Lollerabe's page

The thing is, the extra weapon proficiencies are bonuses, not limitations. The rogue is already an exceptional damage dealer. With party support they pretty easily become the best damage dealer in the game. The problem with the investigator is that it wasn’t anywhere near the rogue on reliable damage dealing. There was room to give more proficiencies there because the class was behind.

The rogue that really benefits from getting martial weapons are rogues that are just mining for agile weapons, and will be attacking with STR instead of dex. Rogues want good agile weapons. Hatchets that are d6, agile, sweep and thrown are incredible for a strong rogue with a decent dex. The double accuracy boost of agile and sweep on sneak attack is absolutely an upgrade over the short sword and you can throw it in a pinch. Your next + dread striker and you have a death machine. Kill a target on your first attack? Intimidate another foe and you have a flat footed enemy that you can attack with essentially a -3 MAP. This combo is already possible, but it takes investment to make happen. The rogue really doesn’t need it for free.

That's just a bunch of hyperbole. Hatchets aren't 'incredible strong' come on.

Hatchets aren't stronger than options already available to the rogues as is.

The leaps some go to in order to defend questionable design choices are interesting

I think he's saying companions are bad in general.

Though a flurry shortbow ranger with bear support should put out solid damage.

No one beats a fighter at avarage dpr tho. So that's a non starter, as far as baselines goes.

But yeah,at later lvls it can fall off. Companions scale kinna eh at best. I'm actually surprised treasure vault didn't adress companions.

Yeah but the problem is that the argument is lacking nuance. Rogues are never encroaching on the fighters 'weapons master' trope. Due to how limited sneak attack is.

And when were rogues known for using simple weapons outside of a few lagacy exceptions ?

As many others have said by now - rogues already have access to mechanically strong weapons - shortbow and rapier.

More often than not it's a side grade not an upgrade we're talking about here. Or a flavor thing.

One of issues is also how inconsistent the in game logic is: as a ruffian I can sneak attack with a mace. If I attach a few links of chain between the handle and head, it's a flail aaaaaand it's gone *insert south park meme*.

5e had a similar problem - you had to use a finesse weapon to sneak attack. But you could opt not to use dex when using a finesse weapon. So i could be a raging barb getting SA with my strength based rapier. But a Warhammer ? That would be crazy. Although the weapons were more or less identical.

And yes, giving rogues acces to martial weapons as a category does allow them easier access to certain things. Such as specific archetypes etc. But again, nothing that seems to shift the balance

More often than not, sure. But the best debuff to apply is still 'dead'. So if a high lvl shocking grasp achives that, then that's play.

When dealing with actual bosses / threats that is

gesalt wrote:

Riddlyn wrote:

Have you actually played a magus or are you theory crafting? Yes people do use their slots for spellstriking it's one of the main reason some favor not raising INT to high. I know I personally prefer using cantrips for spellstriking because it let's you get 2 stats to damage since I only get 1 swing a round most times

I know I haven't seen slots used to Spellstrike since people figured out they could do so with cleric (and now psychic) focus powers. Who'd want to waste important resources like that?

I have seen magi take electric arc anyway though. That or the elf feat that gives you Electric typed acid splash.

Does this mean as a Magus you multiclass into Cleric at some point in order to gain access to their Domain Spells and then use their Domain Focus Spell to Spellstrike? Why not Druid? I heard Druids have amazeballs Focus Spells but Cleric Focus spells is kind of bad mostly across the board.

I don't know anything about Psychic. Didn't even know it was a class.

It usually goes: spells that require a spell attack = not great. Casters are better off targeting saves. So a druids tempest surge is an amazing focus spell.

But for magus it's the other way around: spell that require a spell attack - great, 'cause all you have to do is land ur strike and the strike + the spell hits.

With expansive spellstrike you can use save based spells. But you have to hit, and the target then has to fail their save = not that great.

Prior to the psychic, fire ray was top dog, as it requires an attack roll and scales really well.
It's much more impressive on a Magus than a cleric

Another thing that can sour the caster for new players is the action economy.

When my group moved from 5e to pf2 we were all hyped about the 3ap system. During our first session the barb and rogue were having a field day.

Our wizard player - not so much. He basically didn't get to use this part of the system in a interesting matter. We were all left wondering why most spells weren't designed like heal.

1-3 ap with different effects as a baseline.

SoM helped a bit, but yeah.

Edit:

In regards to the swash and ranger; luckily alot of those issues can be bandaided somewhat.
Swash def needs an errata that gives it auto scaling in acrobatics. Inventor and the thaumaturge gets their crucial class skill for free and with good reason.

The ranger needs a feat(ure) that allows them to designate a new prey when their prey dies. As a free action / reaction. Call it endless hunt or whatever.

They also need a command animal + stride / strike for 1ap compressor. Playing a melee ranger with a pet is a chore.

Math enhancers becomr boring when the game is balanced around you having them. Hence why alot of people, including myself, prefer playing with ABP.
Math enhancers can be great when they allow you to 'break' the expected curve a bit. I imagine that's why we all love having a bard or a fakeout slinger in the party. Same goes for truestrike.

We've decided to remove elemental runes aka +1d6 damage no meaningful interaction required runes in our upcoming campaign.

Not only are they kind of mindless, they are also unfortunately very often the best choice as a martial for a runeslot. And a flaming shocking icy weapon just seems.. Wrong. And boring.

I actually really like the new spellhearts from TV as a baseline of what items could/should do. A minor passive effect, acces to a new permanent feature (in this case a cantrips) an interactive effect (after using a X spell Y can happen) and some daily powers.

I feel that the casting system was something 5e got right. Well the way you prepare and could freely upcast part. Not casting in general.

Realizing that pf2 had decided to stick to vancian was a bit of a letdown, and has confused a few of my friends greatly. As their main ttrpg experience was 5e.

Having to prepare multiple versions of the same spell dosent feel intuitive imo.

'im a conduit for magical energy. Throwing out stronger versions of a spell, drains me faster' makes more sense to me than 'I can't because I didn't memorize the stronger version' in fiction.

While SoM did introduce a way to get 5e casting, it's just way to expensive.

My understanding is that they did try to get rid of vancian in the playtest tho ?

I just don't see why this "martial == simple, caster == extremely complex" thing has to be such an immutable axiom of the universe. Did Pharasma say it had to be so at creation? Paizo has shown that they're willing to break it one way (more complex martials), so why not break it the other too? There are like, 10 caster classes? Couldn't one of them afford to ditch super hard standard casting for something simpler and more focused?

I guess (more like hope, really) Kineticist can do that. But Kineticist isn't exactly a mage, more like a tanky bender person, and elemental flavor is only one of the many possible ways of doing focused magic.

Still, it baffles me that we've had this game for 3 years, with an insanely fast release schedule, and haven't gotten a single real option for that yet. Like, I'd be personally willing to have casters in general be "dumbed down" a little if that's what it takes to make the experience better for non-hardcore players, but... I don't think that's even necessary? Both things can coexist.

Yeah it's pretty odd. Don't get me wrong - the universalist toolbox wizard, should def be an option.

It's feels a bit archaic. Most games and media manages to have casters that plays/seem awesome, without a huge barrier to entry.

Edit: The issue might be that the baseline toolkit (spell lists) are to big and versatile. Hence it's hard balancing acces to it, while allowing specialized themes such as "I'm a storm druid that only blasts" to coexist.

Could be a thing class archetypes could help with. Lose access to certain spell types, in order to get alot better at others.

I can only cast storm themed spells (the tag system should make this somewhat easy) but they are alot more potent than a baseline casters version.

Edit 2:
Superbidi kinna beat me to it. But yeah, his point.

I think Merc summed it up pretty well. The issue isnt the power ceiling of casters. It's the system mastery required to reach it.

While martials can also run into 'feelsbadman' moments; trying to trip a high athletics enemy etc, it's just less punishing to do so. They waste an AP and get MAP.

If a caster targets the wrong save, or the monster has resistance/immunity. They lose 2ap and a limited resource.

So the learning curve also feels different. Most of my friends (including myself) liked the learning curve as a martial.
"Huh, -10 to hit attacks feels crap. Huh, maybe I shouldn't run into 4 enemies with no ranged attacks solo. When my entire party has ranged attacks".

My friend who played a body horror / Lovecraftian flavored occult sorc just felt stupid and bad. Granted, he kind of was at times. But using your highest spell slot to deal negateable damage just feels eh.

System mastery and complexity should be rewarded imo. But I'm fairly certain one could buff blasting / add + to hit for spell attacks / whatever without breaking the game at all. And system mastery would still be rewarded.

A spell like sudden bolt caused an uproar on Reddit. Insanely OP. I was thinking a 2ap 2nd lvl spell dealing 4d12 seemed about right (as in what i would want spells to do).

Could make it a arms master / weapon master.

Stuff like quick draw and dual handed assault would be nice to have access to more freely. And both fit within such an archetype.

Also, as is, the Falcata is OP (IMO), and a lot of players will want it. Its the new Flickmace.

I think this might be a knee jerk reaction. Another poster did some math and it actually isn't that great for many builds.

For a double slice / twin takedown build you deal more damage with a pick + light pick combo. For a 1h + freehand build it can be good. But doesn't outdamage a dwarven waraxe/ bastard sword with dual handed assault build. Hell earth breaker also works with DHA and is a hammer.

For a fighter you most likely want reach. So Dorn-Dergar or guisarme. Or just a maul for high damg knockdown. Same goes for champions. And if they sword and board - flickmace, boarding pike or chain sword are all better. Due to how reach and MAPless reaction attacks work.

So it actually doesn't impact many builds. Maybe barbs with dual weapon warrior as they most likely don't want a agile offhand. And even then 2x Warhammer might be better due to how strong hammer/flail crits are.

The flickmace was 'OP' due to being a reach 1h flail with a top 1h damg die. Even after the nerf, it's still strong.

So I don't think you have to worry about falcatas all that much. Hell pick is a d6 d10fatal martial as is. With a crit spec that ups that damg a bit.

Okay. I'm just wrong all around, then. Sorry, folks.

Happens to all of us. It's an efficient way to learn tho.

You definitely don't want goblin weapon expertise at 5th. It litteraly does nothing for you. Goblin weapon familiarity makes the dogslicer a simple weapon in regards to your proficiency. And at 5th you get a bump with all simple weapons and certain rogue weapons.

So goblin weapon familiarity is all you need.

Lollerabe wrote:

I'm more disappointed in the newer traits like brace and razing. They seem very niche yet appear as if budgeted as good traits (same goes for hampering).

If razing worked against constructs, that would've been cool.

Last time I read through it, it does indeed work on constructs. Hazards too naturally if you don't have the requisite skills to disable it, might as well smack it with a razing weapon.

Only vs objects unfortunately. So against an animated armor, yes. Vs any construct without the object tag ? Nope.

That's not how it's flavored but most people would be completely fine with you flavoring it that way. It's often referred to as 'fluff' - a way you describe something that has no mechanical bearing.

My ruffian rogue uses a longspear. In fiction it's actually a spiked ball on a long chain, very akin to a meteor hammer. Stats are the same.

If you wanna emulate a tauren feral druid from modern wow, a barb might be a closer fit either way. As a druid your a full caster and you are doing yourself a massive disservice by not using your spells alot.

Animal instinct barb with a monk dedication is a super viable build for what you are going for. The wrestler archetype with the animal barb is also great. Might be more of bear druid vibe, alotta crushing and throwing. Plus acces to the coolest feat in pf2e history - whirling throw.

I'm more disappointed in the newer traits like brace and razing. They seem very niche yet appear as if budgeted as good traits (same goes for hampering).

If razing worked against constructs, that would've been cool.

Eh not really. The maul is great, flickmace is still great even with the nerf. I don't really see many of the new items rendering old ones useless.

I agree with the wider not taller ceiling anology.

I mean some of the stuff like the insight coffee just seems like it should've been an errata for the investigator. "Fixing" it's damage with a strange consumable is kind of backwards to me.

Most people I know rank humans as the strongest ancestry by a large margin. This change hardly influence that.

Their feat support is that strong. I very much welcome this change. I had to jump through hoops to make basic (and pretty mediocre) concepts work before, and now I at least can.

You try making a gnome str based inventor with the old array.

To be fair; I've wanted ability scores divorced from ancestries for ages. I find them a boring way to represent an ancestries uniqueness. And rather people consider it munchkin-ry or not, playing an ancestry that has a - in your KAS feels bad.

There's a reason you often see certain ancestry/class combos. Player chars are supposed to be the exception to the rule. Let me make my gnome barb or whatever without punishing me needlessly.

More options for the current content. Specifically more subclass specific feats would be great. Clerics could benefit alot from doctrine specific feats imo, to further distinguish the doctrines from eachother.

And then id love more gadgets. The inventor doesn't actually invent alot. Most of their abilities feel like martial abilities with cool flavor.

It would be awesome if they had a bunch of one time use things they threw at their enemies. Think a one shot 'shotgun' FX. Could use int to hit and deal a con aoe damg as an example.

Would also allow other crafters to get some of that flavor.

More in combat related crafting feats and/or stuff. The ability to add additional traits, active effects etc to gear seems like a cool way for players to contribute to their party with crafting.

Yet another thread about Magus and AoOs. Though with a new title.

What makes you people think the Magus does not already have benefits that counterbalance it ?

Not to mention the quote in the OP specifically states that Kineticist does not cast spells and thus should not suffer from AoOs.

Which is an argument that just cannot apply to Magus since those do cast spells.

How about you read the thread ? There's plenty of solid arguments as to why they don't

I'm not sure I follow. By all means prep for a boss fight. Be smart about it.

I fail to see what that has to do with a Magus' disproportionate issues with AoO's.

I think it's pretty telling that you have mentioned a bunch of ways (and some I just think are bad, such as power attack) to circumvent AoOs, yet the question remains:

Is it a needed weakness ? Is it there to balance the Magus overall "power budget" ?

I don't think it is. As many others have pointed out by now: if it's there for balance it's odd that it's so swingy in its effect. Sometimes it doesn't matter at all, at other times it more or less disables your entire class feature. Not only does it prevent your spellstrike, you also lose your spell. That's just insult to injury.

How about changing the premise of the discussion a bit: Why have it be a thing to begin with ?
I've read many suggestions as to how one can soft counter it (and frankly 'play a Magus that doesn't use spellstrike' makes no sense to me) but not alot of reasons to justify the mechanic being there.

Could it be possible that it was
A:

An oversight as the manipulate part is tied to casting a spell and not actually spellstrike itself.

B:

Bad design. Now I realize that saying the game designers might have missed the mark is widely unpopular, but I don't think it's such a sin to simply call it that. Bad design.

The problem with the Kineticist taking a ton of AoO was that the motions that the Kineticist makes to control the elements are like the motions that martial artists do in katas. Since this involves "paying close attention to your body is as to control it" it didn't really make sense for you to also leave yourself open to attacks while doing this.

I can, however, believe something like "casting a spell" takes your attention away from what is happening right next to you.

Remember, the Magus is not just supposed to spellstrike to do damage. Using your spell slots to buff and not spamming spellstrike with cantrips should be a viable way to play the class.

There seems to be alot of premises one has to accept for this to makes sense.

Magus is very much the alpha strike king. And it's fairly logical to assume the Magus in the party is the one you sic on the BBEG.
Ironically BBEG's are the biggest threats to a Magus as they more likely to have both AoO and a high crit chance.

Why should not using your main class feature be a viable way to play ? Not using your champion reaction or rage shouldn't be all that viable either

Currently I'm no more so against AoO risk of melee manipulation attacks because this also creates a lot of tactical opportunities to make the encounters more interesting to such classes. After I noticed that Elemental Wrath can be used to not trigger AoO in Magus.

The usage of reach weapons or feats and class abilities like Twisting Tree could give more interesting tactical limited solutions than just remove the AoO completely.

Instead of just remove the AoO risk completely maybe just add more concentration only attack spells to circunvent the limitation but not completelly may be mora interesting than just ignore completelly it.

In general I don't against the idea that AoO can be a disadvantage to magus just like ghosts are resistant to physical attacks and are more difficult to martials. The only problem now is that many subclasses can be barely useless when a magus face an AoO opponent.

I'm not buying it. It's not really tactical nor interesting imo. It's just a game of 'how do I circumvent this BS mechanic'. And it's really not like reach isn't strong enough on martials as is. Making it feel mandatory is just annoying.

I always disliked the whole 'having less options means you actually have to make more choices' rhetoric. Alot of 5e people used the same argument to defend mechanically weak subclasses like the champion etc.

I honestly think the main question should be:
Is it needed ? Is the mechanic there because otherwise the class would be broken ?

And I don't think so. I mean come on, the inventors AoO triggers AoO's. That's just ridiculous.

Should rage or hunt prey also have the manipulate trait ? It would lead to some interesting and tactical plays I'm sure

There's a long time till release so hopefully they can go back to the drawing board and do something great.

The line about the class being pretty good if it was released as it were concerns me a bit. That was not my impression whatsoever. Had it been released in its playtest version it would've been close to unplayable for me personally. But hey it is what it is.

I'm still very curious about the defensive aspects of the class. Even if elemental weapon becomes a strong feature the class can't stay in close quarters as is.

I'm not sure what to make of blasts being closer to cantrips than strikes.

I really hope they are referring to the scaling of damage and not action cost or accuracy.

I would be bummed tf out if blasts became 2ap baseline. Would love a 1-3 variable economy though.

Overall a great read. Most of my concerns were addressed. Rather or not that means they will be fixed, only time will tell.

I hope the weapon feats are gonna be better and more interesting and that we can customize elemental blast more

Did you guys force any movement / waste any of the enemies AP?
Standing still and just slogging it out (even buffed and flanking) hasn't yielded good results for my group. Especially against at lvl or lvl+ enemies.

Can't remember if I posted this before but:

Stronger advanced ancestry weapons. Ive come to terms with humans being at the top of the pyramid. But strong ancestry weapons would bring other ancestries to closer to said top.

And I want stronger advanced weapons in general. Besides the flickmace, they rarely seen worth the investment.

What if… you channeled different spirits via Stances? One might boost your healing, while another might give something like bonus Strike damage or a persistent damage rider on hits.

Then your subclass choice determines if you channel legendary mortal spirits (like the aforementioned Ulfen ancestors, or those within the bones kept by Kholo and Iruxi), nature spirits and elemental/primal powers, maybe something for a weirder option like fiends or aberrations? You can have your Kellid who communes with the land, your faux-Vodoun hosts to the loa, your Minkaian take on the Miko shrine-maidens… lots of room under the same umbrella.

That sounds great, but it has an inherent risk of becoming the 'mediocre' at all roles class.

As it obviously can't be a full martial/caster/Smonkey while attuned to the right spirit.
Would prolly need some abilities to use certain 'off' spirit abilities while in your stance then. So you could heal while striking or whatever, to give it some versatility.
Maybe akin to the implement system, where you can acces more spirits later at the same time, but they have delayed progression compared to the effects of your current attuned spirit.
Just spitballing

Didn't the whole 'it dosent warrant a separate class' rhetoric kind of die with the APG?

Both the swashbuckler and investigator seems/seemed way more archetype-ish than an inquisitor imo.

Lollerabe wrote:

I just hope they won't force me into a certain weapon type and/or psychical stat.

I heavily dislike the swashbuckler, rogue and investigator being forced into using finesse weapons.

Why can't I be a rogue with a Warhammer ?
Or a swashbuckler with a flail for that matter.
I never vibed with the 'this is how we envision X, therefore so should you'.
Especially when it's not a balance concern either

For what it counts, Swashbuckler can use anything they want.

If you opt for a str build ( gymnast, for example ) you are -1 behind other swashbucklers in terms of hit, but you get extra damage from either STR and Exemplary finisher, making things fair.

Investigators are in a similar spot, as they can use devise a stratagem with any existing weapon, but can use their int modifier only if the weapon is agile or finesse ( but nothing stops you from using a STR build rather than a INT one, as devise a stratagem is just a clunky true strike ).

As for the ruffian rogue, not sure whether they can get access to weapons( making them simple ones ) in order to perform sneak attack.

I mean ( for example )

Quote:

For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial dwarf weapons are simple weapons and advanced dwarf weapons are martial weapons.

if this means you can perform sneak attack with a ruffian, possibilities increase.

Mauler dedication seems to fit too.

ps: I do agree with what you said. Just wanted to mention that you can walk around some of those forced mechanics, somehow.

Eh precise strike dosent work with non finesse

Same for investigator (and a strength build is hardly feasible on them either way).
And no unfortunately ancestry weapons dosent change a weapons category (simple, martial etc) only have you calculate your prof with them.

So you cant use say a meteor hammer on a ruffian, even if you have mauler

I really just can't get worked up over a fantasy class' name. Barbarian and ruffian are hardly names with a heroic history either. But hey, here we are.

A divine inspired striker class with high mobility and a focus on single target Nova damg would be awesome tho.
I'm not entirely sure how Paizo would go about it, but as others have also mentioned I def didn't think swashbuckler was a unique enough concept to become a class, and that worked (sort of).

Well the design space for an offensive version of the champion is certainly there.

So a gish ish divine striker would be cool.

The name proberly wouldn't be inquisitor due to the many reasons mentioned above, but since that is the only name we all can refer to for now can we maybe agree that the class can be done without the horrible baggage of actual inquisitors ?

It has a tendency to derail any discussion on what the class might look like in pf2e. But hey, if we can all agree to call it something else then great.

I like interceptor or avenger, but whatever gets the discussion back on track works for me.

We switched to automatic bonus progression after it was recommended to me.

Our dm tried to make our first striking weapon feel super awesome. The second time around we were not as impressed.

With ABP our dm's can focus on making cool items, and not stress to much about our power level. Our table tends to prefer active abilities that are thematic to our chars, so yeah, in short: I think it's nice there is plenty of magic items, we just don't use them.

Like many others have said - it's not a given that a divine book will be a thing. With that said I would like the following:

- A new doctrine
- unique (focus) spells for doctrines. I imagine a way to make the warrior cleric feel more warrior ish would be through unique spells. Prolly with a focus on self buffing, where as the cloistered unique spells would be support-ish in nature.

- the inquisitor. I have no feelings towards it really, as I never saw the pf1 counterpart. But if it's a divine striker ala 4es avanger, wow Ret paladin or the like, then yeah, that's my jam

- more feats for the cleric,oracle and divine casters.
Edit: oh and for the champion. The champions feat list is a bummer atm.

- archetypes and subclasses with a divine flavor: I really liked the 5e zealots flavor, and thought the battle oracle would do it for me. But that's still a full caster first.
Let me play a divine infused barb, or a Warhammer flaggelant + witch hunter.

Yeah, sometimes my Danish gets mixed in if it's early :)

The most interesting to play. The most fun to play, or what have you.

Not 22 charisma bon mot funny

If you go to the 'elemental defense' thread, I made a suggestion that's pretty short (as in not wordy). Fixes AC and adds a secondary buff unique to each element.

But in short: allow the kineticist to use their con mod instead of their Dex mod when using light or no armor.

It's cooler than medium armor and ties in with con as a main stat.

I kind of want elemental weapon to be something cooler than just summon a weapon. And not provoking AoO is def not cool. That's a classic 'design the problem, sell the solution' thing and it sucks.

If elemental weapon was 1 die step bigger than their normal counterpart. If they had a unique crit spec in addition to their standard weapon one, then I'd be more interested

I get the idea but it's a metric ton of fiddily bookkeeping, compared to any other pf2e class.

If they reintroduce burn it has to be opt in, if they wanna satisfy both camps (the love burn, absolutely hate burn camps that is).

I'd prefer a system where you have X amount of resource (let's call it conduit power for now)

Conduit power can increase damg, aoe, add debuffs, whatever. When your conduit pool is empty you can CHOOSE to to use more conduit power but each time you do that, you get drained.
If you dislike pain for power, you never go beyond your freebie limit. If you want to however, you can.

If you make burn a baseline mechanic then players who dislike it will feel like crap, because they are playing a watered down version of the class. With the above design (if done right) it becomes a choice

Okay I felt like I had an actual decent idea.

So people want elemental defense back, con to matter and gather to not suck. How about this ?

Elemental defense lvl 1 feature:

Your constant exposure to the elemental realms has granted you (un)natural defenses.

Starting at first level you gain the following benefits:

You can choose to use your constitution modifier instead of your dexterity modifier when using light or no armor.

In addition whenever you have an element gathered, you gain the following benefits depending on the element gathered:

Earth:
You gain DR equal to X of Z

Fire:
Enemies that hit you with any melee weapon or attempts a melee action with the strike trait against you take fire damage equal to X of Z

Air: Enemies that attempts to hit you with a ranged spell or attack takes a - X penalty to their attack rolls

Water: you gain fast healing equal to X of Y.

So that's the baseline idea. Con now matters, armor issues are mitigated and gather now adds a cool buff, making it more akin to panache or conflux spells than a sheer reload.

Further feats could improve the numerical values or add additional effects.

Different gates could behave differently. Dedicated could get a higher value, dual could maybe have 2 effects active with a reduced value, and universal have the benefit of choosing between the baselines ?

It feels like a way to solve multiple issues at once, or am I trippin' ?

Fair point I guess. Though I gotta admit this whole 'start low and buff from there' seems pretty strange.

In almost every game I've played, new stuff comes out overtuned so people are excited to play it which in turn increases the amount of feedback.
Oh, and it also prevents this very issue.
It's hard to give feedback that dosen't come off as entitled and rude, when the best you can say is 'I love the theme, everything else is really bad tho'

I personally would prefer playtests that came out fighter strong, and just.. stayed that way. Since when did we as a community agree that new classes have to be weaker then the CRB ones anyway ?

Wholeheartedly agree. They need to up the damage across the board, by a fairly large margin. If they want to stick with the current design of 'not really martial, not really caster'.

Or they have to bank harder on one aspect.

If they make baseline blasts stronger, add in ways to customize them, and then make impulses way stronger but limited they would have something.

The thing is cantrip like spells don't mesh well with good at will strike damage. Current casters resort to cantrips when they:

A. Got no more big spells left
B. Are saving their big spells.
If casters had martial level strike damg, offensive cantrips wouldnt have a purpose (and it would be broken).

I think they need to up the baseline damg and have a limited resource pool the kineticist can spend to add oomph. Be it burn or whatever.
And then make elemental blasts customizable with feats that adds additional effects, from persistent damg, to aoe, debuffs, what have you.

That would make the kineticist an at will blaster with the niche of being able to adapt said at will damg with effects appropriate to the encounter.

Currently they are just meh. The impulses are fairly weak, and have a high action cost.
It dosent matter that they can go all day, if most abilities are 3-4 AP moves with mediocre results.

A druid with the mauler archetype and a bear companion can go all day. Dosent make it a good martial, let alone a good build.

Edit:

I think the kineticist has the potential to be the most fun and unique class in pf2e yet. But from my POV judging by the current iteration, there's a long and slippery road ahead if they wanna pull it off

I can't recall it specifically. But isn't the slingers reload what OP is referring to ?

Extra gather feats would be neat. Having baseline abilities / buffs tied to gather, way better imo.

So you want to nerf a weak class' baseline abilities, due to a super niche case in which a gnoll riding a horse are hitting the enemies with d4 attacks ?

Yeah dude, no. That's a really bad idea

Yup, that's what I thought as well.

Add some cool rider to gather. Make it feel cool to do and unique to each element.
Action taxes are just.. not fun. They feel like a chore you have to bypass in order to have fun again.

I had/have the same issue with the Magus' recharge. Imagine how much better it would feel if recharge did something extra with its effect being dependent on your hybrid study.

I posted my initial thoughts in the wrong forum so I'll try again.

Before I point out the negatives, I'll say that the flavor of the class is great. There is alot of potential to make a cool and unique class. It can become a cool switchhitter with alot of utility and flexibility.

Alot of the feats/powers are interesting. Especially the soft CC / movement based ones.

The negatives:

Oh boy, for me (and please note this isn't an attack, it's just my opinion) there are so many:

Damage: the damage of the class is extremely low across the board. Even their big 3ap + overflow (so 4 ap essentially) abilities are very mediocre. I get that it's resourceless but it's way below par, even with that in mind.
I realize numbers aren't the important part in a playtest, but starting this low I worry that the final version will still be way below average.

Feats: there are alot, they have great flavor but they are also essentially the class, more so than in other classes.
The problem is that you kind of need (want?) both baseline kineticist feats and the elemental ones. I think they should receive the elemental ones for free with levels, or more feats if they aren't just free.

Manipulate:
I'm personally getting really tired of this tag on baseline abilities that a class needs to operate. It sucked on the inventor, the Magus and it will also suck on the kineticist.

Please stop punishing players for using their base kit. It heavily incentivizes ranged combat or reach weapons and it just isn't needed.

Armor and weapons:
I would really love to see elemental weapon being supported further with feats, and/or make the current feat a bit stronger. It seems pretty lackluster currently and dosent do much after the initial choice.

If melee is to be a viable playstyle, there needs to be some way of gaining medium/heavy equivalent armor. Would be awesome if it was an impulse ability.
Currently it's so hard to make a strength kineticist work, even though it seems like it's designed to be a viable path.

Gather element:
Can we make this ability tie in with the class' kit in a fun way ? To me it feels like a another Magus recharge, which again feels like a action econ punishment just because.
Adding some cool rider and effects whenever you gather would be awesome.

Con as a key stat:

This seems to be an agreed upon 'issue'.
I like it, but tie it in with the class somehow.
The burn mechanic appears to be a very dividing one, but it's possible to add some 'amp up' effect that could satisfy both camps I hope.

Thanks for the insight into you guys' work process. Always nice to see anyone from the paizo team taking time out to communicate with the community. Cheers

Whatever floats the boat to be honest.

I'm just saying you could make: "welcome to the jungle" the book filled with everything nature and make it an awesome read, even though it was all druid and barb and ranger stuff. No new class.

I don't dislike their format. I've enjoyed reading both GnG and SoM, as books right after I bought them.

I imagine it's also more engaging for them as a team to work on, than a more 'dry' all options no lore book would be.

Yeah I really can't agree with that.
Obviously people shouldn't attack or harass anyone. Let alone the designers.
But with that said an echo chamber of any kind, isnt healthy for the game either.

But I appreciate the insight. I didn't know that it had been an issue, and I'll keep it in mind. That won't stop me from expressing my opinions and/or hopes for the game in the future though.

It can also be a bit harder to express gratitude than to express 'frustrations' or needs.

I normally post what I would want to see in the future, in the hope that someone at Paizo might read it - so that 'needs or frustration' part is visible online.

My gratitude however is expressed with my wallet and irl with laughs and countless hours poured into this awesome system. And thus isn't as visible.

I don't really see why an APG2-ish book wouldn't be able to be well written and brimming with cool lore.

Speaking of xanathars and Tasha's - they made for the most entertaining and lore filled reads at that point in 5e's lifespan. And they were the APG2 equivalent.

I don't want them to stop making cool books either. And by cool I mean - books where you want to actually read them, back to back.

But I don't think 'tons of options for the existing classes' and 'interesting read full of awesome lore' are mutually exclusive.

A thing I've been wondering about (and I assume none of us can know for certain):
don't you guys think it's a lot more work to design brand new (and pretty ambitious) classes like the thaum and psychic, than designing new feats/class archetypes ?

I'm asking because while new classes sells, I imagine they also require way more work. Yada yada new options for current content = less work required, less sells needed.
Or am I way of base here ?

Lollerabe wrote:

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

No, we don't need bloat for sake of bloat. That killed PF1 and Paizo is clearly not interested in crunch disassociated from Golarion lore.

It comes off as a bit rude to summarize his request as "bloat for the sake of bloat".

How is it bloat ? Many people want more options for current content. And besides - many of the class archetypes mentioned has been requested multiple times as well.

Because among my players, for every 1 "I wish they printed Bloodrager/Inquisitor/Synthesist Summoner, how about APG2 soon?" person, there are 4 "Geez, why are there so many X to choose from?" people. Granted, PF2 fares much better than PF1 did in this regard, but you must understand that vocal forum veterans that are highly invested in what is in the system are like a very small slice of the actual playerbase.

The fact that RoE has only 1 class seems to be a good sign that Paizo is slowing down with crunch, and good for them doing so.

Fair enough. I just think bloat is a pretty loaded term. It usually refers to something that isn't needed or dosent add value, in gaming at least.

And again, I can't get mad at Paizo for providing their community with what they want.
I'm fairly sure there's at least 3 more classes that are more wanted than an APG2.

However I dont think that it invalidates the fact that some people would love exactly that.