|
| 61 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Since there's a few questions about it in my thread, I figured I'd ask here.
Can one use kinetic blade with a simple blast to make it a melee blast, and thus applicable to be combined with melee attacks for conductive weapons?
Also in the same vein, is it possible to use substance infusions with a simple blast being used in combination with a kinetic weapon? I'm assuming form infusions are right out due to the fact that it's being channeled through a weapon, but substance ones seem like a viable option, since as of yet there's nothing banning an alchemist's bombs from being used with one of their variants and conductive.
Yeah it should work but take note that only touch attack spell-like or supernatural abilities are the only ones that work with conductive so your physical blasts won't
FAQed this needs to be answered sooner or later.
|
|
Burn would likely be irrelevant. At level 5, as long as you use nothing but Kinetic Blade, you take no burn anyway.
But what about composite blast? There's other infusions to consider, and it's unlikely kinetic blade works with conductive due to its need to modify the base ability. At 7th level with quick draw and a thrown conductive weapon (probably with a blink back belt), you could actually still gather power, draw weapon, and throw it easily enough.
|
|
Going to bump this, as well as asking if burn is doubled when using with a conductive weapon or not.he may choose to expend two uses of his magical ability to channel it through the weapon to the struck opponent, which suffers the effects of both the weapon attack and the special ability. (If the wielder has unlimited uses of a special ability, she may channel through the weapon every round.)Consuming two uses is not the same as activating twice, I expect burn is applied only once.
RAW I'm sure this is probably right (it's the assumption the guide is running under), but designer intent has been a large part of this class (larger than I would care for myself), so I want clarification on this if at all possible.
Actually consuming two uses is not activating, even once. So by that line of reasoning, it shouldn't actually cost any burn.
| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Conductive has some really vague wording, and given the kineticist has probably the most-complex at-will SLA, so this is definitely a pertinent question.
Here's a few things I've taken away from reading conductive like 5 times in a row to scour its wording. Note that this is a personal take, and by no means official:
1) I agree with your assessment here. Based on the exact way that you sort of trigger the Su or SLA after a successful hit, kinetic blade would not work because it is used specifically as part of certain actions to make the blade, rather than something that is delivered on a hit, so the same thing that helps it in action economy and AoOs harms it here.
2) I agree with you again. It seems to me that since an antipaladin should be able to choose cruelties when delivering his evil lay on hands with conductive, a kineticist should be able to apply non-form alterations to the conducted kinetic blast on the same grounds. Forms would be out because you've already hit at this point with the weapon, so that's the form the attack took.
3) Here's actually another thing (and a good lesson not to use passive if we can help it). "This weapon special ability can only be used once per round" is passive. It seems to be saying that a particular character can only use the conductive weapon special ability once per round, and that's the ruling that makes the most sense, but due to the passive here, it technically is possible to make the claim that it could mean varying things.
|
|
Glad to see a response here, although it's important to know if burn is supposed to be applied twice for this. Again, I believe that it shouldn't (my rationale can be seen in my thread talking about this), although even with singular burn, I don't think this would overpower anything.
Without the boost to attack through elemental overflow (which wouldn't apply due to it not being a kinetic blast, but rather an attack with has a kinetic blast channeled through it), the kineticist has no inherent accuracy boost, making it less than idea for the accuracy dependent archery style that it's going for. While the damage would be high, being able to only be used with elemental attacks tones down the damage quite a bit. The initial attack will be large, that much is for sure, but I don't see it as a massive problem myself.
I'm sure someone more math minded than me will come along to find out just how viable it would be though.
Glad to see a response here, although it's important to know if burn is supposed to be applied twice for this. Again, I believe that it shouldn't (my rationale can be seen in my thread talking about this), although even with singular burn, I don't think this would overpower anything.
Without the boost to attack through elemental overflow (which wouldn't apply due to it not being a kinetic blast, but rather an attack with has a kinetic blast channeled through it), the kineticist has no inherent accuracy boost, making it less than idea for the accuracy dependent archery style that it's going for. While the damage would be high, being able to only be used with elemental attacks tones down the damage quite a bit. The initial attack will be large, that much is for sure, but I don't see it as a massive problem myself.
I'm sure someone more math minded than me will come along to find out just how viable it would be though.
Oh, sorry about that. Meant to include it. Strictly speaking by the wording of the ability, since it isn't an SLA with daily uses, it doesn't fall into the 2 uses but the unlimited uses clause instead, so it shouldn't increase the burn by that logic. Again, totally unofficial.
Cool Mark. I hope we can see an official response for this In the near future but this'll hold us over until then. Thanks for the posts! :)
3) Here's actually another thing (and a good lesson not to use passive if we can help it). "This weapon special ability can only be used once per round" is passive. It seems to be saying that a particular character can only use the conductive weapon special ability once per round, and that's the ruling that makes the most sense, but due to the passive here, it technically is possible to make the claim that it could mean varying things.
This is only true if you parse it as "This (weapon special ability) can only be used once per round", but it's not if you parse it as "(This weapon) (special ability) can only be used once per round".
English can be such a confusing language, where is no wonder about why all those lawyers films are either in England or in America. Such stunts would be impossibles in other languages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what I am reading from Mark is that we need more FAQ clicks