| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m not sure what you want.
This is the rules forum, for discussing how the existing rules work.
You say your intention is for Kineticists to be able to lower their damage. There is exactly one way to do this easily- Aether can lower their blast damage dramatically in order to use the properties of the thrown item. There are several ways to invest in similar effects- certain infusions or archetypes provide lower damage blasts, and there are ways to get nonlethal damage. Positive energy blasts do no damage at all to living commoners.
You’re suggesting a reasonable enough house rule, but that’s something for the homebrew forums. There isn’t really a good way to get it incorporated as official rules, though. It can’t be edited in to the Kineticist rules, so it’d have to be something you take: a feat, a trait, or an archetype.
|
I’m not sure what you want.
This is the rules forum, for discussing how the existing rules work.
You say your intention is for Kineticists to be able to lower their damage. There is exactly one way to do this easily- Aether can lower their blast damage dramatically in order to use the properties of the thrown item. There are several ways to invest in similar effects- certain infusions or archetypes provide lower damage blasts, and there are ways to get nonlethal damage. Positive energy blasts do no damage at all to living commoners.
You’re suggesting a reasonable enough house rule, but that’s something for the homebrew forums. There isn’t really a good way to get it incorporated as official rules, though. It can’t be edited in to the Kineticist rules, so it’d have to be something you take: a feat, a trait, or an archetype.
Up to until the post about Kinetic Blasts having an Effective Spell Level, I was discussing how the existing rules worked.
did you not read my last post, did you not read the suggested Errata I made? Not hard for someone who has read the entire thread to gleam what can be done from there. Here, Just take this and repurpose it for a FAQ. Sorry I made an example, thought it would make things simpler.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Up to until the post about Kinetic Blasts having an Effective Spell Level, I was discussing how the existing rules worked.
did you not read my last post, did you not read the suggested Errata I made? Not hard for someone who has read the entire thread to gleam what can be done from there. Here, Just take this and repurpose it for a FAQ. Sorry I made an example, thought it would make things simpler.
The fact that you'd need Errata to make it align with what you want means that the rules don't support that reading. No one is trying to attack you, we are trying to explain to you why it doesn't work the way you want it to. We've quoted the rules, given all the arguments, and more, but it's still not enough apparently.
I'm going to bow out of this as the answer has been stated a dozen times. And there is no point continuing it again and again. I wish you luck on getting the Errata you want Mars, but please take a breather. Grab a cup of cocoa and please stop viewing every post as daggers trying to enter your spleen.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whats this? a rules citation that doesn't parallel my own and just straight up say No this doesn't work because they are different things. When I have Pointed out that they are the same thing.also of importance, in the paragraphs just above burn definition (Occult adventure, P11):
* Kinetic blast and defense wild talents are always considered to have an effective spell level equal to 1/2 the kineticist’s class level (to
a maximum effective spell level of 9th at kineticist level 18th).this means that even if CL had an impact and you could lower it, you could not lower it to a point where damage would be reduced...
You've not pointed out they are the same thing because all the rules say they aren't the same thing. Since they are different they don't work like you're thinking. That's why everyone is saying they don't understand why you don't get it then you insult them for being slow when you're the one that needs to realize you haven't proven anything for your view but everything for ours.
|
|
Up to until the post about Kinetic Blasts having an Effective Spell Level, I was discussing how the existing rules worked.
did you not read my last post, did you not read the suggested Errata I made? Not hard for someone who has read the entire thread to gleam what can be done from there. Here, Just take this and repurpose it for a FAQ. Sorry I made an example, thought it would make things simpler.
The fact that you'd need Errata to make it align with what you want means that the rules don't support that reading. No one is trying to attack you, we are trying to explain to you why it doesn't work the way you want it to. We've quoted the rules, given all the arguments, and more, but it's still not enough apparently.
I'm going to bow out of this as the answer has been stated a dozen times. And there is no point continuing it again and again. I wish you luck on getting the Errata you want Mars, but please take a breather. Grab a cup of cocoa and please stop viewing every post as daggers trying to enter your spleen.
In this post, I have already Conceded that it doesn't work, because someone cited a rule. I was RELIEVED when someone finally did that. Instead of pointing at the same thing I did and just saying "that's not how it works" when I explained why it does within the rules. Just because you agree that they're right in saying I'm wrong doesn't mean I didn't make the effort to point out why I am right.
It's weird people think I feel attacked, just Irritated that their post has no rules citation that proves me wrong. Which it didn't, everything I cited up to that point, was right, effective Spell Level is part of the rules I cited up to that Point. If not for that, you could lower Kineticists Blasts Damage by the rules. Sorry I didn't think of Kinetic Blasts effective spell level sooner, shame because this was fun.
EDIT: got me there TOZ. Still right though ;p
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Val'bryn2 sorry I'd delete it but i cant anymore. I apologize, I just feel attacked because everyone else isnt seeing the lines I've draw out for them and it looked to me like it was because of what Mark said.
There's also your constant talking down to everyone, demanding they actually read your posts, accuse them of failing to comprehend your words, and worshipping the developer. I know I won't be able to take any further discussions with you seriously until you stop lashing out like that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If not for that, you could lower Kineticists Blasts Damage by the rules.
No, the rules do not support the kineticist lowering their damage on their blast. That's what everyone is trying to explain for you as you seemingly ignore their points, berate people for not agreeing with your wrong views, and just spam your same points that have already been refuted.
EDIT:
Say there's a first level spell, "do 5 damage". And it does 5 damage to a target. From 1 to 20 this spells does 5 damage meaning that the caster level of the spell has no bearing on the damage it's doing since it's not based on the caster level.
Now let's say there's a spell that says "does 5 damage per int mod", if your int is 16 and never changes then it does 15 damage all levels regardless of caster levels. If at lv15 you buy a +6 headband then it'll jump to 30 damage, but the caster level of the spell doesn't change the damage of this spell, CL 1 or 20 does the same damage.
These are examples that follow the kineticist where they reference their kineticist level for their damage, meaning that the caster level of the blast doesn't do anything to the damage of the blast.
|
|
@Val'bryn2 sorry I'd delete it but i cant anymore. I apologize, I just feel attacked because everyone else isnt seeing the lines I've draw out for them and it looked to me like it was because of what Mark said.There's also your constant talking down to everyone, demanding they actually read your posts, accuse them of failing to comprehend your words, and worshipping the developer. I know I won't be able to take any further discussions with you seriously until you stop lashing out like that.
I'm only human, its hard to take all my emotions out of the equation. Sorry If I offended anybody, I'll apologize again for the Dev Worship again, as that was wholly uncalled for.
EDIT: got me there TOZ. Still right though ;pYeah, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Speaking from experience, that line of argument fails around here.
I Agree.
EDIT: are you and TriOmegZero the same person? because I shortened TriOmegaZeros name earlier to TOZ and I don't want there to be any confusion on who I was mentioning there, Which was TriOmegaZero.
(sorry i like linking stuff like that)
|
|
If not for that, you could lower Kineticists Blasts Damage by the rules.No, the rules do not support the kineticist lowering their damage on their blast. That's what everyone is trying to explain for you as you seemingly ignore their points, berate people for not agreeing with your wrong views, and just spam your same points that have already been refuted.
EDIT:
Say there's a first level spell, "do 5 damage". And it does 5 damage to a target. From 1 to 20 this spells does 5 damage meaning that the caster level of the spell has no bearing on the damage it's doing since it's not based on the caster level.Now let's say there's a spell that says "does 5 damage per int mod", if your int is 16 and never changes then it does 15 damage all levels regardless of caster levels. If at lv15 you buy a +6 headband then it'll jump to 30 damage, but the caster level of the spell doesn't change the damage of this spell, CL 1 or 20 does the same damage.
These are examples that follow the kineticist where they reference their kineticist level for their damage, meaning that the caster level of the blast doesn't do anything to the damage of the blast.
This is potentially wrong, I think the answer is 35 damage, as any caster class based off INT would reasonably put their +1 to ability score at every 4th, 8th, and 12th level into INT. making their INT Score a 25 thus making their spells damage a 35. Its only potentially wrong because they could have put it into other stats for some weird reason. Not everyone is a Min-Maxer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is potentially wrong, I think the answer is 35 damage, as any caster class based off INT would reasonably put their +1 to ability score at every 4th, 8th, and 12th level into INT. making their INT Score a 25 thus making their spells damage a 35. It's only potentially wrong because they could have put it into other stats for some weird reason. Not everyone is a Min-Maxer.If not for that, you could lower Kineticists Blasts Damage by the rules.No, the rules do not support the kineticist lowering their damage on their blast. That's what everyone is trying to explain for you as you seemingly ignore their points, berate people for not agreeing with your wrong views, and just spam your same points that have already been refuted.
EDIT:
Say there's a first level spell, "do 5 damage". And it does 5 damage to a target. From 1 to 20 this spells does 5 damage meaning that the caster level of the spell has no bearing on the damage it's doing since it's not based on the caster level.Now let's say there's a spell that says "does 5 damage per int mod", if your int is 16 and never changes then it does 15 damage all levels regardless of caster levels. If at lv15 you buy a +6 headband then it'll jump to 30 damage, but the caster level of the spell doesn't change the damage of this spell, CL 1 or 20 does the same damage.
These are examples that follow the kineticist where they reference their kineticist level for their damage, meaning that the caster level of the blast doesn't do anything to the damage of the blast.
This is why it seems your ignoring people's posts.
1st, the point wasn't the damage of this spells but the point to show that if damage isn't CL based then changing the CL doesn't change the damage.2nd, What part of "16 and never changes" and "with +6 headband" was hard to understand for the examples?
|
|
This is potentially wrong, I think the answer is 35 damage, as any caster class based off INT would reasonably put their +1 to ability score at every 4th, 8th, and 12th level into INT. making their INT Score a 25 thus making their spells damage a 35. It's only potentially wrong because they could have put it into other stats for some weird reason. Not everyone is a Min-Maxer.If not for that, you could lower Kineticists Blasts Damage by the rules.No, the rules do not support the kineticist lowering their damage on their blast. That's what everyone is trying to explain for you as you seemingly ignore their points, berate people for not agreeing with your wrong views, and just spam your same points that have already been refuted.
EDIT:
Say there's a first level spell, "do 5 damage". And it does 5 damage to a target. From 1 to 20 this spells does 5 damage meaning that the caster level of the spell has no bearing on the damage it's doing since it's not based on the caster level.Now let's say there's a spell that says "does 5 damage per int mod", if your int is 16 and never changes then it does 15 damage all levels regardless of caster levels. If at lv15 you buy a +6 headband then it'll jump to 30 damage, but the caster level of the spell doesn't change the damage of this spell, CL 1 or 20 does the same damage.
These are examples that follow the kineticist where they reference their kineticist level for their damage, meaning that the caster level of the blast doesn't do anything to the damage of the blast.
This is why it seems your ignoring people's posts.
1st, the point wasn't the damage of this spells but the point to show that if damage isn't CL based then changing the CL doesn't change the damage.2nd, What part of "16 and never changes" and "with +6 headband" was hard to understand for the examples?
the fact that directly following you changed it by giving them a Headband of +6 which made the 16 a 22. That's a change in numbers, I don't know why you thought it wasn't, but I did. Sorry, your example is Confusing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it confusing?
If you have a 16 int and never changes do X
Now if I add 6 do Y
What about this is confusing to you?
EDIT:
Not to mention you're still avoiding the actual point of the post. That this shows why a kineticist's damage isn't CL dependant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Up to until the post about Kinetic Blasts having an Effective Spell Level, I was discussing how the existing rules worked.
did you not read my last post, did you not read the suggested Errata I made? Not hard for someone who has read the entire thread to gleam what can be done from there. Here, Just take this and repurpose it for a FAQ. Sorry I made an example, thought it would make things simpler.
The fact that you'd need Errata to make it align with what you want means that the rules don't support that reading. No one is trying to attack you, we are trying to explain to you why it doesn't work the way you want it to. We've quoted the rules, given all the arguments, and more, but it's still not enough apparently.
I'm going to bow out of this as the answer has been stated a dozen times. And there is no point continuing it again and again. I wish you luck on getting the Errata you want Mars, but please take a breather. Grab a cup of cocoa and please stop viewing every post as daggers trying to enter your spleen.
In this post, I have already Conceded that it doesn't work, because someone cited a rule. I was RELIEVED when someone finally did that. Instead of pointing at the same thing I did and just saying "that's not how it works" when I explained why it does within the rules. Just because you agree that they're right in saying I'm wrong doesn't mean I didn't make the effort to point out why I am right.
It's weird people think I feel attacked, just Irritated that their post has no rules citation that proves me wrong. Which it didn't, everything I cited up to that point, was right, effective Spell Level is part of the rules I cited up to that Point. If not for that, you could lower Kineticists Blasts Damage by the rules. Sorry I didn't think of...
I find it hilarious that a post regard effective spell levels, which have no bearing on Kinetic Blast damage, convinces you that you are wrong because it "cites a rule", but directly quoting the part of the Kinetic Blast rules that say the damage is based on Kineticist level proves nothing.
Your basic point is that since Kinetic Blast Caster Level is based on Kineticist level, the two are (almost) always equal. Therefore, they are interchangeable. Therefore, if you lower the Caster Level you also lower the effective Kineticist Level. This isn't true. KL to CL is a one way street. Any adjustment to Caster Level does not effect an individual Kineticists level. Since, per the rules of Kinetic Blast, damage is 1d6 + 1d6 per 2 Kineticist levels, any adjustment to Caster Level has no effect on damage.
|
|
Why is it confusing?
If you have a 16 int and never changes do X
Now if I add 6 do YWhat about this is confusing to you?
EDIT:
Not to mention you're still avoiding the actual point of the post. That this shows why a kineticist's damage isn't CL dependant.
I understand now, but when you first explained it, and you made a "16 that never changes" Change into 22 so understandably it gets a lil hard to hold to the previous statement of "that never changes" when you change it. Didn't want to repeat myself but you made me. Seeing as others have taken issue with me doing just that in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand now, but when you first explained it, and you made a "16 that never changes" Change into 22 so understandably it gets a lil hard to hold to the previous statement of "that never changes" when you change it. Didn't want to repeat myself but you made me. Seeing as others have taken issue with me doing just that in this thread.Why is it confusing?
If you have a 16 int and never changes do X
Now if I add 6 do YWhat about this is confusing to you?
EDIT:
Not to mention you're still avoiding the actual point of the post. That this shows why a kineticist's damage isn't CL dependant.
Repeating to answer and clarify is great. Repeating to claim that something that is wrong and has been shown wrong is right is what people have issues with.
But back to the MAIN point, do you see how kineticist levels controls the damage and thus the CL can't alter the damage.
|
|
Repeating to answer and clarify is great. Repeating to claim that something that is wrong and has been shown wrong is right is what people have issues with.
Sorry, this sentence is very confusing I know I'm not very good with punctuation either(Or grammar in general. in my case), but could you please try again so I and others can understand what you are trying to say here.
EDIT: Sorry, Seems as though you are serious about the later half of your post. I thought you were egging me on, because I didn't want to repeat myself again. Still won't, Already explained why it is as it is. That's why I haven't properly responded to any of your posts, thus far. Because you have only ever voiced the same opinion as others who posted before you.
Which I have less of a problem with now, since I PM'd graystone and gave me some very helpful advice on how not take it as an irritation or an Attack. But like i said, I'm only Human. *shrug*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Repeating to answer and clarify is great. Repeating to claim that something that is wrong and has been shown wrong is right is what people have issues with.Sorry, this sentence is very confusing I know I'm not very good with punctuation either(Or grammar in general. in my case), but could you please try again so I and others can understand what you are trying to say here.
EDIT: Sorry, Seems as though you are serious about the later half of your post. I thought you were egging me on, because I didn't want to repeat myself again. Still won't, Already explained why it is as it is. That's why I haven't properly responded to any of your posts, thus far. Because you have only ever voiced the same opinion as others who posted before you.
Which I have less of a problem with now, since I PM'd graystone and gave me some very helpful advice on how not take it as an irritation or an Attack. But like i said, I'm only Human. *shrug*
So am I correct in understanding you don't see how the damage is not CL based for the three examples I gave?
|
|
Having the same opinion as others is actually rather helpful in this forum - it helps determine what the group interpretation of a given rule is.
As a general principle, if the group consensus in the Rules Questions forum is different than your interpretation, then you're probably the one who's incorrect. This doesn't mean that you can't change things for a home game, of course, or even petition Paizo for an official change. It just means that most of the rule wonk-y people who are looking at the question have determined the answer is X instead of Y, and if you decide to deviate from that - which you are perfectly entitled to do outside of PFS - then all you really need to do is nod and acknowledge it is a change from the normal rules.
There's nothing inherently wrong about that - literally "the most important rule in the game" is that you can, and generally should, change things if it works better for your group. ^^ Acknowledging the change helps everyone at a table stay on the same page.
yeah thats eerily close to what graystone said. I agree.
EDIT: but not with Chess Pwn(sorry thought it best to clarify that)
Having the same opinion as others is actually rather helpful in this forum - it helps determine what the group interpretation of a given rule is.
As a general principle, if the group consensus in the Rules Questions forum is different than your interpretation, then you're probably the one who's incorrect. This doesn't mean that you can't change things for a home game, of course, or even petition Paizo for an official change. It just means that most of the rule wonk-y people who are looking at the question have determined the answer is X instead of Y, and if you decide to deviate from that - which you are perfectly entitled to do outside of PFS - then all you really need to do is nod and acknowledge it is a change from the normal rules.
There's nothing inherently wrong about that - literally "the most important rule in the game" is that you can, and generally should, change things if it works better for your group. ^^ Acknowledging the change helps everyone at a table stay on the same page.
yeah thats eerily close to what graystone said. I agree.
EDIT: but not with Chess Pawn(sorry thought it best to clarify that)
What don't you agree with? Like you may well have the correct answer if you can establish a baseline with the person you're discussing with and then show your point of view. I'm getting peeved that my attempts to understand your view are being met with snark and evasion.
|
|
What don't you agree with? Like you may well have the correct answer if you can establish a baseline with the person you're discussing with and then show your point of view. I'm getting peeved that my attempts to understand your view are being met with snark and evasion.Having the same opinion as others is actually rather helpful in this forum - it helps determine what the group interpretation of a given rule is.
As a general principle, if the group consensus in the Rules Questions forum is different than your interpretation, then you're probably the one who's incorrect. This doesn't mean that you can't change things for a home game, of course, or even petition Paizo for an official change. It just means that most of the rule wonk-y people who are looking at the question have determined the answer is X instead of Y, and if you decide to deviate from that - which you are perfectly entitled to do outside of PFS - then all you really need to do is nod and acknowledge it is a change from the normal rules.
There's nothing inherently wrong about that - literally "the most important rule in the game" is that you can, and generally should, change things if it works better for your group. ^^ Acknowledging the change helps everyone at a table stay on the same page.
yeah thats eerily close to what graystone said. I agree.
EDIT: but not with Chess Pawn(sorry thought it best to clarify that)
I will only make it clear as to why with you(and a couple others) that I have "evaded" your queries, this last time. I have Answered a question very similar to yours, and some others, already. Doesnt matter how differently you phrase it, I still saw it as the same as something I already addressed previously. Sorry I haven't bothered to site which specific posts I'm referring to. Seems to me as a waste of time when its all here, in this thread for you to read already.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems to me as a waste of time when it's all here, in this thread for you to read already.
Okay, if it's a waste of time for you to explain your view in a coherent and understandable manner to someone wanting to understand your view then I guess I won't use my time trying to understand this view that I have been unable to piece together from your splattering of posts that don't have a good flow to them as you jump around.
Happy gaming|
|
Seems to me as a waste of time when it's all here, in this thread for you to read already.Okay, if it's a waste of time for you to explain your view in a coherent and understandable manner to someone wanting to understand your view then I guess I won't use my time trying to understand this view that I have been unable to piece together from your splattering of posts that don't have a good flow to them as you jump around.
Happy gaming
Actually, upon review of the thread following my reply to you I noticed a discrepancy with everyone, including myself, referencing a Kineticists Blasts and their CHARACTER LEVEL effecting their damage during the beginning of this Thread. This is a mistake. As your Character level is the sum of your Class Levels if you Multi-Class.
I admitted to being wrong about the CL=HD thing. but then I found in the rules of Caster level that Caster level was Equal to CLASS Level. This makes more sense, in regards to how the interaction between Kineticists Level and Caster level effect their damage.
So here I go, after looking over all the posts I've made and the posts that refuted them, one more time.
SLA's are effectively spells, thus subject to some of the same rules as Spells, and since Caster level equals Class Level(In this case Kineticists Level) and Spells(and thus SLA's) can have their Caster Level lowered to effect the variables dependent on Damage, Range and others factors, this means with all these rules in mind,(BARRING the whole Effective Spell Level thing) that Kineticists could have lowered their Damage according to the rules. Also Mentioned before, because its not stated explicitly in the rules that lowering your CL for SLA's doesn't change their Variable Damage UNLESS there's Spell Level Involved that requires a MINIMUM CL to cast said spell. Which is the case with Kineticists, With Kineticists Blasts, because Their Blasts Effective Spell Level is equal to their Half their Level.
And So because of THAT Specific Provisio about Effective Spell Level of Kinetic Blasts, Kineticists can NOT lower their Damage on their Blasts according to the rules.
YAY we all agree that you cant lower their Damage! Just not on how(for the most part).
Actually, upon review of the thread following my reply to you I noticed a discrepancy with everyone, including myself, referencing a Kineticists Blasts and their CHARACTER LEVEL effecting their damage during the beginning of this Thread. This is a mistake. As your Character level is the sum of your Class Levels if you Multi-Class.
I admitted to being wrong about the CL=HD thing. but then I found in the rules of Caster level that Caster level was Equal to CLASS Level. This makes more sense, in regards to how the interaction between Kineticists Level and Caster level effect their damage.
So here I go, after looking over all the posts I've made and the posts that refuted them, one more time.
SLA's are effectively spells, thus subject to some of the same rules as Spells, and since Caster level equals Class Level(In this case Kineticists Level) and Spells(and thus SLA's) can have their Caster Level lowered to effect the variables dependent on Damage, Range and others factors, this means with all these rules in mind,(BARRING the whole Effective Spell Level thing) that Kineticists could have lowered their Damage according to the rules. Also Mentioned before, because its not stated explicitly in the rules that lowering your CL for SLA's doesn't change their Variable Damage UNLESS there's Spell Level Involved that requires a MINIMUM CL to cast said spell. Which is the case with Kineticists, With Kineticists Blasts,...
Okay, I found where you are tripping up here.
Normally, you are correct in that spells (and thus likely SLAs as well) can have their damage lowered by voluntarily casting as a lower caster level. The reason this works is because their damage is derived from the caster level of the spell. A 9th level wizard casts Fireball with a caster level of 9, so he does 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level, for a total of 9d6 damage. Now, that same wizard can choose to cast the spell at Caster Level 5 instead (the minimum for Fireball). If he does so, then the spell deals 5d6 damage instead. That all works fine.
The reason this doesn't apply for the Kineticist ability Kinetic Blast is becuase the ability modifies how the SLA calculated damage so that it's not based on Caster Level, it's based on Kineticist level. Now again, as we both agree, 99% of the time these two numbers are going to be the same. However, they are not subject to the same rules. Kineticist Level can not be lowered voluntarily like Caster Level can.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/occult-adventures/occult-classes/kineticist/#TOC-Ki netic-Blast-Sp-
To quote from that link:
"Physical blasts are ranged attacks that deal an amount of damage equal to 1d6+1 + the kineticist’s Constitution modifier, increasing by 1d6+1 for every 2 kineticist levels beyond 1st. Spell resistance doesn’t apply against physical blasts.
Energy blasts are ranged touch attacks that deal an amount of damage equal to 1d6 + 1/2 the kineticist’s Constitution modifier, increasing by 1d6 for every 2 kineticist levels beyond 1st."
Each of these says Kineticist Level. It does not say Caster Level. Even if the number is the same, they are treated differently and subject to different rules. Specifically, Kineticist Levels can not be voluntarily lowered to do less damage. That is why you can not do what you want. It has nothing to do with effective caster level and everything to do with how the power is worded. And just to make it clear, here is the Composite Blast section as well:
"Physical composite blasts deal an amount of damage equal to 2d6+2 + the kineticist’s Constitution modifier, increasing by 2d6+2 for every 2 kineticist levels beyond 1st.
Energy composite blasts deal an amount of damage equal to 2d6 + 1/2 the kineticist’s Constitution modifier, increasing by 2d6 for every 2 kineticist levels beyond 1st."
The wording of these powers supercedes how regular SLAs work. Yes, almost every other SLA in the game is effected by adjusting Caster Level. Kinetic Blast isn't, because the wording of the power specifically states that damage is effected by Kineticist Level.
I know you seem hung up on the fact that a Kineticist Caster Level would be equal to their Kineticist level, so the values seem interchangeable, but they are not. The first value (Kineticist Level) determines the second (Caster Level), then any adjustments to the second are applied directly to it without effecting the first.
So a 11th level Kineticist with a Con mod of 0(solely to eliminate a variable, I am aware that a Kineticist would likely have a higher one, but will leave it out for now) has a blast that does 6d6+6 with a Caster Level of 11. Now, lets say you want to lower the Caster Level to CL7 (and for the sake of argument, we'll say that you can lower it to that amount). Your caster level is now 7, but your Kineticist level remains 11. So, when we check the Blast to see how much damage it does, it is still 6d6+6 because you Kineticist level did not change, even though the caster level did.
Does this make sense to you? I'm being as clear as I possibly can be and I hope I've communicated exactly what is going on here.
|
|
Actually, upon review of the thread following my reply to you I noticed a discrepancy with everyone, including myself, referencing a Kineticists Blasts and their CHARACTER LEVEL effecting their damage during the beginning of this Thread. This is a mistake. As your Character level is the sum of your Class Levels if you Multi-Class.
I admitted to being wrong about the CL=HD thing. but then I found in the rules of Caster level that Caster level was Equal to CLASS Level. This makes more sense, in regards to how the interaction between Kineticists Level and Caster level effect their damage.
So here I go, after looking over all the posts I've made and the posts that refuted them, one more time.
SLA's are effectively spells, thus subject to some of the same rules as Spells, and since Caster level equals Class Level(In this case Kineticists Level) and Spells(and thus SLA's) can have their Caster Level lowered to effect the variables dependent on Damage, Range and others factors, this means with all these rules in mind,(BARRING the whole Effective Spell Level thing) that Kineticists could have lowered their Damage according to the rules. Also Mentioned before, because its not stated explicitly in the rules that lowering your CL for SLA's doesn't change their Variable Damage UNLESS there's Spell Level Involved that requires a MINIMUM CL to cast said spell. Which is the case with Kineticists, With Kineticists Blasts,...
Okay, I found where you are tripping up here.
Normally, you are correct in that spells (and thus likely SLAs as well) can have their damage lowered by voluntarily casting as a lower caster level. The reason this works is because their damage is derived from the caster level of the spell. A 9th level wizard casts Fireball with a caster level of 9, so he does 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level, for a total of 9d6 damage. Now, that same wizard can...
Nope, Because why Even mention CL in the Interweave Composite Blast Description... Well all know that intrinsically that Kineticists CL is equal to their Level, As it has been stated MANY time through out this Thread an even in your Post. So If they had Worded it just like this:
The composite blast’s Kineticists level is equal to the average of the levels of both participants and deals damage as the appropriate composite blast created by a kineticist of that level (for example, if a 10th-level pyrokineticist and a 6thlevel hydrokineticist worked together to create a steam blast, its base damage would be 4d6+4 points of fire damage and 4d6+4 points of bludgeoning damage).
See, with that simple replacement and removal, Of Kineticists Level instead of Caster Level, we have no room for confusion or misinterpretation on how the interaction between Caster Level and Kineticists Level effect Their Blasts Damage. BECAUSE ONLY mentioning Kineticists Level and the Ultimate Total of the Average we Already know what their CL is because We all already Know that Class Level = Caster Level. So why Involve it at all when calculating their Blasts Damage.
|
|
Because Caster Level affects things like Spell Resistance, which totally affects Kinetic Blasts, and Caster Level can be different from someone's Kineticist Level.
OK so, I seem to need to make this clearer. My bad. We all know that already about Caster Level. What I just went through Explaining, was that the need to mention Caster Level in the Description of the feat was Unnecessary in face of the fact that If they just Mentioned Kineticists Level the same way that I did in the Edit that we could already gleam what their Caster Level is based off the Effective Total Kineticists Level For the purposes of Overcoming SR and other factors Involving Caster Level.
So the fact that they mention Caster Level in a feat that deals with Calculating Damage for a Kineticists Blast, leaves room for interpretation that Caster level has some bearing on Blast Damage.Actually... now that I think about it... Since the feat base, as is(No Editing), Increases the effective Kineticists Level that means it effectively Changes the Blasts effective Spell Level because as we all know by now a Blasts Effective Spell level is equal to the Half the Kineticists Level. And this feat changes that... Uh Oh...
|
|
If you think there's an uh-oh here, you're overthinking it. ^^ The feat has a calculation to get you a new effective caster level (for overcoming SR, etc), and a calculation to get you a new effective Kineticist level (for damage). Both of these matter, because Kinetic Blasts are supposed to have those values.
I know and I seem to be failing to explain to you that their Effective Kineticists Level already tells you their Caster Level. Because we all know thats what that means. So Why mention it in the Feat? I can't make it any clearer at this point. Sorry I failed you.
|
|
Isn't there a feat or ability somewhere that is like spell penetration for kineticists? That increases CL without the damage?
Do you mean Spell Penetration? Because that already works with Kineticists Blasts or Talents that care about SR.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you think there's an uh-oh here, you're overthinking it. ^^ The feat has a calculation to get you a new effective caster level (for overcoming SR, etc), and a calculation to get you a new effective Kineticist level (for damage). Both of these matter, because Kinetic Blasts are supposed to have those values.I know and I seem to be failing to explain to you that their Effective Kineticists Level already tells you their Caster Level. Because we all know thats what that means. So Why mention it in the Feat? I can't make it any clearer at this point. Sorry I failed you.
My guess as to why it is mentioned in that feat is to clarify that the composite blast created by that feat uses both the average level for determining damage and the average caster level for determining effects that require a caster level. As to why they had you use the caster level as a way to determine the average Kineticist level, I can't be completely sure. However, even that ability states that the damage is based on the Kineticist effective level, which in this particular case is equal to an average of the two caster levels.
Personally, since this is the only ability that uses caster level in any way to determine the Kineticist Level for figuring out damage, I think the more likely solution is that this feat was not fully thought out, rather than literally every single other instance referencing Kineticist Level rather than Caster Level.
The Interweave Composite Blast feat is essentially a corner case where the wording would allow the altering of a caster level to potentially effect damage. However, as pointed out earlier in the thread, you can't reduce the caster level of a blast because they always have an effective spell level equal to half the Kineticist level, meaning you can never reduce the Caster Level to the point where it would effect the damage, as the minimum caster level would always be an odd number where you previously received an increase in damage.. Theoretically, you could *increase* the caster level via some method to increase the damage, but you can't reduce it. So I was wrong earlier when I said that rule had no bearing on this situation. In this one specific situation, it does, but only in doing literally the exact opposite of what you want.
So the fact that they mention Caster Level in a feat that deals with Calculating Damage for a Kineticists Blast, leaves room for interpretation that Caster level has some bearing on Blast Damage.
Except that Interweave Composite Blast then, after esablishing the caster level, proceeds to tell you that the blast does damage equal to "a kineticist of that level". If damage was based directly on caster level, it wouldn't have to tell you that, either, it could just stop at the caster level.
At best, the "room for interpretation" goes in both directions.