Speculation BEYOND The Advanced Player's Guide


Paizo Products

51 to 100 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

It seems bizarre for me to consider treating the shifter, kineticist, and hunter as a single class. Thematically those are pretty alien from another, and I could definitely see obvious solutions to take each class. With the Druid as a sort of nature jack of all character, there is room to take elements of that for a specialized class. Characters can be stronger in one feature than the druid if they don't have all the other parts of a druid, like the spell casting

People have already talked about the Kineticist, but...

A shifter could be the "best" shapeshifter, which auto gets a stronger more flexible wild shape, with feats built around enhancing that aspect

A hunter could be the best "pet teamwork class", and automatically get a stronger, easier to use minion, with an emphasis on feats that allow characters to better work with there pet.

The big problem with a lot of those classes in PF 1E is that the druid was too powerful. It automatically got the best druid spellcasting, wildshape, and pets, so it was hard to create classes that focused on one of those traits without being noticeably weaker than the druid. The new druid isn't built that way, so should be easier to create new classes around.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Sure...the name Psionics probably won't come back. But I do think there is potential for a Point-focused casting system, even if it isn't linked to Psychic.

Dataphiles

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
I hope they develop actual psychic rules, and not just have them be occult casters.

They definitely won't create rules for point based psionic casting -- they are leaving that to Dreamscarred Press. I could see them making use of all four spell lists but altering the casting method for the verbal and somatic components as they did in Occult Adventures.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The reason psionics wasn't pursued is because the casting system was too different from Vancian for there tastes. With Focus casting, that is probably not the case anymore.

Although I AM SKEPTICAL that the occult classes won't just come back using the Occult spell list.

Actually, they've stated in interviews and panels that one of the major factors was Dreamscarred Press had that niche locked down and they didn't feel like intruding on that.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
Sure...the name Psionics probably won't come back. But I do think there is potential for a Point-focused casting system, even if it isn't linked to Psychic.

If there is, I think it’ll more likely resemble the Alchemist or Cleric’s divine font than be focused based. Breaking that 3 focus limit may well happen, but it’ll have to be done carefully for MC characters to work properly.


MaxAstro wrote:


Do you know if DSP plans to update psionics for 2e? That would be awesome.

At this early stage, I don't think anybody outside the third-party publishers knows what they're planning. (And that presumes that those within them know, heh heh.) There are a number of products I'd like to see updated, most notably stuff from Kobold Press.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
I hope they develop actual psychic rules, and not just have them be occult casters.

They definitely won't create rules for point based psionic casting -- they are leaving that to Dreamscarred Press. I could see them making use of all four spell lists but altering the casting method for the verbal and somatic components as they did in Occult Adventures.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The reason psionics wasn't pursued is because the casting system was too different from Vancian for there tastes. With Focus casting, that is probably not the case anymore.

Although I AM SKEPTICAL that the occult classes won't just come back using the Occult spell list.

There is no reason other than the coincidence of names for psychic classes from Occult Adventures to use the occult spell list, as the PF1 spell lists for these classes were every bit as varied as those of the core spellcasting classes. A change to the components/actions involved in spellcasting for psychic spellcasters would provide a far more reasonable level of variety for psychic spellcaster classes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ikarinokami wrote:
I hope they develop actual psychic rules, and not just have them be occult casters.

I love the new arcane, divine, primal, and occult classifications. Sorry, but I sincerely hope we don't get a psychic/psionic outlier. Occult fits much more thematically for my campaigns and Golarion lore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still want that "Mental/Vital" list which has a specific flavor appropriate for a certain kind of psychic caster.


After considering the Primach (Kineticist/Shifter/Hunter) class, I realized my problem with it. I don't think it is a terrible idea, but I don't think it works.

The problem is that you would have nested subclasses, you would have the Primach class, the Kineticist subclass, and your element bonus feat. I believe this would either over-complicate the Class or over-simplify the Elements.

I would want the Elements to be a crucial part of the Kineticist, and so I believe it would work better as a druid-like subclass. (You can choose to pick Feats from other elements, but you can also only focus on Feats for your one.) Rather than as a Subclass of a Subclass.

Possibly the Primach could be (Shifter/Hunter), but I like MMC point about them being specialists as opposed to the druid's generalist playstyle.


Kineticist + Shifter + Hunter seems like a really bizarre combination. They all pull in fundamentally different directions. Shifter and Hunter both riff on the Druid I guess, but the Kineticist's core flavor isn't really in sync at all.

Yeah, you could make them all work on focus points to some extent, but that's a general mechanic. I don't really see what ties them together in a class.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
Sure...the name Psionics probably won't come back. But I do think there is potential for a Point-focused casting system, even if it isn't linked to Psychic.

Possibly, but the designers have states their disinterest with the mana point style system that Psionics used that heavily encouraged novaing.

Focus may as well be a completely different system with the vast number difference.


The thematic relation of Shifter/Hunter/Kineticist and Druid is revealed by looking at basis of their Essences.
Druid & Primal tradition covers material & vital (life).
Druids are attuned to Elements and Life/Nature (Plant and Animal, which can manifest internally(Shifting) and externally(Companions).
They don't get into Essences of Mind or Spirit. Shifter/Hunter/Kineticist very much exist within that same scope.
A Druid specialized in any of those would reasonably overlap or resemble any of those class/tropes doing their thing,
as Shifter/Hunter are obvious, I would just mention a Druid specialized in Elemental form as plausibly overlapping Kineticist.
(and of course, the Elemental Sorceror Bloodlines are themselves Primal tradition)
All these specialist tropes can be seen tapping the same fundamental energy as Druid, but without ideological Anathema.

In terms of concern this would crowd out details by fitting all within one class, while technically Paizo could introduce a Class with as much content as it wants and there isn't fixed size, I agree there is de facto limits. But for that matter, not every one of these paths needs to be introduced at once. Perhaps just Kineticist and Shifter sub-paths could be introduced at first, and later Hunter(Companion/Pack) and Plant-based sub-paths could be introduced (Plant not even having it's own similar specialist class in 1E, despite being legit theme).

I mean, approaching all these as thematically bound by Primal Essences doesn't per se depend on using single class chassis, but I think it is reasonable approach, especially because I think mixing and matching opens up interesting possibilities, as does general options to tie in with specific Terrains... Osirioni Desert Kineticist touched on this, but could be much expanded, why not a Jungle "Primarch" who fuses Plant and Animal Companion and Fire Elements? Lay lines seem like power source all of them could use, the synergy and potential for added value is why I think a shared class chassis is best approach. That doesn't mean 100% focused approach to Kineticist or Shifter etc would be blocked, but IMHO ideas it opens up like a Shifter using Burn seems like good basis for actually distinguishing it vs other shapeshifters.

-------------------------------------

Then the Mind/Vital Essence thing seems especially applicable to Mesmerist, I mean otherwise it seems hard to distinguish from many Enchantment capable casters. AFAIK Mesmerist would probably be only full caster built around that, although specifying this as specific tradition (list) could facilitate other classes specifically drawing from it for limited options (+other characters whose own list/Innate spells overlap Mind/Vital could MC into it for synergy with own abilities). Also, I wonder maybe this could be good basis for Gish class, like "Sensate Warrior" specifically honing mental powers including melee buffs/debuffs, and supernatural healing, "mental damage" and maybe death effects, although of course it probably would barely if at all use actual spell slots and list, but the same Essence themes/scope could apply to it's powers.


Squiggit wrote:
Kineticist + Shifter + Hunter seems like a really bizarre combination. They all pull in fundamentally different directions. Shifter and Hunter both riff on the Druid I guess, but the Kineticist's core flavor isn't really in sync at all.

I can almost see it, with the idea that the Kineticist has a direct connection to the elements, and thus the Primal tradition and the Matter essence. Whether putting people with that connection in the same class as people with a direct connection to animals and plants is open to discussion. The fact that some original flavor Kineticists also have ties to what's now part of the Spirit essence increases my uncertainty.


I believe you are missing the scope of Elemental magic. The Kineticist doesn't need significant additions, because Elemental magic is already broad. You can have Kineticist feats that relate to other things, but it should be under the lens of elemental power.

If the characters need something unrelated to Elements, then that is the purpose of archetypes.

If we equate the Kineticist to primal, which is reasonable, they should materially connect to nature, as the elemental planes are associated with material magic.

In pf1, wood was an element. But this is because it is one in the Chinese system (and possibly others).

There is a desert-based Kineticist, but it seems like its focus is on "considering the harsh nature of the desert as a tempering fire to cleanse the soul."

A Jungle Primarch shouldn't be a druid with fire magic. I am unfamiliar with the Chinese system, or other systems which include wood. But I think basing it on the Wood Element would be better than copying and pasting from the druid. (The Golaran Wood Element could also be the baseline. I am not very familiar with it. Feywilds is the partial source, and that is all I know.)

I also forgot to consider subclasses, of which there are several options I would like to return. To encompass the full range of options as a Primarch, you would need the kineticist subclass, a sub-sub-class, and an elemental choice.


Leotamer wrote:
I believe you are missing the scope of Elemental magic. The Kineticist doesn't need significant additions, because Elemental magic is already broad. You can have Kineticist feats that relate to other things, but it should be under the lens of elemental power.

Just to make clear, I'm not trying to broaden Kineticist per se, if you focus on 100% Kineticist effects there wouldn't be any broadening. Kineticist already includes healing effects.

But I realised I was solely focusing on effects, i.e. what they do... not how they do it. And when I realized that, I realized Kineticists being powered by Burn, by CON, their own Vital Essence tapping into the Cosmos, the paradigm looks even stronger IMHO. Even when they are creating solely Material Elemental effects, it is VIA Vital Essence.

That also gets back to why I think Shifter/Hunter/Plantmaster being powered by same Burn/CON mechanic is cool, I mean it allows immediate mechanical distinction VS other shifters/companion-masters/plant-tamers, but aside from that it is cosmically grounding the WHY of their abilities. And when that same source mechanic can apply to Kineticists, why shouldn't they be at least Sub-Paths of a single class, more easily allowing potential cross-pollination builds, but not forcing them on anybody.

But in the big picture, I think that will be a much better supported class, Burn mechanics can apply to ALL of them. Adjacent Terrain specific stuff could apply to all of them. And I do think the potential for cross-polination i.e. BOTH ELemental and Animal/Plant powers harnessed has huge upside. Before writing this, I wasn't thinking of these classes as directly related like anybody else, but when examining the core of their essence, what powers them and what they can do, it really comes together around Primal essences of Matter and Vitality. Tying into a Burn mechanic doesn't mean each ability need be totally symmetrical, although multiple animal forms/abilities could possibly work like how Elemental blasts and infusions are gained. But that is details, and the big picture just tells me this is compelling approach.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This ‘Primarch’ class sounds like a Druid, but a living nightmare for developing feats and a core class chassis for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
One thing I wonder about the Cavalier- while I agree "being a mounted combat specialist" and "belonging to a knightly order" should be archetypes not classes, should they be one archetype for each or one archetype that covers both.

My issue with making them 2 archetypes is that these concepts should synergize with eachother pretty well. If you make them 2 different dedications, then a character that wants to be a mounted combat specialist who belongs to a knightly order needs minimum 4 feats to get in the door, and has to wait until level 8, assuming the only thing they get from their base class is the 1st level feat and generic abilities. You could put in basic order and mount related abilities in an archetype and have that available with 2 feats, 1 for the mount and 1 for the order, which is much easier to tack onto a fighter or champion or barbarian or what have you.


Firstly, adding more options is broadening the class, by definition.

Secondly, Kineticist lacks a strong tie to vital magic. Con is a stat and is a measure of physical health. As far as I know, no vital caster uses Con as a spellcasting score. Burn is a measure of over-exertion and can counter-acted by gathering power. Nothing about it applies you tapping into vital energy.

Three, Cross-pollination is a design concern, but it also a flavor concern. A Kineticist, an elemental master, should not be able to access powers that are not associated with one of the classical elements. They include aether (greek and others), wood (Wu Xing), and void (Godai). It makes more sense to have a metal element or even a sulfur element than giving them animal-based powers.

Four, if the Kineticist, Shifter, and Hunter are different classes, that does not prevent them from sharing the Burn mechanic.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
But I realised I was solely focusing on effects, i.e. what they do... not how they do it. And when I realized that, I realized Kineticists being powered by Burn, by CON, their own Vital Essence tapping into the Cosmos, the paradigm looks even stronger IMHO. Even when they are creating solely Material Elemental effects, it is VIA Vital Essence.

Could just as easily be Arcane, if they manipulate the elements with their minds, like it says in the aether section.

My basic problem with combining the shifter and kineticist is that they are *very* different in their approach to utility talents and fighting. It can be done, but I’m not sure it would mesh well, unless the chassis was deliberately broad like with the Druid class.

The hunter and shifter would probably be okay. Similar themes, abilities, and outlooks. Removing the spells from hunters might not go over well, but might be okay.


Yeah, I think it would be similar in broad potential to Druid, but Druid doesn't attempt to impose any exclusivity, for spell slots and feats it's 100% mix and match (slots especially, being daily prep).

Even 1E Kineticist we can see imposing exclusivity, with limited choice of elements including choice to maximally specialize vs expand at later points... I think the same basic approach should apply here with choice of 'domain' happening at certain levels (or certain level prereq for feats to open them, if you prefer to take that 2 levels later no biggee), maybe with an extra choice or two (vs 1E Kineticist) so somebody could mix element/plant/animal for example... But that would come at opportunity cost and single-element kineticists or pure-shifters would be equally legitimate.

While each of elements or para-elements would be obvious choices, shifter could probably choose specific animal forms, etc. Of course how Plant might be represented is really less explored territory, and other angles like Terrain synergies or non-"domain"-specific uses of Burn might exist outside those "exclusive" choices.


Mesmerist should just be a bard archetype that trades out performance for other things. Back in 1e they're already similar enough in niche. In 2e both will be occult casters. Adding options to bard so that they could just BE mesmerist if they want to sounds better than an all new mesmerist class.

Kineticist should completely ditch the burn mechanic and take advantage of the new focus system instead. But the main issue with the class is that it simply doesn't fit the core design principles of 2e. There's no more spell like abilities; everything that works like a spell, IS a spell, and if it comes from a class it must use either a spell slot or focus. Just look at how Wild Shape works now. The same problem exists for Shifter.

I don't see how you couldn't replicate a hunter with just a druid that multiclasses ranger, or vice versa.


There are several spell-like abilities in pf2 that are neither spells nor focus powers: the alchemist class, rogue's hidden paragon, barbarian's dragon rage breath.


Leotamer wrote:

There are several spell-like abilities in pf2 that are neither spells nor focus powers: the alchemist class, rogue's hidden paragon, barbarian's dragon rage breath.

Those abilities aren't spell like abilities; they are supernatural powers that explicitly do not emulate spells. For example, Hidden Paragon cannot be purged by any magic that detects or purges invisibility; the only way to beat it is by using ungodly powerful hearing/smell/non-visual senses to find that rogue. Similarly, the Dragon Rage Breath is not a spell-like ability in the same way that a dragon's breath is not a spell-like ability. You literally grow a dragon breath gland (or however dragons breath magic) and do it through sheer superhuman biology. It can't be dispelled or countered like a spell can.

The kineticist, meanwhile, relies on having having powers that emulate spells, but are not spells. That's why I think they will have to be completely rewritten as a focus or slot caster (focus is more likely, given their niche as all day blasters). Alternatively, they will have to be given a huge number non-spell magical abilities that scale to level, akin to the other martial "superpowers", and will be difficult to balance. That sounds like a class that's extremely difficult to maintain with later publications.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So...cantrips. They auto scale and require neither focus nor slots. I’m fairly certain the kineticist will make heavy use of them.

Likewise the shifter, although they’ll likely also use focus spells for their bigger shifts (a variant of wild shape I would assume).


I don't see the need for the Kineticist to have spell slots or focus points.

Kinetic Blast could be a one-action innate ability. You can balance it against a rogue with a bow. (It is there primary method of doing damage and needs to hit reasonably hard, but they have additional utility beyond it.)

Gather Power could help bring Kinetic Blast more in-line with a bow, as they both require two free-hands.

Infusions could cost between zero and two actions. The action economy can handle balancing them. And if you want to print a powerful infusion which you don't want to be spammable, make them inflict a Burn condition.

You can call them cantrips, but I don't see why they wouldn't be wild talents and infusions. They are not spell-like under the logic you used for dragon rage breath. They are supernatural powers used by channeling energy from the elemental plane through superhuman biology. If anything, wizards and sorcerers are using magic to emulate the powers of Kineticist, and natives of the Elemental Planes.


Leotamer wrote:

I don't see the need for the Kineticist to have spell slots or focus points.

Kinetic Blast could be a one-action innate ability. You can balance it against a rogue with a bow. (It is there primary method of doing damage and needs to hit reasonably hard, but they have additional utility beyond it.)

Gather Power could help bring Kinetic Blast more in-line with a bow, as they both require two free-hands.

Infusions could cost between zero and two actions. The action economy can handle balancing them. And if you want to print a powerful infusion which you don't want to be spammable, make them inflict a Burn condition.

You can call them cantrips, but I don't see why they wouldn't be wild talents and infusions. They are not spell-like under the logic you used for dragon rage breath. They are supernatural powers used by channeling energy from the elemental plane through superhuman biology. If anything, wizards and sorcerers are using magic to emulate the powers of Kineticist, and natives of the Elemental Planes.

Kinetic blast and its infusions are the easy ones, but I'm more thinking about utility wild talents which often just lets you take burn to cast a spell. Which is why I'm still of the opinion that those should be focus spells. In addition, nonlethal damage works completely differently from 1e, so burn just can't work the same way. I remember doing a Starfinder conversion of Kineticist where by necessity burn has to cost Resolve points, which completely changes the dynamic of the class.

Another compelling reason for the Kineticist's powers to be focus spells and cantrips is so that feats can be applied more universally. In 1e the Kineticist can't take Elemental Focus because their abilities aren't spells, even the ones that work exactly like spells , which is really frustrating because there are very few ways to boost their save DCs. Ability Focus works on a SINGLE infusion/wild talent at a time, and just isn't worth the feat investment. 2e wants to avoid that kind of exclusion in its design, to help with easier maintenance of all classes in the future.

Besides, there's no reason why we can't keep kinetic blast, infusion, and wild talents as terminology, while mechanically turning the Kineticist into a primal caster who uses only cantrips and focus. The various kinetic blasts are cantrips; infusions are focus powers that enhance cantrips with the "kinetic blast" tag; and wild talents are straight up focus spells. Burn can become a condition (take day-long status penalties to cast without focus).


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh, if you meant utility talents would be focus spells, then yes, 100% agreement. I think most people that want burn to return focus on it being a way to refocus in combat. Changes the dynamic slightly, but is close enough to be workable.

Also, speaking of not reinventing similar terminology, but the drained condition is pretty similar to burned.


I agree with making burn a condition. Focus-based utility talents could work.

Making kinetic blasts cantrips is not terrible, but I believe that you could make them wild-talent spell attacks.

However, making all infusions focus-based is a terrible idea. It either kills the mechanical flavor of the class, or you need to bend Focus until it breaks.

Kinetic Blade and Kinetic Fist should not cost additional actions or resources. Pulling and pushing infusion should be covered by more actions, to name a few clear cut examples.

I am ok with focus-gating big-damage infusions, but they shouldn't be a class that does three interesting things per combat and then becomes rangers. If you are not using focus to limit the amount of something to up to three times per combat, then you shouldn't use focus.


Regarding burn, one of the Alchemist infusions already in the game deals damage that can't be healed as part of its effect. That's functionally pretty damn close to burn.

I'm still not really sold on the idea of Kineticists as druids though. It fundamentally redefines their flavor and kind of crowds out telekineticists and chaokineticists.

Leotamer wrote:


I am ok with focus-gating big-damage infusions, but they shouldn't be a class that does three interesting things per combat and then becomes rangers. If you are not using focus to limit the amount of something to up to three times per combat, then you shouldn't use focus.

Kineticist aside, I feel like any future focus-focused class we get down the line will have some nonstandard way to regenerate focus.


I think Burn is a better mechanic to organize the Kineticist around than Focus, you could have Focus as an "avoid burn" option, but "burn as condition" seems like a good way to do it.

Focus is potentially a way to do those "spend burn to activate this, it stays active until your burn refreshes" abilities (e.g. Shimmering Mirage) as just a "activate once in a combat, it lasts for the whole combat", though.


Squiggit wrote:

Regarding burn, one of the Alchemist infusions already in the game deals damage that can't be healed as part of its effect. That's functionally pretty damn close to burn.

I'm still not really sold on the idea of Kineticists as druids though. It fundamentally redefines their flavor and kind of crowds out telekineticists and chaokineticists.

Leotamer wrote:


I am ok with focus-gating big-damage infusions, but they shouldn't be a class that does three interesting things per combat and then becomes rangers. If you are not using focus to limit the amount of something to up to three times per combat, then you shouldn't use focus.
Kineticist aside, I feel like any future focus-focused class we get down the line will have some nonstandard way to regenerate focus.

Primal doesn't mean druid. I'm not suggesting letting them pick any Primal spell as a wild talent, only that their focus spells will be Primal, due to elemental magic in 2e being fundamentally Primal (sometimes with a touch of Arcane or Occult). I can also see each element being typed to Primal or Occult depending on what energy they're manipulating, though. There are already many spells that overlap on different lists, so that's not really much of a concern.

I just think Kineticists should be spellcasters. No slots, but I want to avoid the weird place they have in 1e where due to using non-spells they aren't mechanically compatible with a LOT of feats and items that should logically work for them.


The Elemental Planes are associated with Material Essence. Each spellcasting tradition is composed of two essences. Arcane is material/mental, and Primal is material/vital.

I would be fine if wild talents were considered spells. I am not a big fan of them being cantrips, but it wouldn't ruin the class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aside from "Infusion" and "Burn" mechanics what exactly is the difference between the PF1 Kinetic Blast and a PF2 cantrip?

Like the Kinetic blast's damage, spell level, and associated DCs auto-advances, just like how PF2 cantrips work.


Well on a mechanical level, Kinetic Blasts are very different different from cantrips besides damage and spell level.

A Kinetic Blast has no spell components so it works even when palaryzed. The count as spells for feats that boosts spells, but not for metamagic and feats that affect spell level. They can counter spells, but can only be countered by other Kinetic Blasts with a feat. They very much count as a weapon for feats. And very importantly, it does not require a spell slot.
All that to me says that a Kinetic Blast is closer to an Innate Spell than a cantrip.

As for Kineticist/Shifter/Hunter, I kind of get the idea and a burn using shifter might be fun, but they just simply aren't compatible. Shifter and Hunter might work well as a single class as they both have strong nature and shapeshifting aspects, but the only thing a kineticist has in common is a connection with elements that's closer to a sorcerer.

Mixing it with druid is an even worse idea given how strong druid's themes of nature, animals, and shapshifting while worshiping nature are. Meanwhile a base kineticist is all about channeling the planes and using your own body as a power source: Again the only connection is both use elemental magic.

Giving them spell is also a betrayal of the 1e class, which would be sad considering how iconic it is. The equivalent of making Fighters into unraging Barbarian and Druids into nature Clerics.


I feel like a kinetic blast is going to require just one somatic component (with the flourish tag) with additional somatic components available to gather power.

I'm not sure you can use a kinetic blast while paralyzed, since you explicitly need one hand to aim it. That's not that different from a somatic component.

I figured the cantrip that a kinetic blast would be, would follow the model for bardic "composition cantrips", like how Inspire Courage is a Cantrip 1 with the Composition tag, so it does not use a cantrip slot. It just uses the rules for cantrips (i.e. automatically scales to casting/half-level, can be used an unlimited number of times.) In theory there's nothing keeping you from having something like composition cantrips on a class which has no spell slots.


There is that interpretation as well, it depends on what the GM rules. For example some might let you use it but only in the direction your hand is pointing. Whether they add a somatic component or not would definitely clear that up.

Speaking of somatic components they used to require a free hand and now they dont. I'm not sure how that would affect a Kinetic Blast that requires a free hand.

I could see Kinetic Blasts getting their own tag which would let them get special rules. With the added benefit that other classes could then also gain access to abilities with that tag without having to import the full feature.


The potential issue with letting other classes pick up kinetic blast cantrips is that a primal sorcerer might end up a better blaster than a kineticist by taking the kineticist multiclass archetype. Their hit and damage on the blast might not be as high due to having a lower constitution, but they are effectively grabbing a better cantrip than Produce Flame or Acid Splash, while keeping their high level spells.

I still think cantrips with the "kinetic blast" tag is the right way to go, following the bard composition cantrips example. The rest of the class just needs to work in a way such that "all day" power isn't easily overshadowed by an elemental sorcerer, which again was the case in 1e. That means actually lasting all day, without an artificial limiter on the stronger powers through burn.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I could see Burn working like an inverse-Focus, you build up and then when you hit 3 you can't take more until you "cooldown". You wouldn't even need to apply damage/penalties to it.


I see no reason for kinetic blasts to have the flourish tag. Being able to go pew-pew-pew as a Kineticist isn't much different than a ranger shooting three arrows or a bomber throwing three bombs.

Also, having a mechanic where you start at three and count down to 0, functions identically to a mechanic where you start at 0 and count up to three. Unless you want to cool down at the end of the day, but that would make it worse for the Kineticist than just using Focus.


Sorcerers were already better blasters than Kineticists in PF1, and I see no reason this will change in PF2. Where the Kineticist beats the sorcerer is "staying power" and "tankiness."


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Sorcerers were already better blasters than Kineticists in PF1, and I see no reason this will change in PF2. Where the Kineticist beats the sorcerer is "staying power" and "tankiness."

Sorcerers have way more things to do than blast, though. They also have a ton of buff, debuff, control and utility options, since even the best blaster still only needs 1 or 2 blast spells per level. And the "staying power" of kineticist is kind of an illusion as they can fill out on burn as easily as a caster runs out of spells, and basic blasts are significantly worse damage wise than an archery fighter or ranger who are also much tankier. Sorcerers can also invest in wands and scrolls, which are very cheap if you're getting them for much lower level spells, as well as spell refresh items like Pearls of Power.

That's why I said in order for the kineticist not to be completely overshadowed by a sorcerer at mid and high levels, their staying power needs to be real. That means no more limits on how many powerful abilities they can use per day. As long as they refocus between fights, they should be able to keep doing what they're good at all day long.

As others have mentioned, I also support Gather Power as a unique action to let kineticists refocus in combat.


The kineticist is not a spell-caster, and so shouldn't be balanced off them. The Monk/Paladin is a better comparison point if they are focus-caster, otherwise probably the rogue/ranger.

I think you could make it so that the kineticist could have access to a significant amount of infusions without spending any resources (though potentially more actions) and they only need to take burn/use focus when they do something big.

I think they should be useful all-day and all-encounter. And I disagree with the idea of refocusing in combat. I am skeptical of Kineticist becoming focus casters, but I think it will be fine if there focus spells are limited to utility talents and nova infusions.


The thing is that a Kineticist has abilities to passively reduce burn costs as he levels up. The only way a Kineticist ran out of burn was if he went nova every turn, otherwise getting 1 or 2 infusions for free every blast.

The damage scale is basically: Martial=High damage all day, Kineticist=Medium damage all day and High damage a few times per day, and Sorcerer=High damage a few times per day (new cantrips did improve thing).

As for utility scale it's more or less: Martials=Low/Medium utility some times per day, Kineticists=Medium/High utility all day, and Sorcerer=High utility a few times per day.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
C. Richard Davies wrote:

Inquisitor: If I were doing it, I'd make it a third Clerical Doctrine rather than its own class, as Warpriest already is.

Shifter: I don't even want to talk about it.

i agree on the inq .

as for shifter, the animal barbarian is pretty shifter already, i could see it as a slightly more focused archetype that is similer


Apparently it was just said on stream that the devs want to focus on making new things instead of porting over new ones. That has me worried as kineticist is my favourite thing and the reason I got into Pathfinder in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaulin wrote:
Apparently it was just said on stream that the devs want to focus on making new things instead of porting over new ones. That has me worried as kineticist is my favourite thing and the reason I got into Pathfinder in the first place.

They also mentioned that some new things will include the old things, just presented in a different light. So you could for example have an Ur-Class for which "Burn" is the core mechanic, of which the Kineticist is one form it could take. Likewise a different part of this "Burn" class could be about transcending physical limits, which puts strain on your body.


I don't think it's really accurate to say 'instead of' - the first four new classes being added to PF2 (and most of what's appearing in the first few books, as far as I'm aware) are all remakes of things that originally appeared in PF1, after all.

I think the only real reason for a class to not find its way back to PF2 in some form (eventually) is if it gets entirely absorbed by another class or archetype that does something similar, which the Kineticist is probably not so much danger of.

Though, when a particular class comes around again is very much uncertain.


Gaulin wrote:
Apparently it was just said on stream that the devs want to focus on making new things instead of porting over new ones.

That seems a little at odds with announcing a book where so far all the new classes are just old things being ported over.

I wouldn't worry too much. I'm also with Cabbage that 'new things' doesn't necessarily have to mean old things can't exist either, just... done differently, hopefully better.

Like they could have a 'new thing' that effectively repackages all the various attempts at a pet-class into one central core with a heavy emphasis on pet customization and kind of hit the mark for the spiritualist and summoner and hunter and drake companions and etc. building off a single chassis.

Or a 'new thing' that does the shifter better than the shifter by incorporating some of the customizable feature ideas the Synthesis summoner ran with, but with less of the issues and more fleshing out than the Synthesist had.

Dark Archive

Honestly kinda confused if we need multiple level 9 casters of same school, especially if they are both spontaneous casters(unless bards are prep in this edition.. Well i guess you could make psychic prepared instead).

Like, unless psychic gets completely new mechanics or spell list, it might as well just be archetype or something


When do you think we’ll see Kitsune? I know they were super popular in 1e.

51 to 100 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Paizo Products / Speculation BEYOND The Advanced Player's Guide All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.