I have no issue with that. My issue is with people disliking the class for being too complex when then haven't even read it or say that their flavour doesn't fit fantasy (which I assume they mean "Generic Medieval Fantasy" rather than Fantasy) when they don't seem to have a problem when the same flavour existed since the CRB and Bestiary.Seeing the kineticist in play should be sufficient to determine how complex the class is. Seeing how often people are consistently getting fundamental aspects of the class wrong on the forums should be sufficient to determine how complex the class is.
Also if you see no difference between summoning a ghost and have it as your pet and fighting a ghost then I can only conclude you are choosing to not see the difference. It's for the same reason most people don't allow necromancer PCs in their game walking around with a hoard of skeletons and zombies. It breaks the flavour of the game they want to play.
I just want to say that just because something is oft misunderstood does not mean it is complicated. It could mean it is badly explained. I feel that is the case with the kineticist.
As to the difference between having a ghost as a pet, nobody had issues being able to pick a pseudo Dragon familiar, or an imp, when those are typically monsters/parts of the world.
They are just like ghosts in your example. If someone wants to play someone who talks to ghosts/Is haunted/whatever it makes perfect sense in the setting.
In reply to someone else, the kineticist flavor. I feel the flavor fits perfectly. Take a blaster sorcerer, a kineticist is just a more elementally attuned version of that.
They both have a pool, burn vs spell levels. I find the kineticist is one of the easiest flavors to understand
Fixed that for you.Now quit being a jerk just because I don't understand (or care to understand) Psychic/Psionic classes because they're pointlessly complicated.
I think what vid was asserting is that most people who've actually read them seem to think that the majority are in fact not overly complex with the exception of kineticist and maybe one other.
There seems to be a lot of people simply assuming that they're crazy complex. Dudemeister laid them out extremely simply and yet you barely glanced at his post and reduced it to stuff. It genuinely seems like willful ignorance.
Just because you think they are overly complex doesn't make them that.
I already gave my explanation as to why I think they are.
For example, what are Emotional/Thought components? What's the big difference between them and regular components? Do I have to do those in addition, or are they replacing components? What components do they replace, if any? What is required to fulfill those new components? Do certain effects like Fear or Intelligence Drain mean I can't fulfill them?
Simply saying terms and expecting people to actually understand what those terms are and the ramifications behind them, when they are brand new mechanics that have no similarities to other mechanics in the game, is equally ignorant when they haven't read those abilities or mechanics, almost as if we're assumed to be telepaths that can read minds.
You have to roleplay emotion and thought components. To astral project to a place or time you might have to think of only the target. To project into the next room, you have to close your eyes, plug up your ears, and think yourself into the next room. It sounds like you have trouble more with the concepts then the rules crunch. If you were thinking about food, you might project to the nearest kitchen.
I have a love/hate relationship with this book. In some parts, I agree with Darksol the Painbringer that is seems needlessly complicated. Others I like and seem written well enough.
Kineticist: The class I wanted to like the most but didn't. I just can't stand burn and the layout wasn't very intuitive. [just putting powers by level would've helped] Once you wrap your head around the setup, it's fairly easy to make one up if you're using online help. I still can't bring myself to enjoy one that requires me to punch myself in the face to power up and the alternatives are not very good.
Medium/Occultist: My eyes glaze over every time I try to read through these classes. If you go to the "appropriate location" and have the right thingamajig, I change my class around and get new powers and spells and such... This is where I'm 100% with Darksol because I don't know if I'll ever get the energy together to force myself to digest these classes because I'm having a hard time seeing the reward for doing so.
Mesmerist: An interesting take on a bard/witch type character. It's reliance on mind-affecting effects means it's pretty much forced into taking Psychic Inception as it's 3rd level 'option' unless the game never sees constructs/undead/vermin ect. I'll play one of these soon once I find the right game/character for it.
Psychic: This class leave me with a BIG question... Why is this a class? This would have been just fine as a sorcerer archetype/bloodline or maybe an alternate class. That said, I like the Phrenic Amplifications. I like the Psychic Disciplines but there seems to be a big swing in power and ease of regaining pool points between them.
Spiritualist: Much like Psychic, I'm left to wonder, why is this a class and not an archetype/alternate class of summoner? Unlike the Psychic, I can't see myself opting to play it over it's doppelganger class if it wasn't for the archetypes Ectoplasmatist and Phantom Blade.
Morale of the story some People don't like new things all the time.
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.” -John Lydgate
Really the only thing to do is read it and see if YOU like it.
I just want to say that just because something is oft misunderstood does not mean it is complicated. It could mean it is badly explained. I feel that is the case with the kineticist.
Are you arguing that the kineticist is a simple class that can be quickly adjudicated with no deep understanding of the class's unique abilities? Like I can pick up a barbarian, quickly get told what rage is and I'm good to go. I can do the same for the fighter, after being explained what power attack is. The kineticist does not seem to be as simple as either of these classes. Ergo. it is more complicated then them.
As for imps, they do cause problems and frequently need to shape shift into crows or similar creatures. Pseudodragons are small winged fey creatures that aren't known for being the raw embodiment of anger and hate. The correct parrallels to draw with phantoms are undead creatures. Because that is what they most closely resemble. I've yet to be in a campaign where the necromancer who routinely animated the dead and was not seen as an being an extremely dubious character.
[EDIT]: Also is the point of this thread to discuss why some people dislike OA? Or is it to argue with people and tell them they're wrong for having a subjective opinion on a sourcebook for an RPG? I came into the thread thinking it was the former. But if it's the latter than I'm going to bow out.
I just want to say that just because something is oft misunderstood does not mean it is complicated. It could mean it is badly explained. I feel that is the case with the kineticist.Like I can pick up a barbarian, quickly get told what rage is and I'm good to go. I can do the same for the fighter, after being explained what power attack is.
To be fair, there is a HUGE number of rage powers and combat feats so both can be complicated when it comes to figuring out what to pick, much like the kineticist. Once you've picked out a kineticist abilities, it's pretty simple to run. Blast is pretty much like crossbow and shoot, and SLA's are something not uncommon in the game. Even burn can be figured out at the start of the day and then never looked at. It's just figuring out the abilities that can sometimes be a struggle [for fighter/barbarian or kineticist].
So I'd argue that barbarian/fighter would only be easier at low levels and if someone already picked out their abilities. You start stacking combat feats or rage powers and it not super simple any more; vs, for example, a kineticist with Aerial Adaptation, Air Cushion, and Air Shroud. All the abilities are passive/on you can can be stated out before hand. It's not very hard to play.
|
I’ll bet you most players don’t know that they might die if knocked unconscious while raging when they first try a barbarian. Or forget the -2 penalty to AC while raging. Or know what “rage-cycling” is or how it functions as a tactic.
Barbarians can actually get pretty complicated, I prefer the unchained version myself.
I have about 3 kineticist NPCs that are recurring cast in my Jade Regent game. As NPCs go they’re easier to run than the Cleric or Witch NPCs, because prepared spells are truly complicated to play competently.
|
|
Just my experience, in Carrion Crown I had a pyrokineticist that was literally the simplest character at the table. He loved to set things on fire, and sometimes, he would gather power to set things on fire harder, and in rare occasions he would take points of Burn to set things even more on fire. The player himself was dyslexic, and yet he truly had fun with that character over others he had in the past because it was so simple, just point and shoot.
If we want to talk complexity, the Inquisitor in the group never quite got the hang of his various Judgements, and the Druid started combing all the creatures in the game before just sticking with one cause he said it was too complicated. Conversely, when the pyrokineticist died and was replaced by a Brawler, I just wrote two or three of the better combat feats for him, cause that’s another class that asks for encyclopedic knowledge of the majority of feats.
My point being, Kineticist was darn simple and fun.
As NPCs go they’re easier to run than the Cleric or Witch NPCs, because prepared spells are truly complicated to play competently.
Simpler than 9th level casters does not equate to simple. Nor does choosing another complex class (brawler) make the kineticist simple.
Again, are you looking to understand why people don't like OA or are you looking to argue with people for not liking OA?
Once you do understand the kineticist it's both good and easy, but I can get why people would find that difficult from the book alone. I did. Playing a kineticist from first level when neither you nor the GM know exactly how it works may be an excellent teaching mechanism, but it's also a leap of faith. Not everyone has that degree of faith in a given game company.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once you do understand the kineticist it's both good and easy, but I can get why people would find that difficult from the book alone. I did. Playing a kineticist from first level when neither you nor the GM know exactly how it works may be an excellent teaching mechanism, but it's also a leap of faith. Not everyone has that degree of faith in a given game company.
Archives of nethys does a really nice job listing elements and the wild talents they can take by level. In fact it's so FAR superior to the books/PRD, I wouldn't try to make one without going there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also is the point of this thread to discuss why some people dislike OA? Or is it to argue with people and tell them they're wrong for having a subjective opinion on a sourcebook for an RPG? I came into the thread thinking it was the former. But if it's the latter than I'm going to bow out.
Most of the arguing is people saying objective things about the book as the reason for their subjective opinion, and then others are showing that those objective statements are false.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As NPCs go they’re easier to run than the Cleric or Witch NPCs, because prepared spells are truly complicated to play competently.Simpler than 9th level casters does not equate to simple. Nor does choosing another complex class (brawler) make the kineticist simple.
Again, are you looking to understand why people don't like OA or are you looking to argue with people for not liking OA?
I personally am trying to show people reading this thread that yes, some people don't like them. However people disagree with their reasoning.
I am not trying to convince you it isnt complicated.I am trying to prevent someone who has never looked at OA coming in, reading this thread, and saying "Everyone says they are so complicated so I wont bother."
I feel that is something that needs to be done
The kineticist really isn't complicated, it's blasts are a simple ranged scaling damage attack.
Form infusions change the form that Blast takes, like making it into a blade for example.
Substance Infusions give it rider effects, like alchemists bomb discoveries.
You can spend burn to use these infusions or make it do more damage, spending burn is taking your level in none lethal. Taking more burn makes you more powerful
You also get utility wild talents, which are basically a short list of at will spells and supernatural abilities.
That's pretty much it.
Did they lay out form, substance and wild talents badly? Yep, does that change how complex the class is? No.
The occultist is more difficult I think mostly because resonant powers mean you're likely to have a different stat line from one day to the next and different size resource pool for different powers.
|
|
As NPCs go they’re easier to run than the Cleric or Witch NPCs, because prepared spells are truly complicated to play competently.Simpler than 9th level casters does not equate to simple. Nor does choosing another complex class (brawler) make the kineticist simple.
Again, are you looking to understand why people don't like OA or are you looking to argue with people for not liking OA?
I personally am trying to show people reading this thread that yes, some people don't like them. However people disagree with their reasoning.
I am not trying to convince you it isnt complicated.
I am trying to prevent someone who has never looked at OA coming in, reading this thread, and saying "Everyone says they are so complicated so I wont bother."
I feel that is something that needs to be done
^This^ is the thing, there are always going to be GMs and players who are going to be intimidated by the depth and breadth of content available in what is now a matured game.
I certainly can't stop people from deciding that CRB and APG (or whatever arbitrary book they decide) is all they care to learn and they don't want anything further.
But there have been posters here who dismissed OA out-of-hand due to community opinion, or a bad first impression due to advanced rules who have taken a deeper look at the classes within and found something that they may like.
Not one occult class is more complicated than current fighters to build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not one occult class is more complicated than current fighters to build.
To be fair fighters have some of the most daunting amount of options and build paths ever conceived
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally am trying to show people reading this thread that yes, some people don't like them. However people disagree with their reasoning.
I am not trying to convince you it isnt complicated.
I am trying to prevent someone who has never looked at OA coming in, reading this thread, and saying "Everyone says they are so complicated so I wont bother."
I feel that is something that needs to be done
If we're posting for the benefit of others, here's something else I feel needs to be done then: You're wrong. The kineticist is too complicated for me to want to learn. Anyone whose had similar experiences to me and are at the same point as me when it comes to Pathfinder are also perfectly entitled and correct to think that the kineticist is too complicated to bother learning.
If you introduce enough splat books into the game you can say any class is complicated. Thing is though, the complications have been gradually built up.
Druids are complicated. But when I learned them I was learning the rules and so I didn't mind learning how they worked. There was also one bestiary, so they weren't as complicated. But even then they still demanded a lot of prep work in order to play them. I took the time to do the prep work. Had fun. Haven't played one since.
Wizards are complicated. I played a sorcerer in order to help tone down the complications. Once I learned how to play the sorcerer well, I then turned my sights onto the wizard. Because I could build upon the knowledge I'd gained from the sorcerer, the wizard was much easier for me to learn. As were the other spellcasters. As I got to build upon the knowledge I'd already learned.
Fighters were not particularly complicated with the Core Rulebook. That's when I learned how to play fighters. The amount of complexity that has been added to the fighter class has certainly grown. But it was gradual and piecemeal over 8 years.
Barbarians: same story. They had a number of rage rounds and they had rage powers. Ragecycling has never been something I've actually seen at the table. It's an exploit that has only ever existed online for my little gaming circle of friends. Again, more rage powers have been added, but they were added gradually.
Ranger and Paladin aren't particularly complicated, once you take into account that I can call upon everything I've learned about clerics, druids and fighters and then apply that to the Ranger and Paladin classes.
Witches are also a spellcaster, so their complications have already been lessened because I can apply what I know with the other 9th level CRB classes and apply it to the witch. Hexes were new. But they weren't that much of an additional complication.
So and so forth until we finally reach the kineticist. The kineticist doesn't use spells, but instead uses a different system so my knowledge of spellcasters doesn't help. It's typically not using a weapon or or combat oriented feats as the primary source of it's abilities, so what I've learned with the fighter doesn't really apply either. It doesn't have rages. It doesn't have bardic inspiration. It has entirely brand new mechanics that are completely unique to the kineticist class.
That makes the kineticist far more complicated to learn then yet another spellcaster or yet another martial character. Will a player who is handed every single splatbook produced by Paizo and told to make the best fighter they can struggle with a fighter? Sure. Will they struggle with the kineticist? Yes, perhaps even to less of a degree then they would with a fighter (because the kineticist doesn't have all it's options spread across dozens if not hundreds of books).
But when I say I find the kineticist too complicated. I'm not speaking from the perspective of someone who has never played Pathfinder before and has decided the best way to start is to use every single splatbook. I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who started with only the CRB and has slowly learned the rules over the past 8 years.
Most of the knowledge I've accumulated does not apply to the kineticist. Instead it's rules are wholly unique to the kineticist class. I have no interest in learning the rules when they are presented poorly, appear to consistently be incorrectly applied and ultimately will only ever apply to this one class.
So for that reason, the kineticist is too complicated for me to want to learn or play. So no, you are incorrect to argue that the kineticist is a class that is simple for everyone to learn how to play. And the comparisons you're making demonstrate why you are wrong. You're comparing it to a fighter with a gazillion splatbooks expanding it's options. Or 9th level casters. Or other complicated casters. If someone wants to learn a class's brand new mechanics from a book that (according to people in this thread) does a poor job of explaining the mechanics, they can go right ahead. They'll eventually learn it (especially if they post their understanding online so they can be corrected as to how much they're wrong). But for anyone whose got 8 years of understanding the rules under their belt and doesn't want to have to learn a whole set of extensive new rules just to play one class then they are correct to avoid the kineticist because it is simply too complicated for them.
For me as a newish PFS GM, it's a quality vs. quantity thing. Do I try to gain a minimal understanding of all the PF material that's applicable to PFS, or do I focus on those classes, spells, whatever which seem to be the most commonly used in PFS play. The Occult material just exacerbates this tension. To the degree that I try to understand the Occult classes, I feel that do a poorer job in other areas of my PFS GMing.
I don't think that going Core is a solution as there aren't many Core PFS games around, and I find the Core options to be too limiting.
John Lynch
I am not arguing if it is too complicated or not for you.
I am saying that it is not too complicated if you sit down and actually try and learn how it works.
Instead of trying to learn how every single talent works, learn how the chassis works.
I actually find the chassis works a lot like a barbarian, and a lot like a spell caster.
Elemental Overflow:
I have something I can activate that alters my stats, this is basically rage.
Burn and Gather Power:
I have abilities that cost me health to use. I have an action I take to reduce the cost.
Metakinesis:
I can apply metamagic at a cost.
Internal Buffer:
My own personal pay now instead of later, almost a pearl of power to a spontaneous caster, use at the end of a day when you dont mind taking the extra burn.
Infusion/Composite Specialisation and Metakinetic Master:
Hey, I reduce the cost of the associated thing by 1/more for free every time.
What have I messed in terms of the base chassis?
Maybe selecting an element and the blast types but those are simple enough.
Maybe Infusions and Utility wild talents
Infusions:
Take my 30ft blast and make it something that isnt a 30ft blast.
Utility Wild Talents:
An ability that might cost be burn, if I choose to use it, same as casting a utility spell.
John Lynch
I am not arguing if it is too complicated or not for you.
I am saying that it is not too complicated if you sit down and actually try and learn how it works.
By saying it isn't complicated if you sit down and try, you are arguing with me as to whether it is complicated for me. Because I have sat down. I got part way reading through the class and decided to not continue further because I saw it was going to require more effort than the psychic to get my head around how it worked. FYI: It took me a good while to even bother learning how psychic magic worked. But the effort expended is equally as much as the kineticist requires. So why learn the psychic and not the kineticist? Because once I learned the psychic, I got to apply that effort to 4 classes instead of 1 class.
[high level summary]
Great. I might refer to that post if I ever do decide to take another look at the kineticist. And if someone whose inclined to learn the kineticist gets a benefit from your post, even the more better. But some of those nitty gritty details your overlooking are of course what trips people up constantly. Furthermore you're explanation made it sound like a point based caster. Except it doesn't use spells. And it doesn't have a separate point pool, it uses hit points.
I'd probably be more inclined to learn Ultimate Psionics before I take a look at the kineticist. Why? Because at least those rules apply to more than one class. Why haven't I looked at it before now and likely won't in the foreseeable future? Because it uses a completely different mechanic from spells while replicating spell-like effects and I might as well just stick with spellcasters, especially when Paizo have given me 4 psionic-flavoured spellcasters.
[EDIT]: Just to put things in perspective: I've never bothered learning the inquisitor or the magus because they also looked like complicated classes. I also avoided the summoner for much the same reason. Now I've had some exposure to maguses, inquisitors and summoners. Summoners I dislike for other reasons. Maguses I've been able to learn enough about to feel more comfortable learning the class if I ever want to bother. Inquisitors remain very complicated, but ultimately I'd be inclined to learn one if anyone really wanted to play one. Ask me again in 6-7 years whether or not I'm interested in learning the kineticist and you might get a more favourable answer. For now, I've tried once. Don't have any interest in trying a second time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
John Lynch
That is entirely your prerogative.
I made it sound like a point based caster because for all intents and purposes it is a point based caster.
Its blasts and talents are basically spells, the provoke, cant be used to full attack, etc.
On hit points being the pool it uses.
You have to learn to manage it, yes. The same way you have to learn to manage spell levels on your sorcerer, bombs on your alchemist, smite uses on your paladin, and rage rounds on your barbarian.
The only real difference here is you REALLY don't want to deplete your pool.
I think the difference is that I often look at classes and abstract them into the chassis of another class on an adhoc basis.
I know you said you do this with paladins from fighter and cleric for example.
By my cercumstances I might just find this easier to do with the Kinetecist than you do. That is not a fault, and i apologise if it comes across as that.
I found when I first looked at the Kineticist I was thinking how cool a constant blast sorcerer would be, and read it with that in mind.
I drew the comparisons to spells readily because of this.
I think what also helped me understand the class is when it was released I sat down with my GM and we each made 2 at level 1 and played them at multiple levels to get an idea of how the class functioned.
On your comments earlier about the millions of splat books and such.
I dislike building level 1 clerics, even core only, because of choice paralysis. I find the class complicated to build.
Does that mean the class is complicated? No, it means there are a lot of options and I struggle to make decisions while build them.
I do agree that the splat books and additional books make it a lot harder to build a lot of classes.
I suppose my biggest reason for saying that the Kineticist is not complicated is that it is rather hard to build a completely rubbish one, without say dumping your primary stat. I find it easy to build a good Kineticist
However to build an 'optimal' to 'good' fighter/wizard/cleric/pretty much any class is so much more involved in my experience.
I really like Occult Adventures, I think it's one of the best books Paizo has put out. In our regular home game we have disallowed the Kineticist only, mostly because one of our players (who is usually pretty rules savvy) screwed it up and helped win a tough combat in a high level dungeon with a misinterpretation. I didn't catch it until later. Since then any of us who want to just go 'why am I reading 19 pages of rules for this bozo?' and give up. The Occultist seems more tricky than complicated and just needs one careful reading. The core classes have the advantage of long familiarity, using new archetypes and feats just feel like adding/subtracting building blocks we all know by heart.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By saying it isn't complicated if you sit down and try, you are arguing with me as to whether it is complicated for me. Because I have sat down. I got part way reading through the class and decided to not continue further because I saw it was going to require more effort than the psychic to get my head around how it worked.
Maybe try learning from someplace other than the book? It seems like most posters agrees the book's layout makes understanding the class a magnitude more difficult.
I just want to say that just because something is oft misunderstood does not mean it is complicated. It could mean it is badly explained. I feel that is the case with the kineticist.
Perfect example is magus and spell combat and spell strike. To me it's quite clear and simple, but I've seen SO MANY people and posts getting it all confused. Even people playing a high level magus won't always know how it works and often ignore one to never "need" to actually learn how it works. Yet I don't hear anyone complain that it's too complicated the way they do about the kineticist.
Perfect example is magus and spell combat and spell strike. To me it's quite clear and simple, but I've seen SO MANY people and posts getting it all confused. Even people playing a high level magus won't always know how it works and often ignore one to never "need" to actually learn how it works. Yet I don't hear anyone complain that it's too complicated the way they do about the kineticist.
[EDIT]: Just to put things in perspective: I've never bothered learning the inquisitor or the magus because they also looked like complicated classes. I also avoided the summoner for much the same reason. Now I've had some exposure to maguses, inquisitors and summoners. Summoners I dislike for other reasons. Maguses I've been able to learn enough about to feel more comfortable learning the class if I ever want to bother. Inquisitors remain very complicated, but ultimately I'd be inclined to learn one if anyone really wanted to play one. Ask me again in 6-7 years whether or not I'm interested in learning the kineticist and you might get a more favourable answer. For now, I've tried once. Don't have any interest in trying a second time.
At least I'm consistent. Right?
Perfect example is magus and spell combat and spell strike. To me it's quite clear and simple, but I've seen SO MANY people and posts getting it all confused. Even people playing a high level magus won't always know how it works and often ignore one to never "need" to actually learn how it works. Yet I don't hear anyone complain that it's too complicated the way they do about the kineticist.[EDIT]: Just to put things in perspective: I've never bothered learning the inquisitor or the magus because they also looked like complicated classes. I also avoided the summoner for much the same reason. Now I've had some exposure to maguses, inquisitors and summoners. Summoners I dislike for other reasons. Maguses I've been able to learn enough about to feel more comfortable learning the class if I ever want to bother. Inquisitors remain very complicated, but ultimately I'd be inclined to learn one if anyone really wanted to play one. Ask me again in 6-7 years whether or not I'm interested in learning the kineticist and you might get a more favourable answer. For now, I've tried once. Don't have any interest in trying a second time.At least I'm consistent. Right?
True, though constantly getting scared by classes isn't a good thing. As all of them are simple classes once you spend any real time/effort reading the abilities to know what they do.
lv1 magus can spend swift to make weapon better and can cast a spell and swing as a full round with -2 to all attacks but can't use one hand for anything.
lv2 you can now deliver touch spells with a sword swing.
lv3 this is your "rage powers" type thing.
lv4 is a pearl of power effect, regain a used spell to use again
lv5 is bonus feat and now your pool point can make sword stronger in more ways.
Like something that's this simple intimidates you and is too complicated to be worth figuring out?
lv1 inquisitor picks domain like a cleric but with no spells and can once a day can swift action to have a small boost for a fight, can swift action again afterwards in that same fight to change what the boost does (judgment).
lv2 initiative boost, tracking boost, and at will detect alignment like paladin
lv3 get a teamwork feat that you can use all by yourself
lv4 your judgment from lv1 can be used twice a day
lv5 you can swift action add Bane to your weapon for a few rounds a day and cast detect lies.
What of this was really that complicated, complex, hard to understand or intimidating?
lv1 Kineticist can shoot a SLA blast of the element they choose. Burn is something they acquire from using some of their stuff, they can only have so much of it and it hurts them. pick one infusion that can either alter the form of your blast, or give the blast a cool special effect (used kinda like spontaneous casting and metamagic), may cost 1 burn to use these on a blast. Can spend a move action to reduce burn cost of a blast.
So lv1 you either move and shoot a normal blast, move and take burn to do your special blast, or take a move action to prepare for your special blast burn free.
lv2, get a special defense ability based on element and a new power you can do, may cost burn to use, these can't be reduced.
lv3, another infusion (thing that changes form or adds a special as an option you know) and now your stronger if you have burn
lv4 new utility ability
lv5 gets a new way to modify blast that is even more like metamagic, total infusion cost is reduced by 1.
now your turn is move and shoot a 1 special blast
move and take burn to do a 2 special blast
spend move action preparing and do a 2 special blast burn free
lv6 can spend a burn and store it for using later now, can be even more stronger if you have burn
lv7 new element or a new infusion
sure this one is longer, but that's because I was defining the new words because I'm assuming you are ignorant of what they mean.
The occult classes are great. Never seen them banned, but people and Gms can be particular about what they let into their game. I would guess it's mainly because they're not familiar with the mechanics and don't want to be bothered to learn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda enjoy the complexity in the OC classes.
Medium/Occultist: My eyes glaze over every time I try to read through these classes. If you go to the "appropriate location" and have the right thingamajig, I change my class around and get new powers and spells and such... This is where I'm 100% with Darksol because I don't know if I'll ever get the energy together to force myself to digest these classes because I'm having a hard time seeing the reward for doing so.
Beta Medium was way more complicated and I still regularly ask Mark Seifter if that's coming out as a PDF at any point. Likely not, sadly, but I still want the completed version. It's the first class that made me want to buy supplementary materials (specifically the Harrow Deck) and I could have played the beta Medium by itself for every single game ever because of how many different ways you could build it. It was incredible. Release version Medium basically requires the Relic Channeler archetype with some GMs, and especially for PFS. Most people take it as a 1 level dip.
Occultist has some staggeringly good options that can't be replicated by other classes. Among other things, it remains the only class with the ability to add weapon modifiers on the fly without a restriction list via Legacy Weapon, which can be used on other folks' gear.
Psychic: This class leave me with a BIG question... Why is this a class? This would have been just fine as a sorcerer archetype/bloodline or maybe an alternate class. That said, I like the Phrenic Amplifications. I like the Psychic Disciplines but there seems to be a big swing in power and ease of regaining pool points between them.
I've got my level 20 psychic in PFS and I can safely say that it's a sorcerer with the serial number filed off. The spell list is somewhat different, but the honest truth is that the majority of the "best" spells still come from the CRB.
Spiritualist: Much like Psychic, I'm left to wonder, why is this a class and not an archetype/alternate class of summoner? Unlike the Psychic, I can't see myself opting to play it over it's doppelganger class if it wasn't for the archetypes Ectoplasmatist and Phantom Blade.
Playing an Ectoplasmatist in PFS currently (he's almost 6th level). I think there are some reasons to consider the vanilla option of Spiritualist, but it does feel pretty same-y with the summoner in theme. The spell list differentiates it pretty well, though.
I've never understood that feeling?
They don't wave their arms around and speak in tongues but other than that whats the big difference?
The spiritualist especially fits nicely if you ask me. With the Kineticist being possibly the furthest from the genre?
For me the "big difference" is that they don't fit in thematically. They would fit great in a game world based on 19th century Imperial Europe. My game group's take on Avistan is instead based on a late medevial/early Renaissance fantasy Europe. We don't have androids, comboys or samurai walking around either - because for us it breaks verisimilitude something awful. We don't dislike occult archetypes as such, but there are better games where to play those kind of characters. Ice cream is great, and so are hot dogs, but that does not mean I'll put them together in a blender.
|
I've got my level 20 psychic in PFS and I can safely say that it's a sorcerer with the serial number filed off. The spell list is somewhat different, but the honest truth is that the majority of the "best" spells still come from the CRB.
It really depends on what class you are talking about. Cleric has a few staples i the CRB, but I would argue the best are in everything else besides the core book. Create Demiplane, Blessing of Fervor, Burst of Radiance, Admonishing Ray, Liberating Command, etc. . .
Beta Medium was way more complicated
Oh, I know, I was there. My eyes glazed over then too. Needing to effectively track a 1/2 dozen different sheets is something that doesn't appeal to me, which is part of why it's SO hard for me to try to figure it all out. Editing sheets is something for leveling up not changing days...
It's the first class that made me want to buy supplementary materials
LOL It was the opposite for me. Seeing the playtest made me wonder if I wanted the initial book, let alone more. Add to that the fact that the kineticist, where I was an active playtester, was stuck on keeping burn and I didn't buy the book itself.
Occultist has some staggeringly good options that can't be replicated by other classes. Among other things, it remains the only class with the ability to add weapon modifiers on the fly without a restriction list via Legacy Weapon, which can be used on other folks' gear.
Here too, I've seen what looks like some great options, I just disliked the works Implements gets you focus powers that give you resonant power which might work if you put points in it [or how many] or work until you activate it... Add to that the fact that each one holds part of your spell list and it's a LOT of moving parts just to get to the start.
I understand the class more but it's more of thinking it's more trouble than it's worth. I'd rather get an option almost as good that just 'works': For instance, a magus can do the "add weapon modifiers" without out having to go out of their way to get it and without closing off other options because they wanted THAT ability.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me the "big difference" is that they don't fit in thematically. They would fit great in a game world based on 19th century Imperial Europe. My game group's take on Avistan is instead based on a late medevial/early Renaissance fantasy Europe. We don't have androids, comboys or samurai walking around either - because for us it breaks verisimilitude something awful. We don't dislike occult archetypes as such, but there are better games where to play those kind of characters. Ice cream is great, and so are hot dogs, but that does not mean I'll put them together in a blender.
To me this is really weird considering the psychic classes flavour makes sense from stone age to medeival to modern times....
Kineticist: What part of the kineticist is at all linked to any time period? It's a guy who is a conduit to the elemental planes. If your against that flavour, would you also ban Elemental bloodline sorcerers?
Medium: Guy who taps into legends and stories via a bond with the astral plane. To be honest it's just a more thematic bard but with a focus on tales rather than playing an instrument. The only concept which is actually "Victorian" for the class is the concept of the Astral Plane, but that's been in the game since CRB and no ones seemed to have an issue with it.
Mesmerist: Mind controlling guy.... Seriously? How does the flavour of "I am skilled and messing with peoples minds" not work in medieval times?
Occultist: This class is "Use Magic Device the class", if you're already fine with UMD then obviously the flavour isn't a problem with having it in medieval times.
Psychic: Literally the same flavour as a wizard except they don't need to carry a book around...
Spiritualist: Ghosts have existed since the bestiary, how does having a character who is bonded to a ghost make it suddenly anachronistic? Stories and folk tales about dead spirits throughout all the ages have a tendency to bond with an object or person to anchor themselves. It's just the name spiritualist that's the only victorian aspect.
I've got my level 20 psychic in PFS and I can safely say that it's a sorcerer with the serial number filed off. The spell list is somewhat different, but the honest truth is that the majority of the "best" spells still come from the CRB.
I readily admit I am surprised here. On paper both classes are significantly different:
Casting: (Usually) Cha based vs. Int based and a secondary mental stat for special abilities
Ability uses per day: Indidivual uses per power vs. point pool
Phrenic amplificiations: Nothing vs. new concept
Spell-like abilities: Nothing vs. a few of them
Bloodlines and disciplines: Defining class feature vs. only half as much (disciplines have no capstone, for example)
I skipped the similarities and the things you can pick up with psychic bloodline, such as components and undercasting.
Playing scenario now where one of the people is playing a medium. Without going into all the details, it seems
a) very OP
b) but impossible for us or GM to be sure without spending an hour or so to try and understand build
Giving me very bad taste regarding occult classes.
LOL It was the opposite for me. Seeing the playtest made me wonder if I wanted the initial book, let alone more. Add to that the fact that the kineticist, where I was an active playtester, was stuck on keeping burn and I didn't buy the book itself.Out of interest, graystone, what is it about Burn you're not keen on?
Pretty much EVERYTHING about incurable hp damage on a high Con character. I have an extreme dislike for having to punch myself in the face to 'power up'. SO pretty much the fact that the feature exists at all. You can look around at the 3pp to find dozens of palatable ways to work burn but they went the unstoppable non-lethal damage route...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got my level 20 psychic in PFS and I can safely say that it's a sorcerer with the serial number filed off. The spell list is somewhat different, but the honest truth is that the majority of the "best" spells still come from the CRB.I readily admit I am surprised here. On paper both classes are significantly different:
Casting: (Usually) Cha based vs. Int based and a secondary mental stat for special abilities
Ability uses per day: Indidivual uses per power vs. point pool
Phrenic amplificiations: Nothing vs. new concept
Spell-like abilities: Nothing vs. a few of them
Bloodlines and disciplines: Defining class feature vs. only half as much (disciplines have no capstone, for example)I skipped the similarities and the things you can pick up with psychic bloodline, such as components and undercasting.
I linked Mickey upthread, too, but here he is again. I understand how one might think they appear different, but...
Casting: Sage Arcane bloodline exists for Sorcerers to play as Int-based and Psychic bloodline allows you to swap components. They're mutually exclusive, but either results in a generically stronger spell list with one or the other flavor covered.
Ability uses: You'd be surprised how infrequently you use your Phrenic Pool because it is significantly limited by your secondary stat. Most common uses: Will of the Dead, followed by Relentless Casting.
SLAs: Never used Detect Thoughts (literally ever, may as well not have been on the sheet) and, while Telepathic Bond was frequently used, I could have taken it as a spell if I wanted.
Bloodline vs Discipline: they're roughly equal in definition, really. Bonus spells are one of the main reasons to select a particular one in either case, but the abilities you get from each also provide a framework for the character. The Psychic's capstone is generically good while the Bloodlines are more specific, but I had just as much definition from Warped Brain and Hallucinogenic Aura as one might expect from comparable Bloodline powers.
I mean, honestly, I picked psychic for 2 reasons:
1. I had 7 levels of GM credit floating and wanted a strong character to play upper level content with and
2. It was the HOT NEW 9-LEVEL CASTER that also let me make a million drug jokes.
There were a couple very exciting additions to my spells known for being a psychic that I still could have picked up 1 spell level later on a wiz/sorc (Mind Blank, Greater Object Possession, etc.), but so much of the character's career was really defined by doing all the things a wizard would be doing a level earlier.
Pretty much EVERYTHING about incurable hp damage on a high Con character. I have an extreme dislike for having to punch myself in the face to 'power up'. SO pretty much the fact that the feature exists at all. You can look around at the 3pp to find dozens of palatable ways to work burn but they went the unstoppable non-lethal damage route...LOL It was the opposite for me. Seeing the playtest made me wonder if I wanted the initial book, let alone more. Add to that the fact that the kineticist, where I was an active playtester, was stuck on keeping burn and I didn't buy the book itself.Out of interest, graystone, what is it about Burn you're not keen on?
I mean, I've kind of been tempted to make ULTIMATE WILL SAVE DUMP a thing in PFS...
|
Playing scenario now where one of the people is playing a medium. Without going into all the details, it seems
a) very OP
b) but impossible for us or GM to be sure without spending an hour or so to try and understand build
Giving me very bad taste regarding occult classes.
Having played with a medium several times before, I'm highly curious what aspect of them you found OP?
Playing scenario now where one of the people is playing a medium. Without going into all the details, it seems
a) very OP
b) but impossible for us or GM to be sure without spending an hour or so to try and understand build
Giving me very bad taste regarding occult classes.
Having played with a medium several times before, I'm highly curious what aspect of them you found OP?
He’s a 3rd lvl grippli with 14 str who just did 22 points of melee damage.
|
|
He’s a 3rd lvl grippli with 14 str who just did 22 points of melee damage.Playing scenario now where one of the people is playing a medium. Without going into all the details, it seems
a) very OP
b) but impossible for us or GM to be sure without spending an hour or so to try and understand build
Giving me very bad taste regarding occult classes.
Having played with a medium several times before, I'm highly curious what aspect of them you found OP?
Yeah, that has nothing to do with being a medium. I'm not even sure how that's possible to be honest. The only spirit that gives you a damage bonus on melee attacks at that level is the champion. And it's only a +2.
|
Yeah, that has nothing to do with being a medium. I'm not even sure how that's possible to be honest. The only spirit that gives you a damage bonus on melee attacks at that level is the champion. And it's only a +2.He’s a 3rd lvl grippli with 14 str who just did 22 points of melee damage.Playing scenario now where one of the people is playing a medium. Without going into all the details, it seems
a) very OP
b) but impossible for us or GM to be sure without spending an hour or so to try and understand build
Giving me very bad taste regarding occult classes.
Having played with a medium several times before, I'm highly curious what aspect of them you found OP?
The only thing I understood about the Medium, is how the Seance ability and the Spirit Bonus ability work. In case of the Champion Spirit, the Seance grants the Medium a +2 on damage with non-spell damage. And the Spirit Bonus gives a +1 on attack rolls and Non-Spell damage (next to strength based checks). So 1 level of Medium gives a +1 on to hit and +3 on non-spell damage.
Considering the Griplli might have a Twohander (let's say a Greatsword), one can have the following maximum damage output: 10 (small greatsword) + 3 (14 strength twohanded) + 3 (Power Attack) + 2 (Seance) + 1 (Spirit Bonus) = +19 damage. (all without prebuffing)
The most likely thing is that he took 1 or 2 lvl's of Medium (Champion Spirit) and a lvl in either Barbarian or Bloodrager (most likely the latter). Raising the strength score of 14 towards 18 while raging adds the missing 3 damage if a twohander is wielded.
I have seen this dip before on a human Bloodrager, the results aren't pretty...
I mean, I've kind of been tempted to make ULTIMATE WILL SAVE DUMP a thing in PFS...Pretty much EVERYTHING about incurable hp damage on a high Con character. I have an extreme dislike for having to punch myself in the face to 'power up'. SO pretty much the fact that the feature exists at all. You can look around at the 3pp to find dozens of palatable ways to work burn but they went the unstoppable non-lethal damage route...LOL It was the opposite for me. Seeing the playtest made me wonder if I wanted the initial book, let alone more. Add to that the fact that the kineticist, where I was an active playtester, was stuck on keeping burn and I didn't buy the book itself.Out of interest, graystone, what is it about Burn you're not keen on?
I know what you mean. For me, it's a much more palatable option as it can be offset; It's also ridiculously easy to get +10 on mind-affecting saves at 1st...
I’m not the GM, and yes, the grippli is using a great sword. He has the fiend keeper archetype.