like...spellguns...).

Losing Conjure Bullet is also weird since I would expect Spellshots to never have to worry about buying bullets and Conjure Bullet was good flavor. Now they are reliant on Munitions Crafter to make basic gunpowder, which doesn't feel great... I'm willing to say that is more a mistake with the errata wording, but it still feels weird to miss out on them.

I'm happy with most of the changes, I just still feel like Spellshot shouldn't be so tied down to Beast Guns to do the fantasy justice.

Given this is an Exploration feat, does Sacred Ground means you can move around with it, or is the 30ft Burst stuck in an area? If it is the latter, this becomes a much less useful feat compared to just sticking with Ward Medic or Pearly White Spindle on everyone, in terms of resourceless healing...

So what it sounds like you all kind of want an infinite resource, magical version of Alchemist? A supportive, utilitarian caster that never has to worry about running out of their abilities, but doesn't really have good abilities on their own for raw damage? Basically what Rogue is for the martials, but absolutely in no way can be called a Striker?

I...will admit, it IS an intriguing idea, and probably something I might, MIGHT rally for if there was a more dedicated blaster caster beyond Psychic (and then they struggle to get damage),and casters weren't already so support/utility-oriented this game. As for now, though, I just feel like you can't really say you are missing out on this idea outside of "I want infinite spell slots"...

KoriCongo wrote:

kripdenn wrote:

KoriCongo wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Where has it been offically decided that the thing people want out of a Kineticist is simplicity in design and purpose? I feel like the PF1 Kineticist was pretty far from simple, and capable of adding on a lot of complexity to what they can do.

Why is it wrong to envision a Kineticist who's connection to the elements makes them a capable battlefield controller and influencer of the world in big scale ways? Rising volcanos out of the ground, or summoning tidal waves isn't how you act like a laser beam to take out one target.

Cause we have a Druid that can already do that...

And the closest we have to the "laser beam" idea is Magus, who still have to interact with spell slots and spells over being over to just blast someone with fire. Why not have an elemental class that can be good at laser beaming? Who else should be that class?

PF1e Kineticist was complex for the sake of complexity. It had a bunch of mechanics and ideas that just led it to being a high skill floor, low skill cap class with no clear focus in design or theming. Too out there to be appealing to people that just want to interact with the elements without understanding spell slots, too little options to be among the full casters in breaking the game.

We also already have classes that do tons of single target damage. They're called the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Magus, and Gunslinger. We don't have an at-will caster and getting rid of their utility and AOE magic would just be incredibly boring. Slinging blasts all day wasn't even what PF1e kineticists did.

And I don't think the utility and AOE needs to be sacrificed to let them take feats to make more powerful single target blasts or DC save impulses.

If I may ask: what even is the point of an at-will caster in 2e?

With Focus Points, scaling cantrips, and the variety of magical tools....

what do you need to be at-will, that you are willing to take a massive

...

To rephrase my question, in a way that expresses why this niche is something I don't think really needs such a followthrough...

What does our current selection of cantrips, focus spells, and skill feats lack; what can;t our casters do, that Kineticist can do if it were an at-will caster?

KoriCongo wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Where has it been offically decided that the thing people want out of a Kineticist is simplicity in design and purpose? I feel like the PF1 Kineticist was pretty far from simple, and capable of adding on a lot of complexity to what they can do.

Why is it wrong to envision a Kineticist who's connection to the elements makes them a capable battlefield controller and influencer of the world in big scale ways? Rising volcanos out of the ground, or summoning tidal waves isn't how you act like a laser beam to take out one target.

Cause we have a Druid that can already do that...

And the closest we have to the "laser beam" idea is Magus, who still have to interact with spell slots and spells over being over to just blast someone with fire. Why not have an elemental class that can be good at laser beaming? Who else should be that class?

PF1e Kineticist was complex for the sake of complexity. It had a bunch of mechanics and ideas that just led it to being a high skill floor, low skill cap class with no clear focus in design or theming. Too out there to be appealing to people that just want to interact with the elements without understanding spell slots, too little options to be among the full casters in breaking the game.

We also already have classes that do tons of single target damage. They're called the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Magus, and Gunslinger. We don't have an at-will caster and getting rid of their utility and AOE magic would just be incredibly boring. Slinging blasts all day wasn't even what PF1e kineticists did.

And I don't think the utility and AOE needs to be sacrificed to let them take feats to make more powerful single target blasts or DC save impulses.

If I may ask: what even is the point of an at-will caster in 2e?

what do you need to be at-will, that you are willing to take a massive power/utility penalty for?

I'm genuinely curious, since it seems like the general opinion of the forum is that they want Kineticist to be an at-Will caster.

Where has it been offically decided that the thing people want out of a Kineticist is simplicity in design and purpose? I feel like the PF1 Kineticist was pretty far from simple, and capable of adding on a lot of complexity to what they can do.

Why is it wrong to envision a Kineticist who's connection to the elements makes them a capable battlefield controller and influencer of the world in big scale ways? Rising volcanos out of the ground, or summoning tidal waves isn't how you act like a laser beam to take out one target.

Cause we have a Druid that can already do that...

PF1e Kineticist was complex for the sake of complexity. It had a bunch of mechanics and ideas that just led it to being a high skill floor, low skill cap class with no clear focus in design or theming. Too out there to be appealing to people that just want to interact with the elements without understanding spell slots, too little options to be among the full casters in breaking the game.

It's a little bit like the fighter and the monk in that the "subclasses" are designated almost entirely by the feats you choose. Currently there's not a lot that differentiates the different elements aside from the feats. That's got some merit to it but I hope they flesh out the elements to be more like subclasses instead of how fighters and monks work.

Yeah, I can agree with that.

I don't think that Legendary with blast is inside of the concept of the Kineticist.

Legendary proficiency is... a legendery proficiency. Itself is a mechanic representing that is something thats requires talent and too training don't fit well in the Kineticist's flavor IMO. Also for balance and practical reasons a legendary blaster player won't do anything than just blast, because legendary is just too good to a char focus any other thing.

I really want that Kineticist to be the best ofensive blaster with a damage efficiency that makes those who takes it to blast things becomes satisfied that they are blasting the things. But not in this way.

My desire for Kineticist and I think the main desire for those who want it is that blaster fulfil the old role of blaster casters from PF1/3.5. A class that can just blast everything with powerful blasts and when nescessario can also do some area blasts too (IMO AoE blasts not needs to be main focus just an option to blasts some oponents that eventually are concentrated in a place, that's why I don't care if it uses focus points to do this, because I know that's eventual, usually in the first turn, when you have a perfect situation to do a good AoE. That's why until know I'm very receptive to use Focus Spells and Focus Cantrips in place of Impulses). It's more like a devastating blasts than precises and high treinend critial ones.

It's strange how you say you don't want people to think they need to be only blasting, but then basically describe your desire as...only blasting...

Like, any AOE effect can just be like Chain Blast or Scorching Ray, a series of dice rolls against multiple foes with no MAP or the like. It doesn't always have to be a save spell with your middling DC proficiencies, you know?

While I agree with the idea that I want people to do more, the people that pick Kineticist are not interested in doing more, the same as someone that wants to be a Fighter. They want combat to be simple and let their teams handle more intense complexities. They may pick up one or two crowd control, but they know that they aren't trying to be a Wizard, they aren't trying to compete against Sorcerer, they do not want to be a Druid, they do not want to be another caster.

They want to play a blaster, so lets put their strength in the blasts.

...Also Kineticists are the only ones that can use Elemental Blasts! If they aren't super well trained in this unique weapon type that can absolutely be used precisely and devastatingly at the same time, who is?!

So I was recently spurred on by both the main playtest and the fact that the General Survey doesn't give us the option to ask "Remove some features for a proficiency bump" to write an entire Reddit post appealing to Paizo and the community for Legendary Unarmed/Legendary Blasts, soon turning into asking what if we could make them more like Fighters. It has been...incredibly popular! Much more than I ever could imagine! If you would like to read it in full, I have the link ready:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/wm69ms/kineticist_as_the_fig hter_of_blasters_a_modest/

But to quickly go over the points for those that don't want to read it all:
A) Designing them around the ideas and structure of Fighter/Gunslinger will justify their lower damage output and wide applications in battle. They wouldn't need some assumed first turn action or even increasing the damage of their blast that take away from the action economy; the players can focus on blasting and leaving themselves open to use their Overflow feats if needed.

B) Feats could be designed closer to the Infusions of old: multi-action activities that apply a variety of effects or metamagics when the Kineticist lands attacks using their blasts, whether for single-target or AoE. Different Elements' Blasts would introduce their own effects, such as Earth allowing to knock people prone, Air to push people around, Water to slow, and Fire to burn. Alternative Blast options could be provided by feats, both for the basic elements or for possible combinations of them. More feats like Cyclical Blasts, Blast Barrage, or Fusion Blast, things that interact with and provide utility and power to blasts; less stuff like Usurp the Lunar Reigns or All Shall End in Flames (We can keep the kickass names, though).

C) Legendary Class DC, while sounding like it would be unique, wouldn't really help the power output of the class and just make them play more like Druids or other casters. We have evidence of such of the power issues: its called being a caster with Legendary Spell DC...

D) Maintaining a CON-Key Ability Score will keep them below Gunslinger and give them some wiggle room in the raw power budget for utility options like the Wall spells or Flinging Updraft: things that may not deal direct damage but have a lot of supportive utility.

E) To make CON more relevant of a stat, you can have an Elemental Charge system that is the fuel for Overflow feats, the amount of charges you can hold within is equal to your CON modifier. Charges can be gained through Gather Elements, Extract Elements, or getting Critical Hits with your Blasts. Holding a charge of any element will let you form it into your hand and let you wield your blasts, letting you maintain them after an Overflow if you still have a charge left. Overflow Feats can be designed around requiring different number of charges, whether a number of the same element, a number of elements in general, or a combination of elements (1 Fire, 2 Metal for example). This should let the designers add power or create unique Hybrid Blasts while keeping the novelty of a CON-based Key Ability Score, all without overcomplicating the class, giving it a resource it can't regain in battle and ruining the nigh-infinite sustain appeal, or relying on self-penalizing mechanics like Burn.

F) Kineticist should be the "single-target elemental blaster" class both because it is a niche that is just missing for so long despite it being so desired since launch; and that for as many elemental things a Kinet COULD do, they always been a more condensed around fighting by the elements. I want their in-combat fighting capabilities to be powerful, yet simple enough that they can work as a bridge for newer players to go into full martial or full caster classes.

G) We are already quite close, by things like the feat-swapping feats, the focus on unique weapons that others could acquire but Kinet does it best, and their unique Critical Specialization Effects with their blasts.

At the very least, I do feel like it would be fair for Paizo to go back and add the poll question of "Would you like us to decrease some options for more versatility?" to the surverys, especially so I don't have to do the rather embarrassing act of linking to a Reddit post in the Open Response sections~! I am hoping that Kineticist would be much stronger and more focused as a Legendary-Proficiency Switch-Hitting Elemental Fighter than they already are, and I hope you all would at least humor my dreams, if not fully rally behind them~.