Currently there's no way to have an 18 Con at level 1 without rolling, because you can't get a boost to it at the class step. What class could use Con primarily? Should a class be able to do that?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kinetecists should have a choice to set their Class DC and Key Ability Score off Con or Wisdom in my opinion.
They are typically unarmored or lightly armored, and their powers allow them to essentially channel elemental and universal energies through their body. They even had a non-lethal damage and resource management system (Burn) that tied Con score in 1st Edition.
I don't think we will see such a class or subclass unless that class gives a special attack based on CON.
Key stat boost seems to be for the roll or DC of your offensive/active ability. ...well most of the time, except for Alchemist.
But since CON doesn't do anything active by default, it isn't a key stat candidate.
What active abilities could be there? They should come from the users body to make sense. Breath weapons, poison touch...
Maybe a poisoner Alchemist that oozes poison?
1E Kineticist was CON-based. I’m not sure that’s something that should or will carry over, but it’s a possibility.
Other than that, I’m thinking a class archetype for Barbarian could have CON as key.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Other than that, I’m thinking a class archetype for Barbarian could have CON as key.
The year is 2023, Paizo has released the APG (Absurd Players Guide). Page 53... Barbarian Instincts: "Beefcake Instinct" sets the Key Ability Score to Con and doubles the number of Temporary HP granted by any Feature with the Barbarian Trait such as Rage, Renewed Vigor, & Come and Get Me.
Anathema includes consuming less than twice the normal amount of food needed to sustain oneself in a given day where/if it is available, spilling/wasting a beverage or meal (when not "pouring one out" for the homies), and personally using Stealth to avoid confrontation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Kineticists go the way I'm kind of expecting them to go (with Blasts being a class-unique Cantrip, modified as appropriate with something akin to Focus Spells, a la Bard. Possibly with Burn being replaced by something akin to the Oracle's Curse as seen in the APG Playtest but that's less relevant to this specific discussion) I could see them having Con as their primary stat. And if they do go that way it would be a really good one for them, as spell attack rolls use the casting stat, and in this case Con would of course be their casting stat, ergo they'd be using Con for both attack and damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could: Kineticists as per 1E
Should: None.
Kineticists shouldn't have had it in 1E and it wasn't really explained why they did. It was there partly as a mechanical consideration to offset Burn (which cannot work in the same way)
Also given the way stats now work there isn't really a justification for a class being able to get to higher Con when it is not possible for Barbarian. Barbarian having more Class HP would be a meaningless boost for them if another class could effortlessly afford to go 18 Con because it is linked to all their class abilities
It is too much to link HP, a key Save, DCs and potentially attack and damage all to one stat. It would be utterly awful from a game design and balance perspective in my view. No one other stat would do as much
It really shouldn't happen. They have already restricted Dex from being the god stat by capping it's impact on AC, de-emphasising it's role in initiative and making on one route to get dex to damage. Having a "Con to everything" class would be a huge leap in the wrong direction
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ... I don't see how or why Con as a Key stat would automatically apply to Attack and Damage, or why it should for a Kineticist. They'll already be dealing with uniquely created and balanced Cantrips most likely for their "bread and butter" powers so there's no need to assume they'd even be classified as Spell Attacks rather than Melee or Ranged Strikes so that they can qualify for the hundreds of other rules that define and interact with a normal Strike Action.
Kineticist is the most likely. Though I'd hoped for a Barbarian, that's a good point that the main stat's always tied to a class offense (except for Bombers, who probably should've been given Dex as an option and Mutagen-Str).
Kineticist, base stat Dex (for rays) alongside "class option" for
Knights: Str (for melee)
Elemental: Con (for DCs)
Spirit/Undead: Cha (for DCs)
A poison-from-one's-body build (or disease, etc.) could have Con offensively. It'd likely be an Alchemist or Druid, though a "from 1st level" archetype would be interesting because Witches, Clerics of poison-themed deities, and others might want to get in the mix.
Con is basically too defensive in most cases, that is if the class stats must be tied to offense. Rogue Scoundrel uses their Cha to set up an attack rather than make one, so it's not a rigorous line. The fact Warpriests don't get Str or Dex options seems notable too. I think even a poison PC may not get Con.
It would be utterly awful from a game design and balance perspective in my view. No one other stat would do as much
I mean you say that, but a Wisdom-primary character trades out that bit of HP for better initiative, better perception and better skills, which is at least as good... and we already have two classes that can do that.
I ... I don't see how or why Con as a Key stat would automatically apply to Attack and Damage
It's not a rule of thumb, because Alchemists, Investigators and (potentially) Scoundrels are an exception, but most classes' key stats are the ones they run their primary combat mechanics off of. So it's a reasonable assumption a Con-keyed class would get to run things off of Con.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ... I don't see how or why Con as a Key stat would automatically apply to Attack and Damage, or why it should for a Kineticist. They'll already be dealing with uniquely created and balanced Cantrips most likely for their "bread and butter" powers so there's no need to assume they'd even be classified as Spell Attacks rather than Melee or Ranged Strikes so that they can qualify for the hundreds of other rules that define and interact with a normal Strike Action.
It would apply to Attack automatically because that's how Spell Attacks work. As for why it would be a Spell Attack? Because it would be an attack spell, and the only times I can find that a spell grants an attack that is not a Spell Attack are Polymorph Battle Forms and the Monk's Wild Winds Stance Ki Power. Sure there's a chance they might break form for the core ability of this one specific class... but I doubt it.
Now admittedly damage is a bit more iffy... but pretty much all the damage cantrips add casting stat to damage (at least eventually), one would assume that a damage cantrip that is literally the primary focus of a class would deal at least as much damage as any other damage cantrip (presumably at least a bit more), and while it may not mean a whole lot Kineticist does have the PF1e precedent of adding Con to damage.
As for why Kineticists being Con-based makes sense in general... you are quite literally channeling the power of one of the Elemental Planes (or the Shadow Plane/First World) through your body. An expectation that one who can do that might be built sturdily just makes sense.
As an aside though, unless Kineticist also has 12 Class HP, the Barbarian that maxes out Con is still going to have more HP. 1 HP per level if Kineticist has 10, or 3 if they only get 8 like they did in PF1e.
It's worth noting that while most key ability scores boost attack, only strength (and thief rogue) boosts damage. If we saw a kineticist with CON as their key, I reckon it would affect attack but not damage.
I still believe the beefcake Barbarian archetype could/should exist. It would be an archetype gaining several (possibly rage-based) benefits from high con, but attack and damage would be kept to STR.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth noting that while most key ability scores boost attack, only strength (and thief rogue) boosts damage. If we saw a kineticist with CON as their key, I reckon it would affect attack but not damage.
Every slot-based caster's key stat affects both attack and damage, at least for their cantrips (as well as a few particular other options, particularly those that involve wielding a weapon through magic (e.g. Hand of the Apprentice or Spiritual Weapon).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something like the Starfinder Vanguard class should be con-based and would be fun in Pathfinder 2e.
I've seen blood mages in 3.0/3.5 that use con.
I also created a PF2 class that uses con that seems to work out pretty good.
They could probably take the theme and idea of the stalwart defender prestige class and expand it to a full class. A martial defensive class could be a fun design space and con would make a ton of sense there.
A martial defensive class could be a fun design space and con would make a ton of sense there.
That's what I made:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1naO8ITeBY8S35tIzYNkGFuQ0szKbvbVw
I feel like the reason for a con "caster" is that the notion of "you channel magic in a way that harms you physically" is pretty easy to understand and yeah, that should be a con class.
I think they missed the opportunity to have one of the martials utilize CON. We have INT, WIS and CHA casters but only STR and DEX (if you count Rogue) martials. Champion might have worked well, but that ship has sailed.
Kineticists are not likely to be heavy armor wearers, so they will still want Dex. Add to that all classes needing Wis and it seems like a Con-based kineticist would be in much the same boat as a Dex-based rogue - able to ignore a couple stats, but not totally and still with some drawbacks. Maybe less need for Str than the rogue, since the kineticist doesn't need to carry as much gear, but still.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playtest Oracle was great conceptually, the numbers just were off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Oracle using magic is not "you channel energy through your body and it has a netative physical effect on you". The Oracle is a class that "got cursed and because of it was given magic by the gods".
The Playtest Oracle with its self harm mechanic is bad and should die in a fire. Not even Kineticist burn had such a harsh penalty for using your own ability, and Burn literally makes it easier for things to kill you.
* P.S. Playtest Oracle needs to be destroyed.
* P.S.S. Playtest Oracle is not a true Oracle and will never be a true Oracle. The Oracle class is crying for being associated with the Playtest Oracle.
As somebody who's favourite pathfinder 1e class was Oracle, I disagree. I think playtest Oracle is really cool and just needs to be tweaked.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. That knock you out mechanic was bad and should feel bad, even if revelations interacting with your curse WAS cool. I'd rather the spell just fail rather than you falling on your face though.
I also still would prefer your curse and your mystery not be linked, but I think I'm in a minority on that one, so my hopes are not high.
Personally, I think just making the curse an anathema would have worked well enough the Oracle, even if that's kind of boring. Save the light show and revelation mechanic for the Kinetecist.
I personally don’t feel need to call out “tradition” for a class like kineticist . It was released in 2015. That isn’t really tradition in my book. It is a blip on the landscape if you consider all of 3.5 and it’s deviations
It also had archetypes that used other stats and was seemingly the response to a D&D class that was charisma based
So “because it is tradition” or “because that is how it was in 1E” is not really enough a justification for making it Con based when such a thing can very much considered to be unbalanced.
I am not sure wisdom focused spell slot casters and the one rogue variant with low Hp and weapon type restrictions that use on key stat that also happens to go towards a save is quite the same comparison because quite simply HP keeps you alive. There is a reason it is marked as secondary stat for every class. So what you are saying by making Con primary is that it is both primary and secondary and you get to double down.
And as has been mentioned, whether people like it or not, the only case study we have for a class that hurts itself with magic involved them getting increased HP per level but, crucially, not a change in stat focus
I could easily see a Kineticist being a 10 HP class (maybe 12 but that seems to be a barbarian sacred cow) to represent this BUT with a different casting stat. Which in theory gets a similar result HP wise but encourages a stat spread
We will have to look at what happens to the final life oracle when released as it will likely be inspiration for what happens with kineticist. Just because they are ultimately similar ideas of “overloading”.
I would like to see Kineticist drawing some kind of path between Primal Sorcerer and Monk (perhaps there will be elemental stances, and with how focus spells work) with an overload mechanic that will surely be *based on* the final life oracle
But based on current game design focus spells and normal spells will come off of mental stat. There is no precedent in this system for anything else and they seem to be trying quite hard to avoid “X to Y” in this edition. Kineticist as a whole is a very elaborate X to Y within a whole class rather than a feat or class option
But I sense I am shouting into the wind a bit here. I have learnt there are some incredibly vocal fans of the class who seem like they are not prepared to accept any change despite a new edition. You could see examples of this by all the early conversions that effectively did a 1:1 change of everything in the chassis including all the random stat boosts from overflow - despite those fundamentally not existing in this game. Oh - apart from burn. That always gets scaled down...
(Note: I think a 3rd party with links to KD has made or is making a conversion but I haven’t seen in yet - I am talking about homebrewers on the forums)
What I am saying is I don’t think anything they come up with for a first attempt is likely to be accepted. Probably by anyone on any side of the debate. I can already foresee the hundreds of page long threads on the message boards (apparently that happened first time as well?)
|
I've seen blood mages in 3.0/3.5 that use con.
I also created a PF2 class that uses con that seems to work out pretty good.
Any class based on physicality, health or burning their physical resources, like a Kineticist or blood mage or some sort of life-force-user/manipulator does fit thematically. (Although it may or may not be an option for balance reasons. I'm not familiar enough with the PF2 system to know if it's so precisely balanced that it would fly apart into 'cats and dogs living together, total chaos!' with something like this.)
Similarly, a Shifter being Con-based makes some sort of sense, as they are all about the physical body (and not necessarily strength, since they can turn into small fast things, and not necessarily dexterity, since they can turn into big strong things).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
because quite simply HP keeps you alive.
Like saves and AC (among other benefits)?
There is a reason it is marked as secondary stat for every class. So what you are saying by making Con primary is that it is both primary and secondary and you get to double down.
Like how Wisdom is a universal secondary stat and characters who get to mark it as a primary also get to double down? Admittedly there are some builds that let you get away with less Dex, I guess. I mean I understand your point, but it feels like you're trying to draw a really sharp distinction when there really isn't much of one.
Again, that's not to say a Con-primary class wouldn't be in a really good spot and that would have to be something taken into consideration when designing it, just that I'm not really convinced of this notion that it's so beyond the pale, or that +1 hp/level is head and shoulders better than anything any other attribute can give you.
This is doubly true given the way attributes work in PF2: Four increases per set of bumps means everyone can reliably boost Con (and Dex and Wis and whatever their primary attribute is) comfortably. A Con (or Wis) primary class gets more flexibility because they get to stack those two, but that flexibility mostly just means they have an easier time investing in a tertiary stat and that they start and stay a couple points ahead. Those are both really nice perks, but not earthshattering, irreconcilable, fundamentally broken game changers.
Frankly, just bumping the hypothetical Con class down a die size (from d10 to d8 or d8 to d6) and giving them a weak fort progression would negate most of their advantages outright.
because quite simply HP keeps you alive.Like saves and AC (among other benefits)?
There is a reason it is marked as secondary stat for every class. So what you are saying by making Con primary is that it is both primary and secondary and you get to double down.Like how Wisdom is a universal secondary stat and characters who get to mark it as a primary also get to double down? Admittedly there are some builds that let you get away with less Dex, I guess. I mean I understand your point, but it feels like you're trying to draw a really sharp distinction when there really isn't much of one.
Again, that's not to say a Con-primary class wouldn't be in a really good spot and that would have to be something taken into consideration when designing it, just that I'm not really convinced of this notion that it's so beyond the pale, or that +1 hp/level is head and shoulders better than anything any other attribute can give you.
This is doubly true given the way attributes work in PF2: Four increases per set of bumps means everyone can reliably boost Con (and Dex and Wis and whatever their primary attribute is) comfortably. A Con (or Wis) primary class gets more flexibility because they get to stack those two, but that flexibility mostly just means they have an easier time investing in a tertiary stat and that they start and stay a couple points ahead. Those are both really nice perks, but not earthshattering, irreconcilable, fundamentally broken game changers.
Frankly, just bumping the hypothetical Con class down a die size (from d10 to d8 or d8 to d6) and giving them a weak fort progression would negate most of their advantages outright.
Fair challenge. Perhaps I am trying to be too sharp and definitive . A symptom of fundamentally disagreeing with the notion of a Con based character. Or more accurately a Con based character with magic / “spells”.
Paizo course corrected themselves on this with the old Orc witch archetype. They clearly realised something was busted with Con based casting and changed it. Then reversed again for the kineticist - I guess because one had access to a full 9 levels of spells? It still doesn’t quite sit right
As to dropping the “hit die” and fort save that is a simple reverse of what I was suggesting in increasing it but not using Con. So either works really. Indeed it could make sense that you fortitude is compromised by abusing your body channeling magic (but existing fans of the class will vocally disagree)
To me it seems like they should have had higher hit die in 1E but there seemed to be strict model that linked hit die to bab that they did not want to break. I am not sure that structure is so strict now
As to dropping the “hit die” and fort save that is a simple reverse of what I was suggesting in increasing it but not using Con. So either works really. Indeed it could make sense that you fortitude is compromised by abusing your body channeling magic (but existing fans of the class will vocally disagree)
That depends on if the class is considered a Martial or a Caster. One of the fundamental differences between the two is that Martials get 2 Expert saves at level 1, while Casters only get 1, even if they had 2 in PF2. Edit: this pattern holds even if the "Martial" gets access to 10th level spells, like the Champion, Monk, and Warpriest. Presumably Caster Rangers will follow suit.
I personally wouldn't mind if Kineticists ditched con as their primary stat, but I can't speak for everyone. Like I've said, as long as it has no spell slots but has cantrips and focus spells for their kinetic blasts, I'd be satisfied with whatever they came up with.
If anything, I think a class that is Con-focused but has poor HP and Fort is an interesting design space.
I should clarify that I don't have a huge dog in this fight, though. Most of my experience with Kineticist is from the Kingmaker CRPG. And while thematically it makes sense to me that they be Con-based, I won't be devastated if they are not.
I'm not one of those rabid fans Lanathar seems to be talking about, in other words. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Currently there's no way to have an 18 Con at level 1 without rolling, because you can't get a boost to it at the class step. What class could use Con primarily? Should a class be able to do that?
Makes me think of the Tough Hero in the old d20 Modern.
http://www.d20resources.com/modern.d20.srd/classes/basic/tough.hero.php
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anything, I think a class that is Con-focused but has poor HP and Fort is an interesting design space.
I should clarify that I don't have a huge dog in this fight, though. Most of my experience with Kineticist is from the Kingmaker CRPG. And while thematically it makes sense to me that they be Con-based, I won't be devastated if they are not.
I'm not one of those rabid fans Lanathar seems to be talking about, in other words. :)
Oh, but I am (muwahahaha!)
I can't say I see the power issue with a CON character. CON casting really doesn't seem to provide more power than WIS casting in my eyes. Extra hp and fort is lovely, but so is will saves and initiative. It's especially impactful for casters to roll high on initiative, as well.
A CON-based martial doesn't seem like it'd be a problem either. I don't think con to hit for a martial is a great idea (I mean, I'm not sure it'd be unbalanced, but it seems weird and I don't like the idea of that kind of stat substitution). Regardless, that character would still need some combination of str and dex to work out armor.
CON is legitimately one of the weaker stats now. Everybody has pretty decent HP now with ancestral HP and getting max at level up, and Con applies to no skills whatsoever.
Literally all it does now is HP and Fort saves. Those are important, but if you wanted to leave your dwarf fighter at 12 Con they're still going to have 21 HP at level 1, 32 at level 2, 43 at level 3, etc. The Dwarf fighter with 16 Con by contrast has 23, 36, 49, etc. It's easy to see that a player might think "more skills" or "better at a skill they care about" is more important.
That's not to say that a feat or class feature couldn't make Con very powerful, but you could say the same about literally any of the six attributes.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
CON is legitimately one of the weaker stats now.
I think this is overstating the case a fair bit. It's certainly not the strongest stat, but I think it's in the top four for basically all characters (a very relevant place to be, since you get to boost 4 stats every five levels).
I mean, every character's most important stat is whatever they use to cast spells or attack, followed by Wisdom (for Will Save and Perception) and Dexterity (for Reflex Saves, and sometimes AC), but Constitution (for Fortitude Saves and some HP) is usually next. For those in Heavy Armor, it can easily edge out Dex into the top 3, and obviously those with Dex or Wis as a spellcasting or attack stat it's in the top 3.
Which is not to say you never want to buy up Int or Cha over it, even on a Fighter sometimes you want to do exactly that...but not usually. Con is a very solid middle of the road stat IMO.
I mean, I'd say the stat hierarchy at the moment is:
1. Main Attack Stat
2. Wisdom
3. Dexterity (if you have Light Armor Proficiency or worse)
4. Constitution, Dexterity (if you have Medium Armor Proficiency)
5. Intelligence, Strength, Charisma, Dexterity (if you have Heavy Armor Proficiency)
So Con never winds up in that #1 position right now, but neither does it ever drop as low as non-Save boosting stats do if you're not attacking with them.
But I mean, if Thief Rogues who do both offensive and defensive things based on dex, a generally more useful slot, then having a class that does both offensive and defensive things based on con.
Like Con (instead of STR) to Damage for a class where that's their schtick (like the Starfinder Vanguard) wouldn't be more unbalanced than Dex (instead of STR) to damage is to a Rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think con is getting valued at more than it’s worth. In this edition what a given level of con provides is a much lower percentage of HP and a bump to probably the least common and impactful save outside of nitch games. It’s also worth noting that when the designers stopped and looked at the stats for the GMG Con was the think they felt was worth just removing and adding its few benifits to something else. That con is typically allotted a boost has much more to do with the spread of boost we have to use than the value of the stat. I think it’s definitely bottom three for importance to most characters. And probably actually bottom of the barrel for actual use in most games.
That said I think some con based characters would be very interesting. I particularly like the idea of a Blood Mage class now that it’s been mentioned.
I think a "stress test the body to wail on people" class sounds like interesting design space, like maybe the Ironblood monk stance taken up to 11, and of course Kineticists being he conduit to elemental pound town at the expense of their inner bits turning to mush if they go too ham. I agree with DMW that Con is kinda the permanent "nice to have but not needed" stat that almost every specs at least 1 boost in throughout their career, but probably not more if they aren't constantly getting hit in the face. Now, do I think Kine's will get Con as their key stat if/when they make their return? Probably, should they? I'd say yes, it fits the history, flavor, balance, and overall design space they've left in the transition (That being the "war of attrition" character, currently only Monk really fits that slot in a raid party comp), so Con as a key stat makes perfect sense.
Since "stacking boosts to the same stat" top out much, much lower than the previous edition it wouldn't be weird for the Kineticist in PF2 to get CON as a key stat and a d12 HD. With Elemental Overflow and "all you have to spend money on is your belt" it wasn't weird for a Kineticist to buzz up against 400 HP by the end of the campaign.
The trickier part when designing the PF2 kineticist I think will be to manage the sort of freeform utility talents that potentially have the ability to wreck a narrative (e.g. endless super-telekinesis in an Indiana Jones style campaign, wind and weather control in a sailing campaign, earth moving stuff in a siege/army style game.) This is some of the appeal of the class, but we don't want it to get out of hand.
