Verzen's page

I think the class would benefit GREATLY if it's power budget got rid of spellcasting from its power budget.

Make thralls into companions and can cast different focus spells depending on which type of undead they have. Then the necromancer can deal 1d4 damage (per every 2 levels) to the thrall to cast a focus spell without using a focus point. Some of the focus spells could be support spells such as the necromancer takes bones from a skeleton to create bone armor around an ally, or a spirit will create an aoe of void energy, etc etc. We also already have undead companions as initial support for the class.

Currently the thrall mechanism is super confusing when we already have companions as a concept. Can someone attack my thralls? What are their stats? Etc etc. I didn't immediately see where it's stats are.

The necromancer could simply be a companion focused class that can drain the life of it's companion in order to cast powerful focus spells. Furthermore it's focus spells could be slightly stronger than normal focus spells but can't cast any focus spells without the companion and their max focus spell points instead of 3 is 0.

We already have Vancian spellcasting for a necromancer like system through wizard where they can get an undead summon and cast necromancer spells etc. I think the class would be FAR more interesting and streamlined without vancian spellcasting. Plus, I'm personally a bit done with the Vancian system and having occult spells seems meh

Maybe include a mechanism where when you drain your thrall of life to cast a spell the more like you drain the stronger the spell.

For example.. deal 2d4 damage to the thrall, and ally gains temp hp equal to the amount drained.

And allow for a system where we can customize our thrall companions as well by allowing them to get their own feats depending on the type of undead it is.. make bone necromancers very different from flesh necromancers very different from spirit necromancers.

The class would feel significantly less clunky and combine familiarity with some new interpretations of this familiarity.

Is it just me or half of these complaints just a function of not knowing how the game works meaning they aren't even issues in the first place,?

Like technically speaking falcatta proficiency progresses to expert and wizard dedication can in theory start off legendary.

How can you "start off legendary" with wizard dedication?

Is it just me or half of these complaints just a function of not knowing how the game works meaning they aren't even issues in the first place,?

Like technically speaking falcatta proficiency progresses to expert and wizard dedication can in theory start off legendary.

I was wrong about falcata. It does go up to expert. But expert with how tight the math is significantly hurts and it is very noticeable with how much accuracy I have. The damage drops pretty dramatically.

Verzen wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

No. We don't need PF3.

Quote:

1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases.

My players and I use dedications all the time. They are far from worthless. Some are better than others. With the remaster change to spellcasting proficiency, caster dedications are even better than they were. So not even sure what you're talking about.

Quote:

2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level.

Why can't you wield one? This doesn't even make sense. There is a feat to gain access to a falcata. The only thing the uncommon or rare tags do is leave it up to the GM to allow the falcata or not with something like unconventional weaponry.

There are archetypes like sentinel to boost armor.

If you want to encroach on other classes, the cost should be high. So not even sure what you're talking about here.

3. I don't even know what you're talking about. There are enough options as is for people to try tons of stuff.

4. Backgrounds used to be written because players enjoyed fleshing out their characters. Now they are worked into the mechanics of character building. They can be modified with DM approval as needed. They don't need anything more.

5. PF2 is more generous with stats than any version of the game. I find I have plenty of stat points to have good all around stats if that is what I want. You don't need a max stat in PF2 to be great. I have one player who spreads his stats all around all the time, he doesn't even notice 1 less to hit or damage in PF2.

People optimizing stats in PF2 is more of a personal OCD issue, when the game functions just fine spreading your stats around and building your character as you want.

Former PF1 players (me included) can't help but optimize and maximize stats even when I objectively know that PF2 doesn't require it.

It's 10 plus years of 3E and PF1 where maximized

...

I don't mean power wise. I mean feel wise. An ogre fighter should play differently than an elf fighter. Balanced but different.

No. We don't need PF3.

Quote:

1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases.

My players and I use dedications all the time. They are far from worthless. Some are better than others. With the remaster change to spellcasting proficiency, caster dedications are even better than they were. So not even sure what you're talking about.

Quote:

2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level.

Why can't you wield one? This doesn't even make sense. There is a feat to gain access to a falcata. The only thing the uncommon or rare tags do is leave it up to the GM to allow the falcata or not with something like unconventional weaponry.

There are archetypes like sentinel to boost armor.

If you want to encroach on other classes, the cost should be high. So not even sure what you're talking about here.

3. I don't even know what you're talking about. There are enough options as is for people to try tons of stuff.

4. Backgrounds used to be written because players enjoyed fleshing out their characters. Now they are worked into the mechanics of character building. They can be modified with DM approval as needed. They don't need anything more.

5. PF2 is more generous with stats than any version of the game. I find I have plenty of stat points to have good all around stats if that is what I want. You don't need a max stat in PF2 to be great. I have one player who spreads his stats all around all the time, he doesn't even notice 1 less to hit or damage in PF2.

People optimizing stats in PF2 is more of a personal OCD issue, when the game functions just fine spreading your stats around and building your character as you want.

Former PF1 players (me included) can't help but optimize and maximize stats even when I objectively know that PF2 doesn't require it.

It's 10 plus years of 3E and PF1 where maximized your stats was required that created this max stat-dump stat...

I also don't think ancestry feats have enough impact. I wish an orc fighter felt very different from an elf fighter but they mostly feel the same.

Verzen wrote:

1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases. If I have wizard dedication, the way the maths work, the spells will be resisted frequently. It makes it so I can't be a fighter with wizard dedication and then be able to cast any offensive spells. They all have to be regulated to support spells. If I try to utilize it for any offensive spells, the turn will almost certainly be wasted, which reduces character tempo.

The fix: Make it so a dedication doesn't feel like a waste of feats. Make it so it feels like the two classes are merged instead of having the dedication feel like it's 1/3rd the power of the main class. Allow for synergy between the main class and the dedication to occur.

2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level. The math is very tight in PF2E where even 1 status bonus to attack is noticeable as seen with bard songs being powerful. As it stands, if I wield a Falcata as say a thaum, id be taking a whopping -6 to attack as it wont advance past trained. If I use a feat for heavy armor, if my class doesn't progress to mastery, that's a whopping -4 to AC at high level with that as well. The general feats that allow for proficiency simply don't work when playing a high level campaign, making them useless feats. If there were better feat support later on such as allowing me to take additional feats to increase said proficiency, that would be a different story. To further complicate the matter, without an understanding of the maths involved and the underlying complications this creates, people new to the system wont understand how these are trap options and will select them and then they'll end up getting screwed in the end.

The fix: Open it up a bit more. Stop being so restrictive with what is viable. Allow viability with multiple options if people want.

3) The Issue: It's been 5 years since PF2E first released In PF1E I was subscribed to paperback

...

The more dedications that exist the more "system mastery" comes into play. For new players it would absolutely be overwhelming to sift through all the bad dedications and try to find the diamond in the rough.

Verzen wrote:

One of the things I hope PF3E accomplishes is to acknowledge the dedication issue.

For example - A fighter with summoner dedication

The summoner dedication now allows the fighter to become a synthesis summoner. They only have both fighter feats and Eidolon abilities while the synthesis eidolon is summoned.

It combines the two rather than try to have them competing over niches.

So you want power creep.

There's no way to add the core feature of one class to another class at full strength without making the character significantly more powerful.

This is what's known as a strawman also a false dichotomy.

Let's assume that each class is powered based on numbers.

A full classes power is represented by '1'

The way the current system is set up is that the main class is '1' while a dedication is around 1/3rd the power. There is no synergy between the main class and the dedication. They often compete over niches such as actions. The main class wins every time.

To avoid power creep, a dedication should make the main class 0.8 and the dedication 0.8 instead of 1 and .33. Make the abilities have a the ability to have synergy, but not be as strong as just doing a main class without a dedication. As it stands right now most dedications aren't useful. Oracle dedication with flame incendiary aura on a fire kineticist is very synergistic. But that's a rarity. I also have to give up 2 kineticist feats to get incendiary aura. Most dedications though aren't useful, compete over the same niche, aren't synergistic, and as such end up as trap options that NO ONE takes. When the book is filled with crap trap options like this, what's the point of them even being in the game? I'd rather have a few options that are all enticing than thousands of options that no one uses.

One of the things I hope PF3E accomplishes is to acknowledge the dedication issue.

For example - A fighter with summoner dedication

The summoner dedication now allows the fighter to become a synthesis summoner. They only have both fighter feats and Eidolon abilities while the synthesis eidolon is summoned.

It combines the two rather than try to have them competing over niches.

I play an inventor. So your whole post is invalid. :P

Seriously though, I disagree with most of your points.

1) Dedications are not worthless. They are a gate to more abilities. The spellcasting you get from it is fine for utility and even for offense - IF you keep investing into the archetype. If you want classes "merged", you need to play a hybrid like a Magus. Expecting a single feat to get you full proficiency in what makes another class special is a but much.

2) That's by design. Weapon and armor choices are supposed to be locked behind classes. You can expand your options with general feats and archetypes but not everyone can learn everything with ease. Your thaumaturge can have full proficiency in Falcata at level 12 if you're willing to invest into it - or even level 1 if your GM is generous with Unconventional Weaponry. And you can have full scaling heavy armor proficiency by level 2.

3) Archetypes are your new subclasses. If you think of a non-free archetype game, you either have your regular class feats or the feats of an archetype. So they are a way to change your abilities and playstyle. Class archetypes could be a bit more frequent, though it looks like we'll get a good few more before the end of the year.

Out of time for now. Might comment on the rest later.

The issue is, it feels like 90% are trap options.

Like, a summoner dedication. My Eidolon is useless in combat and my main class is significantly better than my Eidolon, so what's the point of having an Eidolon or the summoner dedication as a whole? At that point it feels like a waste of feats. This isn't just a rare instance. It's ubiquitous. The problem I see is that when 90% of options are useless or attempt to interfere with a niche your main class already accomplishes, the dedications don't supplement the main class. It tries to subvert what the main class can do, but at 1/3rd the strength of the main class, making getting the dedication worthless. There is almost no way to do synergy between classes at all which causes issues.

I'd rather have it not be an option, than to be an option but not be viable.

As much as I've been a supporter of paizo, there is something innately broken about the maths and game design PF2E has and I feel like the game itself is beating a dead horse at this point.

For example - I love the idea of having 1 level for the character. This makes things easier to understand. (Instead of how PF1E was, where I was like 2 barbarian, 3 fighter, 1 magus etc) I also love the idea that the maths are significantly simplified.

However, with this stated, there are some obvious issues with the game design.

1) The Issue: Dedications are all but worthless in most cases. If I have wizard dedication, the way the maths work, the spells will be resisted frequently. It makes it so I can't be a fighter with wizard dedication and then be able to cast any offensive spells. They all have to be regulated to support spells. If I try to utilize it for any offensive spells, the turn will almost certainly be wasted, which reduces character tempo.

The fix: Make it so a dedication doesn't feel like a waste of feats. Make it so it feels like the two classes are merged instead of having the dedication feel like it's 1/3rd the power of the main class. Allow for synergy between the main class and the dedication to occur.

2) The Issue: The maths involved in the proficiencies is broken. If I want to wield a Falcata, in 99% of the cases, I can't wield one at high level. The math is very tight in PF2E where even 1 status bonus to attack is noticeable as seen with bard songs being powerful. As it stands, if I wield a Falcata as say a thaum, id be taking a whopping -6 to attack as it wont advance past trained. If I use a feat for heavy armor, if my class doesn't progress to mastery, that's a whopping -4 to AC at high level with that as well. The general feats that allow for proficiency simply don't work when playing a high level campaign, making them useless feats. If there were better feat support later on such as allowing me to take additional feats to increase said proficiency, that would be a different story. To further complicate the matter, without an understanding of the maths involved and the underlying complications this creates, people new to the system wont understand how these are trap options and will select them and then they'll end up getting screwed in the end.

The fix: Open it up a bit more. Stop being so restrictive with what is viable. Allow viability with multiple options if people want.

3) The Issue: It's been 5 years since PF2E first released In PF1E I was subscribed to paperback books and I was VERY excited for new books to come in as I knew they would have new options for my favorite pet class. One of the reasons I loved PF1E so much was that every month there were new options, new ways to be creative, new synergies to think of. Nowadays though, in the past 5 years, there has been 1 new instinct for barbarian. Almost no class archetypes, and the ones that exist are straight garbage and downgrades (when class archetypes were literally my favorite part of PF1E), I rarely see support for older classes, I was excited for kineticist but my favorite element (void) will never be coming to PF2E. I highly doubt we will ever see a synthesis summoner either. From what it seems like to me, once a class is released, that class gets abandoned for the next "biggest thing" rinse and repeat. There's no more support, or at least what appears to be very little support, once a class comes out and this is a bit frustrating especially coming from the PF1E paradigm that we grew to love.

The fix: We need far more support released far more frequently for existing classes and make new classes that come out be rarer. I'd rather support what we do have than for new classes to try to fill niches that are already filled by what's currently available.

The issue I see at the end of the day is that we have classes no one actually plays because they are just subpar compared to what's already been released. I loved the idea of inventor, and I played it a few times, but do I know of anyone who still plays inventor? No. I rarely ever hear it mentioned.

We need classes that fill specific niches and then we need variations on how to support said niches. When we release new class after new class that tries to take up niches that already exist, those classes will just be forgotten about and no one will want to play them. I'd rather have archetypes people forget about than whole classes people forget about.

4) The Issue: Backgrounds and skill feats seem like a decent idea to help flesh out a character and give them more options, but in all honesty, these feel like you're 'restricting' backgrounds and the ability to RP a character rather than assisting. When we put backgrounds behind, say, stat blocks, I tend to look at what backgrounds my character can actually have so I dont fall behind in my party rather than any RP semblance of it.

The fix: Make backgrounds and skill feats actually mean something and have a bigger impact and dont make it so I cant select the background I want because it's behind some arbitrary stat increase. I've also heard people complain in a tongue in cheek way that they can't even "take a s+!# without taking the feat for it" when I tried to convince them to play PF2E.

5) The Issue: Stats are redundant and outdated at this point. In early D&D, stats made sense to help flesh out characters, but now I've noticed that when I play PF2E or D&D5E, the stats are the exact same all the time. Maximize my class stat, dump my bad stat. If all stats are now the same because i feel like my class can't function without maximizing my class stat, thats an issue.

The fix: Get rid of stats completely. It's an archaic system at this point that has become useless to gauge effectiveness and if you don't build appropriately, it can hurt you more than help you.

6) The Issue: In order to promote RP sentimentality, you put points into charisma. This allows you to deceive, intimidate, or have diplomacy. If you can't do any of that because charisma is your dump stat, the game no longer is an RP game. You're just waiting around for the next combat so you can feel useful. Otherwise the sorcerer is in charge of doing all the RP.

The fix: Get rid of charisma as a stat. There shouldn't be a stat that gatekeeps being able to RP. Stop gate keeping the ability to RP efficiently because you aren't a certain class.

7) The Issue: Choices aren't meaningful enough. A lot of times I select certain choices and I'm just like, "Eh. I guess." rather than get excited for it.

The fix: Make each choice meaningful and impactful to the way the character is designed and works,

Not related to the playtest but could we get companions such as like a Man At Arms in the book as well as an archetype focused on leadership like this? For a call back to the leadership trait.

I could see Taunt being great IF Guardian's had a built in 2 + class level resistance to all physical attacks automatically so yes, it's easier to hit them BUT they immediately take less damage.

I'm also quite disappointed in that the commander gets full martial weapon proficiency scaling and is expected to strike - what made me interested in such a class is the ability to play a nonmagical full support who doesn't have to deal direct damage at all to be effective. I don't want to strike as a commander or be strong myself, I want to command allies to do the job for me and make them stronger.

I think two different class paths (one for pure support, the other for a supportive striker) would be the best choice to allow both playstyles.

100% this is what I was hoping for. Something closer to a 4e Warlord than a warrior Muse Bard.

I want to make ALL my strikes through my allies. Even if it was like > or >>. If I use the >> option I can cast a a cantrip my ally has.

If it's > then it gets the normal MAP and each usage in a turn must target a different ally.

Level 1
Command: Strike now! > or >> (one or two actions.)

Built in to the class. Gained at level 1.

If you use one action for this ability, you can order one of your squadmates to strike at a target within range of that squadmate. The 2nd time in a turn that you use this ability, the squadmate makes a strike at a -5 penalty. If this ability is used a 3rd time in the turn, the squadmate makes a 3rd attack at a -10 penalty. These penalties can be reduced based on your squadmates class selection, feat selection, or weapon selection.

If you use two actions for this ability, you can command a squadmate to use a cantrip that they know or that they have prepared to a target within range of your squadmate.

You can only use this ability once per squadmate per turn.

Effect: This will allow me to have access to all attack cantrips my party has as well as being able to strike with any ally in my party. Instead of going into the melee I can stand back and order others to strike for me.

An alternative, make your squadmate roll a will save DC

Critical success = The squadmate gets +2 to his strike. If they critically strike, they roll an additional damage dice. If it's a spellcaster and the target critically fails their save, they roll an additional damage die and increase any non damage numbers by 1.
Success = Squadmates make a strike like normal or cast a cantrip like normal.
Failure = Squadmates make a strike at an additional -2 penalty
Critical Failure = The squadmate doesn't make a strike and cannot be effected by Command: Strike Now! for 10 minutes.

Balance: This is balanced in that rather than me making the strikes, I have my allies make the strikes for me, using their numbers instead of my own. It allows some spellcasting support at level 1 that people really want and it allows us to be able to stand back rather than wading into combat. It allows us a way to deposit our actions that feels good about being a commander.

Any ideas on the Guardian?

What would make it different from a Champions?

Imo guardians need a reaction that moves them between an ally and an enemy, shoving the enemy back by 5 ft and taking the attack.

I would like to see ways to reduce MAP for an ally, as well. Something like, "Until your next turn, when an ally makes multiple attacks, reduce that penalty by 2."

After reading roll for combats intelligent weapon ancestry, it makes me convinced we need one as an official ancestry.

Captain America

'Nough said

Verzen wrote:

The big bulky guy is known as an Ascendant. These are not demigods. What they are, are people who have obtained a fragment of a gods power. They are similar to clerics in that way. Each ascendant uses a fraction of the gods power rather than becoming a god themselves.

They will not have spells.

Gives me Favored Soul vibes, which I'm down for. Fueled mostly by nostalgia.

I wouldn't be surprised if the "dead god" is what gave Ascendants their power. Ascendants obtained part of this dead gods essence giving them their power hence their rarity.

The big bulky guy is known as an Ascendant. These are not demigods. What they are, are people who have obtained a fragment of a gods power. They are similar to clerics in that way. Each ascendant uses a fraction of the gods power rather than becoming a god themselves.

They will not have spells.

Fire/Earth with the oracle incendiary aura makes for a very nice aoe beater.

Verzen wrote:

I really wanted to be a fighter or Barbarian wielding a fire sword or ice sword, but now I can't.

Verzen wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Doesn't Weapon Infusion cover this trope?

You're only two feats away from realizing your dream (Kineticist Dedication and Through the Gate: Weapon Infusion). Though you will need to sink as many as three more (Improved Elemental Blast) into it for it to remain competitive.

No. Not even close.

It uses your impulse attack rather than your normal attack, (and you only get up to expert, so it's basically useless for fighter) it doesn't create any type of weapon so I can't create picks or other new weapons that might be released. I can't create cold scatter guns for example.

It's probably my biggest complaint right now.

So in the first post you are arguing for narrative description.

Then when someone shows you how that narrative description does in fact work, the argument changes to be that you can't poach the ability to use with a Fighter, or to create specific weapons, which is something that would be done with description and flavor rather than mechanics.

Mostly at this point I am confused at what your actual objection is. You seem to be trying to evade stating distinctly what your concern actually is.

Oh ffs I don't have it in me today to argue against this dumb argument.

It's literally not the same. It "seems" similar to YOU, but it's not. It doesn't work with power attack, or other abilities like it, it can't create a scatter gun, the attack is sub par only going up to expert. As an example of the difference.. let's say I have 22 con (highest con you can. Get without a con class.) That's +6 attack. Expert is +4 attack. +2 for item. So that's +12 vs fighter who's at +7 attack(for stats), +8 attack(for legendary) and +3 item = +18 to attack.

I don't know of you have ever played pathfinder 2E, but in a game where a +1 Bard song makes a noticeable difference, a 6 attack difference between kineticist dedication impulse usage and using an actual weapon is absolutely absurdly huge.

So no. It's not the same. At all. In any shape or form.

And no amount of "flavor" will make it viable.

Unviable options might as well not exist as options, seeing as they are next to useless.

Verzen wrote:

If anyone doesn't think a "necromancer" class could work.

Look at this from 3.5...

https://dndtools.net/classes/dread-necromancer/

Always felt this was one of the lamest classes in 3.5

Uh what? Dread necromancers were awesome!

If anyone doesn't think a "necromancer" class could work.

Look at this from 3.5...

https://dndtools.net/classes/dread-necromancer/

I liked golem antimagic in 1e honestly. Now it just makes me angry.

Swalow whole also makes me angry because the big turtle with a big shell that gives it resistance also apparently has a shell around its stomach too.
But I am getting off topic.
I'll be glad ifgolem antimagic is gone, or modified, or replaced by something more specific.

In PF1e, that's because magic is OVERPOWERED. In PF2E its very underpowered.

There's a trap in the armor impulses.

The text says:

Armor in Earth wrote:

... The stone armor is medium armor but uses your highest armor proficiency...

Hardwood Armor wrote:

... This hardwood armor is medium armor but uses your highest armor proficiency...

Metal Carapace wrote:

... The carapace armor is medium armor but uses your highest armor proficiency...

If you pay attention it doesn't mention unarmored proficiency so they don't applies to monks and unarmored spellcasters.

"Whenever you gain a class feature that grants you expert or greater proficiency in any type of armor (but not unarmored defense), you also gain that proficiency in the armor types granted to you by this feat."

It specifies not unarmored defense. The wording is entirely different.

Well, you will have to choose what you want from a blaster:

- Staying power
- Damage potential

The Kineticist is was designed, way back in 1st edition as the "all-day blaster". That has always been its nature. In your 30th combat of the day, the kineticist can keep pace with all the martials who don't have resources to track, while the Wizard and cleric ran out of spells 20 fights ago.

What the kineticist cannot do is "reach into the toolbox and grab anything off-theme"(if you're a pure geokineticist and a problem can't be solved with rocks, it can't be solved by you) and it probably can't hit the same peaks for damage as a slot casting blaster in the 2-3 fights where the slot casting blaster decides to go all out.

This is a reasonable way to differentiate these classes and was, in fact, the same way they were distinguished in PF1. Back in PF1 the Blood Arcanist with Spell Perfection on Delayed Blast Fireball did more damage than the Kineticist did, but it could only cast Empowered Intensified Maximized Fireball with 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell slots and you only got so many of those.

It's not a bad idea to have two classes have different strengths and weaknesses when it comes to doing the same thing. Like a fighter with a greataxe and a barbarian with a greataxe play differently. A monk with a bow and a ranger with a bow play differently. This is, in fact, a good thing.

What the kineticist shows is if you're going to get a themed specialist then the difference between "that thing" and "a wizard" is that the wizard is a toolbox character which has options that the themed specialist doesn't have. This is by design and not wanting to use those options is like a fighter not wanting to use the best weapons.

Martials have both staying power AND damage potential.

I'm amused that this will be a pretty major buff for magus.

3d4 no stat requirement means I can deal 7.5 avg dmg with a 10 int with my spells now. It makes me able to buff con, dex, and str.

For those saying there won't be a new class. I remember hearing from one of the designers to stay tuned for gen con when I inquired about it.

Huh. Interestingly, the kineticist's ability to summon elementals scales better than normal summon spells. It goes up to level 16 creatures instead of 15. (It scales on character level so it's ahead on even levels starting at 8)

That might be the new normal. I wouldn't be surprised if PF2E remaster realized how weak summon spells are so they bumped it up a level.

I really am not a fan of the way Paizo has some abilities scale.

1d6 damage at 5 isn't amazing but it feels really weird to me that over the course of the next 15 levels it only gains 2 additional points of damage while monsters gain hundreds upon hundreds of HP.

Agreed.

It's not even just 1d6 at 5. It's 1d6 with approx 5% chance of occurring. So .. 5% chance to deal 3.5 additional damage on an ability we most likely won't use much and will, at most, use it once a turn.

So - chances are, we just won't ever get it to proc for an entire session.

Anyone run the numbers on a support kinetist yet?

I really love the idea of running a support kinetist, but am having trouble making one I would prefer to have in a party instead of a druid in any circumstance but a campaign with really REALLY long adventuring days.

I feel like a support kinetist should be there, but I just can't make it work. Highest levels spells always seem to be better at healing, control, buffing, debuffing, terrain making, etc than anything a kinetist can put out.

So far, it really seems like full tank is the best use of the class.

Unlimited protector tree? Lol

7. Catalyst of Destruction. Fire/Earth kineticist that takes armor in earth and flying flame at 1 along with weapon infusion. At 2, flame oracle dedication. At 4, flame oracle revelation incendiary aura. At 5, thermal nimbus. Level 6, lava leap, and at level 8, calcifying sand. At level 10, aura shaping.

Goal is to leap into a battle and catch everyone on fire while having great defensive options.

Fire and metal kineticist blacksmith

What is the in-world explanation given for the newly revealed planes of metal and wood? Why were they previously unknown and/or inaccessible to us? What changed?

Pathfinder society released one of the good elemental lords. That one released the rest.

Due to this disruption, the earth evil elemental lost access and control of metal and had to consolidate his power elsewhere, releasing his grip on it which allowed metal to gain back its authority. As far as I remember...

If you're a wood, metal, or earth kineticist, you don't need as much dex and can settle for +2 max for metal and wood or +1 max for earth.

didn't know it already come out

does everything kineticist use constitution or does attack still use str and dex

really doesn't want to build another multiple attribute dependent class

I'd say, looking at the class, 80% = con, 15% = str and 5% = dex just for AC.

STR for dmg for elemental blasts, but those aren't a main focus... Con for literally everything else.

didn't know it already come out

does everything kineticist use constitution or does attack still use str and dex

really doesn't want to build another multiple attribute dependent class

Con for attack, str for damage.. with the right feat, can use str for ranged damage as well (give your blast the thrown trait)

Verzen wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

Are there sky metal effects that are available for metal kineticists?

Not that I see. But there is a way to make your blasts coated with a metal type to trigger weaknesses.

So cold iron and silver I wager. But no adamantine? I figured they would get that at some high level.

Any metal you hold, you treat it as a Conduit.

So if you're holding adamantine, your impulses are plated in adamantine

Can I ask about earth impulses?

I know about tremor already, have any playtest earth aoe impulses that made it in gotten buffed? Are there any new ones?

Have the two capstones for earth been changed (rebirth in living stone and the shattered mountain weeps?)?

Earth is more or less the same but there's no stone shield reaction. Instead you get a suit of stone armor that you activate for 1 action and it upgrades to essentially plate at lvl 3. (5 AC 1 dex)

Red Griffyn wrote:

So I know everyone loves metrics so here is what I can cobble together for fire based on the extremely little I know/inferred (I don't have access to the book, or text so it could be all wrong, but I at least think I've entered it into the community calculator correctly).

Fire Damage Focused Build

Base Inputs:
- 1D8 Fire Blasts from starting with only fire
- Caster to hit Scaling at 7/15/19
- Gate Attenuation item bonus at +1 at L3 and +2 at L11
- L1 Feat for Elemental Weapon (propulsive on first strike ranged, agile for second and third strikes). Also great as a back-up for fire immune creatures since it is a free action before EB to make it P/S/B instead of fire damage (please correct me if it forces that decision or not, because if so it will reduce the chart DPR).
- L4 Fire Aura Stance Feat (causes fire damage to enemies in melee equal to level) (I assumed no save/DC just happens so please let me know if there are limits)
- L5 Gate Expansion (causes fire weakness in enemies in melee equal to level within 10ft)
- L9 Crit Specialization (Crits cause 1d6 persistent fire assumed to burn for 2 rounds)
- Now showing non-goblin fire and goblin version if burn-it worked.
- Fire ranged = any 1D8 ranged since none of the aura stuff works
- Showing generic 1D8 element with none of the auras.

So general takeaways are that that aura/gate expansion are easily doubling a melee kineticists DPR. If you want a DPR kineticist that combo will probably be better than anything else. Goblin burn-it is worth 5-10% DPR boost so still great to have and hopefully it gets revised during remaster to work.

This is just blast blast blast which is not highly creative. But that aura/gate combo potentially is a 5 to 10ft radius nasty combo. If you're able to proc multiple enemies with it or use other feats as suggested in this thread to proc it multiple times you might be able to do better.

Obviously since I don't have the book, I

...

It's still in. It's level 10 though.

Aside from the art which is gorgeous, the book itself and the mechanics = This is a winner.

I don't always like what yall manage to put out, but I do have this to say...

Thank you paizo for doing this right. I was super concerned, but it looks like everything turned out awesome. Everything in the book is in it. Earth, metal, and wood kineticist feel a bit tanky in the right amount of ways and flavor. There are many many ways to make me feel like I can be a steam kineticist or mud kineticist etc. Im not sure on the exact damage potential yet, but all the rest of the bells and whistles greatly enhance the feel of this class... And as much as I loved burn as a mechanic for the flavor, the way ya'll managed to pull this class off - I'm just thinking... "What's burn again???"

Truly a beautiful class and a beautiful book.

Verzen wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's curious that wood and metal get the shield and earth doesn't since the "1 action earth shield impulse" was one of earth's coolest abilities in the playtest.

Earth might get a second impulse, and it sounds like their impulse junction is basically "raise a shield" anyway.

Nah. It just gives 1 AC until your next turn.

I don't see any raise a shield actions with Earth.

Is it a circumstance bonus, though? Because if it is, that's basically "Raise a Shield, buckler edition". If it's untyped, though... huh.

Verzen wrote:

I'm REALLY excited thermal nimbus exists though. And as a 1 action stance. I can channel my element and get thermal nimbus for free...

Thermal Numbus? Is that the "I do small amounts of fire damage to everyone around me" one?

Also, if it is, that means that you can fire off the Flames Oracle Combo in a single turn, which is cute.

Yeah circumstance.

And yeah thats the combo I am super excited for.

For those curious.. It looks like, to me anyway, that the damage from the impulses sometimes deals LESS damage than electric arc but to MORE targets.

Instead of just 1d4+4 to 2 targets as electric arc, wood can hit for 1d4 dmg in a 15 foot cone... that ALSO deals 1d4 bleed damage on top of that.

Verzen wrote:

I'd say yes. The armor proficiency scales up to your highest proficiency. So monks get legendary unarmored proficiency. This armor would scale with it....

Cool, cool. Sounds like it might interfere with some stances, but there are armor-friendly stances out there too.

You could always use stances from kineticist as well. They have a LOT of stances. Plus the armor you create gets any runes your normal armor has.

So you can have your clothes that can be enchanted with runes and that transfers over.

Verzen wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

In what ways does the kineticist archetype weaken impulses?

Is there any way to use an elemental blast in something like Opportunity Attack?

I don't see AOO off the bat atm

The dedication ONLY goes up to expert (instead of legendary) with impulses and the elemental blasts deal 1 dice less than normal going up to 4d6 or 4d8.. instead of 5d6 or 5d8.

Ahhh. Yeah, that's a drop. Well-placed, too. Suggests that maybe archetype kineticists should be sticking with utility rather than attacks... which is not a terrible thing.

I'd say yes. The armor proficiency scales up to your highest proficiency. So monks get legendary unarmored proficiency. This armor would scale with it....

So impulse attack rolls also only go up to expert, but you do get a +2 attenuator, so you get an additional +2 on top of that.

So a +6 instead of a martials +9(Master + 3 item) or +11(for fighter)