Kineticist damage?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 550 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Ashiel wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
There's a reason adventure paths end at 16th and PFS ends at 12th, however. The game BREAKS at high levels.
Games don't break down, the people do. My friends and I play high level all the time, and the only problems that come up are style of play issues.
Yeah I don't have much trouble (if any) with high level games either. They mostly just require you to understand the nature of the beast.

Problem is, this is the old "The game doesn't break because we know how to stop it from breaking" line of reasoning. The game's still breaking, you just know how to fix it when it does and do a little preventative maintenance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
There's a reason adventure paths end at 16th and PFS ends at 12th, however. The game BREAKS at high levels.
Games don't break down, the people do. My friends and I play high level all the time, and the only problems that come up are style of play issues.
Yeah I don't have much trouble (if any) with high level games either. They mostly just require you to understand the nature of the beast.
Problem is, this is the old "The game doesn't break because we know how to stop it from breaking" line of reasoning. The game's still breaking, you just know how to fix it when it does and do a little preventative maintenance.

Well if you want to make that argument then 100% of the game is broken. If you don't take into account what is customary at that tier of play then you're asking for trouble. It's like arguing that the game is broken because clerics have create water and your plot involved stealing their waterskins.

I made all the mistakes too. Then I learned.


Chengar Qordath wrote:

Problem is, this is the old "The game doesn't break because we know how to stop it from breaking" line of reasoning. The game's still breaking, you just know how to fix it when it does and do a little preventative maintenance.

Hi, most tabletop/board games actually do this. They release a garbage base set, and then the next releases are slightly better.

Summoner wars and dominion are good examples.

I think only one board game designer (David Sirlin) actually patches his base set so there is a similar level of balance compared to expansions


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
There's a reason adventure paths end at 16th and PFS ends at 12th, however. The game BREAKS at high levels.
Games don't break down, the people do. My friends and I play high level all the time, and the only problems that come up are style of play issues.
Yeah I don't have much trouble (if any) with high level games either. They mostly just require you to understand the nature of the beast.
Problem is, this is the old "The game doesn't break because we know how to stop it from breaking" line of reasoning. The game's still breaking, you just know how to fix it when it does and do a little preventative maintenance.

I really don't think that's relevant here at all. There is nothing wrong with the game. It plays exactly as intended. Some people just don't like that intention and would rather play a different kind of game.

It's not broken and doesn't need fixing, therefore, we are not doing anything to fix it at our table (or having to adjust our reasoning or anything).

Dark Archive

Puna'chong wrote:

While on the topic of damage, I'm wondering if anyone has fiddled with the Kineticist and the Revised Action Economy yet. My next campaign we'll be using it full-stop from day one, and I've used it now for half of my campaign that's ending, and all of another little short campaign. One of the players in the next campaign wants to be a Kineticist, and I'm debating whether or not to leave the normal blasts at just 2 actions or expand them a bit.

Would it break everything if I allowed the 2 action attack to be broken into 1 action attacks that deal half damage? It'd allow for Gather Power to do more in a single turn and for the character to sling three blasts as a full round, all dealing half but with the iterative penalties, or a 2 action blast and a 1 action blast, etc. Composite Blasts would be locked in at 2 actions.

Typing it out it seems a bit less straightforward than in my head.

I GM'd for a WotR game up to level 6 / Tier 1 for a Monkineticist (1-level monk dip) and found that the revised system works much better with Kinetic Fist, Blade, and Whip. Using Gather Energy as 1 action lets you move and attack on the same round, fixing the low-level action economy issues perfectly.

As for the blast being split up, I'd recommend keeping it simple with 2 action blasts. There are ways to abuse the multi-attack version, such as having a bard (or battle herald *shudders*) inspire Courage to grant huge bonuses to damage while still hitting touch AC (and thus making iterative penalties not matter).


I find that high levels work fine if everyone is in the same tier and the gm throws equal tier enemies at the party. Casters fight casters and maybe some martial mooks. Martial fight martials or blast casters and everyone just tries to grind each other to death.

I've always have the most problems with "balanced" parties. Fighters playing with wizards and other such nonsense. Combat either becomes rocket tag or the fighter is left being unable to do anything.

I love that the telekinetic can do everything the rogue and fighter roles are for while still being a great utitlty casters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the big issues that I see with people talking about high level play breaking down is their pushing the game towards rocket tag and then complaining about it. There are a lot of "common knowledge" things that will strait up get you killed and frequently at high levels of play.

For example, the classic Offense>Defense. The idea has some merit in the idea that killing your enemies means your enemies taking less actions which means your enemies don't get to kill you. A common example of this is people telling players not to build as tanks, or even saying crazy things like "AC doesn't matter".

The thing is, at high levels your GM is dealing with very large XP budgets when building encounters and it's nothing to encounter fairly large groups of enemies who still have abilities that are relevant enough to harm you. Further, in mixed groups of enemies and their leaders, many of them will have statistics higher than their base bestiary statblock because they will be using buffs and treasures. Many common buffs mimic the effects of the "big six" without bloating treasure values (things like greater magic weapon, shield of faith, magic vestment, barkskin, resist energy, etc). Common buffs like this provide NPCs with temporary but suitable means of challenging PCs who are much better geared than they are (the reverse can be true as well in some corner cases).

Having been playing the game for many levels up to these levels, players should have at least a basic grasp of common tactics such as movement, buffing, debuffing, and taking out priority enemies, so a lot of the high level stuff gets pretty advanced. The lower levels are essentially the training wheels phase so you'll already expect certain things and have a grasp on how to deal with them (such as protecting yourself against negative levels, energy damage, how to heal ability damage, etc).

If we ignore the "common wisdom" of offense>defense and strive to spec for surviving, we can weather the storm of many, many enemies, and survive against burst-damagers long enough to take them apart by exploiting their piddly defenses or by working as a team to disable them quickly.


The forum hamster is acting up again. :| *deletes double post*


Ashiel wrote:
The forum hamster is acting up again. :| *deletes double post*

I was more talking about the tendency for a GM to use simple enemies. And by simple I mean martials. Who either decimate your party or are immediately destroyed.

Even if you build super tank-y. All that means is that you either can't be hit or die really fast against an enemy that can actually hit you. Hitting a sweet spot can be very difficult with simple enemies.

I find it easier to balance wizard v wizard than fighter v fighter


Ashiel wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
There's a reason adventure paths end at 16th and PFS ends at 12th, however. The game BREAKS at high levels.
Games don't break down, the people do. My friends and I play high level all the time, and the only problems that come up are style of play issues.
Yeah I don't have much trouble (if any) with high level games either. They mostly just require you to understand the nature of the beast.
Problem is, this is the old "The game doesn't break because we know how to stop it from breaking" line of reasoning. The game's still breaking, you just know how to fix it when it does and do a little preventative maintenance.

Well if you want to make that argument then 100% of the game is broken. If you don't take into account what is customary at that tier of play then you're asking for trouble. It's like arguing that the game is broken because clerics have create water and your plot involved stealing their waterskins.

I made all the mistakes too. Then I learned.

That's actually a good point. It's not so much the game that breaks as it is that game gets to the point where a lot of traditional fantasy plots break down. Epic overland journeys are replaced by teleportation spells, planar travel, etc. Of course, that does lead to some issues as far as the old martial/caster problem. If you build a campaign that fully accounts for what 9th level spells can do, the guy whose options are limited to "I like swords" might end up being left behind.

Also, I would say that the fact that there is such a high learning curve involved in High level play is an issue. I've also managed to play and enjoy high level games, but I definitely saw some problems too. Though I will concede that a lot of those issues might not have been system ones so much as player ones. The system mastery gap gets a lot more noticeable at level 15 than it is at level 5.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
The forum hamster is acting up again. :| *deletes double post*
I was more talking about the tendency for a GM to use simple enemies. And by simple I mean martials. Who either decimate your party or are immediately destroyed.

And again, I said then you learn. This is parallel to my comment about create water earlier. It reminds me of a thread a while back where a GM felt like the martial folks in a group were really OP because all he used were things like owlbears and everyone in the party used heavy armor and carried shields and stuff.

You do not fit the circle into the triangle. You should not. Everything exists for a reason. If generic beatsticks were so strong that they didn't need any buffing on the NPC side then they're going to slaughter everyone with buffing - OR - buffing won't matter enough to warrant doing so, and then it just becomes a slobberknockfest.

I use martial foes frequently in my games and they can frequently serve as the "core" of an encounter. But simple problems are solved easily. As you say here, it's a tendency of a GM. The problem is and has always been in this case the GM. PCs have enough wealth (normally) to be able to get iconic benefits of a mixed party through items (boots of speed for example and lots of ways to fly even if temporarily).

Generally speaking, the GM that has problems with making use of his or her toolbox is also a GM who typically has boring encounters because there's not much difference between meatstick A and meatstick B and if you make a lot of differences then they are no longer "simple enemies".

Quote:
Even if you build super tank-y. All that means is that you either can't be hit or die really fast against an enemy that can actually hit you. Hitting a sweet spot can be very difficult with simple enemies.

There is no rule that PCs should be hit so more is more. Defense is also a multi-layered thing and at high levels you're dealing with a lot of advanced tactics, teamwork, and buffs/debuffs. Likewise, with the myriad of ways that you can attack someone, being tanky is important. Tanky does not equate solely to AC.

Let's take a CR 13 Storm Giant with a [u]baseline routine[/u] of +27/+22/+17 to hit at 4d6+21 (35av) per swing.

A 15th level PC martial in medium armor will probably have around a low 40s AC (+4 mithral breastplate, +4 heavy shield, +5 natural armor, +4 deflection, +1 insight, +5 dex = AC 41). The Storm Giant can hit the AC on a roll of 14/19/20, reducing the giant's DPR vs the martial to about 15.75. A solid defense as you probably have well over 100 HP.

Take away the shield and it becomes 8/11/14 or about 40.75. You're taking about 150% more damage per round from the storm giant if you're slugging it out. Keep in mind, this is an unbuffed giant that's beneath your CR grade so you can face multiple giants or more frighteningly mixed groups of giants which may mean buffs like haste or enlarge person coming into play. As your AC drops, the giant's offense skyrockets (if the giant hits with all of his attacks, barring criticals, he deals an average of 105 damage in a single round) and if the giant is being supported by a CR 10 wizard (6th level spells) as a martial would be, the giant is very likely wielding a +X weapon from greater magic weapon, may have stoneskin active, may have heroism or greater heroism up, may have bardic music active (lillend), and incoming CC and debuffs to yourself.

You may also have to beware the immunities that the giants have. Their immunity makes them ideal as fodder while other creatures or hazards spread electricity damage with no concern for their safety (such as lightning bolt or chain lightning being thrown around), which is where your resistances will need to come into play as they help to prevent chip-damage from "x for half" things.

It's a simple mixed group but it illustrates that high level play equates heavily to advanced play. It's not about just making attack rolls. It's about working together and/or leveraging your special advantages.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
There's a reason adventure paths end at 16th and PFS ends at 12th, however. The game BREAKS at high levels.
Games don't break down, the people do. My friends and I play high level all the time, and the only problems that come up are style of play issues.
Yeah I don't have much trouble (if any) with high level games either. They mostly just require you to understand the nature of the beast.
Problem is, this is the old "The game doesn't break because we know how to stop it from breaking" line of reasoning. The game's still breaking, you just know how to fix it when it does and do a little preventative maintenance.

Well if you want to make that argument then 100% of the game is broken. If you don't take into account what is customary at that tier of play then you're asking for trouble. It's like arguing that the game is broken because clerics have create water and your plot involved stealing their waterskins.

I made all the mistakes too. Then I learned.

That's actually a good point. It's not so much the game that breaks as it is that game gets to the point where a lot of traditional fantasy plots break down. Epic overland journeys are replaced by teleportation spells, planar travel, etc. Of course, that does lead to some issues as far as the old martial/caster problem. If you build a campaign that fully accounts for what 9th level spells can do, the guy whose options are limited to "I like swords" might end up being left behind.

The thing is, we have to accept that levels mean something. The scale of what sorts of things you are dealing with changes. The issues arise when players and GMs refuse to learn or adapt to what higher levels mean.

And yes, the guy who just like swords is indeed very limited. This is a frequently recanted problem for fighters. Less so to Paladins, Rangers, and Barbarians because they usually have means of adapting and while they lack narrative power in and of themselves they serve very important roles for a party and with a few nice magic items can even deal with things like planar shenanigands.

Quote:
Also, I would say that the fact that there is such a high learning curve involved in High level play is an issue. I've also managed to play and enjoy high level games, but I definitely saw some problems too. Though I will concede that a lot of those issues might not have been system ones so much as player ones. The system mastery gap gets a lot more noticeable at level 15 than it is at level 5.

It's arguably a feature.

Comparing it to a video game such as World of Warcraft, newbies start with a couple of little abilities, battles are simple tank and spank routines, eventually once they've mastered those they learn things like dispels and face some slightly more challenging fights that teach you about things like neutralizing poison and curses or warding your heroes against fear effects.

Of time, you acquire more abilities and options that serve specific purposes, increasing the complexity of your options along with your power so that you are constantly learning and evolving as a player to overcome the challenges. You learn that tactics need to change depending on the situation and there is no certain strategy for every encounter.

By the time that a new tier of obstacles arrives, you should be comfortable with the lessons learned of the past 6 levels or so, allowing you to focus on experimenting with new options while having those as fallbacks without option paralysis.

Now you're ready for this like this as major enemies are supported by multiple weaker foes that serve various purposes during battles, where environment and terrain matters, and where dealing with buffs and debuffs in real time is something that you can do. You're not just tank and spanking an owlbear, you're fighting demons that conjure more demons as their cultists harass players with spells and abilities.

It's not 20 levels of "I just attack it like I've been doing since 1st level" and that's a good thing. It means that higher level fights are suitably more epic and challenging as they should be.


Using the storm giant as an example from a bit ago, let's build a fun and interesting encounter. We want to make a CR 15 encounter with a Storm giant as the main threat. He's the engine of the machine. We want to give him some support though because 1 enemy vs party = boring encounter most of the time.

We've got 25,600 XP worth left in our budget. Let's give him a 9th level cleric and wizard for support. That leaves us with 16,000 XP left to spend. So out of the 16,000 XP, we'll give the cleric and wizard a wyvern mount to ride around on (CR 6, -4800 XP for the pair) because wyverns are cool, bringing us to 11,200 XP left. Let's throw in a giant resetting chain lightning trap that deals 20d6 electricity damage (DC 19 halves) that strikes the storm giant each round once it has been activated (and subsequently arcs to nearby creatures that the storm giant gets close to, DC 17 halves). The trap is CR 8 so that leaves us with 6400 XP left. Screw it, we'll toss in a young blue dragon who's the giant's buddy and call it a day.


So has anyone run the numbers yet on Elemental Annihilator vs the base Kineticist at mid-high levels?

Due to GM flaking the game I was going to play a Kineticist in (starting at 1st, Gestalt with Medium) went kaput, but a new GM picked up the characters for a one-shot, starting at 10th.

How do those numbers look, and how do they change at 11th? How do those numbers look if Energy blasts are allowed with Devastating Infusion?

If no one's done it, I'll do it myself.


Ashiel wrote:

The thing is, we have to accept that levels mean something. The scale of what sorts of things you are dealing with changes. The issues arise when players and GMs refuse to learn or adapt to what higher levels mean.

And yes, the guy who just like swords is indeed very limited. This is a frequently recanted problem for fighters. Less so to Paladins, Rangers, and Barbarians because they usually have means of adapting and while they lack narrative power in and of themselves they serve very important roles for a party and with a few nice magic items can even deal with things like planar shenanigands.

Agreed. As levels go up, the game evolves and changes a great deal. The problem is that a lot of people (both players and GMs) have a hard time keeping up with just how much it changes. My first time or two GMing I got tripped up by things like the party teleporting halfway across the planet and skipping several sessions worth of plot points that assumed they'd be staying where they were.

Ashiel wrote:
It's arguably a feature.

If so, it's still a feature that bugs me a little. High learning curves/system mastery gaps tend to make it a lot harder for players of varying skill levels to have fun in the same game.

Note that I said harder, not impossible. Optimized players can tone things down and/or give advice to help out the new players, after all. And there are plenty of gamers who won't get bothered that Jim's PC is more effective then theirs, or that Bob's PC doesn't contribute very much to the party beyond the pleasure of his company.

Dark Archive

Ashiel wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
The forum hamster is acting up again. :| *deletes double post*
I was more talking about the tendency for a GM to use simple enemies. And by simple I mean martials. Who either decimate your party or are immediately destroyed.

And again, I said then you learn. This is parallel to my comment about create water earlier. It reminds me of a thread a while back where a GM felt like the martial folks in a group were really OP because all he used were things like owlbears and everyone in the party used heavy armor and carried shields and stuff.

You do not fit the circle into the triangle. You should not. Everything exists for a reason. If generic beatsticks were so strong that they didn't need any buffing on the NPC side then they're going to slaughter everyone with buffing - OR - buffing won't matter enough to warrant doing so, and then it just becomes a slobberknockfest.

I use martial foes frequently in my games and they can frequently serve as the "core" of an encounter. But simple problems are solved easily. As you say here, it's a tendency of a GM. The problem is and has always been in this case the GM. PCs have enough wealth (normally) to be able to get iconic benefits of a mixed party through items (boots of speed for example and lots of ways to fly even if temporarily).

Generally speaking, the GM that has problems with making use of his or her toolbox is also a GM who typically has boring encounters because there's not much difference between meatstick A and meatstick B and if you make a lot of differences then they are no longer "simple enemies".

Quote:
Even if you build super tank-y. All that means is that you either can't be hit or die really fast against an enemy that can actually hit you. Hitting a sweet spot can be very difficult with simple enemies.
There is no rule that PCs should be hit so more is more. Defense is also a multi-layered thing and at high levels you're dealing with a lot of advanced tactics, teamwork,...

I can second that nickle-and-diming bit with the half-damage blasts. After one trap with multiple Delayed Blast Fireballs killed 2 party members but "somehow" the two with Rings of Evasion survived, I assure you they will never underestimate evocation or evasion again.

At high levels the only way the party's cohorts ever came out alive from combat was through judicious use of Breath of Life (yet another spell I will never underestimate again). The only reason this kept happening was that despite getting the wealth of 4 players they severely undercut their cohorts, and their defenses suffered for it later on. If they had learned to spread the wealth more the fights wouldn't have been so swingy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
If so, it's still a feature that bugs me a little. High learning curves/system mastery gaps tend to make it a lot harder for players of varying skill levels to have fun in the same game.

It's very noticeable when players haven't played their characters and just randomly start at high levels. They can be hilariously inept at what they're doing regardless of class. One of the most hilarious sessions I ran was back when I was a teenager and our usual group plus a few others wanted to make and play some high level characters in a high level game when none of them had ever played past about 7th level before. They were all hands and left feet, often tripping themselves up moreso than enemies.

All the encounters in the dungeon were super below their level (like CR 11-15 being the average for the 20th level party) and it was a good thing too, because they were left gobsmacked by some of the encounters as they fumbled through them like the epic-stooges.

World of Warcraft had a similar issue. Because the game has so many expansions out at this point, they introduced a feature that allows you to get a character scaled up to the level of the new expansion so you can begin playing the new expansion as soon as you get it. However, a lot of players were completely inept at playing their new characters because they skipped the learning phase of the game for their class, so Blizzard implemented a special tutorial area for those who leaped up without the training.

GMs can provide these sorts of learning tutorials for players. I know that when I'm dealing with new players I usually try to hit lots of bases and teach players more about the game organically. I'll teach them tactics by letting NPCs demonstrate those tactics (usually on the PCs :P). Introducing new concepts to PCs like this often works wonders I've found and can be done in a relatively "safe" ways by doing so with weak or few monsters before they get to high levels where it's like "oh crap, did you just say fifteen fireballs!?" is a thing.

Quote:
Note that I said harder, not impossible. Optimized players can tone things down and/or give advice to help out the new players, after all. And there are plenty of gamers who won't get bothered that Jim's PC is more effective then theirs, or that Bob's PC doesn't contribute very much to the party beyond the pleasure of his company.

One of my favorite things that the 3.x DMG did was discuss how the game changes and the kid gloves come off as levels rise. I honestly wish that instead of trying to make high levels like low levels with bigger numbers that we could instead get more support for learning about gameplay at higher levels for players and GMs.

Maybe I'll try to make a youtube video or something if I get some time and try to do a tutorial on high level play like people do tutorials for PC games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LuniasM wrote:
I can second that nickle-and-diming bit with the half-damage blasts. After one trap with multiple Delayed Blast Fireballs killed 2 party members but "somehow" the two with Rings of Evasion survived, I assure you they will never underestimate evocation or evasion again.

Amen to that. Evocation sits in a weird place because it rests in the middle of "underpowered" and "overpowered" in a weird way. You'd think that sounds like "ideal balance" but it's a bit more complex. In a traditional party with 1 offensive caster, blasting feels underwhelming compared to the other sorts of things that can be done. However, when you can layer blasts, it very quickly becomes terrifying and one of the most certain methods of putting pressure on most anything (especially your PCs).

For example, if you're dealing with something that's got 80 hit points, the average damage of a 5d6 fireball (17.5) isn't very impressive. It's even less impressive if they save and reduce it to about 8.75. However that's 8.75 damage that they're not easily getting out of unless they've padded their resistances. Because of this chip damage, PCs can still be threatened by repeated attacks over and over or have multiple blasts hit them in rapid succession. For example, if you have an encounter with four 5th level wizards (a CR 8 encounter) all pushing the fireball at the PCs, each is going to deal damage unless the PCs are sporting fire resistance (or evasion and successful saves). Even if they save against 100% of the incoming spells, everyone in the AoE has just eaten about 35 damage from the volley. That's a lot of pressure, especially if the pressure can be maintained (and it can because they can keep casting).

EDIT: I should point out that it's also hellishly effective at breaking morale. I don't mean in terms of fear-effects or game effects, I'm talking in terms of putting your PCs on edge. In fact, almost any sort of damage that is chipping away at them can. Taking even small amounts of damage over and over and over again can quickly make the PC feel like they're living on borrowed time.

As a result, mooks that lob AoEs or spam magic missiles or similar things will often generate a ton of aggro from players who get very nervous very quickly (and rightly so) of the fire giant's minions lobbing low-level fireball spells around.

Quote:
At high levels the only way the party's cohorts ever came out alive from combat was through judicious use of Breath of Life (yet another spell I will never underestimate again). The only reason this kept happening was that despite getting the wealth of 4 players they severely undercut their cohorts, and their defenses suffered for it later on. If they had learned to spread the wealth more the fights wouldn't have been so swingy.

In all honesty, if the PCs had converted more of their offense gear into more defense gear for their cohorts (defensive items are usually about 1/2 the cost of equivalent offensive items) they probably would have had much easier encounters overall since you typically get enough offense from your class and levels and the extra action economy could have been leveraged to effectively zerg major threats.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

blackbloodtroll wrote:

All doors were over 900lbs?

Was this a giant's castle?

Maybe the Fortress of Overcompensating Dwarves?

The Fortress of Overcompensating Dwarves is so the title of my next adventure.

Ashiel wrote:
One of my favorite things that the 3.x DMG did was discuss how the game changes and the kid gloves come off as levels rise. I honestly wish that instead of trying to make high levels like low levels with bigger numbers that we could instead get more support for learning about gameplay at higher levels for players and GMs.

I can't like this enough. I, personally, really like the fact that the nature of the game changes as you go up in levels (unless you're a Fighter :P ). It'd be nice if there were a guide out there that explained in simple terms how the game changes at given levels, and what kinds of expectations are inherent to those levels of play.

Liberty's Edge

So is force blast worth it? I know that force affects a lot of things that other elements don't, but doing half damage seems like a pretty serious drawback.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

So has anyone run the numbers yet on Elemental Annihilator vs the base Kineticist at mid-high levels?

Due to GM flaking the game I was going to play a Kineticist in (starting at 1st, Gestalt with Medium) went kaput, but a new GM picked up the characters for a one-shot, starting at 10th.

How do those numbers look, and how do they change at 11th? How do those numbers look if Energy blasts are allowed with Devastating Infusion?

If no one's done it, I'll do it myself.

So, lessee. Both with Lightning then.

Base Blast Damage: 5d6+11 (+4 Con, +6 Elemental Overflow, +1 Point Blank Shot), Empowered yields an average damage of 28.5 with +16 to-hit (7 BaB, 5 Dex, 3 Overflow, 1 Weapon Focus).

DPR: 28.4

Elemental Annihilator has 3 attacks at +20/+20/+15 (10 BaB, 5 Dex, 3 Overflow, +1 Weapon Focus, +2 Blast Training, +1 Point Bank, -2 Rapid Shot) dealing 1d8+13 (8 Con, 2 Blast training, 2 Weapon Specialization, 1 point Blank Shot). Average damage per shot is 17.5. He has Improved Critical.

DPR: 19.95 per hit x 3 = 59.85 DPR.

At 11th level that figure jumps up to 79.8 (vs an average touch AC of 12 or so), a bit less versus things with a slightly higher touch AC of 15. Guesstimate is about 70 then.

At 11th level the base Kineticist can start tossing an Empowered Composite Blast for 12d6+11, or an average damage of 56 (and a DPR of roughly the same).

Hm. Think I'll stick with Annihilator then. Loses out on most Infusions and such, but I have the Medium side for utility (and even more damage if need be as well).

Did I miss any big damage boosters? Deadly Aim need not apply (they're touch attacks).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

...

For example, the classic Offense>Defense. The idea has some merit in the idea that killing your enemies means your enemies taking less actions which means your enemies don't get to kill you. A common example of this is people telling players not to build as tanks, or even saying crazy things like "AC doesn't matter".
...

I suspect part of the reason the Offense>Defense thing gets tossed out so much is because when you are looking at people with low system mastery there is a tendency for some of them to build hilariously lopsided characters who have a pretty good AC but have a DPR of 20 or so at level 11. The wisdom of Offense>Defense really translates to "It's better to have a terrible defense and a good offense than a good defense and a terrible offense". Which is true for the most part. A turtle PC frequently might as well not be there, while the glass cannon is actually contributing to a win for the PCs. Sure, they might stop contributing frequently, but with the way HP works they have a pretty decent chance of surviving a round of fire. This isn't the case for SoL effect, of course, but a lot of flacid tanky builds also have crappy saves(unless the class they use naturally has good saves, like Monk and Paladin), so the glass cannon isn't really worse off there - they might even be able to kill the thing throwing out the SoLs before they get hit.

Where this "wisdom" falls apart is when you listen to it, build an offensively orientated character, and keep on adding offensive boosts. You add, and you get better, and better, and better, and better, and SMACK. Right into a wall. Two walls, actually. The first wall is that beyond a handful of feats there aren't a lot of good straight offense boosters, and magic items get very expensive very quick after you pick up all the low hanging fruit. The second is that you hit the gulf between a two round kill and a one round kill. Needing to roughly double your damage per round is huge. Unless you manage to actually cross that gulf, all you are achieving is something like going from 1 rounding a CR=APL-3 threat to 1 rounding a CR=APL-2 threat. And it costs you a huge amount of resources to do that. Casters(the non martial kind) don't have the second issue, but for them there are even less ways to boost offense. A handful of very specialized items, stat boosters (which get very expensive quickly), certain rods(ditto) and a few feats (many of which don't do a good job for their cost). Regardless of your build, there will come a point where you will need to invest something like half of your resources into offense for only a marginal gain. Then it well and truly stops being worth boosting offense. It probably wasn't even worth it for a while before that point too. In fact, with a lot of styles and builds (THW being a prime example) the point at which it stops being worth it is hit rather quickly, because class abilities, the mechanics of the game and a small number of player resources rapidly get you up to a large fraction of the maximum potential for your character. If a hypothetical full BAB character with power attack, typical party buffs and an in class accuracy booster using a greatsword can get to 60% of the damage of a fighter who has all that and spends all their resources on offence, then the full BAB character probably has good enough offense. Sure, they should pick up any low hanging fruit, but they don't really need more offense.

Defense, on the other hand, is a bit of a different beast. You get a similar quadratic increase in item pricing...BUT...defensive items are much cheaper, and there are more of them than offensive items. Going from a +2 to a +3 sword costs 10K. For a touch more (11K), you can get +2 on your mithril breastplate, a +1 ring of protection and a +2 cloak of resistance. +1 to attack and damage(and silver/cold iron penetration), or +3AC and +2 to all saves. This pattern continues as you level up, where boosting offense beyond a certain point becomes hideously inefficient compared to devoting those resources towards defense (and utility) instead. On top of that, a lot of defenses do not scale well with character level, so not only is defense boosting relatively efficient, but not doing so leaves you with a defensively crippled character. The only classes that can get away with not devoting a lot of resources to defense are some full casters, and only because their spellcasting and class features gives them obscenely powerful defensive options (as an extreme example, a razmiran priest can go from pitiful AC to rivaling tanky druid/monk builds with only a slightly worse AC and a bunch of alternative defensive bonuses through buffs alone).

So really, the thing to take away isn't that offense<defense or offence>defense, but rather that offense is important but it is so easy to bring up to scratch for a lot of builds that you don't actually have to choose between it and defense. It is perfectly viable, even optimal in fact, to devote resources to both and end up with a character who is offensively and defensively sound. High levels just accentuates the need for a balanced character, because the sheer breadth of encounters you can face means that eventually any glaring weakness in a character is going to be hit hard by something that happens to have the tools to exploit it (and at higher levels, monsters have a lot of tools, making it even more likely).


Rynjin wrote:


Did I miss any big damage boosters? Deadly Aim need not apply (they're touch attacks).

Diadem I guess. Bracers of Falcon Aim is a cheap +1 to hit. And maybe a morning Elemental Form to buff yourself at the start of the day with the base kineticist.

I think Diadem + composite blasts are going to reverse the DPR status.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:
Rynjin wrote:


Did I miss any big damage boosters? Deadly Aim need not apply (they're touch attacks).

Diadem I guess. Bracers of Falcon Aim is a cheap +1 to hit. And maybe a morning Elemental Form to buff yourself at the start of the day with the base kineticist.

I think Diadem + composite blasts are going to reverse the DPR status.

Diadem is only an extra 1d6 damage. Not nearly enough to make up that 14 DPR gap (since Empowered Composite was already accounted for).

Even the better Diadems only increase it by 2d6 and 3d6, and that price is STEEP at most levels.

I imagine the Physical blast comparison would be roughly equivalent DPR with Composite blasts (adding a whopping 16 extra static damage to the blast, and still having a respectable to-hit), but not the Energy blasts (which normally aren't usable with Annihilator anyway).

This leads me to the conclusion that a lot of the damage problems with Kineticists is the Energy blasts especially, not the Physical ones. They just do SO much less damage that even allowing the use of an archetype usually illegal for them only puts them roughly on par with Physical blasts.

Yeah, I'd say the Physical blaster would have a set-up looking something like this:

To-Hit: +20 (7 BaB, 7 Dex, 3 Overflow, 1 Weapon Focus, 1 Point Blank Shot, 1 Bracers), swapping the Dex and Con scores for 24 Dex and 22 Con. Vs AC 24.

Damage (Simple Empowered, no Diadem): 5d6+23 (+6 Con, +6 Overflow, +1 Point Blank Shot, +10 base blast damage). Average damage 60.75.

DPR: .85*60.75+.05*.85*60.75 = 54.22

Jesus the Physical DPR WITHOUT Composite is only two below the Energy one WITH it.

With Composite that jumps to:

Average Damage (level 11): 12d6+37 (+6 Con, +6 Overflow, +1 Point Blank Shot, +24 base blast damage). 118.5 when Empowered.

DPR (vs AC 25, same chance to hit): .85*118.5+.05*.85*118.5 = 105.8 DPR. I imagine that'd jump by about 5 points with Improved Critical, unless Kinetic Blasts are one of those dealies where only the first 1d6 multiples, in which case iunno.

You know, I think I'm seeing where the disconnect is here now. That damage output is pretty alright (the numbers I usually see for, say, an Inquisitor are about 110-120 DPR but that's with buffs). The problem lies solely with the Energy blasts (only) being absolute S&!* at damage dealing, not the entire class.

Gets my hopes up all right for when I wanna play an Earth Kineticist some time in the future.


The fact is that with a single attack there is no accuracy problem, since first iteratives are meant to nearly always hit, it's only with the -5/-10 that you need to start rolling. So the extra accuracy given by the energy blasts is not actually worth the damage loss.

Anyway, I think you are underestimating the Diadem. A +2d6 diadem with empower is 10.5 extra average damage. Not bad I'd say


Dekalinder wrote:

The fact is that with a single attack there is no accuracy problem, since first iteratives are meant to nearly always hit, it's only with the -5/-10 that you need to start rolling. So the extra accuracy given by the energy blasts is not actually worth the damage loss.

Anyway, I think you are underestimating the Diadem. A +2d6 diadem with empower is 10.5 extra average damage. Not bad I'd say

Not bad, but not really affordable until high levels. It was what, 35k or so for the 2d6 Diadem? That's over half your WBL at 10th. It really only becomes a practical purchase around 13th or 14th, if then, since you still need 5 of the Big Six, even if you cut out the most expensive one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:

The fact is that with a single attack there is no accuracy problem, since first iteratives are meant to nearly always hit, it's only with the -5/-10 that you need to start rolling. So the extra accuracy given by the energy blasts is not actually worth the damage loss.

Anyway, I think you are underestimating the Diadem. A +2d6 diadem with empower is 10.5 extra average damage. Not bad I'd say

Not bad, but not really affordable until high levels. It was what, 35k or so for the 2d6 Diadem? That's over half your WBL at 10th. It really only becomes a practical purchase around 13th or 14th, if then, since you still need 5 of the Big Six, even if you cut out the most expensive one.

Also, according to Rynjin's numbers +2 to attack would give 11.85 extra DPR. It only becomes worthwhile getting the diadem when it is more expensive to get +2 to attack. And as you get higher level the amount of damage a single point of attack counts for gets higher.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was thinking, and realized that bigger size really does not matter at all for kineticist, making small races like halfling or gnome that much more appealing for that sweet +1 hit and AC. I guess that's Toph secret.

Sovereign Court

Dekalinder wrote:
I was thinking, and realized that bigger size really does not matter at all for kineticist, making small races like halfling or gnome that much more appealing for that sweet +1 hit and AC. I guess that's Toph secret.

Or getting Tiny, like with a Ring of Seven Lovely Colors!


Talon Stormwarden wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
I was thinking, and realized that bigger size really does not matter at all for kineticist, making small races like halfling or gnome that much more appealing for that sweet +1 hit and AC. I guess that's Toph secret.
Or getting Tiny, like with a Ring of Seven Lovely Colors!

Like I've ever going to allow 7 cast per day of a sixth level spell for 4K gp. That item is so messed up it doesn't even have the minimum caster level to be actually able to cast the spell in question. The one who wrote it was either a complete imbecille or a paid troll.

Even putting that aside, it's not that great with kinny since without hands you can't gather power. I'm not even sure you can use the blast at all since even tho tecnically speaking his feets are prehensile appendages, I don't think thoose actually where intended to count, unless we get a FAQ on "foot worth of handiness" to complement the hands one.


Dekalinder wrote:
Talon Stormwarden wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
I was thinking, and realized that bigger size really does not matter at all for kineticist, making small races like halfling or gnome that much more appealing for that sweet +1 hit and AC. I guess that's Toph secret.
Or getting Tiny, like with a Ring of Seven Lovely Colors!

Like I've ever going to allow 7 cast per day of a sixth level spell for 4K gp. That item is so messed up it doesn't even have the minimum caster level to be actually able to cast the spell in question. The one who wrote it was either a complete imbecille or a paid troll.

Even putting that aside, it's not that great with kinny since without hands you can't gather power. I'm not even sure you can use the blast at all since even tho tecnically speaking his feets are prehensile appendages, I don't think thoose actually where intended to count, unless we get a FAQ on "foot worth of handiness" to complement the hands one.

Don't complain.

We need more cool affordable items like that, not less. If it costed 20,000gp it would be yet another weak-sauce item that would be snap liquefied for moar plusses. 2,000gp (and another 2000 for the ring of protection effect) for turning into a bird is actually reasonable.


2000 gp for +8 dexterity is reasonable? on top of +2 to hit and AC? and flying? Yea totally reasonable. It's exactly as valuable as that +1 deflection to AC.
Sorry I also forgot +3 natural armor AC.

I'm outta here.


Dekalinder wrote:

2000 gp for +8 dexterity is reasonable? on top of +2 to hit and AC? and flying? Yea totally reasonable. It's exactly as valuable as that +1 deflection to AC.

Sorry I also forgot +3 natural armor AC.

I'm outta here.

Don't forget that bit where you are a bird who can't speak, can't use a lot of your skills, has a lowered CMD/CMB due to size penalties and doesn't even have opposable thumbs.

Also, it's +4 dex, +1 natural Armor, +2 size bonus. Ravens are not magical beasts last time I checked.


Its a corner case item, under most circumstances it is a neat trick and many wouldn't select it even at its listed cost as it nullifies your offense capabilities. With one or two builds however it becomes mind boggling and formerly mostly flavorful option becomes ridiculous.

Dark Archive

Ashiel wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
I can second that nickle-and-diming bit with the half-damage blasts. After one trap with multiple Delayed Blast Fireballs killed 2 party members but "somehow" the two with Rings of Evasion survived, I assure you they will never underestimate evocation or evasion again.

Amen to that. Evocation sits in a weird place because it rests in the middle of "underpowered" and "overpowered" in a weird way. You'd think that sounds like "ideal balance" but it's a bit more complex. In a traditional party with 1 offensive caster, blasting feels underwhelming compared to the other sorts of things that can be done. However, when you can layer blasts, it very quickly becomes terrifying and one of the most certain methods of putting pressure on most anything (especially your PCs).

For example, if you're dealing with something that's got 80 hit points, the average damage of a 5d6 fireball (17.5) isn't very impressive. It's even less impressive if they save and reduce it to about 8.75. However that's 8.75 damage that they're not easily getting out of unless they've padded their resistances. Because of this chip damage, PCs can still be threatened by repeated attacks over and over or have multiple blasts hit them in rapid succession. For example, if you have an encounter with four 5th level wizards (a CR 8 encounter) all pushing the fireball at the PCs, each is going to deal damage unless the PCs are sporting fire resistance (or evasion and successful saves). Even if they save against 100% of the incoming spells, everyone in the AoE has just eaten about 35 damage from the volley. That's a lot of pressure, especially if the pressure can be maintained (and it can because they can keep casting).

EDIT: I should point out that it's also hellishly effective at breaking morale. I don't mean in terms of fear-effects or game effects, I'm talking in terms of putting your PCs on edge. In fact, almost any sort of damage that is chipping away at them can. Taking even small amounts of damage over and...

For instance, in book 3 of Jade Regent you

The Hungry Storm Spoilers:
fight a giant and a winter wolf. If you fail to kill the wolf, he comes back with (iirc) 1d4 more winter wolves. I rolled the maximum for that encounter, and every one of them has a breath weapon that deals 6d6 damage. 6d6 is already decent if you're hitting everyone, but 30d6 is crazy for a level 7 party. This book really abuses aoe evocations like Cone of Cold.

So I'm in an Epic Homebrew game, lv 21. Just pointed out the the GM that a couple hundred lv1 sorcerers with wands of magic missile would be more terrifying than the "advanced headhunter party" we were fighting.

Dark Archive

Chess Pwn wrote:
So I'm in an Epic Homebrew game, lv 21. Just pointed out the the GM that a couple hundred lv1 sorcerers with wands of magic missile would be more terrifying than the "advanced headhunter party" we were fighting.

Nah, just match it with a bunch of guys with wands of Shield. Totally immune.


LuniasM wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
So I'm in an Epic Homebrew game, lv 21. Just pointed out the the GM that a couple hundred lv1 sorcerers with wands of magic missile would be more terrifying than the "advanced headhunter party" we were fighting.
Nah, just match it with a bunch of guys with wands of Shield. Totally immune.

yeah, if you knew it was coming. but if they catch you by surprise at all and a player could drop easy.


Chess Pwn wrote:
So I'm in an Epic Homebrew game, lv 21. Just pointed out the the GM that a couple hundred lv1 sorcerers with wands of magic missile would be more terrifying than the "advanced headhunter party" we were fighting.

I ran an encounter in my campaign a while back for a party around level 8 or so. The party was stopped by a squad of mercenaries who were holding a border road for unknown reasons, and the mercenaries were made up of a few geared trolls (each had a level of warrior and was equipped with weapons and armor), some goblin sorcerers, and a mix of human, hobgoblin, and orc warriors.

If the party's Paladin has been a Fighter, he would have simply died. The sorcerers picked him out of the lot (because the other PCs were prone to taking cover and hiding but the Paladin wasn't much for Stealth) and started blasting him every round on the round. Each round he was taking 6d4+6 force damage from the collective sorcerers and there wasn't a damn thing he could really do about it. Fortunately, he had Lay on Hands and ended up healing more damage than his maximum HP during the fight through Lay on Hands.


Aren't trolls better with their claws


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
Aren't trolls better with their claws?

Depends on how you define better, really. Your typical troll has 1d6+5 damage over two claws at +8. Since these were warrior trolls (with slightly shifted point buys as appropriate, based on the arrays for nonheroic warriors) their claws were +10 and 1d6+6 (9.5 average damage). However, they carried large masterwork glaives so their weapon attacks were at +11 for 2d8+9 (18 average damage, plus reach).

Assuming that the trolls could hit with both claw attacks and activate Rend, their damage would definitely be higher since they'd potentially have bite/claw/claw->rend for massive damage. However, trolls are rather lumbering for large creatures (30 ft. speed) and wearing armor didn't help in that regard (their AC went up but their speed went down) and their natural attacks relied on getting off a full-attack (which means that in many cases their foes may simply opt to provoke a single bite attack on the way out instead of standing there and trading blows with them).

As a result, the reach weapons made their already impressive 10 ft. reach a 20 ft. reach, which made avoiding them harder and allowed the large trolls to reach over or around their smaller allies without getting too congested (and also provide flanking from great distances).

The trolls still had the option of simply dropping their glaives if someone was right up in melee with them and full attacking them with their natural attacks if it seemed like a good idea.

Unfortunately for the mercenries, while those trolls were very strong in melee combat (AC 22 with their breastplate plus regeneration 5), they were noticeably very poor in Will saves and their Charisma (usually a 6, adjusted to 4 from nonelite warrior array) was pretty terrible, so when the party's mind-****ers started droping charm effects on them, they folded like oragami. So the next thing you know, the three trolls are whacking mercenaries like professional golfers and running amok. :P

Scarab Sages

CWheezy wrote:
Aren't trolls better with their claws

It depends. They have two claws for +8 at 1d6+5, if they both hit they rend for another 1d6+7, doing a total of 3d6+17 best case, but their crit profile is bad. If they have a big two-handed weapon they hit for 3d6+7 with a 19-20/x2 or a x3 profile. The claws do more damage on a full attack, the sword does more on a charge or a crit.


I didn't know they had glaives. Optimal is probably fkaive for aoo, then freevaction drop and claws the rest if the way


CWheezy wrote:
I didn't know they had glaives. Optimal is probably fkaive for aoo, then freevaction drop and claws the rest if the way

Well the glaives damage equals roughly the same damage as two of the troll's claw attacks sans rend. If we gave them greatswords or greataxes instead their average damage would have been a bit higher, and they could have added an extra +6 to damage with Power Attack at a -1 less than their typical claw attack (because the masterwork offsets it by +1), so for any instance that they could only launch a single attack (any round they move, charge, AoOs, etc) then it would be better.

To a degree everything is situational, which is why options are good. Another noteworthy bit is that due to their large size, big weapons would be really nice on a troll with Vital Strike or a potion of enlarge person because it bring their standard-attack damage to pretty big levels.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber

If shield is a problem grab lvl 1 rogue/lvl 1 cleric sneak attacking with wands of inflict light wounds.

Silver Crusade

Taenia wrote:
If shield is a problem grab lvl 1 rogue/lvl 1 cleric sneak attacking with wands of inflict light wounds.

Inflict and cure spells allow saving throws for half damage, which would count for half of the sneak attack damage as well. And at a save DC that a commoner has a 50% chance of making. Better would be a wand of shocking grasp or chill touch (changing out the multiclass to fit the new wand, of course)


Rynjin wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

So has anyone run the numbers yet on Elemental Annihilator vs the base Kineticist at mid-high levels?

Due to GM flaking the game I was going to play a Kineticist in (starting at 1st, Gestalt with Medium) went kaput, but a new GM picked up the characters for a one-shot, starting at 10th.

How do those numbers look, and how do they change at 11th? How do those numbers look if Energy blasts are allowed with Devastating Infusion?

If no one's done it, I'll do it myself.

So, lessee. Both with Lightning then.

Base Blast Damage: 5d6+11 (+4 Con, +6 Elemental Overflow, +1 Point Blank Shot), Empowered yields an average damage of 28.5 with +16 to-hit (7 BaB, 5 Dex, 3 Overflow, 1 Weapon Focus).

DPR: 28.4

Elemental Annihilator has 3 attacks at +20/+20/+15 (10 BaB, 5 Dex, 3 Overflow, +1 Weapon Focus, +2 Blast Training, +1 Point Bank, -2 Rapid Shot) dealing 1d8+13 (8 Con, 2 Blast training, 2 Weapon Specialization, 1 point Blank Shot). Average damage per shot is 17.5. He has Improved Critical.

DPR: 19.95 per hit x 3 = 59.85 DPR.

At 11th level that figure jumps up to 79.8 (vs an average touch AC of 12 or so), a bit less versus things with a slightly higher touch AC of 15. Guesstimate is about 70 then.

At 11th level the base Kineticist can start tossing an Empowered Composite Blast for 12d6+11, or an average damage of 56 (and a DPR of roughly the same).

Hm. Think I'll stick with Annihilator then. Loses out on most Infusions and such, but I have the Medium side for utility (and even more damage if need be as well).

Did I miss any big damage boosters? Deadly Aim need not apply (they're touch attacks).

I think a big detail that you missed is that the elemental annihilator cannot use his class's special infusions with the touch attacks.

Other than that I can't comment, but I think you should rethink the character concept if you're relying on touch attacks.


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

So has anyone run the numbers yet on Elemental Annihilator vs the base Kineticist at mid-high levels?

Due to GM flaking the game I was going to play a Kineticist in (starting at 1st, Gestalt with Medium) went kaput, but a new GM picked up the characters for a one-shot, starting at 10th.

How do those numbers look, and how do they change at 11th? How do those numbers look if Energy blasts are allowed with Devastating Infusion?

If no one's done it, I'll do it myself.

So, lessee. Both with Lightning then.

Base Blast Damage: 5d6+11 (+4 Con, +6 Elemental Overflow, +1 Point Blank Shot), Empowered yields an average damage of 28.5 with +16 to-hit (7 BaB, 5 Dex, 3 Overflow, 1 Weapon Focus).

DPR: 28.4

Elemental Annihilator has 3 attacks at +20/+20/+15 (10 BaB, 5 Dex, 3 Overflow, +1 Weapon Focus, +2 Blast Training, +1 Point Bank, -2 Rapid Shot) dealing 1d8+13 (8 Con, 2 Blast training, 2 Weapon Specialization, 1 point Blank Shot). Average damage per shot is 17.5. He has Improved Critical.

DPR: 19.95 per hit x 3 = 59.85 DPR.

At 11th level that figure jumps up to 79.8 (vs an average touch AC of 12 or so), a bit less versus things with a slightly higher touch AC of 15. Guesstimate is about 70 then.

At 11th level the base Kineticist can start tossing an Empowered Composite Blast for 12d6+11, or an average damage of 56 (and a DPR of roughly the same).

Hm. Think I'll stick with Annihilator then. Loses out on most Infusions and such, but I have the Medium side for utility (and even more damage if need be as well).

Did I miss any big damage boosters? Deadly Aim need not apply (they're touch attacks).

I think a big detail that you missed is that the elemental annihilator cannot use his class's special infusions with the touch attacks.

Other than that I can't comment, but I think you should rethink the character concept if you're relying on touch attacks.

I'm aware. The GM for this particular game has houseruled that I may do so.

Honestly it's kind of headscratching as to why the Energy blasts weren't allowed in the first place...physical blasts are already superior.


I think its because the damage is set to a flat amount, and there doesnt seem to be an easy way to balance an energy blast to that level of damage. As it stands, the elemental annihilators damage, if it were to not go down but still be against touch, would be much more powerful.

351 to 400 of 550 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Kineticist damage? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.