I mean, when it comes to "safely triggering traps" the kineticist is already kind of the king since a telekineticist can just push/drag that piano/statue/crate down the hallway and see what happens, at 0 cost to themselves. If you need to see around corners air and aether have options.
"Using the tools you have at your disposal to solve problems in creative ways" is sort of what the kineticist does out of combat so I don't know if a "fire goat when you want it" is a problem.
So this is in the wrong forum (this "Classes" is for the Pathfinder Playtest, which doesn't have a Kineticist), but I think you're missing something key about Elemental Whispers.
As a standard action, you can give the voice of the element the body of such a creature, using elemental matter of the appropriate element within 30 feet. As long as you concentrate, the familiar can take actions as a normal animal of its type, and it can move any distance away from you, though if it takes any damage or you cease concentrating, it returns to your mind.
Concentrating to keep your familiar extant is like concentrating to maintain a spell- it costs a standard action every round. Since you have better things to do with a standard action (like Kinetic blast) (non-Greater) Elemental Whispers is pretty useless in combat, but handy if you need to march a goat down a hallway to check for traps. Plus, it lets take the Greater version later, which is super useful (Wysps are extremely handy accuracy boosters.)
So in your scenario it's:
Since you only get one standard action per round, it's not really broken.
But playing a Wizard does not mean I want to be Gandalf, playing a Barbarian does not mean I want to be Conan, playing a Ranger does not mean I want to be Robin Hood. Sure, those are examples of a high charisma representative of that class but maybe I want my Barbarian to be Logen Ninefingers, or maybe I want my Wizard to have a caustic personality like Harry Dresden, or maybe I want my Ranger to be prickly and guileless like Rayla from "the Dragon Prince."
A class is supposed to represent a wide variety of fictional archetypes that it could cover, built and played in different ways, not exclusively the one which inspired it.
I'm glad that we're making sure non-Cha primary classes have tools, but the two classes hit hardest here seem to be the Druid and the Monk since (assuming a Druid who wants to fight in melee) you're spread pretty thin on attributes, since you need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis already because of things like "needing to hit" and "needing to do damage" and "needing to not die."
I feel like there's a big difference between "I have a weakness in a save, low armor class, or low HP because one of Dex, Wis, or Con is low" and "I am unable to use my powers granted by my class because my Charisma is low" particularly when nothing about the thematics of the class indicate "people with this class are charismatic."
So I have a 12th level Dwarf Monk with 8 Charisma, and I am somewhat concerned about the prospect of going from 9 spell points to 0 focus- spamming "Wholeness of Body" was kind of the character's gimmick. "Being able to use wisdom to regain focus" has potential, but I never had any to begin with!
Like with the removal of Unburdened, the Gnome speed boost, and the fact that Focus does not scale, Dwarves might have moved from the strongest chassis to the weakest, since now you *need* to buy off that Charisma flaw.
I do agree that monks are a bit of a glass cannon right now. I wish their natural boost to armor was more than a +1; even just a +2 would probably be sufficient.
Odd thing is that once bracers of armor get into the picture, you get good at AC. A level 20 24 Dex monk with +5 Bracers has the highest AC and touch AC in the game, pretty much. High level monks have great defenses, low level monks are incredibly squishy; I am not sure how to fix this short of "frontload the class more."
I'm sorry I'm just not a fan of PF2 Alchemist having everything tied to a pool. But that's for another topic.
Well, the PF1 alchemist also had their stuff tied to pools it's just that one of them was spell slots, and it never made sense for the alchemist to be a spellcaster. Besides, tracking "bombs left" as separate from "extracts" separate from "do I have a mutagen handy" was more things to track anyway.
I'm not sure if battlecry works with intimidating glare.
Like it seems like "you yell a mighty battle cry" and "you can Demoralize those around you with a mere glare" should at the very least not synergize.
Game is full of things that seem like they should not work together (e.g. Combat Grab and Dueling Parry) but by RAW it looks like they do.
I think confusing a playtest with a final release is a big mistake. Structurally you cannot make huge sweeping changes during a playtest because it would require you to change a huge number of things in the playtest rulebook and reading through the update documents is hard enough as is. If you were to fundamentally change a big system like "resonance" (which will be changed for the final release) then you would have to rewrite the entry for literally every magic item in the book (this is why we're testing the alternative system with a canned adventure.)
But when it comes to actually finishing up the book the number of people who need to be kept in the loop changes from "thousands" to "dozens" so big changes are easy.
I think the better example is that a human in PF1 can move 30' then attack once, whereas a human in PF2 can take two actions to stride 25' twice, then attack once. So you can move 20' extra and get the same amount of stuff done. Sure, a charging human could move further but that requires charge lanes be open.
Personally I am inclined to stay with 1st edition, but am open to be persuaded.
I mean, the biggest thing to keep in mind is that with a couple of years of splatbooks PF2 is going to be a very different game than it is right after release, and a lot of this is going to solve problems people have with flexibility and power level (think of how much PF1 changed with the APG, ARG, and Ultimate Combat/Magic). So if you've got some PF1 stuff to finish up (we have a few APs on the agenda still) that should carry you for a while.
Well, let's look at the monk feats which are ki powers shall we:Ki Strike: No DC, No bonus from Wisdom
Wholeness of Body: No DC, Adds WisMod to amount healed.
Dimensional Steps: No DC, no bonus from wisdom
Ki Blast: Has a DC, no bonus from Wisdom
Wild Winds Stance: No DC, no bonus from Wisdom.
Wind Jump: No DC, no bonus from Wisdom.
Wild Winds Gust: No DC, no bonus from Wisdom.
Quivering Palm: DC, no other bonus from Wisdom
Empty Body: No DC, no bonus from Wisdom
So 6 of the 9 Ki powers have no benefit from wisdom whatsoever. Only 2 have a DC, so if you don't pick Ki Blast or Quivering Palm (not strong choices at those levels anyway IMO) the only thing an 16 Cha/8 Wis Goblin monk does worse than a 16 Wis/8 Cha Dwarf Monk is "Heals 4 less damage with wholeness of body".
So it can't just be "Cha determines how many Ki powers you can use, and Wis will take care of itself" since Wisdom does very little for monks currently outside of "how many ki powers you can use."
Captain Morgan wrote:
We know that classes will grant bonus focus points, but we don't know the exact mechanism for doing so. Having it be Wis+Cha for monks, Int+Cha for wizards, etc seems like a decent guess. But we will probably have more information when the scenario drops tomorrow.
So Wis+Cha would be fine, except for how the monk gets exactly the same bonus from Charisma as they do Wisdom, which is not ideal. It's not the fault of the Focus system so much as the rest of the monk chassis having nothing wisdom focused outside of spells though.
Double Slice is pretty clear:
Make one Strike (see page 308) with each of your two melee weapons, each at your current multiple attack penalty. The second Strike takes a –2 circumstance penalty if it’s made with a weapon that doesn’t have the agile trait
So if you use your first two actions to double slice, and you are using an agile weapon with at least one of your two hands, then you will attack at +0/+0; if you strike then double slice, it's -5/-5; etc.
I think the issue is less "monks are nerfed because they can't use wholeness as much" but more "thematically monks are supposed to be wise- you go to the monastery and come out wiser from the process." Charisma monks certainly can exist but these are a flavor rather than the default.
Previously monks had been given mechanical incentives to boost wisdom (beyond the reason, say, rogues have to boost wisdom) in that it added to both their Armor class and determined their mystical acumen. PF2 removed the "wis-to-AC" thing so the only reason to increase Wis on a Monk (that wouldn't apply to any other character who's going to make fort saves or roll perception) was that it determines your spell points.
But now if it doesn't do that, we've stripped all mechanical importance for wisdom on a class which is supposed to be wise, which is a problem. Even if it doesn't apply to focus, and doesn't add to AC we need *some* kind of mechanical emphasis on Wisdom for the monk and "it adds to your wholeness of body rolls" isn't enough.
But consider hypothetically a level 12 fighter and a level 12 barbarian, with the same strength and the same weapon.
Under the OP's schema the fighter will add +9 to hit from proficiency and the Barbarian will add +3. How on earth do you set monster armor class so that the Barbarian *can hit* while the Fighter isn't critting every round (sometimes twice)?
At level 13 the fighter will add +13 to their attack from proficiency and the Barbarian +7.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
It feels like "it's just charisma if you have no class powers which would have given you a spell point poll" and "it's charisma + something else" if you would have had spell points, but the concern would be "whither Paladins" since we don't want to add Cha twice.
But it feels wrong for Monks to get so little out of Wisdom.
So my big problem is attack rolls. Some people are going to be massively more proficient in their weapons than others- at level 3 a fighter has master weapon proficiency whereas the Barbarian (whose job is hitting things) has to wait for level 13 to get expert.
If you wanted to do a system like this you would have to make weapon/armor proficiency work differently than skill proficiency, which I am not sure is a good idea.
Data Lore wrote:
So, Monks care about Cha now instead of Wis since that powers their ki abilities.
I feel like that's super weird. I know we can't add two stats to one roll, since that breaks the math, but it seems like using two stats to determine the size of a pool would be fine.
Like now it seems like you can't play a super grumpy storm druid and be able to use your order power, unless the thing that previously gave you spell points adds the text "add your Wisdom Modifier to your focus pool."
I generally find that if, as the GM, I cannot come up with a single interesting consequence of success vs. failure for some task I can't, in good conscience, ask anybody to roll for it.
Like a better way to handle it instead of "did you make a nail" is "how many nails did you make" or "how long does it take you to make the number of nails you need."
I feel like just how "core only" PF1 is a much, much lower powered game than PF1 with all the books available, it's pretty inevitable that we're going to get a steady power creep throughout PF2, and if you want that rocket tag game PF1 will still be there.
So trying to set PF2 at the "end of PF1" power level will inevitably get silly in a couple years.
I guess the big question is "how often is it appropriate/dramatically-satisfying to fail at the thing you are best at, a thing you have practiced extensively, a thing you have dabbled in, and a thing you know very little about?"
Since we can only work in 5% increments because of the whole d20 thing, and "succeeding 100% or 95% of the time" (a thing many PF1 characters could accomplish)" isn't ideal.
I think "failing at a skill check you will eventually succeed at" is a good model for those moments in fiction where our hero suffers a setback to create drama- "hanging from a broken rope bridge, you reach for the next plank only to have it snap in half", "the guard doesn't buy your story, and asks a question you don't know the answer to", "the sneaky person does not go completely unnoticed, instead they have to evade searchers", etc.
I guess the question is to what extent we want to protect people from themselves, since for example, a Barbarian with 18 Str and 16 Cha is simply more effective than a Barbarian with 18 Cha and 16 Str but both are decidedly "strong and charismatic".
Like I get the desire to start with an 18 Con, but until they bring back the Kineticist (or the Scarred Witch Doctor, or someone who gets more than HP and Fort from it) it's kind of a trap option.
Honestly "how PF2 does weapons (including magic ones)" is probably my single favorite aspect of the playtest.
If low die weapons aren't effective, it's possible some of the specific weapons need attention (it seems pretty hard to use a Katar effectively) or to provide more options which provide synergy (PF1 had a dozen whip feats, after all.)
I like the CG "Paladin" as an anarchist who wants to do away with all authority and power dynamics, dismantling the kyriarchy, personally. I mean, they do this for good reasons, but it's still an extremist position which may clash with darn near everyone around you... this is supposed to be a Paladin after all.