Kylian Winters's page

Captain Morgan wrote:

Kekkres wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

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

My shortbow Investigator has similarly felt insane. Stealth to initiative is so so good on archers.

But you're proving my point. If the rogue deals consistent sneak attack damage they get full martial single target damage. The kineticist will have to deal less than that for single target if they also want AoE and utility.

Rogues certainly do have utility, though I think it is hard to compare extra skills and skill feats to things like flight and invisibility. You're solving different problems there.

But they have nada for AoE and will have less hit points to boot. So even if you call their utility a wash the rogue would still be too high a benchmark for single target.

rogue already has plenty of utility, they have 10 skill up's and 10 skill feats worth of utility power budget we have to work with, as for aoe, as ive previously stated i think its nice, but i dont think its especially valuable, and certanly should not be a classes focal point

It is still going eat into your class budget though, regardless of whether it is the focal point. Having the tool is a significant advantage that straight up martials largely don't have. So your single target damage will inevitably suffer for it.

barbarians can aoe https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=148 so can fighter and ranger https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=426 inventors have explosion built in, magus has access to all kinds of aoe with or without spellstrike, eldritch trickster just has spells and thaumaturge can throw around scrolls.

now these are all admitidly much slimmer pickings than the kineticist, but they also do more damage for less actions at aproximatly the same dc (class dc growth is wobbly) now im not saying that for instance dragon barbarian is better at aoe than a kineticist, but i am saying that treating it as...

I am struggling to see how people aren't seeing how weak the damage is in the Kineticist as presented. Seems painfully obvious.

Way I've thought of dual wield vs 2 hander has always been about flexibility. If I enchant one weapon with element x and the other with element y, I get more flex against resistances. Also, variation in poisons, where maybe I poison one to focus on damage and the other to focus on adding a condition, etc.

Themetricsystem wrote:

You will still need to also consider that you need a specific formula for every different type of special material that an item can be made from too which is bound to make your costs explode.

Is that explicitly stated in the rules?

Seems about as absurd to me as those claiming you need a different formula for every spell scroll at every level in which they can be cast.

Uhhh, I cannot find any rules that denote you need a per material version of a formula....unless someone wants to reference exact page, this sounds like just as much bollox as the example you provided about spell scrolls.

Also, in regards to the murder-hobo suggestion of finding craft recipes, if you're going Rogue route anyway for skills, would make more sense to sneak into different crafters workshops and steal or copy their formulas. Could also use deception to work with a crafter during your downtime to earn money and copy his recipes on the down low....

Not sure why everyone jumps to murder-hoboing when there are far more elegant and, potentially, rewarding rp opportunities that get the same result if not better.

The limitation of class functionality for 'decision paralysis', I find frustrating. Give us more flexibility, let people learn what works, and they'll make quicker decisions. Let the GM encourage moving things along.

I feel like if anything is going to be level gated as opposed to just represented by an increasingly high DC it should probably be crafting. Raising the DC means you are creating room for a character to luck out and get an OP item, or more likely, critically fail and waste a bunch of time and money. Neither outcome is actually good for the game.

From a realism perspective, it also makes more sense. An un-charismatic person could "roll a nat 20" and make a very cogent point out of sheer luck. But it seems rather unlikely that they a person without the technical expertise is going luck into building a super computer.

As for why you would take crafting, it functions as a revenue stream that can used in lieu of Lore (practice a trade.) It has more uses adventuring than Lore does, like repairing gear, transferring runes, or identifying alchemical items. And even with formula restrictions, it can provide you with upgrades that aren't available in the shops. For example, my current level 8 party hasn't had shop access, but they did find a +2 weapon, and were able to reverse engineer the formula and then use the treasure and raw materials they had on hand to outfit the whole party with +2 weapons.

I am actually kind of ok with the 'luck out' aspect. Not only luck, but RP. If we focus on DC, instead of hard level requirements for crafting, it opens up the, "You've been Crafting at the World Famous Black Smith Of This Metropolis Shop inbetween your adventures. The Grand Master Smith, renowned for his unrivaled expertise, has taken notice of your work and offers to mentor you."

Also, as long as a player is aware of the consequences, so what if they risk big and lose it all? If a player is stealthing through forest, and come across a dragon that is way out of his parties league, if he decides to charge it instead of trying to sneak away, he made a choice. Is it a smart choice, no, but it's still respects player agency.

Also, what about interesting hooks? If I am level 16 and craft a level 20 item, lets say through RPing the mentorship angle of the Grand Master smith, perhaps one of his other apprentices grow jealous and pay for assassins, or perhaps he interfered with the creation of the item and implanted a curse that could be triggered at a specific event, perhaps, simply through gossip from fellow employees, others hear of this Legendary item and seek you out to make it theirs.

I just realllllly hate railroading on things such as this. I love the idea of allowing a player to invest heavily, collaborate toward something his character is good at. In the RAW it is much easier to RP with GM a long running goal to get a specific legendary item, as it's own kind of arc by the player or the group(regardless of player level). Due to RAW, there is no way to do with this utilizing your crafting, unless the great finish occurs at level 20.

Has anyone run into this in their play tests? Seems kind of restrictive? Why would you take the crafting path? Why wouldn't you just seek out through adventure or commissioning a NPC through roleplay, seeking out the Orichalcum shortsword you've been seeking out, spending your every last coin, forsaking every other luxury, etc?

Where is the opportunity for the crafts people, when you've got a hard level gated on your craftsmanship via level. Why not allow the opportunities of difficult skill rolls to craft great items, instead of flat out making it so, "Sorry, you're not level 20, you can't craft that because the item level is higher than your level".

Why would they be so prescriptive? Isn't the time and gold cost sufficient? If the GM was concerned about power creep, could they not handle it in their story, instead of a hard Rules As Written slamming the door in the face of crafters being able to achieve anything great?

This kind of design reminds me far too much of Action RPG or MMO design. "Can't have them getting access to this equipment to early, got to keep them in their nice little lanes! May outpace the content!" Which, imo has no place in the Pen And Paper world.

If a crafter specializes, investing their feat ups in getting to Legendary proficiency, sinks all his gold into making something magnificent, it makes me cringe that Rules As Written would put up a hard wall of, "Sorry, you rolled a nat 20 and have dedicated a lot of your RP and Character development toward making something magnificent, but RAW clearly states, you're only level 15 and are trying to make an item level 20 object. Sorry, please try again at level 20"

Thoughts? How precious do ya'll think they are about this? Hoping the playtest gives push back on this.