Pronate11's page

Organized Play Member. 182 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
S.L.Acker wrote:


That's down to advertising reach and luck. Paizo was lucky enough to have worked closely with WotC and that positioned them well to make Pathfinder which worked out very well for them. Unfortunately, their lack of boldness and follow-up has eroded that success as they steadily fall back away from their height as arguably the most popular PnP RPG in the world.

I mean, PF2 is selling way more than PF1. Sure, it doesn't sell as much compared to DND, but thats more of a testament to how popular DnD is than a failure on Piazo's end. Also, most the other, more popular TTRPGs are also way less combat based, which will lead to very different design decisions. Most of the other Combat based TTRPGS I can think of share most of the complaints you have, and they currently aren't skill based.


Castellanox7 wrote:
Castilliano wrote:


Sounds like a rough session, but what are the odds, right?

The sliding levels of success was one of the most popular and integral changes, subject to much playtesting and review. So don't expect it to be "fixed" except by yourself which you can totally do if your table prefers that. Go ahead, Paizo wants you to make any changes that make the game more enjoyable for y'all.
And under that system, yes, crit fails are bad, so bad they might drop PCs which is why there are Hero Points. Sounds pretty cool and dramatic IMO that those two weathered the fireball despite deep burns. Yet note if you change the math there it alters the math throughout the system for PC casters, which in turn strengthens martial roles unless you take crits away from them, which sort of imbalances the whole. And steals...

It sounds like (personally) a system shouldn't be propped up by esoteric hand waives which basically say "nah". That's as bad as 5e's counterspell logic.

What "esoteric hand waives" are you talking about in particular? Becouse from what you've quoted, it seems like you don't like making houserules, which is fair, but its kinda par for the course with all TTRPGs, or at least rule heavy ones. No designer can make a perfect rule system for everyone, and sometimes you either need to make some changes yourself or learn to deal with it. Thats not just saying "nah", thats just how it is.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Berselius wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Elara wrote:
Berselius wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Who is making pun of this situation?
YOUR ONLY MAKING THIS WORSE FOR YOUR SELF!
Worse, or better?
Could have used batter :3
Rysky...no jury alive would convict me.

Sadly, the jury is from Geb, and the undead really like puns


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:


The only advantage is the creature has to spend an action to stand allowing AoOs if you have that type of party.
Is that advantage any better than just flanking and pounding it as hard as you can with your first attack and healing against its attacks? We found it is not.

I feel like you are ignoring the fact that it is an action to stand up. That is a very big deal, and can stop a lot of nasty 3 action activities, or make 2 action activities much harder to pull off. You are also ignoring that the plant eidolon in question doesn't need to make a skill check or increase map, whenever they hit with a strike, they can just make the target fall prone. That is very powerful. Also, ranged characters still benefit from prone targets just as much as melee ones, arguably more so as they can't flank. You have to take cover while prone to gain any benefits, and that means they spend an action and stay prone on their next turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
How okay would folks be with a new Shaman absorbing the Medium’s schtick, the way Spiritualists were folded into the 2e Shaman? “I commune with and host ephemeral beings” seems like the thematic foundation of both.

definitely feel like that should be a subclass/feat chain/class archetype instead of a core part of the class. Possession is definitely one way to deal with spirits, but I feel like many if not most shamans wouldn't partake in that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:
The Thaumaturge is the occult detective
The Thaumaturge isn't Occult.

The Thaumaturge is definitely occult. It's not technically occult spell casting (as the thaumaturge doesn't cast spells), but the magic it does fits the description of the occult tradition SoM gives to a t. The use the power of story's, beliefs, and convictions to convince the universe to aid you in your quest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
gesalt wrote:
Claxon wrote:
My experience, limited as it is, is that Paizo did good in that they mostly eliminated the big 6 problem from PF1.

They really haven't, it's just a different set of required items.

Armor
Apex
Flight item
Speed item
Perception item
Skill 1
Skill 2
Skill 3
Skill 4 (classes with 4+ legendary skills)
Skill 5 (classes with 5+ legendary skills)

So really, you have between 0 and 2 free item slots as you progress which is even worse off than pf1's big 6. You at least get to use temp items in the interim before some of these exist I suppose.

Odds are your apex item will wind up also covering at least one of your legendary skill item bonuses. Also, by time it comes into play you've probably got a general feat open for Incredible Investiture. Once you have Fleet and tougheness there are few general feats you really need.

but that would require that you invest a good amount in charisma, which many builds don't


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


IRL? literally just a different translation of a chines word. Its also spelled "chi" sometimes. In game, I wouldn't be surprised if its the same thing, different spellings of the same word. Or someone just forgot that they spelled it "Ki" in the monk stuff.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
kripdenn wrote:
Allowing some way for dual gate to dual wield melee blasts or elemental weapons would be cool. Or something like dedicated gate to get 2-handed weapons.

Neither of those should be limited to a gate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Selective proficiency sounds like an annoying solution, not a fan.

Martialmasters wrote:
I am more amiable you the notion of only a single element reaching legendary even though I still hold that it breaks the checks and balances paizo has built for their system.

How can it break the system when it's only even relevant for a handful of levels?

The average player's kineticist will spend the vast majority of the campaign with the exact same proficiency as a caster.

Tbh to some extent this whole conversation about class DC almost feels like a distraction, because it's going to be so rarely relevant for most games. It's six levels, and four of those are backloaded where many campaigns might not even reach.

Kineticists being fractionally worse at exactly levels 7 or 8 is not some secret balance lynchpin.

That's the exact issue

If they capped at expert in martial proficiencies I would have no leg you stand on.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing here. that becouse the kineticist is behind in dc during 6 levels, if you want to make it equal, you would have to be behind in attack for 10 levels? 15 levels actually, as you are behind by 1 for 10 levels too.

?

Master martial master class

Expert martial legendary class

I'd be for this being an option on character creation I guess.

Except there is no class with legendary class dc. there is only legendary spell casting dc. as you are very fond of doing, unless you can show me where the devs value class dc the exact same way as spell dc, this is all conjecture. I believe that class dc is not as inherently valuable as spell dc, while you do. I don't believe we can change each others minds at this point.


Martialmasters wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Selective proficiency sounds like an annoying solution, not a fan.

Martialmasters wrote:
I am more amiable you the notion of only a single element reaching legendary even though I still hold that it breaks the checks and balances paizo has built for their system.

How can it break the system when it's only even relevant for a handful of levels?

The average player's kineticist will spend the vast majority of the campaign with the exact same proficiency as a caster.

Tbh to some extent this whole conversation about class DC almost feels like a distraction, because it's going to be so rarely relevant for most games. It's six levels, and four of those are backloaded where many campaigns might not even reach.

Kineticists being fractionally worse at exactly levels 7 or 8 is not some secret balance lynchpin.

That's the exact issue

If they capped at expert in martial proficiencies I would have no leg you stand on.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing here. that becouse the kineticist is behind in dc during 6 levels, if you want to make it equal, you would have to be behind in attack for 10 levels? 15 levels actually, as you are behind by 1 for 10 levels too.


I feel like the issue is with heavy armor, as that would allow you to ignore dex, str, int, and cha if you wanted to, which is probably too much. currently, you need con for dc, dex or str to hit, and wis for will and perception. maybe if they did something with armor check penalty so you at least need str? but that also seems very punishing for non heavy armor kineticists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The number of Elemental Lords isn't a structural part of the plane, right? It's a de facto representation of the power structures in the politics of the plane.

Like a plane could have 0-900 elemental lords right? It's much like how the First World could have any number of Eldest (including zero).

Theoretically, but the fact that every current elemental plane has two elemental lords tells me they are probably "made" in pairs (born? created? there is no lore I could find on how the elemental lords came to be)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ly'ualdre wrote:
The Gold Sovereign wrote:

Only one thing... At least a page for each of the eight elemental lords, with art for all of them. It was a shame for Planes of Power (the 1E book about the elemental planes) to not cover the Lords with more than some mentions, and with not art at all. I hope Paizo doesn't lose this opportunity again.

And of course, if there are new elemental planes, maybe there are new elemental lords. Although I'm imagining the two new planes as something minor, not as relevant as the main ones.

They mentioned the Lords of Wood and Metal specifically wanting nothing to do with the conflicts that were going on between the classic Elements. So there is at least a good Lord for each Plane. Hard to say if there are evil ones.

I think it is a safe bet to assume we will get this though. At least I hope. We have gotten write up on many a Deity in several books. Granted, they did mention it would be formated like BotD, so hopefully they don't take away the Deity entries from that book, as they were a but lack luster. But I imagine the Geb section of Impossible Lands and an eventual Eye of Dread book may remedy that.

Not wanting to get involved doesn't mean they are good. Wood and metal could just be filled with neutral elemental lords


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

For the record, I compared the shortbow to the fire blast because both have 60 ft range increments and deal a d6. I think the community undervalues range increments, personally, but it is pretty clear by now that Paizo attaches a certain value to them which will always be factored into weapon choice. Earth and Water are more comparable to thrown weapons like Tridents, where the shorter range allows for higher damage. And wind takes it in the opposite direction, much to the chagrin of many people.

Edit: I'll note propulsive is not a huge contributer here. Most archer inventors need to max Dex and Int which only leaves one boost in Str until level 5. If anything, the deadly dice probably gives the shortbow more of an advantage here and is valued roughly equal to agile, at least in melee. The +1 damage from propulsive matters a lot less than Overdrive.

Propulsive is clearly valued the same as 10ft of range.

Propulsive is the only trait that you seem to be able to buy with extra gp. its worth about 16 gp


I think this book has room for a bunch of elemental nature and survival skill feats. legendary nature feat maybe?


tytalan wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Verzen wrote:
I disagree. We are way behind in damage potential.
You're behind literally 3 points at this level. You can call that "way behind" if you like but you still just need a 3 point buff to be dead even, and then something to scale up as you level. You could literally just add the Stoke Element buff as an always active thing and you'd be right there, or so close your advantages with range can make up the difference.
Stoke element has a action tax and is either every other turn or one attack a turn take your pick and that’s just with elemental blast anything that two action or more is absolutely every other turn. Welcome to action tax

they literally said "Stoke Element buff as an always active thing". thats not an action tax if its always on


speaking of this, does anyone know when the playtest ends?


guys, we've had burn sense the character guide. we don't need to reprint it


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
So, with focus spells like cackle, lingering composition, extend boost, amped guidance, and amped warp step, it seems like one focus spell is about equal to one action. So, assuming an impulse takes one more action to use (either through overflow or just having a more action activity) it should be roughly balanced for impulses and focus spells to have an equal effect. At most, impulses could be considered a bit more versatile than the example focus spells, and impulses would have to be slightly weaker than focus spells.
That's a veeeeery limited list of focus spells there. Tons of focus spells take 2 actions, especially the big offensive ones.

Yes, but those where the ones that more or less directly traded a focus point for an action. that was my point. so a 3 action impulse should be about equal to a 2 action focus spell, becouse one focus point is about equal to an action


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, with focus spells like cackle, lingering composition, extend boost, amped guidance, and amped warp step, it seems like one focus spell is about equal to one action. So, assuming an impulse takes one more action to use (either through overflow or just having a more action activity) it should be roughly balanced for impulses and focus spells to have an equal effect. At most, impulses could be considered a bit more versatile than the example focus spells, and impulses would have to be slightly weaker than focus spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
OrochiFuror wrote:

Aoe only matters of you are reducing the number of hits your martials need to kill things. If your Martials need 4 strikes to down something before and after your aoe, then you did nothing.

Let's also not forget that getting more then one aoe off per combat is tricky, if enemies aren't rushing at you or spreading out so you can keep hitting them without hitting friendlies, then your GM might be going easy on you.

Counter point, every action your gm uses to keep NPCs out of your AoEs is actions not spent attacking your party. this might not be satisfying, but hiving that threat always active is powerful.


Xenocrat wrote:
Are you really trying to argue that a proposed outcome of the kineticist class doesn't make sense because it wouldn't be balanced or well thought out?

yes, becouse I have heard nothing saying that that outcome was in any way official. That was a suggestion, and we are free to say that it is a bad suggestion. If you have any proof that it is something the devs are actually planning it, please show it to me. I would be very interested.


Xenocrat wrote:
Kyrone wrote:


The one that made an Universal Gate lvl 8 said that didn't really feel universal when he basically only had one impulse of each element and when they add the wood and metal he will be even be missing one or two at that point.
I don't assume that the final class will have Universal Gate provide access to all six elements. I've seen suggestions that you might get either the four standard ones (as in the playtest) or the traditional Chinese five (lose air, gain metal and wood).

But that would require that A: that it is optimal to use the Chinese elements, becouse 5 elements is better than 4, or that B, air as an element is stronger than metal and wood individually, to make the choice even, but making air way stronger for dedicated/ dual gates, or metal and wood much weaker for dedicated and dual gates. Plus, in narrative, what is separating wood and metal from air? they are all planes, so why can you not connect to one plane when you can connect to every other plane? And why is that plane air in particular?


Martialmasters wrote:
I assume these suggestions come with numerous buffs to both dedicated and dual then as universal is currently the strongest one in everything but single Target burst damage.

I have to agree. I came into this thread assuming that OP was talking about the dedicated gate, and how you felt like it needed more free feats at higher levels to keep up with the raw versatility of dual and omni gate. But omni needing more feats? I feel like having less impulses of each element is the price you pay for not just having all the options available to you, but also having things like extract element and kinetic activation work on 4 times as many things, 6 times when wood and metal get released. If this is a problem, and omni needs more feats, dual and dedicated probably need more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would either give it versatile or a version of concussive. The big problem with that is that now dual gates just have objectively better blasts, so you would need to give something to the other gates to compensate. but "both types at once" just seems too hard to do without just reprinting the concussive trait with a new name.


Verzen wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Verzen wrote:


But if an impulse deals cantrip damage, but to more characters, is that not better than a cantrip?
Not if 'part of those characters' are your own party members.
Honestly, and I mean this with upmost respect, skill issue. it is not hard to position an AoE to not hit any allies in most cases. and in the times where you can't, thats where respectable single target damage should come in. Thats why I don't think you should need to choose between AoE and single target, both are important.
So you agree that we should probably get some single target overflow abilities? Something that can be used if too many allies are in the way?

I have never said differently.


Pronate11 wrote:
Verzen wrote:


But if an impulse deals cantrip damage, but to more characters, is that not better than a cantrip?
Not if 'part of those characters' are your own party members.
Honestly, and I mean this with upmost respect, skill issue. it is not hard to position an AoE to not hit any allies in most cases. and in the times where you can't, thats where respectable single target damage should come in. Thats why I don't think you should need to choose between AoE and single target, both are important.


Martialmasters wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Temperans wrote:

They really should be above cantrip level, not at the same level.

And before someone says "oh you just want fighter level". No. Stop that there is a big difference between above cantrip and fighter level.

If they were made into focus spells absolutely.

If not absolutely not

I'm just going to go back to where this started, why do you think being better than a cantrip is a "absolutely not" thing? like, I kinda agree with you for your latter arguments, impulses should be worse than focus spells, whether that disadvantage comes at action cost or raw damage, there should be a downside to make up for their repeated use, but cantrips can already be used infinitely, and cost a single ancestry feat to get, or you can get two with a class feat. Impulses are one for one class feat, shouldn't they be stronger than a basic cantrip?

That's not how the game works.

It's a resourceless area of effect spell. It cannot be strong.

Now, does that mean I think overflow is justified on most? No.

Do I think they need buffed? Yes. Even now most are not on par with cantrips.

Higher or lower level feats doesn't necessarily mean more or less power in this game either. But rather represents more options and complexity.

Sure there are exceptions at very high levels. Like suddenly being able to just critical on a 19.

But if an impulse deals cantrip damage, but to more characters, is that not better than a cantrip?


Martialmasters wrote:
Temperans wrote:

They really should be above cantrip level, not at the same level.

And before someone says "oh you just want fighter level". No. Stop that there is a big difference between above cantrip and fighter level.

If they were made into focus spells absolutely.

If not absolutely not

I'm just going to go back to where this started, why do you think being better than a cantrip is a "absolutely not" thing? like, I kinda agree with you for your latter arguments, impulses should be worse than focus spells, whether that disadvantage comes at action cost or raw damage, there should be a downside to make up for their repeated use, but cantrips can already be used infinitely, and cost a single ancestry feat to get, or you can get two with a class feat. Impulses are one for one class feat, shouldn't they be stronger than a basic cantrip?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
YuriP wrote:
Verzen wrote:
2 actions for a shield block is incredibly bad, actually.

Not exactly. If are ignoring that if it was a Shield Cantrip is would simply unable to recast it. So it's already better than a Shield Cantrip. If was a shield you would risk broken it being unable to use it again. So if you consider it use a Gather Element action again to being able use a Stone Shield again isn't bad.

Also as I said Stone Shield cannot be used in conjunction with Overflow impulses. So this build is for Earth Element Blasts only, and Element Blasts suffers MAP, só loose a second Blast or a Stoke Element as trade to rise a Shield Block again isn't a big problem.

Shield cantrip allows 1 action to "raise a shield"

I simply think that the action economy is far too restrictive with stone shield for it to be any fun.

yes, but what happens when you block with the shield cantrip? how many actions is it to raise the shield again? I think you'll find that stone shield is much better from the action economy front. 2 actions vs 3,000. and again, you don't need to block. one action for 2 ac and +2 to fort saves is very, very good on its own.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Verzen wrote:
2 actions for a shield block is incredibly bad, actually.
But its better than the 2 actions to 1 equip a spare shield, and 2, raise a shield, becouse you don't need to spend gold for either shield. sure, its worse against smaller hits that wouldn't break the shield, but much better against the bigger hits due to the higher hardness. Plus, you get +2 to fort saves, which is very useful.
In terms of action economy, it's still worse. You're spending your precious gather element for a big boom to block damage. Any creature could effectively prevent you from using an aoe by just attack you.

Then just get hit. You have that choice. You aren't forced to block. at worst, you have +2 to fort saves verses a normal shield, and at best you can prevent a bunch of damage. there is no downside other than one 1st level feat, and you have a bunch of those.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
2 actions for a shield block is incredibly bad, actually.

But its better than the 2 actions to 1 equip a spare shield, and 2, raise a shield, becouse you don't need to spend gold for either shield. sure, its worse against smaller hits that wouldn't break the shield, but much better against the bigger hits due to the higher hardness. Plus, you get +2 to fort saves, which is very useful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:
If it would have to happen it would already with the alchemist though, that have expert attacks.

except that alchemists didn't actually use their class DC that much until an errata gave them powerful alchemy for free. It wouldn't have made sense to give it to them


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:


So comparing we can see at level 1 almost all compared spells and impulses have a similar dmg, but they vary a lot at range and AoE. But with the notable exception of EA thats allow the caster to hit 2 creatures in their range don't matter their position, the number of targets are very relative to AoE. Also the Pummeling Rubble can easily push the creatures while Tidal Hands needs a critical failure what's usually means thats rarely happen (you can't count with it). But the real noticeable diference here is the "Heighten" effects e relative number of actions; Focus and Spellslot Spells basically doubles their effects when casted in higher level while cantrips and Impulses just increases by 50% and in this situation the Impulses can be even worse than EA cantrip because they require 1 additional action making them effectively less cost efficient than a cantrip.

while I agree with your point, Kineticist abilities scale on class level, not spell level. So they effectively scale every spell level, which puts it on par with the spells scaling.


Aklerion wrote:


The class dc is a bigger issue though. It needs to scale higher and maybe even a bit faster. I’ve ran 80 combats with the kineticist so far. 10 combats at each level levels 1-8 and honestly I’m in love with the class. It just needs a few tweaks to really make it shine. I actually have a small list of things I’d like to see changed and class dc scaling is one.

As an aside, how the hell did you run 80 combats in what, 33 hours? I'm not doubting you, that just seems logistically difficult


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like if the book about the elemental planes establishes [x magical property] as a thing intrinsic to an elemental plane, then Kineticists of the appropriate flavor should have access to it.

Without having read the book I can't say that Illusions aren't part of the plane of Air (I would have thought water) but if they do the legwork elsewhere in the book I think it's valid. Like mechanics and thematics ought to reinforce each other and a book about the elements should suggest some ways to think about them that you might not have thought about.

Hshurha, the Evil elemental lord of air, is permanently invisible, and her lair is filled with invisible and illusionary walls, and it has a sphere of pure darkness. I think illusions are quite fitting for at least that kind of air.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CookieLord wrote:

What if dedicated got increased proficiency with impulses?

Giving up versatility for accuracy and higher DCs.

That seems like it would invert the problem lol.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Counter point, the abilities of the invisible stalker, melody on the wind, quatoid, and all of the genies are all along the same line. with the exception of the genies, these are all exclusively primal and elemental beings. I say these abilities have their place.


To be fair, Fury barbs also don't have an anathema. I have no idea if that is a balancing concern, but it is something. There is a chance the Devs just overvalued not having an anathema.


Temperans wrote:

Given that they literally do the exact same thing I see no reason why they are spending 4x the page space to just say the exact thing with slightly different wording.

Just say Elemental Wall 2 action + sustain, You can create a 30 ft wall of elements that provides cover or whatever. If you want it to have flavorful part for the element just add a line that tells you how the wall changes for each element and be done with it.

There you would have save a bunch of space to add other abilities.

Probably becouse wall of wind and wall of fire are much lower level spells, at it would suck to get them at the same time as wall of stone and wall of ice.


aobst128 wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
I'm in the camp that wants a slightly higher single target focus. Aoes and utility shenanigans are things we already have plenty of caster classes for. I'd rather the kineticist be a dedicated ranged pew pew guy of elemental damage.
Agreed. I do like the utility options it has and there should be those options to specialize in but there should also be stuff to dig graves. Even if only earth kineticists can do that literally.

I mean, every class can do that literally. A shovel is 1 gp


Invictus Fatum wrote:

I commented in another thread an alternative idea over AC and to make use of that CON attribute.

How about renewing Temporary HP every time you gather an element? Something like your CON modifier times half your level (rounded up). Would also make the class feel tougher and more sturdy

That could work, and would make gather element feel less like a action tax. its basically this 8th level feat https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=153 with the benefit gather element currently has.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:


I will not operate under this assumption unless informed by a dev. As it's more an exception to the rule.

I will point out, medium armor is almost certainly less disrupted than using con for Ac, which is what you are suggesting. So, what should Paizo remove to add con for AC?

You lose Dex to ac. It's a swap. Not a combine.

I'm not against medium armor as an option btw. I just don't know where they'd pull from if they decided that was needed.

You realize that medium armor is also a swap, not a combine? you get the same AC as light armor, but you swap dex for str. and again, if they do decide that con to ac is what they need, where should they pull from? If medium armor is so costly, surely only needing dex for reflex saves, something only available to heavy armor would also have a similar cost.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:


I will not operate under this assumption unless informed by a dev. As it's more an exception to the rule.

I will point out, medium armor is almost certainly less disrupted than using con for Ac, which is what you are suggesting. So, what should Paizo remove to add con for AC?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:


Current issue at level 1 if you go strength you need to decide if you want absolutely terrible ac and likely die. Or tank your constitution and deny yourself use of half the classes potential abilities.

or the class can just get medium armor, and this issue is fixed. Con to damage could work in addition to str to damage if thats the classes only damage boost to normal blasts. otherwise it is probably too much
That sounds too much to me I'll admit. Medium armor is an option sure. I don't know where they'd pull from for that budget though.

Remember how in the errata that gave alchemists medium armor, they nerfed other aspects of the class to balance it. No wait, they just gave it medium armor becouse str alchemists where already much weaker than dex alchemists, and medium armor isn't really any stronger than light armor, and just enables you to use str instead of dex more easily.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Ryuujin-sama wrote:

In what way does adding Con to damage make Brutal useless? Brutal has absolutely zero to do with damage. Brutal lets you use Str for attack roll instead of Dex.

I also don't see how letting them use Con for AC improves build diversity. It would just mean everyone maxes Str and Con and ignores Dex entirely.

No they wouldn't. Because armor uses a Dex cap not a con cap. Con to armor would only support unarmored kineticists. And they'd still have less armor.

What does con to damage solve? At the moment I see it solving nothing.

it solves the fact the the kineticist probably doesn't deal enough damage.

I don't personally hold truck with that.

People want it to do more damage. But people want that with every play test. It's rarely actually needed.

I don't know, the last two times that was was a problem (inventor and psychic) both ended up dealing more damage. There might have been some complaints with thaumaturge, but damage definitely wasn't the main complaint (I distinctly remember some complaints that it dealt too much damage)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Ryuujin-sama wrote:

In what way does adding Con to damage make Brutal useless? Brutal has absolutely zero to do with damage. Brutal lets you use Str for attack roll instead of Dex.

I also don't see how letting them use Con for AC improves build diversity. It would just mean everyone maxes Str and Con and ignores Dex entirely.

No they wouldn't. Because armor uses a Dex cap not a con cap. Con to armor would only support unarmored kineticists. And they'd still have less armor.

What does con to damage solve? At the moment I see it solving nothing.

it solves the fact the the kineticist probably doesn't deal enough damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:


Current issue at level 1 if you go strength you need to decide if you want absolutely terrible ac and likely die. Or tank your constitution and deny yourself use of half the classes potential abilities.

or the class can just get medium armor, and this issue is fixed. Con to damage could work in addition to str to damage if thats the classes only damage boost to normal blasts. otherwise it is probably too much

1 to 50 of 182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>