devilbunny's page

You could make a variety of wizards in PF1. One of those concepts was a blaster/damage dealer that was easily on par with martials. I built that character.

But that wizard in 1e was straight-up better than the martial cuz not only could they do as much damage, they were also the 'god wizard' and could switch their spell selection at will. How do I know? Cuz I also built that character. I matched the martials in my party with damage, and I had a ton of spells that could do other stuff. When you have the whole wizard spell list from 1e and did as much damage as a martial why play a martial? You can teleport, scry, create demiplanes, clone yourself, obviate skill challenges, AND do much as damage as them.

Also 2e illusionists are way better than their 1e counterparts due to the new illusion rules. Illusory object, a 1st lvl spell, can single-handedly win encounters, amongst the myriad of other phenomenal illusion spells. You're also forgetting you can play a battlefield control wizard that focuses on reshaping his environment.

There's a lot of baggage and presumptions from 1e carrying over. Everyone can agree god wizards are not wanted in the new edition. But they treat wizards as if the same tactics from 1e work for 2e. The spells that auto-won 1e encounters now mostly have the incapacitation trait, so they're only useful for specific situations. And that's intentional game design. The best spells that are always useful are the ones lacking that trait. Take those if you want to be consistently able to contribute, and only take those incapacitation ones if you know what you're walking into. That's when they're at their most devastating.

You need to cast smart in 2e and spells will be hella useful. Don't lob a fireball against something you suspect has a high Reflex. Also don't lob a fireball against a single target and expect it do as much damage as the martial. That's a relic from 1e, and why wizards were broken. Cuz they were doing the martial's job just as well/better on top of being able to do other things.

People are also saying it's not fair that my examples have the weak save being targeted. Why? That's the whole point of playing a spellcaster, target the weak save.

1st, a lich itself is a level 12 enemy. So it was only 1 level higher.

2nd, Fort is their weak save at +17, compared to their high save of +23.
3rd, it sound like the GM sent a bunch of level-2 or level-4 creatures. In which case yeah your Chain lighting would deal a lot of damage.

I am not trying to dismiss your case because its clear you had fun. But its clear that the encounter was heavily in your favor, from the number of minions to the Lich being weak to fort saves.

My point is that we need more info. 1 case of a single encounter going perfectly doesn't help when everything else feel bad. Would you agree?

Isn't that the case with any class? A lot of people are arguing that wizards can't contribute effectively compared to other classes while I'm saying they can. Nobody complains about the fighter not being able to perform well in situational combat encounters like things that are incorporeal and invisible, or with flight, or fighting in the heart of a volcano. Yet the wizard, who has a whole spell list suited for not only specific combat situations like the aforementioned ones but generic ones as well, is ridiculed. If wizards were just as good as fighters at their job, why play a fighter when you can play someone with just as much dmg output as a fighter and teleportation, divination, summoning, etc.

Everyone just looks at the martial classes and go good proficiencies, BIG NUMBERS, feels good to play with new action economy. Which they are. They feel great to play after 1e. But people feel as if wizards suck cuz they got hit the hardest with the nerf bat because their primary schtick is spellcasting and magic isn't what it used to be and the wizard's numbers aren't up to par.

But that's on the surface. If you actually look at the game design, the numbers are extremely tight cuz Paizo has guys like Mark Seifter, who was doing AI research at MIT, balancing 2e. Spellcasters are behind by 2 points in spell attack rolls and DCs compared to martials hitting things (and only 1 point by the time they get legendary spellcasting) because not only can they target the weakest defense of their choice, they also have spells that fundamentally break reality. Martials can't buff effectively, provide new movement options, reshape the battlefield, etc.

If you give spellcasters similar scaling item bonuses, they would come out 2 points ahead of martials except fighters in both attacks rolls and DCs. And they can still target the weakest defense.

More theory-craft which doesn't emulate the experience in games. I would rather see damage tracked in a party over the course of an entire module to see where casters stand or even multiple boss fights against level +2 or +3 creatures. That is the data I want to see. Not theory-craft.

With martials using flanks, item bonuses, and caster buffing, they benefit far more than casters benefit.

In PF1 casters could attack some creature weak point like Touch AC or make someone flat-footed losing their dex, which balanced out lower attack rolls. Now they have lower attack rolls with nothing to balance it out. No item bonuses and no flanking. Just a lower attack roll with ACs of monsters much higher for two action attacks don't do much damage with a higher chance of failure in a round to relying on a single roll.

Not just theory-craft, I've actually played 2 high lvl wizards, one with spell substitution and one with spell blending, since Pathfinder 2e came out. If martials get caster buffing, then spellcasters should get the same benefit of the doubt. Flat-footed is easy to get from a myriad of spells and conditions (such as prone) at this lvl. Arcane casters are usually 2 points behind in spell attack rolls compared to martials but it's more than made up for with true strike. AND you can target your choice of defense as an arcane caster between AC, Fortitude, Reflex, and Will while martials can only hit AC.

My 11th lvl party consisted of my wizard, a maestro bard, a Giant instinct barbarian, and a Dex dual-wield fighter when we ran up against a lich and a bunch of undead minions. Lich was flying, and barbarian had terrible ranged options so he couldn't attack the lich and just focused down the undead horde while the fighter took pot shots with his bow at the lich. The bard buffed everyone, and kept them topped off. First round of combat, my wizard killed a quarter of the minions and severely injured the rest with a chain lightning and then trapped the flying lich in a quickened resilient sphere. The lich wasted his turn dispelling the sphere, so on my wizard's second round of combat he cast true strike and disintegrate. Bard's inspired heroics increased my spell attack to +22 and I got two attack rolls with true strike. Got a crit because of that so the lich's Fort save counted as one degree worse. My spell DC was 30, so the lich needed to roll a 13 or higher on his Fort save. Ended up rolling a 11, so he failed but since I crit on my attack roll cuz true strike and inspire heroics, he crit failed. Did 140 damage to the lich, and turned him into paste.

The rest of my party sat there stunned after that cuz I effectively dusted a lvl 13 encounter by myself with some assistance from the bard's buffs. And that's just one example from our campaign, if ya want more I can provide them.

Edit: Erased the to hit comment due to ninjaed second post by devil bunny.

The point still stands that you are doing generally same or worse than martial, and clearly worse than Sorcerer.

P.S. At level 11 they are roughly equivalent right? Then at level 12 martials get Greater Striking and then become better than casters.

Flat-footed at high lvls is relatively easy for a caster to obtain as well. An illusionist is walking around with perma-invis from their focus spell. A spellcaster with good Dex (second most important stat after casting stat for them) and maxing their Stealth can start a fight concealed with the Avoid Notice exploration activity. Many spells apply conditions that impose flat-footed even on a successful saving throw and you can take Quickened Casting by then to cast multiple spells in one round. Only useful once a day, but most players will save it for the big fights anyways.

Attack buffs are just as easy to apply to casters as martials. Inspire courage/heroics/heroism does the same for your accuracy chances as it does the martial.

At 15th lvl, you get 8th lvl slots so you could true strike quicken disintegrate and power word stun all in one turn. Power word stun doesn't even allow a save, and at best they're still stunned 1. Polar ray also becomes another attack spell you can true strike with and they don't even get a save for the drained 2 condition either. I'm also confident Paizo will release more and more single target dmg spell options as content gets released.

And of course you can only do it a limited amount of times per day. If they could do it as much as martials AND still cast utility/buff/debuff/battlefield control spells, they would be broken.

I do admit there are levels where casters fall slightly behind in the math. They do tend to be behind the proficiency curve by 2 points for certain lvls considering most martials get master with weapons by 13 while casters get master with spellcasting at 15. Greater Striking only applies for lvl 12 since casters get 7th lvl slots at 13 so disintegrate would be doing an extra +2d10 dmg. +3 weapons are pretty big for martials at lvl 16 but that gap shrinks significantly once casters get legendary spellcasting at lvl 19.

Here's some more math. One of the biggest complaints I'm seeing is spellcasters can't do diddly squat against boss-lvl threats. Let's take the above scenario with the 11th lvl spellcaster and the 11th lvl martial facing off against a 14th lvl boss. Now according to analysis done in another thread, the most common AC and Fort save numbers would fall under the high category for an AC of 36 and a +28 Fort. Most martials (except fighters) will have a +22 to hit with a 20 in Str/Dex and a +2 striking weapon. So their first attack roll needs a 14 to hit which is a 35% chance. Second attack roll would require a 19 without agile/flurry for a 10% to hit. Third attack roll isn't even worth bothering with, you're likely going to have a more useful action to take. Even the second attack roll is questionable, and it would be much more worthwhile to use a 2-action attack feat like Power Attack.

So assuming you attempt to strike twice, then the odds of hitting one of them as a non-fighter martial are 38%. For the thief racket rogue, it would probably be 39.5% since they're likely using an agile weapon for their second attack. Meanwhile the odds of a true strike disintegrate hitting against the same AC is 37.5% because the caster only has a +20 to their spell attack roll, requiring a 16 or higher on the die (no magic item bonus). Seems like everyone's in the same ballpark. The Fort save DC for the disintegrate will be 30, so the boss's average roll will succeed but not crit succeed. So the non-fighter martial if they land one attack is outputting 30 dmg for the barb and 27.5 dmg as a rogue while the arcane spellcaster is doing 33 dmg. The sorcerer with Dangerous Sorcery fares slightly better with 36 dmg. There's a 3.5% for the barb to land two attacks, a 5.25% for the rogue to land two attacks, and a 5% chance for the boss to crit fail his Fort save. Both the martials and casters have a 9.5% chance of critting with two attack rolls. While the arcane spellcaster is certainly competitive in terms of damage in this scenario, they would probably be more useful to the team if they were to debuff the enemy by targeting their weak save or buff their allies. Or even a battlefield control spell.

So what did we learn from this? Well, for one, I knew the math for 2e was tight but until the numbers were crunched I didn't realize exactly how tight they were. Still if ya wanna do just pure damage as an arcane caster, you're gunna be able to keep up with the martials.

You are saying a lv 11 Wizard spending 2 spells and 3 actions and if the target failed the fortitude check, gets to do more damage than a Rogue using 2 actions.

The lv 11 Wizard spending his full round and multiple resources is 23.6% stronger than a the worst martial at damage using 2 actions.

Let that sink in. Its not stronger than the Ranger, let alone the Barbarian or Fighter. Its stronger compared to the Rogue, which is built to sacrifice damage for an stupid amount of skill feats compared to everyone else.

Force damage is more valuable than the rogue's weapon damage, specifically once your character level goes into the teens. You're almost never going to run into something resistant or immune to it. Situations with creatures resistant to certain types of damage unless you have a specific precious metal or physical damage type is pretty common at these levels as you're often fighting either outsiders, fey, or undead (incorporeal, vampires, liches, etc.). Stuff like constructs are also immune to precision damage. Solo epic level threats like Treerazer, the Tarrasque, and elder wyrmwraiths all have massive weapon damage resistances. But no force resistance or immunity.

Rogues are only the worst martial when you account for defenses. Their damage is on par with rangers, barbarians, and fighters. You're making a baseless claim without looking at the facts. How would I know? Cuz I actually did some number crunching, and am running a game for a high lvl rogue on top of playing a game with a flurry ranger and a fighter.

11th lvl giant instinct barbarian with a +2 striking greatsword is hitting for 2d12+17 per hit for an average of 30 points of damage. Assuming they hit as often as the rogue was in the above scenario, they're doing 60 damage per swing. If they crit on their first attack and land their subsequent ones (roughly the same odds as the best outcome of true strike disintegrate), then that's a total of 120 dmg which is still less than the 132 dmg.

Let's assume we have a 11th fighter with a +2 striking greatsword who is landing all 3 of their attacks per round due to their high accuracy. Each attack is hitting for 2d12+8 which is 21 dmg on average. That's still only a total of 63 dmg. Most of their feats that grant them extra damage requires setup from the fighter so they'd have to sacrifice an action to Demoralize or another one to use Intimidating Strike or Knockdown so they can then benefit from Fearsome Brute or have a higher chance of hitting/critting a prone target. So then you're losing that third attack that landed dropping you down to 42 dmg plus whatever benefits you gained. If your combat routine had been Intimidating Strike->Shatter Defenses, then your dmg total is 45 with Fearsome Brute and master Intimidation. Next round, your average dmg on all your attacks with 2d12+11 would be 24, and if all three hit then it's a total of 72 dmg. Even if you crit on two of those attacks, that's still only 120 dmg.

So at just 11th lvl, the spellcaster is outpacing the dmg of these damage specced martials, or at worst on par, for 4-5 rounds contingent on how many 6th lvl slots you have. With no setup and 120 ft. range. They don't need to spend the first round of combat maneuvering into position or sacrificing actions to pop off abilities that boost their damage. And they still have almost all of their 5th, 4th, 3rd, and 2nd lvl slots. Need a Wall of Stone to cut off the enemy for a few rounds or a Cone of Cold to take out a bunch of targets at once? No problem, that's something they can do 4-5 times on top of their true strike disintegrates.

Realistically speaking, you're not going to go through all these spell slots without the party calling a rest. Sure the martial could go all day, but that's why they're the martial cuz it's the one big thing they've got going for them. If your caster were to be replaced by a martial, maybe the party might not need to ever rest but they're going to run into a hell of a lot of encounters where they wished they had a caster to take care of the flying invisible dragon, permanent side effects of failed saving throws like curses/death/petrification, or access to difficult regions to explore like another plane of existence. Not even mentioning the utility of dispel magic for stuff like dominated allies, buffed enemies, etc.

People are seriously underrating the value of spell substitution. I played a mid to high-level campaign that revolved around being in Sigil and plane hopping, and I regularly had to swap out spells because I had no idea what we would be going up against. We were investigating a lead in the city, so naturally, my spells were prepped for information gathering, reconaissance and interrogation. Our lead suggested that the Elemental Plane of Water should be our next stop, for which we were not prepared for, but a little spell swapping later and we were good to go.

Another time, we thought we were going to catch the BBEG unaware and ambush them so my loadout was mostly combat spells. But apparently the BBEG was tipped off to our plans right before we had arrived and had absconded to the Abyss. Instead of giving them time to treatise with their demonic allies and gather reinforcements as they consolidate their power base, we decided to give chase and plane shift there. The cleric couldn't swap out his spells because he had prepped for a fight, but since I had spell substitution it took only 10 minutes before I could cast the necessary spell.

What makes wizard unique is the breadth of the arcane spell list, and being able to substitute spells on a daily basis if not quicker with spell substitution. Easy access to spells that target all the saving throws - Occult is too focused on Will saves, Primal is mostly Reflex saves, and Divine combat spells are generally limited by alignment or specific creatures. You can switch from information gathering to combat to exploration and survival of harsh environments to covert infiltration quite easily. Which is why they are not a weak class. Fighters can't do that, they will only ever excel at beating things down with a stick, that is their whole schtick.

Are they boring? Yeah. Wizard feats are useful but aren't fun. School powers feel underwhelming and do not nearly add enough to justify calling you a specialist in a school when you often aren't better than like a sorcerer with those same spells.

But is the wizard class weak? Nope.

As a side note, Sorcerers can have familiars, too.

Henro wrote:

I think universalist bond offers a pretty interesting prepared/spontaneous hybrid playstyle. I don’t think it’s a subpar option at all.

A Universalist casts spells from a choice of 3 spells per level. An Arcane Sorcerer casts spell from a choice of 4 spells plus signature spells. And he is fully spontaneous and not hybrid. I hardly think there's any mechanical reason to play a Universalist over a Sorcerer.

Uhhhh, yeah there is. That universalist wizard can prepare situational utility spells that the arcane sorcerer doesn't have. Underwater temple? Let me just swap my normal loadout for that. Arcane sorcerer can't do that. Spell substitution gives even more flexibility since they effectively have access to their whole spellbook with only ten minutes of prep time. If you find yourself suddenly needing to be on the Elemental Plane of Fire when you thought you were fighting undead, it's minimal effort on the wizard's part.

Wizard feats are kinda bland I will admit, but the class is far superior to its 1e iteration where it could break the game. If wizards were just as good at combat as martials (or better as they were in 1e), what's the point of playing a martial? If you could achieve what a fighter can do in combat without being a fighter, what's the point in the fighter class? You can no longer solo entire encounters with one spell, and that's a GOOD THING.

Your spells are most effective when working with your team, and putting them in positions to win fights. Due to the new math of the system, every +1 matters since it not only increases your chance to hit by 5% but also crit by 5% effectively a 10% swing in changing the odds of a dice roll. Every small debuff and buff counts. So yes, spells like fear, which may feel underwhelming to cast, provide a huge bonus. Assume a party of four of let's say the standard 4 adventurers - fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard. That one fear spell you cast is going to probably affect two of the fighter's attack rolls, two of the rogue's attack rolls, a cleric spell and maybe a cleric attack roll as well as EVERY single one of the targeted enemy's rolls. Same with other battlefield control spells like grease which causes enemies to become prone which inflicts flat-footed (which is a 10% increase in a failure becoming a success and a 10% increase in a success becoming a crit).

And on top of that, you're a WIZARD. You can literally remold reality. You contribute by simply existing, and giving the rest of your non-spellcasting companions options they wouldn't have. Need to traverse across a ravine? No problem cast fly. Can a fighter do that? Nope. Need to explore an underwater temple, and worried about both breathing and how cold it will be down there? Endure Elements and Water Breathing. Can a fighter do that? Nope. Need to dispel the enemy's flight spell so your allies can reach him? On it. Can a fighter do that? Nope. Need to teleport across the world (or another plane) to stop the BBEG from activating the doomsday device? Easy. Can a fighter do that? Nope.

So why do you need to be as good as the fighter at his only schtick? You still have combat utility. Wall of Stone or Wall of Force can trivialize fights by separating them into two encounters practically, isolating the most dangerous target or splitting off enemies from supporting each other like, let's say a group of archers pelting arrows down at you and providing ranged support for their allies. 4th-lvl invisibility on a rogue is like giving them steroids and watching them start a blood-soaked rampage across the battlefield.

Whatever, the point being a wizard has options. Plus the arcane spell list is still really good and super flexible. Only list with reliable access to all 3 saves on top of spell attack rolls. You can also still carry a team if they're built to support you. Have a bard with dirge of doom in your party? Multiclass into rogue and pick up Dread Striker. Then cast true strike disintegrate at the enemy. Frightened 1 and flat-footed from Dirge+Dread Striker gives them a -3 TO THEIR AC. And you still have true strike! The chances of you critting are insane. Their Fort save is then also made at a -1 penalty from being frightened.

Really, the only thing that has changed since 1e is that you can no longer solo carry entire encounters by yourself. And that's the point. Pathfinder 2e is a team game where EVERYONE gets to shine. Not just the wizard. You enable your allies, and the teams wins as a whole or your allies enable you, letting you shine, and the team wins as a whole.

I love the concept of a drifter-like class. Strong thematic concept not covered by the existing martials with room for interesting design space. Covers the whole wandering, lone wolf warrior (usually specialized with a specific weapon) thing very well that gets depicted often in media. Usually follows a personal code of honor.

Mysterious stranger with a steely-eyed gaze, lightning reflexes, and smoking hot steel barrels by his hip.

The vagabond sword saint, masterless and dishonored, wandering in search of a higher calling (or coin), with nothing at their side but flashing steel, a wide-brimmed straw hat, and worn sandals.

A multilingual, plane-hopping bounty hunter with a colorful tongue, a penchant for trouble, and a relentless drive; takes contracts from outsiders for high-value targets. Perhaps has a lethally modded chopper. Think DC's Lobo fused with like an inevitable.

A lot of the connotation of names have to do with the knowledge people have of it.

For example: If no one knew about Spider-Man and you were to ask random people what they thought it was, I bet most wouldn't think its a teen/college student that swings around from webs in a spandex suit and has a side job as a photographer.

Similarly, a person that has little knowledge of "-kinesis" as a term will not realize how much meaning the name "Kineticist" has.

That's the other issue though. A lot of new players, especially first time players, aren't going to recognize what a kineticist is or does based on name alone and might just breeze over it. Spider-Man on the other hand is a multibillion franchise so you're way less likely to run into someone who doesn't know your friendly neighborhood spider. Actually I don't think I've ever met a person in my life who doesn't know who Spider-Man is. Same with classes like wizard or rogue - instant recognition cuz you have a frame of reference.

Kineticist? Hell, all my players played Pathfinder 1e for years, and only one person could tell you what that class is or does besides me because of a lack of interest in the occult classes. Whenever I bring up playing a kineticist, I get asked what it does again.

Elementalist does not quite convey what Kineticists are about.

A Kineticist does a lot more than just control the elements, which is usually limited to: Fire, Water, Air, Earth. A Kineticist works with planar energy.

So while an elementalist stops at manipulating the 4 elemental planes.

A Kineticist is manipulating, the Positive, Negative, Ethereal, and First World (Wood). There is even an archetype that basically implies they can control radiation.

Like elementalism, nothing about the word kinetics suggests the manipulation of planar energy. It's the mechanism by which a physical or chemical change is effected. Which makes sense if we're just talking about manipulation of the classical elements. Or from a scientific standpoint. But I think it's valid that control over metaphysical quantities also exists a bit outside of its scope/purview.

Since the game already has three spells with the word "kinetic" in the game (the three Telekinetic spells)and they don't feel out of place the name Kineticist is fine.

Spell name design is a little different than class name design. Spells are supposed to be plain and descriptive so they're easy to remember and reference. Fireball is a rather pedestrian name, and easy to visualize what it does. Same with something like Telekinetic Projectile. If fireball had been named like Infernal Flowering Crimson of Death or whatever, obviously it's a cooler name but it wouldn't parse its function simplistically. And I'd assume we were probably playing a wuxia game instead. Class names should be more evocative and distilled with flavor - brimming with ideas. At the very least so that new players can have something to work with as a source of inspiration, and have an idea of what the class does.

The design team recently mentioned on stream during PaizoCon that it took them to the last second to settle on Desecrator for the new NE Champion, and they went back and forth on a lot of names because they wanted something that would fit the essence of the cause. Lyz Liddell also mentioned how much more important names and naming in general was to the game design team than she thought it was, something she was unaware of until she transitioned from her old role to her current role. It rings especially true since they renamed the Paladin class to Champion since they believed it was more fitting, and the Paladin class has much older roots than Kineticist.

So your real problem is that Kineticists aren't confined to Numeria and poison your pristine medieval fantasy with a sci-fi taint.

In that case, I have some bad news.

Absolutely not my problem. The idea of kineticists does belong in a fantasy game. And all over Golarion as well.

I'm well aware that gatling guns and lasers exist, what with Numeria, the entirety of Iron Gods, and the Technology Guide from 1e, but it's somewhat localized to a specific region and is certainly not common. You don't see nobles in Brevoy blasting each other with laser pistols nor are there cybernetically augmented individuals running rampant in Varisia. Most of Golarion has little to no sci-fi elements. Your average campaign will not run into that. If there were, this would be like Starfinder or Shadowrun instead. Nor do you see classes with the name Space Marine, Tech-Priest, and Psyker. Kineticist doesn't stand out from a lineup like that. Cleric, Druid, Bard? Maybe, a little bit.

My players and I were just talking about this. We love everything about the design space of the class and the role it fulfills, but we agreed that the name didn't strike us as particularly fantasy. I guess, technically, science fiction does encompass science fantasy but that's a whole can of worms I don't want to get into.

However, what can I say is that most of my group grew up reading Tolkien, and later on George R.R. Martin, Brandon Sanderson, Robert E. Howard, Brent Weeks, Ursula K. Le Guin, Patrick Rothfuss, etc. As a reference point, we're mostly in our early 20's if that matters. Now obviously, Golarion isn't predicated heavily on any of these fantasy authors' works, but the heart of the matter is that none of us feel, in our gut, that kineticist is a particularly suitable name. It simply doesn't resonate as fantasy nor does it seem particularly evocative.

If anything, the first thing I think of is kinetics and, subsequently, physics. While that may accurately describe the broad range of a kineticist's abilities from a scientific standpoint, it doesn't feel like a fantasy class. If anything, the name conveys just a catch-all word for what the class's role is and nothing else. Like yes, I can manipulate an element, but what does that mean thematically for my character? How is that tied into the setting? Unlike most classes, there's little to no consistent media to use as a frame of reference when you think kineticist (besides elemental mages in various forms of fiction that differ from source to source and benders from Avatar but the latter is tied heavily to the setting).

Wizard? You think of a mighty and powerful wielder of the arcane arts who has spent years and years of study unlocking the secrets of reality. Gandalf, Dumbledore, Merlin, Prospero, Sparrowhawk, Harry Dresden, etc. Gunslinger? Conjures forth a deadeye gun fiend with smoking barrels and a propensity for dishing out high octane violence, all the while gritting their teeth. Roland Deschain, Wyatt Earp, Billy the Kid, the Man with No Name, etc. Rogue? Endless amount of concepts that leap to mind - thief with a heart of gold, the assassin with a rigid code of honor, the ruthless gang enforcer, scheming mastermind who weaves webs of lies.

Kineticist? Hmm, something about manipulating elements. Maybe middle school science where you first encounter the concept of kinetic energy. Conceptually, nothing strikes me besides Avatar. There's no inherent cool character archetype that stands out, and that I can build off of roleplaying-wise. Sure, that hypothetically gives me the freedom to play whatever and then justify it, but it doesn't give me inspiration for a character concept.

It doesn't need to be an already existing concept or name even. Look at D&D 4e's avenger. While you can argue over the merits of the name, it certainly sounds badass and fitting for a divine assassin sent to hunt down the enemies of their god. That's an idea you can play with right off the bat. Now I will admit 4e did also have some bland names. Like seeker. Way too generic, and it's kind of a stretch to relate to their primal power source. If I told a new player they could play seeker, they would probably just stare at me and blink.

On a slightly different tangent, I would like kineticists to be tied into Golarion lore more or a better explanation of what differentiates them from being mistaken as just another spellcaster but more specialized. To your average layperson, sure a sorcerer, a wizard, and a witch may seem the same, but there is a narrative difference. Sorcerers are born with power stemming from their unusual bloodline or an event occurred that significantly altered them like being born on the Day of the Reckoning of Abraxas where the sun was swallowed for a bit and residual energy leaked in from the Outer Planes. Wizards obtained magic through rote memory and a significant amount of studying which gives them a very academic approach to magic. Witches struck a pact, knowingly or unknowingly, with a being of immense power.

Kineticist seemed like they had a really cool class idea with strong mechanics to back it up, but no real thematic reason to exist. And a bit of a strange name for the genre.

Okay, my turn to have a shot with this *cracks knuckles*
The only PFS rule that she breaks is that her alignment is evil, so she could pick up the Shadow Druid feat.

Next, she proceeds to fly down, right next to the succubus while casting displacement and strong jaw on herself while still in the air. On the subsequent turn, she continues following the succubus as a thrush before wild shaping into a behemoth hippo. Her Stealth is now +11, -10 from being a hippo, and +40 from invisibility while not moving. She then breaks invisibility during the surprise round, rages, and uses Vital Strike. Her attack modifier as a behemoth hippo is +7 BAB, +11 from strength of 32 because of rage and wild shape into a Huge creature, -2 from Huge, and +1 from the amulet of mighty fists for a total of +17. The succubus is also flat-footed giving her an AC of 17 and Serena gains another +2 from to attack from invisibility. Auto-hit if Serena doesn't roll a 1.

Damage dealt is on average 72 from 16d8 bite attack from strong jaw and Vital Strike,+16 from strength, and a +1 from amulet for a total of 89 points of damage. With a DR of 10 from the succubus, that drops her hp down to 4. Serena's bite attack also gives her a free grab with a +20 from CMB (+13 base, +5 from being a Huge creature and the bonus strength, and a +2 from strength increase due to rage) against the succubus's CMD 22. Basically the succubus is grappled, and has close tono chance to break free from Serena's CMD of 29. While the fire giant and its minions start streaking over, maybe even getting a couple attacks off if they're close enough (missing half the time from displacement), Serena breaks the succubus in half with another successful grapple check and then flies into the air from her earlier cast air walk (yes, flying behemoth hippos).

The fire giant may be able to hit her again, but she has 112 hp from rage and hasn't taken too much damage so far. She continues air walking up until she's right above the fire giant and then uses her 15 ft. reach to attack with a Vital Strike and Furious Finish. Serena has a 70% chance to hit an AC 24. Assuming she does, that's 146 points of damage. Bye-bye fire giant. The rest of the minions are mopped up as she shifts into a thrush again and summons a large air elemental. The poor hell hounds and cave trolls still haven't evolved to use a ranged attack. While the elemental uses whirlwind, Serena casts call lightning storm with each bolt dealing 5d10 or 27 points of damage on average, 13 with a successful Reflex DC 20 (normally it's 3d10, but whirlwind simulates stormy conditions).

Conclusion: She basically had to blast through and go full nova, but it was enough to take care of the succubus, fire giant, and minions.
---
Encounter #2: To traverse the dark tunnels of the necropolis, Serena will take the form of a bat and easily reach the demonic mohrg (locating it with Spirit Sense) without fighting any of the zombies due to her +26 Stealth (this time without invisibility). Plus bats don't exactly look threatening to zombies even if she is spotted while breaking cover.

Okay, time for the fight. (UN)HOLY CRAP!!! HOW IN THE WORLD CAN A CR 12 DEMONIC MOHRG SUMMON A CR 13 GLABREZU?! Now, that's just unfair! And Serena doesn't even have the option of silence like Limburger...Okay, deep breath. Serena, still in bat form, casts strong jaw, displacement, invisibility, and echolocation before actually entering the area with the mohrg. The mohrg has a +22 Perception, but that's not good enough against the stealth of the invisible bat flies straight up to it. Serena then shifts into a behemoth hippo, and her Stealth is now +40 from not moving while invisible, +11 base stealth, -8 from Huge, and, -2 from Dex loss when changing into a Huge creature for a total of +41 Stealth. Then she breaks invisibility for her Vital Strike attack during the surprise round which is +19 while raging and invisible against a flat-footed AC 19.

It hits, and she deals an average of 90 damage, reducing the mohrg from 171 to 81. The mohrg has a higher initiative, and is likely to react first during the first round of combat. However, most of it's spells are useless against another evil creature and summoning the glabrezu requires a round in which case Serena will use Vital Strike and Furious Finish to deal 146 points of damage and kill it. The only option left is to attack and pray it hits with a paralyzing tongue. However, Serena has displacement active making it only 50% chance that the attack will hit. If it does hit, she has 55% chance of saving against the paralysis and then proceeding to kill the mohrg the next turn because of her +15 Fortitude. The possession ability that kicks in when the mohrg is dead is a DC 23 Will against Serena's +16. 70% chance that Serena saves successfully.

Conclusion: Much harder than the first encounter and required a lot more thought despite wasting less resources. Mainly it was trying to avoid the glabrezu from being summoned.
---
Encounter #3: Air walk, displacement, shift into behemoth hippo, and cast strong jaw. Then move straight at the patrolling erinyes and bite it with Vital Strike and Furious Finish while raging. Stupid true-seeing makes it hard to sneak around. Maybe get hit twice or three times, dropping Serena down to around 70ish hp, if the devils react first. Once the erinyes is dead, finish off the rest of the bearded devils and move on after healing with a wand of cure light wounds.

Change into a thrush and cast both invisibility and strong jaw before dropping in on the cleric. Silently flit her way through the shadows with a +46 Stealth against the +20 Perception of the infernal priest. Not gunna cut it, pal. Change into behemoth hippo. Surprise round is Serena using Vital Strike and Furious Finish to kill off the cleric while raging, with a +19 attack against AC 26 for being flat-footed. The rest of the zombies are one-shotted with an average of 87 points of damage being dealt a turn even without rage.

Conclusion: Pretty simple and easy overall. Erinyes gave the most trouble, and even then it was only because of true-seeing.
---
Encounter #4: Inspired by Crosswind's idea of the obscuring mist, Serena casts fog cloud in the middle of the party before shifting into a bat. While the party guests are confused and distracted, the Avoral Agathions and guards will not be able to spot the spellcaster because of the fog which limits their vision to 5 ft. Serena then navigates her way via blindsense to the queen's chambers. Then shifts into a behemoth hippo, casts strong jaw, and slams the door down, triggering the trap. Her +15 Fortitude gives her only a 20% chance of failing the save against the baleful polymorph. She then turns invisible before attacking the stone golem, one-hitting it with Furious Finish and Vital Strike while raging. Consuming the potion of acute senses, her Perception is now +38. Easily finds the hidden panel and triggers another trap with a 20% chance of failing it once again. Retrieves info, smashes a window, and change into a thrush. Flies out and uses walk the lines to help escape as soon as it isn't dimension locked anymore.

Conclusion: Hmmm, not exactly subtle, but it worked.
---
Encounter #5: Ahh, this is a freaking mature adult magma dragon. No way in hell Serena will kill this thing. AC is too high, SR is too high, saves are too high, it's got dispel magic, and on top of that it's 4 AM in the morning now.

Hmm, fighters do have somethings going for them though such as really awesome, but specialized builds. One of my current characters is a lore warden fighter that uses a whip, and has whirlwind attack, improved trip, lunge, and just finished the whip mastery feat tree at level 8. So as a full-round action he can trip everything within 20 ft. Definitely helped last session when I tripped five stone giants in one turn. I doubt a ranger could pull that off with all of the feats required.

devilbunny wrote:

aboniks wrote:

While we're on this topic, was Saladin a paladin?

Honestly, Saladin was closer to a paladin than any of the Christian Crusader leaders in my opinion, which is slightly ironic.

I disagree if only in for the 1st crusade. The 1st Crusade WAS face value. after that.... yeah. But no, There WERE lots of knights that weren't there for -just- the other stuff. Though few (other than 1st) were there for JUST the my holiness is better than your holiness.

Yeah, I meant to have specified Third Crusade Christian leaders specifically. My bad :P

While we're on this topic, was Saladin a paladin?

Honestly, Saladin was closer to a paladin than any of the Christian Crusader leaders in my opinion, which is slightly ironic.