As I mentioned in my Telekinetic Guide thread, I've been analyzing numerically, the damage of the Kineticist. When I first made my Kineticist, I went more with gut feeling than numbers, and evaluated it as "awesome" damage. With numbers, my following comments may seem less than raving, but it is not intended as a tear-down of the class. Not only is this the only class I'll ever play again (in PF anyhows), I still rate it as 5-stars in all regards.
That being said, and we measured DPRs for all sorts of classes/characters to try and get an "average" in damage output, at all 20 levels (we're programmers, so we wrote a php class to do this, then pumped it with different character builds).
It's obviously not fool-proof, but it gave us an idea of the "average" dpr we should be expecting for any class that focuses on doing damage, -but- without using limited resources (so avoiding Smite Evil, Rage, Etc...) or situational (Preferred domain, sneak attack, etc)
Here's the rounded averages per level (basic full-attack actions, no magic):
1) 5
2) 6
3) 8
4) 10
5) 12
6) 15
7) 20
8) 40 (Boots of Speed Boost)
9) 50
10) 55
11) 65
12) 70
13) 80
14) 90
15) 100
16) 110
17) 120
18) 140
19) 150
20) 175
Note: Some of these numbers are deflated due to evaluating 2-handed/2-weapon along with sword-n-boards. Without Sword and Boards, the DPR was +10(80) by level 12, +20(110) by level 15 and +25(200) by level 20.
Then, using Kineticist (no burn, but move-action to Gather)... we have the following DPR
** DPR vs AC of Level+14. Starting Dex/Con = 17 each.
(##%) is percent chance to hit AC of Level+14 with a physical blast.
1) (40%) 3,15 = -2
2) (40%) 3,15 = -3
3) (45%) 7 = -1
4) (45%) 7,5 = -2.5
5) (40%) 12,6 = +0.5 (Maximize Boost)
6) (55%) 20,4 = +5 (+2Con/Dex, Belt Physical Might +2)
7) (55%) 25,2 = +5
8) (60%) 27,3 = -13 (No Boots of Speed Boost)
9) (60%) 33,15 = -16
10) (65%) 36,4 = -19 (Belt +4)
11) (65%) 42.7 = -22
12) (70%) 48.75 = -21 (Con4, Dex2) // Note: (Dex4, Con2) has slightly better DPR, but not enough to be worth the lower Con.
13) (70%) 54 = -26 (Belt +6)
14) (70%) 54 = -36
15) (75%) 66.4 = -33
16) (85%) 75.6 = -35 (Con4, Dex6) // Note: (Con6, Dex4 has a much lower DPR)
17) (80%) 76.5 = -43
18) (85%) 83.7 = -56
19) (85%) 124.2 = -26 (Maximize + Empower, -2 for SuperCharge, -1 for Metakinetic Master)
20) (85%) 124.2 = -51
We come out almost exactly even with a non-fighter, melee type using a sword-n-board build.
The reason I show this is 2-fold. 1) Seems a waste to not share these findings so people can compare their builds with what the "average" should be at a given level, and I'm hoping people collaborate a bit to fine-tune these numbers for precision purposes... and 2) Because in my guide, I want to give an honest evaluation of how the class compares to others for damage, so they don't feel like they did something wrong when building the character. Throwing the same numbers together, I also evaluate how important (for the TKer) that stealth and invisibility are, for the obvious +4 (+20%) to hit (+2 and an average +2 from targeting flat-footed instead of base AC) which by level 16 gives you a 95% chance to hit (2+) even without using touch-ac, and gives about roughly a 10% boost to DPR.
I'm also seeing why I always thought it was super easy to hit with my blasts since I started testing at level 8, which (with my high use of stealth) often took my 60% chance to hit up to 80%.
So... do my numbers seem off to anyone? We seem to have the absolute best "to hit" in the game, which I guess is kinda required when you're a 1-hit per-round build, low end on the DPR despite that. This seems to me to imply that a guide should have players focus on effects more than damage...
Rather than a flat level+14 AC you might use the official guidelines, or the averages computed from the bestiaries.
Sword&board is not something I'd include as a PF build/tactic without getting fancy in some way; mounted combat w/spirited charge, or TWF, a gish using psychic spells, whatever.
Not using limited resources implies you're facing mooks against whom your DPR is irrelevant.
Basic sword and board is a complete gimp, nobody plays him, and the comparison is pointless. If you're going to do a comparison, at least compare to Greatsword Dude.
I also evaluate how important (for the TKer) that stealth and invisibility are, for the obvious +4 (+20%) to hit (+2 and an average +2 from targeting flat-footed instead of base AC)
I get the average +2 from flat-footed, but what's the other +2 from?
|
Basic sword and board is a complete gimp, nobody plays him, and the comparison is pointless. If you're going to do a comparison, at least compare to Greatsword Dude.
Sword & board can compete with greatsword for damage if you build for it while having great AC and and control via shield slam. Of course, it does better if you just two-hand the shield, but it works for TWF. Especially if you go Heavy Shield/Kukri with bashing finish procing off kukri crits.
Basic sword and board is a complete gimp, nobody plays him, and the comparison is pointless. If you're going to do a comparison, at least compare to Greatsword Dude.Sword & board can compete with greatsword for damage if you build for it while having great AC and and control via shield slam. Of course, it does better if you just two-hand the shield, but it works for TWF. Especially if you go Heavy Shield/Kukri with bashing finish procing off kukri crits.
I don't think he is including two weapon fighting as Sword and Board. Generally the way people refer to SnB and TWF implies that TWF using a shield is not Sword 'n' Boarding.
Basic sword and board is a complete gimp, nobody plays him, and the comparison is pointless. If you're going to do a comparison, at least compare to Greatsword Dude.Sword & board can compete with greatsword for damage if you build for it while having great AC and and control via shield slam. Of course, it does better if you just two-hand the shield, but it works for TWF. Especially if you go Heavy Shield/Kukri with bashing finish procing off kukri crits.
Oh, I know. But I assume the OP was referring to a basic sword-and-board guy, using a one-handed weapon for offense and the shield for passive AC.
Also, f*$$ your two-handed shield, that's an improvised weapon, not a shield bash. But let's save that for another thread ;-)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Since your average is compiled of "all sorts of classes", I would like to see an indication of what kinds of builds you're actually comparing.
If I envision a standard fighter (big two handed weapon, level-appropriate +X enchantment, power attack, and nothing else) then I'd say that this build does substantially more damage than your listed average, while being not at all optimized.
I get the average +2 from flat-footed, but what's the other +2 from?
I also evaluate how important (for the TKer) that stealth and invisibility are, for the obvious +4 (+20%) to hit (+2 and an average +2 from targeting flat-footed instead of base AC)
Attacker unseen is a +2 modifier, as per the combat modifiers table.
And yes, sword n board is done via TWF, which is still weaker than basic TWF due to loss of feats to make it work.
Attacker unseen is a +2 modifier, as per the combat modifiers table.
Ah, thank you! I do see that it specifies Invisible and not unseen, at least at d20pfsrd. That means you wouldn't get that +2 from mundane stealth, right?
I do not agree with those kin averages. My math for level 11 kineticist turned up an average of 50 for not optimized and an average of 74 for optimized characters, all of this element-agnostic (aside from the availability of a composite blast).
Hmm, personally I'd also look at martial standard actions. They don't always get their full attacks. Maybe estimate some probabilities for level ranges and compute a weighted average?
Beside this, kinetic blast has a decent range. You might see situations where the kineticist can already fire her blast while the martial is still closing to the opponent - or, for some reason, not able to reach it.
So if both things are considered, it should be more even...
Andrew, Yes, you get that from Stealth too, as per the Paizo FAQ (after all, if you're not seen, you're not seen). However, you have to use the Sniping rule if you want to get that same bonus on the next round (or you have to find concealment and hide, which isn't likely if you're using the move action to Gather Power).
Thaago, no, I left the Weapon Focus out since I find that you don't get it til much higher levels. Well after PointBlank shot, PreciseShot, DefensiveCasting, and undoubtedly a few Extra Wild Talents. :/
Dekalinder, what is your algorithm?
Level 11:
DAMAGE
6d6+6 base = 6*3.5+6 = 27
26 Con = +8
Overflow = +6
TOHIT
BAB = 8
24 Dex = +7
Overflow = +3
Base Damage with Bonus = 41 * 1.5 (Empowered) = 61.5
Bonus ToHit = 18. AC 25 (14 + 11th level). 25-18=7+ to hit = 65% chance.
61.5*0.65 = 40 Base.
Critical = 61.5*0.65*0.05 = 2
DPR = 42.
[EDIT] Forgot the +6 :/
Andrew, Yes, you get that from Stealth too, as per the Paizo FAQ (after all, if you're not seen, you're not seen). ...
What FAQ is this? Got a link?
What FAQ is this? Got a link?Andrew, Yes, you get that from Stealth too, as per the Paizo FAQ (after all, if you're not seen, you're not seen). ...
No sorry, and my google-fu isn't finding it either.
I intentionally left out situational scenarios, hence not adding Point Blank to the calculations.
As for Feats, here's what I see:
1) Point Blank
3) Precise Shot
5) Combat Casting
7) Toughness
9) At this point I could see Weapon Focus, but personally, at this point I start picking up some of the lower level Utilities or Infusions that I missed, particularly from my 2nd element.
11) Similarly with 9
13) This was the earliest I ever considered Weapon Focus.
15) Back to picking up stuff from my 3rd element if I branched, if I didn't branch, this is where I usually (finally) picked up Weapon Finesse.
Not saying this is common, just saying that I didn't want to figure in something that would up my DPR by 2pts (5% of my base damage at best) before level 15, when it ups the DPR to 3 points.
However, I see what you're saying about Compound Blasts. (12d6+12=54 > 6d6+6:Maximized=42). And I do think you're right, that I calc'd all of it with just Empower in my analysis... I'll try it with maximized/compound til level 19. I'll adjust my numbers.
Math for level 11. Note that my assumption have higher stats. I considered both starting stats 18 instead of 17 for easy of math, and 50% of WBL to be invested into the belt since it counts both as primary stats and as the "weapon" equivalent. No other feats other than PBS (mandatory for Precise Shot).
For getting to 74, use physical composites, add +4 hits from any sources (weapon focus + small size + bracer of falcon aim + haste are the 4 most commonly available) and add Improved Critical.
EDIT: f$@@ed up the math, 18-18 can realistically only be obtained by humans with dual talented trait.
+1 from PBS is the only difference in our calculations. You got 49.6 vs my 42.7. That sounds about right. I can add in PBS, I'm sure we'd get the same numbers. Will also add in Compound in my next iteration.
Matter of fact, let's just plug the numbers in and see...
123...
1) 3,3075
2) 3,3075
3) 7,35
4) 7,875
5) 13,23
6) 21,42
7) 26,46
8) 26,46
9) 37,485
10) 40,95
11) 53,55
12) 58,8
13) 67,2
14) 67,2
15) 81,2175
16) 91,77
17) 95,445
18) 102,7425
19) 167,58
20) 167,58
So now we match on 49.98, and I added Weapon Focus at level 9 for this iteration, as well as compound blasts from level 11+ and Point Blank from level 1+.
BTW, if anyone wants to download the spreadsheet I used to calc the DPR, it's --> HERE
One question. Why are you taking the combat casting feat ?
Even if you suppress the AOO provoked by the SLA you should still provoke an AOO by either the ranged attack or the ranged touch attack.
That means the feat would only help against foes with combat reflexes. Which is why i would rather take weapon focus instead of combat casting.
I don't agree with this. The attack of opportunity is for "Performing a Distracting Act". Whether it's casting a spell, performing a spell-like ability or shooting a bow, it's the single "Act". Once I perform that "Act" (regardless of how many items that it might match on the Actions in Combat chart), there is only a single attack against me, and the Combat Casting gives me a +4 to defense against that roll. It's not like they then get another attack without the +4 to see if maybe the Ranged attack got me... since the SLA AoO missed.
Either way I still don't think combat casting is worth the feat over weapon focus. You can always 5 foot step to avoid most AoO and if you really need to GTFO of there then you're not going to be attacking anyways.
One question. Why are you taking the combat casting feat ?
Even if you suppress the AOO provoked by the SLA you should still provoke an AOO by either the ranged attack or the ranged touch attack.
That means the feat would only help against foes with combat reflexes. Which is why i would rather take weapon focus instead of combat casting.
I don't agree with this. The attack of opportunity is for "Performing a Distracting Act". Whether it's casting a spell, performing a spell-like ability or shooting a bow, it's the single "Act". Once I perform that "Act" (regardless of how many items that it might match on the Actions in Combat chart), there is only a single attack against me, and the Combat Casting gives me a +4 to defense against that roll. It's not like they then get another attack without the +4 to see if maybe the Ranged attack got me... since the SLA AoO missed.
You're doing two different actions there - Cast a Spell (which provokes attacks of opportunity) and Attack(Ranged) (which also provokes and attack of opportunity).
Just like getting two attacks of opportunity with Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp, you are triggering two attacks of opportunity.
We disagree. You are performing one act, just like casting a magic missile is not 2 different acts.
We disagree. You are performing one act, just like casting a magic missile is not 2 different acts.One question. Why are you taking the combat casting feat ?
Even if you suppress the AOO provoked by the SLA you should still provoke an AOO by either the ranged attack or the ranged touch attack.
That means the feat would only help against foes with combat reflexes. Which is why i would rather take weapon focus instead of combat casting.
I don't agree with this. The attack of opportunity is for "Performing a Distracting Act". Whether it's casting a spell, performing a spell-like ability or shooting a bow, it's the single "Act". Once I perform that "Act" (regardless of how many items that it might match on the Actions in Combat chart), there is only a single attack against me, and the Combat Casting gives me a +4 to defense against that roll. It's not like they then get another attack without the +4 to see if maybe the Ranged attack got me... since the SLA AoO missed.
You're doing two different actions there - Cast a Spell (which provokes attacks of opportunity) and Attack(Ranged) (which also provokes and attack of opportunity).
Just like getting two attacks of opportunity with Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp, you are triggering two attacks of opportunity.
this FAQ disagrees with your view.
|
|
Casting a spell with a ranged attack provokes even if you cast defensively.
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.
|
|
I'm curious on a side note here though, not to spam the thread up, if you use ride the blast shouldn't that eliminate the second attack of opportunity? (One for the sla, the second for the ranged attack but since you become the elemental material involved in the attack...)
No, Attacks of Opportunity are interrupts, and actually occur an instant before the triggering action.
No, Attacks of Opportunity are interrupts, and actually occur an instant before the triggering action.
I'm curious on a side note here though, not to spam the thread up, if you use ride the blast shouldn't that eliminate the second attack of opportunity? (One for the sla, the second for the ranged attack but since you become the elemental material involved in the attack...)
Hehe yeah, ride the blast is absolutely amazing anyway, but it's not quite that amazing.
Casting a spell with a ranged attack provokes even if you cast defensively.
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.
Interesting, that does indeed reduce the use of Combat Casting for us. Moving Toughness to slot 5, and Weapon Focus sliding in at level 7.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Ok, let's get some comparisons here, from this old thread.
Longbow fighter 71
Gunslinger 67
THF fighter 63
Alchemist 63
Temple sword monk 55
Kineticist 41
...huh
Thanks! All of your to hit percentages are 5% lower than they should be according to your numbers.Example: first level target AC is 15, to hit is 4 -> hit on an 11 or better -> this is 50%, not 45%.
Also, Empower is strictly better than maximize, even though it costs less burn :P. Its really funny that way (though maximize is 100% reliable, which counts for something?)
I'd always assumed that 18 Con, 16 Dex would be the standard start for a kinet... any reason why 17/17?
Ok, will check the math.
Base 2d6+2 = 7+2 = 9
Empower 2d6+2 = 3d6+3 = 10.5+3 = 13.5
Maximize 2d6+2 = 12+2 = 14.
Empower is ony better from a burn point of view. Maximize will do more damage, but not an equal boost-to-burn ratio.
17/17 over 18/15 is just because a single number made it one step easier, and by 4th level, all numbers come out the same. Adjust the sheet, you'll see that a higher Dex increases the DPR more than a higher Con in many places. Con gives you more burn, but as long as your % isn't already at 95, that Dex boost is often better for damage than a Con boost. I like to keep them close to even as I advance.
Maybe to take advantage of point buy and level bumps? Unless my math is off...brain tired not 100% on point costs. :)
With a single +2 to dex or con.
16, 16(18) is 20 points.
17, 15(17) is 20 points, but +1 at 4th and 8th gives you 18/18.
17/17 is strictly worse that 18/16.
Both end up as 18/18 at level 8, but you get three levels of a +4/+3 with 18/16, while 17/17 is still +3/+3. At levels 4-7, the bonuses are the same +4/+3 & 18/17. From then on out, the inherent bonuses are the same.
Thanks!BTW, if anyone wants to download the spreadsheet I used to calc the DPR, it's --> HERE
Ok, fixed the error, added in different ranges/DPRs, and added some Aether stuff since their Compound Blast isn't interesting in this setup.
You need to use composite instead of maximized from 11 on.
I do, unless you're Aether. If you see Maximized, then unclick the Aether button. ;)
Sorry I'm not used to this kind of spredsheet. If I may, you should make that TRUE/FALSE flag a bit more obvious. Anyway, at 16 you can composite + empower for no burn.
Aside from that, at this point I think the numbers are very close to standard play.
Let's remeber however that finer optimization can increase them by about 20-30%
Aside from that, at this point I think the numbers are very close to standard play.
Let's remeber however that finer optimization can increase them by about 20-30%
Good point, didn't calc in Composite Specialization. I can squeeze some more points out for levels 16-18. I'll include that in the next update. :)
Ah, but you forgot the static bonuses from Con and from overflow. Those close the gap. As you showed, for every 2d6 +2 base the difference between empower and maximize it .5 damage. So if for every 2d6 you have +1 from Con and Overflow then Empower is better, which I believe is true at all levels.
Doesn't matter, the only time I've used Maximize on the spreadsheet is for the Aether (where the algorithm showed that Maximize was doing better than Empower, unless my algorithm is wrong), and for combining with Empower at 19th and 20th levels.
Ah, but you forgot the static bonuses from Con and from overflow. Those close the gap. As you showed, for every 2d6 +2 base the difference between empower and maximize it .5 damage. So if for every 2d6 you have +1 from Con and Overflow then Empower is better, which I believe is true at all levels.Doesn't matter, the only time I've used Maximize on the spreadsheet is for the Aether (where the algorithm showed that Maximize was doing better than Empower, unless my algorithm is wrong), and for combining with Empower at 19th and 20th levels.I believe it must be wrong. By the math, if you have +1 from con/overflow for each (2d6 + 2) from the blast, then empower is better. Which is always the case.
Its not a huge difference in damage to be honest, but it does show that maximize is only good to further boost an empowered effect.
Pure aether doesn't get a 2d6+2 composite. They get a (+1) to damage, and a force effect that does the same amount of damage as a simple energy blast. Once you get up to level 15 this changes, but still holds true till then.
The equation still might be wrong, I haven't done the math, but I just wanted to point this out.