Supe's page

... What makes it a trap? Engraving Strike is a one action level 1 feat with good action compression.

You don't get the action compression on a miss, but the fail state for Engraving Strike is just missing a strike and tracing normally, which is just normal action economy.

The only time Engraving Strike is bad is if you didn't want to strike in the first place.

Engraving Strike does not trace a rune if you miss. It has a point of failure.

TBH the sentiment in this thread might be a combination of two handed weapons being disallowed (lower strike damage) and rune damage probably being a bit too high.

Its clearly an error, probably from time constraints. Classes don't have the class trait for example, and spells don't have the spell trait. Callings should instead have had "Calling" in big text to the top right of the feature the same way spells and feats do. General and Skill feats get the trait because they're feat subcategories.

Its similar to how every mythic feat has the uncommon trait. I can understand the dedications all doing that, meaning the gm has to give you access for the calling that you want. But for every feat its a bit awkward.

Correct, Elemental Blast was its own bespoke action. However, by picking up Elemental Weapon as a 1st level feat, you would get a weapon that used your Elemental Blast proficiency but could make normal Strikes, so stuff like Mythic Strike would be fine with those.

(Side note but I find interesting that it seems people don't hoard their playtest pdfs like I do. Its very interesting to see how design changed, for better or worse.)

I double checked and you're correct. Elemental Weapon made it work. The class dc increases were of course 9/17 and the EB/unarmed proficiency was 7/13 and didn't use your key score, but it did at least work and would have worked with mythic strike after paying a level 1 feat tax. Neat.

The gather one element at a time and the gather element not having secondary actions (stance or EB in the final) were really the main issues with the class in the playtest if I remember correctly.

I didn't save the PDF but I did look it up because I saw some things being mentioned here that didn't seem quite correct from my memory.

People seem to have forgotten that in the playtest, Kineticist blasts were its own action that had a strike as a subordinate action. So it didn't actually combo with anything that affected action economy even then, since you couldn't choose to elemental blast for abilities that required you to strike.

It was pretty much always separate. Its just more obvious about it in the final release.

I was hoping for a not rule zero answer but I suppose it be what it be. Having it be "fills grid squares" or "anywhere a wall could fit" are very different in terms of performance and balance though that do what you want, despite it being a fallback for anything, isn't very ideal in this scenario.

For what its worth, most interpretations online seem to be that a wall can go anywhere so long as there's room for it. But I can't really use this as verification for anything.

So a play group recently had a dispute on what are valid placements for spells like Wall of Force and Wall of Ice. We are aware you can't cut through creatures or objects, but there was some hangup on what an "unbroken open space" is. Are you able to place to flat walls on edges, or can they only be placed through the middle of actual grid spaces regardless of the wall's width?

The main concern is: are you able to "divide" a battlefield between two adjacent non-diagonal creatures using wall of force, or is that functionality only for Wall of Stone? What about dividing creatures in the diagonal direction?

Specifically, which configurations are valid in the image below:
https://imgur.com/a/Upvht8Z

No matter how I interpret it, it appears to be legal to separate creatures diagonally, but horizontally is where it gets iffy. Currently, the two interpretations of "unbroken open space" I've identified are the general one (do I have space for this TV) or open grid spaces.