tiornys's page

Wizard archetype seems like the existing solution.

Hand economy. Looking at the rules I was unsure how it would feel dealing with action taxes to get things out, and dubious about the viability of 1H-weapon + open hand style. Now with a year+ of experience, I do find the action costs and hand juggling frustrating at times, but it's a good kind of frustration if that makes sense. And I completely underestimated the power of Athletics maneuvers and how strong having an open hand could be.

All the talk about aid brings up another question. Has the PF2e remaster improved or changed teamwork and or tactics? if so how?

A few things off the top of my head:

Reposition enables some tactical options (like pulling an enemy out of a choke point) and makes others easier (e.g. moving one enemy closer to another so both can be caught in an AoE). It's not a major change but it is a small improvement.

Swap makes various item juggling stuff more reasonable on action economy.

Disarm is much more often a valid tactic.

Early level battlefield control is much stronger now that Entangling Flora is a fully reliable 20' burst of difficult terrain with bonus effects.

That poison breath attack got me looking for something that reduces poison damage. Other than two things that show up in an AP, all you get are things that give you a bonus on saves vs. poison.

Reflective Scales (R4 spell) can give you resistance on a short term basis. Blessing of Defiance (R5) on an even shorter term basis.

Here's the thing about Take Cover and things being between you and the attacker. It is, I think, uncontested that you can gain Greater Cover against ranged attacks by using Take Cover when prone. In this scenario, what is it that's between you and the ranged attacker? Nothing! The rules clearly, explicitly, grant this bonus when you "don't have an object to get behind". So, where is the +4 bonus (+2 net) coming from?

To me, it appears that the Take Cover action is meant to represent more than simply putting some physical thing between you and an attacker. Rather it represents putting extra effort into being harder to hit based on the use of some sort of environmental feature (edit: and flat ground qualifies as an appropriate feature if you're lying on it). And from the explicit language in the prone scenario, that use does not require the environmental feature to be or end up between you and the attacker. Nor is it as simple as orienting yourself to be as small a target as possible, because you are getting the benefit against any and all ranged attacks, even if those attacks are coming at you from all different angles as well as from straight above you.

That's the precedent I extrapolate from when I say that Take Cover should (RAW) give a prone character some protection against melee attacks (but less than against ranged), and that it should give a character pressed up against a wall protection from attacks even when the wall isn't in the way. Is this RAI? I don't know. Is the prone vs. ranged example RAI? It certainly seems to be. And if that's RAI, then where's the difference between that and the other scenarios?

That doesn't sound like playing the game in good faith. It feels like an overly literal and pedantic reading of the rules looking for a loophole to exploit.

And it doesn't match up with the Adjudicating Take Cover guidelines than I mentioned above. Those guidelines do mention needing an object to be "behind".

Setting aside the subjective and loaded question of "good faith" for a moment (seriously, what am I supposed to say? I can assert that I am indeed arguing in good faith, but if you don't believe that was already the case why would you believe my direct assertion?) let's look closely at those guidelines.

"You’ll often need to determine whether someone can
Take Cover. They usually just need a large enough object
to hide behind. Imagine the character crouching, and
picture whether the object could almost entirely cover up
their silhouette. Taking Cover might also require them to
Drop Prone, such as if they want to take cover under a
table. Most of the time, you can let them combine these
instead of using two separate actions."

Take Cover can be used in three scenarios. One is a binary condition that needs no adjudication (you are prone). One is a mostly binary condition that needs very little adjudication (you have cover), and when adjudication is needed it's about whether or not there is cover in the first place, not about whether the Take Cover action could be used in the case of cover existing. So this guidance seems to exist mainly for the third scenario (you are near a feature that allows you to take cover).

If I am near a feature that is large enough to almost entirely cover my silhouette if I crouch--e.g. a boulder, a crate, an overturned table--why would I not already have cover from that feature? The most obvious answer seems to be that the feature in question must not be positioned between me and the potential attacker. So I don't read this guidance as implying that I need to actually be behind an object, just that I'm near enough to an object that could cover me if I were behind it. A possible alternative is that I'm underestimating how big something needs to be before it provides cover.

I went looking through GMC for further clarification on what does or doesn't constitute cover. Here are the examples I found in the section on terrain:
---Not cover but can be used to Take Cover: small trees, light undergrowth (this also counts as difficult terrain)
---Cover: tree canopy, large trees (defined as taking up an entire 5' square or more), heavy undergrowth (this also counts as greater difficult terrain; one specific example was given of heavy undergrowth: "fields of certain crops, like corn"), hedges (described as 2' to 5' tall and occupying a row of squares, and also counting as greater difficult terrain)

Mostly these are too vague to be helpful. What exactly constitutes "light undergrowth"? I'm picturing low shrubs or thick grasses/weeds in the vicinity of 1'-2' tall, too short to fully cover a crouching person even though they're explicitly usable for the Take Cover action. Is my mental image wrong? The hedge example seems to support this further--a 2' tall hedge isn't going to "almost entirely cover up" a crouching person yet that's already enough to provide cover with no action taken. On the other hand, trees needing to take up an entire square before granting cover provides some doubt, as I feel like a 2' wide tree should be granting cover with no extra actions but doesn't necessarily occupy a 5' square space. But then maybe that's around the threshold where it should occupy that space since that's around the total width of a typical adult human (average shoulder width of adult men is 16"-17", broad shoulders are 21"+, then add arms).

So I'm not sure, but I'm still leaning towards my initial feeling that anything big enough to cover up a crouching person would generally provide cover without the Take Cover action.

To be clear, I'm not looking for loopholes to exploit. I'm trying to form my best understanding of both the rules as written and of the rules as intended. Once I know what the rules do and don't say, and have a feel for what I think the designers wanted to say, then I can do a better job of deciding how to adjudicate ambiguous cases as well as where I think the rules might say something that they shouldn't say. At the moment I'm mainly focused on figuring out exactly what the rules around cover do and don't say, with a secondary focus on figuring out what the designers intended to say.

edit: added clarifying language about why I was looking at examples of cover. Also corrected my idea of light undergrowth as being 1 to 2 feet tall, not 1 to 2 inches tall.

You logic makes sense but not to the rules point. I understand that in a real battle fight against the wall will difficult even melee Strikes but it's not how the game rules. If we put the things in this way why we would use a shield if we always can use a new object or creature to get cover?

As noted, I don't agree this goes against how the game rules are written. If Take Cover while Prone were only meant to give the benefits mentioned in the Prone condition, it could have been written the same way as the Tower Shield where the Take Cover action need not mention Prone at all.

Why use a shield? Partly because you can't always be next to something, and especially you can't always be next to something that can give cover. Being next to a creature would generally not qualify since creatures do not generally give standard cover (though arguably you could use Take Cover to upgrade lesser cover from a creature to standard cover as long as you would be benefitting from lesser cover). Partly because a shield can also shield block to absorb damage, which is never an option with Take Cover. And partly because it's easier to mitigate/eliminate the action cost of Raise a Shield than to mitigate the action cost of Take Cover.

Anyway the cover rules are clear when they saying that cover is relative to the line of effect/sight between you and the target. Tower/Fortress Shield are exception to this because you can control de cover position freely.

While I agree, I don't see how this affects my interpretation. Remember, Take Cover doesn't actually give you cover if you wouldn't already have it. Rather it gives you the benefits of cover despite not having cover--in other words, it explicitly does not need you to have something between you and the attacker to gain the lesser benefit.

It seems I disagree with the general consensus.

1) yes, I would (often) allow this. As far as I'm concerned the language is clear, and notably they are not actually gaining cover in this scenario. Rather, they are gaining the benefits of cover, which is an important distinction with regards to Hide and similar.

Why do I think this is reasonable? Flavor wise, I see it as using the terrain feature as a sort of static shield, and getting a similar defensive bonus as using a shield grants. Action economy is similar to using a shield. And also I always have discretion to say whether a feature is usable for the Take Cover action, so if for example facing a squad of archers with a wall directly behind you relative to the archers I can say there's no way the wall is helping. In melee the wall is cutting off several angles of attack even if your opponent is directly in front of you (e.g. a swing from above that would normally hit the top of your head instead hits the wall first, or similar for a swing into your side), so I'm willing to allow it there.

2) yes, I would allow this, although it's a net +2/+0 since off guard also applies. The text for Take Cover does not reference the text of the Prone condition; it merely lists being prone as one of three options for being able to use Take Cover and then details the benefits of the Take Cover action without providing any exceptions in the case of qualifying for the action by being prone. The text for the Prone condition grants extra benefits against ranged attacks when you use Take Cover while prone; it does not detail any limits on other benefits of the Take Cover action. Flavor-wise, similar reasoning as above--being prone makes it easier to attack you, thus off guard, but if you actively use the ground to your advantage you can mitigate that disadvantage.

(I actually like that this exists as partial counterplay against prone. In general I don't like how binary the prone condition is in relation to Kip Up or Legendary Nimble Crawl--you go from only being able to end the condition with an action that triggers many reactions to virtually ignoring the condition.)

3) No. Unlike the previous cases, the rule for using Take Cover with a Tower Shield is a specific exception that grants a specific benefit when using the action. That benefit replaces the normal benefits of the Take Cover action. If the player with the Tower Shield also meets the conditions for Take Cover against some creatures then I'd also give them the (non-overlapping) normal benefits against those creatures.

4) For 1&2 I'm not sure what was intended, but I am confident that this is what is written. Since I can also see flavor justification and I don't think it's overpowered when compared with similar options, I'm willing to go with the RAW. Notably, the guidelines in the Gamemastery Guide appear to be focused on the greater cover benefit of the Take Cover action so I don't find them valuable for adjudicating these cases.

For 3, I do think this is both intended and how the rules are written.

The primary rules sources are clear: the Raise a Shield action does not have the Manipulate trait. Furthermore, Raise a Shield has no traits at all and does not call any subordinate actions, so there aren't even any candidate places for a Manipulate trait to be hidden. This is as clear a proof as is possible under the rules set.

May I recommend to your GM that he investigate the many, many, many documented cases of ChatGPT being wrong about various things? AI/machine learning is still a long ways away from being perfect. It's reasonable to use ChatGPT as a quick lookup but it is not reasonable to stick with its rulings when they clearly contradict primary rules sources.

The Shove trait allows you to use the Shove action with the weapon. Unseat allows you to strike with a jousting weapon and if you hit, you can make a MAP-less Athletics check to have the same effects as Shove with no additional action cost. Unseat is much stronger than the Shove trait.

I want to push back a little against the idea that having a visible, obvious aura is completely incompatible with using stealth. Such an aura would make it impossible to be Unnoticed, but I see no reason whatsoever why that aura should make it impossible to be Hidden. Sure, you know where the aura is and you know what square the Kineticist is in, but that doesn't mean you automatically have a good visual fix on their position. Similarly, I think it's very reasonable to be Undetected with an active aura. Anyone who can see enough of the aura and reason well enough to work out which is the central square can figure out where the Kineticist is, and failing that everyone is going to have a big swirling clue as to where to focus their Seek attempts. However, knowing that the Kineticist is around somewhere from its very visible aura is not the same as automatically seeing the Kineticist itself.

Hmmm I was thinking KA. Here's my reasoning: the whole point of a kineticist taking blasty spells (or scrolls) is to go *above* what you can do with an impulse. Since impulses are roughly like Max Rank-1, any option that gives you access to Max Rank -1 spells is just kinda pointless (unless you are looking for some debuff or special effect you can't achieve otherwise). For example: a 6d6 fireball at level 5 is great for a kineticist - that beats out any impulse in terms of damage. But a 6d6 fireball at level 8 (which is what you'll get with an archetype) is simply inferior to the 6d8 blazing wave or solar detonation that a single gate fire kineticist would have without bothering with an archetype. Likewise, wands, staves, and scroll trickster are all out, because they give spell access that's a rank or more below maximum and thus you're spending a lot of build resources to get something which probably does...about what an impulse does. I will admit to being a noob, but the only way I know for a kineticist to get access to spells commensurate with their actual level is KA + buying scrolls. Any fancier build game tends to be "be level X, get access to spells of rank (X/2)-1".

Any spellcasting Dedication also lets you buy and use scrolls to access spells at current max rank (or potentially even higher). The bigger benefit to Kinetic Activation over a Dedication is that you use your Kineticist class DC instead of the DC from the Dedication class. Kineticist scales to Expert at 7, Master at 15, and Legendary at 19 whereas a Dedication is Expert at 12 and Master at 18 (and getting that requires investing 3 more feats). So I agree Kinetic Activation is the better choice for most Kineticists even if I disagree with your line of reasoning.

That said, in a FA game it's beneficial to also take a spellcasting Dedication, since that gives you access to a greater variety of damage types. I just wouldn't spend any primary class feats on one.

I believe each class with focus spells gets an item circa levels 9-11 (e.g. Druid's Vestments) that provides an extra focus point per day, along with some other benefits. Not quite the same as a scroll but it is a way to get an extra focus spell from an item.

Hey, they're iron rations of course a metal Kineticist can make them.

(/s of course)

I don't know. I don't see much else.

Amped Shield isn't worth the investment. Maybe a sorcerer or magus picking up Strain Mind for more focus point spells might not be bad.

You only get the surface cantrip. It doesn't have near as many quality feats as the rogue.

I default to Guidance or Warp Step on most builds; Shield is more often a stepping stone to Imaginary Weapon than a first pick. I agree there aren't as many quality feats as Rogue. Psychic is an archetype you snag 3-4 feats from and then go to something else. Often Rogue.

IMO any character that is already investing in Int or Cha can find great pickups in Psychic, and that's even more true now with casting proficiency becoming global. Non-casters can pick up (Amped) Shield for defense, Amped Warp Step for maneuverability, or Amped Guidance/Message for excellent team support. Casters can grab any of those, plus Amped Frostbite and Amped Telekinetic Projectile are pretty good damaging focus spells.

Feats are a little thin unless you want extra cantrips but almost everyone can benefit from resistance to mental damage, weapon users might get good value from Psi Strikes, and then there's Parallel Breakthrough to grab another of the above Amped cantrips or one of the Surface cantrips.

I like the Rogue archetype too, but Psychic offers a lot more than just Imaginary Weapon.

So, the argument is that Expansive Spellstrike's restriction on the number of targets is overriding the standard targeting with the result that all three beams get directed onto one target? First, you can't Spellstrike with a 3 action spell so that much is right out. Second, no, Expansive Spellstrike isn't letting you bypass the targeting restrictions from the original spell, it's just adding another restriction on top of them.

I think I wouldn't mind there being some generic Acrobatics rider action to avoid reactions from movement, with Kip Up and Mobility being the upgraded versions that just work automatically/faster.

I agree. A middle ground between "standing up costs an action AND triggers reactive strike" and "standing up is free and does not trigger anything" would be nice. Kip Up being amazing and one of very few counters to prone is a big part of why I'm addicted to the Acrobat archetype.

Spellhearts are in a very strange place: they are mostly useful only to casters (as the spells in them are only useable by casters), but weapon properties are mostly useless to casters. So, for magi, I guess?

The way I see it, Spellhearts are great for any kind of caster. For a full caster, they give you extra cantrip slots, can give you extra higher level spell casts, and can grant some passive benefits. The weapon activation benefits that grant bonus damage aren't great for a full caster, but the spellhearts themselves are good even if you aren't taking advantage of that. Plus there are spellhearts with activation benefits that don't involve attacks (e.g. Five-Feather Wreath, Perfect Droplet, Wyrm Claw), and spellhearts where the activation benefit might make it worthwhile to attack (e.g. Brightbloom Posy, Lightweave Scarf). And they don't even take up investment slots!

A half caster or a martial with a caster archetype gets all of the above, plus can more easily use the weapon activations that grant extra damage. Though they also face more competition at that slot from talismans than a full caster does.

My Druid has a spellheart on his shield boss (no, he's not proficient with a shield boss, but that doesn't matter), another on the sling he carries in case he wants a damaging third action, and I'm considering getting another to put on his staff. It lets me keep access to offensive cantrips of various elements while opening up room for utility cantrips like Deep Breath and Rousing Splash. His armor slot is being used for Retrieval Prism or I'd put one there for the damage resistance.

It's not a free Step. You're actually taking a Step. That's why it takes two actions: one for the Reposition and one for the Step.

The only free part is that you're permitting to reposition an enemy into your own square, on condition that you then immediately leave that square yourself with another action.

I would make the second part a stride because you're moving "through" an enemy, thus treating it as difficult terrain like Tumble Through. If there's an ability that lets you move through enemies without treating them as difficult terrain, I would let that apply here to change the stride into a step. I'm not sure that I would let Feather Step apply since the difficulty is not terrain.

(also, making it a stride preempts potential issues with the enemy standing in difficult/greater difficult terrain)

edit to add: I would actually have the initial movement cost 10' so if someone could step 10' e.g. Tiger Stance then a step would be ok. That cost stacks with other movement costs in the destination square. So it's not inherently a stride or a step, just a movement cost that usually needs a stride.

Narratively, if you say that learning Wildsong is essentially the confirmation step of them becoming a Druid, then it's acceptable to teach it to an aspiring Druid because by learning Wildsong they are a Druid. If they then later decide to retrain out of being a Druid, you are still ok. The anathema is not "do not have taught a former Druid who is no longer a Druid", it's "do not teach a non-Druid". When you taught them, they were a Druid. Now they're not, but you didn't teach them when they weren't.

Unlike Shove, Reposition doesn't allow the actor to move as part of the action. If the enemy could be moved diagonally to the side of the character, then the Reposition action could move them to that square and out of the doorway. But if that kind of diagonal movement isn't available, and if they also couldn't be Shoved backwards out of the door, there's no RAW basic action that can force them out of the doorway.

That said, I think a Pull action that mimics Shove in reverse is a reasonable extension of Reposition. If you allow that, then the player can try to Pull the enemy into their current space while striding directly back one space. If that succeeds they could then use a second action to Reposition them to the side, or they could Tumble Through to the now vacated spot. This is similar in action cost to your proposed Swap but not as strong since it needs two successful checks (or a crit success on the Pull might get the enemy out of the door so the player could just Stride around them).

It seems like the only reasonable interpretation to me. If something hasn't been printed in a remastered book, we use the legacy printing. The Verbal, Somatic, and Material traits haven't been reprinted, so we use the printed legacy rules for those traits just as we use the printed legacy writeup of spells like Phase Bolt except where affected by errata. The only change from errata is the damage expression, so Phase Bolt still has the Verbal and Somatic traits as defined in legacy material.

SuperParkourio wrote:

2×2=3, by the way. It's an official rule.

I would like a citation for this, since I am not aware of any mechanics where this happens in this edition.

Just providing this citation, not commenting on the breath recharge discussion. General Rules - Game Conventions - Multiplying: "When more than one effect would multiply the same number, don’t multiply more than once. Instead, combine all the multipliers into a single multiplier, with each multiple after the first adding 1 less than its value. For instance, if one ability doubled the duration of one of your spells and another one doubled the duration of the same spell, you would triple the duration, not quadruple it."

Thanks for making the guide!

re: Cloud Jump, this is part of why I reached the conclusion I did. Cloud Jump has this text: "You can jump a distance greater than your Speed by spending additional actions when you Long Jump or High Jump. For each additional action spent, add your Speed to the limit on how far you can Leap." So yes, it triples your jump distance, but that doesn't get around the limit of not jumping more than your speed (with one action).

Love the guide! A few things I noticed while reading through:

--Elemental (Air) Eidolon: Long Jump says "You Leap a distance equal to your check result rounded down to the nearest 5 feet. You can't jump farther than your land Speed." The first part is how far you can jump, the second is a restriction. I'd read "can... Long Jump twice as far" as impacting the distance, but not lifting the restriction. Might be worth mentioning to expect table variance.

--Undead Eidolon: is there a reason Divine tradition is listed yellow here when it's green everywhere else, or was this missed in the update?

--Efreet: Blazing Aura actually does buff your eidolon. Regaining actions is always the last thing that happens during the start of your turn (i.e. after "Your turn begins" triggers) so you'll be quickened on the same turn that you use this.

I see a few uses for a weapon on a Kineticist. First, having a whip lets you provide a flank at distance, although this one doesn't need you to actually use the weapon. Second, a ranged weapon can easily outrange base Kinetic Blast; if for whatever reason you don't have Weapon Infusion this can matter in long range encounters. Third, it might be handy to have a weapon for reaction attacks (Paladin reaction, Reactive Strike, etc.), especially in a Free Archetype game.

Psychic archetype works with those stats. It offers your choice of Guidance, Message, and Shield, all of which are strong support options given the Psychic enhancement and/or Amp options. Plus you get access to the Occult spell list.

Kineticist has several strong support options scattered across its elements. Wood, Water, and Air are all excellent depending on what specifically you want to pick up.

Seconding Blessed One as another good option if you primarily want to add healing.

Psychic Dedication for amped Shield is another way to get a strong reaction, in this case defensive.

As someone playing a Druid with Wild Shape at level 12, I can confirm that getting Handwraps with relevant property runes would have been one of my highest priorities if I planned on using Wild Shape as my primary combat mode. However, I'm primary healer secondary blaster, so Wild Shape is a tertiary combat mode--and I'm still looking at getting (cheap) Handwraps with (lower level) property runes once I free up my hands by shifting my Medicine item bonus from Healer's Gloves to Marvelous Medicines.

tiornys wrote:

--Archetypes: I think form spells and Summons are questionable from archetypes since they're at least a spell rank behind. Similarly, going Druid for an animal companion is questionable due to poor scaling of the companion; for this purpose go Beastmaster instead.

Fair point. What primal spells would you suggest instead?

Heal, plus buffs like Ant Haul, Longstrider, Enlarge etc. are best since they don't care about proficiency/spell attack. Next best would be battlefield control spells like walls, Obscuring Mist, Web and similar. Blasting is a big gap in the Occult list so it might be worth packing a blast spell in the top Archetype slot.

tiornys wrote:

--Archer: Bard already has access to Composite Shortbow (because it counts as a Shortbow for the purpose of the Bard ability granting proficiency with Shortbow), so the dedication is really just giving access to the other feats unless a Longbow is valuable for campaign-specific reasons

Can you point to the source of this assertion? First I've heard of it.

It's in the Composite Shortbow description: "Any time an ability is specifically restricted to a shortbow, it also applies to composite shortbows unless otherwise stated." If you're concerned about whether initial proficiencies count as abilities, see this post from a discussion on Reddit.

Great guide overall! A few things I noticed while reading through:

--Ancestries in general: it may be worth mentioning the alternate boost to 2 stats available to all ancestries when discussing/rating ancestries with a Charisma flaw. Dwarf for example looks like a solid ancestry choice if you go with the 2 stat boost.

--Inner Radiance Torment: you mention it scales well, maybe worth mentioning that it scales too well/is likely being changed per developer comments?

--Summon Fey (rank 3), both spell discussion and Summon discussion: Dryad and Unicorn are both level 3 creatures and should be under rank 4 Summon Fey, not rank 3

--Sample spell repertoire progression: is it intentional to have Rank 3 Haste remaining on the lists through level 18 even after Rank 7 Haste (signature) is gained? (two spells can be swapped between L14 and L16 listing, one each at L15 and L16. I'm only seeing 1 swap, and I see no swaps from L16 to L18)

--Archetypes: I think form spells and Summons are questionable from archetypes since they're at least a spell rank behind. Similarly, going Druid for an animal companion is questionable due to poor scaling of the companion; for this purpose go Beastmaster instead.

--Archer: Bard already has access to Composite Shortbow (because it counts as a Shortbow for the purpose of the Bard ability granting proficiency with Shortbow), so the dedication is really just giving access to the other feats unless a Longbow is valuable for campaign-specific reasons

--Weapons: an archer Bard can't use a Wand of Manifold Missiles to good effect. The Wand only keeps firing missiles as long as it is wielded, preventing the Bard from firing a Bow. Could work with a thrown weapon build.

--Worn Items: Gloves of Storing can save an action each combat retrieving an important consumable or held item. I'd say they're worth a mention on an action-starved class

--List of bonuses/penalties: Enfeebled is listed instead of Clumsy for a status penalty to AC

The real benefit of the ranges being increments is that you can attack to 100' without penalty and up to 600' if circumstances call for engaging at that range. Weapon Infusion is excellent for the sheer versatility it offers.

A character that invests heavily into Overflow Impulses has at least some incentive to skip Weapon Infusion since they'd expect to mainly/only use Blast as part of Channel Elements. Especially true if they start Dual Gate since that increases the number of competing level 1 feats and eliminates the early Impulse incentive for using a 2-action Blast.

For any character that plans on using Elemental Blast as a primary mode of offense I agree Weapon Infusion is near mandatory.

Effortless Impulse feels so good that I find myself deliberately prioritizing at least one sustainable Impulse in the level 8-12 range, but I do wonder if that might be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think it's at least viable to have a build with no sustain Impulses, not sure if it's ever optimal.

If we're going to value Bardic Lore and Esoteric Lore by their "knowledge equivalents", then both are outclassed by Unified Theory which is available to anyone who pushes Arcana to Legendary and gives effective Legendary in Nature/Occult/Religion. If we count that, then the Investigator/Rogue build is up to an effective 11 Legendary skills and we're at 55 points before we add anything from Master/Expert/Untrained Improvisation.

Well, if it's one enemy they're going to be taking the initial hit as well as the hazard damage (assuming the Kineticist has properly evaluated that the target will want to close to melee instead of staying at range), so in that case I think the appropriate damage figure to have in mind is (49.5*(success formula) + 24) and that's starting to look reasonable against the Barbarian's (56.5*(success formula)) -- 24 automatic damage is competitive with an attack that has a 40%-45% chance to hit, so likely a little worse than a MAPless attack and a little better than the 1st MAP attack.

@breithauptclan good call, I missed Brilliant Inventor.

Are you guys using traditional archetype rules, or free archetype rules?

Traditional. Free Archetype could go higher.

OK, here's a build (skillful human investigator/medic/acrobat/rogue/wrestler):
https://pathbuilder2e.com/launch.html?build=513656

(Not particularly optimized besides skill trainings)

7 Legendary skills (35)
6 Master skills (18)
2 Expert skills (2)
4 Trained skills, 3 of which are Lores because I ran out of untrained skills. I did not bother with Untrained Improvisation, although I could have just to add "points".

So 55 points purely in skill boosting. This is close to max if not actually max with vanilla rules. With Free Archetype you could add at least a little more.

Acrobat Archetype is essential--one feat for another legendary skill.

@Darksol the Painbringer, I wasn't making any statement about whether or not the differences were power creep. Rather, I'm saying the differences are significant enough that both spells could meaningfully coexist.

On the topic of power creep, do you think power creep is inherently bad?

Setting aside the debate about whether or not improving a weak option counts as power creep, I'd like to object to the idea that Vitrifying Blast completely obsoletes Flesh to Stone. 1) Flesh to Stone has twice the range which is at least some compensation for the lack of AoE; 2) Flesh to Stone targets Fortitude while Vitrifying Blast targets Reflex; 3) Flesh to Stone ends in permanent petrification as soon as a high enough Slowed value is reached (3 in the vast majority of cases), whereas Vitrifying Blast caps at Slowed 3 and keeps allowing saves every turn until the Slowed value reaches 0, at which point the effect ends, 4) Flesh to Stone still inflicts Slow on a successful save, whereas Vitrifying Blast instead inflicts damage and damage weakness.

Different range, different saves, different success states, and different ultimate fail states, ergo different use cases.

I can confirm that my maps aren't labeled correctly for these areas. I'd like clarity also.

Rogue archetype does a ton to shore up the Kineticist's lack of skills, and Mobility is a great grab for an Air Kineticist since it applies to the movement from the Impulse Junction.

Speaking of Rogue, picking up Winter Sleet (and probably Safe Elements) on a Rogue is an interesting way to auto-apply flat-footed to a lot of creatures. Deflecting Wave or Ocean's Balm are strong utility options for the L1/2 feat pickup needed to open up Advanced Elemental Control.

Ancestry options like Caveclimber Kobold or Climbing Tail add on to Combat Climber for e.g. Kineticists that want to use shields.

Speaking of shields, Nimble Shield Hand can let you hold a magic item (wand, staff, scroll) while leaving an open hand for Impulse use.

Some feedback:
Imperious Aura: the point of this feat is to facilitate frequent swapping among different stances on a stance-heavy build that isn't dropping very many Overflow Impulses (and therefore isn't using Channel Elements very often).

Aerial Boomerang: you say "if you don't move" you can spam the Impulse plus the return, but I would amend that to something like "if you don't take other actions" since you CAN move if you have the Air Impulse Junction.

Thermal Nimbus: I think this is better than you're rating it, thanks to the synergy with Fire's Aura Junction. Note that your allies will usually be safe since they're gaining DR = level and taking damage = 1/2 level resulting in no damage, but in niche circumstances like an ally with a fire weakness you could potentially add Safe Elements.

Crawling Fire: I don't like using this for extended scouting because you take the damage from any attacks directed at the creation. If you trigger an encounter you could suffer up to a full round of focus fire before you can dismiss it, and that could easily be enough to kill you.

Metal Carapace: while not as strong as the other armor Impulses, this is better than worthless thanks to the regenerating shield. It lets you use Shield Block with impunity since it's so easy to make a new shield. Wear Studded Leather underneath so you aren't taking as much of an AC hit when it shatters. Beyond the obvious hardness scaling, there's extra synergy with Plate in Treasure to give the shield Adamantine stats, and with Destructive Block from the Bastion archetype.

Recommended archetypes: I'd add Medic for Kineticists focusing on healing; there's just so much value to be gained from the dedication feat boosting healing values and overriding the default cooldown, and then you have some fantastic feats like Doctor's Visitation.

Leaf Leshy has a neat synergy with some of the movement impulses + Rolling Landing: blast yourself up into the air, fall, take no damage, get extra movement as a reaction. Anyone can do this with Cat Fall (which is a prereq anyway) but Leaf Leshy can do it from higher heights much earlier than those relying on Cat Fall. Leshy also has Leshy Glide which can work nicely with some of the terrain building impulses.

It's a level 1 spell, and is clearly meant to be competitive with (original) Magic Weapon. Like Magic Weapon, this spell rapidly becomes obsolete past the first few levels. It's less a case of "to bad to be true" and more that it was designed under a paradigm that is changing with the remaster.

Fight against two Basilisks, I summoned a Cave Fisher for ranged Grabs to help keep them away from the party. That went well, but the real MVP that fight was our Sorcerer who popped Haste and Ooze Form and between resistances and temp HP (and lack of vision!) just negated multiple Basilisk turns while dealing quite a bit of damage.

Fight against a higher level spellcaster, I'm able to use amped Message to get our Magus into melee range before her turn. That lets her True Strike into Agonizing Despair Spellstrike that snowballs into victory over the next couple rounds.

On the cleric list

Best bet appears to be Command heightened to rank 5.

Was trying to find an AoE knockdown.

Shockwave?