Orc

Martialmasters's page

Organized Play Member. 1,812 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,812 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
I hope they become focus spells
I hope nothing in kineticist deals with focus spells. I hate them. When everything has focus spells, it creates lazy design choices.

I don't care that you hate them

I'd still prefer them as it solves pretty much all the issues aside from you yourself not liking them

Yep and as a bonus it has nothing to do with burn and plays nice with other multiclasses/archetypes that also use focus. ;)

It would be a much better fit in the system itself yes.

But then I generally really like focus spells in general.

Either way it would give excuse to up the power of the spell like abilities. And since most people here who seem to argue that at will all day powers are meaningless because you only average x number of rounds an encounter... It only serves to buff your playstyle and table experience.

I see no downsides other than those that wanted both powers as strong as focus spells but also never to run out of gas in a fight m


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
I hope they become focus spells
I hope nothing in kineticist deals with focus spells. I hate them. When everything has focus spells, it creates lazy design choices.

I don't care that you hate them

I'd still prefer them as it solves pretty much all the issues aside from you yourself not liking them


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
No focus spells. If people want to use focus make it a class archetype and rebalance that to use focus spells.

Overflow itself is already optional. So not hard to do


I'm not sure if I support a single feat tax to make the only detriment dedicated gate is supposed to have... Go away.

Easier to overcome sure. But not ignore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
I didn't understand? Most auras are completely independent of checks. Why are they being mentioned here?

Aura shaping let's you exempt people from your aura effect equal to your con mod.

Absolutely needed for certain aura's like winters clutch

And technically gives con score another important use.


30 years


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope they become focus spells


Verzen wrote:
Unicore wrote:

The biggest risk of making Con do everything for the class is that it would make the drained condition incredibly, unbelievably destructive for this class. Having all of your accuracy and damage options tied to your HP and Fortitude save stat means your character basically sits out or dies pretty quickly if they end up drained. Like clumsy on a thief is bad, but it is not also drastically lowering their HP as well and at least they have skills enough to probably have other ways to contribute in combat.

Con for blast accuracy would also way over SAD the class. It would be like if Druids could get HP for Wisdom and be able to cast cantrips with 1 action.

Meanwhile con is basically useless except to determine DC of impulses.

Aura shaping

Unless you like the idea of dealing up to 20 damage a turn to your party no save


So call and response only lasts for one response.

So it let's you skip a single action every other round.

But costs me two actions as it's a meta magic.

So maybe I should just focus on dirge. And maybe call and response.


As it should be

Actually I'm gonna be pretty sad that they will probably nerf this


Yeah winters clutch becomes insanely good. Up to 20 damage a round no save in a radius.


This is why white board math is never the end all. Jeesh.,


I'm building a free archetype frilled lizardfolk fighter with bard then provocateur dedications.

Biggest thing I'm looking at is dirge of doom. Inspire courage. Harmonize and call and response.

I have little experience with bards.

Am I right it's two actions to harmonize inspire courage+dirge of doom?

Call and response, does this just freely persist round after round do long as a team member can spend an action to keep it rolling?

Does the location of dirge then change?

Idea is to have a Doom metal fighter and the party becomes his band


this is a pretty good idea imo


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seppukumon wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Seppukumon wrote:
You mean the ones who asked for the class to be ported over want it to feel like it used to? Shocking.

Oh yeah cuz that's how balance is achieved.

Wait it's not.

Not very shocking though

Very easy to balance it while keeping the same feel.

Just because you can't see that doesn't make it not true.

depends on what your idea of balanced is tbh


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seppukumon wrote:
You mean the ones who asked for the class to be ported over want it to feel like it used to? Shocking.

Oh yeah cuz that's how balance is achieved.

Wait it's not.

Not very shocking though


Thaago wrote:

Hrrrm, I'm seeing a lot of 'Chain Blast is good/amazing' going around, but I really don't think it is. I haven't done a rigorous analysis yet, but a quick look does not leave me impressed. On the one hand multiple MAPless attacks is great, but on the other hand any miss ending the chain is rough.

Its only going to be used vs multiple lower level enemies, so that helps, but even if the hit chance is all the way up to 75%, that means you only get to the 3rd attack 56% of the time.

It's as good as it is because you can't hit the same target twice.

It would be, at best, a flavor of double strike and that's it otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean the ones that prefer the legendary kineticist are the ones that pine for 1e blasting.

Seems relatively cut and dry. I'm sure there are outliers.


considering ive been taken from full to dying 1 with a optimally built character with 18 ac and 14 con more than a few times in this system.

starting with less than 18 ac with a melee character at level 1 sounds like im never going to make it to level 2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seppukumon wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:


But if you want the current version scrapped that's your perogative. Just don't be surprised if some people state that they like where current playtest is heading and just want to see some basic changes to better realize it.
There are people who will like anything, that's why I said in my original post, if this is near how it will be when released I am sticking with the Legendary Kineticist for my players.

thats quite fine?


exactly, id only play human kineticists at that point if i started a game at level 1.


I mean if I'm destined to only ever make human kineticist unless my campaigns start at a higher level so be it.

Seems pretty silly to be tough.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fusion blast is already power attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Playtest hasn't told them much beyond 5 people want 1e kineticist so far. Everyone else seems more interested in a bit more minor changes.

Like they definitely need a bit of a damage bump.

The placement of expert proficiency is in an odd space.

Generally though playtest is best to look at the product and figure out how to make that product function. Not to scrap it for pet preferences.I try to keep my suggestions to how the current playtest seems to function. Or is trying to.

Pretty sure if paizo wanted them to compete with fighters. They'd make them compete with fighters. Numbers aren't really the hard thing to solve.

But if you want the current version scrapped that's your perogative. Just don't be surprised if some people state that they like where current playtest is heading and just want to see some basic changes to better realize it.


Temperans wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
you are just being upset with the balance of the system at this point. im sorry its frustrating for you.
Nah right now I am upset because you were being a hypocrite while saying "its all because of the system" as if the system didn't have people that could literally change everything with a single book or even just a handful of errata.

You are merely creating bad faith arguments at this point. Have a nice day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

you are just being upset with the balance of the system at this point. im sorry its frustrating for you.


Kekkres wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Kekkres wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Every blast ability works with either ranged or melee aside from chain blast, which is only ranged. Having a couple melee only impulses would go a long way for this.
Only if they didn't provoke attack of opportunity. A systemic problem currently in this playtest. In good faith I'll imagine this being addressed before release lol.

After the inventor, magus, and thaumaturge there is zero chance the Kineticist won’t provoke in melee. Paizo absolutely loves this on new classes.

If you don’t want to provoke you’re supposed to work around it - get reach, don’t spellstrike, don’t use your inventor or thaumaturge ability, don’t use your elemental blast.

Or use elemental weapon with those restrictions and downsides.

there is a HUGE difference between using a class ability, vs your basic attack.

basic melee strikes shouldnt provoke. the rest is fine though. a magus can cascade and swing as example.

Your basic attack is raged. You can have a little melee, as a treat.
It's not though. It's squarely both. Or it wouldn't give the option at base.
It’s squarely ranged, or it wouldn’t provoke in melee.
just like magus isnt supposed to be in melee, or inventor right?

Both of those have ways to play that don't provoke.

Nice try.

yes they do, but they are presented in art as melee first classes, and have far more options for speccing into melee then they do for ranged.

And can still melee without provoking. Plus it's not like there isn't ways to rob reactions or direct them.

This isn't 1 player vs DM monsters.


I don't recall reading it seeing any stories where a fighter is doing that. Unless maybe we talking anime.

And I'm fully going to ignore super heroes and anime. One punch man is literally parody of the shonen genre. It's a joke. I don't think we need to design joke classes that are banned from society play personally


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Same damage means nothing when the damage between the two systems isn't the same nor health values. Plus, that's base damage. What 1e kineticist was functioning at base even half the time.

But it you want to remove most of the classes versatility. Locking it mostly be to single Target or self buffs and completely focus on blast's I guess that's an option.

One I don't expect to happen. Because it would require a complete rewrite. While revision happens often, I don't think I've seen a complete and utter change to that extent yet.

I still maintain 1e was a fundamentally flawed and broken system and should never receive anything more than a nod for lore reasons.


Kekkres wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Every blast ability works with either ranged or melee aside from chain blast, which is only ranged. Having a couple melee only impulses would go a long way for this.
Only if they didn't provoke attack of opportunity. A systemic problem currently in this playtest. In good faith I'll imagine this being addressed before release lol.

After the inventor, magus, and thaumaturge there is zero chance the Kineticist won’t provoke in melee. Paizo absolutely loves this on new classes.

If you don’t want to provoke you’re supposed to work around it - get reach, don’t spellstrike, don’t use your inventor or thaumaturge ability, don’t use your elemental blast.

Or use elemental weapon with those restrictions and downsides.

there is a HUGE difference between using a class ability, vs your basic attack.

basic melee strikes shouldnt provoke. the rest is fine though. a magus can cascade and swing as example.

Your basic attack is raged. You can have a little melee, as a treat.
It's not though. It's squarely both. Or it wouldn't give the option at base.
It’s squarely ranged, or it wouldn’t provoke in melee.
just like magus isnt supposed to be in melee, or inventor right?

Both of those have ways to play that don't provoke.

Nice try.


Xenocrat wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Every blast ability works with either ranged or melee aside from chain blast, which is only ranged. Having a couple melee only impulses would go a long way for this.
Only if they didn't provoke attack of opportunity. A systemic problem currently in this playtest. In good faith I'll imagine this being addressed before release lol.

After the inventor, magus, and thaumaturge there is zero chance the Kineticist won’t provoke in melee. Paizo absolutely loves this on new classes.

If you don’t want to provoke you’re supposed to work around it - get reach, don’t spellstrike, don’t use your inventor or thaumaturge ability, don’t use your elemental blast.

Or use elemental weapon with those restrictions and downsides.

there is a HUGE difference between using a class ability, vs your basic attack.

basic melee strikes shouldnt provoke. the rest is fine though. a magus can cascade and swing as example.

Your basic attack is raged. You can have a little melee, as a treat.
It's not though. It's squarely both. Or it wouldn't give the option at base.
It’s squarely ranged, or it wouldn’t provoke in melee.

Squarely ranged is a bow that has no melee strike.

You have no leg you stand on here


Temperans wrote:
Martialmasters 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.

Sorry, this system already has magical pew pew.

If you don't like how a sorcerer or druid can blast. The system just isn't to your liking.

Uh huh, so your you are allowed to have the classes you like. But others can't ask for classes that they like. And people ask why more people don't join certain games.

Oh look the verg long list of "literally blasters in stories that want to play as". Yeah can't have that, that would mean other people would have fun.../s.

Considering blaster's on stories are firing teraforming nukes left and right. Yes. They can't have that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seppukumon wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

They want to change it because the pf1e design has no actual place in 2e biome so it must be changed.

Obviously given the feedback on this forum this won't be the final version of the class for this edition.

That's not true at all, there are clear ways to take something from 1e and translate it in 2e terms. This is why we still have things like power attack, which itself is just vital strike from 1e except that it multiplies on a crit.

You don't HAVE to change it in its entirety when there is a clear way to do it in the new terms that doesn't break it, and something being broken works both ways, overpowered and under. They have focus spells, those are clear perfect uses for infusions instead of overflow which would remove the infinite use excuse for it to be so underwhelming in what it can do, they have drained or stunned for burn as an optional consequence for overchanneling in desperate situations, they have the same cones lines columns bursts and auras that can be used for form infusions, they have new more specific terms for status effects to be used for substance infusions, put flourish on it to make it once per turn but don't make its main thing provoke AoO, use con for attack or bonus damage so that it has SOME use outside of DCs and 1 ability that lets you use it to name a number of creatures to not be effected by an aura.

The change they are doing is not because the design has no place, it's change for change sake.

Big different between power attack, Wich had been changed to fit the biome

And 1e kineticist whose damage and versatility and resource management make for a combination that doesn't fit ultimately.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

A thing about Armor is that Earth does have a thematically cool power that mimics armor. It's just that it's at level 14, and it actually reduces your armor class and saves relative to the magic armor you would own by then.

A reasonable solution is to give earth (and maybe water) a low level impulse that gives them an elemental suit that gives them better armor. You'd just need to make sure it isn't invalidated by "how magic armor scales". Like let us inscribe runes on it and don't make us spend 2 actions to turn it on at the start of combat (make it a "when you have a gathered element" kind of thing).

So fire, air, and water that's clearly strength based, is SOL?

Doesn't really speak to the versatility of the class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No hp for power for the love of god


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Every blast ability works with either ranged or melee aside from chain blast, which is only ranged. Having a couple melee only impulses would go a long way for this.
Only if they didn't provoke attack of opportunity. A systemic problem currently in this playtest. In good faith I'll imagine this being addressed before release lol.

After the inventor, magus, and thaumaturge there is zero chance the Kineticist won’t provoke in melee. Paizo absolutely loves this on new classes.

If you don’t want to provoke you’re supposed to work around it - get reach, don’t spellstrike, don’t use your inventor or thaumaturge ability, don’t use your elemental blast.

Or use elemental weapon with those restrictions and downsides.

there is a HUGE difference between using a class ability, vs your basic attack.

basic melee strikes shouldnt provoke. the rest is fine though. a magus can cascade and swing as example.

Your basic attack is raged. You can have a little melee, as a treat.

It's not though. It's squarely both. Or it wouldn't give the option at base.


Verzen wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Verzen wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced the class needs medium armor prof.

It's a thing dictated by your attributes.

Any time you get a class with a non-Dex/Str KAS, and someone starts with an 18 in their KAS, a 16 in their Strength, and a 12 in their Dex they are going to want to grab medium armor.

Medium armor prof feels like a lazy way to solve yhe issue rather than simply add in a cool defense that fills in the gaps that changes depending on element.

I disagree because it makes flexible blasts worse.

What if someone wants to be a strength air using throwing 1d4+3 air daggers.

Medium armor isn't so much lazy as it is accurate solution. You could still maybe get element specific fun stuff. But you don't need to limit the classes versatility for the sake of it.


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.

Sorry, this system already has magical pew pew.

If you don't like how a sorcerer or druid can blast. The system just isn't to your liking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
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.

Considering fighters and monks are my favorite two classes in the game precisely for this open ended design.

I can't help but disagree.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They want to change it because the pf1e design has no actual place in 2e biome so it must be changed.

Obviously given the feedback on this forum this won't be the final version of the class for this edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
shroudb wrote:

I strongly disagree with the premise that "both are once per fight".

Having played an Inventor for up to mid levels, having to make the choice "do I do my single blast OR do I keep my single heal" is world's apart from simply spending an action to get it back.

I can tell you 100% that if I had the option to spend 1 action to repeat my Unstable actions I would have used it all the time.

So really, the difference is:
One class has a single ability per fight but a damage boost on strikes.
Other class can do multiple abilities per fight but no damage boost.

Right, but that is why the action cost of overflows is so high. A 2+1 action unstable would not only be stronger than a 3+1, but would lead to reptitive turns. For both classes you want to pick the moment to use your big boom because you can't just do it again next round.

Not doing all the time due to action economy is vastly different from "can't do it at all".

There is an action cost tax, yes, but that's not comparable at all to a hard stop.

Especially if the hard stop is sharing the cooldown between damage and healing.

Thank you for providing some much needed clarity on the comparison.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryuujin-sama wrote:
It is third party, not homebrew. Those are two very different things. The author also was apparently one of the major people making Kineticists content for Paizo in 1e.

That does quite the opposite of convincing me of anything tbh


1 person marked this as a favorite.

this post is for various ideas ive had, been inspired by from others, or have seen on here that seem good to me. feel free to tell me why they are bad or would need revision in general. helps gain perspective for me on things i might not have considered. feel free to post your own ideas too!

1- Medium armor, currently kineticist needs a feat tax and be human to start level 1 as a strength based and not risk getting torn apart before you can even pay a medium armor proficiency feat tax at later levels. considering you have a couple elements that largely are strength based, it makes no sense as they already have the flexible blasts as a feat tax just to use ranged options.

2- remove impulse trait for basic blasts, currently everything this class does provokes attack of opportunity. now, abilities are fine, but basic strikes of the class shouldn't be provoking. at least for the melee portion of the class's blasts. you can flavor it as with it being so close to you its as natural as swinging a weapon or something.

3- give a damage bump through gather elements. example. let the class do their basic blasts without gather energy. but with gather energy apply half your con to damage on blasts. apply full con to damage on overflow impulses that do damage with saves. this would apply a small but noteworthy damage boost to the class, and i do not think it should need a skill check to achieve as we already have that with extract element in order to be functional vs certain enemies. plus not every class needs to be inventor.

4- make shield feat somehow not proc attack of opportunity, in the very least, not the reaction portion.

5- currently gates are not very distinguished beyond limitation of elements available and starting feats. perhaps a little something to ebb them out more from one another? im not sure what here. dedicated should perform BETTER than dual/universal at there one element, currently they do not seem to. Dual should be able to cycle between the elements the fastest. Universal is already the most versatile.

6- im not sure as to the point of elemental weapon if its still limited to a one handed weapon. other than if you wanted different weapon traits like reach on earth with a flickmace.

7- if melee blasts not provoking attack of oportunity is too much, we should be forced into modes, costing an action, to switch between ranged and melee blasts, so there is a resource cost in terms of actions used. so we dont have to suffer attack of opportunity reactions for basic strikes.

feel free to add your own, im not going to critique anyones ideas in this thread personally. though i may ask questions on them. rather this would be a thread to house ideas.


Xenocrat wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Every blast ability works with either ranged or melee aside from chain blast, which is only ranged. Having a couple melee only impulses would go a long way for this.
Only if they didn't provoke attack of opportunity. A systemic problem currently in this playtest. In good faith I'll imagine this being addressed before release lol.

After the inventor, magus, and thaumaturge there is zero chance the Kineticist won’t provoke in melee. Paizo absolutely loves this on new classes.

If you don’t want to provoke you’re supposed to work around it - get reach, don’t spellstrike, don’t use your inventor or thaumaturge ability, don’t use your elemental blast.

Or use elemental weapon with those restrictions and downsides.

there is a HUGE difference between using a class ability, vs your basic attack.

basic melee strikes shouldnt provoke. the rest is fine though. a magus can cascade and swing as example.


like a fighter..so

do away with gates

you only get to legendary with one element until 19

you have next to zero AoE until high teens

do away with most support feats, replace pretty much them all with different things you can do with your blasts


Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Eh, fighters are the exception. I was already against gunslinger stepping on it.
So its not that it can't happen, its just that you don't like it.

I mean let's be realistic here. If paizo wanted to shatter the checks and balances they built they could give kineticist d12 for everything, require only con for everything, have legendary in every proficiency they have.

Everything everyone in here is subjective takes and theory.

We could I guess start every single post and reply with "imo" but after a while it seems rather pointless.

I try to keep my opinions and perspectives within the confine of established system metrics as much as possible and try to state when it's not.

Some people in here are just people who want to break the game for their own sense of power fantasy that they don't get out of a balanced system.

It's been that way for pretty much every playtest as well.

So in the end, assume what everyone says outside of a raw referenced correction as a opinion.

You know, I was on bored with you, until you decided to label everyone who had a different opinion on something literally unprecedented " people who want to break the game for their own sense of power fantasy". We do not know the exact mechanical impact of having legendary class dc, as its never been done before. You can claim that its equivalent to spell dc, but that is just your opinion. claiming that those who see differently don't care about balance is a bad faith argument. I have faith in Piazo, if they see legendary class dc as equal to spell dc, cool, I'll respect that, and assume they did the math for it. But you nor I are piazo devs. labeling the others opinions as "breaking the game" isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

I said some, because why bother naming people, and many others even if they agree with the ones that actually have that perspective, don't actually share it themselves. So I didn't actually label anyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's true I think we can bake a damage bump into existing mechanics instead of adding more mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Firebeard92 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

I was thinking of something more universal.

Something that could let us add con to damage.

Like if blast's didn't require us to gather but if when gathered we had half con to damage on blast's and overflow deals full con mod to damage.

I can get behind that. However, I do think that dedicated gates should gain some additional benefit since they lack the versatility of the others (particularly fire, since idk what alternate damage type it could have).

I've been hesitantly against my better judgement in favor of them being the only gate that gets increased DC scaling either via proficiency or a status/circumstance bonus somewhere.

So long as extract element stays largely the same. They will be able to even on successful enemy save ignore resistance or turn immunity into resistance. With a possible feat to lower that resistance further later.

Dual could be better for blast's. Already kinda is with cycle and fusion.

And universal would have the greatest versatility.

I don't know if that balances things out. And it probably wouldn't sit well with some players. But it fits the games general leaning of how wizards as example work where they give something up to gain benefits in something else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There will always be some people saying they are upset when any class isn't topping damage.

It's been that way through every playtest I've seen. Every single one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Eh, fighters are the exception. I was already against gunslinger stepping on it.
So its not that it can't happen, its just that you don't like it.

I mean let's be realistic here. If paizo wanted to shatter the checks and balances they built they could give kineticist d12 for everything, require only con for everything, have legendary in every proficiency they have.

Everything everyone in here is subjective takes and theory.

We could I guess start every single post and reply with "imo" but after a while it seems rather pointless.

I try to keep my opinions and perspectives within the confine of established system metrics as much as possible and try to state when it's not.

Some people in here are just people who want to break the game for their own sense of power fantasy that they don't get out of a balanced system.

It's been that way for pretty much every playtest as well.

So in the end, assume what everyone says outside of a raw referenced correction as a opinion.

1 to 50 of 1,812 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>