[RAW] Kineticists's gather power


Rules Questions

Sovereign Court

Hi,

I've been reading the kineticist gather power class ability and it occured to me that the wording is not very clear on something.

PRD wrote:
Gather Power (Su): If she has both hands free (or all of her prehensile appendages free, for unusual kineticists), a kineticist can gather energy or elemental matter as a move action. Gathering power creates an extremely loud, visible display in a 20-foot radius centered on the kineticist, as the energy or matter swirls around her. Gathering power in this way allows the kineticist to reduce the total burn cost of a blast wild talent she uses in the same round by 1 point. The kineticist can instead gather power for 1 full round in order to reduce the total burn cost of a blast wild talent used on her next turn by 2 points (to a minimum of 0 points). If she does so, she can also gather power as a move action during her next turn to reduce the burn cost by a total of 3 points. If the kineticist takes damage during or after gathering power and before using the kinetic blast that releases it, she must succeed at a concentration check (DC = 10 + damage taken + effective spell level of her kinetic blast) or lose the energy in a wild surge that forces her to accept a number of points of burn equal to the number of points by which her gathered power would have reduced the burn cost. This ability can never reduce the burn cost of a wild talent below 0 points.

It seems clear that the intend is that by gathering power for a full turn, you either benefit from a -2 or a -3 on your next round, depending on whether you also sacrifice a move action.

However, the way this is worded, I think you could argue that you can in fact benefit from both, on different kinetic blasts. This would naturally require to quicken one of those, which is possible. Say for instance : 1/ gather power for a full turn, 2/ use a blast wild talent for -2 burn, 3/ gather power as a move action, 4/ use a quickened blast wilt talent for -3 burn (=0 with the quicken cost).

I'm aware that no sane GM would allow this, but is there anything RAW that forbids it?

Silver Crusade

No, there is nothing in RAW that forbids is and I have never encountered a GM that wouldn't allow it.

Kineticist seem super powerful but when you track their average damage next to a dedicated blaster caster they track pretty even if not just slightly behind the curve of what a dedicated full caster can do. They lack the versatility of most casters and while they have a lot of hit points and can wear armor, they are trading full rounds and/or other actions for their power boosts or nonlethal damage that only goes away with 8 hours of rest which can make them deceptively fragile come a difficult fight.


Personally, I disagree. It refers to A Blast Wild Talent. Not ALL. A means singular. I think it is fairly clear that Gather Power effects a single Blast based on the very simple choice to say A Talent, nor All Talents.


Yeah every instance of "reduce the burn cost" is in reference to "Gathering power in this way allows the kineticist to reduce the total burn cost of a blast wild talent". Once you've used the talent that you gathered power for, the power you gathered is gone.


The big issue is the wording that says, "if you gathered last round you can spend a move to gather energy to 3" Because it didn't think of expending your charge before doing the move to gather and doesn't say increase or anything.


"Reduce by a total of 3" is the wording. I think it is pretty clear that it is meaning that you spend a full round, then a move, then Blast. Either way nothing about that changes the fact that you can effect A Blast, not ALL Blasts.

Sovereign Court

Lunaramblings wrote:
"Reduce by a total of 3" is the wording. I think it is pretty clear that it is meaning that you spend a full round, then a move, then Blast. Either way nothing about that changes the fact that you can effect A Blast, not ALL Blasts.

Nobody said you could effect all blasts.

But since nothing in the "if you gathered last round" sentence that Chess Pwn highlighted says that it is instead of the benefit for just one round of gathering, you could first take it (on A blast) then apply the sentence and gain it's benefit on another blast. (still, not all blast, just 2).

Now that is probably not the intention but, alas, that is what the wording they used implies.


The ability clearly effects only A SINGLE BLAST per use. It states directly A Burst Wild Talent. A means single. Not multiple. For it to effect more than a single burst it wouldn't refer to A, as in the singular. The sentence does nothing to change that you are effecting a single blast, it simply is changing by how much you are effecting it.


The idea is you full round and have 2 charges, then blast and expend all those charges.
But then, since you charged last round it says spend a move action to charge to have 3 charges, so you move action charge for 3 charges and then blast and expend those charges.

The loophole is that the full action charge when to 1 blast, and the move action charge went to another blast, but the wording lets you SUPER charge with that move action rather than normal charge like normal. Like the RAI is obviously that if you have energy gathered you can move action charge to increase that by 1. But what's written can easily support the view that since you charged last round a move action charge gets you 3 charges regardless of how many you had before the move action charge.


Lunaramblings wrote:
The ability clearly effects only A SINGLE BLAST per use. It states directly A Burst Wild Talent. A means single. Not multiple. For it to effect more than a single burst it wouldn't refer to A, as in the singular. The sentence does nothing to change that you are effecting a single blast, it simply is changing by how much you are effecting it.

No charge is being applied to more than 1 blast. How about actually reading what we're saying rather than thinking you know what we're saying.

You full round charge and have 2 charges, you expend those charges on a single blast and they are gone. We are no longer using the charges from the full round charge at all in the future.
Then after my blast that expended all my charges I move action gather to start a new gather energy pool, and this move action charge amount is in no way using or referencing the 2 expended charges from the full round charge. Now the loophole is that the wording says that since I full round charged last round when I move action gather this turn I end with 3 charges. So that move action give a full 3 charges since I started with 0 and I need to end with 3 since that's what it says it ends at. Now with my new charges I apply them to a quickened blast that no way tied to the other blast being completely separate and not using any of the charges I gain last round and already used this round.


I guess if you ignore the obvious meaning of words and ignore the obvious intent you can pervert it that way. However, if you want to pervert it that far I would argue we are still then talking about the same Singular burst, which you have already fired off and so the rest is wasted.


Lunaramblings wrote:
I guess if you ignore the obvious meaning of words and ignore the obvious intent you can pervert it that way. However, if you want to pervert it that far I would argue we are still then talking about the same Singular burst, which you have already fired off and so the rest is wasted.

What obvious meaning of words are being ignored?

How would you try to argue that gathering energy after expending the energy from a different gather energy is the same gather energy?

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As Lunaramblings says, the key words here are "also" and "total"

Quote:
If she does so, she can also gather power as a move action during her next turn to reduce the burn cost by a total of 3 points.

Also indicates you are using them together, and total indicates that you are totaling up the 2 from full round with the 1 from move action.

Of course, like many other lines of text, if you are looking to get a different reading hard enough, I'm sure you can do it. It's one of the many quirks of a text-based medium, and, as usual, it's based on an anaphoric reference.


The ability refers to a SINGULAR BLAST to be effected. It clearly is written to mean that you spend a full round, then if you then take a move action after, you increase the benefit to that SINGULAR blast. If you want to argue you can get the full benefit by using that singular blast then taking the move, fine, but the blast to which you are attempting to Gather for has already been expended. There is nothing in the ability to suggest that it should effect anything but A Wild Talent Blast, A meaning 1. You can divorce the sentences and pervert their meaning, but if you read the whole thing using logic, it is clearly referring to only a, one, single Blast.


Mark Seifter wrote:
As Lunaramblings says, the key words here are "also" and "total"
Quote:
If she does so, she can also gather power as a move action during her next turn to reduce the burn cost by a total of 3 points.

Also indicates you are using them together, and total indicates that you are totaling up the 2 from full round with the 1 from move action.

Of course, like many other lines of text, if you are looking to get a different reading hard enough, I'm sure you can do it. It's one of the many quirks of a text-based medium, and, as usual, it's based on an anaphoric reference.

Hmm... Good point, the "also" and "total" are superfluous if not there for a purpose, which would indicate that it should have a meaning for being there (since every word may count in word-count right) so that lends to it providing the link to the previous charge and requiring it to be a continuous charge.

Now I'm pretty sure that we (I know at least for me) had no intentions of thinking it was the rule, just this made for a fun exercise of does the wording actually support this view.

Designer

Chess Pwn wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
As Lunaramblings says, the key words here are "also" and "total"
Quote:
If she does so, she can also gather power as a move action during her next turn to reduce the burn cost by a total of 3 points.

Also indicates you are using them together, and total indicates that you are totaling up the 2 from full round with the 1 from move action.

Of course, like many other lines of text, if you are looking to get a different reading hard enough, I'm sure you can do it. It's one of the many quirks of a text-based medium, and, as usual, it's based on an anaphoric reference.

Hmm... Good point, the "also" and "total" are superfluous if not there for a purpose, which would indicate that it should have a meaning for being there (since every word may count in word-count right) so that lends to it providing the link to the previous charge and requiring it to be a continuous charge.

Now I'm pretty sure that we (I know at least for me) had no intentions of thinking it was the rule, just this made for a fun exercise of does the wording actually support this view.

I can't say that every word is precious in every book on every page, but I can say with certainty, even almost three years out, that I would have cut any word I could from kineticist if it could fit me more wild talents. That was a tricky copyfit!


Lunaramblings wrote:
The ability refers to a SINGULAR BLAST to be effected. It clearly is written to mean that you spend a full round, then if you then take a move action after, you increase the benefit to that SINGULAR blast. If you want to argue you can get the full benefit by using that singular blast then taking the move, fine, but the blast to which you are attempting to Gather for has already been expended. There is nothing in the ability to suggest that it should effect anything but A Wild Talent Blast, A meaning 1. You can divorce the sentences and pervert their meaning, but if you read the whole thing using logic, it is clearly referring to only a, one, single Blast.

Your issue is you were arguing from a point of making this fit into the rules, the "logical" outcome, and having it work as intended. Because as we've pointed there was plenty there to give the impression that it worked. Mark did a good job pointing out how the wording prevents the move action from working independently as it's own charge affecting its own separate singular blast.

You've failed to show how our approach of two separate gather energies were somehow being applied to the same blast.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Lunaramblings wrote:
The ability refers to a SINGULAR BLAST to be effected. It clearly is written to mean that you spend a full round, then if you then take a move action after, you increase the benefit to that SINGULAR blast. If you want to argue you can get the full benefit by using that singular blast then taking the move, fine, but the blast to which you are attempting to Gather for has already been expended. There is nothing in the ability to suggest that it should effect anything but A Wild Talent Blast, A meaning 1. You can divorce the sentences and pervert their meaning, but if you read the whole thing using logic, it is clearly referring to only a, one, single Blast.

Your issue is you were arguing from a point of making this fit into the rules, the "logical" outcome, and having it work as intended. Because as we've pointed there was plenty there to give the impression that it worked. Mark did a good job pointing out how the wording prevents the move action from working independently as it's own charge affecting its own separate singular blast.

You've failed to show how our approach of two separate gather energies were somehow being applied to the same blast.

My initial point was exactly what Mark said.

Secondarily I pointed out that if you wanted to take a very pedantic reading and try to shift around the intention of the words, that one would also have to contend that the ability only effect A WILD BLAST TALENT. Meaning it can only effect one. I was intentionally bending words in the same way you and others were. But, as Mark and I as well as possiblecabbage all pointed out, if you read the ability in it's entirety, using common sense English understanding, then clearly what was being suggested doesn't work.


Mark Seifter wrote:
I can't say that every word is precious in every book on every page, but I can say with certainty, even almost three years out, that I would have cut any word I could from kineticist if it could fit me more wild talents. That was a tricky copyfit!

unrelated:
here I would love some unofficial insight on this, if you have any since it was recently FAQed. I'm kinda at a loss figuring out which view was intended since both seems to have good support.

Designer

Chess Pwn wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I can't say that every word is precious in every book on every page, but I can say with certainty, even almost three years out, that I would have cut any word I could from kineticist if it could fit me more wild talents. That was a tricky copyfit!
** spoiler omitted **

Have seen the thread, but not deeply conversant in the class enough to answer it well.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lunaramblings wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Lunaramblings wrote:
The ability refers to a SINGULAR BLAST to be effected. It clearly is written to mean that you spend a full round, then if you then take a move action after, you increase the benefit to that SINGULAR blast. If you want to argue you can get the full benefit by using that singular blast then taking the move, fine, but the blast to which you are attempting to Gather for has already been expended. There is nothing in the ability to suggest that it should effect anything but A Wild Talent Blast, A meaning 1. You can divorce the sentences and pervert their meaning, but if you read the whole thing using logic, it is clearly referring to only a, one, single Blast.

Your issue is you were arguing from a point of making this fit into the rules, the "logical" outcome, and having it work as intended. Because as we've pointed there was plenty there to give the impression that it worked. Mark did a good job pointing out how the wording prevents the move action from working independently as it's own charge affecting its own separate singular blast.

You've failed to show how our approach of two separate gather energies were somehow being applied to the same blast.

My initial point was exactly what Mark said.

Secondarily I pointed out that if you wanted to take a very pedantic reading and try to shift around the intention of the words, that one would also have to contend that the ability only effect A WILD BLAST TALENT. Meaning it can only effect one. I was intentionally bending words in the same way you and others were. But, as Mark and I as well as possiblecabbage all pointed out, if you read the ability in it's entirety, using common sense English understanding, then clearly what was being suggested doesn't work.

They were trying to do something a little different: rather than Full gather + move gather + use several blasts with the same gather's -3, they were looking to Full gather + Blast (-2) + move gather + other blast (-3). It takes slightly different portions of the text to counterindicate that.


For what it's worth, I could see something like a feat in a future player companion that allows the Kineticist to gather power for a blast and a quickened blast at the same time by using a full-round and a move action. In my experience, Kineticists rarely use the "full round gather power" unless they are absolutely certain they are safe, since failing a concentration check and eating 2 burn is really, really bad, so encouraging people to do this more wouldn't be terrible.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I can't say that every word is precious in every book on every page, but I can say with certainty, even almost three years out, that I would have cut any word I could from kineticist if it could fit me more wild talents. That was a tricky copyfit!
** spoiler omitted **
Have seen the thread, but not deeply conversant in the class enough to answer it well.

Dang, I was hopeful that it would have come up when talking about the correction for the FAQ. Oh well guess I'd need to just plan as per limited and be pleasantly surprised when a GM allows all for now.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / [RAW] Kineticists's gather power All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.